Rock Engineering Rock Engineering

Practice & Design Practice & Design

Lecture 3: Lecture 3:
Rock Mass Classification Rock Mass Classification
& Empirical Design & Empirical Design
1 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Authors Note: Authors Note:
The lecture slides provided here are taken from the course
Geotechnical Engineering Practice, which is part of the 4th year
Geological Engineering program at the University of British Columbia
(V C d ) Th k i i d (Vancouver, Canada). The course covers rock engineering and
geotechnical design methodologies, building on those already taken
by the students covering Introductory Rock Mechanics and Advanced
Rock Mechanics Rock Mechanics.
Although the slides have been modified in part to add context, they
of course are missing the detailed narrative that accompanies any
l l d h h l lecture. It is also recognized that these lectures summarize,
reproduce and build on the work of others for which gratitude is
extended. Where possible, efforts have been made to acknowledge
th v ri us s urc s ith list f r f r nc s b in pr vid d t th the various sources, with a list of references being provided at the
end of each lecture.
Errors, omissions, comments, etc., can be forwarded to the
2 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Errors, omissions, comments, etc., can be forwarded to the
author at: erik@eos.ubc.ca
Classification Systems in Design Classification Systems in Design
Even with many resources available for site investigation,
there still can remain problems in applying theories in
practical engineering circumstances. Considering the three p g g g
main design approaches for engineering rock mechanics
analytical, observational and empirical, rock mass
classifications today form an integral part of the most
d i d i h h i i l d i h d predominant design approach, the empirical design method.
Indeed, on many underground construction, tunnelling and
mining projects rock mass classifications have provided mining projects, rock mass classifications have provided
the only systematic design aid in an otherwise haphazard
trial-and-error procedure.
3 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Failure Mechanisms Failure Mechanisms
structurally-controlled
f l
rock mass failure
The Stability of an underground opening is a function of:
failure
Stress
low or high
f
low or high
Structure
f lli falling
sliding
9
8
)
Rock Mass
H
o
e
k
(
1
9
4 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Rock Mass Classification Rock Mass Classification
The objectives of rock mass classifications are to:
Identify the most important parameters influencing the rock mass.
d k f f l h Divide a rock mass formation into groups of similar behaviour.
Provide a basis for understanding the characteristics of each rock
mass class.
Relate experiences of rock conditions at one site to those at another.
Derive quantitative data and guidelines for engineering design.
The boundaries of the structural regions usually coincide with a major
Provide a common basis for communication between geologists and
engineers.
The boundaries of the structural regions usually coincide with a major
structural feature such as a fault or with a change in rock type. In
some cases, significant changes in discontinuity spacing or
characteristics, within the same rock type, may necessitate the division
f th k i t b f ll t t l i
5 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
of the rock mass into a number of small structural regions.
Rock Mass Classification Rock Mass Classification
These objectives suggest the three main benefits of rock mass
classifications:
Improving the quality of site investigations by calling for the
minimum input data as classification parameters. p p
Providing quantitative information for design purposes.
E bli b i i j d d ff i Enabling better engineering judgment and more effective
communication on a project.
6 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Rock Mass Classification: RMR Rock Mass Classification: RMR
The Rock Mass Rating The Rock Mass Rating
(RMR) system was
developed in 1973 in South
Africa by Prof. Z.T.
k h d Bieniawski. The advantage
of his system was that only
a few basic parameters
relating to the geometry relating to the geometry
and mechanical conditions of
the rock mass were
required.
Rating adjustments are g j m
included to account for the
adverse nature discontinuity
angles may have with respect
to the excavation or slope
7 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
p
direction.
Bieniawski (1989)
Rock Mass Classification Rock Mass Classification - - RMR RMR
Th dj t d l i th fi l RMR l f th k m f hi h The adjusted value gives the final RMR value for the rock mass, for which
several rock mass classes are described.
F l For example:
A mudstone outcrop contains three
fracture sets. Set 1 comprises
bedding planes; these are highly
14
16
1
RMR = 6+R
2
+R
3
+R
4
+R
5
bedding planes; these are highly
weathered, slightly rough and
continuous. The other two sets are
jointing; both are slightly weathered
and slightly rough The strength of
4
6
8
10
12
R
M
R

