Core Logging Manual Template - 25july2017 - Draft

TYPICAL GUIDELINES FOR GEOTECHNICAL
CORE LOGGING AND DATA PROCESSING
July 2017
Geotechnical Logging Guidelines
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................4
2 GEOTECHNICAL DATA COLLECTION PROCESS.............................................5
3 DRILLING BASICS...............................................................................................6
3.1 Health and Safety.....................................................................................6
3.2 Core Size..................................................................................................6
3.3 Core Handling...........................................................................................6
3.4 Core Logging Workspace and Tools.........................................................7
4 GEOLOGY CODES..............................................................................................8
5 STANDARD FORMS AND TEMPLATES.............................................................9
6 GEOTECHNICAL LOGGING..............................................................................10
6.1 Logging Process.....................................................................................10
6.2 Logging Intervals.....................................................................................11
6.3 Logging Domains....................................................................................11
6.4 Depth Confirmation and Total Core Recovery (TCR)..............................12
6.5 Rock Quality Designation (RQD).............................................................13
6.6 Fracture Frequency (FF).........................................................................14
6.7 Rock Strength Index (R)..........................................................................15
6.8 Weathering / Alteration Index (W / A)......................................................16
6.9 Discontinuity Data...................................................................................17
6.9.1 Discontinuity Type.......................................................................18
6.9.2 Planarity and Roughness............................................................19
6.9.3 Discontinuity Alteration / Infill.......................................................21
6.10 Joint Set Number (Jn).............................................................................25
6.11 Major Structure.......................................................................................26
6.12 Description..............................................................................................27
6.13 Core Orientation......................................................................................27
6.13.1 Reflex ACT Core Orientation Tool...............................................28
6.13.2 Recovering the Core....................................................................28
6.13.3 Marking Up the Reference Line...................................................29
6.13.4 Alpha, Beta and Gamma Angles.................................................31
6.14 Core Photographs...................................................................................33
7 STRENGTH TESTING.......................................................................................35
7.1 Point Load Testing..................................................................................35
7.2 Laboratory Testing..................................................................................38
7.2.1 Sampling.....................................................................................38
7.2.2 Test Types...................................................................................39
8 DATA ENTRY AND QA/QC................................................................................43
9 ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION..........................................................................1
9.1 Q-System..................................................................................................1
9.2 Rock Mass Rating System (RMR).............................................................1
9.3 Rock Mass Classes...................................................................................3
9.4 Classification Spreadsheet........................................................................6
TABLES
12 October 2020 1
Table 6.1 Rock Strength Index (after ISRM 1981)..................................................16

Table 6.2 Weathering / Alteration Index (after ISRM 1981).....................................17
Table 6.3 Discontinuity Types.................................................................................18
Table 6.4 Alteration / Infill Types.............................................................................22
Table 6.5 Thickness and Aperture Rating...............................................................22
Table 6.6 Discontinuity Character and Ja...............................................................23
Table 6.7 Joint Set Number (Jn).............................................................................26
Table 6.8 Major Structures......................................................................................27
Table 9.1 Rock Mass Classes...................................................................................3
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Borehole Geotechnical Data Collection Process.......................................5

Figure 3.1 Marking Mechanical Fractures..................................................................7
Figure 6.1 Example of Sub-domaining.....................................................................12
Figure 6.2 Example of a Depth Block Placement Error............................................12
Figure 6.3 Calculating Total Core Recovery (TCR)..................................................13
Figure 6.4 Example of 10 cm Measurement.............................................................14
Figure 6.5 Calculating Rock Quality Designation (RQD)..........................................14
Figure 6.6 Calculating Fracture Frequency (FF)......................................................15
Figure 6.7 Special Considerations for Fracture Counts............................................15
Figure 6.8 Discontinuity Planarity.............................................................................19
Figure 6.9 Discontinuity Planarity, Roughness, and Jr.............................................20
Figure 6.10 Joint Roughness Examples.....................................................................21
Figure 6.11 Illustration of Discontinuity Character......................................................24
Figure 6.12 Joint Alteration Examples........................................................................25
Figure 6.13 Examples of Jn Assessed by Drill Run....................................................26
Figure 6.14 Liberating Rock Core from Splits in a Safe Manner.................................29
Figure 6.15 Example of Oriented Core.......................................................................30
Figure 6.16 Measurement of Alpha Angle..................................................................32
Figure 6.17 Measurement of Beta Angle....................................................................32
Figure 6.18 Measurement of Delta Angle...................................................................33
Figure 6.19 Example of a Bad Core Photograph........................................................34
Figure 6.20 Example of a Good Core Photograph.....................................................34
Figure 7.1 PLT Diametral and Axial Setup...............................................................36
12 October 2020 2
Figure 7.2 PLT Diametral and Axial Sample Sizes (after ISRM 1985)......................36
Figure 7.3 PLT Axial and Diametral Loading for Anisotropic Rock (after ISRM 1985)37
Figure 7.4 PLT Illustrations of Good and Bad Breaks (after ISRM 1985).................37
Figure 7.5 Laboratory Test Types............................................................................40
Figure 7.6 Example Brazilian, UCS, and Triaxial Test Data and Interpreted Hoek-Brown
Strength Envelope..................................................................................41
Figure 7.7 Example Direct Shear Test Data and Mohr-Coulomb Envelope..............42
Figure 9.1 Correlation Between RMR and Q (after Bieniawski 1976 and Jethwa et al.
1982).........................................................................................................4
Figure 9.2 Correlation Between RQD and Discontinuity Spacing Applied to RMR (after
Priest and Hudson, 1976).........................................................................5
Figure 9.3 Structural Mapping Data...........................................................................6
12 October 2020 3
1 INTRODUCTION
The following document was prepared to provide guidelines for geotechnical core logging,
strength testing, data processing, and presentation of data.
The guidelines are referenced to industry standards where applicable.
This document should be referenced by field personnel and senior reviewers for consistent
data collection, and training purposes.
12 October 2020 4
2 GEOTECHNICAL DATA COLLECTION PROCESS
The geotechnical data collection process is outlined in Figure 2.1. The main focus of the
document is detailing the geotechnical logging, data entry, and rock mass classification
process.
Note that a loop is illustrated between the data entry, rock mass classification and borehole
plot process. Often issues are highlighted during data processing that may require review of
the data, either through re-logging intervals, or reviewing core photos. This re-iteration may
be required to ensure consistent and accurate data collection processes.
Figure 2.1 Borehole Geotechnical Data Collection Process
Drilling
Geology
Logging
Geotechnical
Logging
Strength
Testing
Data Entry &

QA/QC
Rock Mass
Classification
Borehole
Plots
12 October 2020 5
3 DRILLING BASICS
3.1 Health and Safety
Health and safety is important for any field activity, including drilling and borehole logging.
The following aspects are outlined:
• Never approach or stand near to the drill while it is operating.
• Wear appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE) near the drill including; hard
hat, safety boots, reflective clothing, goggles, hearing protection, and gloves.
• Use two people and appropriate PPE (safety boots and gloves) to lift and handle
core boxes.
• Ensure the core logging area (core shed) is clean, well lit, and well organized.
• Wear goggles and gloves when breaking the core or using corrosives such as
hydrochloric acid.
3.2 Core Size
Typical core sizes used for geotechnical purposes include:

• BQ (36.5 mm)
• NQ (47.6 mm)
• HQ (63.5 mm)
Generally the larger core sizes provide better recoveries, and fewer disturbances from
drilling, which is more ideal for geotechnical logging. Geotechnical specific boreholes
should be drilled with HQ core size.
It should be noted that typically geological drilling uses double-tube drilling. Options exist for
triple-tube drilling (denoted BQ3, NQ3, HQ3), used for improved core recovery, and less
disturbance. Triple-tube drilling is recommended for oriented core drilling, or for specific
geotechnical boreholes.
3.3 Core Handling
The drillers and technicians should take care when handling the core to minimize breaks
and disturbance.
Prior to logging, align and organize the core neatly in the box. The core can also be laid out
on a separate “V” tray.
If the core is ever broken during handling, either on purpose or accidentally, the
mechanically-induced fracture is identified with an “X” as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
12 October 2020 6
Figure 3.2 Marking Mechanical Fractures
Mechanical fracture
from core handling
Both sides of fracture

marked with an “X”
3.4 Core Logging Workspace and Tools
The following outlines the necessary workspace for core logging:

