See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286934422

Importance of weathering in rock engineering

Conference Paper · October 2015

CITATION READS

1 19,450

2 authors:

R.K. Goel Subhash Mitra

Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Regional Centre, Roorkee, India Indian Society For Rock Mechanics and Tunneling Technology
54 PUBLICATIONS   873 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Review of tunnel design of Kiratpur Ner Chowk, Himachal Pradesh View project

Design of Tunnels and underground space View project

All content following this page was uploaded by R.K. Goel on 16 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Importance of Weathering in Rock Engineering

Goel, R. K.
Chief Scientist, CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
Regional Centre, Roorkee, India
Mitra Subhash
Irrigation Research Institute
Roorkee, India

Abstract

Weathering takes place in all environments but is most intense in hot, wet climates where it may be
expected to extend to great depths. The weathering of soft rocks is one of the primary causes of slope
failure and shallow landslide in hilly areas. Weathering also affects the civil engineering works located
on or within the rock mass. The degree of weathering has been correlated with engineering properties and
behavior of rocks by some researchers, which is presented here. A limiting value of laboratory uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS) of soft rocks is suggested which are likely to be influenced by weathering. It
has also been highlighted that the rocks showing no reaction during 1st wetting-drying-cycle and cracking
and/or beginning of decay up to 50% of the original mass up to 3rd cycle in slake durability test shall re-
quire special attention to take care of weathering effects during the designed life of engineering structure
on or within the rock mass at shallow depths. The paper also discusses the condition of discontinuities
(including the roughness and alteration) and its influence on rock mass rating (RMR), slope mass rating
(SMR) and rock mass quality (Q).

Keywords: Weathering; uniaxial compressive strength; slake durability test; rock engineering; soft rocks.

1. Introduction:

Most civil engineering works are located close to the surface where the ground mass
is affected by the weathering. Weathering implies decay and change in state from an
original condition to a new condition as a result of external processes. Weathering takes
place in all environments but is most intense in hot, wet climates where weathering may
be expected to extend to great depths.

Mitra et al. (1988) observed that seepage caused by monsoon affects the support pres-
sures significantly in large underground openings. Therefore, support pressure assess-
ment should account for some seepage if unfavorable hydro-geological conditions pre-
vail as in the Himalayas.

Mitra (1991) analysed the meteorological data (approx 10 years period) for a project
located in soft rocks in lower Himalayan region and highlighted the effect of weather-
ing parameters on long-term behavior on different components of underground power
house in weak rocks.

Mehrotra et al. (1991) advocated the necessity of long-term evaluation of rock engi-
neering parameters in the Himalayas which is not only seismo-tectonically active but
also a weathered sensitive zone. They observed that some rocks in the lesser Himalayas
may be significantly affected for their strength and deformation characteristics once the
rock mass is saturated during reservoir filling/operation. Also the rock mass in general
in Himalayan region are soft and weathered having mineralogical composition highly
prone to chemical attacks. These rocks appear to have some soluble contents/erodible

231
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

joints filling and thus need to be investigated thoroughly on long-term basis.

Goel et al. (2013) studied the importance of rock dynamics in civil engineering/mining
activities and also reported the performance study of underground structures subjected
to blasting and seismicity particularly in soft and weathered rock mass conditions. They
found that the dynamic effects in such condition may be even more significant com-
pared to massive and strong rock mass conditions.

Therefore, it is quite evident that weathering affects the mechanical properties of rock
material and mass on the surface and at depths through physical and chemical weather-
ing processes. Physical weathering leads to the opening of discontinuities by rock frac-
tures, progressively breaking down the original rock to a soil-like material representing
advanced stages of weathering. Chemical weathering results in chemical changes in
minerals. Both physical and chemical weathering changes hard mineral into softer ones
and loosens up the structure of a rock. Thus, reducing its strength (complete weather-
ing creates soil). This means that even a hard rock like granite can be a lot softer when
exposed to weathering conditions. Thus, weathering affects the engineering structures
built at or near the Earth’s surface.

The weathering of soft rocks is one of the primary causes of slope failure and shallow
landslides in hilly areas. Therefore, understanding the nature of weathering is an im-
portant step in predicting the occurrence of slope failure and land-slides, including their
timing, style and extent. In general, a slope becomes unstable gradually as the weather-
ing of rocks proceeds inward from its surface and it typically fails during heavy rainfall
or soon after. This type of failure is widely known from many places, especially from
monsoon regions. Frequent failures along steep slopes composed of soft, degradable
rocks are believed to be mainly attributed to the weathering of rocks, because individ-
ual failures are very shallow and they tend to repeat over time.

The thickness of weathered zone keeps on increasing with time. It is understood that
a slope failure occurs when the thickness of weathered zone attains a threshold value.
Immediately after a failure occurs, the thickness of the weathered zone is considerably
reduced, then it gradually increases again as the newly exposed surface begin to weath-
er. Weathering and slope failures repeat in this manner.

Although weathering of rock mass occur in geological periods, the importance to un-
derstanding the changes in the physical behavior and mass engineering must be given
much attention. This is because demands of infrastructural developments for a country’s
growth often expose the varying weathered zones due to cuttings in to the rock mass.

In addition to the climatic conditions, the rate of weathering of a rock mass depends
upon, the type of rock mass (mineral composition), its cementing material, strength of
rock, presence of joints, faults, shear zones and other discontinuities. The engineering
structures located on or within the rock mass has a designed life of generally 100 years.
Some rocks are not much affected by the weathering in the designed life of 100 years,
whereas there are some rocks which are affected considerably by weathering in the de-
signed life of 100 years. Hence, such rocks need special attention and are in the focus
of this paper.

232
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

The paper is an attempt to discuss the degree of weathering and its effect on rock
properties and rock behavior. In addition a limiting value of UCS is suggested for the
attention of designers. It has also been highlighted that the rocks showing no reaction
during 1st wetting-drying-cycle and cracking and/or beginning of decay up to 50% of
the original mass up to 3rd cycle in slake durability test shall require special attention to
take care of the effects of weathering during the designed life of engineering structure
on or within the rock mass at shallow depths.

The paper also discusses the condition of discontinuities (including the roughness and
alteration) and its influence on RMR, SMR and Q.

2. Degree or Grade of Rock Mass Weathering:

On the basis of the visual assessment of the rock mass degraded due to weathering, the
rock mass is classified as ‘fresh’ to ‘residual soil’ (British Standards - BS5930, 1981)
as shown in Table 1 to represent the state of weathering of a rock mass. Almost same
weathering classification or degree of weathering of rock mass is suggested by Interna-
tional Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM).

Table 1
Degrees of rock mass weathering (BS5930, 1981)
Degree/Grade
Term Description
of Weathering
No visible sign of rock material weathering; perhaps slight
Fresh I
discoloration on major discontinuity surface
Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and
Slightly
II discontinuity surfaces. All rock material may be discolored by
weathered
weathering
Less than half of the rock material is decomposed or disinte-
Moderately
III grated to a soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a
weathered
continuous framework or as core stones
More than half of the rock material is decomposed or disinte-
Highly weath-
IV grated to a soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a
ered
discontinuous framework or as core stone
Completely All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil.
V
weathered The original mass structure is still largely intact
All rock material is converted to soil. The mass structure and
Residual soil VI material fabric is destroyed. There is a large change in volume,
but the soil has not been significantly transported

Santi (2006) has given Table 2 showing the relation between various engineering prop-
erties and weathering grades. This can be used as a guide to get an idea of behavior of
various grade rocks.

233
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

Table 2
Engineering behavior/properties related with weathering grades (Santi, 2006)
Engineering Property Fresh, I Slightly weathered, II Moderately weathered, III
Suitable for concrete Suitable for concrete Suitable for small concrete
Foundation condition
and earthfill dams and earthfill dams structures, earthfill dams
Generally blasting needed,
In general blasting In general blasting but ripping may be pos-
Excavability
necessary necessary sible depending upon the
jointing intensity
Very durable, difficult Very durable, but less
Poor subject to deterio-
to shape, excellent aes- aesthetically pleasing
Building material ration, not suitable as an
thetic properties, good due to discoloration,
aggregate
aggregate good aggregate
Very good; can stand
Excellent; can stand
Excellent; can stand vertically unsupported, but
vertically unsupport-
Slope stability vertically unsupported subject to deterioration for
ed
(1/4:1 H:V) long term stability
(1/2:1 H:V)
(1:1 H:V)
Benches and surface protection structures are advisable, particularly for more highly weathered mate-
rial. The presence of through-going adversely oriented structures is not taken into account
Not required unless
Not required unless
joints are closely Light steel sets on 0.6 to
Tunnel support joints are closely spaced
spaced or adversely 1.2m centers
or adversely oriented
oriented
Point load strength
9-18 5-12.5 2-6
(MPa)
Schimdt hammer
59-62 51-56 37-48
value (MPa)
Moisture content (%) 0.06-0.30 0.15-0.29 0.25-0.49
Unconfined compres-
125-260 100-175 60-120
sive strength (MPa)
RQD (%) 75, usually 90 75, usually 90 50-75
Core recovery (%)
90 90 90
NX
Drilling rates (m/hr)
2-4 2-4 8-10
(Diamond NX)
Permeability Low to medium Medium to high Medium to high
Seismic velocity (m/
3050-5500 2500-4000 1500-3000
sec)

234
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

Table 2 (contd.)
Engineering Property Highly weathered, IV Completely weathered,V Residual Soil, VI
Suitable for earthfill Suitable for low earthfill
Foundation condition Generally unsuitable
dams dams
Generally ripping and/
Excavability Scraping Scraping
or scraping necessary
Too poorly graded to be
Too angular and poorly
Unsuitable, not useable used as an aggregate by
Building material graded to serve as an
as an aggregate itself, but may serve as
aggregate by itself
a sand filler if screened
Good; can stand
Very poor; unstable
vertically unsupported
Moderate; can stand because of low cohe-
upto 7.5m high, greater
unsupported at 1:1 H:V sion, greatly influenced
Slope stability heights should be 1:1
with benches to catch de- by ground water, best
H:V with benches, de-
tritus (1.5:1 to 2:1 H:V) removed (1.5:1 to 2:1
teriorates with time (1:1
H:V)
to 1.5:1 H:V)
Benches and surface protection structures are advisable, particularly for more highly weathered mate-
rial. The presence of through-going adversely oriented structures is not taken into account
Heavy steel sets, com- Heavy steel sets, com-
plete lagging on 0.6 to plete lagging on 0.6 to
Steel sets, partial
0.9 m centers. If tunnel- 0.9 m centers. If tunnel-
Tunnel support lagging, 0.6 to 0.9 m
ling below water table, ling below water table,
centers
possibility of soil flow possibility of soil flow
into tunnel into tunnel
Point load strength
0.3-0.9 0.1-0.5 --
(MPa)
Schimdt hammer
12-21 5-20 --
value (MPa)
Moisture content (%) 0.37-3.8 7.84-21.0 12.24-22.1
Unconfined compres-
35-55 1-10 <1
sive strength (MPa)
RQD (%) 0-50 0 or does not apply 0 or does not apply
15 to 70 depending
Core recovery (%)
on percentage of core 15 as sand 15 as sand
NX
stones
Drilling rates (m/hr)
8-12 10-13 10-13
(Diamond NX)
Permeability High Medium Low
Seismic velocity (m/
1000-2000 500-1000 500-1000
sec)

Borrelli et al. (2007) have compared the weathering grade with slope stability (or land-
slide) for plutonic and metamorphic rocks of medium to high grade. They highlighted
that the percentage of landslide area included in classes III and II is small (about 1%),
and that the percentage of landslide areas in class VI (38%) and class V (37%) is always
higher than that in class IV (24%). It is confirmed at a detailed scale (1:10,000) that the
rock mass weathering grade is an indicator of slope instability predisposition (Borrelli
et al., 2004 and Gullà et al., 2004).

235
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

3. Weatherability:

Weatherability or weathering resistance is different from the degree of weathering or

weathering grade. As mentioned earlier, the weathering grade represents the state of
weathering of a rock mass, whereas weatherability is the resistance to weathering of
a rock mass. For example, a fresh claystone rock mass (Grade I) is less resistant to
weathering and therefore its engineering properties may considerably change in the
designed life. On the other hand, a moderately weathered granite (Grade III) is resistant
to weathering and therefore its engineering properties may not change considerably in
the designed life. Hence, weatherability is an important property to know.

With passage of time a fresh rock weathers to residual soil. The weathering rate var-
ies from rock to rock and from region to region. Generally, the soft sedimentary rock
like siltstone, claystone, shales, mudstones, poorly cemented sandstone and other rocks
having presence of fast weathering minerals and uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
less than 40MPa (Bell, 1983) are likely to be affected most by weathering during the
engineering life span of a structure. Hence, engineering structures and slopes on such
rocks are vulnerable to weathering.

Bell (1983) reported a case of slope failure in Lias clay in Northampton shire, which
was primarily due to swelling in the clay. It took 43 years to reduce the strength of the
clay below the critical level at which the sliding occur. Can weatherability of soft rocks
(or potential to suffer further short-term damage) be related with time? If this is done,
the effect of weathering on the stability of engineering structure can also be related
and accordingly the structures can be designed taking care of the effects of rock mass
weathering.

Slake durability index gives an idea about the weatherability (resistance to weathering)
of rocks as discussed below.

4. Slake Durability Classification and Weatherability:

Based upon tests on representative shales and clay stones for two numbers of 10 min-
ute cycle after drying, Gamble (1971) found the slake durability index to vary over the
whole range from 0 to 100%. There are no visible connections between durability and
geological age, but durability increases linearly with density and inversely with natural
water/moisture content. Based on his results, therefore, Gamble proposed a classifica-
tion on slake durability with a group name ranging from a very high durability to very
low durability. The slake durability classification is useful in the selection of rock ag-
gregates for road, rail line, concretes and shotcrete.

Hard rocks are characterized by a high to very high uniaxial compressive strength com-
bined with small pore volumes. In these rocks water seepage happens very slowly and
only on a small scale. Rock materials of a medium compressive strength but coarser
grain size and larger pore volume, e.g. sandstones, can be durable as well. Since water
seepage is much faster in those rocks, a pore water pressure is unlikely to develop, and
doesn’t exceed the grain binding/bond strength.

236
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

Weak rocks however are characterized by a reduced compressive strength and/or a

bigger pore volume. In these rocks a better hydraulic conductivity causes the faster
percolation of water to weaken the rock material during wetting-drying-cycles.

The main purpose of slake-durability test is to evaluate the weathering resistance of

rocks, specially the soft rocks like shales, mudstones, siltstones and other clay-bearing
rocks. Based on the slake durability test and crystallization test as per DIN (1990),
Nickmann et al. (2006) have proposed a classification system consisting of 6 categories
of durability from VK0 to VK5 (Table 3).

Table 3
Classification of weak rocks based on the behavior in 3-cycle wetting-drying-test and
the crystallization test (Nickmann et al., 2006)
VK Class Description
No change up to the 3rd wetting-drying-cycle, may be small losses
VK 0 Hard rock because of loosened aggregates during sample preparation (< 5%), no
reaction in the crystallization test (loss < 10%)
No change up to the 3rd wetting-drying-cycle, may be small losses be-
Low slake dura-
VK 1 cause of loosened aggregates during sample preparation (< 5%), losses
bility
in the crystallization test > 10%
slow slake dura- No reaction during 1st wetting, up to 3rd cycle cracking and/ or begin-
VK 2
bility ning of decay up to 50% of the original mass
During 1 wetting cracking or loss of smaller aggregates (max. 10% of
st
Medium slake
VK 3 mass), but the sample remains preserved. Up to the 3rd cycle decay up to
durability
95% of the original mass
Rapid and high During 1st wetting disintegration up to 75%; up to the 3rd cycle decay up
VK 4
slake durability to 100% of the original mass
Immediate and
Spontaneous decay into aggregates <25% during 1st wetting, up to 3rd
VK 5 very high slake
cycle almost complete decay
durability

Nickmann et al. (2006) have also co-related category of durability (VK) with the uni-
axial compressive strength (UCS) of rock as shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1 Relation between category of durability (VK) and uniaxial compressive

strength (UCS) [after Nickmann et al., 2006]

237
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

It is expected that shales, mudstones, siltstones and other clay-bearing rocks having
UCS<50MPa are, in general, less resistant to weathering. Bell (1983) also observed
that rocks having UCS less than 40MPa are likely to be affected most by weathering
during the designed life of a structure. From Fig. 1, VK 2 has a UCS value of about 50
MPa. Table 3 shows that VK2 refers to, ‘No reaction during 1st wetting-drying-cycle,
up to 3rd cycle cracking and/ or beginning of decay up to 50% of the original mass’.
Hence, engineering structure on rock having UCS<50MPa and showing this behavior
in slake durability test shall require special attention to take care of weathering during
its designed life. Also, rocks having VK category more than 2 as per Table 3 are more
prone to weathering damage.

5. Influence of Weathering on Various Rock Properties:

Table 4 presents a summary of the influence of weathering on some rock properties in

terms of the fraction relative to fresh value. For example, a fresh rock having intact rock
strength of 100MPa shall have UCS 88MPa on slightly weathering.

It should be noted that the degree of weathering described as moderately, highly and
completely weathered imply that a portion of the rock mass has decayed to geotechnical
soil. The intact rock strength, thus, is of rock blocks which have undergone particular
degree of weathering. As expected, the intact rock strength decreases with increasing
degree of weathering. Weathering grades shown in Table 4 are taken from Table 1.

Table 4
Variation in rock properties with degree of weathering (After Hack and Price, 1997)
Degree of weathering Spacing of
Condition of Number of
(BS 5930:1981), Table Intact rock strength discontinu-
discontinuities Observations
1 ities
Fresh, I 1.00 1.00 1.00 12
Slightly, II 0.88 0.93 0.99 (0.95) 168
Moderately, III 0.70 0.89 0.98 (0.8) 27
Highly, IV 0.35 0.63 0.89 (0.6) 6
Completely, V 0.02 0.55 0.77 (0.4) 2

Hack and Price (1997) highlighted the influence of weathering on intact rock strength,
spacing of discontinuities and condition of discontinuities (Table 4). Table 4 shows that
the condition of discontinuities in a rock mass is considerably less influenced by weath-
ering than the intact rock strength and the spacing of discontinuities. Authors have
observed that the condition of discontinuities is also considerably influenced in soft
rock masses. In soft rock masses where deformations can occur independent of joints,
the degree of jointing and joint friction factor is less significant than in hard rocks. The
revised fraction values for soft rocks suggested by the authors for condition of discon-
tinuities are shown in brackets in Table 4.

The influence of weathering on all rock mass parameters for ‘slightly’ and ‘moderate-
ly’ weathered rock mass is low, but strongly increases for ‘highly’ and ‘completely’
weathered rock mass (Table 4). This corresponds to the percentage of the rock material
which is decomposed or disintegrated into soil, following the definition of the degree of

238
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

weathering (Table 1). Other researchers have also shown similar reductions in strength
parameter from weathering.

Intact rock strength in Table 4 has drastically reduced from 0.7 for moderately weath-
ered rocks to 0.35 for highly weathered rocks. It shows that any highly weathered rock
mass (Grade –IV, Table 2) having laboratory UCS of 35 to 55MPa shall require the
same treatment for long-term behavior as any fresh soft rock mass.

Hack and Price (1997) have proposed the reduction factor for rock mass weathering
(Table 4) in the context of a slope classification system. However, they suggest that
these reduction factors may also be valid for other engineering projects in or on rock
masses.

6. Variation in RQD with Degree of Weathering:

Deere and Deere (1989) highlighted the variation in RQD with degree of weathering.
According to them fresh and slightly weathered rock should be used in the RQD count;
moderately weathered rock which resists hand breakage should be included but with
a caution regarding its soundness; and highly weathered rock (that breaks under hand
pressure), completely weathered, and residual soil should not be included.

Gurocak and Kilic (2005) have studied the variation in RQD value for different degrees
of weathering in basalts. As per their study the RQD value decreases with the increase
in degree of weathering. The work of Gurocak and Kilic (2005) and Table 4 have been
used to derive the RQD factor in Table 5 for hard rocks.

Rock with an RQD value less than 50 percent should be assumed to be soil-like with
regard to scour potential (www.fhwa.dot.gov downloaded on 12.2.2015).

Table 5
Variation in RQD with degree of weathering for hard and soft rock masses
Degree of weathering (BS RQD Factor
5930:1981) Hard Rocks Soft Rocks
Fresh 1.00 1.00
Slightly 0.80-0.90 0.70-0.80
Moderately 0.70 0.25 -0.50
Highly 0.30-0.50 0.0
Completely 0.05 0.0

In case of soft rocks (UCS< 50MPa), there are more chances of core breaks because of
drilling process and sometimes it may be difficult to fit the broken pieces. It is suggest-
ed by Deere and Deere (1989) that when in doubt about a break, it should be considered
as natural. Thus, the RQD obtained from drill-core in fresh un-jointed soft rock may
not exceed 75%. Further, it has been observed that the reduction in RQD value with
degree of weathering in soft rocks is at a faster rate compared to hard and strong rocks.
As such, RQD factor for soft rocks with degree of weathering, as observed by Authors’,
is given in Table 5.

239
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

Table 5 implies that a fresh hard rock having RQD of 80% shall have RQD of approxi-
mately 4% when it is completely weathered.

7. Modification in RMR Because of Weathering:

Bieniawski’s RMR (Bieniawski, 1989) has following six parameters.

(i) Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock material,

(ii) Rock quality designation RQD,
(iii) Joint or discontinuity spacing,
(iv) Joint condition,
(v) Ground water condition, and
(vi) Joint orientation.

Out of the above six parameters, first five parameters (i.e. excluding ‘joint orientation’)
give RMRBasic. Tables 4 and 5 show the variation in the parameters of RMRBasic with
degree of weathering. The cumulative effect of weathering in RMRBasic using Tables 4
and 5 is obtained as shown below in Table 6, as an example, for one case. The ground
water condition and its rating have been assumed to be same.

Table 6
Variation in RMRBasic with weathering grade for Case-I data
Spacing of
Intact rock Condition of Wa- RMR-
Degree of discontinu- RQD
strength discontinuities ter Basic
weathering (BS ities
5930:1981) Rat- Rat- Rat- Rat-
Rating
ing ing ing ing
Fresh 1.00 10 1.00 9 1.00 20 1.00 14.5 10 63.5
0.99
Slightly 0.88 9 0.93 8.5 18 0.85 10.5 10 56
(0.90)
0.98
Moderately 0.70 7 0.89 8 14 0.70 9 10 48
(0.7)
0.89
Highly 0.35 5 0.63 7.5 11 0.50 6 10 39.5
(0.55)
0.77
Completely 0.02 1 0.55 7 8 0.05 3 10 29
(0.4)

Case-I: Fresh rock has UCS=150MPa (Rating 10), RQD = 80% (Rating 14.5); Spacing
of discontinutites = 25cm (Rating 9); Condition of discontinuities = Slightly rough
and moderately to highly weathered, wall rock surface separation <1mm (Rating 20);
Ground water = Damp (Rating 10).

Rating for different weathering grades in Table 6 has been obtained after multiplying
the value of fresh rock with the fraction and selecting the rating (as per Bieniawski,
1989) for this value. For example, UCS is 150 MPa for rock, for slightly weathered
rock the UCS would be 150*0.88 = 132MPa. Hence rating for 132MPa is obtained for
slightly weathered rock from Bieniawski (1989).

240
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

It can be seen in Table 6 that a ‘fresh’ rock having RMRBasic = 63.5 will have RMRBa-
sic
=29 after it is ‘completely’ weathered.

The above example shows that the rock mass rating (RMR) of a freshly excavated
rock mass, will change with time if left unprotected from weathering. Change in RMR
values with degree of weathering in soft rock masses will be different. The soft rock
masses having higher rate of weathering (clay rich rocks) will be badly affected with
time. The granite and such other rocks, on the other hand, are weathering resistant and
therefore the change in RMRBasic may not be fast to observe in the designed life.

Slope mass rating (SMR) of Romana (1985) also uses RMRBasic. Hence, it is suggested
that SMR for the slope characterization or other such parameters collected for landslide
study should also take care of the weathering effect for projecting the behavior of slope.

8. Modification in Q-Parameters Because of Weathering:

Tunnel portal and shallow tunnels through soft and jointed rocks shall expect the max-
imum effect of weathering in terms of changes in the Q values with time, as mentioned
above in RMR. With time variation in Q value due to weathering is expected because
of change in RQD, Jr and Ja. The expected change in RQD is given in Table 3. Change
in Jr and Ja are discussed as follows.

8.1 Joint Roughness Number and Joint Alteration Number (Jr and Ja):

The parameters Jr and Ja, given in Tables 7 and 8 respectively, represent roughness and
degree of alteration of joint walls or filling materials. The parameters Jr and Ja is col-
lected for the weakest critical joint set or clay-filled discontinuity in a given zone. In
soft rock masses prone to weathering the Jr and Ja conditions are likely to change with
time. In water charged soft rocks, the long-term behavior will be highly influenced by
the weathering and thus vast changes in the rating of Jr and Ja are expected. This should
also be taken care of in shallow tunnels having vertical to sub-vertical joints.

Table 7
Joint roughness number Jr (Barton, 2002)
Condition Jr
Notes:
(a) Rock wall contact and
(i) Descriptions refer to small-scale
(b) Rock wall contact before 10cm shear
features and intermediate scale features,
A. Discontinuous joint 4.0
in that order
B. Rough or irregular, undulating 3.0
(ii) Add 1.0 if the mean spacing of the
C. Smooth, undulating 2.0
relevant joint set is greater than 3m
D. Slickensided, undulating 1.5
Jr = 0.5 can be used for planar, slicken-
E. Rough or irregular, planar 1.5
sided joints having lineation, provided
F. Smooth, planar 1.0
the lineations are favourably oriented
G. Slickensided, planar 0.5
Jr and Ja classification is applied to the
(c) No rock wall contact when sheared
joint set or discontinuity that is least
H. Zone containing clay minerals thick 1.0
favourable for stability both from the
enough to prevent rock wall contact
point of view of orientation and shear
J. Sandy, gravelly or crushed zone thick 1.0
resistance, τ
enough to prevent rock wall contact

241
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

Table 7 shows that the rating for category (a) & (b) are same. But, with time due to
weathering in water charged jointed soft rock, the roughness of joint will change and
the joint has thicker filling changing Jr rating to category (c), i.e. 1. Similarly, rating
of Ja will also be adversely influenced by weathering in soft and jointed rocks; Table 8
category (a) will shift to category (b). The effect of weathering can reach up to great
depth in water charged rock masses and in the rocks having vertical to sub-vertical
joints. This weathering effect shall always be there and considered for the evaluation of
Q-value and design of tunnel supports below ground water table.

Table 8
Joint alteration number Ja (Barton, 2002)
Condition Ja
(a) Rock wall contact (No mineral filling, only coating)
Tightly healed, hard, non-softening, impermeable filling, i.e. quartz or
A. 0.75
epidote
B. Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only 1.0
Slightly altered joint walls. Non-softening mineral coatings, sandy parti-
C 2.0
cles, clay-free disintegrated rock, etc.
D Silty or sandy clay coatings, small clay fraction (non-softening) 3.0
Softening or low friction clay mineral coatings, i.e. kaolinite, mica. Also
E chlorite, talc, gypsum, and graphite, etc. and small quantities of swelling 4.0
clays (Discontinuous coatings, 1-2mm or less in thickness)
b) Rock wall contact before 10 cm shear (Thin mineral fillings)
F Sandy particles, clay-free disintegrated rock, etc. 4.0
Strongly over-consolidated, non-softening clay mineral fillings (continu-
G 6.0
ous, <5mm in thickness)
Medium or low over-consolidation, softening, clay mineral fillings (contin-
H 12-16
uous, <5mm in thickness)
Swelling clay fillings, i.e. montmorillonite (continuous, <5 mm in thick-
J ness). Value of Ja depends on per cent of swelling clay-size particles, and 8-12
access to water, etc.
(c) No rock wall contact when sheared (Thick mineral fillings)
Zones or bands of disintegrated or crushed rock and clay (see G, H, J for 6, 8 or
K,L,M
description of clay condition) 8-12
N Zones or bands of silty or sandy clay, small clay fraction (non-softening) 5.0
Thick, continuous zones or bands of clay (see G, H, J for description of 10, 13 or
O,P,R
clay condition) 13-20

242
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

Figure 2 Variation of support pressure with Ja

To study the effect of weathering in Ja and on support pressure a plot between Ja and
support pressure is drawn and shown in Fig. 2. The support pressure is obtained by us-
ing the Barton’s equation of estimating support pressure. Figure 2 shows four plots for
different Q-values and assuming Ja=1. The variation in Ja (shown on Y-axis) will change
the Q-value and thus the estimated support pressure.

It can be seen in Fig. 2 that weaker/poor rock mass (represented by plot of Q=0.1), which
are likely to be affected most by the weathering, has considerable increase in support
pressure with the increase in Ja rating. Hence, it is important to take care of weathering
effect while computing Q and designing the long-term supports in soft rocks in adverse
hydro-geological conditions.

9. Conclusions:

•• Weatherability is different from the degree/grade of weathering. The weathering

grade represents the state of weathering of a rock mass, whereas weatherability
is the resistance to weathering of a rock mass.
•• Relation between various engineering properties and weathering grades are
shown in Table 2, which can be used as a guide to get an idea of behavior of
various grade rocks.
•• Intact rock strength, spacing of discontinuities and condition of discontinuities
are adversely affected by weathering (Table 4). Condition of discontinuities in a
rock mass is less influenced by weathering than the intact rock strength and the
spacing of discontinuities.
•• Engineering structure on rock mass having UCS of intact rock material less than
50MPa and VK category more than 2 (Table 3) shall require special attention to
take care of weathering effect during its designed life.
•• Slake durability index is an important test to judge the weathering resistance of
specially the soft rocks like shale, siltstone, mudstone and other clay-bearing
rocks. Hence, it is suggested to carry out this test for all future designs of slopes,
in particular.

243
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

•• Rock mass rating (RMR) and slope mass rating (SMR) shall also take care of
the weathering effect on soft rocks (having VK category>2) as shown in Table 6.
SMR is being vastly used for the study of slope or landslide.
•• Effect of weathering in Jr and Ja shall be considered for computing the Q-value
for long-term support pressure for tunnels through soft and jointed rock masses
charged with ground water. This should also be taken care of in shallow tunnels.

References:

1. Barton, N (2002). Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterization

and tunnel design. Int. J. Rock Mech. and Mining Sciences, Elsevier, Vol. 39,
185-216.
2. Bieniawski, Z. T. (1989). Engineering rock mass classification - A complete
manual. John Wiley, 251 p.
3. Bell, F.G. (1983). Fundamentals of engineering geology, Butterworth & Co.
(Publishers) Ltd. Chapter 7: Geomorphological Processes I, 647 p.
4. Borrelli, L., Greco, R. and Gullà, G. (2007). Weathering grade of rock masses
as a predisposing factor to slope instabilities: Reconnaissance and control
procedures. Geomorphology, Volume 87, Issue 3, 15 June, 158-175.
5. Borrelli, L., Greco, R. and Gullà, G. (2004). Weathering classification of rock-
mass and slope instabilities. EGU 2004, 1st General Assembly, Poster Session.
Nice, France (2004).
6. BS 5930 (1981). Code of Practice for Site Investigation. British Standards
Institution (BSI), London, 147p.
7. Deere, Don U. and Deere, Don W. (1989). Rock quality designation (RQD)
after twenty years. US Army Corps of Engineers, Contract Report GL-89-1,
Final Report, February, p.67 (Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ downloaded on
17.2.2015)
8. DIN (1990). Testing of natural stone, crystallisation test, DIN 52111, Deutsches
Institut fur Normung e.V., Berlin (in German).
9. Gamble, J.C. (1971). Durability- Plasticity Classification of Shales and other
Argillaceous Rocks. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, USA, 159 p..
10. Goel, R.K., Singh, B., and Mitra, Subhash (2013). Dynamic Rock Testing and
Performance Study of Underground Structures Subjected to Blasting and
Seismicity. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Tunneling Technology, Volume 19,
No. 2, 99-120.
11. Gullà, G., Borrelli, L. and Greco, R. (2004). Weathering of rock-mass as possible
characterizing factor of predisposition to slope instabilities. Proc. 9th Intern.
Symp. on Landslides. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2004), 103–108.
12. Gurocak, Z. and Kilic, R. (2005). Effect of weathering on the geomechanical
properties of Miocene basalts in Malatya. Eastern Turkey, Bull Eng Geol Env,
Vol. 64, 373-381.
13. Hack, R. and Price, D. (1997). Quantification of weathering, Proc. Engineering
Geology and the Environment. Athens, Eds. Marinos et al., 1997, Pub A.A.
Balkema, 145-150.
14. Mehrotra, V.K., Mitra, Subhash and Agrawal C.K. (1991). Need of Long-term
Evaluation of Rock Parameters in the Himalayas. 7th International Congress on
Rock Mechanics, Aachen, Germany, 289-292.

244
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

15. Mitra, S. (1991). Study on Long-term Behaviour of Underground Powerhouse

Cavities in Soft Rocks. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India,
194 p.
16. Mitra, Subhash, Singh, Bhawani and Rajvanshi, U.S. (1988). Performance of
Chhibro Underground Powerhouse Cavities after Charging Water Conductor
System – A Case Study. International Symposium on Underground Engineering,
Volume I, New Delhi, India, 425-430.
17. Nickmann, M., Spaun, G. and Thuro, Kurosch (2006). Engineering geological
classification of weak rocks. Proc. 10th IAEG International Conference, Paper
no. 492, Sept. 6-10, Nottingham, UK.
18. Romana, M. (1985). New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski
classification to slopes. Int. Sym. on the Role of Rock Mechanics, Zacatecas,
49-53.
19. Santi, P. M. (2006). Field methods for characterizing weak rock for engineering.
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XII, No. 1, Feb., The Geological
Society of America, 1-11.

245

View publication stats