R
a
t
i
n
g

R
and slightly rough. The strength of
the intact rock is estimated to be 55
MPa with an RQD of 60% and a mean
fracture spacing of 0.4 m. The
fractures are observed to be damp
0
2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Unconf ined Compressive Strength, q
u
(MPa)
R
8 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
fractures are observed to be damp.
Harrison & Hudson (2000)
Rock Mass Classification Rock Mass Classification - - RMR RMR
Example:
A mudstone outcrop contains three
fracture sets. Set 1 comprises
15
20
25
t
i
n
g

R
2
RMR = 6+12+R
3
+R
4
+R
5
bedding planes; these are highly
weathered, slightly rough and
continuous. The other two sets are
jointing; both are slightly weathered
0
5
10
R
M
R

R
a
t
and slightly rough. The strength of
the intact rock is estimated to be 55
MPa with an RQD of 60% and a mean
fracture spacing of 0.4 m. The
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rock Quality Designation, RQD
25
fractures are observed to be damp.
10
15
20
R

R
a
t
i
n
g

R
3
0
5
0.01 0.1 1 10
Joint Spacing (meters)
R
M
RMR = 6+12+10+R
4
+R
5
9 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Joint Spacing (meters)
Harrison & Hudson (2000)
Rock Mass Classification Rock Mass Classification - - RMR RMR
Example:
A mudstone outcrop contains three
fracture sets. Set 1 comprises
b ddi l th hi hl
25
30
35
R
4
Slightly
Rough/Unweathered
RMR = 6+12+10+(15 to 20)+R
5
bedding planes; these are highly
weathered, slightly rough and
continuous. The other two sets are
jointing; both are slightly weathered
d li htl h Th t th f
10
15
20
25
R
M
R

R
a
t
i
n
g

R
Slightly
Rough
Weathered
Slickensided Surf ace or Gouge-Filled
Sets 2 & 3
Set 1
and slightly rough. The strength of
the intact rock is estimated to be 55
MPa with an RQD of 60% and a mean
fracture spacing of 0.4 m. The
f t b d t b d
0
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joint Separation or Gouge Thickness (mm)
R
Sof t Gouge-Filled
fractures are observed to be damp.
RMR = 6+12+10+(15 to 20)+10
RMR* = 53 to 58
10 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Harrison & Hudson (2000)
Rock Mass Classification: Q Rock Mass Classification: Q- -System System
The Q-system of rock mass classification was developed in 1974
in Norway by Prof. N. Barton. The system was proposed on the
b i f l i f 212 t l hi t i f S di i basis of an analysis of 212 tunnel case histories from Scandinavia.
the motivation of presenting the Q-value in this form is to provide
some method of interpretation for the 3 constituent quotients.
11 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Rock Mass Classification: Q Rock Mass Classification: Q- -System System
The first quotient is related to the rock mass
geometry. Since RQD generally increases with
decreasing number of discontinuity sets, the g y ,
numerator and denominator of the quotient mutually
reinforce one another.
The second quotient relates to inter-block shear
strength with high values representing better
mechanical quality of the rock mass.
The third quotient is an environment factor
incorporating water pressures and flows, the
presence of shear zones, squeezing and swelling rocks p f , q g g
and the in situ stress state. The quotient increases
with decreasing water pressure and favourable in situ
stress ratios.
12 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Rock Mass Classification Rock Mass Classification Examples Examples
massive, strong rock
l t im low stress regime
note lack of ground
support pp
RMR = 90
(very good rock)
Q = 180
(extremely good rock)
Courtesy - Golder Associates
13 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Courtesy - Golder Associates
Rock Mass Classification Rock Mass Classification Examples Examples
blocky rock
low stress regime low stress regime
minimal but systematic
ground support
RMR = 70
(good rock)
Q = 15
(good rock)
Courtesy - Golder Associates
14 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Rock Mass Classification Rock Mass Classification Examples Examples
weak/foliated rock
low stress regime
note lack of ground
support support
RMR = 40
(poor to fair rock)
Q = 0.9
(v.poor to poor rock)
Courtesy - Golder Associates
15 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Courtesy Golder Associates
Rock Mass Classification Rock Mass Classification Examples Examples
massive, strong rock
extremely high stress regime
rockburst failure complete rockburst failure, complete
closure of drift, extremely
heavy support, screen retains
failed rock
RMR = 80
(good to v.good rock)
Q = 0.5
(very poor rock)
Courtesy - Golder Associates
16 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Rock Mass Classification Rock Mass Classification Examples Examples
blocky rock
high stress regime
RMR = 40
( t f i k) (poor to fair rock)
Q = 0.8
(very poor rock) ( y p )
Courtesy - Golder Associates
17 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Application of Classification Systems Application of Classification Systems
Both of the classification
systems described were
developed for estimating developed for estimating
the support necessary for
tunnels excavated for civil
engineering schemes.For engineering schemes.For
example, the database for
the RMR has involved over
351 case histories
throughout its
development.
Bieniawski (1989) Bieniawski (1989)
18 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Experience Experience--Based Design: Empirical Approaches Based Design: Empirical Approaches
38 different support categories have been suggested by Barton (1974)
based on the relationship between the Q index and the equivalent
dimension of the excavation
19 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
dimension of the excavation.
Experience Experience--Based Design: Empirical Approaches Based Design: Empirical Approaches
20 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Kaiser et al. (2000)
Subjectivity in Empirical Design Subjectivity in Empirical Design -- JRC JRC
Beer et al. (2002)
21 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Subjectivity in Empirical Design Subjectivity in Empirical Design -- Undersampling Undersampling
It t b b d th h th t h id li d It must be remembered though, that such guidelines are drawn
from previous experiences (i.e. case histories) and are therefore
limited by the range of conditions under which these experiences
were generated were generated.
Bieniawski (1989)
22 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Bieniawski (1989)
Rock Mass Characterization Rock Mass Characterization vs. vs. Classification Classification
23 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Rock Mass Properties Rock Mass Properties - - Strength Strength
Remember!! were now
talking about rock mass talking about rock mass
failure, not structurally
controlled failures.
0
0
4
)
i
e

&

M
a
h

(
2
0
24 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
W
y
l
l
Mohr Mohr- -Coulomb Failure Criterion Coulomb Failure Criterion
The Mohr Coulomb failure criterion expresses the relationship between The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion expresses the relationship between
the shear stress and the normal stress at failure along a shear surface.
s
o
n

(
1
9
9
7
)
s
o
n

&

H
a
r
r
i
s
25 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
H
u
d
s
Problems with Mohr Problems with Mohr--Coulomb Coulomb
Alth h th M h C l b f il it i i f th t Although the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion remains one of the most
commonly applied failure criterion, and is especially significant and valid
for discontinuities and discontinuous rock masses, several key limitations
apply to rock slope stability analyses. pp y p y y
linear
non-linear
Non-linear failure envelopes Scale effects
26 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Non-linear failure envelopes. Scale effects.
Hoek Hoek- -Brown Failure Criterion Brown Failure Criterion
Generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion:
Intact rock strength:
m = lab-determined
s = 1

1
Rock mass
strength

c
1
9
9
5
)

c
H
o
e
k

e
t

a
l
.

(
1

3
m & s are derived from empirical charts that
are related to rock mass quality
m ~ Friction
s ~ Cohesion
H
27 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Rock Mass Properties Rock Mass Properties - - Strength Strength
Mohr-Coulomb
Generalized Hoek-Brown
28 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Hoek Hoek- -Brown Failure Criterion Brown Failure Criterion
Intact rock strength:
mi = lab-determined

1
s = 1

3
29 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Hoek & Brown (1997)
Geological Strength Index (GSI) Geological Strength Index (GSI)
The GSI provides a system for estimating
the reduction in rock mass strength for
different geological conditions.
Values of GSI are related to both
the degree of fracturing and the
condition of the fracture surfaces.
mainly jointing mainly jointing
mainly faulting
30 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
GSI GSI ((for those familiar with rock mass classification) for those familiar with rock mass classification)
Bieniawski (1989)
Not a rock mass characteristic!
For RMR 89
*
> 23:
GSI = RMR 89
*
-5
For RMR 89
*
< 23:
GSI = 9 Log Q + 44
For RMR 89 < 23:
GSI = 9 Log
e
Q + 44
Where
Note that the Q-system quotient terms
Jw/SRF are dropped as these, likewise,
Hoek et al. (1995)
31 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
pp , ,
are not rock mass characteristics!
Hoek Hoek- -Brown Simplified Procedure Brown Simplified Procedure
A simplified procedure to determine the
Hoek-Brown rock mass strength parameters:
First, calculate m
b
:
32 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Hoek Hoek- -Brown Failure Criterion Brown Failure Criterion
for GSI >25:
Intact rock strength:
mi = lab-determined

