ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 89101

A geo-engineering classication for rocks and rock masses

T. Ramamurthy*
AngRon Geotech Pvt. Ltd., A-13, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi l10028, India Accepted 19 May 2003

Abstract In this article, an attempt is made to assess the reliability of predicting the uniaxial compressive strength and the corresponding modulus of a rock mass by current approaches. These two basic engineering properties, when estimated from rock mass rating (RMR), Q and geological strength index (GSI), indicate hardly any change in the modulus ratio with the change in the quality of the rock mass from very good to very poor. However, the modulus ratio obtained from the relations involving the joint factor, Jf ; indicate a denite decrease in the modulus ratio with a decrease in the quality of the rock mass. The strength and modulus in the unconned and conned states, the modulus ratio and failure strain in the unconned case were linked to Jf in earlier publications based on a large experimental database. Some of these relations were adopted to verify the response of jointed test specimens, the response of the rock mass during excavations for mining and civil underground chambers, in establishing ground reaction curves including the extent of the broken zone, and the bearing capacity of shallow foundations. The joint factor is now linked to RMR, Q and GSI. The prediction of compressive strength and modulus of the rock mass appears to be more suitable. For classifying the rock, based on these properties, the Deere and Miller engineering classication, applicable to intact rocks, has been suitably modied and adopted. The results of different modes of failure of jointed specimens establish denite trends of changes in the modulus ratio originating from the intact rock value on the modied Deere and Miller plot. A geo-engineering classication is evolved by considering strength, modulus, quantiable weathering index and lithological aspects of the rock. r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Rocks have been classied on the basis of their origin, mineralogical composition, void index, fracture/joint intensity, joint inclination, ow rate of water, velocity of propagation of shock wave, weathering, colour or grain size. When rocks and rock masses are classied for geotechnical purposes, they need to be classied on the basis of strength and/or modulus to give an indication of their stability and/or deformability. A rock classication has to provide a common basis to communicate, to identify a rock mass within one of the groups having well-dened characteristics, and also to provide basic input data for engineering design. For effective and successful usage of a classication system, it has to be simple, easy to understand, remember and apply. Only the signicant and intrinsic parameters of the rock should be considered which will inuence the
*Tel.: +91-11-263-185-19; fax: +91-11-257-00-237. E-mail address: tvandana18@yahoo.com (T. Ramamurthy). 1365-1609/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S1365-1609(03)00078-9

engineering behaviour most, and each parameter must represent itself exclusively. The parameters should be easily measurable and be linked in such a way that the quality of the rock mass is reected in terms of its strength and modulus. It is imperative, while classifying a rock mass and to understand the mass response, to obtain an indication of the extent of reduction which has taken place in the strength and modulus of intact rock. This is desirable because eld tests are time consuming, costly and often adequate in terms of estimating realistic design parameters. Presently, there are four approaches available to estimate the uniaxial compressive strength and corresponding modulus, namely: rock mass rating (RMR), Q; Jf and geological strength index (GSI). Each of the approaches gives different values and each one can be tested for its reliability by considering the modulus ratio. The approach of Jf is based on many experimental data and suggests a continuous decrease of modulus ratio with the decrease of rock qualityunlike other approaches. It also enables one to estimate the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
90 T. Ramamurthy / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 89101

Nomenclature cj E Et GSI Ja Jf Jn Jr JRC Js Jw Mr m n cohesion intercept on sliding joint deformation modulus tangent modulus at 50% of failure stress geological strength index rating for joint alteration joint factor joint frequency, i.e. number of joints/m rating for joint surface strength joint roughness coefcient rating for joint sets rating for water softening, inow and pressure modulus ratio material parameter as per Hoek and Brown inclination factor to account for the joint orientation

Q Qc RMR RQD r SRF s ef g fj tj sc snj Note:

rock mass quality rock mass quality normalized by sci =100 rock mass rating rock quality designation strength factor on sliding joint rating for faulting, strength/stress ratio, squeezing and swelling material parameter as per Hoek and Brown axial failure strain density of rock mass (g/cm3) friction angle on sliding joint shear strength on sliding joint unconned compressive strength normal stress on sliding joint Subscripts i and j added to E ; Mr ; m; s; ef and sc refer to the intact rock and jointed rock mass, respectively.

strength and modulus under any required conning pressure. A rock, either intact or jointed, should be classied in its simplest state of existence, i.e., in the unconned condition. The inuence of in situ stress (i.e. conning stress) and other environmental factors (such as seepage pressure, etc.) should be considered appropriately in the analysis for assessing the stability of the rock mass, e.g. in terms of effective stress, as is the practice in saturated soils.

rocks are well dened. When intact rocks are classied, the effect of seepage pressure or conning pressure is not considered.

3. Response of jointed rocks It is well recognized that the engineering behaviour of a rock mass is controlled by more than one factor, and the inuence of each of these factors differs greatly. Any attempt to classify rock based on a single parameter, like joint frequency, will not be satisfactory. A descriptive rock mass classication proposed by Terzaghi [8] has been useful for tunnels and for a particular type of construction technique, but it could not be extended for foundations and slopes. However, Terzaghis classication paved the way for recognizing a number of factors such as joint spacing, joint orientation, the nature of joint surface and nature of joint lling inuencing the rock mass behaviour. Two of the most commonly used numerically expressed rock mass classications, the RMR system by Bieniawski [9] and the Q system by Barton et al. [10] consider some of these factors with varying emphases, in addition to other parameters. These classication systems have been developed basically for the stability of the tunnels and offer a procedure for choosing tunnel supports depending upon the quality of the rock mass. The modulus of the rock mass is not included in these classications for the wider application to rock foundations and slopes. Bieniawskis RMR classication has six parameters to be considered, namely: uniaxial compressive strength (sci ) of the intact rock, joint spacing, rock quality designation (RQD), condition of the joints, water ow/ pressure and the inclination of the discontinuities. In these parameters, the combined effect of RQD and joint

