0% found this document useful (0 votes)
16 views4 pages

Rock Mass Classification Methods Explained

The document discusses rock mass classification systems, focusing on Deere's RQD and the Rock Structure Rating (RSR) developed by Wickham et al. The RSR system evaluates rock mass quality based on geological, geometric, and groundwater parameters, culminating in a numerical rating. Additionally, it introduces the Geomechanics Classification or Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system, which classifies rock masses using six parameters to estimate their strength.

Uploaded by

wzcs9mg6mt
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
16 views4 pages

Rock Mass Classification Methods Explained

The document discusses rock mass classification systems, focusing on Deere's RQD and the Rock Structure Rating (RSR) developed by Wickham et al. The RSR system evaluates rock mass quality based on geological, geometric, and groundwater parameters, culminating in a numerical rating. Additionally, it introduces the Geomechanics Classification or Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system, which classifies rock masses using six parameters to estimate their strength.

Uploaded by

wzcs9mg6mt
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Rock mass classification

Deere's RQD was widely used, particularly in North America, after its introduction.
Cording and Deere (1972), Merritt (1972) and Deere and Deere (1988) attempted to relate
RQD to Terzaghi's rock load factors and to rockbolt requirements in tunnels. In the context
of this discussion, the most important use of RQD is as a component of the RMR and Q
rock mass classifications covered later in this chapter.

Rock Structure Rating (RSR)

Wickham et al (1972) described a quantitative method for describing the quality of a rock
mass and for selecting appropriate support on the basis of their Rock Structure Rating
(RSR) classification. Most of the case histories, used in the development of this system,
were for relatively small tunnels supported by means of steel sets, although historically this
system was the first to make reference to shotcrete support. In spite of this limitation, it is
worth examining the RSR system in some detail since it demonstrates the logic involved in
developing a quasi-quantitative rock mass classification system.

The significance of the RSR system, in the context of this discussion, is that it introduced
the concept of rating each of the components listed below to arrive at a numerical value of
RSR = A + B + C.
1. Parameter A, Geology: General appraisal of geological structure on the basis of:
a. Rock type origin (igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary).
b. Rock hardness (hard, medium, soft, decomposed).
c. Geologic structure (massive, slightly faulted/folded, moderately faulted/folded,
intensely faulted/folded).
2. Parameter B, Geometry: Effect of discontinuity pattern with respect to the direction of
the tunnel drive on the basis of:
a. Joint spacing.
b. Joint orientation (strike and dip).
c. Direction of tunnel drive.
3. Parameter C: Effect of groundwater inflow and joint condition on the basis of:
a. Overall rock mass quality on the basis of A and B combined.
b. Joint condition (good, fair, poor).
c. Amount of water inflow (in gallons per minute per 1000 feet of tunnel).

Note that the RSR classification used Imperial units and that these units have been retained
in this discussion.

Three tables from Wickham et al's 1972 paper are reproduced in Tables 1, 2 and 3. These
tables can be used to evaluate the rating of each of these parameters to arrive at the RSR
value (maximum RSR = 100).

5
Rock mass classification

Table 1: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter A: General area geology

Basic Rock Type


Hard Medium Soft Decomposed Geological Structure
Igneous 1 2 3 4 Slightly Moderately Intensively
Metamorphic 1 2 3 4 Folded or Folded or Folded or
Sedimentary 2 3 4 4 Massive Faulted Faulted Faulted
Type 1 30 22 15 9
Type 2 27 20 13 8
Type 3 24 18 12 7
Type 4 19 15 10 6

Table 2: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter B: Joint pattern, direction of drive

Strike to Axis Strike || to Axis


Direction of Drive Direction of Drive
Both With Dip Against Dip Either direction

Dip of Prominent Joints a Dip of Prominent Joints


Average joint spacing Flat Dipping Vertical Dipping Vertical Flat Dipping Vertical
1. Very closely jointed, < 2 in 9 11 13 10 12 9 9 7
2. Closely jointed, 2-6 in 13 16 19 15 17 14 14 11
3. Moderately jointed, 6-12 in 23 24 28 19 22 23 23 19
4. Moderate to blocky, 1-2 ft 30 32 36 25 28 30 28 24
5. Blocky to massive, 2-4 ft 36 38 40 33 35 36 24 28
6. Massive, > 4 ft 40 43 45 37 40 40 38 34

Table 3: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter C: Groundwater, joint condition


Sum of Parameters A + B
13 - 44 45 - 75
Anticipated water inflow Joint Condition b
gpm/1000 ft of tunnel Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor
None 22 18 12 25 22 18
Slight, < 200 gpm 19 15 9 23 19 14
Moderate, 200-1000 gpm 15 22 7 21 16 12
Heavy, > 1000 gp 10 8 6 18 14 10
a Dip: flat: 0-20 ; dipping: 20-50 ; and vertical: 50-90
b Joint condition: good = tight or cemented; fair = slightly weathered or altered; poor = severely weathered, altered or open

6
Rock mass classification

For example, a hard metamorphic rock which is slightly folded or faulted has a rating of A
= 22 (from Table 1). The rock mass is moderately jointed, with joints striking perpendicular
to the tunnel axis which is being driven east-west, and dipping at between 20 and 50°.

Table 2 gives the rating for B = 24 for driving with dip (defined below).

The value of A + B = 46 and this means that, for joints of fair


condition (slightly weathered and altered) and a moderate water
inflow of between 200 and 1,000 gallons per minute, Table 3
gives the rating for C = 16. Hence, the final value of the rock
structure rating RSR = A + B + C = 62.

A typical set of prediction curves for a 24 foot diameter tunnel


are given in Figure 2 which shows that, for the RSR value of 62
derived above, the predicted support would be 2 inches of
shotcrete and 1 inch diameter rockbolts spaced at 5 foot centres.
As indicated in the figure, steel sets would be spaced at more than
7 feet apart and would not be considered a practical solution for
the support of this tunnel.

Figure 2: RSR support estimates for a 24 ft. (7.3 m) diameter circular tunnel. Note that
rockbolts and shotcrete are generally used together. (After Wickham et al 1972).

7
Rock mass classification

For the same size tunnel in a rock mass with RSR = 30, the support could be provided by 8
WF 31 steel sets (8 inch deep wide flange I section weighing 31 lb per foot) spaced 3 feet
apart, or by 5 inches of shotcrete and 1 inch diameter rockbolts spaced at 2.5 feet centres.
In this case it is probable that the steel set solution would be cheaper and more effective
than the use of rockbolts and shotcrete.

Although the RSR classification system is not widely used today, Wickham et al's work
played a significant role in the development of the classification schemes discussed in the
remaining sections of this chapter.

Geomechanics Classification

Bieniawski (1976) published the details of a rock mass classification called the
Geomechanics Classification or the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system. Over the years, this
system has been successively refined as more case records have been examined and the
reader should be aware that Bieniawski has made significant changes in the ratings
assigned to different parameters. The discussion which follows is based upon the 1989
version of the classification (Bieniawski, 1989). Both this version and the 1976 version
deal with estimating the strength of rock masses. The following six parameters are used to
classify a rock mass using the RMR system:
1. Uniaxial compressive strength of rock material.
2. Rock Quality Designation (RQD).
3. Spacing of discontinuities.
4. Condition of discontinuities.
5. Groundwater conditions.
6. Orientation of discontinuities.
In applying this classification system, the rock mass is divided into a number of structural
regions and each region is classified separately. The boundaries of the structural regions
usually coincide with a major structural feature such as a fault or with a change in rock
type. In some cases, significant changes in discontinuity spacing or characteristics, within
the same rock type, may necessitate the division of the rock mass into a number of small
structural regions.

The Rock Mass Rating system is presented in Table 4, giving the ratings for each of the
six parameters listed above. These ratings are summed to give a value of RMR. The
following example illustrates the use of these tables to arrive at an RMR value.

A tunnel is to be driven through slightly weathered granite with a dominant joint set dipping
at 60o against the direction of the drive. Index testing and logging of diamond drilled core
give typical Point-load strength index values of 8 MPa and average RQD values of 70%.
The slightly rough and slightly weathered joints with a separation of < 1 mm, are spaced
at 300 mm. Tunnelling conditions are anticipated to be wet.

Common questions

Powered by AI

Shotcrete and rockbolts are recommended by the RSR system as primary support methods to stabilize tunnel excavations efficiently. These methods help counteract the forces acting on the tunnel structure by providing surface protection (shotcrete) and internal stability (rockbolts), which are essential in rock masses with low RSR values indicating poor conditions. Practically, they offer flexibility and adaptability in various geological settings, enhancing the safety and longevity of tunnel structures .

RQD is integrated into both the RMR system and other classification systems as a measure of rock quality, influencing assessments of structural stability. In the RMR system, RQD forms one of the parameters used to derive the overall RMR value, affecting decisions about design and support requirements. The use of RQD helps standardize evaluations of rock mass competency and provides a baseline for comparing different rock mass classification systems .

The benefits of using the RSR value include providing a systematic approach to assess rock mass for determining suitable support, such as shotcrete or steel sets. However, its limitations include potential inaccuracies in environments differing from those in the original case studies and less adaptability compared to more modern systems like the RMR, which address a broader range of geological conditions and structural features .

Joint condition, which includes joint surface roughness, separation, and weathering, significantly influences rock mass classification systems by affecting the mechanical behavior of the rock mass. It determines the mass's susceptibility to deformation and failure, directly impacting tunnel design by guiding the selection of reinforcement strategies that consider potential points of weakness .

Joint patterns, assessed in Parameter B, affect the RSR value by considering joint orientation and spacing relative to the tunnel direction. Groundwater conditions, evaluated in Parameter C, impact the RSR by accounting for the volume of water inflow and joint conditions. These factors influence the overall structural integrity and determine the most appropriate support methods, such as shotcrete and rockbolts, to mitigate adverse conditions .

The RSR system was historically significant as it introduced a semi-quantitative approach to rock mass classification, influencing early tunnel design and support decisions. The RMR system, however, has had a more profound and enduring impact on rock engineering practices by providing a comprehensive assessment of rock mass conditions through additional parameters such as uniaxial compressive strength and discontinuities' orientation, leading to more refined predictions and diverse applications in geotechnical engineering .

Adjustments to the RMR system parameters must account for local geological variations, such as rock type, hydrogeological conditions, and discontinuity characteristics. Each parameter may need recalibration based on site-specific data to ensure accurate assessments, particularly in less common geological settings, facilitating appropriate engineering decisions for tailored excavation and support strategies .

The selection of steel sets versus shotcrete and rockbolts has significant economic and practical impacts. Steel sets tend to be more cost-effective for structural stability in tunnels with low RSR values due to their longer lifespan, despite higher initial material costs. Conversely, shotcrete and rockbolts provide greater flexibility and require less on-site labor and time, better suited to complex or unpredictable geological conditions .

The RSR system incorporates geological parameters by evaluating the rock type origin, rock hardness, and geological structure, which are encapsulated under Parameter A. This is crucial for tunnel support decisions because it provides a quantifiable measure of the rock mass's ability to withstand loads and deformations, affecting the type and extent of support necessary for tunnel safety and stability .

Discontinuity spacing and conditions are critical in the RMR classification as they directly influence the rock mass's structural integrity and response to stress. Tight, closely spaced, and cemented discontinuities generally enhance the rock mass's strength, leading to higher RMR values. This contributes to the accurate design of engineering supports and the prediction of potential failure mechanisms, crucial for safe and effective project execution .

You might also like