Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Gutierrez, M.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
Copyright 2005, ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association
This paper was prepared for presentation at Alaska Rocks 2005, The 40th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS): Rock Mechanics for Energy, Mineral and Infrastructure
Development in the Northern Regions, held in Anchorage, Alaska, June 25-29, 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by a USRMS Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA/USRMS and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of USRMS,
ARMA, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA is prohibited.
Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where
and by whom the paper was presented.
ABSTRACT: Rock mass characterization and classification are significant parts in any field geological investigation involving
rock engineering problems. This process usually involves collection and recording of a sizable amount of data. Modern
technological advances have resulted into useful electronic tools such as personal digital assistants (PDAs) which are excellent in
gathering information which can be easily transported. Todays PDAs have enough computing power and accessories to compete
with portable computers of a few years ago. The present paper presents a comparative review of two of the most frequently used
rock mass classification systems, the Q system and the Geomechanics Classification and an electronic field book tool based on
PDA to aid in rock mass characterization and classification for rock engineering. The main aim is to assist the field engineer by
taking out most associated paperwork during characterization and subsequent rock mass classification, by providing a useful tool.
The PDA data acquisition tool can be used with either of the two systems, Q or RMR (and SMR) and provide a user friendly
environment for quick and safe data recording. In addition technological features such as digital photographs or GPS based
coordinate acquisition can be readily embedded in the tool if required as an option for onsite investigations.
1. INTRODUCTION
Two of the most widely used rock mass
classification systems today are the Rock Mass
Quality Index (Q System) by Barton, Lien and
Lunde [1] and the Geomechanics Classification
(RMR) by Bieniawski [2,3,4]. Both systems
received various developments and enhancements
during years, with the latest being in 1989 for the
RMR and in 1993 for the Q system. Both systems
were derived from case histories, by careful and
thorough examination of parameters contributing
most to the stability of a rock engineering work,
mainly tunnels or mines. Differences and the way of
association between the two systems have long been
the topic of research by many engineers around the
world and only some aspects of these differences
will be subsequently presented. However, it is
important to recognize that not all systems can treat
the same problem, nor quantify rock quality in the
same way. This is the reason for the wealth of
systems presented so far.
An initial observation can be made with respect
to RMR which is shown to have received various
1
(2)
where:
Jv is the number of joints per m3.
Jv =
1
Si
(5)
RQD/Jn Jr/Ja
Min 10/20
0.5/4
Max 100/0.5 4/0.75
(4)
(6)
(3)
Exceptionally poor
Extremely poor
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
A
Very
Good
100
1.7
1.5 m
1.2
20
2.5
2.3
2.1
Exc.
Good
Ext. Good
11
1.3
5
(9)
(8)
CCA
10
(7)
Sfr+B
RRS+B
(6)
Sfr+B
(5)
Sfr+
(4)
(3)
B(+S)
(2)
sb
(1)
4.0 m
Unsupported
3.0 m
2.0 m
1.5 m
2.4
1.0 m
1.5
1.3 m
1.0
1
0.001
0.01
0.04
0.1
REINFORCEMENT CATEGORIES
1)Unsupported
2)Spot bolting
3)Systematic bolting
4)Systematic bolting woth 40-100 mm
unreinforced shotcrete
0.4
1
Q Rating
10
40
100
400
1000
2 J n Q 1 / 3
, ( MPa)
3J r
(7)
a=
r
i =1
ai
* ni
ni
(8)
i =1
where:
k = number of distinct rating classes (or ranges) for
each parameter as suggested by the Q system
reference tables
4 * 75 + 5 * 85 + 12 * 95 + 4 *100
= 90.6
4 + 5 + 12 + 4
(9)
Extremely poor
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Very
Good
Good
100
Exc.
Good
Ext. Good
20
11
5
(9)
10
CCA
(8)
RRS+B
(7)
Sfr+B
(6)
Sfr+B
(5)
(4)
Sfr+B
B(+S)
(3)
B
(2)
(1)
sb
Unsupported
2.4
1.5
1
0.001
0.01
0.04
0.1
0.4
10
40
100
400
1000
Q Rating
V. POOR
POOR
FAIR
GOOD
HIGH PRESSURES
WET
DRY
0.33
0.66
18
16
A
C
T
I
V
E
Frequencies
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
S
T
R
E
S
S
E
S
Frequencies
Joint water
20
SQUEEZING
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
20
15
10
SWELLING
20
15
10
FAULTING
10
7.5
STRESS / STRENGTH
20
10
0.5
2.5
EXC.
18
Exceptionally poor
Extremely poor
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Very
Good
Good
100
16
Exc.
Good
Ext. Good
20
Frequencies
14
12
10
11
8
6
4
2
0
10
10 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 50
50 - 60
60 - 70
70 - 80
80 - 90
90 - 100
100
RQD Ranges
S
I
Z
E
S
EARTH
Frequencies
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
FOUR
THREE
TWO
ONE
NONE
Sfr+B
Sfr+B
(5)
(4)
Sfr+B
B(+S)
(3)
B
(2)
(1)
sb
Unsupported
2.4
1.5
Q freq.
1
0.001
15
12
6
4
Joint Set Number
FILLS
PLANAR
UNDULATING
10
8
6
4
2
0
1,5
1,5
Joint Roughness Number
THICK FILLS
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
20
13
12
10
THIN FILLS
12
COATED
UNFILLED
0.4
10
40
100
400
1000
4.1. General
The Geomechanics classification was developed in
the United States by Bieniawski [2,3,4]. By 1989
around 350 case histories had been the basis of the
system development. As also recognized by
Bieniawski [3], the system benefited from
extensions and modifications by various
researchers, and such developments allowed the
system to adapt to various engineering applications.
The parameters used by the Geomechanics
classification are:
The uniaxial compressive strength or the
point load strength of the intact rock
material.
The rock quality designation.
The spacing of the discontinuities.
12
0.1
4. GEOMECHANICS CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM APPLICATION IN PDA
DISCONT.
14
0.5
0.04
16
0.01
Q Rating
0,5
18
Frequencies
RRS+B
(6)
Q min.
20
Frequencies
CCA
(7)
Q max.
S
T
R
E
N
G
T
H
10
(8)
Q mean
20
S
H
E
A
R
5
(9)
B
L
O
C
K
HEAL
0,75
II
61-80
Good
rock
III
IV
41-60 21-40
<21
Fair
Poor
Very
rock
rock poor rock
(10)
E (GPa) = RMR10
10 40 ,
RMR 50 ( Serafim & Pereira,1983)
(10)
Figure 12: Final results for RMR PDA classification tool, for
slopes and tunnels.
Figure 10: Example input for intact rock strength, RQD and
discontinuity properties in RMR data collection form.
Discontinuity infilling
Discontinuity weathering
Ground water rating
Correction rating factors for tunnels and mines
Correction rating factors for foundations
Correction rating factors for slopes F1, F2, F3
and F4 according to the SMR system.
Additionally a useful plot of the recorded
RMR/SMR ratings directly from the PDA is plotted
by the spreadsheet. When records are obtained for a
certain zone, with this plot is possible to estimate an
average, typical minima and maxima and a most
frequent value of the rating for the specific zone. An
example of such a histogram is shown in Figure 13.
V.GOOD ROCK
GOOD ROCK
FAIR ROCK
POOR ROCK
REFERENCES
The work performed in this study has been supported by the
National Science Foundation under grant number CMS
0324889. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
20
18
16
Frequencies
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
100-81
80-61
60-41
40-21
<21
RMR/SMR Ranges
5. CONCLUSION
The rock mass classification tools presented here
are intended to be used by a civil, mining engineer,
geologist and anyone who is performing rock mass
classification onsite. Its main function is to provide
a user friendly interface for the user, paper free
systematic recording of data, and quick processing
of collected data in a desktop/laptop format
personal computer. Initial estimates are immediately
made in every form, whenever a record is
completed and when available recommendations are
given, to assess support requirements at a
preliminary level.
On the basis of the above, future work will
include updated versions of RMR classification, in
order to collect and process data for four
independent joint sets separately, as recommended
by Bieniawski [3] and a useful data collection form
to estimate average RQD values from surface rock
mass classification by use of scanlines. Therefore, a
complete toolbox will be available at the hands of
the onsite engineers and geologists, to quickly,
10
11