1
6 Lecture
Rock Mass Classification Systems
2
Introduce to rock mass classification
RQD – Rock Quality Designation Index
Aim RMR - Rock Mass Rating System or Bieniawski’s Rock
Mass Rating or Geomechanics Classification
Q classification system - NGI (Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute) Index or Barton’s Rock Tunnelling Quality
Index
GSI -Geological Strength Index (Hoek, 1994)
Classification Systems in Design
Even now, with many resources available for site investigation, there still can remain, problems
in applying the theory in practical engineering case studies. Considering the three main design
approaches for engineering rock mechanics
Analytical
Observational
Empirical
Rock mass classifications, form an integral part of the empirical design approach. Whoever in
many construction cases, in underground construction, tunnelling and mining projects, rock
mass classifications have provided the only systematic design aid, in a haphazard “trial and
error”, procedure.
Failure Mechanisms
The stability of an underground opening is a function of:
a. Structurally- b. Rock mass failure
controlled failure
Stress
high or low
Structure
falling sliding
Rock Mass
Rock Mass classification
The objectives of Rock Mass Classification
1. Identify the most important parameters influencing the rock mass.
2. Divide the rock mas into groups or regions of similar behaviour.
3. Provide a basis for understanding the characteristics of each rock mass class.
4. Relate experiences of rock conditions at one site, to those at another.
5. Derive quantitative data and guidelines for engineering design.
6. Provide a common basis for communication between geologists and engineers.
Note: The boundaries of the various different 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.
Rock Mass classification
The above mentioned objectives suggest the three main benefits of rock mass
classification.
1. Improve the quality of site investigations, by calling for the minimum input data, as
classification parameters.
2. Providing quantitative information for designing purposes.
3. Enabling better engineering judgement and more effective communication on a
project.
Rock Mass Classification 7
Why classify a rock mass?
Identify the relevant (important) parameters to a
project and perform the assessment to; and
Describe the properties of these parameters, giving
them values or ratings according to their structure,
composition and properties.
Classification vs. Characterisation:
Classification is the result of putting objects into
different classes according to shared qualities or
characteristics.
Characterisation is describing the individual nature or
features of something, e.g. discontinuity
characteristics.
Rock Mass Classification 8
Rock mass classification schemes seek to assign numerical values to those properties or features of the rock mass
considered likely to influence its behaviour.
Rock Mass Classification 9
Classification can be used as a tool to assess the
"quality" of rock masses.
In the absence of other data, these tools can be
used to establish rock mass parameters, or guide
the selection of reinforcement and support
methods.
It is important to understand that the use of
rock mass classification systems can not replace
engineering analysis and design procedures.
Therefore classification can be used as a tool to
assess the ‘quality’ of rock masses
Rock Quality Designation Index (RQD) 10
was first introduced 1964-1967 by Deere
Simple and inexpensive method
provides a quantitative estimate of rock
mass quality from borehole drill cores/logs
to quantify discontinuity spacing you need:
tape measure, calculator and drill core
Incorporated into RMR and Q
classifications
Rock Quality Designation Index (RQD) 11
RQD is defined as the percentage of intact core pieces longer than 10 cm in the total
length of core (measured along core centreline)
Total length of the core run = 200 cm
Total
length of
core run
55 is 200 cm
All the artificial fractures should be ignored
while counting the core length for RQD.
A slow rate of drilling will also give better
RQD.
Rock Quality Designation Index (RQD) 12
RQD is defined as the percentage of intact core pieces longer than 100 mm in the total
length of core (measured along core centreline)
𝑅𝑄𝐷=
∑ 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡 h 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠 >10 𝑐𝑚 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡 h
∙100
1. Rock Quality Designation RQD
A Very Poor 0 – 25
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡 h 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑟𝑢𝑛
B Poor 25 – 50
C Fair 50 – 75
D Good 75 – 90
E Excellent 90 – 100
Note: (i) Where RQD is reported or measured as ≤ 10 (including 0), a
nominal value of 10 is used to evaluate Q. (ii) RQD interval of 5, i.e.,
100, 95, 90, etc., are sufficiently accurate.
