International Conference on “Engineering Geology in New Millennium”

New Delhi, 27th -29th October 2015

Empirical correlation between RMR and Q systems of rock mass

classification derived from Lesser Himalayan Rocks
Sayeed, Imran
Chief (Geology), NHPC Limited (A Govt. of India Enterprise),
Faridabad 121001, Haryana, India
Khanna, Rahul
Manager (Geology), NHPC Limited (A Govt. of India Enterprise),
Faridabad 121001, Haryana, India

Abstract

Rock mass classification systems are basically meant to give quantitative assessment of rock mass and have
been widely applied after open air and underground geological mapping. During the last few decades, in
Indian sub-continent, its application for various infrastructural projects such as railways, urban metros,
hydro tunnels and large underground caverns constructed for power stations, storage of crude oil etc. has
increased.

The input parameters derived through rock mass classifications system have been utilized for stability
analysis and recently considerable significance has been placed them for working out tunneling conditions
also. Accordingly, various rock classification systems have found an important place in geotechnical
baseline reports. Out of several classifications systems, the Geomechanical Classification System of CSIR
(Bieniawski, 1989) also known as RMR system and Q-system developed by Dr. Nick Barton at NGI
(Grimstad & Barton, 1993 & Grimstad et al, 2002) are most prevalent. A need has been felt for a long time
to have a suitable relationship between the two systems. In the past, several authors (Bieniawaski, 1984;
Rutledge and Preston, 1978; Moreno, 1980; Dhawan, 1992 & Goel et al, 1995) have presented correlations.
However, during the subsequent years, lot of geological data has been generated in Indian and Bhutan
Himalayas due to coming up of a large number of infrastructural and tunneling projects in this region.
Working out an empirical relationship using locally available data will help in enhancing the applicability
of classification systems in the jointed rock mass.

This paper works out an empirical correlation between the Q and RMR systems of rock mass classifications
based on geological data collected over a period of time from jointed and structurally deformed
metasedimentary rock of Lesser Himalayan zone. By preparation of 3D geological logs of exploratory drift
and tunnel logs during excavation, Q and RMR values were worked out for underground powerhouse
caverns. The relationship will also help in cross checking of RMR and Q values particularly in large
caverns.

Key Words: Rock Mass Classification, RMR. Q-System, Correlation.

1. Introduction:

The geological investigations play paramount role during designing of large surface and
underground civil engineering structures such as dams, slopes, tunnels and large caverns.
During investigation the rock mass is defined in terms of qualitative geological
description. For engineering design purpose this geological description is needed to be
translated in terms of various engineering parameters. This objective is achieved by
 International Conference on “Engineering Geology in New Millennium”
New Delhi, 27th -29th October 2015

quantifying various qualitative rock mass characteristics by means of rock mass

classification systems.
The rock mass classification system provide input for stability analysis of the excavated
rock mass and also helps in working out encountered and anticipated tunneling conditions
and accordingly devising support measures. Presently, the classification system has also
acquired a notable role in geotechnical baseline report which is a very important part of
bid documents of various infrastructural projects.

The last five decades has witnessed advent of several rock mass classification systems.
The RMR method of rock mass classification developed by Bineawaski (1973) from
CSIR and Q-system of Barton et al (1974) from NGI are most widely used for
engineering geological applications. Availability of several classification systems has
provided with an opportunity to Geologist and Engineers to have multi facet evaluation
of the rock mass. However, need of an efficient correlation between these classification
system has always been felt by the workers. Several authors in the past had also given
empirical relationship between the RMR and Q systems based on statistical analysis of
field data. One of the very initial correlation was given by Bineawaski (1976) based on
the geological data collected from various sites located in Scandinavian countries, South
Africa and United States:

RMR = 9 ln + 44 (i)

Another important correlation between the two systems has been given by Rutledge and
Preston (1978) based on case histories of New Zealand:

RMR = 5, 9 ln Q + 43 (ii)

Several other workers such as Moreno (1980), Cameron - Clarke and Budavari (1981)
and Abad et al. (1984) have also worked out empirical correlations between Q and RMR
based on data collected from various locations of Europe, United States and Australia.
The correlations are presented in equations (iii), (iv) and (v) respectively.

RMR = 5.4 ln Q + 55.2 (iii)

RMR = 51ln Q + 60.8 (iv)
RMR = 10.5 ln Q + 41.8 (v)

Goel et al (1995) has evaluated the above correlations based on 115 case histories
including 34 from India and worked out correlation coefficients for individually for each
of them. According to this study Rutledge and Preston (1978) correlation gave maximum
correlation coefficient of 0.81 followed by Bieniawski (1984), Abad et al. (1984),
Moreno (1980) and Cameron-Clarke and Budavari (1981) in decreasing order.

Following a similar approach, this paper evaluates the above proposed correlations
utilizing the data gathered from two hydropower project located in Indian and Bhutan
Himalayas respectively involving construction of large powerhouse cavern.
Subsequently, empirical correlations between the Q and RMR systems has also been
 International Conference on “Engineering Geology in New Millennium”
New Delhi, 27th -29th October 2015

worked out after systematic estimation of Q and RMR values for jointed and structurally
deformed metasedimentary rock of Lesser Himalayan zone and Central Crystalline belt.
The importance of rock mass classifications is well understood in both investigation and
construction stage for rock quality assessment, working out rock instability and support
designing and planning therefore example from investigation stage and construction stage
are taken.

2. Geology of the project areas:

The above given relations between RMR and Q values have been evaluated based on the
geological data collected from two projects located in the Lesser Himalayan zones and
Central Crystalline belt respectively. Rock mass parameters are estimated from an
exploratory drift excavated during investigation stage of Kotli Behl IA project in
Uttarakhand, India and Power house cavern of Mangdechhu HE Project, Bhutan during
ongoing excavation work.

Kotli Behl IA project ( is located in outer Lesser Himalayan zone within Jaunsar Group
of rocks which are subdivided into Chandpur & Mandhali formations. Both the dam &
powerhouse site falls within Mandhali formations comprising of purple coloured banded
sandstone, siltstone, grey phyllite, quartzite and shales with sandstone interbands and
occasional diamicite horizons. The 125m long underground powerhouse has been
explored by a 191m long main drift with cross drifts of 240m that includes right and left
cross drift of 100m and 80m respectively at RD 191m, 15m right and left cross drift at
RD145m and 30m right cross drift at RD 90m of main drift to explore the rock conditions
for machine hall and transformer hall. Both RMR and Q systems have been utilized for
classification of the rock mass in exploratory drift during preparation of 3-D geological
logs of the exploratory drift.

The Mangdechhu HE Project is located in Central Crystalline rock of the higher

Himalayas comprising of Thimpu, Paro and Chekha formations. The various rock units
exposed in the project area comprises of granite gneiss with sub-ordinate bands of schist
& granite intrusions, mica schist and gneiss, leucogranite and granitic gneisses, quartzite
with mica schist etc. The main rock type encountered in 155m long, 23m wide and 51m
high power house cavern are Quartzite/ Micaceous Quartzite with schist intercalations
along with intermittent veins of pegmatite. Both RMR and Q systems of rock mass
classification have been utilized during preparation of the tunnel log of the power house
cavern.

Dibang hydroelectric project is located in the Lower Dibang valley district of Eastern
Arunachal Pradesh lying in the Eastern Himalayan mobile belt which terminates against
N-W tending Para-metamorphites and Diorite-Granodiorite Complex of Mishmi block. It
consist of high grade biotite gneiss and garnetiferous mica schist termed as Ithun
Formation and low grade chlorite schist with intercalations of phyllites and carbonate
rocks termed as Hunli Formation of Precambrian age. The Rock type encountered in 756
m long exploratory drift undertaken at the location of 24.5 m wide, 54.8 m high and 56.8
 International Conference on “Engineering Geology in New Millennium”
New Delhi, 27th -29th October 2015

m long power house cavern are over tightly folded quartzo-feldspathic- biotite gneiss and
amphibolites belonging to Ithun Formation. The rock mass quality has been explored by
adopting both RMR and Q-systems of rock classification.

3. Evaluation of available correlations using site data:

The Q-values have been estimated during preparation of geological logs of exploratory
drift at site by noting various parameters such as RQD, Joint Number (Jn), Joint
Roughness Number (Jr), Joint Alteration Number (Ja), Joint Water Reduction (Jw) and
Stress Reduction Factor (SRF) as per the methodology given by Barton et al (1974). The
estimated Q- values were then utilized to determine the corresponding RMR values
utilizing the relationships presented by different workers such as Bineawaski (1976),
Rutledge and Preston (1978), Moreno (1980), Cameron - Clarke and Budavari (1981) and
Abad et al. (1984). The estimated RMR values were then plotted for the corresponding
recorded Q values. The best-fit curve represented by a logarithmic equation given at
equation (i) to (v) above which were proposed by different authors is plotted as shown in
figure 1. By plotting the above curves the difference between various available
correlations of RMR and Q-values may be highlighted. From the data presented below in
can be inferred that the equation (ii) given by Rutledge and Preston (1978) represented by
curve B offer maximum correlation where as the equations (iv) and (v) presented at “E”
by Cameron et al (1981) and Abat et al (1984) respectively offer least correlation for the
given data taken from the two Himalayan projects. For Q-values around 1, the correlation
presented at A, B & C are matching whereas towards the extremities there is large
difference in the estimated values.

Figure 1 Evaluation of various RMR-Q correlations for Himalayan rocks

 International Conference on “Engineering Geology in New Millennium”
New Delhi, 27th -29th October 2015

The above difference prevails due to the fact that the two systems are not equivalent and
there is significant variation in their approach during collection of geological data. But as
pointed out by several authors also the larger fact remains that each of the above
expressions have been worked out based on certain site specific data characteristic of
have arisen from a series of specific data, taken on a determined worksite, with the
special conditions of the precedence place. It implies that the validity of above
relationships is highly dependent on precise knowledge of the original data from which
they were derived. Therefore, the above relationships may not have universal
applicability for all sites. For every area a specific correlation may be formulated which
shall be more conducive to local terrain and geological phenomenon.

The correlation coefficient obtained for the various relationships shown in the above
graph is given below. The relationship given by Rutledge and Preston (1978) is
maximum which is 0.81 while the one worked out by Cameron et al (1981) is minimum
having 0.55 value.

4. Correlation of Q and RMR:

Considering the above fact an attempt has been made to workout correlations for the
Himalayan rock based on the geological data collected from the three major projects
located in Northern Himalayas, Bhutan and North Eastern Himalayas. The Q and RMR
values were estimated from geological logging of the exploratory drift undertaken at the
location of powerhouse cavern of Kotlibehl stage IA hydroelectric project and Dibang
Multipurpose project and preparation of tunnel logs during excavation of underground
cavern at Mangdechhu HE project, Bhutan. More than 100 nos. of RMR and Q values
determined through geological logging has been plotted on a logarithmic sheet to
workout relationship between the two systems of rock classification (Figure 2).

Based on the above plot from rock mass characterization data of powerhouse caverns of
the above four hydropower projects located in the Himalayan zone, the RMR –Q
correlation work out as under:

RMR = 4.52 ln Q + 43.6 (vi)

The above expression has value of correlation coefficient (R2) as 0.057. However,
considering the fact that input information utilized for the classification is factual,
collected from same location and in similar site condition. Therefore, this correlation
should have wider applicability while working out rock mass characterization for large
caverns located in Lesser Himalayan, North Eastern Himalayas and Central Crystalline
belt. However, the authors suggest for using the above correlation with extreme prudence
and great caution after taking into account the local geological conditions and rock
characteristics.
 International Conference on “Engineering Geology in New Millennium”
New Delhi, 27th -29th October 2015

Figure 2 RMR- Q correlations for Mangdechhu, Kotli Behl IA, Parbati and Dibang
Hydro power Project.

5. Results and Discussion:

The first phase of the present study involves evaluation of different empirical correlations
between RMR and Q systems which are two most prevalent rock mass classification
systems being used for characterisation of rock mass for underground excavation has
been undertaken. The systematic plotting of the graphs using the available relationship
for the rock characterisation data collected from three Himalayan projects shows that
correlation curve is typical and only some values typically located in the central portion
of the curves are universally represented by most of the relationships given above.

The correlation coefficient obtained for above expressions proposed by various previous
authors typically ranged between 0.55 to 0.81. If any expression worked out based on
rock characteristic and site geological condition typically of the Lesser Himalayan and
Central Crystalline zone has correlation typically in the above range should be better
applicable and more representative of local Himalayan conditions.
 International Conference on “Engineering Geology in New Millennium”
New Delhi, 27th -29th October 2015

With the above objective a relationship based on the Q and RMR values obtained from
exploratory drift and powerhouse cavern representing Lesser Himalayan and North
Eastern Himalayas and Central Crystalline zone respectively has been worked out. The
Correlation coefficient for the above two relationship is 0.057. The rock mass data from
the exploratory drifts being more scattered resulted in lower coefficient.

However, considering the fact that 0.057 value is VERY LOW in comparison to the R
values of earlier established relationship therefore the results may not appear to be quite
acceptable and cannot be more profoundly used for estimation purpose in case of the
jointed and structurally deformed metasedimentary rock of Himalayan rocks. However,
on comparing these results to Moreno (1980) Rutledge and Preston’s (1978) and
Cameron-Clarke & Budavari’s (1981) it is possible to appreciate that the slope in the
graph is similar.

References:

1. Barton, N. & Bieniawski Z.T., (2008). RMR and Q-Setting Records, Tunnels &
Tunnelling International, (Feburary 2008), pp 26-29.
2. Barton, N., Lien, R. & Lunde, J. (1974). Engineering Classification of Rock
Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support. Rock Mechanics (Vol-6, pp 189-236).
New York, Springer.
3. Bhawani Singh & R. K. Goel (1999). Rock Mass Classification- A Practical
Approach to Civil Engineering. Elsevier Science Ltd., B. K.
4. Bieniawski Z.T., (1976). Rock Mass Classifications in Rock Engineering. In
Proceedings of the Symposium on Exploration for Rock Engineering (pp. 97-
106).
5. Goel, R. K., Jethwa, J. L., & Paithankar, A. G. (1995). Correlation between
Barton’s Q and Bieniawski’s RMR- A new Approach. Technical note.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science- Geomechanics
Abstracts, 33(2), (179-181).
6. Hoek, E., & Brown E. T., (1980). Underground Excavation in Rock: Institute of
Mining & Metallurgy, London, Maney Publishing.
7. Rutledge, J. C., & Preston, R. L., (1978). Experience with Engineering
Classifications of Rock. In Proceedings of the International Tunnelling
Symposium (pp. A3.1- A3.7), Tokyo.