Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 318e328

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full Length Article

Classification and assessment of rock mass parameters in Choghart

iron mine using P-wave velocity
Mohammadreza Hemmati Nourani a, Mohsen Taheri Moghadder b, Mohsen Safari c, *
a
Department of Mining and Metallurgy, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
b
Department of Mining Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran
c
Department of Mining Engineering, Birjand University of Technology, Birjand, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Engineering rock mass classification, based on empirical relations between rock mass parameters and
Received 18 June 2016 engineering applications, is commonly used in rock engineering and forms the basis for designing rock
Received in revised form structures. The basic data required may be obtained from visual observation and laboratory or field tests.
9 November 2016
However, owing to the discontinuous and variable nature of rock masses, it is difficult for rock engineers
Accepted 14 November 2016
Available online 8 December 2016
to directly obtain the specific design parameters needed. As an alternative, the use of geophysical
methods in geomechanics such as seismography may largely address this problem. In this study, 25
seismic profiles with the total length of 543 m have been scanned to determine the geomechanical
Keywords:
Rock mass classification
properties of the rock mass in blocks I, III and IV-2 of the Choghart iron mine. Moreover, rock joint
P-wave velocity measurements and sampling for laboratory tests were conducted. The results show that the rock mass
Q system rating (RMR) and Q values have a close relation with P-wave velocity parameters, including P-wave
Rock mass rating (RMR) velocity in field (VPF), P-wave velocity in the laboratory (VPL) and the ratio of VPF to VPL (i.e. KP ¼ VPF/VPL).
Geophysical methods However, Q value, totally, has greater correlation coefficient and less error than the RMR. In addition, rock
mass parameters including rock quality designation (RQD), uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), joint
roughness coefficient (JRC) and Schmidt number (RN) show close relationship with P-wave velocity. An
equation based on these parameters was obtained to estimate the P-wave velocity in the rock mass with
a correlation coefficient of 91%. The velocities in two orthogonal directions and the results of joint study
show that the wave velocity anisotropy in rock mass may be used as an efficient tool to assess the strong
and weak directions in rock mass.
Ó 2017 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction roughness, weathering and type of filling material for discontinu-

Rock mass classification is one of the most efficient tools used in
rock mechanics and an essential element of feasibility studies prior
to any excavation or disturbances made to rock. In most cases, rock
mass is so complex and heterogeneous that its qualifications are
hard to be discerned by conventional tests. In these cases,
geophysical methods such as seismography may be useful for
estimating the properties of rock mass.
Generally, the transmission velocity of the seismic waves in the
rock mass depends on the parameters such as density and rock
strength, water condition, stress, orientation, spacing, separation,
* Corresponding author. Fax: þ98 5632252098.
E-mail address: msafari@birjandut.ac.ir (M. Safari).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences.
ities. So all of the parameters involved in a classification system
such as Q and rock mass rating (RMR) affect the seismic wave ve-
locity as well. Therefore, it is possible to obtain the variations of Q
and RMR as a function of the seismic wave velocity parameters.
Very useful studies have been conducted in this field. For example,
Barton (1991) proposed a basic model for studying the relationship
between P-wave velocity and Q value. This model was changed
later for seismic analysis in other regions (Barton, 1995, 2007). Cha
et al. (2006) and Zafirovski et al. (2012) investigated the relation-
ship between the RMR and the compression and shear wave ve-
locities near the Earth’s surface. However, very few studies were
done on the relationship between the RMR and the seismic wave
velocity. Successful researches have been carried out on the relation
between rock quality designation (RQD) and compression wave
velocity. For example, Deere et al. (1967) and McDowell (1993)
introduced the relations in terms of the ratio of P-wave velocity

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.11.006
1674-7755 Ó 2017 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 M. Hemmati Nourani et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 318e328
in rock mass to that in intact rock. Moreover, Bery and Saad (2012)
found a relation between RQD and compression wave velocity us-
ing linear regression.
The primary objective of this study is to obtain equations to
calculate the RMR and Q at level 1150 of block I, level 1110 of block
III and levels 1130 and 1140 of block IV-2 in Choghart iron mine
(Fig. 1) as a function of P-wave velocities in rock mass and intact
rock. The estimations of P-wave velocity in rock mass as a function
of RQD, uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), joint roughness co-
efficient (JRC) and Schmidt number (RN), as well as the relation
between discontinuity orientation and anisotropy of P-wave ve-
locity in rock mass, are additional objectives.
To investigate the relation between Q and RMR classification
systems and P-wave velocity in rock mass, first of all, the required
parameters of these two classification systems are measured in the
field. Then, the two systems are calculated for the 5-m pieces of the
surfaces by multivariate regressions among Q, RMR and P-wave
velocities in rock mass and intact rock. In addition, some relations
are obtained to calculate the values of Q and RMR in the blocks of
studied area. The relations between parameters of rock mass and
intact rock and P-wave velocity are also focused on.
2. Measurement of intact rock properties
Since block III was extremely fractured, it was not possible to
prepare standard cylindrical samples of the intact rock. The RN
reflected on 5-m pieces of the surfaces was measured and the UCS
values were estimated by the graph as shown in Fig. 2. The P-wave
velocity in intact rock samples was also measured. The fracture
intensity in rock mass may be estimated by comparing the P-wave
velocity in intact rock with the one in rock mass. High ratio of the P-
wave velocity in rock mass to that in intact rock indicates good
quality of rock mass.
The strength of intact rock was measured by uniaxial
compression test on rock cores. A loading rate of 1 kN/s was
adopted, and the ratio of length to diameter of samples was
approximately 2.5. The results are shown in Table 1. Since the cores
of block III did not have standard dimensions, the Schmidt hammer
over the bench was used instead. At level 1140 of block IV-2, point
load strength test was applied due to the lack of standard cylin-
drical shape.
The P-wave velocity in intact rock was measured by putting the
ultrasonic transducers on either side of the rock core. It was
calculated by dividing the core length by transmission time. The
results for different cores are shown in Table 1.
Fig. 1. Studied area in Choghart iron mine.
319
In order to determine the density of blocks (Table 1), the mass
and volume were measured by digital scale and graduated cylinder,
respectively.
3. Rock mass characteristics measurement
The rating and values of the parameters of the RMR and Q
systems depend on the characteristics of rock mass, such as RQD,
discontinuity conditions and spacing.
3.1. Joint study
Joint study of blocks I, III and IV-2 was carried out to measure
the required parameters such as RMR, RQD, joint spacing (SP),
number of joint set, joint orientation and degree of weathering and
roughness by image processing of surfaces, Schmidt hammer,
compass and Barton profile meter. The results are shown in
Tables 2e7.
3.2. Seismology
In this study, 25 seismic profiles with a total length of 543 m
were studied. To investigate the influence of discontinuity orien-
tation on P-wave velocity at blocks I and III, the seismic profiles are
set perpendicular to each other. Therefore, one longitudinal profile
and several transverse profiles were taken for each step. The
number of transverse profiles depends on the anisotropy of dis-
continuities in the studied area. The number of geophones for each
study was 6 or 12. In long benches, the longitudinal profiles were
studied in several steps to avoid wave attenuation. Based on the
wave attenuation in the field, the space between geophones varied
from 2 m to 5 m, and 6 shots per profile were recorded. Data
analysis was performed using the zoned software ST2D. This soft-
ware is portable and free, which can recognize non-standard or bad
data. It determines the velocity changes relative to depth and
length. The results for different blocks are illustrated in Figs. 3e6.
Velocity changes along the length and width of the blocks are also
shown in Table 8.
The topographic analysis results of blocks I and III show that the
velocities along the length and width of benches are not equal in
some profiles. This phenomenon is mostly attributed to the
anisotropy of joint orientations in the benches because the rock is
of the same type across the width of the bench. In all analyses, the
highest and lowest velocities were 1.1 km/s and 0.7 km/s,
respectively.
320 M. Hemmati Nourani et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 318e328

Fig. 2. Relationship between the uniaxial compressive strength and Schmidt hardness (L hammer) and unit weight of rock (Miller, 1965).

4. Relations between rock mass parameters and P-wave
velocity
In this section, the relations between the P-wave velocity and
some important parameters of rock mass, such as the RQD,
intact rock strength, and even orientation of discontinuities,
have been studied. In addition, the research seeks to estimate
the P-wave velocity in the rock mass by multivariate regression
between P-wave velocity and parameters such as UCS, JRC, RN
and RQD.

Table 1
Uniaxial compressive strength, P-wave velocity and density values of different blocks.

Interval (m) Block Level UCS (MPa) Velocity (m/s) Density (kg/m3) Interval (m) Block Level UCS (MPa) Velocity (m/s) Density (kg/m3)

37e44 I 1150 75 4042 2720.68 15e22 I 1150 157.7 4386 2686.72

20e38 III 1110 e 4951 2904.91 0e15 IV-2 1130 85.2 5435 2648.24
15e27.5 IV-2 1130 97.3 5508 2655.66 5e10 I 1150 131.1 4176 2679.97
27e32 I 1150 127.1 4175 2663.25 32e37 I 1150 187.9 4523 2710.32
0e27.5 IV-2 1140 e 5365 2610.97 22e27 I 1150 158.8 4500 2695.14
38e58 III 1110 e 4153 2760.42 0e20 III 1110 e 4996 2995.54
10e15 I 1150 96.7 4046 2641.61 0e5 I 1150 173.7 4505 2733.84
 M. Hemmati Nourani et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 318e328 321

Table 2 Table 5
Orientation of joint sets and face at level 1150 of block I. RMR values at level 1110 of block III.

Joint Dip ( ) Dip direction ( ) Interval RN UCS RQD SP Joint condition

(m) (MPa) (%) (cm)
Joint set I 62 330
Joint set II 53 145 0e5 38.3 113 51.39 28.18 Discontinuity length 63 cm,
Joint set III 85 267 separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
Bench face 90 25 soft filling, highly weathered
5e10 38 112 51.82 25.29 Discontinuity length 49 cm,
separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
soft filling, highly weathered
Table 3 10e15 38.4 114 53.02 27.72 Discontinuity length 61 cm,
RMR parameters values at level 1150 of block I. separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
soft filling, highly weathered
Interval (m) RQD (%) SP (cm) Joint condition
15e20 42 139 52.11 26.43 Discontinuity length 55 cm,
0e5 56.27 46.43 Discontinuity length 66 cm, joint separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
intercept 3 mm, smooth, without filling, soft filling, highly weathered
slightly weathered 20e25 41.3 120 52.16 24.47 Discontinuity length 54 cm,
5e10 56.03 32.98 Discontinuity length 57 cm, joint separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
intercept 3 mm, smooth, without filling, soft filling, highly weathered
slightly weathered 25e30 37.9 105 54.68 21.32 Discontinuity length 82 cm,
10e15 55.07 26.41 Discontinuity length 54 cm, joint separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
intercept 3 mm, smooth, without filling, soft filling, highly weathered
slightly weathered 30e38 37.6 113 54.2 23.87 Discontinuity length 96 cm,
15e22 55.31 32.98 Discontinuity length 80 cm, joint separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
intercept 3 mm, smooth, without filling, soft filling, highly weathered
slightly weathered 38e43 36.6 100 54.38 23.49 Discontinuity length 80 cm,
22e27 56.39 38.6 Discontinuity length 40 cm, separation separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
3 mm, smooth, without filling, slightly soft filling, highly weathered
weathered 43e48 47.2 138 54.56 23.11 Discontinuity length 63 cm,
27e32 56.15 26.89 Discontinuity length 186 cm, separation separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
4 mm, smooth, without filling, slightly soft filling, highly weathered
weathered 48e53 46.4 130 53.89 22.93 Discontinuity length 63 cm,
32e37 54.29 34.6 Discontinuity length 183 cm, separation separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
5 mm, smooth, without filling, slightly soft filling, highly weathered
weathered 53e58 44.8 125 53.23 22.75 Discontinuity length 63 cm,
37e44 53.33 23 Discontinuity length 180 cm, separation separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
5 mm, smooth, without filling, slightly soft filling, highly weathered
weathered 58e63 43.6 123 48.07 21.93 Discontinuity length 69 cm,
separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
soft filling, highly weathered
Table 4 63e71 44.4 120 42.9 21.1 Discontinuity length 75 cm,
Orientation of joint sets and face at level 1110 of block III. separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
soft filling, highly weathered
Joint Dip ( ) Dip direction ( ) 71e76 32.4 68 40.41 20.97 Discontinuity length 66 cm,
separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
Joint set I 85 325
soft filling, highly weathered
Joint set II 41 64
76e81 41.2 99 37.92 20.83 Discontinuity length 57 cm,
Joint set III 87 36
separation 4 mm, slightly rough,
Joint set IV 45 146
soft filling, highly weathered
Bench face 90 355

4.1. Relation between UCS and P-wave velocity Table 6

Orientation of joint sets and face at block IV-2.
One of the most important parameters in some of classification Joint set Dip ( ) Dip direction ( )
systems such as RMR is the UCS of intact rock. In this regard, many
Joint set I 84 240
researchers studied the relation between P-wave velocity and UCS.
Joint set II 76 209
For instance, Aliabdo and Elmoaty (2012) and Chary et al. (2006) Joint set III 42 175
showed that the increase in the UCS of unit rock samples led to Bench face 90 170
the linear increase of P-wave velocity. In addition, they found a
fairly good correlation between P-wave velocity and UCS (Fig. 7):


UCS ¼ 0:177VP  623:28 R2 ¼ 90:5% (1) not the same, in order to eliminate the effect of intact rock
texture, the P-wave velocity is divided by the P-wave velocity in
where VP is the P-wave velocity. intact rock, and a coefficient defined as the P-wave velocity index
Here, only the results of uniaxial test (not point load test) are is obtained:
analyzed.
KP ¼ VPF =VPL (2)
4.2. Relation between RQD and P-wave velocity To estimate RQD using the wave velocity, regression analysis
was conducted, resulting in the following equation (Fig. 8):
As mentioned previously, the intact rock properties affect the

P-wave velocity. However, since the rocks in the studied area are RQD ¼ 0:924KP þ 0:172 R2 ¼ 67:6% (3)
322 M. Hemmati Nourani et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 318e328

Table 7
RMR parameters values at level 1130 of block IV-2.

Interval (m) RQD (%) SP (cm) Joint condition

0e5 42.21 41.11 Discontinuity length 98 cm, separation <5 mm, rough, hard filling, slightly weathered
5e10 42.11 36.53 Discontinuity length 40 cm, separation <5 mm, rough, hard filling, slightly weathered
10e15 50.01 34.80 Discontinuity length 75 cm, separation <5 mm, rough, hard filling, slightly weathered
15e20 46.14 35.66 Discontinuity length 84 cm, separation <5 mm, rough, hard filling, slightly weathered
20e25 50.40 36.28 Discontinuity length 56 cm, separation <5 mm, rough, hard filling, slightly weathered
25e27.5 50.32 36.17 Discontinuity length 85 cm, separation <5 mm, rough, hard filling, slightly weathered

Fig. 3. Variations of P-wave velocity in two perpendicular directions at level 1150 of block I.

Fig. 4. Variations of P-wave velocity in two perpendicular directions at level 1110 of block III.
 M. Hemmati Nourani et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 318e328 323

Fig. 5. Variations of P-wave velocity at level 1140 of block IV-2.

Fig. 6. Variations of P-wave velocity at level 1130 of block IV-2.

Table 8
The average P-wave velocities along the length and width of the levels.

Level 1110 of block III Level 1150 of block I Levels 1130 and 1140 of block IV-2

Interval (m) Average velocity (m/s) Interval (m) Average velocity (m/s) Interval (m) Average velocity (m/s)

Along the length Along the width Along the length Along the width Along the length Along the width

0e5 1744.5 1700.8 0e5 1962.1 2660.6 0e5 1493.8 1462.4

5e10 1732.6 e 5e10 1894.9 e 5e10 1475.6 1348.4
10e15 1717.6 1465.7 10e15 1788.8 e 10e15 1549.4 1320
15e20 1658.7 e 15e20 1876.3 2804.8 15e20 1547.4 1382.4
20e25 1656.2 1524.8 20e22 1929.1 e 20e25 1577.6 1426.9
25e30 1668.6 e 22e27 1919.9 e 25e27.5 1565.8 1476.2
30e33 1645.1 1486.3 27e32 1883.3 3087.3
33e38 1645.1 e 32e37 1828.4 e
38e43 1644.5 1017.7 37e42 1700.4 e
43e48 1608.4 e 42e44 1600.3 3056
48e53 1569.6 1424.6
53e58 1603 e
58e63 1602.9 1417.2
63e66 1576.8 e
66e71 1328.3 1447.8
71e76 1306.3 e
76e81 1345.4 1026
324 M. Hemmati Nourani et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 318e328
Fig. 7. Relation between uniaxial compressive strength and P-wave velocity.
Since KP2 in near-surface rock is very close to the RQD
(Deere et al., 1967), the regression analysis was also carried out for
the RQD values in every 5 m along the block and KP2 values (Fig. 9):


RQD ¼ 1:28KP2 þ 0:3326 R2 ¼ 63:7%
In Figs. 7 and 8, the data are applied to all blocks. Comparison of
the results of regression shows that KP has a better relation with
RQD than KP2 . So, hereafter we will use KP in equations.
4.3. Relation between wave velocity anisotropy and discontinuity
orientation
In this study, the seismic profiles in blocks I and III are
perpendicular to each other. According to the impact of discon-
tinuity orientation on P-wave velocity, it is possible to estimate
the joint orientation by the difference in two orthogonal veloc-
ities. According to Fig. 10, in a discontinuity, P-wave velocity in-
creases when the discontinuity is parallel to the direction of wave
propagation, and reduces when they are perpendicular to each
other. Seismic tomography results show that the velocity differ-
ences along the width and length of the benches in block III are
minor, which may be due to rather uniform fragmentation of this
block; while in block I, the velocities significantly vary along the
width and length of the bench, and the velocity along the width
reaches even two times that along the length. Fig. 11 shows the
average velocity difference along the bench length with the di-
rection of N53 E and along the bench width with the direction of
N37 E.
According to the rose diagram of discontinuity orientations at
level 1150 of block I, comparing this with velocity variations, it is
observed that the velocity in direction parallel to joints is larger
than that in the perpendicular direction.
The joint study in block III was carried out somehow to avoid
studying random joints as far as possible. However, four joint sets
Fig. 8. Relation between RQD and KP.
Fig. 9. Relation between RQD and KP2 .
with a number of random joints were identified. Fig. 12 shows the
results of seismic tomography in two strikes N5 W and N85 E at
level 1110 of block III. The approximate velocity uniformity in-
dicates the fragmentation uniformity in these two strikes. In
(4) practice, we can achieve higher accuracy by increasing the number
of sample profiles in different directions.
4.4. P-wave velocity estimation
As noted before, the transmitting velocity of seismic wave
through the rock mass depends on some parameters such as den-
sity, intact rock strength, water condition and tension, joint fre-
quency, orientation, separation, roughness, alteration and type of
filling material of discontinuity. In this section, the relation be-
tween VPF and UCS, RQD, JRC and RN parameters is studied using
linear multivariate regression analysis, and the following equation
is obtained with a correlation coefficient of 91% and standard error
of 0.057:
VPF ¼ 0:464 þ 0:018RQD þ 0:001UCS  0:01JRC þ 0:003RN
(5)
The values of parameters UCS, RQD, JRC and RN are 0, 0.003,
0.004 and 0, respectively. It is shown that VPF is very relevant to
these parameters at almost one level. Considering Eq. (5),
increasing JRC values has a negative effect on VPF. This is normal
because when the roughness increases, discontinuities separation
increases, and the passage of the seismic wave becomes more
difficult as well.
5. Engineering rock mass classification in Choghart iron mine
In this section, the engineering rock mass classification in
Choghart iron mine is based on Q and RMR systems. As the ranges
of rating in RMR system for some parameters such as UCS, RQD,
and SP are large (Bieniawski, 1989), the following equation and
Table 9 are proposed for calculating the rating of these
parameters:
Rvi ¼ bi Piti (6)
Rating for other parameters, such as roughness, is determined
directly from the RMR table.
Q value is calculated according to the equation proposed by
Barton et al. (1974) as follows:
Q ¼ ðRQD=Jn ÞðJr =Ja ÞðJw =SRFÞ (7)
where Jn is the joint set number, Jr is the joint roughness number, Ja
is the joint alteration number, Jw is the joint water reduction factor,
and SRF is the stress reduction factor.
 M. Hemmati Nourani et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 318e328 325

Fig. 10. Velocity changes relative to discontinuity orientation (Delbecq et al., 2013).

Fig. 11. (a) P-wave velocity differences along two perpendicular directions at level 1150 of block I, and (b) Rose diagram of discontinuity orientations at level 1150 of block I.

5.1. Engineering rock mass classification at level 1150 of block I

Tectonic block I of Choghart iron mine has three joint sets as

Fig. 12. P-wave velocity variations in perpendicular directions at level 1110 of block III.
described in Table 4. The bench studied is located in the east of the
pit. Using the tables proposed by Bieniawski (1989) and Eq. (6), in
each 5 m interval of the surface length, the ratings for each of the
parameters including UCS, RQD, SP, discontinuities condition (JC),
and joint water reduction factor (Jw) were determined. The total
ratings show the values of RMR, as shown in Table 10. It is to be
noted that, according to the tables proposed by Bieniawski (1989),
the groundwater score was determined as 15 because the studied
zone is completely dry. As RMR was determined for rock mass
without considering the stability, the rating for orientation of dis-
continuities was neglected.
To classify the block based on Q system, it is required to rate six
parameters, including RQD, joint set number Jn, joint roughness
number Jr, joint alteration number Ja, joint water reduction factor Jw
and stress reduction factor SRF. Similar to RMR system, Q values are
calculated for every 5 m of block (Table 11). Since the area is dry, the
joint water reduction factor is 1. In addition, Jn is rated as 12 because
the area has 3 joint sets with some random discontinuities, and SRF
326 M. Hemmati Nourani et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 318e328

Table 9 Table 14
Constant values for Eq. (6). RMR parameters ratings in levels 1130 and 1140 of block IV-2.

Parameter bi ti Level Interval (m) UCS (MPa) RQD (%) SP (cm) JC RMR

UCS 0.2146 0.8031 1130 0e5 7.62 9.08 13.56 21 66.26

RQD 0.2936 0.917 5e10 7.62 9.85 13 21 66.47
SP 18.605 0.3562 10e15 7.62 10.61 12.77 21 66.61
R 1.7968 1.7352 15e20 8.48 9.86 12.88 21 67.22
20e25 8.48 10.69 12.97 21 68.14
25e27.5 8.48 10.67 12.95 21 68.1
1140 0e5 10.7 8.01 11.89 21 66.6
5e10 10.7 7.85 11.35 21 65.9
10e15 10.7 7.68 1.26 21 65.64
Table 10 15e20 10.7 7.83 11.57 21 66.1
RMR results at level 1150 of block I. 20e25 10.7 8.08 11.54 21 66.32
25e27.5 10.7 8.13 11.72 21 66.55
Interval (m) UCS (MPa) RQD (%) SP (m) JC RMR

0e5 13.5 11.82 14.15 19 73.47

5e10 10.77 11.78 12.53 19 69.08
10e15 8.44 11.59 11.51 19 65.54
Table 15
15e22 12.49 11.64 11.58 19 69.71
Q system classification at levels 1130 and 1140 of block IV-2.
22e27 12.56 11.85 13.25 19 71.66
27e32 10.51 11.8 11.65 13 61.96 Interval (m) Q value
32e37 14.38 11.44 12.75 12 65.57
Level 1130 Level 1140
37e44 6.88 11.26 11.02 12 56.16
0e5 0.386 0.293
5e10 0.392 0.3
10e15 0.351 0.307
15e20 0.318 0.312
Table 11 20e25 0.419 0.31
Rating results of level 1150 of block I by Q system. 25e27.5 0.42 0.3
Interval (m) Q Interval (m) Q

0e5 0.938 22e27 0.936

5e10 0.934 27e32 0.94 is rated as 2.5 because the area is flat and joints are open. Ja and Jr
10e15 0.918 32e37 0.905 are constant over the bench and are rated as 2 and 1, respectively.
15e22 0.922 37e44 0.889

5.2. Engineering rock mass classification at level 1110 of block III

In this bench, similar to the level 1150 of block I, rock mass

classification by RMR and Q systems was carried out in every 5 m
Table 12
RMR results at level 1110 of block III. on the basis of joint study and image processing data (Tables 12 and
13). The bench studied is located in the south of Choghart pit and
Interval (m) UCS (MPa) RQD (%) SP (m) JC RMR Jw
has 4 joint sets as described in Table 4. This field is highly frag-
0e5 9.56 10.88 11.85 13 60.29 15 mented because of tectonic activities. So it includes a number of
5e10 9.49 10.96 11.4 13 59.85 15 random joints. Fragmented rocks are filled by cohesive materials
10e15 9.63 11.2 11.78 13 60.61 15
15e20 11.29 11.02 11.58 13 61.89 15
that have a very low strength. The studied field is completely dry, so
20e25 10.03 11.03 11.27 13 60.33 15 the joint water reduction factor is rated as 15. Similar to the level
25e30 9.01 11.52 10.73 13 59.26 15 1150 of block I, the rating for orientation of discontinuity is ignored.
30e38 9.56 11.42 11.17 13 60.15 15 The rock mass quality of this block is also classified by Q system.
38e43 8.67 11.46 11.1 13 59.23 15
According to Table 4, this block has 4 joint sets and many random
43e48 11.22 11.49 11.04 13 61.75 15
48e53 10.7 11.36 11.01 13 61.07 15 joints. So this block is indicated as fragmented zone. Using the ta-
53e58 10.37 11.24 10.98 13 60.59 15 bles proposed by Barton et al. (1974), the score of joint sets is 20;
58e63 10.23 10.23 10.84 13 59.3 15 and also due to dry field, Jw is equal to 1. The joint roughness
63e71 10.03 9.22 10.69 13 57.94 15 number (Jr) and alternation number (Ja) are constant over the bench
71e76 6.36 8.73 10.66 13 53.75 15
76e81 8.6 8.23 10.64 13 55.47 15
and are equal to 1.5 and 8, respectively. According to RQD values in
Table 5, Q values in 5 m intervals of the surface length are shown in
Table 13. As the studied field is flat, the stress is low, thus obtaining
a value of SRF equal to 2.5.

5.3. Engineering rock mass classification at levels 1130 and 1140 of

Table 13
Classification of level 1110 of block III using Q system. block IV-2

Interval (m) Q Interval (m) Q

Rock mass classification in the block IV-2 is carried out at two
0e5 0.193 48e53 0.205 levels. This block is located on the north of Choghart pit and has 3
5e10 0.194 43e48 0.202
joint sets as described in Table 6. RMR parameters rating of this
10e15 0.199 58e63 0.199
20e25 0.196 53e58 0.18 block are presented in Table 14.
15e20 0.195 71e76 0.161 In order to classify the rock mass by Q system, as shown in
30e38 0.203 63e71 0.125 Table 6, there are 3 joint sets while random joints are also observed.
25e30 0.205 76e81 0.142 So Jn value is 12. Since the joint surfaces are flat and rough, Jr value
38e43 0.204
is rated as 1.5. The field is dry, so Jw is equal to 1 and Ja is equal to 6.
 M. Hemmati Nourani et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 318e328 327

Table 16
Equations obtained by linear univariate and multivariate regressions for single and all blocks.

Block Equation sig of Standard error R2

VPL KP VPF

I RMR ¼ 25.025 þ 49.640 VPF 0.017 0.841 3.633 0.641

RMR ¼ 28.117 þ 46.588 VPF þ 2.037 VPL 0.087 3.962 0.645
Q ¼ 0.582 þ 0.184 VPF 0.001 0.02 0.008 0.842
Q ¼ 0.641 þ 0.242 VPF  0.039 VPL 0 0.005 0.952
Q ¼ 0.477 þ 0.151 VPF þ 0.384 KP 0.001 0.021 0.005 0.951
III RMR ¼ 37.578 þ 13.702 VPF 0 0.091 1.308 0.679
RMR ¼ 41.923 þ 16.355 VPF  1.861 VPL 0 1.202 0.75
Q ¼ 0.022 þ 0.132 VPF 0 0.03 0.011 0.743
Q ¼ 0.023 þ 0.159 VPF  0.019 VPL 0 0.009 0.83
Q ¼ 0.061 þ 0.103 VPF þ 0.243 KP 0 0.023 0.008 0.836
IV-2 RMR ¼ 54.541 þ 8.272 VPF 0 0.183 0.378 0.794
RMR ¼ 33.8 þ 5.516 VPF þ 4.575 VPL 0.04 0.359 0.833
Q ¼ 0.391 þ 0.499 VPF 0 0.505 0.025 0.767
Q ¼ 2.682 þ 0.195 VPF þ 0.505 VPL 0.119 0.018 0.893
Q ¼ 0.04 þ 2.014 VPF  9.799 KP 0.002 0.008 0 0.017 0.897
I, III, IV-2 RMR ¼ 152.016  89.11 VPF þ 39.87 VPL þ 491.342 KP 0 0 0 2.84 0.673
Q ¼ 10.832  5.077 VPF þ 28.878 KP þ 1.992 VPL 0 0 0.16 0.729

Q values over levels 1130 and 1140 of block IV-2 are presented in
Table 15.
6. Relationship among RMR, Q and P-wave velocity
As discussed in previous sections, important parameters
involved in classification are well related to P-wave velocities in
rock mass and intact rock. Therefore, some equations for estimating
Q and RMR on the basis of VP, KP and VPF were obtained by multi-
variate regression analysis. These equations are listed in Table 16. A
review of this table shows that:
(1) The equations for single blocks have less errors and greater
correlation coefficients than those calculated together.
(2) Using Q system, there is totally a better correlation among
the variables.
(3) Using VPL along with VPF yields less errors and better corre-
lation coefficients.
(4) In the cases where KP is used to calculate Q, better results are
obtained compared to the cases where VPL is used. This is
because of the RQD relevance to KP as investigated before.
In Table 16, standard error means standard deviation that is
calculated by the following equation:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðA  A0 Þ2
E ¼
n
parameters. As an alternative, the use of geophysical methods in
geomechanics such as seismography may largely overcome this
limitation. In this paper, the practical possibility of using seis-
mography methods to estimate rock mass quality at Choghart iron
mine is studied based on the results as follows:
(1) In order to estimate RMR and Q values in different blocks of
the mine, several equations were obtained as a function of P-
wave velocity parameters including VPF, VPL and Kp. Accord-
ing to correlation coefficients, there are close relations
among them.
(2) In the equations obtained, Q value has greater correlation
coefficient and less error than RMR.
(3) The equations for single blocks have less errors and higher
correlation coefficients than those calculated together.
(4) It is possible to predict discontinuities orientation of blocks I
and III by velocity differences in orthogonal directions;
however, more precision is achievable by increasing the
number of radial profiles.
(5) Using linear multivariate regression, an equation was pro-
posed for estimating the P-wave velocity by the values of JRC,
UCS, RQD and RN with correlation coefficient of 91% and
standard deviation of 0.057%. This equation may be useful for
the cases where measuring the P-wave velocity is not
possible.
(6) The results show that the larger the roughness of discontinu-
(8) ities is, the lower the P-wave velocity in rock mass would be.

where A is the real value, A0 is the calculated value of a parameter

like Q or RMR, and n is the number of data used by regression
analysis.
Also, “sig” in Table 16 is a significant index. If this value is low for
a variable, it means that this variable is more significant.
7. Conclusions
A strong laboratory database for mechanical and engineering
properties of rocks is very useful for site characterization and
mining engineering applications. In cases where the condition of
rock mass is very complex or there is no possibility of data record, it
is difficult for rock engineers to directly obtain the specific design
Conflict of interest
The authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
interest associated with this publication and there has been no
significant financial support for this work that could have influ-
enced its outcome.
References
Aliabdo AAE, Elmoaty AEMA. Reliability of using nondestructive tests to estimate
compressive strength of building stones and bricks. Alexandria Engineering
Journal 2012;51(3):193e203.
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of
tunnel support. Rock Mechanics 1974;6(4):189e236.
328 M. Hemmati Nourani et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 318e328
Barton N. Geotechnical design. World Tunnelling and Subsurface Excavation
1991;4(7):410e6.
Barton N. Rock quality, seismic velocity, attenuation, and anisotropy. London: Taylor
& Francis Group; 2007. p. 19e48.
Barton N. The influence of joint properties in modelling jointed rock masses. In:
Fujii T, editor. Proceedings of the 8th ISRM Congress on rock mechanics. Rot-
terdam: A.A. Balkema; 1995. p. 1023e32.
Bery A, Saad R. Correlation of seismic P-wave velocities with engineering param-
eters (N value and rock quality) for tropical environmental study. International
Journal of Geosciences 2012;3(4):749e57.
Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classification: a complete manual for engi-
neers and geologists in mining, civil, and petroleum engineering. New York:
John Wiley & Sons; 1989. p. 251.
Cha YH, Kang JS, Jo CH. Application of linear-array microtremor surveys for rock
mass classification in urban tunnel design. Exploration Geophysics 2006;37(1):
108e13.
Chary KB, Sarma LP, Prasanna Lakshmi KJ, Vijayakumar NA, Naga Lakshmi V,
Rao MVMS. Evaluation of engineering properties of rock using ultrasonic pulse
velocity and uniaxial compressive strength. In: Proceedings of the National
Seminar on Non-Destructive Evaluation. Indian Society for Non-destructive
Testing; 2006. p. 379e85.
Deere DU, Hendron AJ, Patton FD, Cording EJ. Design of surface and near-surface
construction. In: Fairhurst C, editor. Failure and breakage of rock: Proceedings
of the 8th US Symposium on rock mechanics. New York: American Institute of
Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; 1967. p. 237e302.
Delbecq F, Downton J, Letizia M. A math-free look at azimuthal surface seismic
techniques. CSEG Recorder 2013;38(1):20e31.
McDowell PW. Seismic investigation for rock engineering. In: Hudson JA, editor.
Rock testing and site characterization: principles, practice and projects. Oxford:
Pergamon Press; 1993. p. 619e34.
Miller RP. Engineering classification and index properties for intact rock. PhD thesis.
University of Illinois; 1965.
Zafirovski Z, Pesevski I, Papi c J. Methodology for extrapolation of rock mass
deformability parameters in tunneling. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Archi-
tecture and Civil Engineering 2012;10(3):235e44.
Mohsen Safari is a faculty member at Department of
Mining Engineering, Birjand University of Technology from
2010 to present. His research interests include mining
economy and management, risk analysis, multi-criterion
analysis, decision analysis, optimization, mine planning,
underground and surface mine planning. To date, Mr. Sa-
fari has published more than 5 journal papers and 35 con-
f e r e n c e p a p e r s i n c l u d i n g m i n i n g e c o n o my a n d
management, risk analysis, multi-criterion analysis, deci-
sion analysis in mining.