RQD = 0 All the artificial fractures should be
ignored while counting the core
RQD = 70 length for RQD.
RQD = 74 A slow rate of drilling will also give
better RQD.
RQD = 98
Rock Quality Designation Index (RQD) 13
The most important application of RQD is its use as a component of the RMR and Q rock
mass classification systems.
Problems with RQD:
Joint orientation, alteration or roughness,
Problem with drill cores,
Gives wrong values where joints contain thin clay fillings or weathered material,
RQD = 0 where the joint intercept (distance between the joints in the drill cores) is 10 cm
or less, while
RQD = 100 where the distance is 11 cm or more!
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) 14
Bieniawski (1973, 1976)
for use in tunnels in hard and soft rocks
sedimentary rocks in South Africa
RMR considers 6 factors: Range
Factor A1: UCS 0 to 15
Factor A2: RQD 3 to 20
Factor A3: Spacing of Discontinuities 5 to 20
Factor A4: Condition of Discontinuities 0 to 30
Factor A5: Groundwater Conditions 0 to 15
Factor B: Adjustment for Orientation of -50 to 0
Discontinuities
The allocation of rating values allows for the fact
that all parameters do not necessarily contribute
equally to the behaviour of the rock mass.
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) 15
Step 1: rate parameters 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 and determine
the UNADJUSTED RMR.
Step 2: rate parameter 6 (B, Adjustment for
Orientation of Discontinuities) and use it to get the
FINAL ADJUSTED RMR.
The reason for this two-stage approach is that the
rating (B) for discontinuity orientation is a function
of the tunnel dip and strike relative to that of the
discontinuities and, if the tunnel dip and strike change
(as they would in practice), a different RMR will
result for each change of direction.
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) 16
NOTE: When mixed-quality rock masses are encountered, it is essential to identify the ‘most critical’ condition,
e.g. where several joint sets are identified, it is the joint set that influences tunnel stability the most that should be
used in the assessment of RMR.
Rock mass class
I- Very good rock
RMR: 81 - 100
II- Good rock
RMR: 61 - 80 You will
III- fair rock
RMR: 41 - 60 need
IV- Poor rock
RMR: 21 - 40
formula
V- Very poor rock sheet
RMR: < 20
Rock Mass Classification: RMR
The adjusted value gives the final RMR value for the rock mass, for which several rock mass classes are described.
Rock Mass Classification: RMR
Rock Mass Classification: RMR
RMR Applications Stand-up Time 20
Bieniawski published a set of guidelines
for estimating the stand-up time (the duration of time an excavation (i.e. tunnel) will remain stable
without any support) and
for selecting rock support in tunnels, based on the RMR value
Guidelines apply up to horseshoe shaped tunnel, constructed using drill and blast methods, in a
rock mass subjected to σv <25 MPa.
Application of classification systems
Bieniawski, 1989
RMR Applications Excavation and Support 22
Rock Mass classification System: Q- system
On the basis of an evaluation of a large number of case
histories of underground excavations, Barton et al. (1974) of
the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute proposed a tunneling
Quality Index (Q) for the development of rock mass
characteristics & tunnel support requirements. The system was
proposed on the basis of an analysis of 212 tunnel case
histories from Scandinavia.
Rock Mass classification System: Q- system
The numerical value of the index Q varies on a logarithmic scale from 0.001 to a maximum of 1,000 & is
defined by:
Where RQD is the Rock Quality Designation
Jn is the joint set number
Jr is the joint roughness number
Ja is the joint alteration number
Jw is the joint water reduction factor
SRF is the stress reduction factor
Rock Mass classification System: Q- system
Block size
The first quotient is related to the rock mass geometry.
Since RQD generally increases with decreasing number
of discontinuity sets the numerator and denominator of
the quotient mutually reinforce one another. Inter block Shear
The second quotient relates to the “inter- block strength strength
shear strength” with high values representing better
mechanical quality of the rock mass.
The third quotient is an “environment factor”
incorporating water pressures and flows, the presence of Active stress
shear zones squeezing and swelling rock and the in situ
stress state. The quotient increases with decreasing
water pressure and favorable in situ stress ratios. SRF is
a measure of 1) Loosening load in the case of an excavation through
shear zones & clay bearing rock, 2) Rock stress in competent rock,
3)Squeezing loads in plastic incompetent rocks
Example
A 15 m span crusher chamber for an underground mine is to be excavated in a norite at a depth of 2,100
m below surface. The rock mass contains two sets of joints controlling stability. These joints are
undulating, rough and unweathered with very minor surface staining. RQD values range from 85% to
95% and laboratory tests on core samples of intact rock give an average
uniaxial compressive strength of 170 MPa. The principal stress directions are approximately vertical and
horizontal and the magnitude of the horizontal principal stress is approximately 1.5 times that of the
vertical principal stress. The rock mass is locally damp but there is no evidence of flowing water.
Hoek, 2007
Rock Mass classification examples
Massive, strong
rock
Low stress regime
Lack of ground
support
RMR = 90 (Very
good)
Q = 180 (extremely
good rock)
Rock Mass classification examples
Blocky rock
Highstress
Regime
RMR = 25
Q = 0.6
(very poor
rock)
Q classification system – Excavation and Support
29
Q rating to the stability and support requirements of underground excavations De (Equivalent Dimension) and
ESR (Equivalent Support Ratio).
𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 , 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑟 h 𝑒𝑖𝑔 h𝑡
𝐷𝑒=
𝐸𝑆𝑅
Excavation ESR intended use of the excavation,
Description ESR degree of security
category
A Temporary mine openings. 3-5
Permanent mine openings, water tunnels for hydro power
B (excluding high penstocks), pilot tunnels, drifts headings for 1.6
large excavations.
Storage rooms, water treatment plants, minor road and
C 1.3
railway tunnels, surge chambers, access tunnels.
Power stations, major road and railway tunnels, civil
D 1.0
defence chambers portal intersections
Underground nuclear power stations railway stations, sports
E 0.8
and public facilities, factories
Few more empirical relations
Length of rock bolts (B: excavation width)
Max unsupported span
Pressure
Experience based design – Empirical Design
Experience based design: empirical approaches
38 different support categories, have been suggested by Barton (1974), based on the
relationship between the Q index and the equivalent dimension of the excavation.
Subjectivity in empirical design
Subjectivity in empirical design
It must be remembered though, that such guidelines are drawn from previous experiences (i.e. case histories) and
are therefore limited by the range of conditions under which experiences were generated.
RMR = 9lnQ + 44
Q classification system 35
the Q classification system is relatively sensitive to
minor variations in rock properties
the case studies employed for its initial development
have been very well documented
it is relatively difficult for inexperienced users to
apply
Q classification system 36
𝑅𝑄𝐷 𝐽𝑟 𝐽𝑤
𝑄= ∙ ∙
𝐽𝑛 𝐽𝑎 𝑆𝑅𝐹
Q Rock Mass Description
0.001 – 0.01 Exceptionally Poor
0.01 – 0.1 Extremely Poor
0.1 - 1 Very Poor
1–4 Poor
4 – 10 Fair
10 – 40 Good
40 – 100 Very Good
100 – 400 Extremely Good
400 – 1000 Exceptionally Good
The system defines nine geotechnical classes of
rock mass ranging from exceptionally poor (Q ≤
0.01) to exceptionally good (Q ≥ 400)
Q classification system – Excavation and Support
37
Max unsupported span = 2 × ESR × Q0.4 = 4 m
Q calculated 6.75
Excavation category D where ESR=1
Category4) Systematic bolting (and unreinforced shotcrete, 4-
10 cm) Length of bolts 3.8 m.
Geological Strength Index (GSI)
The GSI provides a system for
estimating the reduction, in rock
mass strength, for different
geological conditions.
Values of GSI are related to both the
degree of fracturing and the
conditions of the fracture surfaces.
mainly jointing
mainly faulting
Estimate of GSI for heterogeneous rock masses, like flysch, Marinos and Hoek 2001.
Poor quality of rock mass at shallow depth
GSI Classification 41
Hoek and Brown (1994)
Geological Strength Index (GSI)
GSI was introduced as part of continuing development and practical
application of the HB empirical rock mass strength criterion
both for hard and weak rock masses
GSI is based on visual inspection of geological conditions
provides a system for estimating the reduction in rock mass strength for
different geological conditions
𝑅𝑄𝐷 𝐽𝑟 𝐽𝑤
𝑄= ∙ ∙
𝐽𝑛 𝐽𝑎 𝑆𝑅𝐹
Geological Strength Index (GSI)
Where Q – system quotient terms
Jw/SRF are dropped as these are not
rock mass characteristics.
GSI Classification 43
The GSI classification was never intended as a replacement for RMR
or Q, as it has no rock mass reinforcement or support design
capability.
The GSI is not a tunnel design tool; its only function is the
estimation of rock mass properties.
The GSI index is used to calculate the mechanical properties of a
rock mass, particularly the UCS of rock mass and its deformation
modulus, E.
Advantages of Rock mass classification 44
Rock Mass quality can be assessed simply, rapidly and continuously.
The classification values can be established by trained site personnel (i.e. a high level of general engineering
expertise is not required).
Engineering design is based on previous experience.
nd Q
R , a
, R M
R Q D
t h a t r i n g
o t e i n e e
t o n l e n g
t i n g c i v i
e re s n i n
s i n t r i g i
I t i e i r o
v e t h
ha
Disadvantages of Rock mass classification 45
The classifications currently in use are historical and values of the classifications have not been scientifically
considered.
They cannot be used for the full range of engineering objectives.
The classifications are good as guides only and should be considered in this manner. There are also immediate
shortcomings in both:
Stress is not included in RMR; and
Intact rock strength in not included Q.
Classifications should not be used as a sole measure of the quality of the rock mass, or as a sole guide to
reinforcement except in conceptual studies where very limited data exist.
REFERENCES
Barton, N (1974). Engineering Classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mechanics 6
(4) : 189 – 236.
Bee, AJ, Stead, D. & Coggan, J.S. (2002). Estimation of the Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC) by visual
comparison. Rock Mechanics & Rock Engineering 35: 65-74.
Bieniawski, ZT (1974). Geomechanics classification of rock masses and its application in tunneling. In
Proceedings of the Congress of the of the Int. Society for rock Mechanics, Denver. National Academy of
Sciences: Washington, pp. 27-32
Bieniawski, ZT (1989). Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A complete Manual for Engineers and
Geologists in Mining, civil, and Petroleum Engineering Wiley: New York.
Harrison, JP & Hudson, JA (2000). Engineering Rock Mechanics – Part 2: Illustrative Worked Examples.
Elsevier Science : Oxford.
Hoek, E (1998). Reliability of Hoek – Brown estimates of rock mass properties and their impact on design. Int.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 35 (1): 63-68.
Hoek, E. & Brown, ET (1980). Underground Excavations in rock. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy:
London.
Hoek, E Kaiser PK & Bawden WF (1995): Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock Balkema.
Hudson, JA & Harrison, JP (1997). Engineering Rock Mechanics – An Introduction to the principles. Elsevier
Science. Oxford.
REFERENCES
Kaiser, PK, Diederichs, MS, Martin, D, Sharpe, J & Steiner, W (2000). Underground works in hard rock tunelling
and mining. In GeoEng2000, Melbourne. Technomic Publishing company: Lancaster, pp.841-926.
Marinos, P & Hoek, E (2000). GSI – A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. In
GeoEng2000, Melbourne. Technomic Publishing Company: Lancster, CD-ROM.
Wyllie, DC & Mah, CW (2004). Rock Engineering (4th edition). Spon Press: London.
48
Thank you.
Any questions?
