Rock Mechanical Modelling

(BMEEOGMDT71)
Vásárhelyi Balázs
Associate Professor
Department of Engineering Geology and Geotechnics

Modeling the rock block

movement around the tunnel
(Report 1)

By: Amir Mosallaei

Neptun Code: R9GS20

June 2020
Tasks (as it was mentioned in email):
Next lecture: modeling the rock block movement around the tunnel (the situation on case of rock
slopes are the same).

Enclosed I am sending the

- theoretical background (both the Chapter from the book and my slides)

- installation of the Unwedge program

- stereographic sheet

You have to calculate the size of the block using both the sheet and the program (you should
receive the same results....)

The joints sets are according to the p. 15 of the ppt. and using the tunnel (direction, size, etc) in
p. 16.

I summarized all the steps - following them firstly on the paper, after the computer program, you
have to understand (and solve) it.
Geometry of the model:
Maximum wedge volume:

The analysis will consider the largest block that could be released from the excavation roof. In this particular
example, the roof is rectangular in shape, is 6 m wide, and has its long axis orientated at an azimuth of 025°.
Given that the great circle representing the horizontal plane through the tunnel coincides with that of the
stereonet projection, it is convenient to construct the window aligned parallel to the tunnel axis.

Figure 1 axis orientation at an azimuth of 025°.

Streonets of 3 planar discontinuities:

Table 1 represents dips and dip directions for three planar discontinuities. Also figure 2 shows the plot of
streonet which is done by Dip application.

Table 1 Dips and Dip directions

Dip 51 40 67

Dip direction 138 355 219

The azimuth of the roof = 25°

Figure 2 The stereonet plot

Calculating the strikes for all joints:

Table 2 represents information about joint properties.
Table 2 Joint properties

Dip direction
Joint number Strike (degree)
(degree)

J1 138 138-90= 48

355+90=445
J2 355
445-360=85

J3 219 219-90=129
Maximum Wedge Volume:
1- Calculation of Area of Wedge of roof plan
The lines associated with plane (Joint) 2 and 3 should be drawn at the roof
and the angle between these planes should be determined.

𝐽𝐽2 → 85 − 25 = 60°

𝐽𝐽3 → 129 − 25 = 104°

Figure 3 determination of the angle between planes

for J1 and J2:

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐽𝐽1 → 48°

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐽𝐽2 → 85°

𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝐽𝐽2 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎1 → 85° − 48° = 37°

 Figure 4 determination of the angle between planes

Figure 5 shows the area of block surface on the stereonet plot and figure 6 shows lines passing through
the corners of the spherical triangle and centre of the stereonet.

Figure 5 The area of block surface

 Figure 6 Drawing lines passing through the corners of the spherical triangle and centre of the stereonet

L2:
6.0
𝐿𝐿2 = = 6.93 𝑚𝑚
sin 60

Figure 7 L2 line between the horizontal reference line on the stereonet plot (at 025°) and the diametral lines for planes 2 and 3
(striking at 085° and 129°, respectively)

𝜷𝜷𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 , 𝜷𝜷𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂 𝜷𝜷𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 :

These angles will be determined with streonets circle. At the center of the
streonets circle, the 𝛽𝛽 is 90 degree. For calculating 𝛽𝛽12 , 𝛽𝛽13 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝛽𝛽23 ,
these angles will be determined with measuring from the intersection of
two joints to center of streonets circle. (e.g. for 𝛽𝛽12 the intersection
between J1 and J2 to center of circle should be measured).

𝛽𝛽12 = 18°

𝛽𝛽13 = 50°

𝛽𝛽23 = 24°

Figure 8 Geometrical properties of a tetrahedral block

L12, L13 and L23:

𝐿𝐿1 𝐿𝐿2 𝐿𝐿3
= =
sin 32 sin 126 sin 22
𝐿𝐿23 = 3.15 𝑚𝑚

𝐿𝐿12 = 4.55 𝑚𝑚

ℎ = 𝐿𝐿12 tan 𝛽𝛽12 = 𝐿𝐿23 tan 𝛽𝛽23 = 𝐿𝐿13 tan 𝛽𝛽13 = 1.47 𝑚𝑚
 Figure 9 Af triangle

𝐴𝐴𝑓𝑓 :
The dimensions of the face triangle appearing on the excavation surface can now be scaled off
directly from the construction. It’s area, A f , can be found by taking any pair of adjacent sides and
their included angles.

Figure 10 location of the wedge’s apex and A f triangle

Maximum Wedge Volume:
1
𝐴𝐴𝑓𝑓 = 𝐿𝐿1 𝐿𝐿2 sin 𝜃𝜃12 = 10.15 𝑚𝑚2
2
𝐴𝐴𝑓𝑓 ℎ
𝑉𝑉 = = 5 𝑚𝑚3
3

𝛾𝛾 = 25 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾�𝑚𝑚3

Then: 𝑊𝑊 = 𝛾𝛾 × 𝑉𝑉 = 124 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾

Figure 11 Af triangle

Numerical Modelling:
In tunnels excavated in jointed rock masses at relatively shallow depth, the most common types of
failure are those involving wedges falling from the roof or sliding out of the sidewalls of the
openings. Figure 12 shows wedges formed in the roof and sidewalls of a ramp excavated in a
jointed rock mass.
 Figure 12 Wedges formed in the roof and sidewalls of a ramp excavated in a jointed rock mass

Orientation of discontinuities:
Table 3 Joint properties

Joint number Dip direction (degree) Dip (degree) Strike (degree)

J1 138 51 138-90= 48

355+90=445
J2 355 40
445-360=85

J3 219 67 219-90=129
 Figure 13 Input data for joint orientations in Unwedge software

Streonets in Dips for joints:

Figure 14 The plot of streonet

Joints Properties:
It is assumed that all of these discontinuities are planar and continuous
and that the shear strength of the surfaces can be represented by a friction
angle 𝜑𝜑 = 30° and a cohesive strength of zero. Figure 15 represents input
data for joint properties in Unwedge software.

Figure 16 Input data for joint properties in Unwedge software

Tunnel Section:
In this particular example, the roof is rectangular in shape, is 6 m wide,
and has its long axis orientated at an azimuth of 025°.
 Figure 17 Tunnel section

Input Data:
For the tunnel, the trend is 25 degrees and the plunge is zero degree.

Figure 18 Input data in Unwedge software

Wedges coordination:

Figure 19 The plot of the tunnel and wedges in Unwedge software in different states

Result for floor Wedge:

• Roof wedge [8]
• Volume: 4.916 m3
As is obvious the amount of Volume and weight from the software result
have a great accuracy with manual results.
Table 4 Comparison between the properties of wedge in software and manual calculation

Volume Wedge (m3) Weight of Wedge (MN)

Wedge Software 4.916 0.123

Manual Calculation 5.000 0.124

Wedge Information:

Figure 20 Wedge Information in Unwedge software

Support information:

Figure 21 Bolt properties in Unwedge software

 Figure 22 Bolt properties in Unwedge software

Bolts Coordination:
Figure 22 shows a typical pattern of 5 m long mechanically anchored rock bolts on a 1.5 x 1.5 m
grid. This pattern produces factors of safety of 1.790 for the upper left wedge, 6.819 for the lower
right wedge and 3.255 for roof wedge.

Figure 23 Rock bolting pattern to stabilize the roof and sidewall wedges in the tunnel
 Rock Mechanical Modelling
(BMEEOGMDT71)
Vásárhelyi Balázs
Associate Professor
Department of Engineering Geology and Geotechnics

Calculating mechanical
parameters of the intact rock
with uniaxial compressive test
(Report 2)

By: Amir Mosallaei

Neptun Code: R9GS20

June 2020
Parameters need to be calculated (as it was mentioned in emails):
- crack closure stress
- crack initiation stress
- crack damage stress
- peak stress
- Young's modulus
- Poisson's ratio

The uniaxial compression test:

Figure 1 shows the uniaxial compression test experiment on rocks in a laboratory.

Figure 1 Uniaxial compression test

Stress-strain curve:

stress-strain curve
180
160
140
120
stress (MPa)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
strain

Figure 2 Stress-Strain Curve

According to the figure 2, the peak strength 𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓 is approximately 174 MPa

𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓 = 145 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

The crack initiation stress: 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 0.4𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓 = 58 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

Crack damage stress: 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 0.8𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓 = 116 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

Modulus of Elasticity:
• According to the following Equation, when the graph trend is going
to level out, the approximate amount of Elasticity Modulus could be
determined (on region II):
𝐸𝐸~72 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
 E-Stress curve
90

80

70

60

50
E (GPa)

40

30

20

10

0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
-10
axial stress (MPa)

Figure 3 E-Stress curve

Poisson’s Ratio (υ):

The linear portion of stress-strain curve in Region II by:
∆𝑣𝑣 1 − 2𝜗𝜗
= (𝜎𝜎1 − 𝜎𝜎3 )
𝑉𝑉𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐸𝐸
𝜗𝜗~0.231
 Poisson Ratio V.S. axial strain
0.6

0.5

Elastic Zone II
0.4

0.3
υ

0.2

0.1

0
-5.00E-02 0.00E+00 5.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.50E-01 2.00E-01 2.50E-01
𝜀𝜀_1
.
%

Figure 4 Poisson ratio vs Axial strain

Crack Closure and Crack Initiation determination from the graph:

𝜀𝜀1 = 2.92 𝐸𝐸 − 4
Stress at crack closure : 𝜎𝜎1 = 22.01717 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 8.31 𝐸𝐸 − 4
Stress at crack initiation : 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 60.376 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 (from the graph)
 Figure 5 Crack volumetric strain method for crack initiation threshold determination (uniaxial compression case)

Axial stress–volumetric strain curve with the threshold of relative (OD)

and absolute (TD) dilatancy and failure stress 𝜎𝜎𝐹𝐹 :
Crack initiation threshold is visible on the axial (or differential) stress–volumetric strain curve
(Fig. 6) when it diverges from the straight line. In practice small deviation of the stress–volumetric
strain curve from the straight line can make some difficulties to define one point determining the
threshold of relative dilatancy (OD).

Figure 6 Axial stress vs Vertical strain/ Horizontal strain/ Volumetric strain

Stress strain diagram:
According to the graphs, with interpreting two graphs, the peak stress is
equal to crack damage stress and show the material is (Limestone)
brittle.

Figure 7 Stress strain diagram

 Results:

Table 1 Comparison between results from Martin and Chandler lecture equation and extracted from interoperating
graphs

Results Considering Martin

Results extracted from
parameters and Chandler lecture
interoperating graphs
equation for the parameters

crack closure stress, 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖 (Mpa) 22.017 22.017

crack initiation stress, 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (Mpa) 58 60.376

crack damage stress, 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (Mpa) 116 145

peak stress, 𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓 (Mpa) 145 145

Young's modulus, E (Gpa) 72.25 72.25

Poisson's ratio, υ 0.231 0.231

 Rock Mechanical Modelling
(BMEEOGMDT71)
Vásárhelyi Balázs
Associate Professor
Department of Engineering Geology and Geotechnics

Triaxial test and failure

criteria of the intact rock
(Report 3)

By: Amir Mosallaei

Neptun Code: R9GS20

June 2020
Task (as it was mentioned in the email):
Following calculation: triaxial test and failure criteria of the intact rock.

Enclosed I am sending a xls file which consists of the measured data of the moragy granitic rock

(in the Figure:

x-axis: kPa, confining pressure

y-axis: strength, MPa)

You have to determine both the failure and the residual envelope, using

- Mohr-Coulom theory (ie. fi and c)

- Hoek-Brown theory. (see attached file)

The Hoek-Brown failure criteria can be calculated using the following program: (GSI = 100!)
Generalized Hoek-Brown criterion:

The Generalised Hoek-Brown failure criterion for jointed rock masses is defined by:

𝜎𝜎3′
𝜎𝜎1′ = 𝜎𝜎3′ + 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏 + 𝑠𝑠)𝑎𝑎
𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐

For intact rocks s=1 and a=0.5.

The triaxial test on cylindrical specimens to determine the strength of rock:

The triaxial test on cylindrical specimens is the most important laboratory test to determine the
strength of rock. Since the time of von Karman’s classical tests on marble, tests are carried out in
such a way that one obtains only one point of the failure envelope per specimen. In general, the
load is chosen in such a manner that the lateral pressure p increases proportionally with the axial
pressure, until a fixed value p = 𝑝𝑝 is reached (Fig. la). The lateral pressure 𝑝𝑝 is kept constant while
the axial pressure σ is increased up to its maximum 𝜎𝜎𝑝𝑝 . The stress values (𝑝𝑝, 𝜎𝜎𝑝𝑝 ) define a stress
point S, which is a point on the failure envelope to be determined [2].

Fig. 1 Loading procedure in the triaxial test a) conventional test; b) multiple failure state test; c) strain controlled test [2]
Multiple Failure State TriaxiaI Test:

The aim of the so called "Multiple Failure State TriaxiaI Test" is to obtain two or three stress
points (𝑆𝑆1 , 𝑆𝑆2 , 𝑆𝑆3 ) of the failure envelope with one specimen (Fig. 1b).

Fig 1b Conventional test [2]

Also loading procedure in the triaxial test in this research has been presented in figure 2.
 300

250

200
axial stress (MPa)

150

100

50

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Confining Pressure p (Kpa)

Fig. 2 Loading procedure in the triaxial test in this research

Triaxial test data:

Table 1 Result of triaxial test data

n s p Sig3 (Mpa) Sig1 (Mpa)

1 s1 p1 0.441 74.63

2 s2 p2 4.406 94

3 s3 p3 9.679 146

4 s4 p4 15.087 182.78

5 s5 p5 20.201 214.086

6 s6 p6 24.588 241.609

7 s7 p7 28.098 266.33
Note: Hoek and Brown [1] used a range of 0 < 𝜎𝜎3 < 0.5𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 and, in order to be consistent, it is
essential that the same range be used in any laboratory triaxial tests on intact rock specimens. At
least five well-spaced data points should be included in the analysis.

Determining uniaxial compressive strength (𝝈𝝈𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 ) and Hoek-Brown constant (𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒊 ):

Once the five or more triaxial test results have been obtained, they can be analyzed to determine
the uniaxial compressive strength 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 and the Hoek-Brown constant mi as described by Hoek and
Brown [1]. In this analysis, equation (5) is re-written in the form:

For n specimens the uniaxial compressive strength 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐 , the constant and 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 the coefficient of
determination 𝑟𝑟 2 are calculated from:
Spreadsheet for the calculation of 𝝈𝝈𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 and 𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒊 from triaxial test data:

Table 2 Spreadsheet for the calculation of 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 and 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 from triaxial test data

n Sig3 (Mpa) Sig1 (Mpa) x y xy x2 y2

1 0.441 74.63 0.441 5504.008 2427.267 0.194481 30294101

2 4.406 94 4.406 8027.085 35367.34 19.41284 64434091

3 9.679 146 9.679 18583.42 179868.9 93.68304 3.45E+08

4 15.087 182.78 15.087 28120.94 424260.7 227.6176 7.91E+08

5 20.201 214.086 20.201 37591.39 759383.7 408.0804 1.41E+09

6 24.588 241.609 24.588 47098.11 1158048 604.5697 2.22E+09

7 28.098 266.33 28.098 56754.49 1594688 789.4976 3.22E+09

sum 102.5 201679.4 4154044 2143.056 8.08E+09

Calculation results
Number of tests n = 7
Uniaxial strength 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 37.79
Hoek-Brown constant 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 = 49.48
Hoek-Brown constant s = 1.00
Coefficient of determination r2 = 0.988

Note: Because 𝜎𝜎3 > 0.5𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 the number of test will be reduced to 5 and then:

Number of tests n = 5
Uniaxial strength 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 = 52.378
Hoek-Brown constant 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 = 32.236
Hoek-Brown constant s = 1.00
Coefficient of determination r2 = 0.986
Result for failure envelope (RocLab):

Figure 3 presents principal stresses based on Hoek-Brown and Mohr-Coulomb in RocLab software
and also table 3 presents properties of material in RocLab software.

Principal Stresses
200
Major principal stress (MPa)

150

100

50

0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Minor principal stress (MPa)

Hoek-Brown Mohr-Coulomb

Fig. 3 Principal stresses based on Hoek-Brown and Mohr-Coulomb in RocLab software

 Table 3 Properties of material in RocLab software

The axial stress-axial strain curve:

Kovári and his colleagues developed a new method for determining the failure envelope of the
intact rock, using only one sample. Firstly, the Multiplied Failure State – MFS triaxial test was
developed, later the Continuous Failure State – CFS was published. Finally, these methods were
suggested by the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) for determining the exact
failure criteria of the rock, and they were published in Hungary, as well. Recently these methods
are used worldwide, and in the University of Miskolc, as well. The basic concept of the Multiple
Failure State (MFS) test is to put the cylindrical rock sample into biaxial cell, using p 0 > 0 constant
confining pressure, while the axial stress (σ1) and strain (ε1) are continuously controlled under
constant stress rate (𝜎𝜎̇ t = const). This process is carried out until the sample gets close to the failure
R

limit. At this point the confining pressure is suddenly increased with a ∆p value, i.e. the intact rock
becomes not in critical state due to the new (increased) confining pressure. The axial stress is
increasing continuously with the constant stress rate till the next point which is near to the failure
(by the given confining pressure). These cycles are repeated at least 3 times to get exact points
where the intact rock fails. Of course, better results can be obtained by increasing the number of
the measured failure points. In Figure 4 the experimental diagrams are shown according to the
publication.

Fig. 4 Multiplied failure state (MFS) triaxial test – the axial stress-axial strain curve (a), the axial stress-confining
pressure curve (b) [4]
 the axial stress-axial strain curve

300

250

200
Axial Stress (Mpa)

150

100

50

0
-1.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 3.00E+00 4.00E+00 5.00E+00 6.00E+00 7.00E+00 8.00E+00 9.00E+00
-50
Axial Displacement (mm)

Fig. 5 The axial stress-axial strain curve

For the graph the axial stress in D point is 186 Mpa and lateral stress is 28.089 Mpa.

Residual Strength Envelope:

The axial stress-confining pressure curve for multiplied failure state and residual strength envelope
has been presented in figure 6.

300000

250000

200000
Axial Stress (Kpa)

150000
Multiplied failure state
100000 Residual Strength Envelope

50000

0
-5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
-50000
Confinig Stress (Kpa)

Fig. 6 The axial stress-confining pressure curve for multiplied failure state and residual strength envelope

A Program has been developed by gui (MATLAB) and mechanical properties have been
calculated with satisfying accuracy. It is worth nothing that the program automatically
recognizes the s points (the blue square dots at the next graph) at the graph and use them for
further calculating.
Fig. 7 Mechanical properties of rock in a program has been developed by gui (MATLAB)
 Rock Mechanical Modelling
(BMEEOGMDT71)
Vásárhelyi Balázs
Associate Professor
Department of Engineering Geology and Geotechnics

Calculation of the Geological Strength

Index (GSI)
(Report 4)

By: Amir Mosallaei

Neptun Code: R9GS20

June 2020
Tasks:
Previously, the failure criteria on the intact rock was calculated (both Hoek-Brown and Mohr-
Coulomb theory)

Next step: calculation of the failure criteria of the rock mass.

Enclosed I am sending a photo of a borehole. Calculate the GSI value (using the attached paper).

I also attached the Chapter about the rock mass classification systems.
photo of a borehole:

A photo of borehole has been presented in figure 1.

Figure 1 Photo of borehole

In order to calculate Geological Strength Index (GSI), at first joint condition should be calculated
and then we need to calculate Rock Quality Designation (RQD). Figure 2 represents a diagram of
the process of GSI calculation.
 Figure 2 diagram of the process of GSI calculation

GSI formulation:

The value of GSI can be calculated with these relationships (Hoek et al, 2013):

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅�
1: 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = 1.5𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽89 + 2
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅�
2: 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = 2𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽76 + 2
𝐽𝐽𝑟𝑟
52 �𝐽𝐽
𝑎𝑎 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅�
3: GSI = + 2
𝐽𝐽𝑟𝑟
(1 + �𝐽𝐽 )
𝑎𝑎

JCond formulation:

In order to calculate JCond 89 , we need to calculate J r /J a . This quotient (Jr/Ja) represents the
roughness and frictional characteristics of the joint walls or fillings (Hoek et al, 2013).

𝐽𝐽
35 𝑟𝑟�𝐽𝐽
𝑎𝑎
1: 𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽89 =
𝐽𝐽𝑟𝑟
1 + �𝐽𝐽
𝑎𝑎

2: 𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽89 = 1.3𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽76

Table for JCond89:

The definition of JCond89 in Table 1 is reproduced directly from Bieniawski (1989).

Table for JCond76:

Table 2 represents definition of JCond76, from Bieniawski (1976).

Jr and Ja:

The parameters Jr and Ja, for rock wall contact, from Barton et al (1974), are defined in Table 3.
RQD formulation:

Priest and Hudson (1976) found that a reasonable estimate of RQD could be obtained from
discontinuity spacing measurements made on core or from an exposure by use of the equation:

1: 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 100𝑒𝑒 0.1𝜆𝜆 (0.1𝜆𝜆 + 1)

Where 𝜆𝜆 is the average number of discontinuities per meter.

Palmström (1982), also studied RQD but in relation to the Volumetric Joint Count and he
suggested the following equation:

2: 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 110 − 2.5𝐽𝐽𝑣𝑣

Where 𝐽𝐽𝑣𝑣 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑎𝑎 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟)

Comparison between mapped GSI and GSI predicted from JCond89 and RQD:

The GSI values calculated from JCond89 and RQD are plotted against mapped GSI values in
Figure 3. This plot shows that the correlation between the calculated and mapped GSI values is
reasonably close to the ideal 1:1 relationship for a perfect fit. This suggests that, once additional
field data are obtained, the application of this quantification of GSI may justify the transition from
proposed to recommended.

For the same data set used in the preparation of Figure 3, the predicted values of GSI are plotted
against field mapped values of GSI in Figure 4.
RQD estimation based on Deere (1963):

The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) was developed by Deere (1963). The index was developed
to provide a quantitative estimate of rock mass quality from drill core logs. RQD is defined as the
percentage of intact core pieces longer than 100 mm (4 inches) in the total length of core. The core
should be at least NW size (54.7 mm or 2.15 inches in diameter) and should be drilled with at least
a double-tube core barrel. The correct procedures for measurement of the length of core pieces and
the calculation of RQD are summarized in Figure 5.
Figure 6 shows RQD estimation based on Deere (1963) procedure.

RQD estimation based on Deere

∑ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
RQD= 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 * 100

15+12+11+18+11
RQD1= 100
* 100 = 67

25+11+119
RQD2= 100
* 100 = 55

20+15+15+28
RQD3= 100
* 100 = 78

12+15+58
RQD4= 100
* 100 = 85
 67+55+78+85
RQD (average)= 4
= 71.25

Based on table 3:

Jr = 1.5

Ja=0.75
35 𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽/𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽 35∗1.5/0.75
Jcond89= 𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽 = 1.5 =23.3
(1+ ) (1+ )
𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽 0.75

𝐽𝐽
52 𝑟𝑟�𝐽𝐽 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅� 52∗1.5/0.75
GSI = 𝐽𝐽
𝑎𝑎
+ 2 = (1+ 1.5 ) = 71.29
(1+ 𝑟𝑟�𝐽𝐽 ) 0.75
𝑎𝑎