applied

sciences
Review
Review of Rock-Mass Rating and Tunneling Quality
Index Systems for Tunnel Design: Development,
Refinement, Application and Limitation
Hafeezur Rehman 1 , Wahid Ali 2 , Abdul Muntaqim Naji 1 , Jung-joo Kim 1 ,
Rini Asnida Abdullah 2 and Han-kyu Yoo 1, *
1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro,
Sangnok-gu, Ansan 15588, Korea; miner1239@yahoo.com (H.R.); engineernaji@gmail.com (A.M.N.);
lineup011@hanyang.ac.kr (J.K.)
2 Department of Geotechnics & Transportation, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Johor Bahru 81310, Malaysia; wahid-mrh@hotmail.com (W.A.); asnida@utm.my (R.A.A.)
* Correspondence: hankyu@hanyang.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-31-400-5147; Fax: +82-31-409-4104




Received: 2 July 2018; Accepted: 23 July 2018; Published: 28 July 2018


Abstract: Although rock-mass rating (RMR) and tunneling quality index (Q) systems are used in
different rock engineering projects as empirical design tools, their application in tunnel design
is widely accepted as these systems were developed and updated for this purpose specifically.
This paper reviews the work conducted by various researchers since the development of these
two systems with respect to tunneling only. Compared to other empirical classification systems,
these systems received international acceptance and are still used as empirical design tools in
tunneling due to their continuous updates in the form of characterization and support. As the primary
output of these systems is the initial support design for tunnel, however, their use in the calculation
for rock-mass properties is an essential contribution of these systems in rock engineering design.
Essential for the tunnel design, these rock-mass properties include the modulus of deformation,
strength, Poisson’s ratio, Mohr-Coulomb parameters and Hoek-Brown constants. Other application
for tunneling include the stand-up time and rock load. The uses and limitations of these systems as
empirical tunnel design tools are also included in this review article for better results. Research to
date indicates that if the ground behavior is also taken into account, the application of these empirical
systems will be more beneficial to the preliminary design of tunnels.

Keywords: RMR; Q; tunnel support; rock-mass properties; rock load; stand-up time; limitations

1. Introduction
In rock engineering design, the rock mass is considered as a complex natural geological building
material and during tunnel construction, ground behavior is dependent on the ground condition
and tunnel-related features [1]. The reason for the overall difficulty of modelling rock masses for
engineering design is that the physical or engineering properties of rock mass must be established.
This natural geological material is generally discontinuous, anisotropic, non-homogeneous and
non-elastic [2] and produces uncertainties in modelling a rock mass. Modelling a rock-mass in a
precise way allows scholars to decrease the ambiguity related with its characterization and replicate its
inherent spatial inconsistency and heterogeneities [3]. For the purposes of rock engineering design,
eight modelling methods have been categorized, including pre-existing standard methods, analytical
methods, basic and extended numerical methods, precedent type analysis, empirical classification,
the basic system approach and the combined system approach [4]. An important fact in rock mechanics
is that having inadequate information for engineering design of structure in rock is a way of life,

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250; doi:10.3390/app8081250 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 2 of 27

which is why the empirical rock-mass classification approaches have been established and are still
essential for the tunnel construction.
The qualitative picture of rock masses through empirical classification systems and the succeeding
correlation to design parameters has become one of the most challenging areas in rock mechanics.
Since the first descriptive rock-mass classification system, rock load classification, was established in
1946 [5], numerous empirical systems have been suggested for rock masses with the consideration of a
specific rock mass structure and purposes [6]. The empirical systems used in tunnels construction as
design tool are summarized in Table 1. The rock load classification constituted the basis of modern
rock classifications [7]. In their original form, the suitability of these rock mass classification systems,
for the complex rock-mass conditions characterization is not always possible, which results in the
development of new systems or the modification or extension of existing ones. Among the several
empirical rock-mass classification systems developed so far, the RMR (rock-mass rating) system
established by Bieniawski [8] and the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) tunneling quality index
(Q) system developed by Nick Barton and his co-researchers [9] are internationally accepted systems
and are extensively used in tunneling. Additionally, these systems are also considered as the origin for
launching other systems for the classification of rock-mass [7,10–12].

Table 1. The rock mass classification systems used in the design of tunnel.

S. No. Classification System Abbreviation Applications Year Authors [References]

1 Rock load - Tunnels 1946 Terzaghi [5]
2 Stand-up time - Tunnels 1958 Lauffer [13]
3 Rock quality designation RQD General 1964 Deere [14,15]
4 Rock structure rating RSR Tunnels 1972 Wickham et al. [16]
5 Rock mass rating RMR tunnels 1973 Bieniawski [8]
6 Tunneling quality index Q Tunnels 1974 Barton et al. [9]
7 Geological strength Index GSI general 1995 Hoek et al. [12]
8 Rock mass Index RMi General 1995 Palmstrom [11]
Rock tunneling quality index
9 QTBM TBM tunnels 1999 Barton [17]
by TBM excavation
10 Continuous rock mass rating CRMR General 2003 Sen and Sadagah [18]
11 Rock mass excitability RME TBM tunnels 2006 Von Preinls et al. [19]
12 Rock mass quality rating RMQR General 2014 Aydan et al. [7]

The RMR and Q systems are admitted currently as a compulsory adjunct for evaluating rock-mass
environments for engineering purposes. The two main objectives of these classification systems are
easier communication between different users and as a decision-making tool [20]. The later objective is
the remarkable practice of classification systems in rock engineering. The RMR system was suggested in
1973, as a jointed classification system for rock-mass [8]. This system was established on experience in
underground projects in South Africa [21]. Afterwards, this system went through substantial variations.
These variations are commonly due to ratings added or modified for ground-water, joint spacing
and their condition, rock alterability, excavation method and stress–strain behavior. This system was
numerously refined numerous times and main modifications in its characterization and structure were
made in 1989 and 2014 [22,23]. The major changes in the structure of Q system were made in 2002 [24].
This system was established on tunneling case records for hard and jointed rock masses [25]. It was
initially developed for the grouping of rock masses for assessing the need for supports in tunnels and
caverns. Using a set of tables, for the characterization of rock mass, along with footnotes, the rating
for various parameters can be recognized. The parameters rating can be based on the geological
interpretations in tunnels during its construction, or by core logging during exploration. Through time,
the RMR and Q systems have been updated so as to increase their trustworthiness for tunnel support.
Along with tunnel support, these systems are also used to calculate the rock masses' geomechanical
properties, the stand-up time for the tunnel and support load. Although these systems were developed,
refined and updated for tunnel support design, these classification systems also have applications in
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 3 of 27

various engineering projects like mining [26–32], slopes [10,33–37], dam foundations [38] and TBM
(Tunnel Boring Machine) tunnels [17,19,39].
The RMR and Q systems have changed with time to reveal the apparent impact of several
rock-mass factors on the stability of excavation. The focus of this review is on the historical progress
and alteration of the two systems through rock-mass characterization and support recommendation
with a particular emphasis on tunneling. The advanced versions of RMR and Q-system classification
and the scope of its application in the field of tunneling are specified. The use of these systems
in tunneling other than support recommendation is also discussed. The introduced changes have
perhaps improved the applicability of RMR and Q systems in the field of tunneling but they have still
limitations. The limitations of the two systems for use in the field of tunneling are also reviewed.

2. RMR and Q System Establishment

2.1. Development of the RMR System

To develop RMR system, the first three existing rock-mass classification systems of Table 1
were considered. Bienwiaski combined the best features of these available classification systems
and supplemented them with the parameters that could be obtained from the data available from
exploration, resulting in an RMR system, as shown in the Table 2 [8]. This RMR system, RMR73 ,
comprised eight parameters for classification of a jointed rock mass, in which each parameter has
five important ratings. To rate the state of weathering, three different classifications were used:
the Geological Society of London, Task committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the
South African section of the Association of Engineering Geologists. The engineering classification
of intact rock, proposed by Deere [15], was used in the RMR system with a slight modification.
Classifications for joint spacing were made as per the suggestion by Deere [40]. Ground water and
joint orientation were included as separate governing parameters in the RMR structure as per the
study of Wickham, Tiedmann and Skinner [41]. Rating for all eight parameters were proposed based
on this study. The summation of all the parameters determines the rock-mass quality. This system
classifies the ground into five rock-masses.

Table 2. Characterization criteria in different versions of the rock-mass rating (RMR) system.

RMR
Parameter
1973 [8] 1974 [42] 1975 [43] 1979 [44] 1989 [22] 2011 [45] 2013 [46] 2014 [23]
Intact rock strength
10–0 10–0 15–0 15–0 15–0 15–0 15–0 15–0
(MPa)
RQD (%) 16–3 20–3 20–3 20–3 20–3 20–0 - -
Joint spacing (mm) 30–5 30–5 30–5 20–5 20–5 20–0 - -
Discontinuity density
- - - - - - 40–0 40–0
(joints per meter)
Separation of joints (mm) 5–1 - - - - - - -
Continuity of joints (m) 5–0 - - - - - - -
Weathering 9–1 - - - - - - -
Condition of joints - 15–0 25–0 30–0 30–0 30–0 30–0 20–0
Groundwater 10–2 10–2 10–0 15–0 15–0 15–0 15–0 15–0
Alterability (%) - - - - - - - 10–0
F0 15–3 15–3 0–(−12) 0–(−12) 0–(−12) 0–(−12) 0–(−12) 0–(−12)
Adjustment Fe - - - - - - - 1.32–1
Fs - - - - - - - 1.3–1

2.2. Development of the Q System

This classification system was established in 1974 after the RMR system based on 212 tunnel
cases. The development of this system was the result of the Seminar on Large Permanent
Underground Openings held in Oslo in 1969. Two main breaches pointed out in the symposium
were: (i) the acquisition of mechanical data and whether an excavation should be lined, or rock bolted,
or unlined [47]; and (ii) the dilatant property of the rock had been unnoticed when designing rock-bolt
spacing [48]. This system was independent from the RMR system but there are some parameters in
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 4 of 27

common, that is, rock-quality designation (RQD) and groundwater. The system also included joint
roughness, infilling of the joints and rock load, which were missed in the RMR system. The plot
between RQD and the tunnel span for the tunnel case records [49] was the start of the development of
support plot for the Q system [9]. The correlation was improved between RQD and the unsupported
span by including the joint set number as an additional parameter. This modified RQD was further
improved by including the joint roughness, joint alteration, water pressure and rock load. Afterward,
an evaluation was done for case records in the literature, a clear picture was obtained between the
rock-mass quality and excavation span. This trial-and-error and empiricism using more than 200 case
records finally enabled an answer to the challenging question asked by the Norwegian State Power
Board (Statkraft) from NGI in 1973: “Why are Norwegian powerhouses showing such a wide range
of deformations?” [50,51]. This evaluation includes the tunnel span and purpose of excavation as
additional parameters for the type and amount of rock support; however, they are not involved in the
calculation of rock-mass quality as proposed for rock-mass classification [52]. The six parameters are
united in the following manner to compute the rock-mass quality:
     
RQD Jr Jw
Q= × × (1)
Jn Ja SRF

where RQD is with a minimum score of 10, Jn symbolizes the score of the joint sets number, Jr is the
score for the roughness of joint surface, Ja symbolizes the score for the clay filling or alteration degree,
Jw symbolizes the groundwater pressure effects scores and the stress reduction factor (SRF) is the score
for faulting, strength and stress ratios in hard rocks and squeezing or swelling. The system categorizes
rock masses into nine classes.

3. Modification of the RMR and Q Systems Since Their Establishment

Both systems originated specifically for estimating rock tunnel support [53]. For this purpose,
to estimate the adequate tunnel support measure, the quantitative valuation of the rock-mass quality is
connected with an empirical rule for tunnel support design. For tunnel support design, these systems
are refined and reviewed, in the form of support, characterization, or both.

3.1. Modification in Terms of Characterization

Empirical design approaches in rock tunnel construction are used because of their positive role
and as an outcome of characterization and classification. The empirical classification systems include
the main features affecting the rock mass to rate its class. These aspects are usually presumed to be
independent and are called parameters, to which scores are assigned [54]. The different rock mass
classification systems reflect different importance on various geological parameters. By description,
characterization is the quantifying process of rock-mass for significant factors prevailing its behavior
in tunneling, whereas their classification is the assessment method of rock-mass class according to a
pre-defined classification system [55]. Ground conditions (rock mass along with stress and ground
water) and project-related features (size and shape of the tunnel along with the excavation method)
are liable for ground behavior [1]. The capacity of the characterization process to classify rock masses
and the importance of containing as many factors as possible have been argued by Palmstorm and
Stille [56].

3.1.1. RMR System

After its development, the RMR system has established many applications in several engineering
projects, like tunnels, foundations, mines and slopes but utmost applications are in the field of
tunneling [57]. This classification system was continuously refined [8,21–23,43–46] as more case records
became available to approve it with global standard, as summarized in Table 2. In 1974, Bieniawski
revised the system and presented its first alterations: weathering, aperture and persistence of joints
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 5 of 27

were united within the term “discontinuity condition” with variations to the relative points [21]. Thus,
the eight parameters creating the system was reduced to six. This revised RMR was again modified for
intact rock strength (σc ) and negative values were applied as adjustment parameters for the first time
in 1975 [43]. The rating range for the first-class rock-mass (90–100) was changed to 81–100. The joint
roughness was added as an additional parameter to the system and as a result, the assessment score
was increased for the parameter “condition of joints.” In 1979, modifications associated to the joint
spacing, joint condition and ground water were made [44]. Main alterations to the RMR system were
suggested in 1989 [22]. These comprised new graphs and tables for the score of σc , RQD, spacing and
situation of discontinuities. The refined system is called RMR89 . In RMR89 , the basic RMR (RMRb )
score is the sum of the scores of five stated parameters. It comprises the score for σc (R1 ), RQD (R2 ),
joint spacing (R3 ), joint condition (R4 ) and groundwater condition (R5 ). The RMR89 system is the
outcome once adjusting RMRb for joint direction with respect to the tunnel alignment and direction of
excavation score (R6 ). The corresponding quality is achieved using Equation (2).

RMR89 = R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 + R5 + R6 (2)

The minimum values of R2 and R3 for RMR73 version of RMR are 3 and 5 respectively, as listed
in Table 2. A continuous-rating idea through equations was presented by Sen and Sadagah for
R2 and R3 values of RMR73 system. According to RMR89 , the R2 and R3 values are from 0 to 20,
after modification [45] (as shown in Table 2). The continuous-rating concept through equations,
which was introduced by Sen and Sadagah for RMR73 , was extended for RMR89 to characterize R2
and R3 easily and precisely [58]. Since its development [59], RQD was used in RMR and Q system
because of its historical background. Because of some intrinsic limitations and ignoring the basic
definition [60–62], RQD, along with joints spacing, is substituted by joint frequency in the excavation
face or rock core [46]. Koutsoftas [63] analyzed the arguments about the different definitions of RQD in
different parts of the world and the use of rock exposures for determining RQD which are considered
as the main sources of error. In fact, these are modifications made in the RQD for intended purposes
and adopted wrongly. However, it cannot be considered as a system fault and is not sufficient reason
to abandon the use of RQD in classification systems. The modified criterion shows that RMR89 can be
stated in terms of five parameters and calculated using Equation (3):

RMR89 = R1 + R2−3 + R4 + R5 + R6 (3)

where R2–3 shows the rating for joint frequency.

After 25 years of use, an updated version of RMR89 , known as RMR14 , was proposed with new
parameters, a revised rating and final structure [23]. The structure of RMR in RMR14 version is
represented by Equation (4).
RMR14 = ( RMRb + F0 ) × Fs × Fe , (4)

where
RMRb = RMR basic (without the effect of excavation),
F0 = An adjustment factor like R6 in RMR89 ,
Fe = An adjustment factor associated to the method of excavation, and
Fs = An adjustment factor associated to the stress-strain behavior at the tunnel face.
The discontinuity condition term is a function of discontinuity persistence, aperture, roughness,
infilling and weathering. The corresponding score can be nominated for RMR89 using Table 3 but
some situations are mutually exclusive; that is, in the case of infilling material, the roughness is
overshadowed by the infilling influence [22]. The score for the discontinuity condition was reviewed
in RMR14 and, because of the overshadowing effect, the aperture parameter is eliminated. The details
are shown in Table 3.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 6 of 27

Table 3. Rating comparison for joint condition in two different versions of RMR: RMR89 and RMR14 .

Parameter Rating
Value >20 m 20–10 m 10–3 m 3–1 m <1 m
Persistence RMR89 0 1 2 4 6
RMR14 0 0 2 4 5
Value >5 mm 5–1 mm 1.0–0.1 mm <0.1 mm None
Aperture RMR89 0 1 4 5 6
RMR14 - - - - -
Value Slickenside smooth Slightly rough rough Very rough
Roughness RMR89 0 1 3 5 6
RMR14 0 1 - 3 5
Soft filling Hard filling
Value
>5 mm <5 mm >5 mm <5 mm None
Infilling
RMR89 0 2 2 4 6
RMR14 0 2 2 5 -
Value Decomposed Highly weathered Moderately weathered Slightly weathered Not weathered
Weathering RMR89 0 1 3 5 6
RMR14 0 1 3 - 5

Additional parameters, namely the intact rock alterability, Fe and Fs , were also incorporated in
RMR14 . The slake durability index is an important parameter to estimate qualitatively the durability
of shale or other similar rock in the service environment and the intact rock alterability is rated per
the results of the slake durability test, as defined in the standard (ASTM D 4644) [64]. The score of the
rock alterability factor were proposed in tabular form in RMR14 . Mechanical excavation has a positive
impact in tunneling [65] and this impact was introduced in the structure of the RMR14 system related
to the excavation method. It can be obtained from Equation (5) [23].
 2
RMR89
Fe = 1 + 2 × , RMR89 < 40 (5a)
100
p
( RMR89 − 40)
Fe = 1.32 − , RMR89 > 40 (5b)
25
When the excavation is made by the drill and blast method, Fe = 1.
The RMR score at the tunnel face during excavation is significantly lesser than forecast during the
design stage because of the yielding of the excavation periphery. To overcome this consequence, Fs is
announced. This parameter was defined in terms of ICE (Índice de Comportamiento Elástico) [66],
as stated in Equation (6). The Kirsch solution for stresses at the periphery of a circular tunnel was used
for ICE calculation and has been prolonged to non-circular excavations using numerical modelling.
For the derivation of Equation (6), Equation (7) [67] was used to calculate the rock-mass strength.
RMR89 −100
3704 × σc × e 24
ICE = × F, K0 ≤ 1 (6a)
( 3 − K0 ) × H
RMR89 −100
3704 × σc × e 24
ICE = × F, K0 ≥ 1 (6b)
( 3 × K0 − 1 ) × H
RMR89 −100
σcm = σc × e 24 , (7)

where
σc = intact rock uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) (MPa),
K0 = virgin stress ratio,
H = tunnel depth (m), and
F = shape coefficient.
The value of ICE achieved from Equation (6) is used for the calculation of the adjustment factor,
Fs , using Equation (8).
Fs = 1.3, ICE < 15 (8a)
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 7 of 27

√
2.3 100 − ICE
Fs = √ , 15 < ICE < 70 (8b)
7.1 + 100 − ICE
Fs = 1, ICE > 70 (8c)

3.1.2. Q System
Since the introduction, the Q system has not been tremendously updated like the RMR system in
terms of characterization. The foremost modifications in characterization were suggested in relations
of σc and SRF [68–70]. In the rock-mass properties, the role of σc is significant. Thus, a normalization
factor is applied to Equation (1) for a modified Qc :
     
RQD Jr Jw  σ 
c
Qc = × × × . (9)
Jn Ja SRF 100

The initial maximum value of SRF for the condition of competent rock with a rock-stress problem
was 20 [9]. The first relationship for SRF characterization was based on the principal field-stress ratio
(k), cover depth of the tunnel (H) and σc [71]. The key changes were made for SRF characterization in
hard massive rock in a high-stress environment and the rating for SRF increased from 20 to 400 [68].
These changes were based on the relation between RQD/Jn and SRF in hard rock under stress and no
real stress problem was experienced for low values of RQD/Jn . The ratio RQD/Jn is the relative block
size that is appropriate for differentiating massive, rock-burst-prone rock and the rock-burst-prone
rock has RQD/Jn ratio from 25 to 200 whereas typical jointed rock mass has an RQD/Jn of 10 [24].
Tunneling in jointed rock under high stress is likely to be less hazardous than in massive rock because
the rock-bursting phenomenon is less severe [72]. For Australian mining, where the high stresses
are either due to mining depth or the advancing mining front acting on jointed rock, a relation was
proposed by Peck for a low SRF (SRF = f (strength stress ratio)) value [73], which was confirmed by
Barton [74]. The continuous rating of SRF based on tunneling data under a highly stressed jointed
rock-mass environment was modified such that SRF is a function of relative block size (RQD/Jn ), intact
rock strength (σc ) and strength-to-stress ratio (σc /σ1 ) [70].

3.2. Development in Terms of Support

Keeping the basic purpose of the two systems, the RMR and Q systems were also updated in
terms of support guidelines along with improved characterization for rock-quality determination.

3.2.1. RMR System

The initial guidelines were for drill and blast excavated tunnel support and were based on
the rock-mass class in a tabulated form for a tunnel span from 5 to 12 m [8]. The length of fully
resin-grouted rock bolts (25 mm in diameter) was purely based on the tunnel width, where the length
of a rock bolt is half of the tunnel width. The other supporting materials were shotcrete, steel sets and
wire mesh. In the 1976 version of RMR, the support guideline table was updated for a 10-m-wide
tunnel with a horseshoe shape [75]. The rock bolts length and the thickness of shotcrete was reduced.
In 1979, the length of the 20-mm-diameter fully grouted rock bolts was made a function of the RMR
value [44]. The limit of vertical stresses was specified. Separate guidelines were suggested for support
in walls and the crown of the tunnel. In 1989, the support chart remained unchanged and refinement of
the system was made in characterization. Support technology upgraded for tunnels with time and thus,
the designers used support for different tunnel spans [76–78]. The foremost update in support using
RMR system was accomplished, after twenty four years of experience, in which the tunnel support is a
function of the tunnel size and rock-mass score [46]. In this revision, the shotcrete thickness and rock
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 8 of 27

bolt length (Lb ) are functions of rock-mass score and tunnel span. The length of the rock bolt can be
calculated using Equation (10).
RMR89 +25
( L (m) + 2.5) 52
span (m) = b (10)
3.6
Rock-bolt spacing (Sb ) is the function of RMR score only. When RMR89 > 85, spot bolting is
required. In shotcrete design graph, the shotcrete thickness is greatly influenced by the tunnel size at
low RMR89 score, whereas shotcrete thickness is greatly influenced by RMR89 for larger tunnel spans
(Span > 10 m) [46]. The rock-bolt spacing can be obtained from Equation (11).

RMR89 − 20
Sb (m) = 0.5 + 2.5 × , 20 < RMR89 ≤ 85 (11a)
65

( RMR89 − 10)1.5
Sb (m) = 0.25 + , (10 < RMR89 ≤ 20 (11b)
140
Sb (m) = 0.25, RMR89 ≤ 10 (11c)

3.2.2. Q System
To classify a rock mass for its quality, Q system was updated by continuous re-analyzing of the
tunnel case record until a reliable connection was achieved between Q value, the equivalent dimension
(De ) and the actual support used for the stability of the tunnel [9]. These three variables are organized
by means of a support chart in the Q system of rock-mass classification. The De is a function of the
excavation size and its purpose and this purpose of the excavation was expressed in terms of the
excavation-support ratio (ESR). The conclusion of the support recommendation chart was 38 box
categories of permanent support. This support was for the crown of the tunnel. For the tunnel wall
support, Q was increased up to 5 times and then the support was recommended. The recommended
supports were bolting (spot or systematic), grouting, shotcrete (plain or mesh-reinforced) and
cast-concrete arches (plain or steel-reinforced). In the 1970s, the wet process of shotcrete along
with fiber reinforcement was a revolution in tunnel support. The innovation in shotcrete technology
was summarized by Barrett and McCreath [79]. In 1993, mesh-reinforced shotcrete was replaced
by fiber-reinforced shotcrete [68]. The 38 box categories are simplified to the graphical method
(9 reinforcement categories) based on 1050 more tunnel case records. Rock-bolt spacing was correlated
to the rock-mass quality value in both shotcrete and non-shotcrete area. Out of the 9 reinforced
categories, reinforced ribs of shotcrete were also added for one category. Based on numerical
modelling [80,81] and empiricism, the Q-system support chart was again updated by Grimstad
for reinforced ribs of shotcrete [82]. The thickness of shotcrete was increased due to the widespread
application of shotcrete in tunneling. The diameter of the rock bolt was specified as 20–25 mm in
diameter. In the latest support chart [25], the bolts spacing is quantified for a 20-mm diameter and
detailed adjustments are included for the tunnel wall support. It is also mentioned that the shotcrete
thickness for excavation with De less than 3 m is just supposed and is not empirically based. As in
the RMR system, bolt spacing is a function of Q value and thickness of shotcrete is function of the De
along with the Q value.

4. Application in Determination of Rock-Mass Properties

The determination of rock mass mechanical properties is one of the essential parts of rock
engineering design. To consider the scale effect for rock masses, field tests are desired, as laboratory
testing on rock masses is not easy and is very unwieldly. However, field tests to obtain these properties
are time-consuming, difficult to perform and expensive. Therefore, correlation between the RMR and
Q with mechanical properties of rock masses have been made. The mechanical properties include
not only the deformation modulus (Em ) and UCS (σcm ) of rock masses but also Poisson’s ratio (νm ),
 The determination of rock mass mechanical properties is one of the essential parts of rock
ineering design. To consider the scale effect for rock masses, field tests are desired, as laboratory
ng on rock masses is not easy and is very unwieldly. However, field tests to obtain these
perties are time-consuming, difficult to perform and expensive. Therefore, correlation between
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 9 of 27
RMR and Q with mechanical properties of rock masses have been made. The mechanical
perties include not only the deformation modulus (Em) and UCS (σcm) of rock masses but also
sson’s ratio
Appl. (νm),8,frictional
Sci. 2018, x FOR PEER
frictional angle
REVIEW
angle ((фm
m), cohesion (c
), cohesion (cmm),
), Hoek-Brown
Hoek-Brown constant
Appl. Sci. 2018, andtensile
8, x FORand
constant PEER tensile
REVIEW strength
strength 9 of
(σtm ), 27
among the others,
), among the others, which
which are are critical
critical for tunnel
for tunnel design.design. Correlations
Correlations between between empirical
empirical rock- classification systems
rock-mass
based. As in
s classification the RMR
systems andsystem,
mechanical bolt rock-mass
spacing isproperties
a function
based. of AsaQin value
the RMRand system,
thickness bolt
of shotcrete
spacing isisa function of Q value and thick
and mechanical rock-mass properties are a arecommon common practice
practice observed
observed in engineering,
in rock as they
function ofasthe
k engineering, theyDe create
along with
an theapproach
easy Q value. for assessingfunction
the of the De along
rock-mass with the Q value.
conditions.
create an easy approach for assessing the rock-mass conditions.

4. Application
Deformation inofDetermination
Modulus
4.1. of Rock-Mass
Rock MassesModulus
Deformation Properties
4. Application in Determination of Rock-Mass Properties
of Rock Masses
The determination
The uncertainties areThe of rocktomass
associated
uncertainties are mechanical
in-situ toproperties
Em calculations
associated in-situThe Emdetermination
due is
to one
blastofdamage,
calculations the
due of
essential
torock mass
experiment
blast partsmechanical
damage, of experiment
rock properties
method is one of the ess
hodengineering
and procedure design.
andand To consider
therefore,
procedure andathe good scale
therefore, rockeffect
mass
a good forrock
rock
engineering
masses,
characterization
mass design.
fieldmaytests
characterization To are
giveconsider
maydesired,
givethe
equivalent, asscale
laboratory
or effect
equivalent, or for rock masses,
possibly better field tests are d
siblytesting
better on rock
Em values [83]. In the literature, several correlations have been suggested for the Em and the rock-mass However, field t
Em values masses
[83]. In is not
the easy
literature, and is
several very unwieldly.
testing
correlations on However,
haverock masses
been fieldis
suggested tests
not easy
forto obtain
the and
E m is
these
very unwieldly.
properties are
the rock-mass quality time-consuming,
quality (RMR(RMR andandQ)Q)difficult
values
valuessinceto perform
since the properties
thefirst and
first expensive.
empirical
empirical are time-consuming,
Therefore,
equation
equation between
between correlation
RMRdifficult andbetween
and Etom perform and expensive.
by Bienwiaski [84] Therefore,
the RMR and
by Bienwiaski Q the
[84]and
and with mechanical
thefirst
first empirical
empirical properties
equation
equation of rock
theQRMR
between
between masses
Q and
and Eand
mE
have
bymQ bywith
been
Barton
Barton mechanical
made.
[85]. [85]. The
In theseIn these properties
mechanical
equations, of therock
intactmasses
rock have been ma
properties include
ations, the intact rock not only
properties
properties the
werewere deformation
missing.
missing. Later, modulus
Later,
it was properties
it was (E ) and
determined
determinedm include
UCS (σ
that,that,not
cm
for the) only
of rock
the
for calculation masses
deformation
the calculation but also
modulus
of rock-mass mechanical (E m) and UCS (σcm) of r

Poisson’s ratio
ock-mass mechanical (νm ), frictional
properties
properties (Em ,(E angle
m, ,σν
σcm cmm (ф ), cohesion
, ,νm,mф, mcm
m , cand
m and Poisson’s
(c
σtm
σtm ),
),),the
m Hoek-Brown
theintact ratio
intactrock (ν ),
constant
frictional
rockproperties
m properties(E(E and angle
tensile
,σ
i , iσ c ,c,νν
(ф strength
), cohesion (c ), Hoek-Brown
i ,i, фi ,i,ci and σt respectively)
m m constant
nd σ(σ tm), among the
t respectively) others,
and
and which
rock-mass
rock-mass are critical indexes
classification
classification forindexes
tunnel (σmust
must design.
tm ), be
among
be Correlations
the others,
involved
involved [86].[86].between
The which
The
proposed are
empirical
proposed critical
correlationsrock-
for tunnel design.
between the Correlations betw
mass classification
elations between the systems
deformation
deformation and mechanical
modulus
modulus of rock
of rock rock-mass
massmass mass
andand properties
thethe classification
RMR RMR or Qare a common
systems
orvalues
Q values cancanand
practice
be be mechanical
divided
divided observed rock-mass
in
into two groups: properties are a common
tworock engineering, as they create an easy approach for
groups: rock
assessing
engineering,
the rock-mass
as they create
conditions. an easy approach for assessing the rock-mass co
The Em is calculated • independently
The Em is calculated from the Ei, Table 4. from the Ei , Table 4.
independently
The4.1.
EmDeformation • Modulus
is calculated The EmofisRock
dependently Masses
calculated
from Ei, Table 5. 4.1.
thedependently from Deformation
the Ei , Table Modulus
5. of Rock Masses
The uncertainties are associated toTable in-situ Em calculations
4. Equations The uncertainties
due toofblast
for calculation Emare damage,
associated
without Ei . experiment
to in-situ Em calculations due to blast d
method and procedure Tableand 4. Equations
therefore, foracalculation
good rock ofmethod
E m without Ei.
mass characterization
and procedure may and give
therefore,
equivalent,
a goodorrock mass characterization may
possibly better Em values [83]. In the literature, several
S. No. possibly
Equation correlations
better Ehave
m values
been[83].
Equation suggested
In the literature,
for No.
Equation the Emseveral correlations have been s
Reference
No. 1 E = 2 Equation
× RMR − 100(GPa), RMR > 50 Reference(12) [84]
and the rock-mass quality m(RMRRMRand 76 −10
76Q) values since and the the
firstrock-mass
empirical quality
equation
No. (RMRbetween
and Q)RMR valuesand since the first empirical equation
2 Em = 10 40 (GPa) (13) [87]
1 E Em  2  RMR76 3100 (GPa),
m by Bienwiaski [84] and the first
RMR > 50 empiricalRMR 79 −
Em = 0.3 × H α × 10( 38 ) (GPa), H > 50 m
20 equation E m by
between
Bienwiaski Q and[84]
E mand
(12)by Barton
the first [85].
empirical
[84](14)In these equation
[88]
between Q and Em by B
equations, the
RMR76intact
10 4 rock Eproperties
m =e
(4.407+0.081 were
× RMR89missing.
) (GPa) Later,
equations, it wasthe determined
intact rockthat,
properties
for the were
calculation
(15) missing. Later, [89] it was determined tha
Em  10 mechanical
2 of rock-mass (13) properties [87]
3
40 properties (E m, σ(GPa)
cm, νm, фm, cof m androck-mass
σ tm), the mechanical
intact rock properties (E
(E i, σccm
, ,
ν ν
i, mф
, iф
, m, cm and σtm), the intact rock pr

