Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.
org/ at Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi on May 21, 2016
Rock mass properties for engineering design
R.J. Pine1 & J.P. Harrison2
Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter, Redruth, Cornwall TR11 4PN, UK
Imperial College, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK
Abstract
he determination of rock mass properties for
T engineering design is considered from two
perspectives. These are in-situ measurement,
including classification-based methods, and the
limitations of the classification approach.
Several measurement methods are available which
will give useful results, if used appropriately. The choice
of different methods will depend on the nature of the
rock mass. The required accuracy should be considered
realistically and, in many cases, high levels of accuracy
are not, in fact, necessary. Examples are included, which
show how the mass strengths of mine pillars were
determined with acceptable accuracy using well known
rock mass classification schemes, modified as necessary
to accommodate local conditions.
Rock mass classification is a widely used, economical
and extremely useful basis for determining properties,
but there are dangers in uncritical application. The clas-
sification methodology is critically examined, and the use
of multivariate statistics applied in a multi-dimensional
space is considered to optimize the usefulness of the
measured data.
Keywords: case studies, mechanical properties, pillars, rock
mechanics, site investigation
Introduction
Rock mass properties are intrinsically difficult to
determine. The scale of investigation, typified by the
representative elementary volume (REV) (e.g. Hudson &
Harrison 1997), can be much larger than manageable
investigation techniques can accommodate. Typically
the testing of mass strength and deformability needs to
apply load and monitor the response of different sets
of discontinuities within a local volume of, for example,
10 to 100 m3. This may need to be repeated at many
locations throughout a site with only moderately
variable geology. Geophysical methods are capable of
sensing the deformability of large volumes of rock mass,
but cannot be used alone and cannot provide strength
data.
Current practice relies heavily on rock mass classifi-
cation methods which alone accommodate the problems
of scale effects at reasonable cost. However, other
methods are available for specific circumstances. These
methods are compared in terms of accuracy, appli-
cations, indicative costs and limitations, in the first part
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 36, 5–16
of this paper, along with example usage of the classifi-
cation approach to some mine pillar examples.
The classification approach has an in-built assump-
tion whose implications should be appreciated. Specifi-
cally, the same ‘score’ or rating from a classification
procedure can be obtained by quite different values of
the contributing components. The consolidation of
complex behaviour characteristics into a single rating
can lead to a loss of understanding of actual behaviour.
This problem is examined in the second part of the paper
through the use of multi-dimensional space and
multivariate analyses, which are compared with the
customary formula-based rating approach.
Current practice and guidelines
The overall approach needed for determining rock mass
strength and deformability is to upscale and integrate
results from measurements within small volumes (e.g.
boreholes) and exposures (surface or underground).
The elements of the required approach include proper
consideration of spacing and continuity of discontin-
uities within identified sets; quantification of useful
properties (these are contained within the classification
methods); selection of appropriate measurement
methods (taking account of time and cost); and
integration of the measurement within the geological
framework of the site (usually recognizing different
geomechanical domains within a geological overview).
Scale effects
The common quantification problem for all rock masses
is scale dependency. Unless the mass is very closely
jointed or almost completely unjointed, the behaviour is
not uniform and is affected by the orientation, spacing
and persistence of the discontinuities (Hoek & Brown
1980). Some of these factors are recognized in the
common rock mass classification systems (Barton et al.
1974; Bieniawski 1989), but not all are accounted for
in a complete and consistent manner. A particular
difficulty arises with persistence of the discontinuities
due to both limited opportunity for gathering relevant
data and for subsequent modelling. The most developed
treatment of persistence in modelling is in discrete
fracture networks, typically applied to hydrogeological
problems. In the program FracMan (Dershowitz et al.
1998, see also details at http://fracman.golder.com.)
discontinuity data sampled from exposures in out-
crops (two-dimensional surface) and borehole
1470-9236/03 $15.00  2003 Geological Society of London
 Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi on May 21, 2016
6 PINE & HARRISON
Table 1. Suggested levels of accuracy required for rock mass properties in different applications.
Application Strength
Mining pillars
walls (10%)
roofs
Civil excavations tunnels (25%)
caverns (10%)
Nuclear/radwaste
Oil and gas borehole stability (10%)
Civil foundations/pile sockets
(one-dimensional linear sampling) can be used to syn-
thesize a three-dimensional stochastic discontinuity
model which shares the statistics of the samples and
allows for specific (deterministic) discontinuities to be
incorporated. This can be tested by ‘drilling’ further
boreholes or creating further ‘excavated’ surfaces in the
model, from which the discontinuity statistics can be
re-calculated and compared with the original data. This
approach has been widely used in the interpretation of
fluid flow in fractured rock for potential radioactive
waste disposal sites (e.g. Heathcote et al. 1996) and,
more recently, linked to effects of in-situ stress, in
hydrocarbon reservoirs (Jolly et al. 2000).
In geomechanical models, as opposed to hydro-
geological models, the difficulty of creating true stress
interaction between discontinuities in a stochastic
model is severe and requires substantial computational
capacity, which can seldom be justified in typical
civil and mining engineering projects. However, there
are programs such as UDEC and 3DEC (see details
at http://www.itascacg.com/udec.html), which allow
simplified incorporation of joint orientations, spacings
and persistence, with reasonably sophisticated treatment
of mechanical discontinuity and block behaviour.
Very commonly in civil and mining engineering
projects, recourse is made to simplified models which use
rock mass classification to generate uniform, but poss-
ibly anisotropic, rock mass properties. It is important
when using such approaches to fully appreciate the scale
effect (e.g. reducing unit mass strength with increasing
volume up to a REV). This is probably best understood
for mine pillars, due to the wide range and large
numbers of such pillars in existence. Some examples of
this are presented below.
Deformability Permeability/hydraulic
conductivity
shafts (25%) total inflow (50%) rates
tunnels (25%) total inflow rates (50%)
caverns (25%)
pressure tunnels (10%) total leakage (25%)
and shafts rates
mass transport (factor
of 10
2 to 102)
reservoir subsidence connectivity/
(25%) transmissivity (50%)
settlement (25%)
Required accuracy of rock mass properties
and available measurement methods
With these difficulties in mind it is important to ensure
that a realistic approach is taken to the required
accuracy of rock mass properties and that the optimum
methods are used wherever possible. Table 1 includes
some typical applications and an opinion on the
required accuracy. Whilst it may appear desirable to
achieve high levels of accuracy, the inherent spatial
variability of jointed rock masses means that this can be
illusory. Most practical projects can be managed within
the limits suggested.
The main methods available for determining rock
mass mechanical properties, and their inputs and
measurement limitations are shown in Table 2. The
methods are listed in approximate order of cost (lower
cost at the top). The terms GSI, RMR and Q are the
Geological Strength Index, Rock Mass Rating, and
Rock Mass Quality, respectively. The limitations of the
RMR (or GSI) and Q systems are examined in detail in
the next main section. The properties Em and
cm are the
rock mass values of deformation modulus and com-
pressive strength respectively. These designations and
parameters are all discussed in detail by Hoek et al.
(1995). The terms
[field], Vp and Vs are the (in-situ) field
stresses and P- and S-wave acoustic velocities within the
rock mass. The term ‘geometry’ applies to the openings
within which various measurements are made. The
existence of an opening means that the in-situ stresses
are disturbed and this must be accounted for in the
measurement technique.
The methods shown in Table 2 are not equally appli-
cable in all circumstances. The technical limitations
can be related to the strength of the intact rock (e.g.
 Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi on May 21, 2016

ROCK MASS PROPERTIES 7

Table 2. Available methods contributing to the determination of rock mass mechanical properties

Method Inputs and limitations

(a) Strength and deformability

Rock mass classification
Laboratory tests
Pressuremeter and borehole jack
Back analysis of trial excavations
(b) Deformability only
Seismic methods (e.g. petite sismique)
Large compression (plate jacking) tests
Pressure test chambers
Em,
cm=f(GSI/RMR/Q)
E,
=f(specimen condition, equipment, procedure)
Em=f(borehole condition, equipment, procedure)
Em=f(
[field], geometry, deformations)

cm=f(
[field], geometry, damage)
Em =f(Vp, Vs, access, rock mass condition)
Em=f(geometry, deformations, access, rock mass condition)
Em=f(geometry, deformations, access, rock mass condition)

GSI, Geological Strength Index; RMR, Rock Mass Rating; Q, Rock Mass Quality; Em and
cm, rock mass values of
deformation modulus and compressive strength, respectively;
[field], Vp and Vs, in-situ field stresses and P- and S-wave
acoustic velocities within the rock mass, respectively.

Table 3. Applicability of methods depending on UCS and RQD.

Low UCS Medium UCS High UCS

(<25 MPa) (25–100 MPa) (>100 MPa)

High RQD (>75%) Laboratory tests Laboratory tests Laboratory tests

Seismics Seismics Seismics
Pressuremeter
Borehole jack

Medium RQD (50–75%) Laboratory tests Classification Classification

Pressuremeter Seismics Seismics
Borehole jack Plate jacking tests Plate jacking tests
Back analysis Back analysis
Pressure test chamber Pressure test chamber

Low RQD (<50%) Plate jacking tests Classification Classification

Seismics Seismics
Plate jacking tests Plate jacking tests
Back analysis Back analysis
Pressure test chamber Pressure test chamber

