Q-system 195

Table 12.1 (cont)

C.EFFECT OF DISCONTINUITY ORIENTATIONSIN TUNNELLING
I S u h Dsmcndisullr to N d ui8 i

-
h p 20 45 Ihp45-90 Ihpo-20
Fur V a y unfavourabk I -
D. RATINQ ADJUSTMENT FOR DISCWNUIW ORlENTAllONS
OnenlahOnsof D~sconunuluu Fer
-
Very Favounblc Favowable
-
k

Tunnels & mines 0 -2 -5 -10 -12

Raungr Foundaoons 0 -2 1 -I5 -25

Slop 0 -5 -25 -50 M)

E. ROCK MASS CLASSESDETERMINED FROM TOTAL runffis

RUIng 100-81 80-61 60-41 40-21 00

Clus no I 11 111 N V
Descnpuon
FROCK MASS CIASSES
Vuygaodrcck Gmdmk Pan mek P o a d Vaypoornuk
-
SI no.
I I I If

rand-uptim 2Oyrforl5mapnu IyrfalOmw

RMR = ~(ciassificationparameters) + discontinuity orientation adjustment

In Section A of Table 12.1, with the first five of the classification

parameters and their ratings, the parameters are grouped in five classes,
each one covering a range of values appropriate to that parameter. When
assessing a given rock mass, one establishes into which of these groups the
parameter lies, and then sums the resulting numerical ratings for the five
parameters.
In Section B of Table 12.1, there are ratings for discontinuity character-
istics. The orientation of the discontinuities becomes progressively more
important from tunnels and mines, through foundations, to slopes, Sections
C and D.
In Sections E and F of the table, the rock mass classes are given with a
description from ‘very good rock‘ through to ‘very poor rock‘, with
estimates for tunnel stand-up time and the Mohr-Coulomb strength
parameters of cohesion and friction angle for the rock mass.
Despite the simplicity of approach when dealing with complex rock
masses, considerable engineering benefit has accrued through the applica-
tion of this classificationscheme and the resultant thinking that it has provoked.
Bieniawski (1989) mentions 351 case histories covering 15 years.

12.2 Q-system
In a similar way to the RMR system, the Q-rating is developed by assigning
values to six parameters. These are: