A Complete Manual For Engineers and Geologists in Mining, Civil and Petroleum
A Complete Manual For Engineers and Geologists in Mining, Civil and Petroleum
-ROCKMASS
CLASSII'ICATIO
A Complete Manual for Engineers
and Geologists in Mining, Civil and
Petroleum Eng~neering ~-I~~
,I , __
- " ,..--~- ...-
- .~ ... ..-
---.::;;:/~ .
,: aI1J1IJ
.' .... ..' fJfJarJ~~1LJ.....Il.
[JI1IJClLJ
Engineering
Rock Mass
Classifications
A Complete Manual for
Engineers and Geologists
in Mining, Civil, and
Petroleum Engineering
z. T. Bieniawski
Professor and Director
Mining and Mineral Resources Research Institute
The Pennsylvania State University
nWILEY
A WILEY-INTERSCIENCE PUBLICATION
10 9 8 7 6
Perseverantia omniavincit
-this motto has guided my work
",-
Contents
PREFACE xi
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1. 1 Function of Classifications in Engineering / 1
1.2 Rock Classifications as Design Aids / 2
References / 3
5 Q-SYSTEM 73
5. 1 Classification Procedures / 74
5.2 Correlations / 82
5.3 Data Base / 89
References / 90
6 OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS 91
6. 1 NATM Classification / 91
6.2 Size-Strength Classification / 95
6.3 ISRM Classification / 101
6.4 SpecializedClassitic.ation Approaches / 103
References / 103
BIBLIOGRAPHY , '239
INDEX 249
Preface
xi
xii PREFACE
Z. T. BIENIAWSKI
, of London, was established in 1760 when the first printed "register of ships"
appeared. Particulars of ships were listed, with various classification symbols
affixed, each denoting the condition of various parts of the ship structure
or equipment. 'Today rigid standards are specified for ship construction and
maintenance before a ship is insured, and these standards are laid down by
the technical committee, composed of shipbuilders, marine engineers, and
naval architects, that advises the classification society. Through a worldwide
organization of surveyors, classifications are performed when a ship is built
and when it is in 'Operation; in essence, a classification society dictates the
design and construction of every ship in the world more than 100 tons gross.
It provides detailed specifications which must be met as the minimum standards.
The American Bureau of Shipping, established in 1867, the Bureau Veritas
of France, and the Registro Italiano Navale are other prominent classification
societies, in addition to Lloyd's Register of Shipping.
In rock engineering, the first major classification system w,as, proposed
over 40 years ago for tunneling with steel supports (Terzaghi"'1 946) . Con-
sidering the three main design approaches for excavations in rock-'· - analytical,
observational, and empirical-- as practiced in mining and civil engineering ,
rock mass classifications today form an integral part of the mostpredominant
design approach, the empirical design methods. Indeed, ,on many.,underground
construction and mining projects, rock mass classifications have provided
the only systematic design aid in an otherwise haphazard ~'trial-and-error"
procedure. .
However, modem rock mass classifications have never been intended as
the ultimate solution to design problems, but only a means toward this end.·
In fact, some 15 years ago, when work started on the major rock mass
classification, schemes in use today, the tunneling scene worldwide was often
characterize~ by limited site investigation programs and even'more limited,
if any, design procedures. Any such procedures that were used then would
hardly qualify nowadays as an engineering design process, such as that used
systematically in other branches of engineering. Rock mass classifications
were developed to create some order out of the chaos in site investigation
procedures and to provide the desperately needed design aids. They were
not intended to replace analytical studies, field observations, and measurements,
nor engineering judgment.
design rationale compatible with the design objectives and site geology.
When used correctly and for the purpose for -which they were intended,
rock mass classifications can be powerful aids in design.
The objectives of rock mass classifications are therefore to
The preceding items suggest the three main benefits 'of -rock mass clas~
sifications:
REFERENCES
Agricola, Georgius~ De Re MetaLLica, 1556. Trans. H. C. Hoover and L. H.
Hoover, Dover, New York, 1950, 638 pp.
Peck, R. B. Judgment in Geotechnical Engineering, Wiley, New York, 1984,
332 pp.
Plattes, Gabriel. A Discovery of Subterraneall Treasure of Mines and Mineralls,
1639. Reprinted by the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 1980,
60 pp ..
Sokal, R. R. "Classification: Purposes, Principles, Progress and Prospects."
Science 185 (4157), Sept. 24, 1972, pp. 1115-1123.
Terzaghi, K. "Rock Defects a~d Loads on Tunnel Support." Rock Tunneling
with Steel Supports, ed. R. V. Proctor and T. White, Commercial Shearing
Co., Youngstown, OH, 1946, pp. 15-99.
2
Role of Rock Mass
Classifications in Site
Characterization and
Engineering Design
The Inere formulation of a problem is far more often
essential than its solution; to raise new questions, new
possibilities, requires creative imagination and marks
real advances in science.
-Albert Einstein
Unlike other engineering materials, rock presents the designer with unique
problems. First of all, rock is a complex material varying widely in its
properties, and in most mining as well as civil engineering situations, not
one but a number of rock types will be present. Furthermore, a choice of
rock materials is only available if there is a choice of alternative sites for a
given project, although it may be possible, to some extent, to reinforce the
rock surrounding the excavation. Most of all, the design engineer and geologist
are confronted with rock as an assemblage of blocks of rock material separated
by various types of discontinuities, such as joints, faults, bedding planes,
5
6 ROLE Of ROCK MASS CLASSifiCATIONS
r\ /0,\
0 - - - - - 0-
- 0
0-
CRITICAL
ENERGY
\\
~
~ 200 RELEASE " RUPTURE
( long term \ ( locus of points)
CJ)
CJ)
strength) "\
,.
u..J
0::
I-
CJ)
-.J
c:::t: 100
FRACTURE
INITIATION
""-
><
<t "" "-
" " '"
a
0 .I 3 4 6 T
STRAIN (10- 3 )
Figure 2.1 Representation of brittle fracture mechanism for hard rock in uniaxial
compression. (After Bieniawski, 1967.)
I 10
osI I
0.7
I I I
I 2
I
3
I
·4' 5 '6 7 8.
I I I " I I
20 . 200
I
300 400
I I I
700
,
SOIL
VERY SOFT
SOFT ROCK
VERY HARD
EXTREMEU HARD ROCK
JENNINGS
ROCI( ROCK 1973
3
i
4
I I I iii
5 6 78
I ,
20 200
I iii
300 400
10
UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH I MPo
7
8 ROLE OF ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATIONS
E D C B A
VERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH
STRENGTH STRENGTH STRENGTH STRENGTH STRENGTH
150
/
- .
ctS 100 ./
Q.
C)
80
.. ./' - /,. ........
:i' ~ '"<t, ~ ,/
..- ~// Vi
.. ~ ,.'V
l/ ~(
C)
z
W
..-
0:
60
~
~. ~ ~ /. '7
~.,
..
'/
.I
,·r
"y// ~
....
'.
.~
/
~~Z/
~
~
U'J 40 ~.
.' ~ 1/ "
..-w<
~ (""
_,,0 I
• .I
?- ,7"
~ ,/
.~
.L
/
X //,
/' :
'#V
~#
:E ~ ~c
..
~<\) ,.
~./
'
i= :- b~~
...J
:J
--r .. ~o ~
,0
.{- ~. 1/
20 ~,~. ,
V '/ /
r
~ ~
~ . ,/ J ~"." /
0
0
-
I-
~'
b ~. / /
In
-
..-<
r-
r-
/!,
,/
~
/
~
ro'1i
~, / "
v
~
bJ , .V
~
~
r- ,
en .J' ~ ~
)~
:J 10 •
...J
/ ""- ...
--" " ~
/--
I
~ t\ .-
,~
./
~.
2 ".
10
V
~
~
~
l J.. -'
15
I I I I
20
I III l l l l
25 30 40 50 60 80 100
I I I I
150
I I I I
200
IIldllll
300 400
UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, MPa
Figure 2.3 Strength-deformation representation for three rock types. (After Deere
and Miller, 1966.)
STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF ROCK MASSES 9
When the design engineer and the engineering geologist are confronted with
rock, they must visualize the rock mass as an assemblage of intact rock
blocks separated by different types of geological discontinuities. They must
therefore consider the characteristics of both the intact material and the
discontinuities.
The question immediately arises as to how the rock materi~l.is related to .
the rock mass. In answering this question, one must note,. first- of all, that
the importance of the properties of intact rock material· will .be generally
overshadowed by the properties of the discontinuities in -the rock masses.
However, this does not mean that the properties of the intact rock mater-
ial should be disregarded when considering the behavior of jointed rock
masses. After all, if discontinuities are widely spaced or if the intact rock
is weak and altered, the properties of the intact rock may strongly influence
the gross behavior of the rock mass. Furthermore, a sample of a rock material
sometimes represents a small-scale model of the rock mass, since they both
have gone through the same geological cycle. Nevertheless, in general, the
properties of the discontinuities are of greater importance than the properties
of the intact rock material.
An important issue in rock classifications is the selection of the parameters
of greatest significance. There appears to be no single parameter or index
that can fully and quantitatively describe a jointed rock mass for engineering
purposes . Various parameters have different significance, and only if taken
together can they describe a ro~k mass satisfactorily.
The strength of the rock material is included as a classification parameter
in the majority of rock mass classification systems. It is a necessary parameter
10 ROLE OF ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATIONS
because the strength of the rock material constitutes the strength limit of
the rock mass. The uniaxial compressive strength of rock material can be
· determined in. the field indirectly by means of the point-load strength index
(Franklin, 1970), so that one is not restricted to laboratory testing.
The second parameter most commonly employed is the rock quality des-
ignation (RQD). This is a quantitative index based on a modified core-
recovery procedure which incorporates only sound pieces of core that are
100 mm or greater in length. The RQD is a measure of drill core quality
or fracture frequency, and disregards the influence of joint tightness, orientation,
continuity, and gouge (infilling). Consequently, the RQD does not fully
describe a rock mass.
Other classification 'parameters used in current rock mass classifications
are spacing of discontinuities, condition of discontinuities (roughness , con-
tinuity, separation, joint-wall weathering, infilling), orientation of discon-
tinuities, groundwater conditions (inflow, pressure), and in-situ stresses.
~'Ai1 excellent discussion of the methods for quantitative description ·of
discontinuities in rock masses can be found in ISRM-(1981b).
It is accepted that in the case· of surface excavations and those near-
surface underground rock excavations that are controlled by the structural
geological features, the following classification parameters are important:
strength: of intact rock material, spacing of discontinuities~condition ·of
discontinuities, orientation of discontinuities, and groundwater conditions.
· In the c~se of deep underground excavations where· the behavior· of rock
· masses·. is stress-controlled, knowledge of the virgin stress ·field or the :changes
in: stress can be. .of greater significance than the geological parameters. Most
civil engineering projects, such as tunnels and subway chambers, fall into
the~first category of geologically controlled rock mass .structures.
The interaction 9f the various site characterization activities and the pa-
rameters needed for engineering design is demonstrated Table 2.1. It will,
be seen that the testing approaches are divided into categori~s of field testing
and laboratory te~:ting. Their purpose is to establish the needed design,pa-
rameters characterizing the rock material, the rock mass, the in-situ 'stress
field, and other conditions.
The first fac( that must be recognized when planning a site inves,tigation
is
program is tha~" th,ef¢ no such thing as a standard site investigation:,(H'o:ek~ ,
1982). This statemertt'applies equally well to both stages of site characteriuition,
namely, a prelittririary site inv~stigation and the detailed site characteriZatlon~
The scope of the ~~pptopriatege61o'gica] investigations is outlined in:'Ffgu~e
2.4.~' :,'<>~' c , . . . ' : ' , , ; " " , " ,
"of the project: Iii 'essente, the'li1iHhl site assessmeht involves the- discovery, ':"
c9iTei~tion,and:
,~ . . '-.'~-:'"
:artaiy'sis
of suctii"geologicaf data as:
.'::.~.'
.
.~.'-.. Ll. ~ \ . ,
The photogeological study is <;>f special importance, and its benefits may
even justify procuring new aerial photographs if those available are inadequate.
TABLE 2.1 _Recommende-d Rock Mechanics Observations and Measurements for Site Characterization
Property/Data
---- --. ----
Test Rock Material Rock Mass In-Situ :Str~ss Field Modulus of Deformation Empirical Design Data
- -
Laboratory T~sting
Uniaxial compression Material strength, . Elastic modlilus,
tests anisotropy Poisson's ratio
Triaxial compression Friction and m; parameter
tests cohesion of
rock material
Density, porosity, Density, porosity, Weatherability and
water content, slake durability swelling parameters
swelling
Field Testing
Geotechnical surveys Input data for
and integral Detailed engineering geological engineering
sampling description of rock strata classifications of
rock masses
,.' \ .1,
Point-load test Strength index
from rock
pieces
Overcoring cells and M.agnitude and Deformation parameters
small flat jacks directions of
stresses
Plate bearing tests Effect of joints Deformation parameters
and borehole jacks on strength
of rock mass
Seismic/sonic Sonic velocity Longitudinal and shear
measurements data from wave velocities and
laboratory rock dynamic moduli
Convergence Stress redistribution Time-dependent rock
monitoring and mass movements
borehole around excavations
extensometers
Piezometers in Water inflow,
boreholes pressure, and
permeability
Rock bolt pullout Rock support data:
tests spacing, length, etc.
14 ROLE OF ROCK MASS CLASSIFiCATIONS
PRELIMINARY
DATA COLLECTION
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
PLAN INVESTIGATIONS I
DETAILED
EXPLORATORY DRILLING EXPLORATORY ADITS
GEOLOGICAL MAPPING
IN -SITU ROCK
GEOPHYSICAL TESTING LABORATORY TESTING
MECHANICS TESTS
MEASUREMENT OF
GROUNDWATER TESTS
IN·StTU STRESSES
"
PROCESSING OF DATA
I "
DESIGN
STUDIES
CONSTRUCTION
I -
SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROCEDURES 15
As the object of drilling is to obtain rock cores for interpretation and testing,
it is essential to obtain as near 1000/0 core recovery as possible. To ensure
a successful drilling operation, the following information should be remem-
bered:
16 ' ROLE OF ROCK MASS CLASSIFiCATIONS
5. In cas~s where poor rock conditions are evident and yet' 100%' ~core
recovery is deSIrable, a technique known as the integral sampling, :method
may be emp~9y~9 (Rocha, 19~7) in shallow holes.
6. Good care,:should.be,taken of the core recovered from the'.boreholes"~,,
This means, that ',the cores, should be photographed, as, soon as possiole",
, care,fully marked, placed in protective wrapping in the core boxes,. and ..
stored in prope'rly provided storage sheds. Core samples removed .for testing,
should be appropriately marked in the core boxes.
POINT
WATER ROO LOAD DEPTH SYMSOLIC
TESTS (0;.) IN(KX DESCRIPTION OF STRATA
L.OG
AND
LEVELS 2060
---
--=.-....
-=
- I
-
=
-::
--
-
--=2
...,
-
- --
-
;
--
-=~
"
--
(.
- -
--=
-4
-
--
-= --
--
-=~
- --
--::
-
--
r
,. ..
----
-6
.. "
-::
--
-1
-
--
-=--
- -
-:8
--
-==
- - ..;
--::9
-
-=
=
--
DAT[ DRILLED R["ARKS
DATE LOGGED
LCGGED 8Y
velocity ratio will be reduced to values lower than unity. Table 2.2 illustrates
the relationship between the velocity index and rock mass quality (Coon
and Merritt, 1970).
Attempts have been made to use the velocity index to estimate the ratio
of the static modulus of the rock mass to the laboratory modulus .of the rock
material. However, Coon and Merritt (1970) concluded that the velocity
index is not reliable for predicting directly in-situ rock mass deformability.
This index has too many uncertainties becaus~ of the .different sensitivities
of the seismic and sonic waves as well as difficulties in generating and
identifying elastic waves in rock masses and rock materials. .
. '.. .~ ~ ..
2.3.4· ' Geological Data Presentation
If determination of geological data . for site 'characterization· isa difficult
problem, presentation of the.se· data for engineering purposes is sometimes
even more difficult. Communication between the engineering geologist and
the design engineer would be greatly enhanced if the format for data presentation
'could be established in the early' stages of an engineering project. The
following suggestions are ::useful:
.:
Set 3 Strike.................. (from ............... to ............... ) Dip: .............. : Slightly rough surfaces:
Smoolh suriaces:
Set <4 Strike.................. (from· ............... to ............... ) Dip: ............................ ..
Slickensided sur1aces:
NOTE: Refer all directions to magnetic nor1h. FILLING (GOUGE)
Figure 2.6 Input data form for engineering classification of rock masses.
INPUT DATA REQUIREMENTS 21
,I The dip angle is the a.nglebetween the horizontal and. the: joint plane taken·
in a direction in which the plane dips.
are seen as a design aid, requiring perioQic updating. Secondly, they represent
. only one type of the design methods, an empirical one, which needs to be
~sed in conjunction with other design methods. A good design methodology
can ensure that rock mass classifications are used with the greatest effect
and that they do not hamper but promote design innovation and state-of-
the-art technology.
Various definitions of engineering design have been given (Bieniawski,
1984). In general, engineering design may be defined as that socioeconomic
activity by which scientific, engineering, and behavioral principles, together
with technical informaton and experience, are applied with skill, imagination,
and ju~gment in the creation of functional economical, aestpetically pleasing,
and elJvironmentally acceptable devices, processes, or systems for the benefit
of the society. The design process embraces all those activities and events
that occur between the recognition of a social need or opportunity and the
. detailed specification of acceptable solution. The designer~s responsibility
cont~n:lles during the, manufacture or construction of th~ :project and even
be'yo'n'd h. ' ,~,'
The distinguishable stages of the engineering design ,pro'cess (Bieniawski,
1'988) are : " "
- . 1. , Recognit!on of a need. ~ .
. (,2. Statement of 'the problem, identificatio,n of perforilJance, objectives'~
and design issues.
3. Collection of information.
,4. Concept formulation in accordance with the design criteria~ search,'
for a method, theory, model, or hypothesis.
5.' Analysis of solution components.
6~ Synthesis to create detailed alternative solutions.
7. Evaluation of ideas and solutions.
8. Optimization.
9. Recommendation and communication.
10. Implementation.
Obert (1973) emphasized that, compared with the time that man has been
mining underground, the concept of designing an underground opening is
a relatively recent innovation. One reason for this is that the problem of
designing a mine or a tunnel is different from that of designing a conventional
structure such as a building or a bridge.
In a conventional engineering design, the external loads to be applied are
first determined and a material is then prescribed with the appropriate strength
DESIGN METHODOLOGIES 25
1. Analytical methods.
2. Observational methods.
3. Empirical methods.
REFERENCES.
American Society for Testing and .Materials. Standard Methods of Test for Rock
Materials, 04.08, Soil and Rock, Annual Book of ~STM Standards, Philadelphia,
1987.
Bieniawski, Z. T. "Mechanism oC~rittle Fracture of Rock." Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 4, 1967, pp. 395-435~ . ,
Bienia.wski, Z. T. Rock Mechanic.~ p.e~ignin Mining ane! Tunneling, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1984, 272 pp.
Bieniawski, Z. T. Strata Control.in MineraL Engineering, Wiley, New York, 1987,
212 pp.
Bieniawski, ,? r~ 4~Towards a C~eative Design Process in Mining." :Min. Eng.
40( 11), Nov. 1988, p,p. 1040~J044. ' . .
Compton, R. ~.:Geology in ,the, Fi(!ld, Wiley, New York,: 1985,398 pp; .
. Coon, R. F., and.A. H. Merritt. "Pr~dicting In Situ Modulus of Deformation Using-.
Rock .Quality Indexes," ASTM Special Technical Publication 477, PhiHidelphia,.,
1970, pp. 154-173.
Daugherty,.C. W. "Logging of. Oe~~ogic Discontinuities in Boreholes and Rock
Cores." Proc. Short Course Subsurf. Explor., George Washington University ,
Washington, DC, 1981.
Dearman, W. R., and P. G. Fookes. "Engineering Geological Mapping for Civil
Engineering Practice." Q. J. Eng. Geol. 7, 1974, pp. 223-256.
Deere, D. U. "Technical Description of Rock Cores for Engineering Purposes."
Rock Mech. Eng. Geol. 1, 1963, pp. 16-22.
Deere, D. U., and R. P. Miller. Engineering Classification and Index Properties
of Intact Rock, Air Force Laboratory Technical Report No. AFNL-TR-65-116,
Albuquerque, NM, 1966.
Deere, D. U., A. J. Hendron, F. D. Patton, and E. J. Cording. "Design of Surface
and Near Surface Construction in Rock." Proc. 8th U.S. Symp. Rock Mech.,
AIME, New York, 1967, pp. 237-302.
Dowding, C. D., ed. Site Characterization and Exploration, ASCE, New York,
1978, 321 pp.
REFERENCES 27
. at the Climax Mine." Proc. 17th U.S. ~ymp. Rock Mech., University of Utah,
Snowbird, 1976, pp. 3A2-15.
Obert, L., and C. Rich. "Classification of Rock for Engineering Purposes." Proc.
. 1sf AUSf. -N.Z. Conf. Geomech., Australian Geomechanics Society, Melbourne,
1971, pp. 435-441.
Obert, L. A. "Philosophy of Design." Bureau of Mines IC8585 , 1973, pp. 6-8.
Rocha, M. "A Method of Integral Sampling of Rock Masses." Rock Mech. 3, 1967,
pp. 1-12.
Turk, N., and Dearman, W. R. "Improvements in the Determination of Point Load
Strength." Bull. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geof., no. 3 J, 1985, pp . .137 -:-142.
U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology. Geotechnical Site Investigations
for Underground Projects, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1984,
182 pp. ."
Weltman, A. J., and J. M. Head, Site Investigation.Manual, Construction Industry
Research and Information Association, London, SpeciaL Publication no.· 25,
1983, 144 pp.
, j
3
Early Rock Mass
Classifications
Observation, not old age, brings wisdom.
-Plubilius Sententiae
29
TABLE 3.1 Major Engineering Rock Mass Classifications Currently in Use
Name of Classification Originator and Date Country of Origin Applications
1. Rock load Terzaghi, 1946 USA Tunnels with steel support
2. Stand-up time ~auffer, 1958 Austria Tunneling
3. NATM Pacher et a!., 1964 Austria Tunneling
4. Rock quality designation Deere et al., 1967 USA . Core logging, tunneling
5. RSR concept Wickham et al., 1972 USA Tunneling
6. RMR system Bieniawski, 1973 South Africa Tunnels, mines, slopes,
(Geomechanics Classification) (last modified, 1979- USA) foundations
RMR system extensions
Weaver, 1975 South Africa Rippability
Laubscher, 1977 South Africa Mining
Olivier, 1979 South Africa Weatherability
Ghose and Raju, 1981 India Coal mining
Moreno Tallon, 1982 Spain Tunneling
Kendorski et aI., 1983 USA Hard rock mining
Nakao e1.,al.,1983 ,Japan Tunneling
Serafim and Pereira, 1983 Portugal Foundations
, Gonzalez de Vallejo, 1983 . Spain Tunneling
Unal, 1983 USA Roof bolting in coal mines
Romana, 1985 ; Spain Slope stability
Newman, 1985 USA Coal mining .
