1

6 Lecture
Rock Mass Classification Systems
 2

 Introduce to rock mass classification

 RQD – Rock Quality Designation Index

Aim  RMR - Rock Mass Rating System or Bieniawski’s Rock

Mass Rating or Geomechanics Classification
 Q classification system - NGI (Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute) Index or Barton’s Rock Tunnelling Quality
Index
 GSI -Geological Strength Index (Hoek, 1994)
Classification Systems in Design
 Even now, with many resources available for site investigation, there still can remain, problems
in applying the theory in practical engineering case studies. Considering the three main design
approaches for engineering rock mechanics
 Analytical

 Observational

 Empirical

 Rock mass classifications, form an integral part of the empirical design approach. Whoever in
many construction cases, in underground construction, tunnelling and mining projects, rock
mass classifications have provided the only systematic design aid, in a haphazard “trial and
error”, procedure.
Failure Mechanisms
 The stability of an underground opening is a function of:

a. Structurally- b. Rock mass failure

controlled failure
Stress
high or low

Structure
falling sliding

Rock Mass
Rock Mass classification
 The objectives of Rock Mass Classification
1. Identify the most important parameters influencing the rock mass.
2. Divide the rock mas into groups or regions of similar behaviour.
3. Provide a basis for understanding the characteristics of each rock mass class.
4. Relate experiences of rock conditions at one site, to those at another.
5. Derive quantitative data and guidelines for engineering design.
6. Provide a common basis for communication between geologists and engineers.

Note: The boundaries of the various different structural regions, usually coincide with
a major structural feature, such as a fault or with a change in rock type. In some
cases, significant changes in discontinuity spacing or characteristics, within the
same rock type, may necessitate the division of the rock mass into a number of
small structural regions.
Rock Mass classification
 The above mentioned objectives suggest the three main benefits of rock mass
classification.
1. Improve the quality of site investigations, by calling for the minimum input data, as
classification parameters.
2. Providing quantitative information for designing purposes.
3. Enabling better engineering judgement and more effective communication on a
project.
Rock Mass Classification 7
Why classify a rock mass?
 Identify the relevant (important) parameters to a
project and perform the assessment to; and
 Describe the properties of these parameters, giving
them values or ratings according to their structure,
composition and properties.

Classification vs. Characterisation:

 Classification is the result of putting objects into
different classes according to shared qualities or
characteristics.
 Characterisation is describing the individual nature or
features of something, e.g. discontinuity
characteristics.
Rock Mass Classification 8

 Rock mass classification schemes seek to assign numerical values to those properties or features of the rock mass
considered likely to influence its behaviour.
Rock Mass Classification 9
 Classification can be used as a tool to assess the
"quality" of rock masses.
 In the absence of other data, these tools can be
used to establish rock mass parameters, or guide
the selection of reinforcement and support
methods.

 It is important to understand that the use of

rock mass classification systems can not replace
engineering analysis and design procedures.
 Therefore classification can be used as a tool to
assess the ‘quality’ of rock masses
Rock Quality Designation Index (RQD) 10
 was first introduced 1964-1967 by Deere
 Simple and inexpensive method
 provides a quantitative estimate of rock
mass quality from borehole drill cores/logs
 to quantify discontinuity spacing you need:
tape measure, calculator and drill core

 Incorporated into RMR and Q

classifications
Rock Quality Designation Index (RQD) 11
 RQD is defined as the percentage of intact core pieces longer than 10 cm in the total
length of core (measured along core centreline)
 Total length of the core run = 200 cm

Total
length of
core run
55 is 200 cm

All the artificial fractures should be ignored

while counting the core length for RQD.

A slow rate of drilling will also give better

RQD.
Rock Quality Designation Index (RQD) 12
 RQD is defined as the percentage of intact core pieces longer than 100 mm in the total
length of core (measured along core centreline)

𝑅𝑄𝐷=
∑ 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡 h 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠 >10 𝑐𝑚 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡 h
∙100
1. Rock Quality Designation RQD
A Very Poor 0 – 25
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡 h 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑟𝑢𝑛
B Poor 25 – 50
C Fair 50 – 75
D Good 75 – 90
E Excellent 90 – 100
Note: (i) Where RQD is reported or measured as ≤ 10 (including 0), a
nominal value of 10 is used to evaluate Q. (ii) RQD interval of 5, i.e.,
100, 95, 90, etc., are sufficiently accurate.

RQD = 0 All the artificial fractures should be

ignored while counting the core
RQD = 70 length for RQD.

RQD = 74 A slow rate of drilling will also give

better RQD.
RQD = 98
Rock Quality Designation Index (RQD) 13
 The most important application of RQD is its use as a component of the RMR and Q rock
mass classification systems.

 Problems with RQD:

 Joint orientation, alteration or roughness,
 Problem with drill cores,
 Gives wrong values where joints contain thin clay fillings or weathered material,
 RQD = 0 where the joint intercept (distance between the joints in the drill cores) is 10 cm
or less, while
 RQD = 100 where the distance is 11 cm or more!
 Rock Mass Rating (RMR) 14
 Bieniawski (1973, 1976)
 for use in tunnels in hard and soft rocks
 sedimentary rocks in South Africa

RMR considers 6 factors: Range

Factor A1: UCS 0 to 15
Factor A2: RQD 3 to 20
Factor A3: Spacing of Discontinuities 5 to 20
Factor A4: Condition of Discontinuities 0 to 30
Factor A5: Groundwater Conditions 0 to 15
Factor B: Adjustment for Orientation of -50 to 0
Discontinuities

 The allocation of rating values allows for the fact

that all parameters do not necessarily contribute
equally to the behaviour of the rock mass.
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) 15
 Step 1: rate parameters 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 and determine
the UNADJUSTED RMR.
 Step 2: rate parameter 6 (B, Adjustment for
Orientation of Discontinuities) and use it to get the
FINAL ADJUSTED RMR.

 The reason for this two-stage approach is that the

rating (B) for discontinuity orientation is a function
of the tunnel dip and strike relative to that of the
discontinuities and, if the tunnel dip and strike change
(as they would in practice), a different RMR will
result for each change of direction.
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) 16
 NOTE: When mixed-quality rock masses are encountered, it is essential to identify the ‘most critical’ condition,
e.g. where several joint sets are identified, it is the joint set that influences tunnel stability the most that should be
used in the assessment of RMR.

Rock mass class

I- Very good rock
RMR: 81 - 100
II- Good rock
RMR: 61 - 80 You will
III- fair rock
RMR: 41 - 60 need
IV- Poor rock
RMR: 21 - 40
formula
V- Very poor rock sheet
RMR: < 20
Rock Mass Classification: RMR
The adjusted value gives the final RMR value for the rock mass, for which several rock mass classes are described.
Rock Mass Classification: RMR
Rock Mass Classification: RMR
RMR Applications Stand-up Time 20
 Bieniawski published a set of guidelines
 for estimating the stand-up time (the duration of time an excavation (i.e. tunnel) will remain stable
without any support) and
 for selecting rock support in tunnels, based on the RMR value
 Guidelines apply up to horseshoe shaped tunnel, constructed using drill and blast methods, in a
rock mass subjected to σv <25 MPa.
Application of classification systems

Bieniawski, 1989
RMR Applications Excavation and Support 22
Rock Mass classification System: Q- system
 On the basis of an evaluation of a large number of case
histories of underground excavations, Barton et al. (1974) of
the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute proposed a tunneling
Quality Index (Q) for the development of rock mass
characteristics & tunnel support requirements. The system was
proposed on the basis of an analysis of 212 tunnel case
histories from Scandinavia.
Rock Mass classification System: Q- system
 The numerical value of the index Q varies on a logarithmic scale from 0.001 to a maximum of 1,000 & is
defined by:

 Where RQD is the Rock Quality Designation

 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
 SRF is the stress reduction factor
 Rock Mass classification System: Q- system
Block size
 The first quotient is related to the rock mass geometry.
Since RQD generally increases with decreasing number
of discontinuity sets the numerator and denominator of
the quotient mutually reinforce one another. Inter block Shear
 The second quotient relates to the “inter- block strength strength
shear strength” with high values representing better
mechanical quality of the rock mass.
 The third quotient is an “environment factor”
incorporating water pressures and flows, the presence of Active stress
shear zones squeezing and swelling rock and the in situ
stress state. The quotient increases with decreasing
water pressure and favorable in situ stress ratios. SRF is
a measure of 1) Loosening load in the case of an excavation through
shear zones & clay bearing rock, 2) Rock stress in competent rock,
3)Squeezing loads in plastic incompetent rocks
Example
 A 15 m span crusher chamber for an underground mine is to be excavated in a norite at a depth of 2,100
m below surface. The rock mass contains two sets of joints controlling stability. These joints are
undulating, rough and unweathered with very minor surface staining. RQD values range from 85% to
95% and laboratory tests on core samples of intact rock give an average
 uniaxial compressive strength of 170 MPa. The principal stress directions are approximately vertical and
horizontal and the magnitude of the horizontal principal stress is approximately 1.5 times that of the
vertical principal stress. The rock mass is locally damp but there is no evidence of flowing water.

Hoek, 2007
Rock Mass classification examples

Massive, strong
rock
Low stress regime
Lack of ground
support

RMR = 90 (Very
good)

Q = 180 (extremely
good rock)
Rock Mass classification examples

Blocky rock
Highstress
Regime
RMR = 25
Q = 0.6
(very poor
rock)
Q classification system – Excavation and Support
29

 Q rating to the stability and support requirements of underground excavations  De (Equivalent Dimension) and
ESR (Equivalent Support Ratio).
𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 , 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑟 h 𝑒𝑖𝑔 h𝑡
𝐷𝑒=
𝐸𝑆𝑅
Excavation ESR intended use of the excavation,
Description ESR degree of security
category
A Temporary mine openings. 3-5
Permanent mine openings, water tunnels for hydro power
B (excluding high penstocks), pilot tunnels, drifts headings for 1.6
large excavations.
Storage rooms, water treatment plants, minor road and
C 1.3
railway tunnels, surge chambers, access tunnels.
Power stations, major road and railway tunnels, civil
D 1.0
defence chambers portal intersections
Underground nuclear power stations railway stations, sports
E 0.8
and public facilities, factories
Few more empirical relations
 Length of rock bolts (B: excavation width)

 Max unsupported span

 Pressure
Experience based design – Empirical Design
Experience based design: empirical approaches

 38 different support categories, have been suggested by Barton (1974), based on the
relationship between the Q index and the equivalent dimension of the excavation.
Subjectivity in empirical design
Subjectivity in empirical design
 It must be remembered though, that such guidelines are drawn from previous experiences (i.e. case histories) and
are therefore limited by the range of conditions under which experiences were generated.

 RMR = 9lnQ + 44
Q classification system 35
 the Q classification system is relatively sensitive to
minor variations in rock properties
 the case studies employed for its initial development
have been very well documented
 it is relatively difficult for inexperienced users to
apply
Q classification system 36
𝑅𝑄𝐷 𝐽𝑟 𝐽𝑤
𝑄= ∙ ∙
𝐽𝑛 𝐽𝑎 𝑆𝑅𝐹
Q Rock Mass Description
0.001 – 0.01 Exceptionally Poor
0.01 – 0.1 Extremely Poor
0.1 - 1 Very Poor
1–4 Poor
4 – 10 Fair
10 – 40 Good
40 – 100 Very Good
100 – 400 Extremely Good
400 – 1000 Exceptionally Good

The system defines nine geotechnical classes of

rock mass ranging from exceptionally poor (Q ≤
0.01) to exceptionally good (Q ≥ 400)
Q classification system – Excavation and Support
37
 Max unsupported span = 2 × ESR × Q0.4 = 4 m
 Q calculated 6.75
 Excavation category D where ESR=1

 Category4) Systematic bolting (and unreinforced shotcrete, 4-

10 cm) Length of bolts 3.8 m.
Geological Strength Index (GSI)

The GSI provides a system for

estimating the reduction, in rock
mass strength, for different
geological conditions.

Values of GSI are related to both the

degree of fracturing and the
conditions of the fracture surfaces.

mainly jointing

mainly faulting
Estimate of GSI for heterogeneous rock masses, like flysch, Marinos and Hoek 2001.
Poor quality of rock mass at shallow depth
GSI Classification 41
 Hoek and Brown (1994)
 Geological Strength Index (GSI)
 GSI was introduced as part of continuing development and practical
application of the HB empirical rock mass strength criterion
 both for hard and weak rock masses
 GSI is based on visual inspection of geological conditions
 provides a system for estimating the reduction in rock mass strength for
different geological conditions

𝑅𝑄𝐷 𝐽𝑟 𝐽𝑤
𝑄= ∙ ∙
𝐽𝑛 𝐽𝑎 𝑆𝑅𝐹
Geological Strength Index (GSI)

Where Q – system quotient terms

Jw/SRF are dropped as these are not
rock mass characteristics.
GSI Classification 43
 The GSI classification was never intended as a replacement for RMR
or Q, as it has no rock mass reinforcement or support design
capability.
 The GSI is not a tunnel design tool; its only function is the
estimation of rock mass properties.
 The GSI index is used to calculate the mechanical properties of a
rock mass, particularly the UCS of rock mass and its deformation
modulus, E.
Advantages of Rock mass classification 44
 Rock Mass quality can be assessed simply, rapidly and continuously.
 The classification values can be established by trained site personnel (i.e. a high level of general engineering
expertise is not required).
 Engineering design is based on previous experience.

nd Q
R , a
, R M
R Q D
t h a t r i n g
o t e i n e e
t o n l e n g
t i n g c i v i
e re s n i n
s i n t r i g i
I t i e i r o
v e t h
ha
Disadvantages of Rock mass classification 45
 The classifications currently in use are historical and values of the classifications have not been scientifically
considered.
 They cannot be used for the full range of engineering objectives.
 The classifications are good as guides only and should be considered in this manner. There are also immediate
shortcomings in both:
 Stress is not included in RMR; and
 Intact rock strength in not included Q.
 Classifications should not be used as a sole measure of the quality of the rock mass, or as a sole guide to
reinforcement except in conceptual studies where very limited data exist.
 REFERENCES

 Barton, N (1974). Engineering Classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mechanics 6
(4) : 189 – 236.
 Bee, AJ, Stead, D. & Coggan, J.S. (2002). Estimation of the Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC) by visual
comparison. Rock Mechanics & Rock Engineering 35: 65-74.
 Bieniawski, ZT (1974). Geomechanics classification of rock masses and its application in tunneling. In
Proceedings of the Congress of the of the Int. Society for rock Mechanics, Denver. National Academy of
Sciences: Washington, pp. 27-32
 Bieniawski, ZT (1989). Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A complete Manual for Engineers and
Geologists in Mining, civil, and Petroleum Engineering Wiley: New York.
 Harrison, JP & Hudson, JA (2000). Engineering Rock Mechanics – Part 2: Illustrative Worked Examples.
Elsevier Science : Oxford.
 Hoek, E (1998). Reliability of Hoek – Brown estimates of rock mass properties and their impact on design. Int.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 35 (1): 63-68.
 Hoek, E. & Brown, ET (1980). Underground Excavations in rock. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy:
London.
 Hoek, E Kaiser PK & Bawden WF (1995): Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock Balkema.
 Hudson, JA & Harrison, JP (1997). Engineering Rock Mechanics – An Introduction to the principles. Elsevier
Science. Oxford.
REFERENCES
 Kaiser, PK, Diederichs, MS, Martin, D, Sharpe, J & Steiner, W (2000). Underground works in hard rock tunelling
and mining. In GeoEng2000, Melbourne. Technomic Publishing company: Lancaster, pp.841-926.
 Marinos, P & Hoek, E (2000). GSI – A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. In
GeoEng2000, Melbourne. Technomic Publishing Company: Lancster, CD-ROM.
 Wyllie, DC & Mah, CW (2004). Rock Engineering (4th edition). Spon Press: London.
 48

Thank you.
Any questions?