ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 13701377

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus using variations in

transmissivity and RQD with depth
Xiao-Wei Jiang , Li Wan, Xu-Sheng Wang, Xiong Wu, Xin Zhang
School of Water Resources and Environment, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Discontinuity normal stiffness and deformation modulus of large scale rock masses are very difcult to
Received 9 December 2008 determine. A method for estimation of discontinuity normal stiffness based on the decrease in
Received in revised form transmissivity with depth has been proposed by the authors in a former paper. In the current study, the
24 April 2009
method is further developed by accounting for the changes in both discontinuity aperture and
Accepted 12 May 2009
Available online 7 June 2009
frequency with depth, which are key factors that cause the transmissivity to decrease with depth. The
discontinuity frequency can be estimated from RQD measurements, which are readily available in most
Keywords: geotechnical investigations. The transmissivity data from packer tests are usually available in
Transmissivity geotechnical investigations for hydropower plants. For a rock mass in a dam site mainly controlled
RQD
by lithostatic stress, based on transmissivity and RQD data at different depths, the change in
Normal stiffness
discontinuity aperture with depth can be linked to the change in aperture with stress, which denes the
Deformation modulus
Packer test normal stiffness of discontinuities. In the case study, the discontinuity normal stiffness is successfully
estimated by using transmissivity and RQD data, and the result shows that the normal stiffness
increases with stress (depth) and the rate of normal stiffness versus stress (depth) decreases with stress
(depth), which is consistent with experimental studies. The estimated normal stiffness has been utilized
to calculate the rock mass deformation modulus using an equivalent model. The result of deformation
modulus by the proposed method is close to that obtained by using in situ measurements, as well as by
using empirical models relating RQD to deformation modulus.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction masses is primarily dependent on the discontinuities. Both

The deformation modulus is the most representative para-
meter describing the pre-failure mechanical behavior of any
engineering material. In rock masses, the existence of disconti-
nuities makes the mechanical properties of rock masses differ
greatly from that of intact rocks. Therefore, laboratory tests on
small specimens cannot successfully predict the deformation of
rock masses. Moreover, even in situ measurements of the
deformability (such as plating loading, radial jacking, etc.), which
usually involve difcult test procedures, are still not able to obtain
parameters that can represent large scale rock masses. The
determination of the deformation modulus of large scale rock
masses remains one of the most difcult tasks in the eld of rock
mechanics [1].
Although rock masses are composed of intact rocks and
discontinuities, the deformation of rock masses occurs mainly in
the discontinuities, especially when subjected to low stress state
[2,3]. Experiments have also shown that the permeability of rock
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 15801304208.
E-mail address: xiaow.jiang@gmail.com (X.-W. Jiang).
hydraulic and mechanical properties of rock masses are related
to the geometry of discontinuities [4], which suggests a new way
to estimate mechanical properties from hydraulic information.
Rutqvist [5] utilized hydraulic jacking test to determine normal
stiffness of discontinuities in hard rocks. Jiang et al. [6] have
estimated the stress-dependent discontinuity normal stiffness of
large scale rock masses using the permeability data from packer
test in a wide range of depths.
In [6], it was assumed that the decrease in permeability with
depth, a phenomenon which had been observed by numerous
researchers throughout the world [710], was related to the
decrease in aperture with depth, and can be linked to the change
in normal stiffness with depth. The normal stiffness, which
describes the relationship between discontinuity aperture and
normal stress, was estimated based on the rate of decrease in
permeability with depth. Then an equivalent continuum model
was utilized to calculate the deformation modulus of the rock
mass, which is consistent with in situ measurements. Unfortu-
nately, in [6], the normal stiffness was linearly dependent on
depth (stress). As pointed out in their paper, this result is not
completely realistic due to the lack of information on change in
discontinuity spacing (frequency) with depth. In fact, for a specic

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.05.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
X.-W. Jiang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 13701377
site, discontinuity aperture would generally decrease with depth
and discontinuity spacing would usually increase with depth [7],
and the two factors would simultaneously contribute to the
decrease in permeability with depth. If the change in disconti-
nuity spacing (frequency) with depth is available, the method
used in [6] could be improved.
Rock quality designation (RQD), which was introduced by
Deere [11], has been widely applied in the eld of rock mechanics.
Many engineers have frequently determined the soundness of
rock masses through only the RQD combined with their own
experiences [12]. Numerous researchers have established empiri-
cal models to estimate mechanical properties from RQD [13,14],
RMR [1518], or Q [19,20]. Although it is more sensible to
estimate mechanical properties from RMR and Q due to the fact
that RQD is only one of the components that affect mechanical
properties of rock masses, RQD is still widely employed because,
in many cases, RQD rather than RMR or Q is available [14]. Priest
and Hudson [21] show that discontinuity frequency is correlated
with RQD, which implies a method for estimation of fracture
frequency (spacing) from RQD. The aim of the present paper is to
further develop the method proposed in [6] by incorporating RQD
data.
2. Denitions
2.1. Discontinuity spacing and discontinuity frequency
Spacing and frequency are two parameters that are frequently
used to characterize discontinuities. Spacing is the distance
between adjacent discontinuity intersections with the measuring
scanline, whereas frequency is the reciprocal of spacing. The
spacing of discontinuities determines the sizes of blocks making
up the rock mass.
In a rock mass, discontinuity spacings are usually not a
constant. Instead, they take a wide range of values. Many
researchers reported that the negative exponential distribution
could be employed to t the discontinuity spacing histogram
based on numerous measurements of discontinuity spacing
[2123]. Therefore, the frequency, f(x), of a given discontinuity
spacing, x, can be given by the following function:
f x l explx (1)
where l 1=x is the mean discontinuity frequency of a large
discontinuity population and x is the mean discontinuity spacing.
Note that in this distribution, both the mean and the standard
deviation equal 1/l.
2.2. Permeability
Permeability is dened as the ability of rocks to transmit uids
when a pressure gradient exists. The permeability of a rock and a
rock mass usually differs greatly, since the ow of uids mainly
takes place in the discontinuities.
The cubic law is fundamental to study groundwater ow in
fractured media. It can be derived from the NavierStokes
equation, and can also be obtained from ow rate through a
smooth parallel-walled channel under laminar ow [24]. How-
ever, it is only valid at low stress, when the discontinuities are still
open. Gale et al. [25] proposed that when the surfaces of a
discontinuity are not in contact, existing laboratory data support
the use of the cubic law, with appropriate corrections for
roughness.
According to the cubic law, after correction for roughness, the
hydraulic conductivity of a single discontinuity, parallel to its
1371
plane, can be written as
2
gb
Kf (2)
12f n
where Kf is the hydraulic conductivity of a single discontinuity, b
is the aperture of the discontinuity, g is acceleration due to gravity,
n is kinematic viscosity of the uid, and f is the roughness factor.
Transmissivity, T, instead of hydraulic conductivity, is a more
widely applied parameter to show the hydraulic property of rock
masses. For a parallel set of discontinuities, the transmissivity
parallel to the discontinuities is dened as
3
gb lL
T (3)
12f n
where L is the length of a section of rock mass (with a parallel set
of discontinuities) in the direction perpendicular to the planes of
discontinuities.
In Eq. (3), the permeability of intact rocks, which is usually
several orders of magnitude smaller than that of rock masses, is
ignored. When the L 1, transmissivity equals hydraulic con-
ductivity of a section of rock mass. It is clear that the
transmissivity is dependent on the aperture, frequency, orienta-
tion, and roughness of discontinuities.
2.3. RQD
RQD is dened as the percentage of a scanline consisting of
spacing values greater than or equal to 100 mm. Theoretically,
RQD is also related to the orientation of the scanline, and thus the
orientation of discontinuities.
In engineering applications, RQD is usually calculated as the
percentage of the borehole core in a drill run consisting of intact
lengths of rock greater than or equal to 100 mm, which can be
mathematically expressed as
X
n
xi
RQD 100 % (4)
X
i1
where xi are the lengths of individual pieces of core in a drill run
having lengths Z100 mm and X is the total length of the drill run.
Based on Eq. (1), it was found by Priest and Hudson [21] that
the estimate of RQD could be obtained from discontinuity spacing
measurements made on core using the following:
RQD 1001 0:1le0:1l (5)
For values of l ranging from 6 to 16/m, a good approximation to
measured RQD values was found to be given by the linear relation
RQD 3:68l 110:4 (6)
Eqs. (5) and (6) could be utilized to convert between RQD and
discontinuity frequency (spacing).
2.4. Normal stiffness
The normal stiffness, which is dened as the rate of change in
normal stress with respect to discontinuity closure, is one of the
key parameters to estimate normal deformation characteristics of
rock masses. With increasing normal stress, the opening of a joint
would decrease. Normal stressdisplacement relationship is
highly non-linear and has been empirically described by several
models. According to Goodman [3], normal stiffness, Kn, is dened
in an elastic manner as
ds0n ds0
Kn  n (7)
dun db
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1372 X.-W. Jiang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 13701377

where un is the normal displacement (positive for closure), b is the

aperture of the discontinuity, and s0n is the effective normal stress.

2.5. Deformation modulus

Under normal stress, the deformation modulus of materials, E,

is dened as the ratio of normal stress, s, to corresponding normal
strain, e
ds
E (8)
d
Theoretically, to calculate deformation modulus of rock masses,
the deformation of the intact rocks and the deformation of the
discontinuities should be considered simultaneously. However,
the total deformation is mainly caused by the deformation of
discontinuities, especially at low stress conditions [2].
The equivalent continuum models [26,27] clearly show the Fig. 1. A schematic map showing the packer test.
effect of the fracture stiffness on the rock mass deformation
modulus. Kulhawys equivalent continuum model [26] is fre-
quently utilized to calculate the rock mass deformation modulus
K (m/d) RQD (%)
1 1 1 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0 20 40 60 80 100
(9)
Emn Er K n x 0 0
where Emn is the equivalent rock mass deformation modulus and
Er is the deformation modulus of the intact rock.

40 40
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
3. The study area

A pumped storage power plant is to be built in Eastern 80 80

Shandong Province, China. In such a power plant, two reservoirs
should be built. When the demand for electricity is low, water is
pumped up to the top reservoir. When there is a sudden demand
for power, water rushes down the tunnels to drive the turbines to
generate electricity. The water is then collected in the bottom
reservoir, ready to be pumped back up later.
The bedrock in the study area is composed of monzonitic
granite, quartz monzonite, and quartz syenite. Due to their
similarity in engineering properties, they are all considered as a
granitic rock in this study. Furthermore, dykes, which are mainly
composed of lamprophyre, develop in the deep part (the depth is
greater than 85 m below surface) of the granite rock mass.
Based on the results of hydraulic fracturing, which was
employed to measure the stress eld of the study area, the
existing stress is mainly lithostatic stress.
4. Relationship between transmissivity and RQD in the study
area
4.1. The transmissivity data and RQD data
Numerous boreholes had been drilled in the study area. In each
of the wells, RQD data, which were calculated using Eq. (4), are
available. In most wells, hydraulic conductivity data obtained
from packer test are also available.
The packer test, also known as the injection test, or Lugeon
test, is the most elementary and prevalent method of characteriz-
ing in situ permeability of fractured media [28]. It is a relatively
inexpensive method and can determine variations in permeability
with depth and also in different strata. In China, the packer test is
indispensable before construction of hydropower stations, and is
required by the national standards.
As shown in Fig. 1, water is injected into a test section, which is
isolated by a packer, and spread into the rock mass under external
pressure. The ow rate can be used to represent the permeability
120 120
Fig. 2. The scatter plots of hydraulic conductivity and RQD versus depth: (a)
hydraulic conductivitydepth and (b) RQDdepth.
of the rock mass near the test section. Depending on the
application of the test, the length of test sections ranges from
tens of centimeters to tens of meters. In this way, an individual
fracture, a group of fractures, or an entire rock formation can be
isolated by packers [29]. Packer tests can be repeated at different
depths to create proles of aquifer properties along boreholes.
According to the current code of packer test in China [30],
during the packer test, ve injection pressure steps (0.3, 0.6, 1, 0.6,
and 0.3 MPa) are used. Compared with the pressure used in the
hydraulic fracturing reopening test (the minimum horizontal
stress is 10 or 50 MPa) [31], it is sensible to assume that no new
fractures had been induced and the existing fractures had not
been widened during the packer test in the study area. In addition,
we assume that no turbulence happens during the packer test,
which is commonly assumed in hydraulic well tests, thus the
cubic law applies to the available permeability data.
The hydraulic conductivity, K, of a test section in the packer
test, as proposed by the code of packer test in China [30], can be
approximated by
Q L
K ln (10)
2pLDh rw
where Q is inow rate, L is the thickness of a test section, Dh is the
injection pressure with a unit of m, and rw is the radius of the
borehole.
In this study, the hydraulic conductivity and RQD data in the
site for the top reservoir are employed. The hydraulic conductivity
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
X.-W. Jiang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 13701377 1373

K (m/d) RQD (%)

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0 25 50 75 100
0 0

20 20

40 40
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
60 60

80 80

100 100

120 120

Fig. 3. The plots of hydraulic conductivity and RQD versus depth (with a resolution of 1 m): (a) hydraulic conductivitydepth and (b) RQDdepth.

data in each test section are shown in Fig. 2a and the RQD data in
each drill run are shown in Fig. 2b. K = 0.0208exp(-0.0144*RQD)
R2 = 0.1054
As shown in Fig. 2a, a decrease in permeability with depth (when
1
the depth is less than 88 m) is shown, although the depth
dependency is obscured by a large permeability spatial variation
(up to four orders of magnitude). However, when the depth is 0.1
greater than 88 m, the permeability in some sections is signicantly
K (m/d)

larger. This results from the high density of discontinuities caused by 0.01
the development of lamprophyres. In Fig. 2b, which shows that the
scatter is large, the trend of variation in RQD with depth is not clear. 0.001

4.2. The transmissivityRQD correlation and variations in

transmissivity and RQD with depth
The original hydraulic conductivity data and RQD data shown
in Fig. 2 are different in resolution. To establish the relationship
between hydraulic conductivity and RQD, the two sets of data are
discretized into smaller sections (with a length of 1 m), the depths
of which are recorded as integral values. In this way, at each depth
of a well, a value of hydraulic conductivity (or transmissivity) and
a value of RQD can be obtained. The data after discretization are
shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3a is similar to Fig. 2a. In Fig. 3b, it is clear that most of the
RQD values fall in the right part. And when the depth is less than
100 m, a weak trend of increase in RQD with depth can be
identied. When the depth exceeds 100 m, the RQD values
become more scattered, which is the result of the high density
of discontinuities caused by the intrusion of lamprophyres.
The decrease in hydraulic conductivity and the increase in RQD
with depth indicate that there might be a correlation between
hydraulic conductivity and RQD. The relationship between
hydraulic conductivity and RQD can be established by using
regression analysis. Here the negative exponential model is
utilized. Such a model had also been employed by Liao [32] and
El-Naqa [33]. The plot of hydraulic conductivity versus RQD and
the result from regression analysis are shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4 shows that an increase in RQD would result in a decrease
in hydraulic conductivity. However, the coefcient of determina-
tion (denoted as R2) is very low. There is signicant scatter in the
hydraulic conductivity values even for sub-sections with nearly
identical RQD values. Therefore, it is difcult to predict the
hydraulic conductivity of a specic position based on RQD data
only.
0.0001
0 20 40 60 80 100
RQD (%)
Fig. 4. The scatter plot of hydraulic conductivity versus RQD.
Based on the data shown in Fig. 3, the average values
(arithmetic mean) of hydraulic conductivity (after log transforma-
tion) and RQD at each depth are calculated (Fig. 5). When the
depth ranges between 10 and 100 m, there is a general trend of
increase in RQD with depth and a general trend of decrease in
hydraulic conductivity with depth. When the depth is below
100 m, the trends are opposite due to the intrusion of
lamprophyres.
The relationship between mean hydraulic conductivity and
mean RQD has been established using the negative exponential
model. When the depth ranges between 11 and 100 m, R2 is
0.7431, and when the depth ranges from 11 to 88 m, R2 is 0.7809.
In the following discussions on the relationship between
hydraulic conductivity and RQD, the depth range 1188 m is
utilized. The depth of 88 m is consistent with Fig. 2a.
The mean hydraulic conductivitymean RQD correlation is
shown in Fig. 6, and the large R2 value evidently indicates that the
mean value of hydraulic conductivity could be estimated using the
mean value of RQD obtained from borehole data. Such a
conclusion had also been reported by El-Naqa [33].
4.3. Analysis of the phenomenon
Although the same model that relates RQD to hydraulic
conductivity is utilized, the equations in Figs. 4 and 6 differ
greatly. The hydraulic conductivityRQD correlation shown in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1374 X.-W. Jiang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 13701377

log K (m/d) 5. Estimation of deformation modulus using the decrease in

-2.8 -2.4 -2 -1.6 -1.2 transmissivity and the increase in RQD with depth
0
5.1. The theory for estimation of normal stiffness using hydraulic
tests

The theory proposed by Jiang et al. [6] is to be further

developed here. A model for the relationship between transmis-
sivity and stress had been proposed by Swan [34]:
40 K
RQD   0 3
sn
T T r 1  A ln (11)
0 sr
Depth (m)

where T is the transmissivity corresponding to a normal stress of

s0n , Tr is the transmissivity at the reference normal stress s0n , and
pA
is a constant factor. Based on Eqs. (3) and (11), the derivative of 3 T
80 with respect to b can be obtained as
p s
d3T 3 g lL
(12)
db 12f n

In a test section, the discontinuity frequency is a constant, i.e.,

transmissivity only changes with aperture, which is stress
120 dependent. By combining Eqs. (7) and (12), we obtain
p s
d3T 3 g lL 1
 (13)
50 60 70 80 90 100 ds0n 12f n K n
RQD (%) For a rock mass in a region mainly controlled by lithostatic stress,
Fig. 5. The variations in mean hydraulic conductivity and mean RQD with depth.
the effective normal stress of a discontinuity can be determined as
follows. Suppose that the discontinuity has a dip angle of b,
subject to the horizontal stress s1 and the vertical stress s3, the
effective normal stress on the discontinuity can be expresses
K = 0.4892exp(-0.0543*RQD)
R2 = 0.7809 as [6]
0.1
 
M1 M1
s0n cos 2b ge h (14)
2 2
K (m/d)

0.01 where h is the depth, ge is the effective specic weight that

depending on saturation to calculate effective stress instead of
total stress, and M is the ratio of horizontal stress to vertical stress.
p
0.001 Combination of Eqs. (13) and (14) leads to the derivative of 3 T
50 60 70 80 90 100 with respect to h:
RQD (%) p p rp
d3T d 3 T ds0n 3 g 3
 lL
Fig. 6. The scatter plot of mean hydraulic conductivity versus mean RQD. dh ds0n dh 12f n
 
1 M1 M1
 cos 2b ge (15)
Kn 2 2
Fig. 4 is signicantly weaker than that shown in Fig. 6. This could
be explained by the different factors inuencing RQD and To calculate normal stiffness of discontinuities, Eq. (15) can be
hydraulic conductivity. rearranged into the following form:
As mentioned before, the RQD calculated from borehole core is rp 
g 3 M1 M1 1
only a measure of discontinuity frequency or spacing (although Kn  3 l cos 2b ge p (16)
12f n 2 2 d 3 T=L=dh
RQD may be affected by the drilling process, this is not considered
in the current research), while the hydraulic conductivity of a test The rst term in the right side of Eq. (16) is a constant, the second
section is dependent on the aperture, frequency, orientation, term can be easily obtained by using the correlation between RQD
roughness, and interconnectivity of discontinuities. As a result, it and discontinuity frequency, and the fourth term can be acquired
is hardly possible to estimate hydraulic conductivity at a specic easily from a certain amount of packer test data at different
position based on the corresponding RQD only. However, based on depths by using regression analysis.
the strong correlation between mean hydraulic conductivity and When the packer test is conducted on a parallel set of
mean RQD, when one needs to estimate the mean hydraulic discontinuities, the result from Eq. (16) is the average normal
conductivity at certain depths, it is probable by using the stiffness. Therefore, for a site where conductance of ow is
corresponding mean RQD. This indicates the strong inuence of controlled by a set of discontinuities with a steady dip angle, even
discontinuity frequency on hydraulic conductivity. For a site with with complicated stress conditions, this method is suitable.
a relatively uniform lithology but without signicant tectonic For a site where the horizontal stress approximates to the
events, a decrease in discontinuity frequency with depth would vertical stress, i.e., l 1, Eq. (16) can be simplied as
lead to an increase in mean RQD with depth, and would partly rp
contribute to the decrease in mean hydraulic conductivity with g 3 1
Kn  3 lge p (17)
depth. 12f n d 3 T=L=dh
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
X.-W. Jiang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 13701377 1375

RQD = 0.2875 h + 65.751 Kn (GPa/m)

R2 = 0.8053
100 20 60 100 140 180
10
90 20
RQD (%)

80 30

Depth (m)
40
70
50
60 60
70
50
10 30 50 70 90 80
Depth (m) Fig. 9. The values of calculated normal stiffness at different depths.
Fig. 7. The relationship between RQD and depth.
Considering the suitability of Eq. (6), h ranges from 11 to 80 m.
Physical properties, r and u, of groundwater are assumed equal to
that of water at standard condition. Witherspoon et al. [35] found
T(1/3) = -0.1116log h + 0.3695 out that f ranged from 1.04 to 1.65. Jiang et al. [6] had discussed
0.3 R2 = 0.8826 that the choice of f would not signicantly affect the results. So, f
is selected to be 1.5 here. The specic weight had been measured
T(1/3) ((m2/d)(1/3))

0.25 to be about 26.5  103 N/m3; however, since the water table is
shallow in the study area, the effective specic weight should be
0.2
employed. As a result, ge is chosen to be 16.5  103 N/m3.
0.15 The result of average normal stiffness versus depth is shown in
Fig. 9. Compared with the plot of fracture normal stiffness versus
0.1 normal stress for 13 different rock samples collected and compiled
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 in [36], which shows that the slope (normal stiffness versus
log (depth) (m) stress) decreases with stress, our result shown in Fig. 9 is realistic.
Fig. 8. The relationship between transmissivity and depth. This is a great advantage over the results in the former research
[6], which showed that the normal stiffness is linearly
proportional to depth. The reason is that, in [6], the change in
In this case, the method can provide the average normal stiffness
discontinuity spacing (frequency) with depth was not considered.
of several sets of discontinuities.
However, in the current study, the increase in discontinuity
spacing with depth, or the decrease in discontinuity frequency
5.2. Results of normal stiffness by incorporating the decrease in with depth, has been accounted for by using RQD data, which is
transmissivity with depth and the increase in RQD with depth correlated with discontinuity spacing (frequency).

Based on the discussions in Section 4, it is assumed that when 5.3. Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus from normal
the depth ranges between 11 and 88 m, the RQDdepth trend is stiffness using the equivalent models
caused by the change in discontinuity frequency with depth, and
the transmissivitydepth trend is caused by the depth dependent As mentioned in Section 2.5, the deformation modulus of rock
discontinuity frequency as well as the stress aperture. masses can be estimated by using deformation modulus of intact
The relationship between RQD and depth is tted using the rocks, which can be easily obtained from indoor measurements on
linear regression model (Fig. 7). The equation is specimens, and normal stiffness of discontinuities, which has
RQD 0:2875h 65:751 (18) been calculated in Section 5.2.
A few measurements of deformation modulus of intact rocks,
The relationship between transmissivity (with a resolution of 1 m) which were sampled in zones with different degree of weathering,
and depth is also tted using regression analysis based on the have been carried out. The mean of deformation modulus of intact
Swan model [34] (Fig. 8). The equation is in the form of rocks in the highly weathered zone is 1.6 GPa, the mean of
p3
deformation modulus of intact rocks in the moderately weathered
T 1 A1 log h A2 (19)
zone is 18.5 GPa, and the mean of deformation modulus of intact
where T1 is the transmissivity data with a resolution of 1 m, A1 is rocks in the weakly weathered zone is 44.5 GPa. Unfortunately,
estimated to be 0.1116 (m2/d)1/3, and A2 is estimated to be the change in deformation modulus of intact rocks with depth is
0.3695 (m2/d)1/3. not available since the depths of rock samples are not known to
When Eq. (6) is applied, Eq. (17) can be expressed in the the authors.
following form: Numerous researchers have reported that deformation mod-
r ulus, or compressibility, which is dened as the reciprocal of
g p ln 10  h
Kn  3 3
30  RQD=3:68ge p (20) deformation modulus, of rocks is stress dependent [3741].
12f n d 3 T=L=dlog h Research has also revealed that deformation modulus of intact
Substituting Eqs. (18) and (19) into Eq. (20) yields the following rocks is correlated with the degree of weathering [42]. As pointed
empirical equation for calculation of normal stiffness in the study out in [41], it is considered that the deformation modulus of intact
area: rocks increases exponentially with depth. Since the range of depth
rp is 1180 m, and the range of deformation modulus is 1.644.5 GPa,
g 3 ln 10  h a synthetic line showing the exponential increase in deformation
Kn 3 12:13  0:078hge (21)
12f n A1 modulus of intact rocks with depth is provided in Fig. 10a.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1376 X.-W. Jiang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 13701377

Er (GPa) Em (GPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
10
10
20
30
Depth (m)

20 mean
40
lower bound
50 upper bound
30
60 Emn in Fig. 10b
70
40

Depth (m)
80
Emn (GPa)
50
0 5 10 15 20
10
20 60
30
Depth (m)

40 70
50
60 80
70
Fig. 11. The results of rock mass deformation modulus versus depth from the two
80 different methods.

Fig. 10. The values of deformation modulus at different depths: (a) the
deformation modulus of intact rocks versus depth based on an assumed model
and (b) the calculated deformation modulus of the rock mass versus depth using
Kulhawys [26] equivalent model.
By using the deformation modulus of intact rocks (shown in
Fig. 10a), normal stiffness (shown in Fig. 9), and discontinuity
frequency, which are all depth-dependent, the average deforma-
tion modulus of the rock mass at each depth can be calculated by
using Eq. (9) (Fig. 10b).
Fig. 10b shows that the deformation modulus of the rock mass
increases with depth, which is in accordance with the results of
others [43,44]. Moreover, three sets of in situ measurements of
rock mass deformation modulus had been performed in a tunnel,
whose depth is generally greater than 50 m. The results of in situ
deformation modulus are 12.83, 17.99, and 19.24 GPa, respectively.
Compared with the results shown in Fig. 10b, the in situ
measurements are close enough to the estimated deformation
modulus in the depth range of 5080 m.
5.4. Verication of results by deformation modulus estimated from
RQD using the empirical models
Since in situ tests are usually expensive and time-consuming, it
is quite common that only limited in situ measurements of
deformation modulus are carried out. Therefore, validation of the
estimated deformation modulus, which is depth dependent, using
such a small number of in situ measurements is not convincing
enough. Here, the empirical model proposed by Zhang and
Einstein [14], which relates RQD with deformation modulus, is
utilized to compare with the results from the method proposed in
this paper.
Based on the RQDEm/Er data reported in [13,15,45], Zhang and
Einstein [14] recommended the following equation for estimation
of deformation modulus using RQD:
Based on Eq. (22), the deformation modulus of the rock mass at
each depth can be estimated by using the deformation modulus of
intact rocks, which is shown in Fig. 10a, and the RQD values, which
are calculated from Eq. (18). The results are shown in Fig. 11. For
convenience of comparison, the deformation modulus obtained in
Section 5.3 is also shown.
As shown in Fig. 11, the result estimated using the method
proposed by the authors in the current study is not exactly the
same as that obtained using the empirical equation derived in
[14]. Fortunately, both of them obey the fact the deformation
modulus of a rock mass should increase with depth due to factors
such as changes in stress, weathering degree, and discontinuity
aperture and spacing (frequency) with depth. Furthermore, in the
depth range studied, the values obtained by the two methods are
close enough.
It is necessary to mention that this comparison also has
limitations. In Zhang and Einsteins empirical model [14], RQD
(correlated with discontinuity frequency) is the only fact that has
been taken into account. In the authors model, changes in RQD
(correlated with discontinuity frequency) and permeability
(dependent on discontinuity frequency and aperture) with depth
are both employed. Even if the increase in RQD (or discontinuity
spacing) with depth is not signicant at this particular site, the
depth dependency of deformation modulus could still be revealed
by the authors model. This situation is similar to Jiang et al.s
former model [6], which did not consider the change in
discontinuity spacing with depth. However, if the increase in
RQD (or discontinuity spacing) with depth is not signicant, the
value of Em/Er in Eq. (22) would approximate to a constant. A
better way to validate the model proposed by the authors would
be to use geophysical methods, for example, run some sonic logs
in the boreholes and compare with the observed trends in sonic
velocity with depth. However, this is beyond the scope of research
in the current paper.

lower bound : Em =Er 0:2  100:0186RQD1:91 (22a)

6. Conclusions

upper bound : Em =Er 1:8  100:0186RQD1:91 (22b)

In the current study, changes in discontinuity aperture and
frequency are considered simultaneously to estimate discontinu-
0:0186RQD1:91
mean : Em =Er 10 (22c) ity normal stiffness from hydraulic tests. Transmissivity, which is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
X.-W. Jiang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 13701377
dependent on both aperture and frequency of discontinuities, is
obtained from packer test. Discontinuity frequency is calculated
from RQD, which is obtained from borehole data. Due to their
interrelationship, the normal stiffness is successfully determined
by using the decrease in transmissivity with depth and the
increase in RQD with depth. Finally, the deformation modulus of
the rock mass is estimated and compared with that obtained from
in situ measurements and empirical equations. The following
conclusions can be drawn.
(1) In a study area mainly controlled by lithostatic stress, a
decrease in permeability with depth and an increase in RQD
with depth can be identied. It is difcult to predict the
permeability in a position based on RQD only; however, the
mean permeability can be estimated by the mean RQD. Based
on the relationship between RQD and discontinuity frequency,
the average increase in RQD with depth can be employed to
derive the average decrease in discontinuity frequency with
depth.
(2) The discontinuity normal stiffness can be estimated by the
decrease in permeability and the decrease in discontinuity
frequency with depth, which can be obtained from packer test
and RQD data, respectively. The calculated normal stiffness,
which increases nonlinearly with depth, is consistent with
results from experimental studies.
(3) The normal stiffness has been utilized to calculate deforma-
tion modulus of the rock mass, and the result is close enough
to the deformation modulus obtained from in situ measure-
ments as well as from empirical equations. However, the
methods currently employed for comparison have limitations.
Better ways are needed to validate the results of deformation
modulus of large scale rock masses.
Acknowledgments
The nancial support by the National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China under contracts (40528003) and (50639090) are
greatly acknowledged. The authors are also grateful to two
anonymous reviewers, whose comments were helpful in improv-
ing this paper.
References
[1] Gokceoglu C, Yesilnacar E, Sonmez H, Kayabasi A. A neuro-fuzzy model for
modulus of deformation of jointed rock masses. Comput Geotech
2004;31:37583.
[2] Bandis S, Lumsden AC, Barton NR. Fundamentals of rock joint deformation. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1983;20:24968.
[3] Goodman RE. Method of geological engineering in discontinuous rocks. New
York: West Publishing; 1976.
[4] Chen DW. Coupled stiffness-permeability analysis of a single rough surfaced
fracture by the three dimensional boundary element method. PhD disserta-
tion, University of California, Berkeley; 1990.
[5] Rutqvist J. Determination of hydraulic normal stiffness of fractures in hard
rock from well testing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1995;32(5):51323.
[6] Jiang XW, Wan L, Wang XS, Liang SH, Hu BX. Estimation of fracture normal
stiffness using a transmissivitydepth correlation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2008; doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.03.007.
[7] Snow DT. Rock fracture spacings, openings, and porosities. J Soil Mech Found
Div ASCE 1968;94(SM1):7391.
[8] Louis C. Rock hydraulics. In: Muller L, editor. Rock mechanics. Vienna:
Springer; 1974. p. 299387.
[9] Stober I, Bucher K. Hydraulic properties of the crystalline basement.
Hydrogeol J 2007;15:21324.
[10] Jiang XW, Wan L, Song G, Wang XS. The permeability of basalts and shear
zones. Geotechnical Investigation Survey 2008;231:259 [in Chinese with
English abstract].
1377
[11] Deere DU. Technical description of rock cores for engineering purposes. Rock
Mech Eng Geol 1963;1:1822.
[12] Choi SY, Park HD. Variation of rock quality designation (RQD) with scanline
orientation and length: a case study in Korea. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2004;41:20721.
[13] Coon RF, Merritt AH. Predicting in situ modulus of deformation using rock
quality indices. In: Determination of the in situ modulus of deformation of
rock, ASTM STP 477. Philadelphia: ASTM; 1970. p. 15473.
[14] Zhang L, Einstein H. Using RQD to estimate the deformation modulus of rock
masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41(2):33741.
[15] Bieniawski ZT. Determining rock mass deformabilityexperience from case
histories. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1978;15:23748.
[16] Nicholson GA, Bieniawski ZT. A nonlinear deformation modulus based on rock
mass classication. Int J Min Geol Eng 1990;8:181202.
[17] Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1997;34(8):116586.
[18] Chun BS, Ryu WR, Sagong M, Do JN. Indirect estimation of the rock
deformation modulus based on polynomial and multiple regression analyses
of the RMR system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2009;46:64958.
[19] Barton N. Application of Q-system, index tests to estimate shear strength and
deformability of rock masses. In: Proceedings of international symposium on
engineering geology underground construction, vol. 1(II). Lisbon, 1983. p.
5170.
[20] Barton N. Some new Q value correlations to assist in site characterisation and
tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:185216.
[21] Priest SD, Hudson JA. Discontinuity spacings in rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 1976;13:13548.
[22] Wallis PF, King MS. Discontinuity spacing in a crystalline rock. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1980;17:636.
[23] Poulton MM, Mojtabai N, Farmer IW. Scale invariant behavior of massive
and fragmented rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1990;27:
21921.
[24] Snow DT. Anisotropic permeability of fractured media. Water Resour Res
1969;5(6):127389.
[25] Gale JE, Rouleau A, Atkison LC. Hydraulic properties of fractures. In:
Proceedings of 17th congress of the International Association of Hydrogeol-
ogy. Tuscon, 1985, p. 116.
[26] Kulhawy FH. Geomechanical model for rock foundation settlement. J Geotech
Eng ASCE 1978;104:21127.
[27] Gerrard CM. Elastic models of rock masses having one, two and three sets of
joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1982;19:1523.
[28] Neuman SP. Trends, prospects and challenges in quantifying ow and
transport through fractured rocks. Hydrogeol J 2005;13(1):12447.
[29] National Research Council. Rock fracture and uid ow. Washington DC:
National Academy Press; 1996.
[30] National Standards of PRC. Code of water pressure test in borehole for
hydropower and water resources engineering. DL/T 53312005.
[31] Rutqvist J, Stephansson O, Tsang CF. Uncertainty in estimate of maximum
principal stress from hydraulic fracturing due to the presence of the induced
fracture. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:10720.
[32] Liao YX. A quantitative study on the zonation of weathered rock masses.
Beijing: Earthquake Publishing House; 1994 [in Chinese].
[33] El-Naqa A. The hydraulic conductivity of the fractures intersecting Cambrian
sandstone rock masses, central Jordan. Environ Geol 2001;40:97382.
[34] Swan G. Determination of stiffness and other joint properties from roughness
measurements. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1983;18(1):1938.
[35] Witherspoon PA, Wang JSY, Iwai K, Gale JE. Validity of cubic law for uid ow
in a deformable rock fracture. Water Resour Res 1980;16:101624.
[36] Pyrak-Nolte LJ, Morris JP. Single fractures under normal stress: the relation
between fracture specic stiffness and uid ow. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2000;37:24562.
[37] Adams LH, Williamson ED. The compressibility of minerals and rocks at high
pressures. J Franklin Inst 1923;195:475592.
[38] Fatt I. Compressibility of sandstones at low to moderate pressures. AAPG Bull
1958;42(8):192457.
[39] Zimmerman RW. Compressibility of sandstones. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1991.
[40] Jaeger JC, Cook NGW, Zimmerman RW. Fundamentals of rock mechanics.
Oxford: Blackwell; 2007.
[41] Liu HH, Rutqvist J, Berryman JG. On the relationship between stress and
elastic strain for porous and fractured rock. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci
2009;46(2):28996.
[42] Cai MF. Rock mechanics and engineering. Beijing: Science Press; 2002 [in
Chinese].
[43] Verman M, Singh B, Viladkar MN, Jethwa JL. Effect of tunnel depth on
modulus of deformation of rock mass. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1997;30(3):1217.
[44] Asef MR, Reddish DJ. The impact of conning stress on the rock mass
deformation modulus. Geotechnique 2002;52(4):23541.
[45] Ebisu S, Aydan O, Komura S, Kawamoto T. Comparative study on various rock
mass characterization methods for surface structures. In: Proceedings of
Eurock92. London: Thomas Telford; 1992. p. 2038.