Sandbak, '198'5 USA Boreability
Smith, 1986 USA Dredgeability
Venkates.warlu, 1986 India Co'al mining
Roberts~n, 1988 Canada Slope stability
7. a-system "Barton et aL, 1974 ,Norway Tunnels, chambers
Q-system extensions ,Kirsten, 1982 Sou.th Africa Excavatabi Iity
Kirsten, 1983 , South Africa Tunneling
8. Strength-size ,Franklin, 1975 Canada Tunneling
9. Basic geotechnical description International Society for General, communication
Rock Mechanics, 1981
10. Unified classification Williamson, 1984 USA General, communication
,I + J :
, .:)
'"
I ... '
.~ ....... -~ ,
32 EARLY ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATIONS
(Lauffer, 1958; Pacher et aI., ,1974; ~arton et aI., 1974), South Africa
-(Bieniawski, 1973; Laubscher, 1977; Olivier, 1979), Australia (Baczynski,
1980), New Zealand (Rutledge, 1978), Japan (Nakao, 1983), India (Ghose
and Raju, 1981), the USSR (Protodyakonov, 1974), and in Poland (Kidybinski,
1979).
Of the many rock mass classification systems in existence, six require
special attention because they are most common, namely, those proposed
by Terzaghi (1946), Lauffer (1958), Deere et al. (1967), Wickham et al.
(1972), Bieniawski (1973), and Barton et al. (1974).
The rock load classification of Terzaghi (1946) was the first practical
classification system introduced and has been dominant in the United States
for over 35 years, proving very successful for tunneling with steel supports.
Lauffer's classification (1958) was based on the work of Stini (1950) and
was a considerable step forward in the art of tunneling since it introduced
the concept of the stand-up time of the active span in a tunnel, which is
highly relevant in determining the type and amount of tunnel support. The
classification of Deere et ala (1967) introduced the rock quality designation
(RQD) index, which is a simple and practical method of. describing ,the
quality of rock core from boreholes. The concept of rock structure rating
(RSR), developed in the United States by Wickham et al. (1972, 1.974),
was the first system featuring classification ratings for weighing the relative
importance of classi fication parameters. The Geomechanics Classification
(RMR system), proposed by 'Bieniawski (1973), and the Q':'system, proposed -
.by Barton et al. (1974), were developed independently and both provide:
quantitative data for the selection of modem tunnel reinforcement measures
such as rock bolts and shotcrete. The Q-systein has been developed specifically
for tunnels and chambers, whereas the Geomechanics Classification, although
also initially developed for tunnels, has been applied to rock slopes and
foundations, ground rippability assessment, and mining problems (Laubscher,
1977~ Ghose and Raju, 1981; Kendorski et aI., 1983).
SURFACE
rock loads for steel-arch supported tunnels, it is not as suitable for modem
tunneling- methods using shotcrete and rockbolts. After.detailed. studies,
. Cecil' (1970) concluded that Terzaghi's classification' ·W:as~ too:,·general. to'
permit an objective evaluation of rock quality and ,that it provided no q~antitative:
information on ,~he properties of rock masses. , " [',
The main features of Terzaghi' s classification are depicted in :Figure3 ~..l'
and are listed in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. The rock load-values in Table 3: 2
apply to the described ground conditions if the tunnel is: located under the
water table. If the tunnel is located' above the groundwater-level, the rock
loads for classes 4-6 can be reduced by 50%. An important revision of
Terzaghi's rock load coefficients was presented by Rose (1982)-.see Table
3.3-who showed that Terzaghi's rock conditions 4-6 should be reduced
by 50% from their original rock load values because water table has little
effect on the rock load (Brekke, 1968).
The 1958 classification by Lauffer has its foundation in the earlier work on
tunnel geology by Stini (1950), considered the father of the "Austrian School"
of tunneling and rock mechanics. 'Stini emphasized the importance of structural
TABLE 3.2 Original Terzaghl's Rock Load Classification of 1946 8 ,b
Rock Conditione Rock Load Hp (ft) Remarks
1. Hard and intact Zero Light lining required only if spalling or popping occurs.
2. Hard stratified or schistose 0-0.58 Light support, mainly for protection against spalls. Load may
change erratically from point to pOint
3. Massive, moderately jointed 0-0.258 .
4. Moderately blocky and seamy 0.258-0.35(8 + Hi} No side pressure
5. Very blocky and seamy (0.35-1.10)(8 + H t ) Little or no side pressure
6. Completely crushed 1.10(8 + Ht ) Considerable side pressure
Softening effects of seepage toward bottom of tunnel
require either continuous support for lower ends of ribs
or circular ribs
7. Squeezing rock, moderate depth (1.10-2.10)(8 + Ht ) Heavy side pressure, invert struts required. Circular ribs are
recommended
8. Squeezing rock, great depth (2.10-4.50)(8· +. Ht)
9. Swellihg rOGk Up .to 250 ft,irrespective Circular ribs are required. In extreme cases, use yielding
of the value of ·(~.-:+Ht) support
, !;
Intact rock contains neither joints nor hair cracks. Hence, it it breaks, it br!3aks across sound rock. On account of the injury to the rock due to blasting, spalls
may drop off the roof several hours or days after blasting. This is knoytn,as a spalling condition. Hard, 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 strata. The strata mayor may not
be weakened by transverse joints. In 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. In rocks of this type, both spalling and popping conditions may be encountered.
Blocky and seamy rock consists of chemically intact or'almosfintact rock fragments Which are entirely separated from each other and imperfectly interlocked.
In such rock, vertical walls may require lateral support
Crushed but chemically intact rock has the character cif a crusher run~ if rnos.t or all of the fragm,et"ts are as small as fine sand grains and no recementation
has taken place, crushed rock below the water table exhibits the properties ',of a water-bearfngsand.' .
, .. T ~. . " • ' , •
Squeezing rock slowly advances into the tunnel without perceptible volume increase. A prerequisite for squeeze is a high percentage of microscopic and
submicroscopic particles of micaceous minerals or of clay minerals with a low swelling capacity.
Swelling rock advances into the tunnel chiefly on account of expansion. The capacity to swell seems to be limited to those rocks that contain clay minerals
such as montmorillonite, with a high swelling capacity.
------~--"~--~
it' .,
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (ROD) INDEX 37
defects in rock masses. Lauffer proposed that the stand-up time for any
active unsupported rock span is related to the various rock mass classes.
An active unsupported span is the width of the tunnel or the distance from
the face to the support if this is less than the tunnel width. The stand-up
time is the period of time that a tunnel will stand unsupported after excavation.
It should be noted that a number of factors may affect the stand-up time,
such as orientation of tunnel axis, shape of cross section, excavation method,
and support method. Lauffer's original classification is no longer used, since
it has been modified a number of times by other Austrian engineers, notably
by Pacher et a1. (1974), leading to the development of the New Austrian
Tunneling Method.
The main significance of the Lauffer- Pac her classification is that an
increase in tunnel span leads to a major reduction in the stand-up time; This
mea~s, for example, that while a pilot tunnel having a small span may be
successfully constructed full face in fair rock conditions, a.Iarge span opening
in this same rock may prove impossible to support in terms of the stand-up
time.', Only with a system of smaller headings and benches or multiple drifts'
can.~ l~rge cross-sectional tunnel be constructed in such rockc.onditions ..
This classification introduced the stand-up time and the :span as relevant ,
parameters' in determining the type and amount of tunnel .support, and it
has' --influenced the development of more recent rock .masS.classification- .
systems.
The rock quality designation (RQD) index was introduced over 20 years
ago as an index of rock quality at a time when rock quality information was
usually available only from the geologists' descriptions and the percentage
of core recovery (Deere and Deere, 1988). .:
D. U. Deere developed that index in 1964, but it was not until 1967 that
the concept was presented for the first time in a published form (Deere et
aI., 1967). The RQD is a modified core-recovery percentage which incorporates
only sound pieces of core that are 100 mm (4 in.) or greater in length. This
quantitative index has been widely used as a red flag to identify low-quality
rock zones which deserve greater scrutiny and which may require additional
borings or other exploratory work.
For RQD determination, the International Society for Rock Mechanics
recommends a core size of at least NX diameter (54.7 mm) drilled with
double-tube core barrels. The following relationship between the RQD index
and the engineering quality of the rock was proposed by Deere (1968):
38 . EARLY ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATIONS
-·,--~-~~----------1
- :. '.. ,- . -. ~i i, . "
~ Length of :
~ Core Pieces> 10cm (4 In.)
ROD = .. " x 100%
L = 38 cm ~ Core Run Langt:1) .
I, II
ROD = 59°/. (FAIR)
fi ;"-':-:
o
o
('II
II
-=
run, the RQD calculations should be based on the actual drilling-run length
used in the field, preferably no greater than 1.5 m (5 ft). The core length [1
is measured along the centerline (see Fig. 3.2). The optimal core diameters
are the NX size and NQ size (47.5 mm or 1.87 in.), but sizes between BQ
and PQ with core diameters of 36.5 mm (1.44 in.) and 85 mm (3.35 in.)
may be used provided careful drilling that does not cause core breakage by
itself is utilized.
Cording and Deere (1972) attempted to relate the RQD index to Terzaghi' s
rock load factors and presented tables rel<:lting tunnel support and RQD.
They found that Terzaghi' s rock load concept should be limited to tunnels
supported by steel sets, asjt does .not apply well to openings supported by
rock bolts.
Merritt (1972) foun~~.~at the RQD could be of considerable value in '.~
estimating support requirements for rock tunnels. He compared the support
criteria based on his improved version, as a function of tunnel width and· ~ ,
RQD, with those proposed by others. This is summarized in Table 3.4,-
compiled by Deere and Deere (1988).
TABLE 3.4 Comparison o,t ROD and Support Requirements for. a 6-m
(2o-ft)-wide Tunnel a
No Support or
Local Bolts Pattern Bolts Steel Ribs
Deere et al. RQ07S-100 ROD 50-75 ROD '50-75 (light ribs
(1970) (1.5-1.8-m on 1.5-1.8-m
spacing) spacing as
ROD 25-50 alternative to bolts)
(0.9-1.5-m ROD 25-50 (light to
spacing) medium ribs on
0.9-1.5-m spacing ..-
as alternative to
bolts)
ROD 0-25 (medium
to heavy circular
ribs on O.6-0.9-m
spacing)
Cecil (1970) ROD 82-100 ROD 52-82 ROD 0-52 (ribs or
(alternatively, reinforced
40-60-mm shotcrete)
shotcrete)
Merritt ROD 72-100 ROD 23-72 ROD 0-23
(1972) (1.2-1.8-m
spacing)
a Data interpolated from Merritt (1972) by Deere and Deere (1988).
40 EARLY ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATIONS
, Palmstrom (1982) has suggested that when core is unavailable the RQD
may be estimated from the number of joints (discontinuities) per unit volume,
in which the number of joints per meter for each joint set is added. The
conversion for clay-free rock masses is
The RSR value of any tunnel section is obtained by summing the weighted
numerical values determined for each parameter. Thus, RSR = A + B +
C, with a maximum value of 100. The RSR reflects the quality of the rock
.mass with respect to its need for support. Since a lesser amount of support
-----~--
ROCK STRUCTURE RATING (RSR) CONCEPT 45
Since 90% of the case-history tunnels were supported with steel ribs, the
RR measure was chosen as the theoretical support (rib size and spacing).
It was. developed from Terzaghi' s formula for determining roof loads in
loose sand below the water table (datum condition). Using the tables provided
in Rock Tunneling with Steel Supports (Terzaghi, 1946), the theoretical
spacing required for the same size rib as used in a given case-study tunnel
section was determiried for the datum condition. The RR value is obtained
by dividing this theoretical spacing by the actual spacing and mUltiplying
the answer by 100. Thus, RR = 46 would mean that the section required
only 46% of the support used for the datum 'condition. H~wever, differently
sized tunnels, although having the same RR, would requ,ire different weight
or size of ribs for equivalent support. The RR for an unsupported tunnel
would be zero; for a tunnel requiring the same support as the datum condition, '
it would be 100.
An empirical relationship was developed between RSR and RR values,
namely
It was concluded that rock structures with RSR valu~,s less than 19 would
require heavy support, whereas those with ratings of80'~nd qver':wo~ld be,
unsupported.
Since the RR basically defined an anticipated rock load py c{)nsidering
the load-carrying capacity of different sizes of steel, ribs, the RSR values
were also expressed in terms of unit rock loads for variously sized tunnels.
'A total of 53 projects were evaluated, but since each tunnel was divided
into typical geological sections, a total of 190 tunnel sections were analyzed.
The RSR values were determined for each section, and actual support in-
stallations were obtained from as-built drawings. .:
The support was distributed as follows:
The RSR prediction model was developed primarily with respect to steel
rib support. Insufficient data were available to correlate rock structures and
46 EARLY ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATIONS
24
Spacing (ft) (3.3)
W
W 65 - RSR
't == 1 + .-- or t == D (3.4)
1.25 150
I
I
C)
.-..
z
4:{
-:e
"-
I
I
I
'If ~\ ____
8 ____ ----
I ..... ""
50 2.0
ex: If')
0 I
uJ - I
cr ~
I .'lf4~
...
j
U 40 3.0
0
<t
0
1 e
1.,....- ".-
~
j ...J I
ex: I
... ~
I
I I
4.0 u
II) I
0 I I
~
«.)
r::t: I V PRACTICAL LIMIT FOR
0 I I RIB AND BOLT SPACING
ex: I I
I I
/. I
I
I I
10
o - i I 3 4
RIB SPACING J ft
SOL T SPAClNG, ft
SHOTCRETE THICKNESS J in
Figure 3.3 RSR concept: suppr;;rt chart for a 24~ft- (7.3-m.-) diameter tu"nfJl. (After
Wickham et a/., 1972.)
Sinha (1988) pointed out that while the RSR provides·a rib'ratio, to use
this ratio one has to find Terzaghi' s rock load and steel rib spacing and then
reduce Terzaghi's rib spacing to correspond to the obtained rib ratio. It is
not possible to prescribe the steel ribs or rock bolts without using the Terzaghi
system. Thus according to Sinha (1988), the RSR concept may be viewed
as an improvement of Terzaghi' s method rather than an independent system.
REFERENCES
Baczynski, N: "Rock Mass Characterization and Its Application to Assessment of
Unsupported Underground Openings," Ph.D. thesis, University of Melbourne,
1980, 233 pp.
Barton, N., R. Lien, and J. Lunde. HEngineering Classification of Rock Masses
for the Design of Tunnel Support." Rock Mech. 6, 1974, pp. 183-236.
Bieniawski, Z. T. HEngineering Classification of jointed Rock Masses." Trans. S.
Afr. Inst. Civ. Eng. 15, 1973, pp. 335-344.
48 EARLY ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATIONS