Characterization of Strength and Deformation of Jointed

Rock Mass Based on Statistical Analysis

Sridevi Jade' and T. G. Sitharam2

Abstract: This paper deals with the statistical analysis of the uniaxial compressive strength and of the elastic modulus of jointed rock
masses under different confining pressures. Properties of the rock masses with different joint fabric, with and without gouge have been
considered in the analysis. A large amount of experimental data of jointed rock masses from the literature has been compiled and used for
this statistical analysis. The uniaxial compressive strength of a rock mass has been represented in a nondimensional form as the ratio of
the compressive strength of the jointed rock to the intact rock. In the ca.o;eof the elastic modulus, the ratio of elastic modulus of jointed
rock to that of intact rock at different confining pressures is used in the analysis. The effect of the joints in the rock mass is taken into
account by a joint factor. The joint factor is defined as a function of joint frequency, joint orientation, and joint strength. Several empirical
relationships between the strength and deformation properties of jointed rock and the joint factor have been arrived at via statistical
analysis of the experimental data. A comparative study of these relationships is presented. The effect of confining pressure on the elastic
modulus of the jointed rock mass is also considered in the analysis. These empirical relationships are incorporated in a nonlinear FEM
code to carryout the equivalent continuum analysis of jointed rock masses. The method presented in this paper recognizes that the jointed
rock mass will act both as an elastic material and a discontinuous mass. The results obtained by the model with equivalent properties of
the jointed rock mass predict fairly well the behavior of jointed rock mass.

DOl: 10. 106I/(ASCE)1532-3641 (2003)3: 1(43)

CE Database subject headings: Rock masses; Strength; Deformation; Statistical analysis.

Introduction size on rock mass compressive strength. Artificial joints have

been studied mainly a.~ they have the advantage of being repro-
Rock is a discontinuous medium with fissures, fractures, joints,
ducible. The anisotropic strength behavior of shales, slates, and
bedding planes, and faults. These discontinuities may exist with
phyllites has been investigated by a large number of investigators.
or without gouge material. The strength of rock masses depends
Laboratory studies show that many different failure modes are
on the behavior of these discontinuities or planes of weakness.
possible in jointed rock and that the internal distribution of
The frequency of joints, their orientation with respect to the en-
stresses within a jointed rock mass can be highly complex. Due to
gineering structures, and the roughness of the joint have. a signifi-
large expense and time involved in experimental studies, coupled
cant importance from the stability point of view. Reliable charac-
with the need for highly accurate measurement techniques, a
terization of the strength and deformation behavior of joinled
rl)Cks is very important for safe design of civil structures such as number of investigators attempted to study the behavior of joints
arch dams, bridge piers. and tunnels. using analytical models.
The properties of the intact rock between the discnntinuilies To model the highly complex behavior of jointed rock masses,
and the properties of the joints themselves can be determined in the strength and deformability of jointed rock masses should be
the laboratory where as the direct physical measurements of the expressed as a function of joint orientation, joint size, and fre-
properties of the rQCk mass are very expen~ive. For determining quency. Moreover it is not possible to represent each and every
Ihc rock mass properties indirectly, a theory needs to be cstab- joint individually in a constitutive model. Thus there is a need for
li~hed and tested in some independent way. A number of experi- a simple technique such as the equivalent continuum method
mental studies have been conducted both in field and in Ihe labo- which can capture reasonably the behavior of jointed rock mass
ratory to understand the behavior of nalural a~ well a~ artificial using minimum input. The method presented in this paper recog-
joints. In situ test~ have also been carried out to ~tudy the effect of nizes that the rock will act both as an elastic material and a
discontinuous mass. Considering the inherently inhomogeneous
IScicntist. CSIR Ccnter for Mathematical Modcling and Computcr nature of rock masses, this approach attempts to obtain statistical
Simulati(m. (C-MMACS). Bangalorc 56(X)37. India E-mail. relationships from the analysis of a large set of experimental data
sridcvi@cmmacs.cmct.in .of jointed rock mass.
2Ass(ICiatc Profcssor. Civil Engineering Dert. Indian Institutc of In this paper an effort has been made to arrive at empirical
Scicncc. Hangalore 56(X)12. India. E-mail: sithar.lm@civil.iisc.cmct.in relationships that express the strength and deformation of jointed
Note. Discu~sion open until February I. 2<X>4. Scparatc discussi(ms
rock as a function of intact rock properties and a joint factor.
must hc submi\lcd for individual papers. To cxtend thc closing dalc by
These relationships are determined by statistical analysis of ex-
onc month. a wri\lcn rcqucst must hc filcd with thc ASCE Managing
Editor. Thc manuscript for thi~ paper wa~ submi\led for review and !"'S- pcrimental data of Brown (1970), Brown and Trollope (1970),
siblc publication on July I, 2000; approved on March 27, 2(KJ2. This Einstein and Hirschfeld (1973), Yaji (1984), Arora (1987), and
papcr is part of the International Journal of Geomechanks. Vol. 3. No. Roy ( 1993). A comparative study of the empirical relationships
I, Sertcmhcr I. 21KJ3. ~ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/2003/1-43-54/$11!.IKJ. arrived by the above analyses is presented. Based on the statistical

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS C ASCE 1 SEPTEMBER 2003/43

 ~
Oi.

Itl H60

Fig. 1. Relative strengthof massafter Goldstein et al. (1966)

analysis, uniaxial compressive strength and elastic modulus ob-

tained from uniaxial compressive tests and triaxial tests of jointed
Id\HI,5 (.\H30
rock at different confining pressures are expressed as a function of
the joint factor and intact rock properties. The joint factor de- Fig. 3. Block-jointed specimens tested by Br,?wn (1970)
pends on joint orientation, joint frequency, and joint strength.
Hence, knowing the intact rock properties and the joint factor, the
jointed rock properties can be reliably estimated. Finite element mens of plaster of Paris and found that the strength decreased
analyses of jointed rock masses have been carried out using the with increasing number of joints. Lama (1974) conducted exten-
above statistical relationships and the results are compared with sive tests by using model materials of different strengths to deter-
the experimental results. mine the influence of the number of horizontal and vertical joints
on both deformation moduli anJ strength. He proposed the fol-
lowing equation based on his results:
Summary of Experimental Studies on Jointed Rock
O"c or Ed=K+( ~)U
A brief review of the numerous experimental studies on the
jointed rock samples with different joint fabrics is presented here. where O"c=compressive strength; Ed=deformation modulus; K
Uniaxial compression tests were conducted on composite speci- = strength of the specimen containing more than 150 joints;
mens (Goldstein et al. 1966) made from cubes of plaster of Paris ..u ' , = constant; L = length of the specimen; and 1= length of the
and the following relationship is suggested:
element.
O"cm
( I ). Brown and Trollope ( 1970) conducted a series of triaxial com-
-=a+b -(I) pression tests on 4 in. X 4 in. X 8 in. samples made up of assem-
O"ce L
blies of I in. cubes of plaster arranged such that three sets of
where 0"cm= compressive strength of the composite specimen; mutually perpendicular joint planes are formed (Fig. 2). From
0"cc= compressive strength of the element constituting the block; their results, the following relationship was proposed:
L = length of the specimen; I = length of rock element; and a, b,
T-T
( 0" ' ) C
and e=constants, where e<1 and b=(I-a) (Fig. 1). Hayashi --!!. =Z ~ (3)
( 1966) conducted uniaxial compression tests on the jointed speci- O"c O"c
where T = shear stress; T o = cohesion intercept; 0"c = unconfined
compressive strength; O".=normal stress; Z=Z,0"~-I; Z, Z', t
= shear strength parameters, the values of these are given (Brown
and Trollope 1970) for different joint configurations. Brown

0 (XX)2(XX)J(XX)4(XX)5(XX)6(00
Normal
Sll"', ~. ~s.i

Fig. 2. Jointed rlICk sample geometry after Brown and TrollopC' Flg.4. Mohr envelopes for block-jointed specimen and a single j(

(1970) (Brown 1970)

44 IINTFRNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS <0 ASCE I SEPTEMBER 2003

 O
0..
1:

1/1
1/1
CJ
...

~
...
0
II
.c
V1

~
..

"'
01)
..,
~
0-
01)

~
..,
x
01)

..

z J
vn NORMAL STRESS in kl'
(b) Jointed specimens with inclined joints

( 1970) conducted triaxial compression tests on 4 in. X 4 in. Einstein and Hirschfeld (1973) and Einstein et al. (1970) con-
X 8 in. prismatic samples of gypsum plaster (Fig. 3) arranged oucted triaxial tests to study the effect of joint orientation. spac-
such that a number of different joint patterns are produced. From ing. and number of joint sets on the artificially made jointed
Ihe test results it was found that complex modes of failure can specimens of gypsum plaster. They have found that the upper
(ICcur. The results are shown in Fig. 4 in the form of Mohr enve- limit of the relation between shear strength and normal stress of
kJI)Cs. In Zone I thc models have lower strengths than predicted the jointed mass with parallel/perpendicular joints as well as in-
hy the simple theory which is applicable in Zone 2. In Zone 3 the clined joints is defined by the Mohr envelope for the intact ma-
malerial is ductile and the influence of joint patterns on strength terial and the lower limit is defined by the Mohr envelope for
is negligible. sliding along a smooth joint surface as shown in the Fig. 5. The

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS C ASCE I SEPTEMBER 2003 145

Table 1. Intact and Joint Properties of Different Rock Types used for Statistical Analysis

Rock type <rci (MPa)

Plaster of Paris 9-12 Single smooth and stepped, berm shaped,

multiple parallel (1!- 7 joints),
one to two sets of closed and
gouge filled joints <p =00-900)
Kola sandstone 70 5,100-7,750 0-10 Single joint <13=0°-90°) 10-100 Hard rock
Jamarani 55.07 7.360-14,780 0-10 Single and multiple parallel joints 10-500 Hard rock
sandslonc (2-7 joints) <p=O°-90°)
Agra sandstone 110 20.000-26.000 0-10 Single and multiple parallel joints 10-400 Extremely hard rock
(2-7 joints) <13= 0°_90°)

Granite 123 10.800-12.800 0-10 Single joint <13=0°-90°) 10-100 Extremely hard rock
20-50 4.000-30.000 0-14 Single and multiple joints (parallel, 10-700 Medium hard rock to hard rock
Gypsum plaster
perpendicular, prismatic. block, and inclined)
<13=0°-90°)

strength of jointed rock masses is minimum if the joints are fa- with respect to major principal stress direction, and (3) joint
vorably inclined and increases if the joints are unfavorably in- strength. Based on the results he defined a joint factor as
clined. The strength of a jointed specimen is the same as the intact
specimen regardless of joint orientation/spacing of joints at very In
J f= n-;: (5)
high confining pressures. At low confining pressures, the speci-
men fails in a brittle mode, and at high confining pressures it where J II = number of joints per meter depth; ., n ' , = inclination
exhibits ductile behavior. parameter depending on the orientation of the joint 13; and' , r' ,
Yaji ( 1984) conducted triaxial tests on intact and single jointed
specimens of plaster of Paris, sandstone, and granite. He has also = roughness parameter depending on the joint condition. The
conducted tests on step-shaped and berm-shaped joints in plaster value of "n" is obtained by taking the ratio of log (strength re-
of Paris. He presented the results in the form of stress strain duction) at 13= 90° to log (strength reduction) at the desired value
curves and failure envelopes for different confining pressures. of 13.This inclination parameter is independent of joint frequency.
The modulus number K and modulus exponent n is determined The joint strength parameter .'r" is obtained from a shear test
from the plots of modulus of elasticity versus confining pressure along the joint and is given as r=TilO"lli where Ti is the shear
for the intact rock and fitting the following relation: strength along the joint and 0"lIi is the normal stress on the joint.
«13 ) n The values of "n" and .'r" are given (Arora 1987; Ramamurthy
E,=KPa"1': (4) 1994) based on extensive laboratory testing. The values of "r"
are given for both unfilled joints and filled joints with gouge
where E,= initial tangent modulus (computed at 50% of failure material. Based on the results of uniaxial and triaxial tests of
stress); <13= confining pressure, and p a = atmospheric pressure. intact and jointed specimens conducted by Yaji (1984) and Arora
The results of these experiments were analyzed for strength and (1987) the following empirical relations have been given by Arora
deformation purposes. It was found that the mode of failure is (1987) and Ramamurthy (1994) for uniaxial compressive strength
dependent on the confining stress and orientation of the joint. ratio (O"cJ and elastic modulus ratio (E,) of jointed rock masses:
Joint specimens with rough joint surface failed by shearing across
the joint, by tensile splitting, or by a combination of thereof. <Tcj
<Tcr=- =exp( -0.0081 I)
Arora (1987) conducted tests on intact and jointed specimens <Tci
of plaster of Paris, Jamarani sandstone, and Agra sandstone. Ex-
tensive laboratory testing of intact and jointed specimens in Ej«J3=O)
uniaxial and triaxial compression revealed that the important fac- E,=
Ej«J3=O)
tors which influence the strength and modulus values of the
jointed rock are ( I) joint frequency J n ' (2) joint orientation 13 =exp(-O.OI15-2Jr) for zero confining pressure (7)

Table 2. Empirical Relationships Fitted for a a

Mlxlcl

a =0.039 b=O.893 c= 160.99

17Cf= a + b exp(:.fl)

a=O.917 b= 179.26 0.1064 0.9890

17,T= a exp ( b-Jf )

(17Cf)O~= a + b(J f)o.~ In if a=0.975 b= -0.005 0.1107 0.9749 3

(17'T)o~=a + b(J f)o.~ a= 1.075 b= -0.034 0.1107 0.9741 4
17'T =e"J, a= -0.0065 0.1110 0.9632 5
Arora (1987) Eq. (6) a=-0.008 0.1280

46/INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS cC>

ASCE I SEPTEMBER 2003
£.(a]=O
J . ) with and without gouge fillings at different confining pressures.
£j(a)
Two joints with different inclination angles are considered. Based
on the experimental data available in the literature and his study,
= 1-eXp[ -0.1( ~) empirical relationships were derived for modulus ratio, axial
for confining pressure of (13 (8) strain, tangent modulus, and uniaxial compressive strength. These
relationships can be used to estimate the joint rock properties
where 0' tj = uniaxial compressive strength of jointed rocks; ITti
based on intact rock properties and the joint factor. For all the
= uniaxial compressive strength of intact rocks; J f= joint factor
empirical relations the lower bound, average value and the upper
given by Eq. (5); Ej=tangent modulus of elasticity of jointed bound were also given. The results of the experiments conducted
rocks; and E i = tangent modulus of elasticity of intact rocks. The
by both Arora (1987) and Roy (1993) indicate that the joint rock
ahove empirical relationships can be used to estimate the jointed
properties can be related to intact rock properties by simple equa-
r<JCkproperties based on intact rock properties and joint factor.
tions. They also gave a new strength criteria for jointed rocks
Roy (1993) conducted tests on intact and jointed specimens based on their experimental results.

Table 3. Relationships Fitted for E, Based on Unconfined Compressive Test Data (Zero Confining Pressure)

M(ldcl Coefficient ElTOr Correlation Rank

/:.',=(I+bcxp (-1,
7 ) a=O.O35 b=O.879 c=92.69 0.14598 0.9971 I

'UCXp (b-11) a=O.887 b= 104.84 0.14612 0.9912

, ..dJ,
a=-0.0113 0.14869

,.,-".
"
InJf
a= -0.659 b=4.501 0.15165
0.9613
0.9495 4

h a= -0.118 b=4.323 0.15213 0.94!!9

f.:,=a+ ]!3 5
f
~mra (1987) Eq.S!l a= -0.0115 0.15711

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS <0 ASCE I SEPTEMBER 2003/47

Table 4. Relationships Fitted for E, Based on Triaxial Test Data (1.0 MPa Confining Pressure)
-
Model Error Rank

0.14973

a=O.179 b=3.06-; 0.14996

a= 1.319 b= -0.173 0.15178 0.8659

a=0.298 b=3.857 0.15241 0.8531

a=O.332 b=O.707 c=61.62 0.15329 0.8488

(-11)
:xP7

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses of the experimental data of Brown (1970),

Brown and Trollope (1970), Einstein and Hirschfeld (1973), Yaji
(1984), Arora (1987), and Roy (1993) were carried out to arrive at
possible empirical relations for the tangent modulus at different
confinements and uniaxial compressive strength. A large amount
of experimental data of uniaxial compressive strength ratio and
elastic modulus ratio versus joint factor of the jointed rock speci-
mens was digitally filtered to reduce the scatter in the data. Linear
and nonlinear relationships between the uniaxial compressive
strength, tangent elastic modulus at different confinements, and Results and Discussion
joint factor have been arrived at by using least-squares fitting for
linear relationships and Lorentzian minimization for nonlinear re- In the present analysis the variable "y" is either uniaxial com-
lationships. Least-squares minimization assumes that the x values pressive strength ratio «1cJ or modulus ratio (E,) and variable
" x'. is joint factor J f. Both linear and nonlinear relations are
are accurately determined and that an error exists only in the
dependant variable y. The errors are assumed to map a Gaussian obtained for <1cr and E, as a function of a joint factor J f using the
profile and are normally distributed. Lorenzian minimization is procedure described above. The experimental data is compiled in
very robust when the data is noisy and also converges quite rap- the form of a joint factor J f .the uniaxial compressive strength
idly. The correlation coefficient and the standard error of the fitted ratio <1cr' and elastic modulus ratio E, .The experimental data
relationship is defined below. used in the analysis covers a wide range of rocks like plaster of
The correlation coefficient, ,2 of a relationship filled to x ,y , Paris, different kinds of sandstone, granite, and gypsum plaster
data is expressed as with filled and unfilled joints with different joint fabric for differ-

Table 5. Relationships Fitted for E, Based on Triaxial Test Data (5.0 MPa Confining Pressure)
--~
Model Error Correlation Rank

0.14191 0.8427

a=O.173 b=2.7~ 0.14205 0.8413 2

+~
=0.281 b=3.368 0.14250 0.8387

0.345 b=0.707 c=43.14 0.14566 0.8124 4

.11
I:, hcJ(pl

a=O.3131 b= 1.7353 0.14619 0.8101 5

t'l

i;;-w
-.

48/INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS C ASCE I SEPTEMBER 2003

 .. uro COnfinin~-p~~

Arora

91 Yaji

~ F:instien and Hi..cbreld

Brown and Trollope

Browo

Roy
Er = a:+be.p(-Jr/c)
o
".c
(fiUtd curve widl rank I)
e 0.6
~ .
=
=
~ 0.5
O
E
u
".c 0.4 .
~
~ ..: ,.
0.3
\ ., ..
... ~ '
0.2 .: .1 ..
0.
...
.~ ...
..
~
0 200 400

Joint Factor

Fig. 7. Experimental data and the fitted relation between J f and E I

Data from Arora (1987). Yaji (1984), Einstein and Hirschfeld (1973), Brown
and Trollope (1970), Brown (1970), and Roy (1993).

ent confining pressures. The different rock types along with the
as a function of joint factor (1 I) are derived. Empirical relation-
intact and joint propenies which are used in the analysis are as
ships fitted with the standard error and correlation coefficient are
shown in Table I. In Table I, 0"ci and E; are uniaxial compressive
given in Table 2. Fig. 6 shows the plot of the uniaxial compres-
strength and tangent elastic modulus of intact rock and J f is the sive strength ratio versus the joint factor of the experimental data
joint factor. The experimental data is digitally filtered to reduce with the empirical relationship fitted for the equation with rank I.
the scatter in the data for a better fit. The values of correlation
coefficient for the fitted equations are given for the digitally fil-
tered data set and the standard error of the fit is given with respect Elastic Modulus
to the actual experimental data. Rank of the relationship fitted is
Elastic modulus expressed as tangent modulus at 50% of the fail-
in the order of minimum standard error. The relation for which the
ure stress is considered in this analysis. The elastic modulus ratio
standard error is minimum is ranked as I and the next relation is is expressed as
ranked 2. 3. and 4 based on the increase in the standard error.

E.
Uniaxial Compressive Strength Er=i (12)
,
The uniaxial compressive strength of a rock mass is represented
where Ej=tangent modulus of the jointed rock and E;= tangent
in a nondimensional form as the ratio of the compressive strength
modulus of the intact rock. The elastic modulus ratio from uncon-
of jointed r<JCk to that of intact rock. The uniaxial compressive
fined compressive strength test. from triaxial test, with 1.0 and 5
~trength ratio i~ expre~sed as MPa confining pressures are considered in the analysis. Linear
and nonlinear relationships between the elastic modulus ratio at
<1.
the three confining pressures and the joint factor are derived using
<1 or= ;;::
II) the experimental data. Much more unconfined compressive
~~trength test data is available compared to triaxial test data. Hence
where Ircj=uniaxial compressive strength of jointed rock and
the relationships arrived for ela.~tic modulus using unconfined
,r cj = uniaxial strength of intact rock. The uniaxial compressive
compressive test data are more reliable than those obtained using
strength ratio of the experimental data is plotted against the joint
triaxial test data. The empirical relationships derived for elastic
r.lctor. The joint factor f(ir the experimental specimens is esli-
modulus ratio using both the unconfined compressive and triaxial
mated hased on the join! orientation. join! strength. and join!
test data at 1.0 and 5.0 MPa confining pressure, are given in
spacillg using Eq. (5). Based on the statistical analysis of the data. Tables 3, 4, and 5. Sample plots of the experimental data with the
empirical relationships for the uniaxial compressive strength ratio fitted relationship for zero, 1.0 and 5.0 MPa are shown in Figs. 7 ,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS C>ASCE I SEPTEMBER 2003/49

 1.0 MPa confining pressure

A",~
9

Roy

Y8j
0.8
..- Ersa+( b/ln(Jr» (12nk I)
.. ---E r -a+belp(-Jr Ic) (~nk 5)
0 0.7 . .
.~ .
f ..
(I)
= 0.6
=
~
o
E
0.5
C.I .
--=
~
~ .
0.4

... .
..
0.3
.

0.2

0.
0 200 400 600 800

,i)int Factor

Fig. 8. Triaxial test data (1.0 MPa confining pressure) and the fitted equations between J I and E, .Data from Arora (1987). Roy (1993). and Yaji
(1984).
-

8. and 9. All the statistical relations arrived in the analysis are for
0<11<800. For intact rock, i.e.. for 11=0. O'cr. and E,= I. com-
parison of the filled relationships for unconfined compressive test
data and for triaxial test data with 1.0 and 5.0 MPa confining
pressures are given in Table 6. The table also shows the associ-
ated ranks for the filled relationships.
From these relationships the following two empirical relations
are chosen to determine the elastic modulus ratio at different con-
lining pressures:
E,=a+b exp( -~)
modulus ratio has been derived for this experimental data set at
0.5 and 2.5 MPa confining pressures. The elastic modulus ratio
thus predicted along with the actual experimental data is plotted
in Figs. 10, II, and 12 for plaster of Paris and Agra sandstone.
The predicted elastic modulus ratio (Arora 1987; Ramamurthy
1994) using Eqs. (7) and (8) is also plotted in Figs. 10,11, and 12
for comparison. The errors associated with the above equations
for different rock types are presented in Table 7.
One can say from the above analysis and discussion that the
following empirical relationships are best for representing the
uniaxial compressive strength and ela.~tic modulus ratio at differ-
ent confining pressures:

E,=a+b/lnJf (13) (Jcr-a+bexp

- ( ~-1 )
The above two relationships are chosen by giving more weight to
for 0<1,<800
the zero confining pressure equations as the unconfined compres-
sive test data used for the analysis cover a wide range of rock
propcrties. The first relation given in Eq. (13) works very well for
E,=a+b exp\ ~\ for O<J ,<800
lower values of J f(O<J f< 10) where as the second relation is
only valid li)r J f> 10. The above two equations are tested for an
c~pcrimental data set that was not used in the above statistical <1cr=Er= 1.0 for Jf=O.O
analysis. This experimental data set covers the elastic modulus
ratio for jointed rock specimens of plaster of Paris, Jamarani where <1cr and E,= uniaxial compressive strength ratio and elastic
salldstone. and Agra sandstone at 0.5 and 2.5 MPa confining pres- modulus ratio; J f= joint factor, and a, b, and c = statistical con-
sure. The joint factor for these jointed rock specimens is evalu- stants. The values of these constanL'i are given in Table 8 for
atcd using Eq. (5). The values of the empirical constants for the different confining pressures. For the confining pressures other
0.5 and 2.5 MPa confining pressure are evaluated by linear inter- than those listed in Table 8 the values of a, b, and c can be
p<)lation of the values of constants a, b, and c obtained for 0, 1.0, linearly interpolated based on the values of a, b, and c for 0-5.0
and 5.0 MPa confining pressures. Using Eq. (13) the ela.'itic MPa confining pressure.

So I INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS 10 ASCE I SEPTEMBER 2003

 0
"Q
f
~
=
~
o
E
u
.Q
~
~

200 400 600 800

Joint Factor

Fig. 9. Triaxialtest data (5.0 MPa confining pressure) and the fitted equations between J f and E, .Data from Arora (1987), Roy (1993), and Yaji
(1984).

Equivalent Continuum Analysis of Jointed Rock Mass granite, and multiple jointed specimens of Agra sandstone as
shown in Figs. 13(a, b, and c). The size of the specimen in the
Equivalent continuum analysis of jointed rock masses has been
finite element analysis is the same as the experimental specimen
carried out using the statistical relationships arrived in the previ-
size. The single joint specimen has a single joint inclined at ~
ous section. These equations are incorporated into a modified
with the major principal stress direction, and multiple jointed
nonlinear finite element model. Equivalent material properties for
specimens have one to four joints inclined at ~ with the major
jointed rock have been obtained using Eqs. (14) and (15) based on
the material properties of intact rock and joint factor. Finite ele-
ment analyses using the equivalent continuum approach have
been carried out on a single jointed specimen of sandstone and

0!1

Table 6. Comparison of Relationships Ba.~d on Unconfined Com-

pressive Test Data and Triaxial Test Data for Different Confining
08 1
Pressure .g 07
IV
0:
(/)06
~
Model 3
"005
O
5 4 ~
u04
~
~03
E,=aexp (b-11) 02

E,=".Jf 3 01
4
b -0 100 200 300 400 500
£..=a+ ;:-;- Joint Factor

5 Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted values and the triaxiallesl dala al

b
F:,=a+ }!3 0.5 MPa confining pressure. Data from Yaji (1984). and Ramamur1hy
f (1994).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS C ASCE I SEPTEMBER 2003/51

 Table 8. Values of a, b, and c for Different Confining Pressure

0.0 0.035 0.879 92.69

1.0 0.332 0.706 61.67

5.0 0.345 0.707 43.14

principal stress direction. The lower boundary of the jointed rock

Fig. 11. Comparison of predicted values and the triaxial test data for
plaster of Paris at 2.5 Mpa confining pressure. Data from Arora
(1987) and Ramamurthy (1994).
is fixed and the axial load is applied in increments on the upper
boundary. The jointed rock is subjected to the confining pressure
on both sides of the model. The adopted model along with the
boundary conditions is shown in Fig. 13(d). Since. the equivalent
properties are assigned to the discontinuous rock mass. elements
are represented using four node quadrilateral elements in the
model. Nonlinearity in the finite element analysis has been incor-
porated in the form of material nonlinearity of intact and jointed
rock.
The intact rock properties and the joint properties form the
input for the finite element code. The relation given by Eq. (5) for
calculating joint factor is incorporated in the finite element code.
The empirical relations [Eqs. (7) and (8)] given by Arora (1987)
and Ramamurthy (1994) for jointed rock masses are also incor-
porated in the equivalent continuum code for comparison. The
finite element analysis has been carried out for different confining
pressures (0-14 MPa) and joint inclinations (13= 0°-90°). The
results of the finite element analysis are presented in the form of
stress strain plots. Some summary stress strain plots obtained
from equivalent continuum analysis for single. multiple, and
block jointed specimens of Sandstone. Granite. Agra sandstone.
and Gypsum plaster for different joint orientation, and confining
pressure are shown in Figs. 14-16 using the statistical relation-
ships arrived in the previous section. Experimental results of Yaji
(1984). Arora (1987), and Brown and Trollope (1970) are also

Fig. 12. Comparison of predicted values and the triaxial test data for
Agra sandstone at 2.5 MPa confining pressure. Data from Arora
(1987) and Ramamul1hy (1994).

Table 7. Comparison of Errors in Predicted Values of E,

M(,..)cl

+ h cxp!r-Jj 0.084943 0.092136 0.14647

b
0.127202 0.100121 0.15731
(d) fAIuivaient continuum model
~

Ef17)=0) ~ 0.099471 0.154033 0.15740 Fig. 13. Jointed rock specimen!; and the corre!;p<>nding linitc clcmcnl
cx~ -0.1
~J~ model

52/1NTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS 10 ASCE I SEPTEMBER 2003

 ~
~I
~
~
~
"
c
t/)
5
10
.~
"
0

Fig. 14. Stress strain plots for different number of joints along with Fig. 16. Stress strain plots for multiple and block jointed specimens
the experimental results of Arora ( 1987). Data from Arora ( 1987) and for different confining pressures along with the experimental results
Ramamurthy (1994). of Arora ( 1987) and Brown and Trollope ( 1970)

plotted for comparison. Finite element analysis results using

equations presented by Ramamurthy (1994) are also plotted for
comparison in Fig. 14. The summary plots indicate that the equa-
tions implemented in FEM predicted the overall behavior of
jointed rock mass fairly well. For single and highly jointed speci-
mens (Figs. 14-16) the results obtained compare much better
with the experimental results.
Conclusions
I The recommended forms of the equations for representing
jointed rock mass properties are very simple and give a fair esti-
mate of jointed rock properties in the absence of reliable experi-
mental data. The accuracy of the estimauon of the jointed rock
properties depends upon the estimation of joint factor. Joint factor
is very important for the description of jointed rock and to find
the correlation between the parameters and the geological data.
For confining pressures other than zero, these statistical relation-
ships may not always give a very good estimate of the elastic
modulus of jointed rock as the database used in the statistical
analysis for confining pressure other than zero is limited. Since
the database covers a wide range of rock properties the statistical
relationships arrived more or less give a good estimate of uniaxial
the
compressive strength and elastic modulus for all rock types. Fi-
nite element analysis using the equivalent continuum approach
using the equations derived above gives a fair estimate of jointed
rock mass behavior. These equations are very simple to use and
require minimum input parameters (intact rock properties, spac-
ing, and orientation of joints) for the numerical analysis of jointed
rock.

Acknowledgments

The writers express their thanks for the valuable comments given
by the reviewers of this manuscript. The reviewers comments
indeed were of great help in the overall presentation of the manu-
script.

References

Arora, V. K. ( 1987). "Strength and deformation behavior of jointed .

rocks." PhD thesis, IIT Delhi, India.
Brown, E. T. (1970). "Strength of models of rock with intermittent
joints." J. S(}il Mech. Found. Div., 96(6), 1935-1949.
Brown. E. T., and Trol1ope, D. H. (1970). "Strength of model of jointed
rock." J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 96(2), 685-704.
Einstein, H. H., and Hirschfeld, R. C. (1973). "M(ldel !itudies in mechan-
Fig. 15. Stress strain plots for sandstone. granite and Agra sandstone ic!i of jointed r(ICk!i." J. SIJiI Mech. Found. Div.. 99(3), 229-248.
Ein!itein, H. H., Nel!ion, R. A., Bruhn. R. W., and Hirschfeld, R. C.,
1Iiong with the experimental results of Yaji (1984) and Arora (1987)
(1970). "M(ldel !itudie!i of jointed f(ICk tlehavior." Proc., Ilth

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS IC>ASCE I SEPTEMBER 2003/53

 Symp. of Rock Mechanics, Berkeley, Calif., 83-103. Institute of soil mechanics and rock mechanics, P-Muller Festschrift.
Goldstein, M., Goosev, B., Pyrogovsky, Tulinov, R., and Turovskaya, ed., Karlsruhe, Germany, 67- 77.
A. (1966). "Investigations of mechanical properties of Ramamurthy,T. (1994). "Strength and modulus responses of anisotropic
cracked rock." Proc., 1sI Congress of Society of Rock Mechanics, rocks." Rock Eng.. 1(13), 313-329.
Lisbon, I, 521-524. Roy, N. (1993). "Engineering behavior of rock masses through study of
Hayashi, M., (1966). "Strength and dilatancy of brittle jointed mass- jointed models." PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi,
The extreme stochastic and anisotropic failure mechanism." Proc., 1sI India.
/nl. Congre.f.f on Rock Mechanics, Libson, I, 295-302. Yaji, R. K. (1984). "Shear strength and deformation of jointed rocks."
Lama, R. D. (1974). "Uniaxial compressive strength of jointed rock." PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India.

54/INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS <0 ASCE I SEPTEMBER 2003