D. Milne, J. Hadjigeorgiou, R.

Pakalnis 107

Rock Mass Characterization for Underground Hard Rock Mines

D. Milne
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

J. Hadjigeorgiou
Universite Laval, Quebec City, Canada

R. Pakalnis
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

ABSTRACT: Rock mass characterization is an integral part of rock engineering practice. There are several
classification systems used in underground mine design, however, most Canadian mines rely on only one of
three classification systems. It is interesting to note that these systems, RQD, RMR and Q system, have their
origin in civil engineering. This paper reviews the current state of these classification systems as employed in
the mining industry. The first part focuses on the determination of the field parameters, with emphasis on the
modifications to each parameter over the last 20 years. The difference between classification parameters
which influence rock mass strength estimation and those that influence engineering design is emphasized. The
second part of the paper focuses on the design recommendations based on these systems such as maximum
span, opening geometry and support recommendations. The paper concludes with reference to errors that may
arise in particular conditions.

I INTRODUCTION the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) proposed by

Rock mass classification systems constitute an
integral part of empirical mine design. The use of
such systems can be either implicit or explicit. They
are traditionally used to group areas of similar
geomechanical characteristics, to provide guidelines
of stability performance and to select appropriate
support. In more recent years, classification systems
have often been used in tandem with analytical and
numerical tools. There has been a proliferation of
work linking classification indexes to material
properties such as modulus of elasticity, m and s for
the Hoek & Brown failure criterion, etc. These
values are then used as input parameters for the
numerical models. Consequently the importance of
rock mass characterization has increased over time.
The primary objective of all classification systems
is to quantify the intrinsic properties of the rock
mass based on past experience. The second objective
is to investigate how external loading conditions
acting on a rock mass influence its behaviour. An
understanding of these processes can lead to the
successful prediction of rock mass behaviour for
different conditions.
Despite a plethora of empirical classification
systems, only three systems are commonly used for
mine design in Canadian mines. The first system is
Deere et al. (1967). Quite often this is the only
information readily available at mine sites.
The other two widely used systems in Canadian
mines are the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute's Q
system, Barton et al. (1974) and the various versions
of the Rock Mass Rating System (RMR), originally
proposed by Bieniawski (1973). Interestingly, both
systems trace their origin in tunnelling. Furthermore,
both systems use RQD as one of their constitutive
parameters.
The RMR and Q systems have evolved over time
to better reflect the perceived influence of various
rock mass factors on excavation stability. The
introduced modifications have arguably enhanced
the applicability of these classification systems, but
there are still areas of potential errors and confusion.
This paper discusses the evolution of these systems
as well as problems associated with estimating the
Q, RMR and RQD indexes.
2 ESTIMATION OF RQD, Q AND RMR
Changes associated with the classification systems
are of two forms. The first one lies with the actual'
properties of the systems, the way these are
determined on site and the associated weight
108 Rock mass characterization for underground hard rock mines

assigned to each parameter. The second form is the joints or other naturally occurring discontinuities so
evolution of support recommendations as new drill breaks must be ignored, otherwise the resulting
methods of reinforcement such as cable bolting and RQD will underestimate the rock mass qUality.
reinforced shotcrete gained acceptance. In practice, a high RQD value does not always
translate to high quality rock. It is possible to log 1.5
metres of intact clay gouge and describe it as having
2.1 RQD 100% RQD. This may be true based on the original
definition of RQD, but is very misleading and gives
RQD is a modified core recovery index defined as the impression of competent rock. To avoid this
the total length of intact core greater than 100mm in problem, a parameter called 'Handled'RQD (HRQD)
length, divided by the total length of the core mn. was introduced, Robertson (1988). The HRQD is
The resulting value is presented in the form of a measured in the same way as the RQD, after the core
percentage, Figure I. RQD should only be calculated has been firmly handled in an attempt to break the
over individual core runs, usually 1.5 metrers long. core into smaller fragments. During handling, the
core is firmly twisted and bent, but without
substantial force or the use of any tools.
------1 ROD •
~LM\Qth cI > IOcm(4k1.)
.L Cot, PIHe,
!2!!!! Ccn R&I\ l.e1l9tft
It
100 An estimate of RQD is often needed in areas where
line mapping or area mapping has been conducted.
In these areas it is not necessary to use core since a
------J L- 17 em
ROD. 38+17+20'9'43
200
)I 100,,"
better picture of the rock mass can be obtained from
------i • RCO· 59% (FAIR) line or area mapping. Two methods for estimating
L-O 0
RQD are recommended:
Oi no centerline pioca
longer ,hon 10 em 8
N

-------1 (a) For line mapping data, an average joint spacing

L- 20 em ROD can be obtained (number of features divided by
-------i (Rock Quality
DnIQnatIcn)

o- 2&'"
Deectlption of
Roell Quality
Vtry Poor
traverse length). Bieniawski (1989) relying on
previous work by Priest and Hudson (1976) has
L.- 43cm 2!5-GO .. Poor
SO-71S '" Foir
linked average joint spacing to RQD, Figure 2. The