• comfortable, clean work space with good lighting
• logging can be carried out from the core boxes, or from “V” trays arranged in front of
the core logging benches
• area for photographs
Relevant tools for core logging include:

• Borehole logging forms
• Clip board
• Log book (to organize holes)
• Tape measures
• Rulers / straight edge
• Protractors (alpha and beta)
• Pens, pencils, calculator
• Markers (Sharpies)
• China markers / grease pencils of different colours
• Geological hammer
• Scriber and magnet
• Hydrochloric acid
• Good camera
12 October 2020 7
4 GEOLOGY CODES
This document does not describe the geological logging process in detail. The geotechnical
loggers should reference the geology logs to assist with rock-type identification. Also, the
geologists can assist with interpretation of alteration and mineralogy types.
Lithology codes are site specific and should be referenced (Table 4.1)
Table to be inserted:
12 October 2020 8
5 STANDARD FORMS AND TEMPLATES
Standard forms used as part of the geotechnical data collection include:

• Geotechnical borehole logging form
• Point Load Test (PLT) form
• Laboratory sampling form
Standard templates used as part of the geotechnical data processing include:

• Geotechnical data entry spreadsheet
• PLT data entry spreadsheet
• Rock mass classification spreadsheet
• Borehole Strater® plot template
The data processing and templates are described further within this document.
12 October 2020 9
6 GEOTECHNICAL LOGGING
In order to obtain high-quality geotechnical information it is necessary to measure specific

geotechnical data following a general procedure including:
• Geotechnical Logging Intervals
• Domain Selection
• Depth Confirmation and Total Core Recovery (TCR)
• Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
• Fracture Count (FF)
• Strength Index (R)
• Weathering / Alteration Index (W / A)
• Discontinuity Data (Jr, Ja)
• Joint Set Number (Jn)
• Major Structure
• Description
• Special Consideration for Core Orientation
• Core Photos
Description of the process is given below.
6.1 Logging Process
Core logging is most efficient and consistent when following a process. These include:
1. Layout core boxes for the selected logging intervals.
2. Select first logging interval, and arrange core neatly in the box, or move core to
separate “V” tray for logging.
3. Decide on logging interval or if sub-domaining is required.
4. Check the core depths and core recovery (TCR).
5. Mark the core, including:
a. 0.25 m depth increments
b. Mechanical fractures (“X”)
c. Natural discontinuities for logging including discontinuity type
d. Any notable contacts, or major features
6. Measure RQD and Fracture Count.
7. Log the detailed discontinuity data, including estimate of joint sets.
8. Fill in major structure columns including lithology contacts.
12 October 2020 10
9. Provide a brief description of the core logging interval.
Once all of the relevant information is filled out, move onto the next core logging interval, and
repeat steps 2 through 10.
6.2 Logging Intervals
The general plan is for geotechnical logging to be carried out for selected exploration
boreholes, soon after geology logging has been carried out.
A general schematic of geotechnical logging intervals is illustrated in Figure 6.1.
• Dykes with distinct characteristics in comparison to the host rock

• Faults or other major structures
• Other poor quality, or highly-fractured zones not typical of the host rock types
Needs to be site specific.
6.3 Logging Domains
A logging domain represents the interval of data collection, the following rules generally
apply:
• Within the footwall and hanging wall host rock, if ground conditions are consistent,
use the drilling intervals (i.e. drillers’ depth blocks, typically 3 m)
• Within the reef domain, if ground conditions are consistent, use a maximum logging
interval of 1.5 m.
• Use a separate (sub) domain if encountering:
- a distinct lithology or lithological / structural contact (such as a dyke, fault,
argillite, etc.)
- a zone of distinct quality such as a highly fractured interval, alteration, or soft
infilling
• Sub-domains should be no less than 0.5 m and no greater than the logging interval
(1.5 m in reef or 3 m in host)
Needs to be site specific
An illustration of sub-domaining is shown in Figure 6.2.
12 October 2020 11
Figure 6.3 Example of Sub-domaining
Normally the logging interval is based on the drillers depth blocks (from – to):
81.6 84.6
If encountering a zone with distinct lithology (dyke) or structure (fault) greater than 0.5 m,
sub-domain accordingly:
81.6 84.6
82.1 82.9
If encountering a zone with distinct geotechnical properties (highly fractured)

greater than 0.5 m, sub-domain accordingly:
81.6 84.6
82.1 82.9
6.4 Depth Confirmation and Total Core Recovery (TCR)
The first step in geotechnical measurement is to confirm that the drillers’ depth blocks are
properly placed. This can create confusion and erroneous numbers if not done prior to
subsequent measurements. On occasion, the drillers can misplace the depth blocks. Depth
errors can also occur if there are drilling issues during drilling resulting in blocked core tubes,
etc.
An example scenario illustrating the depth issues between two drill runs is shown in
Figure 6.3. In this example, the missing core from Run #20 is found in Run #21. The drillers’
depth blocks are replaced accordingly.
Figure 6.4 Example of a Depth Block Placement Error
Once the logger is comfortable with the drilling depths, the next step is to measure the Total
Core Recovery (TCR). TCR records the total cumulative length of all core recovered in the
core tube, and is expressed as a percentage of the total length drilled.
12 October 2020 12
Total length of core recovered

TCR %= ×100
Length of core run
The TCR measurement is illustrated in Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.5 Calculating Total Core Recovery (TCR)

78.6 81.6
TCR = 2.46 / 3.0 = 82%
2.46 m ?
Recorded as Lost Core under

Major Structures
When the core is highly fragmented, the length of such portions should be estimated by
assembling the fragments and estimating the length of core that the fragments appear to
represent. This should be recorded in the structures tab / structure type column as a broken
zone.
Core losses are an important indication of potentially poor geotechnical conditions, since
they most commonly occur in weak or highly-fractured zones. This should be recorded in the
structures tab / structure type column as lost core.
Rubble or slough that has fallen into the drillhole and is recovered with the core is not
counted as recovered core, and should be discarded or clearly labelled to avoid subsequent
misclassification.
It is possible for some core to slip through the core lifter spring and to be dropped out of the
core tube. This problem frequently indicates a worn or unsuitable core lifter spring that
should be replaced.
Core should be represented on the log at the location it occupied in the rock mass. This
requires some interpretation when rock cored during one run is dropped and is recovered
during a subsequent run. This occasionally requires adjustment to the locations of the core
blocks. Core recoveries should not exceed 100% on any logged interval. Core that was
drilled in a previous run can often be identified by marks from the drilling or the core lifter
spring.
Instructions should be given to the drilling crew to carefully record the depth drilled at the
start and end of zones of core loss.
6.5 Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
RQD is a quantitative index of rock quality based on the total cumulative length of sound core
recovered in lengths greater than 10 cm (or 4 inches), as measured along the centre line axis
of the core and shown in Figure 6.5. The RQD should be continuously logged over each
drilling interval.
12 October 2020 13
RQD is determined from the following expression:
the sum of the lengths of core in pieces equal to or longer than 10 cm
RQD (%) = 100 x
length of core run
The 10 cm index length is applicable to BQ (36.5 mm), NQ (47.6 mm), HQ (63.5 mm), PQ
(85 mm), 4-inch (100.8 mm) and 6-inch (151.6 mm) core sizes (Deere and Deere 1989).
Smaller core sizes (A and E) are too small to be used for RQD.
An example of the measurement of the length of core (>= 10 cm) used for the determination
of RQD is shown in Figure 6.5. The core length is measured from centre to centre between
the two discontinuities.
One special case that may be encountered in measuring RQD is a single fracture sub-
parallel to the core axis. Sound core with a single sub-parallel fracture is counted as intact
rock and assigned an RQD of 100%. This method is used to avoid biasing the RQD
measurement with a single fracture parallel to the drillhole.
Figure 6.6 Example of 10 cm Measurement
An example of RQD determination is shown in Figure 6.6. The intervals with core lengths
less than 10 cm are subtracted from the drill run interval length (3 m in this example). Also,
obvious mechanical breaks through the core (core handling), are not considered as natural
when measuring RQD.
Figure 6.7 Calculating Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

81.6 84.6
RQD=(0.36+1.02+1.12)/ 3.0 = 83%

0.36 X 1.02 X 1.12
Mechanical core
breaks (ie. handling)
are not excluded
from RQD
6.6 Fracture Frequency (FF)
The fracture frequency (FF) is simply the number of natural fractures divided by the length of
core. Note that obvious mechanical breaks induced by core handling are not included in FF.
However, when in doubt, assume the fracture is natural.
12 October 2020 14
number of fractures
FF =
length of core run
Borehole logs generally use a 0.25 m interval convention for counting the fractures in order
to provide an additional level of detail in the borehole logs. An example FF calculation using
the 0.25 m interval fracture counts is illustrated in Figure 6.7.
Figure 6.8 Calculating Fracture Frequency (FF)

84.6 87.6
FF = 11 / 3 = 3.7
0 3 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1
Fracture Counts at
25 cm intervals
A couple of special considerations for FF are illustrated in Figure 6.8. If the core is highly
fractured through a particular interval, use the typical size of pieces to estimate the fracture
count. If the core is soft such as soil or gouge infill, assume a very high number for the
interval. Both of these approaches will help ensure that poor-quality intervals are
appropriately noted in the borehole logs.
Figure 6.9 Special Considerations for Fracture Counts
6.7 Rock Strength Index (R)
Field estimation of intact rock strength is based on simple mechanical tests that can be easily
performed on the core using a geological hammer. The descriptions of the tests (based on
ISRM 1981) are shown in Table 6.1. This table provides estimates of uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS) correlating to the strength index (R).
12 October 2020 15
Note that fractures should occur through intact rock and not along a healed discontinuity.
More than one test may be required if fracturing along discontinuities.
The average strength index is recorded per core run. If strength varies greatly within each
core run then judgment is needed when collecting strength data. It may be justified to sub-
domain the strength data.
Table 6.1 Rock Strength Index (after ISRM 1981)
Approx. Range
of Uniaxial
Grade Description Field Identification
Compressive Strength
(MPa)
Extremely 0.25 -1
R0 Indented by thumbnail.
weak rock
Material can be shaped with a pocket knife or
can be peeled by a pocket knife.
Very weak
R1 1.0 – 5.0
rock
Crumbles under firm blows of pick (or point)
of geological hammer.
Knife cuts material but too hard to shape into
triaxial specimens or material can be peeled by
a pocket knife with difficulty.
R2 Weak rock 5.0 - 25
Shallow indentations (< 5mm) made by firm
blow with pick (or point) of geological
hammer.
Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket
Medium knife.
R3 strong rock 25 - 50
Hand held specimens can be fractured with
single firm blow of geological hammer.
Hand held specimens requires more than one
R4 Strong rock 50 - 100
blow of geological hammer to fracture it.
Specimen requires many blows of geological
Very strong
R5 hammer to break intact rock specimens (or to 100 - 250
rock
fracture it).
Specimen can only be chipped under repeated
Extremely
R6 hammer blows, rings when hit. > 250
strong rock
Notes:
1. Hand held specimens should have height ≈2 times the diameter.
2. Materials having UCS of less than about 0.5 MPa and cohesionless materials should be classified using soil
classification systems.
3. Fracturing should occur through intact rock, not along discontinuities.
6.8 Weathering / Alteration Index (W / A)
Weathering and alteration impact rock mass strength. As a result, it is important to record the
degree of weathering or alteration.
Weathering is the breakdown of rock by physical processes, often associated with water
and / or oxidation. Weathered rock typically shows a brown, or reddish colour related to the
oxidation process.
12 October 2020 16
Alteration is the breakdown or softening of the rock by chemical processes (hydrothermal or

supergene). Alteration typically involves the replacement of hard minerals (i.e. quartz,
feldspars) with softer minerals (i.e. chlorite, talcs). Alteration can be more difficult to
ascertain, and often it is good to speak with a geologist to help identify the type and extent of
alteration.
The weathering / alteration index based on the field description is summarized in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Weathering / Alteration Index (after ISRM 1981)
Discoloration Fracture Surface

Term Symbol Description
Extent Condition Characteristics
No visible sign of rock Closed or
Fresh W1 None Unchanged
material weatherings. Discoloured
Discoloration indicates <20% of
weathering of rock fracture Discoloured,
Slightly Partial
W2 material on discontinuity spacing on may contain
Weathered discoloration
surfaces. Less than 5% of both sides of thin filling
rock mass altered. fracture
Less than 50% of the rock
material is decomposed >20% of Partial to complete
and/or disintegrated to a fracture Discoloured, discoloration, not
Moderately
W3 soil. Fresh or discoloured spacing on may contain friable except
Weathered
rock is present either as a both sides of thick filling poorly cemented
discontinuous framework fracture rocks
or as corestones.
More than 50% of the
rock material is
decomposed and/or
Filled with Friable and
Highly disintegrated to a soil.
W4 Throughout alteration possibly pitted
Weathered Fresh or discoloured rock
minerals
is present either as a
discontinuous framework
or as corestones.
100% of rock material is
decomposed and/or Filled with
Completely
W5 disintegrated to soil. The Throughout alteration Resembles soil
Weathered
original mass structure is minerals
still largely intact.
All rock material is
converted to soil. The
mass structure and
material fabric are
Residual Soil W6 Throughout N/A Resembles soil
destroyed. There is a
large change in volume,
but the soil has not been
significantly transported.
6.9 Discontinuity Data
The number, nature, and orientation of all discontinuities (joints, contacts, bedding, faults and
fractures, etc.) also needs to be recorded. Of particular importance is the collection of good
joint parameters as these are used for rock mass classification. This is often impacted by the
time available to record accurate and comprehensive geotechnical data.
Joint parameters can be recorded in one of two ways:
12 October 2020 17
1. The most representative (dominant) condition of the joint sets can be estimated for a
core run (interval logging).
2. All the different values for each joint in the set can be recorded (detailed geotechnical
logging).
It is preferable to use both methods (i.e. to record the most representative joint parameters
so that rock mass classification can be done on an interval (core run by core run) basis), and
also to measure and log each separate fracture or joint. By doing this it is possible to
compile all the joint data recorded and to plot and identify the different joint sets that may be
present over the length of the measured core. This data can subsequently be used to more
accurately identify geotechnical domains.
Joint conditions are expressed as:

• Joint type
• Planarity – joint shape on the macro scale (the shape of the joint surface on a scale
of the core diameter in core)
• Roughness, small-scale (micro) irregularities on the core surface
• Joint infill type and thickness
6.9.1 Discontinuity Type
A discontinuity is defined as any naturally occurring plane or surface that is now, or has in
the past been, broken. Discontinuity type includes joints, veins, shears, and bedding planes.
The discontinuity types to be used for core logging are summarized in Table 6.3.
12 October 2020 18
Table 6.3 Discontinuity Types

Type ID Field Identification
Discontinuity representative of a tensile or shear-type fracture in rock. Does not
Joint JN follow mineralogical trends. Can be tight or open. Healed joints are identified with
HJN.
Discontinuity representative of mineralogical trends in the rock typically associated
with Metamorphic or Metasedimentary deposits. Foliation trends can be slight,
Foliation FO
moderate, or intense (i.e. schistose). Can be tight or open. Healed foliation can be
identified with HFO.
Discontinuity representative of mineralogical trends in the rock typically associated
Bedding BD with Sedimentary Deposits. Can be tight or open. Healed bedding can be identified
with HBD.
Discontinuity representative of mineral deposit in the rock (i.e. calcite or quartz).
Vein VN Has a measurable thickness. Can be open (fractured along contact) or healed.
Healed vein identified as HVN.
Use this terminology for a discontinuous fracture in the core along a weakness
Fracture FR
plane. Can be clean but often will show altered surface.
Discontinuity representative of a lithological contact such as contacts between rock
Contact CO units or intrusive (i.e. dykes). Can be tight or open. Healed contacts identified with
HCO.
Type ID Field Identification
Large zone (>0.3 m) of fractured core inferred to be related to a large, persistent,
major structure. Often shows clay gouge or rubble material. Potentially the fault
Fault FT contacts can be oriented, but estimating fault trends typically requires cross-
mapping between boreholes. Fault contacts identified with FTCO, and fault
fractures identified with FTFR.
Similar to fault but smaller, also possibly with less gouge or alteration. Can also
include a single discrete feature exhibiting large aperture or infilling (>>1 cm). For
Shear SH
larger features containing multiple fractures, shear contacts can be identified with
SHCO, and shear fractures identified with SHFR.
Note. Healed discontinuities are indicated with abbreviation “H”, i.e. HVN = healed vein.
6.9.2 Planarity and Roughness
Discontinuity roughness refers to the nature of the discontinuity walls (planarity) and to the
small irregularities on the fracture surfaces (roughness).
The discontinuity planarity is subdivided into five classes:

• Planar (PL)
• Curved (CU)
• Undulating (UN)
• Stepped (ST)
• Irregular (IR)
12 October 2020 19
The five planarity classes are illustrated in Figure 6.9. It is most important to distinguish
between the planar (low amplitude) and non-planar (high amplitude) surface shapes. As a
general rule-of-thumb, an amplitude of 5 mm is used to distinguish between the two shapes.
The amplitude can be estimated using a straightedge held against the discontinuity surface.
Figure 6.10 Discontinuity Planarity
Low Amplitude High Amplitude

(< 5mm) (> 5mm)
(> 5mm)
The discontinuity roughness refers to the small-scale irregularities on the discontinuity

surface and is subdivided into three classes;
• Rough (RO)
• Smooth (SM)
• Polished / Slickensided (K)
Note that the roughness texture is typically related to the mineral type and alteration
expressed on the discontinuity wall. Clean discontinuities typically show rougher texture than
altered discontinuities, which are often smooth. Slickensided discontinuities have a texture
similar to polished plastic.
The joint roughness number (Jn) based on the rock mass classification Q-System is a
convenient means of characterizing the overall discontinuity planarity and roughness. The
planarity and roughness terms are combined to estimate Jr as illustrated in Figure 6.10.
12 October 2020 20
Figure 6.11 Discontinuity Planarity, Roughness, and Jr
Planarity Roughness
Descriptors Descriptors Jr
ST RO 3
ST SM 2
ST K 1.5
UN RO 3
UN SM 2
UN K 1.5
PL RO 1.5
PL SM 1
PL K 0.5
Discontinuous Any Any 4
Notes
1. Curved (CU), and Irregular (IR) surfaces follow a similar convention as Undulating (UN) and Stepped (ST). Planar
(PL) discontinuities have a unique Jr rating.
2. Soft infilled discontinuities (> 1mm) assume no rock wall contact, therefore Jr = 1.
Example core photographs illustrating varying joint roughness are shown in Figure 6.11.
12 October 2020 21
Figure 6.12 Joint Roughness Examples
6.9.3 Discontinuity Alteration / Infill
The description of the discontinuities alteration / infill is important for estimating the
discontinuity strength, and is also used directly in rock mass classification.
The three descriptions required for assessing the discontinuity alteration / infill are:
• Alteration / infill type
• Thickness
• Character
Alteration or infill types can either be mineral coatings, or physical coatings. It is important to
identify the alteration / infill type, as this is typically associated with the discontinuity surface
hardness. Common alteration / infill types are described in Table 6.4.
12 October 2020 22
Table 6.4 Alteration / Infill Types

Typical Mineral Coatings
Ar: Argillite (black, waxy) Su: Sulphide (gold/hard/crystalline)
Ca: Calcite/Carbonate (white/reactive w HCl) He: Hematite (red)
Ch: Chlorite (dark green to black/soft) Qz: Quartz (white/hard)
Sr: Sericite (greenish) Tc: Talc (white/very soft)
Gr: Graphite (dark grey to black/greasy) Ox: reddish brown staining to coating
Physical Coatings
Cl: Clay (soft/plastic)

Si: Silt (soft/non-plastic)
Sa: Sand
Gr: Gravel
Note:
1. Clean discontinuities (no alteration, nor infilling) can be left blank in the borehole logs.
The thickness of the discontinuity infilling should also be recorded to verify the degree of
alteration / infilling in the joint. The aperture (openness) of the discontinuity also provides an
indication of the relative strength and persistence of the feature. A thickness and aperture
rating system is provided in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5 Thickness and Aperture Rating

Infill Thickness Rating Aperture/Openness Rating
Clean 0 mm T0 Very Tight ~0 mm A0
Very Thin < 1 mm T1 Slightly Open < 1 mm A1
Moderately Thin 1 - 3 mm T2 Moderately Open 1 - 3 mm A2
Thin 3 - 10 mm T3 Open 3 - 10 mm A3
Moderately Thick 10 - 30 mm T4 Moderately Wide 10 - 30 mm A4
Thick > 30 mm T5 Wide > 30 mm A5
The character of the alteration / infilling is important to identify. The three main character
types include:
• No thickness
• Coating (thin, can be scraped with a knife)
• Infill (thick coating)
If the discontinuity shows a mineral coating, it is important to identify whether the coating is
hard (i.e. calcite), or soft (i.e. clay).
An infilled discontinuity would typically be assumed to be relatively soft compared to the host
rock; nevertheless it would be important to distinguish between hard clay and soft clay.
12 October 2020 23
The above descriptions are used to assess the joint alteration (Ja) value referenced in the
rock mass classification Q-System. A summary table for estimating Ja is given in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6 Discontinuity Character and Ja

Thickness Description Character Ja
No Thickness
Healed Fractures h 0.75
Clean or Staining Only cl 1
-
Slightly Altered Walls (e.g. oxidation,
sa 2
chlorite, argillite)
Coating (can be scraped off)
Stiff Coating (e.g. calcite) hc 3
< =2mm
Soft Coating (e.g. clay, graphite) sc 4
Infill (i.e. thick coating)
Sand or Crushed Rock si 5
Hard Clay hci 6
< 5mm
Soft Clay sci 8
Very Soft Clay vsci 12
Hard Clay hci 10
> 5mm Soft Clay sci 15
Very Soft Clay vsci 20
Illustrations of discontinuity character based on coating / infilling thickness are shown in

Figure 6.12.
Some example photographs of joint alteration character types are shown in Figure 6.13.
12 October 2020 24
Figure 6.13 Illustration of Discontinuity Character
Clean / Staining Coating
Thin Infill (< 5mm) Thick Infill (>5mm)
12 October 2020 25
Figure 6.14 Joint Alteration Examples
6.10 Joint Set Number (Jn)
The joint set number (Jn) is based on the Q-System classification criteria for identifying the
number of joint sets comprising the rock mass. A joint set refers to a family of joints having
similar dip and dip direction.
The Jn classification criteria based on the number of observed joint sets is given in Table 6.7.
12 October 2020 26
Table 6.7 Joint Set Number (Jn)

Joint Set Number Jn
Massive, no or few joints 0.5 – 1.0
One joint set 2
One joint set plus random 3
Two joint sets 4
Two joint sets plus random 6
Three joint sets 9
Three joint sets plus random 12
Four or more joint sets, random, heavily jointed 15
Crushed rock, soil 20
For core logging without oriented core, the identification of the number of joint sets can be
difficult. It is recommended that the core is aligned within the core boxes or “V” trays. This
can assist in identifying the number of joint sets or families of joints. Typically, predominant
foliation or veining trends will comprise at least one joint set.
An illustration of assessing Jn by drill run is shown in Figure 6.14. In these examples, a set is
assumed when more than 1 discontinuity follows the same trend. When encountering
multiple “random” joints, the convention used generally assume 2 random joints are equal to
1 discontinuity set.
Figure 6.15 Examples of Jn Assessed by Drill Run
1 1 2 r 2
2 joint sets + 1 random (Jn = 6)
1 1 r r r
1 joint sets + 3 random .

Assume 2 random = 1 joint set
(Jn = 6)
6.11 Major Structure
It will be important to note on the borehole logs any major structure encountered during core
logging. Major structure types and description are provided in Table 6.8.
The borehole logs contain a major structures column, where the logger can fill out the depth
increments, and a brief description of the structure type.
12 October 2020 27
Table 6.8 Major Structures

Type ID Field Description
Broken Core BC Zone of broken core, likely related to drilling.
Large zone (>0.3 m) of fractured core inferred to be related to a large persistent major
Fault FT
structure. Often shows clay gouge or rubble material.
Fracture Zone FZ Zone of highly fractured core, however, no presence of gouge or infilling.
Gouge GO Zone of soft clay-like material.
Major Joints MJ Major open joints showing infilling > 5 mm .
Lost Core LC Intervals of missing core, uncertain as to reason.
Similar to fault but smaller, also possibly with less gouge or alteration. Can also include
Shear SH
a single discrete feature exhibiting large aperture or infilling (>>1 cm).
6.12 Description
Provide a brief description of the logging interval, including:

• Color
• Grain size (fine, medium, coarse)
• Structure (foliated, schistose, veining, porphyritic)
• Alteration style in rock and joints (unaltered, chloritic, argillitic, graphitic)
• Strength estimate based on rock strength index (R)
• Lithology or lithology contacts
• Major structure description (**IMPORTANT**)
Note that if the rock characteristics and quality does not change between logging intervals,
just indicate this (no need to fill in description again).
6.13 Core Orientation
The objective of core orientation is to measure and record in a systematic way orientated
structural data. Various core orientation tools are available in industry. All devices act in a
similar fashion, wherein they identify the high side (borehole top) or low side (borehole
bottom).The more state-of-the-art systems incorporate electronic sensors, rather than strictly
mechanical measurement.
Within this document, the core orientation device assumed to orientate the core is the Reflex
ACT core orientation system. It should be noted that a similar process is used regardless of
the system.
When core orientation is used, typically triple-tube (NQ3, HQ3) core barrel assemblies are
recommended to assist in maintaining the core in good condition when extracting from the
core barrel. Orientation lines can be lost when the core is damaged and unable to be pieced
back together.
12 October 2020 28
6.13.1 Reflex ACT Core Orientation Tool
The manufacturers’ manual should be consulted and understood for the use of this tool and
for the retrieval of the core from the triple tube. The following provides a summary of
important steps in this process.
6.13.2 Recovering the Core
• The drillers should clearly mark the Reflex ACT orientation mark on the bottom end of
each core run (this indicates the bottom of core in the hole).
• The drillers must also place a core block (depth marker) at the end of each core run,
as per standard drilling procedure, with the core in the angle iron.
• The split tubes, with the core inside, are gently pumped out of the core barrel directly
onto a length of angle iron, using the rig water pump.
• The angle iron together with the triple tubes and the contained core is carefully placed
on the “V” tray.
• Carefully remove the upper split tube.
• Carefully wash the core with water. The core should be cleaned to remove drilling
mud. Washing should be done very carefully to preserve the integrity of the core and
any joint infilling. High-pressure nozzles should not be used as these cause core
misplacement and further core deterioration. Great care must be taken not to wash
away the fines from any weak and broken zones. The block indicating the core depth
should be placed at the end of the core run.
• Place a second angle iron on top of the core.
• Lift the whole set (lower angle iron, lower half of triple tube, core and the upper angle
iron) and turn it through 180°, while keeping the set tightly compressed at all times
(this may need 3 people), and place it back onto the “V” tray (See Figure 6.15).
• Finally lift off the upper length of angle iron and then carefully lift off the remaining half
of the split tube.
• Carefully wash the core with water a second time.
• Both splits have now been removed and the core has been placed undisturbed onto
the angle iron.
12 October 2020 29
Figure 6.16 Liberating Rock Core from Splits in a Safe Manner
6.13.3 Marking Up the Reference Line
The reference line should be marked on the core by the logging geologist, or a trained
technician.
• The reference line should be marked on the perimeter of the core according to the
position of the Reflex ACT orientation mark.
• The reference line should be marked on the core using a RED china graph pencil and
a solid straightedge.
• The reference line should only be marked where the accuracy of the line relative to
previous reference lines is certain to within 10 degrees (see below), and if the pieces
of core can be joined up in the angle iron with certainty.
• If the core has rotated or spun within the barrel and the pieces cannot be joined with
certainty then the core should NOT be marked up beyond the point where pieces can
be joined up.
• A tick or arrow should be marked on the reference to indicate the downhole direction.
• The reference line of a new core run must be compared with the reference lines of
the preceding core runs in order to check its accuracy. In order to do this, connect
one or more preceding core runs with the newly drilled run.
12 October 2020 30
• If two or more reference lines match up showing a difference of no more than 10

degrees, then the core is marked up completely in the 90° angle iron, running the
reference line completely through the whole length of the core run as a SOLID LINE.
• If the two reference lines do not match up, and show a difference of more than 10°
then DO NOT mark the core at all.
• In the case that two adjoining core runs cannot be connected together, for example if
the core cannot be joined up throughout the whole of the run, but the reference line
can be marked at the bottom of the run from the orientation mark, then the reference
line should be marked as a DASHED LINE, from the bottom of the core up to the
point where the core pieces can be joined together.
• If the core is too broken, and cannot be connected together or if there is no accurate
orientation mark, then DO NOT DRAW ANY LINE on it.
• In the following cases it may be necessary to ask the drillers to drill a shorter 1.5 m
run, instead of the standard 3 m:
- The two reference lines do not match up, the difference of the two reference
lines being greater than 10°.
- There is no good Reflex ACT orientation mark.
- The core pieces cannot be joined together due to grinding, or rotation or
spinning of the core in the barrel, even by trying to place together veinlets or
any other structures.
- The core end was broken while unscrewing the core catcher making it
impossible to put together the core run entirely.
An example of marked core is shown in Figure 6.16 below:
Figure 6.17 Example of Oriented Core
12 October 2020 31
The orientation confidence should be referenced in the comments column in the Geotech tab
as follows:
1 = Orientation has matching lines for a minimum of 3 m either side of the run.
2 = Orientation has matching line for a minimum of 3 m on only 1 side of the run.
3 = Orientation doesn’t agree with runs on either side.
A matching line is defined as within 10 degrees of each other.
6.13.4 Alpha, Beta and Gamma Angles
A number of techniques can be used to obtain various angular measurements from core.
Two angles (Alpha – α and Beta – β) are measured to describe the dip and dip direction of
discontinuities with respect to the core reference line. It is important that a downhole
deviation survey be conducted to determine the true dip and dip direction of the borehole so
alpha and beta angles can be correctly translated.
The Alpha angle is measured as the acute angle of the fracture, relative to the longitudinal
core axis. An Alpha angle of 0° indicates a joint parallel to the core axis; a measured angle
of 90° indicates a joint that is perpendicular to core axis. This angle can be measured using
a Carpenter’s Protractor that can be obtained from most hardware stores (Figure 6.17).
The Beta angle is the circumferential angle measured from the reference line drawn on the
core to the line of “maximum dip” of the joint. The Beta angle is measured with a linear
protractor. The convention for measuring Beta is to measure from the reference line in a
clockwise direction to the lowest, or deepest downhole point of the ellipse of the joint plane
when looking down hole (Figure 6.18).
12 October 2020 32
Figure 6.18 Measurement of Alpha Angle
Figure 6.19 Measurement of Beta Angle

Up-Hole Piece Down-Hole Piece
Face of α
Discontinuity
b
Maximum dip vector
of discontinuity
down-hole
α Ref erence Line

pointing in down-
hole direction
The linear protractor
is wrapped tightly
around the core with
0° aligned on the The beta angle is recorded as the clockwise angle from
orientation line the orientation line to the maximum dip vector of the
discontinuity
12 October 2020 33
In addition to the alpha and beta angles described above, the delta angle, which is measured
between orientation reference lines drawn on consecutive core runs, can be recorded to
determine the validity of the orientation line (very similar to measuring the beta angle). The
bottom piece of the previous run (with the drillers’ mark) should be tightly coupled with the
top piece of the current run, and the gamma angle between the two orientation lines
recorded. The convention is the clockwise angle from the previous line to the new line; thus
the beta protractor is wrapped around the previous (up-hole) line and the delta angle is the
clockwise angle to the new (current) line. Orientation line validation is outlined on Figure 6.19
below.
Figure 6.20 Measurement of Delta Angle
6.14 Core Photographs
The following steps should be followed for good core photographs:

