Proceedings of the International Symposium on Weak Rock / Tokyo /21-24 September 1981

Significance of geological features

for the mechanical behaviour of rocks and rock masses
PIERRE M.DUFFAUT
BRGM, Paris, France
ABSTRACT
As stress is tensor, the structure of materials is the first parameter controlling their behaviour. Natural earth's
crust materials have to be studied by engineers at three scales, the rock matrix, the rock mass, and the mountain
scale. Each scale displays different chief features, classified after the departures from continuity, isotropy and
homogeneity. Geometrical defects of the joint surface increase the rock mass strength. On the contrary,
geometrical defects of the schistosity or foliation surfaces increase the deformability and decrease the strength.
The scattered anisotropy of the mylonite structure does not leave any direction for stability. At the rock matrix
scale, void content or porosity is the chief parameter, then the continuity of the solid phase or the amount and
strength of the cement between the grains. Rock engineers have to feel naturalists and look at their materials
before any test or work.
Mr. Chairman, dear colleagues. It's for me agreat
honour to address you by the end of this Symposium.
J ust before beginning, I would like to thank and
compliment the J apan Society of Civil Engineers for
having prepared all of this synthetic work presented
just before, about soft rock engineering in J apan.
I knew well through the International Tunnelling
Association meetings that the J apanese engineers used
to meet difficult conditions in soft rock tunnelling.
And iam preparing myself to visit tomorrow the
prestigious Seikan Tunnel. And I was very glad to
hear about the other fields of ground engineering in
J apan, such as slope engineering and foundation
engineering, whatever for dams or other large
structures.
More than soft rocks, I would like to speak about
weaknesses of the materials within our earth's crust.
As an engineer involved since thirty-five years in
surface and underground works, most of them civil
but some of them mining, I have been highly interest-
ed in both rock mechanics and geological engineering.
(Fig. I) I can remember having attended both
meetings where LS.R.M. and LA.E.G. were to be
born, the first one in Salzburg, Austria, 1962, and tile
second one in New Delhi, India, 1964. And since
I attended or sent papers to more than half of the
chief meetings of both societies, it's why I wouldn't
miss this opportunity given to me by the Organizing
Committee of the Symposium on Weak Rocks to
speak about the naturalistic side of our field.
I can not say that I read the whole pre-prints of the
Symposium and no more here can I say I hear all the
presentations. Therefore, I understand that many
authors and speakers brought here substantial
material to the theme of my lecture, and I would
apologize for not having introduced all of this
material into it - possibly some of this material will
contradict my thoughts. Anyway, I shall be glad to
take advantage of them in the future.
Of course, I am not trying to cover all of the
subject, which would need hours of lecture, and delay
the farewell party tonight. But I would like to give
you some examples in order for many of you to
complete the task for the benefit of our society and
of some neighbouring societies.
ABOUT CLASSIFICATIONS
As any of you know, rocks are different in many
ways. I first wrote by many standards, but where are
the standards? Rocks are different in many ways,
and for that reason, geologists use many systems of
classification together (Table I). You may know how
intricated and sophisticated these systems are, and
how much we need simplifications. Even inside the
Basic Geological Description rules given by a former
commission of LS.R.M., there appear words that few
people know, and fewer use calcirudites for example.
It's clear from that example that we need to list the
most significant features, before choosing the best
criteria for classification purpose.
Engineers have yet asked for some specific classifi-
cations; for example, they have established classifi-
cation for weathered rock. But it applies mostly to
granitic rocks. Wedo not have any classification for
crushed rock along faults although it be a main
1355
concern in many underground works. In both cases,
weathered rock and crushed rock are concepts ex-
tending from sound rock to very soft, which may be
studied by soil mechanics methods.
No more have we a good classification for un-
weathered and uncrushed soft rocks, that is those
very fine grained detritic rocks covered by mud-
stones, claystones, shales, c1ayshales, argillaceous
shales, etc. I quote there words from the Sym-
posium pre-prints, and I can't perceive exactly any
good reason to use one word instead of another one.
In French and many other languages, some more,
many more, are available, and of course, there is no
possibility for accurate translation.
My personal feeling from years working either on
the geological side or the mechanical one, in the
laboratory or on the job site, my personal feeling is
that the first basis for engineering classification is
behaviour along stress. And that behaviour depends
mainly on structure; structure being used here to
cover any departure from the three classical
hypotheses, at the beginning of any rheological study,
continuity, homogeneity, and isotropy.
SCALE
Let's first consider solid nature, like we consider a
building (Fig. 2 and 3). At any scale of observation,
in-situ earth looks like it were made of assembled
parts. That is, at a lower scale, each part is made of
assembled sub-parts, and the same at a higher scale,
all over the whole length range, from the angstrom to
the crystalline grain, to the mountain, and to the
plates, along the modem theories of the earth's crust.
Two main scale ranges are classical in rock
mechanics, the rock matrix, relevan t for any com-
minution problems, as well as for any laboratory tests
on samples. Then, the rock mass, relevant for most
of foundation and tunnelling problems, and those
two main scales, appear as the common engineering
scales. But a higher level length scale would be
needed over some tens of meters. I call it now
"mountain scale", expecting a better word from one
of you, which will be relevant for high slope problems
- either natural mountain slopes, as you just saw
before, or dams abutments, large open pit slopes, and
also large underground works, like mines, and big
solu tion caverns.
Such classification in the three engineering scales is
not random, as structural features are different when
going from one scale to another, as happens in con-
struction. Alloy crystals are elements for steel. Steel
is material for beams. And beams are elements for
structures.
Let me please use here the word "structure" in
the widest sense, covering the whole construction,
the assembly of parts, the texture of the material of
the parts, and the crystal lattice.
From this model, the first order structural features
in rock mechanics would be listed on the Table 2,
from which I am now to take some examples, in
order to go to second order features. [do not mean
that this bi-dimensional table exhausts the subject.
Nature is not, bi-dimensional, and it's far more than
tri-dimensional. But we have to begin with simple
schemes, and introduce sophistication only where
needed.
Also, I limit myself from here to the three central
scales, the most significant for engineering mechanics.
DISCONTINUITY
Surfaces of discontinuity have long since been
recognized as a major feature in rock mass mechanics,
as they allow for easy opening under tensile forces,
and easy shear displacement of bodies on each side.
Against the tensile forces, only solid bridges across
the surface arc efficient, until they perish from
fatigue. Against the shear force, on the contrary,
a number of geometric features will provide strength
in excess of pure friction. (Fig. 4):, at the smaller
scale, roughness, then, waviness or steps - all those
features being generally oriented along a direction of
the surface. And please remind that steps arc not
symmetrical. They prevent the movement only in
one direction, like transistors.
And at a higher scale, a general curvature or bend
or fold of the surface may occur. Of course, orienta-
tion always is the major parameter of surfaces of dis-
continuity.
Strike and dip of the plane, strike of the linear
structural on it, including folds if any. We all know
that horizontal bedding joints are very favorable,
and it's trivial to refer to conventional construction
with bricks or stones. But the mason's work comes
from very ancien t experience, which must not be
under-estimated today. (Fig. 5)
In natural sedimentary beds, the cross joints, the
dia-clases (as Greek dia is for cross) are not so inter-
rupted as in the brickwork, as a whole. And for that
reason, the stability of the natural assembly may be
less than that of the brickwork. It happens that some
rock mechanics researchers use models of brickwork
for limestone beds, maybe because geologists use just
this pattern as the standard sketch for such rocks.
More generally, join t sta tistics are now widely used
by engineers. Computers provide us easily with mean
values and standard deviations. But we have to take
care. The mean value has no significance for a
specified problem. On the contrary, we should
consider the extreme value, which is on the dangerous
side for the problem in cause.
Then, we have to go back to the site, and only if
there is evidence of this dangerous joint not crossing
the rock mass, at the wrong place, we should take a
less conservative design joint.
Within this chapter on discontinuity, I don't want
to refer to the rock matrix scale; the theories of crack
action are well developed; no more to the mountain
scale; only for noticing that the bigger the scale you
consider a surface of discontinuity, the more the
chance to discover departures from planeity , then
the influence of join t strength decreases when the
scale increases.
ANISOTROPY
Going to anisotropy, I would like to stay a few
seconds at the crystal scale, to mention that even
cubic minerals are anisotropic as regards elastic defer-
1356
mation, contrary to their optical behaviour. The two
dimensional model of a plain fabric may be referred
to here (Fig. 6). Linear modulus is the same along
the woof and the warp, but deformab ility is greater
by far, by an order of magnitude, or sometimes more
in the diagonal direction, this direction called "bias"
by dress-making people.
Here lies a simple explanation for those diagrams
of modulus and strength of some anisotropic
materials along the direction.
Of course, in a fabric, the space left between the
threads in both directions allows for large diagonal
deformation. The same may be true for crystals as
there is some space between atoms.
I t doesn't apply as well to the blocks of an insitu
rock mass, except when their corners are softened.
And this happens the more where the scale increases.
I just referred to the mason and to the tailor. Both
Use different materials to build different structures.
Should they have only one material at hand, they
change the pattern and the orientation to fit the
behaviour of the wall or dress. Should they have
more than one, they choose the right one at the
right place, and in the right direction. I am sure we
have to learn from both ancient crafts.
May I refer to the pattern of retaining walls I
enjoyed to see in J apan along many roads (Fig. 7).
Another comment is about tunnelling through
rocks with a major schistosity. It's well known that
the direction is relevan t. The easiest tunnelling is
then normal to a vertical schistosity. Myself, I
experienced tunnelling parallel to a sub-vertical
schistosity. And it was not too bad. But the worst
Position is a sub-horizontal schistosity, where the
gravity field adds its action to the natural instability.
And the vertical schistosity makes me remind the
problem of the least cost tunnel between two points
when the shortest line is parallel to schistosity
(Fig. 8). As I said previously, the tunnel cost in the
normal direction is lower: Should the cost -
direction graph be elliptical, the least cost tunnel
might be designed as a zigzag, like the way of a sail
boat against the wind, provided the ratio between
maximum and rniminum cost be over square root
of2.
This paradoxical result vanishes when you consider
a cost direction graph far from the ellipse with
"horns".
In the stability of schistose rocks, the Oat surface
parallel to the schistosity are critical. Due to the
slenderness, they are likely to buckle one sheet after
the other. Exactly as buckling is highly sensitive to
any geometrical defect of beams or poles, the
stability of schistose rocks is highly sensitive to any
defect, such as departure of planeity, cross join t, and
those frequent tectonic microstructures named
"kink bands".
The more the schistosity is undulated and sheared,
the easier the deformation. From this point of view,
rock masses can be classified very roughly in only
three structural models (Fig. 9). The classical box of
sugar pieces - (classical in France) with an ortho-
tropic symmetry, or clinotropic, if you want to
depart from the right angles, then, the stack of sheets
axi-symmetrical and then, the mylonite structure,
with undulated crossbedded shear surfaces. Such
structure has been described by Skernpton at the
First I.S.R.M. Congress in Lisbon, 1966. And I think
it has not since received all the attention it deserves.
Actually, it's responsible of many within the most
difficult tunnels in rock, such as the railway Simplon
Tunnel, bored around the tum of this century
between Switzerland and Italy, and the expressway,
Tauern Tunnel, bored some years ago in Austria.
HETEROGENEITY
I kept heterogeneity as the last point, as it has not
yet received so much attention as the two previous
ones.
Heterogeneity is the most important at the rock
matrix scale, and it widely appears, not only because
various minerals lie side by side in many rocks, but
even because voids are presen t in any rock and soil
materials.
And void is by far the softest material.
About minerals, as far as the strength of in-situ
rock mass is concerned, only two classes are needed _
clay minerals, soft and highly water-sensitive; and the
other ones (exception to be done for salt minerals
where they exist).
It's only when studying comminution problems or
aggregate problems, you may need to look further to
minerals like calcite, quartz, and others; - those
other ranging in hardness and strength between
quartz and calcite, for the most of them.
Two days ago, I mentioned in my presentation,
that two simple geometrical cases of heterogeneity
are easy to handle. The isolated inclusion or void,
and the sandwich. Simple and multiple geological
sandwiches are widely distributed in the earth crust as
fault zones in granite, hard dikes in soft rocks, and
banded sedimentary formations.
On the contrary, isolated holes or inclusions are
somewhat rare. The grains and voids in most of
detritic rocks are too close to one another to benefit
this theory. However, the theories developed for
concrete can be a first approximation.
Many authors described here the behaviours of two
or more rocks and concluded that the differences
were related to void content, that is, porosity. And
for equal porosity, to the bond between grains. A
good example is the comparison between soft sand-
stone, low cement, and a volcanic tuff with the same
porosity. The second rock has by far more strength,
as the voids are dispersed into a solid continuous
phase obtained from melt rock. The first rock, on
the contrary, exhibits a somewhat dispersed solid
phase. The complete theory of the failure of the
volcanic rock, mono- and tri-axial, has been given by
Santiago Uriel.
Such difference is found in weathering of compact
igneous rocks. While some solid is removed by
solution, the skeleton remains continuous. And even
with a porosity of 0.5 attained in tropical climates,
the strength remains that of a rock. But the penetra-
tion test gives a very wrong idea of the material, as its
high void content, allows for easy penetration,
whatever the strength.
1357
CONCLUSIONS
As concluding remarks, I would like to prevent you
to rely too much on other men, whatever their skill
and science, to perform what is apart of our job. We
do have to make the rockmass a reliable part of our
engineered civilization. Then, we have to understand
all of its elements ourselves.
I would refer to the image of asurgeon, whose task
is to cut across the live flesh to remove and replace
some parts, to implant new organs or structures.
Surgeons are engineers working on the human body.
And we are surgeons working on the earth crust.
What could you think of a surgeon who would have
to rely before cutting on another man having been
taught anatomy? Fortunately, all surgeons have
learned anatomy themselves, and also physiology.
And I would like to be sure that rock and soil
engineers learn enough anatomy and physiology of
our earth.
Of course, specialists of anatomy and physiology
of the earth do exist: That is very good for us, and
can save a part of our time. But we have to consider
and understand ourselves all the properties significant
for our engineering purposes. And we have to
cooperate with engineering geologists to establish
an efficient and reliable common language.
We have much to do ahead: The more, while our
field has not yet been exhaustively ploughed. I just
quote from the 21st Rankine Lecture by Professor
Morgnstern: "Geotechnical engineering is not yet
mature, and far from being ready to standardization.
Instead, the range of natural materials is so freat that
the limits of our profession expand continually."
No doubt that J apanese tuffs will add an interesting
chapter to rock mechanics.
In fact, this Symposium brought some more
material and some answers to questions I have raised.
For example, a tentative classification of soft rocks
was presented from South Africa yesterday. But
every time a natural material exhibits an unforeseen
behaviour, that means we have something more to
study. Then, we are sure to leave work ahead for
many more symposia and congresses.
ARIGATO GOZAIMASU.
REFERENCES
DUFFAUT P. (1970) Essai de description structurale
des roches a l'usage de l'ingenieur, Proc. 1st Int.
CongoIAEG, Paris
DUFFAUT P. (1981) Structural weaknesses in rocks
and rock masses. Tentative classification and
behaviour, Proc. Int. Symp. on Weak Rock, Tokyo
MORGENSTERN (1981) 21st Rankine Lecture,
Geotechnique, London
SKEMPTON (1966) Proc. 1st Int. Cong ISRM,
Section 3paper I 7, Lisbon
URIEL S. (1980) Lephenomene d'effondrement dans
les roches volcaniques a forte porosite , Conf.
French Com. on Rock Mech, to be published 1982
in Revue Francaise de Geotechnique , Paris
1358
ENGINEERING
SCIENCES
EARTH SCIENCES
Fig. 1. Fields of Engineering and Earth Sciences
1359
BUILDING
BEAM
STEEL
DDDDO
coooo
00000
00000
~
00000
00000
00000
coDe Cl
~
+- - - - +- - <
. . . . . . . . . . - .
20m
0.2m
2mm
200m
0.2m
2mm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . - - +- - - - +- - <
>- - - +- l
LV
@
MOUNTAIN
BLOCK
MATRIX
Fig. 2.
Main Scales for Structures
10'
EARTH PLATES
format ions assembled
blocks or shcets
assembled
grains assembled
ROUGHNESS
WAVINESS
STEPS
BEND or FOLD
-
Fig. 4. Geometrical Defects of Surfaces of Discontinuity
BRICKWORK
I
I
I I
NATURE
Fig. 5. Patterns of J oints in Brick Work and in Nature
_ 1111_
1
1 1 1 - '
-1-1-1-1-1-
-1-1-1-1-
-1-1-1-1-1-
-1-1-1-1-
-1-1-1-1-1-
-1-1-1-1-
-,-1-1-1-1-
,&IIIIIIT I- ,
/
E
E
Fig. 6. Plain Fabric and Its Anisotropic Behaviour
1361
Fig. 7. J apanese Pattern for Retaining Walls
cost
schist osit y
'''~~ . .
--- - - . \
I
I
I
I
Fig. 8. The Least Cost Path in Anisotropic Medium
Sugar
pieces
I~
Sheet st ack
Mylonit e
structure
Fig. 9. The Three Major Rock Mass Structures
1362
horn
Table I Examples of Geological Classifications
Composition
{
QUATERNARY
CENOZOIC
AGE MESOZOIC
PALEOZOIC
PROTEROZOIC
{
CRETACIC
J URASSIC
TRIASSIC
{
IGNEOUS
GENESIS METAMORPHIC
SEDIMENTARY
{
EFFUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
{
ORTHO
META
{
SEA WATER
CONTINENTAL
{
SILICA
=QUARTZ
COMPOSITION SILICO ALUMINATES
=CLAYS,
FELDSPATHS, etc.
CALCIUM
=CALCITE
{
CLAY
LUTiTES
SILT
GRAIN SIZE SAND
ARENITES
GRAVEL
BOULDERS
RUDITES
Table 2 Classification of Structural Features
Scale rock matrix rock mass mountain
dykes,
bedding faults,
dis-continuity
cracks joints contacts
cross joints between
formations
voids
folds
hetero-geneity
inclusions
aI terna ting laccoliths
cements
layers salt domes
etc.
an-isotropy
cleavage
schistosi ty
faliation
1363