1
s = 1
for GSI <25:

c
Rock mass strength:
mb = rock mass adjusted
1 ( k i d)

3
s = <1 (rock mass varied)
s is a rock mass constant based
on how fractured the rock mass is
33 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
f m
(where s=1 for intact rock).
GSI Disturbance Factor GSI Disturbance Factor
A disturbance
factor, D, may
also be applied to
h k the Hoek-Brown
parameters to
account for the
degree to which a degree to which a
rock mass may have
been subjected to
blast damage and
t l ti
M
a
h
(
2
0
0
4
)
stress relaxation.
W
y
l
l
i
e

&

M
di b
34 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
disturbance
factor
GSI, GSI, Hoek Hoek- -Brown & Mohr Brown & Mohr--Coulomb Coulomb
Where Mohr Coulomb properties are required (or preferred because we have Where Mohr-Coulomb properties are required (or preferred because we have
more experience and an intuitive feel for c and ), these can be derived by
fitting a linear failure envelope across the non-linear H-B envelope:
35 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
GSI, GSI, Hoek Hoek- -Brown & Mohr Brown & Mohr--Coulomb Coulomb
Where Mohr Coulomb properties are required (or preferred because we have Where Mohr-Coulomb properties are required (or preferred because we have
more experience and an intuitive feel for c and ), these can be derived by
fitting a linear failure envelope across the non-linear H-B envelope:
Note change in
sig3max for increased
slope height and slope height, and
corresponding change
in fit of linear M-C
envelope.
Check out the free copy of
Evert Hoeks notes and
H-B software available
on-line:
http://www.rocscience.com/
36 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Rock Mass Characterization & Design Rock Mass Characterization & Design
37 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Rock Mass Characterization & Design Rock Mass Characterization & Design
5
)
k
e
t

a
l
.
(
1
9
9
5
38 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
H
o
e
Lecture References Lecture References
Barton, N (1974). Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock
Mechanics 6(4): 189-236.
Beer, AJ, Stead, D. & Coggan, J.S. (2002). Estimation of the Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC)
by visual comparison. Rock Mechanics & Rock Engineering 35: 6574.
Bieniawski, ZT (1974). Geomechanics classification of rock masses and its application in tunnelling. In
Proceedings of the Congress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics, Denver. National
Academy of Sciences: Washington, pp. 27-32.
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A Complete Manual for Engineers and Bieniawski, ZT (1989). Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A Complete Manual for Engineers and
Geologists in Mining, Civil, and Petroleum Engineering. Wiley: New York.
Harrison, JP & Hudson, JA (2000). Engineering Rock Mechanics Part 2: Illustrative Worked
Examples. Elsevier Science: Oxford.
Hoek, E (1998). Reliability of Hoek-Brown estimates of rock mass properties and their impact on
design. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 35(1):
63-68.
Hoek, E & Brown, ET (1980). Underground Excavations in Rock. Institution of Mining and , , ( ) g f g
Metallurgy: London.
Hoek, E, Kaiser, PK & Bawden, WF (1995). Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock.
Balkema: Rotterdam.
H d JA & H i JP (1997) E i i R k M h i A I t d ti t th P i i l
39 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Hudson, JA & Harrison, JP (1997). Engineering Rock Mechanics An Introduction to the Principles.
Elsevier Science: Oxford.
Lecture References Lecture References
Kaiser, PK, Diederichs, MS, Martin, D, Sharpe, J & Steiner, W (2000). Underground works in
hard rock tunnelling and mining. In GeoEng2000, Melbourne. Technomic Publishing Company:
Lancaster, pp. 841-926.
Marinos, P & Hoek, E (2000). GSI A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation.
In GeoEng2000, Melbourne. Technomic Publishing Company: Lancaster, CD-ROM.
Wyllie, DC & Mah, CW (2004). Rock Slope Engineering (4
th
edition). Spon Press: London.
40 of 40 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition