r

•C H A P T E R 6

Empirical methods of design

It is the mark ofan educated man to lookfor precision

in eachelass-ofthings just sofar- as-the- natureofthe------------------ .
subject admits.

Aristotle

Empirical design methods relate practical experience gained on previous projects to the
conditions anticipated at a proposed site.
Rock mass classifications form the backbone of the empirical design approach and
are widely employed in rock engineering. In fact, on many projects, the classification
approach serves as the only practical basis for the design of complex underground
structures. Most of the tunnels constructed at present make use ofso<ne classification
system. The most used and the best known of these is Terzaghi’s rock load classification ■
which was introduced over 35 years ago (Terzaghj, 1946), Since then this classification
has been modified (Déêre et al., 1970) and new rock classification systems have been
proposed. ' These 'systems "took cognizance of- the -new -advances -in rock-support ■
technology, namely, rockbolts and shotcrete, as well as addressed different engineering
projects: tunnels, chambers, mines, slopes and foundations. Today, there are so many
different rock classification systems in existence that it is useful to tabulate the more
common ones as presented in Table 6.1.
Rock mass classifications have been successfully applied throughout the world: in
the United State (Deere, 1964, Wickham et al., 1972, Bieniawski, 1979), Canada,
(Coates, 1964, Franklin, 1975), Western Europe (Lauffer, 1958, Pacher et al., 1974,
Barton et al., 1974), South Africa (Bieniawski, 1973, Oliver, 1976, Laubscher, 1975),
Australia (Barton, 1977, Baczynski, 1980), New Zealand (Rutledge, 1978), Japan (Ikeda,
1970), USSR (Protodyakonov, 1974), and in some East European countries
(Kidybinski, 1979). ' " \

C LA SSIFICA T IO N SY ST EM S IN R O C K E N G IN E E R IN G

Rock mass classification can, if certain conditions are fulfilled, effectively combine the
findings from' observation, experience, and engineering judgment.-.to provide a
quantitative assessment of rock mass conditions and support requirements.

Aims of rock classifications

A rock mass classification has the following aims in an engineering application :

a) To divide a particular rock mass into groups of similar behavior;

97
 98 Empirical methods o f design
Classification systems in ro '’ 'vgmeering 99
Table 6.1. Major rock classifications currently in use
majority of the rock mass classification systems. It is a necessary parameter because the
Name of ' Originator Country Applications strength of the rock material constitutes the strength limit of the rock mass. The
..classification and date of origin
uniaxial compressive strength of rock material can be determined in the field indirectly
Rock loads Terzaghi, 1946
by means of the point load strength index (Franklin, 1975).
USA Tunnels with steel
The second parameter most commonly employed is the rock quality designation
supports
Stand-up time Laufler, 1958 Austria Tunneling (RQD). This is a quantitative index based on a modified core recovery procedure which
Rock quality Deere, 1964 USA . Core logging, incorporates only sound pieces of core which are 100 mm or greater in length. The
designation
tunneling RQD is a measure of drill core quality or fracture frequency, and disregards the
Intact rock Deere & Miller USA Communication
strength ... -: influence of joint tightness, orientation, continuity and.gougeimfilling) Conseqiip.ntly--
R S R concept
Wickham, et al. USA
the RQD does not fully describe a rock mass.
Tunneling
1972 ....- Other classification parameters used in current rock mass classifications are:
Geomechanics Bieniawski, 1973 S. Africa Tunnels, mines, spacing of discontinuities, condition of discontinuities (roughness, continuity, sepa­
Classification
& USA foundations
(R M R system) ration, joint-wall weathering, infilling), orientation of discontinuities, groundwater
Q-system Barton, et al. conditions (inflow, pressure), and stress field.
Norway Tunneling, large
1974 An excellent discussion of the methods for quantitative description of discontinuities
chambers
Strength/block . Franklin, 1975 Canada Tunneling in rock masses can be found in a recent ISR M document (ISRM , 1981).
size
It is believed that in the case of surface excavations and those near-surface
Basic geotechnical ISR M , 1981............. International General underground rock excavations which are controlled by the structural geological
classification
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 case 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
J ° pr° vide 3 basls for understanding the characteristics of each group- geological parameters. Most civil engineering projects, such as tunnels and subway
c) To yield quantitative data for engineering design; and chambers, will fall into the first category of geologically controlled rock mass
d) To provide a common basis for communication. ’ structures.
Rock classifications may be conveniently divided into two groups: intact rock
Ittribut™ 5 0411 ^ fUlfilfed ^ enSUring th3t 3 c!assification s?stem has the following
classifications and rock mass classifications.
a) It is simple, easily remembered, and understandable;

geotogtts*1te™ 1S dCar 3nd the iermin0l0gy Used is widel>' accepted by engineers and In ta c t rock cla ssifica tio n s

c) The most significant properties of the rock masses are included;
d) It is based on measurable parameters which can be determined by relevant tests
quickly and cheaply in the field; ^auuests.
e) 11 “ based on a rating system that can weigh the relative importance of the
classification parameters; and
f) It is functional by providing quantitative data for the design of rock support
Classification parameters .-
An important issue.,in rock classifications is the selection of the parameters of greatest
7 * pr s ,o b t • » * " ■ » » « « o. i . * , - ¡e h r s r s
q antitatively describe a jointed rock mass , for engineering purposes Various
The strength of the rock material is included as a classification parameter in the
The subject of intact rock strength classification is a fairly controversial topic since a
number of classifications for rock material strength have been proposed. For .
completeness, they are compared in Table 6.2. The engineering classification proposed
by Deere and Miller (1966) has been widely recognized as particularly realistic and
convenient for use inthe field of rock mechanics. Recently, the IS R M Commission on
Rock Classification has recommended different ranges of values for intact rock
strength (ISRM , 1981). The main reason for the new IS R M ranges was the opinion that
the Deere-Miller classification did not include differentiation in the strength in the
range below 25 MPa, It should also be noted that this led to a recommendation that the
convenient value of 1 M Pa (145 Ibf/in2) for the uniaxial compressive strength may be
taken as the lowest strength limit for rock materials. Hence, the materials with a
strength lower than 1 M Pa should be considered as soils and described in accordance
with soil mechanics practice,
The major limitation of the intact rock classifications is that they do not provide
quantitative data for engineering design purposes. Therefore, their main value lies in
enabling better communication while discussing intact rock properties:
 Terzaghi’s rock load classification I*1
100 E rr ~ ' ^cal. methods o f design

Table 6.2 Various strength classifications for intact rock specifically for tunnels and chambers while the Geomechanics Classification, although
also initially developed for tunnels, has been applied to rock slopes and foundations,

0.5 07 i 2 3 4 5 6 78 , 20 30 40 50 70
100 ground rippability assessment, as well as to mining problems (Laubscher, 1975, Ghose
200 300 400 700
» i i »LL _J-- 1— 1—I—.Li ? I I _ J ______I _ I I I t i l i - J ___ 1 -J...J-1J
and Raju, 1981, Kendorski et al, 1983).
Very weak Weak Strong Very strong

Low Medium High Very high

T E R Z A G H I’S R O C K LO AD C L A S SIFIC A T IO N
Very low strength
strength strength strength strength

Terzaghi (1946) formulated the first rational method of evaluating rock loads
Very weak Moderately Moderately Very Extremely Geological Society
Weak
weak ____ strong____
Strong
„strong _ __ __stropg______ -appropriate- to..theldesign_at steel sets. This .ym anjm jwrtant development because
Soil — — Rock support by steel sets has been the most commonly used system for containing rock
Extremely
low
Very low low Medium High Very high •Extremely
Broch and FrankGn tunnel excavations during the past 50 years. It must be emphasized, however, that while
strength strength strength strength strength
strength strength this classification is appropriate for the purpose for Which it was evolved, Le., for
Very soft
estimating rock loads for steel-arch supported tunnels, it is not so suitable for modern
Soft rock Extremely hard rock
rock rock rock

Low Medium High Very "high

Very low strength
strength strength strength strength SURFACE

Very low •Very ISRM

Low strength Moderate Medium High
high 1979

1 I I TTTTTT i i i n Ti li — i--- r—i i n

2 3 4 .5 6 7 8 20 30 40 50 70 200 300 400 700
10 100
Uniaxial compressive strength, MPa

R o c k m ass cla ssifica tio n s

O f the many rock mass classification systems in existence today, six require special
attention because they are most commonly known, namely, those proposed by:
Terzaghi (1946), Lauffer (1958), Deere (1964), Wickham, Tiedemann and Skinner
(1972), Bieniawski (1973), and Barton, Lien and Lunde (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
Deere’s classification (1964) introduced the rock quality designation (RQD) index,
Figure 6.1. Simplified diagram of tunnel
which is a simple and practical method of describing the quality of rock core from
rock-load (after Terzaghi, 1946).
boreholes. The concept of rock structure rating (RSR), developed in the United States
by Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner (1972, 1974), was the first system featuring During construction of a tunnel, some relaxation of the rock mass will occur above and^on the sides of the
tunnel The loosened rock within the area acdb will tend to move in towards the tunnel. This movement w II
classification ratings for weighing the relative importance of classification parameters.
be resisted by friction forcjS along the lateral boundaries ac and bd and these friction forces transfer the
The Geomechanics Classification (R M R system) proposed by Bieniawski (1973) and the major portion of the overburden weight I f onto the material on either s.de of the t u n n e l ; r o r f a n d s,de
Q-system proposed by Barton, Lien and Lunde (1974) were developed independently of the tunnel are required only to support the balance which is equivalent to a h^'ght ^ ° ^
and both provide quantitative data for the selection of modern tunnel reinforcement zone of rock in which movement occurs will depend upon the characteristics o f the rock mass and upon

measures such'as rockbolts and shotcrete. The Q-system has been developed tunnel dimensions H, and B.
 Terzaghi’s rock ’ classificatori !103
J ü î f ,6'3:, ^ rZaghi’S roc)c load Ossification of 1946.

1.5(5 ' “ feet ° f r0Ck ° n ,Unnel r0° r Wi,h wid‘h B (ft) and height H ,(f
I at depth of more than Table'6.4. Terzaghi’s rock load classification as modified by Deere et al., 1970

Rock condition

s
F r a c tu r e
Rock load H in feet

sp a cin g
Remarks £
Rock load, H
^ Rock condition

(c m )
1. Hard and intact Remarks
Zero y
Light lining required only if Initial Final
<
2. Hard stratified or schistose spallrng or popping occurs.
0 to 0.55
Light support, mainly for protec­ 1. Hard and inta ct 0 0 U Lining only ifspalling
tion against spalls. Load may
- orpopping
change erratically from point

9
3. Massive, moderately jointed -to-pointr~-------- v“----—
0 to 0.255
-50 stratified 0 0.255 ^ ^ Spalling common
4. Moderately blocky and seamy 0.25B to 0.35(5 + H )
No side pressure. or O c
5. Very blocky and seamy
(0.35 to 1.I0)(5 4- H ) 3 2
6. Completely crushed Little or no side pressure. schistose w
¡■IO(B + ffJ 9. (U O
Considerable side pressure. »-< +J

Softening effects of seepage 9C

0 0.5 B 2 g, Side pressure if strata
towards bottom of tunnel 3. Massive, mode rately g 6 inclined, some spalling
require either continuous jointed
2>*§
support for lower ends of ribs
2 8 - ........... ...............................
7. Squeezing rock, moderate ' or circular ribs. -20 4.- Moderatelyblocky 0 0.25B O op
(<■10 to 2.10) ( S + H ,) g g
depth Heavy side pressure, invert struts andseamy to
75 p fl
required. Circular ribs are 0.35C
8. Squeezing rock, great depth recommended. 5. Very blocky, 0 0.35 C
(2.10 to 4.50) (B +jy() Little or no side
9. Swelling rock seamyand
- 10 _ ii to to pressure
Up to 250 feet, irrespective of
Circular ribs are required. In shattered 0.6C 1.1C
the value of (B + ff)
extreme cases use yielding 25 6. Completely Considerable side
support.
crushed 1.1C pressure. I f seepage,
Definitions: 10
continuous support
-5

blasting. This is L I as a “7 * T ^ ^ h~ * * * 7. Gravel and sane 0.54C 0.62C

condition involving the spontaneous i B d ^ to to Dense
1.2C 1.38C
Side pressure
boundaries between s tra ta 'T h ^ ra ^ m a y T r m 'th ''f h ^ T reS'Stance against sePa«tion along the -2 0.94C 1.08C P h = 0.3y(0.5H, + Ifp)
spalling condition is quite common * " " ttned b* ^nsverse joints. In such rock, the to to
1.2C 1.38C Loose
8. Squeezing, 1.1C Heavy side pressure.
together or L intimately t a e S d Slat“ ^J f a do not ^ bctWeerl joinfs are loca,|y g™ 1™
moderate depth to Continuous support
both spalling and popping conditions may te ^countered SUPP° ri' In f° CkS ° f this type’
TJ 2.1C required

Weak ai
cò heren

■
■■
9. Squeezing, 2.1C
separated from t a ^ S ^ J t S r i t T J h ^ k r0Ck fragn,“ (S WhiCh “
support. ■ P «'O'interlocked. In such rock, vertical walls may require lateral greatdepth to

1—
4.5C
0. Swelling up to Use circular support. In
250ft. extreme cases: yielding
the properties of a water-bearing sand. r° ° k below the water tabh exhibits
support

~ „
minerals with a low swelling capacity. • icroscopic particles of micaceous minerals or of clay

— ....................... ........ ....... .......

1. Forrockclasses4 , 5, 6 , 7,whenabovegroundwaterievel,reduceloadsby50 %.
2. B is tunnel width, C = 5 + //, = width + heightof tunnel.
3. 7 = density of medium.
 RSR (Rock Structure Rating) concept 105
104 Empiricr thods o f design

tunneling methods using shotcrete and rockbolts. After detailed studies, Cecil (1970) RQD, percent Ro'ck quality

concluded that Terzaghi’s classification was too general to permit an objective

<25 Very poor
evaluation of rock quality and that it provided no quantitative information on the
25-50 Poor
properties of rock masses. Fair
50-75
The main features of Terzaghi’s classification are depicted in Figure 6.1 and are
75-90 Good
listed in Tables 6.3 and 6.4. The latest revision of Terzaghi’s rock-load coefficients was
90-100 Excellent
presented by Rose (1982).

C o r d in g , Hendronrand-Deere (-1972) attempted to relate the R Q D index to Terzaghi s

1 .A U FFER -PA C H ER C L A S S IF IC A T IO N ' ■ rock load factor. They found a reasonable correlation for steel-supported tunnels but
not for openings supported by rockbolts. This supports the opinion that Terzaghi s
rock load concept should be limited to tunnels supported by steel sets (Cording and
The 1958 classification by Lauffer has its foundation in the earlier work on tunnel
geology by Stini (1950) who is considered the father of the ‘Austrian School of Deere 1972) .
Merritt (1972) found that the R Q D could be of considerable value in estimating
tunneling and rock mechanics. Stini emphasized the importance of structural defects in
support requirements for rock tunnels (see Table 6.5) b u t pointed out a limitation of the
rock masses. Lauffer proposed that the stand-up time for any active unsupported rock
RQD index in areas where, the joints contain thin clay fillings or weathered material.
span is related to the various rock mass classes. An active unsupported span is the
The influence of clay seams and fault gouge on tunnel stability was discussed by Brekke
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 and Howard (1972). . . ,
Although the RQD is a quick and inexpensive index, it has limitations such as ^
unsupported after excavation. It should be noted that a number of factors may aflect
disregarding of joint orientation, tightness, and gouge (infilling): mateua
the stand-up time, such as orientation of tunnel axis, shape of cross-section, excavation
Consequently, while it is-a practical parameter for core quality estimation, it is no
method and support method. Lauffer’s original classification is no longer used since it
sufficient on its own to provide an adequate description of a rock mass.
has been modified a number of times by other Austrian^engineers, notably by Pacher,
•von Rabcewicz and Golser (1974). Pacher’s contributions were particularly notable
and are well summarized by Edeling and Maidl (1980).
The main significance of the Laufler-Pacher classification is that an increase in RSR (RO CK S T R U C T U R E R A T IN G ) C O N C EPT
tunnel span leads to a major reduction in the stand-up time. This means, f o r example,
that while a pilot tunnel having a small span may b e s u c c e s s f u l l y constructed full lace in
The RSR concept, a ground support prediction model, was developed in the United
fair rock conditions, a large span opening in this same rock may prove impossible to
States in 1972 by Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner. The concept presents a
support in terms of the stand-up time. Only with a system of s m a l l e r headings an
quantitative method for describing the quality of a rock mass and for se ectmg I e
benches or multiple drifts can a large cross-section tunnel be constructed m such roc
appropriate ground support. I t was the f i r s t complete rock mass classification syste

C0' i russification introduced the stand-up time and the span as r e l e v a n t parameters proposed since that introduced by Terzaghi in 1946. .
The RSR concept was a step forward in a number of respects fi s y,
in determining the type and amount of tunnel support, and it has influenced the
quantitative classification, unlike Terzagh.’s qualitative one; secondly, it was a rock
development of more recent rock mass classification systems.
mass classification incorporating many parameters unlike the R Q D index that is
limited to core quality; thirdly, it was a complete classification Having an mpu an
D E E R E ’S R O C K Q U A L IT Y D E S IG N A T IO N , output unlike a L a u fie r- ty p e classification that relies on practical experience to decide
on a rock mass class, which then gives an output in terms of the stand-up time and span
The main contribution of the R SR concept was that it introduced a rating system
Deere proposed in 1964 a quantitative index based on a modified core recovery
rock'masses. This was the sum of the weighted values of the in d iv id u a l- parameters
procedure which incorporates only sound pieces of core that are 100 mm or greater in
considered in this classification system. In other words, the relative importance o the
. length. This rock quality designation (RQD) has been widely used and has been found
various classification parameters could be assessed. Tim rating system was determined
very useful for the selection of tunnel support, see Table 6.5. For R Q D determination,,
on the basis of case histories as well as reviews of various books and technical paper
the International Society for Rock Mechanics recommends a core size of at least N X
dealing with different aspects of ground support it tunneling. ••
diameter (54 mm) drilled with double-tube diamond drilling equipment. The following
The R S R concept considered two general categories offactors influencing rock mass
relationship between the R Q D index and the engineering quality of the rock was
behavior in tunneling: geological parameters and construction parameters. T
proposed by Deere (1964):
 T a b lç 6 .1 Su p p o rt recom m e n d a tio ns for tunnels in rock (6 m to
1 2 m d ia m e te r) b ased o n R D Q (after D eere et al„ 1970)
R o c k q u a lity
T u n n e lin g m e th o d A irprri**;,,- ~
. . ... A lte rn a tiv e s u p p o r t sy stem s

; S teel s e ts 2
E x c e lle n t1 R o c k b o lts 3
Sh o terete
R Q D > 90
. B o rin g m a c h in e
N o n e to occ. lig h t set. R o ck
N o n e to o c c a sio n a l
lo a d ( 0 .0 - 0 . 2 ) jB N o n e to occ. lo c al ap p lic a tio n
C o n v e n tio n a l
N o n e to occ. lig h t set. R o ck
G ood1 N o n e to o c c a sio n a l
lo a d (0.0-0'.3)B N o n e to occ. io cai a p p h c a tio n
75 c R Q D < 9 p
B o rin g m a ch in e 2 in. to 3 in.
O cc. lig h t sets to p a tte r n o n 5-
O ccasio n a l to p a t te r n o n 5-ft
ft to 6-ft ctr. R o ck lo a d (0 0 N o n e to occ. lo cal a p p lic a tio n
. to 0.4 ) B to 6-ft c e n te rs
C o n v e n tio n a l 2 in . to 3 in.
L ig h t sets, 5-ft to 6-ft c tr. R o ck
F a ir lo a d (0.3 to 0 .6 )5 P a tte rn 5-ft to 6-ft ce n ters
O cc. lo c a l a p p lic a tio n 2 in . to
50 < R Q D < 7 5 3 in.
B o rin g m a c h in e
■Light to m e d iu m sets, 5-ft to
P a tte rn , 4-ft to 6-ft ctr.
6-ft c tr. R o ck lo a d (0 4- 2 in. to 4 in. c ro w n
1.0 ) £
C o n v en tio n al
L ig h t to m e d iu m sets, 4-ft to
P a tte r n 3-ft to 5-ft ctr.
5-ft c tr. R o ck lo a d (0 6- 4 in. o r m o r e c ro w n an d sides
P o o r2 1.3)5
25 < R Q D < 50
B o rin g m a ch in e
M e d iu m c irc u la r sets o n 3-ft
P a tte rn , 3-ft to 5-ft ctr.
to 4-ft c tr. R o ck lo a d (l Q - 4 in. to 6 in. o n c ro w n a n d
1.6)B sid es. C o m b in e w ith b o lts
C o n v e n tio n a l
M e d iu m to h eav y sets o n 2-ft
P a tte rn , 2-ft to 4- f t ctr.
to 4-ft c tr. R o ck lo a d (1 3— 6 in. o r m o r e o n c ro w n a n d
V ery p o o r 3 2.0)5
sid es. C o m b in e w ith b o lts
R Q D < 2 5 (E x c lu d in g
B o rin g m a ch in e
sq u eezin g o r sw elling M e d iu m to h eav y c irc u la r sets
g ro u n d ) P a tte rn , 2-ft to 4-ft ctr.
o n 2 -ft c tr. R o ck lo ad (1 6 6 in. o r m o r e o n w hole sectio n .
to 2.2 )5
C o n v e n tio n a l C o m b in e w ith m e d iu m sets
H eav y c irc u la r sets o n 2-ft c tr
P a tte rn , 3-ft c e n te r
R o ck lo a d ( 1.6 to 2.2)5 6 in. o r m o re , o n w h o le sectio n .
C o m b in e w ith m e d iu m to
h e a v y s e ts

V ery p o o r 3
-^n'r

V ery p o o r 3
(S q u eezin g o r sw elling)
B o rin g m a c h in e
V' ft ccteraVK
tr. Rock7laH
o c k lo a d SetS
u p to° n250-
2_ PaUem' 2-ft 10 3-ft 6 in. o r m o r e o n w h o le sectio n .
: ft.
C o n v e n tio n a l C o m b in e w ith h ea v y sets
V ery h ea v y c ircu lar sets o n 2- P a tte rn , 2-ft to 3-ft c t r
ft ctr. R o c k lo a d u p to 250- 6 in. o r m o r e o n w h o le sectio n .
ft. C o m b in e w ith h ea v y sets
Ilotes:
 110 EmP irical m ethods o f design
i?£R (Rock Structure Rf '1 concept 111

Support requirement charts have been prepared that provide a means of determining
typical ground support systems based on RSR prediction as to the quality of the rock
mass through which the tunnel is to be driven. Charts for 3 m, 6 m, 7 m, and 10 m
diameter tunnels are available, an example being given in Figure 6.3. The three steel
rib curves reflect typical sizes used for the particular tunnel size. The curves for
rockbolts and shotcrete are dashed to emphasize that they are based on assumptions
and were not derived from case histories. The charts are applicable to either circular or
horseshoe-shaped tunnels of comparable widths.
___The RSR concept is a very useful method fox.selecting^teeJ_rib_sjipportJor rock
tunnels. As with any empirical approach, one should not apply the concept beyond the
range of the sufficient and reliable data used for developing it. For this reason, the RSR
concept is not recommended for selection of rockbolt and shotcrete support. It should
be noted that, although definitions of the classification parameters were not explicitly
stated by the proposers, most of the input data needed would be normally included in a
The SUPP° rt m s distnbuted as follows; standard joint survey; however, the lack of definitions (e.g., ‘slightly faulted’ or ‘folded’
rock) may lead to some confusion.
Sections with steel ribs
sections with rockbolts 147 A practical example using the R SR concept follows:
(
14 Consider a 6m diameter tunnel to be driven in a slightly faulted strata featuring
ctlons with shotcrete
3 medium hard granite. The joint spacing is 2 ft and the joints are open. The estimated
Total s u p p o rt
M £%) water inflow is 250gal/min per 1000 ft of the tunnel length. The tunnel will be driven
Total unsupported 164
(100.0%) against a dip of 45 degrees and perpendicular to the jointing.
26
Total
190 sections
- w vuym

^ ^ T s s i h he th e b S Tah ^
was adequate m h ° rs « ouf
interaction between adiar ^ aCted in te™ '°n o n ly ft w T ^ thatMci^ age
for- d by the b0fe I f ™ . bt o * or for an a s s ^ ^ either for
tunnels. Nevertheless th r m ck loads were dewl , .MmPress,°n arch

« ■ ,0«, '„ ( 2 4 » 0? 8 rel‘ " M « * " » '« 2 5 » I S S "

Spacing (ft) = 24
W

’ t ' * 1' - ! « , ' , , , » , , , 6 I >

■ No correlation rn„ M u t wuiD/ft •

t = i + _ !!_ .
1.25 0 r i = j | ( 6 5 - R SR)
where
(6.2)
^ : ; ^ C[etV hickn^ inches;
" - r o c k load, Jb/ft2;
^ = tunnel diameter, ft.
Figure 6.3. R S R concept: support chart for a 6 m-diameter tunnel (after Wickham et al., 1972).
108 Em nirical methods o f design . ■ RSR (Rock Structure Rating) concept 1f

geologic parameters were: a) rock type, b) joint pattern (average spacing of joints), Table 6.7. Rock structure rating-Parameter joint pattern, direction of drivefafter Wickham et al., 1974)
c) joint orientations (dip and strike), d) type of discontinuities, e) major faults, shears,
and folds, f) rock material properties, and g) weathering or alteration. Some of these Average Strike 1 to axis Strike || to axis

factors were treated separately; others were considered collectively. The authors joint spacing
Direction of drive. Direction of drive
pointed out that in some instances it would be possible to define accurately the above
Both With dip Against dip Both
factors, but in others, only general approximations could be made. The construction
parameters were: a) size of tunnel, b) direction of drive, and c) method of excavation. Dip of prominent joints* Dip of prominent joints*

All the above factors were grouped by Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner (1972) Flat Dipping Vertical Dipping Vertical Flat Dipping Vertical

into three basic parameters, A, B, and C (Tables 6.6,6.7, and 6.8, respectively), which in
1. Very closely jointed
themselves were evaluations as to the relative effect of various geological factors on the
< 2in. _9 -]-] 13 - 10 12
support requirements. These three parameters were as follows: . 2. Closely jointed 2-6 in. 13 16 19 15 17 14 14 11
a) Parameter A: General appraisal of a rock structure is on the basis of: 3. Moderately jointed
1. Rock type origin (igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary). 6-12 in. 23 24 28 19 22 23 23 19
4. Moderate to blocky
2. Rock hardness (hard, medium, soft, decomposed).
1-2 ft. 30 32 36 25 28 30 28 24
3. Geologic structure (massive, slightly faulted/folded, moderately 5. Blocky to massive
faulted/folded, intensely faulted/folded). 2-4 ft 36 38 40 33 35 36 34 28
b) Parameter B: Effect of discontinuity pattern with respect to the direction of 6. Massive > 4ft.. 40 43 45. 37 40 40 38 34

tunnel drive is on the basis of:

1. Joint spacing.
2. Joint orientation (strike and dip).
3. Direction of tunnel drive.
c) Parameter C: Effect of groundwater inflow is based on: Table 6.8. Rock structure rating - Parameter C: ground water, joint'condition (after Wickham et al.,
1. Overall rock mass quality due to parameters A and B combined. 1974)
2. Joint condition (good, fair, poor).
Anticipated Sum of parameters A + B
3. Amount of water inflow (in gallons per minute per 1000 feet of the tunnel).
water 13-44 45-75
The R SR value of any tunnel section is obtained by summarizing the weighted
numerical values determined for each parameter. This reflects the quality of the rock ■(gpm/1000ft) Joint condition**
mass with respect to its need for support. Since a lesser amount of support was expected
Good Fair Poor ' Good Fair Poor
for machine-bored tunnels than when excavated by drill and blast methods, it was
suggested that RSR values be adjusted for machine-bored tunnels in the manner given
None 22 18 12 25 22 18
in Figure 6.2. 9 23 19 14
Slight < 200 gpm 19 15
Moderate 200-1000 gpm 15 ' 11 7 21 16 12

Heavy > 1000 gpm 10 8 6 18 14 10

•Dip: flat: 0-20deg; dipping: 20-50deg; and vertical: 50-90deg.

•»Joint condition: Good = tight or cemented; Fair = slightly weathered or altered; Poor = severely
Table 6.6. Rock structure rating - Parameter A : general area geology (after Wickham et al., 1974) weathered, altered, or open.

Basic rock type Geological structure

Hard Med. Soft Decomp. Massive Slightly Moderately . Intensely

Igneous 1 2 3 4 faulted or faulted or ! faulted or ■
Metamorphic 1 2 3 4 folded folded folded
It should be noted that Tables 6.6,6.7, and 6.8 are reproduced not from the original
Sedimentary 2 3 4 4 1972 reference but from a report published two years later. The R S R ratings were
changed in 1974 and the latter report represents the latest information available.
Type 1 30 22 15 9
A total of 53 projects were evaluated, but since each tunnel was divided into typical
Type 2 27 20 13 8
Type 3 24
geological sections, a total of 190 tunnel sections were analyzed. The R SR values were
18 12 7
Type 4 19 15 . 10. 6 determined for each section, and actual support installations were obtained from as-
built drawings.
112 Empirical methods o f design Geomechanics Classification (RMR system) 113

Solution: From Table 6.6: For igneous rock of medium hardness (basic rock type 2)
in slightly faulted rock, parameter A = 20. From Table 6.7: For moderate to blocky
jointing, with strike perpendicular to the tunnel axis and with a drive against the dip of
45 deg, parameters = 25..From Table 6.8: For A + B = 45, poor joint condition and
moderate water flow, parameter C = 12.
Thus: R S R = A + B + C = 57. From Figure 6.3, the support requirements for a 6 In ­
dia. tunnel with RSR =57 (estimated rock load 1.5kips/sq ft) will be 6H20 steel ribs at
6-ft spacing.

G E O M E C H A N IC S C L A S SIFIC A T IO N (R M R SY ST EM )

The Geomechanics Classification or the rock mass rating (RM R) system was developed
by Bieniawski in 1973. This engineering classification of rock masses, utilizes the
following six parameters, all of which are measurable in the field and can also be
obtained from borehole data:
a) Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock material;
b) Rock quality designation (RQD);
c) Spacing of discontinuities;
d) Condition of discontinuities;
e) Groundwater conditions;
f) Orientation of discontinuities.
' Figure6.4. Geomechanics Classification of rock masses: output for mining amr tunneling; • =
To apply the geomechanics classification, the rock mass along the tunnel route is
divided into a number of structural regions, i.e., zones in which certain geological
features are more or less uniform within each region. The above six classification
parameters are determined for each structural region from measurements in the field
and entered into the standard input data sheet as shown in Chapter 5 (Fig. 5,17).
The Geomechanics Classification is presented in Table 6.9. In Section A~of Table 6.9,
the first five parameters are grouped into five ranges of values. 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 rating indicating better rock mass conditions. These ratings were determined
from 49 case histories (Bieniawski, 1976).
Once the classification parameters are determined, the importance ratings are
assigned to each parameter according to Table 6.9, Section A. In this respect, the
typical rather than the worst conditions are evaluated. Furthermore, it should be noted
that the importance ratings, which are given for discontinuity spacings, apply to rock
masses having three sets of discontinuities. Thus, when only two sets of discontinuities
are present, a conservative assessment is obtained.
After the importance ratings of the classification parameters are established, the
ratings for the five parameters listed in Section A of.Table 6.9 are summed to yield the
basic rock mass rating for the structural region under consideration.
At this stage, the influence of the strike and dip of discontinuities is included by
adjusting the basic rock mass rating according to Section B of Table 6.9. This step is
treated separately because the influence of discontinuity orientation depends upon
engineering application, e.g., tunnel (mine), slope, or foundation. It will be noted that
the‘value’ of the parameter ‘discontinuity orientation’ is not given in quantitative terms
ST AND -UP T IM E , hr
^ __ .5 = 0 Í5~f\] jrA j C'l
histories of roof falls in mining; □ = tunneling roof falls; contour lines = limits of applicability.
but by qualitative descriptions such as ‘favorable’. To facilitate a decision whether
strike and dip orientations are favorable or not,"reference should be made to Table 6.10,
which is based on studies by Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner (1972). In the case of
civil engineering projects, an adjustment for discontinuity orientations will suffice. For -
mining applications, other adjustments may be called for such as the stress at depth or a
change in stress (Kendorski et aL, 1983).
After the adjustment for discontinuity orientations, the rock mass is classified
according to Section C of Table 6.9, which groups the final (adjusted) rock mass ratings
(RMR) into five rock mass classes. Note that the rock mass classes are in groups of
twenty ratings each.
Next,'Section D of Table 6.9 gives the practical meaning of each rock mass class by
relating it to specific engineering problems. In the case of tunnels and chambers, the
output from the.Geomechanics Classification is the stand-up time and the maximum
stable rock span for a given rock mass rating, as depicted in Figure 6.4.
Support load can be determined from the Geomechanics Classification as (Unal,
1983): •
„ 100-R M R n , ,, r ,
P = --------- yB = yh, . (6.3
100
where P is the support load,

j j
 T a b le 6.9. G e o m e c h a n ic s C lassifica tio n o f rock

A . C la ssific a tio n p a ra m e te rs a n d th e ir ra tin e s ,-'

P A R A M ETER
RANGES o f v a l u e s
S tre n g t h P o in t-lo a d
s tre n g th i n d e x F o r th is lo w .r a n g e
2 - 4 MPa
in ta c t ro c k U n ia x ia l — u n ia x ia l c o m p r e s -
co m p re s s iv e sive test is p re fe rre d
m ate ria l stre n g th
5-25 1-5 < i
MPa M Pa M Pa

quality R Q D 90% - 100%

R a tin g

S p a c in g o f d isc o n tin u ité

R a tin g :60 m m

it. V e r y ro u g h s u rfa c e s .
C o n d it io n of d is c o n tin u itie s N o t c o n t in u o u s
N o s e p e ra tlo n
U h w e a th e re d w a ll ro c k .
R a ting
(S lig h tly ro u g h surfaces.
x S e p jy ^ tio n < T m m
S lig h tly w e a th e re d walls
S lic k e n s id e d ¡surfaces, t/*er
S lig h tly ro u g h s u rfa c e s .
¡ G o u g e < '5 m m th ick ¡ 3ft g o u g e > 5 m m .t h i c k
S e p a ra tio n < 1 m m O R ', ■
>
H ig h ly w e a th e re d w a lls
R i
S e p a ra tio n 1 -5 m m . j S e p a ra t io n > 5 m m .
C o n tin u o u s _______ C o n t in o u s

nfJoW p e r 10 m
tu n n e l le n g th ‘ None <10 10-25
litres/m in 25 - 125
r jo i n t w a t e r
Utres/m ii lltres/rnl/i
G ro u n d
in P fe s a u re
w a te r m a jo r p r i n c i p a l
__________ stre ss

G e n e r a l c o n d itio n s C o m p le te ly d r y Dam p
D rip p in g F lo w in g
R a tin g

D p trioy rü ö cÄ a i

\J>à çc> jh\

\ fJc - S '.e - '^ k O lC ìC

w c je :X c- rv ¿
n e a d ju s tm e n t f o r .
Q^^yH>ty/Oriepta,tioos; .

m s adjustm ent for discontinuity orientations

S trik e a n d d ip . V ery
o rie n ta tio n s b f jo in ts F a v o u ra b le
fa vo u ra b le
U n fa v o u ra b li V e ry
T u n n e ls u n f a v o u ra b le

R a tin g s
F o u n d a tio n s

m a ss classes d e te rm in e d fro m to ta l ratin g s

■ R a tin g

C lp s s N o .

D e s c rip tio n V e r y g o o d ro c k
Geomechanics Classification (R,

P o o r ro ck
V e r y p o o r ro c k

D . M e a n in g o f ro c k m a ss classes

A v e ra g e s ta n d -u p tim e
6 m o n th s fo r 8 m 1 w eek fo r 5 m
C o h e s io n o f the ro c k m ass 1 m span

F r ic tio n a n g le of th e ro c k m a;
118 Empirical methods o f design
Geomechanics Classification (f system) 119

Table 6.12. Adjustments to the Geomechanics Classification for mining applications

Strength of
Blasting damage
intact rock
adjustment A B

Rating: 0-15
0.8 - 1.0

Discontinuity Discontinuity In-situ stress &

density orientation change of stress
RQD: 0-20 adjustment adjustment
Spacing: 0-20
A

Rating: 0-40

Basic R M R
0-100

Discontinuity
condition

Rating: 0-30

Adjusted R M R
Groundwater
condition
R M R x / t ^ x A j X S ...........

Rating: 0-15
— max. 0.5

Support recommendations

design of slopes near the tunnel portals as well as allow estimates of the deformability of
foundations for such structures as bridges and dams.
, in the case of rock foundations, the rock mass rating R M R from the Geomechanics
Classification has been related(Bieniawski, 1978) to the in situ modulus of deformation
in the manner shown in Chapter 5, Figure 5.12.
The following correlation was obtained:
. E m= 2 x R M R - 100 (65a)

where E u is the in-situ modulus of deformation in G Pa and R M R > 50.

 116 Emp! ~~nl methods o f design v ' ' Geomechanics Classification (RMR system)

Table 6.10. Elled of discontinuity strike and dip orientations in tunneling

¡' p i )!
Strike perpendicular to tunnel axis
Drive with dip Drive against dip O -
© Dip 45°—90° Dip 20°-45° Dip 45"—90' ' Dip 20°-45‘
16000
Very favorable Favorable Fair Unfavorable

14000

, k^J/m
a P o r/v
Strike parallel to tunnel axis Irrespective of strike
-Dip -20p—45—---------Dip-45—90s- nip o- a ----------- -----

Fair Very unfavorable

<-OA/6 . » c : :
TU N N E L
12000
O OD -Se-' h e s t e>n\.á¿ ' a s c a g e

OF
100- R M R
B is the rock-load height in meters' (6.4) 10000

LE N G TH
m

where
B is the tunnel width in meters;

ezaC^
R M R is the rock mass rating from the Geomechanics Classification; 8000

UNIT
y is the density of the rock, kg/m3.

PER
The variation of the rock-loads from equation (6.3) for various rock classes as a

ass
function of roofspan is presented in Figure 6.5. 6 000

LOAD
The Geomechanics Classification provides guidelines for the selection of roof support ■
to ensure long-term stability of various rock mass classes, as given in Table 6.11. These

ROCK
guidelines depend on such factors as the depth below surface (in situ stress), tunnel size
and shape, and the method of excavation. 4000
It should be noted that the support measures given in Table 6.11 represent the
permanent and not the primary support. Hence, additional concrete lining is not
required for structural purposes. However, to ensure full structural stability it is
recommended that tunnel monitoring during construction be undertaken to provide a 2000
check on stabilization of rock movements.
The Geomechanics Classification has been used extensively in mining, particularly in 1
the United States. Initially, Laubscher and Taylor (1976) applied the Geomechanics
Classification in asbestos mines in Africa specifically to assess cavability of ore, while
10 15 20 25
Ferguson (1979) extended this classification to mining tunnels and haulages. Since
mining is a dynamic process, additional adjustments to the classification parameters SPA N , m
were introduced, such as in-situ stresses, as shown in Table 6.12. Most recently, the
Geomechanics Classification was applied to coal mining in the United States
Figure 6.5. Variation of rock-load as a function of roof span in different rock classes in the Geomechanics
(Bieniawski etal., 1980, Newman, 1981, Unai, 1983) and in India (Ghose and Raju, Classification (after Unal, 1983). .
1981) as well as to hard rock mining in the USA (Cummings et aL, 1982, Kendorski
et aL, 1983). Further details of mining applications are given in Chapter 10 both for
hard-rock mining and coal mining.
The Geomechanics Classification is also applicable to rock foundations (Bieniawski
and Orr, 1976) and slopes (Steffen, 1976). This is a useful feature that can assist with the
 122 Empirical methods o f design

Q rsystem 123
Table 6,13. Clarification ratings for Q-systera (after Barton, 1976)

Table 6.13 (continued)

1. Descriptions and ratings
w for the parameter nR Q
— ,— y uD

Rock quality designation C o V flis A - 4. Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J a
A. Very poor " (RQ D, % )
B. Poor 0-25 Joint alteration number
V.) W,)
C. F a ir 25-50 a) Rock wall contact
(approx)
D. Good 50-75 A. Tightly healed, hard, non-softening, impermeable filling i.e. quartz or
epidete-
E. Excellent 75-90_ 0.75 H '
. • 90-100 B. Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only 1.0 (25-35°)
C. Slightly altered joint walls. Non-softening mineral coatings, sandy
_particles,-day-free-disintegrated-roek-tec;---------- ---------------~2 0 (25-^30°)-----
D. Silty-, or sandy-clay coatings, small clay fraction (non-soft.) 3.0
(20-25°)
E. Softening or low friction clay mineral coatings, i.e. kaolinite or mica.
Also chlorite, talc, gypsum, graphite etc., and small quantities of ■
. 2. Descriptions and ratings for the parameter ./„ swelling clays. 40
(8-16°)
b) Rock wall contact before 10cm shear
Joint set number
F. Sandy particles', clay-free disintegrated rock etc. 40 ■ (25-30°)
A. Massive, no or few joints W
B. One joint set 0.5-1.0 G. Strongly oveNconsoIidated non-softening clay mineral fillings (continu­
ous, but < 5 mm thickness) gQ
C. One joint set plus random 2 (16-24°)-
D. Two joint sets 3 H. Medium or low over-consolidation, softening, clay mineral fillings

E. Two joint sets plus random -4~ (continuous but < 5 mm thickness) gp
'.(12-16°)
F. Three joint sets 6 J. Swelling-clay fillings, i.e. montmorillonite (continuous, but <5 mm

G. Three joint sets plus random 9 thickness). Value of J a depends on percent of swelling clay-size
particles, and access to water etc. g _ j2
H. Four or more joint sets, random, heavily jointed 12 ( 6 - 12°)
c) No rock wall contact when sheared
“ sugar-cube" etc.
K. Zones or bands of disintegrated
J. Crushed rock, earthlike • 15
20 or crushed rock and clay (see 6 8 or
Note: G, H, J for description of clay condition) g _ j2
(6-24°)
(i) Fo r intersections use (3.0 x J ). L. Zones or bands of silty- or sandy-clay, small clay fraction (non-softening) 5.0
M. Thick, continuous zones or
H
(ii) For portals use (2.0 x J J
bands of clay (see G, H, J for jq 13
description of clay condition) or 13-20 ' (6-24°)
3: 'Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J,
5. Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J w
Joint roughness number
a) Rock wall contact and Joint water reduction factor (j j
Apprux.
b) Rock wall contact before 10cm shear
water pres.
A. Discontinuous joints C/J
(kg/cm2)
B- Rough or irregular, undulating 4 A. Dry excavations or minor inflow, i.e. < 5 1/miu. locally ;q
<1
C. Smooth, undulating ^ B. Medium inflow or pressure, occasional outwash of joint fillings 0.66
1-2.5
D. Slickensided, undulating -?.■ C. Large inflow or high pressure in competent rock with unfilled joints 0.5 2.5-10
E. Rough or irregular, planar 1.5 D. Large inflow or high pressure, considerable outwash of joint fillings 0.3 2.5-10
F. Smooth, planar. .ii? E. Exceptionally high inflow or water pressure at blasting, decaying with '. ■
G. Slickensided, planar "• 1,0 •"
!ii;le . . . 0.2-O.i >10
; : ■ 0.5 r. Exceptionally high inflow or water pressure continuing without notice­
Note: able, decay CU 0.05
>10
(i) ^ t i o ^ r e f o to small scale features and intennediate scale features, in that order Note:
c) No rock wall contact when sheared
(i) Factors C to F are crude estimates. Increase J w if drainage measures are installed.
H : Z °n e containing clay minerals thick enough to prevent rock wall contact ' j 0
(ii) Special problems caused by ice formation are not considered.
J. Sandy, gravelly or crushed zone thick enough to prevent rock wall contact To

Note: 6. Description and ratings for parameter S R F

(ii) Add 1.0 if the mean spacing of the relevant joint set is greater than 3 m. Stress reduction factor
(SRF)
a) Weakness zones intersecting excavation, which may cause loosening of rock mass when
o rln M e d forCL i L Um s t ! e i i nar Sl'CkCnsided j ° inis havinS P™vided the lineations are
tunnel is excavated.' -■
A. Multiple occurrences of weakness zones containing clay or chemically disintegrated rock,
very loose surrounding rock (any depth)
10
 I Kihplrlcal mctlwils o f design

]-system 123 '

' " Mn '■ " *:l,“ m°*,lon r,lln “' r° r Q-IJWom (after Barton, 1976)

Table 6.13 (continued)

I I>o«crl,.Udnl and ratings for the parameter RQ D

Rock quality designation ( V t^ o r C o Y d îs A 4. Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J 0

A. Vciy poor ■ (RQ D, % )
II, Poor 0-25 Joint alteration number ij <
.
a) Rock wall contact W,)
C, Fair 25-50
(approx.)
D. Good 50-75 A. Tightly healed, hard, non-softening, impermeable filling i.e. quartz or
nxccllcnt 75-90 epldete- ' . Q?j
B ’
90-100 B. Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only jq
(25-35°)
C. Slightly altered joint walls. Non-softening mineral costings, sandy
'> y ■ 0 ). v t,' v c b ài-.
-------i a« icfes,-day-free-dismtegrated-roek-tec:---------- ----------------2 0_______
“(25-30°)----
D. Silty-, or sandy-clay coatings, small clay fraction (non-soft.) 30
(«) R Q D intervals of 5, i.e. 100, 95,^ e ^ c . Î r ^ s uffic^nt"yS a r a r a T ™ ' Va'Ue ^ ^ “ T * ‘° eVSlUate Q' (20-25°)
Ofc\\\£c'C<û E. Softening or low friction clay mineral coatings, i.e. kaolinite or mica.
Also chlorite, talc, gypsum, graphite etc., and small quantities of
2. Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J n swelling clays, 40
(8-16°)
Joint set number b) Rock wall contact before 10 cm shear
A. Massive, no or few joints (*U F. Sandy particles’, clay-free disintegrated rock etc. ' 40 ■
(25-30°)
B. One joint set 0.5-1.0 G. Strongly over-consolidated non-softening clay mineral fillings (continu­
c. One joint set plus random 2 ous, but < 5 mm thickness) gg
(16-24°)-
D. Two joint sets 3 H. Medium or low over-consolidation, softening, clay mineral fillings
E. Two joint sets plus random -4~ (continuous but < 5 mm thickness) 80 ' ’
’ (12-16°)
F. Three joint sets 6 J. Swelling-clay fillings, i.e. montmorillonite (continuous, but <5 mm

G. Three joint sets plus random 9- thickness). Value of J , depends on percent of swelling clay-size
particles, and access to water etc. g_(2
H. Four or more joint sets, random, heavily join ted 12 (6 - 12 °)
sugar-cube" etc. c) No rock wall contact when sheared

J. Crushed rock, earthlike •. 15 K. Zones or bands of disintegrated

.. 20 or crushed rock and clay (see 6 8 or

Note: G, H, J for description of clay condition) g jp
(6-24°)
W For intersections use (3.0 x J ). L. Zones or bands of silty-or sandy-clay, small clay fraction (non-softening) 5.0
M. Thick, continuous zones or
B
(ii) For portals use (2.0 x J J
bands of clay (see G, H, J for !0 13
description of clay condition) or 13-20 '
(6-24°)
-3 : Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J r ' ............' ..................

Joint roughness number 5. Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J n.

a) Rock wall contact and Joint water reduction factor

(JJ Approx.
b) Rock wall contact before 10cm shear
water pres.
A. Discontinuous joints (/r)
(kg/cm2)
B. Rough or irregular, undulating 4 A. Dry excavations or minor inflow, i.e. < 5 l/min. locally
C. Smooth, undulating 3
1.0 <1
B. Medium inflow or pressure, occasional outwash of joint fillings
0. 6 6 - 1-2.5
D. Slickensided, undulating .
C. Large inflow or high pressure in competent rock with unfilled joints 0.5 2.5-10
E. Rough or irregular, planar 1.5
D. Large inflow or high pressure, considerable outwash of joint fillings 0.3
. F. Smooth planar.. ■ 1.5 2.5-10
E. Exceptionally high inflow or water pressure at blasting, decaying with
G. Slickensided, planar "• 1,0' •• • time' '
' 0.5
0 .2 — 0.1 > 10
F. Exceptionally high inflow or water pressure continuing without notice-
Note: able, decay
0.1-0.05 > 10
Note: : .
* ? N S ; r r r ,“ 7 - ^ <*•* - -
(1) Factors C to F are crude estimates. Increase J w if drainage measures are installed.
fJ. : Sandy,
s a l tgravelly
v T 8orclay T r* “ eD0Ugil t0 pr™ ' roct m|1 “ w
crushed zone thick enough to prevent rock wall contact
io
¡0 (ii) Special problems caused by ice formation are not considered.

Note: 6. Description and ratings for parameter S R F

2 ' f S l ‘hC.Dlean,Spfac:r,g, ° f the relevanti oint « « greater than 3 m. Stress reduction factor
(SRF)
a) Weakness zones intersecting excavation, which may cause loosening of rock mass when
tunnel is excavated/
A. Multiple occurrences of weakness zones containing clay or chemically disintegrated rock,
very loose surrounding rock (any depth)
10
124 E n r !-ical methods o f design
The ESR is related to the use for which the excavation is intended and the degrSi
Table 6.13 (continued) safety demanded, as shown below.

B. Single weakness zones containing clay or chemically disintegrated rock (deptb of ESR No. of cases
Excavation category
excavation <, 50 m)
C. Single weakness zones containing clay or chemically disintegrated rock (depth of. 3-5 2
A. Temporary mine openings
2.5
excavation > 50 m)
B Vertical shafts:
D. Multiple shear zones in competent rock (clay-free), ioose surrounding rock (any depth) 7i . 2 5 -
E. Single shear zones in competent rock (clay-free) (depth of excavation < 50 m) 5Æ C irc u la r sec tio n
F. Single shear zones in competent rock (clay-free)'(depth of excavation > 50 m) 2.5- rectangular/square section 2.0
5.0 C. Permanent mine openings, water tunnels for i.6
G. Loose open joints, heavily jointed or ‘sugar cube’ etc. (any depth)
--------hydro power-(exGltiding-hig-h«ptess.ure
•N o te:" . . .
(i) Reduce these' values of S R F b y 25-50% if the relevant shear zones only influence but do not intersect the penstocks), pilot tunnels, drifts, and headings
excavation. for large excavations
b) Competent rock, rock stress problems D. Storage rooms, water treatment plants, minor
(SRF)
«■>! c JO l
2.5 ‘ highway-and railroad tunnels, surge chambers,
>13
H. Low stress, near surface > 200 i " “ ,r£ .i- p / C i i w ' © f a & c><e so v ^ je m c &
I Medium stress 200-10 13-0.66 1.0 access tunnels. ■
K. High stress, very tight structure (usually favorable to E. Power, stations, major highway or railroad 1.0
0.66-.33 ■ 0.5-2
stability, may be unfavorable for wall stability) 10-5 tunnels, civil defense chambers, portals, inter­
■0.33—.16 5-10
L. Mild rockburst (massive rock) 5-2.5 s e c t i o n s * ^ « ^ cV W W O Y ij
<2.5- <0.16 10-20
M. Heavy rockburst (massive rock)
F. Underground nuclear power stations, 0.8
Note: railroad stations, factories
(ii) For strongly anisotropic virgin stress field (if measured): when 5 < a 10, reduce a( and c. to 0.8 c (
and 0.8 <
7,. When <j,/<73 > 10, reduce <rc and a, to 0.6 a, and 0.6 a „ where: <sc= unconlined compression
The relationship between the index Q and the equivalent dimension "I an nv..li»ii
strength, and c, = tensile strength (point load) and <r, and cr3 are the major and minor principal stresses.
(iii) Few case records available where depth of crown below surface is less than span width. Suggest S R F determines the appropriate support measures. Barton etal.(19 M) i....1,1 ■ " n
increase from 2.5 to 5 for such cases (see H). categories which pve estimates of permanent support. Fo. i - v ’"'I’I" "
c) Squeezing rock: plastic flow of incompetent rock under the influence of high rock pressure (SRF) determination, either Q is increased to 5Q or E S R is increased to i 1 1
N. Mild squeezing rock pressure 5 10 of the support measures using the Q-system, the reader should.... .ill ..............
O. Heavy squeezing rock pressure 10 ®
paper by Barton et al. (1974) or the book by Hoek and Brown ( l™ l)
d) Swelling rock: chemical swelling activity depending on presence of water
- P, -Mild.swelling-rock pressure---- ~ -- - ---------- — ---- ------ --- - - -The maximum unsupported span can be obtained as follow»
R. Heavy swelling rock pressure 10-15
Maximum span (unsupported) = 2(ESR )Q 0'4

Additional notes on the use of Table 6.13 The relationship between the Q value and the permanent .......... '*«' ,
When making estimates of the rock mass quality (Q) the following guidelines should be followed, in addition calculated from the following equation:
to the notes listed above: ' .
1. When borecore is unavailable, RQD can be estimated from the number of joints per unit volume, in
■P = % - w (U )
which the number ofjoints per meter for each join t set are added. A simple relation can be used to convert this *roof j ^
number to RQD for the case of clay-free rock masses:
If the number of jointfets is less than three, the equation is cxpirv.nl .r.
R Q D = 115 -3.3 ./„(approx.)
n _2 Jm - J- IQ - W
69
( . )
where
■roof 3 a J r V
; „ = total number of joints per m3;
(R Q D = 100 for J„< 4.5)

2. The parameter J „ representing the number of joint sets will often be affected by foliation, schistocity,
■slately cleavage or bedding, etc. If strongly developed these parallel ‘joints’ should obviously be counted as a 4 When a rock mass contains clay, the factor SRF appropriate to.loosening I " ....... nln'uld be cviluited.
complete joint set. However, if there are few ‘joints’ visible, or only occasional breaks in borecore due to these
features, then it will be more appropriate to count them as 'random joints’ when evaluating J„.
3. The parameters f and J a (representing shear strength) should be relevant to the weakest significant
joint set or clay filled discontinuity in the given zone. However, if the joint set or discontinuity with the
minimum value of ( J J J . ) is favorably oriented for stability, then a second, less favorably oriented joint set or
discontinuity may sometimes be of more significance, and its higher value of J J J , should be used when should be made for those rocks that deteriorate when exposed to moist or saturated condition,
evaluating Q. The value of ( J J J , ) should in fact relate to the surface most likely to allow failure to initiate.

x \ A c k * c c X r- (.o c n à o C
128 Empirical methods o f design Recent developments tzy

Step etermine the ratings of the six classification parameters from Table 6.13
and calculate the Q value from equation (6.6).
Step 4: Select the excavation support ratio (ESR)
Step 5: Determine the support measures for the Q value and the tunnel span/ESR
ratio from a paper by Barton et al. (1974).
Step 6: Estimate the possible maximum unsupported span from equation (6.7).
Step 7; For comparison purposes, determine the support pressure from equation
(6.8) or (6.9).
A correlation has been provided between the R M R and the Q-yalue (Bieniawski,
1976). A total of 117 case histories were analyzed involving 68 Scandinavian cases, 28
"South African cases,lmcr2 Pother documented case historiesTrom the United States,
Canada, Australia, and Europe. The results are plotted in Figure 6.6 from which it will
be seen that the following relationship is applicable: .

R M R = 9 In Q + 44 (6.10)

Rutledge (1978) determined in New'Zealand the following correlations between the

three classification systems: '

R M R = 13.5logQ + 43 (standard deviation =9.4) (6.11)

o.<£r sii 31 I < » « 10
RSR = 0.77 R M R + 12.4 (standard deviation = 8.9) (6.12) ROCK MASS QUALITY Q

RSR = 13.3 logQ + 46.5 '• (standard deviation = 7.0) (6.13) Figure 6.6. Correlation between Geomechanics Classification and Q-system.

A comparison of the stand-up time and the maximum unsupported span, as shown in
Figure 6.7 reveals that the Geomechanics Classification is more conservative than the
Q-system, which is a reflection of the different tunneling practice in Scandinavia based
on generally excellent rock and long experience in tunneling.
A comparison of the support recommendations by six different classification
systems is given in Table 6.14. This study was made (Bieniawski, 1976) during the VERY GOOD
ROCK
construction of a-railroad-tunnel described by Bieniawski'and“Maschek,i975:The-
Q> 100
tunnel, 5.5 m wide and 3.8 km long, was characterized by highly variable rock
' conditions - from very poor to very good. In addition, a one-year tunnel-monitoring
program featuring 16 measuring stations facilitated a comparison between the
classification ratings of rock conditions with the amount of rock movement, the rate of
face advance, and the support used. This project thus afforded an ideal opportunity for
comparing the various classification systems.
More recently, Moreno Tallon (1982) made a detailed comparisonof the rock mass
classification schemes in a tunnel in Spain.
Although the above comparisons are interesting and useful, it is believed that one
should not necessarily rely on any one classification system but should conduct a
■sensitivity analysis and cross-check the findings from one classification with another.
This would enable a better ‘feel’ for the rock mass.

REC EN T D EVELO PM EN TS
STAND UP TIM E, hours
Figure 6 7. Comparison between stand-up times for unsupported excavation spans predicted by the Q-
Looking back over the past ten years, three positive aspects are evident:
system, R M R and Austrian rock mass, classification systems. Ratings are for the Geomechamcs
I. No matter what classification system is used, the very process of rock
Classification (R M R ).
 T a b le 6.14. C o m p a ris o n o f ro c k m ass classifica tio n s a p p lied a t
a r a ilro a d tu n n e l (w id th 5.5 m)

130
G e o m e c h a n ic s C la ssific a tio n (Bieniaw sfci, 1973) !
Q -sy stem (B arton* 1974)
L o c a lity C la ss R S R c la s sific a tio n (W ic k h a m , 1974)
S u p p o rt

Empirical methods of design

C lass S u p p o rt
I C la ss S u p p o rt
H .6 O c c a s io n a l sp o t b o ltin g
V ery g o o d ro c k G o o d ro c k S p o t b o ltin g on ly
R M R = 83 Q = 33.0 R S R = 68 B o lts a t 2 r
II
L o cally , g ro u te d b o lts
G o o d ro c k G o o d ro ck S y ste m a tic g ro u te d b o lts
(20 m m d ia .) s p a c e d 2 - 2.5 m, RSR =
R M R = 67 ^ “ 5 <20 m m dia.) sp aced 1 m - 2 m • iO M e d iu m rib s a t 2 m
(length 2.5 m p lu s m e sh ;
, s h o tc re te 50 m m th ic k . ; le n g th 2.8 m
if req.
III
H 2 S y ste m a tic g ro u te d b o lts ;
F a ir ro ck F a ir ro c k
(spaced 1.5-2 m , le n g th 3 m S y ste m a tic g ro u te d bo lts
R M R = 52 Q = 8.5 RSR = ;7 R ib s 6 H 2 0 a t 1.7m
p lu s m esh a n d 100 m m thick sp aced 1.5 m, le n g th 2.8 m,-.
J s h o tc re te i' . a n d m esh
IV
H 3 S y ste m a tic g ro u te d b o lts
P o o r ro c k P o o r rock
sp a c e d 1- 1.5 m, le n g th 3 m, S h o tc re te o n ly : 7 5 -1 0 0 m m R S R = 5 2 R ib s 6 H 2 0 at 1.2 r
R M R = 29 Q — 1.5 th ick o r b o lts a t 1 m,
m esh p lu s 1 0 0 -1 5 0 m m
s h o tc re te (ribs a t I .5 m) 2 0 -3 0 m m sh o tc re te .and m esh
H 5 S y ste m a tic g ro u te d b o lts
V ery p o o r ro c k
sp aced 0 .7 -1 m . le n g th 3.5 m, EXtD ooely t, S h o tc re te o n l^ 7 5 - 1 0 0 m m R S R = 25 N /A
RM R = 1 5 p o o r ro c k th ick o r te n sio n e d b o lts
1 5 0 - 2 0 0 m m s h o tc re te and Q = 0.09.
m e sh p lu s m e d iu m steel at 1 m p lu s 5 0 -7 5 m m
ribs at 0 .7 m . C losed : . s h o tc re te a n d m esh
. in v e rt

R Q D classificatio n (D eere, 1970)

A u stria n classificatio n (P a c h e r, 1974) '
E xcellent F r e n c h c, a s s ific a tio n (L o u is, 1974)
H 6 O c c a s io n a l b o lts o n ly
RQD > 9 0 I
B o lts 26 m m dia., 1.5 m lo n g
Stab le 50*m m s h o tc re te o r 3 m
sp aced 1.5 m in r o o f p lu s
G ood w ire m esh lo n g b o lts a t 3.1 m
H 4 B o lts 25 m m dia., 2 m - 3 m long II
R Q D ; 7 5 -9 0 B o lts 2 - 3 m lo n g sp a c e d
sp aced 1.5 - 1.8 m a n d som e O v e r­
2 —2 .5 m , s h o tc re te 100 m m sh o tc re te w ith
m e sh o r 5 0 -7 5 s h o tc re te
o r lig h t ribs b reak in g m e sh a n d 3 m b o lts a t
5 0 - 1 0 0 m m w ith m e sh
2.8 m

F a ir to g o o d
-^S8-Sr=í«¡_ .....-Per/o-bo/rà
o r l i g h t rib s

F a i r to g o o d B o lts 2 m - 3 m Jong a t 0 .9 -1 m ■m
R Q D ; 5 0 -9 0 P e rfo -b o lts 2 6 m m dia., 3 - 4 m
p lu s m e sh o r 5 0 -1 0 0 m m F ra c tu re d 1 5 0 m m s h o tc re te w ith m esh
lo n g sp aced 2 m p lu s 150 m m
sh o tc re te o r lig h t/m e d iu m ■ to very an d 3 m b o lts a t 2 .5 m
s h o tc re te p lu s w ire m esh
■ 'lb s at 1.5m 1 fractu red
a n d stee l a rch e s T H 1 6
Poor s p a c e d 1.5 m
B olts 2 m - 3 m lo n g a t 0 .6 - 1 .2 m IV
H 3 R Q D : 2 5 -5 0 P e rfo -b o lts 4 m long, sp aced D
w ith m e sh o r 150 m m s h o t­ S tressed 210 m m s h o tc re te w ith m esh
1 m b y 2 m p lu s 200 m m
c re te w ith b o lts a t 1.5 m o r ro ck an d 3 m b o lts a t 2 m and
s h o tc re te p lu s m esh p lu s
m e d iu m to heavy rib s steel rib s
steel a rc h e s T H 21
s p a c e d 1 m . C o n c re te
V ery p o o r lin in g 3 0 0 m m
150 m m s h o tc re te all a ro u n d p lu s iV
H 5 RQD < 25 P e rfo -b o lts 4 m lo n g sp aced
m e d iu m to h eavy c irc u la r ^Very 240 m m shotcrfcte w ith m esh
1 m p lu s 250 m m s h o tc re te
rib s a t 0.6 m c e n te rs w ith ! stressed a n d 3 m b o lts a t 1.7 m ;
la g g in g | ro ck p lu s m e sh an d steel a rch e s '
steel rib s a t 1.2 m.
T H 2 9 s p a c e d 0.75 m.
C lo sed in v e rt
C lo se d in v e rt. C o n c re te
lin in g 5 0 0 m m
128 Empirical methods oj design Recent developments 12y

Step etermine the ratings of the six classification parameters from Table 6.13
and calculate the Q value from equation (6.6).
Step 4: Select the excavation support ratio (ESR)
Step 5: Determine the support measures for the Q value and the tunnel span/ESR
ratio from a paper by Barton et al. (1974). -
Step 6: Estimate the possible maximum unsupported span from equation (6.7).
Step 7: For comparison purposes, determine the support pressure from equation
(6.8) or (6.9).
A correlation has been provided between the R M R and the Q-yalue (Bieniawski,
1976). A total of 117 case histories were analyzed involving 68 Scandinavian cases, 28
'SoufiTAfrican cases,lindTl otheT3ocumente3’case histories fromlFe dinted States,
Canada, Australia, and Europe. The results are plotted in Figure 6.6 from which it will
be seen that the following relationship is applicable: .

R M R = 9 In Q 4- 44 (6.10)

Rutledge (1978) determined in New Zealand the following correlations between the
three classification systems: • '

R M R = 13.5logQ + 43 (standard deviation =9.4) (6.11)

R SR = 0.77 R M R + 12.4 (standard deviation = 8.9) (6.12) ROCK MASS QUALITY Q

Figure 6.6. Correlation between Geomechanics Classification and Q-system.

RSR = 13.3 logQ +46.5: (standard deviation = 7.0) (6.13)

A comparison of the stand-up time and the maximum unsupported span, as shown in
Figure 6.7 reveals that the Geomechanics Classification is more conservative than the
Q-system, which is a reflection of the different tunneling practice in Scandinavia based
on generally excellent rock and long experience in tunneling.
A comparison of the support recommendations by six different classification
systems is given in Table 6.14. This study was made (Bieniawski, 1976) during the
construction of a-railroad-tunnel described by Bieniawski"and Maschek, 1975: The -
tunnel, 5.5 m wide and 3.8 km long, was characterized by highly variable rock
conditions - from very poor to very good. In addition, a one-year tunnel-monitoring
program featuring 16 measuring stations facilitated a comparison between the
classification ratings of rock conditions with the amount of rock movement, the rate of
face advance, and the support used. This project thus afforded an ideal opportunity for
comparing the various classification systems.
More recently, Moreno Tallon (1982) made a detailed comparison of the rock mass
classification schemes in a tunnel in Spain.
Although the above comparisons are interesting and useful, it is believed that one
should not necessarily rely on any one classification system but should conduct a
■sensitivity analysis and cross-check the findings from one classification with another.
This would enable a better ‘feel’ for the rock mass.

R EC EN T D EVELO PM EN TS

Figure 6.7. Comparison between stand-up times for unsupported excavation spans predictedlb)Mhe Q-
Looking back over the past ten years, three positive aspects are evident: system, R M R and. Austrian rock mass, classification systems. Ratings are for the Geomechamcs
1. No matter what classification system is- useci, the very process of rock
Classification (R M R ).
 134 Empirical methods o f design
... Reference '5

I E,nR o i Proc 2 2 L 3nd G' R ° f Em Piri“ ' D « S " Methods for Tunnels in
p „„ ' ' ‘h RapUt E x c a m Tunneling Con/., A IM E , New York, 1979 Vol 1 dd 6R3 Z Olivier, H. J. A new engineering-geological rock durability classification. Engineering Geobgy, Vol. 14,1979,
pp. 255-279.
m * £ 8 r m ° f b' ° Ck Cavi" g a C0mplex e™ ,on m tal Mining Magazine, Vol. 140, Pacher, F., Rabcevvicz, L. and Golser, J. Zum der seitigen Stand der Gebirgsklassifizierung in Stollen-und
Tunnelbau. Proceedings, X X II Geomechanics Colloquium, Salzburg, 1974, pp. 51—58.
Protodyakonov,M. M. fCtessifikacija Gorotworu (originally in Russian), translated into French, Tunnels at
Ouvrages Souterrains, VoL 1, No. 1, 1974, pp. 31-34.
Frar ™ w t A " ,0bJSerVat‘0nal appr0ach “ >«“ « * « ¡ 0 » and con.ro! of rock tunnel lining. Shotcrete for
Ground Support, Amer. Concrete Inst. PubL SP-54, 1977 pn 556-596 Rose, D. Revising Terzaghis tunnel rock load coefficients. Proc,'23rd U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
A IM E , New York, 1982, pp. 953-960.
G h o fin d ,a ' coal-measures! * * * ^ bM ^ ~ Rutledge, J. C. and Preston, R. L. Experience with Engineering Classifications of Rock for the Prediction of
pp. 422-427. ** n " P' ° n R° cii Mec^ MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 1981,
Tunnel Support, Proceedings, International Tunneling Symposium, Tokyo, 1978, .pp. A-3-l;7.
Schneider, B. Ground Classification for Tunnel Excavation. Tunnels and Tunneling, July 1980, pp. 59-62.
i^ u ^ .astaution . o ^ inl„ g_and
Selmer^Oisen, RT~Snd BrocH^~E Generaf Design Pr^cedUre iofTUnderpound^Openiffgs'in^NoTwa^r
Proceedings, F irs t International Conference on Storage in ExC'dvated.Rock Caverns, ITA , Stockholm,
H ° t „ d o n , n?98
i 5 W27pE T ' InStitUlioi> ° [ M -ing and Metallurgy,
1977, pp. 219-226.' ' ; -
Serafim, J. L. and Pereira, J. P. Considerations of the Geomechanics Classification of Bieniawski. Proc. Int.
Symp. on Engng Geol. and Underground Constr., L N E C , Lisbon, Portugal, 1983.
Steffen, 0 . K . HL Research and development needs in data collection for rock engineering. Exploration fo r
Rock Engineering, ed. Z,T. Bieniawski, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1976, Vol. 2, pp. 93-104.
Stini, I. Tunnelbaugeologie. Springer-Verlag, Vienna, 1950, 336 p.
Terzaghi, K. Rock Defects and Loads on Tunnel Support Rock Tunneling, with Steel Supports, eds. R. V.
Proctor and T. White, Commercial Shearing Co., Youngstown, Ohio, 1946, pp. 15-99.
t Unal, E. Design Guidelinfs and Roof Control Standards for Coal Mine Roofs. Ph.D. Thesis, The
Methods), Pergamon, New York, 1981,211 p amC'm M m ' Tes,lng'andMonitoring(IS R M Suggested
Pennsylvania Siate University, 1983.
Unrug, K. and Szwilski, A. 2. Influence of strata control parameters on longwall mining desirig. Proc. 21s/
U S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Univ. of Missouri, Rolla, Mo., 1980, pp. 720-728..
Wickham, G. E., Tiedemaiin, H. R. and Skinner, E. H. Support Determination Based on Geologic
Predictions. Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, A IM E , New York, 1972,
pp. 43-64.
Wickham, G. E., Tiiedemann, H. R. and Skinner, E. H. Ground Support Prediction Model - R S R Concept.

pp. 293-308 Si ,Cah° n SySlem f° r exravatl0n ln natural materials. S. Afr. C ivil Engr., July 1982, Proceedings, R ap id Excavation and Tunneling Conference, A IM E , New York, 1974, pp. 691-707.

u i Ks : 0s s s r ^ &—
^ W a le r W lt a W iW » “ * ^ ^ ° f RaP''d W a‘ef PraSUre F t a “ ali™ A lin ed
of Mining Engineers, N e w a r k '’W e 'p p . 4“ " ^ r ""ne%

U U 197tppD37H-50laSS diStinCti0" r° Ck maSSeS-C° aL G M a" d BaSe M b™ W S -W “ , V ol 23, No. 6,

- fur den Stollenb.u, Geologie unrt BauWesen, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1958,

' M en n n ^ a ^ Z AediCtbn i ° r UndCr6r0“ nd EXCaVa,i0nS' * * *»«*»■ W

M b ir i i rr ncan r ution °r Mming En^ as' New- Y°rk’ i97* 115-132.
constmction L °7 T ° l 8e“ nics classification schemes in tunnel
pp. 241-146!' tunneling 82 Conference, institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 1982,

. .. °f ^ ** * * *

° r S S r ■ ■ ■
 2 Empirical methods of design
• I
classification enables the designer to gain a better understanding of the influence of the
various geologic parameters in the overall rock mass behavior and, hence, gain a
better appreciation of all the factors involved in the engineering problem. This leads to
better engineering judgment. Consequently, it does not really matter that there is no
general agreement on a single rock classification system; it is better to try two or more
systems and, through a parametric study, obtain a better ‘feel’ for the rock mass.
2. Once a few rock classification systems have been applied to a given project, it may
be found that a simplified classification, particularly suited for that project, will evolve.
Examples of this approach are the Dinorwic Scheme in Wales and the Washington
------M etro~irthe-Uriited "States: ~ ~
3. Quite apart from the engineering benefits such as design data, rock classifications
have been particularly successful in ensuring better communication on the project. This
leads to a high morale as well as economical and technical benefits.
Use of borehole data
A trend has emerged to select engineering geological parameters on the basis of
■borehole data alone which should be sufficient for rock mass classification purposes
without the need for tests in adits or pilot tunnels. As a result of the availability of more
advanced coring techniques such as directional drilling and oriented core sampling as
well as both borehole and core logging procedures, rock mass classifications can be
conducted on the basis of input data from boreholes alone (Cameron-Clarke and
Budavari, 1981).
Assessing the strength of rock masses
As discussed in Chapter 5, Hoek and Brown (1980) recently proposed a method for the
-prediction of rock mass-strength involving, rock-mass classifications (see Table 5.8).-
To enable application of the Hoek-Brown criterion to coal mining, Bieniawski and
Bauer (1981) prepared a list of appropriate m and s values for coal.
Application in mining
Recently, major advances were made in the use of rock mass classifications in coal
mining (Unal, 1983, Ghose and Raju, 1981, Bieniawski et al., 1980) and in hard rock
(metal) mining (Cummings et al., 1982, Keffiiorski et al., 1983). Detailed examples of
these. developments are given in Chapter 10. In longwall mining, the rock mass
classification approach has been utilized for assessment of roof spans and rock
■ cavability (Unrug and Szwilski, 1980, Kidybinski, 1979).
REFERENCES
Baczynski, N. Rock Mass Characterization and ’ Its Application to Assessment of Unsupported
Underground Openings. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, 1980, 233 p.
Barton, C. M. A geotechnical analysis of rock structure and fabric in the C.S. A. Mine, Geomechanics Paper
No. 24, CSIRO, Australia, 1977, pp. 1-30.
Barton, N. Recent Experience with the Q-system for Tunnel Support. Proceedings Syw p a^ tkcp lo rat,o n
for Rock Engineering ed. Z. T. Bieniawski, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 3976, Vol. l.p p W f
Barton, N „ Lien, R. and Lunde, J. Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Deslgn of Tunne
Support. Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4,1974, pp. 183-236. ^ ¡„^¡tution
Bieniawski, Z. T. Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Masses. Transactions, South African Institution
of Civil Engineers, Vol. 15, No. 12,1973, pp. 335-344. ■ p . „ . j :....
11 ■
Bieniawski, Z T Geomechanics Classification of rock masses and its application in mnadmg^Proceedmgs,
Third International Congress Rock Mechanics, International Society for Rock Mechanics Denver, Colo,
1974, Vol. n A, pp. 27-31 , ,,
Bieniawski Z. T.The Point-Load Test in Geotechnical Practice. Engineering Geology, Vol. 9, 1975, pp. 11.
Bieniawski, Z.T . Rock mass classifications in rock engineering, Proceeding,^ 0 3 , urn on Exploration for
R o cLEn g in eed n g ^ Z J . J t ie n ja w s k j^ A B a t o a Rotterdam^ , 6, pp. 97--1C6
Bieniawski, Z. T. Determining rock mass deformability: experience from case histories. Int. J . R o ck Jftch .
Min Sci Vol. 15,1978, pp. 237-248.
Bieniawski, Z. T. Tuhnel Design by Rock Mass Classifications. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterway
Experiment Station, Technical Report, GL-79-19, September 1979, 133 p. _ rrm nm i
Bieniawski, Z T. The Geomechanics Classification in rock engineering apphca ions. Proc 4ifi Int. Congress
Beharioi ol Rock T— * ^ C »™ «».
Classification Proc 12th Int. Congr. on Large Dams, IC O LD , Mexico City, 1976, pp.
Bieniawski, Z .T , Rafia, F. and Newman, D. A. Ground » «tro ! mvestigatio n s fo r asse ss m e , t of roof
conditions incoal mines. Proc. 21st U.S. Symposium on Rock Meclm ics, Rolla, Mo., A IM E , 1980, p.
Ere“ ' T L and Howard, T. Stability Problems Caused by Seams and Faults. Proceedings, Rapid
Excavation and Tunneling Conference, American Institution of Mining Engineers, New York,
Cameron-Clarke, I. S. and Budavari, S. Correlation of rock mass classification parameters obtained from
borecore and in situ observations. Engineering Geology, Vol. 17, 198., pp. 19 53.
Cecil O. S. Correlation of Rockbolts-Shotcrete Support and rock Quality Parameters ,n Scandinavian
Tunnpk Ph DThesis-University- of-Illinois,JJ.rhana., J970, 414p.------- ------ --- _
Coates, D. F. Classification oi Rock for Rock Mechanics, International Journal of Rock Mechanics an
C o S 'f f a i d o t i D^U.PRock!Tunnel Supports and Field Measurements. Proceedings Rap^d
Excavation and Tunneling Conference, American Institution of Mining Engineers, New York, 1972,
C o r d in & E f Hendron, A. J. and Deere, D. U. Rock Engineering for Underground Caverns.
J S o„ U n r o u n d Rock Chambers, American Society of Civil Engineers, Pheomx, Ar.ona,
C u i a t ^ d o r s k i , F. S. and Bieniawski, Z. T. C a v in g M in e Rock Mass C ^ c a ^ p p o r t
Estimation U S Bureau of Mines Contract No. J0100103, Engineers International, 982, 195 p.
Deere, D .U . Technical Description or Rock Cores for Engineer^ Purposes, Rock Mechanics
Engineering Geology, VoL 1, No. 1, 1964, pp. 17-22. p. ...M\ q r;
Deere, D. U. G e o lo g ic a l C o n s id e ra tio n s . Rock Mechanics in Engineering P ra ctice ,^ . R. G . S ta g e O . C.
7ienkiewicz. John Wiley & Sons, London, 1968, pp. 1-20.
' M anualEM 1110-2-2901, Washington, DC, January 15,1978. See also ETL-1110-2-.83, May 31, .
Edeling, H. and Maidl, B. Tunnelling Support Methods and t e r possible App cation to Machine
Excavation in Coal Mining. P ro c. Eurotunnel ’80, Inst. Min. Metal!., London, 1980, pp. 120-1 .
CHAPTER 7

Observational methods of design

Experimental science does not receive truth from

supedarscknce^she is the mistress and other
sciences are the servants.

Roger Bacon

Designing underground mining and tunneling excavations by observational methods

involves interpretations of monitoring data during construction. Essentially, therefore,
an observational method of design is a ‘design as you go’ method but in some cases a
whole philosophy has been attached to an observational method making it distinct
from other approaches.
An example is the ‘New Austrian Tunneling Method’ (NATM ) (Rabcewicz, 1964)
which has received considerable attention in the field of tunneling and has some very
promising results to its credit. Most recently, the N A T M has been applied to a coal
mining project in Germany (Albers et al., 1982, Spaun and Jagsch, 1983). The
convergcnce-confinement method has'also emerged within the last three years. Both
these methods rely on a number of principles for monotoring the behavior of
underground excavations during construction. Whether or not any observational
method is distinct in its own right, it is important to understand the broad concepts
involved in monitoring rock 'structures during construction. Accordingly one should
consider observational methods of design under three topics: rock , monitoring
techniques, the New Austrian Tunneling Method, and the convergence-confinement
method.

ROCK M O N IT O R IN G T EC H N IQ U E S

Monitoring the behavior of underground excavations during construction is re­

cognized today as an important, and often essential, aid in the design and construction
of excavations. Systematic in situ monitoring of the performance ofboth the rock mass
and the support was found to be one of the most promising developments in
underground construction in recent years.
Dunnicliff and Schmidt (1974), analyzing the.value of in situ monitoring of tunnels,
make the following observation:

To be effective and useful, monitoring of tunnel construction must be carefully

. planned throughout all the steps. A vital and frequently overlooked step is a clear
definition of the specific purposes of the instrumentation. Most tunnel construction
monitoring has in the past been of benefit to research and the advancement of

137