“In essence, rock mass classifications are not to be taken as a substitute for engineering

design. They should be applied intelligently and used in conjunction with observational
and analytical studies to formulate an overall design rationale compatible with the
design objectives and site geology.” Bieniawski (1989).

“The use of empirical design methods such as the RMR method and the Q method will
lead to under designs, particularly with regard to the capacity of the bolts.” Speers
(1992)

“It is important to understand that the use of a rock mass classification scheme does not
(and cannot) replace some of the more elaborate design procedures.” Hoek, Kaiser and
Bawden (1995).

"… none of the techniques has any solid scientific foundation and can quite clearly be
dangerously misleading, if the potential failure mechanism is not identified within the
classification system." Hudson and Harrison (1997).

“Neither the Q nor RMR systems apply to all rock masses. It is important that
practitioners know what behavior and what types of ground are covered by the
classification system and that they become familiar with its database.” Palmstrom,
Milne and Peck (2000).

“The classification scheme approach does not always fully evaluate important aspects of
a problem, so that if blindly applied without any supporting analysis of the problem, it
can lead to disastrous results.” Brady and Brown (2004).

“… Classification systems, and not least the Q system, may be useful tools for
estimating the need for tunnel support at the planning stage, particularly for tunnels in
hard rock and jointed rock masses without overstressing. There are, however, a number
of restrictions that should be applied if and when the system is going to be used in other
rock masses and in complicated ground conditions. So far such restrictions have not
been much discussed in available literature.” Palmstrom and Broch (2006).

“… the design correlations published in the various papers on the Q and RMR systems
should be used with great caution in geological environments significantly different
from those comprising the original case studies.” Pells and Bertuzzi (2008).