-------~ ratings in the figure refer to RMRs9. It should be

75- 90% Good
90-100'1. Excellent
noted that the maximum possible RQD based on
joint spacing given by Bieniawski actually
NoR..-y
•_______ -1 corresponds to the best-fit relationship proposed by
Priest and Hudson. The RQD can be estimated from
Figure 1. Procedure for determining RQD, after
average joint spacing based on the following
Deere and Deere (1988).
equation by Priest and Hudson (1976):

(I)
RQD was originally introduced for use with NX-
size core (54.7 mm) and a threshold value of 100mm
is used. Over the years, several correction factors where
have been introduced to calculate RQD for other
core diameters. The most popular approach is to A. = lIGoint frequency)
define the threshold value as equal to twice the core
diameter. Consequently a threshold core length of
'"
"
75mm would be used for BQ core and 50mm for AQ "
size core. The case for a sliding scale of threshold "
values rests on the greater sensitivity of small
diameter core to breaks due to drilling and handling. •·50"
ga .,
It is the authors' opinion that the threshold value of ••••• AVE. CORRELATION LINE
100 mm should be used for all core sizes since the "
20
RQD value should ignore breaks caused by drilling
and handling. The only time the use of threshold "
values other than 100mm may be justified occurs 20 30 40 60 100 200 so, 2000
.....n Dlacontlnulty Spicing - mm
when it is impossible to differentiate between natural
breaks and drill induced breaks. Figure 2. Relationship between discontinuity
Intact lengths of core only consider core broken by spacing and RQD, after Bieniawski (1989).
 D. Milne, J. Hadjigeorgiou, R. Pakalnis 109

Relating joint spacing to average RQD using can be used to predict tunnel stand up time.
Figure 2 will likely lead to conservative estimates. The joint orientation adjustment has been
Consequently the use of equation (I) is probably developed for tunnelling applications and consists of
more appropriate. It should be noted, however, that estimating how favourable the discontinuity
this relationship is also dependent on the direction of orientation is with respect to the tunnel. The rating
the traverse. For a given average joint spacing there for the assessment of the joint orientation factor has
is a significant range in possible RQD values. RQD not changed with time, however, in 1989 the
should not be calculated from line mapping based on assessment of subhorizontal joints was modified
the same approach used for core (sum of not-jointed from unfavourable to fair for the effect on stability
mapped distances greater than 100mm). Line of tunnel backs.
mapping distances are seldom accurate enough 'to
warrant this approach.
(b) For area mapping, a more three-dimensional TabilE
e . 0 fRM R Ratmgs
voIutlOn .
picture of joint spacing is often available. Palmstrom 1973 1974 1975 1976 1989
Rock Stremrth 10 10 15 15 15
(1982) defines Jv as number of joints present in a ReD 16 20 20 20 20
cubic metre of rock: Discontinuity 30 30 30 30 20

J, = L;, (2)
Spacin~
Separation of
joints
5

Continuity of 5
where 'oints
Ground Water 10 10 10 10 15
S = joint spacing in metres for the actual joint set. Weatherine: 9
Condition of 15 30 25 30
ioints
RQD is related to Jv by the following equation: Strike and 15
Dip orientation
Strike and 3-15 0-12 0·12 0-12
RQD=1l5-3.3J, (3) Dip orientation
for tunnels
and RQD = 100%whenJv~4.5.

This approach averages out some of the anisotropy
in the RQD term and gives a more representative
value.
The main drawbacks to RQD are that it is sensitive
to the direction of measurement, and it is insensitive
to changes of joint spacing, if the spacing is over
I m. The main use of RQD is to provide a warning
that the rock mass is probably of low quality.
2.2 RMR
The RMR classification system, Bieniawski (1989),
was developed for characterizing the rock mass and
for providing a design tool for tunneling. The system
has evolved due to a better understanding of the
importance of the different parameters and increased
experience. Table I summarizes the evolution of
RMR ratings as well as the modifications to the
weights assigned to each factor. Table 2 provides the
most recent version of the RMR system.
The addition of the five ratings gives an RMR
value that ranges from 8 to 100. This value can be
modified to account for favourable/unfavourable
orientation of discontinuities as applied to
underground excavation. Figure 3 shows how RMR
The main factors that have been changed with the
RMR system are the weightings given to joint
spacing, joint condition and ground water. In
assessing both RQD and joint spacing, the frequency
of jointing is included twice. In the 1989 version of
RMR, the weighting factor for the spacing term was
reduced and the influence of both water and joint
condition was increased.
A further important modification to the RMR was
in the definition of different rock mass classes (i.e.
very good, good rock, etc.). Since 1976 the rock
mass classes are divided in intervals of 20, Table 2.
In the latest version of the RMR system, the
condition of discontinuities was further quantified to
produce a less subjective appraisal of discontinuity
Condition, Table 2 section E. This brings RMR
closer to the Q-system which allows the assessment
of discontinuity condition by two independent terms,
Jrand Ja•
Despite efforts to specifically modify the RMR
system for mining (Laubscher (1976), Kendorski et
aI. (1983) etc.) most Canadian mines use one of the
versions of RMR given in Table 1. Depending on the
required sensitivity and the design method used, this
might lead to discrepancies.
110 Rock mass characterization for underground hard rock mines

Table 2. Geomechanics Classification of jointed rock masses, after Bieniawski (1989).

A. Classification Parameters And Their Ratings

PARAMETER RANGES OF VALVES
I Strength of Point~load > IOMpa 4-lOMPa 2-4MPa 1-2MPa For this low range
intact strength index uniaxial compres- sive
rock material test is referred
Uniaxial >250Mpa 100 - 250 MPa 50 - 100 MPa 25 - 50 MPa 5-25 1-5 <I
compressive MP. MP. MP.
stremHh
Ratin!! 15 12 7 4 2 I 0
2 Drill core aualit ROD 90%-100% 75% -90% 50% -75% 25% - 50% <25%
Ratine: 20 17 13 8 3
3 Spacin2 of discontinuities >2m O,6-2m 200 -600mm 60 -200 mm <60mm
Ratin!! 20 15 10 8 5
4 Condition of discontinuities Very rough surfaces Slightly rough Slightly rough Slickensided Soft gouge> 5 nun
Not continuous surfaces surfaces surfaces thick
No separation Separation < 1 mm Separation < 1 mm Or Or
Unweathered wall Slightly weathered Highly weathered Gouge <5 mm Separation> 5 mm.
rock walls walls thick Continuous
Or
Separation 1-5
mm
Continuous
Rating 30 25 20 !O 0
5 Ground water Inflow per 10 m None <l0. 10-25 5 - 125 >125
tunnel length litreslmin Hues/min litres/min Hues/min
Ratio= (Joint 0 0,0-0,1 0,1-0,2 0,2-0,5 >0.5
water pressure)/
(major principal
stress)
General Completely dry Damp Wet Dripping Flowing
conditions
Rating 15 10 7 4 0

B Rating Adjustment For Joint Orientations

Strike and dip orientations of joints Very favourable Favourable Fair Unfavourable Very unfavourable

Ratings Tunnels 0 -2 -5 -10 -12

Foundations 0 -2 -7 -15 -25
Slopes 0 -5 -25 -50 -60

C. Rock Mass Classes Detennined From Total Ratings

Rating 100-81 80-61 60-41 40-21 <20

Class No. I II III IV V
Description VerY good rock good rock Fair rock Poor rock VerY Door rock

D. MeanlOg IOfRoc kM ass CI asses

Class No. I II III IV V
Average stand-up time 10 years for 15m 6 months for 8 m 1 week for 5 m span 10 hours for 2,5 30 minutes for 1 m
span span mspan span

Cohesion of the rock mass >400 kPa 300-400 kP. 200-300 kP. 100-200 kP. <100 kPa
Friction angle of the rock mass >45 35-45 25-35 15-25 <15

E. Guidelines for Classification of Discontinuitv Conditions

Parameter Ratine:s
Discontinuity length <1m I-3m 3-10m 1O-20m >20m
(persistence/continuity) 6 4 2 1 0
Separation None <O.lmm O.I-I.Omm 1.5mm >5mm
(aperture) 6 5 4 I 0
Roughness Very rough Roue:h SIi.htlv Roueh Smooth Slickensided
6 5 3 I 0
Infilling None <5mm >5mm <5mm >5mm
(gouge) 6 4 2 2 0
Weathering Unweathered Slightlv weathered Moderatelv weathered Hie:hlv weathered Decomoosed
6 5 3 1 0
 D. Milne, J. Hadjigeorgiou, R. Pakalnis III

.. ,~ ,~

.. Y' ,
'' 0
has remained constant. The descriptions used to
assess joint conditions are relatively rigorous and
"- leave less room for subjectivity, compared to other
"
~. :\"
Imm dJate
Coli pBe
~" classification systems. Table 3 provides the latest
.
'!(>.(30Yo

", version of the Q system, after Barton & Grimstad

E
C
•
~ . ~

I
" . "
0 "'" ,
-~

..
(1994).
One disadvantage of the Q system is that it is
'"g ./ "- "' relatively difficult for inexperienced users to apply .
a:
3
, 1/\ '\ I \ ..>.: _o-~~

0\ ",,"ss fl- The I n term, based on the number of joint sets

, \ /, , 00'"
" -~
10 1 102
Stand-up Time, hrs
Figure 3. Relationship between Stand-up time, span
and RMR classification, after Bieniawski (1989).
The main advantage of the RMR system is that it is
easy to use. Common criticisms are that the system
is relatively insensitive to minor variations in rock
quality and that the support recommendations appear
conservative and have not been revised to reflect
new reinforcement tools.
s,:!ppo present in a rock mass, can cause difficulty.
Inexperienced users often rely on extensive line
mapping to assess the number of joint sets present
103 10 4 ,,6 and can end up finding 4 or more joint sets in an area
where jointing is widely spaced. This results in a
low estimate of Q.
An important asset of the Q system is that the case
studies employed for its initial development have
been very well documented. The use of the Q system
for the design of support has also evolved over time.
In particular Barton has introduced a design chart
that accounts for the use of fibre reinforced
shotcrete. This has been based on increased
experience in tunnelling. For most mmmg
applications, however it is common to rely on the
design chart shown in Figure 4.

2.3 Q-Tunnelling index

The Q or NGI (Norwegian Geotechnical Institute)

classification system was developed by Barton, Lien
and Lunde (1974), primarily for tunnel design work.
It expresses rock quality, Q, as a function of 6
independent parameters:

(4) .001 .01 .1 I .

ROO .It
10
J.
Rack IIIn, qllllll, Q. 1"j';"1 x IToI x (wi
40 100
.., ""
Figure 4. Design of Excavations based on the Q-
where:
system, after Barton & Grimstad (1994).
RQD = Rock quality designation
I n is based on the number of joint sets
In mmmg the use of the ratio of Excavation
Je is based on discontinuity roughness
SpanlEquivaient Support Ratio (ESR) is limited. In
J. is based on discontinuity alteration
open stope design this term is replaced altogether by
Jw is based on the presence of water
the hydraulic radius. Alternatively one can assign
SRF is the Stress Reduction Factor
different ESR values dependent on the type of
opening (e.g. 5 for non-entry stopes, I for Shaft etc.).
It has been suggested that RQD/Jn reflects block
As there are limited documented case studies this
size, JelJ. reflects friction angle and Jw/SRF reflects
involves considerable judgment.
effective stress conditions.
The next section looks at the weightings given to
The main advantage to the Q classification system
the different parameters used in the Q and RMR
is that it is relatively sensitive to minor variations in
classification systems, and how the two systems are
rock properties. Except for a modification to the
related.
Stress Reduction Factor (SRF) in 1994, the Q system
112 Rock mass characterization for underground hard rock mines

Table 3. Ratine:s for the six Q-system parameters undated bv Barton and Grimstad (1994).
1. Rock C uality Designation RQD 5. Joint Water Reduction Factor Approx. Jw
A VerY Door 0-25 water pres.
B Poor 25-50 (kldcm')
C Fair 50-75 A Dry excavations or minor inflow, i.e. < 5 <1 1.0
0 Good 75-90 lit/min. localk
E Excellem 90-100 B Medium inflow or pressure, occasional 1-2.5 0.66
Note: Where ROD is reported or measured as ~ 10 (including 0), a outwash of ioint filline:s
nominal value of 10 is used to evaluate Q. RQD intervals of5. i.e. 100,95, C Large inflow or high pressure in 2.5-10 0.50
90, etc. are sufficiently accurate. competent rock with unfilled ioints
D Large inflow or high pressure considerable 2.5-10 0.33
2. Joint Set Number outwash of fillings
J"
A Massive no or few joints 0.5-1.0 E ExceptionaJly high inflow or pressure at >10 0.2-0.1
B One ioint set 2 blastinJ!:, decaying with time
C One ioint set plus random ioints 3 F Exceptionally high inflow or pressure >10 0.1-.05
0 Two joint sets 4 , continuing without decay
E Two ioint sets plus random ioints 6 Note: Factors C to F are crude estimates. Increase Jw if drainage measures
F Three joint sets plus randomJoints 9 are installed. S~cia!..Qroblems caused by ice formation are not considered.
G Three' oint sets plus random' aints 12
H Four or more joint sets, random, heavily 15 6. Stress Reduction Factor I SRF
jointed, 'sugar cube', etc. a) Weakness zones intersecting excavation, which mtly cause loosening of
J Crushed rock, earthlike 20 rock mtlSS when tunnel is excavated.
Note: For intersections. use 3.0 x I n . For portals, use 2.0 x I n A Multiple occurrences of weakness zones containing clay 10
or chemically disintegrated rock, very loose surrounding
rock (any_d",th)
3. Joint ROUl?:hness Number J,
B Single weakness zones containing clay, or chemically 5
a) Rock-wall contact. And b rock-wall contact before 10 cm shear
disintegrated rock (excavation d~h < 50m)
A Discontinuoutioints 4
C Single weakness zones containing clay, or chemicaJly 2.5
B RouJ!:h or irregular, undulatinl! 3
disinteerated rock (excavation depth> 50m)
C Smooth, undulatiQg_ 2
0 Multiple shear zones in competent rock (clay free), loose 7.5
0 Slickensided, undulatinl! 1.5 surroundinJ!: rock (any depth)
E Rough or irregular, planar 1.5
E Single shear zones in competent rock (clay free), (depth 5.0
F Smooth, planar 1.0
of excavation < 50m)
G Slickensided, planar 0.5 F Single shear zones in competent rock (clay free), (depth 2.5
Note: Descriptions refer to small scale features and intermediate scale of excavation> 50m)
features, in that order. G Loose open joints, heavily jointed or 'sugar cube'(any 5.0
c) No rock wall contact when sheared depth)
H Zone containing clay minerals thick enough to 1.0 Note: Reduce these values of SRF by 25 - 50% if the relevant shear zones
prevent rock-wall contact onlv influence but do not intersect the excavation.
J Sandy, gravelly or crushed zone thick enough 1.0 b) Competent rock, rock stress odol ot/oe SRF
to prevent rock wall contact I oroblems
Note: i) Add 1.0 if the mean spacing of the relevant joint set is greater than H Low stress, near surface >200 <0.01
3m. ii) Jr = 0.5 can be used for planar slickensided joints having lineations,
J Medium stress, favourable 200-10 0.01-0.3 1
I provided the lineations are oriented for minimum strength. stress condition
K High stress, very light 10-5 0.3<0.4 0.5-2
4. Joint Alteration Number 0.' I J. structure. Usually favourable to
a) Rock-wall contact~o mineral fillings, only coatin s) stability, may be unfavourable
A Tightly healed. Hard. Non-softening, 0.75 to wall stability
impermeable filii!!&. i.e. Ouartz or eoidote L Moderate slabbing after> 1 5-3 0.5-0.65. 5-50
B Unaltered joint walls, surface staininJ!: onlY 25-35 1.0 hour in massive rock
C Slightly altered joint walls non-softening 25-30 2.0 M Slabbing and rock burst after a 3-2 0.65-1 50-200
mineral coatings, sandy particles, clay-free few minutes in massive rock
disintee:rated rock, etc N Heavy rock burst (strain burst) <2 200-400
>1
0 Siity-, or SandY-c1aYn~~atings, small c1ay- 20-25 3.0 and immediate dynamic
fraction (nonsoftenin deformations in massive rocks
E Softening or low friction clay mineral coatings, 8-16 4.0 Note: For strongly anisotropic virgin stress field (if measured): when 5 S
i.e. kaolinite, mica. Also chlorite, talc, gypsum 01/03 SID, reduce Oc to O.5ac where Oc =unconfined compression strength,
and graphite etc., and small quantities of 01 and 03 are the major and minor principaJ stresses and 0" =maximum
swelling clays. (Discontinuous coatings. 1- tangential stress. Few case records available where depth of crown below
2mm or less in thickness) surface is less than span width. Suggest SRF increase from 2.5 to 5 for
b. Rock wall contact bif2re 10 cms shear such cases (see H).
F Sandy particles. clay-free disintee:rated rock. 25-30 4.0 c) Squeezing rock, plastic flow of incompetent at/ot SRF
G Strongly over-consolidated. non softening clay 16-24 6.0 rock under the intl~ence of hixh rock pressure
mineral fillings (continuous. < 5mm thick) o I Mild squeezing rock--'p!essure. 1-5 5-10
H Medium or low over-consolidation, softening. 12-16 8.0 P Heavv sQueezinJ!: rock pressure >5 10-20
clay mineral fill .• (continuous, <5mm thick)' Note: iv) Cases of squeezing rock may occur for depth H>j~O QI . Rock
J Swelling clay fillings. i.e. montmorillonite 6-12 8-12 mass compression strength can be estimated from q = 7 YQ 1/3 (MPa) where
(continuous. but < 5 min thick). Values of J a Y,.... rock density in emlcc
depend on percent of swelling clay-size d) Swelling rock: chemical swelling activity depending upon presence of
particles, and access to water. etc. water.
c) No rock wall contact when sheared. R Mild swelling rock pressure 5-10
K Zones or bands of disintegrated or crushed 6-24 6,8 S I Heavy swellinl!: roc~ressure 10-15
L rock and clay (see G, H and J for clay or
M conditions) 8-12
Note: If and Ja classification is applied to the joint set or discontinuity that
N Zones or bands of silty- or sandy clay, small 5.0
is least favourable for stability both from the point of view of orientation
clay fraction. (non-softeninl!) and shear resistance (where -r= an tan-I (MJ a ).
0 Thick, continuous zones or bands of clay ( see 6-24 10,13
P G, H and J for clay conditions) or Q = RQD x!L x2,....
R 13-20 In Ja SRF
 D. Milne, J. Hadjigeorgiou, R. Pakalnis 113

2.4 Comparative Rock Mass Property Weightings spaced jointing, the joint set parameter In in the Q
system appears to unduly reduce the resulting Q
Both the Q and RMR classification systems are value.
based on a rating of three principal properties of a
rock mass. These are the intact rock strength, the
frictional properties of discontinuities and the Table 5. Correlation between RMR and Q, after
geometry of intact blocks of rock defined by the C hoauet and Hadjigeorgiou (1993),
discontinuities. For the Q system, the intact rock Correlation Source Comments
strength is only a factor in the context of the induced RMR - 13.5 log Q + 43 New Tunnels
stress in the rock as defined by the SRF term. Zealand
In order to investigate the influence of these RMR-9In Q +44 Diverse Tunnels
origin
parameters, the approximate total range in values for
RMR 12.5 log Q + 55.2 Spain Tunnels
RMR and Q are used as a basis of comparison. Table RMR 5InO+60.8 S. Africa Tunnels
4 shows the degree by which the three principal rock RMR - 43.89 - 9.191n Q Spain Mining
mass properties influence the values of the Q and Soft rock
RMR classification. RMR = 10.5 In Q + 41.8 Spain Mining
Soft rock
RMR-12.1l10gQ+50.81 Canada Mining
Hard rock
Table 4. Influence of Basic Rock Mass Properties on
RMR- 8.7InQ+38 Canada Tunnels,
Classification , after Milne (1988) Sedimentary
Q RMR76 rock
Basic Range in Values 0.001 to 1000 8 to 100 RMR-lOln Q + 39 Canada Mining
Strength as % of the Total 19% 16% Hard rock
Range
Block Size as a % of the 44% 54%
Total Range
39% 27% 3 ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION FOR MINING
Discontinuity Friction as a
% of the Total Range
One of the fundamental differences between tunnel
and mine design approaches to rock mass
Table 4 shows the surpnsmg similarity between classification is the large variation in the engineered
the weightings given to the three basic rock mass openings in mining applications. For tunnel projects,
properties considered. Despite this it should be noted tunnel orientation, depth and stress conditions are
that there is no basis for assuming the two systems usually constant for significant portions of a project.
should be directly related. The assessment for intact In mining, none of these conditions can be assumed
rock strength and stress is significantly different in to be constant.
the two systems. Despite these important differences Due to the relatively constant engineered
between the two systems, it is common practice to conditions in tunnelling, the stress condition has
use the rating from one system to estimate the rating been included in the Q classification system and the
value of the other. The following equation proposed relative orientation between the tunnel and critical
by Bieniawski (1976) is the most popular, linking Q joint set has been included in the RMR system. This
andRMR: approach has not been widely adopted in the mining
industry because it would result in the same rock
RMR = 9InQ+44 (5) mass having dozens of classification values
throughout the mine, depending on drift orientation,
Referring to Table 5, it is evident that equation (5) mining level and the excavation history. This would
does not provide a unique correlation between RMR lead to significant confusion and render the rock
classification values useless.
and Q. Depending on the overall intact rock and
discontinuity properties and spacing, different Two general approaches have been taken to allow
relationships between Q and RMR can be expected. these classification systems to be applied to mining
Another difference between RMR and Q is evident conditions. The first approach was to try and create a
in the assessment of joint spacing. If three or more complete design method from the classification
systems by including other engineering and loading
joint sets are present and the joints are widely
spaced, it is difficult to get the Q system to reflect condition factors. One example of this is Laubscher's
the competent nature of a rock mass. For widely MRMR system (Mining Rock Mass Rating)
proposed in 1977, which added factors such as
114 Rock mass characterization for underground hard rock mines

blasting, weathering, multiple joint orientations and in the Q system includes descriptions for multiple
stress to obtain a term called the design rock mass shear or fault zones where it is felt the rock mass
strength. This term represents the unconfined will be relaxed at any depth. Under these conditions
strength of the rock mass in a specific mining the SRF value could arguably be included in the Q'
environment, Laubscher (1990). The assessment of classification because the presence of multiple shear
these added factors is quite subjective and requires zones is a description of the rock mass, not the stress
an experience practitioner. The use of design condition.
classification systems such as this is not widespread
in the Canadian mining industry.
The second approach consists of simplifying the
classification system to only include factors 1000~~
dependent on the rock mass and to ignore
environmental considerations such as stress and drift
orientation. The resulting rating is solely dependent
on the rock mass, and will give the same assessment
for the same rock conditions at different depths and
drift orientations within a mine. This simplified rock
classification approach has been applied to both the
RMR and Q systems. Q' is the modified Q
classification with SRF = I and RMR' drops the joint
orientation factor.
The Q' and RMR' classification values have been
0.1
used in many different mining situations. With these Hydraulic radiu$ (m)
20 25

design approaches, factors such as stress and the

influence of joint orientation have been added as
steps in the design process, which do not influence
the classification values. Some of these design Figure 5. The Stability Graph, after Potvin (1988).
methods are mentioned in the following sections.
Many mine design approaches have been
developed from the Q' and RMR' classification 3.2 Span Design
systems. In many cases these design approaches
account for the influence of stress and joint The critical span design method for entry mmmg
orientation in the design steps and it would be was developed for cut and fill mining Lang et aI.
incorrect to assess these factors twice by including (1991), Figure 6.
them in the rock mass classification.

3.1 Empirical Open Stope Design

·10
The Stability Graph method for open stope design, ·20
Potvin (1988), plots the stability number versus the g
hydraulic radius of a design surface, Figure 5. The
stability number N is based on a Q' rating adjusted to
i I---+---===t==----\-,.
(I) ..
account for stress condition (Factor A), joint
orientation (Factor B) and the surface orientation of
the assessed surface (Factor C). Based on an
I 'or----r----~--,&~*_-----+----~
extensive database it is possible to predict the
stability of an excavation.
Q' is used as opposed to Q because stress is
assessed in the A factor. Furthermore, the stability
graph method is based on an empirical database
o eo..
o~--~--~~-~--~--__J
.. eo ,00
Rock Mass Rating
which does not include case histories where there
was significant water inflow and should therefore be Figure 6. Design Span versus RMR, after Lang et aJ.
used with caution if water is present. The SRF term (1991).
 D. Milne, J. Hadjigeorgiou, R. Pakalnis
The critical span is defined as the diameter of the
largest circle that can be drawn within the
boundaries of the exposed back. This span is then
related to the RMR1976 value. The joint orientation
factor is not used, however, reduction of 10 is given
to the RMR value for joints dipping at less than 30°.
Under high stress, burst prone conditions a
reduction of 20 is assigned to the RMR value. Figure
6 summarizes this method. The approach is suitable
for zones that have local support, but have not been
cable bolted. Stability is limited to a 3-month
duration and the analysis is based on a horizontal
back. The back is assumed to be in a relaxed state
unless high stresslburst prone conditions are
encountered.
3.2 Failure Criteria
That there is some link between the properties of a
rock mass and its rock mass characterization rating
would appear logical. Expressing this relationship in
a definitive manner is however extremely difficult.
Referring to Table 2 it can be shown that different
classes of rock as defined by RMR have different
frictional properties. For example an RMR of 60-81
would indicate cohesion of 300-400 kPa and an
angle of friction between 35-45°' The case studies
that support these relationships however are not
known.
A popular empirical criterion in rock engineering
has been proposed by Hoek and Brown (1980):
(J']=(J'3+ m((J'3 )+s
(J'e
where
G 1 isthe major principal effective stress at failure
G3 is the minor principal effective stress at failure
G c is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact
rock
m & s are material constants
The determination of m and s has also been linked
to rock mass classification ratings. When estimating
the m and s values, the RMR' value should be used
which does not include the joint orientation factor
and the ground water factor has been set to 10, for
dry conditions (Hoek et aI., 1995). The m and s
failure criteria and the equations relating m and s to
rock classification are given below:
For undisturbed rock
_ (RMR.]OO)
m - mi e 28 where mi = mintact
115
(RMR.]OO
s= e 9 ) (8)
For disturbed rock
(RMR·]OO)
m=~e u M
(RMR - JOO)
S = e 9 (10)
It should be noted that the m and s values for
disturbed and undisturbed rock could also be derived
by using the equations for disturbed rock and
adjusting the RMR classification values. The
increase in the RMR classification between
disturbed and undisturbed conditions can be
calculated based on the equation (11).
RMRundislurbed = RMRdisturbed + (50-.5RMRdisturbed)
(For RMR > 40) (11)
It is suggested (Hoek et aI., 1995) that the Q
classification system can also be used to estimate m
and s. The joint water and SRF terms are set to 1.0
and the RMR value can then be estimated from the
equation (5). This equation was developed to relate
the original RMR and Q values when the joint water,
SRF and joint orientation terms were all included in
the classification. Section 2.4 describes how
unreliable it is to relate the Q and RMR
classification systems. It is doubtful if Equation (5)
can be used with any confidence, especially when
the joint water and SRF terms are ignored. It is more
prudent to independently determine the RMR' and Q'
values.
(6)
4 CONCLUSIONS
Rock mass classification is one of the only
approaches for estimating large-scale rock mass
properties. In the mining industry the Q and RMR
classification system form the basis of many
empirical design methods, as well as the basis of
failure criteria used in many numerical modelling
programs.
Classification systems have evolved as engineers
have attempted to apply rock classification to a
wider range of engineering problems. Rock mass
classification is one of the only approaches available
to estimate large-scale rock mass properties. It forms
the basis of many empirical design methods as well
as forming the basis of some failure criteria used in
numerical modelling design approaches.
This paper attempts to highlight some of the
(7) potential problems when using the Q and RMR
systems. Practitioners should be aware that

116 Rock mass characterization for underground hard rock mines
classification and design systems are evolving and
that old versions of classification systems are not
always compatible with new design approaches.
Some of the problems that can be encountered are
outlined below:
a). More than one relationship has been suggested
for relating joint spacing to RQD. These approaches
do not all agree and the users should use more than
one method. An estimate within 5% is more than
adequate for RQD.
b) Practitioners sometimes estimate one
classification and then derive a second classification
from empirical relationships. Relating Q and RMR
makes for an interesting comparison between
classifications and may improve our understanding
of the rock mass, however, the two systems should
always be derived independently. There are many
published relationships between Q and RMR,
however, it is likely that no one relationship would
work for all rock mass conditions. Relationships
such as equation (5) provide a useful check.
Nevertheless, there is no reason why the Q and RMR
systems should be directly related.
c) Care must be taken when using classification
systems with empirical design methods. The user
must be sure that the classification system used
matches the approach taken for the development of
the empirical design method. A design method based
on RMR76 cannot be expected to give the same
results as RMRs9. Under these circumstances, for
purposes of continuity, it is sometimes necessary to
continue using an earlier version. Design methods
which do not rely on case histories or past
experience, do not have the same constraints.
d) Mining application~ of the Q and RMR system
have tended to simplify classification systems to
only included factors dependent on the rock mass,
ignoring environmental and loading conditions. This
has resulted in the Q' and RMR' which ignore
factors such as stress and joint orientation. This
approach to classification is warranted in complex
mining situations. Serious errors can result if these
simplified classification systems are applied to the
empirical civil tunnel design approaches such as the
Q support graph.
Despite their limitations, the reviewed
classification systems are still in use as they provide
an invaluable reference to past experience.
5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the
financial support of the National Science and
•
Engineering Research of Council of Canada
(NSERC).
REFERENCES
Barton, N., R. Lien R. & J. Lunde 1974. Engineering
Classification of Jointed Rock Masses for the
Design of Tunnel Support. Rock Mechanics, 6, p.
189-236.
Barton, N. & E. Grimstad 1994. The Q-System
following Twenty years of Application in NMT
Support Selection. Felsbau 12 Nr. 6, pp. 428-436.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1973. Engineering Classification of
Jointed Rock Masses. In Transaction of the South
African Institution of Civil Engineers, 15, p. 335-
344.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1976. Rock Mass Classification of
Jointed Rock Masses. Exploration for Rock
Engineering. Z.T. Bieniawski Ed. Balkema,
Johannesburg, pp. 97-106.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1979. The Geomechanics
classification in rock engineering applications.
Proc. In Proc. 4th Int. Congo Rock Mech. ISRM,
Momtreux, 2, pp. 41-48.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering Rock Mass
Classifications. John Wiley & Sons p. 251.
Choquet, P. & J. Hadjigeorgiou 1993. Design of
support for Underground Excavations. Chapter 12,
Vol. 4, J. Hudson Ed. Comprehensive Rock
Engineering, pp.313-348.
Deere, D.U., AJ. Hendron Jr., F.D. Patton & EJ.
Cording 1967. Design of Surface and Near Surface
Construction in Rock. In Failure and Breakage of
Rock. C. Fairhurst ed. Society of Mining Engineers
of AIME, New York, pp. 237-302.
Deere, D.U. & D.W. Deere D.W. 1988. The Rock
Quality Index in Practice. Rock Classification
Systems for Engineering Purposes. ASTM STP
984, L. Kirkaldie Ed. Pp. 91-101.
Hoek, E. & E.T. Brown 1980. Underground
Excavations in Rock, p. 527. Institution of Mining
and Metallurgy, London.
Hoek, E., P.K. Kaiser & W. Bawden 1995. Support
of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock.
Balkema. p. 215.
Kendorski, F. R. Cummings, Z.T. Bieniawski & E.
Skinner 1983. Rock mass classification for block
caving mine drift support. In Proc. 5th Int.
Congress Rock. Mech. ISRM, Melbourne pp. B51-
B63.
Lang, B., R. Pakalnis & S. Vongpaisal 1991. Span
Design in wide cut and fill Stopes at Detour Lake
Mine. 93rd Annual General Meeting: Canadian
IT

D. Milne, J. Hadjigeorgiou, R. Pakalnis 117

Institute of Mining, Vancouver, paper # 142.

Laubscher, D.H. 1977. Geomechanics Classification
of Jointed Rock Masses - Mining Applications.
Trans. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy (Sect.
A: Mining Industry). 86, p. AI-A8.
Laubscher, D.H. 1990. A Geomechanics
Classification System for the Rating of Rock Mass
in Mine design. Journal of the South African
Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, vol. 90, no 10,
pp. 257-273.
Milne, D. 1988. Suggestions for standardization of
rock mass classification. MSc Dissertation,
Imperial College, University of London, pp. 123.
Palmstrom, A. 1982. The volumetric joint count- a
useful and simple measure of the degree of rock
jointing. Proc. 4th Int. Congress Int. ass. Engng,.
Geol. Delphi 5, 221-228.
Potvin, Y. 1988. Empirical open stope design in
Canada. Ph.D. thesis. The University of British
Columbia p. 350.
Priest, S.D. & J.A. Hudson 1976. Estimation of
discontinuity spacing and trace length using scan
line surveys. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci and
Geomech, Vol. 18, pp. 183-197.
Robertson, A.M., 1988. Estimating Weak Rock
Strength, AlME-SME Annual Meeting, Phoenix,
AZ., Preprint #88-145.