Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Whereas the Parliament of India has set out to provide a practical regime of right to
information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities,
in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority,
and whereas the attached publication of the Bureau of Indian Standards is of particular interest
to the public, particularly disadvantaged communities and those engaged in the pursuit of
education and knowledge, the attached public safety standard is made available to promote the
timely dissemination of this information in an accurate manner to the public.
1 +, 1 +
01 ' 5
Jawaharlal Nehru
! $ ' +-
Satyanarayan Gangaram Pitroda
! > 0 B
BharthariNtiatakam
~~~~~-~ff~
'q11J
1 ~~c6~c6~~mnt~ (am'tRam)
Indian Standard
QUANTITATIVE CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEMS OF ROCK MASS GUIDELINES
PART 1 ROCK MASS RATING (RMR) FOR PREDICTING
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
ICS 93.020
BIS 1998
Price Group 6
2 0 + - - - - t - - - - - + - - - + - - - - - -........-r;---~...----+...-.--I
15
10+-----+---------t--~~------...~
e +-----.+------....e-+r---___+_-
I 2~+--~~+---+-------I
0.1
1.0
to'
10
STAND-UP nME. hr
FlO. 1 STAND-UP TIME VIS UNSUPPORTED SPAN AS PER RocK. MAss RATING
(CED48)
RepJ'Oll'lPhy Unit, BIS, New Delhi. Indi.
FOREWORD
This Indian Standard (Part I) was adopted by the Bureau of Indian Standards, after the draft finalized by the
Rock Mechanics Sectional Committee had been approved by the Civil Engineering Division Council.
Quantitative classification of rock masses has many advantages. It provides a basis for understanding
characteristics of different groups. It also provides a common basis for communication besides yielding
quantitative data for designs for feasibility studies of project. This is the reason why quantitative classifications
have become very popular all over the world.
Rigorous approaches of designs based on various parameters could lead to uncenain results because of
uncertainities in obtaining the correct value of input parameters at a given site of tunnelling. Rock mass
classifications which do not involve uncertain parameters are following the philosophy of reducing
uncertainities. Part 2 of this standard presents Quantitative Classification System, and Part 3 offers details of
Slope Mass Rating.
Technical Committee responsible for the formulation of this standard is given in Annex D.
In reporting the result of a test or analysis made in accordance with this standard, if the final value, observed or
calculated, is to be rounded off, it shall be done in accordance with IS 2 : 1960 'Rules for rounding off numerical
values (revised)'. The number of significant places retained in the rounded off value should be the same as that
of the specified value in this standard.
Indian Standard
QUANTITATIVE CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEMS OF ROCK MASS - GUIDELINES
PART 1 ROCK MASS RATING (RIA", FOR PREDICnNG
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
1 SCOPE
2 REFERENCES
The Indian Standards given in Annex A contain
provisions which through reference in this text,
constitute provision of this standard. At the time of
publication, the editions indicated were valid. All
standards are subject to revision. and parties to
agreements based on this standard are encouraged to
investigate the possibility of applying the most recent
editions of the standard indicated.
3 PROCEDURE
RQD
=
=
115-3.3Jv
100 for J; < 4.5
where
J,
RCR
=8 In (Q.SRF)+30
Q = (RQDIJn)(JrlJa)(JwISRF)
or
N =Q.SRF = (RQDIJn)(JrlJa)Jw
It can be seen in above equation that N is free from
SRF. RQD, In, Jr. la, and J w are parameters as defined
in IS 13365 (Part 2).
4.4 In the case of larger tunnels and caverns,
RMR may be somewhat less than obtained from
drifts. In drifts, one may miss intrusions of other rocks
and joint sets.
4.5 Separate RMR shall be obtained for different
orientation of tunnels after taking into account the
orientation of tunnel axis with respect to the critical
joint set (Item VI, Annex B).
4.6 Wherever possible, the undamaged face should be
used to estimate the value of RMR, since the overall
aim is to determine the properties of the undisturbed
rock mass. Severe blast damage may be accounted for
by increasing RMR and RMRbasic by 10.
S ENGINEERING PROPERTIES. OF ROCK
The influence of the strike and the dip of the MASSES
discontinuities is considered with respect to the 5.1 The engineering properties of rock masses can
orientation of tunnel axis or slope face or foundation be obtained from this classification as given in
alignment. To facilitate the decision whether the strike Table 1 based on assumptions given in 5.1.1 to 5.1.3.
and dip are favourable or not, reference should be If the rock mass rating lies within a given range,
made to Annex C, Tables Cl and C2 which give the value of engineering properties may be
assessment of joint favourability for tunnels and dams interpreted between the recommended range of
foundations respectively. Once favourability of properties.
critical discontinuity is known, adjustment for 5.1.1 Average Stand-up Time
orientation ofdiscontinuities is applied as per Item VII,
Annex B in earlier obtained basic rock mass rating to The stand-up time depends upon effective span of the
opening which is defined as size of the opening or
obtain RMR.
the distance between tunnel face and the adjoining
4 ESTIMATION OF ROCK MASS RATING
tunnel support, whichever is minimum (see Fig. 1).
(RMR)
For arched openings the stand-up time would be
4.1 The rock mass rating should be determined as significantly higher than that for flat roof openings.
an algebraic sum of ratings for all the parameters Controlled blasting will further increase the stand-up
given in Items I to VI after adjustments for orientation time as damage to the rock mass is decreased.
of discontinuities given in item vn of Annex B. The
sum of Items II to V is called Rock Condition Rating 5.1.1 Cohesion and Angle ofInternal Friction
(RCR) which discounts the effect of compressive
strength of intact rock material and orientation of Assuming that a rock mass behaves as a Coulomb
material, its shear strength will depend upon cohesion
joints. This is also called as the modified RMR.
and angle of internal friction. Usually the strength
4.2 On the basis of RMR values for a given parameters are different for peak failure and residual
engineering structure, the rock mass should be failure conditions.
classified as very good (rating 100-81). good (80-61),
fair (60-41), poor (40-21) and very poor 20) rock The values of cohesion for dry rock masses of slopes
are likely to be signficantly more.
mass.
2
determining
Ed
by:
't
= 2 x RMR-lOO, in GPa
in GPa (for all values of
RMR)
'en
0<
and saturated conditions and Natural Moisture Content (nmc) also. It may be noted that shear
strength decreases significantly after saturation.
Block shear tests suggest that shear strength is independent of qc for poor rock masses (RMR < 60 and Q
< 10). Further, much higher shear strength is likely
to be mobilised in underground openings than that
obtained from block shear tests or Table 2.
or
10(RMR-:-IO)/40,
0 if
nB
Ed =
A (0' +
where
= Er.MRF
Ed
=
=
= A(on + T)B
= 0 if 011 -c 0
where
'to
an
qt
= 'TIqt
= O'lqc
= mean uniaxial compressi ve strength
of intact rock material, and
condition,
I
tan
+ = J,/Ja S 1.5
4.
5.
I)
100-81
80-61
II
Good
I
Very good
10 years
60-41
Fair
I week
for S m span
6 months
for IS m span
for 8 m span
3-4
3S-45
>4
>45
40-21
IV
Poor
IOh
for 2..5 m span
1-2
15-2S
III
2-3
25-35
20 ....- - -......--....--.....,~--,..,.~~.,
VERY
10
GOOD
- - - -.....-~.,.
CROCK
I
o
-----+-..,.
8
6 1-1.------1........,..
if)
o
w
~
a=
4 ....- - - - . . . ,
2"'---"
a.
a.
:::J
tf)
:::: 05 1-.4...
......_ _....
10
10
10
10
STAND -UP TIME I HOURS
10
1-0 - - - - - - - - - . . . - - -.......----r---~,.....,
1
'-
~ 08 '-----+------f.----t-----+----iIo------1
"0
LLJ
KOTLIE l
Q:
TEHRI DAM
CASE HISTORIES
tU
4
u..
DAM
D
OF BE~IAWSK'
06 I-----~----I------+----..-",.....---t
o
t-
U
::;)
o
c:
UJ
(/)
::J
..J
g
o
------t
02 i-----'-----6---~~+_--.......
20
40
60
80
100
RMR-FIG.
<20
V
Very poor
30 min for
I mspan
<I
15
where
y
Q
J,
rock mass
(Part 2)],
quality
[IS 13365
SI No.
Ii) Non-lqUeezlDl
i) SelflupportiD,
tf.
H < 23.4
S-o1 and 1 000 ~.I
a
23.4 lI S-o1 < H < 275 fIl33 rd J
iv) Moderate squeezin. 450 !-p.33 ~.I < H < 630 1'P 33 B-Gl
Correlations
Ground
Conditio,.
v)
Hip aqueezinl
, PRECAUTIONS
kg/cm 2
where
It
B
H
Proof
90
80
10
60
50
( 1) E
.1:
(2) E
=10 (AMR-10)/40
(3)
:It
-'
2RMR -100
/A
r..
.. Y;i
V'f'
,
10 TO 40 LOG 10 Q
~'
I-
CASE HISTORIES:
SERAFIM AND
. ... ,?,
PEREIRA 1983(2)
10
~v
BIENIAWSKI 1978(1)
20
-- ...1-10
....-...
20
.~
-...
.-.
30
40
~--
50
60
10
80
90
100
0\
Quality
Rock Type
RJlR
RMR = 41-60
Q = 210
(01-0.65) 00534
't(a.mc)=2.25
+ 0.80)0.646
[S.y::.i).20]
't(51I) =1.50 (0 + 0.75)646
(5=1]
't(nmc) =2.50 (0
t(nmc)=2.60 (0 + 1.25)662
[5=1]
tn (sal)
tn (nmc)
Limestone
= 0.42 (~+
0.0(4)0.613
(0+0.60) 0.539
[S= I]
't(sat)= 0.95(0).539
't(1UIIC) =2.45
[S.v=O.40]
t(sal)=1.75( 0+0.70) O.6.5S
[S=I]
t(nmc)
't(nmc) =2.7S(
't(ftIDC)=2.85
(5= 1]
t(nmc:)=3.0S( 0
t1MDC)=3.00 (0 + 0.65)0.676
[S.v=O.IS]
tsat)= 2.25(0+ 0.50)0.676
[S=I)
(0' + 0.70)672
[S.v=O.2S]
1:(sal)= 2.00 (0+ 0 .65)0.672
[S=I]
0.S46
't(nlDC)= 2.65 ~ 0.55)
't(sat)= 1.05(0)
[S= 1)
[5=1]
'to (sal)
0.(02).695
t n (RIDe)
+ 1'(1J)0..1
[S.v=O.3S]
t51I)= 2.45 (0+ 0.95)Q.691
[5=1]
= 0.43 (~+
0.003)695
Trap, Metab8sic
't(nllM:)=2.85 (0 + 1.10)611
(S.v=O.15]
't(sat)= 2.25 (<1+ 1.05)0.611
[S=I]
[S=I)
fa (sal)
= 0.44 (~+
Sandstone, Quartzite
0+-1.15) 0.675
[S.v=O.25]
't(sat)= 2.15(0+ 1.10)0.675
[5=1]
t n (nmc)
0 ifo< 0
Tn ("RIC)
= ~,On
= ~;
o in kg/cm 2 ; t=
qc
qc
tn
'-'
:II
:s.....
....
Ut
Pil
..~
20001-----1--------t---.......-~,....___+-~,..
1000
- -...- - -
800
---"'"----=:...-
500
.....
..,---W'I ...-----e
----+----.. .
--~....
~..-lt--...,..--#--t----__t
- - . . . - I -.........,&..-+rwtF--. . .~~.....
+.
0-1
HB
+
a
a
+
20 I-----~-----It'+-----+--..oz'-___tr_--__,
10L----~-~-'----~~--~~--~
0-01
01
'-0
10
FlO.
100
1000
N c Q.SRF
SELF SUPPORTING
MODERA1E SQUEEZHG
c
o
NON-SQUEEZING
HIGH
MILD SQUEEZING
G) ROCK BURST
SQUEEZ~G
ANNEX A
(Clause 2)
LIST OF REFERRED INDIAN STANDARDS
[SNo.
8164: 1978
9143 : 1979
9221 : 1979
Title
IS No.
Title
12070: 1987
Quantitative
classification
"(Part 2) : 1992 systems
of
rock
massGuidelines: Part 2 Rock mass
quality for prediction of support
pressure
in
underground
openings
13365
Method
for the quantitative
description of discontinuities in
rock mass:
(Part 1) : 1981 Orientation
11315
ANNEX B
Location of site
Date-
:................
of
Origin rockmass
The appropriate rating may be encircled as per site conditions.
"'1'"
Rating
IS
12
7
4
2
I
NOTE - If more than one set of discontinuity is present and the Spacinl of discontinuities of each set varies, consider the set with
lowest rating.
IV CONDITION OF DISCONTINUITIES
Very rough and UDRough and slightly
weathered wall rock,
weathered wall rock
tight and disconsurface, separation
tinuous, no separation
<1 mm
Rating 30
25
Slickensided wall
rock surface or 1-5
mm thick gauge or
1-5 mm wide opening, continuous
discontinuity
20
(litre/min)
Joint water pressure/major
principal stress
General description
5 mm thick
soft gauge
5 mm wide
continuous
discontinuity
10
<10
10-25
25-125
>125
0-0.1
0.1-0.2
0.2-0.5
>0.5
Wet
Dripping
Flowing
Completely Damp
dry
Rating
IS
10
VI ORIENTAnON OF DISCONTINUITIES
Orientation of tunneVslopeifoundation axis
.
Set-I
Average strike
(from
Set-2
Average strike
(from
Set-3
Average strike
(from
to
to
to
)
)
)
Dip
Dip
Dip
.
.
.
Very
o
o
Tunnels
Raft foundation
Slopes
vm
Favourable
Fair
Favourable
-2
-2
-5
-7
Un-
Vf'ry
Favourable
Unfavourable
-10
-12
-IS
-35
ANNEX C
(Clause 3.1.6)
ASSESSMENT OF JOINT FAVOURABILITY FOR TUNNELS AND DAMS FOUNDATIONS
,
Drive with Dip
'+
An
Dip 200-45
Very favourable
Favourable
Fair
Irrespecnve
or Strike
Unfavourable
Dip 20-45
Dip 45-900
Dip 0 20
Fair
Very unfavourable
Fair
Dip Direction
,..
Upstream
Very
favourable
Unfavourable
Downstream
Fair
Favourable
Very unfavourable
ANNEX D
(Foreword)
COMMITEE COMPOSITION
Rock Mechanics Sectional Committee, CED 48
Chairman
Representing
University of Roorkee, Roorkee
Members
Irrigation Department, UP
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Shimla
Irrigation Department. Haryana
DR R. L. CHAUHAN
CUIEF ENGINEER (R
& D)
(Alternate)
DIRECTOR (ENOO)
ARUt'J
DATTATRAYA JOSHI
(Alternate)
DR
A. K. DU8E
StiRI A. K. 'SONI (Alternate)
DR
G.
S. MEHROTRA
SHRI
A.
GHOSH
(Alternate)
DIRECTOR
SHRI KARMVIR
DIRECTOR
SHRI
ENGG MANAGER
DR
R. P.
KULKARNI
MEMBER SECRETARY
(C) (Alternate)
D. N. NARESH
SHRI M. D. NAIR
SHRI B. K. SAIOAL (Alterntlte)
SI-IRI D. M. PANCUOl.l
DR U. o. DATIR
DIRECTOR
SHRI
SCIF.NTIST-IN-CIIARGE
PROF T. RAMAMlIR'n~Y
G. V. RAO (Alternate)
S. I). BHARAnlA
SHRI T. S. NARAYANA DAS (Alternate)
A. K. DHAWAN
()R
SHRI
DM
D. K. JAIN (Alternate)
P. J. RAo
SI-IRI
D. S.
(Alternate)
K. JAIN
DR M. N. VILADKAR (Alternate)
DRP.
I)R V. K. SINHA
DR
V. V. S. RAO
U. S. RAJVANSHI
SHRI
DR J.
DR
L.
JETlIWA
V. M. SHARMA
W. R. PAUL
10
Field Testing of Rock Mass and Rock Mass Classification Subcommittee, CED 48: 1
Convener
U. S. RAJV ANSHI
KC-38. Kavinagar. Ghaziabad. UP
SHRI
M,mbers
Representing
ORO. S. MEHROTRA
SHRI U. N. SINHA (Alternate)
DIRECTOR
CHIEF ENOINEERINO-eUM-DIRECTOR
ReSEARCH OFFICER
(Alternate)
DR GOPAL OHAWAN
SHRI
(Alternate)
D. M. PANCHOLI
DRU. D. DATIR
ORO. V. RAO
DR K. K. GUPTA (Alternate)
DR R. 8. SINOH
DR P. K. JAIN
DR ANBALAOAN (Alternate)
RESEARCH OFFICER (SR & P DIVISION)
CHIEF ENGINEER (DAM DESIGN)
Assn ENGINEER (lRI) (Alternate)
REPRESENTATIVE
ORA. K. DUDE
DR
V. M.
SHARMA
DRR. K. GOEL
PROF 8HAWANI SINGH
II
Date of Issue
Amend No.
Text Affected
Telephone
Regional Offices:
Central
32376 17,3233841
60 38 43
{ 602025