Updated: 11th Sep 2015

Course: Elements of Rock Mechanics (MI21007)

Rock Mass Classification

Dr. Abhiram Kumar Verma

Dept of Mining Engg.
IIT Kharagpur

Upcoming Book: Fundamentals and Application in Rock Mechanics, PHI Publication

Rock Mass is an assemblage of
intact rock materials separated by
geological discontinuities

Lab tests shows no

reflection about extent
of discontinuities

Several variables (e.g. orientation, roughness spacing, filling

etc) are associated with rock mass

Rock mass showing lower strength and stiffness due to presence

of discontinuities than intact rock
 Factors affecting Discontinuities
1. Orientation :dip and dip direction
2. Spacing : perpendicular distance bet two adjacent discontinuitites
3. Persistence : Extent of discontinuity within rock mass
4. Roughness : surface undulations (waviness), JRC
5. Wall strength : JCS
6. Aperture : perpendicular distance between two adjacent rock walls of open discontinuity
7. Filling : material occupies the space bet. adj. rock wall
8. Seepage : through discontinuities (secondary permeability)
9. Number of joint sets: dictates the failure without failure of intact rock
10. Block size and shape: are cubes, tetrahedrons, sheets etc. Defined as
the average diameter of an equivalent sphere of the same volume
 Rock type based on block size
and shape, ISRM (1978)
Massive few joints or very wide spacing

Blocky Approx. equi-dimensional

Tabular one dimension considering smaller than

the other two

Columnar One dim. Larger than the other two

Irregular wide variations of block size and shape

Crushed heavy jointed to sugar cubes

 Purpose

to establish the quality of a particular rock

mass (or part of a rock mass) by assigning

rating values to a set of rock parameters

which, under a particular set of engineering

constraints, will behave in a similar way.

 Differentiate these Rock Mass?

Identify the significant parameters influencing the behaviour

Classify rock mass into groups of similar behaviour

Understanding the characteristics of each group

Derive quantitative data and guidelines for engineering

design

Basis for communication between engineers and geologists

Rock mass
classification for an
underground
hydroelectric power
house on the
Lanchang River

IAEG2006 Paper
number 652

SHUQIANG LU & MO XU

Based on the rock

mass classifications of
exploration adits, the
description of the drill
core and, the value of
RQD, in conjunction
with taking into account
the synthetic fault
traces,the zone of
weathering and the
geological trend of the
adjacent profile, the
zoning map can be
compiled PLAN VIEW
 Benefits
Improving the quality of site investigation
by minimizing input data for classification

Providing quantitative information for

design purposes.

Enabling better engineering judgment and

more effective communication
 Steps for the development of a
classification scheme
Objective of the rock mass classification scheme;

Parameters to be used, their ranges and ratings;

Decide on the algebra to be used for the rock index

(e.g. Do we simply select values from a table, do we
add rating values together, do we multiply ratings
together, or something else?); Example: RMR
(addition) Q (multiplication and ratio) and

Calibrate the rock index value against the objective.

 Rock Mass Classification
ADVANTAGE
simple and effective way of representing
rock mass quality and of encapsulating
precedent practice.

DISADVANTAGE
cannot used for different objective or in
significantly new circumstances.
 Prime parameters governing
rock mass property
Rock mass is classified on the basis of three factors:

Joint Parameters Intact rock properties Boundary conditions

Joint sets Compressive strength In-situ stresses
Orientation Modulus of elasticity Groundwater
Spacing
Aperture
Roughness
Weathering and alteration
 Major Engineering Rock Mass Classifications (18)
Name of Originator and Country Applications
Classification Year Origin
Rock Load Theory Terzaghi,1946 USA Tunnels with steel support
Unsuitable for modern tunneling
Stand-up time Lauffer,1958 Austria Tunneling; Conservative
New Austrian Rabcewicz, 1964/65 and Austria Tunnelling in incompetent (overstresses)
Tunnelling method 1975 ground; unutilized in squeezing ground
(NATM) condition
Rock Quality Deere et al., 1967 USA Tunneling; Sensitive to orientation effects
Designation (RQD)
Rock structure Wickham et al., 1972 USA Tunnels with steel support
rating (RSR) Not useful with steel fibre shotcrete
concept
RMR Bieniawski, 1973 South Tunnels, mines, Slopes foundations
(last modified, 1989 Africa
USA)
NGI/Q-system Barton et al., 1974 Norway Tunnels and Wide openings
(modified 2002)
Mining RMR Laubscher, 1975 Mining

The typological Matula and Holzer, For use in communication

classification 1978
 Major Engineering Rock Mass Classifications
Name of Classification Originator and Country Applications
Date Origin
Unified rock classification Williamson, 1980 USA For use in communication
system (URCS)
Basic geological description ISRM, 1981 For general use
(BGD)
Rock mass strength (RMS) Stille et al., 1982 Sweden Modified RMR

Modified basic RMR (MBR) Cummings et al., 1982 Mining

Simplified RMR (SMR) Brook and Mines and tunnels

Dharmaratne, 1985 Modified RMR and MRMR
Ramamurthy / Arora Ramamurthy and India For intact and jointed rocks
Arora, 1993 Modified Deere and Miller approach

Geological strength index Hoek et al., 1995 -- Mines, tunnel

Rock mass Number N Singh and Goel, 1995 India Stress-free Q-system

Rock Mass index Palmstrom, 1995 Norway Tunnels , mining openings and other
(R Mi) openings in rock mass
 Parameters included in different
classification system (Edelbro, 2003)

RQD: Rock quality designation; RSR: Rock structure rating; RMR: Rock mass rating; Q: Tunneling
Quality index; MRMR: Mining rock mass rating; RMS: Rock mass strength; MBR: Modified basic
RMR; SMR: Simplified RMR; N: Rock mass number; RMi: Rock mass index
Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
(Deere 1964)
 Collar: Initial point of B/H
0m

1m
0m

2m B/H

4m 3m

5m
Cautions for RQD determination
Core should be at least NW size (54.7 mm dia)
or 50 mm dia.
Recovered through double-tube core barrel.
It should be measured for each core run.

Limitations of RQD
Doesnt consider joint orientation
Depend on borehole orientation
Depends on rock strength and core size
 RMR/Geomechanics/CSIR
classification
Prof. Z. T. Bieniawski developed in 1976 and modified
1989. Spend 15 years and reported 351 case histories.
Original (1976) classification has eight (8) parameters
whereas in modified (1989) only six (6) parameters
1976 1989
1. Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of rock material 1. UCS (15-0)*
2. Rock Quality Designation (RQD) 2. RQD (20 3)
3. State of weathering Not included
4. Spacing of joints and bedding plane 3. Spacing of discontinuities (20 5)
5. Strike and dip orientation 4. Orientation of discontinuities (20 5)
6. Separation of joints
5. Condition of discontinuities (30 0)
7. Continuity of joints
8. Ground water inflow 6. Ground water condition (20 5)
* Max-Min Range
 UCS; RQD

Spacing of discontinuities - is the mean distance between the

plane of weakness in the rock mass in the direction
perpendicular to the discontinuity planes.

Orientation of discontinuities Refers to strike and Dip;

Strike of discontinuities is recorded with reference to magnetic
north.

Condition of discontinuities - includes roughness, separation,

their length or continuity (persistence), weathering of the wall
rock, and the infilling (gouge) material.

Ground water condition - rate of inflow of groundwater

categorized as completely dry, damp, wet, dripping, and flowing
RMR System (Bieniawski 1989)
 RMR Table
The table consists of 5 sub-tables i.e. A, B, C, D, E and F

Sub-table A gives the rating of 5 parameters like (1) UCS, (2) RQD,
(3) Spacing of discontinuities, (4) Condition of discontinuities and (5)
ground water

Condition of discontinuities can be supplemented by the rating given in

Sub-table E (use if appropriate classification are not available in A)

Sub-table B: gives the rating for the sixth parameter (6) Orientation of
discontinuities in association with Sub-table F

Sub-table C: gives RMR rating based on addition of all 6 parameters

discussed above

Sub-table D: Explains the rating in terms of stand up time, cohesion

and friction angle.
 Elements of RMR
1. Strength based on sc (UCS) or Is50 15 pts
25:1 ratio
sc = 250 MPa or more; 15 points
2. RQD Rock Quality Designation 20 pts
< 25%; 3/20 points only

3. Ground water
15 pts
Inflow rate
ujoint:s1; If > 0.5; zero points?
Dry, damp, wet, dripping, flowing?
Elements of RMR - discontinuities
4. Spacing 20 pts
2 m or more; 20 points
< 60 mm; 5 points
5. General condition (refer section E) 30 pts
Roughness
Continuity
Opening
Weathering
 RMR modified for slopes or tunnels

Additional factors applied to RMRbasic

Accounts for excavation method
BUT moreover,
Accounts for joint orientation wrt the excavation
Unfavourable conditions, deduct points from RMRbasic
refer section F of Table
Slopes - unfavourable
Slopes - favourable
Tunnels - unfavourable
 Tunnel Support

Lining, e.g.
shotcrete
Rockbolts
 RMR & Tunnels

Stand up time for various tunnel spans

based on RMR
Unreinforced tunnels
no advice re support e.g. shotcrete or
rockbolts/anchors

Shotcrete = sprayed concrete, lightly reinforced

 Example: 10 m span
Evaluation of Tunnels RMR = 80
Stand up time > 4 years
based on RMR RMR = 50
Stand up time 2 days
 Class of Rock from RMR

RMR Description Class

100-81 Very good I
80-61 Good II
60-41 Fair III
40-21 Poor IV
<21 Very poor V
 Exercise 1
SN Item Value Rating
A tunnel is to be driven through a slightly
weathered granite with a dominant joint 1 Point load Index 8 MPa 12
set dipping at 600 against the direction of
2 RQD 70% 13
the drive. Index testing and logging of
diamond drilled core give typical Point- 3 Spacing of 300 mm 10
load strength index values of 8 MPa and discontinuities
average RQD values of 70%. The joints, 4 Condition of Note 1 22
which are slightly rough and slightly discontinuities
weathered with a separation of < 1 mm, 5 Ground water Wet 7
are spaced at 300 mm. Tunneling
conditions are anticipated to be wet. 6 Adjustment for joint Note 2 -5
orientation
Find RMR?
Total 59

Note 1. For slightly rough and altered discontinuity surfaces with a separation of < 1mm, Table 4.4.A.4 gives
a rating of 25. When more detailed information is available, Table 4.4.E can be used to obtain a more refined
rating. Hence, in this case, the rating is the sum of: 4 (1-3 m discontinuity length), 4 (separation 0.1-1.0 mm),
3 (slightly rough), 6 (no infilling) and 5 (slightly weathered) = 22.

Note 2. Table 4.4.F gives a description of Fair for the conditions assumed where the tunnel is to be driven
against the dip of a set of joints dipping at 600. Using this description for Tunnels and Mines in Table 4.4.B
gives an adjustment rating of -5.
Problem 1: Consider the example of a granitic rock mass in which a tunnel is to
be driven. The classification has been carried out as follows:
Sl.no Classification parameter Value of description Rating
1. Strength of intact material 150MPa
RQD 70%
3. Joint spacing 0.5m
4. Condition of joints Slightly rough surfaces , separation < 1mm, hard joint wall rock
5. Ground water Water under moderate pressure
Total score

The tunnel has been oriented such that the dominant joint set strikes
perpendicular to the tunnel axis with a dip of 300 against the drive direction.

Problem 2: A tunnel is to be driven through a slightly weathered granite with a

dominant joint set dipping at 60o against the direction of the drive. Index testing and
logging of diamond drilled core give typical Point-load strength index values of 8
MPa and average RQD values of 70%. The slightly rough and slightly weathered
joints with a separation of < 1 mm, are spaced at 300 mm. Tunnelling conditions are
anticipated to be wet. Sl.no Classification parameter Value of description Rating
1. Point load index 8 MPa
2. RQD 70%
3. Spacing of Discontinuities < 1mm
4. Condition of Discontinuities Slightly rough and slightly weathered
5. Ground water Wet
6. Orientation of discontinuities Dip 600 against drive
Total score
Guideline for the support Selection in Tunnels <cont.>
(Bieniawski, 1989)

Guidelines are applicable for:

a 10 m span horseshoe shaped tunnels,
constructed using drill and blast methods,
vertical stress rock mass is less than 25
MPa. (which is equivalent to a depth of less
than 900 m)
Guideline for the support Selection in Tunnels <cont.>
(Bieniawski, 1989)

This table is not revised since 1973.

