LECTURE #1

Q-SYSTEM BASICS
for
ROCK ENGINEERING
and
MINING ENGINEERING
 APPLICATION in ROCK ENGINEERING:
for CORE-LOGGING, TUNNEL-SUPPORT,
CAVERNS, ROCK SLOPE ANGLES, DAM
ABUTMENT DESCRIPTION, ETC.

and

APPLICATION in MINING ENGINEERING:

for ACCESS RAMPS, MINE ROADWAYS,
DIMENSIONING OF OPEN STOPES
TUNNELLING CASE RECORDS (as these from CECIL
1970) were an important starting point for developing
‘‘Q’’….. then adding parameters to make ‘Q’…. and re-
testing new ratings until ….. The final Q-value was
eventually reached.....i.e. started with two parameters,
two more were added, and ended with six parameters.

In tunnels: blocks, and inter-block friction, and water

are fundamental – as also under rock slopes
 RQD J r Jw
Q  
Jn J a SRF

RQD = % OF COMPETENT DRILL-CORE STICKS > 100mm IN LENGTH IN A

SELECTED DOMAIN. (WHEN TUNNEL MAPPING, IMAGINE CORES OR SCAN-
LINES).

Jn = THE RATING FOR THE NUMBER OF JOINT SETS (9 FOR 3 SETS, 4 FOR 2
SETS ETC.) IN THE SAME DOMAIN.

Jr = THE RATING FOR THE ROUGHNESS OF THE LEAST FAVOURABLE OF

THESE JOINT SETS OR FILLED DISCONTINUITIES, IN THE SAME DOMAIN.

Ja = THE RATING FOR THE DEGREE OF ALTERATION OR CLAY FILLING OF THE

LEAST FAVOURABLE OF THESE JOINT SETS OR FILLED DISCONTINUITIES,
IN THE SAME DOMAIN.

Jw = THE RATING FOR THE WATER INFLOW AND PRESSURE EFFECTS, WHICH
MAY CAUSE OUTWASH OF DISCONTINUITY INFILLINGS, IN THE SAME
DOMAIN.

SRF = THE RATING FOR FAULTING, FOR STRENGTH/STRESS RATIOS IN HARD

MASSIVE ROCKS, FOR SQUEEZING OR FOR SWELLING IN SOFT ROCK – IN
THE SAME DOMAIN.
Q = 1000 (or better) Q = 0.001 (or worse)
(Q ≈ 100/0.5 x 4/0.75 x 1/1) (Q ≈ 10/20 x 1/8 x 0.5/20)

THE WIDE NUMERICAL RANGE OF Q REFLECTS THE HUGE

POTENTIAL DIFFERENCES IN ROCKMASS PROPERTIES
VARIABLE WORLD NEEDS BROAD-REACH CLASSIFICATION METHOD
(in every photo note the influence of jointing, or faulting)
 Strength contrast, modulus contrast,
constructability contrast (15 years/1 year)!
0.001→1000, or 5→95, or F7→F1 ???

9
THE INITIAL 200+ CASE RECORDS…..from 1974…….50 rock types
 Two
competing
methods
……..
But can be
used
together!
#1: RQD = % of drill-core pieces
(or blocks) > 10 cm long
(in direction of drilling or scan-line)
ILLUSTRATION of RQD (Deere and Deere)
Q-classes 2, 3, 4 and 5, with
respective Q-ranges
40-10, 10-4, 4-1, 1-0.1.

Demonstrates central role

played by RQD in commonly
experienced rock mass
conditions. (> 40 km of core)
 Inclined hole: good sampling of (low RQD)
(RQD = 30-60 %, Jn = 9-12, Jr = 1.5, Ja = 2-4) ??????? See later
 Top:
Low RQD (10-30) %

Bottom:
High RQD (90-100) %
 Previously
surrounded by
saprolite

(‘Tors’ from
Dartmoor, S.W.
England)

18
Large blocks (core stones) ...soil...saprolite....small blocks
Remember RQD defined only from ‘competent’
pieces of core
 Weakness zone (fault) with soft clay core
(see pencil)

RQD = 75 to 90………then suddenly 0% in fault zone

(but 0% is counted as ‘lowest-possible’ 10%)
 RQD = 100%........and no further
information.........due to vertical borehole missing
almost all the joints!
 Competent rock……or not?……
RQD may be ZERO… even for L>10cm
(but in Q-calculation minimum Q = 10)
 #2 Jn = NUMBER OF JOINT SETS

Three sets is very common…..automatically gives

blocks…….slope screes…….potential slope instability
Edge of rock quarry, and debris blocks: all
suggest Jn = 9 ( three sets)
THE INTERACTION OF
Jn and Jr ARE
FUNDAMENTAL
FOR STABILITY
OR INSTABILITY,
OVER-BREAK,
NEED FOR
SUPPORT,
CAVABILITY,
ETC.
Three sets….overbreak, Jn/Jr = 9/1.0
(local Jn = 12)
Jn/Jr = (9 to 12)/1.0 = 9 to 12. Overbreak when ≥ 6.
Jn = 15+ (four sets +): Jn/Jr = 15/1.5
Jv = 2.5 + 5.0 + 4.0 = 11.5/ m3

RQD ≈ 77 %

(Jv equation from Palmstrøm)

THE 3RD PARAMETER Jr
Jr = 3 (at least!)
 Photos of core with
the following Jr
values: Jr = 1.0 or 1.5,
Jr = 1.5, Jr = 1.5, Jr =
1.5, Jr = 2, Jr = 2.5, Jr
= 3.5
Jr = 3 Jr = 1.5
Jr = 1.0 to 1.5
Jr = 1.0 ……….. (Metro station area, in tuff: Hong Kong)
Jr/Ja = (1-1.5) / (2-4)
(this is a too-shallow
metro station!)

(Ja is the 4th parameter!)

THE 4th PARAMETER Ja
 a) rock-to-rock b) rock-to-rock c) no rock-to-rock
contact after shearing contact

(Deformed paving-stone analogy to clay-bearing rock mass)

Remember: ‘least favourable’ (orientation and
properties definition for both Jr and Ja)

Norwegian HEP headrace (graphite and chlorite: choose!)

 CHOOSING THE ‘LEAST
FAVOURABLE’ Jr/Ja joints or
discontinuities

Examples from
Xiaolangdi Dam and
HEP, China
KIRUNA LKAB
‘OSCAR’ LONG-HOLE
CAVING PROJECT

SOME DETAILS OF
ROCK MASS Q-
CHARACTERIZATION
FROM OBSERVATIONS
OF NEAR-COLLAPSE of
DRIFTS AND OVER-
BREAK.

NOTE EARLY (1987)

USE OF Q-PARAMETER
HISTOGRAM-
LOGGING, THE
SIMPLEST METHOD OF
FIELD-LOGGING.
 Ja = 2 for weathered joints,
maybe Ja = 4 or 6 for ‘sandy or clay’ fillings

The core loss zones probably have Jr/Ja = 1/8 or worse.

(a) (b) or (c) (c)
 (3 to 4m window)

15  30 1.0
Q 
'
x
15 1 2
Note adverse Ja = 2 to 4, on two sets
MOSTLY φ + i (dilating-during-shear joints)
MOSTLY φ-i (contracting-during-shear filled discontinuities)
THE 5TH PARAMETER Jw
Forsmark cooling water tunnel. Carlsson and Olsson, 1977
Look out for rust-
stained apertures
(in tunnel or
core) when
trying to
estimate Jw
Jw estimate: allows for presence of
rust stains/weathering (Jw < 1.0)

Depends on expected depth of excavation

Small amounts of surface water, Jw = 0.66
Jw = 0.66 Jw = 0.5
MOST OF TUNNEL Jw <
0.5, EXTREMES OF Jw =
0.33, WITH OUTWASH OF
CLAY/ SILT/ SAND AND
BLOCK-FALLS

OCCASIONAL Jw = 0.1
WITH INFLOWS
CONTINUING WITHOUT
REDUCTION.
Jw ≤0.1 dominates the problems
(but problems with all parameters!)
 (Dul Hasti HEP, Kashmir)
280 days delay due to Jw = 0.05 event
THE 6TH PARAMETER SRF
 There are four
categories

a) Weakness zones /Faults

b) Rock stress problems in

competent rock

c) Rock stress problems in

incompetent rock

d) Swelling pressures in
incompetent rock
SRF category a)

FAULTING
Advice from Løset, NGI concerning ‘extension’of higher SRF into side rock.
 Left: Not a fault – affects Jr/Ja only (2/4→1/8)
Right: fault with clay core: affects Jr/Ja AND SRF
Presumed fault intersecting the surface
(Jr/Ja = 1/(6-8)
(Brazilian HEP tailrace tunnel – incorrect mapping – therefore – incorrect support)

Multiple faults (at least two): SRF = 10:

all Q-parameters affected
REPAIRS AND
STRENGTHENING
OF FAULT-ZONE
COLLAPSES ARE
EXTENSIVE
OPERATIONS,
ESPECIALLY WHERE
SWELLING CLAYS
ARE PRESENT.

ADVERSE CHANGE
OF CROSS-SECTION
FOR HEP TUNNEL.

(Massive due to
swelling pressures)
THIS IS A COMBINED SRF AND Jw PROBLEM
(partly-trapped TBM for many months)
 FAULTING IN LOWER HIMALAYAS, INDIA

LACK OF SHEAR STRENGTH, INTENSE PRESSURE ON SUPPORT,

FLOW OF FAULT GOUGE IF NOT PREVENTED.
LOCAL Q MAY BE < 0.001.
 This rockmass suggests SRF = 2.5 or 5,
or even 10, depending on tunnel depth and number of local faults

10 1 0 .5
Q x x  0.006  0.008
15  20 8 5
 SRF category b)

STRESS (or EXTENSION

STRAIN) FRACTURING IN
(mostly) MASSIVE ROCK
Stress concentration due to tunnel
(from Hoek and Brown book)
Stress-induced failures in tunnels, boreholes, in a model, and theory.
 Initiation of stress-induced fracturing from mining case records
(assembled by Martin et al. 2002). Note that Q-system transport tunnel case
records, (also) shows SRF increasing rapidly for σϴ / σc > 0.4 (Barton and
Grimstad, 1994). LATEST: THE ‘MAGIC’ 0.4 RATIO IS DUE TO σt /ν!
Tell-tale signs of high stress (and extension strain due to anisotropic stress)
causing core-disking, therefore high SRF e.g 10 to 20

(Principal stresses were approx. 60, 40 and 30 MPa : Hanford, USA)

(Below: Chinese biscuit factory?)

 BELOW: Stress-
slabbing in drill-and-
blast excavation.
High SRF (>5)

(marble, China)

ABOVE: Beginning of
(log-spiral) stress-
slabbing in TBM
tunnel.
High SRF (>5)
(marble, China)
Lærdal Tunnel, Norway L =24.5km 1.0 to 1.4 km depth σφ / σc ≈ 0.6

SRF = 25 – 100 in some

locations, where massive
rock and stress-slabbing,
popping.

See next table for

high-stress case records.
 SRF category c)

SQUEEZING and SWELLING

Inappropriate S(mr) and S damaged
by swelling process.

Hydrothermally altered granite (above)

containing montmorillonite (SRF = 20,
or higher?
Final extreme tunnel closure of 2+2 =
4m!)
 RAFNES ‘RORA’

Water-supply tunnel
to major petro-
chemical plant.
Eventually closed by
swelling.

Note floor-heave.

SRF = 15 to 20
 SWELLING DUE TO
HYDROTHERMALLY ALTERED
ROCK: FIRST (AND SECOND) SIGNS
OF MAJOR PROBLEMS.

(SELECTED SUPPORT, AND EXECUTION WERE

A DISASTER TOO) SRF = 20 (at least!)

PONTE DE PEDRA, BRAZIL.

Site visits by boat

ANTICIPATED SQUEEZING. MOTORWAY UP-AND-DOWN LANES
DIVERGED BY ABOUT 3 (OR 4?) TUNNEL DIAMETERS
(SRF = 20 ?)
NATM-style temporary
(yielding) support for
cases of squeezing.

Note collapsible
channels, and ‘sliding’
steel sets, and
numerous bolts.

(Next screen shows option

for more controlled
squeezing resistance)
 ENESAN TUNNEL, JAPAN

(1000m cover, squeezing and swelling)

Left:1.2km bolts/m! due to breakage. Right: See next screen for photo of method.
Double bottom-heading method: for arch
foundation: massive concrete footings.
 EXAMPLE OF
HISTOGRAM-
LOGGING
WITH Q

Note brief description

above each
histogram, and
ratings listed below.
Faults tend
to plot on
the left =
black.

(bi-modal
distribution
HOW DO THE Q-PARAMETER HISTOGRAMS CHANGE,
AS DEPTH IS INCREASED IN THE SAME ROCK TYPE?
SAPROLITE AND SOIL
CHARACTER
 LOGGEDCHARACTER OF
NEAR-SURFACE SANDSTONES
LOGGED CHARACTER OF DEEPER
SANDSTONES
Q - VALUES: (RQD / Jn) * (Jr / Ja) * (Jw / SRF) = Q
Q (typical min)= 10 / 20.0 * 1.0 / 6.0 * 0.33 / 10.0 = 0.003
Q (typical max)= 55 / 6.0 * 4.0 / 1.0 * 1.00 / 1.0 = 36.7
Q (mean value)= 27 / 13.6 * 1.4 / 3.0 * 0.59 / 3.2 = 0.17
Q (most frequent)= 10 / 15.0 * 1.0 / 1.0 * 0.66 / 1.0 = 0.44
B V. POOR POOR FAIR GOOD EXC
30
L 25
O 20 RQD %
C 15 Core pieces
10 >= 10 cm
K 05
00
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

EARTH FOUR THREE TWO ONE NONE

S 20
I
Z
15
Jn
E 10 Number of
joint sets
S 05
00
20 12 6 3 1

FILLS PLANAR UNDULATING DISC.

40
T
A 30 Jr
N 20 Joint
(fr) 10
roughness
- least
00
and 1 0,5 1 1,5 1,5 2 3 4

THICK FILLS THIN FILLS COATED UNFILLED HEA

30
T 25
A 20 Ja
N 15 Joint
(fp) 10 alteration
05 - least
00
20 13 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 2 1 0,75

A 30
EXC. INFLOWS HIGH PRESSURE WET DRY
C 25
T 20 Jw
I 15 Joint
V 10 water
05 pressure
E 00
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.33 0.5 0.66 1

S SQUEEZE SWELL FAULTS STRESS / STRENGTH

40
T
R 30
SRF
E 20
Stress
S 10 reduction
S factor
00
20 15 10 5 20 15 10 5 10 7.5 5 2.5 400200100 50 20 10 5 2 0.5 1 2.5
Rev. Report No. Figure No.
ECU AD OR - CH I R API H EAD R ACE EXPOSU R ES NB&A #1 10.6
Borehole No. : Drawn by Date
Q - REGISTRATIONS CHART surface NB&A 28.3.2011
Depth zone (m) Checked
surface nrb
Approved
THE SIX
Q-PARAMETERS ARE

(OF COURSE)

JUST PART OF THE

DESCRIPTION OF A
ROCK MASS
THE LIST OF IMPORTANT PARAMETERS THAT CAN
BE ESTIMATED FROM Q

(or sometimes vice versa, i.e. Q from Vp)

1. Seismic velocity Vp
2. Rock mass deformation modulus Emass
3. Tunnel deformation Δv and Δh
4. Tunnel support pressure/necessary capacity Pr
5. Rock mass c (cohesion) and φ (friction) CC and FC
6. Permeability K of rock mass (without/with clay)
7. Safe slope angle (no support needed): Qslope
 PARAMETER ESTIMATION

How to link Q (and Qc) to other parameters

PREDICTING Vp and EMASS

from Q or Qc VALUES
Sjøgren et al.
1979, using 120
km seismic
profiles, 2.8 km
core.

Hard rock data.

Q-scale added by
Barton
1995/2006.
The starting point from ....120 km seismic profiles, 2.8 km core. Hard rock.

(After Sjøgren et al. 1979, with Barton, 1995 addition of Q)

(As with all Sjøgren data: hard rock, near-surface)
IN THE CASE OF CORRELATING Q-VALUES TO ENGINEERING/
GEOPHYSICAL PARAMETERS LIKE EMASS (DEFORMATION
MODULUS) OR TO VP (P-WAVE SEISMIC VELOCITY) THE
TERM QC = Q x C /100 IS BETTER THAN Q ALONE!
(C MPa)

THE SIX-ORDER OF MAGNITUDE Q RANGE OF 0.001 TO 1000

(APPROX.) AND THE LARGER (EIGHT-ORDERS-OF-
MAGNITUDE) RANGE OF QC CORRELATE FAIRLY SIMPLY, TO
THE HUGE, REAL WORLD, RANGE OF ROCK MASS
PROPERTIES.
AN INTEGRATED MODEL: Qc – Vp – Emass – Pr
Approximate correspondence between cross-hole seismic Vp,
and Q-logging results for five boreholes – AN EXAMPLE
 Extracting UCS from Qc
(near-surface moduli only)
 Bakhtiary
Dam, Iran

Upper
diversion
tunnel: top
heading

108
Q - VALUES: (RQD / Jn) * (Jr / Ja) * (Jw / SRF) = Q
Q (typical min)= 10 / 15.0 * 0.5 / 6.0 * 0.66 / 5.0 = 0.007
Q (typical max)= 100 / 2.0 * 4.0 / 0.8 * 1.00 / 1.0 = 266.7
Q (mean value)= 73 / 6.0 * 2.0 / 1.6 * 0.99 / 1.1 = 13.74
Q (most frequent)=
B
L
100
80
V. POOR
80 / 4.0
POOR
* 2.0 /
FAIR
1.0 *
GOOD
1.00 / 1.0 = 40.00
EXC In diversion tunnel
O RQD %
C
K
60
40
20
00
Core pieces
>= 10 cm
Qm.f. = 40
Qmean = 14
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

EARTH FOUR THREE TWO ONE NONE

S 120
I 100
Z 80 Jn
E 60 Number of
40 joint sets
S 20
00
20 15 12 9 6 4 3 2 1 0,5

T
A
150

100
FILLS PLANAR UNDULATING DISC.

Jr
Next steps:
N Joint
(fr) 50 roughness
- least
00
and 1 0,5 1 1,5 1,5 2 3 4

T
A
N
200
150
THICK FILLS THIN FILLS COATED UNFILLED HEA

Ja
1. Convert Q to Qc
100 Joint
(fp) 50
00
alteration
- least (What UCS?)
2. Convert to Vp
20 13 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 2 1 0,75

A 400
EXC. INFLOWS HIGH PRESSURE WET DRY
C
T
I
V
1.
300
200
100
Joint
water
Jw

pressure 3. Convert to Emass

E 00
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.33 0.5 0.66 1

S SQUEEZE SWELL FAULTS STRESS / STRENGTH

300
T
R 200 SRF
E Stress
S 100 reduction
S factor
00
20 15 10 5 20 15 10 5 10 7.5 5 2.5 400 200 100 50 20 10 5 2 0.5 1 2.5

Rev. Report No. Figure No.

BAKHTIARY DAM HEPP UPPER DIVERSION TUN NB&A #3 6
Borehole No. : Drawn by Date
Q-histogram log of overall SV7 through SV2 rock mass
ss
 n
Tunn tunnel
110
el
 In the near-surface – P-wave velocity changes rapidly
(‘Q-jumping’)……..due to improved Q-value + increased stress
DEFORMATION AND CLOSURE
PREDICTION
WITH Q
 Left: Barton et al.’ 1994. Included Gjøvik Cavern MPBX data.
Right: Chen and Guo, 1997. Hundreds of deformation data from
difficult tunnelling projects in Taiwan, using the same plotting format
(log Q/SPAN versus log DEFORMATION).

Simplicity of equation for central trend discovered by chance

But too much scatter….need improved method
113
 MORE ACCURACY – BY CONSIDERING ‘COMPETENCE FACTOR’

STRESS/STRENGTH DIRECTLY, NOT JUST AS IN SRF

2
SPAN  v  h 
2
HEIGHT h  SPAN 
v  h  ko     
100 Q  c 100 Q c  HEIGHT   v 

(Units are as follows : SPAN, HEIGHT, v and h are each in millimetres, while
rock stresses and rock strengths need consistent units such as MPa).
 Example: Naptha Jhakri HEP India
Power house MPBX measurements matched
following predictions very well.

Δv = 20,000 x (6/35)1/2 = 28 mm
100 x 3
Δh = 50,000 x (4/35)1/2 = 56 mm
100 x 3
Gjøvik Cavern prediction

Δv = 60,000 x (1/75)1/2 = 6.9 mm

100 x 10

(Almost identical to that measured

with nine MPBX, and almost identical to
UDEC-BB modelling, i.e. 7 to 9 mm range
in each case)
Gjøvik Olympic Cavern
B= 62m, H= 25m, L=90m

(RQD = 60 – 90)
(Q = 1-30)
VP = 3.5-5.5 km/s
 The
possibility
of
integrated
type curves
for different
rock masses
Barton,
2006
The most commonly used Q-correlation is for rock tunnel support
with NMT (Grimstad and Barton, 1993, Barton and Grimstad, 1994)
A FEW WORDS ABOUT
Q CONTRA GSI!
DO WE REALLY
THINK THAT
‘PICTURE
RECOGNITION’
IS THE WAY TO
PERFORM
ROCK
MECHANICS?
 GSI or Q?

A Q-value
based
estimate of
deformation
modulus
 In contrast to GSI/H-B (!)
“Q-system linkages to parameters useful for
design are based on sound, simple
empiricism, that works because it reflects
practice, and that can be used because it can
be remembered. It does not require black-
box software evaluation”. Barton, 2011.
DO WE REALLY THINK ROCKMASSES KNOW ABOUT GSI EQUATIONS?

(3)
Examples of Hoek-Brown / GSI shear strength
envelopes
1
Table of Q-parameters with declining quality (resembling weathering) (Barton, 2002).
2 RQD Jn Jr Ja Jw SRF Q c Qc FC° CC MPa Vp km/s Emass GPa
7
100 2 2 1 1 1 100 100 100 63° 50 5.5 46
90 9 1 1 1 1 10 100 10 45° 10 4.5 22
60 12 1.5 2 0.66 1 2.5 50 1.2 26° 2.5 3.6 10.7
30 15 1 4 0.66 2.5 0.13 33 0.04 9° 0.26 2.1 3.5
10 20 1 6 0.5 5 0.008 10 0.0008 5° 0.01 0.4 0.9
Four rock masses with successively reducing character: more
joints, more weathering, lower UCS, more clay.
Low CC –shotcrete preferred Low FC – bolting preferred
45
 APPENDIX

Q-TABLES AND LOGGING ADVICE

for
use with
HISTOGRAM LOGS
 RQD Jr Jw
Q  
Jn Ja SRF
 RQD (%)
1. Rock Quality Designation
A Very poor 0-25
B Poor 25-50

C Fair 50-75
D Good 75-90
E Excellent 90-100
Notes:
i) Where RQD is reported or measured as  10 (including 0), a nominal value of 10 is used to evaluate Q.
ii) RQD intervals of 5, i.e., 100, 95, 90, etc., are sufficiently accurate.
2. Joint set number Jn

A Massive, no or few joints 0.5-1

B One joint set 2
C One joint set plus random joints 3
D Two joint sets 4
E Two joint sets plus random joints 6
F Three joint sets 9
G Three joint sets plus random joints 12
H Four or more joint sets, random, heavily jointed, ‘sugar-cube’, etc. 15
J Crushed rock, earthlike 20
Notes:
i) For tunnel intersections, use (3.0  Jn).
ii) For portals use (2.0  Jn).
 Φr
4. Joint alteration number Ja
approx.
a) Rock-wall contact (no mineral fillings, only coatings)
A Tightly healed, hard, non-softening, impermeable filling, i.e., quartz or epidote. -- 0.75
B Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only. 25-35 1.0
Slightly altered joint walls. Non-softening mineral coatings, sandy particles, clay-
C 25-30 2.0
free disintegrated rock, etc.
D Silty- or sandy-clay coatings, small clay fraction (non-softening). 20-25 3.0
Softening or low friction clay mineral coatings, i.e., kaolinite or mica. Also chlorite,
E 8-16 4.0
talc, gypsum, graphite, etc., and small quantities of swelling clays.
b) Rock-wall contact before 10 cm shear (thin mineral fillings).
F Sandy particles, clay-free disintegrated rock, etc. 25-30 4.0
Strongly over-consolidated non-softening clay mineral fillings (continuous, but < 5
G 16-24 6.0
mm thickness).
Medium or low over-consolidation, softening, clay mineral fillings (continuous, but
H 12-16 8.0
< 5 mm thickness).
Swelling-clay fillings, i.e., montmorillonite (continuous, but < 5 mm thickness).
J Value of Ja depends on per cent of swelling clay-size particles, and access to 6-12 8-12
water, etc.
c) No rock-wall contact when sheared (thick mineral fillings)
KL Zones or bands of disintegrated or crushed rock and clay (see G, H, J for 6, 8, or
6-24
M description of clay condition). 8-12
N Zones or bands of silty- or sandy-clay, small clay fraction (non-softening). -- 5.0
OP Thick, continuous zones or bands of clay (see G, H, J for description of clay 10, 13, or
6-24
R condition). 13-20
 approx.
5. Joint water reduction factor water pres. Jw
(kg/cm2)
A Dry excavations or minor inflow, i.e., < 5 l/min locally. <1 1.0
B Medium inflow or pressure, occasional outwash of joint fillings. 1-2.5 0.66
C Large inflow or high pressure in competent rock with unfilled joints. 2.5-10 0.5
D Large inflow or high pressure, considerable outwash of joint fillings. 2.5-10 0.33
Exceptionally high inflow or water pressure at blasting, decaying
E > 10 0.2-0.1
with time.
Exceptionally high inflow or water pressure continuing without
F > 10 0.1-0.05
noticeable decay.
Notes:
i) Factors C to F are crude estimates. Increase Jw if drainage measures are installed.
ii) Special problems caused by ice formation are not considered.
iii) For general characterization of rock masses distant from excavation influences, the use of Jw = 1.0, 0.66, 0.5,
0.33 etc. as depth increases from say 0-5m, 5-25m, 25-250m to >250m is recommended, assuming that
RQD /Jn is low enough (e.g. 0.5-25) for good hydraulic connectivity. This will help to adjust Q for some of the
effective stress and water softening effects, in combination with appropriate characterization values of SRF.
Correlations with depth-dependent static deformation modulus and seismic velocity will then follow the
practice used when these were developed.
6. Stress Reduction Factor

a) Weakness zones intersecting excavation, which may cause loosening of rock SRF
mass when tunnel is excavated
Multiple occurrences of weakness zones containing clay or chemically disintegrated
A 10
rock, very loose surrounding rock (any depth).
Single weakness zones containing clay or chemically disintegrated rock (depth of
B 5
excavation  50 m).
Single weakness zones containing clay or chemically disintegrated rock (depth of
C 2.5
excavation > 50 m).
Multiple shear zones in competent rock (clay-free), loose surrounding rock (any
D 7.5
depth).
E Single shear zones in competent rock (clay-free), (depth of excavation  50 m). 5.0
F Single shear zones in competent rock (clay-free), (depth of excavation > 50 m). 2.5
G Loose, open joints, heavily jointed or ‘sugar cube’, etc. (any depth) 5.0
Note:
i) Reduce these values of SRF by 25-50% if the relevant shear zones only influence but do not intersect the
excavation. This will also be relevant for characterization.
6. Stress Reduction Factor

b) Competent rock, rock stress problems c /1 φ /c SRF

H Low stress, near surface, open joints. > 200 < 0.01 2.5
J Medium stress, favourable stress condition. 200-10 0.01-0.3 1
High stress, very tight structure. Usually favourable to
K 10-5 0.3-0.4 0.5-2
stability, may be unfavourable for wall stability.
L Moderate slabbing after > 1 hour in massive rock. 5-3 0.5-0.65 5-50
Slabbing and rock burst after a few minutes in massive
M 3-2 0.65-1 50-200
rock.
Heavy rock burst (strain-burst) and immediate dynamic
N <2 >1 200-400
deformations in massive rock.
Notes:
ii) For strongly anisotropic virgin stress field (if measured): When 5  1 /3  10, reduce c to 0.75 c. When
1 /3 > 10, reduce c to 0.5 c, where c = unconfined compression strength, 1 and 3 are the major and
minor principal stresses, and  = maximum tangential stress (estimated from elastic theory).
iii) Few case records available where depth of crown below surface is less than span width. Suggest an SRF
increase from 2.5 to 5 for such cases (see H).
iv) Cases L, M, and N are usually most relevant for support design of deep tunnel excavations in hard massive
rock masses, with RQD /Jn ratios from about 50 to 200.
v) For general characterization of rock masses distant from excavation influences, the use of SRF = 5, 2.5,
1.0, and 0.5 is recommended as depth increases from say 0-5m, 5-25m, 25-250m to >250m. This will help
to adjust Q for some of the effective stress effects, in combination with appropriate characterization values
of Jw. Correlations with depth - dependent static deformation modulus and seismic velocity will then follow
the practice used when these were developed.
6. Stress Reduction Factor

c) Squeezing rock: plastic flow of incompetent rock under the

φ /c SRF
influence of high rock pressure
O Mild squeezing rock pressure 1-5 5-10
P Heavy squeezing rock pressure >5 10-20
Note:
vi) Cases of squeezing rock may occur for depth H > 350 Q1/3 according to Singh 1993. Rock mass compression
strength can be estimated from SIGMA cm  5  Qc1/ 3 (MPa) where  = rock density in t /m3, and Qc =
Q x σc /100, Barton, 2000.

d) Swelling rock: chemical swelling activity depending on presence of water SRF

R Mild swelling rock pressure 5-10

S Heavy swelling rock pressure 10-15
 NOTES ON Q-METHOD OF ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION
1) The tables contain all the ratings necessary for classifying the Q-value of a rock mass. The ratings
form the basis for the Q, Qc and Qo estimates of rock mass quality (Qc needing only
multiplication of Q by c /100, and Qo the use of a specifically oriented RQD, termed RQDo
relevant to a loading or measurement direction). All the classification ratings needed for tunnel
and cavern design are given in the six tables, where Q only would usually apply.

2) For correlation to engineering parameters, use Qc (multiplication of Q by c / 100). For

specific loading or measurement directions in anisotropically jointed rock masses use
RQDo in place of RQD in the Q estimate. This means that an oriented Qc value should
contain a correctly oriented RQDo for better correlation to oriented engineering
parameters.

3) Q-parameters are most conveniently collected using histogram logging. Besides space for
recording the usual variability of parameters, for structural domain 1, domain 2 etc., it contains
reminders of the tabulated ratings at the base of each histogram. Space for presentation of results
for selected (or all ) domains at the top of the diagram, includes typical range, weighted mean and
most frequent (Q-parameters, and Q-values).

4) During field logging, allocate running numbers to the structural domains, or core boxes, or tunnel
sections, e.g. 1 = D1, 2 = D2 etc. and write the numbers in the allotted histogram columns, using
a regular spacing for each observation such as 11, 113, 2245, 6689 etc. In this way the
histograms will give the correct visual frequency of all the assembled observations, in each
histogram column. Besides this, it will be easy to find the relevant Q-parameters for a particular
domain, core box or section of tunnel, for separate analysis and reporting. Overall frequencies of
observations of each rating (or selected sets of data) can be given as numbers on separate
logging sheets. Large data sets can be computerised when returning from the field.
 NOTES ON Q-METHOD OF ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION, Cont.

5) It is convenient and correct to record rock mass variability. Therefore allow as many as
five observations of each parameter, for instance in a 10m length of tunnel. If all
observations are the same, great uniformity of character is implied, if variable – this is
important information. At ‘the end of the day’ the histograms will give a correct record of
variability, or otherwise.

6) Remember that logged RQD of < 10, including 0, are set to a nominal 10 when calculating Q. In
view of the log scale of Q, the histograms of RQD in the logging sheet will be sufficiently accurate
if given mean values, from left to right, of 10, 15, 25, 35……85, 95, 100. The log scale of Q also
suggests that decimal places should be used sparingly. The following is considered realistic
0.004, 0.07, 0.3, 6.7, 27, 240. Never report that Q = 6.73 or similar, since a false sense of
accuracy will be given.

7) Footnotes below each table also give advice for site characterization ratings for the case of Jw
and SRF, which must not be set to 1.0 and 1.0, as some authors have suggested. This destroys
the intended multi-purposes of the Q-system, which has an entirely different structure compared
to RMR.

Important:
Use all appropriate footnotes under the six tables. Some have been updated or added since the
minor 1993/1994 updating of three SRF values for highly stressed massive rock, which were
changed due to ‘new’ support techniques, namely B+S(fr).