Rock mass classification

Table 4: Rock Mass Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989).

A. CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERS AND THEIR RATINGS
Parameter Range of values
Strength Point-load >10 MPa 4 - 10 MPa 2 - 4 MPa 1 - 2 MPa For this low range - uniaxial
of strength index compressive test is preferred
1 intact rock Uniaxial comp. >250 MPa 100 - 250 MPa 50 - 100 MPa 25 - 50 MPa 5 - 25 1-5 <1
material strength MPa MPa MPa
Rating 15 12 7 4 2 1 0
Drill core Quality RQD 90% - 100% 75% - 90% 50% - 75% 25% - 50% < 25%
2 Rating 20 17 13 8 3
Spacing of >2m 0.6 - 2 . m 200 - 600 mm 60 - 200 mm < 60 mm
3 Rating 20 15 10 8 5
Very rough surfaces Slightly rough surfaces Slightly rough surfaces Slickensided surfaces Soft gouge >5 mm thick
Condition of discontinuities Not continuous Separation < 1 mm Separation < 1 mm or Gouge < 5 mm thick or Separation > 5 mm
(See E) No separation Slightly weathered walls Highly weathered walls or Separation 1-5 mm Continuous
4 Unweathered wall rock Continuous
Rating 30 25 20 10 0
Inflow per 10 m None < 10 10 - 25 25 - 125 > 125
tunnel length (l/m)
Groundwa (Joint water press)/ < 0.1 0.1, - 0.2 0.2 - 0.5 > 0.5
0
5 ter (Major principal )
General conditions Completely dry Damp Wet Dripping Flowing
Rating 15 10 7 4 0
B. RATING ADJUSTMENT FOR DISCONTINUITY ORIENTATIONS (See F)
Strike and dip orientations Very favourable Favourable Fair Unfavourable Very Unfavourable
Tunnels & mines 0 -2 -5 -10 -12
Ratings Foundations 0 -2 -7 -15 -25
Slopes 0 -5 -25 -50
C. ROCK MASS CLASSES DETERMINED FROM TOTAL RATINGS
Rating 100  81 80  61 60  41 40  21 < 21

Class number I II III IV V

Description Very good rock Good rock Fair rock Poor rock Very poor rock
D. MEANING OF ROCK CLASSES
Class number I II III IV V
Average stand-up time 20 yrs for 15 m span 1 year for 10 m span 1 week for 5 m span 10 hrs for 2.5 m span 30 min for 1 m span
Cohesion of rock mass (kPa) > 400 300 - 400 200 - 300 100 - 200 < 100
Friction angle of rock mass (deg) > 45 35 - 45 25 - 35 15 - 25 < 15
E. GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF DISCONTINUITY conditions
Discontinuity length (persistence) <1m 1-3m 3 - 10 m 10 - 20 m > 20 m
Rating 6 4 2 1 0
Separation (aperture) None < 0.1 mm 0.1 - 1.0 mm 1 - 5 mm > 5 mm
Rating 6 5 4 1 0
Roughness Very rough Rough Slightly rough Smooth Slickensided
Rating 6 5 3 1 0
Infilling (gouge) None Hard filling < 5 mm Hard filling > 5 mm Soft filling < 5 mm Soft filling > 5 mm
Rating 6 4 2 2 0
Weathering Unweathered Slightly weathered Moderately weathered Highly weathered Decomposed
Ratings 6 5 3 1 0
F. EFFECT OF DISCONTINUITY STRIKE AND DIP ORIENTATION IN TUNNELLING**
Strike perpendicular to tunnel axis Strike parallel to tunnel axis
Drive with dip - Dip 45 - 90 Drive with dip - Dip 20 - 45 Dip 45 - 90 Dip 20 - 45
Very favourable Favourable Very unfavourable Fair
Drive against dip - Dip 45-90 Drive against dip - Dip 20-45 Dip 0-20 - Irrespective of strike
Fair Unfavourable Fair
* Some conditions are mutually exclusive . For example, if infilling is present, the roughness of the surface will be overshadowed by the influence of the gouge. In such cases use A.4 directly.
** Modified after Wickham et al (1972).

9
 Rock mass classification

Table 5: Guidelines for excavation and support of 10 m span rock tunnels in accordance
with the RMR system (After Bieniawski 1989).

Rock mass Excavation Rock bolts Shotcrete Steel sets

class (20 mm diameter, fully
grouted)
I - Very good Full face, Generally no support required except spot bolting.
rock 3 m advance.
RMR: 81-100
II - Good rock Full face , Locally, bolts in crown 50 mm in None.
RMR: 61-80 1-1.5 m advance. Complete 3 m long, spaced 2.5 crown where
support 20 m from face. m with occasional required.
wire mesh.
III - Fair rock Top heading and bench Systematic bolts 4 m 50-100 mm None.
RMR: 41-60 1.5-3 m advance in top heading. long, spaced 1.5 - 2 m in crown and
Commence support after each in crown and walls 30 mm in
blast. with wire mesh in sides.
crown.
Complete support 10 m from
face.
IV - Poor rock Top heading and bench Systematic bolts 4-5 100-150 mm Light to medium ribs
RMR: 21-40 1.0-1.5 m advance in top m long, spaced 1-1.5 in crown and spaced 1.5 m where
heading. m in crown and walls 100 mm in required.
Install support concurrently with with wire mesh. sides.
excavation, 10 m from face.
V – Very poor Multiple drifts 0.5-1.5 m Systematic bolts 5-6 150-200 mm Medium to heavy ribs
rock advance in top heading. m long, spaced 1-1.5 in crown, 150 spaced 0.75 m with
RMR: < 20 Install support concurrently with m in crown and walls mm in sides, steel lagging and
excavation. Shotcrete as soon with wire mesh. Bolt and 50 mm forepoling if required.
as possible after blasting. invert. on face. Close invert.

It should be noted that Table 5 has not had a major revision since 1973. In many mining
and civil engineering applications, steel fibre reinforced shotcrete may be considered in
place of wire mesh and shotcrete.

Modifications to RMR for mining

Bieniawski's Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system was originally based upon case histories
drawn from civil engineering. Consequently, the mining industry tended to regard the
classification as somewhat conservative and several modifications have been proposed in
order to make the classification more relevant to mining applications. A comprehensive
summary of these modifications was compiled by Bieniawski (1989).

Laubscher (1977, 1984), Laubscher and Taylor (1976) and Laubscher and Page (1990)
have described a Modified Rock Mass Rating system for mining. This MRMR system takes
the basic RMR value, as defined by Bieniawski, and adjusts it to account for in situ and
induced stresses, stress changes and the effects of blasting and weathering. A set of support
recommendations is associated with the resulting MRMR value. In using Laubscher's
MRMR system it should be borne in mind that many of the case histories upon which it is
based are derived from caving operations. Originally, block caving in asbestos mines in
Africa formed the basis for the modifications but, subsequently, other case histories from
around the world have been added to the database.

11
 Rock mass classification

Table 6: Classification of individual parameters used in the Tunnelling Quality Index Q

DESCRIPTION VALUE NOTES
1. ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION RQD
A. Very poor 0 - 25 1. Where RQD is reported or measured as  10 (including 0),
B. Poor 25 - 50 a nominal value of 10 is used to evaluate Q.
C. Fair 50 - 75
D. Good 75 - 90 2. RQD intervals of 5, i.e. 100, 95, 90 etc. are sufficiently
E. Excellent 90 - 100 accurate.

2. JOINT SET NUMBER Jn

A. Massive, no or few joints 0.5 - 1.0
B. One joint set 2
C. One joint set plus random 3
D. Two joint sets 4
E. Two joint sets plus random 6
F. Three joint sets 9 1. For intersections use (3.0  Jn)
G. Three joint sets plus random 12
H. Four or more joint sets, random, 15 2. For portals use (2.0  Jn)
heavily jointed, 'sugar cube', etc.
J. Crushed rock, earthlike 20

3. JOINT ROUGHNESS NUMBER Jr

a. Rock wall contact
b. Rock wall contact before 10 cm shear
A. Discontinuous joints 4
B. Rough and irregular, undulating 3
C. Smooth undulating 2
D. Slickensided undulating 1.5 1. Add 1.0 if the mean spacing of the relevant joint set is
E. Rough or irregular, planar 1.5 greater than 3 m.
F. Smooth, planar 1.0
G. Slickensided, planar 0.5 2. Jr = 0.5 can be used for planar, slickensided joints having
c. No rock wall contact when sheared lineations, provided that the lineations are oriented for
H. Zones containing clay minerals thick 1.0 minimum strength.
enough to prevent rock wall contact (nominal)
J. Sandy, gravely or crushed zone thick 1.0
enough to prevent rock wall contact (nominal)

4. JOINT ALTERATION NUMBER Ja r degrees (approx.)

a. Rock wall contact
A. Tightly healed, hard, non-softening, 0.75 1. Values of r, the residual friction angle,
impermeable filling are intended as an approximate guide
B. Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only 1.0 25 - 35 to the mineralogical properties of the
C. Slightly altered joint walls, non-softening 2.0 25 - 30 alteration products, if present.
mineral coatings, sandy particles, clay-free
disintegrated rock, etc.
D. Silty-, or sandy-clay coatings, small clay- 3.0 20 - 25
fraction (non-softening)
E. Softening or low-friction clay mineral coatings, 4.0 8 - 16
i.e. kaolinite, mica. Also chlorite, talc, gypsum
and graphite etc., and small quantities of swelling
clays. (Discontinuous coatings, 1 - 2 mm or less)

15
 Rock mass classification

Table 6: (cont'd.) Classification of individual parameters used in the Tunnelling Quality

Index Q (After Barton et al 1974).

4, JOINT ALTERATION NUMBER Ja r degrees (approx.)

b. Rock wall contact before 10 cm shear
F. Sandy particles, clay-free, disintegrating rock etc. 4.0 25 - 30
G. Strongly over-consolidated, non-softening 6.0 16 - 24
clay mineral fillings (continuous < 5 mm thick)
H. Medium or low over-consolidation, softening 8.0 12 - 16
clay mineral fillings (continuous < 5 mm thick)
J. Swelling clay fillings, i.e. montmorillonite, 8.0 - 12.0 6 - 12
(continuous < 5 mm thick). Values of Ja
depend on percent of swelling clay-size
particles, and access to water.
c. No rock wall contact when sheared
K. Zones or bands of disintegrated or crushed 6.0
L. rock and clay (see G, H and J for clay 8.0
M. conditions) 8.0 - 12.0 6 - 24
N. Zones or bands of silty- or sandy-clay, small 5.0
clay fraction, non-softening
O. Thick continuous zones or bands of clay 10.0 - 13.0
P. & R. (see G.H and J for clay conditions) 6.0 - 24.0
5. JOINT WATER REDUCTION Jw approx. water pressure (kgf/cm2)
A. Dry excavation or minor inflow i.e. < 5 l/m locally 1.0 < 1.0
B. Medium inflow or pressure, occasional 0.66 1.0 - 2.5
outwash of joint fillings
C. Large inflow or high pressure in competent rock 0.5 2.5 - 10.0 1. Factors C to F are crude estimates; increase
with unfilled joints Jw if drainage installed.
D. Large inflow or high pressure 0.33 2.5 - 10.0
E. Exceptionally high inflow or pressure at blasting, 0.2 - 0.1 > 10 2. Special problems caused by ice formation
decaying with time are not considered.
F. Exceptionally high inflow or pressure 0.1 - 0.05 > 10
6. STRESS REDUCTION FACTOR SRF
a. Weakness zones intersecting excavation, which may
cause loosening of rock mass when tunnel is excavated

A. Multiple occurrences of weakness zones containing clay or chemically 10.0 1. Reduce these values of SRF by 25 - 50% but
disintegrated rock, very loose surrounding rock any depth) only if the relevant shear zones influence do
not intersect the excavation
B. Single weakness zones containing clay, or chemically dis- 5.0
tegrated rock (excavation depth < 50 m)
C. Single weakness zones containing clay, or chemically dis- 2.5
tegrated rock (excavation depth > 50 m)
D. Multiple shear zones in competent rock (clay free), loose 7.5
surrounding rock (any depth)
E. Single shear zone in competent rock (clay free). (depth of 5.0
excavation < 50 m)
F. Single shear zone in competent rock (clay free). (depth of 2.5
excavation > 50 m)
G. Loose open joints, heavily jointed or 'sugar cube', (any depth) 5.0

16
 Rock mass classification

Table 6: (cont'd.) Classification of individual parameters in the Tunnelling Quality Index

Q (After Barton et al 1974).
DESCRIPTION VALUE NOTES
6. STRESS REDUCTION FACTOR SRF
b. Competent rock, rock stress problems
c1 t1 2. For strongly anisotropic virgin stress field
H. Low stress, near surface > 200 > 13 2.5 (if measured): when 51/310, reduce c
J. Medium stress 200 - 10 13 - 0.66 1.0 to 0.8c and t to 0.8t. When 1/3 > 10,
K. High stress, very tight structure 10 - 5 0.66 - 0.33 0.5 - 2 reduce c and t to 0.6c and 0.6t, where
(usually favourable to stability, may c = unconfined compressive strength, and
be unfavourable to wall stability) t = tensile strength (point load) and 1 and
L. Mild rockburst (massive rock) 5 - 2.5 0.33 - 0.16 5 - 10 3 are the major and minor principal stresses.
M. Heavy rockburst (massive rock) < 2.5 < 0.16 10 - 20 3. Few case records available where depth of
c. Squeezing rock, plastic flow of incompetent rock crown below surface is less than span width.
under influence of high rock pressure Suggest SRF increase from 2.5 to 5 for such
N. Mild squeezing rock pressure 5 - 10 cases (see H).
O. Heavy squeezing rock pressure 10 - 20
d. Swelling rock, chemical swelling activity depending on presence of water
P. Mild swelling rock pressure 5 - 10
R. Heavy swelling rock pressure 10 - 15

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE USE OF THESE TABLES

When making estimates of the rock mass Quality (Q), the following guidelines should be followed in addition to the notes listed in the
tables:
1. When borehole core is unavailable, RQD can be estimated from the number of joints per unit volume, in which the number of joints per
metre for each joint set are added. A simple relationship can be used to convert this number to RQD for the case of clay free rock
masses: RQD = 115 - 3.3 Jv (approx.), where Jv = total number of joints per m 3 (0 < RQD < 100 for 35 > Jv > 4.5).
2. The parameter Jn representing the number of joint sets will often be affected by foliation, schistosity, slaty cleavage or bedding etc. If
strongly developed, these parallel 'joints' should obviously be counted as a complete joint set. However, if there are few 'joints' visible,
or if only occasional breaks in the core are due to these features, then it will be more appropriate to count them as 'random' joints
when evaluating Jn.
3. The parameters Jr and Ja (representing shear strength) should be relevant to the weakest significant joint set or clay filled discontinuity
in the given zone. However, if the joint set or discontinuity with the minimum value of Jr/Ja is favourably oriented for stability, then a
second, less favourably oriented joint set or discontinuity may sometimes be more significant, and its higher value of Jr/Ja should be
used when evaluating Q. The value of Jr/Ja should in fact relate to the surface most likely to allow failure to initiate.
4. When a rock mass contains clay, the factor SRF appropriate to loosening loads should be evaluated. In such cases the strength of the
intact rock is of little interest. However, when jointing is minimal and clay is completely absent, the strength of the intact rock may
become the weakest link, and the stability will then depend on the ratio rock-stress/rock-strength. A strongly anisotropic stress field is
unfavourable for stability and is roughly accounted for as in note 2 in the table for stress reduction factor evaluation.
5. The compressive and tensile strengths (c and t) of the intact rock should be evaluated in the saturated condition if this is appropriate
to the present and future in situ conditions. A very conservative estimate of the strength should be made for those rocks that deteriorate
when exposed to moist or saturated conditions.

17
 Rock mass classification

Based upon analyses of case records, Grimstad and Barton (1993) suggest that the
relationship between the value of Q and the permanent roof support pressure Proof is
estimated from:
1

2 Jn Q 3
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑓 = (5)
3 Jr

Figure 3: Estimated support categories based on the tunnelling quality index Q (After
Grimstad and Barton, 1993, reproduced from Palmstrom and Broch, 2006).

Using rock mass classification systems

The two most widely used rock mass classifications are Bieniawski's RMR (1976, 1989)
and Barton et al's Q (1974). Both methods incorporate geological, geometric and
design/engineering parameters in arriving at a quantitative value of their rock mass quality.
The similarities between RMR and Q stem from the use of identical, or very similar,
19