Rock Mass Classification

Systems

Rock Mass Rating (RMR) System

The RMR system was developed in 1973 in South Africa by one of the
pioneers of rock mass classification, Prof. Z.T. Bienawski. The
advantage of his system is that only a few basic parameters relating to
the geometry and mechanical conditions of the rock mass are used. In
the case of the RMR system, these are:
a) The uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock;
b) Rock quality designation (RQD);
c) Discontinuity spacing;
d) Condition of discontinuity surfaces;
e) Groundwater conditions;
f) Orientation of discontinuities relative to the engineered
structure.
x

RMR System
The first grouping (Section
A) includes the first five
classification parameters.
Since the various
parameters are not equally
important for the overall
classification of a rock
mass, importance ratings
are allocated to the
different value ranges of
the parameters, a higher
ranking indicating better
rock mass conditions.
x

RMR System

parameter rating
charts are sometimes
used to help with
borderline cases and also
to remove the impression
that abrupt changes
occur between
categories.

RMR System
In the second grouping
(Section B), there are
ratings for discontinuity
characteristics.

Sections C and D reflect

the adverse nature
discontinuity angles may
have with respect to
excavation direction and
different engineering
applications.
x

RMR System
In Sections E and F, the rock mass classes are given with a description
of the rock mass conditions, and with estimates of tunnel stand-up time
and maximum stable rock span, and the Mohr-Coulomb strength
parameters (c and ) for the rock mass.

RMR System

example adjustments to
the RMR for mining
applications.

Q-System
The Q-system of rock mass classification was developed in 1974 in
Norway by Prof. N. Barton. The system was proposed on the basis of
an analysis of 212 tunnel case histories from Scandinavia.
In a similar way to the RMR system, the Q-rating is developed by
assigning values to six parameters:
1) Rock quality designation (RQD);
2) Number of discontinuity sets;
3) Roughness of the most unfavourable discontinuity;
4) Degree of alteration or filling along the weakest discontinuity;
5) Water inflow; and;
6) Stress condition.
x

Q-System

the motivation of presenting the Q-value in this form is to

provide some method of interpretation for the 3 constituent
quotients.
x

Q-System
The first quotient is related to the rock mass
geometry. Here the Q-value increases with increasing
RQD and decreasing number of discontinuity sets.
Since RQD generally increases with decreasing number
of discontinuity sets, the numerator and denominator
of the quotient mutually reinforce one another.

QSystem
The second
quotient relates
to inter-block
shear strength
with high values
of this quotient
representing
better
mechanical
quality of the
rock mass.

Q-System
The third quotient is an
environment factor
incorporating water
pressures and flows, the
presence of shear zones,
squeezing and swelling
rocks and the in situ
stress state. The
quotient increases with
decreasing water pressure
and favourable in situ
stress ratios.

Applications of Classification Systems

Both of the classification
systems described were
developed for estimating the
support necessary for
tunnels excavated for civil
engineering schemes.For
example, the database for
the RMR has involved over
351 case histories
throughout its development.

Applications of Classification Systems

38 different support categories have been suggested by the authors

of the Q-system based on the relationship between the index Q and
the equivalent dimension of the excavation.
x

Applications of Classification Systems

corresponding support guidelines for Q-system suport categories 1316 (Q-Range 10 to 40 or good rock).
x

Classification Systems and Rock Properties

Since the rock mass properties, e.g. deformability and strength,
are also functions of the intact rock and discontinuity properties,
it follows that we may be able to use classification values to
estimate the modulus and strength of rock masses. Empirical
relations are available for both the RMR and Q-systems. Some
examples include:
EMASS = 2 x RMR 100 GPa (for RMR>50)
EMASS = 10(RMR

10)/40

GPa (for the entire RMR range)

10 log10 Q < EMASS < 40 log10 Q, with EMEAN = 25 log10 Q

SMR System
Attempts have been made to extend the classification system to rock
slopes. Naturally, the six parameters utilized in the RMR system are
relevant to slope stability, but the classification value needs to be
adjusted for different engineering circumstances. This involved the
consideration of the following factors:
1) F1 associated with discontinuities striking parallel to the slope;
2) F2 related to the discontinuity dip for planar failure;
3) F3 concerning the slope angle compared to the discontinuity dip angle;
and
4) F4 relating to the method of excavation.

Where:

RMRSLOPE = RMRBASIC + (F1 x F2 x F3 ) + F4

SMR System

the SMR rating system. In the same way, extensions to the RMR and
Q-classification systems have also been made to estimate rippability,
dredgeability, excavatability, and cavability.
x