Mass modulus of rock for use in the design of deep foundations

S.J. Hill & M.I. Wallace

Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited

ABSTRACT: Traditionally in Hong Kong deep foundation design has adopted presumed bearing values
without the need for settlement evaluation. To achieve economical design, higher bearing parameters can be
adopted with evaluation of settlement of the rock mass. This paper presents the results of a number of full-
scale pile load tests carried out to investigate the design parameters for deep foundations and to provide a ba-
sis for design. A number of tests were carried out on the in situ rock in an attempt to provide a methodology
for determining the mass modulus of rock for the design of end bearing foundations. This paper presents the
results of the tests and a comparison of the back-analysed mass modulus from the load tests with other pub-
lished correlations for determining in situ modulus. The paper provides recommendations of appropriate cor-
relations that could be used for estimating the mass modulus of rock for use in estimating the settlement of
deep foundations.

1 INTRODUCTION

Design of end bearing foundations in Hong Kong

generally follows the presumed bearing values given
in the Building Authority Practice Note PNAP141.
This design guide gives presumed bearing values of
5 MPa and 7.5 MPa for granitic rocks.
In order to explore the possibility of a more eco-
nomical design for deep foundation elements, a
number of testing programmes have been under-
taken, most notably by Kowloon-Canton Railway
Corporation on the West Rail Project Phase I and
Mass Transit Railway Corporation for the Lantau
and Airport Railway and Tseung Kwan O projects.
The test piles were generally tested for end bearing
and a combination of end and socket resistance to
achieve a working shaft stress in excess of 10MPa.
Fifteen large diameter test piles have been under-
taken at ten sites in Hong Kong, shown in Figure 1.
This paper draws on the results of 15 pile load
tests to review and present a system for determining Figure 1. Test sites.
in situ rock mass modulus. It reviews various meth-
ods of rock mass assessment and determines their
suitability for pile foundation analysis. Correlations 2 GROUND CONDITIONS
for Hong Kong rocks are presented based on the full-
scale test results. The test site locations are widely distributed over
Hong Kong and as a result the tests have been car-
ried out in a variety of different rock types. These
range from the typical granites on Hong Kong to the
volcanic rocks at other sites such as at Tseung Kwan
O and Tsing Yi to the metasediments and marbles in
Yuen Long. Further details of the ground conditions
of each test site is given by Littlechild et al. (2000a
and b) and Hope et al. (2000).
A summary of the different rock types carried out
for this study is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Rock types tested.
No. of Tests Rocktype
8 Granitic Rock
3 Volcanic Rock
2 Metasedimentary Rock - Marble
2 Metasediments
Most of Hong Kong is characterised by granitic
and volcanic rocks formed around 140 to 160 Ma.
These rocks collectively make up around 85% of the
landmass of Hong Kong with the remaining areas
characterised by sedimentary and meta-sedimentary
rocks.
Weathering profiles vary over Hong Kong with
depths up to between 30 to 40 m in the urban areas.
Locally weathering along faults and weakness zones
can extend rockhead down to 150 m depth. The piles
were tested close to rockhead in ground conditions
that are considered to be typical of those encoun-
tered in Hong Kong. They were also tested in rock
with variable quality and intact rock strengths.
While it is recognised that the majority of the
tests were carried out in Granitic rock the adoption
of a rock mass assessment process should normalise
any rock specific characteristics to allow direct
comparison and consistency of the results.
3 GROUND INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES
A number of ground investigation techniques can be
used to estimate the in situ rock mass modulus.
These techniques comprise Goodman Jack, Borehole
Pressuremeter and Geophysical techniques.
Comparison of these techniques and their results
against the pile load test data and their merits are de-
scribed in detail by Littlechild et al. (2000b).
4 CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
4.1 Introduction
The founding condition of rock for the purpose of
Presumed Allowable Bearing values in the design of
deep foundations in Hong Kong are given by the
Hong Kong Building Authority and published in
PNAP141 (1995). Three categories of rock are de-
fined, based on the weathering grade (Grades I to V
from fresh to completely weathered), total core re-
covery in boreholes and a minimum unconfined
compressive strength or point load strength index.
While providing a conservative means of select-
ing bearing pressure for end bearing piles, the system
does not lend itself to correlation with modulus since
many rock mass factors, known to be important, are
not included. Also, the use of total core recovery as a
classification parameter is fraught with difficulty as
experience of the driller, drilling techniques and
quality have an important bearing on recovery espe-
cially in very fractured rocks. Further, what is lost
from the core may well be more important in rock
mass performance than what is recovered.
Two principal rock mass classification systems
widely used in rock engineering are, the Rock Mass
Rating (RMR referred to as RMR76 ) system pub-
lished by Bieniawski and Orr (1976) and the Q-
system developed by Barton et al. (1974). More re-
cently Hoek (1994) has proposed the Geological
Strength Index (GSI) which is a derivative of RMR.
4.2 RMR / GSI classification
The RMR classification has been developed by Bi-
eniawski over many years from its first referencing
in 1976. The RMR system uses factors based on
rock strength, RQD, joint spacing, joint condition,
