1

Rock mass classification

Introduction
During the feasibility and preliminary design stages of a project, when very little
detailed information is available on the rock mass and its stress and hydrologic
characteristics, the use of a rock mass classification scheme can be of considerable
benefit. At its simplest, this may involve using the classification scheme as a check-list
to ensure that all relevant information has been considered. At the other end of the
spectrum, one or more rock mass classification schemes can be used to build up a
picture of the composition and characteristics of a rock mass to provide initial estimates
of support requirements, and to provide estimates of the strength and deformation
properties of the rock mass.
t is important to understand the limitations of rock mass classification schemes
!"almstrom and #roch, $%%&' and that their use does not !and cannot' replace some of
the more elaborate design procedures. (owever, the use of these design procedures
requires access to relatively detailed information on in situ stresses, rock mass properties
and planned e)cavation sequence, none of which may be available at an early stage in
the project. As this information becomes available, the use of the rock mass
classification schemes should be updated and used in conjunction with site specific
analyses.
Engineering rock mass classification
*ock mass classification schemes have been developing for over 1%% years since *itter
!1+,-' attempted to formalise an empirical approach to tunnel design, in particular for
determining support requirements. .hile the classification schemes are appropriate for
their original application, especially if used within the bounds of the case histories from
which they were developed, considerable caution must be e)ercised in applying
rock mass classifications to other rock engineering problems.
/ummaries of some important classification systems are presented in this chapter, and
although every attempt has been made to present all of the pertinent data from
the original te)ts, there are numerous notes and comments which cannot be included.
0he interested reader should make every effort to read the cited references for a full
appreciation of the use, applicability and limitations of each system.
1ost of the multi-parameter classification schemes !.ickham et al !1-,$' #ieniawski
!1-,2, 1-+-' and #arton et al !1-,3'' were developed from civil engineering
case histories in which all of the components of the engineering geological character of
the rock mass were included. n underground hard rock mining, however, especially at
deep levels, rock mass weathering and the influence of water usually are not
$
significant and may be ignored. Different classification systems place different
emphases on the various
Rock mass classification
2
parameters, and it is recommended that at least two methods be used at any site
during the early stages of a project.
Terzaghi's rock mass classification
0he earliest reference to the use of rock mass classification for the design of tunnel
support is in a paper by 0er4aghi !1-3&' in which the rock loads, carried by steel sets, are
estimated on the basis of a descriptive classification. .hile no useful purpose would be
served by including details of 0er4aghi5s classification in this discussion on the design
of support, it is interesting to e)amine the rock mass descriptions included in his original
paper, because he draws attention to those characteristics that dominate rock mass
behaviour, particularly in situations where gravity constitutes the dominant driving
force. 0he clear and concise definitions and the practical comments included in these
descriptions are good e)amples of the type of engineering geology information, which
is most useful for engineering design.
0er4aghi5s descriptions !quoted directly from his paper'
are6
) Intact rock contains neither joints nor hair cracks. (ence, if it breaks, it breaks
across sound rock. 7n account of the injury to the rock due to blasting, spalls may
drop off the roof several hours or days after blasting. 0his is known as a spalling
condition. (ard, intact rock may also be encountered in the popping condition
involving the spontaneous and violent detachment of rock slabs from the sides or
roof.
) Stratified rock consists of individual strata with little or no resistance
against separation along the boundaries between the strata. 0he strata may or
may not be weakened by transverse joints. n such rock the spalling condition is
quite common.
) Moderately jointed rock contains joints and hair cracks, but the blocks between
joints are locally grown together or so intimately interlocked that vertical walls
do not require lateral support. n rocks of this type, both spalling and popping
conditions may be encountered.
) Blocky and seamy rock consists of chemically intact or almost intact rock
fragments which are entirely separated from each other and imperfectly interlocked.
n such rock, vertical walls may require lateral support.
) Crushed but chemically intact rock has the character of crusher run. f most or all
of the fragments are as small as fine sand grains and no recementation has taken
place, crushed rock below the water table e)hibits the properties of a water-bearing
sand.
) Squeezing rock slowly advances into the tunnel without perceptible volume
increase.
A prerequisite for squee4e is a high percentage of microscopic and sub-
microscopic particles of micaceous minerals or clay minerals with a low swelling
capacity.
) Selling rock advances into the tunnel chiefly on account of e)pansion. 0he
capacity to swell seems to be limited to those rocks that contain clay minerals
Rock mass classification
3
such as montmorillonite, with a high swelling capacity.
8
Rock mass classification
Classifications in!ol!ing stand"up time
9auffer !1-8+' proposed that the stand-up time for an unsupported span is related to the
quality of the rock mass in which the span is e)cavated. n a tunnel, the unsupported
span is defined as the span of the tunnel or the distance between the face and the nearest
support, if this is greater than the tunnel span. 9auffer5s original classification has since
been modified by a number of authors, notably "acher et al !1-,3', and now forms part
of the general tunnelling approach known as the :ew Austrian 0unnelling 1ethod.
0he significance of the stand-up time concept is that an increase in the span of the
tunnel leads to a significant reduction in the time available for the installation of
support. ;or e)ample, a small pilot tunnel may be successfully constructed with
minimal support, while a larger span tunnel in the same rock mass may not be stable
without the immediate installation of substantial support.
0he :ew Austrian 0unnelling 1ethod includes a number of techniques for safe
tunnelling in rock conditions in which the stand-up time is limited before failure occurs.
0hese techniques include the use of smaller headings and benching or the use of
multiple drifts to form a reinforced ring inside which the bulk of the tunnel can be
e)cavated. 0hese techniques are applicable in soft rocks such as shales, phyllites and
mudstones in which the squee4ing and swelling problems, described by 0er4aghi
!see previous section', are likely to occur. 0he techniques are also applicable
when tunnelling in e)cessively broken rock, but great care should be taken in
attempting to apply these techniques to e)cavations in hard rocks in which different
failure mechanisms occur.
n designing support for hard rock e)cavations it is prudent to assume that the stability
of the rock mass surrounding the e)cavation is not time-dependent. (ence, if a
structurally defined wedge is e)posed in the roof of an e)cavation, it will fall as soon as
the rock supporting it is removed. 0his can occur at the time of the blast or during the
subsequent scaling operation. f it is required to keep such a wedge in place, or to
enhance the margin of safety, it is essential that the support be installed as early as
possible, preferably before the rock supporting the full wedge is removed. 7n the other
hand, in a highly stressed rock, failure will generally be induced by some change in the
stress field surrounding the e)cavation. 0he failure may occur gradually and manifest
itself as spalling or slabbing or it may occur suddenly in the form of a rock burst. n
either case, the support design must take into account the change in the stress field
rather than the <stand-up= time of the e)cavation.
Rock quality designation inde#
$R%&'
0he *ock >uality Designation inde) !R%&' was developed by Deere !Deere et al
1-&,' to provide a quantitative estimate of rock mass quality from drill core logs. *>D
is defined as the percentage of intact core pieces longer than 1%% mm !3 inches' in the
total length of core. 0he core should be at least :. si4e !83., mm or $.18 inches in
&
Rock mass classification
diameter' and should be drilled with a double-tube core barrel. 0he correct
procedures for
,
Rock mass classification
measurement of the length of core pieces and the calculation of R%& are summarised
in
;igure 1.
;igure 16 "rocedure for measurement and calculation of R%& !After Deere, 1-+-'.
"almstr?m !1-+$' suggested that, when no core is available but discontinuity traces
are
visible in surface e)posures or e)ploration adits, the R%& may be estimated from the
number of discontinuities per unit volume. 0he suggested relationship for clay-free
rock masses is6
R%& @ 118 - 2.2 (
!
!1'
where (
!
is the sum of the number of joints per unit length for all joint
!discontinuity'
sets known as the volumetric joint
count.
R%& is a directionally dependent parameter and its value may change
significantly, depending upon the borehole orientation. 0he use of the volumetric joint
count can be quite useful in reducing this directional dependence.
+
Rock mass classification
R%& is intended to represent the rock mass quality in situ. .hen using diamond
drill core, care must be taken to ensure that fractures, which have been caused by
handling or the drilling process, are identified and ignored when determining the value
of R%&.
.hen using "almstr?m5s relationship for e)posure mapping, blast induced fractures
should not be included when estimating (
!
.
-
Rock mass classification
Deere5s R%& was widely used, particularly in :orth America, after its
introduction. Aording and Deere !1-,$', 1erritt !1-,$' and Deere and Deere !1-++'
attempted to relate R%& to 0er4aghi5s rock load factors and to rockbolt requirements in
tunnels. n the conte)t of this discussion, the most important use of R%& is as a
component of the RMR and % rock mass classifications covered later in this chapter.
Rock Structure Rating $RSR'
.ickham et al !1-,$' described a quantitative method for describing the quality of a
rock mass and for selecting appropriate support on the basis of their *ock /tructure
*ating !RSR' classification. 1ost of the case histories, used in the development of this
system, were for relatively small tunnels supported by means of steel sets, although
historically this system was the first to make reference to shotcrete support. n spite of
this limitation, it is worth e)amining the RSR system in some detail since it
demonstrates the logic involved in developing a quasi-quantitative rock mass
classification system.
0he significance of the RSR system, in the conte)t of this discussion, is that it
introduced the concept of rating each of the components listed below to arrive at a
numerical value of RSR ) * + B + C.
1. ,arameter *- .eology/ Beneral appraisal of geological structure on the basis
of6
a. *ock type origin !igneous, metamorphic,
sedimentary'. b. *ock hardness !hard, medium, soft,
decomposed'.
c. Beologic structure !massive, slightly faultedCfolded, moderately
faultedCfolded, intensely faultedCfolded'.
$. ,arameter B- .eometry6 Dffect of discontinuity pattern with respect to the
direction of the tunnel drive on the basis of6
a. Eoint spacing.
b. Eoint orientation !strike and
dip'. c. Direction of tunnel drive.
2. ,arameter C6 Dffect of groundwater inflow and joint condition on the basis
of6
a. 7verall rock mass quality on the basis of A and #
combined. b. Eoint condition !good, fair, poor'.
c. Amount of water inflow !in gallons per minute per 1%%% feet of tunnel'.
:ote that the RSR classification used mperial units and that these units have
been retained in this discussion.
0hree tables from .ickham et al5s 1-,$ paper are reproduced in 0ables 1, $ and 2.
0hese tables can be used to evaluate the rating of each of these parameters to arrive at
1%
Rock mass classification
the RSR value !ma)imum RSR @ 1%%'.
11
Rock mass classification
0able 16 *ock /tructure *ating6 "arameter A6 Beneral area geology
Basic Rock Type
Hard Medium Soft Decomposed Geological Structure
Igneous
Metamorphic
Sedimentary
1 2 !
1 2 !
2 ! !
Slightly Moderately Intensi"ely
#olded or #olded or #olded or
Massi"e #aulted #aulted #aulted
Type 1
Type 2
Type
Type !
$ 22 1% &
2' 2$ 1 (
2! 1( 12 '
1& 1% 1$ )
0able $6 *ock /tructure *ating6 "arameter B6 Eoint pattern, direction of drive
*"erage +oint spacing
Strike A to *,is Strike -- to *,is
Direction of Dri"e Direction of Dri"e
.ither direction Both /ith Dip *gainst Dip
Dip of 0rominent 1oints
a
#lat Dipping 2ertical Dipping 2ertical
Dip of 0rominent 1oints
#lat Dipping 2ertical
13 2ery closely +ointed4 5 2 in
23 6losely +ointed4 27) in
3 Moderately +ointed4 )712 in
!3 Moderate to 8locky4 172 ft
%3 Blocky to massi"e4 27! ft
)3 Massi"e4 9 ! ft
& 11 1 1$ 12
1 1) 1& 1% 1'
2 2! 2( 1& 22
$ 2 ) 2% 2(
) ( !$ %
!$ ! !% ' !$
& & '
1! 1! 11
2 2 1&
$ 2( 2!
) 2! 2(
!$ ( !
0able 26 *ock /tructure *ating6 "arameter C6 Broundwater, joint condition
*nticipated :ater inflo:
gpm;1$$$ ft of tunnel
Sum of 0arameters A < B
1 7 !! !% 7 '%
1oint 6ondition
8
Good #air 0oor Good #air 0oor
=one
Slight4 5 2$$ gpm
Moderate4 2$$71$$$ gpm
Hea"y4 9 1$$$ gp
22 1( 12 2% 22 1(
1& 1% & 2 1& 1!
1% 22 ' 21 1) 12
1$ ( ) 1( 1! 1$
a
Dip> flat> $72$q? dipping> 2$7%$q? and "ertical> %$7&$q
8
1oint condition> good @ tight or cemented? fair @ slightly :eathered or altered? poor @ se"erely :eathered4 altered or
open
1$
Rock mass classification
;or e)ample, a hard metamorphic rock which is slightly folded or faulted has a rating
of * @ $$ !from 0able 1'. 0he rock mass is moderately jointed, with joints striking
perpendicular to the tunnel a)is which is being driven east-west, and dipping at
between
$%q and 8%F.
0able $ gives the rating for B @ $3 for driving with dip !defined
below'.
0he value of * G B @ 3& and this means that, for joints of fair
condition !slightly weathered and altered' and a moderate water
inflow of between $%% and 1,%%% gallons per minute, 0able 2
gives the rating for C @ 1&. (ence, the final value of the rock
structure rating RSR @ * G B G C @ &$.
A typical set of prediction curves for a $3 foot diameter tunnel
are given in ;igure $ which shows that, for the RSR value
of &$ derived above, the predicted support would be $ inches
of shotcrete and 1 inch diameter rockbolts spaced at 8 foot
centres. As indicated in the figure, steel sets would be spaced at
more than
, feet apart and would not be considered a practical solution
for the support of this tunnel.
;igure $6 RSR support estimates for a $3 ft. !,.2 m' diameter circular tunnel. :ote
that rockbolts and shotcrete are generally used together. !After .ickham et al 1-,$'.
12
Rock mass classification
;or the same si4e tunnel in a rock mass with RSR @ 2%, the support could be provided
by
+ .; 21 steel sets !+ inch deep wide flange section weighing 21 lb per foot' spaced
2
feet apart, or by 8 inches of shotcrete and 1 inch diameter rockbolts spaced at $.8 feet
centres. n this case it is probable that the steel set solution would be cheaper and more
effective than the use of rockbolts and shotcrete.
Although the RSR classification system is not widely used today, .ickham et al5s work
played a significant role in the development of the classification schemes discussed in
the remaining sections of this chapter.
Geomechanics Classification
#ieniawski !1-,&' published the details of a rock mass classification called the
Beomechanics Alassification or the *ock 1ass *ating !RMR' system. 7ver the
years, this system has been successively refined as more case records have been
e)amined and the reader should be aware that #ieniawski has made significant changes
in the ratings assigned to different parameters. 0he discussion which follows is based
upon the 1-+- version of the classification !#ieniawski, 1-+-'. #oth this version and the
1-,& version deal with estimating the strength of rock masses. 0he following si)
parameters are used to classify a rock mass using the RMR system6
1. Hnia)ial compressive strength of rock material.
$. *ock >uality Designation !R%&'.
2. /pacing of discontinuities.
3. Aondition of discontinuities.
8. Broundwater conditions.
&. 7rientation of discontinuities.
n applying this classification system, the rock mass is divided into a number of
structural regions and each region is classified separately. 0he boundaries of the
structural regions usually coincide with a major structural feature such as a fault or with
a change in rock type. n some cases, significant changes in discontinuity spacing or
characteristics, within the same rock type, may necessitate the division of the rock mass
into a number of small structural regions.
0he *ock 1ass *ating system is presented in 0able 3, giving the ratings for each of the
si) parameters listed above. 0hese ratings are summed to give a value of RMR. 0he
following e)ample illustrates the use of these tables to arrive at an RMR value.
A tunnel is to be driven through slightly weathered granite with a dominant joint set
dipping at &%
o
against the direction of the drive. nde) testing and logging of diamond
drilled core give typical "oint-load strength inde) values of + 1"a and average R%&
values of ,%I. 0he slightly rough and slightly weathered joints with a separation of J 1
mm, are spaced at 2%% mm. 0unnelling conditions are anticipated to be wet.
13
Rock mass classification
0able 36 *ock 1ass *ating /ystem !After #ieniawski 1-+-'.
A. CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERS AND THEIR RATINGS
Parameter Range of values
1
Strength
of
intact rock
material
Point-load
strength index
>10 MPa 4 - 10 MPa 2 - 4 MPa 1 - 2 MPa For this lo range - uniaxial
com!ressive test is
!referred
"niaxial com!#
strength
>2$0 MPa 100 - 2$0 MPa $0 - 100 MPa 2$ - $0 MPa $ - 2$
MPa
1 - $
MPa
% 1
MPa
Rating 1$ 12 & 4 2 1 0
2
'rill core Qualit( RQD )0* - 100* &$* - )0* $0* - &$* 2$* - $0* % 2$*
Rating 20 1& 1+ , +
3
S!acing of discontinuities > 2 m 0#- - 2 # m 200 - -00 mm -0 - 200 mm % -0 mm
Rating 20 1$ 10 , $
4
.er( rough surfaces