 Exercise 1 Support Selection
With RMR = 59, Table suggests that:
A tunnel could be excavated by top heading and bench, with a 1.5 to 3 m advance in
the top heading.
Support should be installed after each blast and complete support upto a distance of
10 m from the face.
Systematic fully grouted rock bolt of 4m long and 20mm diameter spaced at 1.5 to 2
m in the roof and walls, is recommended. OR
Wire mesh, with 50 to 100 mm of shotcrete for the crown and 30 mm of shotcrete for
the wall, is recommended.
RMR = 59 (rock mass is on the boundary between the Fair rock and Good rock categories)
In initial stages of design and construction, use the support suggested for fair rock.
If the construction is progressing well with no stability problems, and the support is performing very
well, then it should be possible to gradually reduce the support requirements to those indicated for
a good rock mass.
If the excavation is required to be stable for a short amount of time, then it is advisable to try
the less expensive and extensive support suggested for good rock.
However, if the rock mass surrounding the excavation is expected to undergo large mining induced
stress changes, then substantial support appropriate for fair rock should be installed.
Great deal of judgment is needed in the application of rock mass classification to support design.
 Tunnelling Quality Index (Q)
Developed by Barton, Lien and Lunde of
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) in 1974
based on the analysis of 212 tunnel case histories
from Scandinavia and other regions involving
igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic formations.
In 1976 Barton proposed a very elaborate
descriptive Q-system, which was modified later
(Barton 2002) with some changes.
The numerical values of the index Q varies on a
logarithemic scale from 0.001 to a maximum of
1,000.
 Q-System
Barton et. al. (1974)

Block Interblock Active RQD = Rock Quality Designation

size shear strength stress Jn = Joint set number

RQD J r J Jr = Joint roughness

Q w
Jn J a SRF
Ja = Joint alteration

Jw = Joint water condition

SRF = Stress reduction factor

Numerators with higher value reflects better quality rock, whereas

denominators reflects better quality with their lower values
 Block
size

RQD Jr J w
Q
Jn Ja SRF
RQD as defined earlier
Jn = number of joint sets (9 possible values)
Rating from 0.5 to 20 for massive rock to a crushed rock
Represents the structure of the rock mass or block
size.
The max. value of the ratio is 200, obtained for RQD
= 100 and the Jn = 0.5. This can be taken as the
maximum size of the block which is around 200 cm.
 Interblock Joint roughness
shear strength
RQD Jr J w number
Q Joint alteration
Jn Ja SRF number

Possible variation Rating range Rock description

Jr 7 0.5 to 4
Ja 15 0.75 to 20 Hard to soft filling
Represents the shear strength (roughness and
frictional characteristics) of the joint walls and
filling material.
Rock joints with thin clay mineral coatings and
fillings, the strength is reduced significantly.
This ratio is comparable to the shear strength
characteristics of joint, more significantly with the
frictional angle.
Ja = f(r); r is the angle of internal friction
Q System

JRC 0 1-5 5-10* 5-10* 10-15# 15-20

Jr 0.5 1 1.5 3 3 6

* slightly rough, planar v undulating

# rough/regular and undulating
 Active stress

Joint water
RQD Jr J w condition
Q Stress
Jn Ja SRF reduction factor

Jw = joint water seepage or pressure

(0.05 1.0: dry to water under pressure)
SRF = the stress reduction factor
(0.5 20: low stress & favourable orientation
to high stress)
 Joint Alteration
Joint are altered over time in terms of
filling inside. In some cases, filler material
can cement the joint tightly. In other cases,
filler material can introduce a slippery
surface, creating more unstable surface.
 RQD Jr J w
Q
Jn Ja SRF
Jw (Joint water reduction factor) measure
of ground water pressure. (1 0.05) : dry
to water under pressure.
SRF (stress reduction factor) is a measure
of rock stress in a competent rock [UCS/major
principal stress]. (0.5 20): low stress &
favourable orientation to high stress)
 1. RQD