2. Classication of intact rocks For engineering usage, attempts were made to classify intact rocks based on an individual property, such as uniaxial compressive strength, modulus and point load strength index, notably by Coates [1], Deere and Miller [2], Stapledon [3], Franklin et al. [4], Hansagi [5] and the ISRM [6,7]. Such simplied classication systems have served to understand the upper bound response of the rocks. The classication proposed by Deere and Miller [2] for intact rocks is based on the combined inuence of the uniaxial compressive strength (sci ) and tangent modulus (Et ) at 50% of the failure stress (subscript i refers to the intact rock). This approach has been well recognized as a realistic and useful engineering classication which takes into account more than one measurable property at a time. Based on these properties, they categorised rocks into a number of classes, assigning a two lettered combination: the rst letter refers to the compressive strength range; and the second letter refers to the modulus ratio, i.e., the Et =sci range. Each intact rock type has its specic zone in the region of sci and Et : The limits of the various classes of intact

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Ramamurthy / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 89101 91

spacing is obviously reected by considering the joint frequency (Jn ), the condition of the joints is reected in the sliding friction angle on the discontinuities and the inuence of the orientation of joints is not considered strictly on the basis of the anisotropic response of the rock mass. Even in the case of the initial Q-system [10], six parameters are considered, namely: RQD, joint set (Js ; Barton uses Jn ), joint roughness (Jr ), seepage and its pressure (Jw ), joint alteration (Ja ) and stress reduction factor (SRF). In this system, RQD and joint sets could be covered in the joint frequency, joint roughness and joint alteration in the sliding friction angle along the sliding joint, with the joint water effect and the stress reduction factor forming part of the design consideration. The Q-system did not include the inuence of the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock nor the orientation of the critical or any other joint in the mass, earlier to 2002. Recently, Barton [11] introduced the inuence of compressive strength of the intact rock into the earlier Q-system as indicated in the later part of this article. The values of Ja and Jr are to be considered now for the least favourable joint set. The orientation of the joint has signicant inuence on the strength and modulus of the mass. Therefore, the consideration of the inclination of a sliding joint, joint frequency and the strength along the sliding joint in terms of friction angle are the most important factors to be considered which inuence the strength and modulus of the rock mass. The weakness introduced into an intact rock is the result of their combined inuence. Hypothetical stressstrain curves for three different rocks are shown in Fig. 1. Curves OA, OB and OC represent three stressstrain curves with failure occurring at A, B and C, respectively. Curves OA and OB have same modulus but different strengths and strains at

failure. Whereas the curves OA and OC have the same strength but different moduli and failure strains. So neither strength nor modulus alone could be chosen to represent the overall quality of a rock. Therefore, strength and modulus in combination provide a better understanding of the rock response. 3.1. Strength and modulus from RMR Bieniawski [9,12,13] suggested shear strength parameters, cj and fj ; for a jointed rock mass (cj refers to the cohesion intercept and fj refers to the friction angle; the subscript j refers to jointed rock/rock mass) for ve levels of the overall rock mass ratings of RMR, reecting the range of the quality of the rock. These values of shear strength parameters are used to calculate the uniaxial compressive strength (scj ) of the mass as per the MohrCoulomb criterion, below equation and is referred to as scjl in Table 1, scj 2cj cos fj =1 sin fj : 1

Kalamaras and Bieniawski [14] suggested the following relation linking the compressive strength of a rock mass (referred as scj2 ) with that of the intact rock through RMR, based on the studies of Carter et al. [15], as scj2 =sci expRMR 100=24; 2

where the subscript i refers to the intact rock. For values of sci 100 MPa and for various values of RMR, the compressive strengths of the rock mass (scj2 ) are determined from Eq. (2). A considerable difference in the values of scj1 and scj2 is shown in Table 1. Surprisingly the ratios of scj2 =sci match well with the values calculated based on the joint factor, Jf [1618]. The values of Jf vary from zero for an intact rock to over 500 for a highly jointed rock. By considering Jf 500 as a limiting value for practical purposes, one may write, Jf =5 100 RMR or RMR 100 Jf =5; 3

since Jf 0; when the value of RMR=100 for an intact rock. Inserting Eq. (3) in the following equation, as per Ramamurthy [18], scj =sci exp0:008Jf ; one obtains scj =sci expRMR 100=25; 5 4

Fig. 1. Hypothetical stressstrain curves.

which is not very different from Eq. (2). Since scj is linked to sci through RMR from Eq. (2) and veried with Eq. (4), it is now possible to link RMR and Q with Jf to obtain scj and modulus, Ej ; for a rock mass.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
92 T. Ramamurthy / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 89101 Table 1 Estimation and comparison of scj values as per Hoek and Brown [27], Bieniawski [13] and Kalamaras and Bieniawski [14] for sci l 00 MPa RMR 100 80 60 40 20 0 scj HB (MPa) 100.0 33.0 10.8 3.6 1.18 0.39 scj1 (MPa) 3.5 1.97 1.18 0.64 0.26
a

scj2 (MPa) 100 43.5 18.9 8.2 3.56 1.15

scj HB =scj1 29.0 16.8 9.2 5.6 4.5

scj HB =scj2 1.0 0.76 0.57 0.44 0.33 0.34

Ej (GPa) 177.80 56.20 17.80 5.60 1.78 0.56

Ej =scj2 1778 1292 942 682 500 361

Ej =scj HB 1778 1703 1648 1556 1508 1436

a Values by extrapolation. scj HB as per Eq. (15) for undisturbed rock mass; scj1 as per cj and fj values from Bieniawski [13]; scj2 as per Kalamaras and Bieniawski [14]; Ej from Seram and Pereira [23].

Barton [19] recommends RMR 15 log Q 50; 6 instead of the commonly adopted average relation, Bieniawski [20], namely RMR 9 loge Q 44: 7 In fact Eq. (6) represents a atter oblique line between the limits, Bieniawski [21], RMR 9 loge Q 62 and RMR 9 loge Q 26: Jf 2501 0:3 log Q: Now Eq. (4) in terms of Q will be given by scj =sci exp0:6 log Q 2: 11 Similarly, the following relations are obtained for Ej / Ei by inserting the corresponding values of RMR and Q in place of Jf as per Ramamurthy [18] as follows: Ej =Ei exp0:0115Jf as Ej =Ei expRMR 100=17:4 and Ej =Ei exp0:8625 log Q 2:875: 14 It may be noted that the relations in Eqs. (12)(14) are for the tangent modulus at 50% of the failure stress. For most practical purposes in the case of undisturbed rock masses, the initial tangent modulus, the secant modulus up to 50% of the failure stress and the tangent modulus may be taken as having similar values. The secant modulus is to be treated as the deformation modulus. It is clear from the above relations that one could accept Jf ; RMR and Q to dene the weakness in a rock mass and establish denite linkages between scj and sci and also Ej and Ei : Referring to Table 1, in addition to the uniaxial compressive strengths from Bieniawski [13] and from Kalamaras and Bieniawski [14], it also provides scj HB as per Hoek and Brown [22] 13 12 9 10 Replacing RMR by Jf , as per Eq. (3), Eq. (6) gives 8

using the relation, scj =sci Osj ; sj expRMR 100=9; 15

for an undisturbed rock mass. It is observed that the cj and fo j values recommended by Bieniawski from [9,13] appear to be rather on the lower side, resulting in quite low values of scj1 : In fact, for RMR=80, scj1 is just 1.97 MPa, placing the rock mass in a very weak category, and, for RMRo 60, the rock mass will have scj1 less than 1 MPa and is to be treated as a soil. The ratios of scj HB =scj1 are quite high, i.e. for RMR=80, the ratio is about 17 and at RMR=20, it is more than 5. On the contrary, the values of scj2 from Kalamaras and Bieniawski are higher than those given by Hoek and Brown criterion [22]. For RMR=80, scj2 is about 30% more and, at RMR=20, about 300%. Similar comparisons for disturbed rock masses will show still larger differences. Table 1 also shows the estimated values of Ej Seram and Pereira [23] as follows: Ej 10RMR10=40 GPa: 16

From this table, the modulus ratio Ej =scj2 is 1778 for RMR=100 and continuously decreases with decrease of RMR and achieves a value of 361 for RMR=0. If one uses Ej =scjl ; very high values of modulus ratio will result. When scj HB is adopted to see the variation in the values of modulus ratio, only a marginal decrease is noticed, i.e. from 1703 to 1508 for RMR varying from 80 to 20. From these approaches, the modulus ratios appear to be high, not only at RMR=80, but also at RMR=20, particularly with scj HB and scj1 : 3.2. Strength and modulus from GSI Hoek [24], Hoek et al. [25] and Hoek and Brown [26] advocate the adoption of the GSI to estimate the material parameters, mj and sj ; of the HoekBrown failure criterion to predict strength under any desired conning pressure. GSI considers modications to the RMR and Q systems mainly to estimate the compressive strength of a rock mass. From the RMR ratings of Bieniawski [20], referred to as (RMR)76, GSI considers

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Ramamurthy / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 89101 93

the rst four terms of RMR: namely, the compressive strength of intact rock (scj ), RQD, spacing and also conditions of the discontinuities, assigning 10 points to the ground water and zero to the joint orientation. Therefore, to obtain GSI values higher than 18, one has to consider GSI RMR76 : 17 For values of (RMR)76 o18, the use of Q0 values is recommended. Alternatively, one could also adopt Bieniawski [27], referred to as (RMR)89, by enhancing the ground water rating to 15 instead of 10 in (RMR)76. Therefore, for (RMR)89>23, GSI RMR89 5: 18 For (RMR)89 o23, the Q0 value obtained is as follows: Q RQD=Js Jr =Ja and used to arrive at GSI as GSI 9 loge Q 44:
0 0

Table 2 Prediction of scj ; Ej and Mrj for sci 100 MPa; data from Hoek [24] GSI 85 75 65 62 60 50 48 40 38 34 Average
a

s 0.190 0.062 0.021 0.015 0.012 0.004 0.003 0.0013 0.001 0.0004

Os 0.436 0.249 0.145 0.122 0.110 0.063 0.055 0.036 0.032 0.020

scj (MPa) 43.6 24.9 14.5 12.2 11.0 6.3 5.5 3.6a 3.2 2.0

Ej (GPa) 75 40 24 20 18 10 9 6 5 3

Mrj Ej =scj 1720 1606 1655 1639 1636 1587 1636 1875 1563 1500 1642

Estimated from Eq. (21).

19

the modulus could be enhanced to account for the effective stress inuence. 3.3. Strength and modulus from Q

20

Here, Js ; Jr and Ja refer to ratings of the joint set number, joint roughness and joint alteration, respectively; Barton [10,11] uses Jn and not Js : On the basis of the GSI, the following equation is to be adopted to estimate the uniaxial compressive strength of rock mass for GSI>25 in the case of an undisturbed rock mass, scj =sci Osj ; sj expGSI 100=9: 21

Barton [11] suggests modication to Q values by considering the inuence of uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock (sci ) in the following form: Qc Qsci =100 22 and recommends Qc values for estimating the compressive strength and modulus of rock mass as scj 5gQlc=3 MPa and Ej 10Qlc=3 GPa;
3

23 24

It is clear from the above expressions that, in estimating the compressive strength of a rock mass, the compressive strength of the intact rock has been considered twice for GSI>25: the rst time in estimating the value of GSI; and the second time in estimating the compressive strength of the rock mass. For estimating the deformation modulus, Hoek [24] recommends the use of Eq. (16) as per Seram and Pereira using RMR as per Bieniawski [9,13] and not the GSI system. The values of GSI, sj and Ej are shown in Table 5 by Hoek [24] have been adopted in calculating the values of modulus ratio, Mrj ; in Table 2. The values of Mrj are surprisingly high, ranging from 1500 to 1875, with an average value of 1642. These values of Mrj do not decrease, continuously with the decrease of GSI values. An important aspect of suggesting the use of GSI is to estimate the strength without water pressure, so that seepage pressure and conning pressure can be considered in the analysis in terms of effective stress. It is recognized that the strength, volume change and modulus are controlled by the effective stress. Therefore, the modulus value may also have to be obtained in the dry state and linked to that of the intact rock. Depending upon the seepage and conning pressures,

where, g is the density of the rock mass in g/cm or t/m3. Eq. (23) may be written, say for g 2:5 g/cm3, as scj 2:7Qsci 1=3 MPa 25

suggesting that Q is linked to the compressive strength of a rock mass through the intact rock strength. However, the modulus of a rock mass is not linked to the modulus of the intact rock through Q: The range of values of Q or Qc is very wide. Even if the Qc values varied from 0.001 to 1000, the values of Qc 1=3 considered in the estimation of the compressive strength and the modulus of rock mass, effectively vary from 0.1 to 10 representing a scale of 1100. Another important recommendation of Barton [11] is to assess the cohesion intercept and friction angle of rock mass using the following expressions: cj RQD=Js 1=SRF sci =100 MPa
1 fo j tan Jr Jw =Ja ;

26 27

where, Js is joint set number (Barton uses Jn instead), SRF the stress reduction number, Jr the joint roughness number, Jw the for seepage and its pressure and Ja the joint alteration number.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
94 T. Ramamurthy / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 89101 Table 3 Values of scj ;cj ; fj and Ej as per Barton [11] for sci 100 MPa, g 2:5 g/cm3 Qc 100 10 1.2 0.04 0.008 Before grouting 0.45 After grouting 8.3 scj1 (MPa) 58.0 26.9 13.3 4.3 1.2 cj (MPa) 50 10 2.5 0.26 0.01 fo j (MPa) 63 45 26 9 5 scj2 (MPa) 412.7 48.3 8.0 0.61 0.022 scj1 =scj2 1/7 1/1.8 1.7 7.0 54 Ej (GPa) 40 22 10.7 3.5 0.9 Mrj 690 818 805 814 750

9.0

1.7

14

4.4

2.05

7.0

778

25

8.3

63

69

1/2.76

20.0

800

scj1 from Barton, Eq. (23). scj2 from cj and fj values suggested by Barton [11].

Table 4 Values of n for different orientation angles, b ; for U-shaped anisotropy [17,18] Joint orientation angle, bo Joint inclination parameter, n 0 0.82 10 0.46 20 0.11 30 0.05 40 0.09 50 0.3 60 0.46 70 0.64 80 0.82 90 0.95

Using the data provided in Tables 6 and 7 of Barton [11], the values of compressive strength of a rock mass are calculated from cj and fj as per the MohrCoulomb criterion, Eq. (1), and are referred to as scj2 in Table 3 of this article. The data in this table suggests that scj2 values differ signicantly from the suggested values, scj1 by Eq. (23). The ratio of scj1 =scj2 varies from 1:7 to 54: 1, depending upon the values of Qc : This table also gives the values of Ej as given by Barton [11]. The values of modulus ratio, Mrj ; are more or less constant and are around 800; in fact, Eqs. (23) and (24) give this ratio as 800 for a value of g 2:5 g/cm3, irrespective of Qc varying from 0.001 to 1000, i.e. whether the rock is intact, jointed, isotropic or anisotropic. This is contrary to the experimental results which suggest a denite decrease in Mrj with the decrease in the quality of a rock mass. 3.4. Strength and modulus from Jf Based on the extensive experimental results in uniaxial compression on jointed rocks and rock-like materials [18], the compressive strength of a jointed mass is given by Eq. (4) and the corresponding modulus by Eq. (12), wherein Jf is a joint factor dened as Jf Jn =nr; 28 where, Jn is the joint frequency, i.e., the number of joints/metre, which takes care of RQD and joint sets and joint spacing; n the inclination parameter depending on the inclination of the plane with respect to the major principal stress, the joint or set which is closer to 452fj =2o with the vertical will be the most critical one

Table 5 Proposed joint strength parameter, r; for lled-up joints at residual stage [17] Gouge material Gravelly sand Coarse sand Fine sand Silty sand Clayey sand Clayey silt Clay25% Clay50% Clay75% Friction angle, fo j 45 40 35 32 30 25 15 10 Joint strength, r=tan fo j 1.00 0.84 0.70 0.62 0.58 0.47 0.27 0.18

to experience sliding; r the parameter for joint strength, it takes care of the inuence of tight or lled joint, thickness of gouge, roughness, extent of weathering of joint walls and cementation along the joint. This factor could be assessed in terms of an equivalent value of friction angle along the joint as tan fj tj =snj obtained from shear tests, in which tj is the shear strength along the joint under a normal stress, snj : The values of n and r are given in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. The values in Table 5 are suggested values and to be used in the absence of shear tests. If the gouge material thickness in a meter depth is more than 5 mm, the equivalent number of joints can be obtained by dividing its thickness in millimetres by 5 mm. A minimum limit of 5 mm is considered for gouge to be fully operative without the interference of the roughness of the joints. The value of Jf reects the weakness introduced by fractures into the intact rock.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Ramamurthy / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 89101 Table 6 Estimation of scj from Jf for sci 100 MPa; assumed Mri 500 for an intact rock Jf 0 100 200 300 400 500 RMR 100 80 60 40 20 0 Q 2154 100 4.64 0.215 0.010 0.000464 scj (MPa) 100.00 44.90 20.20 9.10 4.10 1.80 Mrj 500 352 248 175 123 87 Table 7 Strength classication of intact and jointed rocks Class A B C D E F Description Very high strength High strength Moderate strength Medium strength Low strength Very low strength sci;j (MPa) >250 100250 50100 2550 525 o5 95

Mrj from Eq. (29), RMR from Eq. (3), Q from Eq. (10).

Table 8 Modulus ratio classication of intact and jointed rocks Class A B C D E Description Very high modulus ratio High modulus ratio Medium modulus ratio Low modulus ratio Very low modulus ratio Modulus ratio of rock Mri;j >500 200500 100200 50100 o 50

Now, from Eqs. (4) and (12), the modulus ratio of the jointed mass with respect to that of the intact rock is given as Mrj =Mri exp0:0035Jf : 29

Table 6 shows the estimated values of scj and Mrj for different values of Jf varying from 0 to 500, along with the corresponding values of RMR and Q as per Eqs. (3) and (10); for sci 100 MPa and Mri 500 of intact rock, the Mrj values from Eq. (29) rapidly decrease with the increase of Jf and decrease of RMR and Q values. This table suggests that the relation between Ej and sci cannot be taken as constant when the rock mass is experiencing continuous fracturing and undergoing change in its quality. The compressive strength values presented in Table 6 are comparable with those given in Table 1 as per Kalamaras and Bieniawski [14].

4. Classication based on strength and modulus If the compressive strength and modulus of a rock mass are known, one could classify the rock mass along the lines of the approach adopted by Deere and Miller [2]. Even though the original classication due to Deere and Miller was suggested only for intact rocks, it could be modied to classify rock masses as well. The main advantage of such a classication is that it not only takes into account two important engineering properties of the rock mass but also gives an assessment of the failure strain (ef ) which the rock is likely to exhibit in uniaxial compression, when the stressstrain response is Hookean. That is, Modulus ratio; Mrj Ej =scj 1=efj : 30

Most rocks under a uniaxial condition and also under low conning stress respond close to linearity. In such cases, one could easily establish a linear stressstrain response of the rock mass or adopt a hyperbolic formulation as suggested by Ramamurthy and Arora [28]. Having obtained scj and Ej for jointed rock, one could adopt these values for classifying the rock mass using Tables 7 and 8 based on strength, as per the ISRM [7]

classication for intact rocks, and modulus ratio (Mrj Ej =scj ). These tables are applicable to both intact and jointed rocks. Table 7 is an extended version of the Deere and Miller approach [2] and will cover very low strength to very high strength rocks. A modulus ratio of 500 would mean a minimum failure strain of 0.2%, whereas a ratio of 50 corresponds to a minimum failure strain of 2% as per Eq. (30). Very weak rocks and dense/ compacted soils often show failure strains of the order of 2%. Therefore, the modulus ratio of 50 is chosen as the lower limiting value for rocks as per Ramamurthy [18]. Based on Tables 7 and 8, a rock whether intact or jointed could be classied and represented by two letters, e.g. BC meaning the rock has high compressive strength in the range of 100250 MPa with a medium modulus ratio between 100 and 200. This classication is thus based on the engineering parameters of rock in an unconned state. Some of the results of intact rocks are presented in Fig. 2. In Fig. 3, the location of the intact specimen is shown at I on the sci;j and Ei;j plot. When the experimental data of scj and Ej of the jointed specimens of the same material as that of the intact specimen are plotted, all the points fall along an inclined line originating at I and cutting across the constant boundaries of modulus ratio. This behaviour also suggests that, as fracturing continues, the locations represented by scj and Ej follow a denite trend. The gradient of this line for the jointed mass has been found to be 1.60 on the loglog plot starting from the position I of the intact specimen, i.e. (log E2log E1)/(log sc2 log sc1). This value of 1.6 has been found to be an average gradient for four modes of failure: namely, splitting, shearing, sliding and rotation of the elements in a block specimen, as per Singh et al. [29]. Each block specimen had an average of more than 260 elemental cubes. More details are available in Singh et al. [30]. The

ARTICLE IN PRESS
96 T. Ramamurthy / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 89101

Fig. 2. Classication for intact rocks after modication to Deere and Miller [2] approach; B=Basalt, D=Dolomite, G=Granite, L=Limestone, M=Marble, Scf=Schist at foliations, SCS=Schist steep foliations, Sh=Shale, SS=Sandstone.

Fig. 4. Inuence of jointing on classication of rocks due to splitting mode of failure.

Fig. 5. Inuence of jointing on classication of rocks due to shearing mode of failure. Fig. 3. Inuence of jointing on classication of rocks for four modes of failure.

gradient for other modes of failure in block specimens are: (i) for shearing of material or splitting1.8, (ii) for sliding along joint1.5, and (iii) for rotation of blocks1.4, Singh et al. [29], refer Figs. 47. When the modes of failure are identied, based on the joint

system [30], the above values may be adopted. In the absence of information on the modes of failure expected in the rock mass, one may adopt a value of 1.60 as an average gradient to be followed by the mass as fracturing progresses. From the above, it follows that, whenever the values of scj and Ej are suggested for any rock mass, these should fall as far as possible closer to the gradients

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Ramamurthy / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 89101 97

Fig. 6. Inuence of jointing on classication of rocks due to rotational mode of failure.

Fig. 8. Inuence of jointing on classication of weathered rocks.

moderately, highly and completely weathered. Tests were carried out on ve levels of weathering of quartzite and four levels of weathering of both granite and basalt. The values of compressive strength and modulus from tests on these rocks at these levels of weathering are presented together in Fig. 8. On the basis of the foregoing, the following gradients are suggested to establish the scj and Ej relation for the engineering classication when the jointed mass is experiencing different modes of failure, (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Shearing of rock material or splitting All modes, i.e. no mode is identied Sliding along a weak plane Rotation of blocks or weathered mass 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4

5. Classication based on strength and failure strain As suggested by Eq. (30), the modulus ratio is the inverse of the failure strain when the stressstrain curve is linear. Therefore, another way of classifying a rock could be by using failure compressive strength and failure axial strain. When Mrj is estimated for a jointed rock, the failure strain could also be estimated assuming the rock to be responding linearly under a uniaxial condition. Table 9 suggests the likely minimum failure strain levels covering both intact and jointed rocks. Using Tables 7 and 9, one could classify the rock, which was classied earlier as BC on the basis of compressive strength and modulus, now as BC, meaning that the

Fig. 7. Inuence of jointing on classication of rocks due to sliding mode of failure.

suggested above based on the experimental work. This will enable a check on the values to be adopted in the analysis/design. In the case of weathered rocks, like quartzite, granite and basalt, this gradient was about 1.4 from the data of Gupta [31] and Gupta and Rao [32]. These three rocks have gone through different stages of weathering: namely, unweathered (i.e., fresh), slightly,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
98 T. Ramamurthy / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 89101

rock has a compressive strength in the range of 100 250 MPa and is likely to fail under a minimum axial strain in the range of 0.51.0%. The rst letter refers to the strength and the second smaller letter to the theoretical minimum failure strain. Further, the ratio of the failure strain of the intact rock to that of the jointed rock is given by efi =efj Mrj =Mri exp3:50 103 Jf : 31

For better prediction of efj ; the relation obtained from the experimental data between failure strain and modulus ratio of the jointed rocks may be adopted as per Ramamurthy [18] as follows: efj 50Mrj 0:75 %: 32

The above suggested engineering classications are based on the measured/estimated engineering parameters of rock namely, sci ; scj ; Ei ; Ej ; Jn ; n; r; and also failure strains, and can be applied to both intact and jointed rocks. However, in practice one may prefer to adopt strength and modulus directly for classifying a rock. The minimum failure strain in the axial direction can easily be calculated for any analysis.

to be considered. The weathering process discolors, decomposes and disintegrates the rock and affects the discontinuities most. It has a decisive inuence on the compressive strength and modulus of rock, either intact or jointed. When these values are found to be low for a particular rock, it may be due to the weathering in addition to fracturing. The extent of weathering in a rock is usually indicated descriptively in Table 10, ISRM [7]. An extensive study on the inuence of weathering of crystalline rocks, basalt, granite and quartzite, was carried out by Gupta and Rao [33]. On the basis of their ndings and those of other earlier investigations, they proposed a classication of the degree of weathering in terms of Rs indicated in Table 10. The best parameter to measure the inuence of weathering seems to be the ratio of the uniaxial compressive strengths of weathered to the fresh intact rock specimens, i:e: Rs % sc weathered=sc fresh 100: 33

6. Geo-engineering classication To have a comprehensive understanding of the rock, its past history, namely the genesis, the predominant rock mineral present and the weathering effect will have

Along with the two lettered classication of rock/rock mass, an indication of the extent of weathering may also be indicated by using the appropriate term from Table 10, in addition to the generic name and the predominant mineral present, e.g. BC W1 Biotite schist: that is, the rock is slightly weathered biotite schist having compressive strength between 100 and 250 MPa and medium modulus ratio ranging between 100 and 200. Such a brief classication will not only reect the range of engineering response of the rock but also its geological history and will be easily understood and interpreted by engineers and geologists.

Table 9 Classication of rocks based on failure strain Class a b c d e Description Very high failure strain High failure strain Medium failure strain Low failure strain Very low failure strain Failure strain, efi;j (%) >2 12 0.51 0.20.5 o 0.2

7. Discussion The relations for the estimation of uniaxial compressive strength and the corresponding modulus from Jf are based on the experimental results under unconstrained conditions [18]. Whereas the assessment of these two basic values of a rock mass, either by RMR, Q or GSI,

Table 10 Weathering grades as per ISRM [7] and Gupta and Rao [33] Symbol W0 W1 W2 Degree of weathering (%) 0 o 25 2550 Term Fresh Slightly Moderately Description No visible sign of material weathering Discoloration indicates weathering of rock on major discontinuity surfaces Less than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either a discontinuous framework or as corestones More than half the rock is decomposed and /or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones Majority of rock material is decomposed and /or disintegrated to soil. The original structure of rock mass is still intact All material decomposed. No trace of rock structure reserved R (%) 10080 8050 5025

W3 W4 W5

5075 >75 100

Highly Completely Residual soil

2510 101 o1

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Ramamurthy / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 89101 Table 11 Size effect on modulus ratio [34] Dia. or side, cm. NX-size 8.0 23.5 62.0 sci;j (MPa) 50.0 42.6 22.23 10.0 Ei;j (MPa) 50 000 40 000 7500 2500 Mri;j 1000 939 337 250 99

Values corresponding to NX-size extrapolated from data of other sizes.

is based on experience and some back analysis. More recently, Kalamaras and Bieniawski [14] presented a modied expression to estimate uniaxial compressive strength of rock mass taking into consideration the experimental results of Carter et al. [15]. Ideally when eld tests are conducted, the test block is to be isolated from the parent mass by careful cutting and dressing operations in order to assess scj and Ej in the unconstrained condition. Such a test block should have a slenderness ratio more than one, and preferably two. Unfortunately, data from such tests are extremely limited. Whenever some data are available, it is proposed to indicate the effect of the specimen size, rather than the change in the quality of the rock within the test block. As the size increases, the number of joints, their inclination, even if the strength along some of the joints remains the same, would affect the response of the block. If one compares a value reected by the large sized test blocks to that of the intact specimen, the values, particularly scj =sci and Ej =Ei ; would correspond to a higher order of Jf values or lower values of RMR or Q: A more recent example is from Natau et al. [34] whose test results from three sizes of specimens ranging from 80 mm to 620 mm were obtained totally in the unconned state. The average results of scj and Ej are presented in Table 11. From these results, scj of a 620 620 1200 mm3 specimen is 0.235 times of the values of a 80 mm dia. specimen. By extrapolation, the value of compressive strength of NX size, assuming it is to represent an intact rock, this ratio works out to be 0.20which is not very different from the value estimated for a 80 mm dia. specimen. The sci of the NX size works out to be 50 MPa. Similarly, the ratio of Ej of a 620 mm specimen to Ej of an 80 mm dia. specimen is 1/16; by considering the NX size, this ratio would be 1/20, again suggesting slightly lower quality of the rock in the 80 mm dia. size. These ratios suggest an average Jf of 230/m and an average RMR of 55 from strength and modulus considerations as per Eqs. (2), (4), (12) and (13). The ratio Mri by considering NX size is 1000 and for 80 mm dia. size it is 939. The Mrj for a 620 mm size specimen works out to be 250, suggesting considerable change in the quality of the rock in the larger size. These data conrm that the Mrj values

should decrease considerably with the decrease in the quality of the rock and not remain constant or vary marginally. Earlier investigations of Rocha [35] also suggested quite low values of Ej =Ei as 1/29 for granite, 1/28 for schist, 1/64 for limestone and 1/108 for quartzite; whereas Bieniawski [36] found the ratio Ej =Ei more than 0.1 even at RMR=20. Most of the modulus data is obtained by conducting tests in limited areas in tunnels, in drifts, in boreholes and, even if plate jacking tests are conducted on a level surface underground or in open excavation, there is always some degree of lateral connement. The measured modulus values tend to be higher particularly for larger values of Jf or smaller values of RMR or Q: Such results need to be corrected for lateral connement to obtain values corresponding to the unconned condition. When such data are provided, the designer has the freedom to choose or modify the strength and modulus, depending upon the in situ stress expected in the eld. Using the following equation, Ramamurthy [17], the inuence of conning pressure on Ej can be estimated, Ej0 =Ej3 1 exp0:10scj =s03 ; 34

where subscript 0 and 3 refer to s03 0 and s3 > 0; s03 is the effective conning stress. From Table 6 for RMR=40, scj 9:1 MPa when sci 100 MPa and say for s03 1 MPa, Ej0 =Ej3 0:597; i.e. the actual unconned value of Ej will be 0.597 times that of the measured value. And for RMR=20, this ratio works out to be 0.34. For values of RMR less than 20, this ratio reduces faster. If the connement is more due to the in situ stress not being released, this ratio would be still lower. This kind of problem will not arise when evaluating the scj from eld tests, since such tests are conducted on cut block specimens. It would be convenient to estimate even Ej values from such tests. When these basic values, scj and Ej of a rock mass, are estimated without the inuence of seepage pressure, it becomes convenient to adopt or enhance them, depending upon the connement, in the effective stress analysis. Any other engineering property measured in the eld and inuenced by conning pressure may also need to be corrected for conning effect or the magnitude of connement be indicated for realistic analysis and design. Apart from the correlations presented linking RMR and Q to Jf ; one could easily estimate the values of mj and sj from the values of Jf as follows: For an undisturbed rock mass [22] mj =mi expRMR 100=28; which in terms of Jf will be mj =mi expJf =140 36 35

ARTICLE IN PRESS
100 T. Ramamurthy / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 89101 Table 12 Estimation of mj =mi and sj from Jf Jf 400 300 200 100 RMR or GSI 20 40 60 80 mj =mi 0.0574 0.0117 0.240 0.490 sj 0.000138 0.00127 0.0117 0.1080

8. Conclusions The objective of the present study has been to examine the reliability of the prediction of uniaxial compressive strength and its corresponding modulus by some of the popular approaches currently in use, to indicate a more reliable approach, and to suggest a Geoengineering Classication applicable to both intact rocks and rock masses based on these two properties. The following are some of the salient conclusions. 1. The uniaxial compressive strength and modulus of jointed rocks predicted by RMR, Q and GSI do not suggest a decrease of modulus ratio with the decrease in the quality of the rock mass. 2. Based on the work of Kalamaras and Bieniawski, linking RMR with sci and scj ; correlations between the joint factor, Jf ; and RMR, Q and GSI have been established to predict more reliably the strength and modulus of rock mass in the unconned condition. 3. The scj and Ej need to be estimated in uniaxial compression, without seepage and conning pressures, so that their inuence can be considered in analysis and design in terms of the effective stress. 4. The use of joint factor, which enables one to estimate the strength and modulus in the unconned state and also under any desired conning pressure, was veried in the study of the deformational response of jointed test specimens, the rock mass around underground excavations, in open excavations, the bearing of surface footings, ground reaction curves and the extent of broken zone around circular openings in rock masses. 5. The Deere and Miller engineering classication, originally developed for intact rocks, has been found, after suitable modications, useful in classifying jointed rocks as well. The plot of scj and Ej follows a denite trend, starting from the location of intact rock and depending on the mode of failure of the rock mass, either by splitting, shearing of rock material, sliding along a joint or by rotation of fractured rock elements. 6. An extension of this approach resulted in the suggestion of a geo-engineering classication applicable to both intact and jointed rocks, by considering uniaxial compressive strength, the corresponding modulus, a measurable engineering weathering index and genesis of the rock. This will enable a designer to assess the rock mass response in relation to that of intact rock or soil. 7. There is a greater need to test large jointed specimens in truly unconned condition, both in the laboratory and in the eld, to estimate compressive strength and modulus and to link these values to the weakness coefcients such as Jf ; RMR, Q or GSI. The modulus values are likely to be affected when tests are

and for sj expRMR 100=9 which in terms of Jf is sj expJf =45: 38 37

The values of mj =mi and sj from Eqs. (36) and (38), are shown in Table 12 for comparison purposes, agree very closely with the values suggested by Hoek for the corresponding values of GSI. From the foregoing, it follows that one may still adopt Bieniawskis RMR [13] and arrive at the values of mj =mi and sj : The concept of Jf and the relations developed to predict scj and Ej were applied to interpret the results of laboratory test specimens:
*

to analyse large underground caverns and open mine excavation by numerical methods; to establish ground reaction curves and radii of the broken zone and also to estimate the bearing capacity of surface footings [3742].

The joint factor, Jf ; is easily and rapidly estimated: two of its three factors come from the geological report and the third parameter, connected with strength along the sliding joint or joint set, could be assessed by eld shear test at the desired location or arrived at as a reasonable value from the many published data. At the residual state, one could obtain this strength depending upon the joint condition and its material from Table 5. The values of Jf per metre depth could be estimated quickly even during the excavation process and scj ; Ej; and even efj [18], could be determined to conduct an analysis to choose or alter the supporting system. An other important advantage of using Jf is to estimate the changes in the quality of rock mass by plotting scj and Ej on the modied Deere and Miller chart and classify the rock mass by considering the observed mode of failure in the eld. It is necessary that the values of Mrj are lower than that of the intact rock and continuously decrease with the decrease in quality of the rock mass. Any values of scj and Ej recommended will have to stand this test.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Ramamurthy / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 89101 101

conducted in boreholes or in limited areas due to the in situ stress not being fully released.

References
[1] Coates DF. Classication of rock and rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1964;1:4219. [2] Deere DU, Miller RP. Engineering classication and index properties for intact rocks. Technical Report No. AFNL-TR65-116, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, New Mexico, 1966. [3] Stapledon DH. Discussion of DF Coates, rock classication. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1968;5:3713. [4] Franklin JA, Broch E, Walton G. Logging the mechanical character of rock. Trans Inst Min Met London 1971;80A:18. [5] Hansagi I. Numerical determination of mechanical properties of rock and of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1965;2:21923. [6] ISRM. Standardization of laboratory, eld tests. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1978;15:348. [7] ISRM, Basic technical description of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1981;18:85110. [8] Terzaghi K. In: Proctor RV, White T, editors. Rock defects and load on tunnel support, rock tunneling with steel supports. Youngstown, OH: Commercial Shearing Co., 1946. p. 1599. [9] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering classication of jointed rock masses. Trans S Afr Inst Civ Eng 1973;15(12):33544. [10] Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J. Engineering classication of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. J Rock Mech 1974; 6(4):189236. [11] Barton N. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterisation and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 2002;39(2):185216. [12] Bieniawski ZT. Rock mass rating systems in engineering practice. Symposium on Rock Classication Systems for Engineering Purposes, ASTM, STP 984, 1988. p. 1734. [13] Bieniawski ZT. Classication of rock masses for engineering: the RMR system and future trends. In: Hudson JA, editor. Comprehensive rock engineering, vol. 3. UK: Pergamon Press; 1993. p. 55373. [14] Kalamaras GS, Bieniawski ZT. A rock strength concept for coal seams incorporating the effect of time. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress on Rock Mechanics, vol. 1, 1995. p. 295302. [15] Carter BJ, Duncan E, Scott J, Lajtai EZ. Fitting strength criteria to intact rock. Int J Geotechnol Geol Eng 1991;9:7381. [16] Ramamurthy T, Arora VK. Strength predictions for jointed rocks in conned and unconned states. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1994;13(1):922. [17] Ramamurthy T. Strength and modulus responses of anisotropic rocks. In: Hudson JA, editor. Comprehensive rock engineering, vol. 1. UK: Pergamon Press; 1993. p. 31329 [Chapter 13]. [18] Ramamurthy T. Shear strength response of some geological materials in triaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2001;38:68397. [19] Barton N. The inuence of joint properties in modelling jointed rock masses. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress on Rock Mechanics, vol. 1, 1995. p. 10232. [20] Bieniawski ZT. Rock mass classication in rock engineering. In: Bieniawski ZT, editor. Proceedings of the Symposium on Exloration for Rock Engineering, vol. 1. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1976. p. 97106. [21] Bieniawski ZT. Rock mechanics design in mining and tunnelling. Rotterdam: AA Balkema, 1984. p. 272.

[22] Hoek E, Brown ET. The HoekBrown failure criteriona 1988 update. Proceedings of the 15th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium, vol. 1. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 1988. p. 318. [23] Seram JL, Pereira JP. Consideration of the geomechanics classication of Bieniawski. Proceedings International Symposium on Engineering, Part II. Lisbon, Portugal: Geology and Underground Construction, 1983. p. 3344. [24] Hoek E. Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News J 1994;2(2):416. [25] Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF. Support of underground excavations in hard rock. Rotherdam: AA Balkema, 1995. p. 215. [26] Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1997;34(8):116586. [27] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classications: a complete manual for engineers and geologists in mining, civil and petroleum engineering. New York: Wiley, 1989. p. 215. [28] Ramamurthy T, Arora VK. A simple stressstrain model for jointed rocks. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress on Rock Mechanics, Aachen, Germany, vol. 1, 1991. p. 3236. [29] Singh M, Rao KS, Ramamurthy T. An approach to evaluate strength and modulus of rock mass. Proceedings of the International Conference. Australia: SMGE, Geo-Engineering, 2000, paper No. UW 0994. p. I-6. [30] Singh M, Rao KS, Ramamurthy T. Strength and deformational behaviour of a jointed mass. J Rock Mech Rock Eng 2002;35(1):4564. [31] Gupta AS. Engineering behaviour, classication of weathered rocks, Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India, 1997. [32] Gupta AS, Rao KS. Weathering effects on the strength and deformational behaviour of crystalline rocks under uniaxial compression state. Int J Eng Geol 2000;56:25774. [33] Gupta AS, Rao KS. Weathering indices and their applicability for crystalline rocks. Bull Eng Geo Envirn 2001;60:20121. [34] Natau O, Fliege O, Mutcher Th., Stech HJ. True triaxial tests of prismatic large scale samples of jointed rock masses in laboratory. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress Rock Mechanics, Tokyo, vol. 1. 1995. p. 3538. [35] Rocha M. Mechanical behaviour of rock foundations in concrete dams. Transactions of the Eighth Congress Large Dams, Edinburgh, 1964, Paper R-44, Q.28. p. 785832. [36] Bieniawski ZT. Case studies: prediction of rock mass behaviour by geomechanics classication. Proceedings of the Second Aust.NZ. Conference on Geomechanics, Brisbon, 1975. p. 3641. [37] Sridevi J, Sitaram TG. Analysis of strength and moduli of jointed rocks. Int J Geotechnol Geol Eng 2000;18:321. [38] Sitaram TG, Sridevi J, Shimizu N. Practical equivalent continuum characterization of jointed rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2001;38:43748. [39] Varadarajan A, Sharma KG, Desai CS, Hashemi M. Analysis of a power house cavern in the Himalaya. Int J Geomech 2001;1(1):10927. [40] Sitaram TG, Madhavi Latha G. Simulation of excavations in jointed rock masses using practical equivalent continuum approach. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:51725. [41] Ramamurthy T, Anand NK. A more realistic deformation response of rock mass around circular opening. Proceedings of the Tunneling Asia 97. India, New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1997. p. 7993. [42] Ramamurthy T. Bearing capacity of rock foundations. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Rock Foundation, Japan. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1995. p. 31116.