/ondition of discontinuities 0ot continuous
1See 23 0o se!aration
"neathered all rock
Slightl( rough surfaces
Se!aration % 1 mm
Slightl( eathered alls
Slightl( rough surfaces
Se!aration % 1 mm
4ighl( eathered alls
Slickensided surfaces
or 5ouge % $ mm thick
or Se!aration 1-$ mm
/ontinuous
Soft gouge >$ mm thick
or Se!aration > $ mm
/ontinuous
Rating +0 2$ 20 10 0
5
5rounda
ter
6nflo !er 10 m 0one
tunnel length 1l7m3
% 10 10 - 2$ 2$ - 12$ > 12$
18oint ater !ress37
0
1Ma9or !rinci!al K3
% 0#1 0#1: - 0#2 0#2 - 0#$ > 0#$
5eneral conditions /om!letel( dr( 'am! ;et 'ri!!ing Floing
Rating 1$ 10 & 4 0
B. RATING ADJUSTMENT FOR DISCONTINUITY ORIENTATIONS 1See F3
Strike and di! orientations .er( favoura<le Favoura<le Fair "nfavoura<le .er( "nfavoura<le
Ratings
=unnels > mines 0 -2 -$ -10 -12
Foundations 0 -2 -& -1$ -2$
Slo!es 0 -$ -2$ -$0
C. ROCK MASS CLASSES DETERMINED FROM TOTAL RATINGS
Rating 100 m ,1 ,0 m -1 -0 m 41 40 m 21 % 21
/lass num<er 6 66 666 6. .
'escri!tion .er( good rock 5ood rock Fair rock Poor rock .er( !oor rock
D. MEANING OF ROCK CLASSES
/lass num<er 6 66 666 6. .
?verage stand-u! time 20 (rs for 1$ m s!an 1 (ear for 10 m s!an 1 eek for $ m s!an 10 hrs for 2#$ m s!an +0 min for 1 m s!an
/ohesion of rock mass 1kPa3 > 400 +00 - 400 200 - +00 100 - 200 % 100
Friction angle of rock mass 1deg3 > 4$ +$ - 4$ 2$ - +$ 1$ - 2$ % 1$
E. GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF DISCONTINUITY con!"!on#
'iscontinuit( length 1!ersistence3
Rating
% 1 m
-
1 - + m
4
+ - 10 m
2
10 - 20 m
1
> 20 m
0
Se!aration 1a!erture3
Rating
0one
-
% 0#1 mm
$
0#1 - 1#0 mm
4
1 - $ mm
1
> $ mm
0
Roughness
Rating
.er( rough
-
Rough
$
Slightl( rough
+
Smooth
1
Slickensided
0
6nfilling 1gouge3
Rating
0one
-
4ard filling % $ mm
4
4ard filling > $ mm
2
Soft filling % $ mm
2
Soft filling > $ mm
0
;eathering
Ratings
"neathered
-
Slightl( eathered
$
Moderatel( eathered
+
4ighl( eathered
1
'ecom!osed
0
F. EFFECT OF DISCONTINUITY STRIKE AND DIP ORIENTATION IN TUNNELLING$$
Strike !er!endicular to tunnel axi s Strike !arallel to tunnel axis
'rive ith di! - 'i! 4$ - )0q 'rive ith di! - 'i! 20 - 4$q 'i! 4$ - )0q 'i! 20 - 4$q
.er( favoura<le Favoura<le .er( unfavoura<le Fair
'rive against di! - 'i! 4$-)0q 'rive against di! - 'i! 20-4$q 'i! 0-20 - 6rres!ective of strikeq
Fair "nfavoura<le Fair
@ Some conditions are mutuall( exclusive # For exam!le: if infilling is !resent: the roughness of the surface ill <e overshadoed <( the infl uence of the gouge# 6n such cases use ?#4 directl(#
@@ Modified after ;ickham et al 11)&23#
Rock mass classification
18
0he RMR value for the e)ample under consideration is determined as follows6
Table Item Value Rating
!> *31 0oint load inde, ( M0a 12
!> *32 RQD '$A 1
!> *3 Spacing of discontinuities $$ mm 1$
!> .3! 6ondition of discontinuities =ote 1 22
!> *3% Ground:ater /et '
!> B *d+ustment for +oint orientation =ote 2 7%
Total %&
0ote 1. ;or slightly rough and altered discontinuity surfaces with a separation of J 1
mm, 0able 3.A.3 gives a rating of $8. .hen more detailed information is available,
0able
3.D can be used to obtain a more refined rating. (ence, in this case, the rating is
the sum of6 3 !1-2 m discontinuity length', 3 !separation %.1-1.% mm', 2 !slightly
rough', & !no infilling' and 8 !slightly weathered' @ $$.
0ote 23 0able 3.; gives a description of <;air= for the conditions assumed where
the tunnel is to be driven against the dip of a set of joints dipping at &%
o
. Hsing
this
description for <0unnels and 1ines= in 0able 3.# gives an adjustment rating of
-8.
#ieniawski !1-+-' published a set of guidelines for the selection of support in tunnels in
rock for which the value of RMR has been determined. 0hese guidelines are
reproduced in 0able 3. :ote that these guidelines have been published for a 1% m span
horseshoe shaped tunnel, constructed using drill and blast methods, in a rock mass
subjected to a vertical stress J $8 1"a !equivalent to a depth below surface of J-%% m'.
;or the case considered earlier, with RMR @ 8-, 0able 3 suggests that a tunnel could be
e)cavated by top heading and bench, with a 1.8 to 2 m advance in the top
heading. /upport should be installed after each blast and the support should be placed at
a ma)imum distance of 1% m from the face. /ystematic rock bolting, using 3 m long
$% mm diameter fully grouted bolts spaced at 1.8 to $ m in the crown and walls, is
recommended. .ire mesh, with 8% to 1%% mm of shotcrete for the crown and 2% mm of
shotcrete for the walls, is recommended.
0he value of RMR of 8- indicates that the rock mass is on the boundary between the
<;air rock= and <Bood rock= categories. n the initial stages of design and construction, it
is advisable to utilise the support suggested for fair rock. f 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. n addition, if the e)cavation is required to be stable for a short
amount of time, then it is advisable to try the less e)pensive and e)tensive support
suggested for good rock. (owever, if the rock mass surrounding the e)cavation is
e)pected to undergo large mining induced stress changes, then more substantial support
appropriate for fair rock should be installed. 0his e)ample indicates that a great deal of
Rock mass classification
1&
judgement is needed in the application of rock mass classification to support design.
1,
Rock mass classification
0able 86 Buidelines for e)cavation and support of 1% m span rock tunnels in
accordance with the RMR system !After #ieniawski 1-+-'.
Rock mass
class
.,ca"ation Rock 8olts
B2$ mm diameter4 fully
groutedC
Shotcrete Steel sets
I 7 2ery good
rock
RMR> (171$$
#ull face4
m ad"ance3
Generally no support reDuired e,cept spot 8olting3
II 7 Good rock
RMR> )17($
#ull face 4
1713% m ad"ance3 6omplete
support 2$ m from face3
Eocally4 8olts in cro:n
m long4 spaced 23%
m :ith occasional
:ire mesh3
%$ mm in
cro:n :here
reDuired3
=one3
III 7 #air rock
RMR> !17)$
Top heading and 8ench
13%7 m ad"ance in top heading3
6ommence support after each
8last3
6omplete support 1$ m from
face3
Systematic 8olts ! m
long4 spaced 13% 7 2 m
in cro:n and :alls
:ith :ire mesh in
cro:n3
%$71$$ mm
in cro:n and
$ mm in
sides3
=one3
I2 7 0oor rock
RMR> 217!$
Top heading and 8ench
13$713% m ad"ance in top
heading3
Install support concurrently :ith
e,ca"ation4 1$ m from face3
Systematic 8olts !7%
m long4 spaced 1713%
m in cro:n and :alls
:ith :ire mesh3
1$$71%$ mm
in cro:n and
1$$ mm in
sides3
Eight to medium ri8s
spaced 13% m :here
reDuired3
2 F 2ery poor
rock
RMR> 5 2$
Multiple drifts $3%713% m
ad"ance in top heading3
Install support concurrently
:ith e,ca"ation3 Shotcrete as
soon as possi8le after 8lasting3
Systematic 8olts %7)
m long4 spaced 1713%
m in cro:n and :alls
:ith :ire mesh3 Bolt
in"ert3
1%$72$$ mm
in cro:n4 1%$
mm in sides4
and %$ mm
on face3
Medium to hea"y ri8s
spaced $3'% m :ith
steel lagging and
forepoling if reDuired3
6lose in"ert3
t should be noted that 0able 8 has not had a major revision since 1-,2. n many mining
and civil engineering applications, steel fibre reinforced shotcrete may be considered in
place of wire mesh and shotcrete.
Modifications to RMR for mining
#ieniawski5s *ock 1ass *ating !RMR' system was originally based upon case histories
drawn from civil engineering. Aonsequently, the mining industry tended to regard the
classification as somewhat conservative and several modifications have been proposed
in order to make the classification more relevant to mining applications. A
comprehensive summary of these modifications was compiled by #ieniawski !1-+-'.
9aubscher !1-,,, 1-+3', 9aubscher and 0aylor !1-,&' and 9aubscher and "age !1--%'
have described a 1odified *ock 1ass *ating system for mining. 0his 1*1* system
takes the basic RMR value, as defined by #ieniawski, and adjusts it to account for in
situ and induced stresses, stress changes and the effects of blasting and weathering. A
set of support recommendations is associated with the resulting MRMR value. n using
9aubscher5s MRMR system it should be borne in mind that many of the case
histories upon which it is based are derived from caving operations. 7riginally, block
caving in asbestos mines in Africa formed the basis for the modifications but,
subsequently, other case histories from around the world have been added to the
1+
Rock mass classification
database.
1-
Rock mass classification
Aummings et al !1-+$' and Lendorski et al !1-+2' have also modified #ieniawski5s
*1* classification to produce the MBR !modified basic RMR' system for mining. 0his
system was developed for block caving operations in the H/A. t involves the use of
different ratings for the original parameters used to determine the value of RMR
and the subsequent adjustment of the resulting MBR value to allow for blast damage,
induced stresses, structural features, distance from the cave front and si4e of the caving
block. /upport recommendations are presented for isolated or development drifts as well
as for the final support of intersections and drifts.
Rock Tunnelling Quality Index, Q
7n the basis of an evaluation of a large number of case histories of underground
e)cavations, #arton et al !1-,3' of the :orwegian Beotechnical nstitute proposed a
0unnelling >uality nde) !%' for the determination of rock mass characteristics
and tunnel support requirements. 0he numerical value of the inde) % varies on a
logarithmic scale from %.%%1 to a ma)imum of 1,%%% and is defined by6
% @
R%&
u
(
r
u
(

!$'
(
n
(
a
where R%& is the *ock >uality Designation
(
n
is the joint set number
(
r
is the joint roughness number
(
a
is the joint alteration number
SR4
(

is the joint water reduction factor
SR4 is the stress reduction factor
n e)plaining the meaning of the parameters used to determine the value of %, #arton
et al !1-,3' offer the following comments6
The first quotient $R%&CE
n
', representing the structure of the rock mass, is a crude
measure of the block or particle si4e, with the two e)treme values !1%%C%.8 and
1%C$%' differing by a factor of 3%%. f the quotient is interpreted in units of
centimetres, the e)treme 5particle si4es5 of $%% to %.8 cm are seen to be crude
but fairly realistic appro)imations. "robably the largest blocks should be several
times this si4e and the smallest fragments less than half the si4e. !Alay particles are of
course e)cluded'.
0he second quotient !(
r
5(
a
' represents the roughness and frictional characteristics of
the joint walls or filling materials. 0his quotient is weighted in favour of
rough, unaltered joints in direct contact. t is to be e)pected that such surfaces will be
close to peak strength, that they will dilate strongly when sheared, and they will
therefore be especially favourable to tunnel stability.
.hen rock joints have thin clay mineral coatings and fillings, the strength is reduced
significantly. :evertheless, rock wall contact after small shear displacements have
occurred may be a very important factor for preserving the e)cavation from ultimate
$%
Rock mass classification
failure.
.here no rock wall contact e)ists, the conditions are e)tremely unfavourable to
tunnel stability. 0he 5friction angles5 !given in 0able &' are a little below the residual
strength values for most clays, and are possibly down-graded by the fact that these
clay bands or fillings may tend to consolidate during shear, at least if normal
consolidation or if softening and swelling has occurred. 0he swelling pressure of
montmorillonite may also be a factor here.
0he third quotient !(

5SR4' consists of two stress parameters. SR4 is a measure of6

1'
loosening load in the case of an e)cavation through shear 4ones and clay bearing
rock,
$' rock stress in competent rock, and 2' squee4ing loads in plastic incompetent
rocks. t can be regarded as a total stress parameter. 0he parameter (

is a measure
of water
pressure, which has an adverse effect on the shear strength of joints due to a
reduction in effective normal stress. .ater may, in addition, cause softening and
possible out- wash in the case of clay-filled joints. t has proved impossible to
combine these two parameters in terms of inter-block effective stress, because
parado)ically a high value of effective normal stress may sometimes signify less
stable conditions than a low value, despite the higher shear strength. 0he quotient
!(

5SR4' is a complicated empirical factor describing the 5active stress5.

t appears that the rock tunnelling quality % can now be considered to be a function
of only three parameters which are crude measures of6
1. #lock si4e !R%&5(n'
$. nter-block shear strength !(r5 (a'
2. Active stress
!(5SR4'
Hndoubtedly, there are several other parameters which could be added to improve
the accuracy of the classification system. 7ne of these would be the joint orientation.
Although many case records include the necessary information on structural
orientation in relation to e)cavation a)is, it was not found to be the important general
parameter that might be e)pected. "art of the reason for this may be that the
orientations of many types of e)cavations can be, and normally are, adjusted to
avoid the ma)imum effect of unfavourably oriented major joints. (owever, this
choice is not available in the case of tunnels, and more than half the case records
were in this category. 0he parameters (n, (r and (a appear to play a more important
role than orientation, because the number of joint sets determines the degree of
freedom for block movement !if any', and the frictional and dilational
characteristics can vary more than the down-dip gravitational component of
unfavourably oriented joints. f joint orientations had been included the
classification would have been less general, and its essential simplicity lost.
0able & !After #arton et al 1-,3' gives the classification of individual parameters used
to obtain the 0unnelling >uality nde) % for a rock mass.
0he use of 0able & is illustrated in the following e)ample. A 18 m span crusher
chamber for an underground mine is to be e)cavated in a norite at a depth of $,1%% m
below surface. 0he rock mass contains two sets of joints controlling stability. 0hese
joints are
undulating, rough and unweathered with very minor surface staining. R%& values range
from +8I to -8I and laboratory tests on core samples of intact rock give an average
unia)ial compressive strength of 1,% 1"a. 0he principal stress directions are
appro)imately vertical and hori4ontal and the magnitude of the hori4ontal principal
stress is appro)imately 1.8 times that of the vertical principal stress. 0he rock mass is
locally damp but there is no evidence of flowing water.
0he numerical value of R%& is used directly in the calculation of % and, for this rock
mass, an average value of -% will be used. 0able &.$ shows that, for two joint sets,
the joint set number, (n @ 3. ;or rough or irregular joints which are undulating,
0able &.2 gives a joint roughness number of (r @ 2. 0able &.3 gives the joint alteration
number, (a
@ 1.%, for unaltered joint walls with surface staining only. 0able &.8 shows that, for
an
e)cavation with minor inflow, the joint water reduction factor, ( @ 1.%. ;or a
depth below surface of $,1%% m the overburden stress will be appro)imately 8, 1"a
and, in this case, the major principal stress K
1
@ +8 1"a. /ince the unia)ial compressive
strength of the norite is appro)imately 1,% 1"a, this gives a ratio of K
c
CK
1
@ $. 0able
&.& shows that, for competent rock with rock stress problems, this value of K
c
CK
1
can be
e)pected to produce heavy rock burst conditions and that the value of SR4 should lie
between 1% and
$%. A value of SR4 @ 18 will be assumed for this calculation. Hsing these values
gives6
% @
-%
u
2
u
1
3.8
3 1 18
n relating the value of the inde) % to the stability and support requirements of
underground e)cavations, #arton et al !1-,3' defined an additional parameter which
they called the Dquivalent Dimension, &e, of the e)cavation. 0his dimension is
obtained by dividing the span, diameter or wall height of the e)cavation by a quantity
called the D)cavation /upport *atio, 6SR. (ence6
D)cavation span, diameter or height !m'
&
e

D)cavation /upport *atio 6SR
0he value of 6SR is related to the intended use of the e)cavation and to the degree of
security which is demanded of the support system installed to maintain the stability of
the e)cavation. #arton et al !1-,3' suggest the following values6
.,ca"ation category ESR
* Temporary mine openings3 7%
B 0ermanent mine openings4 :ater tunnels for hydro po:er Be,cluding high
pressure penstocksC4 pilot tunnels4 drifts and headings for large e,ca"ations3
6 Storage rooms4 :ater treatment plants4 minor road and rail:ay tunnels4 surge
cham8ers4 access tunnels3
D 0o:er stations4 ma+or road and rail:ay tunnels4 ci"il defence cham8ers4
portal
inters
ection
s3
.
Gnderground nuclear po:er stations4 rail:ay stations4 sports and
pu8lic facilities4 factories3
13)
13
13$
$3(
0able &6 Alassification of individual parameters used in the 0unnelling >uality nde) %
DESCRIPTION VALUE NOTES
1. ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION RQD
*3 2ery poor $ 7 2% 13 / here RQD is reported or measured as d 1$ Bincluding
$C4 B3 0oor 2% 7 %$ a nominal "alue of 1$ is used to e"aluate Q3
63 #air %$ 7 '%
D3 Good '% 7 &$ 23 RQD inter"als of %4 i3e3 1$$4 &%4 &$ etc3 are sufficiently
.3 .,cellent &$ 7 1$$ accurate3
2. JOINT SET NUM BER J
n
*3 Massi"e4 no or fe: +oints $3% 7 13$
B3 Hne +oint set 2
63 Hne +oint set plus random
D3 T:o +oint sets !
.3 T:o +oint sets plus random )
#3 Three +oint sets & 13 #or intersections use B3$ u J
n
C
G3 Three +oint sets plus random 12
H3 #our or more +oint sets4 random4 1% 23 #or portals use B23$ u J
n
C
hea"ily +ointed4 Isugar cu8eI4 etc3
13 6rushed rock4 earthlike 2$
3. JOINT ROUGHNESS NUMBER J
r
a. Rock wall contact
b. Rock wall contact before 10 cm shear
*3 Discontinuous +oints !
B3 Rough and irregular4 undulating
63 Smooth undulating 2
D3 Slickensided undulating 13% 13 *dd 13$ if the mean spacing of the rele"ant +oint set is
.3 Rough or irregular4 planar 13% greater than m3
#3 Smooth4 planar 13$
G3 Slickensided4 planar $3% 23 J
r
@ $3% can 8e used for planar4 slickensided +oints ha"ing
c. No rock wall contact when sheared lineations4 pro"ided that the lineations are oriented for
H3 Jones containing clay minerals thick 13$ minimum strength3
enough to pre"ent rock :all contact BnominalC
13 Sandy4 gra"ely or crushed Kone thick 13$
enough to pre"ent rock :all contact BnominalC
4. JOINT ALTERATION NUMBER J
a
r degrees Bappro,3C
a. Rock wall contact
*3 Tightly healed4 hard4 non7softening4 $3'% 13 2alues of r4 the residual friction angle4
impermea8le filling are intended as an appro,imate guide
B3 Gnaltered +oint :alls4 surface staining only 13$ 2% 7 % to the mineralogical properties of the
63 Slightly altered +oint :alls4 non7softening 23$ 2% 7 $ alteration products4 if present3
mineral coatings4 sandy particles4 clay7free
disintegrated rock4 etc3
D3 Silty74 or sandy7clay coatings4 small clay7 3$ 2$ 7
2% fraction Bnon7softeningC
.3 Softening or lo:7friction clay mineral coatings4 !3$ ( 7 1)
i3e3 kaolinite4 mica3 *lso chlorite4 talc4 gypsum
and graphite etc34 and small Duantities of s:elling
clays3 BDiscontinuous coatings4 1 7 2 mm or lessC
0able &6 !cont5d.' Alassification of individual parameters used in the 0unnelling >uality
nde) % !After #arton et al 1-,3'.
4, JOINT ALTERATION NUMBER
b. Rock wall contact before 10 cm shear
J
a
r degrees Bappro,3C
#3 Sandy particles4 clay7free4 disintegrating rock etc3 !3$ 2% 7 $
G3 Strongly o"er7consolidated4 non7softening )3$ 1) 7 2!
clay mineral fillings Bcontinuous 5 % mm thickC
H3 Medium or lo: o"er7consolidation4 softening (3$ 12 7 1)
clay mineral fillings Bcontinuous 5 % mm thickC
13 S:elling clay fillings4 i3e3 montmorillonite4 (3$ 7 123$ ) 7 12
Bcontinuous 5 % mm thickC3 2alues of 1
a
depend on percent of s:elling clay7siKe
particles4 and access to :ater3
c. No rock wall contact when sheared
L3 Jones or 8ands of disintegrated or crushed )3$
E3 rock and clay Bsee G4 H and 1 for clay (3$
M3 conditionsC (3$ 7 123$ ) 7 2!
=3 Jones or 8ands of silty7 or sandy7clay4 small %3$
clay fraction4 non7softening
H3 Thick continuous Kones or 8ands of clay 1$3$ 7 13$
03 M R3 Bsee G3H and 1 for clay conditionsC )3$ 7 2!3$
5. JOINT WATER REDUCTION J
w appro,3 :ater pressure
Bkgf;cm
2
C *3 Dry e,ca"ation or minor inflo: i3e3 5 % l;m locally 13$ 5 13$
B3 Medium inflo: or pressure4 occasional $3)) 13$ 7 23%
out:ash of +oint fillings
63 Earge inflo: or high pressure in competent rock
:ith unfilled +oints
$3% 23% 7 1$3$ 13 #actors 6 to # are crude estimates?
increase J
w
if drainage installed3
D3 Earge inflo: or high pressure $3 23% 7 1$3$
.3 .,ceptionally high inflo: or pressure at 8lasting4
decaying :ith time
$32 7 $31 9 1$ 23 Special pro8lems caused 8y ice formation
are not considered3
#3 .,ceptionally high inflo: or pressure $31 7 $3$% 9 1$
. STRESS REDUCTION !ACTOR SRF
a. Weakness zones intersecting eca!ation" which ma#
ca$se loosening of rock mass when t$nnel is eca!ated
*3 Multiple occurrences of :eakness Kones containing clay or
chemically disintegrated rock4 "ery loose surrounding rock any
depthC
1$3$ 13 Reduce these "alues of SRF 8y 2% 7 %$A 8ut
only if the rele"ant shear Kones influence do
not intersect the e,ca"ation
B3 Single :eakness Kones containing clay4 or chemically dis7
%3$ tegrated rock Be,ca"ation depth 5 %$ mC
63 Single :eakness Kones containing clay4 or chemically dis7
23% tegrated rock Be,ca"ation depth 9 %$ mC
D3 Multiple shear Kones in competent rock Bclay freeC4 loose
'3% surrounding rock Bany depthC
.3 Single shear Kone in competent rock Bclay freeC3 Bdepth of
%3$ e,ca"ation 5 %$ mC
#3 Single shear Kone in competent rock Bclay freeC3 Bdepth of
23% e,ca"ation 9 %$ mC
G3 Eoose open +oints4 hea"ily +ointed or Isugar cu8eI4 Bany depthC %3$
0able &6 !cont5d.' Alassification of individual parameters in the 0unnelling >uality
nde) % !After #arton et al 1-,3'.
DESCRIPTION VALUE NOTES
. STRESS REDUCTION !ACTOR SRF
b. %om&etent rock" rock stress &roblems
K
c
K
1
K
t
K
1
23 #or strongly anisotropic "irgin stress field
H3 Eo: stress4 near surface 9 2$$ 9 1 23% Bif measuredC> :hen %dK
1
;K

d1$4 reduce K
c
13 Medium stress 2$$ 7 1$ 1 7 $3)) 13$ to $3(K
c
and K
t
to $3(K
t
3 / hen K
1
;K

9 1$4
L3 High stress4 "ery tight structure
Busually fa"oura8le to sta8ility4
may 8e unfa"oura8le to :all
sta8ilityC
E3 Mild rock8urst Bmassi"e rockC
1$ 7 %
% 7 23%
$3)) 7 $3
$3 7 $31)
$3% 7 2
% 7 1$
reduce K
c
and K
t
to $3)K
c
and $3)K
t
4 :here
K
c
@ unconfined compressi"e strength4 and
K
t
@ tensile strength Bpoint loadC and K
1
and
K

are the ma+or and minor principal stresses3
M3 Hea"y rock8urst Bmassi"e rockC 5 23% 5 $31) 1$ 7 2$ 3 #e: case records a"aila8le :here depth of
c. S'$eezing rock" &lastic flow of incom&etent rock cro:n 8elo: surface is less than span :idth3
$nder infl$ence of high rock &ress$re Suggest SRF increase from 23% to % for such
=3 Mild sDueeKing rock pressure % 7 1$ cases Bsee HC3
H3 Hea"y sDueeKing rock pressure 1$ 7 2$
d. Swelling rock" chemical swelling acti!it# de&ending on &resence of water
03 Mild s:elling rock pressure % 7 1$
R3 Hea"y s:elling rock pressure 1$ 7 1%
ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE USE O! THESE TABLES
/hen making estimates of the rock mass Nuality BQC4 the follo:ing guidelines should 8e follo:ed in addition to the notes listed in the
ta8les>
13 / hen 8orehole core is una"aila8le4 RQD can 8e estimated from the num8er of +oints per unit "olume4 in :hich the num8er of
+oints per metre for each +oint set are added3 * simple relationship can 8e used to con"ert this num8er to RQD for the case of
clay free rock masses> RQD @ 11% 7 3 J
v
Bappro,3C4 :here J
v
@ total num8er of +oints per m

B$ 5 RQD 5 1$$ for % 9 J
v
9 !3%C3
23 The parameter J
n
representing the num8er of +oint sets :ill often 8e affected 8y foliation4 schistosity4 slaty clea"age or 8edding etc3
If strongly de"eloped4 these parallel I+ointsI should o8"iously 8e counted as a complete +oint set3 Ho:e"er4 if there are fe:
I+ointsI "isi8le4 or if only occasional 8reaks in the core are due to these features4 then it :ill 8e more appropriate to count them as
IrandomI +oints :hen e"aluating J
n
3
3 The parameters J
r
and J
a
Brepresenting shear strengthC should 8e rele"ant to the :eakest significant +oint set or clay filled
discontinuity in the gi"en Kone3 Ho:e"er4 if the +oint set or discontinuity :ith the minimum "alue of J
r
;J
a
is fa"oura8ly oriented for
sta8ility4 then a second4 less fa"oura8ly oriented +oint set or discontinuity may sometimes 8e more significant4 and its higher "alue
of J
r
;J
a
should 8e used :hen e"aluating Q3 The "alue of J
r
;J
a
should in fact relate to the surface most likely to allo: failure to
initiate3
!3 / hen a rock mass contains clay4 the factor SRF appropriate to loosening loads should 8e e"aluated3 In such cases the strength of
the intact rock is of little interest3 Ho:e"er4 :hen +ointing is minimal and clay is completely a8sent4 the strength of the intact rock
may 8ecome the :eakest link4 and the sta8ility :ill then depend on the ratio rock7stress;rock7strength3 * strongly anisotropic stress
field is unfa"oura8le for sta8ility and is roughly accounted for as in note 2 in the ta8le for stress reduction factor e"aluation3
%3 The compressi"e and tensile strengths BK
c
and K
t
C of the intact rock should 8e e"aluated in the saturated condition if this is
appropriate to the present and future in situ conditions3 * "ery conser"ati"e estimate of the strength should 8e made for those
rocks that deteriorate :hen e,posed to moist or saturated conditions3
0he crusher station discussed earlier falls into the category of permanent mine openings
and is assigned an e)cavation support ratio 6SR @ 1.&. (ence, for an e)cavation span
of
18 m, the equivalent dimension, &e @ 18C1.& @
-.3.
0he equivalent dimension, &e, plotted against the value of %, is used to define a
number of support categories in a chart published in the original paper by #arton et
al !1-,3'. 0his chart has recently been updated by Brimstad and #arton !1--2' to
reflect the increasing use of steel fibre reinforced shotcrete in underground
e)cavation support. ;igure 2 is reproduced from this updated chart.
;rom ;igure 2, a value of &e of -.3 and a value of % of 3.8 places this crusher
e)cavation in category !3' which requires a pattern of rockbolts !spaced at $.2 m' and
3% to 8% mm of unreinforced shotcrete.
#ecause of the mild to heavy rock burst conditions which are anticipated, it may be
prudent to destress the rock in the walls of this crusher chamber. 0his is achieved
by using relatively heavy production blasting to e)cavate the chamber and omitting the
smooth blasting usually used to trim the final walls of an e)cavation such as an
underground powerhouse at shallower depth. Aaution is recommended in the use
of destress blasting and, for critical applications, it may be advisable to seek the advice
of a blasting specialist before embarking on this course of action.
9Mset !1--$' suggests that, for rocks with 3 J % J 2%, blasting damage will result in the
creation of new <joints= with a consequent local reduction in the value of % for the rock
surrounding the e)cavation. (e suggests that this can be accounted for by reducing the
R%& value for the blast damaged 4one.
Assuming that the R%& value for the destressed rock around the crusher chamber
drops to 8% I, the resulting value of % @ $.-. ;rom ;igure 2, this value of %, for an
equivalent dimension, &e of -.3, places the e)cavation just inside category !8'
which requires rockbolts, at appro)imately $ m spacing, and a 8% mm thick layer of
steel fibre reinforced shotcrete.
#arton et al !1-+%' provide additional information on rockbolt length, ma)imum
unsupported spans and roof support pressures to supplement the support
recommendations published in the original 1-,3 paper.
0he length 9 of rockbolts can be estimated from the e)cavation width # and
the
D)cavation /upport *atio D/*6
7 $
% .1 8 B
6SR
ed span can be
estimated
fro
m6
1a)imum span !unsupported' @
$ 6SR %
%.3
!2'
!3'
#ased upon analyses of case records, Brimstad and #arton !1--2' suggest that
the relationship between the value of % and the permanent roof support pressure ,
roof
is estimated from6
$
,
roof
@

1
(n %
2
2(r
!8'
;igure 26 Dstimated support categories based on the tunnelling quality inde) %
!After
Brimstad and #arton, 1--2, reproduced from "almstrom and #roch,
$%%&'.
Using rock mass classification systems
0he two most widely used rock mass classifications are #ieniawski5s RMR !1-,&, 1-+-'
and #arton et al5s % !1-,3'. #oth methods incorporate geological, geometric and
designCengineering parameters in arriving at a quantitative value of their rock
mass quality. 0he similarities between RMR and % stem from the use of identical,
or very
similar, parameters in calculating the final rock mass quality rating. 0he
differences between the systems lie in the different weightings given to similar
parameters and in the use of distinct parameters in one or the other scheme.
RMR uses compressive strength directly while % only considers strength as it relates to
in situ stress in competent rock. #oth schemes deal with the geology and geometry of
the rock mass, but in slightly different ways. #oth consider groundwater, and both
include some component of rock material strength. /ome estimate of orientation can be
incorporated into % using a guideline presented by #arton et al !1-,3'6 <the parameters
(r and (a should ... relate to the surface most likely to allow failure to initiate.= 0he
greatest difference between the two systems is the lack of a stress parameter in the RMR
system.
.hen using either of these methods, two approaches can be taken. 7ne is to evaluate the
rock mass specifically for the parameters included in the classification methodsN the
other is to accurately characterise the rock mass and then attribute parameter ratings at a
later time. 0he latter method is recommended since it gives a full and complete
description of the rock mass which can easily be translated into either classification
inde). f rating values alone had been recorded during mapping, it would be almost
impossible to carry out verification studies.
n many cases, it is appropriate to give a range of values to each parameter in a rock
mass classification and to evaluate the significance of the final result. An e)ample of
this approach is given in ;igure 3 which is reproduced from field notes prepared by Dr.
:. #arton on a project. n this particular case, the rock mass is dry and is
subjected to
5medium5 stress conditions !0able &.&.L' and hence ( @ 1.% and /*; @ 1.%. (istograms
showing the variations in R%&, (n, (r and (a, along the e)ploration adit mapped, are
presented in this figure. 0he average value of % @ +.- and the appro)imate range of %
is
1., J % J $%. 0he average value of % can be used in choosing a basic support
system
while the range gives an indication of the possible adjustments which will be required
to meet different conditions encountered during construction.
A further e)ample of this approach is given in a paper by #arton et al !1--$' concerned
with the design of a &$ m span underground sports hall in jointed gneiss. (istograms
of all the input parameters for the % system are presented and analysed in order to
determine the weighted average value of %.
Aarter !1--$' has adopted a similar approach, but e)tended his analysis to include the
derivation of a probability distribution function and the calculation of a probability of
failure in a discussion on the stability of surface crown pillars in abandoned metal mines.
0hroughout this chapter it has been suggested that the user of a rock mass classification
scheme should check that the latest version is being used. t is also worth repeating
that the use of two rock mass classification schemes side by side is advisable.
;igure 36 (istograms showing variations in R%&, (n, (r and (a for a dry
jointed sandstone under 5medium5 stress conditions, reproduced from field notes
prepared by Dr. :. #arton.
References
#arton, :., #y, 0.9., Ahryssanthakis, 9., 0unbridge, 9., Lristiansen, E., 9Mset, ;.,
#hasin, *.L., .esterdahl, (. and Kik, B. 1--$. Aomparison of
prediction and performance for a &$ m span sports hall in jointed gneiss. ,roc3
8th3 int3 rock mechanics and rock engineering conf3- 0orino. "aper 1,.
#arton, :., 9Mset, ;., 9ien, *. and 9unde, E. 1-+%. Application of the >-system in
design decisions. n Su9surface space- !ed. 1. #ergman' 2, 882-8&1. :ew Oork6
"ergamon.
#arton, :.*., 9ien, *. and 9unde, E. 1-,3. Dngineering classification of rock masses for
the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech3 !3', 1+--$2-.
#ieniawski, P.0. 1-,2. Dngineering classification of jointed rock masses. Trans S3 *fr3
Inst3 Ci!3 6ngrs !", 228-233.
#ieniawski, P.0. 1-,&. *ock mass classification in rock engineering. n 6#ploration for
rock engineering- proc3 of the symp., !ed. P.0. #ieniawski' !, -,-1%&. Aape
0own6 #alkema.
#ieniawski, P.0. 1-+-. 6ngineering rock mass classifications3 :ew Oork6 .iley.
Aarter, 0.B. 1--$. A new approach to surface crown pillar design. ,roc3 1:th3 Canadian
Rock Mechanics Symposium- Sud9ury- ,8-+2.
Aarter, 0.B. 1--$. "rediction and uncertainties in geological engineering and rock mass
characteri4ation assessments. ,roc3 8th3 int3 rock mechanics and rock
engineering conf3- 0orino3 "aper 1.
Aording, D.E. and Deere, D.H. 1-,$. *ock tunnel supports and field measurements. ,roc3
0orth *merican rapid e#ca!3 tunneling conf3- Ahicago, !eds. L./. 9ane and 9.A.
Barfield' !, &%1-&$$. :ew Oork6 /oc. 1in. Dngrs, Am. nst. 1in. 1etall. "etrolm
Dngrs.
Aummings, *.A., Lendorski, ;./. and #ieniawski, P.0. 1-+$. Ca!ing rock mass
classification and support estimation. H./. #ureau of 1ines Aontract *eport
QE%1%%1%2. Ahicago6 Dngineers nternational nc.
Deere, D.H. 1-+-. Rock quality designation $R%&' after 2; years. H./. Army Aorps
Dngrs Aontract *eport B9-+--1. Kicksburg, 1/6 .aterways D)perimental
/tation.
Deere, D.H. and Deere, D... 1-++. 0he rock quality designation !*>D' inde)
in practice. n Rock classification systems for engineering purposes- !ed. 9.
Lirkaldie'- A/01 /pecial "ublication -+3, -1-1%1. "hiladelphia6 Am. /oc. 0est.
1at.
Deere, D.H., (endron, A.E., "atton, ;.D. and Aording, D.E. 1-&,. Design of surface and
near surface construction in rock. n 4ailure and 9reakage of rock- proc3 <th =3S3
symp3 rock mech., !ed. A. ;airhurst', $2,-2%$. :ew Oork6 /oc. 1in. Dngrs, Am.
nst. 1in. 1etall. "etrolm Dngrs.
Brimstad, D. and #arton, :. 1--2. Hpdating the >-/ystem for :10. ,roc3 int3 symp3 on
sprayed concrete " modern use of et mi# sprayed concrete for underground
support, ;agernes. 3&-&&. 7slo6 :orwegian Aoncrete Assn.
Lendorski, ;., Aummings, *., #ieniawski, P.0. and /kinner, D. 1-+2. *ock mass
classification for block caving mine drift support. ,roc3 >th congr3 Int3 Soc3 Rock
Mech., 1elbourne, #81-#&2. *otterdam6 #alkema.
9aubscher, D.(. 1-,,. Beomechanics classification of jointed rock masses -
mining applications. Trans3 Instn Min3 Metall3 #, A1-+.
9aubscher, D.(. 1-+3. Design aspects and effectiveness of support systems in different
mining conditions. Trans Instn Min3 Metall3 $%, A,% - A+$.
9aubscher, D.(. and 0aylor, (... 1-,&. 0he importance of geomechanics classification
of jointed rock masses in mining operations. n 6#ploration for rock engineering,
!ed. P.0. #ieniawski' !, 11--1$+. Aape 0own6 #alkema.
9aubscher, D.1. and "age, A.(. 1--%. 0he design of rock support in high stress or weak
rock environments. ,roc3 ?2nd Can3 Inst3 Min3 Metall3 *.M, 7ttawa, "aper Q -1.
9auffer, (. 1-8+. Bebirgsklassifi4ierung fRr den /tollenbau. .eol3 Bauesen 2&!1', 3&-
81.
9Mset, ;. 1--$. /upport needs compared at the /vartisen *oad 0unnel. Tunnels and
Tunnelling- Eune3
1erritt, A.(. 1-,$. Beologic prediction for underground e)cavations. ,roc3 0orth
*merican3 rapid e#ca!3 tunneling conf3, Ahicago, !eds L./. 9ane and 9.A.
Barfield' !, 118-12$. :ew Oork6 /oc. 1in. Dngrs, Am. nst. 1in. 1etall.
"etrolm Dngrs.
"acher, ;., *abcewic4, 9. and Bolser, E. 1-,3. Pum der seitigen /tand der
Bebirgsklassifi4ierung in /tollen-und 0unnelbau. ,roc3 @@II .eomech3 colloq3-
/al4burg, 81-8+.
"almstr?m, A. 1-+$. 0he volumetric joint count - a useful and simple measure of the
degree of rock jointing. ,roc3 8th congr3 Int3 *ssn 6ngng .eol3, Delhi ", $$1-$$+.
"almstrom, A. and #roch, D. $%%&. Hse and misuse of rock mass classification systems
with particular reference to the >-system. Tunnels and =nderground Space
Technology- 2!, 8,8-8-2.
*itter, .. 1+,-. &ie Statik der TunnelgeAl9e3 #erlin6 /pringer.
0er4aghi, L. 1-3&. *ock defects and loads on tunnel supports. n Rock tunneling
ith steel supports- !eds *. K. "roctor and 0. 9. .hite' !, 1,---. Ooungstown,
7(6 Aommercial /hearing and /tamping Aompany.
.ickham, B.D., 0iedemann, (.*. and /kinner, D.(. 1-,$. /upport determination based
on geologic predictions. n ,roc3 0orth *merican rapid e#ca!3 tunneling conf3,
Ahicago, !eds L./. 9ane and 9.A. Barfield', 32-&3. :ew Oork6 /oc. 1in. Dngrs,
Am. nst. 1in. 1etall. "etrolm Dngrs.