Water effects on rock strength and stiffness

degradation

Louis Ngai Yuen Wong, Varun

Maruvanchery & Gang Liu

Acta Geotechnica

ISSN 1861-1125

Acta Geotech.
DOI 10.1007/s11440-015-0407-7

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica
DOI 10.1007/s11440-015-0407-7
REVIEW PAPER
Water effects on rock strength and stiffness degradation
Louis Ngai Yuen Wong1 Varun Maruvanchery2 Gang Liu2
Received: 25 February 2015 / Accepted: 21 July 2015
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Abstract Reduction in strength and stiffness in rocks
attributed to an increase in water content has been exten-
sively researched on a large variety of rock types over the
past decades. Due to the considerable variations of texture
and lithology, the extent of water-weakening effect is
highly varied among different rock types, spanning from
nearly negligible in quartzite to 90 % of uniaxial com-
pressive strength reduction in shale. Readers, however,
often face difficulties in comparing the data published in
different sources due to the discrepancy of experimental
procedures of obtaining the water saturation state and how
the raw laboratory data is interpreted. In view of this, the
present paper first reviews the terminologies commonly
used to quantify the amount of water stored in rocks. The
second part of the paper reviews the water-weakening
effects on rock strengths, particularly focusing on uniaxial
compressive strength and modulus, as well as tensile
strength, under quasi-static loading and dynamic loading.
The correlation relationships established among various
parameters, including porosity, density and fabric of rocks,
and external factors such as strain rate, surface tension and
dielectric constant of the saturating liquid, absorption
percentage and suction pressure, are reviewed and pre-
sented toward the end of the paper.
& Louis Ngai Yuen Wong
LNYWONG@hku.hk
1
Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong, China
2
School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore
Keywords Rock stiffness  Rock strength 
Water content  Water-weakening
1 Introduction
Strength and stiffness characteristics of rock are of a great
fundamental importance for rock classification and design of
structures in geotechnical engineering. In addition to
intrinsic rock composition and structure, factors influencing
the rock strength and stiffness including the test condition,
temperature, and water content were comprehensively
reviewed by Hawkes and Mellor [27], Dyke and Dobereiner
[17], Vasarhelyi and Van [72]. For rock engineering appli-
cations in particular, the water-weakening effect on different
rock types has been observed by many researchers [9, 13,
37, 44, 49, 58, 63]. Although several water-weakening
mechanisms have been proposed, there appears to be no
well-proven explanation that is universally acceptable to
account for the influence of water on rock strengths [68],
probably due to the great variety of rock types.
This paper, which consists of two parts, reviews the studies
of water effects on rocks since 1940 s. The first part focuses
on various terminologies which are commonly used and
various measurement techniques associated with the satura-
tion effects on rocks. The second part reviews the water
saturation effects on different rock types with respect to
mechanical properties, including uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS), tensile strength (TS), and modulus (E). In
tectonics research, the key weakening effect of water on earth
materials is well established in the high-temperature regime
up to 1000 C [15]. The present review, however, will not
cover this high-temperature regime, but limited to rock
engineering applications at a much lower temperature typi-
cally below 100 C under quasi-static and dynamic loadings.
123
 Author's personal copy
2 Definitions of terminologies
2.1 Background
One of the key concerns in the research of water effect on
rock strengths is to quantify the amount of water absorbed
by rock specimens. Water content and saturation
degree are two common terms appearing in the literature.
Conceptually speaking, the former indicates the amount
of water present in the rocks. It has a nonnegative value,
which can be larger than 1. The latter ranges from 0 to 1, or
0 to 100 %. Completely dry rocks have zero saturation
degree, while fully saturated rocks have a 100 % saturation
degree. Water absorption is another term commonly
used in the literature to quantify the amount of water in
fully saturated rocks.
All of the above three terms can be rigorously defined
theoretically. However, since some of the pores in rocks
may be closed or not connected to achieve a fully saturated
state, it is very challenging to verify whether a rock
specimen is in a fully saturated state. Caution should be
exercised in interpreting and compiling the data reported in
the literature, in particular those claimed to represent a
fully saturated state.
The issue is further complicated with regard to the
inconsistent laboratory procedures of determining the
water content, water absorption and degree of water
saturation. For example, the duration of immersing the
specimens in water for the determination of water
absorption varies among researchers; the techniques of
obtaining the mass of the saturated-surface-dried speci-
men also vary. It was found that the difference between
the mechanical properties of air-dried and natural sand-
stones is so great that the results cannot be used for
engineering calculations to predict the behavior of the
rock in situ [9]. The rock preparation procedures should
be therefore clearly specified to enable other researchers
to follow and to compare results among different studies
on the same ground. For example, the duration of drying
in an oven and/or cooling in a vacuum desicthe sample
after forced watercator, in addition to the temperature,
Table 1 Effect of moisture on compressive strength of sandstones [54]
Types of sandstone Porosity (%)
Markham 6.0
Parkgate 10.0
Pennant 2.5
Darley Dale 19.5
N.A. data not available
123
Acta Geotechnica
during the specimen preparation should be properly
noted and reported. Likewise, Price [54] observed sig-
nificant differences among the UCS of oven-dried, air-
dried, and saturated sandstones (Table 1). The impor-
tance of an accurate usage of terms describing the states
of the rocks, including saturated, air-dried, and
oven-dried, was also addressed by Hawkes and Mellor
[27]. In the review below, the definitions and symbols
stated in the original references are retained wherever
possible.
2.2 Water content or moisture content
Water content (w) is defined as [3, 8, 27, 67]
w Mw =Ms 1
where Mw = mass of pore water and Ms = mass of grain
(solid component of the specimen)
2.3 Water absorption by weight or water absorption
ASTM [2] provides a qualitative definition of absorption in
coarse aggregate as the increase in mass of aggregate due to
water penetration into pores of particles during a prescribed
period of time, but not including water adhering to the outside
surface of the particles, expressed as a percentage of the dry
mass. Water absorption (Aw), also known as absorption
or total water absorption, is given in ASTM [2] as


Aw Msat Mdry =Mdry  100 % 2
where Msat = mass of saturated-surface-dried test sample
in air and Mdry = mass of oven-dried test sample in air.
Water absorption (Wi) is similarly defined by Borrelli
[7] to quantify the amount of water in porous building
materials, which is stated as the quantity of water
absorbed by a material immersed in deionized water at
room temperature and pressure at successive time intervals
(i.e., the rate of water absorption), expressed as a per-
centage of the dry mass of the sample.
Wi Mi Mo =Mo  100 % 3
Strength (MPa)
Oven-dry Air-dry Saturated
Oven-dry Oven-dry
100 % 57 % N.A.
100 % 68 % 45 %
100 % 51 % 45 %
100 % 80 % 45 %
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica
Fig. 1 Schematic illustration of the water absorption measurement
with the specimen completely immersed in water (left) and a
schematic curve of the specimens mass increase over time due to
the absorption of water until constant mass is reached (right) [32]
where Mi = mass of the wet sample immersed in deionized
water at time ti and Mo = mass of the dry sample.
The definitions in Eqs. (2) and (3) are very similar,
except that the wet mass specified in ASTM [2] refers to
the saturated-surface-dried test sample in air, while Borrelli
[7] does not specify such a condition. On the other hand,
Borrelli [7] explicitly specifies the use of deionized water.
Typically, the wet mass of a specimen will increase with
the time of immersion. The value of water absorption can
be determined when a stable wet mass is achieved, which
no longer increases with the time of immersion (Fig. 1).
Our literature review identifies other terms similar to
water absorption such as water absorption capacity,
unforced water absorption, and forced water absorp-
tion have been used by some other researchers. However,
they are defined in different ways.
Water absorption capacity (WA) is used as a measure
of the amount of water absorbed by a rock immersed in
water for a specific time [14], which is defined as
WA W3 W0 =W2 W1  100 % 4 An alternative to water content for quantifying the
where W0 = dry weight of sample after tests and W1 -
= weight of saturated sample suspended in water (the
sample is saturated as follows: it is placed in a vacuum for
2 h, then saturated under vacuum; the vacuum is then
released and the sample left in water for 16 h or more).
W2 = saturated sample weighed in air, and W3 = weight
of sample that is first dried (overnight or for 24 h in an
oven at 105 C then cooled) then saturated by water poured
over the sample and left in water for 24 h, wiped, and then
weighed in air.
Water absorption by capacity (WAC) is defined by
Borrelli [7] as the maximum quantity of water absorbed by
a material at room temperature and pressure under condi-
tions of saturation, again expressed as a percentage of the
dry mass of the sample.
WAC Mmax Md =Md  100 % 5
where Mmax = mass of the sample at maximum water
absorption and Md = mass of the sample after re-drying at
the end of the test.
Water absorption under atmospheric pressure condition
(Watm), which is also known as freely or unforced water
absorption, is defined by Siegesmund and Snethlage [61]
as


Watm Mwet Mdry =Mdry  100 % 6
where Mwet = wet mass of the sample immersed in water
for 48 h and Mdry = dry mass of the sample.
Water absorption under vacuum condition (Wvac),
which is also called forced water absorption, is defined
by Siegesmund and Snethlage [61] as
Wvac Mn Mt =Mt 7
where Mn = mass of the sample after forced water
absorption and Mt = dry mass of the sample.
The different members in the family of water
absorption are found to be associated with different
durations of specimen immersion in water and the pres-
sure conditions under which the specimen is immersed.
As such, researchers are thus strongly encouraged to
clearly specify the respective definitions and procedures
associated with their determination of water absorption
values in their technical writings. Similarly, any
researchers attempting to compile and compare the results
in the literature should also be cautious to the conditions
under which the respective water absorption values are
obtained.
2.4 Degree of saturation, saturation degree,
and saturation coefficient
amount of water in a rock specimen is to describe the
degree of water saturation, which varies from 0 for dry
rocks to 100 % for fully saturated rocks. The present lit-
erature review identifies multiple terms of such, which
share a similar but different meaning.
Degree of saturation (Sr) is defined in the ISRM-
suggested methods [8] as
Sr Vw =Vv  100 % 8
where Vw = volume of pore water and Vv = volume of
pore (voids).
Refer to [8, 67, 72] for further details.
Saturation coefficient (S) is defined by Cooke [14] as
shown in Eq. (9). Refer to Eq. (4) for the meaning of the
symbols.
123
 Author's personal copy
W3  W0 W2  W1 W3  W0
S  9
W2  W1 W2  W0 W2  W0
In Eq. (9), the first quotient has been previously defined
in Eq. (4) as water absorption capacity. In fact, the
second quotient is the inverse of the porosity as shown in
by Cooke [14]. Saturation coefficient (Eq. 9) denotes the
amount of water absorbed by a rock immersed in water for
24 h expressed as a fraction of the volume of available pore
space [14]. It can describe the amount of the total pore
space accessible to water absorption, providing an indicator
for frost resistance evaluation [61].
To describe the amount of the total pore space, which is
accessible to water absorption under atmospheric pressure
(unforced condition) and under vacuum condition (forced
condition), respectively, the so-called saturation degree/
saturation coefficient (Sr) is defined. It is expressed as the
quotient of the freely or unforced water absorption and the
forced water absorption [29, 61], as shown in Eq. (10).
Sr Watm =Wvac  100 % 10
where Watm = the water absorption under atmospheric
pressure, see Eq. (6), and Wvac = the water absorption
under vacuum, see Eq. (7).
Notice that the saturation degree/saturation coefficient
(Sr) defined in Eq. (10) is completely different from the
degree of saturation (Sr) defined in Eq. (8) and the
saturation coefficient (S) defined in Eq. (9). The condi-
tions at which the measurements are performed are also
different.
2.5 Water absorption coefficient
Water absorption coefficient (wcoe, kg/m2h0.5), which
considers the surface area of the sample and the immersion
time of the sample in water (Eq. (11)), is used to describe
the capillary water absorption [61].
wcoe mw =t1=2 11
where mw = the surface-related water absorption, kg/m2,
and t = the absorption time, hour.
3 Relationship between water content and related
parameters
Water content and moisture content, as defined earlier,
have been widely used as key parameters in the laboratory
studies investigating the water effect on mechanical prop-
erties of rocks. Moisture is preferably used to characterize
how much liquid water and vapor water have been absor-
bed by a rock in a humidity room. In general, water content
and moisture content can be used interchangeably unless
123
Acta Geotechnica
otherwise stated. During the saturation process (absorption
path), the liquid saturation of a rock sample is usually very
small, even for a rock stored in a high relative humidity
room. Liquid here should exclusively mean water rather
than water vapor. Erguler and Ulusay [18] investigated the
variations of water content of the rock samples stored in a
humidity room and those directly immersed in water. The
results show that the water content of the rocks stored in
the humidity room is much less than that in those immersed
in water even after a long period of time. An explanation of
this phenomenon was given by Grgic et al. [24].
As suggested in the above review, although water con-
tent may be expressed unambiguously as mass of water
per unit mass of rock [27], different researchers may have
determined the dry mass and wet mass by different meth-
ods and under different conditions. It is challenging to
unify the measurement of water content and other related
physical properties, leading to difficulties in comparing the
data among different investigators. Readers are suggested
to refer to ASTM [2] and Rajabipour [55] for a compre-
hensive summary of some frequently prepared and mea-
sured rock states. See below.
Oven-dry (OD) All water is removed from the rock by
heating in an oven at 105 C to constant mass (at least
24 h is required). All accessible pores are empty.
Air-dry (AD) All water is removed from surface, but
internal pores are partially full.
Saturated-surface-dry (SSD) All pores are filled with
water, but no film of water is left on the surface.
Wet All accessible pores are completely filled with
water with a film on the surface.
Among the above four states, only OD and SSD states
correspond to a well-defined water condition, i.e., specific
water contents, which can be used as standard reference
states for calculating water content. The water contents
corresponding to AD and wet states are not uniquely
defined and the measurements can vary among different
researchers. Out of these four states, SSD state is the
preferable reference state because it represents the equi-
librium water state of the rock, which is more represen-
tative of the water content encountered in the field. To
supplement the determination of water content, other
related physical properties and index properties are given
by ISRM [8] as follows.
/ Vv =V 12
where / = total or absolute porosity, fraction; Vv = pore
volume; V = bulk sample volume.
The degree of water saturation (Sr) and bulk density
(qbulk) can be computed as below.
Sr wrdry =rw / 13
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica
qbulk 1 wqdry 14 interconnected pores are filled up by water. This Aw
where w = water content, qdry = dry density, and qw =
water density
Water content (Sect. 2.2) and water absorption (Sect. 2.3)
have similar forms of expression, yet they have different
meanings. Water content describes the ratio of mass of water
in the rock to the solid rock mass. In general, the water
absorption ability of a rock is closely related to its effective
porosity, i.e., the percentage of pores accessible for the water
under normal conditions rather than its total porosity [27,
61]. Accordingly, the water absorption should be considered
as the upper limit of water content achievable in a given
rock specimen after being immersed in liquid water for a
sufficiently long duration.
In the ISRM-suggested methods [8], the degree of sat-
uration is defined with reference to total porosity rather
than effective porosity (see Eqs. (8) and (12)). In gen-
eral, the effective porosity, which is also known as the
accessible porosity, is either equal to or smaller than the
total porosity which includes isolated pores that are
extremely hard for water entry [61]. Therefore, the degree
of saturation should theoretically be less than 100 % unless
in a highly porous rock. Meanwhile, it should be pointed
out that total porosity can be calculated from the bulk
density and grain volume using the pulverization method,
which has taken closed pores into consideration.
Based on the above discussion, degree of saturation (Sr),
water absorption by weight (Aw), dry density (qdry), and
effective porosity (/e) can be related by the following
equations.
Aw qw /e =qdry 15
Sr w=Aw 16
Out of the four parameters in Eq. (15), for a given rock,
qdry and qw are relatively easy to determine, while the
remaining two parameters Aw and /e are usually the ones
to be computed. There are two possible scenarios. In the
first scenario, the rock is assumed to be fully saturated, i.e.,
Sr = 100 %, water content is able to reach its maximum
possible value, max(w) by filling up all the accessible void
by water. In this circumstance, max(w) is equivalent to
water absorption by weight (Aw) as shown in Eq. (17). /e is
then calculated from Eq. (15).
maxw Aw 17
In a fully saturated state, Eq. (14) can be rewritten as
maxqbulk qsat 1 Aw qdry 18
In the second scenario, /e is first obtained by techniques
such as the mercury porosimetry, which measures the
volume of interconnected pores [8]. Aw can then be
calculated from Eq. (15) assuming all the measured
value hence obtained may, however, be different from
those obtained from Eqs. (2) to (7) as stated in Sect. 2.3.
In the literature, many reported saturated density
values are practically not measured at the fully saturation
condition. They simply represent values which are obtained
at an effort of aiming at saturating the specimens by a long
immersion time. The difference between the true fully
saturated density and the presented saturated density can be
obtained and compared by the values from the above
equations as long as the effective porosity and dry density
are known.
4 Literature review on water effects on rock
properties
4.1 Quasi-static unconfined compressive strength
and Youngs modulus of rocks
The effect of water on the compressive strength and
Youngs modulus of rocks is more favorably investigated
as compared with other parameters, which is probably due
to their direct practical relevance to rock engineering
applications.
4.1.1 Sedimentary rocks
4.1.1.1 Sandstone Price [54] in 1960 tested a number of
coal measure sandstones and found that the compressive
strength in air-dried samples varied from 51 to 80 % of that
in completely dry samples, while the compressive
strength of saturated samples was 45 % of that of com-
pletely dry samples. In the same year, Mann and Fatt [42]
conducted a series of compression tests on three different
types of sandstones and found that the extent of reduction
in strength and Youngs modulus depends on the amount of
clay mineral present. They observed that the modulus value
reduced by 619 % when the sandstones were saturated.
More thorough experiments were later conducted by Col-
back and Wiid [13] on quartzitic sandstone and shale from
Africa. They concluded that the uniaxial compressive
strength of sandstone was reduced in a linear fashion when
immersed in liquids of increasing surface tension. The
reduction in strength is predominantly due to the reduction
in the surface free energy of quartz. Many researchers such
as Bell [6] showed that the strength reduction due to the
presence of water is proportional to the porosity of rock.
Dyke and Dobereiner [17] found that the presence of water
in sandstones converts strong silicaoxygen bonds to much
weaker hydrogen bonds. They also observed that the
strength and stiffness of sandstones are related to grain
123
 Author's personal copy
contact area. Hadizadeh and Law [26] performed an
extensive research on the uniaxial strength and stiffness of
Pennant sandstones of UK. Inherent microstructural fea-
tures, such as the geometry of the grain boundaries, pore
spaces, grainmatrix relation, i.e., presence or absence of
clayey matrix, were found to influence the strength of
rocks. A number of experimental studies later concluded
that weaker rocks are more sensitive to the change in water
content [28]. Shakoor and Barefield [60], however,
observed that even stronger sandstones with a lower water
absorption capacity showed a trend of consistent linear
reduction in uniaxial compressive strength with increasing
degree of saturation. Alternate wetting and drying has also
been recognized to have a weakening effect on the rock
strength and modulus. Burshtein [9] observed that alternate
wetting and drying caused structural changes in sandstones
which reduced the cement quality and weakened the
intergranular bonds, hence reducing the Youngs modulus
of the rock. The influence of moisture on the mechanical
behavior of ferruginous sandstone was researched by
Verstrynge et al. [73]. Presence of clay, pore and grain size
distribution, and continuity of the binder (limonite) were
some of the key factors affecting the strength reduction due
to water saturation in ferruginous sandstones.
4.1.1.2 Shale/mudstone Jumikis [34] found that the
compressive strength of shale in the saturated state was one
order of magnitude lower than that of the dry state. Van
Eeckhout and Peng [69] and Van Eeckhout [68] carried out
a lot of studies on coal mine shales, which revealed that the
water-related strength reduction was due to a combination
of factors such as stress corrosion, capillary tension
decrease, pore water pressure increase, loss of grain-to-
grain contact area, and chemical and corrosive deteriora-
tion. The research by Anwar et al. [1]; Gutierrez et al. [25];
Silva et al. [62]; Lin et al. [40] on shales (as well as chalk
and sandstones) revealed that a number of wetting cycles
dissolved some minerals like calcite and chlorite in the
rock matrix, which in turn increased the porosity, and
hence a reduction in strength. The loss of strength was
found to be more pronounced in clay-rich rocks than in
quartz-rich rocks. Lashkaripour and Ajalloeian [39] studied
the effect of water content on the mechanical behavior of
fine-grained sedimentary rocks including mudstones, mud
shales, and clay shales. They found that these rocks suf-
fered from more than 90 % reduction in strength and 84 %
reduction in modulus on saturation. They also reported a
negative exponential relation between UCS and water
content. Jiang et al. [33] in their experimental study
reported that UCS of the mudstone samples decreased from
45 MPa for the dry state to 5 MPa when saturated by being
immersed in water for 1 month. According to their
experimental findings, assisted by scanning electron
123
Acta Geotechnica
microscopy and X-ray diffraction techniques, they pro-
posed the following three-step water-weakening mecha-
nisms of mudstone: (1) micro-sized discontinuities provide
an initial path for water to invade the rock; (2) the incursive
water induces volumetric swelling of clay minerals and
dissolution of carbonate; and (3) these effects drive the
propagation and connection of cracks. Ewy [19] studied
swelling/shrinkage in clay-rich shales due to changes in
relative humidity (suction) and due to direct fluid contact.
Under varying total suction, shale shows well-defined
relationships among suction, volume change, water con-
tent, and saturation. The results also showed that the lower-
porosity shales underwent less volume and water content
change than the higher-porosity shales.
4.1.1.3 Limestone Vasarhelyi [71] studied the influence
of water content on the strength of the Miocene limestone,
which suffered from a maximum of 74 % reduction in
uniaxial compressive strength and 53 % reduction in
modulus due to saturation. He observed that the UCS of
Miocene limestone increases exponentially with the rock
density. In 2010 Torok and Vasarhelyi [65] researched the
influence of fabric and water content on the mechanical
parameters of two travertine rocks from Hungry. They
observed that UCS of travertine increases exponentially
with the increase in rock density. They also found a neg-
ative exponential relationship between UCS and effective
porosity. Massive travertine with less porosity has a higher
UCS, while more porous laminated travertine has a lower
UCS. Studying the petrophysical and mechanical proper-
ties of Struganik limestone, Gajic et al. [20] reported a
10 % decrease in UCS due to saturation. They also noted
that the UCS reduction in Struganik limestone was only
5 % after 25 freezethaw cycles. According to them, such a
low reduction in UCS was due to the low interparticle and
intraframe (intraskeletal) porosity in Struganik limestone.
Rajabzadeh et al. [56] reported a 70 % reduction in UCS
due to saturation for their studied limestone obtained from
Fars Province, southern Iran.
4.1.1.4 Other sedimentary rock types Obert et al. [49]
reported small changes in compressive strength of six
different types of mine rocks as the water content varied.
Their study was supplemented by a determination of pet-
rographic and physical properties. Erguler and Ulusay [18]
researched the water-induced changes in the mechanical
properties of clay-bearing rocks of siltstone, mud stone,
and marl. They reported that UCS and E values of these
rocks reduce exponentially with increase in water content.
Their research concluded that due to saturation, clay-rich
rocks suffered from a more than 80 % reduction in strength
and modulus. Yilmaz [78] studied the influence of water
content on the UCS and E of the gypsum specimens taken
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica
from various locations in the Sivas basin. The evolution of
pore pressure with growth of micro-cracks and the effect of
pore pressure on mechanical behavior of saturated Meuse
Haute/Marne claystone were studied by Hu et al. [30].
Karakul and Ulusay [35] proposed some empirical cor-
relations between strength properties and P-wave velocity
under different degrees of saturation. Fourteen different
rock types mainly of sedimentary or volcanic origin were
collected from Turkey. The ignimbrite rock tested for UCS
showed the highest variation of about 75 % due to satu-
ration. Among the other rocks in the group, ignimbrite rock
had the highest porosity of about 27.8 % and clay content
of about 63.5 %. They concluded that the variation in the
strength and stiffness properties with increasing degree of
saturation was closely associated with the porosity and clay
content.
A tentative rule of thumb for a quantitative estimation of
the UCS reduction in saturated rocks was proposed by
Romana and Vasarhelyi [57] based on a compilation of the
data published from 1990 to 2006. UCS loss percentage
due to water saturation for 12 different rock types was
studied. Most of these were sedimentary rocks with a few
rocks of igneous origin. According to them, the ratio of
saturated UCS to dry UCS for well-indurated strong rocks
falls between 0.8 and 0.9, whereas it is between 0.6 and 0.7
for medium strength cemented rocks, and 0.3 for soft
argillaceous rocks.
4.1.2 Igneous rocks and metamorphic rocks
In a study on 116 American granite rocks, Kessler et al.
[36] observed that the compressive strengths of wet
specimens were about 12 % lower than those of dry
specimens on average. A study on other rock types
including basalt, granite, and gneiss by Ruiz [58] iden-
tified a similar loss of rock strength upon saturation.
Compared with sedimentary rocks, the strength reduc-
tion due to water is less severe in most igneous and
metamorphic rocks [26, 38]. However, due to the water-
weakening effect, a 40 % reduction in UCS was
observed in diabase [63], whereas a 288 % reduction in
strength was observed in tuffs [11, 18, 70]. Celik et al.
[10] evaluated the degradation effect of water on the
physical and mechanical properties of tuff. UCS test was
conducted on dry, saturated, and also tuff specimens
after exposing to freezethaw cycles. UCS reduced by
44 % after saturation and 33.8 % after freezethaw
cycles.
4.1.3 Compilation and analysis of literature numeric data
A close examination of the literature reveals that the
reported laboratory data were sometimes associated with a
single test specimen, a range or an average of a group of
specimens belonging to the same rock type. Some studies
calculated and provided the strength and/or modulus
reduction percentages, while some did not.
In addition to the general review presented in
Sects. 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, the present study also compiles and
reanalyzes the numeric data on water-weakening effects on
rock properties published from 1940 to 2014 in detail. The
data are first grouped according to rock types, of which the
percentage reduction in the mechanical properties such as
UCS, Youngs modulus (E), and TS due to water saturation
are computed and compiled as shown in Appendix 1.
Due to the complex nature of data compilation and
different data presentation styles among the references, a
flowchart is developed to facilitate the present data
manipulation (Fig. 2). Those references which report the
UCS, E, and/or TS loss due to water saturation in per-
centages are first sorted. Among them, most of the UCS, E,
and/or TS loss percentages are found to refer to either those
of an individual specimen or average values of a few tested
specimens belonging to the same rock type. In the former
case, the corresponding maximum and minimum
UCS, E, and/or TS loss percentages are identified and
reported in Appendix 1. For the latter case, the UCS, E,
and/or TS loss percentages are reported as average
values in Appendix 1. When a particular reported value
in the literature is not specified whether it is an average
value of a few specimens or an individual specimen value,
the UCS, E, and/or TS loss percentage is also reported as
an average value in Appendix 1.
The references which do not explicitly calculate and
specify the UCS, E, and/or TS loss percentages, but report
the dry and saturated values for UCS, E, and/or TS of
various rock types instead are treated separately for anal-
ysis. Similar to the above analysis, the given dry and sat-
urated values are found to correspond to either individual
specimen values or average values of a few specimens. In
the former case, the UCS, E, and/or TS loss percentage for
each individual specimen will be calculated according to
the steps shown in Fig. 3 (steps 14). Afterward, the
maximum and minimum loss values are identified and
reported in Appendix 1, For the latter case, the UCS, E,
and/or TS loss percentage based on average value is cal-
culated in a similar manner (step 1 and step 2 in Fig. 3).
The result is then reported as an average value in Ap-
pendix 1. The references which do not specify both the
dry and saturated values for UCS, E, and/or TS are not
considered for further analysis.
To better reveal the extent of UCS loss (%) and E loss
(%), a further analysis is performed on the data in Ap-
pendix 1. This is done by tabulating the frequency dis-
tributions of UCS and E loss percentages and plotting them
in histograms for different rock types. Twelve rock types
123
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica

Rock type

Igneous Metamorphic Sedimentary

Yes No
UCS or E loss
percentage given?

UCS or E loss UCS or E loss

No No
percentage given is percentage given is
average value of multiple individual specimen
specimens? value?
Yes Dry and saturated No
values for UCS or E
specified?
Yes Yes
Note as a special case in
Appendix 1 in which authors
Note the UCS or E loss Note the UCS or E loss
did not explicitly specify the Individual Not considered
percentage given as an percentage given as No Average value No
given UCS or E loss specimen values for further
average value of multiple individual specimen given?
percentage is average value given? analysis
specimens in Appendix 1 value in Appendix 1
of multiple specimens or
individual specimen value
Yes Yes
Report maximum
Report percentage
and minimum
loss as average
percentage loss Calculate percentage
value Calculate percentage
values loss and report
loss and report
average value maximum and
minimum values

Fig. 2 Flowchart showing the step-by-step procedures of compiling and re-analyzing the literature data as shown in Appendix 1

are selected based on the availability and copiousness of
the literature data. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, one fre-
quency count represents one specimen of a particular rock
type investigated in a previous study. Another flowchart
(Fig. 4) is developed to facilitate the derivation of fre-
quency distributions of UCS and E losses for different rock
types. As mentioned earlier, in most of the literature
referred in this paper, the reported UCS and E losses cor-
respond to either one particular test specimen or average
values of a group of specimens belonging to the same rock
type. In the first case, the total number of specimens falling
under a particular range of UCS and E loss is taken as its
frequency. In the second case, the total number of speci-
mens tested for each rock type to derive such average
values is taken as the frequency for a particular range of
UCS and E loss. When the number of specimens is not
specified in the original literature data source, the relevant
data are excluded from the present frequency count. The
present literature review reveals that UCS test is the most
popular test in the previous researches studying the water-
weakening effects on rocks as compared with other testing
methods. In addition, sedimentary rocks, in particular
sandstone and limestone, are the most commonly studied
rock types as compared with igneous rocks and metamor-
phic rocks.
In Figs. 5 and 6, the percentage distributions of UCS
loss (%) and E loss (%) are plotted to facilitate the analysis
of the water-weakening effects on different rock types.
From Fig. 5, the following features concerning water
effects on UCS can be observed.

123
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica

Step 2:
Calculate
Step 1: UCS loss (%)
Tabulate dry and
saturated values
for UCS

Step 4:
Tabulate the
frequency
distribution for
each range of
UCS loss

Step 3:
Identify maximum
and minimum
Data grouped loss percentages
based on rock e.g. 88.7 and
type
44.7

Fig. 3 Step-by-step procedures of tabulating and calculating UCS loss percentages from the literature data

Table 2 Frequency distribution of UCS loss (%) for different rock types
Type of rock Frequency distribution of UCS loss (%)a Total count
010 1020 2030 3040 4050 5060 6070 7080 8090 90100

Sedimentary
Sandstone 8 19 66 47 52 21 9 22 14 0 258
Shale 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 6
Siltstone 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 6
Mudstone 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 4 6 1 18
Marl 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 8
Limestone 21 42 11 22 9 7 1 4 0 0 117
Coal 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
Igneous
Granite 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
Tuff 3 3 6 3 9 2 6 2 3 0 37
Diabase 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8
Metamorphic
Marble 0 0 0 3 0 3 4 0 0 0 10
Slate 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Total 503
a
Refer to Appendix 1 for details

123
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica

Table 3 Frequency distribution of E loss (%) for different rock types

Type of rock Frequency distribution of E loss (%)a Total count
010 1020 2030 3040 4050 5060 6070 7080 8090 90100

Sedimentary
Sandstone 8 12 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 24
Shale 2 0 0 0 4 9 4 2 2 0 23
Siltstone 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 5
Mudstone 0 0 1 0 4 1 2 1 3 1 13
Marl 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5
Limestone 8 5 7 10 6 2 0 0 0 0 38
Coal 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Igneous
Granite 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tuff 4 2 4 1 1 2 4 4 3 0 25
Diabase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Metamorphic
Marble 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Slate 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Total 149
a
Refer to Appendix 1 for details

Number of Yes
specimens tested for
UCS/E specified in
data source?

No UCS/E value No
UCS/E value
given is average
given is individual
value of few
specimen value?
specimens?
No

Yes Yes

Frequency = total number Frequency = cumulative

Data excluded from
of specimens in each range count of specimens in
frequency count
of UCS/E loss each range of UCS/E loss

Fig. 4 Flowchart showing the procedures of deriving UCS and E loss frequency distribution for different rock types

123
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica

(a) 100 (b) 100

80 80
Percentage

Percentage
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
UCS Loss (%) UCS Loss (%)

(c) 100 (d) 100

80 80
Percentage

Percentage
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
UCS Loss (%) UCS Loss (%)

(e) 100 (f) 100

80 80
Percentage

Percentage

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
UCS Loss (%) UCS Loss (%)

(g) 100 (h) 100

80 80
Percentage
Percentage

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
UCS Loss (%) UCS Loss (%)

Fig. 5 Histograms showing UCS loss percentages for different rock types a sandstone, b shale, c siltstone, d mudstone, e marl, f limestone,
g coal, h granite, i tuff, j diabase, k marble, l slate

123
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica

(i) 100 (j) 100

80 80
Percentage

Percentage
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
UCS Loss (%) UCS Loss (%)

(k) 100 (l) 100

80 80
Percentage

Percentage
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
UCS Loss (%) UCS Loss (%)

Fig. 5 continued

1. Compared with igneous and metamorphic rocks Similarly from Fig. 6, the following features concerning
(Fig. 5hl), sedimentary rocks usually experience water effects on E of the study rocks can be observed.
higher UCS losses (Fig. 5af).
1. Among the sedimentary rocks, most of sandstone
2. Among the sedimentary rocks, the UCS losses have a
samples (Fig. 6a) have E losses less than 20 %. For
normal (bell-shaped) distribution in sandstone
limestone (Fig. 6f), all of the E losses are less than
(Fig. 5a) with a mean of around 40 % and a positively
60 %.
skewed distribution in limestone (Fig. 5f). Almost all
2. The other sedimentary rocks of shale, siltstone,
of the studied shale, siltstone, mudstone, and marl
mudstone, and marl usually display higher E losses
(Fig. 5be) have UCS losses larger than 40 %.
(Fig. 6be). E losses in shale (Fig. 6b) exhibit a
3. The UCS losses of coal fall in a narrow range between
normal distribution with a mean of around 50 %.
10 and 30 % (Fig. 5g).
Some of the E losses in mudstone can reach as high as
4. For the three studied igneous rocks, the UCS losses
90100 % (Fig. 6d).
have an almost uniform distribution in tuff (Fig. 4i).
3. The E losses of coal range between 30 and 40 %
UCS losses in granite (Fig. 5h) are all less than
(Fig. 6g).
10 % and those in diabase (Fig. 5j) are within
4. For the studied igneous rocks, E loss data are
4050 %.
unavailable for granites (Fig. 6h) and diabase (Fig. 6j).
5. For the metamorphic rocks studied, the UCS losses in
The E losses in tuff (Fig. 6i) have an almost uniform
marble (Fig. 5k) span from 30 to 70 %, whereas slate
distribution.
(Fig. 5l) samples exhibit a positively skewed distribu-
tion with a mode of around 1020 %.

123
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica

(a) 100 (b) 100

80 80
Percentage

Percentage
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
E Loss (%) E Loss (%)

(c) 100 (d) 100

80 80
Percentage

Percentage
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
E Loss (%) E Loss (%)

(e) 100 (f) 100

80 80
Percentage

Percentage

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
E Loss (%) E Loss (%)

(g) 100 (h) 100

80 80
Percentage

Percentage

60 60
Data not available
40 40

20 20

0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
E Loss (%) E Loss (%)

Fig. 6 Histograms showing E loss percentages for different rock types a sandstone, b shale, c siltstone, d mudstone, e marl, f limestone, g coal,
h granite, i tuff, j diabase, k marble, l slate

123
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica

(i) 100 (j) 100

80 80
Percentage

Percentage
60 60
Data not available
40 40

20 20

0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
E Loss (%) E Loss (%)

(k) 100 (l) 100

80 80
Percentage

Percentage
60 60
Data not available
40 40

20 20

0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
E Loss (%) E Loss (%)

Fig. 6 continued

5. For the metamorphic rocks, E loss data are unavailable 4.2.1 Sedimentary rocks
for marble (Fig. 6k). The E losses in slate (Fig. 6l) are
all below 30 %. 4.2.1.1 Sandstone Burshtein [9] identified that the effect
of moisture is significant in affecting the tensile strength of
Sangar and Arkagala sandstones. Dube and Singh [16]
4.2 Tensile strength of rocks
studied the effect of environmental humidity on the tensile
strength of five different types of sandstones. They reported
The research of water-weakening effect on the tensile
an 11.648.6 % decrease in strength for sandstones under
strength of rock is less extensive than that on the com-
fully saturated atmosphere. The tensile strength reduction
pressive strength (Appendix 1). Most of such tensile
in sandstones was found to depend on porosity, percentage
strength research focused on sandstone and limestone, with
of matrix, and presence of clay minerals. Ojo and Brook
some studies on other rock types. The tensile strength
[51] investigated the effect of moisture on the tensile
reported in the following sections was determined by using
strength of Low Close and Woodkirk sandstones. They
the Brazilian disk test except for the study by Anwar et al.
found that the tensile strength of saturated sandstone
[1] in which they conducted uniaxial direct tensile strength
reduced by 50 %. While researching the strength properties
test. Besides, the type of testing was not specified in the
of different Turkish rocks, Karakul and Ulusay [35]
study by Burshtein [9].
observed a 63 % reduction in tensile strength for saturated

123
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica

Turkish sandstones. According to them, the decreasing
trend of tensile strength with the degree of saturation was
similar to that observed in UCS.
4.2.1.2 Limestone Parate [52] studied the effect of water
on limestone. According to his study, the strength loss was
due to a reduction in the cohesive strength, which in turn
was dependent on the free surface energy. Vutukuri [74]
explored the effect of water as well as other liquids on the
tensile strength of limestone, which was found to reduce
exponentially with the dielectric constant and surface ten-
sion of the saturating liquids (Table 4).
Vasarhelyi [71] established a linear relationship between
dry tensile strength and saturated tensile strength of Mio-
cene limestone. He also observed that the tensile strength
and density of the Miocene limestone was exponentially
related.
4.2.2 Other rock types
Anwar et al. [1] found that the mechanical properties of
coal measure rocks deteriorated significantly due to the
presence of water. Erguler and Ulusay [18] found that the
tensile strength and water content of clay-bearing rocks
like siltstones, mudstones, and marl were exponentially
related. They also found that these saturated rocks suf-
fered from more than 90 % reduction in tensile strength as
compared with the dry ones. Water-weakening effect on
the Brazilian tensile strength was experimentally inves-
tigated by Wong and Jong [77] on gypsum specimens.
They observed that the presence of water lowers the
tensile strength and has significant effects on the cracking
behavior of the gypsum specimens. Gholami and Rasouli
[23] researched the effect of water and inherent aniso-
tropy on the Brazilian tensile strength of slate. They
observed a 21 % reduction in tensile strength due to water
saturation.
4.3 Influence of bedding/foliation and water content
Many rocks exhibit inherent anisotropy in the form of
bedding, stratification, layering, foliation, fissuring, or
jointing. The mechanical properties of these rocks vary
with directions. A number of research studies have been
carried out to reveal the influence of anisotropy on the
strength properties in rocks under quasi-static loading [4, 5,
12, 21, 22, 4548, 59]. However, only few studies consider
the combined effects of both water and anisotropy. Some of
the classic researches which consider the effect of both
factors on the UCS, E, and TS of mainly sedimentary and
metamorphic rocks are summarized in Table 5 and
described below.
The effect of water on the elastic modulus of aniso-
tropic shales was studied by Van Eeckhout and Peng
[69]. White and Mazurkiewicz [76] observed in bitumi-
nous coal that the reduction in uniaxial compressive
strength and modulus was higher when the bedding
orientation was parallel to the loading direction as
compared with the perpendicular orientation. A similar
observation was reported by Zhang et al. [79] when they
studied the strength and deformational responses of
schistose rocks in uniaxial compression and indirect

Table 4 Tensile strength values of limestone saturated in various liquids [74]

Liquid Dielectric Surface tension Mean tensile Percentage standard
constant (dynes/cm) strength (MPa) deviation

Water 80 72.5 28.2 8

Glycerine 43 63.4 32.2 13.4
Ethylene glycol 41 47.7 31.7 12.8
Nitro-benzene 36 43.9 38.2 6.6
Ethyl alcohol 27 22.75 37.1 8.9
Benzaldehyde 18 40.04 33.3 13.3
n-Butyl alcohol 8 24.6 37.9 9.0

123
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica

Table 5 Reduction in the mechanical properties of different rock types due to anisotropy and water saturation
Rock Tests performed Porosity UCS loss (%) E loss (%) TS loss (%) References
(%)
b
0 45 90 0 45 90 0 45 90

Beatrice mine Compression test 1.03.0 N.A. 61.5 74.7 59.5 N.A. Van Eeckhout and Peng
shale [69]
Matthews mine 59.0 N.A. 54.9
shale
Armco mine 9.5 49.4 49.5
shale
Bituminous coal UCS N.A. 21.1 N.A. 12.2 34.3 N.A. 31.1 N.A. White and Mazurkiewicz
[76]
Quartz mica UCS, Brazilian, 1.3 70.9 N.A. 31.3 64.2 N.A. 45.3 N.A. Zhang et al. [79]
schist Triaxial
Slate UCS, Brazilian, 0.35 6.0 27.0 12.0 7.0 28.0 4.0 17.4 14.9 7.4 Gholami and Rasouli
Triaxial [23]
b is the angle between the foliation plane and the direction of maximum applied stress
N.A. data not available

Table 6 Elastic modulus of granite specimens under different strain rates [41]
Strain rate (s-1) Elastic moduli of granite with moderate to fine grain (GPa)
Oven-dried Water-saturated
-6
10 63.5 75.7
10-1 72.5 82.1
-2
10 84 93
3
Average void ratio is 0.5 %, average density for dry and wet specimens are 2.818 and 2.828 g/cm respectively

tension under different schistose orientations. The
effects of water and inherent foliation anisotropy on
UCS, TS, and E in slate were comprehensively resear-
ched by Gholami and Rasouli [23]. A 27 % reduction in
UCS was observed in wet slate for b = 45, where b is
defined as the angle between the foliation plane and the
direction of maximum applied stress. They concluded
that the maximum strength reduction occurred as b
reached 3040.
4.4 Dynamic compressive strength and modulus
of rock
Since the late 1960 s, the water effect on the dynamic
strength of rock began to draw attention. Podio et al.
[53] performed some investigations on the dynamic
elastic properties of Green River shale under dry and
water-saturated conditions using ultrasonic techniques.
They found that the water saturation increased the
compressional wave velocity and decreased the shear
wave velocity, while the effects of saturation were more
pronounced on shear wave velocity than on compres-
sional wave velocity.
Lou [41] studied the stressstrain relations of oven-dried
and water-saturated granite using split Hopkinson pressure
bar (SHPB) experiment and reported that the elastic mod-
ulus of oven-dried granite was slightly lower than that of
water-saturated granite (Table 6). He thus concluded that
the stiffness of granite is affected not only by strain rate but
also by water content.

123
 Table 7 Relationship between strength and various parameters proposed by various authors
Strength and deformation
Internal and external factors investigated Type of relationship
Rock parameters investigated
Degree Author & Year
type Tensile Young's Rock Water Moisture Water Surface Dielectric Strain Negative Negative
Triaxial UCS Porosity of Power Exponential Linear
strength modulus Density content content absorption tension constant rate power exponential
saturation
Acta Geotechnica

Vutukuri [74]
Limestone

Vasarhelyi [71]
Hawkins and
McConnell [28]
Ogata et al [50]
Sandstone

Lin et al [40]

Erguler and Ulusay

Siltstone
[18]

Lashkaripour and
Ajalloeian [39]

Mudstone
Erguler and Ulusay
Author's personal copy

[18]

123
 Table 7 continued
Strength and deformation
Internal and external factors investigated Type of relationship
Rock parameters investigated Author &

123
Degree
type Tensile Young's Rock Water Moisture Water Surface Dielectric Strain Negative Negative Year
Triaxial UCS Porosity of Power Exponential Linear
strength modulus Density content content absorption tension constant rate power exponential
saturation
Lashkaripour
Mudshale and Ajalloeian
[39]
Lashkaripour
Clayshale and Ajalloeian
[39]

Erguler and
Marl
Ulusay [18]

Turk and
Porphyrite
Dearman [66]

Turk and
Dearman [66]
Andesite

Koji Masuda
[43]

Koji Masuda
Author's personal copy

[43]
Granite

Ogata et al [50]

Vasarhelyi [70]
Tuff
Ogata et al [50]
Acta Geotechnica
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica
Wang et al. [75] studied the dynamic strength of sandstone
by SHPB test under air-dried and water-saturated conditions.
They found that the sensitivity of the dynamic compressive
strength of water-saturated sandstone to strain rate is more
notable than that of air-dried sandstone. Compared with the
static compression results, the dynamic yield stress of water-
saturated sandstone was reported to increase by two times,
while the shape of the dynamic stressstrain curve for both
air-dried and water-saturated sandstone was similar. At the
same medium strain rate of 56 s-1, the dynamic yield stress
of water-saturated sandstone was slightly higher than that of
air-dried sandstone, but no appreciable difference between
dynamic and static uniaxial compressive strengths of the air-
dried sandstone was found. The influence of saturation on the
dynamic damage (failure) patterns was also examined in their
investigations. Sun et al. [64] conducted a quantitative anal-
ysis of macroscopic plastic volumetric response caused by
pore collapse and grain rearrangement using finite element
analysis. They also researched the fully coupled hydrome-
chanical response of water-saturated limestone subjected to
various loadings rates.
4.5 Dynamic tensile strength of rock
Lou [41] investigated the dynamic tensile strength of oven-
dried and water-saturated granite by using the SHPB
technique at a strain rate ranging from 1.9 9 10-8 to
1.0 9 102 s-1. He concluded that the dynamic tensile
strength of granite is sensitive to strain rate under both dry
and wet conditions, particularly for water-saturated gran-
ites which are more sensitive to strain rate than that of dry
specimens.
Ogata et al. [50] studied the effect of water saturation on
dynamic tensile strength of different rocks. They found that
water saturation decreased the dynamic tensile strength in
Kimachi sandstone and Tage tuff, both of which have a
high porosity. On the other hand, no significant difference
was recognized in Inada granite, porosity of which is as
low as 0.49 %. They speculated that the reduction in
dynamic tensile strength is due to the decrease in the
coefficient of friction between the molecules, which in turn
decreased the bonding forces of rocks. Similarly, Huang
et al. [31] conducted both static and dynamic tensile test on
Longyou sandstone under dry and fully saturated condi-
tions. They found that the percentage loss in dynamic
tensile strength due to water saturation decreases with the
increase of strain rate (10-4, 29, 50 GPa s-1). However,
the percentage of strength reduction varied. A higher
loading rate led to a lower percentage strength loss.
5 Discussion
Abundant experimental studies reveal that the reduction in
rock strength and modulus depends on not only water
content but also other internal and external factors. The
internal factors include porosity, density, and fabric. The
key external factors including strain rate, surface tension,
and dielectric constant of the saturating liquid, absorption
percentage, and suction pressure also play a significant
role. Table 7 summarizes the major types of relationship
established among different parameters, from which the
following can be concluded.
A negative exponential and/or negative power relation-
ship is observed between rock strength/modulus and
water content (degree of saturation, moisture content,
water absorption).
An exponential and/or power relationship is observed
between UCS and rock density. As the rock density
increases, the UCS also increases.
A negative power relationship is observed between
UCS and porosity. This substantiates the reason for low
UCS values obtained for porous rocks.
An exponential relationship is observed between TS
and surface tension and dielectric constant of the
saturating liquid.
A power and/or linear relationship is observed between
rock strength and strain rate.
Some researchers observed that wetting of the specimen
results in a change of deformation mode. For example,
strong varieties of sandstones exhibit axial cleavage failure
in dry state, which changes to shear failure or a combina-
tion of shear failure and axial cleavage when saturated.
They also observed that weaker varieties of sandstones
123
 Author's personal copy
which failed by shear in dry state underwent a combination
of shear and cataclasis when encountered with water [28].
Intergranular micro-fracturing is more intense in wet
sedimentary rocks, due to an increased strength disparity
between the cement and the framework grains, resulting in
the rolling of grains along failure planes as opposed to
fracturing through the grains [28, 40].
6 Conclusions
Water-weakening effects on rocks have always been a
major research topic due to the high practical values. This
review paper focuses on two aspects. In the first part,
definitions of various terminologies used in characterizing
the amount of water present in a rock specimen are
reviewed and summarized. One should be aware that for a
particular term, such as water absorption, more than one
definition may be available, although the rationale behind
various definitions is the same. The differences are gen-
erally associated with the procedures to obtain the dry
mass, wet mass, and the duration of water saturation. It is
thus very important for researchers to always provide clear
definitions for the related terms in their publications. It is of
equal importance for researchers to pay attention to the
relevant definitions while using and comparing data in the
literature.
The second part of this paper, which covers publications
as early as in the 1940 s, focuses on the strength and
123
Acta Geotechnica
modulus degradation of rocks in the presence of water. Due
to the inconsistent ways of reporting the laboratory data in
the literature, the present review develops two flowcharts to
facilitate a systematic review and compilation of the lit-
erature data. The results, which are presented in bar charts
and tables, reveal the variation of water-weakening effects
on different rock types. The review further reveals that
water content is the most significant, but not the only factor
leading to rock strength and modulus reduction. The water
content effect is generally more severe in sedimentary
rocks than in igneous and metamorphic rocks. Other
internal factors such as porosity, density, and fabric, as well
as external factors such as strain rate, surface tension, and
dielectric constant of the saturating liquid, absorption
percentage, and suction pressure have also been identified
and studied in the past experimental studies. The correla-
tion relationships established among various parameters
are reviewed in this paper.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Under-
ground Technology and Rock Engineering (UTRE) Phase II research
program funded by the Defence Science and Technology Agency
(DSTA), and the Singapore Academic Research Fund Tier 1 Grant
(RG112/14).
Appendix 1
See Table 8.
 Table 8 Reduction in the mechanical properties of different rocks due to water saturation
UCS Loss % E Loss % Tensile strength Loss % Loading Rate
SI Porosity Water saturation
Rock description Tests Performed Stress Rate Strain Rate Authors
No. (%) Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg method
(MPa/s) (s-1)
Sedimentary Rocks
Acta Geotechnica

Markham Sandstone 6 N.A

Parkgate rock Sandstone 10 45 Air dry (moisture
1* UCS N.A N.A N.A 0.7 N.A Price [54]
Pennant Sandstone 2.5 45 content 38-62%)
Darley Dale Sandstone 19.5 45
Boise Sandstone 26.5 15.1 Water saturated
2* Berea Sandstone Compression test 20.5 N.A N.A 6.33 N.A 0.12 N.A using vacuum Mann and Fatt [42]
Bandera Sandstone 20 19 dessicator
Quartzitic Shale 0.3 50
3* UCS, Triaxial N.A N.A N.A 0.69 N.A Water saturated Colback and Wiid [13]
Quartzitic Sandstone 15 50
Different relative
4* Sandstone Brazilian 0.7-3.2 N.A N.A 48.6 11 N.A N.A N.A Dube and Singh [16]
humidities
Water saturated
Brazilian,
5# Limestone 4 N.A 37.5 N.A N.A 16.7 N.A N.A using vacuum Parate [52]
compression tests
dessicator
Beatrice Mine Shale 74.7 59.5
Different relative
6* Matthews Mine Shale Compression test 1-3.0 N.A 59 55 N.A N.A N.A N.A Van Eeckhout and Peng [69]
humidities
Armco Mine Shale 49.5 9.5
Water saturated
UCS, Brazilian,
7* Fell Sandstone 6.5-20.7 53 8.2 N.A N.A N.A 0.07 N.A using vacuum Bell [6]
Point load
dessicator
Water saturated
N.A -5
8* Bituminous coal UCS N.A 21.09 12.2 N.A 34.31 31.08 N.A N.A 1 x 10 (moisture content White and Mazurkiewicz [76]
12%)
Low Close Sandstone 37.5 N.A 51
UCS, Tensile
9* N.A N.A N.A N.A Water saturated Ojo and Brook [51]
strength, Point load
Woodkirk Sandstone 37.5 N.A
430 to
10# Sandstone UCS 1.49 N.A 45 N.A 36 N.A N.A N.A Hadizadeh and Law [26]
6.1x10-3
Author's personal copy

waterstone 22.3 36.8 30.8

# Different relative
11 Bunter sandstone UCS 21.1 N.A 20.8 N.A 25 N.A N.A Dyke and Dobereiner [17]
humidities
Penrith sandstone 12.3 23 11
12@ British sandstones UCS N.A 78.1 8.2 N.A 70 2.5 N.A N.A N.A Water saturated Hawkins and McConnell [28]
Sandy Shale-1 75 94 83
Sandy Shale-2 81 66.7 80
# UCS, uniaxial tensile
13 Shale (Non-laminated) N.A N.A 67 N.A 73 N.A 75 N.A Water saturated Anwar et al [1]
strength
Shale (laminated) 68 75 89
Sandstone 51 45 41

123
 Table 8 continued
UCS Loss % E Loss % Tensile strength Loss % Loading Rate
SI Porosity Water saturation
Rock description Tests Performed Stress Rate Strain Rate Authors
No. (%) method

123
Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg -1
(MPa/s) (s )
Sedimentary Rocks
Mudstone 93.4
@
14 Mud Shale UCS N.A 90.4 N.A 84 N.A N.A N.A Water saturated Lashkaripour & Ajalloeian [39]
Clay Shale 94
@ N.A
15 Miocene Limestone UCS, Brazilian 11-52.2 74 2 N.A 53 0 N.A 77 0 N.A Water saturated Vasarhelyi [71]
Water saturated
16* Sandstone UCS 11.5-24.6 86 16 N.A 60 57 N.A N.A 0.08 N.A using vacuum Lin et al [40]
dessicator
Water saturated
# N.A N.A
17 Beringen Shale UCS 2.4-7.5 80 60 N.A N.A using vacuum Silva et al [62]
dessicator
18* Sandstone UCS 4.1-12.7 70 20 N.A N.A N.A N.A Water saturated Shakoor and Barefield [60]
Siltstone 5.3-42.1 90.2 56 N.A 87.5 35 N.A 95.5 42.9 N.A
Water saturated
UCS, Brazilian,
19* Mudstone 2.1-48.1 88.7 44.7 N.A 93 20 N.A 93.1 29 N.A N.A using vacuum Erguler and Ulusay [18]
Needle penetration
dessicator
Marl 6.1-53.9 81.4 61.2 N.A 76.5 57.1 N.A 91.7 19.6 N.A
20# Gypsum UCS 6.9 N.A 64 N.A 53 N.A N.A Water saturated Ik Yilmaz [78]
21@ Travertine UCS 2.1-13.1 31.81 0.74 N.A N.A N.A 0.5-1 N.A Water saturated Torok and Vasarhelyi [65]
# Multi staged Direct
22 Sandstone N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A Naghadehi et al [44]
shear test
23# Longyou Sandstone UCS, SHPB 17 N.A 51.6 N.A N.A 200 N/s N.A Water saturated Huang et al [31]
24* Struganik limestone UCS 1.1-3.3 N.A 10 N.A N.A N.A Water saturated Gajic et al [20]
@ N.A N.A N.A
25 Limestone UCS 0.15-9.7 71 15 N.A Water saturated Rajabzadeh et al [56]
Sandstone 2.7-16.2 63 Water saturated
#
26 Brazilian N.A N.A N.A N.A using vacuum Karakul and Ulusay [35]
Limestone 0.5-15.4 16 dessicator
27* Gypsum Brazilian N.A N.A N.A 52.4 N.A 0.1 kN/s N.A Water saturated Wong and Jong [77]
Brusselian ferruginous
21-30 40 N.A Water saturated
sandstone UCS, controlled
28* N.A N.A N.A 1 mm/min using vacuum Verstrynge et al [73]
Author's personal copy

Diestian ferruginous creep test

22-45 59 50 N.A dessicator
sandstone
Water mist, water
29* Mudstone UCS N.A N.A 89 N.A N.A N.A Jiang et al [33]
saturated
Acta Geotechnica
 Table 8 continued
UCS Loss % E Loss % Tensile strength Loss % Loading Rate
SI Porosity Water saturation
Rock description Tests Performed Stress Rate Strain Rate Authors
No. (%) Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg method
(MPa/s) (s-1)
Igneous Rocks
Acta Geotechnica

1* Granites Compression test 0.4 - 3.8 N.A 12 N.A N.A 0.7 N.A N.A Kessler et al [36]
0.8
2* Diabase UCS N.A N.A 40 N.A N.A N.A Water saturated Simpson and Fergus [63]
mm/min
Water saturated
Compression test,
3* Granite N.A N.A 2 N.A 0 N.A 1 N.A using vacuum Lajtai et al [38]
Double-Torsion test
dessicator
Rhyolite Tuff 77.6 2.5 83.3 2.98
4* Andesite Tuff UCS N.A 49 17.2 N.A 50.8 2.7 N.A N.A N.A Water saturated Vasarhelyi [70]
Basalt Tuff 54.3 2.4 43.06 12.5
# N.A N.A N.A N.A
5 Tuff UCS 20.5 - 43 32 N.A Chen et al [11]
Water saturated
6* Tuff UCS, Brazilian 26.1-33.6 87.6 80.3 N.A 88.9 78.6 N.A 94.4 N.A N.A using vacuum Erguler and Ulusay [18]
dessicator
Ignimbrite 23.7-27.8 N.A 75 N.A 81 Water saturated
#
7 UCS N.A N.A using vacuum Karakul and Ulusay [35]
Andesite 3.3-5.2 N.A 4 N.A 21 dessicator
8* Tuff UCS 25-33 N.A 44 N.A N.A N.A Water saturated Celik et al [10]
Metamorphic Rocks
#
430 to
1 Quartzite UCS, triaxial 6.48 N.A 0 N.A 0 N.A N.A N.A Hadizadeh and Law [26]
6.1x10-3
@
2 Marble UCS 0.2-2.8 68 36 N.A N.A N.A N.A Water saturated Rajabzadeh et al [56]
@ UCS, Brazilian, 200 N/s Seawater
3 Slate 0.35 33 6 N.A N.A 21 1.2 N.A N.A Gholami and Rasouli [23]
Triaxial (Brazilian) satrurated
# Authors did not explicitly specify if the UCS, E, TS values are average values of multiple specimens or single specimen
* Average value of tested specimen given by the authors or calculated in this study
@ Maximum and minimum UCS, E, TS loss given by the authors or calculated in this study for individual specimen
Author's personal copy

123
 Author's personal copy
References
1. Anwar HZ, Shimada H, Ichinose M, Matsui K (1998) Deterio-
ration of mechanical properties of coal measure rocks due to
water. In: Mine planning and equipment selection. Balkema,
Rotterdam
2. ASTM (2001) Standard test method for density, relative density
(specific gravity), and absorption of coarse aggregate. In: Annual
book of ASTM standards, p 6
3. ASTM (1998) Standard test method for laboratory determination
of water (moisture) content of soil and rock by mass. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia
4. Barla G, Innaurato N (1973) Indirect tensile testing of anisotropic
rocks. Rock Mech 5(4):215230
5. Behrestaghi MHN, Seshagiri Rao K, Ramamurthy T (1996)
Engineering geological and geotechnical responses of schistose
rocks from dam project areas in India. Eng Geol
44(14):183201
6. Bell FG (1978) The physical and mechanical properties of the fell
sandstones, Northumberland, England. Eng Geol 12:129
7. Borrelli E (1999) ARC laboratory handbook: porosity, vol 2.
ICCROM, Rome, pp 1213
8. Brown ET (1981) Rock characterization, testing & monitoring:
ISRM suggested methods. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 8189
9. Burshtein LS (1969) Effect of moisture on the strength and
deformability of sandstone. Sov Min 5(5):573576
10. Celik M, Akbulut H, Ergul A (2013) Water absorption process
effect on strength of Ayazini tuff, such as the uniaxial com-
pressive strength (UCS), flexural strength and freeze and thaw
effect. Environ Earth Sci 113
11. Chen TC, Yeung MR, Mori N (2004) Effect of water saturation
on deterioration of welded tuff due to freeze-thaw action. Cold
Reg Sci Technol 38(23):127136
12. Cho J-W, Kim H, Jeon S, Min K-B (2012) Deformation and
strength anisotropy of Asan gneiss, Boryeong shale, and Yeon-
cheon schist. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 50:158169
13. Colback PSB, Wiid BL (1965) The influence of moisture content
on the compressive strength. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Canadian
symposium on rock mechanics. University of Toronto
14. Cooke R (1979) Laboratory simulation of salt weathering pro-
cesses in arid environments. Earth Surf Process 4(4):347359
15. De Bresser JHP, Urai JL, Olgaard DL (2005) Effect of water on
the strength and microstructure of Carrara marble axially com-
pressed at high temperature. J Struct Geol 27(2):265281
16. Dube AK, Singh B (1972) Effect of humidity on tensile strength
of sandstone. J Mines Metals Fuels 20(1):810
17. Dyke CG, Dobereiner L (1991) Evaluating the strength and
deformability of sandstones. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol
24(1):123134
18. Erguler ZA, Ulusay R (2009) Water-induced variations in
mechanical properties of clay-bearing rocks. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 46(2):355370
19. Ewy R (2014) Shale swelling/shrinkage and water content change
due to imposed suction and due to direct brine contact. Acta
Geotech 9(5):869886
20. Gajic V, Matovic V, Vasic N, Sreckovic-Batocanin D (2011) 42. Mann R, Fatt I (1960) Effect of pore fluids on the elastic prop-
Petrophysical and mechanical properties of the Struganik lime-
stone (Vardar Zone, western Serbia). Geoloski anali Balkanskoga
poluostrva 72:87100
21. Ghazvinian A, Hadei MR (2012) Effect of discontinuity orien-
tation and confinement on the strength of jointed anisotropic
rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 55:117124
22. Ghazvinian A, Vaneghi RG, Hadei MR, Azinfar MJ (2013) Shear
behavior of inherently anisotropic rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 61:96110
123
Acta Geotechnica
23. Gholami R, Rasouli V (2013) Mechanical and elastic properties
of transversely isotropic slate. Rock Mech Rock Eng 111
24. Grgic D, Giot R, Homand F, Giraud A (2005) Effect of suction on
the mechanical behaviour of iron ore rock. Int J Numer Anal
Methods Geomech 29(8):789827
25. Gutierrez M, ino LE, Heg K (2000) The effect of fluid content
on the mechanical behaviour of fractures in chalk. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 33(2):93117
26. Hadizadeh J, Law RD (1991) Water-weakening of sandstone and
quartzite deformed at various stress and strain rates. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 28(5):431439
27. Hawkes I, Mellor M (1970) Uniaxial testing in rock mechanics
laboratories. Eng Geol 4(3):179285
28. Hawkins AB, McConnell BJ (1992) Sensitivity of sandstone
strength and deformability to changes in moisture content. Q J
Eng Geol 25(2):115130
29. Hirschwald J (1908) Die Prufung der naturlichen Bausteine auf
ihre Verwitterungsbestandigkeit. Verlag Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn,
Berlin
30. Hu D, Zhang F, Shao J (2014) Experimental study of porome-
chanical behavior of saturated claystone under triaxial compres-
sion. Acta Geotech 9(2):207214
31. Huang S, Xia K, Yan F, Feng X (2010) An experimental study of
the rate dependence of tensile strength softening of Longyou
sandstone. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43(6):677683
32. I-Stone (2008) Characterization of natural stones and finished
products. http://www.istone.ntua.gr/Training_courses/wp1/
absorption.html
33. Jiang Q, Cui J, Feng X, Jiang Y (2014) Application of comput-
erized tomographic scanning to the study of water-induced
weakening of mudstone. Bull Eng Geol Environ
73(4):12931301
34. Jumikis AR (1966) Some engineering aspects of Brunswick
shale. In: 1st congress of the International Society of Rock
Mechanics, Lisbon
35. Karakul H, Ulusay R (2013) Empirical correlations for pre-
dicting strength properties of rocks from P-wave velocity under
different degrees of saturation. Rock Mech Rock Eng
46(5):981999
36. Kessler D, Insley H, Sligh W (1940) Physical, mineralogical and
durability studies on the building and monumental granites of the
United States. J Res Natl Bur Stand 24:161206
37. Krokosky EM, Hisak A (1968) Strength characteristics of basalt
rock in ultra high vacuum. J Geophys Res 73(6):22372247
38. Lajtai EZ, Schmidtke RH, Bielus LP (1987) The effect of water
on the time-dependent deformation and fracture of a granite. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 24(4):247255
39. Lashkaripour, GR, Ajalloeian R (2000) The effect of water
content on the mechanical behaviour of fine-grained sedimentary
rocks. . 13
40. Lin ML, Jeng FS, Tsai LS, Huang TH (2005) Wetting weakening
of tertiary sandstonesmicroscopic mechanism. Environ Geol
48(2):265275
41. Lou W (1994) Dynamic fracture behavoiur of dry and water-
logged granites. Explosion and shock waves 14(3):6
erties of sandstone. Geophysics 25(2):433444
43. Masuda K (2001) Effects of water on rock strength in a brittle
regime. J Struct Geol 23(11):16531657
44. Naghadehi MZ, KhaloKakaie R, Torabi SR (2010) The influence
of moisture on sandstone properties in Iran. Proc Inst Civil Eng
Geotech Eng 163(2):9199
45. Nasseri MH, Rao KS, Ramamurthy T (1997) Failure mechanism
in schistose rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
34(34):219.e1219.e15
 Author's personal copy
Acta Geotechnica
46. Nasseri MHB, Rao KS, Ramamurthy T (2003) Anisotropic
strength and deformational behavior of Himalayan schists. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 40(1):323
47. Nova R (1980) The failure of transversely isotropic rocks in tri-
axial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
17(6):325332
48. Nova R, Zaninetti A (1990) An investigation into the tensile
behaviour of a schistose rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 27(4):231242
49. Obert L, Duvall WI, Windes SL (1946) Standardised tests for
determining the physical properties of mine rocks. Report of
investigations (United States. Bureau of Mines). Vol. 3891. U.S.
Bureau of Mines, Washington, p 67
50. Ogata YJ, Wada Y, Jung W, Seto M, Katsuyama K, Ogawa T
(2001) Effects of water saturation and strain rate on the tensile
strength of rocks under dynamic load. Proc Jpn Soc Civil Eng
673:5359
51. Ojo O, Brook N (1990) The effect of moisture on some
mechanical properties of rock. Min Sci Technol 10(2):145156
52. Parate NS (1973) Influence of water on the strength of limestone.
AIME Transactions, Vol 254. AIME
53. Podio AL, Gregory AR, Gray KE (1968) Dynamic properties of
dry- and water-saturated Green River shale under stress. Soc Pet
Eng J 8(4):13891404
54. Price NJ (1960) The compressive strength of coal measure rocks.
Colliery Eng 37(437):283292
55. Rajabipour F (2008) Moisture content. The Pennsylvania State
University. http://www.engr.psu.edu/ce/courses/ce584/concrete/
library/materials/Aggregate/moisture%20content.htm. Accessed
2011 Nov 11
56. Rajabzadeh MA, Moosavinasab Z, Rakhshandehroo G (2012)
Effects of rock classes and porosity on the relation between
uniaxial compressive strength and some rock properties for car-
bonate rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45(1):113122
57. Romana M, Vasarhelyi B (2007) A discussion on the decrease of
unconfined compressive strength between saturated and dry rock
samples. In: Proceedings of 11th ISRM congress, Lisboa, the
second half century of rock mechanics, pp 139142
58. Ruiz MD (1966) Some technological of twenty-six characteristics
Brazilian rock types. In: Proceedings of the 1st congress of the
International Society of Rock Mechanics. Lisbon
59. Saeidi O, Rasouli V, Vaneghi RG, Gholami R, Torabi SR (2014)
A modified failure criterion for transversely isotropic rocks.
Geosci Front 5(2):215225
60. Shakoor A, Barefield EH (2009) Relationship between uncon-
fined compressive strength and degree of saturation for selected
sandstones. Environ Eng Geosci 15(1):2940
61. Siegesmund S, Snethlage R (2010) Stone in architecture: prop-
erties, durability, 4th edn. Springer, Berlin
62. Silva RM, Schroeder C, Verbrugge J-C (2008) Unsaturated rock
mechanics applied to a low-porosity shale. Eng Geol
97(12):4252
63. Simpson DR, John J, Fergus H (1968) The effect of water on the
compressive strength of diabase. J Geophys Res
73(20):65916594
64. Sun W, Chen Q, Ostien J (2014) Modeling the hydro-mechanical
responses of strip and circular punch loadings on water-saturated
collapsible geomaterials. Acta Geotech 9(5):903934
, Vasarhelyi B (2010) The influence of fabric and water
65. Torok A
content on selected rock mechanical parameters of travertine,
examples from Hungary. Eng Geol 115(34):237245
66. Turk N, Dearman WR (1986) Influence of water on engineering
properties of weathered rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geo-
mech Abstr 25(2):57
67. Ulusay R, Hudson J (2007) The complete ISRM Suggested
methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring:
19742006. Commission on Testing Methods, International
Society for Rock Mechanics, Ankara
68. Van Eeckhout EM (1976) The mechanisms of strength reduction
due to moisture in coal mine shales. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 13(2):6167
69. Van Eeckhout EM, Peng SS (1975) The effect of humidity on the
compliances of coal mine shales. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 12(11):335340
70. Vasarhelyi B (2002) Influence of water saturation on the strength
of Volcanic Tuffs in Eurock. International symposium on vol-
canic rocks. Maderia, pp 8996
71. Vasarhelyi B (2005) Statistical analysis of the influence of water
content on the strength of the miocene limestone. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 38(1):6976
72. Vasarhelyi B, Van P (2006) Influence of water content on the
strength of rock. Eng Geol 84(12):7074
73. Verstrynge E, Adriaens R, Elsen J, Van Balen K (2014) Multi-
scale analysis on the influence of moisture on the mechanical
behavior of ferruginous sandstone. Constr Build Mater 54:7890
74. Vutukuri VS (1974) The effect of liquids on the tensile strength
of limestone. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
11(1):2729
75. Wang B, Li X, Yin T, Ma C, Yin Z, Li Z (2010) Spilt Hopkinson
pressure bar (SHPB) experiments on dynamic strength of water-
saturated sandstone. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 29(5):7
76. White JM, Mazurkiewicz M (1989) Effect of moisture content on
mechanical properties of Nemo coal, Moberly, Missouri U.S.A.
Min Sci Technol 9(2):181185
77. Wong L, Jong M (2013) Water saturation effects on the brazilian
tensile strength of gypsum and assessment of cracking processes
using high-speed video. Rock Mech Rock Eng 113
78. Yilmaz I (2010) Influence of water content on the strength and
deformability of gypsum. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
47(2):342347
79. Zhang X-P, Wong LNY, Wang S-J, Han G-Y (2011) Engineering
properties of quartz mica schist. Eng Geol 121(34):135149
123