Downloaded from http://egsp.lyellcollection.

org/ at University of Leeds on November 6, 2012

Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special

Publications

Principles for Description and Classification of Weathered

Rock for Engineering Purposes
R. P. Martin and S. R. Hencher

Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications

1986, v.2; p299-308.
doi: 10.1144/GSL.1986.002.01.53

Email alerting click here to receive free e-mail alerts when new articles
service cite this article
Permission click here to seek permission to re-use all or part of this
request article

Subscribe click here to subscribe to Geological Society, London,

Engineering Geology Special Publications or the Lyell
Collection

Notes

© The Geological Society of London 2012

 Downloaded from http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Leeds on November 6, 2012

Geological Society, Engineering Geology Special Publication No. 2, 1986

Principles for Description and Classification of

Weathered Rock for Engineering purposes

R. P. Martin* and S. R. Henchert

Abstract many factors--in particular original geological charac-

teristics such as lithology and joint pattern. Other
There is a clear need for separate descriptive schemes for the important factors will include local topography,
degree of weathering at a small scale (material grades) and at climatic influences and fluctuations in groundwater.
a large scale (mass zones). Such weathering classifications As a result, the degree of weathering in rocks can
should be established according to clear principles using well seldom be mapped using conventional geological
defined terminology. The schemes recommended in BS 5930
for this purpose are considered inadequate due to confusing methods, and this is one of the major reasons why the
terminology, loosely defined material grades and unjustified subject of weathering needs special consideration for
mass zonal boundaries. In this paper, published schemes soil and rock description. A second important reason,
both at the material grade scale and the mass zonal scale are as noted by Dearman (1974), is that the degree of
reviewed and proposals made for standardised terminology. weathering is a useful short-hand descriptor encom-
Examples of three schemes for classifying materials, and passing many engineering characteristics.
which meet many of the criteria advocated here, are
presented. An idealised zonal scheme for heterogeneous
weathered rocks is presented and the engineering significance
of each proposed zone boundary is discussed.
Principles for Description
The need to describe weathered profiles meaningfully,
and to group materials into units with distinct
Introduction engineering properties for major projects, has led to a
wide range of weathering classifications being
Weathering effects are important for the engineering proposed for many different rock types over the last
assessment of rock. In tropical and sub-tropical 20-25 years. Table I summarises the main features of
regions, for example, properties such as compressive several standard schemes adopted by authoritative
strength and permeability may vary by three orders of bodies in recent years and demonstrates the diversity
magnitude over depths of tens of metres, solely as a of opinion as to the optimum methods for dealing with
result of weathering. Even in temperate and arctic weathering. It is the authors' opinion that the
climates, it is unusual to find fresh rock at the ground resultant confusion and ambiguity of terminology
surface and weathering effects can be very significant. stems from a failure on behalf of those bodies to
For site investigation and design assessments, address the problem objectively.
variability in engineering properties due to weathering The principles for description of weathered rocks
is often the key factor; therefore it is essential that the and for setting up weathering classifications will form
degree of weathering is described and classified clearly the main theme of this paper.
and consistently. Firstly, it is essential to recognise that there is a
This paper discusses the principles for the need for quite different classifications of degree of
description of weathered rocks and, in particular, weathering at two different engineering scales.
questions the adequacy of BS 5930 (British Standards At the small scale, the weathering of individual
Institution, 1981) in dealing with the subject. minerals, loss of grain bonding and growth of
Alternative methods for describing weathering on microfractures is important and indicative of the
both small (materials) and large (mass) scales are degree of weathering in hand-sized or drillcore
reviewed in detail, and recommendations are made samples. This scale is the scale at which detailed
for good practice. logging and most testing is carried out. For such
Weathering processes are rarely sufficiently uniform purposes, weathering description should be in terms
to produce gradual and predictable changes in of material grades, which are essentially uniform and
engineering properties throughout the weathering definable within quite precise limits. Rarely, however,
profile. Such profiles often comprise heterogeneous will uniform grades extend through a sufficiently large
materials at various stages of decomposition and volume of rock for their properties to be considered
disintegration. The level of complexity will depend on representative for engineering design.
At a larger scale, it is often necessary to group
* Geotechnical Control Office, Hong Kong Government. mixtures of different material grades into mass zones,
t Dept. Earth Sciences, Leeds University. which, for engineering purposes, can be considered to
 Downloaded from http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Leeds on November 6, 2012

.o
o ~ ~ "~

i =9o ~ o . o= .E~~=, ~ ~. o ~,.,=

, - ~,.,
,,~ ,"
~ o=
~;~'=

~.~ I~
E~E= =-
=~.- E ~ @

o
' ' J I

oE ~ < ~: >
,. e,~ ==

o o ~ l~
9 ~ Z Z ~z Z,-" Z Z ~ Jt
- ,.~ , ,
o

~ = , ..o~

8ca ~
II

e~

o o
.o ~'~

= .

~ ~~ I
~. ~-,~
'~.E
Z ~.~
"o~
....
1 ' ' '
i

'= - ~ ..~ I
N N ~

, N
,
m~
1 I I l ,

~.~
,-,) ~o
.~. ~
' ~ ~ "~ oo 0 00o'~'~'~ ~ ~176 ~8
"~0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;n r~

m I

~'~

<~, <-,~ Z~
 Downloaded from http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Leeds on November 6, 2012

DESCRIPTION OF WEATHERED ROCKS 301

have distinctive characteristics. Zonal classifications differing proportions of 'soil' and 'rock' for grades
are particularly important for preliminary description II/III/IV/V, and the loss of mass structure from
of weathered rock masses either on a map or by grades V to VI. The 'grade' terms employed are
report. They also have application for general design 'fresh', 'slightly', 'moderately', 'highly' and 'com-
purposes where they have been established on the pletely weathered' to 'residual soil'.
basis of grouped engineering characteristics; for This scheme differs from that for material
example, in excavation works when deciding methods weathering in that it is a single choice classification
of extraction or for estimating allowable foundation based on definitions which have an implied technical
loads. basis. However, no justification is given for these
Zones clearly will incorporate more 'mass' features particular 'zonal' groupings and this subject will be
than will grades, although this factor cannot be discussed in detail later.
regarded as a precise distinction between the two
scales of description, as discussed by Knill (1982). For
example, jointing, which is usually considered a 'mass'
feature rather than a 'material' feature, may be of Assessment of Weathering Descriptions
importance for grade description and an example will in BS 5930
be given later.
In summary, it is clear that a material grade In a broad sense BS 5930 meets the need to have
classification is required for, and will generally only be separate descriptive weathering schemes for uniform
applicable to, small volumes of material. Conversely, material and for large heterogeneous masses.
a mass zone classification will not be applicable to However, when considered in detail, there are a
small samples such as those obtained from drillcore, number of criticisms which can be applied to these
but is useful for grouping large volumes of weathered schemes, as follows:
rock of broadly similar characteristics. 9 confusing terminology
~ lack of clear definition or guidance for the
description of material grades
Treatment of Weatherin9 in BS 5930 ~ unjustified and apparently arbitrary boundaries for
mass weathering zones.
In order to meet the needs for small- and large-scale Concerning terminology, the use of the term 'grade'
description identified above, BS 5930 makes recom- to describe both a type rather than a scale of
mendations under two headings: weathering in rock material and to classify a zone of a
9 Section 44.2.4--subsection of 'Description of Rock heterogeneous weathered rock mass is extremely
Materials', and confusing and needs revision. The authors propose
~ Section 44.3.4, Table 10--subsection of 'Descrip- that the term grade should only be used for materials
tion of Rock Masses'. and zone only for masses.
In section 44.2.4, which deals with weathering of The criticism of lack of clear definition applies both
materials, the four terms 'fresh', 'decomposed', to the material and mass schemes, but most
'discoloured' and 'disintegrated' are recommended for importantly to the former. When making engineering
describing the effects of chemical weathering (discol- descriptions, it is very important to ensure that the
ouration, decomposition) and mechanical weathering user fully understands what has been described in the
(disintegration), when compared with unweathered field. It is the authors' experience that the assessment
(fresh) material. These terms are called 'grades'. It is of degree of material weathering can be a subjective
further recommended that the degree, or 'stage' of matter unless index tests are used for quantification
each 'grade' be indicated by a supplementary term and that misidentification can have serious implica-
such as 'slightly', 'partially', or 'wholly' and it is tions. An example will be given later. Concerning the
suggested that these terms may be quantified if mass weathering grades of BS 5930, the criticism of
necessary, although no advice is given as to how this lack of definition applies to the terms 'rock' and 'soil'
can be done. used throughout the classification. Without adequate
In cases where weathered materials exhibit definition, the terminology allows ambiguous
discolouration, decomposition and disintegration sim- interpretation.
ultaneously, all three 'grades' must be used together The third major criticism concerns the apparently
for full description. arbitrary nature of the boundaries between the mass
The BS 5930 method of material description can weathering 'grades' (zones in the authors' terminol-
therefore be regarded as essentially a qualitative, ogy). Principles for setting up such schemes for
multiple-choice classification based on non-technical engineering purposes are discussed in the final section
'dictionary' definitions. of this paper. It should also be noted that the scheme
In section 44.3.4, Table 10, BS 5930 recommends a in BS 5930 is of limited application for rocks which do
six-fold classification for rock mass weathering, with not weather with the development of corestones.
classes again termed grades. 'Grades' are distin- Further to these specific points, a more general
guished by degree of discolouration in grades I/II, criticism of the recommendations in BS 5930 is that
 Downloaded from http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Leeds on November 6, 2012

302 R. P. MARTIN & S. R. HENCHER

only scant reference is made to situations where "lumps of intact chalk" in otherwise remoulded chalk,
complex ground conditions make it difficult or and jointing characteristics, but in this scheme these
impossible to apply a rigid zonal classification (Fookes are generally small-scale structural features and
& Horswill, 1970). In such cases attention must be applicable to hand-sized samples.
paid to careful materials description combined with Concerning the definition of boundaries, only
lithological and structural mapping. BS 5930, with its scheme A of the three given in Table II has
emphasis on zonal schemes, does not prepare the boundaries defined in the precise manner recom-
inexperienced engineer or geologist for such mended here. Further examples of potentially useful
occurrences. index tests and their relationships to particular
engineering properties are given by Irfan & Dearman
(1978). The consequence of loose definitions of grades
Review and Recommendationsfor the can be important. For example, Lumb (1983),
Description of Weathered Rocks professing to employ Moye's (1955) material class-
ification, presents data covering a range of engineer-
In accordance with the previous discussion regarding
ing properties for grades I to IV granite and volcanic
the need for different descriptive schemes for
rocks from Hong Kong. On the basis of these data,
weathered rocks at both small and large scales, the
one of his main conclusions is that 'highly
following review and recommendations will consider
decomposed' (grade IV) rock has a compressive
material grade schemes and mass zonal schemes
separately. strength which is "adequately high for most
engineering works in Hong Kong". This conclusion is
Material Description (Grades) based on tested samples identified by Lumb and his
co-workers as highly decomposed and having com-
Various authors have approached the description of pressive strengths between 2 and 50 MPa. However
weathered rocks by setting up essentially 'material' according to Moye, highly decomposed (weathered)
classifications in the first instance before assessing rock, at its least weathered, can be broken and
mass features. These include Moye (1955), Melton crumbled by hand. Its boundary with completely
(1965), Little (1969), Newbery (1970), Wakeling decomposed rock is marked by disintegration on
(1970), Geotechnical Control Office (1979), Hencher immersion in water.
& Martin (1982) and Krank & Watters (1983). The authors consider that many of the samples
Although written with 'material' bias, many of these tested by Lumb must therefore have been less than
authors have also tried to incorporate some features highly decomposed as it would be impossible to break
more applicable to mass descriptions in their schemes. intact core of compressive strength greater than a few
This has been in an attempt to overcome the MPa by hand. The conclusion relating to 'highly
difficulties of applying a uniform, material class- decomposed' rock stated above is therefore invalid
ification to large heterogeneous volumes of weathered due to wrong identification of decomposition grade
rock and in some cases may demonstrate a reluctance and could have serious implications in terms of
or ignorance of the need to use different schemes at engineering risk. Elsewhere in his paper Lumb states
different scales. that "experienced engineers and geologists are
Following review of the above publications and reasonably consistent in their classifications" and then
taking account of the axiomatic need for a goes on to demonstrate, quite clearly, that they are
well-defined method for describing uniform grades of not.
weathered material, the authors propose the following With regard to the principle that grades should have
guidelines as standards for good practice: engineering relevance, this can only be satisfied
9 Grade descriptions must apply to uniform materials. practically following long term experience and
9 Index tests should be used whenever practical to correlation between laboratory tests and field
define precise grade boundaries. descriptions. Some index tests, however, are intui-
9 Grade boundaries should be established according tively relevant to engineering practice (e.g.
to engineering relevance wherever possible. slakeability).
9 Constant grade numbering and nomenclature must Concerning terminology and grade titles, Roman
be used. numerals I-VI are used in each scheme in Table II
9 A six-fold division of grades should be used in and it is recommended that these should always apply
accordance with common practice and as justified to material grades. The end terms of 'fresh rock' and
on grounds of previous experience. 'residual soil' should also be adopted as standard.
9 A single classification should be used wherever Intermediate grades should be qualified by the terms
possible to cover all types (decomposition, disin- 'slightly', 'moderately', 'highly', and 'completely',
tegration) and degrees of material weathering. with the main grade terms being chosen as either
The principle that grades should be uniform is 'decomposed' or 'disintegrated' according to the
illustrated particularly by the examples A and B given dominant weathering type or 'weathered' in the more
in Table II. Wakeling's (1970) scheme (C) for chalk general sense. These terms should only be applied to
does include some heterogeneous features such as the description of weathered materials. Alternative
 Downloaded from http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Leeds on November 6, 2012

DESCRIPTION OF WEATHERED ROCKS 303

TABLE II. Comparison of selected schemes for grade classification of rock material weathering
Reference A Hencher & Martin (1982) B Little (1969) C Wakeling (1970)

Area Hong Kong Tropical Regions--General U.K.

Rock Types Granite and Volcanic Rocks 'Residual Tropical Soils' Chalk
Grade
Symbol Description Typical Characteristics Typical Characteristics Typical Characteristics
VI Residual A soil mixture with the Surface layer contains hu- Extremely soft structureless
Soil (A) original texture of the rock mus and plant roots; no chalk containing small lumps
Soil (B & C) completely destroyed recognisable texture; un- of intact chalk
stable on slopes when veget-
able cover destroyed
Completely No rebound from N. Rock completely decom- Structureless remoulded chalk
Decomposed Schmidt hammer; slakes posed but texture still recog- containing lumps of intact
(A) readily in water; geological nisable; in granite types chalk
Completely pick easily indents when feldspars completely decom-
Weathered pushed into surface; rock posed to clay minerals; cores
(B & C) is wholly decomposed but cannot be recovered by
rock texture preserved ordinary rotary drilling
methods; can be excavated
by hand

IV Highly N. Schmidt rebound value 0 Rock so weakened by Rubbly partly weathered

Decomposed to 25; does not slake readily weathering that fairly large chalk with bedding and joint-
(A) in water; geological pick pieces can be broken and ing, joints 10-60 mm apart,
Highly cannot be pushed into sur- crumbled in the hands; open to 20 mm and often
Weathered face; hand penetrometer sometimes recovered as core infilled with soft remoulded
(a & C) strength index > 250 KN/m2; by careful rotary drilling; chalk and fragments
rock weakened so that large stained by limonite
pieces broken by hand;
individual grains plucked
from surface

III Moderately N. Schmidt rebound value Considerably weathered; Rubbly to blocky unweath-
Decomposed 25 to 45; considerably possessing some strengttr-- ered chalk; joints 60-20 mm
(A) weathered but possessing large pieces (e.g. NX core) apart, open to 3 mm and
Moderately strength such that pieces cannot be broken by hand; sometimes infilled with
Weathered 55 mm diameter cannot be often limonite stained; fragments
(B & C) broken by hand; rock difficult to excavate without
material not friable use of explosives
Slightly N. Schmidt rebound value Distinctly weathered with Blocky medium hard chalk,
Decomposed > 45; more than one blow of slight limonite staining; joints more than 200 mm
(A) geological hammer to break some decomposed feldspar apart and closed
Slightly specimen; strength ap- in granites; strength ap-
Weathered proaches that of fresh rock proaching that of fresh rock;
(B & C) explosives required for
excavation
Fresh Rock No visible signs of weather- Fresh rock may have some As for grade II but hard and
(A, B & C) ing; rarely encountered in limonite stained joints im- brittle
surface exposures mediately beneath weath-
ered rock

Comments Relies heavily on index tests Incorporates occasional Relies heavily on small-scale
'mass' features (e.g. joint- structural features
ing, excavation type)
 Downloaded from http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Leeds on November 6, 2012

304 R. P. M A R T I N & S. R. H E N C H E R

terminology for zonal classifications is presented in the Concerning the criteria used for distinguishing
next section. between zones, boundaries for 'local' schemes, as
Wherever possible a single grade classification shown in Table III, have generally been set up in
should be used. Other authors have advocated the accordance with the particular needs of a project or
need for more than one scheme to be used field experience of the typical mode of weathering for
simultaneously (e.g. Dearman, 1974; Dearman & a specific rock type. Despite differences in detail in
Irfan, 1978), but it is the authors' experience that Table III, it is clear that certain criteria have been
subordinate types of weathering can generally be dealt found particularly useful, namely, proportions of rock
with by supplementary description and that this avoids and soil, presence or absence of mass structure and
unnecessary confusion. degree of discolouration on joint planes. Similarly
No specific scheme of material classification can be most of these schemes employ either five or six zones,
expected to apply to all rock types, but adoption of which appears to be the upper limit of practical
the above guidelines should ensure that new schemes recognition.
are set up consistently and objectively. Although similar criteria as those in Table III have
been adopted widely for the erection of standard
schemes, it is considered that in none of these
Mass Description (Zones)
standard schemes have the specific boundary condi-
Mass zonal schemes are more suitable than material tions been clearly justified. For meaningful engineer-
grade schemes for the description of weathered rocks ing use, such criteria should be supported by empirical
for engineering construction and for mapping evidence or theory. It appears to the authors that
purposes. This is the prime reason why so many many have been adopted for apparently arbitrary
authors have addressed the problem of weathering reasons or simply on grounds that they are easy to
description at this scale, for example: Vargas (1953), recognise.
Ruxton & Berry (1957), Knill & Jones (1965), Ward As an example, BS 5930 (Table 10) distinguishes
et al. (1968), Chandler (1969), Barata (1969), between 'grades' (zones) I and II solely on the basis of
Saunders & Fookes (1970), Fookes & Horswill (1970), degree of discolouration, whilst both zones remain as
Neilson (1970), Deere & Patton (1971), Lovegrove & 100% rock. The practical engineering significance of
Fookes (1972) and Sancio & Brown (1980). Most of distinguishing between these zones is unclear.
these schemes were set up for specific purposes, but in By comparison, an example with which the authors
the last 15 years various international bodies have are well acquainted, concerns the Building (Construc-
recommended standard schemes for more general tion) Regulations of Hong Kong (Government of
usage (see Table I). Hong Kong, 1976). These regulations, which are
For a scheme to be of practical use for engineering currently being revised, incorporate a table giving safe
works rather than simply of descriptive interest, the bearing pressures for foundations. A bearing pressure
following principles should apply: of 5 MPa is allowed for the best quality rock mass
9 Zones must be recognisable in naturally occurring which is defined by a criterion of greater than 85%
profiles. core recovery. This zone, in being far too broadly
~ The complete range of expected materials must be defined, does not allow for the appreciably higher
accounted for. bearing capacity that would normally be associated
~ Boundaries must be defined such that they separate with rock of excellent quality (e.g. 100% recovery).
zones with significantly different engineering Whilst acknowledging that no standard scheme can
properties. be expected to be applicable for all purposes, the
Furthermore, for a standard scheme to be acceptable, authors consider that improvements can be made by
it must be applicable to a wide range of rock types in careful consideration of the principles outlined
different climatic conditions. previously. As an illustration, a simple zonal scheme
The first two aims are self-explanatory although is presented in Table IV. It is suggested that this
sometimes difficult to achieve. For example, it should scheme has direct application for general-purpose
be noted that a major weakness of zonal schemes zonal description of rocks whose weathering profiles
generally is their inflexibility for dealing with complex typically comprise a heterogeneous mixture of
geological conditions (Fookes & Horswill, 1970; materials. The zone sequence and numbering (in
Lovegrove & Fookes, 1972; Dearman, 1974). Field Arabic numerals) are recommended as standards to
situations are often encountered where idealised zones avoid confusion with the terminology used for
are difficult to apply, especially where exposures are material grades.
not continuous and the opportunities for correlation In essence, the zonal scheme in Table IV is based
are poor. The point is made by Oilier (1969, p. 123) as simply on varying proportions of rock and soil, as this
follows: "It is certainly helpful to have the 'zone' idea feature can be expected to exert a major influence on
in mind when describing weathering sections, such fundamental engineering properties as strength,
although in some instances it may not be applicable, deformability and permeability. Rock is generally
and though there are no sequences (of zones) that can defined as material grades I, II or III, except in zone 1
be expected to apply in all cases." where all rock will be either grade I or II.
 Downloaded from http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Leeds on November 6, 2012

DESCRIPTION OF WEATHERED ROCKS 305

TABLE III. Comparative summary of selected schemes for zone classification of rock mass weathering

Zone Symbols and Boundary Criteria

Reference Rock Type I Area ]of Zones ] Most weathered ~ ~Least weathered

Ruxton & Berry Granite Hong RS, S RS, JD

(5957) Kong

Knill & Jones

Gneiss Sudan RS, SI, CR JS, CR, JD
0965)
Ward et al.
Chalk U.K. S F, St
(5968)
I
Chandler
Keuper Marl: U.K. RS RS
(1969)

Barata I
Gneiss Brazil S JD
(1969)

Neilson
Mudstone I Australia
(1970)

Lovegrove & Volcanic ]

Fookes Tufts & Fiji
0972) Sediments

Dearman et al.
0978) Granite [ (general)

Saneio & Brown

CalcareOUSschist I Venezuela S I DR I RS I WR I D, St
0980)
FKrank &
Watters Granodiorite I U.S.A.
i(5983)

5. Near surface 'pedological' soil RS(22) = 'rock'/'soil' proportions (relative amounts of 'soil' matrix material and
zones, as used in some schemes, lithorelicts/corestones/fragments of 'rock' material; qualitative assess-
are excluded. ment only).
S(50) = structure (presence/absence) of rock mass structure and material fabric)
2. Only those boundary criteria JD(9) = degree of discolouration of joint planes
used in distinguishing between St(8) = strength (qualitative)
Notes adjacent zones are considered. D(6) = degree of discoiouration of rock material
CR(4) = percentage core recovery
3. Numbers adjacent to symbols JS(3) = joint spacing
indicate frequency of use in this F(3) = friability (degree of breakdown of rock mass)
table. JA(2) = joint aperture
A(2) = angularity of corestones
SI(1) = 'slakeabifity' (susceptibility to breakdown in water)

Z o n e 1 comprises virtually u n w e a t h e r e d materials passage of water. T h e shear strength of individual

and its engineering properties will d e p e n d solely u p o n joints will be reduced due to loss of roughness,
the lithological origin and tectonic history of the rock infilhng and actual joint extension t h r o u g h rock
mass. Strength will normally be controlled by the 'bridges'. T h e change of modulus from rock to soil is
degree and orientation of jointing. T h e shear strength m a r k e d , and as a result allowable f o u n d a t i o n
of individual joints is likely to be high due to good pressures m a y be reduced considerably.
interlocking and impersistence. Z o n e s 3, 4 and 5 comprise different percentages of
In zone 2, it requires only slight w e a t h e r i n g for the rock corestones in a soil matrix. T h e 90% cut-off
engineering properties of the rock mass to be altered b e t w e e n zones 2 and 3 is arbitrary but separates w h a t
considerably. Permeability will i n c r e a s e - - t h e weath- is still a g o o d quality rock mass from a p o o r e r quality
ering p r o d u c t s themselves often being indicative of the mass w h e r e the w e a t h e r i n g is more general and of
 Downloaded from http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Leeds on November 6, 2012

306 R. P. M A R T I N & S. R. H E N C H E R

TABLE IV. Proposed zonal scheme for the class- containing from 30% to 50% fragments there is an
ification of heterogeneous weathered rocks increase in strength above that of the matrix (Holtz &
Ellis, 1961; Patwardhan et al., 1970; Donaghe &
Zone Torrey III, 1979).
Symbol Zonal Characteristics Within zone 5, the presence of less than 30%
9 Soil derived from in situ weathering: corestones, although of relatively minor importance in
100% soil (grades IV, V or VI) terms of ultimate engineering behaviour, might
9 May or may not have lost rock mass significantly affect the required methods of site
features completely investigation. For example, occasional corestones may
limit the usefulness of shell and auger or cone
9 Soil with corestones: less than 30% penetrometer rigs and may also cause problems for
rock (grades I, II or III) construction, particularly if that low percentage
9 Shearing can be effected through comprises rare, very large corestones. Problems may
matrix
9 Rock content significant for inves- also arise from the misinterpretation of corestones as
tigation and construction bedrock or from driven piles coming to refusal at too
shallow a depth.
9 Poor quality rock mass: 30% to 50% Zone 6 comprises rock weathered completely to a
rock (grades I, II or III) soil, and in tropical climates it is quite common to
9 Corestones affect shear behaviour of encounter such materials, without corestones, to
mass depths of more than ten metres. Such a zone may be
3 Ilit - 9 Moderate quality rock mass: 50% to quite variable depending upon the nature of 'soil'. For
90% rock (grades I, II or III) instance, significant differences in behaviour can be
9 Severe weathering along expected between a zone 6 comprising highly
discontinuities decomposed granite with many relict joints, and a
9 Locked structure zone 6 comprising structureless, residual soil.
" ~ _ 9 Good quality rock mass: greater tha,
90% rock (grades I, II or III)
9 Weathering along discontinuities Conclusions
[ ~ ! Excellent quality rock mass: 100%
i rock (grades I, II) In this paper, principles for the description of
No visible signs of rock weathering weathered rocks have been discussed and carefully-
apart from slight discolouration along defined terminology and guidelines have been
joints presented for setting up classifications at both material
Joint surfaces strongly interlocking and mass scales.
Rock and soil material should be classified
according to grades which are applicable to uniform
samples. Grade boundaries must be well-defined,
preferably on the basis of index tests. An objective
much higher significance. Zone 3, in having more than classification of material weathering grades allows
50% corestones, can still be considered a locked flexibility for the description of any exposure,
structure, with restriction against rotation of rock excavation or drillcore, no matter how complex.
fragments (Dearman, 1974), but joint blocks will tend Standard terminology has been proposed and
to be separated. Shearing through any significant examples of material weathering schemes have been
proportion of the mass within zone 3, other than along presented, although it is not considered appropriate to
relict joints, will be controlled largely by the recommend a single scheme for general use.
distribution of corestones, and the general dilation Mass zonal schemes are more applicable to the
which would therefore be required for movement to normal scale of engineering works, although their
Occur. application may be limited by geological factors.
Zone 4, comprising less than 50% corestones, can be Examples have been given to illustrate the inade-
considered an 'unlocked' structure, and this can have quacies of some existing schemes in the selection and
important implications for ease of excavation accord- justification of zone boundaries. A simple, standard
ing to Dearman (1974). The lower cut-off, marked by classification for zonal description has been proposed
a corestone content of 30%, is considered the limit for heterogeneous mixtures of materials based on the
below which the contained corestones cannot be principles presented in this paper. It is recognised,
expected to provide any additional strength above that however, that more detailed site-specific schemes will
of the matrix during shearing (Hencher & Martin, often be appropriate.
1982). This conclusion is based on idealised drawings It is recommended that the proposals in this paper
of regular and irregular corestone configurations, should be considered in any revision of the schemes
together with experimental evidence that for soils for weathering description in BS 5930.
 Downloaded from http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Leeds on November 6, 2012

DESCRIPTION OF WEATHERED ROCKS 307

References Manual for Slopes. Hong Kong Government Printer,

227 pp.
ANON (1970): The logging of rock cores for engineering GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG (1976): Building (Construc-
purposes. (Geological Society Engineering Group tion) Regulations. Laws of Hong Kong, Chapter 123
Working Party). Q. Jl. Engng. Geol., 3, 1-24. (part), Table IX. Hong Kong Government Printer.
ANON (1972): The preparation of maps and plans in terms of HENCHER, S. R. & MARTIN, R. P. (1982): The description
engineering geology. (Geological Society Engineering and classification of weathered rocks in Hong Kong for
Group Working Party). Q. Jl. Engng. Geol., 5, engineering purposes. Proc. 7th Southeast Asian Geot.
295-382. Conf., Hong Kong, I, 125-142.
ANON (1977): The description of rock masses for engineering HOLTZ, W. G. & ELLIS, W. (1961): Triaxial shear tests on
purposes. (Geological Society Engineering Group clayey gravelly softs. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
Working Party). Q. Jl. Engng. Geol., 10, 355-388. Found. Engng., Paris, I, 143-149.
ANON (1978): Suggested methods for the quantitative IRFAN, T. Y. & DEARMAN, W. R. (1978): Engineering
description of discontinuities in rock masses. (ISRM classification and index properties of a weathered
Commission on standardization of laboratory and field granite. Bull. Int. Assoc. Engng. Geol., 17, 79-90.
tests). Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 15, 319-368. KNILL, J. L. (1982): Moderator's report on engineering
ANON (1979): Classification of rocks and softs for engineering geology and rock mechanics. Proc. 7th Southeast Asian
geological mapping. Part 1: Rock and soil materials. Geot. Conf., Hong Kong, II, 159-165.
(IAEG Commission of engineering geological mapping). KNtLL, J. L. & JONES, K. S. (1965): The recording and
Bull. Int. Assoc. Engng. Geol., 19, 364-371. interpretation of geological conditions in the foundations
ANON (1981): Rock and soil description and classification for of the Roseires, Kariba and Latiyan dams.
engineering geological mapping. (IAEG Commission on G~otechnique, 15, 94-124.
engineering geological mapping). Bull. Int. Assoc. KRANK, K. D. & WATI~RS, R. J. (1983): Geotechnical
Engng. Geol., 24, 235-274. properties of weathered Sierra Nevada granodiorite.
ANON (1981): Basic geotechnical description of rock masses. Bull. Assoc. Engng. Geologists, XX, 173-184.
(ISRM Commission on classification of rocks and rock LrlTLE, A. L. (1969): The engineering classification of
masses). Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 18, 85-110. residual tropical soils. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
BARATA, F. E. (1969): Landslides in the tropical region of Found. Engng., Mexico, I, 1-10.
Rio De Janeiro. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. LOVEGROVE, G. W. & FOOKES, P. G. (1972): The planning
Engng., Mexico, II, 507-516. and implementation of a site investigation for a highway
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION (1981): BS5930:1981. in tropical conditions in Fiji. Q. Jl. Engng. Geol., 5,
Code of Practice for Site Investigations. British 43-68.
Standards Institution, London, 147 pp. LOMB, P. (1983): Engineering properties of fresh and
CHANDLER, R. J. (1969): The effect of weathering on the decomposed igneous rocks from Hong Kong. Engng.
shear strength properties of Keuper marl. G~otechnique, Geol., 19, 81-94.
19, 321-334. MELTON, M. A. (1965): Debris-covered hillslopes of the
DEARMAN, W. R. (1974): Weathering classification in the southern Arizona desert---consideration of their stability
characterisation of rock for engineering purposes in and sediment contribution. J. Geol., 73, 715-729.
British practice. Bull. Int. Assoc. Engng. Geol., 9, MOVE, D. G. (1955): Engineering geology for the Snowy
33-42. Mountains scheme. J. Inst. Engrs., Australia, 27,
DEARMAN, W. R. (1976): Weathering classification in the 281-299.
characterisation of rock: a revision. Bull. Int. Assoc. NEILSON, J. L. (1970): Notes on weathering of the Silurian
Engng. Geol., 13, 123-127. rocks of the Melbourne district. J. Inst. Engrs.,
DEARMAN,W. R. & IRFAN,T. Y. (1978): Classification and Australia, 42, 9-12.
index properties of weathered coarse-grained granites NEWBERY, J. (1970): Engineering geology in the investiga-
from South-West England. Proc. 3rd Int. Cong. Int. tion and construction of the Batang Padang hydro-
Assoc. Engng. Geol., Madrid, II(2), 119-130. electric scheme, Malaysia. Q. Jl. Engng. Geol., 3,
DEARMAN, W. R., BAYNES,F. J. & IRFAN, T. Y. (1978): 151-181.
Engineering grading of weathered granite. Engng. OLLIER, C. D. (1969): Weathering. Longman, London,
Geol., 12, 345-374. 304 pp.
DEERE, D. U. & PATRON, F. D. (1971): Slope stability in PATWARDHAN,A. S., RAO, J. S. & GAIDHANE, R. B. (1970):
residual soils. Proc. 4th Pan. Am. Conf. Soil Mech. Interlocking effects and shearing resistance of boulders
Found. Engng., Puerto Rico, I, 87-170. and large size particles in a matrix of fines on the basis
DONAGHE, R. T. & TORREY III, V. H. (1979): Scalping and of large scale direct shear tests. Proc. 2nd Southeast
replacement effects on strength parameters of earth- Asian Conf. Soil Engng., Singapore, 265-273.
rock mixtures. Proc. 7th European Conf. Soil Mech. ROXTON, B. P. & BERRY, L. (1957): Weathering of granite
Found. Engng., (Design Parameters in Geotechnical and associated erosional features in Hong Kong. Bull.
Engineering), Brighton, 2, 29-34. Geol. Soc. Am., 68, 1263-1292.
FOOKES, P. G. & HORSWILL, P. (1970): Discussion on SANCIO, R. T. & BROWN, I. (1980): A classification of
engineering grade zones. Proc. Conf. In Situ weathered foliated rocks for use in slope stability
Investigations in Soils and Rocks, London, 53-57. problems. Proc. 3rd Australia-N. Z. Conf.
FOOKES, P. G., DEARMAN, W. R. & FRANKLIN,J. A. (1971): Geomechanics, Wellington, 2, 2-81-2-86.
Some engineering aspects of rock weathering with field SAUNDERS, M. K. & FOOKES, P. G. (1970): A review of the
examples from Dartmoor and elsewhere. Q. Jl. Engng. relationship of rock weathering and climate and its
Geol., 4, 139-185. significance to foundation engineering. Engng. Geol., 4,
GEOTECHNICAL CONTROL OFFICE (1979): Geotechnical 289-325.
 Downloaded from http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Leeds on November 6, 2012

308 R . P . MARTIN & S. R. HENCHER

WAKELING,T. R. M. (1970): A comparison of the results of Geotechnical assessment of a site at Mundford, Norfolk
standard site investigation methods against the results of for a large proton accelerator. G~otechnique, 18,
a detailed geotechnical investigation in the Middle Chalk 399-431.
at Mundford, Norfolk. Proc. Conf. In Sire Investigations VARGAS, M. (1953): Some engineering properties of residual
in Soils and Rock, London, 17-22. clay soils occurring in Southern Brazil. Proc. 3rd Int.
WARD, W. H., BURLAND,V. B. & GALLOIS,R. W. (1968): Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng., Zurich, I, 67-71.