(GPa)
5 Em = 0.1 × RMR 10
89 m
(16) [90]
ci and σt respectively) 6 RMR and E
79  20
m rock-mass
= 0.0097 × RMR classification
3.54
89 (MPa) c indexes
i and σ t respectively)
must be involved
and rock-mass
[86]. The proposed
classification
(17) indexes
[86] must be involved
  
38 Em = 0.0876 × RMR89 (GPa), RMR ≤ 50
3 correlations
Em  0.3 between
H  107 the deformation

>modulus of rock correlations
mass and betweenthe RMRthe (14)
or Qdeformation [88]
2 values can be modulus
dividedof rock mass and the RMR or Q v
Em =(GPa),
0.0876 × HRMR 50 m
89 + 1.056 × ( RMR89 − 50) + 0.015 × ( RMR89 − 50) , (18a) (18b) [91]
into two groups: RMR > 50 into two groups:
4 Em  e(4.407 0.081RMR 89 )
(GPa)Erm = 1.35 × e0.047RMR89 (GPa) (15) [89](19)
 The Em is calculated 8
independently
9 3 Em = c × log Q(GPa), Q > 1
from the Ei, Table The4. Em is calculated independently (20)
from the Ei, Table [92]
[85]
4.
 The Em is calculated
RMR11  dependently
E = 10 × Q
1
(GPa)from the E i , 
Table 5.
The E m is calculated dependently from
(21) the E i , Table
[69] 5.
Em  0.1  
3
89 m
12 
5 (GPa) 1 1 (16) [90]
(22) [24]
 10  Em = 10(×15×Q
σci
3
× 100 = 10 × Qc3 (GPa)
13 = 10
EmTable log Q+40)/40 , Q for and RMR < 50
< 1.0calculation (23) [24]
3.54 4. Equations of Em without Ei.
Table 4. Equations for calculation of Em without Ei.
6 Em  0.0097  RMR89 (MPa) [86] (17)
Equation E
S.ENo.
m
 0.0876  RMRWhere89
(GPa),
α is RMR ≤ 50Equation
a constant in Equation S. No.and its value (18a)
(14) varies from 0.16 Equation
toReference
0.3. This equation is
No.
(18b)
7 suitable for
E1m  0.0876
Em 2RMR
 RMR  1.056  ( RMR89 c50)
dry conditions.
89 76  100 (GPa), RMR
in Equation (20) is ageneral
 0.015  ( RMR
> 50 1 89 50)
2 constant for Q > 1.0
Em  2  RMR76  100 [91]that ranges
(12)(GPa), RMR [84] > 50
from 10 to 40
with RMR
a mean value of 25 [68,93]. The applications of Equation (12) and (13) are extended for RMR89 .
, RMR > 50 76 10 RMR76 10
2 RMR
E  0.047 and
40 RMR
10 76RMR89 (GPa) 79 are the 1976 and 1979 version
2 of RMR,
Em  10 respectively.
40 (13)
(GPa) [87]
8 Erm  1.35m e (GPa) (19) [92]
 RMR79  20   RMR79  20 
9 E3m  c  log Q (GPa), Q > 1 38  Table 5. Equations
3 for calculation of
(20) 
Em with E 
38 . 
Em  0.3  H  10 (GPa), H > 50 m Em  0.3  H  10 (14)i [85] (GPa), [88]
H > 50 m
1
11 Em  10 EQ  e(4.407  0.081S.
3 (GPa) RMR89 )
No.(GPa) Equation E  e(4.407 (21)
0.081 RMR89 )
Equation(GPa)
[69]
No. Reference
4 m 4 m (15) [89]
RMR
 79

Em 3
22.82 + 0.0028 × RMR2 1 3
 RMR891  Ei = 0.9× e 79 × 100  RMR89 (24) [94]
5 Em  0.1    (GPa)
Em RMR895

Em  0.1   
(16) (GPa) [90]
 10 
2 Ei = 0.05 1 − cos π 100  10 
(25) [95]
Em RMR89
2 3.54 Ei = , β = 6.0 (26)
3.54 [96]
6 Em  0.0097  RMR89 (MPa) Em
RMR89 + β(100− RMR89 )
e( RMR89 −100) 6 Em  0.0097  RMR(17) 89(27)
(MPa) [86]
4 Ei = 22.94
[93]
Em  0.0876  RMR Em RMR
5 89 (GPa),
Ei = e −0.0035
≤ (5(100− RMR89 )
50 E m
 0.0876  RMR (18a)
(28)
89
(GPa), RMR ≤ 50
[97]
Em ( RMR76 −100)/36 (18b)
6 = e (29) [91]
7 Em  0.0876  RMR89  1.056 Ei  ( RMR89  50) 2
 0.015
7  ( RMR E ) 890.0876
(− RMR89 /100m
 50)  RMR89  1.056  ( RMR
2
[91]
89
 50)  0.015  ( RMR89  50)2
7 E [( RMR − 100 ) /4000 × e ] (30) [98]
Ei = 10
m 89

, RMR > 50 Em [−0.0035[250(1−0.3×log Q)]] , RMR > 50

9
0.047 RMR Ei = e 0.047 RMR
(31) [97]
8 Erm  1.35  e 89
(GPa) 8 Erm  1.35  e 89
(19) (GPa) [92]
9 Em  c  log Q (GPa), Q > 1 9 Em  c  log Q (GPa),
(20)Q > 1 [85]
1 1
11 Em  10  Q 3 (GPa) 11 Em  10  Q 3 (GPa)(21) [69]
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 10 of 27

4.2. Strength of Rock Masses

Construction materials used in mining and civil construction are categorized according to their
strength properties. This basic quality information of the material is used in engineering and design
for various construction purposes. Although rock is considered a construction material, in rock
engineering, no such precise strength characterization of the rock mass is applied. Although the
various utilizations of rocks and rock masses have different purposes and are subjected to various
problems, the suitability and quality of the rock mass depends largely on its strength properties.
Reliable determination of rock-mass strength is crucial for underground excavation [11,57,99,100].
The development [12,101] and update of the GSI (geological strength index) system [102] and its
incorporation in the Hoek-Brown empirical failure criterion [103] is mainly for the reliable calculation
of σcm . Like the empirical failure criteria, the use of empirical classification systems for the calculation
of σcm is a common practice in rock engineering through correlation. The proposed correlations
between the σcm and the RMR or Q values can also be divided into two groups:

• The σcm calculated independently of the σc , Table 6.

• The σcm calculated dependently of σc , Table 7.

Table 6. Equations for calculation of σcm without σc .

S. No. Equation Equation No. Reference

1 σcm = 7 × γ × Q1/3 (MPa),
σc > 2 MPa, Q < 10, Jw = 1 (32) [104]
2 σcm = 0.0016R × MR2.589 (MPa) (33) [86]
1/3
3 σcm = 5 × γ × Qc (MPa) (34) [24]
4 σcm = 0.5 × e0.06RMR76 (MPa) (35) [105]
Where γ is the unit weight in t/m3 .

Table 7. Equations for calculation of σcm including σc .

S. No. Equation Equation No. Reference

q
RMR76 −100
1 σcm
= e ( 9 ) (36) [99]
σc
RMR74 −100
3 σcm
σc = e( 18.75 ) (37) [106]
RMR89 −100
4 σcm
σc = e( 24 ) (38) [67]
7 1/3 , γ
5 σcm
σc = 100 γQ in t/m3 (39) [107]
RMR76 −100
6 σcm
σc = e( 20 ) (40) [108]
σcm RMR89
7 σc = RMR89 +6(100− RMR89 ) (41) [109]

4.3. Poisson’s Ratio Value

Compared to the other basic mechanical properties of the rock mass, Poisson’s ratio is an elastic
constant whose importance is generally underrated [110]. The behavior of rock masses is influenced
by the mechanical behavior and properties of discontinuities and of the intact rock bounded by
discontinuities. The UCS test on a rock mass (σcm ) indicated that νm has an inverse relation with
the σcm [111], as expressed in Equation (42). As RMR and Q systems are used for calculation of σcm ,
these systems can be used indirectly for the calculation of νm .
 
νm = 0.25 1 + e−0.2σcm (42)

A direct method of determining νm from the RMR value was proposed [93,112] and is expressed
in Equation (43).
RMR89
νm = 0.5 − 0.2 (43)
RMR89 + 0.2(100 − RMR89 )
 Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 27
PEER REVIEW Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 9 of 27 11 of 27
based. As in the RMR system, bolt spacing is a function of Q value Appl. Sci. and 2018, thickness
8, x FOR PEER of shotcreteREVIEW is
MR system, function boltofspacingthe De along with the
is a function Appl. ofQSci.value.
Q 2018,value 8, xand FOR thickness
PEER REVIEW of shotcrete is 9 of 2
ong with the Q value. This equation was modified and according to this modification, based. As in the theratio RMRofsystem, νm and νbolt i is aspacing
functionis a function of Q
4. Application of the in corresponding
Determination based.RMRof Rock-Mass
As value in the [93],RMR as shown
Properties system, in Equation
boltfunction spacing (44). ofisthe De along of
a function with Q valuethe Q value. and thickness
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 27 of shotcrete i
etermination of Rock-Mass Properties function
The determination of rock mass of νmthe De along
mechanical with the is
properties Q one value.
RMR of89the essential parts of rock
based. As in the RMR system, = 2.5 bolt − spacing
1.5 × is a function 4. Application in Determination of Rock-Mass (44) Properties
tion ofengineering
rock mass design. mechanical properties
To consider the is scale oneνi effect of the foressential
rock masses, RMR parts89 + of
field ( rock
100 −ofRMR
tests areQ desired,
value
89 )
and as thickness
laboratoryof shotcrete is
function of the D 4.e along
Application with the inQDetermination
value. of Rock-Mass Properties
To consider testingthe onscale rockeffectmasses is notmasses,
for rock easy and fieldistests very areunwieldly.
desired, asHowever, laboratory Thefield tests to obtain
determination of rock these mass mechanical properties i
sses isproperties
not easy and 4.4. time-consuming,
are Mohr-Coulomb
is very unwieldly. Parameters The
difficultHowever, determination
to perform field tests and to obtain
of expensive.
rock mass these
mechanical
Therefore,
engineering properties
correlation
design. To consider is onethe
between ofscale
the essential
effect for rock partsmasses,of roc
4. Application in Determination of Rock-Mass Appl. Sci. 2018, Properties
8, x FOR PEER REVIEW
consuming, the RMR difficult and to Q with
perform mechanical
and expensive.
engineering properties Therefore,
design. of To
Mohr-Coulomb model is an elastoplastic model based on the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterionrock masses
correlation
consider the have
testing
between
scale been on
effect made.
rock
for rock The
masses masses, mechanical
is not field easy tests and are is very
desired, unwieldly.
as laborator H
propertiesproperties
ith mechanical include
and is the not
The mostonly
ofdetermination
rock the
common masses
testingdeformation on
modelhave
of rock rock inbeen modulus
themasses
mass made.
context is(Eof
mechanical
based. m) geomaterials.
The
not As and UCS
mechanical
easy and
inproperties
the (σis
RMR )very
cmWhen ofis rock
are
system, oneunwieldly.
using masses
of
time-consuming,
bolt thespacing
this but
However,
essential
model, alsois parts
difficult
it ais field of tests
to
essential
function rock
perform
of Q to value
obtain
and expen and thest
not only the deformation
Poisson’s ratio (ν ),
engineering
m modulus
frictional design. (E angle)
properties
m
to estimate the cm and the m . Bienwiaskifunctionand
To (ф UCS
consider
m ),are (σ
cohesion ) of
time-consuming,
the
cm scale rock
(c m ),effect
correlated masses
Hoek-Brown but
the
difficult
for
of the D rock also
RMRconstant
to
masses,
rock-mass and
perform
e along with
and
field
class Q andtensile
with
tests
thewith expensive.
Q value.are strength
mechanical
desired,
corresponding cm and properties
Therefore,
as laboratory of
correlationrock masses
betwee
frictional (σtm),angle among (фm mthe
),
testingothers,
incohesion on which
a discrete (cmmanner
rock ), the areRMR
Hoek-Brown
masses critical
[44]. is and not
This forconstant
Qeasytunnel
with
discrete and design.
and
mechanical
approach veryCorrelations
is tensile used inbetween
properties
strength
isproperties
unwieldly. include
of rocknot
However,
literature empirical
masses
for only
field thetests therock-
have
calculation deformation
to beenobtain ofmade.these
the modulus
The mechanica(Em) and
hers, which mass are critical
classification forsystems
properties
cohesion tunnel
and are design.
and
internal properties
mechanical
time-consuming, Correlations
friction include
angle rock-mass between
not4.only
difficult
[78,113,114]. empirical
properties
to perform
ApplicationtheThe deformation
are inrock-
Poisson’s
and a Determination
correlation common
expensive. modulus
ratio
between practice ), (E
(νmTherefore, the
of m ) σand
observed
frictional cm and the
Rock-Mass UCS
angle
correlation in (σ (ф
cmm) ),ofcohesion
between
m were
Properties rock masses (cm), but Hoek-B als
ystemsrock and engineering,
mechanical the as
RMR they
rock-mass andcreate
properties
Q an
Poisson’s
with easy are approach
ratio
mechanical a common
(ν m ), for assessing
practice
frictional
properties
made through the best-fit analysis, which shows that the m tends to converge to a value of about 50 angle
of the
observed (σ
rock (ф
tm ),
m among
rock-mass
), incohesion
masses the
conditions.
have others,
(c m ),
been Hoek-Brownwhich
made. are
The critical
constant
mechanical for
and
◦ tunnel
tensile design.
strengt C
they create an easy approach
properties for (σ
assessing ), among
include not only the deformation modulus
tm the the
rock-mass others, which
conditions. The determination
are critical for
mass(Eclassification of
tunnel
m) and UCS systems
rock mass
design.
(σcm) of rock mechanical
Correlations
and mechanical properties
between
masses butrock-mass also is one
empirical of
propertie the
rock
as σ cm increases [111]. As the RMR and Q values are used for calculation of σcm , these systems can be
4.1. Deformation Modulus
Poisson’s of
ratio Rock mass
(ν m Masses
), classification
frictional angle systems
(ф engineering
m ), and
cohesion design.
mechanicalrock
(c m ), To
engineering, consider
rock-mass
Hoek-Brown as the
they
properties
constant scalecreate effect
and are an a for
easy
common
tensile rock masses,
approach
strength practice field
for observedtests ari
assessing
used indirectly for the calculation of the m using Equation (45).
dulus of Rock Masses (σtm), among therock others, which
engineering, areasE critical
they testing on
for tunnel
create rock
an easy masses
design.
approach is not
Correlations easy
for assessing and
between is very
the rock-mass unwieldly.
empiricalconditions. rock- However, fiel
The uncertainties are associated to in-situ m calculations due to blast damage, experiment
properties are time-consuming, difficult to perform
mass classification systems 0.25
σ4.1. Deformation Modulus of Rock Masses and expensive. Therefo
ies are Appl.method
Sci. 2018,and
associated 8, xto procedure
FOR in-situ
PEER Emand
REVIEW therefore,
calculations a and
due good tomechanical
rock the
blast φm =rock-mass
mass
damage, RMR
20 ×
characterization cm properties
experiment
and Q with may are
mechanical give a common
equivalent, 9 practice
properties
of 27 or observed
of rock
(45)
masses
in
have been
4.1. Deformation Modulus of Rock Masses
ure and therefore,
possibly better arock
good engineering,
Em values rock [83]. massIn as they
characterization
the create an
literature, easy
may
several approach
give equivalent,
correlations
properties
for assessing
include haveTheor
not been thesuggested
uncertainties
only
rock-mass
the are
deformation for conditions.
the Emodulus
associated m to in-situ
(E m ) Em UCS
and calculation(σcm) o
Later,system,
a directbolt relation between the rock-mass internal friction angle and the RMR value was
aluesbased. and the
[83]. InAsthe in literature,
the RMR
rock-mass quality
several (RMR and
correlationsspacing
TheQ)uncertainties
values is a function
have sincePoisson’s
been are of
the
suggested firstQ empirical
associated valuefor
ratio method
theand
to
(νmrockE mthickness
equation
and
in-situ
), frictional E mbetween
procedure of shotcrete
calculations RMR
and is
and
therefore,
due to a
blast good damage,rock mass
experimen chara
function of the D 4.1.
developed Deformation
along [115],the
with asModulus
shown
Q value. inofEquation
Rock Masses (46), taking the intact friction angle angle ((фim)),into cohesionconsideration: (cm), Hoek-Brown consta
uality E(RMR m by Bienwiaskiand Q) values e [84]sinceand the themethodfirst
firstempirical and procedure
empirical equation
equation (σtm between
and therefore,
),between
among RMRQtheand
possibly and
aothers,
good
Embetterby rock
which Emmass
Barton are[85].
values characterization
critical In these
[83]. In the
for tunnel may
literature,
design. give equivalent,
several
Correlationscorrelatb o
4] andequations,
the first empirical the intact The rock
equation properties
uncertainties between
possibly were
are Q
better
φm andmissing.
associated E Em m by
values Later,
Barton
to
mass [83].it
in-situ was
[85].
In
classificationE determined
the
m and
In the
these
literature,
calculations
RMRsystems 89
rock-massthat,
several
due for to the
quality calculation
correlations
blast (RMR
damage,
and. mechanical rock-mass properties and
have Q) beenvalues
experiment since
suggested the for
are a commfirst
the em
E
t rock 4. properties
Application
of rock-mass were in Determination
mechanical
missing.
method and properties
Later, and
procedure of
it wasRock-Mass
the (Edetermined
,σ
rock-mass
and =, ν0.3
cmtherefore,
Properties
+m,that,
m, фquality
0.7c ma
×
and for
good σ
(RMR tm),
the the
calculation
rock and E intact
Q)
mass by rock
values properties
since
characterization
Bienwiaski the
[84] (E
first
and mayi, empirical
σ c, give
the ν i,first
ф i,equivalent,
equation
empirical (46) between
or
equation RMRbetween an
m φ
Appl. i Sci. 2018, 8, xrock RMR
FOR engineering,
PEER89 + m ( 100
REVIEW as they create
β − RMR )
89 an easy approach for assessing the rock-mas
nical properties
ci and (Em, possibly
The σdetermination σcm, νm, фof
t respectively) , crock
and
better
m m androck-mass mσvalues
EEmmass by
tm ), the
Bienwiaski intactInrock
classification
[83].
mechanical [84]
the properties
indexes
and theismust
literature,
properties (E
first
several
one i,equations,
σempirical
, νcorrelations
cbe
of i,the
фi, essential
involved the
equation [86].
intact have The
rock
between
parts been proposed
ofproperties Q and were
suggested
rock Efor
m by missing.
the Em Later,
Barton [85]. Init thes was
correlations between is
theathe constant
deformation and its
modulus value varies
ofrock rock between
mass and 0.1the and
ofwere RMR
rock-mass 3. The
orspacing revised
Qofmechanical
values can value
be divided
properties for β is m1.0 and
y) and rock-mass classification
and rock-mass indexes equations, must
quality be involved
the
(RMR intact and rock
Q) [86]. The
properties
values since proposedthe missing.
first empirical Later, it
equation was of Q(Evalue
determined
between , σthat,
RMR , and
νand
m,forфthickness
m,the
cm and
calculatioσof
tm), t
engineering design. β To consider the scale effect for masses, field tests are desired, as
based. As in 4.1.
the Deformation
RMR system, Modulus
bolt Rock a laboratory
isMasses function cm
sh
n thetesting
deformation
into two on groups:
rock Equation
modulus
Emasses (46)
ofisrock
m by Bienwiaski is simplified
notmass of [84]
easy and
rock-mass
and andto
the isEquation
RMR
the mechanical
very first or (47)
Q
empirical
unwieldly. [112].
values propertiescan be
equation
However, cdivided
(E
i andm, between
σ σ
field
cm ,
tν m,tests
ф
respectively)
Q
m , c m and
and
to E
obtain mσ
and by
tm ), the
rock-mass
Barton
these intact [85].rock properties
classification
In these (E i, σc, νim
indexes , ф
function of the De along The with the Q value.
uncertainties are associated to in-situ Emodulus
m calculations due to bla
 The E is calculated
equations,
properties are time-consuming, difficult to perform independently
the c
intact and rock σ from
respectively)
properties the E ,
were Table
and 4.
rock-mass
missing. correlations
Later, classification
it was between
determined indexes the deformation
must
that, for be theinvolved
calculation of
[86]. rock
The mass
propose and
φmand expensive. RMR Therefore, correlation between
m i t i

atedthe  RMR
independently from themechanical
Ei,dependently
Table correlations
4. properties between the=method
σ0.3 5., +νm0.7
deformation ,and m×
procedure
modulus
89 and
of rock therefore, a good rock mass
Qc(47)νi,characterization
фi, can be dividem
Theand Em isQof rock-mass
calculated
with mechanical properties
from
4. the
Application ofErock i, (ETablem ,in
masses
Determination
cm
φi possibly better E
фhave , cinto
m andbeen
100
two σtmgroups:
of ), the
made.
Rock-Mass Themass
intact rockand
mechanical
Properties the RMR
properties (Eor i, σ , values
m values [83]. In the literature, several correlations have be
atedproperties
dependently include from
ci and the σE
not ti,respectively)
only Table the into 5. two
deformation and groups:rock-mass
modulus classification (Em) and UCS  indexes
(σThecm) of Emust is calculated
mrock be
masses involved independently
but [86]. The proposed
also from the Ei, Table 4.
correlations Table
between  4. Equations
the
The deformation
E is The for determination
calculation
calculated and
modulus theof
independentlyE of
rock-mass
m without
of rock rock mass E mass
quality
from
The i. andE the mechanical
isthe(RMR
E , RMR
Table
calculated and or 4. properties
Q)
Q valuescan
values
dependently is be
since one
from the of
dividedthe the
first , essential
Eiempirical
Table 5. equa part
Poisson’s ratio (νmFrom ), frictional
the σcm angle and (фm m), cohesion
m
,engineering
Aydan and (cmKawamoto
), Hoek-Brown suggested constant m and tensile
Equation i
(48) strength
for the calculation of
 [116] design.
Em dependently To
by Bienwiaski consider the
[84]the scale
and effect
the first for rock
5. empirical masses, field tests
equation between Q and E are desired, asm lab
(σtmTable
), among 4. Equations
the into for
others,
rock-mass twocalculation
groups:are
which
cohesion
ofcritical
EThe
m without E
astesting mfor
cited is E i.
calculated
tunnel
by [117]. design. Correlations from between EEquation
i, Table empirical rock-
S. No.  systems Equation on rock masses
equations, is
the notintact easy rock and is
properties very unwieldly.
were Reference
Table missing. However,
Later, it field
was tests
determined to obt
mass classification The Emand is calculated
mechanical independently
rock-mass Equation from the are
properties Ei, Tablea common 4. practice observed in 4. Equations for calculation of Em w

Equation The E is calculated properties
dependently arefrom time-consuming,
of rock-mass
Table
the E 1 4.
, − mechanical
Reference
Equations
sin
Table difficult
5. for toNo.
properties
calculation perform of(EEmand m cm,expensive.
, σwithout νm, фEmi., cm and Therefore,
σtm), thecorrelation
intact rock
rock engineering,
1 Em as 2 they
RMR create
m
 100 an(GPa),easy approach
RMR > 50 forc assessing=
σ
No. cm the rock-mass
×
i φ m conditions. (12) [84] (48)
76 the RMR andciQand m
2with mechanical
σt respectively)
cos S. φmNo. properties and rock-mass of rock masses have
classification indexes
Equation been must made.beThe involv m
RMR76  100 (GPa), RMR > 50 RMR76 10
properties include (12)not only
correlations the
between [84]deformation
the deformation modulus modulus (E m ) and
of UCS
rock Equation
mass(σ cm )
andof rock
the RMR masses or
S. No. Table 4. Equations for calculation Equation of Em without (13) Ei. Referen
MR76 10
4.1. Deformation2  10 40 of Rock
Em Modulus (GPa)Masses 1 Emm), cohesion
2  RMR76(cm),100 [87]
(GPa), RMR >constant 50No.
As RMR and Q values Poisson’s
are used forratio the (ν
into m), two
estimation
(13)
frictional
groups: of σ angle
[87]
cm and (ф m , Equation (48) Hoek-Brown
indirectly uses the and tensile
  
40
(GPa) The uncertainties are associated  RMR79  20 1  to(σin-situ E 2 E RMR calculations 100 (GPa),
due RMR
to blast> 50 damage, 76 10
RMRexperiment Equation
empiricalS. No.classification 
systems tm), form among m
the rock-mass  others,
the 76
Equation The Ecohesion which
m is calculatedare critical
2 (cm ). E Later, for
independently tunnel
a direct design.
from
relation the Correlations
Ei, Table
between Reference
(12)
cm4. between empir
[84]
method
3
 RMR79  20  E  0.3  H  10
and procedure

and therefore,
38 
(GPa),
a good H >
rock50 m mass  characterization may 
give
(14)
10 40
equivalent, (GPa) [88]
No.or
  and the RMR value was developed
m mass classification RMR 76
and,40according (14)systems
10
The Eto m is and mechanical
calculated
this relation,
m
the rock-mass
dependently cm is a function fromproperties the ofEintact are rock
i, Table a common
5. (13) practice ob
 H possibly
 10
38 
(GPa), H > 50 0.081
m[83].
ERMR  RMR
89 )2 the
2
E100 (GPa),
10 RMR (GPa)
> 50
[88]  RMR  20 
[87]
4 better E E 
m
cohesion
values
e (4.407
1 m In (GPa) literature,
rock
76
(ci ) and RMR [112], as expressed in Equation (49).3
several
mengineering, correlations
as they createhave an beeneasy suggested
approach
(15) for

for the
assessing

 [89]
E
(12) m79 
 the [84]
rock-mass conditions.
 0.3 4.HEquations  10andfor calculation
m 38 
07  0.081 RMRthe
and 89 ) rock-mass quality (RMR3and RMR76 Q) 10values since the first  RMR79  20 
 empirical  equation Em between
Table RMR (GPa), H >of50Emmwithout Ei.
(GPa) (15)   [89]
2  RMR E   10 3 40
(GPa) E  0.3  H 
 10  38 
(GPa), H > 50 m  
(13) [87](14) [88]
Em by 3Bienwiaski
5 Em  [84]0.1  and
 the first
m 89
 (GPa) empirical m equation between
4.1. Deformation ModulusRMR Q Rock
of and Em by EBarton
894Masses (16) e [85]. In these
(4.407 0.081 RMR 89 )
[90] (GPa)
 RMR89   properties
10  c =
m (4.407
 RMR
c ×
20i  0.081 RMR89 )
m (49)
  equations,  (GPa) the intact rock 4were missing.
E mThe 3879e uncertainties
Later,
 RMR S. itNo.
(16) was
89 + determined
6(100[90]
(GPa) − RMR that,) for the calculation
associated 89to in-situ RMR
Equation 3
to (15) [89]ex
 of 10rock-mass 6 mechanical
3 Em  0.3 (EHm, σcm
properties

10, νm, фm, cm(GPa), and σ Htm),> 50the
are
mintact rock properties (E
Em calculations
, σ c, 89
(14)
νi,[86] ф(GPa)
i,
due [88] blast damage,
 
3.54
Em  0.0097  RMR89 (MPa) method and procedure 3 5
therefore,
2  RMR E amgood 0.1
(17)  RMR i
> characterization
Sen and Sadagah also
 0.081 suggested  continuous
aindexes
RMR189 must  and Esystem for the 100 (GPa),
76 calculation
rock
 proposed10mass
of cohesion
(15)
50 and the may give equiv
97  cRMR i and σt respectively) and E  e(4.407
rock-mass classification   be [86] involved [86]. The
3.54 RMR89 ) m
89
(MPa) E  0.0876
frictional
4 
angle RMR m
of rock (GPa),5
masses possibly
RMR[18] E 0.1
(GPa) better
≤ 50using Equations
m  E (17)
m values (GPa) [83].
(50)RMR In
and or the
(51).
RMR  literature,
10 (18a) several correlations have[89](16)been suggested [90] f
correlations between m
the deformation 89
modulus 3of rock  mass 10 and  the 76
Q values  can be  divided 3.54

876  RMR897(GPa), RMR ≤ 50  RMR and the  rock-mass (18a) 2quality E (RMR 106 40 E
and Q)m values (GPa) 0.0097 RMR (MPa)
(18b) since the89first empirical equation between
into two groups: Em  0.0876  RMREm 890.1  1.056
6 E  ( RMR Em Bienwiaski
89  50) 
0.0097
(GPa) = 0.015
RMR  ( RMR
3.54
(MPa)
m
 50)2 [91]
5   20  RMRbetween (16) ≤[90]
50(17)
Em by Barton [86]
89 89
m by c (18b) 3.625
[84] ×
89 and RMR the first empirical
E 0.0876
 RMR 79equation (GPa), RMR Q and (50) [85]
76 RMRThe  1.056
Em is, RMR ( RMR
calculated
> 50  50)  0.015
independently   from
( RMR 10 89 
 50) 2
the Ei, Table 4.3
m 73
[91]

m  
 89
Em3.54 0.0876 the    
89 89  38 
equations, intact
RMRrock (GPa), Eproperties
m RMR
0.3
7 ≤ 50 H 10
were missing. Later, it was determined that, for the ca
(GPa), H > 50 m (18a)
 The Em isEcalculated dependently from 89 E  0.0876  RMR89(17)  1.056  ( RMR  50)  0.015  ( R
Em  0.0097  RMR φthe Ei,25 Table + 5.
0.047 RMR89
rm  1.35  e
0 6 m89=(MPa) (1 mechanical0.01RMRproperties 73 ), RMR ≥,mRMR [86]
σ20 (51a)
8 (GPa) 89
of rock-mass (4.40773 (E cm(19)
, )νm, фm, cm and [92] σtm), the2 intact (18b)
rock properties (E
0.047 RMR89 7 Em  0.0876  RMR 4 89  1.056 Em e( RMR89,mRMR 0.081
 50) 89
 0.015
(GPa)  ( RMR  50) [91]
5 e 9
(GPa)E  c  log Q E(GPa),  0.0876
Q > 1  c
RMRi and σ
(GPa),
t respectively)
RMR (19) ≤ 50 and [92]
rock-mass classification
(20)
> 50
indexes (18a)
[85]
89
must be involved [86]. The
Table 4. Equations, RMR for m>= 501.5 × of RMR 73 , RMR Ei.73 < 20 (51b)
m m 89φcalculation Em without 3 0.047 RMR89
correlations between the deformation 8  RMR Erm891.35of2rock
modulus e mass (18b)(GPa) and the RMR
ogQ (GPa), Q > 1
11 Em  107 Q 3 (GPa)
1
Em  0.0876  RMR89  1.056  (0.047 (20)
RMR 5RMR  50) Em 0.015 0.1   ( RMR89
[85]
 (GPa)
(21) 50) [69] [91] or Q values can b
1 8 intoErm two  1.35groups: e 89 89 (GPa)
9  Equation
10
E  
c  log Q (GPa), Q > 1 (19) [92]
Q 3 (GPa) S. No. , RMR > 50 Equation (21) [69] m Reference
 EmThe  cE mlog is Q calculated
(GPa), Qindependently No.3.54 the 1Ei, Table 4.
from
9 0.047 RMR89 6 E>m1  0.009711 E RMR  10 (MPa) Q 3 (GPa) (19)
(20) [85]
1 E m
 2  RMR
8 76
 E100
rm  1.35
(GPa), RMR e  > 50 (GPa)
The Em is 1calculated dependently from
m (12)89 the E i, Table [84]5. [92]
11 Em  10  Q 3 (GPa) Em  0.0876  RMR89 (GPa), RMR ≤ 50 (21) [69]
RMR76 10
9 Em  c  log Q (GPa), Q>1
2 Em  10 40 (GPa) (13) [87](20) [85]
1 7 EmTable  0.0876  RMR89for
4. Equations  1.056
calculation  ( RMR of Emwithout 50)  0.015 Ei.  ( RMR  50)2
11 7910
E mRMR  20 Q
3 (GPa) (21) 89 [69] 89
 
3  , RMR > 50 (14) [88] Equation
Em  0.3  H  10  38 
(GPa), S.
H No.
> 50 m Equation
0.047RMR
cation in Determination of Rock-Mass Properties
determination of rock mass mechanical properties is one of the essential parts of rock
ing design. To consider the scale effect for rock masses, field tests are desired, as laboratory
n rock masses is not easy and is very unwieldly. However, field tests to obtain these
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 12 of 27
es are time-consuming, difficult to perform and expensive. Therefore, correlation between
R and Q with mechanical properties of rock masses have been made. The mechanical
es include not only theBartondeformation
split themodulus
modified(E ) and UCS
Qmsystem from(σEquation
cm) of rock
(9) masses
into twobut also
components and designated them
s ratio (νm), frictional
the cangle
m and (ф m),[24],
m
cohesion
as (c
shownm),in
Hoek-Brown
Equations constant
(52) and and
(53), tensile strength
respectively.
ong the others, which are critical for tunnel design. Correlations  between empirical  rock-
ssification systems and mechanical rock-mass properties are aRQD common 1practice σciobserved in
cm = × × (52)
neering, as they create an easy approach for assessing the rock-mass Jn SRF 100
conditions.
 
mation Modulus of Rock Masses −1 Jr Jw
φm = tan × (53)
Ja 1
uncertainties are associated to in-situ Em calculations due to blast damage, experiment
and procedure and 4.5.therefore,
Hoek-Brown Constants
a good rock and
mass Tensile Strength of Rock
characterization mayMass
give equivalent, or
better Em values [83]. In the literature, several correlations have been suggested for the Em
For the subsurface excavations design in hard rock, Hoek and Brown introduced their empirical
ock-mass quality (RMR and Q) values since the first empirical equation between RMR and
failure criterion, known Hoek-Brown failure criterion [99,118]. The criterion for rock masses is accepted
enwiaski [84] and the first empirical equation between Q and Em by Barton [85]. In these
widely in a huge number of excavation projects worldwide [103]. The development history of this
s, the intact rock properties were missing. Later, it was determined that, for the calculation
empirical failure criterion [119] shows that RMR served this criteria before replacing it with the
mass mechanical properties (Em, σcm, νm, фm, cm and σtm), the intact rock properties (Ei, σc, νi, фi,
GSI system [12] for the calculation of the rock-mass Hoek-Brown constants m and s. The original
respectively) and rock-mass classification indexes must be involved [86]. The proposed
Hoek-Brown failure criterion is shown in Equation (54) for intact rock and the generalized Hoek-Brown
ons between the deformation modulus of rock mass and the RMR or Q values can be divided
failure criterion for rock mass is expressed in Equation (55) [103].
groups:
Em is calculated independently from the Ei, Table 4. ,
q
σ1 = σ3, + mi × σ3, × σc + σci2 (54)
Em is calculated dependently from the Ei, Table 5.
σ3,
 a
,
E1m, without
Table 4. Equations for calculation of σ = σ3 + σci × mb ×
E i . +s , (55)
σc
Equation
where mb inEquation the above equations is a reduced value for the rock mass of the material constant mi and
Reference
No.
s and a are constants for the rock mass. The rock-mass constants mb and s were expressed in terms
Em  2  RMR76  100 (GPa), RMR > 50
of the basic RMR before the introduction of GSI in the(12) Hoek-Brown[84]
criterion [22,120], as shown in
RMR76 10
Equations (56)–(59).
Em  10 40 (GPa) (13) [87]
Disturbed rock masses:
 RMR79  20  RMRb − 100
 
  mb
Em  0.3  H  10
38 
(GPa), H > 50 m
= exp (14) [88] (56)
mi 14
Em  e(4.407 0.081RMR89 ) (GPa) RMRb −
 
100
(15) [89]
s = exp (57)
3 6
 RMR89 
Em  0.1    (GPa) (16) [90]
Undisturbed or interlocking rock masses:
 10 
3.54
Em  0.0097  RMR89 (MPa) − 100
 
mb RMRb(17) [86]
= exp (58)
Em  0.0876  RMR89 (GPa), RMR ≤ 50 m i 28
(18a)
(18b) 
Em  0.0876  RMR89  1.056  ( RMR89  50)  0.015  ( RMR89  50)2RMRb − 100 [91]

s = exp (59)
, RMR > 50 9
0.047 RMR89
Erm  1.35  e (GPa)rock-mass constants were also expressed in Q’
These SRF and Jw ) value, as expressed
(19)(Q without[92]
in Equations
Em  c  log Q (GPa), Q > 1 (60) and (61) [104].
mb (20)
1 [85]
0 3
1 = 0.135 × Q (60)
Em  10  Q 3 (GPa) mi (21) [69]

s = 0.002 × Q0 (61)

By substituting σ1 =0 in the original Hoek-Brown Equation (54), the resultant equation,

Equation (62), determines the σt .
 q 
σc
σt = × mb − m2b + 4 × s (62)
2
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 13 of 27

This equation indirectly yields the σtm from the RMR and Q values, as mb and s are functions of
these systems.
The direct method for the calculation of the σtm from the RMR value is given in Equation (63) [121].

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW σtm RMR 14 of 27

= (63)
σt RMR + 6(100 − RMR)
5. Other Applications
5. Other Applications
5.1. Stand-Up Time
5.1. Stand-Up Time
In subsurface openings, time-dependent loss of the rock mass is normal, causing either
In subsurface
accelerated damage openings, time-dependent
or slow damage [122]. A loss of theconsequence
practical rock mass is of normal, causing either
time dependency accelerated
in tunneling
damage or slowofdamage
is the amount time the [122]. A practical
excavated rockconsequence
mass can remain of time dependencybefore
unsupported in tunneling is the occur,
instabilities amount
of time theinexcavated
resulting failure and rock mass can
collapse. This remain
periodunsupported before is
of time to collapse instabilities
known as occur, resulting
the stand-up in failure
time. The
and collapse. This period of time to collapse is known as the stand-up
stand-up time was established as an empirical classification system [13]. According to this time. The stand-up time was
established
classification,as the
an empirical
rock massclassification
was classifiedsystem [13]. classes
into seven Accordingand to this classification,
a relation between the therock-mass
rock mass
was classified
classes, intotime
stand-up sevenandclasses
activeand a relation
span between the
was established. Therock-mass
stand-upclasses, stand-up time
time classification and
was oneactive
of
span was classification
the three established. The stand-up
systems time considered
that were classification was one
during of the three classification
the development systemsand
of the RMR system that
a chart
were was developed
considered during tothe
correlate the predicted
development of thestand-up
RMR system time for
andthe unsupported
a chart span of the
was developed tunnel
to correlate
andpredicted
the the RMRstand-up
score [8].time
Along forwith the update ofspan
the unsupported the of
RMRthe system
tunnel andfor tunneling, the stand-up
the RMR score [8]. Alongtime
with
chart was also updated for drill and blast tunnel [22] and was also revised
the update of the RMR system for tunneling, the stand-up time chart was also updated for drill andfor TBM tunnel [123].
blast
In the tunnel [22] and
Q system, was also
instead of revised
providing TBMstand-up
for the tunnel [123].
time, the system suggests the span of the
In the Q system, instead of providing the stand-up time, the system suggests the span of the
unsupported tunnel based on the tunnel-quality index value, that is, Q. The unsupported span can
unsupported tunnel based on the tunnel-quality index value, that is, Q. The unsupported span can be
be calculated
calculated using
using Equation
Equation (64)(64)
[9].[9].
0.4
DeD= 2 2×Q Q0.4 (64)
(64)
e
The general condition requirement for the unsupported span was expressed for different ESR
The general condition requirement for the unsupported span was expressed for different ESR
values [85]. Based on the correlation between the RMR and Q systems, the stand-up time for an
values [85]. Based on the correlation between the RMR and Q systems, the stand-up time for an
unsupported
unsupported span
span was
was extended for the
extended for Q system
the Q system [53],
[53], as
asshown
shownin
inFigure
Figure1.1.

Tunnel case histories 90 RMR

30.0
80
Tunnelling quality index, Q value 70
20.0
Immediate collapse 60
50
10.0
40

30
100.0
Tunnel Span (m)

10.0
20 70 80
60
50
0.1 40

1.0 30 No support required

0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Stand-up time (h)

Stand-up time
Figure 1. Stand-up time versus
versusunsupported
unsupportedspan
spanofofthe
thetunnel
tunnelfor
fordifferent RMRand
differentRMR andQQvalues.
values.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 14 of 27

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 27

5.2. Rock Load
5.2. Rock Load
In underground excavations, generally, the load on installed support is known as rock load.
In underground
It indicates the rock pressure excavations, generally,
that results from thethe rock-load
load on installed
heightsupport
aboveisthe
known as rock load.
underground It
excavation.
indicates the rock pressure that results from the rock-load height above the underground excavation.
Reliable forecast of rock load is one of the toughest jobs in rock engineering. Terzagi was the first
Reliable forecast of rock load is one of the toughest jobs in rock engineering. Terzagi was the first
whose rock-mass classification
whose rock-mass system,—that
classification is, rock-load
system,—that is, rock-loadclassification—was usedtotoestimate
classification—was used estimate thethe rock
load to be carried by the steel arches installed to support a tunnel [5], as shown in Figure
rock load to be carried by the steel arches installed to support a tunnel [5], as shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2. Development of loosened ground zone in response to tunnel construction. B and Ht are the
Figure 2. Development of loosened ground zone in response to tunnel construction. B and Ht are the
width and height of the tunnel, respectively, Hp and Bi are the height and width of the arching zone,
width and height of the tunnel, respectively, Hp and
respectively and H is the depth of the tunnel from
Bi are the
the ground
height and width of the arching zone,
surface.
respectively and H is the depth of the tunnel from the ground surface.
Since then, different methods, including empirical, analytical, numerical and experimental
approaches, were used for prediction of the rock load [9,124-126]. According to Barton [9] and
Since then, different methods, including empirical, analytical, numerical and experimental
supported by Verman [88], the rock load is free of the tunnel size in rock and Barton expressed this
approaches, were used
using Equation (65).for prediction of the rock load [9,124–126]. According to Barton [9] and
supported by Verman [88], the rock load is free1 2of the tunnel size in rock and Barton expressed this
2  J n  Q 1 3
using Equation (65). P (kg/cm2) (65)
1/2 3  Jr −1/3
2 × Jn × Q
P= (kg/cm2 ) (65)
× Jr useful, except in cases of squeezing-ground
The correlation of Equation (65) has3 proven
conditions. For squeezing ground, three adjustment factors were applied to Barton’s original
The correlation of Equation (65) has proven useful, except in cases of squeezing-ground conditions.
equation, including the tunnel depth factor, tunnel radius factor and correction factor for time
For squeezing ground,
[127,128]. three adjustment
The application factors
of the RMR system were
was applied
introduced forto Barton’s
the original
support load equation,
by Unal including
[124] based
the tunnel depth factor, tunnel radius factor and correction factor for time [127,128]. The application
on the old version of RMR and extended for RMR89 using Equation (66). He defined the rock load as of
unstable zone height above the excavation crown, which tends to collapse ultimately.
the RMR system was introduced for the support load by Unal [124] based on the old version of RMR
and extended for RMR89 using Equation (66). He 100defined
 RMR89 the rock load as unstable zone height above
P B, (66)
the excavation crown, which tends to collapse ultimately. 100

where p is the support load (kN), B is the tunnel width (m) and γ is the rock density (kg/m3).
100 − RMR89
Since the above equation is basedP= on a coal mine roadway,
γB, the evaluation of this equation for (66)
100
rock tunnel applications shows that the estimated support pressure is unsafe in squeezing conditions
[128]. Furthermore, the estimates for the non-squeezing condition are unsafe in the case of a small
3
where p is the support load (kN), B is the tunnel width (m) and γ is the rock density (kg/m ).
Since the above equation is based on a coal mine roadway, the evaluation of this equation for rock
tunnel applications shows that the estimated support pressure is unsafe in squeezing conditions [128].
Furthermore, the estimates for the non-squeezing condition are unsafe in the case of a small tunnel and
are overestimated for a large tunnel. The following correlations (Equations (67) and (68)) have been
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 15 of 27

proposed for a rock tunnel, taking the tunnel depth and tunnel radius as two additional parameters
with RMR for non-squeezing and squeezing conditions [128].
For non-squeezing ground:

P = (2.32 − 0.035 × RMR89 + 0.001 × H + 0.03 × a) , MPa (67)

For squeezing ground:

0.4 × a0.1 /RMR 1.2 )
P = ( f ( RMR89 )/12) × 10(1.8H 89 , MPa, (68)

where P is the ultimate support pressure, f (RMR89 ) is the correction factor for the tunnel closure, H is
the tunnel depth (m) and a is the radius of the tunnel (m).
Due to the widespread acceptance of GSI in rock engineering, Equation (66) is considered the core
origin for the Equation (69), which is based on GSI for the calculation of support pressure [129].
h q i
D σcr
100 − 1− 2 100 GSI
P= Cs Sq γDe , (69)
100
GSI defines the quality of rock-mass, D is the disturbance factor, σcr is the residual compressive
strength of the rock mass in the broken zone around the tunnel, De is the equivalent diameter of the
excavation, γ is the unit weight of rock mass, Cs is the correction factor for the horizontal-to-vertical
field stress ratio and Sq is the correction factor for the squeezing-ground condition.

6. Recommended Procedure for Using RMR and Q Systems and their Correlation
After RMR and Q systems had been used in the field of tunneling worldwide, Nick Barton and
Z. T. Bieniawski provided the “ten commandments” for the proper use of RMR and Q systems [53]
as follows:

• Use standard procedure of measurement for the parameters instead of only description.
• Determine the ranges and average values of RMR and Q per their classification procedure.
• Use RMR and Q systems and check them with published correlation.
• Estimate the support and rock-reinforcement requirements.
• For preliminary modelling, determine the stand-up time and modulus of rock-mass.
• For checking, perform numerical modelling.
• If the available information is inadequate, extend the exploration work.
• Consider the construction process.
• Include the characterization information of rock-mass along with the design procedure,
specifications and assumptions in the Geotechnical Baseline Report.
• In the construction phase, calculate RMR and Q for design verification and modification.

A back-analysis methodology for RMR and Q calculation, as shown in Figure 3, was proposed
using the installed support and used to evaluate and extend the application of these classification in
the field of tunneling [70]. The variation of rock-mass quality in underground excavation is always
significant. However, the forecast of RMR ahead of the excavation face in tunneling, up to certain
distance, is reliable using the rock-mass quality of the current working face of the tunnel [130]. It is
worth emphasizing that use at least two empirical classification systems in the tunnel-support design
process [131]. When using both systems, they should be checked through correlation [53]. After the
development of RMR and Q systems, a linear correlation based on the regression analysis of RMR and
Q values was presented by Bienwiaski [75], as shown in Equation (70), where A = 9 and B = 44.

RMR = A × ln Q + B (70)
 spacing (m) span (m)
Back calculation of rock mass quality

Rock bolt Shotcrete Tunnel

Q1 Q2
spacing (m) thickness (cm) span (m)

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 Back

Q1 calculatedQrock
2
16 of 27
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW mass quality (Q) 17 of 27

Back calculated rock

Back calculation of rock mass quality
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8,Back calculation
x FOR of RMR
PEER REVIEW mass quality (Q) 17 of 27

Rock bolt Shotcrete Tunnel Rock bolt Shotcrete Tunnel

thickness (cm)
spacing (m)Back calculation of RMR span (m) Back (m)
spacing calculation of rock mass
thickness (cm) qualityspan (m)

Rock bolt Shotcrete Tunnel Rock bolt Shotcrete Tunnel

thickness
spacing (m) RMR 1
(cm)
RMR2 span (m) spacing (m) thickness (cm) span (m)
Q1 Q2

RMR1 RMR2
Q1 Q2
Back calculated rock
Back calculated rock
mass rating (RMR)
mass quality (Q)

Back calculated rock

Back calculated rock
mass quality (Q) span along with
Figure 3.Figure 3. Back-calculation
mass rating
Back-calculation technique for
(RMR)
technique
Back
RMR (left) and Q system (right)
of RMR
calculationfor
using tunnel
RMR (left) and Q system (right) using tunnel span along with
rock-bolt spacing and shotcrete thickness [58].
rock-bolt spacing and shotcrete thickness [58].
Figure 3. Back-calculation technique for RMR (left) and Q system (right) using tunnel span along with
Since then,Rockseveral
bolt Back Shotcrete
researchers
calculation have Tunnelother correlations but there is no scientific basis
presented
of RMR
rock-bolt spacing and shotcrete thickness [58].
Since
to assume aspacing
then, several (m) valid
researchers
universally thickness
have (cm)
regressionpresentedspan (m)
between other
the twocorrelations
systems. Thebut there isinno
limitations scientificisbasis to
correlation
assume adue toSince
the differences
universally valid
Rock bolt between
regression the rock-mass
between
Shotcrete characterizations
the two
Tunnel systems. andTherating rules
limitations
then, several researchers have presented other correlations but there is no scientific of RMRin and Q basis
system
correlation is due to
[132].
to Due
assume to
a this
spacing constraint
(m)
universally of
valid correlation,
thickness (cm)
regression some
span
between scholars
(m)
the two propose
systems. local,
the differences between the rock-mass characterizations and rating rules of RMR and Q system [132].The project-based,
limitations in or geological-
correlation is
based tocorrelation
dueconstraint between
the differences RMRthe1 two
between systems
the some RMR
rock-mass 2[132–136]. Another suggested
characterizations approach forand
the Q
correlation
Due to this of correlation, scholars propose and rating
local, rules of RMR
project-based, system
or geological-based
is[132].
between Duethe truncated
to this RMR
constraint of and Q values
correlation, [54,128].
some Thepropose
scholars latest version of RMR, that is,
local, project-based, or RMR 14, is not
geological-
correlation
asbasedbetween
popular as the
RMR two
correlation between; systems
however, an [132–136].
excellent
the1 two systems
Another
correlation suggested
between the two approach
versions for
exists the correlation is
[23,58,137],
89
RMR RMR2[132–136]. Another suggested approach for the correlation
betweenasisthe
showntruncated
between inthe
Figure RMR4.
truncated RMRQ
and andvalues [54,128].
Q values [54,128].The latestversion
The latest version of RMR,
of RMR, that is,that 14, RMR
RMRis, is not 14 , is not
as popular as RMRas89RMR
as popular ; however,
89; however,an anexcellent
excellentcorrelation between
correlation between the versions
the two two versions exists [23,58,137],
exists [23,58,137],
as shownasinshownFigure in Figure
4. 4. Back calculated rock
mass rating (RMR)
Back calculated rock
mass rating (RMR)

Figure 4. Correlation between the two versions of RMR [58].

Figure 4. Correlation
Figure 4. Correlationbetween thetwo
between the two versions
versions of RMR
of RMR [58]. [58].
7. Limitations of RMR and Q Systems
7. Limitations of RMR and Q Systems
Rock-mass classification systems are frequently used in rock engineering and design and have
7. Limitations of RMR and Q Systems
gainedRock-mass
wide attention in this
classification field;arehowever,
systems frequentlythese classification
used in systems
rock engineering have limitations.
and design and have
Rock-mass classification
Nevertheless,
gained wide ifattention systems
applied appropriately,
in arethey
this field; frequently
are valuable
however, used
these in rock
design toolsengineering
[138].
classification One of
systems and
the
have design
many and have
reasons
limitations.
gained wide attention in this field; however, these classification systems have limitations. Nevertheless,
for updating
Nevertheless,the
if two systems
applied is to point
appropriately, out
they aretheir limitations.
valuable design These
tools updates
[138]. One kept
of thethe two
many systems
reasons
if appliedforappropriately,
updating the two systems
they is to point design
are valuable out theirtools
limitations.
[138].These
One updates kept the
of the many two systems
reasons for updating
the two systems is to point out their limitations. These updates kept the two systems viable to date
and also expanded their applications in rock engineering. Some limitations found were inherent to the
two systems, which have been proven from their use over time, whereas the others were overcome
with improvements. The inherent limitations of these systems formed basis for new classification
systems. Stille and Palmstorm pointed out six necessities for a true rock mass classification system and,
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 17 of 27

according to them, none of these systems fulfill these requirements [20]. However, Hand distinguished
between the two main types of classification, that is, unsupervised and supervised classification [139].
The RMR and Q systems belong to the supervised classification because the rock-mass class structure
is logical and the principles of separation are expressed so as to allow one to distribute objects to their
suitable class [20].
Many empirical systems in rock engineering have been suggested with the respect of a specific
rock-mass structure and/or particular purposes. Rock mass related professionals incline to the
empirical method over the theoretical and numerical methods due its simplicity [128]. However,
these empirical approaches are unable to characterize complex rock-masses. This is probably one of
the causes why rock engineers have continued to develop new systems or modify and extend current
ones [7]. Each classification has its own capabilities and therefore they are used in parallel as much as
possible. The limitations can be broadly divided into three types, as described in the following sections.

7.1. Limitations Related to RMR System

The key benefit of the RMR classification is that it is easy to practice. However, this system is
comparatively insensitive to slight changes in RMR value. Taking ground behavior in consideration,
adequate support measure be selected with clear understanding in tunnel design [1]. Based on ground
behavior and the available tools for underground excavation in rock engineering, the application of
RMR systems are the lowest among the classification systems [56], as shown in Table 8. This system
is based on a comparatively small case record, which makes the RMR system less appropriate as an
empirical design technique for rock-mass support, particularly when in-situ stresses or time-dependent
rock mass properties are of importance for the rock engineering design [20]. In the RMR system,
the rock-mass quality is divided into five classes but these classes are scarcely comparable due to
the wide variation of rock-mass quality within a single class [140]. As the classification and design
systems develop, the old forms of rock-mass classification systems are not always well-matched with
new design approaches. Presently, usual mistakes of RMR system applications primarily deal with
the use of old versions of the system [141], for example, the use of RMR76 for hard rock-stability
analysis for a span in entry-type excavation [142]. Although this system is improved tremendously
in terms of characterization and support, it is noticeable that the application of RMR89 , RMR14
systems for tunnel-support design in high-stress locations is still a limitation of the system [58].
Although the positive impact of mechanical excavation is incorporated in the latest version of RMR,
that is, RMR14 [23], the mechanical excavation impact is negative in high-stress environments and drill
and blast excavation has a positive impact against rock bursting [143,144].

Table 8. The fitness of empirical rock-mass classification systems for different ground behavior during
tunnel excavation.

Empirical Rock-Mass Classification System

Ground Behavior
RMR Q RMi
Stable 2 2 1–2
Fragment (s) or block (s) fall 1–2 1–2 1–2
Cave-in 3 2–3 2
Running ground 4 4 4
Buckling 4 3 3
Rupturing from stress 4 3 3
Slabbing, spalling 4 2 2
Rock burst 4 3–4 2
Plastic behavior (initial) 4 3–4 3
Squeezing ground 4 3 3
Raveling from slaking or friability 4 4 4
Swelling ground 4 3 3
Flowing ground 4 4 4
Water ingress 4 4 4
Fitness rating of different systems: 1, suitable; 2, fair; 3, poor; and 4, not applicable. RMi is the rock-mass index
system for rock engineering purposes [11].
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 18 of 27

7.2. Limitations Related to Q System

Empirical design methods have been accepted for a long time, owing to the lack of appropriate
design methods and undeveloped theory, which show quite adverse results during construction [145].
An important benefit of the Q system is that this system is based on well-documented case records
for its original development. However, compared to RMR, this system is not covering new fields in
its use. Therefore, the support chart of Q system gives only a suggestion of the support to be applied
and this support system should be tempered by practical and sound engineering judgement [138].
In this system, RQD/Jn is an indication of relative block size, however, this is not understandable [146],
which was supported by Palmstorm [60]. The effect of water in the Q system was discussed by
Palmstorm through example, which shows that in exceptionally high-flow cases, the Q system is
unable to recommend suitable support [138].
The application of SRF is unclear for buckling, rock-burst, and/or squeezing conditions, or for
weakness zones [56]. The SRF values were adjusted in 1993, in overstressed massive brittle rocks
based on limited data [68]. This increase is from a value of 20 to 400 based on the strength–stress
ratio but no criteria have been selected for the rating selection of SRF even though SRF was a fine
tuning parameter [9]. In case of squeezing rock, Barton selected the range of SRF from 5 to 20 [9];
however, this SRF range does not effectively characterize the squeezing influence due to the deficiency
of enough case records and resulting in unsafe tunnel practice when using the Q system for large
underground excavations in squeezing ground [128]. The true nature of the rock-mass is not explicitly
reflected in the Q system, although it is crucial for the prediction of the support measures (e.g., popping
ground, squeezing, or swelling) [20]. According to Loset [147], the Q system is not applicable in weak
rock and weak zones, which was also confirmed by comparison of Q-system support with that of
NATM (New Austrian Tunneling Method) support in swelling rock [148]. Bhawani Singh and his
co-researchers [127] have presented an empirical approach (Equation (71)) for critical overburden
calculation when squeezing may happen.

H > 350Q1/3 (71)

In the calculation of H expressed above, the method of calculating Q is uncertain. This was also
pointed out by Palmstorm [138].
In the Q-system support chart, the determination of support is based on Q value and De . The De
is the function tunnel span and ESR. The ESR value should be based on the safety of the working team
according to the country’s safety criteria because each country has its own criteria [138]. Application of
the Q system is more prevalent in jointed rock without overstressing [138] and displays optimal
performance for a tunnel with De between 2.5 and 30 and Q values between 0.1 and 40 [149].

7.3. Limitations Related to the Two Systems

The different excavation (size, shape and purpose) and corresponding rock-supporting practices
and procedures in different countries, as well as the permanent support requirements, result in
approaches and amounts of support that fluctuate widely from tunnel to tunnel. The users of empirical
support charts ignore on which averaged and imprecise basis the rock-support given in the support
chart is based. This feature is common for quantitative rock mass classification systems used for tunnel
support. It is the opinion of the experts in tunneling that rock-mass classifications as a designing tool
on their own should be used for preliminary design of underground openings, that is, for planning
purposes and not for final tunnel support [99,150,151].
The two systems have duplications of some parameters, such as RQD, joint number and their
spacing, which doubles the effect of the joints on the final score. Furthermore, the influence of water
on clay-bearing rocks plays a significant role in reducing rock-mass strength, however, this influence is
not effectively reflected in these classification systems [7]. RQD is used in both systems as a mandatory
parameter but their correlation with other jointing measurement parameters is very difficult [60].
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 19 of 27

The difficulty in correlation is that RQD is a one-dimensional measurement based only on core pieces
longer than 0.1 m, which means that the application of RQD in rock engineering may lead to inaccuracy.
The incorporation of this parameter within the two systems was a matter of historical development
and its use in these classification system is no longer essential [61]. In rock-mass classification systems,
parameters and ratings are applied irrespective of the project, specific characteristics and failure
mechanisms [151].
Three of the basic limitations in using these systems are the risk of over-simplification by
summarizing a complex rock-mass with a single digit, the scale effect and accounting for anisotropy
and heterogeneity in tunnel and cavern designs [151–153]. The same rock mass quality value (RMR
or Q) can be attained by a number of groupings of parameters score, even though the behavior of
rock-mass could be dissimilar [151]. In rock-mass classification systems, there is no way of assessing
the safety margin of a certain support under certain conditions, as the classification was assigned based
on a rule and not on the engineering analysis [153]. These systems do not allow the user to quantify
the degree of safety achieved by the design [56]. According to Pell and Bertuzzi [154], rock-mass
classification systems include a significant degree of interpretation, as they are based on a particular
structure at a particular depth.
One concern with empirical systems is that the true class of the rock mass is unidentified,
which results in additional uncertainties and therefore the risk of misclassification [20]. The hazards and
associated consequences due to misclassification are not taken into consideration. Thus, they will have
a limited understanding of the mechanical processes associated with tunneling [153]. When excavated,
a rock mass is the location of complex phenomena that rely upon mechanics, physics, thermodynamics,
chemistry and so forth. Therefore, although it is comparatively easy to quantify the rock matrix
properties. However, the same is not true for the rock mass at the scale of our works and a single score
of this rock mass can clearly not pretend to achieve a description of the large variety properties.
In rock engineering, with time, original rules and temporary clarifications become rooted as
exercise and the original rules are hardly reconsidered or questioned [155]. These systems are misused
continuously due to the limitations used and assumptions made in developing them have been
ignored by users. For this reason, empirical classification systems contain a hidden critical risk [156].
The assigned parameters are neither independent nor directly connected with rock behavior [157].
Therefore, the users only consider the geological characterization of the rock mass followed by ground
support recommendation without reflection of the probable ground behavior. It is essential to examine
the available rock-mass behavior information whether they are addressed by the empirical systems or
not. A number of potential modes of failure are shown in Table 8 which reveal that every failure mode
are not covered by the empirical methods and they must be considered individually [151]. As these
systems are based empirically for the design and no division is made between durability, serviceability
and structural resistance, this is a severe deficiency, particularly when linked to the design codes [56].
In heterogeneous and poor ground conditions, these systems may deliver false results, whilst their
other inadequacies comprise a deficiency of consideration for different rock-mass failure modes and
for the ground-support interaction [151].

8. Conclusions
Classification systems of rock masses have been developed significantly and serve as transmitters
of their characteristics. Specifically, with respect to tunneling, RMR and Q systems describe and
divide the ground into different classes and are also part of the engineering design methodologies.
These RMR and Q systems are numerical classifications and are established on jointed rock-mass
case records. These have a wide-range of application in rock mechanics but are established for
tunnel-support and for this particular purpose they are updated empirically. The key purpose behind
their worldwide recognition is that these systems have been continuously updated both in the form
of characterization and support. These systems on their own can be used for the preliminary design
and planning of tunnel supports. They are unreliable during tunnel construction for rock-support,
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 20 of 27

as local geometry of the underground excavation and geological features may dominate the rock-mass
quality defined by these systems. Along with preliminary design of tunnel support, these systems
are also good alternatives for the estimation of rock masses geomechanical properties (deformation
modulus, strength, Mohr-Coulomb parameters and Hoek-Brown constant), stand-up time for the
tunnel and support load. Along with the wide use of these systems in rock engineering in general and
tunneling in particular, there are limitations of using RMR and Q systems that will be encountered
when using them in the engineering applications. The classification system accuracy and the hazard
resulting from misclassification must be weighed. It is concluded that both systems are suitable for
jointed rock-mass where the ground behavior is led by rock fall. However, other types of behavior,
like swelling, squeezing, raveling, or popping ground, are not effectively covered by these systems.
These systems should be applied with great care for such conditions and, preferably, should be
supported by other design tools. Rock-mass classifications were never suggested as the decisive
solution to design problems but only a way towards this end. For a true classification, these empirical
design methods need further improvements, as it is difficult to define their accuracy. There are a
number of pitfalls in using these classification systems in the design and construction of tunnels,
which must be considered by the users. Considering the limitations of the said systems and when used
along with other suitable design tools, the RMR and Q systems are valuable tools for tunnel design
and also serve as a kind of checklist.

Author Contributions: H.Y. and R.A.A. supervised the research. H.R. and W.A. has developed the proposed
research concept. A.M.N. contributed to reviewed the final paper and made important suggestions and
recommendations for paper revision. J.K. helped in writing and re-checking the paper technically as well
as grammatically.
Funding: This research was funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Korean government
grant number 18SCIP-B089413-05.
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the “Development of Design and Construction Technology
for Double Deck Tunnel in Great Depth Underground Space (18SCIP-B089413-05”) from Construction Technology
Research Program funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Korean government.
The authors (Hafeezur Rehman, Wahid Ali and Abdul Muntaqim Naji) are extremely thankful to the Higher
Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan for HRDI-UESTPs scholarship.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Stille, H.; Palmström, A. Ground behaviour and rock mass composition in underground excavations.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2008, 23, 46–64. [CrossRef]
2. Harrison, J.; Hudson, J.; Popescu, M.E. Engineering Rock Mechanics: Part 2. Illustrative Worked Examples.
Appl. Mech. Rev. 2000, 55, B30. [CrossRef]
3. Pinheiro, M.; Emery, X.; Miranda, T.; Lamas, L.; Espada, M. Modelling Geotechnical Heterogeneities Using
Geostatistical Simulation and Finite Differences Analysis. Minerals 2018, 8, 52. [CrossRef]
4. Feng, X.-T.; Hudson, J.A. Rock Engineering Design; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011.
5. Terzaghi, K. Rock Defects and Loads on Tunnel Supports; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1946.
6. Shen, Y.; Yan, R.; Yang, G.; Xu, G.; Wang, S. Comparisons of Evaluation Factors and Application Effects of
the New [BQ] GSI System with International Rock Mass Classification Systems. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2017, 35,
2523–2548.
7. Aydan, Ö.; Ulusay, R.; Tokashiki, N. A new rock mass quality rating system: Rock mass quality rating
(RMQR) and its application to the estimation of geomechanical characteristics of rock masses. Rock Mech.
Rock Eng. 2014, 47, 1255–1276. [CrossRef]
8. Bieniawski, Z. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Civil Eng. S. Afr. 1973, 15, 333–343.
9. Barton, N.; Lien, R.; Lunde, J. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support.
Rock Mech. 1974, 6, 189–236. [CrossRef]
10. Romana, M.; Serón, J.B.; Montalar, E. SMR Geomechanics classification: Application, experience and
validation. In Proceedings of the 10th ISRM Congress, Sandton, South Africa, 8–12 September 2003.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 21 of 27

11. Palmstrom, A. RMi—A Rock Mass Characterization System for Rock Engineering Purposes. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 1995.
12. Hoek, E.; Kaiser, P.K.; Bawden, W.F. Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock; CRC Press: Boca Raton,
FL, USA, 2000.
13. Lauffer, H. Gebirgsklassifizierung fur den Stol Lenbau. Geol. Bauwes. 1958, 24, 46–51.
14. Deere, D.U. Technical description of rock cores for engineering purpose. Rock Mech. Eng. Geol. 1964, 1, 17–22.
15. Deere, D.U.; Miller, R. Engineering Classification and Index Properties for Intact Rock; Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois: Urbana, IL, USA, 1966.
16. Wickham, G.; Tiedemann, H.; Skinner, E.H. Support determinations based on geologic predictions.
In Proceedings of the North American Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, Chicago, IL, USA,
5–7 June 1972.
17. Barton, N. TBM perfomance estimation in rock using QTBM. Tunn. Tunn. Int. 1999, 30–34.
18. Şen, Z.; Sadagah, B.H. Modified rock mass classification system by continuous rating. Eng. Geol. 2003, 67,
269–280. [CrossRef]
19. Von Preinl, Z.B.; Tamames, B.C.; Fernández, J.G.; Hernández, M.Á. Rock mass excavability indicator: New
way to selecting the optimum tunnel construction method. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2006, 3, 237.
[CrossRef]
20. Stille, H.; Palmström, A. Classification as a tool in rock engineering. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2003, 18,
331–345. [CrossRef]
21. Beniawski, Z. Tunnel design by rock mass classifications; Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station:
Vicksburg, MS, USA, 1990.
22. Bieniawski, Z.T. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A Complete Manual for Engineers and Geologists in Mining,
Civil and Petroleum Engineering; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1989.
23. Celada, B.; Tardáguila, I.; Varona, P.; Rodríguez, A.; Bieniawski, Z. Innovating Tunnel Design by an Improved
Experience-Based RMR System. In Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil,
9–15 May 2014; p. 9.
24. Barton, N. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterisation and tunnel design. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 2002, 39, 185–216. [CrossRef]
25. NGI. The Q-system, Rock Mass Classification and Support Design. Available online: https://www.ngi.no/
eng/Publications-and-library/Books/Q-system (accessed on 26 July 2018).
26. Laubscher, D. Geomechanics classification of jointed rock masses-mining applications. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall.
1977, 86, A1–A8.
27. Laubscher, D. Design aspects and effectiveness of support systems in different mining conditions. Inst. Min.
Metall. Trans. 1984, 93, A70–A81.
28. Laubscher, D.; Page, C. The design of rock support in high stress or weak rock environments. In Proceedings
of the 92nd Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Ottawa, ON,
Canada, 1990.
29. Ghose, A.K.; Raju, N. Characterization of rock mass vis-à-vis application of rock bolting in Indian coal
measures. In Proceedings of the 22nd US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Cambridge, MA, USA,
29 June–2 July 1981; pp. 422–427.
30. Unal, E. Modified rock mass classification: M-RMR system. Milest. Rock Eng. 1996.
31. Liu, Z.-X.; Dang, W.-G. Rock quality classification and stability evaluation of undersea deposit based on
M-IRMR. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2014, 40, 95–101. [CrossRef]
32. Newman, D.; Bieniawski, Z. A Modified Version of the Geomechanics Classification for Entry Design in Underground
Coal Mines; Society of Mining Engineers of AIME: Littleton, CO, USA, 1985.
33. Romana, M. New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski classification to slopes. In Proceedings of
the International Symposium on Role of Rock Mechanics, Zacatecas, Mexico, 2–4 September 1985; pp. 49–53.
34. Tomás, R.; Delgado, J.; Serón, J. Modification of slope mass rating (SMR) by continuous functions. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 2007, 44, 1062–1069. [CrossRef]
35. Tomas, R.; Cuenca, A.; Cano, M.; García-Barba, J. A graphical approach for slope mass rating (SMR). Eng. Geol.
2012, 124, 67–76. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 22 of 27

36. Taheri, A.; TAHERI, A.; Tani, K. A Modified rock mass classification system for preliminary design of rock
slopes. In Proceedings of the 4th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, Singapore, 8–10 November 2006.
37. Taheri, A. A rating system for preliminary design of rock slopes. In Proceedings of the 41st Japan Geotechnical
Society Conference (JGS), Kagoshima, Japan, 12–15 July 2006.
38. Romana, M. DMR (an adaptation of RMR), a new geomechanics classification for use in dams foundations.
In Proceedings of the 9th Congresso Luso de Geotecnia, Aveiro, Lisboa, Portugal, 2004.
39. Barton, N. Reducing risk in long deep tunnels by using TBM and drill-and-blast methods in the same
project–the hybrid solution. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2012, 4, 115–126. [CrossRef]
40. Deere, D. Geological consideration. Rock Mech. Eng. Pract. 1968, 1–20.
41. Wickham, G.; Tiedemann, H.; Skinner, E.H. Support determinations based on geologic predictions: 3F, 8T, 13R.
Proceedings Retc. AIMMPE, New York, USA, V1, 1972, P43–P64. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1975,
12, 95. [CrossRef]
42. Bieniawski, Z. Geomechanics classification of rock masses and its application in tunneling. In Proceedings
of the Third International Congress on Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Denver, CO, USA, 1–7 September 1974;
pp. 27–32.
43. Bieniawski, Z. Case studies: Prediction of rock mass behaviour by the geomechanics classification.
In Proceedings of the Second Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Brisbane, Australia,
21–25 July 1975.
44. Bieniawski, Z. The geomechanics classification in rock engineering applications. In Proceedings of the 4th
ISRM Congress, Montreux, Switzerland, 2–8 September 1979.
45. Bieniawski, Z. Misconceptions in the applications of rock mass classifications and their corrections.
In Proceedings of the ADIF Seminar on Advanced Geotechnical Characterization for Tunnel Design, Madrid,
Spain, 29 June 2011; pp. 4–9.
46. Lowson, A.; Bieniawski, Z. Critical assessment of RMR based tunnel design practices: A practical engineer’s
approach. In Proceedings of the SME, Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference, Washington, DC, USA,
23–26 June 2013; pp. 180–198.
47. Denkhaus, H. Discussion on: Theme I: Engineering geological considerations in the design and construction
of large underground openings. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Large Permanent
Underground Openings, Oslo, Norway, 23–25 September 1969; pp. 125–126.
48. Bjerrum, L. Discussion on: RE Goodman and HM Ewoldson: A design approach for rock bolt reinforcement
in underground galleries. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Large Permanent Underground
Openings, Oslo, Norway, 23–25 September 1969; p. 261.
49. Cecil, III. Correlation of Bolt-Shotcrete Support and Rock Quality Parameters in Scandinavian Tunnels. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, USA, 1970.
50. Barton, N.; Grimstad, E. Forty Years with the Q-System in Norway and Abroad; Fjellsprengningsteknikk, NFF:
Abuja, Nigeria, 2014.
51. Barton, N.; Grimstad, E.; Grimstad, G.E. Q-System—An Illustrated Guide Following Forty Years in
Tunnelling. 2014. Available online: http://www.nickbarton.com (accessed on 26 July 2018).
52. Coates, D. Classification of rocks for rock mechanics. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1964, 1,
421–429. [CrossRef]
53. Barton, N.; Bieniawski, Z. RMR and Q-Setting Record Straight. 2008. Available online: http://worldcat.org/
issn/0041414X (accessed on 26 July 2018).
54. Tzamos, S.; Sofianos, A. A correlation of four rock mass classification systems through their fabric indices.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2007, 44, 477–495. [CrossRef]
55. Palmstrom, A.; Milne, D.; Peck, W. The reliability of rock mass classification used in underground excavation
and support design. ISRM News J. 2001, 6, 40–41.
56. Palmstrom, A.; Stille, H. Ground behaviour and rock engineering tools for underground excavations.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2007, 22, 363–376. [CrossRef]
57. Bieniawski, Z.T. Design Methodology in Rock Engineering: Theory, Education and Practice; Balkema: Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, 1992.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 23 of 27

58. Rehman, H.; Naji, A.; Kim, J.-J.; Yoo, H.-K. Empirical Evaluation of Rock Mass Rating and Tunneling Quality
Index System for Tunnel Support Design. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 782. [CrossRef]
59. Deere, D.; Hendron, A.; Patton, F.; Cording, E. Design of surface and near-surface construction in
rock. In Proceedings of the 8th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), Minneapolis, MN, USA,
15–17 September 1966.
60. Palmstrom, A. Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock quality designation (RQD).
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2005, 20, 362–377. [CrossRef]
61. Pells, P.; Bieniawski, Z.; Hencher, S.; Pells, S. Rock quality designation (RQD): Time to rest in peace.
Can. Geotech. J. 2017, 54, 825–834. [CrossRef]
62. Pells, P.; Pells, S. Reply to the discussion by Koutsoftas on “Rock quality designation (RQD): Time to rest in
peace”. Can. Geotech. J. 2018, 55, 593. [CrossRef]
63. Koutsoftas, D.C. Discussion of “Rock quality designation (RQD): Time to rest in peace”. Can. Geotech. J. 2018,
55, 584–592. [CrossRef]
64. ASTM. Standard Test Method for Slake Durability of Shales and Other Similar Weak Rocks; ASTM D4644-16; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
65. Bieniawski, Z. Errors in the application of the geomechanical Classifications and their correction. In Ingeopres:
Actualidad Técnica de Ingeniería Civil, Minería, Geología y Medio Ambiente (in Spanish); Conferencia magistral
Adif–Geocontrol: Madrid, Spain, 2011; pp. 10–21.
66. Bieniawski, Z.T.; Aguado, D.; Celada, B.; Rodriquez, A. Forecasting tunnelling behaviour. T T Int. 2011,
39–42.
67. Kalamaras, G.S.; Bieniawski, Z. A rock mass strength concept for coal seams incorporating the effect of time.
In Proceedings of the 8th ISRM Congress, Tokyo, Japan, 25–29 September 1995.
68. Grimstad, E.; Barton, N. Updating the Q-system for NMT. In Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Sprayed Concrete-Modern Use of Wet Mix Sprayed Concrete for Underground Support, Fagemes, Oslo,
Norway, 22–26 October 1993.
69. Barton, N. The influence of joint properties in modelling jointed rock masses. In Proceedings of the 8th ISRM
Congress, Tokyo, Japan, 25–29 September 1995.
70. Rehman, H.; Kim, J.-J.; Yoo, H.-K. Stress reduction factor characterization for highly stressed jointed rock
based on tunneling data from Pakistan. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Advances in Structural
Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM17), Seoul, Korea, 28 August–1 September 2017.
71. Kirsten, H. Case histories of groundmass characterization for excavatability. In Rock Classification Systems for
Engineering Purposes; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1988.
72. Barton, N. Deformation phenomena in jointed rock. Geotechnique 1986, 36, 147–167. [CrossRef]
73. Peck, W. Determining the stress reduction factor in highly stressed jointed rock. Aust. Geomech. 2000, 35,
57–60.
74. Barton, N. Rock mass characterization for excavations in mining and civil engineering. In Proceedings of
the International Workshop on Rock Mass Classification in Underground Mining, IC, Pittsburgh, PA, USA,
May 2007; pp. 3–13.
75. Bieniawski, Z.T. Exploration for Rock Engineering: Proceedings of the Symposium on Exploration for Rock Engineering,
Johannesburg, 1–5 November 1976; AA Balkema: Avereest, The Netherlands, 1976; Volume 1.
76. Basarir, H.; Ozsan, A.; Karakus, M. Analysis of support requirements for a shallow diversion tunnel at
Guledar dam site, Turkey. Eng. Geol. 2005, 81, 131–145. [CrossRef]
77. Sari, D.; Pasamehmetoglu, A. Proposed support design, Kaletepe tunnel, Turkey. Eng. Geol. 2004, 72, 201–216.
[CrossRef]
78. Rahimi, B.; Shahriar, K.; Sharifzadeh, M. Evaluation of rock mass engineering geological properties
using statistical analysis and selecting proper tunnel design approach in Qazvin–Rasht railway tunnel.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2014, 41, 206–222. [CrossRef]
79. Barrett, S.; McCreath, D. Shortcrete support design in blocky ground: Towards a deterministic approach.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 1995, 10, 79–89. [CrossRef]
80. Grimstad, E.; Kankes, K.; Bhasin, R.; Magnussen, A.W.; Kaynia, A. Rock mass quality Q used in designing
reinforced ribs of sprayed concrete and energy absorption. In Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Sprayed Concrete, Davos, Switzerland, 22–26 September 2002; pp. 134–142.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 24 of 27

81. Grimstad, E.; Kankes, K.; Bhasin, R.; Magnussen, A.; Kaynia, A. Updating the Q-system for Designing
Reinforced Ribs of Sprayed Concrete and General Support. In Underground Construction; Proceedings:
London, UK, 2003.
82. Grimstad, E. The Norwegian method of tunnelling—A challenge for support design. In Proceedings
of the XIV European Conference on Soil Machanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Madrid, Spain,
24–27 September 2007.
83. Palmström, A.; Singh, R. The deformation modulus of rock masses—Comparisons between in situ tests and
indirect estimates. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2001, 16, 115–131. [CrossRef]
84. Bieniawski, Z. Determining rock mass deformability: Experience from case histories. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1978, 15, 237–247. [CrossRef]
85. Barton, N.; Løset, F.; Lien, R.; Lunde, J. Application of Q-system in design decisions concerning dimensions
and appropriate support for underground installations. In Subsurface Space; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA,
1981; pp. 553–561.
86. Aydan, Ö.; Ulusay, R.; Kawamoto, T. Assessment of rock mass strength for underground excavations.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1997, 34, 18.e11–18.e17. [CrossRef]
87. Serafim, J.L.; Pereira, J.P. Considerations on the geomechanical classification of Bieniawski. In The International
Symposium on Engineering Geology and Underground Construction; Sociedade Portuguesa De Geotecnia: Lisboa,
Portugal, 1983; pp. 33–44.
88. Verman, M.K. Rock Mass-Tunnel Support Interaction Analysis. Available online: http://shodhbhagirathi.
iitr.ac.in:8081/xmlui/handle/123456789/1322 (accessed on 26 July 2018).
89. Jasarevic, L.; Evic, M. Analyzing applicability of existing classification for hard carbonate rock in
Mediterranean area. In Proceedings of the ISRM International Symposium-EUROCK 96, Turin, Italy,
2–5 September 1996.
90. Read, S.; Perrin, N.; Richards, L. Applicability of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion to New Zealand greywacke
rocks. In Proceedings of the 9th ISRM Congress, Paris, France, 25–28 August 1999.
91. Galera, J.M.; Álvarez, M.; Bieniawski, Z. Evaluation of the deformation modulus of rock masses: Comparison
of pressuremeter and dilatometer tests with RMR prediction. In Proceedings of the ISP5-PRESSIO 2005
International Symposium, Madrid, Spain, 22–24 August 2005; pp. 1–25.
92. Khawar, M. Development of Correlation between Rock Classification System and Modulus of Deformation; University
of Engineering and Technology, Lahore: Lahore, Pakistan, 2013.
93. Vásárhelyi, B.; Kovács, D. Empirical methods of calculating the mechanical parameters of the rock mass.
Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. 2017, 61, 39. [CrossRef]
94. Nicholson, G.; Bieniawski, Z. A nonlinear deformation modulus based on rock mass classification.
Int. J. Min. Geol. Eng. 1990, 8, 181–202. [CrossRef]
95. Mitri, H.; Edrissi, R.; Henning, J. Finite-element modeling of cable-bolted stopes in hard-rock underground
mines. Trans. Soc. Min. Metall. Explor. Inc. 1995, 298, 1897–1902.
96. Aydan, Ö.; Kawamoto, T. The assessment of mechanical properties of rock masses through RMR rock
classification system. In Proceedings of the ISRM International Symposium, Melbourne, Australia,
19–24 November 2000.
97. Ramamurthy, T. A geo-engineering classification for rocks and rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2004,
41, 89–101. [CrossRef]
98. Sonmez, H.; Gokceoglu, C.; Nefeslioglu, H.; Kayabasi, A. Estimation of rock modulus: For intact rocks with
an artificial neural network and for rock masses with a new empirical equation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
2006, 43, 224–235. [CrossRef]
99. Hoek, E.; Brown, E.T. Underground Excavations in Rock; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1980.
100. Taheri, A.; Tani, K. Development of an apparatus for down-hole triaxial tests in a rock mass. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 2008, 45, 800–806. [CrossRef]
101. Hoek, E.; Brown, E.T. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1997, 34,
1165–1186. [CrossRef]
102. Hoek, E.; Marinos, P.; Benissi, M. Applicability of the Geological Strength Index (GSI) classification for very
weak and sheared rock masses. The case of the Athens Schist Formation. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 1998, 57,
151–160. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 25 of 27

103. Hoek, E.; Carranza-Torres, C.; Corkum, B. Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002 edition. Proc. NARMS-TAC
2002, 1, 267–273.
104. Singh, B.; Villadkar, M.; Samadhiya, N.; Mehrotra, V. Rock mass strength parameters mobilised in tunnels.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 1997, 12, 47–54. [CrossRef]
105. Trueman, R. An Evaluation of Strata Support Techniques in Dual Life Gateroads. Ph.D. Thesis, Buckinghamshire
New University, Wycombe, UK, 1988.
106. Ramamurthy, T. Stability of rock mass. Indian Geotech. J. 1986, 16, 1–74.
107. Bhasin, R.; Grimstad, E. The use of stress-strength relationships in the assessment of tunnel stability.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 1996, 11, 93–98. [CrossRef]
108. Sheorey, P.R. Empirical Rock Failure Criteria; AA Balkema: Avereest, The Netherlands, 1997.
109. Aydan, O.; Dalgic, S. Prediction of deformation behaviour of 3-lanes Bolu tunnels through squeezing rocks
of North Anatolian fault zone (NAFZ). In Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Sedimentary Rock
Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, 20–22 November 1998; pp. 228–233.
110. Gercek, H. Poisson’s ratio values for rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2007, 44, 1–13. [CrossRef]
111. Aydan, Ö.; Akagi, T.; Kawamoto, T. The squeezing potential of rocks around tunnels; theory and prediction.
Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 1993, 26, 137–163. [CrossRef]
112. Aydan, O.; Tokashiki, N.; Genis, M. Some considerations on yield (failure) criteria in rock mechanics.
In Proceedings of the 46th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, Chicago, IL, USA, 24–27 June 2012.
113. Yan, Q.; Zhang, C.; Lin, G.; Wang, B. Field monitoring of deformations and internal forces of surrounding
rocks and lining structures in the construction of the Gangkou double-arched tunnel—A case study. Appl. Sci.
2017, 7, 169. [CrossRef]
114. Akgün, H.; Muratlı, S.; Koçkar, M.K. Geotechnical investigations and preliminary support design for the
Geçilmez tunnel: A case study along the Black Sea coastal highway, Giresun, northern Turkey. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 2014, 40, 277–299. [CrossRef]
115. Aydan, Ö.; Kawamoto, T. The stability assessment of a large underground opening at great depth.
In Proceedings of the 17th international mining congress and exhibition of Turkey (IMCET 2001), Ankara,
Turkey, 19–22 June 2001; pp. 277–288.
116. Aydan, Ö.; Kawamoto, T. Assessing mechanical properties of rock masses by RMR rock classification method.
In Proceedings of the GeoEng 2000 Symposium, Melbourne, Australia, 19–24 November 2000.
117. Tokashiki, N.; Aydan, O. Estimation of rockmass properties of Ryukyu limestone. In Proceedings of the
ISRM Regional Symposium-7th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, Seoul, Korea, 15–19 October 2012.
118. Hoek, E.; Brown, E.T. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1980, 106,
1013–1035.
119. Hoek, E. A brief history of the development of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Soils Rocks 2002, 1–4.
120. Hoek, E. The Hoek-Brown failure criterion-a 1988 update. In Proceedings of the 15th Canadian Rock
Mechanics Symposium, Vancouver, ON, Canada, 3–4 October 1988; pp. 31–38.
121. Tokashiki, N. Study on the Engineering Properties of Ryukyu Limestone and the Evaluation of the Stability
of Its Rock Mass and Masonry Structures. Ph.D. Thesis, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan, 2011. (In Japanese
with English abstract).
122. Jiang, Q.; Cui, J.; Chen, J. Time-dependent damage investigation of rock mass in an in situ experimental
tunnel. Materials 2012, 5, 1389–1403. [CrossRef]
123. Lauffer, H. Zur gebirgsklassifizierung bei frasvortrieben. Felsbau 1988, 6, 137–149.
124. Unal, E. Development of Design Guidelines and Roof-Control Standards for Coal-Mine Roofs. 1983. Available
online: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6831654 (accessed on 26 July 2018).
125. Kim, J.; Kim, J.; Kim, M.; Yoo, H. Prediction of ground load by performing back analysis using composite
support model in concrete lining design. KSCE J. Civil Eng. 2015, 19, 1697–1706. [CrossRef]
126. Lee, J.-K.; Kim, J.; Rehman, H.; Yoo, H.-K. Evaluation of Rock Load Based on Stress Transfer Effect Due to
Tunnel Excavation. J. Korean Tunn. Undergr. Space Assoc. 2017, 19, 999–1012. [CrossRef]
127. Singh, B.; Jethwa, J.; Dube, A.; Singh, B. Correlation between observed support pressure and rock mass
quality. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 1992, 7, 59–74. [CrossRef]
128. Goel, R.; Jethwa, J.; Paithankar, A. Indian experiences with Q and RMR systems. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
1995, 10, 97–109. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 26 of 27

129. Osgoui, R.R.; Ünal, E. An empirical method for design of grouted bolts in rock tunnels based on the
Geological Strength Index (GSI). Eng. Geol. 2009, 107, 154–166. [CrossRef]
130. Santos, V.; da Silva, P.F.; Brito, M.G. Estimating RMR Values for Underground Excavations in a Rock Mass.
Minerals 2018, 8, 78. [CrossRef]
131. Bieniawski, Z.T. Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling; Balkema: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1984.
132. Ranasooriya, J.; Nikraz, H. Reliability of the linear correlation of Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Tunnelling
Quality Index (Q). Aust. Geomech. 2009, 44, 47–54.
133. Sunwoo, C.; Hwang, S.-H. Correlation of rock mass classification methods in Korean rock mass.
In Proceedings of the ISRM International Symposium—2nd Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, Beijing,
China, 11–14 September 2001.
134. Castro-Fresno, D.; Diego-Carrera, R.; Ballester-Muñoz, F.; Álvarez-García, J. Correlation between Bieniawski’s
RMR and Barton’s Q Index in Low-Quality Soils. Rev. Constr. 2010, 9, 107–119. [CrossRef]
135. Fernandez-Gutierrez, J.; Perez-Acebo, H.; Mulone-Andere, D. Correlation between Bieniawski’s RMR index
and Barton’s Q index in fine-grained sedimentary rock formations. Inf. Constr. 2017, 69, e205.
136. Ali, W.; Mohammad, N.; Tahir, M. Rock Mass Characterization for Diversion Tunnels at Diamer Basha Dam,
Pakistan—A design perspective. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2014, 3, 1292–1296.
137. Kanik, M.; Gurocak, Z.; Alemdag, S. A comparison of support systems obtained from the RMR89 and RMR14
by numerical analyses: Macka Tunnel project, NE Turkey. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2015, 109, 224–238. [CrossRef]
138. Palmstrom, A.; Broch, E. Use and misuse of rock mass classification systems with particular reference to the
Q-system. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2006, 21, 575–593. [CrossRef]
139. Hand, D.J. Construction and Assessment of Classification Rules; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1997.
140. Romana, M. 2014 RMR New Guidelines for Tunnels. In Proceedings of the 13th ISRM International Congress
of Rock Mechanics, Montreal, QC, Canada, 10–13 May 2015.
141. Aksoy, C. Review of rock mass rating classification: Historical developments, applications and restrictions.
J. Min. Sci. 2008, 44, 51–63. [CrossRef]
142. García-Gonzalo, E.; Fernández-Muñiz, Z.; García Nieto, P.J.; Bernardo Sánchez, A.; Menéndez Fernández, M.
Hard-rock stability analysis for span design in entry-type excavations with learning classifiers. Materials
2016, 9, 531. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
143. Mazaira, A.; Konicek, P. Intense rockburst impacts in deep underground construction and their prevention.
Can. Geotech. J. 2015, 52, 1426–1439. [CrossRef]
144. Sainoki, A.; Emad, M.Z.; Mitri, H.S. Study on the efficiency of destress blasting in deep mine drift
development. Can. Geotech. J. 2016, 54, 518–528. [CrossRef]
145. Schubert, W. Some remarks on current rock engineering design practices. In Proceedings of the ISRM
International Symposium-EUROCK 2012, Stockholm, Sweden, 28–30 May 2012.
146. Grenon, M.; Hadjigeorgiou, J. Evaluating discontinuity network characterization tools through mining case
studies. Soil Rock Am. 2003, 1, 13.
147. Loset, F. Use of the Q-System in Weak Rock Masses; Norwegian Geotechnical Institute: Oslo, Norway, 1999.
148. Schwingenschloegl, R.; Lehmann, C. Swelling rock behaviour in a tunnel: NATM-support vs. Q-support–A
comparison. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2009, 24, 356–362. [CrossRef]
149. Palmstrom, A.; Blindheim, O.; Broch, E. The Q-system-possibilities and limitations. In Proceedings of the
Norwegian National Conference on Tunnelling, Oslo, Norway, 6–7 July 2002; pp. 41.41–41.43.
150. Bieniawski, Z. Quo vadis rock mass classifications. Felsbau 1997, 15, 177–178.
151. Riedmüller, G.; Schubert, W. Critical comments on quantitative rock mass classifications. Felsbau 1999, 17,
164–167.
152. Vibert, C.; Vaskou, P. Use of rock mass classifications for design: Recommendations and suggestions.
In Reinforced Concrete with FRP Bars: Mechanics and Design; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; p. 205.
153. Schubert, W. Are Classification Systems Outdated? In Proceedings of the ISRsM International
Symposium-EUROCK 2013, Wroclaw, Poland, 23–26 September 2013.
154. Pells, P.; Bertuzzi, R.; BE, M.E. Limitations of rock mass classification systems for tunnel support designs.
Tunn. Tunn. Int. 2007, 1–11.
155. Malan, D.; Napier, J. Design of stable pillars in the Bushveld Complex mines: A problem solved? 2011.
Available online: https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/18588 (accessed on 26 July 2018).
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1250 27 of 27

156. Suorineni, F. Reflections on empirical methods in geomechanics–The unmentionables and hidden risks.
In Proceedings AusRock 2014: Third Australasian Ground Control in Mining Conference; The Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne, Australia, 2014.
157. Goodman, R.E. Geomechanics According to Gunter Riedmuller (1940–2003). Tunn. Tunn. Int. March 2007, 3,
47–49.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).