SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

SEMESTER 2 2021/2022

SUBJECT:
EAG 443 ROCK ENGINEERING AND TUNNELLING TECHNOLOGY

TITLE:
ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION

DATE:

28TH JUNE 2021

LECTURER’S NAME: ASSOC. PROF. IR. DR. MOHD ASHRAF MOHAMAD ISMAIL

STUDENT NAME: LAM WEN SIANG

MATRIC ID: 137725
CONTENTS

1 Question 1 ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Intact rock characteristics ................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Characteristics of joint ..................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Groundwater ..................................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Rock stress and Weak zone .............................................................................................. 8
1.6 Weak zone ........................................................................................................................ 8
1.7 Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 9
2 Question 2 .............................................................................................................................. 10
3 Question 3 .............................................................................................................................. 12
3.1 Class B-CI ...................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Class CII-DI ................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Class DII-E ..................................................................................................................... 19
1 QUESTION 1

1.1 GENERAL
Both RMR and Q-system are most widely use rock rating system nowadays in rock engineering
especially in underground excavation. In general, RMR rating calculation is using addition rating
based on each rock characteristics whereas Q- system using multiplication of each quotient (every
quotient explain different characteristics of the rock) as shown below.

RMR= A1 + A2 +A3+A4 +A5+B

where
▪ A1= ratings for uniaxial compressive strength of the rock material
▪ A2= ratings for RQD RMR
▪ A3 = ratings for spacing of joints
▪ A4= ratings for the condition of joints
▪ A5= ratings for the ground water conditions
▪ B=ratings for the orientation of joints
Q= RQD/Jn x Jr/Ja x Jw/SRF
▪ Block size
▪ Inter block shear strength
▪ Active stress
Where:
▪ RQD = given as the value for this parameter Q-System
▪ Jn = ratings for the number of joint sets
▪ Jr = ratings for the joint roughness
▪ Ja = ratings for the joint alteration
▪ Jw = ratings for the joint or ground water
▪ SRF = ratings for the rock mass stress situation.
Based on the parameter mentioned in calculating the rating, it can further classified into several
rock characteristics as to identify it similarity and difference as shown in Table 1.1 -1.7.
1.2 INTACT ROCK CHARACTERISTICS
As mentioned earlier in section 1.1, strength of intact rock did not take part in Q-system but in
RMR. However, with the correlation to the RMR classification, strength of the intact rock can be
still be determine as shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Comparison of RMR and Q-system based on intact rock strength

1.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF JOINT

Throughout the process of rating, the rock grade in RMR and Q-system mostly influnce by the
jointing such degree, characteristics and joint pattern. In terms of degree of jointing, RMR and Q-
system share the same method which is the RQD. Usually RQD can be obtained from the sample
of core logging, otherwise it can be approximate with jointing paramter. Furthermore, RMR did
further defined the degree of jointing by joint spacing however Q-system does not take this into
account (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2 Comparison of RMR and Q-system based on degree of jointing

Joint pattern in rock engineering refer to the description of the joint distribution. In Q-system both
main joint secondary or random joints is taken into account by quantify it for the rating. However,
RMR system only observe on the main join set orientation whether it is favourable with the
alignment of excavation. Moreover, the parameter, B in RMR represent an offset of the overall
rock grade (last addition parameter to correct the overall grading as describe in section 1.1). In fact,
both joint set number and orientation of main join set will greatly influnece the rock mass strength
unless the joint set number is very small or orientation is not favourable in the direction of failure
then either one of these parameter might not significantly to change the rock rating.

Table 1.3 Comparison of RMR and Q-system based on jointing pattern

Insight into the joint characteristics, both RMR and Q-system defined the rating into small scale
of roughness, However, RMR did not address the waviness of the joint where this will greatly
influence the shear strength of within the rock mass. The more significant the waviness to be
observed, the greater the friction of the rock within the joint, more harder for the rock mass to
shear. This might create an underrate or overrate of the joint patters in RMR system. Furthermore,
both system measure the degree of weathering of the joint as highly weathered joint might easily
to break when compression or shear applied on it. In fact, the material of filling also did influence
the overall joint characteristics as usually no filling give better effect to the rock mass. The filling
of joint are actually categorised by the thickness and gap of joint in RMR and Q-system
respectively. RMR take account of the joint length and the joint seperation but Q system did not
take this into account.
As an overview of characteristics of joint, Q system more focus on the joint set, filling
whereas in RMR system it seems to have a more comprehensive evaluation in terms of the joint
orientation, joint length, and joint separation. This is because those joint parameter that defined in
RMR system but did not address in Q-system will influence one another and induce an offset to
the strength of the rock mass.
 Table 1.4 Comparison of RMR and Q-system based on jointing pattern

1.4 GROUNDWATER
Both RMR and Q-system measure groundwater conditions in rate of flow and its pressure. If a
great flow is encounter during excavate, which means the water that trap in the joint will leaves a
gap where volume of grouting can be identify. In other words, the joint leaves after groundwater
release will weaken the rock mass and simultaneously the fillings within the gaps might be washed
out or expand at the other end.

Table 1.5 Comparison of RMR and Q-system based on groundwater condition

1.5 ROCK STRESS AND WEAK ZONE
The rock stress envelope is caused by the overburden pressure and confined pressure of a rock
mass. In section 1.2, earlier RMR did mentioned about the strength of an intact rock, but this
parameter seems to be meaningless as it only represent the performance of rock mass
independently. Conversely, Q-system did mention the strength relative to the stress applied to the
rock mass which possesses the in-situ condition of the rock mass, hence suitable support system
can be carried out. The non-inclusion of stress in RMR might encounter unforeseen tendency of
rock bursting. In fact, rock bursting does not happen in weak rock or highly jointed rock mass.
In Q-system, the weak zone is defined normally as the overstress area where mitigation
need to be imposed due to its short stand up time.

Table 1.5 Comparison of RMR and Q-system based on rock stress

1.6 WEAK ZONE

Table 1.5 Comparison of RMR and Q-system based on weak zone

1.7 CONCLUSION
As mentioned in section 1.1-1.7 it seems that RMR and Q-system almost have similar
identification of its respective parameter for rating. The significance difference is the mathematical
operation for calculate the rating in each system and also the stress of the rock mass. Although,
there is no stress input in RMR in the rating system, but 25MPa of stress is actually account into
the supporting system. In rock excavation application, RMR system is better to associate with the
stress measurement of the rock mass on in-situ to identify the applicability of this rating system.
Q-system seems to cover all aspect in the characteristics of rock mass and other external
condition such as ground water, but the absent of joint orientation in this system which might cause
the support system to be overdesign or under design. Last but not least, different rating system
have it pro and cons, therefore, geologist or engineer need to make the rating as a guidance
associate with their experience to identify the best mitigation to imply in a project.
2 QUESTION 2

The main objective of develop RMi (Rock Mass Index) is to improve the input data in rock
engineering. Therefore, it is seldom being applied in classification system instead more likely to
mentioned in terms of characterizing of block geometry in numerical methods. The Figure 2.1
address all parameter involves in RMi.
Basically, UCS can be identify from field test or laboratory test, whereas jC derive from
formula in Figure 2.2. In detail, jL can either be determine from table (Figure 2.3) or through
formula (Figure 2.4). Vb often correlate with other parameter like jointing characteristics where
this is discuss by (Palmstrom and Technology, 2005).

Figure 2.1: The principle of the RMi characterizing the compressive strength of a rock mass.

Figure 2.2: Joint characteristics equation

 Figure 2.3: Ratings of the joint size and continuity factor (iL).

Figure 2.3: Joint size and continuity factor equation

Reference:
PALMSTROM, A. J. T. & TECHNOLOGY, U. S. 2005. Measurements of and correlations
between block size and rock quality designation (RQD). 20, 362-377.
3 QUESTION 3

3.1 CLASS B-CI

CI (1)
Tunnel face Evaluation form

1 PH CI.pdf 1 GM CI.pdf

The description/ elaboration below will be based on overall tunnel face since the tunnel face seems
to be homogenous in terms of joint, degree of weathering, joints and others.
Contents Rating
Description/ Elaboration
Left Centre Right
A Strong to very strong. Rating should be in 25 25 25
Strength of intact
between 25-31, for more conservative
rock
geologist take the lower value
B Rock is slightly weathered to fresh (in 14 14 14
between class 1&2). The infilled are calcite,
quartz and pyrite but absolutely not clay.
Weathering/alteration The rating is conservative to be 14 instead
of putting 21 since there some joint which
consist of different filling material with the
intact rock.
C Medium to closely spaced should be in the 11 11 11
Spacing of middle category of classification which is
discontinuities class 3

D mostly joint is an open joint but with narrow 15 15 15

and tight opening which result rank in class
Conditions of
3. However, due to the degree of roughness
discontinuities
which is very coarse (Class 1), the optimum
class are between class 2 and class 1.
E Strike perpendicular to tunnel axis 5 5 5
Effect of Not required for evaluation (not contribute
discontinuity strike to total grade point)
and dip orientation. Strike parallel to tunnel axis 2,3 2,3 2,3
Declination Not required for evaluation (not contribute
to total grade point)
F Ground water effect Dry to moist 1 0 0 0
G No effect of weathering or weakening 1
Degradation by water
of rock being mentioned
The sum of the grade for three section (center, left and right) are basically taken from the contents
of A-G except for section E. The grade of the rock mass after blast in terms of its tunnel face and
cutting face, the most contribution of such high rating is because of the intact rock characteristics
(fresh to slightly weathered).

Schist rock is consider as metamorphic rock (medium hard rock) with relative hardness 4-5
(reference: https://geologyscience.com/rocks/metamorphic-rocks/schist/). With overall grade
point of 68, which falls between lower class B and upper-class CI. This classification is used other
than characterized the rock quality also used to optimize the support system required for each
tunnel drive section. If this tunnel face and cutting face at this section is classified as B, which
means class B support system will be imposed. Due to the optimization support system, the design
might according to the mean of range within the class. In other words, the tunnel face support
system might under-design if class B is chosen. Therefore, the final class for this section is class
CI (using support system class CI).

Support Description
Shotcrete Extra shotcrete: 50 mm
Shotcrete lining: 50 mm
Extra concrete lining: 100 mm
Concrete lining: 200 mm
Dowel bar Position: Crown
Diameter: 25mm
Length: 2.0-3.0 m
Spacing: 1.5m c/c
3.2 CLASS CII-DI
Tunnel face Evaluation form

2 PH DI.pdf 2 GM DI.pdf
 Contents Rating
Description/ Elaboration
Left Centre Right
A Medium strong to strong. However, precise 14 14 12
Strength of intact description is not mentioned in the evaluation
rock sheet. It most probably judge by the blow
condition by hammer.
B Weathered joint is filled by black, yellowish 14 14 14
Weathering/alteration
clay, quartz throughout the tunnel face
C Both the joint set 1 and 2 are scattered 5 5 6
Spacing of throughout the tunnel face randomly. Joint set 1
discontinuities govern the overall spacing as it condition is the
most unfavourable (close to closely spaced)
D Throughout 3 joint set. Set 1 is the worst which 13 10 13
consist occupied in all the 3 section (left, crown
and right). Set 1 joint is classified to class 3 due
Conditions of
to its slickened side property. However,
discontinuities
according to geologist tunnel face sketches, the
rate of crown should be slightly lower than right
and left tunnel face because it is highly jointed.
E Strike perpendicular to tunnel axis 1 5,7 1
Not required for evaluation (not contribute to
Effect of
total grade point)
discontinuity strike
Strike parallel to tunnel axis 3 3 3
and dip orientation.
Not required for evaluation (not contribute to
Declination
total grade point)

F Not mentioned which part of the 1 2 2 -5 -5

tunnel face have seepage (20 L/min)
Ground water effect
but can be see from the photo (shown
in part G)
G Not mentioned, but according to the 1 2 2
photo there are some changing in
Degradation by water colour of the right hand side and
crown of rock might due to the
degradation of water
*the overall rating of section F & G is according to the matrix shown below

The sum of the grade for three section (center, left and right) are basically taken from the contents
of A-G except for section E. The grade of the rock mass after blast in terms of its tunnel face and
cutting face, the most contribution section to the rating is based on the intact rock strength (rate
score: 14;14;12), weathering and alteration of rock mass (14;14;14) and conditions of
discontinuities (13;10;13).
*Note (rate score left; crown; right)
Schist rock is consider as metamorphic rock (medium hard rock) with relative hardness 4-5
(reference: https://geologyscience.com/rocks/metamorphic-rocks/schist/). With overall grade
point of 40.25, which falls between lower class CII and upper-class D. This classification is used
other than characterized the rock quality also used to optimize the support system required for each
tunnel drive section. If this tunnel face and cutting face at this section is classified as CII, which
means class CII support system will be imposed. Due to the optimization support system, the
design might according to the mean of range within the class. In other words, the tunnel face
support system might under-design if class CII is chosen. Therefore, the final class for this section
is class D (using support system class DI).
Support Description
Shotcrete Extra shotcrete: 50 mm
Shotcrete lining: 100-125 mm
Extra concrete lining: 100 mm
Concrete lining: 200-250 mm
Forepoling Spacing: 0.5 m
Steel rib Size: H100
Spacing: 1.0 m c/c
Wire mesh Position: Cutting face
Dowel bar Position: Crown
Diameter: 25 mm
Length: 3.0 m
Spacing: 1.0m c/c
3.3 CLASS DII-E
Tunnel face Evaluation form

3 PH E.pdf 3 GM E.pdf

Contents Rating
Description/ Elaboration
Left Centre Right
A Weak to medium strong for bottom part of 10 7 8
the left tunnel face extend to the left-hand
side of the crown (only small portion of
crown). Other part of the intact rock strength
considers very weak. Although left tunnel
face have better rock quality at some portion
Strength of intact
but the most unfavourable structure of rock
rock
should be rated within that section. Hence,
the intact rock is consider as very weak in
overall which falls in class 4 to 5. Due to the
existing of small portion of medium rock in
the left tunnel face, its rating is slightly
higher than other section.
B Although weathering condition is not 9 7 7
mentioned directly but the collapsed of rock
on tunnel face during mucking proof that the
rock is highly weathered. From the depth,
the most severe part located at the right
tunnel and the crown which the depth of
Weathering/alteration rock mass collapsed is greater than at the left
tunnel face. This is due to the weathering
effect of the water and fault which weaken
the core of the crown and right tunnel face.
This weathering effect most extend to the
left tunnel face and causes weathering on
discontinuities.
C The spacing of the entire tunnel face and 0 0 0
Spacing of
also the cutting face considered as closely
discontinuities
space which in the class 5.
D From the tunnel face, joint set 1 are most 10 6 5
obvious joint and is associate with other
random joint which mostly distributed at the
right tunnel face and also right side of
Conditions of
crown. This phenomenon causes
discontinuities
unfavorable condition especially with the
occur of slickenside with joint which lower
down the overall rating to class 4 in both
section (crown and right tunnel face).
E Strike perpendicular to tunnel axis 5 5 5
Effect of Not required for evaluation (not contribute
discontinuity strike to total grade point)
and dip orientation. Strike parallel to tunnel axis 2,3 2,3 2,3
Declination Not required for evaluation (not contribute
to total grade point)
F 10 L/min groundwater is flow 1 2 1 0 -5 0
Ground water effect
from the cause of probe hole
 test which located at the
crown.
G Weakening of rock only occur 1 2 1
at the crown which due to the
Degradation by water
seepage (as mentioned earlier
in section B)

*the overall rating of section F & G is according to the matrix shown below

The sum of the grade for three section (center, left and right) are basically taken from the contents
of A-G except for section E. The grade of the rock mass after blast in terms of its tunnel face and
cutting face, the most contribution section to the rating is based on the intact rock strength (rate
score: 10;7;8), weathering and alteration of rock mass (9;7;7) and conditions of discontinuities
(10;6;5).
*Note (rate score left; crown; right)
Schist rock is consider as metamorphic rock (medium hard rock) with relative hardness 4-5
(reference: https://geologyscience.com/rocks/metamorphic-rocks/schist/). With overall grade
point of 19.25, which falls between on class E (using support system class DII).
Support Description
Shotcrete Extra shotcrete: 50 mm
Shotcrete lining: 100-125 mm
Extra concrete lining: 100 mm
Concrete lining: 200-250 mm
Forepoling Spacing: 0.5 m
Steel rib Size: H100-H125
Spacing: 1.0 m c/c
Wire mesh Position: Cutting face
Dowel bar Position: Crown and shoulder
Diameter: 25 mm
Length: 3.0 m
Spacing: 1.0m c/c