Very poor 0-25

Poor 25-50

Fair 50-75

Good 75-90

Excellent 90-100
2 . JOINT SET NUMBER, Jn

One joint set 2

Two joint sets 4

Two joint set + random 6

Three joint sets + random 12

Notes refer to tunnelling & possibly greater Jn

3. JOINT ROUGHNESS NUMBER, Jr
(not for open joints)

Description JRC Jr

Discontinuous joints 15 - 20 4

Smooth undulating 1-5 2

Smooth planar 1-5 1

Slickensided planar 0 0.5

 4. JOINT ALTERATION NUMBER, Ja

Description r () Ja
Unaltered joint walls, surface staining
25 - 35 1
only

Slightly altered joint walls, no clay 25 - 30 2

Silty/sandy coatings, some clay 20 - 25 3

Kaolinite, mica, chlorite, talc, gypsum,

8 - 16 4
graphite and/or some swelling clay
5. JOINT WATER REDUCTION, Jw

Description Jw

Dry excavation or minor inflow 1

Large inflow, or high pressure in 0.5

competent rock with unfilled joints

Exceptionally high inflow or pressure 0.1 - 0.05

 6. STRESS REDUCTION FACTOR

Description sc : s1 SRF

Low stress, near surface rock 200 2.5

Medium stress 200 - 10 1

Mild rockburst (massive rock) 5 2.5 5 - 10

Rock Mass Quality for Tunnelling
Q Rock Quality
0.001-0.01 Exceptionally poor
0.01-0.1 Extremely poor
0.1-1.0 Very poor
1-4 Poor
4-10 Fair
10-40 Good
40-100 Very Good
100-400 Extremely good
400-1000 Exceptionally good
 Support Design in Tunnels based
on Q-system
Barton defined equivalent dimension De to relate Q to
the behaviour and the support requirements of an
underground excavation.
De = equivalent dimension
Excavation span, diameter, or height of the opening ( stope), m
De
Excavation Support Ratio ( ESR)
ESR (excavation support ratio)
f (the tunnel use & level of risk chosen)
indicates the length of safe unsupported span
 Equivalent Support Ratio (ESR)Values
(Barton et. al., 1974)

Excavation Category ESR

Temporary mine opening 35

Permanent mine opening 1.6

Storage rooms, water treatment plant, access tunnels etc. 1.3

Power stations, major road and railway tunnels, civil,
1.0
defense chambers, portals etc

Underground nuclear power stations, public facility 0.75

ESR is roughly analogous to inverse of Factor of Safety

 Tunnel Support

Lining, e.g.
shotcrete
Rockbolts
Modified Q-system (Barton 2002)
Modified Q-system (Barton 2002)
Modified Q-system (Barton 2002)
Q-Support Selection chart

sb: systematic bolting

B:Systematically spaced
steel rock bolt
S: Plain shotcrete
S(fr):steel-fibre reinforced
sprayed concrete,
RRS:steel rib-reinforced-
shotcrete arches
CCA:Cast concrete
arches

Shotcrete
thickness
 Evaluation of Tunnels
based on Q rating
Example:
10 m span & ESR = 2
Q = 40
Area 1: UNSUPPORTED

10 m span & ESR = 1

Q = 40
Area (2): SPOT BOLTING
Requires rockbolts at 3 m spacing, 3 m long (max)
 KEY POINTS?
Rock mass rating systems are a useful way of
forming an evaluation of rock masses
The Q or NGI system was based on tunnelling
The RMR (CSIR) system is more commonly
used for slope stability
The strength of rock masses can be judged
from these systems
 Poor -Fair Good- v.Good Exeptionally
good
100

De 2.2(Q 0.23
De = 2.1927Q0.2787 )
Eqivalent Dimension (De)

Support Required

10

No Support Required

1
1 10 100 1000
Rock Mass Quality Q

Nomogram for the max. a equivalent dimension De of an unsupported

Underground excavation and Q system (Barton,1976)
Geological Strength Index (GSI)
Hoek & Brown (1997) devised a simple chart
for estimating GSI based on rock mass and
discontinuity surface condition
Classify rock mass Classify discontinuities into
into four types five surface conditions
1. Blocky, 1. Very good,
2. Very Blocky, 2. Good,
3. Folded, and 3. Fair,
4. Crushed 4. Poor and
5. Very Poor
GSI-
Characterization
of rock masses
on the basis of
interlocking and
joint Surface
condition
Geological Strength Index (GSI)

The parameters and rock mass deformability (Em) can be

calculated following the procedure described by Hoek and Brown
GSI 10
s ci ( )
are rock parameters related to the uniaxial
Em 10 40 Where: s ci
100 compressive strength

Em 2RMR 100

A modified relationship suggested by Serafim and Pereira based on

the results obtained from the rock mass range of RMR< 50 is
Em 10 ( RMR10) / 40

Relationships between RMR and Q

Bieniawski, 1989: Barton, 1995:

Relationships between
RMR and GSI
Exercise