Hack RQD

RQD
Slope stability classification

Weathering
Robert Hack
Engineering Geology, ESA, International Institute for
Geoinformation Sciences and Earth Observation (ITC)
The Netherlands
Dehradun, India, 23 September 2008
Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 1

Rock in The Netherlands?
Jan van Goyen, View at Leiden, 1650 Museum Lakenhal, Leiden

Dykes have slopes!
(Brouwersdam, The Netherlands)

Dyke with basalt cover can be modelled
as a discontinuous rock mass
(sea dyke with basalt cover: photo: Sytske Dijksen; http://www.waddenzee.nl/)

Also real rock slopes in the
Southern part of The Netherlands!
(ENCI quarry; photo: http://www.beeldexpressie.be/film/)

and not very scientific, but highly
important:
many Dutch civil engineering companies

work worldwide with soil and rock

RQD
Rock Quality Designation

RQD
(After Price et al. (2008) Engineering Geology. Publ.

Springer, Germany. In print)

RQD
total length of core

TCR = * 100 %
total length drilled
length pieces of soild core

SCR = * 100 %
length pieces of intact core with length > 10 cm

RQD = * 100 %

RQD (Rock Quality Designation)
Originally:
A rock mass classification system (Deere, 1964)
- Depending on the RQD only a rock mass quality was
assigned to a rock mass
<25% - Very Poor; 25-50% - Poor; 50-75% - Fair; 75-90% - Good; 90-100% -Excellent
This function of the RQD is not used anymore

RQD at present:
A standard in borehole core description

RQD at present:
- A standard in borehole core description
And used in:
- rock mass classification schemes for tunnels, slopes, etc. (Q-
system, RMR, SMR, etc)
- excavatability classifications
- rock mass strength (RMR)
- rock mass permeability
- etc., etc., etc.

RQD at present:
Probably the most popular rock mass parameter
Used for virtually everything
Is this justified

Problems with RQD (1)
1. Arbitrary length of 10 cm
2. Orientation of borehole in relation with discontinuity
spacing
spacing discontinuities 0.09 m
horizontal
borehole
RQD = 0 %
horizontal
borehole
RQD = 100 %
vertical borehole RQD = 0 %

3. Weak rock pieces (weathered pieces of rock or infill
material) that are not sound should not be considered for
determining the RQD (Deere et al., 1967, 1988). To
exclude infill material will usually not be too difficult;
however, excluding pieces of weathered, not sound rock
is fairly arbitrary.
4. The RQD value is influenced by drilling equipment,
drilling operators and core handling. Especially RQD
values of weak rocks can be considerably reduced due to
inexperienced operators or poor drilling equipment.

5. No standard core barrel - single, double, or triple barrel ?
6. Diameter of boreholes
7. Drilling fractures should be re-fitted, but what are drilling
fractures?
8. RQD should be determined per lithology, but where is the
lithology boundary if washed away?

RQD without borehole (Palmstrm, 1)
Jv = the volumetric discontinuity count

= total number of discontinuities per m3
= the sum of the number of discontinuities
per metre length of all discontinuity sets

IF J v 4.5 ===> RQD = ( 115 - 3.3 * J v ) %

IF J v < 4.5 ===> RQD = 100 %
3
Jv = total number of discontinu ities per m
(= sum of number of discontinuities per metre
length of all discontinuity sets)
(ISRM, 1978, Palmstrm,1975)

bedding planes: spacing 0.4 m
Joint 2: spacing 1.0 m

Example1:
Bedding spacing 0.4 m = 2.5 discontinuity per meter
Joint 1 spacing = 3.0 m = 0.33 discontinuity per meter
Joint 2 spacing = 1.0 m = 1 discontinuity per meter
Jv = 2.5 + 0.33 + 1 = 3.83 discontinuities per m3
JV < 4.5 RQD = 100 %

foliation planes: spacing 0.3 m

(perpendicular to slope)

Example 2:
Foliation spacing 0.3 m = 2.5 discontinuity per meter
Jv = 2.5 + 2.5 + 3.3 = 8.3 discontinuities per m3
JV > 4.5 RQD = (115 3.3 * Jv) = 88 %

More complicated and sophisticated relations exist for RQD

without a bore hole
However: It will always be a simulation
RQD is inherent to the process of drilling
Without drilling some features determining the RQD are lost
such as: washing out weak layers, fractures due to drilling, etc.

Slope stability

Classification systems for slopes
Romanas SMR
Haines and Terbrugge
Hacks SSPC

Romanas SMR
SMR = RMR - ( F 1 * F 2 * F 3 ) + F 4
SMR = Slope Mass Rating

RMR = Rock Mass Rating (same as Bieniawski' s RMR)
F 1 = factor for parallelism of the strikes of
discontinuities and slope face
F 2 = factor for discontinuity dip angle
F 3 = factor for relation between slope face and discontinuity dip
F 4 = factor for method of excavation
Haines and Terbrugge slope
system
280
factor
40 safety =
1 2 45 additional analysis
240 factor
30 safety = required
50
15
marginal on 35
200 55
classification alone
40
60
slope height (m)
45 65
160
50
70
55
120
60 75
classification alone
may be adequate
80 65 80
70
40
75
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
MRMR
SSPC failure probabilities for
orientation independent failure
10
Das hed pr obability lines indi c ate that the number of sl opes us ed for
the devel opment of the SSPC s ys tem for thes e s ec tions of the
graph is limited and the pr obability lines may not be as c ertai n as
the pr obability lines dr awn with a co nti nuous line. 95 %
probability to be stable > 95 % 90 %

H max / Hslope
70 %
50 %
1 30 %
(example) 10 %
5%
probability to be stable < 5 %
0.1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
mass / slope dip
Original situation

design error

Example 2: Many discontinuity sets
with large variation in orientation
(too many for the design engineer?)

Example 3: Many discontinuity
sets with large variation in
orientation

Example 4: Variation in
clay content in intact rock
causes differential
bedding planes weathering
April 1990
Slightly higher clay content

Example 4: Variation
in clay content in
intact rock causes
differential
weathering
April 1992
mass slid

Slope Stability probability
Classification (SSPC)

SSPC
three step classification system

based on probabilities
independent failure mechanism assessment

Three step classification system (1)

Three step classification system (2)
EXPOSURE ROCK MASS (ERM)
Exposure rock mass parameters significant for slope stability:
Material properties: strength, susceptibility to weathering
Discontinuities: orientation and sets (spacing) or single
Discontinuity properties: roughness, infill, karst
Exposure specific parameters:

Factor used to remove the influence of the
Method of excavation method excavation and degree of weathering
Degree of weathering
REFERENCE ROCK MASS (RRM)
Reference rock mass parameters significant for slope stability:
Material properties: strength, susceptibility to weathering
Discontinuities: orientation and sets (spacing) or single
Discontinuity properties: roughness, infill, karst
Slope specific parameters:
Method of excavation to be used Factor used to assess the influence of the
Expected degree of weathering at method excavation and future weathering
end of engineering life-time of slope
SLOPE ROCK MASS (SRM)
Slope rock mass parameters significant for slope stability:
SLOPE GEOMETRY Material properties: strength, susceptibility to weathering
Orientation Discontinuities: orientation and sets (spacing) or single
Height Discontinuity properties: roughness, infill, karst
SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT

Excavation specific parameters for
the excavation which is used to
characterize the rock mass
Degree of weathering
Method of excavation

Slope specific parameters for the
new slope to be made
Expected degree of weathering at

end of lifetime of the slope
Method of excavation to be used for
the new slope

Intact rock strength
By simple means test - hammer
blows, crushing by hand, etc.

Spacing and persistence of
discontinuities
Based on the block size and block form by

first visual assessment and then quantification
of the characteristic spacing and orientation

amplitude roughness:
wavy 5 9 cm
i = 14 - 20
slightly wavy 5 9 cm
i = 9 - 14 Shear
3.5 7 cm strength -
i = 4 - 8
curved
roughness
slightly curved 1.5 3.5 cm large scale
i = 2 - 4
straight
1m
(i-angles and dimensions only approximate)

amplitude roughness > 2 - 3 mm
stepped
undulating
amplitude roughness > 2 - 3 mm Shear
strength -
roughness
planar
small scale
0.20 m
(dimensions only approximate)

Infill:
- cemented
- no infill Shear
- non-softening (3 grain sizes) strength
- softening (3 grain sizes) - Infill
- gauge type (larger or smaller
than roughness amplitude)
- flowing material

Orientation dependent stability
Stability depending on relation between

slope and discontinuity orientation

Sliding criterion
sliding occurs if :
TC < 0.0113 * AP

Sliding probability
95 %
1.00 70 %
50 %
discontinuity stable 30 %
TC (condition of discontinuity)
with respect to sliding 5%

0.80
0.60
0.40 discontinuity unstable

with respect to sliding
0.20
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
AP (deg)

Toppling criterion
TC < 0.0087 * ( 90 AP + dipdiscontinuity )

Toppling probability
1.00
95 %
TC (condition of discontinuity) (-)
70 %
0.80 discontinuity stable 50 %
Fig. 9. Toppling criterion. 30 %
with respect to toppling
5%
0.60
0.40 discontinuity unstable

with respect to toppling
0.20
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
- 90 - AP + slope dip (deg)

Orientation independent stability

Probability orientation independent failure
10 Das hed pr obabilit y lines indi c at e that the number of sl opes us ed f or
the devel opment of the SSPC s ys tem f or t hes e s ec tions of the
graph is limited and the pr obability lines may not be as c ert ai n as
the pr obability lines dr awn wit h a co nti nuous line. 95 %
probability to be stable > 95 % 90 %

H max / Hslope
70 %
50 %
1 30 %
(example) 10 %
5%
probability to be stable < 5 %
0.1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
mass / slope dip
80 80
visually estimated stability visually estimated stability
a: SSPC stable (class 1) b: Haines stable (class 1)
unstable (class 2) unstable (class 2)
60
unstable (class 3) unstable (class 3)
60
number of slopes (%)

Haines safety factor: 1.2
40 40
20 20
0 0
<5 7.5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 92.5 > 95 -45 -35 -25 -10 -5 5 15 25 35 45
SSPC stability probability (%) Haines' slope dip - existing slope dip (deg)
unstable stable unstable stable
80
visually estimated stability Percentages are from total number of slopes
c: SMR stable (class 1) per visually estimated stability class.
unstable (class 2)
unstable (class 3)
60 visually estimated stability:
class 1 : stable; no signs of present or future slope

failures (number of slopes: 109)
40
class 2 : small problems; the slope presently shows
signs of active small failures and has the potential for
future small failures (number of slopes: 20)
20 class 3 : large problems; The slope presently shows
signs of active large failures and has the potential for
future large failures (number of slopes: 55)
0
5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
Romana's SMR (points)
completely
unstable
'tentative' describtion of SMR classes:
unstable partially
stable
stable
completely Comparison
stable

Poorly blasted slope

Poorly blasted slope
New cut (in 1990):

Visual assessed: extremely poor instable.
SSPC stability < 8% (13.8 m high, dip 70, rock mass weathering:
'moderately' and 'dislodged blocks' due to blasting).
Forecast in 1996: SSPC stability: slope dip 45.
In 2002: Slope dip about 55 (visually assessed unstable).
In 2005: Slope dip about 52 (visually assessed unstable big blocks

in middle photo have fallen).

Slope Stability probability
Classification (SSPC)
Saba case - Dutch Antilles

Landslide in harbour

Geotechnical zoning

SSPC results
Pyroclastic deposits Calculated SSPC Laboratory / field

Rock mass friction 35 27 (measured)
Rock mass cohesion 39kPa 40kPa (measured)
Calculated maximum 13m 15m (observed)
possible height on the
slope

Failing slope in Manila, Philippines

Failing slope in Manila (2)
tuff layers with near horizontal weathering horizons

(about every 2-3 m)
slope height is about 5 m
SSPC non-orientation dependent stability about 50%
for 7 m slope height
unfavourable stress configuration due to corner

Widening
existing road in
Bhutan
(Himalayas)

Bhutan (5)
Method of
excavation

Widening
existing road in
Bhutan
(Himalayas) (2)

Widening existing road in
Bhutan (Himalayas) (3)
Above road level:
Various units
Joint systems (sub-) vertical
Present slope about 21 m high, about 90 or
overhanging (!)
Present situation above road highly unstable (visual
assessment)
Below road level:
Inaccessible seems stable
Widening existing road in
Bhutan (Himalayas) (4)
Above road level:

Following SSPC system about 12 27 m for a 75
slope (depending on unit) (orientation independent
stability 85%)
Below road level:
Inaccessible different unit ? and not disturbed by
excavation method

Future degradation of soil or rock
due to weathering, ravelling, etc.
no reliable quantitative relations exist to forecast
the future geotechnical properties of soil or rock
mass

Future degradation (2)

Future degradation (3)
3.5
3.0
2.5
z [m]
2.0
1.5
1.0
7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5
y [m]
Excavated 1999 May 2001 May 2002
Reduction in slope angle due to weathering, erosion and ravelling (after Huisman)
Degradation processes
Main processes involved in degradation:

Loss of structure due to stress release
Weathering (In-situ change by inside or outside
influences)
Erosion (Material transport with no chemical or
structural changes)

Significance in engineering
When rock masses degrade in time, slopes
and other works that are stable at present
may become unstable

Erosion
Essentially: migration of solid or dissolved material

Weathering occurs usually before and possibly
during erosion
Transporting agents:
- Water
- Gravity
- Ice
- Wind
- Man!
Quantify weathering: SSPC

Weathering in time
The susceptibility to weathering is a concept that is

frequently addressed by the weathering rate of a
rock material or mass.
Weathering rates may be expected to decrease with
time, as the state of the rock mass becomes more and
more in equilibrium with its surroundings.

Weathering rates

Weathering rates
WE ( t ) =
WEinit R app
WE log (1 + t )
WE(t) = degree of weathering at time t
WEinit = (initial) degree of weathering at time t = 0
RappWE = weathering intensity rate
WE as function of time, initial

weathering and the
weathering intensity rate
Weathering rates
Material:
Gypsum layers
Gypsum cemented siltstone layers
Middle Muschelkalk near Vandellos (Spain)

Weathering intensity rate
SSPC system with applying weathering

intensity rate:
- original slope cut about 50 (1998)
- in 15 years decrease to 35

Conclusions
classification works for slope stability
classification can incorporate uncertainty
classification can be improved by using more
elaborate relations
be not afraid to abandon inherited
methodologies and parameters

Future
definition of heterogeneity
classification systems for earthquake areas
influence of snow and ice
submersed marine slopes ?

References
Barton N.R., Lien R. & Lunde J. (1974). Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel
Support. Rock Mechanics. 6. publ. Springer Verlag. pp.189 - 236.
Barton N.R. (2000) TBM Tunnelling in Jointed and Faulted Rock. Published by Taylor & Francis, 2000
ISBN 9058093417, 9789058093417. 184 pp.
Hack HRGK, Price, D & Rengers N (2003) A new approach to rock slope stability - a probability classification
(SSPC). Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment. Springer Verlag. Vol. 62: article: DOI
10.1007/s10064-002-0155-4. pp. 167-184 & erratum: DOI 10.1007/s10064-002-0171-4. pp 185-185
Haines A. & Terbrugge P.J. (1991). Preliminary estimation of rock slope stability using rock mass classification
systems. Proc. 7th Cong. on Rock Mechanics. ISRM. Aachen, Germany. 2, ed. Wittke W. publ. Balkema,
Rotterdam. pp. 887 - 892.
Huisman M, Hack HRGK & Nieuwenhuis JD (2006) Predicting rock mass decay in engineering lifetimes: the
influence of slope aspect and climate. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience. Vol XII, no. 1, Feb. 2006, pp.
49-61.
ISRM (1978). Suggested methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock masses. Int. Journal
Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences & Geomechanical Abstr. 15, pp. 319 - 368.
Deere D.U. (1964). Technical description of rock cores. Rock Mechanics Engineering Geology 1. pp. 16 - 22.
Deere D.U. (1989). Rock quality designation (RQD) after twenty years. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contract
Report GL-89-1. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 67.
Palmstrm A. (1975). Characterization of degree of jointing and rock mass quality. Internal Report. Ing.A.B. Berdal
A/S, Oslo, pp. 1 - 26.
Romana M. (1991). SMR classification. Proc. 7th Cong. on Rock Mechanics. ISRM. Aachen, Germany. 2. ed.
Wittke W. publ. Balkema, Rotterdam. pp. 955 - 960.

Hack RQD

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hack RQD

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

RQD

Slope stability classification

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 1

Jan van Goyen, View at Leiden, 1650 Museum Lakenhal, Leiden

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 2

(Brouwersdam, The Netherlands)

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 3

(sea dyke with basalt cover: photo: Sytske Dijksen; http://www.waddenzee.nl/)

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 4

(ENCI quarry; photo: http://www.beeldexpressie.be/film/)

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 5

many Dutch civil engineering companies

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 6

Rock Quality Designation

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 7

(After Price et al. (2008) Engineering Geology. Publ.

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 8

total length of core

length pieces of soild core

length pieces of intact core with length > 10 cm

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 9

This function of the RQD is not used anymore

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 10

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 11

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 12

vertical borehole RQD = 0 %

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 14

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 15

Jv = the volumetric discontinuity count

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 16

IF J v 4.5 ===> RQD = ( 115 - 3.3 * J v ) %

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 17

Joint 2: spacing 1.0 m

Joint 1: spacing 3.0 m

Jv = 2.5 + 0.33 + 1 = 3.83 discontinuities per m3

JV < 4.5 RQD = 100 %

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 19

Joint 2: spacing 0.4 m

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 20

Jv = 2.5 + 2.5 + 3.3 = 8.3 discontinuities per m3

JV > 4.5 RQD = (115 3.3 * Jv) = 88 %

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 21

More complicated and sophisticated relations exist for RQD

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 22

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 23

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 24

SMR = Slope Mass Rating

probability to be stable > 95 % 90 %

probability to be stable < 5 %

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 28

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 29

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 30

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 31

Slightly higher clay content

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 33

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 34

three step classification system

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 35

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 36

Exposure specific parameters:

SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT

Dehradun, India - RQD - Slope Stab Class - Weathering - Robert Hack 38

Expected degree of weathering at