ground water and joint orientation; each factor has a
value from a defined range and the summation of all
factor values derives a numerical index. Updates and
amendments have been made to improve the system.
RMR has been applied to various engineering
situations from tunnel to slopes to dam and bridge
foundation designs. Where differing methods are
quoted they should be verified by a date suffix
RMR76 . The use of RMR to design rock slopes and
foundations as well as estimating the in situ modulus
of deformation and rock mass strength is acknowl-
edged by ASCE (1999). Both CIRIA (1995) and
Clayton et al. (1995) consider that of the well known
classification systems RMR is more suited to foun-
dation engineering purposes for piling than Q-system
as proposed by Barton (1983). In Hong Kong, GEO
(1996) recognises the RMR83 correlation with
modulus given by Bieniawski (1978), and Serafim
and Pereira (1983) for the deformation of axially
loaded piles on rock. Hoek (1995) proposed a term
called the GSI which is based upon RMR76 with the
groundwater assigned a value of 10 and joint orien-
tation assigned a value of 0.
The original work by Bieniawski (1978) gives a
rock mass modulus correlation to Em given by:
Em (GPa) = 2RMR-100 (1)
This Equation generally correlates well with the data
above RMR > 55.
The correlation of RMR to Em is based upon an
extensive review of large scale deformation modulus
tests, including plate tests, tunnel relaxation, flat jack
and pressure chamber tests, all of which were con-
sidered large enough to include the influence of dis-
continuities on rock mass modulus. Serafim and
Pereira (1983) analysed a number of case histories,
many of which involved dam foundations, for which
the deformation moduli were evaluated by back
analysis of measured deformations. They proposed
modifications to Equation (1) to give a better fit at
low values of modulus, as given by:
Em (GPa) = 10(RMR - 10) / 40 (2)
Hoek and Brown (1997) further proposed that the
determination of Em could be linked to GSI as given
by:
Em (GPa) = v(s c /100)*10 (GSI –10)/40 (3)
for s c < 100, where s c (MPa) is the uniaxial com-
pressive strength (UCS) of the intact rock pieces.
The Hoek and Brown (1997), modification is an
empirical approach, applicable for s c < 100 MPa,
where they consider that deformation of better qua l-
ity rock masses is controlled by the discontinuities,
while for poorer quality rock masses the deformation
of the intact rock pieces contributes to the overall de-
formation process. This is based upon observations
of weak rock beha viour in large-scale tests.
4.3 Q-system classification
The Q-system is an empirical method originally
formulated to determine the amount of support for
underground excavations. It was originally devel-
oped for determining stand-up times and support
systems in underground excavations. The principal
parameters making up this classification are RQD,
number of joint sets (Jn), joint roughness (Jr), and
alteration (Ja) as well as a joint water (Jw) reduction
factor and a stress reduction factor (SRF). These are
combined into the formula:
Q = (RQD/Jn) x (Jr/Ja) x (Jw/SRF) (4)
It is noted that the Q-system parameters concen-
trate on the most important aspects of the failure and
load characteristics for underground excavations.
These are a) block size, b) inter block shear strength
and c) active stress.
The absence of a rock strength relationship in the
system does not necessarily allow an appropriate
correlation with RMR when the strength of the mate-
rial starts to dominate the stiffness and behavioural
properties of the rock mass. Certainly for situations
where the rock is hard and competent both methods
should approximate to the same or similar relatio n-
ship as the joint properties generally control the
stiffness of the rock mass. This has been recognised
by many authors previously.
Estimates of the rock mass modulus of rock based
upon the Q-system have also been undertaken. Cor-
relations where Q > 1 have been given by Barton
(1980):
E(mean) = 25 Log10 Q (5)
Where E(mean) in GPa is generally found to give good
agreement with measured deformations. It must be
noted that this equation does not apply below a Q of
1 and therefore where poor rock exists, with low in-
tact strength, it is not applied.
4.4 Comparison of RMR and GSI with Q-system
Estimates of the correlation between Q and RMR
have been provided by several authors. A correlation
which has been used by Hoek (1995) has been
adopted to compare the Q and RMR results from the
pile tests, given by:
GSI or RMR76 = 9 ln Q + 44 (6)
The results from the Q and RMR determination
from the core, up to two pile diameters below the
pile toe are presented in Figure 2. This Figure 2
shows that the Q and RMR data from the Hong
Kong pile tests provide a good fit with Equation (6).
Hoek et al. (1995) proposed that a modified Q,
termed Q’, can be used to determine the Hoek and
Brown and the Mohr Coulomb failure criterion. This
modification neglects the Jw/SRF element in the Q
calculation and uses the Q’ in Equation (6) to deter-
mine the RMR76 then subsequently the GSI number
of the rock mass. This GSI is then further combined
with direct correlation from Equation (2) to deter-
mine Em for the rock mass. Hoek (1995) also pro-
posed that for low values of RMR76 < 18 that Q’
could be used to estimate the rockmass strength pa-
rameters. Hoek (1997) later revises these estimates
and defines the cut off for GSI or RMR76 as 25 with
the comment that for poor rockmasses the estimate
of GSI should not be based upon RMR76 . He no
longer appears to reference the adoption of Q’ at low
values of RMR76 .
Hoek imposes certain limitation to the use of his
GSI system for failure criterion such as it should
only be used when multiple joint sets are encoun-
tered in the rock and where the rock loading covers a
wide enough area to ensure that scale effects are
considered. Preferentially weak joint sets can also
distort the analysis although this is true for any rock
mass assessment.
 100 35

30

(14) (7.5)
(13)

End bearing stress q (MPa)

10 25 (2-3)
(2)
Q-system

(15) Hong Kong pile tests

20 (30) (11)
(7)
Published world data
(130)

15 (11)
1.0 (11)
(12)

10 (30) (1)
Equation (6)

5
0.1 (1)

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
RMR76 0 50 100 150 200 250
Figure 2. RMR76 compared to Q-system. Average unconfined compressive strength (MPa)
Ultimate not achieved Movement at pile toe

Figure 3. Performance of end bearing piles (Littlechild et al.

5 ROCK MASS MODULUS FROM PILE TESTS
5.1 Pile test data
Figure 3 summarises the test results given by Lit-
tlechild et al. (2000a) and Hope et al. (2000).
The rock mass modulus for all bearing strata ex-
cept a pyroclastic breccia has been evaluated for a
pile toe settlement of no greater than 1% of pile di-
ameter as:
E = Bq (1-ν 2 )I/ d (7)
where, ν=0.3, d=settlement at pile toe (mm), B=pile
diameter (m), q=bearing stress at pile toe (MPa),
I=influence factor (0.75), E=rock mass modulus
(GPa).
5.2 RMR modified (RM2 ) for bored piles
As discussed earlier the correlations between rock
mass modulus and the rating systems proposed by
Bieniawski and Orr (1976), Serafim and Pereira
(1983) and Hoek and Brown (1994, 1997) all assign
different ratings for groundwater and joint orienta-
tion. Detailed discussion of the merits of each classi-
fication system is given by Littlechild et al. (2000a),
from which a modified version of the RMR (given
by RM2 ) was proposed. RM2 assigns a zero weight-
ing to the factors for water and joint orientation as
these are considered generally insignificant at the
base of a pile 30 to 40 m deep.
The comparison of data for rockmass modulus
determined from the pile test and RM2 is shown in
Figure 4.
2000a).
RM2 can be considered to be similar to GSI which
normalises several factors in the adoption of RMR
as discussed earlier.
The correlation with GSI is estimated as fo llows;
RM2 = GSI – 10. (8)
The pile testing reported by Littelchild et al.
(2000a) was in a different geological and engineer-
ing framework from the data used to define Equa-
tions (1) to (4). The stiffness of the rock analysed by
Littlechild et al. (2000a) has been determined for
foundations a few metres across where the objective,
in Hong Kong, is to found close to rockhead. The
joint infill is typically preferential weathering of a
jointed strong rock mass (fresh strength UCS 100 to
200 MPa, degraded by weathering to less than 25
MPa). In these circumstances the deformation and
thickness of weathering at the joint will dominate the
deformation process.
The moduli derived from the pile tests and the
various ground investigation techniques, are also
presented in Figure 4. Goodman Jack tests under-
taken in boreholes give significantly higher moduli
compared to those derived from the pile test results.
The moduli derived from cross-hole shear wave ve-
locity tests are up to an order of magnitude greater
than the stiffness mobilised by the foundation test
piles.
It should be noted that, when designing deep
foundations, a rock mass modulus greater than 1 GPa
correlating to approximately RM2 greater than 40,
would normally result in insignificant settlements for
building structures.
 100
Hong Kong pile tests
Goodman Jack tests
Cross hole testing
10
Rock Mass Modulus, (GPa)
1 1
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Rock Mass Rating (RM2 )
Figure 4. Rock mass modulus from pile tests and in situ tests.
6 DISCUSSION
6.1 Q’-system or RM2 for in situ modulus for
foundation design
The Q-system has similar limitations for the adop-
tion of a rating system for pile foundations as the
RMR system. Water and Stress Factors need not be
included where there is no active flow or significant
de-stressing of the ground at the pile base. For this
reason if Q is to be considered we would recom-
mend the adoption of the modified Q’ without the
water and stress factor for pile analysis. The Q’ de-
termined for the rock below the pile toes and the
range of rock modulus is presented on Figure 5.
This clearly shows that there is a significant spread
in the data even when the general correlation be-
tween Q and RMR76 is shown to be consistent with
other published data, see Figure 2.
The Q’ data presented in Figure 5 also have the
point load (Is50 ) results identified in brackets. These
numbers suggest that there maybe some loose asso-
ciation between strength and rockmass modulus.
Lower rock strengths have lower rockmass moduli
for similar Q’ values. It must be noted that there are
a few rogue results and more data is required to de-
termine whether a strength factor could be applied to
Q’ to determine the rockmass modulus.
The Q’ results show a wider spread of data which
may be reflected by a lack of a strength parameter
and as such this may be the reason why the Q’ and
deformation modulus data fit less well at lower va l-
ues of Q’.
100
Hong Kong pile tests
(1.9)
10
Rock Mass Modulus, (GPa)
(2.55)
(8.5) (6.8)
(6.09)
(2.5)
(8.95)
(3.5)
(2.6)
(1.7)
(3.25) (0.4)
(0.36)
(1.56)
0.1
0.1 1 10 100
Q' - Classification
Figure 5. Q’-system to determine modulus.
Correlation of rockmass and deformation modulus
should not be based upon Q’ unless the strength of
the rock can be included in the analysis.
With further work, and more data, strength curves
within the Q’ data ranges in Figure 5 could be de-
fined to allow a better estimate of the influence of
rock block and jointing behaviour versus intact
strength of the rock.
The RM2 data presented in Figure 4 shows better
correlation than the Q’ data shown in Figure 5. The
use of a more simplified rock mass rating system
such as RM2 will remove the parameter selection
uncertainty, which would apply to the use of RMR76
or other adaptations of RMR.
6.2 Existing rockmass modulus equations for design
Comparisons of the various existing rockmass cla s-
sification to rockmass modulus equations are pre-
sented in Figure 6 with some of the original pub-
lished data and pile test data. All the data has been
presented in terms of RMR76 for consistency. It can
be clearly seen that Equations (1) and (5) are not ap-
propriate for use at low RMR ratings < 55. Equation
(2) provides the best fit to the previously published
data whilst for lower intact strengths Equation (3) is
more appropriate.
For typical deep foundation analysis the design
line presented in Figure 4 is considered to be the
best fit representation for the determination of the
rockmass modulus for piles in Hong Kong.
 100
Serafim and Pereira(1983)
Bieniawski (1978)
Barton et al.,(1980) (Q Data)
Hong Kong pile tests
Rock Mass Modulus, (GPa)
Equation 2
10
1.0
Equation 3
with 50MPa rock
0.1
0 20 40
Geomechanics Rock Mass Rating RMR
Figure 6. In situ modulus from pile tests compared to published
correlations.
7 CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of the 15 full-scale pile load tests dem-
onstrates a number of issues for characterising the
bearing stratum and stiffness for deep foundations
for general use in Hong Kong:
1. The results of the tests carried out in Hong Kong
rocks, which include various rocktypes, indicate that
published correlations will over estimate the in situ
modulus for deep foundation design by up to one or-
der of magnitude difference, see Figure 6.
2. The Q rock mass rating system has been as-
sessed and compared with the foundation data. Since
the Q rating does not include an element of rock
strength in the equation, it is considered a less ap-
propriate system for determining in situ modulus for
deep foundation design.
3. Q’ may be a possible system if it can be deve l-
oped with a rock strength relationship to show in-
creasing rock modulus for the same Q’ value. More
data is needed to determine whether this system
could be considered.
4. The authors consider the speed and simplicity of
the Rock Mass Rating system, make it a practical
method of assessing the rock mass.
5. It is proposed that Bieniawski and Orr (1976)
RMR ratings can be used as a design and quality
control tool on site, provided it is adjusted by delet-
ing the effect of water and joint orientation to derive
the RM2 rockmass factor.
6. For RM2 >40, the rock mass modulus is generally
greater than 1 GPa, at which foundation settlements
would generally be insignificant for the design of
building structures.
7. For RM2 <40, the rock mass modulus maybe sig-
nificant in the performance of a structure, in which
case site specific testing maybe required to verify
the design assumptions.
8 REFERENCES
ASCE, Rock Foundations. 1999. Technical Engineering and
Design Guides as Adapted from the US Army Corps of En-
gineers, No 16.
Barton, N. Lien, R. and Lunde J. 1974. Engineering classifica-
tion of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Nor-
Equation 1
wegian Geotechnical Institute Publication 106.
Barton, N., F. Loset, R. Lien and J. Lunde, 1980, “ Application
of the Q-System in design decisions concerning dimensions
Equation 5 and appropriate support for underground installations”, Int.
Conf. On Sub-Surface Space, Rockstore, Stockholm, Sub-
surfaceSpace, Vol. 2, pp 553-561.
60 80 100 Barton, N. July 1983. Application of Q-system and index tests
to estimate shear strength and deformability of rockmasses.
Panel Report Theme II, Int. Symp. on Engineering Geology
and Underground Construction, Lisbon, Portugal.
Bieniawski, Z.T. and Orr C.M. 1976. Rapid site appraisal for
dam foundations by the geomechanics classification, Proc.
12th Int. Cong. on Large Dams, Vol. 3. Me xico,
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1978. The geomechanics classification in
rock engineering applications, Proc. 4th International Con-
gress Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Vol. 2. Montreux.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1987. The rock mass rating system (Geome-
chanics Classification) in Engineering Practice. Rock Clas-
sification Systems for Engineering Purposes. ASTM
STP984.
CIRIA December 1995. Piled Foundations in Weak Rock .
Draft research report 509.
Clayton, C.R.I., Matthews, M.C., and Simons, N.E., 1995. Site
Investigation. Blackwell Science Ltd, Second Edition.
GEO Publication No. 1/96, June 1996. Pile design and con-
struction. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engi-
neering Department, Hong Kong.
Hoek, E. 1994. Strength of rock and rock masses, ISRM News
Journal.,2(2).
Hoek, E. Kaiser, P.K. & Bawden, W.F. 1995. Support of Un-
derground Excavations in Hard Rock, A.A. Balkema ISBN
90-5410-186-5
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1997. Practical estimates of rock
mass strength, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 34 No. 8.
Hope, S., Young S., and Dauncey P. (2000) Airport Railway
Pile Tests, Proceedings of the 19th Annual Seminar, Geo-
technical Division, Hong Kong Institution of Engineers.
Littlechild, B.D., Hill, S. J., Plumbridge, G.D. and Lee, S.C.
2000a. Load Capacity of Foundations on Rock, Proc. of
Geo-Denver2000, New Technological and Design Devel-
opments in Deep Foundations, GSP No. 100, ASCE, Den-
ver 140-154.
Littlechild, B.D., Hill, S. J., Plumbridge, G.D. and Lee, S.C.
2000b. Determination of Rock Mass Modulus for Founda-
tion Design, Proc. of Geo-Denver2000, Innovations and
Applications in Geotechnical Site Characterisation, GSP
No. 97, ASCE, Denver 213-229.
PNAP141, 1995. Practice note for authorised persons and reg-
istered structural engineers, Foundation Design-Building
(Construction) Regulations 1990-PartVI, BD, Hong Kong
Serafim, J.L. and Pereira, J.P. 1983. Considerations of the
geomechanics classification of Bieniawski. Proc. of the Int.
Symp. on Eng. Geo. and Underground Const., Lisbon.