unconfined compressive strength – UCS) and the inten-
sity of jointing. A useful and common measure for the
latter is Rock Quality Designation (RQD).
In Table 3 the UCS and RQD are each divided into
high, medium and low categories, based on divisions
within the RMR system, giving a 33 matrix of suggested
applicability. The allocation of methods in this matrix
should be seen as the most likely to yield acceptable results
and the category numerical values are approximate.
Again, within each category the methods are listed in
approximate order of cost (lower costs at the top).
Mine pillar case examples
Mine pillars provide a classic example of where it is
important to determine mass strength values as accu-
rately as possible. The pressures of mining economics
are such that a balance must be struck between leav-
ing very safe pillars with high factors of safety and
adequately safe pillars with lower factors of safety,
allowing higher extraction. In civil engineering projects
it is easier to justify the very safe approach and conse-
quently the rock mass is not tested to the same extent.
We conclude that methods that work well for mine
pillars are a sound basis for rock masses in general.
The first case example is at Middleton Mine,
Derbyshire, an underground room and pillar limestone
mine in the UK. The key design issues are the stability of
pillars and roofs. Because of the large number of existing
pillars, considerable insight can be gained from both
rock mass classification and back analysis.
Using the rock mass classification approach, a typical
RMR value of 77 was determined. The UCS of the intact
rock is reasonably uniform with a value of about 60 MPa.
Assuming a value for mi, the intact Hoek and Brown
parameter m, in the range 10 to 15 the uniaxial compressive
strength of the rock mass
cm was determined as 18 MPa
using the approach presented by Hoek et al. (1995).
For the same rock mass, back analyses were made of
an extensively pillared area, where the tributary area
 Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi on May 21, 2016
8 PINE & HARRISON
Fig. 1. Limestone pillar with RMR value of 70.
analysis (Brady & Brown 1993) was probably reliable in
determining imposed stresses. Making adjustments for
pillar width to height ratios and pillar volumes (Hoek &
Brown 1980) a minimum mass strength of 12 MPa was
required. This indicated that the pillar factors of safety
were typically about 1.5, which is reasonable in this
case since the pillars appeared to be generally in good
condition. This example broadly confirms the validity of
rock mass classification in determining mass strengths.
However, looking closely at individual pillars there
were some interesting variations. In some pillars where
RMR was c. 70, with a higher than average inferred
mass strength, the pillar profiles were very ragged
(Fig. 1). In adjacent pillars where the RMR was c. 60,
with lower inferred strengths, the pillar profiles were
much smoother (Fig. 2) and apparently more stable.
The main difference in the RMR values was due to the
intensity and continuity of the jointing. The more widely
spaced jointing (RMR=70) gave rise to larger individual
blocks than for the closer spaced jointing (RMR=60).
When blocks peeled off, mostly during pillar formation
(blasting and barring down), the missing larger blocks
gave a worse appearance. Since the pillars were large
(161616 m) the loss of quite large individual blocks
had little effect on the overall pillar integrity, but could
have been serious in smaller pillars. At an even larger
scale, unaffected by the wider joint spacing, the higher
strength inferred by the higher RMR values would
clearly be applicable.
Another possible factor is that the more jointed pillars
with the lower RMR values could have a mass deforma-
Fig. 2. Limestone pillar with RMR value of 60.
tion modulus of up to 30% lower than for the higher
RMR values and this could affect the load distribution
between pillars (but not by as much as 30%). The stiffer,
high RMR pillars would attract more than average
loading as the pillared area became more extensive and
this may have contributed to more spalling.
The second case example is taken from Roberts et al.
(1998) at Doe Run Mine in Missouri. Based on a
consistent initial rock mass condition observed in the
mine pillars, they developed an approach which is
simpler in terms of classification but more sophisticated
in treating observed pillar conditions. This can be
adapted to other mines for analysis and design of pillar
development and pillar mining. It requires location-
specific classification and back analysis input.
The approach to pillar condition observation is shown
in Figure 3, which includes a range of six visual ratings
from 1 (no stress-induced fracturing) to 6 (failed pillar).
The pillar stresses were typically determined using a
displacement discontinuity program and the strength
model was based on a common pillar formula, which
incorporates a strength scale effect:
Mass strength = K  UCS  W1/2  H3/4 (1)
Here, K is a constant, W and H are pillar width and
height, respectively.
A site-specific relationship was developed between
pillar condition, pillar stress/UCS ratio and pillar height.
The pillar widths vary between about 10 and 20 m.
Typically for pillars where the stress is less than 20% of
 Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi on May 21, 2016
ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
Fig. 3. Pillar condition observation at Doe Run mine (after
Roberts et al. 1998).
the UCS, the pillar condition rating is 2 (spalling on
corners, etc.). Where the stress is greater than 30% of the
UCS, pillar condition rating is 4 or higher (extensive
fracturing to failure). Pillar height is critical for the more
highly stressed pillars. Note that the only geologically
controlled variable is the UCS; in all other respects
(principally joint intensity, orientation and condition)
the rock mass is presumed to be consistent. Our inter-
pretation of Figure 3, which is potentially useful for
pillars elsewhere, is that rating 1 indicates a factor of
safety of about 1.5 or more and rating 4 is close to 1.0
(effective failure).
A third case example was presented by Trueman
et al.(1992), based on pillar analysis at Tara Mine,
Ireland. A pillar visually close to failure, with significant
spalling, was analysed for applied stress and strength
inferred from both RMR and Q classifications. The
pillar was in a strongly bedded limestone and loaded
sub-normal to bedding. Two values of both RMR and Q
were determined based on whether the bedding dis-
continuities were included or not. From these values
estimates of mass strength were made in a similar
manner to that described above in the first example. The
average imposed stress on the pillar was estimated at
54 MPa, and the mass strengths without the bedding
9
were estimated at 53 MPa. This was consistent with
observations. The strength including the bedding in the
classifications was much lower. In this case an uncritical
use of classification would have been misleading.
These pillar examples demonstrate that rock mass
classification can be used to provide acceptably accurate
empirical assessments of mass strength, provided that
local conditions are well understood and appropriate
adjustments made to the standard form of the classifi-
cation schemes. How these adjustments should be made
objectively is a task for which there is little guidance,
and hence is an area that requires further investigation.
One approach to this problem is to make observations
of the type utilized above and, through mathematical
analysis, objectively determine both the critical param-
eters and a bespoke method of combining them to
obtain a classification value. This is described below in
terms of the application of multivariate statistics.
Objective customization of rock
mass classification schemes
As shown above, rock mass classification schemes are a
common and useful part of the design process, especially
at the preliminary stage when data are probably both
limited and of poor quality. These schemes are attractive
in such circumstances because they seem to encapsulate
the entire rock engineering problem in only a few
parameters.
However, the general nature of these schemes means
that they should not be applied uncritically and, to this
end, perhaps we should ask (i) why are there so many
different rock mass classification schemes? and (ii)
why do these schemes have different formulations, and
include different parameters? Ultimately, of course, we
ought to determine which of the various schemes avail-
able to us is the best for a particular application, both in
terms of the parameters used and the results obtained.
It is possible that, as indicated in the previous section,
a customary scheme may not be sufficiently discrimina-
tory in a given application to be of practical benefit. In
such an event, it is appropriate that we should use
records of actual performance in order to help modify
such a scheme and thereby improve its usefulness. Here,
we use a synthetic example to show how the customary
use of rock mass classification schemes may be mis-
leading, and how, through the use of multivariate
statistics, we can improve the situation. However, this
approach will require further case studies relating the
rock mass behaviour to the individual parameters before
it can be used routinely.
Functional form of common rock mass
classification schemes
Two of the most widely used schemes are Rock Mass
Rating (RMR) (Bieniawski 1989) and Rock Mass
 Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi on May 21, 2016

10 PINE & HARRISON

Table 4. RMR and Q parameters. a technique for casting these schemes into a two-
dimensional form. One simple way of doing this is to
RMR parameters
consider the situation commonly found on a specific site,
Rstrength intact rock strength rating
RRQD RQD rating where some of the parameters will not vary appreciably
Rspacing mean discontinuity set rating across the region of interest and can therefore be con-
Rcondition weathering condition of discontinuity sidered as constant values. For example, a tunnel
surfaces through a limestone rock mass containing three discon-
Rwater groundwater flow and pressure rating
adjustments adjustments to account for specific tinuity sets could be assigned a value of Jn=9, and this
types of construction and rock mass may not change over the length of the tunnel. Thus,
anisotropy an appropriate two-parameter (i.e. graphically three-
Q parameters dimensional) case is that where only two of the RMR
RQD RQD percentage and Q parameters vary at a given location.
Jn number corresponding to the number Now, to illustrate the geometry of RMR in two
of discontinuity sets in the rock mass dimensions, let us assume we are working at a location
Jr number relating to discontinuity where only the rock strength and RQD vary. In
surface roughness
this case, we can rewrite the RMR formula, given by
Ja alteration (weathering) condition of
discontinuity surfaces equation [2], as
Jw groundwater flow and pressure rating
SRF Stress Reduction Factor, which RMR = Rstrength + RRQD + ~Rspacing + Rcondition + Rwater +
accounts for rock strength, in-situ stress
and engineering environment adjustments! (4)
or, more concisely, as
Quality (Q) (Barton et al. 1974). These two schemes each RMR = Rstrength + RRQD + constants (5)
seek to generate a single number that summarizes the
engineering quality and behaviour of the rock mass, and Similarly for Q in two dimensions, let us examine the
each does so on the basis of a defining formula that case where the mechanical properties of the rock mass
combines a number of fundamental rock mass proper- (e.g. degree of weathering, groundwater conditions) do
ties. The two schemes have the well-known defining not change, but that the degree of fracturing (i.e. RQD
formulae of and Jn) does. On this basis the formula for Q, given by
equation [3], can be written as
RMR = Rstrength + RRQD + Rspacing + Rcondition +

and
Rwater + adjustments (2) Q=
RQD
Jn
 S Ja
Jr

Jw
SRF
D =
RQD
Jn
 constants (6)

Jr Jw We can think of equations [5] and [6] as the site-

RQD
Q=  
Jn Ja SRF
These various parameters are briefly described in
Table 4.
Although these formulae are simple to apply, their use
obscures the fact that, mathematically, there is an under-
lying geometry associated with the two schemes, which is
defined by the formulae themselves. Indeed, once we
investigate these schemes in terms of their geometry, we
see that the engineering behaviour they predict is highly
constrained by these formulae.
RMR and Q in graphical form
RMR and Q rely on five and six parameters respectively,
which means in terms of geometry they exist in six- and
seven-dimensional spaces (one additional dimension is
required for the resulting classification value). Because
such high dimensional spaces are not easily visualized on
the two-dimensional medium of paper, we need to find
(3) specific relations
RMR# = RMR
constants = Rstrength + RRQD (7)
and
Q RQD
Q# = = (8)
constants Jn
As these relations are equations in two variables, they
can be easily plotted in order to examine their graphical
form. Thus, Figure 4 shows that curves of equal RMR#
value are parallel straight lines with a negative slope,
and Figure 5 shows that curves of equal Q# are straight
lines with different positive gradients, but which all pass
through the origin. The different form of these graphs is
due entirely to the forms of the equations used to
generate them.
In addition to the general disposition of lines of equal
classification values, Figures 4 and 5 also show, on the
lines representing RMR#=18 and Q#=8 respectively,
various parameter pairs that lie on these particular lines.
 Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi on May 21, 2016
ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
Fig. 4. Plot of the two-dimensional relation RMR#=
Rstrength+RRQD.
Fig. 5. Plot of the two-dimensional relation Q#=RQD/Jn.
These parameter pairs represent RQD and strength
values in the first case, and discontinuity set geometry
and RQD in the second. These pairs deserve close
inspection, especially in the context of the rock masses
they purport to represent.
In Figure 4, the line representing RMR#=18 encom-
passes rock masses that vary from highly fractured,
extremely strong rock at the upper left end (where the
parameter values are RQD=0% and compressive
strength of 250 MPa), through to extremely weak, intact
rock (RQD=100% and zero compressive strength) at the
lower right end. Hence, on the basis of a rock mass
classification value of RMR#=18, we can see that highly
fractured, extremely strong rocks are regarded as being
identical in engineering behaviour to extremely weak
intact rocks; this is, however, clearly not true. Similarly,
the line representing Q#=8 in Figure 5 encompasses rock
masses that range from those containing a single, closely
spaced discontinuity set (Jn=2, RQD=16%), through
to rock masses that contain three discontinuity sets
together with a randomly orientated component, all very
widely spaced (Jn=12, RQD=96%). As a consequence,
we see that both the RMR and Q schemes consider rock
masses of completely different geometry (in particular,
anisotropy) to have identical engineering behaviour.
Of course, it could be argued that, in reality, the
various parameters used in a classification scheme are
not mutually independent (e.g. discontinuity spacing
tends to be inversely proportional to intact rock
11
strength, such that closely spaced discontinuities are
associated with weaker rocks, and vice versa), and that
as such the extreme conditions considered above are
unlikely to occur. Conversely, we suggest that although
such dependence between parameters may occasionally
be seen in the field, it cannot currently be taken as a
universal. Indeed, before accepting the hypothesis that
interdependence between parameters exists (or any other
such hypotheses), there should be both theoretical and
substantial documented field evidence to support it.
The graphical analysis presented in Figure 4 high-
lights a deficiency that exists in all classification schemes
that rely on a formula to combine a number of classifi-
cation parameters into a single value: namely, so much
information is lost (i.e. knowledge of the individual
parameter values) that similarity between rock masses
can be implied when none exists. This problem of ‘false
similarity’, or lack of discrimination, is one that most
geotechnical engineers are familiar with. A common, but
invalid, means of dealing with it is by resorting to
unwarranted precision in classification values (e.g. by
suggesting that Q values of 3.15 and 3.20 represent
different behaviour).
Having identified that this problem is due to the use of
a singlevalued function in computation of a classifi-
cation value, as a means of surmounting it we suggest
that methods that embrace the underlying geometry of
the scheme be considered instead. Indeed, the recently
introduced Geological Strength Index (Hoek 1999)
adopts just this approach, and is defined only in a
graphical form. Unfortunately for the RMR and Q
schemes, however, this means that – as noted above – we
will need to operate in spaces of six or seven dimensions,
which is all but impossible to manage graphically. It is,
however, practical to work computationally in such
high-dimension spaces, using the concepts associated
with multivariate statistics, particularly discriminant
analysis and principal components analysis (see, for
example, Davis 1986). By these means we may be able to
identify, quantify and hence use, regions of similar
engineering behaviour in the appropriate parameter
space, without resorting to a specific defining function.
Multivariate approach to rock mass
classification
Multivariate statistics allows us to explore the inter-
dependence between parameters in a model through the
use of their variances and covariances. Although these
statistical descriptors are easily computed for datasets, it
is through a geometrical approach that their relation to
the data themselves is most readily appreciated. In
essence, and as will be shown below, variance and
covariance describe the geometrical attributes of both
spread and preferred orientation of a group of data
about their mean. Furthermore, this link with the geom-
etry of a dataset allows these statistical descriptors to be
 Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi on May 21, 2016

12 PINE & HARRISON

used to compute distance from the centroid of a group

to any particular data point on the basis of the point’s
similarity to the group. Informally, this means that data
that fit well within a group will have smaller distances
from the mean than those data that do not fit well. In
effect, the geometry of the parameter space is distorted
so that, in two dimensions for example, contours of
equal distance from the group’s mean are elliptical,
rather than circular. In the context of rock mass classi-
fication, this means that we can use observed similarity
in engineering behaviour to identify relations between
the classification parameters, rather than use a pre-
defined formula to identify similarity of behaviour.
The basis of this technique is the use of the
Mahalanobis distance (see Leti 1979), which is a
generalization of the more familiar Euclidean distance,
Fig. 6. Example classification data.
to determine distance from the mean of a group to
any data point in the group. In general terms, the
terms in the identity matrix I is to prevent the for-
Mahalanobis distance is a measure of the coherence of
mation of a link between the x- and y- coordinate values.
data groups, such that small values indicate a close knit
In terms of multivariate statistics, this represents
group, and large values a dispersed group, or data that
the case when the x- and y- coordinates are independent,
may more properly be described as forming more than
a case that is also indicated by the covariance being
one group. Here, we consider a group to be data
zero.
represented by the components of rock mass classifi-
This association between the off-diagonal elements of
cation schemes within geological domains. The concept
the matrix I and zero covariance leads to the notion of a
of the Mahalanobis distance is most clearly described
more general distance, whereby the matrix I in equation
through the use of a two-dimensional numerical
[12] is replaced by one that is based on the variances and
example. We begin with Pythagoras’ theorem, which
covariances of the data. One such distance is the gener-
shows that the square of the Euclidean distance between
alized, or Mahalanobis, distance (Leti 1979), and the
two points (x1, y1) and (x2, y2) is computed as
square of this is computed as
d E2 = ~x1
x2!2 + ~y1
y2!2. (9)
d 2M = x̄ , C
1 , x̄T (14)
If we assume that the second of these points represents
the mean of a dataset whose coordinates are~x̄,ȳ!, then where C is the covariance matrix associated with the
the Euclidean distance of the first point from the mean is data, and C
1 is its inverse. Thus, the data themselves
are used to generate the matrix that is used to compute
simply given by
their individual distances from their group mean.
In general, the covariance matrix is computed as
d E2 = ~x1
x̄!2 + ~y1
ȳ!2 (10)

Although equation [10] represents a basic approach to 1

C= ~x̄T , x̄!, (15)
computing Euclidean distance, a more mathematically n
1
convenient method is to use the matrix form
where n is the number of data, and the matrix x̄ has n
d E2 = @~x1
x̄!~y1
ȳ! #
F GF
10
01
~x1
x̄!
~y1
ȳ!
G (11)
rows and p columns, with p being the number of
dimensions to the data. The covariance matrix is square,
of size pp. As with equation [12], the presence of the
which can written in abbreviated form as overbar indicates that x̄ is a centroid-adjusted matrix,
which means that each of its columns has a mean value
of zero. Writing the covariance matrix in this form
d E2 = x̄ , I , x̄T (12)
shows how readily it may be computed for the case of
If equation [11] is multiplied out in full, then before data with a large number of dimensions (for example,
simplification we find that the six or seven dimensions required with a rock mass
classification scheme).
d E2 = ~x1
x̄!~x1
x̄!  1 + ~y1
ȳ!~x1
x̄!  0 + Rather than the Mahalanobis distances associated
~x1
x̄!~y1
ȳ!  0 + ~y1
ȳ!~y1
ȳ!  1 (13) with the data themselves, it is further computations
based on the concept of the Mahalanobis distance and,
which shows that the presence of the off-diagonal zero in particular, the matrix C
1, that are of particular
 Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi on May 21, 2016

ROCK MASS PROPERTIES 13

interest here. First, it is reasonably straightforward (at two columns of Table 5, with the centroid-adjusted data
least in two dimensions) to compute and plot contours values shown in columns three and four. The centroid
of equal Mahalanobis distance, which will reveal those adjustment is simply made by subtraction of the mean
data that are outliers to the group as a whole. Secondly, values from the individual values in each of columns one
and most importantly, these contours take the form of and two. The precision of these data is much greater
ellipses whose major and minor axes are aligned with the than could (or should) be obtained in practice, but is
eigenvectors of the inverted covariance matrix, with the used here for the purposes of illustration. The centroid-
lengths of the axes being proportional to the eigenvalues adjusted matrix for these data is therefore
of this matrix. As the shape and orientation of the data
group may be defined in terms of the eigenvectors and
eigenvalues, they may be used to derive a relation
between the group parameters themselves. With modern
computer software it is easy to extract the eigenvalues
and eigenvectors of the inverted covariance matrix,
which helps bring this approach within reach of non-
mathematicians.
We now give an example of how this technique can be
used in the interpretation of rock mass classification
data. Let us assume that a number of RMR# data pairs
(Fig. 6) that represent similar engineering behaviour
have been identified. These values are given in the first and the transpose of which is

x̄T = F 0.19
0.61
0.51

1.3 0.5
0.79 0.09 0.59 0.49
0.21
0.71
0.11
0.3
1.4
1.2 0.1
0.2 0.2 1.7 1.3
G (17)

Multiplying these two matrices together leads to to obtain, as the vector X, the eigenvectors of the system.
Hence, for =0.792, we have
x̄T , x = F 2.449
3.35

3.35 10.1
G (18)

from which, using equation [15], the covariance F 5.933 2.2313

2.2313 0.837
GF G x1
x2 = 0 (22)
matrix is given by
from which we derive
C=
1
(10
1)

F
2.449
3.35
3.35 10.1
=

0.372
G F
0.272
0.372
1.122
G x1 =
0.376x2 (23)
(19)
In this case x1 and x2 represent the centroid-adjusted
with its inverse being parameters RRQD and Rstrength respectively, and so equa-
tion [23] defines the slope of the major axis of an ellipse
C
1 = F 6.7272 2.2313
2.2313 1.6312
G (20) that passes through the point (8.61, 9.50), which is the
mean of the raw data as given in Table 5. The equation
This matrix is used in equation [14], with each of the of this axis, which in effect is a best-fit relation between
ten pairs of centroid-adjusted data in turn, to compute the parameters RRQD and Rstrength, is therefore found
dM2, the squares of the Mahalanobis distances, for all of to be
the data pairs in Table 5: these and their square roots are
given in columns 5 and 6 of the table. A property of the Rstrength + 2.66RRQD = 32.4 (24)
Mahalanobis distance, and one that forms a useful
check of the arithmetic, is that the sum of the squared and is shown, together with the raw data, in Figure 7.
Mahalanobis distances should equal p(n
1): for 10 Using the eigenvalue =7.566, an equation of similar
two-dimensional data this value is 18, which is the value form may be obtained for the minor axis, but this
computed at the foot of column 5 of the table. equation is of no practical interest in the context of
Continuing with the analysis, using a standard ap- determining a relation between the parameters.
proach of equating the determinant of matrix @C
1
I# Figure 7 also shows two contours of equal
to zero, the eigenvalues of C
1 are obtained as =0.792 Mahalanobis distance, which have been plotted with the
and 7.566. These are then used, in turn, in the equation help of equation [14]. Generally, for multi-dimensional
data it is not possible to derive explicit formulae for
[C
1
I]X = 0 (21) these contours, and so points on a contour have to be
 Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi on May 21, 2016

14 PINE & HARRISON

Table 5. Example multivariate analysis of RMR# parameters.

raw data centroid adjusted Mahalanobis distance

RRQD Rstrength RRQD Rstrength (dM)2 dM

8.8 8.2 0.19
1.3 1.90 1.38

8.0 10.0
0.61 0.5 1.55 1.24
8.1 9.8
0.51 0.3 1.21 1.10
9.4 8.1 0.79
1.4 2.46 1.57
8.7 8.3 0.09
1.2 1.92 1.39
9.2 9.6 0.59 0.1 2.62 1.62
9.1 9.3 0.49
0.2 1.24 1.11
8.4 9.7
0.21 0.2 0.17 0.42
7.9 11.2
0.71 1.7 2.72 1.65
8.5 10.8
0.11 1.3 2.20 1.48
means: 8.61 9.50 0.00 0.00 sum=18.0

determined either by trial-and-error or by interpolation tation of the mathematics is clearer if we begin by

from a grid of computed distances. For two-dimensional writing equation [14] in the form
data, however, it is possible to determine points on the
ellipse directly. One way to do so is to make use of
the eigenvalues and eigenvectors, on the basis that the d 2M = @xM yM# F GF G
ab
bc
xM
yM (25)
matrices containing these can be multiplied together to
form the inverted covariance matrix. However, interpre- where ~xM,yM! are the coordinates of a point on the
elliptical contour. Considering this point in terms of it
being located on a radial line extending from the centre
of the ellipse, then these coordinates can be written as

~xM,yM! = ~rcos,rsin! (26)

where  is the angle to the horizontal axis subtended

by the radial line. Substituting these coordinates into
equation [25], multiplying out and rearranging, we
arrive at

d 2M
= r2 (27)
2 2
@acos  + 2bsincos + csin #

This shows how, for any particular value of , to-

gether with appropriate values of dM, a, b, and c, a value
of r can be computed, and from this values of ~xM,yM!
Fig. 7. Principal axis and ellipses of Mahalanobis distance for can be determined through the use of equation [26].
the example data. Performing these calculations for a range of angles

Table 6. Example computation of contours of Mahalanobis distance used in Figure 7.

angle , Cartesian components ellipse parameters dM=1.0 dM=1.5

degrees cos() sin() A B C radius x y radius x y

0 1.000 0.000 6.727 0.000 0.000 0.39 9.00 9.50 0.58 9.19 9.50
60 0.500 0.866 1.682 1.932 1.223 0.45 8.84 9.89 0.68 8.95 10.09
120
0.500 0.866 1.682
1.932 1.223 1.01 8.10 10.38 1.52 7.85 10.82
180
1.000 0.000 6.727 0.000 0.000 0.39 8.22 9.50 0.58 8.03 9.50
240
0.500
0.866 1.682 1.932 1.223 0.45 8.38 9.11 0.68 8.27 8.91
300 0.500
0.866 1.682
1.932 1.223 1.01 9.12 8.62 1.52 9.37 8.18
360 1.000 0.000 6.727 0.000 0.000 0.39 9.00 9.50 0.58 9.19 9.50

ellipse parameters: A=acos2, B=2bsincos, and C=csin2, where F G

ab
bc
=C
1. Radius=dM/~A + B + C!1/2.
x=~radius  cos! + x̄; y=~radius  sin! + ȳ
 Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi on May 21, 2016

ROCK MASS PROPERTIES 15

Table 7. Example computation of confidence contours used in Figure 8.

angle , =0.01, T2=2.43 =0.10, T2=1.98 =0.20, T2=1.73

degrees radius x y radius x y radius x y

0 0.94 9.55 9.50 0.76 9.37 9.50 0.67 9.28 9.50

60 1.11 9.16 10.46 0.90 9.06 10.28 0.79 9.00 10.18
120 2.47 7.38 11.64 2.00 7.61 11.24 1.75 7.73 11.02
180 0.94 7.67 9.50 0.76 7.85 9.50 0.67 7.94 9.50
240 1.11 8.06 8.54 0.90 8.16 8.72 0.79 8.22 8.82
300 2.47 9.84 7.36 2.00 9.61 7.76 1.75 9.49 7.98
360 0.94 9.55 9.50 0.76 9.37 9.50 0.67 9.28 9.50

radius=T/~A + B + C!.

between zero and 360( (Table 6), allows a contour of

equal Mahalanobis distance to be produced. It should
be noted that only a small number of example calcu-
lations are shown in this table, and that points should be
evaluated at intervals of about 5( in order to compute
the contour.
Because of the relationship between the Mahalanobis
distance and the underlying covariance matrix, the con-
tour produced when dM=s represents a curve that is s
standard deviations away from the data centroid. As
Figure 7 shows, all but three of the data in the example
lie within 1.5 standard deviations of the mean, which
gives a qualitative idea of the degree of clustering in
the group. This concept can be extended into formal
hypothesis testing (Bolch & Huang 1974), which allows
us to determine whether all of the data in a group such
as that shown in Figure 7 belong, statistically, to a Fig. 8. Significance contours around the example data.
particular engineering behaviour.
The hypothesis test used in multivariate statistics is As Figures 7 and 8 show, an approach based on multi-
Hotelling’s T2 test, where the squared Mahalanobis variate statistics allows groups of classification values that
distances are compared to critical T2 values. In the case correspond to the same engineering behaviour to be used
of testing for outliers, the critical values are computed as to generate relations that are independent of any custom-
(De Maesschalck et al. 2000) ary equation. As a result, we can see that there is scope for
exploring the wealth of information associated with rock

T2 =
~n
1!2
n
S p ~n
p
1!
 ; ,
2 2
, D
where the function ~+! represents the inverse beta
distribution, and the parameter  is the significance level
at which we wish to test. Equation [27] and the method
outlined above are used to compute contours of sig-
nificance level, with appropriate critical values for T 2
from equation [28] being used in place of dM. Table 7
shows example calculations for the 1%, 10% and 20%
significance contours, which are plotted on Figure 8.
This figure shows how all of the data lie within the
contour representing 20% significance, indicating that
they can be taken to lie within one group. Thus, once a
group of classification values that identify a specific
engineering behaviour have been identified, this gives us
a powerful and quantitative test for determining whether
other values can be considered to possess the same
behaviour.
(28)
mass classification data in a completely new fashion, using
the concepts outlined here. The calculations can be readily
extended to the higher dimensions required for rock mass
classification schemes, and the geometry of groups of
similar engineering behaviour determined in these higher-
dimensional spaces.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both
the customary, formula-based approach and the use
of multivariate statistics, and some of these are
summarized in Table 8. One issue that is not addressed
in this table is the fact that geotechnical engineers are
probably most comfortable with the customary ap-
proach, whereas multivariate statistics may be some-
thing unknown. This should not stand in the way of
adopting a new approach, if the new approach is found
to be superior. In the context of the approach described
here, this will involve trials of the customary and
proposed approaches over a range of specific rock
engineering projects, and in each case will require that
 Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi on May 21, 2016
16
Table 8. Comparison of formula-based and multivariate approaches to rock mass classification.
Customary, formula-based schemes
fixed algebra, and hence fixed relations
similarity of engineering behaviour defined in
terms of algebra
single value used to quantify behaviour
some parameters could be redundant on
particular engineering schemes
allows global comparisons
actual rock structure performance be recorded in abso-
lute terms of serviceability, rather than simply as a
deviation from the behaviour predicted on the basis of a
classification assessment. It is only through such trials
and records that our use of rock mass classification
schemes can be improved.
Conclusions
Rock mass properties can be determined at reasonable
cost provided the right method is used and a realistic
approach is taken to accuracy (Tables 1–3). It is clearly
important also to make the most appropriate measure-
ments within an investigation, modelling and design
framework.
Rock mass classification is the most widely applicable
method for rock masses with medium to high UCS and
the strengths inferred from classification have been
validated by some of the mine pillar examples presented.
However, care must be taken with most rock masses to
ensure that scale effects and discontinuity anisotropy
effects are properly considered.
The application of rock mass classification methods
can be improved, and some thought should always be
given to the variability and nature of the key parameters
used in the classification. In specific cases particular
parameters (e.g. RQD and UCS – Figures 4, 6 & 7) will
have a dominant effect in characterizing the rock mass
variability. The use of multivariate statistics applied to
rock mass characterization data, as described in this
paper, provides a way to maximize the usefulness of this
type of data in design models.
References
B, N.R., L, R. & L, J. 1974. Engineering
classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel
support. Rock Mechanics, 6, 189–239.
Received 25 May 2001; accepted 5 April 2002.
PINE & HARRISON
Multivariate approach
algebra determined by the data themselves
use engineering behaviour to determine
algebra
location and shape in n-dimensional space
classifies behaviour
allows identification of critical parameters for
specific engineering schemes
site-, and behaviour-specific
B, Z.T. 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications.
Wiley, New York.
B, B.W. & H, C.J. 1974. Multivariate statistical
methods for business and economics. Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey.
B, B.H.G. & B, E.T. 1993. Rock mechanics for
underground mining (2nd edn). Chapman & Hall, London.
D, J.C. 1986. Statistics and data analysis in geology (2nd
edn). Wiley, New York.
D M, R., J-R, D. & M, D.L.
2000. The Mahalanobis distance. Chemometrics and Intel-
ligent Laboratory Systems, 50, 1–18.
D, W., L, G., G, J. & L, P.R. 1998.
FracMan: Interactive Discrete Feature Data Analysis,
Geometric Modelling, and Exploration Simulation. User
Documentation. Golder Associates Inc., Seattle,
Washington.
H, J.A., J, M.A. & H, A.W. 1996. Mod-
elling groundwater flow in the Sellafield area. Quarterly
Journal of Engineering Geology, 29, S59–S81.
H, E. 1999. Putting numbers into geology – an engineer’s
viewpoint. Second Glossop Lecture, November 1998.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 32, 1–19.
H, E. & B, E.T. 1980. Underground excavations in
rock. IMM, London.
H, E., K, P.K. & B, W.F. 1995. Support of
underground excavations in hard rock. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
H, J.A. & H, J.P. 1997. Engineering rock me-
chanics, an introduction to the principles. Pergamon Press,
Elsevier Science, Oxford.
J, R.J.H., W, L. & P, R.J. 2000. ‘Stress-Sensitive
Fracture-Flow Modelling in Fractured Reservoirs.’ Paper
presented at the SPE International Petroleum Conference
and Exhibition, Villahermosa, Mexico.
L, G. 1979. The distances in descriptive statistics. Metron,
37, 3–52.
R, D.P., L, W.L. & Y, T.R. 1998. Pillar
extraction at the Doe Run Company, 1991–1998.
Proceedings of the Conference ‘The Mining Cycle’,
Australia. IMM, Mt Isa, 227–233.
T, R., P, R.J., T, D.B., V, P. & F, R.
1992. Rock mass characterisation at Tara zinc-lead mine,
Eire. Proceedings of the ISRM International Symposium
on Rock Characterisation (Eurock ‘92), 251–256.