Accepted Manuscript

Determination and applications of rock quality designation (RQD)

Lianyang Zhang

PII: S1674-7755(16)00022-6
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2015.11.008
Reference: JRMGE 229

To appear in: Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

Received Date: 16 September 2015

Revised Date: 1 November 2015
Accepted Date: 14 November 2015

Please cite this article as: Zhang L, Determination and applications of rock quality designation (RQD),
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2015.11.008.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2015, 5

Determination and applications of rock quality designation (RQD)

Lianyang Zhang *

Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA

PT
Received 16 September 2015; received in revised form 1 November 2015; accepted 14 November 2015

Abstract: Characterization of rock masses and evaluation of their mechanical properties are important and challenging tasks in rock mechanics and rock engineering. Since in many

RI
cases rock quality designation (RQD) is the only rock mass classification index available, this paper outlines the key aspects on determination of RQD and evaluates the empirical
methods based on RQD for determining the deformation modulus and unconfined compressive strength of rock masses. First, various methods for determining RQD are presented and
the effects of different factors on determination of RQD are highlighted. Then, the empirical methods based on RQD for determining the deformation modulus and unconfined

SC
compressive strength of rock masses are briefly reviewed. Finally, the empirical methods based on RQD are used to determine the deformation modulus and unconfined compressive
strength of rock masses at five different sites including 13 cases, and the results are compared with those obtained by other empirical methods based on rock mass classification indices
such as rock mass rating (RMR), Q-system (Q) and geological strength index (GSI). It is shown that the empirical methods based on RQD tend to give deformation modulus values
close to the lower bound (conservative) and unconfined compressive strength values in the middle of the corresponding values from different empirical methods based on RMR, Q and
GSI. The empirical methods based on RQD provide a convenient way for estimating the mechanical properties of rock masses but, whenever possible, they should be used together

U
with other empirical methods based on RMR, Q and GSI.
Key words: rock quality designation (RQD); rock mass classification; deformation modulus; unconfined compressive strength; empirical methods
AN
Dalgic, 1998), Q-system (Q) (Barton et al., 1980; Barton, 2002), and geological
1. Introduction strength index (GSI) (Hoek and Brown, 1997; Hoek, 2004; Gokceoglu et al.,
M

2003; Hoek and Diederichs, 2006).

Natural rock mass differs from most other engineering materials in that it
contains discontinuities such as joints, bedding planes, folds, sheared zones and
faults which render its structure discontinuity. To determine the engineering Intact rock
D

properties of rock masses, it is important to consider the effect of discontinuities. As

Palmström (2002) noted: “The engineering properties of a rock mass often depend
TE

far more on the system of geological defects within the rock mass than on the One discontinuity set
strength of the (intact) rock itself. Thus, from an engineering point of view, a
knowledge of the type and frequency of the joints and fissures is often more
important than the types of rock involved. The observations and characterization of
Two discontinuity sets
EP

the joints should therefore be done carefully.”

Because of the discontinuous nature of rock masses, it is important to choose
the right domain that is representative of the rock mass affected by the structure
analyzed when determining the engineering properties (Fig. 1). The behavior of
Many discontinuities
the rock mass is dependent on the relative scale between the problem domain and
C

the rock blocks formed by the discontinuities. When the structure is significantly
larger than the rock blocks formed by the discontinuities, the rock mass may be
AC

Heavily jointed rock mass

simply treated as an equivalent continuum for the analysis (Brady and Brown,
Fig. 1. Simplified representation of the influence of scale on the type of rock mass behavior
1985; Brown, 1993; Hoek et al., 1995; Zhang, 2005). Treating the jointed rock
(after Hoek et al., 1995).
mass as an equivalent continuum (i.e. the equivalent continuum approach),
different empirical correlations have been proposed for estimating the engineering
Since in many cases RQD is the only information available for describing rock
properties of jointed rock masses based on the classification indices such as rock
discontinuities, this paper focuses on the determination of RQD and its
quality designation (RQD) (Deere et al., 1967; Coon and Merritt, 1970; Serafim
utilization for evaluating the engineering properties (mainly deformation
and Pereira, 1983; Zhang and Einstein, 2004; Zhang, 2010), rock mass rating
modulus and unconfined compressive strength) of rock masses. First, different
(RMR) (Bieniawski, 1978; Serafim and Pereira, 1983; Yudhbir and Prinzl, 1983;
methods for determining RQD are presented and the effects of different factors on
Nicholson and Bieniawski, 1990; Mitri et al., 1994; Sheorey, 1997; Aydan and
determination of RQD are discussed. Then, different empirical methods based on
RQD for estimating the deformation modulus and unconfined compressive
*
Corresponding author. Tel: +1 520 626 0532; strength of rock masses are presented and briefly discussed. Finally, these
E-mail: lyzhang@email.arizona.edu empirical methods are used to determine the deformation modulus and
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2015, 5

unconfined compressive strength of rock masses at five different sites including

13 cases, and the results are compared with those using other empirical methods
based on rock mass classification indices RMR, Q and GSI. This paper outlines
the key aspects on determination of RQD and provides useful information for L = 38 cm
effective evaluation of the deformation modulus and unconfined compressive
strength of rock masses based on RQD.

2. Determination of RQD
L = 17 cm

PT
×100%=59%
RQD was proposed by Deere (1964) as a measure of the quality of borehole
L=0
core. The RQD is defined as the ratio (in percentage) of the total length of sound
As no centering pieces
core pieces that is 0.1 m (4 inch) or longer to the length of the core run. Besides

Core run total length = 200 cm

longer than 10 cm

RI
38+17+20+43
the direct method for determining RQD from coring, different indirect methods
are also available for evaluating RQD.

200
For determination of RQD using core boring, the International Society for L = 20 cm
Rock Mechanics (ISRM) recommended a core size of at least NX (size 54.7 mm)

SC

RQD =
drilled with double-tube core barrel using a diamond bit. Artificial fractures can
be identified by close fitting of cores and unstained surfaces. All the artificial
fractures should be ignored while counting the core length for RQD. The correct
procedure for determining RQD from coring is shown in Fig. 2. L = 43 cm

U
RQD can also be determined from discontinuity frequency obtained from
scanline sampling. Correlations between RQD and linear discontinuity frequency
AN
have been derived for different discontinuity spacing distribution forms (Priest
an Hudson, 1976; Sen and Kazi, 1984; Sen, 1993). For example, for a negative
exponential distribution of discontinuity spacings, Priest and Hudson (1976) Mechanical break caused by
derived the following relationship between RQD and linear discontinuity drilling process L=0
No recovery
M

frequency:
RQD = 100e − λt (λt + 1) (1)
where t is the length threshold. For t = 0.1 m as for the conventionally defined
RQD, Eq. (1) can be expressed as Fig. 2. Procedure for determination of RQD using coring (after Deere, 1989).
D

RQD = 100e −0.1λ (0.1λ + 1) (2)

RQD = 110.4 – 3.68λ
Fig. 3 shows the relations obtained by Priest and Hudson (1976) between 100
TE

measured values of RQD and λ , and the values calculated using Eq. (2). For Observed values
values of λ in the range of 6–16 m−1, a good approxi-mation to measured RQD 80
More clustered
values is found to be given by the following linear relation:
RQD (%)

60
RQD = 110.4 − 3.68λ (3) Theoretical curve
RQD=100e−0.1λ(0.1λ+1)
EP

It is noted that Eq. (1) was derived based on the assumption that the length of 40 More evenly
the sampling line L is large so that the term e−λL is negligible. For a short spaced
sampling line of length L, Sen and Kazi (1984) derived the following expression 20
for RQD with a length threshold t:
0
100
C

RQD = [e − λ L (λt + 1) − e − λ L (λ L + 1)] (4) 0 10 20 30 40

1 − e − λ L − λ Le − λ L Discontinuity frequency, λ (discontinuity/m)
Fig. 3. Relationship between RQD and discontinuity frequency λ (after Priest and Hudson,
AC

1976).

Fig. 4 shows the variation of RQD with the length of sampling line L for
discontinuity frequency λ = 10 m−1 and length threshold t = 0.1 m. It can be seen
that when L is smaller than about 0.5 m, RQD increases significantly as L
increases. When L is larger than 0.5 m, RQD changes slightly with L. Therefore,
it is important to use sampling lines that are long enough so that e−L can be
negligible.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2015, 5

80 1 1 1
λv = + + +L (11)
s1 s2 s3
where s1, s2 and s3 are the mean discontinuity set spacings. Random
70
discontinuities in the rock mass can be considered by assuming a random spacing
sr for each of them. According to Palmström (2002), sr = 5 m can be assumed. So
60 the volumetric discontinuity frequency λv can be generally expressed as
1 1 1 N
λv = + + + L + r (12)
RQD (%)

s1 s2 s3 5
50
where Nr is the number of random discontinuities.

PT
40 N

Discontinuity frequency λ = 10 m−1

RI
Length threshold t = 0.1 m
30

20

SC
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Length of sampling line L (m)
Fig. 4. Variation of RQD with the length of sampling line L.

Seismic velocity measurements have also been used to estimate RQD. By

U
comparing the P-wave velocity of in situ rock mass with laboratory P-wave
velocity of intact drill core obtained from the same rock mass, the RQD can be
AN
estimated by (Deere et al., 1967):
RQD = (vpF / vp0 )2 × 100% (5)
where vpF is the P-wave velocity of in situ rock mass, and vp0 is the P-wave
velocity of the corresponding intact rock.
M

Other empirical correlations similar to Eq. (5) were also proposed by

researchers, including
RQD= 0.77(vpF/vp0)1.05 ×100% (El-Naqa, 1996) (6) Fig. 5. Variation of estimated RQD (%) with scanline direction (after Choi and Park, 2004).
RQD= 0.97(vpF/vp0)2 ×100% (Bery and Saad, 2012) (7)
D

although Sjogren et al. (1979) and Palmström (1995) proposed the following The use of volumetric discontinuity frequency λv for estimating RQD provides
hyperbolic correlation between RQD and P-wave velocities: a quite useful way in reducing the directional dependence of RQD. It is also
TE

vpq − vpF possible to do core boring, scanline sampling and/or wave velocity
RQD = × 100% (8)
vpq vpF kq measurements at different directions and then evaluate the overall RQD of the
where vpq is the P-wave velocity of a rock mass with RQD = 0, and kq is a rock mass.
parameter taking into account the actual conditions of the in situ rock mass.
EP

Based on regression analysis of the data obtained for heavily fractured calcareous 3. Empirical methods based on RQD for estimating rock mass properties
rock masses outcropping in southern Italy, Budetta et al. (2001) obtained as
vpq=1.22 km/s and kq=−0.69. Thus Eq. (8) yields: 3.1. Estimation of deformation modulus
1.22 − vpF Based on field studies at Dworshak Dam, Deere et al. (1967) suggested that
RQD = × 100% (9)
1.22vpF (−0.69)
C

RQD be used for determining the deformation modulus of rock masses. By

It is noted that RQD varies with the direction of the borehole or sampling line. adding more data from other sites, Coon and Merritt (1970) developed a relation
between RQD and the modulus ratio Em/Er as shown in Fig. 6, where Em and Er
AC

As an example, Fig. 5 shows the variation of estimated RQD by Choi and Park
(2004) for a site in the west-southern part of Korea on the lower hemisphere are the deformation moduli of the rock mass and the intact rock, respectively.
equal-angle stereo projection net. The variation of RQD with direction can be Gardner (1987) proposed the following relation for estimating Em from Er by
clearly seen. Therefore, it is important to specify the corresponding direction using a reduction factor αE which accounts for the frequency of discontinuities
when stating a RQD value. by RQD:
The RQD can also be estimated using the correlation between RQD and
volumetric discontinuity frequency λv (Palmström, 1974; ISRM, 1978):
RQD = 115−3.3λv (10)
where the volumetric discontinuity frequency λv is the sum of the number of
discontinuities per unit length for all discontinuity sets, which can be determined
from the discontinuity set spacings within a volume of rock mass as (Palmström,
1982):
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2015, 5

in Fig. 7, one can clearly see that it is not reasonable to assume a constant Em/Er
1.0 value at the low RQD region.
Dworshak dam, granite gneiss, surface gages
Dworshak dam, granite gneiss, buried gages 1
Two Forks dam, gneiss
Yellowtail dam, limestone 0.9 Coon and Merritt (1970)
0.8
Glen Canyon dam, sandstone
Bieniawski (1978)
0.8
Ebisu et al. (1992)
0.7
0.6

PT
0.6 Em/Er=100.0186RQD−1.91
Em/Er

Em/Er= 0.0231RQD−1.32

Em/Er
(Zhang and Einstein, 2004)
0.5
0.4 Em/Er=0.0231RQD−1.32
0.4

RI
(Coon and Merritt, 1970;
Gardner, 1987)
0.3
0.2
0.2 Em/Er=0.15

SC
0.1
0.0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RQD (%)
RQD (%)

U
Fig. 6. Variation of Em/Er with RQD proposed by Coon and Merritt (1970).
Fig. 7. Expanded data and different relations between Em/Er and RQD.

Em = α E Er 
AN
3.2. Estimation of unconfined compressive strength
α E = 0.0231RQD − 1.32 ≥ 0.15
(13)
Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) suggested that, as a first approximation, the
This method was adopted by the American Association of State Highway and unconfined compressive strength σcm of rock masses be taken as 0.33σc when
Transportation Officials in the Standard Specification for Highway Bridges RQD is less than about 70% and then linearly increase to 0.8σc when RQD
(AASHTO, 1996). For RQD > 57%, Eq. (13) is the same as the relation of Coon and increases from 70% to 100% (see Fig. 8), where σc is the unconfined
M

Merritt (1970), while for RQD < 57%, Eq. (13) gives Em/Er = 0.15. compressive strength of the intact rock. The Standard Specifications for Highway
It is noted that the RQD - Em/Er relations by Coon and Merritt (1970) and Bridges adopted by AASHTO (1996) suggested that σcm be estimated using the
Gardner (1987) have the following limitations (Zhang and Einstein, 2004): following expression:
σ cm = ασ σ c
D


ασ = 0.0231RQD − 1.32 ≥ 0.15
(15)
(1) The range of RQD < 60% is not covered or only an arbitrary value of Em/Er is
selected for the whole range.
TE

1.0
(2) For RQD = 100%, Em is assumed to be equal to Er. This is obviously unsafe
Unconfined compressive strength ratio σcm/σc

in design practice because RQD = 100% does not mean that the rock is intact.
There may be discontinuities in rock masses with RQD = 100% and thus Em 0.8
may be smaller than Er even when RQD = 100%.
EP

Zhang and Einstein (2004) expanded the database shown in Fig. 6 by 0.6
Zhang (2010)
collecting more data from the published literature (see Fig. 7). The expanded
database covers the entire range (0 ≤ RQD ≤ 100%) and shows a nonlinear
0.4
C

variation of Em/Er with RQD. The rocks for the expanded database include Kulhawy and Goodman (1987)
mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, shale, dolerite, granite, limestone, greywacke,
gneiss, and granite gneiss. Again, one can see the large scatter of the data,
AC

0.2 AASHTO (1996)

especially when RQD > 65%. Zhang and Einstein (2004) discussed the possible
reasons for the large scatter, including test methods, directional effect,
discontinuity conditions and insensitivity of RQD to discontinuity frequency (or 0.0

spacing). Using the expanded database, Zhang and Einstein (2004) derived the 0 20 40 60 80 100
RQD (%)
following RQD-(Em/Er) relation for the average trend:
Fig. 8. Comparison of σcm/σc versus RQD relations by Kulhawy and Goodman (1987),
E
α E = m = 100.0186 RQD−1.91 AASHTO (1996), and Zhang (2010), respectively.
Er
(14) The variation of σcm/σc with RQD based on Eq. (15) is also shown in Fig. 8. It
The average RQD-(Em/Er) relation gives αE = 0.95 at RQD = 100%, which can be seen that the general trend of these two relations between σcm/σc and RQD
makes sense because there may be discontinuities in rock masses at RQD = is about the same: σcm/σc is constant when RQD is smaller than a certain value
100% and thus Em may be smaller than Er even when RQD = 100%. By plotting and then linearly increases when RQD increases. Obviously it is inappropriate to
the RQD-(Em/Er) relations by Coon and Merritt (1970) and Gardner (1987) also assume that σcm/σc is constant when RQD varies from 0 to a certain value (70%
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2015, 5

for the relation of Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) and 64% for the relation of
AASHTO (1996)). For example, for a very poor quality rock mass (RQD < 25%)
and a fair quality rock mass (RQD = 50%–75%), different σcm/σc values should
be expected.
It is also noted that the σcm/σc versus RQD relation in Eq. (15) is the same as
the Em/Er versus RQD relation in Eq. (13), which may not be appropriate.
Researchers have studied the relation between σcm/σc and Em/Er and found that
they can be related approximately by the following equation (Ramamurthy, 1993;
RQD > 70%, Eq. (17) is in good agreement with the suggestions of Kulhawy and
Goodman (1987) and AASHTO (1996). For RQD < 70%, however, Eq. (17) is
different from the suggestions of Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) and AASHTO
(1996), with Eq. (17) considering the continuous variation of σcm/σc with RQD
while the suggestions of Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) and AASHTO (1996)
both assuming constant σcm/σc values.
4. Comparative analysis and discussion

PT
Singh et al., 1998; Singh and Rao, 2005):
q
σ cm E  4.1. Comparative analysis
= ασ =  m  = α Eq (16)
σc  Er  To evaluate the empirical methods by Zhang and Einstein (2004) and Zhang (2010)
where the power q varies from 0.5 to 1 and is most likely in the range of 0.61– for estimating the deformation modulus and unconfined compressive strength of rock

0.74 with an average of 0.7. It can be seen that the AASHTO method (Eq. (15))
uses the upper bound value of q = 1.
It needs to be noted that the relation between σcm/σc and Em/Er (Eq. (16)) is
derived based only on triaxial test data on jointed rock mass specimens with
RI
masses using RQD, they are applied to five sites with detailed geotechnical
information available: the Sulakyurt dam site in central Turkey (Ozsan et al.,
2007), the Tannur dam site in south Jordan (El-Naqa and Kuisi, 2002), the Urus
dam site also in central Turkey (Ozsan and Akin, 2002), a high tower site at

different joint frequencies, orientations and conditions (Ramamurthy, 1993;
Singh et al., 1998; Singh and Rao, 2005) and has not been tested against field
cases. The power q in Eq. (16) may vary significantly for different rock types
and discontinuity conditions. Nevertheless, using the average value of q = 0.7
SC
Tenerife Island (Justo et al., 2006), and an open pit mine site in the vicinity of
Berlin, Germany (Alber and Heiland, 2001). The results are compared with those
from other empirical methods based on the commonly used rock mass
classification indices RMR, Q and GSI in order to indirectly check the accuracy

U
and the Em/Er versus RQD relation in Eq. (14), Zhang (2010) derived the of the empirical methods based on RQD. Table 1 lists the properties of rocks at
following σcm/σc versus RQD relation: the five sites which cover a reasonable but clearly limited range of rock types.
AN
σ cm Tables 2 and 3 list the empirical methods based on RMR, Q and GSI for
= ασ = 100.013RQD−1.34 (17)
σc estimating the deformation modulus and unconfined compressive strength of rock
Fig. 8 shows a comparison of the σcm/σc versus RQD relation (Eq. (17)) with masses, respectively. It is noted that these empirical methods were developed based
the suggestions respectively by Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) and AASHTO on databases of different sources and, as shown below, may give very different
M

(1996). Eq. (17) covers the entire range (0 ≤ RQD ≤ 100%) continuously. For estimation values.

