You are on page 1of 10

The influence of joint properties in modelling jointed rock masses

Influence des propnetes des diaclases sur la rnodelisatlon des masses roche uses diaclasees
Der EinfluB von Spaltbrucheigenschaften auf die Modellbildung von geklOfteten Felsmassen
NICK BARTON, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway
ABSTRACT: Predictionof likelyresponsetoexcavation, andproductionof final designsfor therock reinforcement, requirerealistic
descriptions of the components of rock mass behaviour. This article explores some of the methods that have proved reasonably
successful indescribingandmodellingrockjoints androckmasses, despitethecomplexitiesinvolved. Index testingof rockjoints and
rock mass characterisation, including geophysical methods, are theessential activities inpreparation for two- and three-dimensional
distinct element modelling. Recent improvementsaredescribed.
RESUME: Laprevisiondelareponsevraisemblabled'un massif rocheux lors delarealisationd'une excavation, ainsi queIedimen-
sionnement des renforcements necessalres, necessitent une description realistedu comportement des composants de ce massif. Cet
articleexplore quelquesunes des methodesqui sesont montrees raisonnablement satisfaisantespour ladescriptionet lamodelisatton
des massifsrocheux et deleursjoints, endepit delacomplexitequecelasuppose. Lesessaissurjoints et lacaracterisationdumassif
(y compris par lesmethodesgeophysiques) sont lestSltSments essentielsprealables aunemodelisationendeuxoutrois dimensionspar
elementsdiscontinus. Desdeveloppernentsrecents sont decrits.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Die Vorhersageder wahrscheinlichen Gebirgsreaktion auf das Auffahren von Untertageriiumenund das
Design von Felsverstlirkungenverlangt die wirklichkeitsnaheBeschreibungder einzelnen Komponenten des Felsverhaltens. Dieser
Artikel beschreibt einige Methoden, welchetrotz ihrer Komplexitat, erfolgreich zur Kluft- und Felsmodellierung und Beschreibung
angewandt werden. Das Indextesten von Kluften und die GebirgsklassifIzierung, geophysikalischeMethoden eingeschlossen, sind
wesentlicheBestandteilein der Vorbereitungsphasevon zwei und dreidimensionalen bestimmten Elemente Simulierungen. Neuere
Entwicklungenwerden beschrieben.
1INTRODUCTION
This article explores some of the methods which appear to be
havingsomesuccessinrealisticmodellinganddesignforjointed
rock masses. Key techniquesarejoint indextesting, rock mass
characterisation, seismic measurements and distinct element
modelling. At NGI, these methods can be represented by the
following basic symbols: J RC, J CS, q,r Q, V
p
, UDEC and
3DEC. The first three are the index parameters for thejoint
setsof concern (BartonandBandis, 1990). TheQ-values give
estimates for rock mass moduli and rock reinforcement,
following Grimstad and Barton, 1993. The two- and three-
dimensional distinct element models UDEC and 3DEC con-
ceived by Cundall and refined by ItascaInc. provide the final
essential link to reality.
Spatial variability withintherock mass which is reflectedto
someextent by thestatisticsfor J RC, J CS, q,r andQ, isfurther
described by theseismic measurementswhichprovideameans
of extrapolation betweenmapping locations(i.e., exposures or
drill core). In its optimal form (cross-hole seismic
tomography), it givesdetailed informationthat canbeapproxi-
matelycorrelatedtoQ-valuesandtodeformationmodulus, using
recent developments.
2 SHEAR BEHAVIOUR OF ROCK J OINTS
Direct shear testsof rough-walledtensionfracturesdevelopedin
weak model materials, that were performed many years ago
whentheauthor wasastudent, indicatedtheimportanceof both
thesurfaceroughness andtheuniaxial strength(O'J of therock.
Theempirical relationfor peak shear strengthgiveninEquation
1was essentially the forerunner of thesubsequent J RC-J CS or
Barton-Bandis model, where the joint roughness coefficient
(J Re) was equal to 20 for theserough tension fractures. The
joint walI strength (J CS) was equal to O'c (theunconfmedcom-
pression strength).
't = all tan[20log(::) + 30
0
] (1)
Theoriginal formof Equation 1isthereforeperfectlyconsistent
with today's equation:
't =0'11 tan[J RC 10ge~:) + ~r] (2)
Equation1representsthethreelimitingvaluesof thethreeinput
parameters, i.e.,
J RC 20 (roughest possiblejoint without actual steps)
J CS = O'c (least possibleweatheringgrade, i.e., freshfrac-
ture)
q,r ~ (fresh unweathered fracture with basic friction
angles intherange28~ to 31~0).
Bandis et al., 1981, 1983and Barton et al., 1985, have sub-
sequently shown how these three index parameters J RC, J CS
and q,r can be used for modelling both the shear-dilation and
normal closure behaviour of rock joints with estimation of
physical and hydraulic joint aperture, and with dueaccount of
scaleeffects and shear reversals, etc.
Figure 1illustratesthefirst versionof theconstitutivemodel
for shear anddilationbehaviour, whichwassubsequentlycoded
by Itasca for use in UDEC-BB (Christianson, 1985, personal
communication) and improved by NGI and Itasca (Gutierrez,
1995; Christianson, 1995, personal communication) for use in
an improvedversion UDEC-BB.
Although different degrees of joint weathering and mineral
1023
,
:1.0
+-- L1," ---+
2 . 5
2.
30' IUlDUAI.
LA. INIlTV NATUIAl.
TIlT TIlT II.OCItI
-
II U

KI 110 10 ~

&-
to
4. 0 6.1
"''''

M' M' 2 0'


o
1214147.91011121IMII
E
E
1.0
1.'
z
o
-
~ 1.0
..J
-
Q
0.'
o
o 1 I I 4 7 10 11 1111 14,.
SHEAR DISPLACEMENT mm
Figure 1. Constitutive model of stress-displacement and dila-
tion-displacement behaviour of rock joints of different size.
(Barton. 1982)
coatings canbetackled by theJ RC-ICS model. clay-filled dis-
continuities cannot be treated. and alternative index tests (or
direct shear testing) will beneeded. Thealternative solutionis
provided by theparameters I
r
(joint roughness number) and 1.
(joint alteration number) intheQ-system(Bartonet al., 1974).
Figure 2 shows histograms for I
r
and 1. (the central pair of
parameters. It will be noted that there are three categories of
1 namely: unfilled. thin fills andthick fills.
Appropriate description of themineralogy of the filling (1.)
andappropriateuseof therangeof I
r
values (or I
r
=1.0inthe
case of fillings with no rock-to-rock wall contact) provides a
conservative estimate of the frictional strength through the
simpleequation:
~ =a.( ::) (3)
Figure 3illustratestheaboveforms of shear strengthestima-
tion graphically. Further recent evidence for the validity of
Equation3asaroughindicator of frictional strengthisprovided
by numerous insitudirect shear testsperformed at amajor dam
siteinAsia.
Table 1showstherangeof I
r
and1.valuesmappedat various
Location: GJ 0VIK, OLY MPIC CAVERN
Depth: 25 to 50m, TOP HEADING
Q (typical range) = 4-27 Q (mean) = 7.4
( 50-80 )X(--1=.L)X(_l_) ( 65 )X~)xH4-l
9-12 1-2 1 9.2 2.0 1.0
S
I
Z
E
S
20'51296432 1 5
--
'5 1 1'5 1'5 2 3 4
'!d.l.
(cppl 201312 1>8 65 128 6 4 4 3 2 1 015
~.II
-es 1 2 3]5 66 1
ilil.
S 20'51> 5 20'51> 5 1>7-5525 100502010 5 2 -512-5
~i
(CPr1 \0
RQD %
Core pieces
~ 10cm
J
r
oint
roughness
-least
ovourable
J
a
J oint
olteration
-least
favourable
Figure 2. Recording of Q-parameters fromwhich 1/1. values
canbeestimated for filleddiscontinuities.
Table 1. Ratio1/1. fromtheQ-systemas ameans of classify-
ingthefriction coefficient of intercalations.
rough, smooth no rock wall
planar undulating contact
Roughness (1r)
1.5
2.0
1.0
Filling (1.)
sandy 4.0 0.38 0.50 N/A
THIN
stiff clay 6.0 0.25 0.33 N/A
FILLS
soft clay 8.0 0.19 0.25 N/A
silty clay 5.0 N/A N/A 0.20
THICK
rock &
6.0 N/A N/A 0.17
FILLS
clay
rock &
8.0 N/A N/A 0.13
soft clay
exploratory adit sitesby theauthor. The135insitudirect shear
testsperformed intheseaditsshowedageneral rangeof friction
coefficients (tan" T/U
n
) of 0.18 to 0.38 and design values of
1024
B A R T ON- L I E N- L UNDE
T = CJ
n
[J ,. IJ
a
]
Figure 3. Empirical shear strength estimation for two major
categories of rock mass.
0.23 to 0.28. Very thin intercalations showed 0.45, and the
extreme range was 0.14 to 0.49. Good correspondence with
J lJ
a
values was indicated.
The advantages of the J RC, J CS, J
r
and J
a
empirical methods of
shear strength estimation is that the associated index test
methods such as tilt tests and Schmidt hammer tests (or experi-
enced judgement) can each beperformed cheaply and often give
a good indication of statistical variation. (The necessary index
tests are described in detail by Barton and Choubey, 1977and
their suggested presentation for design studies by Barton et al,
1992.)
3 ROCK MASS DEFORMABIUTY
Deformation modes for rock masses include closure or opening
of the joints, shear and dilation (if non-planar surfaces), elastic
and non-elastic deformation of the matrix (rock blocks) and
complex interactions of all these processes. Since joint hydrau-
lic apertures and general hydraulic connectivity can each be
strongly affected by all the above modes, it is clear that
simplification is required for allowing reasonable levels of
discussion.
Figure 4 is designed to illustrate firstly how the normal
deformation and shear deformation components of the consti-
tuent joints may affect the overall deformability of different rock
masses, under simple uniaxial loading. The normal behaviour
of the joints is described by Bandis' hyperbolic formulation,
details of which are given by Bandis et aI., 1983.
J Clt"""J ..c,.,
u
.04 J )II . .10 .1. .M .
MO"MAL Del'O ATION, AV" )
III
TY PEA TY PEC

'.
s s
s
,
,
s
Figure 4. Normal (N) and shear (S) components of joint
deformation determine the general form of stress-strain curves
for loading tests on rock masses. (Barton, 1985; Bandis' et
al., 1981; 1983)
The concave (N) component and the convex (S) component
are each dominant, or combine with each other, as the case may
be. (Types A, C and B respectively). Uniaxial (strain) loading
in simple UDEC-BB distinct element models of the same
problems are shown in Figure 5.
Despite the uniaxial loading with no lateral strain, the Type
C rock mass shows larger overall deformation and of course
joint shearing. Peak stresses were also higher in this model.
Physical model studies reported by Barton and Bandis (1982)
have indicated higher shear resistance for thejointed assemblies
of blocks that had the smallest block sizes. This finding is
shown schematically in Figure 6, where models with 4000, 1000
or 250 blocks were studied in biaxial shear. Reduced J RC and
lCS values have to be used for the larger block sizes (i.e., J RC
n
and J CS
n
for block sizes r...).
The two equations given below show how J RC and lCS given
in Equation 2 can be scaled down to allow for the lower shear
resistance expected at in situ block size.
J RC J RCo(~r02 me. (4)
(
L )-0.03 me.
lCS.. res, r.: ( 5 )
Despite the potential for scale effects connected with block
size, in which the smaller blocks may give higher ultimate shear
resistance (for equal joint roughness), there is nevertheless a
general experience that the deformation modulus of more
heavily jointed rock masses is lower than for massive rock
masses.
Figure 7, which is an idealised UDEC study of tunnelling in
assemblages of 250 to 10,000 blocks using Mohr Coulomb joint
parameters (and no built-in joint strength scale effect), shows,
as expected, much larger disturbed zones (and deformation) as
1025
I
.0>1 .heol"' dtep 1. eeOE-04 I
each I In. ~hl ck I.000E-05
2.00
-
c:
QI
E
~ I.J O
o
Q.
" 'C
.0.'0
)(
o
~
-
-
I
MUIC shwor"' J 1er- 218-041
each J lne t.hick 1.0001-0'
Figure 5. Uniaxial strain loading of threehypothetical rock masseswith a2D UDEC-BB model.
(Chryssanthakis et al., 1991)
block size reduces. Figure 8 gives the distributions of joint
shearing caused by numerical tunnelling in what is a highly
anisotropic stress field (C7
y
=20 MPa, C7b =5 MPa). The
deformability of theclosely jointed model is clearly by far the
highest of the cases studied, with or without tunnel support
measures.
Physical models and UDEC models that were driven to a
stageof complete tunnel failure showed shear band formation
(block rotation) when the block size was sufficiently small
compared to the excavation dimensions or loaded boundary
dimensions (Shenand Barton, inpreparation).
4 ROCK MASS DEFORMABIUTY FROM ROCK MASS
CLASSIFICAnON
It is reasonably certain that the idealisedrock mass depicted as
Model No.4 (Figure7) would (inthereal world) havereduced
rock mass quality (RMR or Q), reduced deformation modulus
(M) andreduced seismic P-wavevelocity (Vp)' ascompared to
themore massivecases with less rock blocks. In reality there
might also be reduced joint roughness or even slickensiding
(i.e., J , = 0.5) andmineralisation(i.e., J . = 4) (i.e., lowIRC,
J CS andq,r) inthecaseof therock masswithsmall block sizes.
Theabovedifferences inbehaviour wouldbeaccentuatedby the
combination of lower deformation modulus and lower shear
resistance.
TheQ-systemof rockmassclassification(Bartonet al., 1974)
is designed to provide greater levels of rock reinforcement and
tunnel support insuchcases. Thefact that theQ-valuecanvary
from0.001 to 1000is also a reflection of theenormous range
of rock mass deformation moduli (i.e., 0.05 to 50 GPa) and
shear strengths (i.e., 0.1 to 20MPa) that may beencountered,
andwhichmayhaveanaccumulativeeffect ontheneedfor rock
reinforcement inthecaseof tunnelling.
TheQ-valueof arock massisbuilt up fromanassessmentof
relative block size (RQD/J.J, inter-block shear strength (1/J .)
andactivestress(1w/SRF); it thereforehascloseparallels tothe
processes demonstrated in Figure 8.
It is therefore logical that the widerange of rock reinforce-
~LANI snus
AXIAL TlSTS
~H ~
::B: -< > .,.
-< > .,.
. ( > . , .
-< > .,.
:I
!
,
I
,
/
,t
i 'I
I It_th I"
" It lei
,/ ts
tttnt
0,
4000,1000 . 2
III.,.,. 1t1.,1u
NORMAL
Figure 6. Schematic of physical model tests of fractured
rock, indicating block size dependence. (Barton and Bandis,
1982)
ment solutions shown in Figure 9 should also have some
relationshipwiththedeformationmodulusof theparticular rock
mass. The samecouldbe saidof theBieniawski (1989) RMR-
value, whichhas anapproximaterelationship to theQ-value.
Correlations between the RMR-valueand theQ-value show
significant trends but quite widescatter, particularly for lower
qualities of rock. This ispartly dueto theabsenceof theSRF
termintheRMR method. Nevertheless, becauseof thesignifi-
cant sets of data on rock mass deformation modulus in the
literature related to thetwo methods, it is convenient to fmd a
workablecorrelation betweenQ andRMR.
In Figure 10, data on rock mass deformation moduli (M)
reported by Bieniawski (1978) and Serafimand Pereira (1983)
are reproduced, together with these authors' linear and non-
linear relationships between M andRMR. On thesamefigure
asuggestedcorrelation betweenRMR andQ isgiven, basedon
thefollowingapproximation:
RMR lSlogQ + SO (6)
On thebasis of this Q rating scale, theapproximation
I
M 10Q; (OPa)
(7)
1026
~
x x x '> < :"'x"'Y 'x x x x X
x~xxx
~
XJ < x x < ,x X X X X
x XY)I 1 \ X > < x > < x
~~
:xy< h x 0N> )<
xx x x xxy:
Xx~
> 6 < > 6 < > &~ v:
Figure 7. Idealised UDEC models of tunnels within 2D
assemblies of 250 to 10,000 blocks. (Shen and Barton, in
preparation)
is proposed for estimating themean valueof rock mass defor-
mationmodulus.
The dotted curve in Figure 10shows good correlation with
reported results and extends into theregion of lowrock quali-
ties, very closeto theSerafimandPereira (1983) relation.
Equation 7is also shown within a larger set of higher
deformationmodulusdataasthenon-linear curveinFigure 11.
For fair, goodand very goodrock qualities, it provides avery
similar estimateof modulus to that recommendedearlier (M =
25 log Q, Barton, 1983), a correlation that has been used
successfully inearlier verificationstudieswith UDEC-BB.
5 GEOPHY SICAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROCK MASSES
Inmany countries withdeep surfaceweatheringandsoil cover,
the use of seismic refraction, cross-hole seismic or step fre-
quencyradar measurements, maybetheonlywayto extrapolate
G
Exceptlonall,
poor
100
so
e
.5
~ '" 20
..!l !3
~ 10
1
0.001 0.0040.01
Figure 8. Extent of joint shearing zones caused by widely
different block sizes. (ShenandBarton, inpreparation)
rockmasscharacterisationdatabetweenmappedrock exposures
or betweenavailablecored drill holes. Unless drill holes are
sufficiently deep (and close), there may also be uncertainty
concerning the rock mass quality at tunnel depth since the
refraction measurements have limited penetration. There are
other complicationsconnectedwiththeinfluenceof stresslevel
(i.e., depth) and rock density and porosity effects, each of
whichwill influencetheinterpretationof seismicvelocityandits
relation to rock mass quality.
International interest in potential correlations between rock
mass quality, rock mass deformation modulus and seismic
velocity has been considerable for many years, and various
correlationshavebeensuggested, includingwell knowncorrela-
tionswithRQD. Theadvent of cross-holeseismictomography
in the last ten years or so, and concerns with nuclear waste
E D C B
20
!} J
'" 2.4 II
-i::>
1.5
0.04 0.1 0.4 I 4 10 40 100
. ~ J r J w
Rock mass quality Q= In x 18 x SRF
400 1000
Figure9. TheQ-systemof classificationandreinforcement selection. (GrimstadandBarton, 1993)
1027
90
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100
Geomec:hanic:a rock mass rating IRMA)
0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100 1000
arating
Figure 10. Approximations to deformation modulus based on
RMR andQ; covering the lower ranges of rock qualities.
NGI Classification (Q)
1 4 10
80
80
~
60
e
.

1
50
I
40
30
M (min) ..
..
..
i
..
20
.5

10
0
50 60 70 80 90 100
Fair
I
Good
I
Very good
C
RMR Cla.slfleatlon
Figure 11. Approximation to deformation modulus covering
thehigher ranges of rock qualities.
repository design has heightened this interest.
In 1991, NGI performed cross-holeseismicmeasurements at
the sitefor Norway's Olympic rock cavern at Gjevik, Results
(redrawnfor clarity of reproduction) arepresentedinFigure 12.
These measurements which are described more fully in Barton
et a1. (1994), gave the opportunity for detailed correlation
between Q-Iogging of the core and the adjacent velocity
calculations.
Thegeneral trend observed at this siteand for hard rocks at
other shallowsites (i.e., 25 to 50mdepth) inother countries is
as follows:
Vp logQ + 3.5 (km/s) (8)
(mil) 3238 3449 3661 3872 4083 429' 4'06 47174929

.
oi
!
oJ
IOl
~
oJ
-<
IOl
17'
."
IOl
~
III
-<
!i:
~
::
I"
BORE
HOLE
NO.3
LONGITUDINAL SECTION (m)
(mil) 3086

209
,,,
BORE
HOLE
NO.3
16 24 32
CROSS SECTION (m)
40
Figure 12. Cross-hole seismic tomography at the Olympic
cavern site, Gjavik.
i.e., V
p
3.5 km/s for Q =I, V
p
4.5 km/s for Q =10,
etc.
Additional studyof resultsfromother sitesaroundtheworld,
including weak and porous rocks such as chalk, sandstoneand
tuff, anddeep locationsaccessedby cross-holetomography has
resulted inthesuggestedcorrelations betweenquality, velocity
andmodulus given inFigure 13.
Essential features of theseismic correlation chart are:
1) correction for increasedstress or depth (causingincreasein
velocity anddeformation modulus),
2) correction for increased porosity (n%) or reduced uniaxial
compressionstrength(u
c
) (causingreductionsinvelocityand
deformation modulus).
1028
a _---+ v
p
4-_~ M
Rock mass quality Seismic velocity Deformation modulus
V,"logQ+3.5(kmisec) M"10.Q'~(GPa) M"W.l0("f!) (GPa)
Extremely
poor
Very
poor
Poor
6.0
~ 5.0
~
~ 4.0
s
~ 3.0
.\1
.~
c? J 2.0
1.0
0. Q1
0.1
Approx.
ra~pe
'deform.
moduli
M M
.... -
(GPa)
100 100
6 ,0 53 6 6
30 46
5,0 17 32
9 22
4.0 5 15
3 10
3,0 2 7
1 5
2.0 0.5 3
0.3 2
1,0 0,2 1.5
0.1
1.0
4 10 40 100 400 1000
Q =(RQDx~x~)~
C J , J . SRF 100
Figure 13. Rockmassquality, seismicvelocityanddeformation
modulus correlations for design.
Thecompressionstrengthcorrectionisappliedby "normalising"
theQ-valuestoanominal hardrock compressionstrengthvalue
of 100MPa.
Q., = Q x 2 (9)
100
This correction is to allowtheQ
c
valueto reflect theinfluence
of rock compression strengthon seismic velocity.
The standard Q-value is reduced by SRF when the ratio of
rock strength to major principal stress (uc!Ut) implies rock
failure problems and need for increased rock reinforcement.
Although V and M values will be expected to reduce in the
excavationdisturbed zone (EDZ) (as shownin Figure 14), the
correlations given in Figure 13shouldbe appliedwith caution
intheEDZ around atunnel.
Anexamplewill beused to illustratehowtousetheseismic
correlation chart (Figure 13):
AssumeQ =4and U
c
=25 MPa, thereforeQ
c
=1
AssumeH =250mand n% =5%
Thelatter areexpectedto causeapproximately (+) 1.2and (-)
. 0.6km/s change in seismic velocity for Q
c
=I, compared to
the shallow (25m) nominal value. Therefore V
p
"" 4.0 km/s
andthemeandeformationmodulus (at250mdepth) "" 15GPa.
tONE J
ICl ,
Figure 14. Seismic measurements incircular tunnels showing
effect of stress concentration. (Plichon, 1980)
These correlations will usually be applied in reverse order,
i.e., by measuring V
p
at depth H, with estimated n% and U
c
(MPa) values, an approximate Q-value could be selected for
preliminary assessment of rock support needs. For design
purposes the seismic measurement would allow the rock mass
deformation modulus to beestimated, prior to in situmeasure-
ment or direct classificationof core.
6PRESENTATION OF J OINT AND ROCK MASS DATA
Thegeotechnical loggingchart prepared asaLotusspreadsheet
inFigure 15showshowthepreviously describedjoint androck
mass logging and index test data can be assembled for rapid
reference. Eachchart might represent thestatisticsfromseveral
core boxes, from several kilometres of surface or tunnel
mappingor fromacompletedproject.
TheloggingstatisticsshowninFigure 15havedataarrangedas
inTable2. This means that:
the upper third of the chart gives geometrical properties of
therock mass (for buildingthenumerical models),
themiddlethird of thechart givesjoint strength and rough-
ness(for strengthanddeformabilityinput tothemodels), and
the lower third of the chart gives approximate ranges of
permeability, rock strength and major stress (for defining
boundary conditions inthemodels).
7 UTIUSATION OF LOGGED DATA IN UDEC-BB AND
3DEC
Utilisationof joint and rock mass loggingdata (Figure 15) for
numerical distinctelementmodellingisillustratedbyanexample
UDEC-BB model in Figure 16. The inset below the figure
shows thejoint index data for laboratory scalevalues of J RC,
J CS andtP
r
[A largescalejoint roughness (i) valueof 6 was
also assessedat this site.]
Thedeformationmoduli of 20, 30and40GPaat depthsof 0-
45m, 45-65mand65-125mshowninFigure 16wereestimated
from Q-Iogging and fromevaluation of the seismic measure-
ments. It will be noted from Figure 12 that the seismic
tomography shows Vp values in the range 4to 5 km/s in the
1029
I J
40.0 I 12.0'
10.0I ".0
87.2, e.e .
I J
1.5 4.0
3.0I 0.'*
2.3 1.'
a All
1/ 1.0 1.25 obMMtIonl
1I 1.0 10 1981/92
1 1.0 '.549
:::-
1" ~~
': leore plecel I
> _10cm
".
_1;1
o ao I' " I , 01
8
L
o
C
K
8
I
Z
E
8
8
H
E

"
,.-
::
le
::
o 1 0.' 1 I.' ,.I 2 ,
~-
'I ", ".R
9
T
"E
N
G
T
H

C
T
I
V
E
? -
..
.
o 0.01 0.1 0.' o.~ 0.' 0.. 1
~
20'5'0,20,5'0,'7,552,520,052.5,2,5
9Ol. FRESH
'1[ $'I:=;~='
8
T
"E
8
8
E

I obMrvatlons from 1991.nd 1982


.ndud neI_
'''' Khmldthammof reound "dll'lgl:
OLOOY :
T lcalm."
"
DlllIIIJ IIill CJ II'"
o SOIL.20 10 !I 2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0 <I 1" ','0 1040 H'" >1
[:].1. ~I.I_
I 011 :II 1'0" 10 01 I a I 10 ao 10
~ m.i..
.,"u _
I
block
{ ~
m_.
O.IO.tO.' It. 10 0.10.20.' I It 10
1.l"'[[[[[IIJ ]]J
~
o liT 10" 10' ,at 10' lr 1 Ivlt10" 10'.,10' 10'10
J OI IENTATIONSd Id I,
SET 1 EET3
.m K _ ermeabillty L joln1length (Mta and ) (m) 80,.t\oI0:
SET A _1AUtfavoufM> lejolntMl: ail. rough~.mplltudeJ lengttl (l\'lm/m) Illtnatno: 112
\IOlumetrtc 1mcolUlt No/m PHI ldu.l frictionan 1. ,... w.
GEOTECHNICAL LOGGING CHART - DATA FOR Q UDEC BB-MODELLING
til; 1.11-82
n: L
u,.;
Figure 15. Geotechnical logging chart; data for Gjevik Olympic cavern of 62mspan. (fromBarton et aI.,
1994)
13 J CS
14
15
c / >r
r,R
III WATER, STRESS, STRENGTH
161J :l =joint water reduction factor
17~ =stress reduction factor
18 K =rock mass permeability (mls)
19 U
c
compressivestrength
20 ul major principal stress
size
shear
strength
{ ~
Table 2. The parameters represented in the geotechnical
logging chart.
I ROCK MASS STRUCTURE
1 IRQDIDeereet al., 1967)
2 J
n
=joint set number
3 F joint frequency (per metre)
4 J
v
volumetric joint count (Palmstrom, 1982)
5 S joint spacing (inmetres)
6 L joint length (in metres)
7 w =weathering grade (lSRM, 1978)
8 alB =dipldip direction of joints (Schmidt diagram)
II J OINT CHARACTER
9 ~ = joint roughness number
10W=joint alteration number
11 J RC joint roughness coefficient
12 aIL roughness amplitudeof asperitiesper unit
length (mm1m)
joint wall compressivestrength
residual friction angle
Schmidt rebound values for joint androck
surfaces
active
stress
{ ~
neighbourhoodof thecavern arch. Sincetheuniaxial strength
(u
c
) was60-90MPafor thegneissicrocks, andtheporositywas
negligible, correlation with mapped Q-values generally in the
range 2 to 30 is seen to agree with the seismic correlation in
Figure 13.
Anisotropy of Vp in the main body of the cavern, i.e.,
4717m1sinthelongitudinal sectionsub-parallel totheminimum
horizontal stress and 5073m1sin the cross-section sub-parallel
to the major horizontal stress which was some 1.5 to 2 MPa
higher, is also broadly consistent with the stress or depth
correction given inFigure 13.
J oint androck massdataobtainedfromloggingsome1.5Ian
of core and fromsurface mapping in the portal areas was the
basisfor theUDEC-BBmodel of atwinlaneroadtunnel shown
inFigures 17and 18. This modelling was initially performed
to check therock bolt loadingas averificationof theQ-system
design.
The hydraulic apertures shown in Figure 17(middle) show
stress-inducedreductionwithdepth(maximumvalue=44#lm).
The maximum stress caused by excavation was 8 MPa. The
displacements, joint shearingandbolt loading showninFigure
18 have maximum values of 3.9mm, 2.6mm and 6.9 tons
respectively.
Besides bolt representation, fibre reinforced shotcrete
representation in UDEC and UDEC-BB is now a reality
following recent Itasca and NGI developments madeby Lorig
(personal communication, 1995). Use of special structural
elements means that even the stability of uneven shotereted
excavation profiles can be studied. An extreme example of
overbreak is showninFigure 19.
The importance of correct representation of jointing, in
particular thedilationcomponent, i.e., Figure 1, bottom, isnow
even more important, if modelled bolting (Lorig, 1985) and
modelled shoterete support are each to be realistically loaded.
The idealised example shown in Figure 20 (Chryssanthakis,
1030
GPo 220
20
175
)0 160
150
40
100
Figure 16. J oint and rock mass input data for a UDEC-BB
model of theGjevik Olympic cavern. (Bartonet al., 1994)
personal communication1995) illustratesasquareopeningwith
shotcrete inboth cases, but with two rock bolts supporting an
unstablewedgeinonecase. Theloadingof theshoterete(axial
or shear forces, moments or adhesion) without thebolts (or if
inadequateboltingwereinstalled) isobviouslystronglydepend-
ent on as correct description of thejoint properties IRC, J CS
andcPr aspossible.
Figure 17. Block geometry, bolting, hydraulic apertures and
induced stresses caused by excavation of twin road tunnels.
(Backer, 1993)
Figure 18. Displacements, joint shearing and bolt loading
causedby excavationof twin road tunnels. (Backer, 1993)
Thedevelopment of 3DEC by Cundall (1988) andHart et a!.
(1988) has openednewvistas for realistic numerical modelling
of rock masses. Although some refmements have yet to be
added, theabilitytorepresent inapproximatetermsthestatistics
of joint orientationandpersistenceasillustratedinFigure21is
of inestimablevalue. J ointedblockdiagramssuchasthoseillus-
trated, canbe "drilled" through, "pilot tunnelled", or rotatedto
Figure 19. Modelling fibre reinforced shotcrete S(fr) in 2D
discreteelement models. (Lorig, 1995)
1031
Figure20. Axial loadingof S(fr) inan idealisedUDEC model
of a square opening with and without bolts. (Chryssanthakis,
1995)
Figure 21. Three-dimensional visualisation of jointing with
3DEC and "pilot tunnelling" investigations. (Shen, 1994)
fmd optimal orientations both for realistic 2D modelling with
UDEC (if this choicewasavailable) or for full blown 3D stress
anddeformation analyses. Therock mechanicscommunity are
in debt to Cundall and his Itasca colleagues vision of the way
forward for modellingjointed rock.
8 CONCLUSIONS
1. This keynote article has taken a personal, biased look at
someof thetechniquesthat areavailablefor modellingjoints
andjointed rock masses.
2. Thetechniquesutilisedincludeindextestsfor describingthe
empirically based J RC and lCS parameters of individual
joints or joint sets. TheQ-systemandRMR systemof rock
mass classification are utilised in an attempt to provide
realistic estimates of rock mass deformation moduli.
3. LinkagesbetweentherockmassqualityQ-value, theseismic
velocity V and therock mass dformation modulus M have
beenestabfished, withapproximateallowancefor theeffect
of depth, and for the porosity and uniaxial compression
strength of therock concerned.
4. Theassemblyof necessary indexandclassificationdatainto
a well organised format that is user friendly and economic
in terms of volume (cellulose friendly? ) has been demon-
strated.
5. Utilisation of thejoint and rock mass data in the distinct
elementmodelsUDEC-BBand3DEC hasbeenillustratedby
examples, includingtheuseof rock bolting and fibre rein-
forced shoteretesub-routines. Thecorrect loadingof these
important components of modem rock reinforcement is
dependent on the joint and rock mass description that
precedes theseanalyses.
9 REFERENCES
Baclcer,L., 1993, Personal communication.
8aDdis, S., A. LumsdenandN. Barton, 1981, "Experimental studiesof
scaleeffects on the shear behaviour of rock joints", Int. 1. of Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. and Geomech. Abstr. 18, pp. 1-21.
Bandis, S., A.C. LumsdenandN. Barton, 1983, "Fundamentalsof Rock
J oint Deformation", Int. 1. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. and Geomech.
Abstr. Vol 20, No.6, pp. 249-268.
Barton, N., R. Lienand1. Lunde, 1974, "Engineeringclassificationof
rockmassesfor thedesignof tunnel support", RockMechanics, Vol.
6, No.4, pp. 189-236.
Barton, N. andV. Choubey, 1977, "Theshear strengthof rockjoints in
theory and practice", Rock Mechanics, Springer, Vienna, No. 1/2,
pp. I-54. AlsoNGI-Publ. 119, 1978.
Barton, N., 1982, "Modellingrock joint behaviour fromin situ block
tests: Implications for nuclear waste repository design", Office of
Nuclear Waste Isolation, Columbus, OH, 96 p., ONWI-308,
September 1982.
Barton, N. and S. Bandis, 1982, "Effects of Block Sizeon the Shear
Behaviourof J ointedRock", KeynoteLecture, 23rdU.S. Symposium
onRock Mechanics, Berkeley, California.
Barton, N., 1983, "Applicationof Q-SystemandIndexTeststoEstimate
ShearStrengthandDeformabilityof Rockmasses", Panel Report, Int.
Symp. on Engineering Geology and Underground Construction,
Lisbon, Portugal.
Barton, N., 1985, "Deformation Phenomena in J ointed Rock", 8th
Laurits BjerrumMemorial Lecture, Oslo. Publ. in Geotecbnique,
Vol. 36, No.2, pp. 147-167, (1986).
Barton, N., S. BandisandK. Bakhtar, 1985, "Strength, Deformationand
ConductivityCouplingof Rock J oints", Int. 1. Rock Mech. &Min.
Sci. &Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 22, No.3, pp. 121-140.
Barton, N. andS.C. Bandis, 1990, "Reviewof predictivecapabilitiesof
1RC-1CSmodel inengineeringpractice", International Symposiumon
Rock J oints, Loen 1990. Proceedings, pp. 603-610, 1990.
Barton, N., F. Laser, A. Smallwood, G. Vik, C. Rawlings, P. Chryssan-
thakis, H. Hansteen and T. Ireland, 1992, "Geotechnical Core
Characterisationfor the UK RadioactiveWasteRepository Design".
1992Proc. of ISRM Symp. EUROCK, Chester, UK.
Barton, N., T.L. By, P. Chryssanthakis, L. Tunbridge, 1. Kristiansen,
F. Laser, R.K. Bhasin, H. Westerdahl, G. Vik, 1994, "Predictedand
Measured Performance of the 62m span Norwegian Olympic Ice
Hockey Cavern at Gjevik", Int. 1. Rock Mech, Min. Sci. &Geo-
mech. Abstr., Vol. 31, No.6, pp. 617-641. Pergamon.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1978, "Determining Rock Mass Deformability:
Experience from Case Histories", Int. 1. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 15, pp. 237-247.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989, Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A
Complete Manual for Engineers and Geologists in Mining, Civil and
Petroleum Engineering, J . Wiley, 251p.
Chryssanthakis, P., K. Monsen and N. Barton, 1991, "Tunnellingin
jointed rock simulatedinacomputer" (In Norwegian). Tunneller og
Undergrunnslanlegg, 1989-1991, NTNF, Oslo, pp. 23-28.
Cundall, P.A., 1988, "Formation of a Three-Dimensional Distinct
ElementModel- Pan I: A Schemeto DetectandRepresentContacts
in a SystemComposed of Many Polyhedral Blocks.", Int. J . Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. &Geomech. Abstr., 25, pp. 107-116.
Grimstad, E. and N. Barton, 1993, "Updating of the Q-Systemfor
NMT", Proceedings of the International Symposiumon Sprayed
Concrete - Modem Use of Wet Mix Sprayed Concrete for Under-
ground Support, Fagernes, 1993, (Eds Kompen, Opsahl and Berg.
NorwegianConcreteAssociation, Oslo.
Gutierrez, M., 1995, Personal communication.
Hart, R., P. Cundall and 1. Lemos, 1988, "Formation of a Three-
Dimensional DistinctElementModel- PartII: Mechanical Calculaton
for Motion and Interaction of a System Composed of Many
Polyhedral Blocks." Int. 1. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &Geomech.
Abstr., 25, pp. 117-126.
ISRM, 1978, "Suggested methods for the quantitativedescription of
discontinuitiesinrockmasses", (Coordinator, Barton, N.) Int. J . Rock
Mech. Sci. andGeomech. Abstr., Vol. 15, pp. 319-368, Pergamon.
Lorig, L.1., 1985. "A simplenumerical representationof fully-bonded
passive rock reinforcement for hard rocks." Computers and
GeotechnicsI, pp 79-97
Lorig, L.J ., 1995 Personal communication.
Palmstrom, A., 1982, "The Volumetric J oint Count - A Useful and
SimpleMeasureof theDegreeof Rock Mass J ointing", in Proc. 4th
CongoInt. Assoc. of EngineeringGeology, NewDelhi, India, Vol.
5, Theme2, pp. V.221-V.228.
Plichon, 1.N., 1980: Measurementsof thethicknessof thedecompressed
zone in an excavationunder high overburden cover. in Analysisof
Tunnel Stability by the Converence-Confinement Method, Under-
ground space, 4, vol. 6pp. 361-402.
Serafim, I.L. and I.P. Pereira, 1983, "Considerations of the
GeomechanicsClassificationof Bieniawski". Proc. Int. Symp. Eng.
Geol. UndergroundConstr., LNEC, Lisbon, 1983, vol. I, pp.1I.33-
11.42.
Shen, B. and Barton, N., in preparation, "Thedisturbed zone around
tunnels injointed rock masses".
1032