• Arrange core boxes on an inclined surface for a square photograph
• Arrange core neatly together
• Make core blocks and core markings visible in core
• Use a labelled white board identifying borehole ID, and depth (from – to)
• Use a tape measure for scale
• Do not take photographs in direct sunlight
• Take dry and wet photographs
12 October 2020 34
Examples of bad and good core photographs are shown in Figure 6.20 and Figure 6.21
respectively. The bad photograph is taken at a low angle to the core. Much of the core is not
visible, and the photo resolution is also poor. The good photograph is taken square to the
core boxes. The depth markers are also good.
Figure 6.21 Example of a Bad Core Photograph
Figure 6.22 Example of a Good Core Photograph
12 October 2020 35
7 STRENGTH TESTING
There are two sources of strength-testing data; 1) Field Point Load Tests, and 2) Laboratory
testing.
7.1 Point Load Testing
Point load testing (PLT) is a simple index strength test. By nature, the PLT results are often
quite variable and prone to invalid breaks, or fracturing along pre-existing discontinuities.
Therefore it is recommended that a high quantity of PLT testing is carried out to minimize
statistical bias, and for thorough assessment of potential strength variability between the
various rock units.
It is important that PLT is carried out following ISRM standard procedures (ISRM 1985).
These procedures illustrate appropriate specimen sizes, loading directions, and delineation
between good and bad breaks.
Because the geotechnical logging will typically use short intervals representative of the ore
domain, and host rock contacts, PLT should be carried out every 3 m for the geotechnical
logging intervals.
The general testing approach is as follows:

• PLT carried out after logging and photographs.
• Select interval for PLT at 3 m intervals.
• Carefully break 3 samples for Diametral testing.
• Carry out Diametral tests following ISRM (what year?) standard procedures.
• Do not load along a discrete healed discontinuity contact.
• If any of the half-specimens are appropriate size for Axial testing, carry out Axial tests
following ISRM (what year?) procedures.
• Mark mechanical breaks and replace back in core box.
The Diametral and Axial PLT configurations are illustrated in Figure 7.1. Combined Diametral
and Axial testing is useful for assessing the degree of rock strength anisotropy. Typically,
foliated rock shows higher strength orthogonal to the planes of weakness. If core shows
notable strength anisotropy, both Diametral and Axial testing would be recommended for
these rock units.
12 October 2020 36
Figure 7.23 PLT Diametral and Axial Setup
The size of samples based on ISRM (1985) criteria are illustrated in Figure 7.2.
Figure 7.24 PLT Diametral and Axial Sample Sizes (after ISRM 1985)
a) Diametral Test b) Axial Test
If carrying out testing on anisotropic rock units (i.e. argillites), the loading direction is
important. This is illustrated in Figure 7.3.
12 October 2020 37
Figure 7.25 PLT Axial and Diametral Loading for Anisotropic Rock (after ISRM 1985)
a) Axial Test b) Diametral Test
It is important to note the mode of fracture, and in particular whether the break is valid or
invalid. Typical valid (good) and invalid (bad) tests are illustrated in Figure 7.4. It is also good
practice to note the number of pieces after testing, and whether fracturing occurred along a
discontinuity.
Figure 7.26 PLT Illustrations of Good and Bad Breaks (after ISRM 1985)
Diametral – Good breaks
Axial – Good breaks
Axial– Bad breaks

Diametral– Bad breaks
Note: Also note if the break

occurs along a discontinuity
12 October 2020 38
The PLT test data is used to calculate the PLT index stress Is (50), measured in MPa,
according to the following formula:
P
Is(50)= ∙F
D 2e
Where:
P = load at failure converted to MN
De2 = D2 for diametral tests or 4WD/π for axial tests
F = size correction factor = (De/50)0.45
With sufficient PLT data correlated to laboratory UCS testing, correlation coefficients (C) can
be developed by rock type, and an equivalent UCS (UCS eq) can be estimated according to
the following:
UCS eq=C ∙ Is (50)
Where C can range between < 10 to > 30 depending on the rock type.
7.2 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory sampling may be required on occasion to properly characterize the strength

characteristics of the rock types encountered. Laboratory testing would typically be carried
out at an accredited lab testing facility.
7.2.1 Sampling
Good sampling is important to ensure representative samples are taken, and that the sample
information is properly communicated.
The following sampling practices are recommended:

• Samples should be minimum 15 cm, maximum 25 cm.
• Avoid sampling rock with discrete healed discontinuities such as veins or healed
joints, as these will contribute to premature failure during testing.
• Samples should be photographed (dry and wet) prior to shipping.
• The sample borehole ID and depth (from – to) should be written on the sample.
• Samples should be wrapped with plastic, and then taped to help protect the sample
during transport.
• Samples should be well packed during transport to prevent damage.
• Record the sample information. The sampling record sheet should include; borehole
ID, depth (from – to), rock type, test type, date sampled, and name of the person
doing the sampling.
12 October 2020 39
There are two different approaches for selecting samples, which will depend on the purpose
of testing. These include:
• Random Sampling throughout multiple boreholes
• Group Sampling of a discrete lithology in a single borehole
Random sampling allows for the testing of a wider range of rock types; however, this
approach can result in more statistical scatter due to the spatial variability of the rock
properties associated with mineralogy, grain size, texture, and alteration.
If the purpose of the sampling is to provide details for a particular rock type (i.e. testing the
dyke material), it is recommended that Group Sampling be used for the given lithology within
a single borehole, in a relatively narrow depth range (i.e. 3 m interval). This approach should
result in less statistical scatter and more confidence in the test results.
Point load tests can be used in conjunction with Group Sampling to illustrate the potential
variability of the lithology. Changes in mineralogy, grain size, texture, and alteration can
result in variable strength properties. This variability is natural, and would be expected;
however, it would be important to understand where and why this variability occurs spatially.
7.2.2 Test Types
Variable test types can be used to define the rock strength characteristics, including:
• Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
• Triaxial compressive strength
• Brazilian disc indirect tensile strength
• Direct shear (intact rock or discontinuities)
In addition to strength testing, it is also important to characterize the materials elastic

properties and density, including:
• Elastic modulus / Poisson’s ratio measurement
• Bulk Density
In carrying out strength testing, the laboratory should comply with published guidelines for
strength testing. Industry recognized guidelines are provided by:
• American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
• International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM)
• British Standards (BS)
Some recommendations for the laboratory test work are as follows:

• Bulk density should be measured for every test to assist with characterization.
• The laboratory should photograph the samples before and after testing, and note the
mode of failure (fracture through intact matrix, along discontinuity, etc.).
12 October 2020 40
• Elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio measurement should be carried out in

conjunction with UCS testing.
• The laboratory should provide the stress – strain or stress – time plots as well as the
selected peak stress data at failure.
Simple illustrations of the various test types are provided in Figure 7.5. The stress
components are calculated based on the measured peak loads at the point of failure. It is
also convenient to request the stress – deformation plots from the laboratory to confirm
sample response during testing.
Figure 7.27 Laboratory Test Types

Brazilian Disc UCS Triaxial Direct Shear
σ1 σ1
σn
-σ3 -σ3
σ3 σ3
σ1
σ1 σn
Stress Components:
σ1 = major principal stress
σ3 = minor principal stress (negative = tension)
σn = normal (confining) stress
Τ = shear stress
For the combined Brazilian, UCS, and Triaxial test types, the laboratory test results are
plotted in σ1 – σ3 envelopes, and subsequent interpretation is used to estimate the rock
strength envelope. The style of strength envelope depends on the strength criterion
considered. Often, the Hoek-Brown failure criterion (Hoek, E. et al. 2002) (non-linear
envelope) is referenced in industry. Mohr-Coulomb (linear or bi-linear) is also often
referenced.
Example laboratory testing, and the interpreted strength envelopes, is plotted in Figure 7.6
12 October 2020 41
Figure 7.28 Example Brazilian, UCS, and Triaxial Test Data and Interpreted Hoek-
Brown Strength Envelope
Basalt (B)
400
Triaxial Partial Failure
Intact Failure
350
IF - Envelope
σ1 (MPa)
300 PF - Envelope
All - Envelope
250
Major Principal Stress,
UCS
200
150
100
Brazilan
Disc 50
0
-40 -20 0 20 40 60
Minor Principal Stress, σ3 (MPa)
Direct shear testing is an alternative approach to assessing rock strength parameters.

Advantages to direct shear testing include:
• Direct shear can be carried out through intact rock, healed discontinuities, or open
discontinuities.
• Typically less scattered than the typical compressive strength test results.
Disadvantages to direct shear testing is that it is typically more expensive than other test
methods. Also, industry practice typically references UCS in characterizing rock strength
(although the UCS can be interpolated from the direct shear test data).
An example direct shear test strength envelope is shown in Figure 7.7.
12 October 2020 42
Figure 7.29 Example Direct Shear Test Data and Mohr-Coulomb Envelope
60
Direct Shear Test
Mohr-Coulomb Envelope
50
Shear Stress, Τ (MPa)
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40
Normal Stress, σn (MPa)
A typical testing approach that could be followed, utilizing Group Sampling for defining the
strength characteristics of a particular lithology (i.e. Dyke), would include at a minimum:
• 3 sets of Brazilian disc tests (1 set typically equals 4 to 5 tests)
• 3 UCS tests (with Elastic Modulus and Poisson’s ratio)
• 6 Triaxial tests (3 sets of 2 tests, at 3 levels of subsequent levels of confinement)
Approximately 3 m of core samples would be required for these tests.
12 October 2020 43
8 DATA ENTRY AND QA/QC
A standard template should be developed for geotechnical data entry. The data should be
entered and processed the same day or soon after logging so that if discrepancies are found
the core can be re-logged.
During data entry, it is the responsibility of the logger to ensure the data is accurate, and
verifiable by a third party. Some typical mistakes made during logging include:
• TCR or RQD > 100% - this is often related to measurement or recording error during
logging.
• Missing or low fracture counts corresponding with low RQD. In reality, low RQD
values should correspond to high fracture counts.
• Inconsistent R and W estimates. These are highly subjective index tests, and often
result in some inconsistency between loggers.
• Inconsistent discontinuity abbreviations (i.e. Roughness = Rough. = RO = R). This
can create confusion during rock mass classification.
• Discrepancy between description and corresponding Jr, Ja values. This also creates
confusion in assessing an appropriate value for rock mass classification.
For data management, each logged borehole should include a folder with the following
information:
• Geotech logging data entry (spreadsheet)
• PLT data entry (spreadsheet)
• Laboratory sampling data entry (spreadsheet)
• Scan of paper forms
• Core photos
• Geology log
• Hole survey data (collar and downhole survey)
12 October 2020 44
9 ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION
Two rock mass classification systems are generally used; Q-System (Barton et al. 1974)
and Rock Mass Rating (RMR) (Bieniawski, ZT 1976). The rock mass classification systems
are briefly discussed herein. A number of published documents and books can be
referenced for additional discussion on the classification systems.
A spreadsheet has been developed to assist with calculating the borehole Q and RMR
parameters by drill run. The workings of this spreadsheet are also discussed.
9.1 Q-System
The Q-System (Barton et al. 1974) was originally developed through the Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute, using a large number of case histories of underground excavations.
The numerical value of the Q index ranges from 0.001 to 1000. Often, the effective value of
Q’ is referenced for rock mass classification, which ignores adjustments to the Q index
based on water and stress. The Q and Q’ index values are calculated as follows:
RQD Jr Jw
Q= ⋅ ⋅
Jn Ja SRF
RQD Jr
Q'= ⋅
Jn Ja
Where:
RQD = Rock quality designation
Jn = Joint set number index
Jr = Joint roughness index
Ja = Joint alteration index
Jw = Joint water index
SRF = Stress reduction factor
The above parameters (except Jw and SRF) are collected during geotechnical logging
(described in Section 6). The Jw and SRF parameters can be later applied to the Q’ values
for engineering purposes, and will not be discussed herein.
9.2 Rock Mass Rating System (RMR)
Bieniawski (1976) published the details of a rock mass classification system call the Rock
Mass Rating (RMR) system. Two versions of RMR are available depending on the year of
publishing, RMR76 and RMR89, and each use slightly different parameter classifications.
RMR varies from 0 to 100. Higher numbers suggest increased rock mass quality and
strength. RMR is calculated as follows:
RMR76 = A + B + C + D + E
Where:
A = rating of 0 to 15 based on intact strength
B = rating of 0 to 20 based on RQD
C = rating of 0 to 30 based on joint spacing
D = rating of 0 to 25 based on joint character (roughness, alteration, aperture)
E = rating of 0 to 10 based on in situ water conditions
Parameter A can be estimated using the strength index values I, PLT data, or laboratory
testing data. Parameters B and C are estimated from RQD, and fracture frequency as
logged by drill run. Parameter D can be correlated to the joint roughness and alteration data
collected in the field.
For standard rock mass classification, the rock is assumed dry (E = 10). This can be later
adjusted for engineering applications.
Also note that the RMR system includes an adjustment (downgrade) related to joint
orientation, which is not considered for standard classification. The adjustment factor can
be later applied as required. This can be later applied for engineering applications.
9.3 Rock Mass Classes
Q and RMR typically provide complimentary results in assessing rock mass quality. A
summary of rock mass classes for the two systems is given in Table 9.1. The Q’ system
provides a broader range of quality classifications. When carrying out the classification
using the available borehole data, the resulting classes would not likely agree between the
two systems.
Table 9.9 Rock Mass Classes

Class Description Q RMR
VI Extremely Poor 0.01 to 0.1 -
V Very Poor 0.1 to 1 < 20
IV Poor 1 to 4 21 to 40
III Fair 4 to 10 41 to 60
II Good 10 to 40 61 to 80
Class Description Q RMR

I Very Good 40 to 100 81 to 100
I Extremely Good 100 to 1000 -
Published correlations are available relating the Q and RMR systems. An example
correlation based on various case studies is shown in Figure 9.1.
Figure 9.30 Correlation Between RMR and Q (after Bieniawski 1976 and Jethwa et
al. 1982)
When carrying out the classification using the available borehole data, the resulting classes
should more or less agree. If significant disagreement is encountered (i.e. Q = “poor”, RMR
= “good”), likely reasons could be:
• Fracture spacing not correlating to RQD
• Jn values excessively low or high
• Inconsistent application of joint condition ratings
A high RQD should correlate with high fracture spacing, and vice versa. An example
correlation is shown in Figure 9.2. If the borehole data shows there is a lack of correlation,
the data likely requires QA/QC.
Figure 9.31 Correlation Between RQD and Discontinuity Spacing Applied to RMR
(after Priest and Hudson, 1976)
Figure 9.32 Structural Mapping Data
FO
Bedding
Contact
Foliation
JN1 Joint
Shear
Vein
JN2
JN1
FO
9.4 Classification Spreadsheet
This spreadsheet uses the borehole data logged in the field, and calculates Q’ and RMR
values per drill run interval. Various lookups and logic are utilized to provide consistent
results. The spreadsheet is also useful for carrying out statistics on selected domains or
intervals.
The spreadsheet is comprised of multiple worksheets. The summary worksheet is shown in

Figure 9.4. The discontinuity worksheet is shown in Figure 9.5. A description of the various
cells and logic are provided below:
Summary Worksheet
• Hole ID (Column A).

• Logged by (Column B); typically either SRK (2002) or in-house by BGML.
• Rock Code (Column C); imported from BGML geology logs. Note that more than
one rock code may be identified within the logged interval.
• Geotech Domain (Column D); simplified rock code for geotechnical domaining, with
occasional modifier as outlined below:
Domain Code Description

RS sheared argillite
RQMS sheared quartz sulphide argillite
R argillite (possible sulphides, nil quartz)
Reef RQM quartz sulphide veins with argillite
QM quartz sulphide veins (nil argillite)
host rock modifier in reef domains possibly altered with argillite, quartz, sulphides, or
*_qrf
sheared
*_qm host rock modifier in hw/fw domains possibly altered with quartz, sulphides, or sheared
QFP quartz feldspar porphyry (dyke)
DIA diabase
Host DOL dolerite (dyke)
Volcanics
B basalt
and
Intrusives S ash tuff
N andesite
L lapilli tuff
A agglomerate
*Represents host rock (i.e. B, S, A, etc.)
• Zone (Column E); reef (qrf0, qrf1, qrf2) and hangingwall (hw) or footwall (fw)
• X, Y, Z, Dip, Dir (Column F – J); 3D coordinates referenced from Datamine drillhole
files
• Depth From (Column K); logged interval from
• Depth To (Column L); logged interval to
• Run Length (Column M); calculated as From – To
• Core Recovery / TCR (Column N – O); core recovery measurement and calculated
TCR (%)
• RQD (Column Q – R); sum of pieces > 10cm and calculated RQD (%)
• Fracture Count (Column S); sum of fractures in the logged interval. References
second worksheet “FractureIndex” where fracture count data (per 0.25m) is pasted
• Frac / m (Column T); Fracture Frequency = Fracture Count divided by Run Length
• m / Frac (Column U); Fracture Spacing = 1 / Fracture Frequency. Assumes
Fracture Spacing = 5 mm if RQD < 25%
• Jr / Ja (Column V); average Jr / Ja ratio for the logged interval. Referenced from the
Discontinuity worksheet
• Jn Field (Column X); Jn value as assessed during core logging
• Jn Corrected (Column Y); Jn value corrected to assume minimum Jn = 6

• Q’ (Column Z); Q’ = RQD / Jn * Jr / Ja. If RQD < 10%, assumes RQD = 10%
• Strength Index (Column AB); rock strength index (R)
• Weathering Index (Column AC); weathering or alteration index (W)
• Point Load Is(50) (Column AD); average PLT Is(50) value over logged interval
• UCS – PLT (Column AE); estimated UCS from PLT data
• UCS – Lab (Column AF); laboratory UCS data
• UCS – Equiv (Column AG); assumed UCS value for RMR calculation. Due to a lack
of PLT and laboratory data, the UCS is correlated to the strength index (R)
• RMR_A (Column AI); RMR A Factor estimated from UCS according to the
correlation as shown below:
15
Correlation:
A = (-0.3306 + 0.1712*UCS )^0.7686
12
RMR 'A' Factor
6
RMR_A
3 Correlation
0
0 50 100 150 200
UCS (MPa)
• RMR_B (Column AJ); RMR B Factor estimated from RQD according to the
correlation as shown below:
20
Correlation:
B = -0.00006*RQD^2 + 0.2135*RQD
15
RMR 'B' Factor
10
5 RMR_B
Correlation
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RQD (%)
• RMR_C (Column AK); RMR C Factor estimated from fracture spacing (m/Frac)
according to the correlation as shown below:
30
25
20
RMR 'C' Factor
15
Correlation:
C = 20.348*(m/Frac)^0.3776
10
RMR_C
5
Correlation
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
m / Frac (m)
• RMR_D (Column AL); RMR D Factor based on the joint condition (Jcon) described
in the Discontinuity worksheet
• RMR_E (Column AM); RMR E Factor based on the water condition, which is
assumed dry for all data (E = 10)
• RMR (Column AN); Sum of all RMR components (A+B+C+D+E)
• RMR_eq (Column AO); Equivalent RMR calculated from Q’ according to published
correlation (RMR = 9lnQ+44)
Discontinuities Worksheet
• Hole ID (Column A)
• Depth (Column B); Depth of logged discontinuity. If discontinuity properties are
already averaged over the drill run interval, use the interval average depth
• Rock Code (Column C); imported from BGML geology logs. Note that more than
one rock code may be identified within the logged interval
• Geotech Unit (Column D); simplified rock code for geotechnical domaining, with
occasional modifier
• Type (Column E); discontinuity type (FO, JN, VN, etc.) as logged in the field
• Alpha (Column F); alpha angle as logged in the field
• Beta (Column G); beta angle as logged in the field if using oriented core
• Shape (Column H); planarity descriptor as logged in the field
• Roughness (Column I); roughness descriptor as logged in the field
• Joint Character (Column K); alteration / infill descriptor as logged in the field
• Thickness Rating (Column L); thickness rating as logged in the field
• Aperture Rating (Column M); aperture / openness rating as logged in the field
• Jr – Q (Column N); Q System joint roughness index
• Ja – Q (Column O); Q System joint alteration index
• Jr / Ja (Column P); Jr / Ja ratio
• Jcon – RMR (Column Q); RMR Jcon (D Factor) estimated from the Jr and Ja values
as outlined below:
Estimating RMR Jcon from Jr and Ja:

Ja
Jr 1 2 3 4 5 8 15
slickensided 0.5 6 6 6 6 6 0 0
planar smooth 1 16 12 12 6 6 6 0
planar rough 1.5 20 16 12 6 6 6 0
wavy smooth 2 20 16 12 6 6 6 0
wavy rough 3 22 20 12 6 6 6 0
clean sl.altered hard coat soft coat hard infill infill < 5mm infill > 5 mm
References
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J. (1974). “Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for
the Design of Tunnel Support”. Rock Mechanics 6, 189-236. Springer-Verlag.
Bieniawski, ZT. (1976). “Rock Mass Classification in Rock Engineering”. In Exploration for
Rock Engineering, Proc. of the Symp., (ed. ZT Bieniawski) 1, 97-106. Cape Town,
Balkema.
ISRM 1981. “Rock Characterization Testing and Monitoring”. ISRM Suggested Methods.
Editor. E.T. Brown. 1981.
ISRM 1985. “Suggested Method for Point Load Strength”. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. and
Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.51-60, 1985.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., and Corkum, B. (2002). “Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion –
2002 Edition”. www.rocscience.com
Priest, S.D. and Hudson, J.A. “Discontinuity spacings in rock”. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
and Geomech. Abstr. 13, 135-148 (1976)
Deere, D U and Deere, D W (1989), "The RQD index in practice", Proc. Symp. Rock Class.
Engineering Purposes, ASTM Special Technical Publications 984, Philadelphia,
pp 91 - 101).
Jethwa J.L., Dube A.K., Singh B., and Mithal R.S. (1982) “Evaluation of Methods for tunnel
support design in squeezing rock conditions. Proc 4th Int. Congr. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol.,
New Delhi, 1982, Vol 5 pp. 125-134.

Core Logging Manual Template - 25july2017 - Draft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Core Logging Manual Template - 25july2017 - Draft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TYPICAL GUIDELINES FOR GEOTECHNICAL

CORE LOGGING AND DATA PROCESSING

Table 6.1 Rock Strength Index (after ISRM 1981)..................................................16

Figure 2.1 Borehole Geotechnical Data Collection Process.......................................5

The guidelines are referenced to industry standards where applicable.

2 GEOTECHNICAL DATA COLLECTION PROCESS

Figure 2.1 Borehole Geotechnical Data Collection Process

Data Entry &

3.1 Health and Safety

3.2 Core Size

Typical core sizes used for geotechnical purposes include:

3.3 Core Handling

Figure 3.2 Marking Mechanical Fractures

Both sides of fracture

3.4 Core Logging Workspace and Tools

The following outlines the necessary workspace for core logging:

Relevant tools for core logging include:

5 STANDARD FORMS AND TEMPLATES

Standard forms used as part of the geotechnical data collection include:

Standard templates used as part of the geotechnical data processing include:

In order to obtain high-quality geotechnical information it is necessary to measure specific

Description of the process is given below.

6.1 Logging Process

9. Provide a brief description of the core logging interval.

6.2 Logging Intervals

A general schematic of geotechnical logging intervals is illustrated in Figure 6.1.

• Dykes with distinct characteristics in comparison to the host rock

Needs to be site specific.

6.3 Logging Domains

An illustration of sub-domaining is shown in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.3 Example of Sub-domaining

If encountering a zone with distinct geotechnical properties (highly fractured)

6.4 Depth Confirmation and Total Core Recovery (TCR)

Figure 6.4 Example of a Depth Block Placement Error

Total length of core recovered

The TCR measurement is illustrated in Figure 6.4.

Figure 6.5 Calculating Total Core Recovery (TCR)

TCR = 2.46 / 3.0 = 82%

Recorded as Lost Core under

6.5 Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

RQD is determined from the following expression:

Figure 6.6 Example of 10 cm Measurement

Figure 6.7 Calculating Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

RQD=(0.36+1.02+1.12)/ 3.0 = 83%

6.6 Fracture Frequency (FF)

Figure 6.8 Calculating Fracture Frequency (FF)

Figure 6.9 Special Considerations for Fracture Counts

6.7 Rock Strength Index (R)

Table 6.1 Rock Strength Index (after ISRM 1981)

6.8 Weathering / Alteration Index (W / A)

Alteration is the breakdown or softening of the rock by chemical processes (hydrothermal or

Table 6.2 Weathering / Alteration Index (after ISRM 1981)

Discoloration Fracture Surface

6.9 Discontinuity Data

Joint parameters can be recorded in one of two ways:

Joint conditions are expressed as:

6.9.1 Discontinuity Type

Table 6.3 Discontinuity Types

6.9.2 Planarity and Roughness

The discontinuity planarity is subdivided into five classes:

Figure 6.10 Discontinuity Planarity

Low Amplitude High Amplitude

The discontinuity roughness refers to the small-scale irregularities on the discontinuity