50.0
Bieniawski (1978)
Serafim and Pereira (1983)
Nicholson and Bieniawski (1990)
D

Mitri et al. (1994)

Read et al. (1999)
40.0 Barton (2002)
TE

Barton (2002)
Hoek et al. (2002)
Gokceoglu et al. (2003)
Estimated Em (GPa)

Gokceoglu et al. (2003)

Sonmez et al. (2004)
30.0 Hoek (2004)
Hoek and Diederichs (2006)
EP

Hoek and Diederichs (2006)

Sonmez et al. (2006)
Zhang and Einstein (2004) - Method using RQD
20.0
C

10.0
AC

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Case No.
Fig. 9. Estimated rock mass deformation modulus values from the existing empirical methods based on RMR, GSI or Q and the method based on RQD.

Table 1. Summary of rock properties at five sites (after Alber and Heiland, 2001; El-Naqa and Kuisi, 2002; Ozsan and Akin, 2002; Justo et al., 2006; Ozsan et al., 2007).
No. Rock Er (GPa) σc (MPa) RQD (%) RMR Q GSI References
1 Granite 31.5 a 74 8.5 24 0.08 19 Ozsan et al. ( 2007)
a
2 Diorite 19.5 60 1.5 21 0.05 16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2015, 5

3 Limestone (L1) 24.8 a 31 54 57 4.23 52 El-Naqa and Kuisi (2002)

4 Limestone (L2) 10.4 a 13 50 59 5.29 54
5 Limestone (R1) 29.6 a 37 48 59 5.29 54
6 Limestone (R2) 21.6 a 27 45 54 3.04 59
7 Marly limestone 22.4 a 28 44 55 3.39 50
8 Andesite 41.9 93 41 34 0.56 41 Ozsan and Akin (2002)
9 Basalt 40 142 15 38 0.63 42.5
10 Tuff 11.6 24 10 21 0.11 31
11 Basalt (d1) 60.9 69 77 59 6.6 52 Justo et al. (2006)
12 Basalt (d2) 5.3 a 15 42.5 38 3.4 39
13 Limestone 25.7 41 50 57 2.4 b 52 Alber and Heiland (2001)
Note: a Estimated using the modulus ratio (MR = Er/σc) values from Hoek and Diederichs (2006).
b
Estimated from GSI using the correlation GSI = 9lnQ + 44.

PT
Table 2. Empirical relations based on RMR, Q and GSI for estimating deformation modulus
Em of rock masses. Table 3. Empirical relations based on RMR, Q and GSI for estimating unconfined compressive
Authors Relation Equation No. strength σcm of rock masses.

RI
Bieniawski (1978) Em=2RMR−100 (RMR > 50) (18) Authors Relation Equation No.
Serafim and Pereira (1983) RMR −10 (19) Yudhbir and Prinzl 7.65( RMR−100) (33)
Em = 10 40 (RMR ≤ 50) (1983) σ cm
=e 100
σc
Nicholson and Bieniawski (20)
Em 0.0028 RMR 2 + 0.9e RMR /22.82
(1990) = Ramamurthy et al. RMR−100 (34)
σ cm

SC
Er 100 (1985); Ramamurthy =e 18.75
(1996) σc
Mitri et al. (1994) Em 1 − cos(πRMR / 100) (21)
=
Trueman (1988); (35)
Er 2 σ cm = 0.5e0.06 RMR (MPa)
Asef et al. (2000)
Read et al. (1999) Em=0.1(RMR/10)3 (22)
Kalamaras and RMR −100 (36)
Barton (2002) Em=25log10Q (23) Bieniawski (1993) σ cm
=e 24
Barton (2002) Em=10(Qσc/100)1/3 (24) σc

U
Hoek et al. (2002) GSI −10 (25)
σc Hoek et al. (2002)   GSI 20   (37)
Em = (1 − D / 2) 10 40 (σc ≤ 100 MPa) GSI −100  1 1  − 15 − 3  
+ e −e
100 σ cm 9−3D  2 6   
   
=e
AN
Gokceoglu et al. (2003) Em=0.0736e0.0755RMR (26) σc
Gokceoglu et al. (2003) Em=0.1451e0.0654GSI (27)
Bhasin and Grimstad (38)
Sonmez et al. (2004) GSI −100 (28) σ cm = 7γ fc Q1/3 (MPa), where fc = σc/100 for
Em 1 e−GSI /15 − e−20/3 (1996); Singh and
= sa0.4 , s = e 9 , a= + Goel (1999) Q >10 and σc >100 MPa, otherwise fc = 1;
Er 2 6
and γ is the unit weight of the rock mass in
Hoek (2004) Em=0.33e0.064GSI (29) g/cm3
M

Hoek and Diederichs (30) Sheorey (1997) RMR −100 (39)

 1− D / 2  σ cm
(2006) Em = 100   =e 20
1 + e(75+ 25 D −GSI )/11  σc
Hoek and Diederichs Em 1− D / 2 (31) Aydan and Dalgic σ cm RMR (40)
(2006) = 0.02 + =
Er 1 + e(60+15 D −GSI )/11 (1998) σc RMR + 6(100 − RMR)
D

Sonmez et al. (2006) Em (32) Barton (2002) (41)

= 10( RMR−100)(100− RMR )/4000 exp(− RMR /100) σ cm = 5γ (Qσ c / 100)1/3 (MPa)
Er
Hoek (2004) GSI (42)
σ cm
Note: The empirical relations before 1989 use RMR76 which is smaller than RMR89 by 5. D = 0.036e 30
σc
TE

is the disturbance factor.

Singh et al. (1997) (43)
σ cm = 7γ Q1/3 (MPa)
Fig. 9 summarizes the estimated deformation modulus values from the
empirical method based on RQD by Zhang and Einstein (2004) and other 4.2. Discussion
empirical methods based on RMR, Q and GSI for all 13 cases at the five sites. It
EP

Determination of the deformation modulus and unconfined compressive

can be seen clearly that the estimated values from the empirical method based on
RQD are mostly at or slightly smaller than the low values (lower bound) of the
estimated values from the different empirical methods based on RMR, Q and
GSI. So the empirical method based on RQD by Zhang and Einstein (2004) tends
C
strength of jointed rock masses is an important and challenging task in rock
mechanics and rock engineering. The empirical methods based on RQD provide
a convenient way for estimating the deformation modulus and unconfined

compressive strength of rock masses because, in many cases, RQD is the only
to give conservative estimation of the deformation modulus of rock masses available information about discontinuities in routine site investigations.
compared to the different empirical methods based on RMR, Q and GSI. However, care should be taken when applying the empirical methods based on
AC

Fig. 10 summarizes the estimated unconfined compressive strength values from
the empirical method based on RQD by Zhang (2010) and other empirical
methods based on RMR, Q and GSI for all 13 cases at the five sites. The
estimated values from the empirical method based on RQD are essentially in the
middle of the estimated values from the different empirical methods based on
RMR, Q and GSI.
RQD for determining the deformation modulus and unconfined compressive
strength of rock masses because RQD is only one of the many factors that affect
the deformability and strength of jointed rock masses. Other factors such as
discontinuity orientation and discontinuity surface conditions can also have a
great effect on the deformability and strength of jointed rock masses.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2015, 5

50.0 Yudhbir and Prinzl (1983)

Ramamurthy et al. (1985); Ramamurthy (1986, 1993)
Trueman (1998); Asef et al. (2000)
Kalamaras and Bieniawski (1993)
Hoek et al. (2002)
Bhasin and Grimstad (1996); Singh and Goel (1999)
40.0 Sheorey (1997)
Aydan and Dalgic (1998)
Barton (2002)
Hoek (2004)
Singh et al. (1997)
Estimated σ cm (MPa)

Zhang (2010): Method using RQD

30.0

PT
20.0

RI
10.0

SC
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

U
Case No.

Fig. 10. Estimated rock mass strength values from the existing empirical methods based on RMR, GSI or Q and the method based on RQD.
AN
To apply the empirical methods based on RQD for determining the middle of the values from the different empirical methods based on RMR, Q
deformation modulus and unconfined compressive strength of rock masses, the and GSI.
following aspects should be noted: (4) The empirical methods based on RQD provide a convenient way for
M

estimating the deformation modulus and unconfined compressive strength of

(1) When RQD is the only information available about rock discon-tinuities, the rock masses but, whenever possible, they should be used together with other
empirical methods based on RQD can be used to estimate the rock mass empirical methods based on RMR, Q and GSI because RQD is only one of the
deformation modulus and unconfined compressive strength but care should many factors that affect the deformability and strength of jointed rock masses.
D

be taken when applying the estimated values. The empirical methods based
on RQD should be used only for a first estimation. Conflict of interest
TE

(2) When RQD and other information are available for determining the rock
The author wishes to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest
mass classification indices RMR, Q and GSI, the empirical methods based on
associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial
RQD should be used together with the empirical methods based on RMR, Q
support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
and GSI to evaluate the rock mass deformation modulus and unconfined
EP

compressive strength. The estimated values from the empirical methods References
based on RQD can be compared with the ranges of the estimated values from
the empirical methods based on RMR, Q and GSI to get an idea on the effect Alber M, Heiland J. Investigation of a limestone pillar failure, Part 1: Geology, laboratory
of RQD on the deformability and strength of rock masses. testing and numerical modeling. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2001, 34(3):
167–86.
C

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Standard

5. Conclusions
specifications for highway bridges. 16th edition. Washington DC: AASHTO, 1996.
AC

This paper reviewed the methods for determining RQD and evaluated the
empirical methods based on RQD for estimating the deformation modulus and
unconfined compressive strength of rock masses. The conclusions are as follows:
(1) There are different methods for determining RQD. It is important to consider
the effect of different factors such as sampling length and direction on RQD
when using a method to determine RQD.
(2) The empirical method based on RQD by Zhang and Einstein (2004) for
estimating deformation modulus of rock masses tends to give low
Asef MR, Reddish DJ, Lloyd PW. Rock-support interaction analysis based on numerical
modeling. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 2000; 18(1): 23–37.
Aydan Ö, Dalgic S. Prediction of deformation behavior of 3-lanes Bolu tunnels through
squeezing rocks of North Anatolian fault zone (NAFZ). In: Proceedings of Regional
Symposium on Sedimentary Rock Engineering, Taipei, China. 1998. p. 228–33.
Barton N, Loset F, Lien R, Lunde J. Application of Q-system in design decisions concerning
dimensions and appropriate support for underground installations. In: Bergman M, editor.
Subsurface Space: Environmental Protection, Low Cost Storage, Energy Savings, Vol.2,
Proceedings of the International Symposium (Rockstore’80). Pergamon Press;1980. p.

(conservative) values compared to the different empirical methods based on 553–61.

Barton N. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterization and tunnel design.
RMR, Q and GSI.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2002; 39(2): 185–216.
(3) The empirical method based on RQD by Zhang (2010) for estimating
unconfined compressive strength of rock masses tends to give values in the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2015, 5
Bery AA, Saad R. Correlation of seismic P-wave velocities with engineering parameters (N
value and rock quality) for tropical environmental study. International Journal of
Geosciences 2012; 3(4): 749–57.
Bhasin R, Grimstad E. The use of stress-strength relationships in the assessment of tunnel
stability. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 1996; 11(1): 93–8.
Bieniawski ZT. Determining rock mass deformability: Experience from case histories.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts
1978; 15(5): 237–47.
Brady BHG, Brown ET. Rock mechanics for underground mining. London, UK: George
Allen and Unwin; 1985.
Brown ET. The nature and fundamentals of rock engineering. In: Hudson JA, editor.
Compressive Rock Engineering–Principle, Practice and Projects, Vol. 1. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon Press; 1993. p. 1–23.
Budetta P, de Riso R, de Luca C. Correlations between jointing and seismic velocities in
highly fractured rock masses. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 2001;
60(3): 185–92.
Choi SY, Park HD. Variation of rock quality designation (RQD) with scanline orientation and
length: a case study in Korea. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 2004; 41(2): 207–21.
Coon RF, Merritt AH. Predicting in situ modulus of deformation using rock quality indexes.
In: Determination of the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock. ASTM International;
1970. p. 154–73.
U
Deere DU, Hendron AJ, Patton FD, Cording EJ. Design of surface and near surface
construction in rock. In: Proceedings of the 8th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics–
AN
Failure and Breakage of Rock. New York: American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and
Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; 1967. p. 237–302.
Deere DU. Rock quality designation (RQD) after twenty years. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Contract Report GL-89-1, Viksburg, USA: Waterways Experiment Station;
1989.
M
Deere DU. Technical description of rock cores for engineering purposes. Rock Mechanics
and Engineering Geology 1964; 1(1): 16–22.
Ebisu S, Aydan O, Komura S, Kawamoto T. Comparative study on various rock mass
characterization methods for surface structures. In: Rock Characterization: ISRM
D
Symposium, Eurock '92. London, UK: Thomas Telford; 1992. p. 203–8.
El-Naqa A, Kuisi MA. Engineering geological characterisation of the rock masses at Tannur
TE
Dam site, South Jordan. Environmental Geology, 2002, 42(7): 817–26.
El-Naqa A. Assessment of geotechnical characterization of a rock mass using a seismic
geophysical technique. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 1996; 14(4): 291–305.
Gardner WS. Design of drilled piers in the Atlantic Piedmont. In: Smith RW, editor.
Foundations and Excavations in Decomposed Rock of the Piedmont Province. New York,
EP
UK: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); 1987 p. 62–86.
Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Kayabasi A. Predicting the deformation moduli of rock masses.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2003; 40(5): 701–10.
Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International Journal of Rock
C
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 1997; 34(8): 1165–86.
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B. Hoek-Brown failure criterion – 2002 edition. In:
Proceedings of the 5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium & the 17th Tunneling
AC
Association of Canada Conference (NARMS-TAC 2002). Toronto, Canada: Mining
Innovation and Tech.; 2002. p. 267–73.
Hoek E, Diederichs MS. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2006; 43(2): 203–15.
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF. Support of underground excavations in hard rock.
Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1995.
Hoek E. Personal communication. Rocscience; 2004.
ISRM. Suggested methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock masses.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts
1978; 15(6): 319–68.
Justo JL, Justo E, Durand P, Azanon JM. The foundation of a 40-storey tower in jointed
basalt. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2006; 43(2): 267–81.
Kalamaras GS, Bieniawski ZT. A rock mass strength concept for coal seams. In: Proceedings
of the 12th Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown. 1993. p. 274–83.
Kulhawy FH, Goodman RE. Foundations in rock. In: Bell FG, editor. Ground Engineer’s
Reference Book, Chapter 15. London, UK: Butterworths; 1987.
Mitri HS, Edrissi R, Henning J. Finite element modeling of cablebolted stopes in hard rock
ground mines. Presented at the SME annual meeting. Albuquerque, USA, 1994. p. 94–116.
Nicholson GA, Bieniawski ZT. A nonlinear deformation modulus based on rock mass
classification. International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering 1990; 8(3):
181–202.
PT
Ozsan A, Akin M. Engineering geological assessment of the proposed Urus Dam, Turkey.
Engineering Geology 2002; 66(3–4): 271–81.
Ozsan A, Ocal A, Akin M, Basarir H. Engineering geological appraisal of the Sulakyurt dam
site, Turkey. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 2007; 66(4): 483–92.
RI
Palmström A. Characterization of jointing density and the quality of rock masses. Internal
report. A.B. Berdal, Norway, 1974 (in Norwegian).
Palmström A. Measurement and characterization of rock mass jointing. In: Sharma VM,
Saxena KR, editors. In-situ Characterization of Rocks. Lisse: A.A. Balkema; 2002. p. 49–
SC
98.
Palmström A. RMi—a rock mass characterization system for rock engineering purposes. PhD
Thesis. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo; 1995.
Palmström A. The volumetric joint count–a useful and simple measure of the degree of rock
mass jointing. In: Proceedings of the 4th Congress of International Association of
Engineering Geology, Vol. 2, New Delphi. 1982. p. 221–8.
Priest SD, Hudson J. Discontinuity spacing in rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 1976; 13(5): 135–48.
Ramamurthy T, Rao GV, Rao KS. A strength criterion for rocks. In: Proceedings of Indian
Geotechnical Conference, Vol. 1, Roorkee. 1985. p. 59–64.
Ramamurthy T. Stability of rock mass. Indian Geotechnical Journal 1996; 16: 1–73.
Ramamurthy T. Strength and modulus response of anisotropic rocks. In: Hudson JA, editor.
Compressive Rock Engineering–Principle, Practice and Projects, Vol. 1. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon Press; 1993. p. 313–29.
Read SAL, Richards LR, Perrin ND. Applicability of the Hoek–Brown failure criterion to
New Zealand greywacke rocks. In: Vouille G, Berest P, editors. Proceedings of the 9th
International Congress on Rock Mechanics, Vol. 2. Paris, 1999. p. 655–60.
Sen Z, Kazi A. Discontinuity spacing and RQD estimates from finite length scanlines.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts
1984; 21(4): 203–12.
Sen Z. RQD-fracture frequency chart based on a Weibull distribution. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 1993; 30(5): 555–7.
Serafim JL, Pereira JP. Consideration of the geomechanical classification of Bieniawski. In:
Proceedings of International Symposium on Engineering Geology and Underground
Construction, Vol. 1. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1983. p. II. 3–II.44.
Sheorey PR. Empirical rock failure criteria. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1997.
Singh B, Goel RK, Mehrotra VK, Garg SK, Allu MR. Effect of intermediate principal stress
on strength of anisotropic rock mass. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 1998;
13(1): 71–9.
Singh B, Goel RK. Rock mass classifications–A practical approach in civil engineering.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd., 1999.
Singh B, Villadkar MN, Samadhiya NK, Mehrotra VK. Rock mass strength parameters
mobilized in tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 1997; 12(1): 47–54.
Singh M, Rao KS. Empirical methods to estimate the strength of jointed rock masses.
Engineering Geology 2005; 77(1–2): 127–37.
Sjogren B, Øvsthus A, Sandberg J. Seismic classification of rock mass qualities. Geophysical
Prospecting 1979; 27(2): 409–42.
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Kayabasi A. Estimation of rock modulus: For
intact rocks with an artificial neural network and for rock masses with a new empirical
equation. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2006; 43(2): 224–
35.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2015, 5

Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R. Indirect determination of the modulus of deformation of

rock masses based on the GSI system. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Dr. Lianyang Zhang is an associate professor and the
Mining Sciences 2004; 41(5): 849–57. director of the Sustainable Materials and Recycling
Trueman R. An evaluation of strata support techniques in dual life gateroads. PhD Thesis. Technologies (SMART) Laboratory at the University of

Cardiff, UK: University of Wales; 1988. Arizona, USA. His research interests cover rock mechanics
and rock engineering, deep foundations, geoenvironmental
Yudhbir WL, Prinzl F. An empirical failure criterion for rock masses. In: Proceedings of the
engineering, sustainable construction materials, and recycling
5th International Congress on Rock Mechanics, Vol. 1, Melbourne. 1983. p. B1–B8.
and management of wastes. He is the author of two books
Zhang L, Einstein HH. Using RQD to estimate the deformation modulus of rock masses.
and has published more than 100 technical papers.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2004; 41(2): 337–41.

PT
Zhang L. Engineering properties of rocks. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.; 2005.
Zhang L. Estimating the strength of jointed rock masses. Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering 2010; 43(4): 391–402.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC