TXT-tool 3.034-1.1: A Textural Classification of Argillaceous Rocks and Their Durability

  • Jordi Corominas
  • Joan Martinez-Bofill
  • Albert Soler


Argillaceous rocks can display a wide range of durability behavior after excavation and in cut slopes. This Text-Tool describes a new classification of argillaceous rocks based on their textural characteristics, highlighting the importance of properly classifying this type of rocks in order to predict the cut slope deterioration rates. Three main components of the classification scheme are the clastic framework, the fine-grained matrix, and the cementing agent. Unlike other schemes, the unlithified argillaceous sediments are included as well. The names proposed for the rocks broadly follow the existing nomenclature used in petrographic classifications. The durability of some argillaceous rock types has been assessed by taking into account a set of degradation features of the excavated slopes. It has been observed that the ratios of these textural components exert a strong control on the long-term durability of slopes.


Argillaceous rock Durability Slope deterioration Classification 


  1. Blatt H (1982) Sedimentary petrology. WH Freeman and Company, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  2. Corominas J, Martinez-Bofill J, Soler A (2015) A textural classification of argillaceous rocks and their durability. Landslides 12(4):669–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Czerewko MA, Cripps JC (2006) The implication of diagenetic history and weathering on the engineering behaviour of mudrocks. In: 10th IAEG international congress: engineering geology for tomorrow’s cities. Paper number 118.
  4. Dick JC, Shakoor A (1992) Lithological controls of mudrock durability. Quat J Eng Geol 25:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dick JC, Shakoor A (1997) Predicting the durability of mudrocks from geological characteristics of mudrocks: In: Santi P, Shakoor A (eds) Association of environmental and engineering geologists. Special Publication No. 9, pp 89–105Google Scholar
  6. Dott RH (1964) Wackstone, graywacke and matrix—what approach to inmature sandstone classification? Num 34:625–632Google Scholar
  7. Erguler ZA, Shakoor A (2009) Quantification of fragment size distribution of clay-bearing rocks after slake durability testing. Environ Eng Geosci 15:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franklin JA (1983) Report RR29 research and development branch research. Toronto, Ministry of Transportation and, Evaluation of shales for construction projects: an Ontario shale rating systemGoogle Scholar
  9. Franklin JA, Chandra R (1972) The slake durability test. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci Geomech Abstracts 9:325–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franklin JA, Dusseault MB (1989) Rock engineering. McGraw Hill Inc, New York, p 600Google Scholar
  11. Gerber E, Scheidegger AE (1969) Stress-induce weathering of rock masses. Eclogae Gel Helv 62:401–416Google Scholar
  12. Gökçeoglu C, Ulusay R, Sönmez H (2000) Factors affecting the durability of selected weak and clay-earing rocks from Turkey, with particular emphasis on the influence of the number of drying and wetting cycles. Eng Geol 57:215–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grainger P (1984) The influence of clay mineralogy and diagenesis of Upper Carboniferous shales on soil formation in parts of Devon. J Soil Sci 35:599–606Google Scholar
  14. Hallsworth CR, Knox RWO’B (1999) BGS rock classification scheme, vol 3. Classification of sediments and sedimentary rocks. British Geological Survey. Research report number rr 99–03. Nottingham UK, 44 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Martinez-Bofill J (2011) Alterabilidad de limolitas, arcillitas y margas. Aplicación a la estabilidad de desmontes y excavaciones. PhD thesis. Universitat Politèccnica de Catalunya, 427 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Martinez-Bofill J, Corominas J, Soler A (2004) Behaviour of the weak rock cutslopes and their characterization using the results of the slake durability test. In: Lecture notes in earth sciences, 104. Engineering geology for infrastructure planing in Europe, pp 405–413Google Scholar
  17. Martinez-Bofill J, Corominas J, Soler A (2008) Analysis of the relationship between durability and petrological characteristics of weak rocks. Euroengeo. In: Proceedings of the II European conference of international association for engineering geology, MadridGoogle Scholar
  18. Moon VG, Beattie AG (1995) Textural and microstructural influences on the durability of Waikato coal measures mudrocks. Q J Eng Geol 28:303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nichols TC (1980) Rebound its nature and effect on engineering works. Q J Eng Geol 13:133–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nicholson DT (2004) Hazard assessment for progressive, weathering-related breakdown of excavated rockslopes. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 37:327–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nickmann M, Spaun G, Thuro K (2006) Engineering geological classification of weak rocks. In: 10th congress of the international association of engineering geology and the environment, paper number 492, NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  22. Nickmann M, Sailer S, Ljubesic J, Thuro K (2010) Engineering geological investigations into the border between hard and weak rocks. In: Williams L et al (eds) Geologically active. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 2265–2272Google Scholar
  23. Potter PE, Maynard JB, Depetris PJ (2005) Mud and mudstones. Springer, Berlin, p 308Google Scholar
  24. Sadisun IA, Shimada H, Ichinose M, Matsui K (2005) Study on the physical disintegration characteristics of Subang claystone subjected to a modified slaking index test. Geotech Geol Eng 23:199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Santi P (1998) Improving jar slake, slake index, and slake durability tests for shales. Environ Eng Geosci 4:385–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Santi P (2006) Field methods for characterizing weak rocks for engineering. Environ Eng Geosci 12:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shakoor A, Brock D (1987) Relationship between fissility, composition and engineering properties of selected shales from northeast Ohio. Bull Assoc Eng Geol 24:363–379Google Scholar
  28. Taylor RK (1988) Coal measures mudrocks: composition, classification and weathering processes. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 21:85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), North American Geologic-Map Data Model Science Language Technical Team (2004) Report on progress to develop a North American science-language standard for digital geologic-map databases; Appendix C1—sedimentary materials: science language for their classification, description, and interpretation in digital geologic-map databases; version 1.0 (12/18/2004). In: Soller DR (ed) Digital mapping techniques’04—workshop proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey open-file report 2004–1451, 595 p. Appendix C1 accessed at
  30. Wood LE, Deo P (1975) A suggested system for classifying shale materials form embankments. Bull Assoc Eng Geol 12:39–55Google Scholar
  31. Young RA (1993) International union crystallography. The Rietveld method. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordi Corominas
    • 1
  • Joan Martinez-Bofill
    • 1
    • 2
  • Albert Soler
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya BarcelonaTechBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.GEOMAR Enginyeria del TerrenyBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Grup de Mineralogia Aplicada i Geoquímica de Fluids, Departament de Mineralogia, Petrologia i Geologia Aplicada, Facultat de GeologiaUniversitat de Barcelona (UB)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations