Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

Rock Mass Characterization for Underground Hard Rock Mines

D. Milne University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada J. Hadjigeorgiou Universit aval, !ue"ec City, Canada #. $akalnis %he University of &ritish Colu'"ia, (ancouver, Canada

)&S%#)C%* #ock 'ass characteri+ation is an integral ,art of rock engineering ,ractice. %here are several classification syste's used in underground 'ine design, however, 'ost Canadian 'ines rely on only one of three classification syste's. -t is interesting to note that these syste's, #!D, #M# and ! syste', have their origin in civil engineering. %his ,a,er reviews the current state of these classification syste's as e',loyed in the 'ining industry. %he first ,art focuses on the deter'ination of the field ,ara'eters, with e',hasis on the 'odifications to each ,ara'eter over the last ./ years. %he difference "etween classification ,ara'eters which influence rock 'ass strength esti'ation and those that influence engineering design is e',hasi+ed. %he second ,art of the ,a,er focuses on the design reco''endations "ased on these syste's such as 'a0i'u' s,an, o,ening geo'etry and su,,ort reco''endations. %he ,a,er concludes with reference to errors that 'ay arise in ,articular conditions. 1 -2%#3DUC%-32 #ock 'ass classification syste's constitute an integral ,art of e',irical 'ine design. %he use of such syste's can "e either i',licit or e0,licit. %hey are traditionally used to grou, areas of si'ilar geo'echanical characteristics, to ,rovide guidelines of sta"ility ,erfor'ance and to select a,,ro,riate su,,ort. -n 'ore recent years, classification syste's have often "een used in tande' with analytical and nu'erical tools. %here has "een a ,roliferation of work linking classification inde0es to 'aterial ,ro,erties such as 'odulus of elasticity, ' and s for the Hoek 4 &rown failure criterion, etc. %hese values are then used as in,ut ,ara'eters for the nu'erical 'odels. Conse5uently the i',ortance of rock 'ass characteri+ation has increased over ti'e. %he ,ri'ary o"jective of all classification syste's is to 5uantify the intrinsic ,ro,erties of the rock 'ass "ased on ,ast e0,erience. %he second o"jective is to investigate how e0ternal loading conditions acting on a rock 'ass influence its "ehaviour. )n understanding of these ,rocesses can lead to the successful ,rediction of rock 'ass "ehaviour for different conditions. Des,ite a ,lethora of e',irical classification syste's, only three syste's are co''only used for 'ine design in Canadian 'ines. %he first syste' is the #ock !uality Designation 6#!D7 ,ro,osed "y Deere et al. 6189:7. !uite often this is the only infor'ation readily availa"le at 'ine sites. %he other two widely used syste's in Canadian 'ines are the 2orwegian ;eotechnical -nstitute<s ! syste', &arton et al. 618:=7 and the various versions of the #ock Mass #ating Syste' 6#M#7, originally ,ro,osed "y &ieniawski 618:>7. -nterestingly, "oth syste's trace their origin in tunnelling. ?urther'ore, "oth syste's use #!D as one of their constitutive ,ara'eters. %he #M# and ! syste's have evolved over ti'e to "etter reflect the ,erceived influence of various rock 'ass factors on e0cavation sta"ility. %he introduced 'odifications have argua"ly enhanced the a,,lica"ility of these classification syste's, "ut there are still areas of ,otential errors and confusion. %his ,a,er discusses the evolution of these syste's as well as ,ro"le's associated with esti'ating the !, #M# and #!D inde0es. . @S%-M)%-32 3? #!D, ! )2D #M# Changes associated with the classification syste's are of two for's. %he first one lies with the actual ,ro,erties of the syste's, the way these are deter'ined on site and the associated weight

assigned to each ,ara'eter. %he second for' is the evolution of su,,ort reco''endations as new 'ethods of reinforce'ent such as ca"le "olting and reinforced shotcrete gained acce,tance. ..1 RQD #!D is a 'odified core recovery inde0 defined as the total length of intact core greater than 1//'' in length, divided "y the total length of the core run. %he resulting value is ,resented in the for' of a ,ercentage, ?igure 1. #!D should only "e calculated over individual core runs, usually 1.A 'etrers long.

?igure 1. $rocedure for deter'ining #!D, after Deere and Deere 618BB7. #!D was originally introduced for use with 2CD si+e core 6A=.: ''7 and a threshold value of 1//'' is used. 3ver the years, several correction factors have "een introduced to calculate #!D for other core dia'eters. %he 'ost ,o,ular a,,roach is to define the threshold value as e5ual to twice the core dia'eter. Conse5uently a threshold core length of :A'' would "e used for &! core and A/'' for )! si+e core. %he case for a sliding scale of threshold values rests on the greater sensitivity of s'all dia'eter core to "reaks due to drilling and handling. -t is the authors< o,inion that the threshold value of 1// '' should "e used for all core si+es since the #!D value should ignore "reaks caused "y drilling and handling. %he only ti'e the use of threshold values other than 1//'' 'ay "e justified occurs when it is i',ossi"le to differentiate "etween natural "reaks and drill induced "reaks. -ntact lengths of core only consider core "roken "y

joints or other naturally occurring discontinuities so drill "reaks 'ust "e ignored, otherwise the resulting #!D will underesti'ate the rock 'ass 5uality. -n ,ractice, a high #!D value does not always translate to high 5uality rock. -t is ,ossi"le to log 1.A 'etres of intact clay gouge and descri"e it as having 1//E #!D. %his 'ay "e true "ased on the original definition of #!D, "ut is very 'isleading and gives the i',ression of co',etent rock. %o avoid this ,ro"le', a ,ara'eter called <Handled< #!D 6H#!D7 was introduced, #o"ertson 618BB7. %he H#!D is 'easured in the sa'e way as the #!D, after the core has "een fir'ly handled in an atte',t to "reak the core into s'aller frag'ents. During handling, the core is fir'ly twisted and "ent, "ut without su"stantial force or the use of any tools. )n esti'ate of #!D is often needed in areas where line 'a,,ing or area 'a,,ing has "een conducted. -n these areas it is not necessary to use core since a "etter ,icture of the rock 'ass can "e o"tained fro' line or area 'a,,ing. %wo 'ethods for esti'ating #!D are reco''ended* 6a7 ?or line 'a,,ing data, an average joint s,acing can "e o"tained 6nu'"er of features divided "y traverse length7. &ieniawski 618B87 relying on ,revious work "y $riest and Hudson 618:97 has linked average joint s,acing to #!D, ?igure .. %he ratings in the figure refer to #M# . -tB8 should "e noted that the 'a0i'u' ,ossi"le #!D "ased on joint s,acing given "y &ieniawski actually corres,onds to the "estDfit relationshi, ,ro,osed "y $riest and Hudson. %he #!D can "e esti'ated fro' average joint s,acing "ased on the following e5uation "y $riest and Hudson 618:97* RQD = 100 e-.1 (.1 + 1) where F 1G6joint fre5uency7 617

?igure .. #elationshi, "etween discontinuity s,acing and #!D, after &ieniawski 618B87.

#elating joint s,acing to average #!D using ?igure . will likely lead to conservative esti'ates. Conse5uently the use of e5uation 617 is ,ro"a"ly 'ore a,,ro,riate. -t should "e noted, however, that this relationshi, is also de,endent on the direction of the traverse. ?or a given average joint s,acing there is a significant range in ,ossi"le #!D values. #!D should not "e calculated fro' line 'a,,ing "ased on the sa'e a,,roach used for core 6su' of notDjointed 'a,,ed distances greater than 1//''7. ine 'a,,ing distances are seldo' accurate enough to warrant this a,,roach. 6"7 ?or area 'a,,ing, a 'ore threeDdi'ensional ,icture of joint s,acing is often availa"le. $al'strH' 618B.7 defines J v as nu'"er of joints ,resent in a cu"ic 'etre of rock* 1 Jv = 6.7 Si where S F joint s,acing in 'etres for the actual joint set. #!D is related to J v "y the following e5uation* RQD = 115 - 3.3 J v and #!D F 1//E when J v =.A. %his a,,roach averages out so'e of the anisotro,y in the #!D ter' and gives a 'ore re,resentative value. %he 'ain draw"acks to #!D are that it is sensitive to the direction of 'easure'ent, and it is insensitive to changes of joint s,acing, if the s,acing is over 1'. %he 'ain use of #!D is to ,rovide a warning that the rock 'ass is ,ro"a"ly of low 5uality. ... RMR %he #M# classification syste', &ieniawski 618B87, was develo,ed for characteri+ing the rock 'ass and for ,roviding a design tool for tunneling. %he syste' has evolved due to a "etter understanding of the i',ortance of the different ,ara'eters and increased e0,erience. %a"le 1 su''ari+es the evolution of #M# ratings as well as the 'odifications to the weights assigned to each factor. %a"le . ,rovides the 'ost recent version of the #M# syste'. %he addition of the five ratings gives an #M# value that ranges fro' B to 1//. %his value can "e 'odified to account for favoura"leGunfavoura"le orientation of discontinuities as a,,lied to underground e0cavation. ?igure > shows how #M# can "e used to ,redict 6>7

tunnel stand u, ti'e. %he joint orientation adjust'ent has "een develo,ed for tunnelling a,,lications and consists of esti'ating how favoura"le the discontinuity orientation is with res,ect to the tunnel. %he rating for the assess'ent of the joint orientation factor has not changed with ti'e, however, in 18B8 the assess'ent of su"hori+ontal joints was 'odified fro' unfavoura"le to fair for the effect on sta"ility of tunnel "acks. %a"le 1. @volution of #M# #atings
#ock Strength #!D Discontinuity S,acing Se,aration of joints Continuity of joints ;round Iater Ieathering Condition of joints Strike and Di, orientation Strike and Di, orientation for tunnels 18:> 1/ 19 >/ A A 1/ 8 1/ 1A 1A >D1A /D1. /D1. /D1. 1/ >/ 1/ .A 1A >/ 18:= 1/ ./ >/ 18:A 1A ./ >/ 18:9 1A ./ >/ 18B8 1A ./ ./

%he 'ain factors that have "een changed with the #M# syste' are the weightings given to joint s,acing, joint condition and ground water. -n assessing "oth #!D and joint s,acing, the fre5uency of jointing is included twice. -n the 18B8 version of #M#, the weighting factor for the s,acing ter' was reduced and the influence of "oth water and joint condition was increased. ) further i',ortant 'odification to the #M# was in the definition of different rock 'ass classes 6i.e. very good, good rock, etc.7. Since 18:9 the rock 'ass classes are divided in intervals of ./, %a"le .. -n the latest version of the #M# syste', the condition of discontinuities was further 5uantified to ,roduce a less su"jective a,,raisal of discontinuity Condition, %a"le . section @. %his "rings #M# closer to the !Dsyste' which allows the assess'ent of discontinuity condition "y two inde,endent ter's, Jr and J a. Des,ite efforts to s,ecifically 'odify the #M# syste' for 'ining 6 au"scher 618:97, Jendorski et al. 618B>7 etc.7 'ost Canadian 'ines use one of the versions of #M# given in %a"le 1. De,ending on the re5uired sensitivity and the design 'ethod used, this 'ight lead to discre,ancies.

?igure >. #elationshi, "etween StandDu, ti'e, s,an and #M# classification, after &ieniawski 618B87. %he 'ain advantage of the #M# syste' is that it is easy to use. Co''on criticis's are that the syste' is relatively insensitive to 'inor variations in rock 5uality and that the su,,ort reco''endations a,,ear conservative and have not "een revised to reflect new reinforce'ent tools. ..> Q-Tunnelling index %he ! or 2;- 62orwegian ;eotechnical -nstitute7 classification syste' was develo,ed "y &arton, ien and unde 618:=7, ,ri'arily for tunnel design work. -t e0,resses rock 5uality, !, as a function of 9 inde,endent ,ara'eters*

has re'ained constant. %he descri,tions used to assess joint conditions are relatively rigorous and leave less roo' for su"jectivity, co',ared to other classification syste's. %a"le > ,rovides the latest version of the ! syste', after &arton 4 ;ri'stad 6188=7. 3ne disadvantage of the ! syste' is that it is relatively difficult for ine0,erienced users to a,,ly. %he J n ter', "ased on the nu'"er of joint sets ,resent in a rock 'ass, can cause difficulty. -ne0,erienced users often rely on e0tensive line 'a,,ing to assess the nu'"er of joint sets ,resent and can end u, finding = or 'ore joint sets in an area where jointing is widely s,aced. %his results in a low esti'ate of !. )n i',ortant asset of the ! syste' is that the case studies e',loyed for its initial develo,'ent have "een very well docu'ented. %he use of the ! syste' for the design of su,,ort has also evolved over ti'e. -n ,articular &arton has introduced a design chart that accounts for the use of fi"re reinforced shotcrete. %his has "een "ased on increased e0,erience in tunnelling. ?or 'ost 'ining a,,lications, however it is co''on to rely on the design chart shown in ?igure =.

Q= where*

RQD J r J w x x Jn J a SRF

6=7 ?igure =. Design of @0cavations "ased on the !D syste', after &arton 4 ;ri'stad 6188=7. -n 'ining the use of the ratio of @0cavation S,anG@5uivalent Su,,ort #atio 6@S#7 is li'ited. -n o,en sto,e design this ter' is re,laced altogether "y the hydraulic radius. )lternatively one can assign different @S# values de,endent on the ty,e of o,ening 6e.g. A for nonDentry sto,es, 1 for Shaft etc.7. )s there are li'ited docu'ented case studies this involves considera"le judg'ent. %he ne0t section looks at the weightings given to the different ,ara'eters used in the ! and #M# classification syste's, and how the two syste's are related.

#!D F #ock 5uality designation Jnis "ased on the nu'"er of joint sets Jr is "ased on discontinuity roughness Jais "ased on discontinuity alteration Jw is "ased on the ,resence of water S#? is the Stress #eduction ?actor -t has "een suggested that #!DGJ n reflects "lock si+e, J rGJ areflects friction angle and J GS#? w reflects effective stress conditions. %he 'ain advantage to the ! classification syste' is that it is relatively sensitive to 'inor variations in rock ,ro,erties. @0ce,t for a 'odification to the Stress #eduction ?actor 6S#?7 in 188=, the ! syste'

..=

!"#ara$ive R!%& Ma'' (r!#er$) *eig+$ing'

&oth the ! and #M# classification syste's are "ased on a rating of three ,rinci,al ,ro,erties of a rock 'ass. %hese are the intact rock strength, the frictional ,ro,erties of discontinuities and the geo'etry of intact "locks of rock defined "y the discontinuities. ?or the ! syste', the intact rock strength is only a factor in the conte0t of the induced stress in the rock as defined "y the S#? ter'. -n order to investigate the influence of these ,ara'eters, the a,,ro0i'ate total range in values for #M# and ! are used as a "asis of co',arison. %a"le = shows the degree "y which the three ,rinci,al rock 'ass ,ro,erties influence the values of the ! and #M# classification. %a"le =. -nfluence of &asic #ock Mass $ro,erties on Classification, after Milne 618BB7.
&asic #ange in (alues Strength as E of the %otal #ange &lock Si+e as a E of the %otal #ange Discontinuity ?riction as a E of the %otal #ange ! /.//1 to 1/// 18E ==E >8E #M#:9 B to 1// 19E A=E .:E

s,aced jointing, the joint set ,ara'eter J in n the ! syste' a,,ears to unduly reduce the resulting ! value. %a"le A. Correlation "etween #M# and !, after Cho5uet and Hadjigeorgiou 6188>7.
Correlation #M# F 1>.A log ! K => #M# F 8 ln ! K == #M# F 1..A log ! K AA.. #M# F A ln ! K 9/.B #M# F =>.B8 D 8.18 ln ! #M# F 1/.A ln ! K =1.B #M# F 1..11 log ! K A/.B1 #M# F B.: ln ! K >B Source 2ew Lealand Diverse origin S,ain S. )frica S,ain S,ain Canada Canada Co''ents %unnels %unnels %unnels %unnels Mining Soft rock Mining Soft rock Mining Hard rock %unnels, Sedi'entary rock Mining Hard rock

#M# F 1/ ln ! K >8

Canada

> #3CJ M)SS C )SS-?-C)%-32 ?3# M-2-2; 3ne of the funda'ental differences "etween tunnel and 'ine design a,,roaches to rock 'ass classification is the large variation in the engineered o,enings in 'ining a,,lications. ?or tunnel ,rojects, tunnel orientation, de,th and stress conditions are usually constant for significant ,ortions of a ,roject. -n 'ining, none of these conditions can "e assu'ed to "e constant. Due to the relatively constant engineered conditions in tunnelling, the stress condition has "een included in the ! classification syste' and the relative orientation "etween the tunnel and critical joint set has "een included in the #M# syste'. %his a,,roach has not "een widely ado,ted in the 'ining industry "ecause it would result in the sa'e rock 'ass having do+ens of classification values throughout the 'ine, de,ending on drift orientation, 'ining level and the e0cavation history. %his would lead to significant confusion and render the rock classification values useless. %wo general a,,roaches have "een taken to allow these classification syste's to "e a,,lied to 'ining conditions. %he first a,,roach was to try and create a co',lete design 'ethod fro' the classification syste's "y including other engineering and loading condition factors. 3ne e0a',le of this is au"scher<s M#M# syste' 6Mining #ock Mass #ating7

%a"le = shows the sur,rising si'ilarity "etween the weightings given to the three "asic rock 'ass ,ro,erties considered. Des,ite this it should "e noted that there is no "asis for assu'ing the two syste's should "e directly related. %he assess'ent for intact rock strength and stress is significantly different in the two syste's. Des,ite these i',ortant differences "etween the two syste's, it is co''on ,ractice to use the rating fro' one syste' to esti'ate the rating value of the other. %he following e5uation ,ro,osed "y &ieniawski 618:97 is the 'ost ,o,ular, linking ! and #M#* RMR = 8 ln Q + == 6A7

#eferring to %a"le A, it is evident that e5uation 6A7 does not ,rovide a uni5ue correlation "etween #M# and !. De,ending on the overall intact rock and discontinuity ,ro,erties and s,acing, different relationshi,s "etween ! and #M# can "e e0,ected. )nother difference "etween #M# and ! is evident in the assess'ent of joint s,acing. -f three or 'ore joint sets are ,resent and the joints are widely s,aced, it is difficult to get the ! syste' to reflect the co',etent nature of a rock 'ass. ?or widely

,ro,osed in 18::, which added factors such as "lasting, weathering, 'ulti,le joint orientations and stress to o"tain a ter' called the design rock 'ass strength. %his ter' re,resents the unconfined strength of the rock 'ass in a s,ecific 'ining environ'ent, au"scher 6188/7. %he assess'ent of these added factors is 5uite su"jective and re5uires an e0,erience ,ractitioner. %he use of design classification syste's such as this is not wides,read in the Canadian 'ining industry. %he second a,,roach consists of si',lifying the classification syste' to only include factors de,endent on the rock 'ass and to ignore environ'ental considerations such as stress and drift orientation. %he resulting rating is solely de,endent on the rock 'ass, and will give the sa'e assess'ent for the sa'e rock conditions at different de,ths and drift orientations within a 'ine. %his si',lified rock classification a,,roach has "een a,,lied to "oth the #M# and ! syste's. !< is the 'odified ! classification with S#? F 1 and #M#< dro,s the joint orientation factor. %he !< and #M#< classification values have "een used in 'any different 'ining situations. Iith these design a,,roaches, factors such as stress and the influence of joint orientation have "een added as ste,s in the design ,rocess, which do not influence the classification values. So'e of these design 'ethods are 'entioned in the following sections. Many 'ine design a,,roaches have "een develo,ed fro' the !< and #M#< classification syste's. -n 'any cases these design a,,roaches account for the influence of stress and joint orientation in the design ste,s and it would "e incorrect to assess these factors twice "y including the' in the rock 'ass classification. >.1 ,"#iri%al -#en S$!#e De'ign %he Sta"ility ;ra,h 'ethod for o,en sto,e design, $otvin 618BB7, ,lots the sta"ility nu'"er versus the hydraulic radius of a design surface, ?igure A. %he sta"ility nu'"er 2 is "ased on a !< rating adjusted to account for stress condition 6?actor )7, joint orientation 6?actor &7 and the surface orientation of the assessed surface 6?actor C7. &ased on an e0tensive data"ase it is ,ossi"le to ,redict the sta"ility of an e0cavation. !< is used as o,,osed to ! "ecause stress is assessed in the ) factor. ?urther'ore, the sta"ility gra,h 'ethod is "ased on an e',irical data"ase which does not include case histories where there was significant water inflow and should therefore "e

used with caution if water is ,resent. %he S#? ter' in the ! syste' includes descri,tions for 'ulti,le shear or fault +ones where it is felt the rock 'ass will "e rela0ed at any de,th. Under these conditions the S#? value could argua"ly "e included in the !< classification "ecause the ,resence of 'ulti,le shear +ones is a descri,tion of the rock 'ass, not the stress condition.

?igure A. %he Sta"ility ;ra,h, after $otvin 618BB7. 3.. S#an De'ign %he critical s,an design 'ethod for entry 'ining was develo,ed for cut and fill 'ining ang et al. 618817, ?igure 9.

?igure 9. Design S,an versus #M#, after ang et al.

618817. %he critical s,an is defined as the dia'eter of the largest circle that can "e drawn within the "oundaries of the e0,osed "ack. %his s,an is then related to the #M#18:9 value. %he joint orientation factor is not used, however, reduction of 1/ is given to the #M# o value for joints di,,ing at less than >/ . Under high stress, "urst ,rone conditions a reduction of ./ is assigned to the #M# value. ?igure 9 su''ari+es this 'ethod. %he a,,roach is suita"le for +ones that have local su,,ort, "ut have not "een ca"le "olted. Sta"ility is li'ited to a >D'onth duration and the analysis is "ased on a hori+ontal "ack. %he "ack is assu'ed to "e in a rela0ed state unless high stressG"urst ,rone conditions are encountered. >.. Failure ri$eria %hat there is so'e link "etween the ,ro,erties of a rock 'ass and its rock 'ass characteri+ation rating would a,,ear logical. @0,ressing this relationshi, in a definitive 'anner is however e0tre'ely difficult. #eferring to %a"le . it can "e shown that different classes of rock as defined "y #M# have different frictional ,ro,erties. ?or e0a',le an #M# of 9/DB1 would indicate cohesion of >//D=// k$a and an angle o. of friction "etween >AD=A %he case studies that su,,ort these relationshi,s however are not known. ) ,o,ular e',irical criterion in rock engineering has "een ,ro,osed "y Hoek and &rown 618B/7*
1 = 3 + "( 3 )+ ' %

' = e(

RMR - 100 ) 0

6B7

?or distur"ed rock


" = "i e
(RMR - 100) 11
(RMR 0 - 100)

687 61/7

' = e

-t should "e noted that the ' and s values for distur"ed and undistur"ed rock could also "e derived "y using the e5uations for distur"ed rock and adjusting the #M# classification values. %he increase in the #M# classification "etween distur"ed and undistur"ed conditions can "e calculated "ased on the e5uation 6117. RMRundi'$ur2ed = RMRdi'$ur2ed + 6A/ .ARMRdi'$ur2ed 7 6?or #M# M =/7 6117 -t is suggested 6Hoek et al., 188A7 that the ! classification syste' can also "e used to esti'ate ' and s. %he joint water and S#? ter's are set to 1./ and the #M# value can then "e esti'ated fro' the e5uation 6A7. %his e5uation was develo,ed to relate the original #M# and ! values when the joint water, S#? and joint orientation ter's were all included in the classification. Section ..= descri"es how unrelia"le it is to relate the ! and #M# classification syste's. -t is dou"tful if @5uation 6A7 can "e used with any confidence, es,ecially when the joint water and S#? ter's are ignored. -t is 'ore ,rudent to inde,endently deter'ine the #M#< and !< values. = C32C US-32S #ock 'ass classification is one of the only a,,roaches for esti'ating largeDscale rock 'ass ,ro,erties. -n the 'ining industry the ! and #M# classification syste' for' the "asis of 'any e',irical design 'ethods, as well as the "asis of failure criteria used in 'any nu'erical 'odelling ,rogra's. Classification syste's have evolved as engineers have atte',ted to a,,ly rock classification to a wider range of engineering ,ro"le's. #ock 'ass classification is one of the only a,,roaches availa"le to esti'ate largeDscale rock 'ass ,ro,erties. -t for's the "asis of 'any e',irical design 'ethods as well as for'ing the "asis of so'e failure criteria used in nu'erical 'odelling design a,,roaches. %his ,a,er atte',ts to highlight so'e of the ,otential ,ro"le's when using the ! and #M# syste's. $ractitioners should "e aware that classification and design syste's are evolving and that old versions of classification syste's are not

697

where is the 'ajor ,rinci,al effective stress at failure > is the 'inor ,rinci,al effective stress at failure c is the unia0ial co',ressive strength of the intact rock ' 4 s are 'aterial constants
1

%he deter'ination of ' and s has also "een linked to rock 'ass classification ratings. Ihen esti'ating the ' and s values, the #M#< value should "e used which does not include the joint orientation factor and the ground water factor has "een set to 1/, for dry conditions 6Hoek et al., 188A7. %he ' and s failure criteria and the e5uations relating ' and s to rock classification are given "elow* ?or undistur"ed rock " = "i e(
RMR - 100 ) ./

ew+er "i = "in$a%$

6:7

always co',ati"le with new design a,,roaches. So'e of the ,ro"le's that can "e encountered are outlined "elow* a7. More than one relationshi, has "een suggested for relating joint s,acing to #!D. %hese a,,roaches do not all agree and the users should use 'ore than one 'ethod. )n esti'ate within AE is 'ore than ade5uate for #!D. "7 $ractitioners so'eti'es esti'ate one classification and then derive a second classification fro' e',irical relationshi,s. #elating ! and #M# 'akes for an interesting co',arison "etween classifications and 'ay i',rove our understanding of the rock 'ass, however, the two syste's should always "e derived inde,endently. %here are 'any ,u"lished relationshi,s "etween ! and #M#, however, it is likely that no one relationshi, would work for all rock 'ass conditions. #elationshi,s such as e5uation 6A7 ,rovide a useful check. 2evertheless, there is no reason why the ! and #M# syste's should "e directly related. c7 Care 'ust "e taken when using classification syste's with e',irical design 'ethods. %he user 'ust "e sure that the classification syste' used 'atches the a,,roach taken for the develo,'ent of the e',irical design 'ethod. ) design 'ethod "ased on #M# :9 cannot "e e0,ected to give the sa'e results as #M# . B8 Under these circu'stances, for ,ur,oses of continuity, it is so'eti'es necessary to continue using an earlier version. Design 'ethods which do not rely on case histories or ,ast e0,erience, do not have the sa'e constraints. d7 Mining a,,lications of the ! and #M# syste' have tended to si',lify classification syste's to only included factors de,endent on the rock 'ass, ignoring environ'ental and loading conditions. %his has resulted in the !N and #M#N which ignore factors such as stress and joint orientation. %his a,,roach to classification is warranted in co',le0 'ining situations. Serious errors can result if these si',lified classification syste's are a,,lied to the e',irical civil tunnel design a,,roaches such as the ! su,,ort gra,h. Des,ite their li'itations, the reviewed classification syste's are still in use as they ,rovide an invalua"le reference to ,ast e0,erience. A )CJ23I @D;@M@2%S %he authors would like to acknowledge the financial su,,ort of the 2ational Science and @ngineering #esearch of Council of Canada 62S@#C7.

#@?@#@2C@S &arton, 2., #. ien #. 4 J. unde 18:=. @ngineering Classification of Jointed #ock Masses for the Design of %unnel Su,,ort. R!%& Me%+ani%', 9, ,. 1B8D.>9. &arton, 2. 4 @. ;ri'stad 188=. %he !DSyste' following %wenty years of ),,lication in 2M% Su,,ort Selection. Fel'2au 1. 2r. 9, ,,. =.BD=>9. &ieniawski, L.%. 18:>. @ngineering Classification of Jointed #ock Masses. -n Tran'a%$i!n !3 $+e S!u$+ 43ri%an 5n'$i$u$i!n !3 ivil ,ngineer', 1A, ,. >>AD >==. &ieniawski, L.%. 18:9. #ock Mass Classification of Jointed #ock Masses. ,x#l!ra$i!n 3!r R!%& ,ngineering. L.%. &ieniawski @d. &alke'a, Johannes"urg, ,,. 8:D1/9. &ieniawski, L.%. 18:8. %he ;eo'echanics classification in rock engineering a,,lications. $roc. -n (r!%. 1$+ 5n$. !ng. R!%& Me%+. -S#M, Mo'treu0, ., ,,. =1D=B. &ieniawski, L.%. 18B8. ,ngineering R!%& Ma'' la''i3i%a$i!n'. John Iiley 4 Sons ,. .A1. Cho5uet, $. 4 J. Hadjigeorgiou 188>. Design of su,,ort for Underground @0cavations. Cha,ter 1., (ol. =, J. Hudson @d. !"#re+en'ive R!%& ,ngineering6 ,,.>1>D>=B. Deere, D.U., ).J. Hendron Jr., ?.D. $atton 4 @.J. Cording 189:. Design of Surface and 2ear Surface Construction in #ock. -n Failure and 7rea&age !3 R!%&. C. ?airhurst ed. Society of Mining @ngineers of )-M@, 2ew Oork, ,,. .>:D>/.. Deere, D.U. 4 D.I. Deere D.I. 18BB. %he #ock !uality -nde0 in $ractice. R!%& la''i3i%a$i!n S)'$e"' 3!r ,ngineering (ur#!'e'. )S%M S%$ 8B=, . Jirkaldie @d. $,. 81D1/1. Hoek, @. 4 @.%. &rown 18B/. 8ndergr!und ,x%ava$i!n' in R!%&, ,. A.:. -nstitution of Mining and Metallurgy, ondon. Hoek, @., $.J. Jaiser 4 I. &awden 188A. Su##!r$ !3 8ndergr!und ,x%ava$i!n' in 9ard R!%&. &alke'a. ,. .1A. Jendorski, ?. #. Cu''ings, L.%. &ieniawski 4 @. Skinner 18B>. #ock 'ass classification for "lock caving 'ine drift su,,ort. -n (r!%. 5$+ 5n$. !ngre'' R!%&. Me%+. -S#M, Mel"ourne ,,. &A1D &9>. ang, &., #. $akalnis 4 S. (ong,aisal 1881. S,an Design in wide cut and fill Sto,es at Detour ake Mine. 03rd 4nnual :eneral Mee$ing; anadian 5n'$i$u$e !3 Mining, (ancouver, ,a,er P 1=.. au"scher, D.H. 18::. ;eo'echanics Classification

ht'

of Jointed #ock Masses D Mining ),,lications. Tran'. 5n'$i$u$i!n !3 Mining and Me$allurg) 6Sect. )* Mining -ndustry7. B9, ,. )1D)B. au"scher, D.H. 188/. ) ;eo'echanics Classification Syste' for the #ating of #ock Mass in Mine design. J!urnal !3 $+e S!u$+ 43ri%an 5n'$i$u$e !3 Mining < Me$allurg), vol. 8/, no 1/, ,,. .A:D.:>. Milne, D. 18BB. Sugge'$i!n' 3!r '$andardi=a$i!n !3 r!%& "a'' %la''i3i%a$i!n. MSc Dissertation, -',erial College, University of ondon, ,,. 1.>. $al'strH', ). 18B.. %he volu'etric joint countD a useful and si',le 'easure of the degree of rock $+ jointing. (r!%. 1 5n$. !ngre'' 5n$. a''. ,ngng6. :e!l. Del,hi A, ..1D..B. $otvin, O. 18BB. ,"#iri%al !#en '$!#e de'ign in anada. $h.D. thesis. %he University of &ritish Colu'"ia ,. >A/. $riest, S.D. 4 J.). Hudson 18:9. @sti'ation of discontinuity s,acing and trace length using scan line surveys. 5n$. J. R!%& Me%+. Min. S%i and :e!"e%+., (ol. 1B, ,,. 1B>D18:. #o"ertson, ).M., 18BB. @sti'ating Ieak #ock Strength, 45M,-SM, 4nnual Mee$ing, $hoeni0, )L., $re,rint PBBD1=A. htt,*GGwww.ado"e.co'G,rodinde0Gacro"atGdownload.