Rock Mech Rock Eng
DOI 10.1007/s00603-013-0462-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
A New Rock Mass Quality Rating System: Rock Mass Quality
Rating (RMQR) and Its Application to the Estimation
of Geomechanical Characteristics of Rock Masses
Ömer Aydan • Reşat Ulusay • Naohiko Tokashiki
Received: 9 March 2013 / Accepted: 22 July 2013
Ó Springer-Verlag Wien 2013
Abstract The qualitative description of rock masses by
means of classification systems and subsequent correlation
to establish engineering quantities or design parameters has
become one of the most challenging topics in rock engi-
neering. Many rock mass classification systems have been
proposed for rock masses with the consideration of a par-
ticular rock structure and/or specific purposes. Therefore,
direct utilization of these systems, in their original form,
for the characterization of complex rock mass conditions is
not always possible. This is probably one of the reasons
why rock engineers continue to develop new systems or
modify and extend current ones. The recent tendency is to
obtain rock mass properties from the utilization of prop-
erties of intact rock and rock classification indexes, which
have some drawbacks. In this study, it is aimed to propose
a new rock mass quality rating system designated as Rock
Mass Quality Rating (RMQR). This new rock mass rating
system is used to estimate the geomechanical properties of
rock masses. In the first part of this paper, the input
parameters of RMQR and their ratings are given and dis-
cussed. In the second part, the unified formula proposed by
the first author is adopted for the new rock mass rating
system for estimating the rock mass properties and com-
pared with the results of the in situ tests carried out in
Ö. Aydan (&)
Institute of Oceanic Research and Development,
Tokai University, Shizuoka, Japan
e-mail: aydan@scc.u-tokai.ac.jp
R. Ulusay
Geological Engineering Department, Hacettepe University,
Ankara, Turkey
N. Tokashiki
Civil Engineering Department, Ryukyu University,
Okinawa, Japan
Japan and those estimated from some empirical relation-
ships developed by other investigators, and the outcomes of
these studies are presented and discussed.
Keywords Rock Mass Quality Rating 
Geomechanical properties  Rock mass classifications 
Degradation degree  Groundwater absorption
condition  Groundwater seepage condition 
Discontinuity condition  Discontinuity spacing 
Discontinuity set number  RMR  Q-value
1 Introduction
Over the last seven decades, a large number of engineering
rock mass classifications have been proposed. However, it
is very likely that rock mass classifications might have
been used by engineers of rock mechanics in much earlier
times when the construction of man-made antique under-
ground excavations in Bazda (SE Turkey) and Qurna
(Egypt) underground quarries, underground or semi-
underground cities in Cappadocia (i.e., Ağıllı, Derinkuyu,
Zelve, Ihlara, etc., Central Anatolia, Turkey) and Bezeklik
Buddha Caves in East Turkistan, and Pharaoh tombs (i.e.,
Amenophis III, Ramses II, Seti I, King V) in Luxor of
Egypt are considered. For example, one can easily notice
how the pioneers of rock mechanics recognized the dif-
ferences among the responses of shale, fractured soft and
hard limestones, and massive soft limestone in the short-
term and long-term as rock mass when siting the under-
ground tombs (Fig. 1). Unfortunately, there is no accessi-
ble document about the rock classifications of the pioneers
of rock mechanics about 3,000–4,000 years ago, except for
the historical remains in various countries around the
world.
123

Fig. 1 Siting of underground Pharaoh tombs (Luxor, Egypt) in
relation to the conditions of rock masses: a shale—earlier periods
(3,800–3,500 years BP), b sidewalls (shale), roof (fractured soft
The earliest accessible rock classification system was a
qualitative one proposed by Agricola (1556) in his famous
De Re Metallica, which was published in Latin 1 year after
his death. In Book V of this famous manuscript, he classified
ores and surrounding rocks as ‘‘crumbling’’, ‘‘hard’’,
‘‘harder’’, and ‘‘hardest’’. Also, he gave short descriptions for
each class. The classifications of Terzaghi (1946) and Stini
(1950) constitute the bases of the modern rock classifications,
such as Rock Structure Rating (RSR) by Wickham et al.
(1972, 1974), Rock Mass Rating (RMR) by Bieniawski
(1973, 1989), and the Q-system by Barton et al. (1974) and
Barton and Grimstad (1994), and their derivatives, such as
Modified Basic RMR (MBR) (Cummings et al. 1982; Ken-
dorski et al. 1983), Rock Mass Index (RMi) (Palmström
1996), Modified RMR (M-RMR) (Ünal et al. 1992; Ünal
1996), etc., together with the incorporation of Rock Quality
Designation (RQD) proposed by Deere et al. (1967). The
common purpose of these systems was to quantify rock mass
characteristics previously based on qualitative geological
descriptions. They were originally developed for assisting
with the rock engineering design of tunnels (Barton and
Bieniawski 2008). In 1995, an index called the Geological
Strength Index (GSI) was developed (Hoek et al. 1995) and
then modified (Hoek and Brown 1997; Hoek 1999) over the
years. The originators of the GSI pointed out that it is an
index of rock mass characterization for the estimation of rock
mass strength using the Hoek–Brown criterion, and is not
meant for replacing a classification system of the types RMR
or Q. The earlier classifications were single parameter (RQD,
Rock Condition), while recent classification schemes incor-
porate a number of parameters, such as, in particular, the
strength of rock material, discontinuity density, joint condi-
tions, joint orientation, and groundwater conditions. How-
ever, all these classifications have been proposed with the
consideration of some specific rock structures, such as tun-
nels, underground caverns, dams, and slopes.
The rock classification system of the Central Research
Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) of Japan for
123
Ö. Aydan et al.
limestone)—later period (3,500–3,200 years BP), c cavity in soft
massive limestone (final stage, 3,000–3,200 years BP)
dam and underground cavern construction, which is known
as the DENKEN classification (Tanaka 1964; Kikuchi and
Saito 1975; Kikuchi et al. 1982; Yoshinaka et al. 1989) in
Japan, is directly related to the quality assessment of rock
masses. Nevertheless, this system is based on qualitative
interpretations. Kikuchi et al. (1982) and, later, Tanimoto
et al. (1989) attempted to provide quantitative parameters
for the evaluation of rock classes. Akagi and Aydan (2000)
(see also Ulusay and Aydan 1998) combined the attempts
of Kikuchi and Saito (1975) and Tanimoto et al. (1989),
together with new assessments of parameters to evaluate
the DENKEN classes in quantitative terms. However,
many available rock classification systems have some
repetitions of some rock fractures, such as RQD and dis-
continuity spacing, resulting in the doubling of the influ-
ence of the spacing of discontinuities on the final rating. In
addition, although the effect of water, particularly on clay-
bearing rocks, plays an important role in decreasing their
strength, this effect is not adequately considered in the
existing rock mass classification systems.
The determination of geomechanical (i.e., strength and
deformability) properties of rock masses is one of the integral
parts of rock engineering design. By considering the scale
effect for rock masses, which include both intact rock and
discontinuities, laboratory testing on rock masses is not
always easy and is very cumbersome. For this reason, field
tests are preferred. But field tests to determine these
parameters are directly time consuming, expensive, and dif-
ficult to conduct. Therefore, some recent attempts to relate
the quantitative rock mass parameters such as RMR, Q, and
GSI with some engineering properties of rock masses have
been made. However, these parameters are used to estimate
directly or indirectly rock mass strength and elastic modulus,
except those by Aydan et al. (2012), who also considered
other geomechanical properties, through some empirical
relationships. As discussed by Aydan et al. (1997, 2012), the
direct relations often fail to estimate rock mass properties if a
great variety of rock masses are considered.
A New Rock Mass Quality Rating System
In this study, the authors propose a new rock mass
quality rating system called Rock Mass Quality Rating
(RMQR). The RMQR system combines relevant parame-
ters of rock masses with the consideration of all available
rock mass classifications, together with sound mechanical
reasoning, and provides a quantitative measure for the
physical state of rock mass with respect to intact rock. This
system is used to estimate geomechanical properties of
rock masses from the utilization of properties of intact
rock. First, selection of the input parameters used in the
classification and ratings assigned to them are given in the
following section in detail. Then, the adaptation of the
unified formula proposed by the first author for this new
rock mass rating system for estimating the rock mass
properties is compared with the results of in situ tests
carried out in Japan and those estimated from some
empirical relationships developed by other investigators,
and the outcomes of these studies are presented and
discussed.
2 Rock Mass Quality Rating (RMQR)
It is well known that rock masses have discontinuities of
various scale associated with the formation in their geo-
logic past. The authors particularly prefer to use the term
‘‘discontinuity’’ instead of ‘‘joint’’, as it covers all types of
interruptions of the structural integrity of rock masses.
Some of these discontinuities, such as bedding planes,
schistosity, flow plane, sheeting joints, and faults, may be
quite continuous with respect to the size of rock engi-
neering structures, while other discontinuities, such as
joints and cracks, may be of finite length. The most com-
monly used factors in engineering descriptions of rock
masses are the condition and geometrical characteristics of
discontinuities. Therefore, the parameters associated with
discontinuities could be the discontinuity set number
(DSN), discontinuity spacing (DS), and discontinuity
condition (DC).
The intact rock bounded by discontinuities may be
subjected to weathering or alteration when they are
exposed to atmospheric conditions or hydrothermal fluids
through rock mass, respectively. The weathering of rocks
results from the physical and/or chemical actions of
atmospheric conditions and causes the weakening of bonds
and decomposition of constituting minerals into clayey
materials. The alteration process is due to percolating
hydrothermal fluids in rock mass and it may act on rock
mass in a positive or negative way. The positive action of
the alteration may heal existing rock discontinuities by re-
welding through the deposition of ferrous oxides, calcite,
or siliceous filling material. On the other hand, the negative
action of the alteration would cause the weakening of
bonding of particles of rocks and producing clayey mate-
rials. As the intact rock is one of the most important
parameters influencing the mechanical response of rock
masses, weathering and/or the negative action of hydro-
thermal alteration may be accounted as the degradation
degree (DD) of intact rock. Groundwater is also an
important parameter affecting the mechanical response of
rock masses. There are also cases where some rocks may
absorb groundwater electrically or chemically, resulting in
the drastic reduction of material properties and/or swelling.
The rock mass quality rating system proposed herein
incorporates important parameters of the available quanti-
tative modern rock classifications. This rock mass quality
rating system is expected to provide a better assessment of
the physical state of rock masses. In the following sub-
sections, first, the basic concepts involving each parameter
and their ratings on the basis of knowledge gained in rock
mechanics and rock engineering so far are explained.
2.1 Degradation Degree (DD) and Its Rating
It is well known that rocks may undergo degradation when
they are exposed to atmospheric conditions and/or hydro-
thermal fluids through rock mass. The degradation process
is commonly known as weathering and alteration, depend-
ing upon the physical and chemical process involved. There
are different stages of degradation and these stages are
designated with adjectives such as fresh, stained, slight
degradation, moderate degradation, heavy degradation, and
decomposed. Figure 2 shows an example of various stages
of degradation of syenite (or Aswan granite, Egypt) and
rhyolite (Okumino Hydroelectric Power Project, Japan).
The degradation process generally causes weakening of the
bonds between particles or grains constituting rocks and,
physically, they cause the reduction of the strength and
deformation modulus of intact rock. The degradation pro-
cess also influences the joint spacing and discontinuity
filling material in the form of clay. Therefore, in this study,
degradation degree, which is considered as one of the ele-
ments of the joint condition parameter in some previously
developed classifications, is taken as one of the input
parameters. Tables 1 and 2 give descriptions of degradation
(weathering) degrees and ratings of degradation degree of
rocks for each stage, respectively.
2.2 Discontinuity Set Number (DSN) and Its Rating
Rock masses may contain discontinuities in different
forms, such as intrinsic discontinuities associated with the
formations of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary
rocks, such as bedding planes, schistosity planes, and flow
planes, volumetric strain change associated with disconti-
nuities, such as desiccation, cooling, erosion, freezing–
123

Fig. 2 a Views of syenite of Aswan subjected to weathering and
b rhyolite of Okumino subjected to hydrothermal alteration at
different stages of degradation: a.1–b.1 fresh, a.2–b.2 stained, a.3–
thawing-induced joints, and plastic deformation-induced
discontinuities, such as faults, fracture zones, tension (T),
Riedel (R–R0 ) shear cracks, and Skempton (P) fractures
(Fig. 3). Although it is very rare to find any rock mass
without discontinuities in nature near the earth’s surface,
there are some good examples of rock masses without any
visible discontinuities. Such rock masses are observed as
123
Ö. Aydan et al.
b.3 slight degradation, a.4–b.4 moderate degradation, a.5–b.5 heavy
degradation, a.6–b.6 decomposed
batholiths, for example, the granite of Yosemite Park in the
United States. When unloading occurs in such batholiths
due to erosion, sheeting joints, which are fairly persistent
and are products of residual tensile stresses remaining from
the cooling process of igneous intrusion, may develop in
the rock mass. As a result, the rock mass structurally would
have at least one discontinuity set associated with the
A New Rock Mass Quality Rating System

Table 1 Descriptions for

different degrees of degradation
(modified from the International
Society for Rock Mechanics,
ISRM 2007)
Term Description
Fresh No visible sign of rock material weathering or hydrochemical alteration, slight
discoloration on major discontinuity walls may be observed
Stained Some minerals may undergo oxidation or chemical reaction, causing some dark
brownish marks on the rock surface
Slight Discoloration indicates weathering or hydrochemical alteration of rock material and
degradation discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material may be discolored by weathering or
hydrochemical alteration, and may be somewhat weaker externally than in its fresh
condition
Moderate Less than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh
degradation or discolored rock is present either as a continuous framework or as corestones
Heavy More than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh
degradation or discolored rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones
Decomposed All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. The original mass
structure is still largely intact

Table 2 Ratings for degree of

Degradation Fresh Stained Slight Moderate Heavy Decomposed
degradation
degree (DD) degradation degradation degradation

Rating (RDD) 15 12 9 6 3 1

geological units as a result of tectonic events may cause

Fig. 3 Fractures induced during the shearing of rock masses
surface shape of erosion. Sedimentary and metamorphic
rocks have generally persistent discontinuity sets in the
form of bedding planes and schistosity/foliation planes,
respectively. Cooling joints in igneous rocks and desicca-
tion cracks forming during the sedimentation process of
sedimentary rocks result from volumetric contraction due
mainly to tensile stress.
Freezing–thawing processes also cause new and/or fur-
ther propagation fractures. Folding and faulting of
further fracturing in rock masses. Figure 3 illustrates the
possible fracture types when rock masses are subjected to
folding or shearing. These new fractures would be super-
imposed over the existing discontinuity sets. Furthermore,
the shearing action during faulting may cause several zones
with different intensities of fracturing in rock mass. There
may be some cases where rock mass is completely shat-
tered and crushed. Therefore, the discontinuous nature of
rock masses may be described through some adjectives,
such as none, one set plus random, two sets plus random,
three sets plus random, four sets or more, and crushed/
shattered. It should be noted that, if the discontinuity set
number is four or more, it would definitely imply that it
was subjected to tectonic events in the past. Figure 4 shows
the possible discontinuous nature of rock mass in nature as
examples for the possible discontinuous states of rock
masses. Besides the visual observations on the outcrops of
rock masses and/or borehole logs, the processing of ste-
reographic projections or other techniques of measured
orientation data of discontinuities may be used to deter-
mine the number of discontinuity sets as a more accurate
interpretation of the discontinuous nature of rock masses
(i.e., Priest 1985). Table 3 gives the ratings of discontin-
uous states of rock masses.
2.3 Discontinuity Spacing (DS) and Its Rating
This is one of the most commonly used rock mass char-
acterization parameters in rock mechanics and rock engi-
neering. Many suggestions (i.e., Terzaghi 1965; Priest

123
 Ö. Aydan et al.

Fig. 4 Views of discontinuous states of rock masses: a solid or massive, b one set plus random, c two sets plus random, d three sets plus random,
e four sets plus random, f crushed/shattered

Table 3 Ratings for discontinuity set number

Discontinuity set number None (solid/ One set plus Two sets plus Three sets plus Four sets plus Crushed/
(DSN) massive) random random random random shattered

Rating (RDSN) 20 16 12 8 4 1
Spacing depended on the choice of the users

1985; Priest and Hudson 1981) have been proposed on how
to eliminate bias associated with scan-line direction in
outcrops and the orientation and the possibility of mea-
suring accurately the spacing of discontinuity sets from
borehole cores. If RQD is considered as an important
characterization parameter, there are several attempts to
correlate it with discontinuity set number and block size.
The modern rock mass classifications (i.e., RMR) consider
that the rock mass is massive when the discontinuity
spacing is more than 2–3 m. This definition may not be so
important when the underground openings have a smaller
size, say, less than 8–6 m in diameter or span. However,
when one considers the present common size of major
underground powerhouses and storage caverns for crude oil
and gas, which are 20–28 m wide and 45–55 m high, the
rock mass around the underground opening would look
very blocky. Therefore, the present discontinuity spacing
definitions are not compatible with actual circumstances
and it needs some improvements, with consideration of the
actual size of underground structures. To describe the
representative discontinuity spacing, the authors introduce
six categories of discontinuity spacing, as given in Table 4.
Physical situations are given through actual examples as
shown in Fig. 5. As discontinuity spacing (S) with a unit
given in meters is related to it in a stepwise manner, the
continuous functions given below may be used instead, as
shown in Fig. 6.
S
RDS ¼ 50ð1  0:4eS=10 Þ ð1Þ
1 þ 2:5S
RDS ¼ 9:2 þ 2:8 lnðSÞ: ð2Þ
Equation 2 can be used provided that the discontinuity
spacing is between 0.04 and 50 m.
In his RMR system, Bieniawski (1989) related the dis-
continuity spacing or joint intensity with RQD. RQD was
included originally among six parameters because case
histories collected in 1972 all involved RQD. Over the
years, it became apparent that RQD was difficult to

123
A New Rock Mass Quality Rating System

Table 4 Ratings for representative discontinuity spacing (spacing or RQD)

Discontinuity None or 24 [ DS C 6 m 6 m [ DS C 1.2 m 1.2 m [ DS C 0.3 m 0.3 m [ DS C 0.07 m 0.07 m [ DS
spacing DS C24 m
(DS) or RQD
RQD=100 100 [ RQD C 75 75 [ RQD C 35 35 [ RQD

Rating (RDS) 20 16 12 8 4 1-0

Fig. 5 Examples of discontinuity spacing classes: a DS C24 m, b 24 [ DS C 6 m, c 6 m [ DS C 1.2 m, d 1.2 m [ DS C 0.3 m,

e 0.3 m [ DS C 0.07 m, f 0.07 m [ DS

Fig. 7 Relation between RQD and rating

Fig. 6 Relation between discontinuity spacing and rating
determine at the tunnel face, being directed to borehole
characterization, and it was subsequently combined with
the parameter ‘‘discontinuity spacing’’ and named ‘‘spacing
density’’, since the two are interrelated. If this approach is
used, it may be related to the approach proposed here, as
shown in Table 4 and illustrated in Fig. 7. As understood
from Table 4, RQD is not sensitive to the variation of

123

Table 5 Ratings for discontinuity conditions
Discontinuity None Healed or Rough
condition (DC) intermittent
Rating (RDC) 30 26 22
discontinuity spacing greater than 1 m. However, by con-
sidering that RQD is a commonly used parameter, partic-
ularly in borehole cores, it is also included in Table 4 as an
alternative parameter to discontinuity spacing, depending
on the choice of the users.
2.4 Discontinuity Condition (DC) and Its Rating
The causes of the formation of discontinuities in rock
masses are various, and the condition of discontinuities
would be closely related to their genesis (i.e., Aydan and
Kawamoto 1990; Aydan and Shimizu 1995). The condition
of discontinuities not involving tectonic events would be
generally favorable unless they are filled with clayey
material or discontinuity walls are subjected to weathering
due to atmospheric agents or hydrothermal chemicals dis-
solved in groundwater. If circulating groundwater contains
dissolved quartz, calcite, or ferrous oxides, they may heal
discontinuities. However, the tectonically induced P and R0
fractures may be associated with relative shear displace-
ment and they may produce slickensided discontinuities
Fig. 8 Examples of discontinuity conditions: a none, b healed or intermittent, c rough, d relatively smooth and tight, e slickensided with thin
infill or separation (t \ 10 mm), f thick fill or separation (t [ 10 mm)
123
Ö. Aydan et al.
Relatively Slickensided with thin Thick fill or separation
smooth and tight infill or separation (t \ 10 mm) (t [ 10 mm)
15 7 1–0
with a certain thickness of clayey gouge or clayey coating
proportional to the amount of relative displacement. If the
amount of relative movement is large, a thick gouge may
occur. Such conditions would considerably reduce the
shear strength of discontinuities and they may be squeezed
out under redistributed in situ stress or washed away under
high groundwater pressure. Table 5 describes the possible
discontinuity conditions and the ratings suggested for
visual observations. Figure 8 shows the actual examples of
discontinuities for different discontinuity conditions.
If detailed surveys on the conditions of discontinuities,
which are very important in the design of large-scale pro-
jects such as dams, powerhouses, slopes, and nuclear waste
disposal site selection, are carried out, a more detailed
rating is necessary for rock discontinuities besides ‘‘none’’
and ‘‘healed or intermittent’’ classes. Discontinuities may
be open or discontinuity walls may be separated through
infilling materials resulting from the degradation of adja-
cent rocks or gouges due to the shearing of rock masses,
which are taken into account through sub-parameters
such as aperture/separation and infilling. The roughness,
which is a parameter of paramount importance governing
A New Rock Mass Quality Rating System

shearing strength and the permeability of discontinuities,

can be evaluated using different surface roughness
parameters (see Barton 1995; ISRM 2007; Aydan and
Shimizu 1995 for details). Based on the suggestion by
Barton (1976), the ISRM (2007) suggests ten profiles for
evaluating the surface roughness of discontinuities, as
shown in Fig. 9. The authors designate profile 1 with a
value of 1 to profile 10 with a value of 10 in ascending
order for evaluating the roughness of discontinuities. Based
on the geological descriptions of discontinuities, the rating
of roughness may be done as suggested in Table 6.

2.5 Groundwater Condition and Its Rating

It is well known that groundwater plays an important role

Fig. 9 Roughness profiles to be used for roughness rating (arranged
from the ISRM 2007)
on the mechanical response of rock masses and stability of
rock engineering structures. It has been one of the most
important parameters of rock mass characterization. The
effects of groundwater on rock mass are described through
adjectives such as dry, damp, wet, dripping, flowing, and
gushing. In addition to the effects of groundwater associ-
ated with seepage conditions, some rocks are quite vul-
nerable to the absorption of groundwater or desorption of
natural water content. It is known that the strength and
deformation modulus of weak rocks such as clay-bearing
rocks (tuff, mudstone, shale, etc.) decrease drastically with
water content (i.e., Aydan and Ulusay 2003, 2013). It is
also reported that even such properties of hard rocks may
decrease with saturation (i.e., Broch 1979; Colback and
Wiid 1965; Karakul and Ulusay 2013). Some rocks may
also exhibit volumetric straining (shrinkage and swelling),
depending upon the water content variation in addition to
the changes in their mechanical properties. In addition to
the seepage condition of groundwater (GWSC), the water
absorption characteristics of rocks (GWAC) would be

Table 6 Ratings for sub-parameters of discontinuity conditions, excluding ‘‘none’’ and ‘‘healed or intermittent’’ classes
Aperture or None or very tight, 0.1–0.25 mm 0.25–0.5 mm 0.5–2.5 mm 2.5–10 mm [10 mm
separation \0.1 mm

Rating (RDCA)a 6 5 4 3 2 1–0

Infilling None Surface Thin coating Thin filling Thick filling Very thick filling or shear
staining \1 mm 1 \ t \ 10 mm 6 [ t [ 10 mm zones t [ 60 mm
only
Rating (RDCI)a 6 5 4 3 2 1–0
Roughness
Descriptive Very rough Rough Smooth Smooth planar Slickensided Shear band/zone
undulating
Profile no. in 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1–0
Fig. 9
Rating (RDCR)a 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1–0
a
RDC = RDCA ? RDCI ? RDCR

123
 Ö. Aydan et al.

Table 7 Ratings for groundwater seepage conditions

Groundwater seepage condition (GWSC) Dry Damp Wet Dripping Flowing Gushing

Rating (RGWSC) 9 7 5 3 1 0

Table 8 Ratings for groundwater absorption conditions

Groundwater absorption Non- Capillarity or electrically Slightly Moderately Highly Extremely
condition (GWAC) absorptive absorptive absorptive absorptive absorptive absorptive

Rating (RGWAC) 6 5 4 3 2 1–0

Fig. 10 Examples of groundwater conditions: a dry, b damp, c wet, d dripping, e flowing, f gushing

taken into account, as given in Tables 7 and 8. Figures 10
and 11 show actual examples of seepage and absorption
conditions associated with each groundwater condition,
respectively.
In order to determine the rating for the seepage condi-
tions (GWSC) for six water conditions in Table 7, the
descriptions given in Table 9 are recommended to users.
The first five descriptions in Table 9 are modified from the
descriptive terms suggested by the ISRM (2007) for rock
mass. The authors added the last category.
In order to determine the ratings related to the absorp-
tion conditions of rock mass for the six water conditions in
Table 8, the descriptions given in Table 10 are
recommended to users. Rocks containing water-absorbing
minerals would have this feature and the geomechanical
properties of the surrounding rock mass may drastically
reduce. Furthermore, it may also show large swelling
problems during excavation and cyclic groundwater
changes.
2.6 Summary of the Proposed Rock Mass Quality
Rating, Associated Rock Classes, and Comparisons
with the RMR and Q Systems
The rock mass characterization named rock mass quality
rating (RMQR) has six basic parameters, as described in

123
A New Rock Mass Quality Rating System

Fig. 11 Examples of absorption conditions: a non-absorptive, b capillarity absorptive, c slightly absorptive, d moderately absorptive, e highly
absorptive, f extremely absorptive

Table 9 Descriptions for

Water Description
seepage condition (GWSC)
condition
observed on rock mass outcrops
(surfaces) (arranged from the Dry (none) The rock mass is solid, having low porosity, and excavation is dry
ISRM 2007)
Damp The rock mass surface is damp, but no free water is present
Wet The rock mass surface is wet, but no free water is present
Dripping Occasional drops of water occur from the rock mass surface mainly through
discontinuities, but no continuous flow is present
Flowing The continuous flow of water though discontinuities of the rock mass occurs and/or filling
materials are washed out and considerable water flow along washout channels
Gushing Groundwater gushes into the excavation space with an extreme amount of groundwater and
it may not be easily handled by grouting techniques

Table 10 Descriptions for

Water condition Description
absorption characteristics
Non-absorptive The rock itself is not attracted to groundwater and groundwater remains in pores and
fracture spaces as free water
Capillarity The free water is attracted to rock due to capillarity effects or electrically
absorptive
Slightly Some decomposed clayey particles in rock may absorb water and its percentage is not
absorptive more than 1 % of the total volume
Moderately The rock itself contains a considerable amount of water-absorbing minerals, whose
absorptive volume could be around 1–5 % of the total volume
Highly absorptive The rock easily absorbs water when it is saturated and may undergo volumetric
changes upon wetting and drying. However, volume changes do not result in the
fracturing of rock, although its geomechanical properties may drastically decrease
Extremely The rock rapidly absorbs water when it is exposed to saturation and disintegrates
absorptive during the absorption process

123
 Ö. Aydan et al.

Table 11 Classification
Degradation Slight Moderate Heavy
parameters and their ratings for Fresh Stained Decomposed
rock mass quality rating degree (DD) degradation degradation degradation
(RMQR)
Rating (RDD) 15 12 9 6 3 1-0

Discontinuity None One set

Two sets Three sets plus Four sets plus Crushed or
set number (solid or plus
plus random random random shattered
(DSN) massive) random

Rating (RDSN) 20 16 12 8 4 1-0

Discontinuity None or 24 >DS ≥ 6 6 m>DS ≥ 1.2 m > DS ≥ 0.3

0.07 m > DS
spacing (DS) DS ≥ 24 m m 1.2 m 0.3 m m>DS≥0.07 m

75 > RQD ≥
or RQD 100 100 > RQD ≥ 75 35 > RQD
35

Rating (RDS) 20 16 12 8 4 1-0

Slickensided
Thick fill or
with thin infill
Discontinuity Healed or Relatively
None Rough separation
condition (DC) intermittent smooth and tight or separation
(t > 10 mm)
(t < 5 mm)

Rating (RDC) 30 26 22 15 7 1

or , alternatively, excluding “None” and “Healed or intermittent” classes

None or
0.1–
very 0.25– 0.5– 2.5–
Discontinuity condition (DC) RDC = RDCA+ RDCI + R DCR

Aperture or separation 0.25 m >10 mm

tight, 0.5 mm 2.5 mm 10 mm
m
<0.1 mm

Rating (RDCA) 6 5 4 3 2 1

Very
Thin Thick thick
Surfac Thin
e filling filling filling or
Infilling None coating
stainin shear
1<t<1 6 > t >1 zone
g only <1 mm
0 mm 0 mm
t > 60 mm

Rating (RDCI) 6 5 4 3 2 1-0

Smooth
Descripti Very Smooth Slicken- Shear
Roughness Rough undulati
ve rough planar sided band/zone
ng

Profile
No. in 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1-0
Fig. 9

Rating (RDCR) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1-0

Groundwater
seepage
Dry Damp Wet Dripping Flowing Gushing
condition
(GWSC)

Rating (RGWSC)
9 7 5 3 1 0

Groundwater
Capillarity or
absorption Non- Slightly Moderately Highly
electrically Extremely absorptive
condition absorptive absorptive absorptive absorptive
absorptive
(GWAC)

RMQR = RDD ? RDSN ? RDS Rating (RGWAC) 6 5 4 3 2 1-0

? RDC ? RGWSC ? RGWAC

123
A New Rock Mass Quality Rating System

Table 12 Rock mass quality classes according to RMQR values

Rock class I II III IV V VI

Description of Solid or rock Very good Good Fair or medium Poor or weak Very poor or
rock mass material very weak
RMQR 100 C RMQR [ 95 95 C RMQR [ 80 80 C RMQR [ 60 60 C RMQR [ 40 40 C RMQR [ 20 20 C RMQR

Fig. 12 The relations between:

a RMQR and RMR, and
b RMQR and the Q-value based
on data from Japan

the previous sub-sections and Table 11, which provides
the ratings of each parameter. The value of RMQR ran-
ges between 0 and 100. Rock mass is divided into six
classes and their rating ranges are given in Table 12. It
should be noted that the RMQR is intended to serve
purely as an index to characterize the state of rock mass
in relation to the intact rock. Furthermore, it would not
be directly related to the selection of the support system,
standup time, bearing capacity of the foundations, or
slope angle, as considered in other rock mass classifi-
cations. In the following sections, some correlations with
other rock mass classification systems, such as RMR and
Q, which are the most commonly used in practice, are
established and the evaluation of the geomechanical
properties of rock mass in terms of those of intact rock is
proposed.
The proposed rock mass rating system, RMQR, could be
related to the two well-known rock mass rating systems,
RMR and Q, through the following relations:
RMQR
RMR ¼ 100 or
RMQR þ bðA  RMQRÞ
RMR
RMQR ¼ 100
RMR þ 1:1ð100  RMRÞ
RMQR ¼ 16:7 logðQÞ þ 50 or Q ¼ 100:06RMQR3
The value of the parameter b is 0.8 and the value of
parameter A ranges between 90 and 100. Figure 12 shows
the correlations between RMQR, RMR, and the Q-value. It
should be noted that the value of RMR is generally less
than the value of RMQR. The data shown in Fig. 12 are
from various projects in Japan.
3 Relation Between Rock Mass Properties and Rock
Mass Quality Rating
The design of many geoengineering structures is based on
the equivalent properties of rock masses. For this purpose,
in situ tests on the strength properties of rock masses are
carried out using uniaxial and triaxial compression, direct
shear, and plate loading tests. However, it is very rare to
carry out in situ triaxial compression experiments due to
their cost. Using the available experimental data, some
empirical direct relations among different mechanical
properties and some rock mass classification parameters
proposed by various researchers are listed in Table 13.
Most of these relations are only concerned with the elastic
modulus and rock mass strength, except those by the
authors. As discussed by Aydan et al. (1997), the scattering
of experimental data and rock classification indexes is very
large, and such approaches generally fail when intact rock
ð3Þ
itself is a soft rock. Therefore, the properties of intact rock
and rock mass classification indexes must be involved in
such evaluations.
ð4Þ
The recent tendency is to obtain mass properties from
the utilization of properties of intact rock and rock mass
classification indexes (i.e., Hoek and Brown 1997; Hoek
1999; Aydan and Kawamoto 2000). There are several
proposed relations between the normalized properties of

123
 Ö. Aydan et al.

Table 13 Direct relations between rock mass classification and properties of rock mass
Property Empirical relation Proposed by

Deformation modulus, Em Em ¼ 2RMR  100 (GPa) (for RMR [ 50) Bieniawski (1978)
Em ¼ 10ððRMR10Þ=40Þ (GPa) Serafim and Pereira (1983)
Em ¼ eð4:407þ0:081RMRÞ (GPa) Jašarević and Kovačević (1996)
Em ¼ 0:0097RMR3:54 (MPa) Aydan et al. (1997)
Em ¼ 25 log Q (GPa) Grimstad and Barton (1993)
 pffiffiffiffiffi
rci
ffi ððGSI10Þ=40Þ
Em ¼ 1  D2 10010
Hoek et al. (2002)
(GPa) (for rci \ 100 MPa)
ð10:5DÞ Hoek and Diederichs (2006)
Em ¼ 100 1þeðð75þ25DGSIÞ=11Þ (GPa)
h i1:1811
Kayabasi et al. (2003)
Em ¼ 0:135 Ei 1 þ WD 1
 RQD
100 (GPa)

Em ¼ 5:6RMi0:3 (GPa) (for RMi [ 0.1) Palmström (1996)

3 Mitri et al. (1994)
Em ¼ 0:1ðRMR=10Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Em ¼ 7ð3Þ 10ðRMR44Þ=21 (GPa) Diederichs and Kaiser (1999)
1=3 Barton (1995)
Em ¼ 10Q (GPa)
 r 1=3 Barton (2002)
Em ¼ 10 Q 100ci
(GPa)
ððGSI10Þ=40Þ
pffiffiffiffiffi
rci
ffi
Em ¼ 10 100 (GPa)
Hoek and Brown (1997)
Em ¼ 0:0876RMR (GPa) (for RMR [ 50) Galera et al. (2005)
2 Galera et al. (2005)
Em ¼ 0:0876RMR þ 1:056ðRMR  50Þ þ 0:015ðRMR  50Þ
(GPa) (for RMR B 50)
Uniaxial compressive strength,rcm (MPa) rcm ¼ 0:0016RMR2:5 Aydan et al. (1997)
 r 1=3 Barton(2002)
rcm ¼ 5c Q 100
ci

Friction angle, /m (°) /m ¼ 20 þ 0:5RMR Aydan and Kawamoto (2001)

/m ¼ 20r0:25
cm
Aydan et al. (1993)
 
/m ¼ tan 1 Jr Jw Barton (2002)
Ja  1
/m
Cohesion, cm (MPa) cm ¼ r2cm 1sin
cos /m
Aydan and Kawamoto (2001)
 
cm ¼ RQD 1 rci Barton (2002)
Jn  SRF  100

Poisson’s ratio, mm mm ¼ 0:25ð1 þ ercm =4 Þ Aydan et al. (1993)

RMR Tokashiki and Aydan (2010)
mm ¼ 0:5  0:2 RMRþ0:2ð100RMRÞ

Em deformation modulus of rock mass, Ei Young’s modulus of intact rock, RMR rock mass rating, Q rock mass quality, GSI Geological Strength
Index, D disturbance factor, rci uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock, rcm uniaxial compressive strength of rock mass, RQD Rock Quality
Designation, RMi Rock Mass Index, WD weathering degree; /m friction angle of rock mass, cm cohesion of rock mass, vm Poisson’s ratio of rock
mass, Jn joint set rating, Jr joint roughness rating, Jw joint water rating, Ja joint alteration rating, SRF stress reduction factor, c rock density (t/m3)

rock mass by those of intact rock and rock mass classifi-
cation indexes, as listed in Table 14.
Aydan and Dalgıç (1998) proposed an empirical relation
between RMR and rock mass strength in terms of the
strength of intact rock. This relation was extended to other
geomechanical properties of rock mass by Aydan and
Kawamoto (2000). Recently, Aydan et al. (2012) and Ay-
dan and Ulusay (2013) provided relations for six different
mechanical properties of rock mass using the relation
proposed by Aydan and Kawamoto (2000). In this study,
RMR is replaced by RMQR, and it is given in the following
form for any mechanical properties of rock mass in terms
of those of intact rock:
RMQR
a ¼ a0  ða0  a100 Þ ð5Þ
RMQR þ bð100  RMQRÞ
where a0 and a100 are the values of the function at
RMQR = 0 and RMQR = 100 of property a and b is a
constant to be determined by using a minimization procedure
for experimental values of given physical or mechanical
properties. The authors proposed some values for these
empirical constants with the consideration of in situ experi-
ments carried out in Japan as given in Table 15. When a
representative value of RMQR is determined for a given site,
the geomechanical properties of rock mass can be obtained
using Eq. (5), together with the values of constants given in
Table 15 and the values of intact rock for a desired property.

123
A New Rock Mass Quality Rating System

Table 14 Empirical relations between rock mass classification and normalized properties of rock mass
Property Relation Proposed by
Em
Deformation modulus, Em Ei ¼ 0:009eRMR=22:82 þ 0:000028 RMR2 Nicholson and Bieniawski (1990)
Em RMR Aydan and Kawamoto (2000)
Ei ¼ RMRþbð100RMRÞ
Em ð10:5DÞ Hoek and Diederichs (2006)
Ei ¼ 0:02 þ 1þeðð60þ15DGSIÞ=11Þ
Em
 
Ei ¼ 12 1  cos p RMR
100
Mitri et al. (1994)
Em 0:0186RQD1:91 Zhang and Einstein (2004)
Ei ¼ 10
Em ðRMR100Þ=36 Galera et al. (2005)
Ei ¼e
rcm pffiffi
Uniaxial compressive strength, rcm rci ¼ s ðs ¼ eðRMR100Þ=9 Þ Hoek and Brown (1980)
rcm ðRMR100Þ=24 Kalamaras and Bieniawski (1995)
rci ¼e
RMR Aydan and Dalgıç (1998)
rcm ¼ RMRþ6ð100RMRÞ rci
rcm GSI100 1  GSI=15 
rci ¼e 93D 1
2þ6 e  e20=3 Hoek et al. (2002)
Cohesion, cm RMR Aydan et al. (2012)
cm ¼ RMRþ6ð100RMRÞ ci
Friction angle, /m /m RMR Aydan and Kawamoto (2000)
/i ¼ 0:3 þ 0:7 RMRþbð100RMRÞ
Poisson’s ratio, mm mm RMR Aydan et al. (2012)
mi ¼ 2:5  1:5 RMRþð100RMRÞ
Tensile strength, rtm rtm RMR Tokashiki (2011)
rti ¼ RMRþ6ð100RMRÞ

s, a rock mass constants, ci cohesion of intact rock, /i friction angle of intact rock, mi Poisson’s ratio of intact rock

Table 15 Values of a0 ; a100 ; and b for various properties of rock Electric Power Company (Nosei 1962). However, triaxial
mass compression tests are not carried out due to the high costs
Property (a) a0 a100 b and huge difference between strength values obtained from
triaxial compression tests and in situ shear strength tests, as
Deformation modulus 0.0 1.0 6
seen in the Kurobe Dam project. This problem was pointed
Poisson’s ratio 2.5 1.0 1.0
out by Hibino (2007), who was actively involved in the
Uniaxial compressive strength 0.0 1.0 6
large powerhouse and dam construction projects. In addi-
Tensile strength 0.0 1.0 6
tion, natural underground openings and steep cliffs asso-
Cohesion 0.0 1.0 6
ciated with Ryukyu limestone present some stability
Friction angle 0.3 1.0 1.0 problems for the superstructures on the ground surface.
Figure 14 shows the in situ plate loading test and rock
shear test at the construction site of Minami Daitojima
4 Applications to In-Situ Experimental Results fishing port in Ryukyu Archipelago.
The empirical relations for normalized properties pre-
Large rock engineering projects have been carried out in sented in the previous section are compared with the
Japan. The in situ testing techniques are illustrated in experimental results from in situ tests carried out at various
Fig. 13. The diameter of plate bearing tests generally ran- large projects (underground powerhouses, dams, nuclear
ges between 30 and 60 cm. Shear strength samples are power plants, and underground crude oil and gas storage
generally about 60 cm long and 30–40 cm high. Four tests caverns) in Japan. Figure 15 compares the experimental
are carried out to determine the peak cohesion and friction results for the elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of rock
angle of rock masses. In addition, tests are repeated on mass. The experimental results on the normalized elastic
sheared samples to determine residual strength parameters. modulus of rock mass are closely represented by the
The common size of triaxial samples is about 100 cm. empirical relation in Eq. (5) together with the values given
However, the largest size of the triaxial test at Kurobe Dam in Table 15, and they are clustered around the curve with
was 280 cm. Historically, uniaxial compression tests on the value of coefficient b being 6.
rock masses were probably first undertaken in South Africa It should be noted that experiments on the Poisson’s
(i.e., Bieniawski 1974; Van Heerden 1975) using coal ratio of rock masses are quite rare. In this particular
pillars. However, the first triaxial compressive strength comparison, the Poisson’s ratio of rock mass in tunnels
tests were undertaken at the Kurobe Dam site by Kansai through squeezing rocks correlated with RMQR using the

123
 Ö. Aydan et al.

Fig. 13 Illustration of in situ testing techniques in Japan [translated and arranged from Hibino (2007)]

Fig. 14 Views of in situ experiments on rock mass in Minami Daitojima fishing port, Japan: a plate loading test, b rock shear test (Tokashiki and
Aydan 2012)

Fig. 15 Comparison of
experimental data for:
a deformation modulus and
b Poisson’s ratio of rock mass
with the empirical relation
(Eq. 5) together with the values
of the parameters given in
Table 15

approach proposed by Aydan and Dalgıç (1998) and Aydan
et al. (2000) is also included. The data for RMQR values
less than 50 are mainly from those of rock masses exhib-
iting squeezing behavior (Aydan et al. 1993, 1996). The
measured data is well enveloped by the empirical relation
with the values of coefficient b ranging between 0.1 and 3.
The authors suggest that the values of a0 ; a100 ;and b should
be 2.5, 1.0, and 1, respectively, as given in Table 15.
Figure 16 compares the experimental results with the
empirical relations for the normalized uniaxial compressive
strength and tensile strength of rock masses with those of
intact rock. The uniaxial compressive strengths of rock

123
A New Rock Mass Quality Rating System
Fig. 16 Comparison of
experimental data for: a uniaxial
compressive and b tensile
strengths of rock masses with
empirical relations (Eq. 5)
together with the values of the
parameters given in Table 15
Fig. 17 Comparison of:
a cohesion and b friction angle
of rock mass with the empirical
relation (Eq. 5) together with
the values of the parameters
given in Table 15
masses plotted in this figure are mostly obtained using the
rock shear test, together with the Mohr–Coulomb failure
criterion. The experimental results generally confirm the
empirical relation given in Eq. (5) in analogy to that pro-
posed by Aydan and Dalgıç (1998).
In the literature, there are almost no in situ experimental
procedures or experimental results for the tensile strength
of rock mass, to the knowledge of the authors. However,
there is a possibility of utilizing plate loading tests, large-
scale water chamber experiments, and borehole jacking
tests for the indirect inference of the tensile strength of rock
mass from the measured responses.
The authors investigated Ryukyu limestone cliffs along
the shores of Okinawa, Miyako, Kurima, Ikema, Ishigaki,
Ikejima, Heianza, and Miyagi and Iriomote Islands of
Japan for inferring the tensile strength of rock masses. The
authors also back-analyzed the stable and unstable (failed)
cliffs using a theory based on the cantilever theory
(Tokashiki and Aydan 2010). Tokashiki and Aydan (2011a,
b) fitted the inferred tensile strength of the rock mass
normalized by that of intact rock using the empirical
relation of Aydan and Kawamoto (2000). In this study,
such evaluations were revisited and RMQR values were
recalculated. The results are plotted in Fig. 17 by varying
the value of empirical constant b between 5 and 7. As the
ratio of the uniaxial compressive strength of rock to its
tensile strength is within the range of 10–20 and remains
constant for the same rock type, it is found that the value of
empirical constant b could be designated as 6 in view of the
inferred tensile strength of rock mass. It is interesting to
notice that the value of empirical constant b for the elastic
modulus, and uniaxial compressive and tensile strengths of
rock masses is the same.
The Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion is one of the most
commonly used criterion in rock engineering. Although
the Hoek–Brown criterion (Hoek et al. 2002) was claimed
to be the best criterion for rocks and rock mass by some,
the recent paper by Aydan et al. (2012) clearly demon-
strated that the validity of such a claim is found to be
false through comparisons of experimental results on all
rock types with the Hoek–Brown criterion. The linear
Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion can be safely used for
possible stress states encountered in actual engineering
projects.
123
 Ö. Aydan et al.

The authors again utilize the empirical relation in Eq. (5) Similarly, Aydan’s criterion concerning the shear stress
together with the values of the parameters given in Table 15 and normal stress space may be written by omitting the
for comparing the experimental results as shown in Fig. 17. effect of temperature as:
The data used in this comparison are directly from rock shear 

cmo
tests carried out on Ryukyu limestone and on rock masses s ¼ cm1 1  1  ebm rn þ rn tan /m1 ð8Þ
from other sites in Japan. The experimental results generally cm1
confirm the empirical relation of Eq. (5) based on the formula where:
of Aydan and Kawamoto (2000) and Aydan et al. (2012).
The major issue in using Eq. (5) to obtain the geome- RMQR
cm1 ¼ c1 ;
chanical properties of rock mass in terms of those of intact RMQR þ 6 ð100  RMQRÞ
rock is how to select the value of constant b. For practical RMQR
cmo ¼ co ; ð9Þ
applications, the authors strongly suggest the use of the RMQR þ 6 ð100  RMQRÞ
values given in Table 15.

RMQR
Aydan et al. (2012) recently proposed a procedure to eval- bm ¼ 0:3 þ 0:7 bi
RMQR þ ð100  RMQRÞ
uate the direct shear tests on rock masses with the use of both
Mohr–Coulomb and Aydan yield/failure criteria (Aydan 1995) The procedure of Aydan et al. (2012) and the yield/failure
together with the use of the unified formula of Aydan and criteria described briefly above were also applied to rock
Kawamoto (2000). The same approach can be adopted herein shear experiments carried out at Minami Daitojima Island
and replaces RMR with RMQR in the respective equations. and the results are shown in Fig. 18. The RMQR values of
The specific form of the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion in the rock mass at the site of in situ experiments ranged between
shear stress and normal stress space may be written as: 69 and 79. The uniaxial compressive strength and friction
angle of intact rock were 88 MPa and 61°, respectively. As
s ¼ cm þ rn tan /m ð6Þ noted from Fig. 18, a good fitting to the experimental
where: results is obtained for the criteria of Mohr–Coulomb and
Aydan (1995) according to the procedure adopted from that
RMQR proposed by Aydan et al. (2012).
cm ¼ ci ;
þ 6ð100  RMQRÞ
RMQR
ð7Þ
Figure 19a shows an application of the approach
RMQR described above to in situ shear experiments carried out on
/m ¼ 0:3 þ 0:7 /i
100 andesite together with a fitted relation to the experimental

Fig. 18 Comparison of in situ

rock shear experiments with the
Mohr–Coulomb and Aydan
(1995) yield/failure criteria

Fig. 19 Comparison of in situ

rock shear experiments with the
Mohr–Coulomb and Aydan
(1995) yield/failure criteria

123
A New Rock Mass Quality Rating System
results. The RMQR values of rock mass at the adits, where
the in situ experiments were carried out, ranged between 37
and 61. The uniaxial compressive strength and friction
angle of the intact rock were 90 MPa and 60°, respectively.
Using the approach proposed by Aydan et al. (2012), the
fitted relations to the Mohr–Coulomb and Aydan yield/
failure criteria functions to the experimental results are
shown in Fig. 19a and the estimations are shown in
Fig. 19b. As noted from Fig. 19b, a good fit to the exper-
imental results is obtained.
5 Comparisons of Estimations from Some Current
Empirical Relations
As pointed out in the previous section, most of the
empirical relations listed in Tables 13 and 14 available in
the literature are related to the deformation modulus of
rock mass. Following the publication of data on the uni-
axial compressive strength of rock mass by Aydan and
Dalgıç (1998), one can see a number of equations there-
after, as noted from Tables 13 and 14. However, direct
comparisons of empirical relations listed in Tables 13 and
14 for the deformation modulus and uniaxial compressive
strength of rock mass with estimations from Eq. (5) are not
possible unless they are related to RMQR using the rela-
tions among RMQR, RMR, and Q-value. Furthermore, the
comparisons of relations based on GSI and RQD are not
possible with the estimations by Eq. (5) for the mentioned
properties. Figures 20 and 21 show the comparison of
estimations from Eq. (5) with those from some of the
available empirical relations. In the same figures, the
Fig. 20 Comparison of various empirical relations with experimental
results for the normalized elastic modulus of rock mass
Fig. 21 Comparison of estimations from various empirical relations
with experimental results for the normalized uniaxial compressive
strength of rock mass
experimental results are also plotted. As noted from both
figures, the experimental results are scattered as the rocks
vary from sedimentary origin to igneous rocks. An addi-
tional reason for the difference between the actual and
assigned RMQR values may be because it is difficult to
reach the original geological reports for data points. Almost
all experimental results are enveloped by Eq. (5) for three
different values of constant b. The empirical relation pro-
posed by Nicholson and Bieniawski (1990) is quite close to
Eq. (5) with b = 6. while estimations, for example, by
Galera et al. (2005) and Mitri et al. (1994) are quite far
from the experimental results.
Regarding the uniaxial compressive strength of rock
mass, the estimations from Eq. (5) envelopes all experi-
mental results. The empirical relation proposed by Kal-
amaras and Bieniawski (1995) is quite close to Eq. (5),
with b = 6, while estimations by Hoek and Brown (1980)
are quite poor and underestimate the uniaxial compressive
strength of rock mass. However, it should be noted that the
empirical relation proposed by Kalamaras and Bieniawski
(1995) has a value greater than zero.
6 Conclusions
In this study, a new rock mass quality rating system, called
RMQR, has been proposed to assess the physical state of
rock mass, and it was used to estimate the geomechanical
properties of rock masses using a unified formula from the
properties of the intact rock in this article. This new system
123

consists of five important parameters to assess the con-
dition of rock mass. The RMQR is used for the evaluation
of engineering properties of rock masses utilizing the
unified empirical relation proposed by Aydan and
Kawamoto (2000) when it is considered to an be equiv-
alent continuum body. Various mechanical properties of
rock mass evaluated through the unified formula have
been compared with actual measurements on rock masses
in various sites in Japan. The engineering properties
involve not only the uniaxial compressive strength and
deformation modulus of rock mass, but also Poisson’s
ratio, tensile strength, cohesion and friction angle, which
are of paramount importance for the design of rock
engineering structures. Furthermore, the authors strongly
suggest that the relations for normalized properties
should be used for evaluating the properties of rock mass
using properties of intact rock and its rock mass rating.
The comparison of the empirical unified formula together
with the values of constants were found to be quite
consistent with the experimental results for data compiled
from various major rock engineering projects in Japan.
Although some scattering of the measured data exists, the
values of parameters suggested for different geome-
chanical properties of rock masses are found to be
appropriate and can be used with some confidence. When
a representative value of RMQR is determined for a given
site, the geomechanical properties of rock mass can be
obtained using Eq. (5) together with the values of con-
stants given in Table 15 and the values of intact rock for
a desired property. Furthermore, the procedure proposed
by Aydan et al. (2012) for evaluating the experimental
results from in situ shear tests is adopted in this study and
it was found that the estimations are consistent with
the actual measurements. The comparisons between
the experimental results and estimations indicate that the
proposed relations are quite promising. Therefore, the
empirical relations used in this study should be quite
useful tools for engineers involved in engineering pro-
jects in rock masses.
Acknowledgments The authors sincerely thank Prof. Hasan Gerçek
of Bülent Ecevit University (Turkey) for reading the draft and making
many valuable suggestions for the improvement of this manuscript.
The authors also sincerely acknowledge Emeritus Prof. T. Kawamoto
of Nagoya University for providing the reports on the results of many
in situ tests on rock mass properties, as well as his participation in the
evaluation of properties of rock masses in large projects in Japan and
his advice. Furthermore, the members of the Sub-committee for In-
situ Testing and Monitoring of Rock Mechanics Committee of the
Japan Society of Civil Engineers are gratefully acknowledged for
their hectic discussions on the generally non-accessible results of
experiments of in situ tests of rock masses in the meetings of the sub-
committee. The authors also acknowledge the two anonymous
reviewers for their critical reviews and constructive comments that
lead to significant improvements to the article.
123
Ö. Aydan et al.
References
Agricola G (1556) De re metallica. Translated from the first Latin
edition of 1556 by H.C. Hoover and L.H. Hoover, 1950. Dover
Publications, Inc., New York
Akagi T, Aydan Ö (2000) The relation between rock mass classifi-
cation indices and rock mass properties, Section 5. In: A
guideline for testing methods of deformability and shear strength
of in situ rock masses—commentary and application to design of
structures. Rock Mechanics Committee of Japan Society of Civil
Engineers (JSCE-RMC) (in Japanese)
Aydan Ö (1995) The stress state of the Earth and the Earth’s crust due
to gravitational pull. In: Proceedings of the 35th US rock
mechanics symposium, Lake Tahoe, USA, June 1995,
pp 237–243
Aydan Ö, Dalgıç S (1998) Prediction of deformation behaviour of
3-lanes Bolu tunnels through squeezing rocks of North Anatolian
Fault Zone (NAFZ). In: Proceedings of the regional symposium
on sedimentary rock engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, November
1998, pp 228–233
Aydan Ö, Kawamoto T (1990) Discontinuities and their effect on rock
mass. In: Proceedings of the international conference on rock
joints, Loen, Norway, June 1990. ISRM, pp 149–155
Aydan Ö, Kawamoto T (2000) Assessing mechanical properties of
rock masses through RMR rock classification system. In:
Proceedings of the GeoEng 2000 symposium, Sydney, Australia,
November 2000. Paper no. OA0926 (on CD)
Aydan Ö, Kawamoto T (2001) The stability assessment of a large
underground opening at great depth. In: Proceedings of the 17th
international mining congress and exhibition of Turkey (IMCET
2001), Ankara, Turkey, June 2001, vol 1, pp 277–288
Aydan Ö, Shimizu Y (1995) Surface morphology characteristics of
rock discontinuities with particular reference to their genesis.
Fractogr Geol Soc Spec Publ 92:11–26
Aydan Ö, Ulusay R (2003) Geotechnical and geoenvironmental
characteristics of man-made underground structures in Capp-
adocia, Turkey. Eng Geol 69:245–272
Aydan Ö, Ulusay R (2013) Geomechanical evaluation of Derinkuyu
Antique Underground City and its implications in geoengineer-
ing. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46(4):731–754. doi:10.1007/s00603-
012-0301-7
Aydan Ö, Akagi T, Kawamoto T (1993) The squeezing potential of
rocks around tunnels; theory and prediction. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 26(2):137–163
Aydan Ö, Akagi T, Kawamoto T (1996) The squeezing potential of
rock around tunnels: theory and prediction with examples taken
from Japan. Rock Mech Rock Eng 29(3):125–143
Aydan Ö, Ulusay R, Kawamoto T (1997) Assessment of rock mass
strength for underground excavations. In: Proceedings of the
36th US rock mechanics symposium, New York, June/July 1997,
pp 777–786
Aydan Ö, Dalgıç S, Kawamoto T (2000) Prediction of squeezing
potential of rocks in tunnelling through a combination of an
analytical method and rock mass classifications. Italian Geotech
J 34(1):41–44
Aydan Ö, Tokashiki N, Geniş M (2012) Some considerations on yield
(failure) criteria in rock mechanics. In: Proceedings of the 46th
US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium, Chicago, Illinois,
June 2012. ARMA 12-640 (on CD)
Barton N (1976) The shear strength of rock and rock joints. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 13:255–279
Barton N (1995) The influence of joint properties in modelling jointed
rock masses. In: Proceedings of the 8th international congress on
rock mechanics, Tokyo, Japan, September 1995, pp 1023–1032
A New Rock Mass Quality Rating System
Barton N (2002) Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site
characterisation and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
39:185–216
Barton N, Bieniawski ZT (2008) RMR and Q: setting records straight.
Tunnels and Tunnelling International, pp 26–29
Barton N, Grimstad E (1994) The Q-system following twenty years of
application in NATM support selection. Felsbau 12(6):428–436
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde I (1974) Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6(4):189–239
Bieniawski ZT (1973) Engineering classification of jointed rock
masses. Trans South Afr Inst Civil Eng 15:335–344
Bieniawski ZT (1974) Estimating the strength of rock materials. J S
Afr Inst Min Metall 74:312–320
Bieniawski ZT (1978) Determining rock mass deformability: expe-
rience from case histories. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 15:237–247
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. Wiley,
New York
Broch E (1979) Changes in rock strength by water. In: Proceedings of
the 4th congress of the International Society of Rock Mechanics,
Montreux, Switzerland, September 1979, vol 1, pp 71–75
Colback PSB, Wiid BL (1965) The influence of moisture content on
the compressive strength of rock. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
Canadian rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, Canada, January
1965, pp 65–83
Cummings RA, Kendorski FS, Bieniawski ZT (1982) Caving rock
mass classification and support estimation. U.S. Bureau of
Mines, Contract Report No. J0100103; Engineers International,
Inc., Chicago
Deere DU, Hendron AJ Jr, Patton FD, Cording EJ (1967) Design of
surface and near surface construction in rock. In: Fairhurst C (ed)
Failure and breakage of rock. Society of Mining Engineers of
AIME, New York, pp 237–302
Diederichs MS, Kaiser PK (1999) Tensile strength and abutment
relaxation as failure control mechanisms in underground exca-
vations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:69–96
Galera JM, Álvarez M, Bieniawski ZT (2005) Evaluation of the
deformation modulus of rock masses: comparison of pressure-
meter and dilatometer tests with RMR prediction. In: Proceed-
ings of the ISP5-PRESSIO 2005 international symposium,
Madrid, Spain, August 2005, pp 1–25
Grimstad E, Barton N (1993) Updating the Q-system for NMT. In:
Proceedings of the international symposium on sprayed con-
crete—modern use of wet mix sprayed concrete for underground
support, Fagernes, Norway, October 1993. Norwegian Concrete
Association, Oslo, pp 25–32
Hibino S (2007) Necessary knowledge of rock mass for engineers
(Gijutsusha ni hitsuyo na ganban no chishiki). Kajima Institute
Publishing Co., Tokyo (in Japanese)
Hoek E (1999) Putting numbers to geology—an engineer’s viewpoint.
Q J Eng Geol 32:1–19
Hoek E, Brown T (1980) Empirical strength criterion for rock masses.
J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 106(GT9):1013–1035
Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(8):1165–1186
Hoek E, Diederichs MS (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass
modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43(2):203–215
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground
excavations in hard rock. Balkema, Rotterdam
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B (2002) Hoek–Brown failure
criterion—2002 edition. In: Proceedings of the 5th North
American rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, Canada, July
2002, vol 1, pp 267–273
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (2007) The
complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization,
testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. In: Ulusay R, Hudson JA
(eds) Suggested methods prepared by the ISRM Commission on
Testing Methods. Compilation arranged by the ISRM Turkish
National Group, Ankara, Turkey
Jašarević I, Kovačević MS (1996) Analyzing applicability of existing
classification for hard carbonate rock in Mediterranean area. In:
Proceedings of EUROCK’96, Turin, Italy, September 1996,
pp 811–818
Kalamaras GS, Bieniawski ZT (1995) A rock strength concept for
coal seams incorporating the effect of time. In: Proceedings of
the 8th ISRM congress, Tokyo, Japan, September 1995, vol 1,
pp 295–302
Karakul H, Ulusay R (2013) Empirical correlations for predicting
strength properties of rocks from P-wave velocity under different
degrees of saturation. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46(5):981–999
Kayabasi A, Gokceoglu C, Ercanoglu M (2003) Estimating the
deformation modulus of rock masses: a comparative study. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 40(1):55–63
Kendorski FF, Cummings RA, Bieniawski ZT, Skinner EH (1983) A
rock mass classification scheme for the planning of caving mine
drift supports. In: Proceedings of the rapid excavation and
tunneling conference, Chicago, Illinois, June 1983. AIME, New
York, pp 193–223
Kikuchi K, Saito K (1975) A proposed method for the classifications
of rock grades in connection with bearing resistance of
foundation rock. In: Proceedings of the 9th Japan symposium
on rock mechanics, Tokyo, Japan, pp 66–70 (in Japanese)
Kikuchi K, Saito K, Kusonoki KI (1982) Geotechnically integrated
evaluation on the stability of dam foundation rocks. In:
Proceedings of the 14th international congress on large dams,
Rio de Janerio, Brazil, May 1982, pp 49–74
Mitri HS, Edrissi R, Henning J (1994) Finite element modeling of
cable bolted slopes in hard rock ground mines. In: Proceedings
of the SME annual meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
February 1994, pp 94–116
Nicholson GA, Bieniawski ZT (1990) A nonlinear deformation
modulus based on rock mass classification. Int J Min Geol Eng
8:181–202
Nosei M (1962) On the in situ experiments of rock mass at the site of
Kurobe IV Dam. In: Proceedings of the first rock mechanics
symposium of Japan, Tokyo, paper no. 11 (in Japanese)
Palmström A (1996) RMi—a system for characterizing rock mass
strength for use in rock engineering. J Rock Mech Tunn Technol
1(2):69–108
Priest SD (1985) Hemispherical projection methods in rock mechan-
ics. George Allen and Unwin, London
Priest SD, Hudson JA (1981) Estimation of discontinuity spacing and
trace length using scanline surveys. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 18:183–197
Serafim JL, Pereira JP (1983) Considerations of the geomechanics
classification of Bieniawski. In: Proceedings of the international
symposium on engineering geology and underground construc-
tion, Lisbon, Portugal, LNEC, vol 1 (I), pp 33–44
Stini J (1950) Tunnelbaugeologie. Springer, Vienna
Tanaka M (1964) Introduction to engineering geology for civil
engineers. Sankaido, Tokyo (in Japanese)
Tanimoto C, Yoshikawa T, Hojo A (1989) Rapid excavation of a
headrace tunnel and loosening in rock mass in Shin-Aimoto
power station project. J Soc Mater Sci Japan 38(426):241–247
(in Japanese)
Terzaghi K (1946) Rock defects and loads on tunnel support. In:
Proctor RV, White T (eds) Rock tunneling with steel supports.
Commercial Shearing & Stamping Co., Youngstown, pp 43–64
Terzaghi RD (1965) Sources of error in joint surveys. Geotechnique
15:287–304
Tokashiki N (2011) Study on the engineering properties of Ryukyu
limestone and the evaluation of the stability of its rock mass and
123

masonry structures. PhD thesis, Waseda University (in Japanese
with English abstract)
Tokashiki N, Aydan Ö (2010) The stability assessment of overhang-
ing Ryukyu limestone cliffs with an emphasis on the evaluation
of tensile strength of rock mass. J Geotech Eng JSCE
66(2):397–406
Tokashiki N, Aydan Ö (2011a) A comparative study on the analytical
and numerical stability assessment methods for rock cliffs in
Ryukyu Islands. In: Proceedings of the 13th international
conference of the International Association for Computer
Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG), Mel-
bourne, Australia, May 2011, pp 663–668
Tokashiki N, Aydan Ö (2011b) Application of rock mass classifica-
tion systems to Ryukyu limestone and the evaluation of their
mechanical properties. In: Proceedings of the 40th symposium
on rock mechanics, Tokyo, Japan, January 2011, pp 387–392 (in
Japanese)
Tokashiki N, Aydan Ö (2012) Estimation of rockmass properties of
Ryukyu limestone. In: Proceedings of the 7th Asian rock
mechanics symposium, Seoul, Korea, October 2012, pp 725–734
Ulusay R, Aydan Ö (1998) A study on merits and de-merits of
excavation by TBM by considering Takisato Tunnel in Japan as
an example. Jeoloji Mühendisliği (Geol Eng) 51:51–61 (in
Turkish)
123
Ö. Aydan et al.
Ünal E (1996) Modified rock mass classification: M-RMR system.
Milestones in rock engineering. The Bieniawski Jubilee Collec-
tion, Balkema, pp 203–223
Ünal E, Özkan İ, Ulusay R (1992) Characterization of weak, stratified
and clay-bearing rock masses. In: Hudson JA (ed) ISRM
symposium: EUROCK’92 rock characterization, Chester, UK,
September 1992. British Geotechnical Society, London,
pp 330–335
Van Heerden WL (1975) In situ complete stress–strain characteristics
of large coal specimens. J S Afr Min Metall 75:207–217
Wickham GE, Tiedemann HR, Skinner EH (1972) Support determi-
nations based on geologic predictions. In: Proceedings of 1st
rapid excavation tunnelling conference. AIME, New York,
pp 43–64
Wickham GE, Tiedemann HR, Skinner EH (1974) Ground support
prediction model—RSR concept. In: Proceedings of 2nd rapid
excavation tunneling conference. AIME, New York, pp 691–707
Yoshinaka R, Sakurai S, Kikuchi K (1989) Rock mass classification
and its application. Japanese Civil Engineering Organization,
Tokyo, pp 20–31
Zhang L, Einstein HH (2004) Using RQD to estimate the deformation
modulus of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:337–341