International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Characterization of jointed rock masses for geotechnical

classifications utilized in mine shaft stability analyses
İ. Özkan a,n, B. Erdem b, A. Ceylanoğlu b
a
Selçuk University, Mining Engineering Department, Konya, Turkey
b
Cumhuriyet University, Mining Engineering Department, Sivas, Turkey

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the Divriği open-pit iron mine in Turkey, extracted ore is initially crushed in an underground chamber.
Received 10 December 2010 This chamber was previously located 54 m below the bottom level of the mine, which was linked by a
Received in revised form vertical shaft. Because of the progression in the mine operations, the mine management decided to shift the
26 September 2014
chamber to a depth of 264.15 m below the surface. A borehole called as YNK-3, which was no closer than
Accepted 2 October 2014
15 m to the existing shaft that was 4 m in diameter and 54 m in length, was drilled to a vertical distance of
264.15 m. Although the first 54 m was drilled in a coreless manner, the drill cores obtained from the
Keywords: remaining 210.15 m were used in the rock mass characterization studies for the design of the shaft support.
Jointed rock mass The rock formations encountered during shaft sinking, which were generally jointed rock masses, were
Rock mass characterization
classified into structural regions and domains for geological and geotechnical definition. Initially, the original
RMR
rock mass rating (RMR) and quality (Q) systems were used for rock mass characterization, but difficulties
Q
M-RMR were experienced in determining a number of input parameters required, particularly by the RMR system. A
Mine shaft comprehensive examination of the drawbacks encountered directed us to the modified RMR (M-RMR)
system. In this paper, the original (RMR and Q) and modified (M-RMR) rock mass classification systems are
compared in a detailed discussion of our results. In addition, the classification results were tested using the
Hoek-Brown failure criterion to compare the ratings presented by classification systems.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction that some numerical approaches, which use outcomes of classification

Mine management expects safe and economically operated under-
ground mine openings. However, these expectations can only be
realized with improved understanding of the rock mass conditions.
The rock mass classification systems provide more insight into the
rock mass conditions. Today, two scientific approaches, one empirical
and one numerical, are widely used in support design studies of
underground mine openings. Whereas empirical design is based on
rock mass classifications, such as the rock mass rating (RMR) and
quality (Q) systems, the numerical design approach uses various
failure criteria and the properties of intact rock material, such as
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS, σci), Young's modulus (Ei) and
Poisson's ratio (ν). However, numerical approaches developed during
the last two decades utilize failure criteria, which include rock mass
material properties (m, s, a, etc.), modulus of elasticity (Em), and
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS, σcm) of rock mass that are defined
by rock mass classification systems. It was revealed from case studies
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 90 332 2232097; fax: þ 90 332 2410635.
E-mail address: ozkani@selcuk.edu.tr (İ. Özkan).
systems, worked well in the support design. Therefore, the numerical
design approach can be satisfactorily used in complex rock masses
consisting of geological components, such as joints and heavy strati-
fication. For this reason, project engineers tend to prefer numerical
approaches that utilize outputs of rock mass classifications for
designing underground mine openings and tunnels.
Rock mass characterization systems are essentially empirical
approaches used during the preliminary design stage. There are
several models available, although the ones usually applied are RMR
and Q, both of which demand plain and straightforward input
parameters. However, in their original form, they can only be applied
to a limited range of rock mass types for specific purposes. The
characterization of intricate rock mass conditions, based on the
original ratings suggested by these systems, could be misleading when
design decisions are made. Therefore, the original RMR and Q systems
were often modified by including various new parameters.
In this study, the rock formations encountered along a borehole
drilled in the Divriği mine were first evaluated with the original RMR
and Q systems. Drill cores obtained from a 210.15 m borehole were
used for rock mass characterization. Difficulties were experienced in
determining some of the input parameters for geotechnical evaluation,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.10.001
1365-1609/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 İ. Özkan et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41
such as the strength, the joint condition, and the orientation of the
discontinuity. The M-RMR system was used in an attempt to overcome
these difficulties. General information of the rock mass classification
systems, which are used in this case study, is presented in the
following subsections.
2. A critical review of the rock mass classification systems used
in this study
2.1. Rock mass rating system: RMR
Rock mass rating (RMR) was developed by Bieniawski [1] based on
in situ measurements and observations obtained in 351 different
underground mines. The system consists of six input parameters:
(i) uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) or the point load strength
index (PLS); (ii) rock quality designation (RQD); (iii) joint spacing (JS);
(iv) joint condition (JC); (v) groundwater (GW); and (vi) joint orienta-
tion (JO). Because these parameters have different rating values, the
RMR score ranges between 0 and 100. The guidelines suggested for the
calculation of the basic and design RMR scores are given by the RMR
system. The JC parameter used in the original RMR system [1] was
subsequently modified by Bieniawski himself [2] by further evaluating
outcomes obtained from numerous applications of the RMR. Bien-
iawski [2] also suggested graphs to determine the ratings for the
following parameters: UCS, RQD, and JS. The basic RMR score can be
calculated using the following equation:
       
RMR ¼ ½I UCS  þ I RQ D þ I JS þ I JC þ ½I GW  þ I JO ð1Þ
where IUCS, IRQD, IJS, IJC, IGW, and IJO are the index values of the UCS, RQD,
JS, JC, GW, and JO parameters, respectively.
The influence on the rock mass arising from blasting (Ab), in-situ
stress (As), and major faults (S) is taken into consideration by the RMR
system. The design RMR score can be found by multiplying the basic
RMR score and appropriate adjustment factors (Ab, As and S).
2.2. Rock mass quality system: Q
The original Q system for rock mass classification was devel-
oped in Norway in 1974 by Barton, Lien, and Lunde of the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute [3]. The system was proposed
after the evaluation of 212 tunnel case histories in Scandinavia.
The Q system is based on six different parameters: (i) RQD; (ii)
number of joint sets (Jn); (iii) roughness of the most unfavorable
joint or discontinuity (Jr); (iv) degree of alteration or filling along
the weakest joint (Ja); (v) water inflow (Jw); and (vi) stress
conditions (SRF). The Q value, which can range between 0.001
and 1000, can be determined using the following equation:
   
RQ D Jr Jw
Q¼ ð2Þ
Jn Ja SRF
2.3. Modified rock mass rating system: M-RMR
The RMR and Q systems were used for the design studies of
thirteen mines in Turkey between 1986 and 2013. While borax, coal,
copper, antimony, galena, and trona were extracted in the six under-
ground mines, the others were produced in surface mines. In all of the
mines, the rock masses encountered were of weak, stratified, clay-
bearing and jointed character. Experience obtained from rock mass
classification studies, in which RMR and Q systems were increasingly
utilized for approximately 28 years in Turkey, has raised a variety of
concerns in the adequacy of addressing the role played by rock
strength, weathering-roughness-aperture-continuity-filling of discon-
tinuity, groundwater damage, and orientation of discontinuities in
weak, stratified, clay-bearing and heavily jointed rock masses.
29
Difficulties were encountered in determining the ratings for a number
of input parameters required by the RMR and Q systems, as explained
in detail elsewhere [4–15]. A new classification system with new
intervals and ratings, designated M-RMR, was developed by Unal and
Ozkan [5] to mitigate certain shortcomings of the previous character-
ization systems. Consequently, the basic M-RMR score can be calcu-
lated as
     
M RMR ¼ F c I PLS þ I RQ D þ I JC þ I JS þ ½I GW  þ I JO ð3Þ
where the input parameters shown in Eq. (3) are the index values for
the weathering coefficient (Fc), PLS, RQD, JC, JS, GW and JO. The
suggested intervals and ratings associated with the input parameters
are presented in Fig. 1 and Table 1.
The design M-RMR score is determined by multiplying the basic
M-RMR score by two adjustment factors, which reflect the effect of
blasting (Ab) and the major weakness planes (Aw) [10,15].
Ulusay [16] demonstrated that for rock masses with lower RMR
ratings (RMR o40), M-RMR deviates significantly from RMR. Bien-
iawski [17] also suggested that the M-RMR system be used for rock
masses with RMR ratings lower than 20. In addition, in a tool
developed for GSI to better characterize poor and very poor rock
masses, both ICR and BSTR concepts utilized in the M-RMR system
were used by Osgoui et al. [18].
3. General information about the study region
The Divriği open-pit mine is located east of the city of Sivas, mid-
eastern Anatolia. The mine site consists of two main ore bodies, the
A-Head and the B-Head, which are magnetite and hematite ore
bodies, respectively. The magnetite body is the main mineral deposit,
which is fitted into an alteration zone and a tectonic structure; it has
a massive character and is therefore brittle. The rock units encoun-
tered at the site are syenites, crystallized limestones, serpentinized
ultramafics, contact metamorphic rocks, altered serpentines, silicified
and carbonated serpentines, and felsic serpentines.
The Divriği open-pit mine is the largest open-pit iron mine
currently operating in Turkey. Ore is produced by drilling and
blasting; before being transferred to a nearby processing plant,
the ore is crushed in an underground chamber, which is connected
to the open-pit bottom through a vertical shaft. The crushed ore is
then carried to the processing plant via a conveyor-belt transporta-
tion system mounted in an underground mine roadway. The
processed ore is hauled by railroad to three large domestic iron–
steel plants, which are known as Kar-Demir, Er-Demir, and İs-Demir.
4. Geotechnical evaluation of borehole YNK-3
A fully cored geotechnical borehole, YNK-3, was drilled by the
Divriği iron mine management to deepen the existing production
shaft by 264.15 m, which was originally 54 m long with a 4 m
diameter. Drilling started 15 m from the existing shaft and extended
to 264.15 m. Although the first 54 m was drilled in a coreless manner,
drill cores obtained from the remaining 210.15 m were used in rock
mass characterization studies for the design of the shaft support.
Conventional single-tube core barrels with diamond surface set bits
were used to cut the cores. The cores were 47 mm in diameter up to a
depth of 174 m; the diameters of the cores in the subsequent sections
of the borehole were 36 mm. This borehole was evaluated based on its
lithological units and geotechnical logging [14].
4.1. Lithological units
The rock units present in the borehole were serpentinite,
ultramafics, syenite, and ultramafic pyroxenite. These rock units,
30 İ. Özkan et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41

Fig. 1. Intervals and ratings for the input parameters suggested by the M-RMR system [5,10,15].

with thicknesses varying from 8.75 m to 92.85 m, were classified
into six strata. Whereas strata 1, 2, 4, and 6 were formed from
serpentinite, ultramafics, syenite, and again syenite, respectively,
stratum 3 and stratum 5 consisted of serpentinite–syenite–ultra-
mafic alterations (Table 2).
4.2. Geotechnical logging
The borehole cores were divided into successive intervals
(structural regions or domains) on the basis of the changes in
the lithology, color, degree of weathering, structural features, and
 İ. Özkan et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41 31

Table 1
Determination of the rating values for the joint condition index for the M-RMR system [5,10,15].

Parameters Conditions Ratings

IJC for solid structural region-SSTR (ICR 425%)

Weathering W Unweathered 8
Slightly weathered 7
Moderately weathered 6
Highly weathered 4
Very highly weathered 2
Decomposed 0

Roughness R Undulating Very rough 8

Rough 6
Slightly rough 4
Smooth 2
Slickensided 1
Planer Very rough 4
Rough 3
Slightly rough 2
Smooth 1
Slickensided 0

Continuity C Very low 3.5

Low 3
Medium 2
High 1.5
Very high 1

Aperture A 0.0–0.01 mm 4
0.01–1 mm 3
1.0–5.0 mm 2
45 mm 0

Filling F None 1
0.0–1.0 mm 4
1.0–5.0 mm (hard) 3.5
1.0–5.0 mm (soft) 3.0
45.0 mm (hard) 2.0
45.0 mm (soft) 0.0

IJC for Broken Structure Region-BSTR (ICRr 25%)

BSTR Definition Rating (bs)

BSTR1 If earthlike (larger-grain sand size) 0

BSTR2 If crushed rock, containing small-gravel size (1 cm) core pieces 2
BSTR3 If crushed rock, containing gre pieces of 2–3 cm 4
BSTR4 If containing cylindrical cores less than 10 cm in length 6
BSTR5 If containing one or more cylindrical cores greater than 10 cm in length 8

Equations for joint condition rating

(1)IF ICR 425% and F ¼1 (filling)
IJC ¼W þ Rþ (C  A  F)
2)IF ICR 425 % and Fa 1 (filling)
IJC ¼0 for F¼ 0
IJC ¼2 þ(C  F) for F¼ 2
IJC ¼4 þ(C  F) for F¼ 3
IJC ¼6 þ(C  F) for F¼ 3.5
IJC ¼8 þ(C  F) for F¼ 4
3)If ICRr 25 % and F¼ 1 (filling)
IJC ¼bsþ (W/2) þ 8
4)If ICRr 25% and Fa 1 (filling)
IJC ¼0 for F¼ 0
IJC ¼4 for F¼ 2
IJC ¼(bs/2) þ(W/2) for F¼ 3
IJC ¼(bs/2) þ(W/2) þ4 for F¼ 3.5
IJC ¼bsþ (W/2) þ 4 for F¼ 4

appearance as well as the transition from solid rock to fractured
rock materials. The names, depths, and descriptions of the litho-
logical units associated with YNK-3 were first determined for
geotechnical logging. We identified 32, 9, 13, 35, 14, and 14
geotechnical intervals for strata 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively
(Table 2). The intervals in which no solid core was recovered
because of the heavily fractured nature of the rock were identified
as broken structural regions (BSTR) and described separately. The
other geotechnical intervals were identified as solid structural
regions (SSTR). Together with the BSTR and major weakness zones,
other structures significant for rock engineering, such as likely
high horizontal stress zones and water-bearing zones, were also
isolated and logged with the classification systems according to
the geotechnical intervals. Finally, there were 117 geotechnical
32 İ. Özkan et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41

Table 2
Lithological units encountered in the YNK-3 borehole [14].

Rock units Intervals (m) Thickness (m) Geotecnical interval (#) Strata

Serpentinite 54.00–118.20 64.20 32 Starata-1 Serpentinite (64.20 m)

Ultramafic 118.20–126.95 8.75 9 Strata-2 Ultramafic (8.75 m)
Serpentinite 126.95–127.40 0.45 13 Strata-3 Alteration of Serpentinite and Syenite (13.55 m)
Syenite 127.40–128.75 1.35
Serpentinite 128.75–134.20 5.45
Syenite 134.20–135.00 0.80
Serpentinite 135.00–140.50 5.50
Syenite 140.50–233.35 92.85 35 Strata-4 Syenite (92.85 m)
Serpentinite 233.35–236.15 2.80 14 Strata-5 Alteration of Serpentinite and Syenite and Ultramafic (16.35 m)
Syenite 236.15–245.00 8.85
Ultramafic-Pirocsenit 245.00–245.85 0.85
Syenite 245.85–248.80 2.95
Serpentinite 248.80–249.70 0.90
Syenite 249.70–264.15 14.45 14 Strata-6 Syenite (14.45 m)

intervals, 1250 joints, and 36 BSTR regions, with a total length of
19.45 m (Table 3). The joint density (/m) encountered along the
borehole and dip angle of discontinuities are shown in Figs. 2 and
3. It is seen from Fig. 2 that the average joint frequency (/m) is
approximately 10 for all of the geotechnical intervals, except for
the BSTR zones. In the SSTR zones, the dip angle of the encoun-
tered joints lies generally between 20–801 (Fig. 3). In the SSTR
zones, the direction of the joints was also N50E. However, because
the joints in BSTR zones could not be traced and thus evaluated,
the dip angles were not plotted in Fig. 3.
Rock mass characterization of the cores obtained from the
borehole in each geotechnical interval was performed following
the procedures described by the International Society for Rock
Mechanics-ISRM [19]. In addition, UCS and PLS tests were per-
formed in the geotechnical intervals. The geotechnical input value
of serpantinite, ultramafic and syenite rock units encountered in
117 geotechnical intervals was calculated by the weighted average
method (Table 4). The geotechnical input values of the solid
structural region (SSTR) were observed to be higher than those
of the BSTR. For both structural regions, the weakest rock unit was
ultramafic.
5. Determination of the rating values for the
geotechnical parameters
The rating values for the input parameters of the original RMR
and Q systems in the geotechnical intervals were determined by
following guidelines suggested by Bieniawski [2] and Barton et al.
[3]. In addition, the M-RMR classification system utilized Table 1
and Fig. 1. In the BSTR regions, in particular, it was noticed that
some of the geotechnical characterizations observed were not
represented by the original RMR system. However, the M-RMR and
Q systems were successful in all of the geotechnical intervals in
this respect. A critical review based on the geotechnical results
obtained from the RMR and M-RMR systems is presented in the
following paragraphs.
The samples required for geomechanical laboratory tests were
collected throughout the borehole YNK-3. Uniaxial compressive
strength testing of 56 of the 117 geotechnical intervals could not
be performed because standard specimens could not be prepared
(Table 3). Most of these regions were defined as BSTR. However,
the PLS test was performed for all of the geotechnical intervals.
The test results, along with the associated geotechnical intervals,
are presented in Table 3. In this study, the PLS test results were
used to determine the ratings for the classification systems.
However, in three regions, one of which is BSTR, the strength test
ratings for the RMR system could not be determined due to low
PLS test results (Is(50) o1 MPa). Yet, the rating values of strength
index were determined by using Fig. 1(a) and (b) for the M-RMR
system.
The RQD, JS, and GW indices were easily determined using the
graphs suggested by the M-RMR system (Fig. 1(c), (d) and (e)).
Similarly, these parameters were also addressed by the guideline
chart recommended for the RMR system.
The IJC, based on weathering, roughness, continuity, aperture,
and filling, was determined by the RMR and M-RMR systems in
solid structural region (SSTR), where RQD 4 25% and ICR4 25%. In
SSTR zones, the guideline charts [2], along with Table 1 and Fig. 1
[5,10], were used for the original and modified RMR systems.
However, the RMR system, where ICR is less than 25% because of
heavily jointed rock mass, failed. In geotechnical intervals similar
to BSTR zones, determinations of the discontinuities are very
difficult. According to Bieniawski [1,2], the JC parameter should
be determined on the surface of the discontinuities. A design
problem was created because the total length of such regions was
19.45 m, which constituted 9.26% of the entire borehole length.
However, the BSTR regions were well defined by the M-RMR
system, which uses a different concept based on the ICR, BSTR,
and the filling conditions to determine the IJC values using the
equations (Table 1).
The JO and faults with respect to the axis of the mine shaft are
very important in support design. Although the discontinuities in
the BSTR zones were not determined, for borehole YNK-3, the
direction of strike where ICR is greater than 25% was N50E; the
dips of the joints (or the discontinuity orientation, DSOR, β) were
0–901 (Table 3). Most dip angles were greater than 201 (Fig. 3). It
was noted that the shaft was driven with the dip. The IJO values for
the M-RMR system, unlike BSTR zones, were determined from
Fig. 1(g) [20], using the dip angles (DSOR, β) presented in Table 3,
without taking into consideration the strike. The adjusted values
determined for the M-RMR system were found to range between
0 and  12. In other regions, because the strikes and dips of the
discontinuities (BSTR zones) with an ICR of less than 25% are
indefinite, IJO was selected as -8 from Fig. 1(g). However, in the
RMR system, the IJO index values could be detected only for the
SSTR regions (ICR 425%) through the guideline table of the RMR
system. Because joint sets were not clearly observed on the cores,
the IJO index values of BSTR zones (ICR r25%) could not be
determined with the RMR system [1,2].
The parameter Fc, which influences the parameters of PLS, RQD,
and JC, was determined by using Fig. 1h via the results of the slake
durability test in the M-RMR system. A functionally equivalent
coefficient is not defined in the original RMR system.
The rating values of geotechnical parameters, which are RQD,
Jn, Jr, Ja, Jw, and SRF, were successfully determined utilizing
Table 3
Mechanical and geotechnical inputs for rock units encountered in the shaft region [14].

Depth (m) Rock unit /m RQD (%) ICR (%) BSTR DSOR (1) Id2 (%) Is(50) (MPa) σc (MPa)

54.00–56.00 Serp 1 93 93 30 99.3 8.84 108.13

56.00–61.55 Serp 7 53 65 90 98.8 9.81 156.71
61.55–62.20 Serp 1 98 98 36 99 8.40 115.44
62.20–62.65 Serp 11 67 84 0 99.3 10.11 NE
62.65–63.60 Serp 3 84 93 52 99.5 19.48 115.44
63.60–64.20 Serp 4 77 97 64 99.7 11.52 115.44
64.20–66.90 Serp 6 82 98 33 99.7 12.3 115.44
66.90–69.80 Serp 2 78 80 45 100 3.76 71.26
69.80–73.00 Serp 3 98 100 33 98.5 6.93 58.87

İ. Özkan et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41
73.00–74.40 Serp 2 90 100 90 99.1 6.42 58.87
74.40–75.40 Serp 7 92 92 90 100 8.12 58.87
75.40–75.80 Serp 10 80 100 25 99 5.63 58.87
75.80–78.45 Serp 3 79 82 56 100 6.6 58.87
78.45–79.75 Serp 7 79 91 72 100 4.34 32.20
79.75–82.70 Serp 5 89 94 66 98.5 4.88 32.20
82.70–85.30 Serp 4 96 100 20 96.9 6.37 24.93
85.30–86.10 Serp 6 79 84 0 98.4 3.9 59.33
86.10–87.00 Serp 16 82 100 70 98 2.57 NE
87.00–95.30 Serp 4 89 99 41 99.4 4.01 75.52
95.30–102.85 Serp 7 80 88 75 98.7 2.73 66.95
102.85–103.60 Serp 9 87 93 90 98.7 5.11 117.73
103.60–106.50 Serp 7 31 99 45 98.4 5.31 37.25
106.50–110.00 Serp 10 73 89 50 97.6 1.56 37.25
110.00–111.10 Serp 3 100 100 25 95.2 1.11 37.25
111.10–111.70 Serp 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 97 1.11 NE
111.70–113.00 Serp 50 10 24 BSTR5 NE 97.7 2.07 NE
113.00–113.30 Serp 17 33 100 50 92.9 0.91 NE
113.30–114.35 Serp 13 80 90 60 95.3 3.52 NE
114.35–114.80 Serp 9 58 89 30 98 19.22 44.01
114.80–116.90 Serp 8 80 100 75 98.4 11.97 44.01
116.90–117.05 Serp 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 97 1.93 NE
117.05–118.20 Serp 9 63 85 20 96.5 7.16 44.01
118.20–120.30 Umaf 5 82 87 35 94.9 3.05 NE
120.30–121.00 Umaf 50 14 20 BSTR5 NE 95.5 3.05 NE
121.00–122.70 Umaf 50 6 20 BSTR5 NE 99.4 1.51 NE
122.70–123.10 Umaf 10 0 90 30 99.7 1.65 42.98
123.10–123.70 Umaf 50 0 20 BSTR4 NE 99.6 1.8 NE
123.70–124.30 Umaf 20 37 87 30 91.7 0.84 NE
124.30–125.70 Umaf 10 24 78 40 99 2.02 42.98
125.70–126.45 Umaf 50 13 20 BSTR5 NE 98.8 2.01 NE
126.45–126.95 Umaf 8 82 100 15 99 2.47 42.98
126.95–127.40 Serp 7 44 96 30 99 8.7 42.98
127.40–128.75 Syen 9 73 96 50 99 1.52 42.98
128.75–134.20 Serp 7 86 100 15 99.6 10.25 89.65
134.20–135.00 Syen 10 100 100 50 99.7 10.99 253.12
135.00–135.85 Serp 6 88 100 90 99.7 14.14 61.59
135.85–136.15 Serp 50 0 20 BSTR4 NE 99.8 6.78 NE
136.15–137.50 Serp 13 30 79 90 100 14.14 NE
137.50–137.70 Serp 50 0 20 BSTR2 NE 100 6.78 NE
137.70–138.55 Serp 12 51 94 65 99.7 14.14 NE
138.55–139.00 Serp 50 19 20 BSTR5 NE 99.6 6.78 NE
139.00–139.75 Serp 19 37 83 35 99.7 14.14 NE
139.75–140.15 Serp 50 0 20 BSTR4 NE 99.7 6.78 NE
140.15–140.50 Serp 26 71 86 50 99.7 14.14 NE

33
140.50–157.55 Syen 10 71 93 45 99.4 11.66 72.85
 34
Table 3 (continued )

Depth (m) Rock unit /m RQD (%) ICR (%) BSTR DSOR (1) Id2 (%) Is(50) (MPa) σc (MPa)

Table 3 (continued )

Depth (m) Rock unit /m RQD (%) ICR (%) BSTR DSOR (1) Id2 (%) Is(50) (MPa) σc (MPa)

157.55–162.40 Syen 50 7 14 BSTR5 NE 99.5 8.2 NE

162.40–164.50 Syen 10 60 95 80 100 7.58 72.85
164.50–164.75 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 99 6.33 NE
164.75–167.90 Syen 10 48 81 80 99 7.58 72.85
167.90–168.10 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 99 8.18 NE
168.10–169.35 Syen 20 57 98 35 100 5.59 72.85

İ. Özkan et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41
169.35–170.85 Syen 50 15 23 BSTR5 NE 100 5.59 NE
170.85–174.00 Syen 12 39 92 60 99 4.10 72.85
174.00–176.05 Syen 15 35 98 55 99 9.04 NE
176.05–176.35 Syen 50 0 23 BSTR4 NE 99 2.66 NE
176.35–176.80 Syen 4 22 73 65 99 9.04 70.53
176.80–178.20 Syen 50 7 18 BSTR3 NE 100 2.66 NE
178.20–178.75 Syen 9 69 100 40 99 9.77 79.68
178.75–178.90 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR4 NE 99 3.19 NE
178.90–181.95 Syen 9 46 93 30 99 9.77 79.68
181.95–182.05 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 99 3.19 NE
182.05–183.30 Syen 9 50 96 40 100 9.77 79.68
183.30–183.55 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 99 3.19 NE
183.55–188.40 Syen 17 49 91 50 99 9.77 NE
188.40–188.65 Syen 24 0 100 90 99 7.03 NE
188.65–188.85 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 99 2.66 NE
188.85–189.55 Syen 9 76 99 30 99 7.03 55.99
189.55–189.70 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 99 2.66 NE
189.70–189.80 Syen 10 100 100 0 99 7.03 55.99
189.80–194.50 Syen 12 28 90 90 99 9.86 89.36
194.50–194.60 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 99 7.98 NE
194.60–195.95 Syen 15 52 89 25 100 7.49 NE
195.95–196.10 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 99 3.19 NE
196.10–229.70 Syen 10 60 98 75 99 5.99 89.36
229.70–231.05 Syen 14 69 100 20 100 8.74 NE
231.05–231.20 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 99 2.74 NE
231.20–232.40 Syen 18 64 84 50 99 8.74 NE
232.40–232.60 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 99 2.74 NE
232.60–233.35 Syen 9 56 97 65 100 8.74 111.09
233.35–234.30 Serp 6 78 100 60 99 9.14 102.49
234.30–235.45 Serp 8 82 98 55 99 7.81 102.31
235.45–236.15 Serp 10 29 67 15 99 2.51 NE
236.15–237.05 Syen 13 44 98 10 99 3.84 81.65
237.05–237.25 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR4 NE 99 0.83 NE
237.25–240.15 Syen 14 68 100 90 100 7.63 NE
240.15–240.30 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 100 1.51 NE
240.30–240.45 Syen 15 100 100 30 100 7.63 NE
240.45–240.90 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR4 NE 100 1.51 NE
240.90–245.00 Syen 9 63 93 40 100 7.63 113.16
245.00–245.85 Umaf 10 22 94 55 98 5.63 19.20
245.85–248.65 Syen 11 86 93 80 99 10.10 110.48
248.65–248.80 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 99 4.79 NE
248.80–249.70 Serp 6 36 79 25 98 6.66 NE
249.70–250.60 Syen 7 87 100 50 99 9.71 74.71
250.60–250.70 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 99 4.79 NE
250.70–251.35 Syen 3 34 100 15 99 9.71 74.71
251.35–251.75 Syen 50 0 20 BSTR3 NE 100 2.39 NE
 İ. Özkan et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41 35

135.52

135.52

135.52

135.52
79.94

79.94
NE

NE

NE

NE
13.61

13.61
11.27

11.27

11.27

11.27
2.39

5.87

5.87

5.87

Fig. 2. Frequency of joints determined in the geotechnical intervals.

100
100
100
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
NE

NE

NE

NE
50

65
20

45

60
70
BSTR3

BSTR3

BSTR3

BSTR4

Fig. 3. Dip of joints encountered in the geotechnical intervals, except for the
BSTR zones.

classification tables given by the Q system [3]. In the SSTR zones,

100
80
20
90
93
20
78
20

20
99

the determined rating values were as follows: RQD was in the

range between 28 and 100, Jn was in the range between 2 and 15
for single-four joint sets, Jr was in the range between 1.5 and 3 for
rough-smooth of undulating, Ja was in the range between 1 and
8 for discontinuities with range 0 and 5 mm of filling thickness, Jw
was 1 for 0–5 L/min, and SRF was selected as 2.5–10 for the
encountered joint sets. However, in the BSTR zones, the RQD, Jn, Jr,
36

40

60

79
61
51

Ja, Jw, and SRF parameters were determined to be in the ranges of

0

6–19, 3–20, 1.5–3, 1.5–3, 1, and 10, respectively.

6. Rock mass classification results

50

50

50

50
12

7
8

After a thorough elaboration of the geotechnical investigation

on the borehole cores, the input parameters for the RMR and M-
RMR systems were prepared. Classification was performed via Eqs.
1 and 3, using the input parameters highlighted by both systems.
The basic rock mass classification results are presented in Table 5.
Syen
Syen
Syen
Syen
Syen
Syen
Syen
Syen
Syen
Syen

The RMR system failed to classify 38 regions of all of the

geotechnical intervals, 36 of which were BSTR zones. The joints
could not be defined, so no appropriate index values were
assigned to the JC and the JO parameters for the RMR system in
the BSTR zones. In the other two regions, the strength indices
could not be determined for either classification system because
258.05–259.00
255.60–255.95
255.95–258.05

260.30–260.60
259.00–259.10

260.60–264.15
259.95–260.10
259.10–259.95

260.10–260.30
251.75–255.60

the UCS test could not be performed and the Is(50) was below
1 MPa, as presented in Table 3. The M-RMR system was successful
in assigning points to the above-mentioned indices (Table 5). Note
that the M-RMR scores for these zones, which RMR failed to
classify, ranged between 19 and 42. In the other regions (SSTR,
36 İ. Özkan et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41

Table 4
The weighted average geotechnical values for rock units encountered in the borehole.

Geotechnical parameters The encountered rock type

Serpentinite Ultramafic Syenite

Color Grayish-black Gray Black

Solid Structural Region (SSTR) (ICR 425% and RQD 425%)
Thickness (m) 75.9 5.85 108.95
RQD (%) 78 49 59
ICR (%) 90 87 94
UCS (MPa) 74 35.56 88.2
PLT (MPa) 6.79 2.81 8.49
Joint weathering Unweathered Unweathered Unweathered
Joint roughness Undulating rough–smooth Undulating smooth–Slightly rough Undulating rough–smooth
Joint spacing (cm) 19.01 12.8 10
Joint continuity Very low-medium Medium Very low-medium
Joint aperture (mm) 1–5 1–5 1–5
Joint filling 0–5 0–5 0–5

Broken Structural Region (BSTR) (ICR r 25% and RQD r 25%)

Thickness (m) 3.4 3.75 12.3
RQD (%) 6 8 5
ICR (%) 21 20 18
UCS (MPa) NE NE NE
PLT (MPa) 3.76 1.94 5.52
Joint weathering Unweathered Unweathered Unweathered
Joint roughness NE NE NE
Fracture density (/m) 450 4 50 450
Joint continuity NE NE NE
Joint aperture (mm) NE NE NE
Joint filling 0–5 0–5 0–5

NE: Not evaluated.

ICR 425%), while the range of RMR system scores was 45–80, the
scores of M-RMR system were in the range of 42 to 80.
Q classification scores, which ranged between 0.01 and 58.80,
were calculated using Eq. 2 for comparison with the RMR and M-
RMR scores. The Q system was capable of providing index values
for all of the geotechnical regions, such as the M-RMR system. The
detailed classification studies for each geotechnical interval are
presented in tabular form in Table 5.
7. Comparison of the original and the modified RMR values
The classification results obtained for the RMR and M-RMR
systems were plotted for all of the geotechnical intervals
(Fig. 4 and 5). It is revealed from the figures that the M-RMR
system not only classified all of the geotechnical intervals but also
provided a larger spread of scores, ranging between 19 and 80. The
RMR system, in contrast, failed to classify 38 regions, 36 of which
were BSTR zones. The scores provided by the system for the SSTR
zones ranged between 45 and 80.
A comparison of the scores provided by the RMR and Q systems
is presented in Fig. 6. In the 38 geotechnical intervals where the
RMR system failed, it is noticed that Q system provided index
values between 0.01 and 0.55. However, in the BSTR zones, the
results of the Q system were in the range of 0.01 to 0.20, whereas
the other two regions, which are SSTR zones, were defined as 0.18
and 0.55 by the Q system. The correlation between the Q, RMR and
M-RMR values are shown in Fig. 6. It is clear that the group of Q vs.
M-RMR plots is in a narrower corridor than the group of Q vs. RMR
plots. Therefore, the statistical correlation coefficient of the fitted
curve between the Q and M-RMR plots is higher than the other
relationship (Fig. 6). The degree of fit of the relationship between
Q and RMR is 0.45, whereas the Q and M-RMR systems have a
stronger correlation (R² ¼0.73).
To obtain RMR scores from the Q values, the following equation
suggested by Bieniawski [2] was utilized:
RMR ¼ 9ln Q þ 44 ð4Þ
The calculated RMR scores, which were in the range between
5 and 81, were not presented in tabular form because it is beyond
the scope of this paper. However, these results were used to
compare with the original and modified RMR systems. The
relationships between the calculated RMR scores via Eq. (4), the
original RMR, and the M-RMR system are presented in Fig. 7. The
degree of fit of the relationship between the calculated RMR,
which was obtained by Q, and the original RMR is 0.45, whereas
the calculated RMR and M-RMR systems have a stronger correla-
tion (R² ¼0.80). From Fig. 7, the fitted curves are found to intersect
at approximately a rating value of 65. Before this point, it was
noticed that M-RMR scores were less than those of the original
RMR. However, this condition turns inside out in the stage formed
after this point. Consequently, if the fitted curves presented in
Fig. 7 are taken into consideration, the lower rating values
compared to the original RMR are generally defined by the M-
RMR system, especially for the fair-poor-very poor rock mass
classes. On the contrary, for the good rock masses observed in
this study, the M-RMR system provides higher ratings than those
of the other system.
The generalized Hoek–Brown (H–B) failure criteria, which takes
into account the m-s-a coefficients based on the rock mass
classification results, has been extensively used in the numerical
analysis of support design studies of underground or surface
engineering structures. Therefore, in this study, the generalized
H–B failure criterion [21], which is given below, was utilized to
compare the results based on the original and modified RMR
systems.
   a
σ3
σ 1 ¼ σ 3 þ σ c mb þs ð5Þ
σc
 İ. Özkan et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41 37

Table 5
Comparison of the rock mass classification results.
Depth Rock Strata ICR RMR (0-100) M-RMR (0-100) Q (0-1000)
(m) Unit (%) BSTR 20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100 0.25 0.50 1.00 10.0 100
54.00-56.00 Serp 93 79 79 18.6
56.00-61.55 Serp 65 56 63 0.15
61.55-62.20 Serp 98 80 78 58.8
62.20-62.65 Serp 84 68 74 0.25
62.65-63.60 Serp 93 74 73 8.40
63.60-64.20 Serp 97 72 68 15.4
64.20-66.90 Serp 98 72 73 0.30
66.90-69.80 Serp 80 61 60 0.65
69.80-73.00 Serp 100 77 76 0.36
73.00-74.40 Serp 100 75 76 36.0
74.40-75.40 Serp 92 66 73 4.09
75.40-75.80 Serp 100 64 64 0.44
Strata 1

75.80-78.45 Serp 82 64 61 1.32

78.45-79.75 Serp 91 57 50 0.44
79.75-82.70 Serp 94 65 53 0.49
82.70-85.30 Serp 100 73 70 0.40
85.30-86.10 Serp 84 66 72 6.32
86.10-87.00 Serp 100 54 45 0.23
87.00-95.30 Serp 99 68 62 0.25
95.30-102.85 Serp 88 55 52 0.22
102.85-103.60 Serp 93 61 62 1.45
103.60-106.50 Serp 99 67 62 0.25
106.50-110.00 Serp 89 51 47 0.20
110.00-111.10 Serp 100 60 59 0.83
111.10-111.70 Serp 20 BSTR3 NE 19 0.02
111.70-113.00 Serp 24 BSTR5 NE 30 0.02
113.00-113.30 Serp 100 NE 37 0.18
113.30-114.35 Serp 90 59 52 0.44
114.35-114.80 Serp 89 61 61 0.86
114.80-116.90 Serp 100 58 46 0.30
116.90-117.05 Serp 20 BSTR3 NE 21 0.02
117.05-118.20 Serp 85 62 63 0.23
118.20-120.30 Umaf 87 57 45 0.61
120.30-121.00 Umaf 20 BSTR5 NE 32 0.03
121.00-122.70 Umaf 20 BSTR5 NE 28 0.01
Strata 2

122.70-123.10 Umaf 90 45 45 0.11

123.10-123.70 Umaf 20 BSTR4 NE 22 0.02
123.70-124.30 Umaf 87 NE 41 0.55
124.30-125.70 Umaf 78 47 42 0.09
125.70-126.45 Umaf 20 BSTR5 NE 26 0.03
126.45-126.95 Umaf 100 58 58 0.91
126.95-127.40 Serp 96 56 53 0.98
127.40-128.75 Syen 96 53 48 1.08
128.75-134.20 Serp 100 71 72 0.32
134.20-135.00 Syen 100 72 72 1.48
135.00-135.85 Serp 100 73 80 5.87
Strata 3

135.85-136.15 Serp 20 BSTR4 NE 42 0.20

136.15-137.50 Serp 79 61 62 2.00
137.50-137.70 Serp 20 BSTR2 NE 32 0.03
137.70-138.55 Serp 94 61 55 0.85
138.55-139.00 Serp 20 BSTR5 NE 34 0.06
139.00-139.75 Serp 83 61 55 0.41
139.75-140.15 Serp 20 BSTR4 NE 29 0.03
140.15-140.50 Serp 86 67 61 0.79
140.50-157.55 Syen 93 65 64 0.79
157.55-162.40 Syen 14 BSTR5 NE 38 0.03
162.40-164.50 Syen 95 55 48 0.33
164.50-164.75 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 32 0.03
164.75-167.90 Syen 81 59 62 0.27
167.90-168.10 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 34 0.02
168.10-169.35 Syen 98 63 57 0.32
169.35-170.85 Syen 23 BSTR5 NE 37 0.05
38 İ. Özkan et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41

Table 5 (continued )

Depth Rock Strata ICR RMR (0-100) M-RMR (0-100) Q (0-1000)

(m) Unit (%) BSTR 20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100 0.25 0.50 1.00 10.0 100
170.85-174.00 Syen 92 54 46 0.22
174.00-176.05 Syen 98 56 52 0.39
176.05-176.35 Syen 23 BSTR4 NE 28 0.03
176.35-176.80 Syen 73 54 50 0.60
176.80-178.20
178.20-178.75
Syen
Syen
Strata 4
18
100
BSTR3 NE
64
28
64
0.02
1.15
178.75-178.90 Syen 20 BSTR4 NE 29 0.03
178.90-181.95 Syen 93 58 62 0.34
181.95-182.05 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 28 0.02
182.05-183.30 Syen 96 61 60 0.25
183.30-183.55 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 28 0.03
183.55-188.40 Syen 91 56 57 0.18
188.40-188.65 Syen 100 52 51 0.11
188.65-188.85 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 27 0.02
188.85-189.55 Syen 99 65 65 1.13
189.55-189.70 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 27 0.03
189.70-189.80 Syen 100 71 72 1.33
189.80-194.50 Syen 90 50 55 0.14
194.50-194.60 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 34 0.02
194.60-195.95 Syen 89 58 60 0.26
195.95-196.10 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 28 0.02
196.10-229.70 Syen 98 59 52 0.22
229.70-231.05 Syen 100 68 74 0.38
231.05-231.20 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 34 0.03
231.20-232.40 Syen 84 62 57 0.47
232.40-232.60 Syen 20 BSTR4 NE 28 0.03
232.60-233.35 Syen 97 58 55 1.24
233.35-234.30 Serp 100 63 61 0.58
234.30-235.45 Serp 98 67 61 0.61
235.45-236.15 Serp 67 52 50 0.21
236.15-237.05 Syen 98 52 55 0.33
237.05-237.25 Syen 20 BSTR4 NE 24 0.02
Strata 5

237.25-240.15 Syen 100 62 67 0.25

240.15-240.30 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 25 0.02
240.30-240.45 Syen 100 70 70 2.22
240.45-240.90 Syen 20 BSTR4 NE 26 0.02
240.90-245.00 Syen 93 67 69 0.31
245.00-245.85 Umaf 94 50 43 0.11
245.85-248.65 Syen 93 63 64 0.32
248.65-248.80 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 30 0.02
248.80-249.70 Serp 79 57 58 0.18
249.70-250.60 Syen 100 66 66 0.97
250.60-250.70 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 30 0.02
250.70-251.35 Syen 100 58 63 0.38
Strata 6

251.35-251.75 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 27 0.02

251.75-255.60 Syen 80 63 58 0.19
255.60-255.95 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 27 0.03
255.95-258.05 Syen 90 66 58 0.30
258.05-259.00 Syen 93 59 62 0.18
259.00-259.10 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 32 0.02
259.10-259.95 Syen 78 55 52 0.2
259.95-260.10 Syen 20 BSTR3 NE 32 0.02
260.10-260.30 Syen 100 66 63 2.00
260.30-260.60 Syen 20 BSTR4 NE 33 0.03
260.60-264.15 Syen 99 65 63 1.76

where mb, s and a are rock mass properties based on the rock mass
and σ1, σ3 and σc are the maximum principal stress, the minimum
principal stress and the UCS, respectively.
The rock mass properties (mb, s and a), which are based on the
geological strength index (GSI), can be determined through the
empirical equations presented in Table 6. In this study, the GSI
system was not directly used on the borehole cores obtained from
YNK-3. Instead, the GSI values were determined through RMR
and Q scores. The suggested equations were also utilized for the
M-RMR system because it is based on the original RMR system
(Table 6).
A significant difference between the original and the modified
rating systems emerges in characterization of the extreme cases (the
worst and the best conditions) of the jointed rock units. To reveal the
differences in characterization between the original and modified
RMR systems, three distinctive intervals were selected based on the
M-RMR scores. The M-RMR scores were 80, 42 and 19 for these
characteristic geotechnical intervals of Case-1 (135.00–135.85 m),
 İ. Özkan et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41 39

Case-2 (124.30–125.70 m) and Case-3 (111.10–111.70 m), respectively.

The RMR system scores for same geotechnical intervals of Case-1,
Case-2, and Case-3 were 73, 47, and NE, respectively, and the Q
system scores of Case-1, Case-2, and Case-3 were 5.87, 0.09, and 0.02,
respectively (Table 5).
To determine the rock mass properties presented in Eq. 5 for
the selected intervals, the GSI values were initially calculated from
the rating values of RMR, Q, and M-RMR systems; in addition, the
rock mass property values (mb, s, a) were determined as suggested
by Hoek et al. [21] (Tables 6 and 7). However, the rock mass
property values (mb, s, and a) were not calculated by the RMR
system in the BSTR zones. Fig. 8 was prepared using the rating
values presented in Table 7 for Case-1, Case-2 and Case-3. In Case-
1, the σ1 values calculated using the values of σ3 and mb, s, and a for
the M-RMR system are greater than those suggested by the RMR
Fig. 4. Comparison of the RMR system with the M-RMR system, taking into
consideration the strata.
values. However, in Case-2, because large input values for the H–B
failure criteria were obtained from the RMR system (Table 7), the
σ1–σ3 behavior based on the M-RMR system is at a lower level than
those of the RMR system. In addition, as seen from Fig. 8, in the
BSTR zones, the σ1 values could not be calculated using Eq. 5
because the RMR system failed to provide the index values and the
associated rock mass properties. In the BSTR zones, in particular,
the M-RMR system was successful in using the H–B failure criteria.
Consequently, if the design engineers used only the original RMR
and Q systems to characterize the rock mass, then, in rock masses
with RMR ratings lower than 45, the engineers would not be able
to determine both GSI and rock mass properties (mb, s, a) values
from the empirical equations (Table 6). In other words, the
numerical analysis based on the H–B failure criteria would not
be performed.

Fig. 5. Comparison of the RMR system with the M-RMR system, taking into
consideration the re-listed geotechnical intervals.
Fig. 6. Comparison of the RMR system with the M-RMR system using the Q system.
8. Conclusions
In this study, borehole cores with a total length of 210.15 m
were evaluated using the RMR, Q, and M-RMR systems. The Q and
M-RMR scores ranged from 0.01 to 58.80 and from 19 to 80,
respectively. In the SSTR zones, the ranges of the RMR, M-RMR and
Q systems were 45–80, 42–80 and 0.11–58.80, respectively. In the
BSTR regions, which could not be identified by the RMR system,
the ranges of the Q and M-RMR system scores were 0.01–0.20 and
19–42, respectively. These structural domains can be regarded as
poor and very poor rock masses; on the contrary, the SSTR zones
can be defined as fair and good rock masses. For a good rock mass,
the M-RMR system produces higher index values than the RMR
system. In other classes, however, the rating scores of the M-RMR
system are lower than the RMR system. The M-RMR system
provides classification results across a greater range than can its
predecessors. In addition, it is noted by statistical analyses that the
Q vs. M-RMR plots group in a narrower corridor than those of the Q
vs. RMR, i.e., the Q and M-RMR systems have a stronger correlation
(R² ¼0.73).

Table 6
The suggested equations to determine rock mass properties for the generalized H–B failure criteria [21].

Condition Empirical equations for rock mass properties Empirical equations for determination of GSI

GSI from RMR GSI from M-RMR

GSI 40 mb ¼ mi exp[(GSI  100)/28] for RMR423 for M-RMR423

GSI 425 s ¼ exp[(GSI  100)/9] GSI ¼ RMR-5 GSI ¼(M-RMR)-5

a ¼0.5 for RMRo 23 for M-RMRo 23

GSI o25 s¼0 GSI ¼ 9 ln Q0 þ44 GSI ¼9 ln Q0 þ 44

a ¼0.65  (GSI/200) Q0 ¼ (RQD/Jn) (Jr/Ja) Q0 ¼(RQD/Jn) (Jr/Ja)
40 İ. Özkan et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41

Table 7
Input parameters for the generalized H–B failure criteria.

Critical case Geotechnical Rock Unit Classification results GSI using Table 6 σc (MPa) from Table 3 Rock mass properties
Intervals (m) from Table 5 using Table 6

mi mb s a

Case-1 Serp RMR¼ 73 GSI ¼ 68 using RMR¼ 73 for RMR 423 61.59 27 8.610 0.028566 0.5
SSTR zone M-RMR¼ 80
135.00 Q¼ 5.87
135.85 Q0 ¼ 44 GSI ¼ 75 using M-RMR¼ 80 for M-RMR423 61.59 27 11.056 0.062177 0.5
upper limit from Table 6

Case-2 Umf. RMR¼ 47 GSI ¼ 42 using RMR ¼47 for RMR 423 42.98 28 3.528 0.00159 0.5
SSTR zone M-RMR¼ 42
124.30 Q¼0.09
125.70 Q0 ¼ 0.667
lower limit without BSTR from Table 6 GSI ¼ 37 using M-RMR ¼42 for M-RMR423 42.98 28 2.951 0.000912 0.5
a
Case-3 Serp. RMR¼ NE GSI ¼ NE using RMR ¼ NE condition unclear NE, However 24.42 by Is(50) ¼1.11 28 NE NE NE
BSTR zone M-RMR¼ 19
111.10 Q¼ 0.02
111.70 Q0 ¼ 0.167 GSI ¼ 28 using Q0 ¼0.167 for M-RMRo 23 NE, However 24.42a by Is(50) ¼1.11 28 2.139 0.000335 0.5
lower limit with BSTR from Table 6

a
σc ¼ 22Is(50) [2].

limit of SSTR zones, the σ1 value calculated from the M-RMR

system is less than that determined by the RMR system.
In contrast to Bieniawski's opinion [17], the present authors
suggest that the M-RMR system should be used for rock masses
with an RMR score lower than 45. The lower limit value for the
jointed rock masses encountered in this study was determined as
45, which can be considered as poor and very poor rock masses of
the RMR system. This conclusion is more compatible with Ulusay's
recommendation [16]. As a result, we recommend that the M-RMR
system should be used instead of the RMR system in classification
studies of jointed rock masses encountered in mine shafts.

Acknowledgments

Fig. 7. The relationships of the original and modified RMR systems, taking into The authors acknowledge the management of the Div–Han Co-
consideration the RMR scores calculated by the Q system. operation. The authors are also indebted to the reviewers for their
valuable comments.

References

Fig. 8. Application of the generalized H–B failure criteria on the upper and lower
level ratings determined by both systems.
In the BSTR zones, the generalized H–B failure criterion could
not be used for the RMR system, while the M-RMR scores could be
successfully utilized by the criterion. In the upper bound of SSTR
zones, however, the σ1 values determined by M-RMR values are
higher than those recommended by RMR. In contrast, in the lower
[1] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Trans S Afr
Inst Civ Eng 1973;15:335–44.
[2] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classifications. New York: Wiley; 1989;
237.
[3] Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde I. Engineering classification of rock masses for the
design of tunnel supports. Rock Mech 1974;6(4):189–239.
[4] Ozkan I. Determination of classification parameters for weak and stratified
rocks based on RMR and Q-systems. (Masters thesis). Ankara, Turkey: METU;
1989; 156.
[5] Unal E, Ozkan I. Determination of classification parameters for clay-bearing
and stratified rock mass. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference
on ground control in mining. West Virginia University, Morgantown; 1990
p. 250–9.
[6] Unal E, Ozkan I, Ulusay R. Characterization of weak rock, stratified and clay-
bearing rock masses. In: Hudson JA. (editor.) Proceedings of EUROCK. London:
British Geotechnical Society; 1992. p. 330–5.
[7] Ulusay R, Ozkan I, Unal E. Characterization of weak, stratified and clay-bearing
rock masses for engineering applications. In: Mayer LR, Cook NGW, Goodman
RE and Trans CF (editors). Proceedings of the fractured and jointed rock
masses conference. Lake Tahoe, California; June 3–5, 1992. p. 229–35.
[8] Ozkan I. Modified rock mass rating (M-RMR) System and roof behavior model.
(PhD thesis). Ankara, Turkey: METU; 1995(370 p.).
[9] Ozkan I, Unal E. A critical review on rock mass classification systems. In:
Proceedings of the 3th Turkish rock mechanics symposium. Ankara, Turkey;
1996. p. 181–93 (in Turkish).
 İ. Özkan et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 73 (2015) 28–41
[10] Unal E. Modified rock mass classification: M-RMR system. In: Milestone in
rock engineering. The Bieniawski Jubilee Collection, Balkema, Rotterdam;
1996. p. 203–23.
[11] Unal E, Ulusay R, Ozkan I. Rock engineering evaluations and rock mass
classification at Beypazari Trona site, METU Project no. 97-03-05-02-02;
1997a. (170 p.).
[12] Unal E., Ulusay R., Ozkan I. Rock engineering evaluations and rock mass
classification at Beypazari Trona field: borehole TS-3 site. Project no. 97-03-
05-01-06, METU Ankara; 1997b (160 p.).
[13] Unal E, Ozkan I. Interval report-97/002. Ankara, Turkey: METU-Mining
Engineering Department, METU; 1997.
[14] Ceylanoğlu A, Özkan I, Erdem B, Sül OL. Determination of mechanical and
physical properties of rock units encountered in YNK-3 borehole and engi-
neering classification. Final Report. Sivas, Turkey: Department of Mining
Engineering, Cumhuriyet University; 1998 250 p. (in Turkish).
[15] Özkan İ, Ünal E, Ulusay R. Weak rock mass characterization by RMR and M-
RMR systems: a comparative study based on the cases from mines in Turkey.
In: Proceedings of the ISRM international symposium EUROCK—rock engi-
neering and technology for sustainable underground construction, Stockholm,
Sweden; May 28–30; 2012. p. 68–80.
41
[16] Ulusay R. Geotechnical evaluations and deterministic design consideration
from pit wall slopes at Eskihisar (Yatagan–Mugla) strip coal mine. (PhD thesis).
Ankara, Turkey: METU; 1991; 340.
[17] Bieniawski ZT. The good, the bad and the ugly: reflections on the legacy of a
lifetime in rock engineering. In: Milestone in Rock Engineering. The Bieniawski
Jubilee Collection, Balkema, Rotterdam; 1996. p. 3–25.
[18] Osgoui RR, Ulusay R, Unal E. An assistant tool for the Geological Strength Index
to better characterize poor and very poor rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2010;47:690–7.
[19] ISRM. The Complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization,
Testing and Monitoring: 1974-2006. In: Ulusay R, Hudson JA, editors. Sug-
gested method prepared by the ISRM commissions on testing methods.
Ankara: International Society for Rock Mechanics; 2007(211 p.).
[20] Unal E. Personal communication. Ankara, Turkey: METU, Department of
Mining Engineering; 1998.
[21] Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF. Support of underground excavation in hard
rock. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1995.