Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full Length Article

A generic method for rock mass classification

Vitthal M. Khatik a, *, Arup Kr. Nandi b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, 208016, India
b
Engineering Design Group, CSIR-Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, MG Avenue, Durgapur, 713209, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Rock mass classification (RMC) is of critical importance in support design and applications to mining,
Received 5 May 2017 tunneling and other underground excavations. Although a number of techniques are available, there
Received in revised form exists an uncertainty in application to complex underground works. In the present work, a generic rock
5 September 2017
mass rating (GRMR) system is developed. The proposed GRMR system refers to as most commonly used
Accepted 19 September 2017
Available online 8 January 2018
techniques, and two rock load equations are suggested in terms of GRMR, which are based on the fact
that whether all the rock parameters considered by the system have an influence or only few of them are
influencing. The GRMR method has been validated with the data obtained from three underground coal
Keywords:
Rock mass classification (RMC)
mines in India. Then, a semi-empirical model is developed for the GRMR method using artificial neural
Generic system network (ANN), and it is validated by a comparative analysis of ANN model results with that by analytical
Rock load GRMR method.
Mathematical model Ó 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Artificial neural network (ANN) Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Engineering design associated with rock mechanics problems is
a challenging issue due to the variation of rock strength properties.
This is due to the presence of fractures (which govern the stability
of surface structures) and in situ stress conditions (which govern
the stability of deep structures) in rock masses. Furthermore,
groundwater conditions, squeezing and swelling or stability con-
ditions of rock masses, and filling materials in joints will scale their
effects (Hudson and Harris, 1997; Panthee et al., 2016). In this re-
gard, proper engineering design is one of the major concerns to
avoid failure of engineering structures (Akin, 2013).
There are various schemes of rock mass classification (RMC) to
characterize the rock mass strength properties (such as rock quality
and rock mass deformability) and in situ conditions. In these RMC
systems, each rock parameter is separately assigned with a value
(so-called rating) depending on its weight on roof fall (based on the
previous case studies). Finally, the ratings of all parameters are
combined to obtain a final value used to classify the rock masses. It
is observed that the influence of a rock parameter varies with its
magnitude. Moreover, such variations are found to be nonlinear for
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: vitthal@iitk.ac.in, vitthalkhatik1994@gmail.com (V.M. Khatik).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
almost all types of rock parameters. To overcome this limitation, the
entire range of each rock parameter is divided into a number of
zones. Thereby, it becomes quite easier to assign a rating value for
each zone. Chances of assigning an appropriate rating to a rock
parameter are of high risk if more number of zones is involved. But
increasing the number of zones requires more experimental ob-
servations, and thus it makes the rock mass rating (RMR) system
more complex. Therefore, finding an appropriate number of zones
that divides the entire range of a rock parameter is critically
important.
Among various RMC systems developed so far, RMR system
suggested by Bieniawski (1993) (B-RMR) and Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute (NGI) Q-system by Barton et al. (1974) (NGI-
Q) are the most commonly used ones. Moreover, these two systems
are also considered as the basis for developing many other systems
for rock mass classification. Most of the parameters used by these
two methods are found to be independent. Consideration of fewer
rock parameters in a method implies that it reduces the classifi-
cation complexity and minimizes the requirement of practical data
measurements associated with the rock parameters. This is a quite
logical compromise, provided that the criterion of choosing the
influencing parameters is closer to the actual field parameter
values. But in general, the most influencing rock parameters on site
are actually less weighted or ignored in the RMR method. It sug-
gests that a geologist or engineer should emphasize more on
appropriate selection of a classification technique for the given rock
mass site. This needs observations or huge trial-and-error tests that

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.09.007
1674-7755 Ó 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the
CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116
are definitely not the goal behind the approach using a few pa-
rameters. For this, there still remain questions about applicability of
systems in highly fractured rock conditions. In a critique made by
Palmstron and Broch (2006), it is suggested that NGI-Q system fails
to properly consider joint orientations, joint aperture, joint conti-
nuity and rock strength. Bieniawski (1984) also advised that at least
two classification systems may be adopted for practical problems
when making a final decision. In spite of that, NGI-Q and B-RMR
systems are found to be simplified and the most powerful tools for
support design in underground excavations.
Considering the above problems, an attempt has been made to
formulate a generic classification methodology for different rock
masses. The proposed generic classification system considers the
most possible rock load influencing the parameters that are found
in a variety of rocks. This generic RMR (GRMR) classification
method can be realized after examining the existing RMC systems,
such as B-RMR system (Bieniawski, 1993), NGI-Q system (Barton
et al., 1974), the system proposed by Central Mining Research
Institute (CMRI), Dhanbad, India (CMRI-RMR) (Venkateswarlu et al.,
1989), and the others (Sen and Sadagah, 2003; Aksoy, 2008). In
order to establish and calibrate the RMR system, a huge number of
databases referring to various rock structures are essential. Since it
is very difficult to collect such enormous rock load data of different
types of rocks, the statistical data related to roof fall are considered
here for establishing the GRMR technique. The roof fall data were
generated based on three RMR methods, i.e. B-RMR, NGI-Q and
CMRI-RMR. Through literature review, it is evident that these three
methods are widely used for different types of rocks across the
world. The influence of each parameter on RMR classification is
analyzed on a commonly used platform of rock load, in which the B-
RMR, NGI-Q and CMRI-RMR are included. Variation of rock loads
due to the varied rock parameter values in a given range was
considered as the criterion to optimize the number of zones in the
GRMR method. As for each rock parameter, a relative rating value
was assigned based on a sensitivity analysis. The rating variations
corresponding to different zones for any parameter associated with
a single RMR method were done by a gradient analysis of rock load
variation which is found in that RMR method. For parameters that
are common in more than one RMR classification method, the
rating variations were made by taking a mean value of rock load
variations corresponding to those methods. Two rock load equa-
tions have been suggested for GRMR to evaluate the rock load that
will be used for the purpose of making support design. By realizing
the fact that rock structure is very complex in nature and the rock
properties in a particular location may also change, an attempt was
made here to construct an artificial neural network (ANN) model
for the GRMR system (Khatik et al., 2017).
2. Existing methods of rock mass classification
2.1. Rock mass properties
Unlike intact rock, it is difficult to illustrate the strength prop-
erties for fractured rocks (Noorian Bidgoli et al., 2013), due to the
limitations in complete theories and difficulties in practical mea-
surements associated with fractured rocks (Hudson and Harris,
1997). Also, limited geotechnical data cause restriction on exact
mathematical modeling of the relation among rock quality and rock
properties. The solution to this problem is to adopt empirical
methods such as RMR systems which are based on the condition of
rock masses with various properties. These rock properties are the
inputs to RMR systems, and hereafter mentioned as rock parame-
ters. The consideration of rock parameters plays a key role in
fractured rock masses for arriving to some strength clues. Among
various methods available, the one with the highest number of rock
103
parameters provides a closer view to the actual field condition.
Fifteen rock parameters were sorted (presented in Table 1) whose
values can be measured quantitatively, and all together present a
similar nature to actual rock mass conditions. Details about these
parameters can be found in the respective references.
2.2. Existing methods of RMR systems
It was observed that the choice of a method for RMC is highly
dependent on which parameters are (most) sensitive in actual site.
The RMR method which considers those sensitive parameters is
chosen for classification. The three most commonly used RMR
systems are discussed in the following sub-sections.
2.2.1. B-RMR system
With additional case histories, the RMR system or geomechanics
classification has been revised several times (basic principle
remained the same) (Bieniawski, 1989). The B-RMR method con-
siders six rock parameters (first six parameters in Table 1). To find
out the RMR value using B-RMR system, the rock mass is divided
into a number of regions such that certain features are more or less
uniform within each region (Bieniawski, 1989). The classification
parameters are then measured at each region of rock masses. Each
parameter is assigned to an empirical rating, R, corresponding to its
actual value according to Table 2 presented in Bieniawski (1973). In
this method, the discontinuity presented in rock masses is the most
important factor in rock mass classification. Discontinuity spacing
and conditions (e.g. roughness and separation) have given 50%
weight together. When the number of discontinuity set is less than
3, the rating for discontinuity spacing may be increased by 30%. The
strike and deep orientation of discontinuities are considered as
separate parameters which also depend on the type of application
like tunnel, mine, slope or foundation. The RQD and strength of
intact rocks have given weight of 20% and 10%, respectively. The
groundwater rating accounts for 15% of total ratings. The final RMR
value of the rock is calculated as follows:
RMR ¼ R1 þ R2 þ R3 þ R4 þ R5 þ R6 (1)
where R1, R2, ., R6 are the ratings corresponding to six rock pa-
rameters as depicted in Table 2. The calculated RMR value lies be-
tween 0 and 100. A higher RMR value shows good quality of rock.
The B-RMR system has wide areas of applications such as tunnels,
chambers, mines, slopes and foundations (Bieniawski, 1989).
Nevertheless, the critical rock mass conditions, with large faults,
weakness zones, and highly stressed conditions, should be handled
with care. From the RMR value, the rock load and rock support can
Table 1
Various rock parameters.
No. Rock parameter Source
1 Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) Bieniawski, 1974
2 Rock quality designation (RQD) Deere et al., 1967; Zhang, 2016
3 Spacing of discontinuity (SOD)
4 Joint roughness value (COD)
5 Water inflow rate and pressure (GWP)
6 Orientation of discontinuity (OOD)
7 Weatherability (WD)
8 Layer thickness (LT)
9 Faults in rocks (SF)
10 Stresses in rocks (RS) NIRM, 2008
11 Number of joints (NOJ)
12 Filler material in joints (AOJ)
13 Swelling and squeezing of rocks (S&S)
14 Number of weakness zones (NOWZ)
15 Depth of excavations (DOW)
104 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116

Table 2
Classification parameters and their ratings according to B-RMR system (Bieniawski, 1973).

No. Parameter Ranges of values

1 Strength of intact Point-load >10 4e10 2e4 1e2 For this low
rock material strength index range, uniaxial
(MPa) compression test
is preferred
UCS >250 100e250 50e100 25e50 5e25 1e5 <1
Rating (R1) 15 12 7 4 2 1 0
2 Drill core quality 90e100 75e90 50e75 25e50 <25
RQD (%)
Rating (R2) 20 17 13 8 3
3 Spacing of >2 0.6e2 0.2e0.6 0.06e0.2 <0.06
discontinuities (m)
Rating (R3) 20 15 10 6 5
4 Condition of Very rough surface; Slightly rough Slightly rough Slickened surfaces Soft gouge >
discontinuities Not continuous; surfaces; Separation surfaces; Separation or Gouge < 5 mm 5 mm thick or
No separation; <1 mm; Slightly <1 mm; Highly thick or Separation Separation >
Unweathered weathered weathered walls ¼ 1e5 mm; 5 mm;
wall rock walls Continuous Continuous
Rating (R4) 30 25 20 10 0
5 Groundwater Inflow per 10 m None <10 10e25 25e125 >125
tunnel length
(L/min)
Joint water 0 0.0e0.1 0.1e0.2 0.2e0.5 >0.5
pressure/Major
principal stress
(MPa)
General conditions Completely Damp Wet Dripping Flowing
dry
Rating (R5) 15 10 7 4 0
6 Strike and dip Very Favorable Fair Unfavorable Very
orientation favorable unfavorable
Rating (R6) Tunnels and mines 0 2 5 10 12
Foundations 0 2 7 15 25
Slopes 0 5 25 50 60

be estimated from a support table presented in Bieniawski (1973). special purpose support (for highly complex rock masses) (Barton
The rock load equation in Bieniawski’s system is described as et al., 1974). The rock load and rock support of an underground
excavation is based on both Q value and different terms of equa-
100  RMR tion. A simplest empirical equation relating permanent support
PRMR ¼ BD (2)
100 pressure to rock load is found (Barton et al., 1974):

where B is the gallery width of opening area in m, and D is the rock Table 3
density in t/m3. This system does not consider any parameters for Description and ratings of parameters in NGI-Q system: RQD, Jn and Jw (Barton et al.,
rock stresses, except that stresses up to 25 MPa are included. Also, 1974).
there is no clear explanation about whether or not faults and Parameter Description Rating
weakness zones are included (Palmstrom, 2008).
RQD Very poor 0e25
Poor 25e50
2.2.2. NGI-Q system Fair 50e75
The NGI-Q system is formulated based on the database of 200 Good 75e90
tunnel cases that record the correlation between the amount and Excellent 90e100
Jn Massive, no or few joints 0.5e1
type of total support and rock mass quality (Q) with respect to One joint set 2
tunnel stability. Q is a function of six rock parameters as given in the One joint set plus random 3
following equation (Barton et al., 1974): Two joint sets 4
Two joint sets plus random 6
RQD Jr Jw Three joint sets 9
Q ¼ (3) Three joint sets plus random 12
Jn Ja SRF
Four or more joint sets, random, 15
heavily jointed, etc.
where Jn , Jr, Ja, Jw and SRF are the number of joint sets, joint Crushed rock, earth like 20
roughness value, joint alteration value, groundwater factor (joint Jw Dry excavations or minor inflow 1
water reduction factor) and stress reduction factor, respectively. Medium inflow or pressure 0.66
occasional outwash of joint fillings
The joint sets will be affected by various factors such as foliation,
Large inflow or high pressure in 0.5
schistosity, slaty cleavage, and bedding. The parameters Jr and Ja competent rock with unfilled joints
should be measured for the weakest joint set or clay-filled Large inflow or high pressure, 0.33
discontinuity. The values (ratings) of different parameters of Eq. considerable outwash of joint fillings
(3) are listed in Tables 3 and 4 (Barton et al., 1974). Exceptionally high inflow or water 0.2e0.1
pressure at blasting, decaying with time
The range of Q lies between 0.001 (for exceptionally poor rock) Exceptionally high inflow or water 0.1e0.05
and 1000 (exceptionally good rock). The NGI-Q system is used for pressure continuing without noticeable decay
tunnel design, and it should not be extended for cases involving
 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116 105

Table 4
Description and ratings of parameters in NGI-Q system: Jr, Ja and SRF (Barton et al., 1974).

Parameter Description Condition Rating

Jr Discontinuous joints Rock wall 4

Rough or irregular, undulating contact (RWC) 3
Smooth, undulating 2
Slickensided, undulating 1.5
Rough or irregular, planar 1.5
Smooth, planar 1
Slickensided, planar 0.5
Zone containing clay minerals thick enough No RWC 1
Sandy, gravelly or crushed zone 1
Ja Tightly healed, hard, non-softening, RWC 0.75
impermeable filling
Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only 1
Slightly altered joint walls 2
Silty- or sandyeclay coatings, 3
small clay-fraction
Softening or low friction clay 4
mineral coatings
Sandy particles, clay-free RWC before 10 cm 4
disintegrated rock, etc. shear
Strongly over-consolidated, 6
non-softening clay mineral filling
Medium or low over-consolidation, 8
softening, clay mineral filling
Swelling clay filling 8e12
Zones or bands of disintegrated No RWC 6/8
Crushed rock and clay 8e12
Zones or bands of silty- or 5
sandyeclay, small clay fraction
Thick/continuous zones 10/13
Bands of clay 13e20
SRF Multiple occurrence of weakness zones Weakness zones 10
containing clay or chemically intersecting excavation
disintegrated rock, very closed
surrounding rock (any depth)
Single weakness zones containing clay, 5
or chemically disintegrated rock,
very closed surrounding rock (depth50 m)
Single weakness zones containing clay, 2.5
or chemically disintegrated rock (depth>50 m)
Multiple shear zones in competent rock (any depth) 7.5
Single shear zones in competent rock (depth50 m) 5
Single shear zones in competent rock (depth>50 m) 2.5
Loose open joints (any depth) 5
Low stress, near surface Competent rock, 2.5
Medium stress rock stress problems 1
High stress, very tight structure 0.5e2
Mild rockburst 5e10
Heavy rockburst 10e20
Mild squeezing rock pressure Squeezing rock 5e10
Heavy squeezing rock pressure 10e20
Mild swelling rock pressure Swelling rock 5e10
Heavy swelling rock pressure 10e15

2.2.3. CMRI-RMR system

The CMRI-RMR system is an extension to B-RMR system to make
2 1=3 it suitable for Indian coal mines. The working principle is exactly
PNGIQ ¼ Q (4)
Jr similar to B-RMR system. In this system, statistical analysis has
been performed on geotechnical data obtained from published case
An improved version of Eq. (4) is also found in Barton et al.
records and detailed field investigations. Interrelations of different
(1974), which includes the number of joint sets (Jn), and it is
parameters were found by principal component analysis (PCA) and
defined as
factor analysis. The RMR value obtained by this method is as
follows:
pffiffiffiffi
2 Jn 1=3
PNGIQ ¼ pffiffiffiffi Q (5) RMR ¼ C1 þ C2 þ C3 þ C4 þ C5 (6)
3 Jr

The Q value is found to work best between 0.1 and 40 for tunnels where C1, C2, ., C5 are the ratings for layer thickness, structural
with span between 2.5 m and 30 m. Also, it should be used with features, weatherability, strength of rock (15%) and groundwater
care for ground with swelling and weakness zones (Palmstron and flow (10%), respectively. Similar to Bieniawski’s system, RMR value
Broch, 2006). in CMRI system lies in between 0 and 100, and a higher RMR value
106 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116

Table 5
Classification parameters and their ratings according to CMRI-RMR system (CMRI, 1987).

Rating Layer thickness Structural index Weatherability Rock strength Groundwater

(cm) (cycle slake durability) (MPa) seepage rate
(mL/min)

0 0e0.4 >16 0e30 0e3 5000e10000

1 0.4e0.8 16 30e40 3e6.5 2000e5000
2 0.8e1.2 40e50 6.5e10 800e2000
3 1.2e1.6 15 50e60 10e15 500e800
4 1.6e2 60e65 15e20 200e500
5 2e2.5 14 65e70 20e25 140e200
6 2.5e3.1 70e75 25e30 80e140
7 3.1e3.7 13 75e80 30e37.5 20e80
8 3.7e4.3 80e85 37.5e45 10e20
9 4.3e5 12 85e87.4 45e52.5 Moist-10
10 5e5.6 11 87.4e89.8 52.5e60 Dry
11 5.6e6.2 89.8e92.2 60e70
12 6.2e6.8 10 92.2e94.6 70e80
13 6.8e7.5 9 94.6e97 80e90
14 7.5e9 8 97e97.5 90e150
15 9e10.5 7 97.5e98 150e250
16 10.5e12 98e98.5
17 12e13.6 6 98.5e99
18 13.6e15.3 5 99e99.3
19 15.3e17 99.3e99.6
20 17e19 4 99.6e100
21 19e22
22 22e25 3
23 25e30 2
24 30e35 1
25 35e40 0
26 40e45
27 45e50
28 50e60
29 60e75
30 75e100

indicates a better rock. Based on multivariate statistical analysis of
roof fall data, layer thickness in rocks is found to be the most
sensitive parameter, and weighted 30% of the total rating. It is fol-
lowed by structural features and weatherability (measured by slack
durability test), weighted 25% and 20% of total rating, respectively.
The ratings of different rock properties can be taken from Table 5
(CMRI, 1987) which was prepared based on the experimental data
of rock properties. Once the RMR is calculated using Eq. (6), some
adjustment factors are also multiplied with this value to obtain an
adjusted RMR value as follows:
RMRadjusted ¼ k1 k2 k3 RMR
where k1, k2 and k3 are the adjustment factors for in situ stresses,
induced stresses and method of rock excavation, respectively.
Based on the adjusted RMR, estimation of rock load in galleries
and junctions are made using Eqs. (8) and (9), respectively (Paul
et al., 2014). The adjusted RMR is further useful for support
design.

PCMRIRMR ¼ BD 1:7 e 0:037CMRIRMR

þ 0:0002CMRIRMR2
 
CMRIRMR 2
PCMRIRMR ¼ 5B0:3 D 1 
100
2.3. Discussion on variation of rock loads estimated using different
RMR methods
In order to interpret the effects of individual rock mass prop-
erties (mentioned in Table 1), the rock loads calculated using
equations of different RMR systems were plotted against the rock
parameters associated with the corresponding RMR systems, as
presented in Fig. 1. While varying any single parameter, the other
parameters were kept at their average values which are presented
in Table 6, and this concept is applicable to all three RMR systems.
In this section, the detailed discussion on how the rock load varies
with each rock parameter is presented, which provides detailed
(7)
analysis of three RMC methods and rock mass properties associated
with them. It is also a backbone of the GRMR system, which is a new
methodology discussed in this paper.
The effect of UCS of rock masses on the rock load is presented in
Fig. 1a. From Fig. 1a, the UCS of rock masses is found very sensitive
at its lower range (0e90 MPa) in both CMRI-RMR and B-RMR sys-
tems. In CMRI-RMR system, rock load is found constant as UCS
value exceeds 90 MPa (Deere et al., 1967). But similar observation is
not found in B-RMR system. In B-RMR system, rock load decreases
slightly with increasing UCS value. However, the calculated rock
load values in these systems were found to be the same (55 kPa) for
(8) the UCS of 20 MPa. The RMR variation with the UCS in the GRMR
system (discussed in next sections) is considered to follow a pattern
that falls in an average of the CMRI-RMR and B-RMR methods.
For any RQD value, the B-RMR system presents more rock load
(9) than NGI-Q system does when other rock parameters are kept
constant, as shown in Fig. 1b. A high rock load indicates that the
 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116 107

7 7

6 6

Rock load (10 kPa)

5

Rock load (10 kPa)

5

4 4

3 3

2 B-RMR 2
B-RMR
CMRI-RMR
1 1 NGI-Q

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
UCS (MPa) Drill core quality-RQD (%)
(a) (b)
6 7

5 6

Rock load (10 kPa)

Rock load (10 kPa)

4 5

4
3
B-RMR
3
2
2 B-RMR
1 1 NGI-Q

0 0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Spacing of discontinuities (mm) Condition of discontinuities (Roughness)
(c) (d)
6 7

5 6
Rock load (10 kPa)

Rock load (10 kPa)

5
4
4
3
3
B-RMR
2
CMRI-RMR 2 NGI-Q
1 1

0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Groundwater inflow rate (L/min) Groundwater pressure (MPa)
(e) (f)
6 6

5 5
Rock load (10 kPa)
Rock load (10 kPa)

4 4

3 3
CMRI-RMR
2 B-RMR 2

1 1

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Orientation of discontinuity Weatherability (%)
(g) (h)
8 7
7 6
Rock load (10 kPa)

6
Rock load (10 kPa)

5
5
4
4
3
3
CMR- RMR
2 2 CMRI-RMR
1 1

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Layer thickness (mm) Structural features
(i) (j)

Fig. 1. Variations of rock load against various rock parameters.

108 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116

9 5
8
7 4

Rock load (10 kPa)

Rock load (10 kPa)
6
3
5 NGI-Q
4
2
3 NGI-Q
2 1
1
0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Rock stresses Number of joints, Jn
(k) (l)
3.5

3
Rock load (10 kPa)

2.5

1.5

1 NGI-Q

0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Joint alteration, Ja
(m)

Fig. 1. (continued).

support system is being over-designed or safer. RQD is found more It is observed that the average values of rock stresses are
sensitive at its low range of 10%e30% for both B-RMR and NGI-Q desirable for stable rock condition (Barton et al., 1974). Stresses
systems, but a comparatively larger slope is noticed in NGI-Q sys- within a certain limit help to hold jointed rock masses tightly, as a
tem. Above 30% of RQD value, rock load decreases gradually with result, the rock stability increases. Excessive stresses will cause
RQD. fracture and increase rock load. Fig. 1k shows the variation of rock
For low value of SOD, the calculated rock load in B-RMR system load with strength to stress ratio. The internal pre-static stress and
is found to be high, as demonstrated in Fig. 1c. As SOD increases, external dynamic disturbances are the dominant factors for rock
rock load value decreases, and the decreasing rate is found to be failure (Li et al., 2017). The number of joints increases rock load
comparatively low till SOD reaches 1000 mm. with continuous increase in gradient, as shown in Fig. 1l. The higher
Fig. 1d reveals that the transition of joint from smooth to slightly number of joints makes the rock worse (Barton et al., 1974). Ma-
rough will reduce rock load considerably, and it shows more sig- terial presented in joints affects rock load according to their fric-
nificant in NGI-Q system. A further increase in roughness reduces tional coefficient, as shown in Fig. 1m. It can be easily understood
the rock load gradually, and it is observed in both NGI-Q and B-RMR that the frictional materials reduce rock load due to the resistance
systems. developed between rock layers against slide (Barton et al., 1974).
The effect of groundwater on rock load is presented in Fig. 1e Very few rock sites will have swelling and squeezing, but it results
and f, where one can see that rock load increases with increasing in a worse situation for underground opening. Rock load will in-
groundwater pressure in both B-RMR and NGI-Q systems. In CMRI- crease as there is swelling and/or squeezing. The effects of rock
RMR system, groundwater flow rate is considered instead of pres- stress, number of joints and joint alteration on rock load are only
sure. The groundwater flow rate/pressure measurement proced- considered in NGI-Q system.
ures and scales are not the same in different RMR systems. Weatherability of rock masses in CMRI-RMR system is very
From Fig. 1g, a considerable reduction in rock load is observed sensitive. Above 97% SDI (slack durability index or slaking index),
for changing the rock orientations, and this rock property is only the rock load drastically decreases, as shown in Fig. 1h. After rock
considered in B-RMR system. stresses, layer thickness (CMRI-RMR system) is the most influ-
encing factor which is shown in Fig. 1i. Higher layer thickness near
opening increases the stability of rock structure. Higher structural
Table 6 index shows faulty rock masses, likely by their dip angle or deep
Average values of rock parameters used in rock load calculations. directions, and will cause increase in rock load acting as given in
Parameter Average value Parameter Average value CMRI-RMR system (Deere et al., 1967).
UCS 100 MPa SF 7
RQD 50% RS 100
3. Methodology of GRMR system
SOD 1000 mm NOJ 2
COD 0.5 AOJ 0.5
GWP 0.5 MPa S&S Mild 3.1. Motivation for developing GRMR system
OOD 0.5 NOWZ Single
WD 50% DOW 250 m The main problem found in RMC methods was their limitation
LT 250 mm
in application to all types of rocks. Referring to discussion in Section
 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116
2, 15 rock parameters presented are so ample that predicting which
parameters are at risk is not easy. To address this problem,
Bieniawski (1989) suggested application of multiple RMR methods
for a single practical problem. But application of multiple methods
is time-consuming, and will cause confusion to the designer in
adopting the results particularly when they are quite different. As
the rock conditions vary from place to place, the choice of appro-
priate RMC method for any place is very tough. This can be over-
come by considering a method which takes into account the
maximum possible rock features for rock classification. But there is
no such method available which can classify rocks and predicts rock
load for highly complex ground conditions. This is due to insuffi-
cient data available regarding all rock mass properties on roof fall
incidences, while various methods were developed. But now it is
possible to refer various works available regarding rock masses and
to use the statistical tools to analyze these data.
3.2. Rock parameters in classification
This section describes the details of the rock mass parameters
considered in rock mass classification methodology, with respect to
the stability of an underground opening. The first parameter
considered in rock classification is the UCS of rock masses. The
underground opening is stable against external and internal forces
applied by the strength properties of rock masses. The rock masses
with low strength result in roof and side wall fall by rock separa-
tion. The second important parameter is discontinuity in rock
masses, which occurs by millions of years’ complex mechanical,
thermal, chemical actions and in situ stresses, irrespective of their
strength and present rock stress conditions (Hudson and Harris,
1997). The spacing between the discontinuities is measured by
standard scale, and its average value is considered whenever
numbers of measurements are involved. The third important
parameter which considers the effect of rock faults on stability of
underground opening is structural feature, and it can be measured
by a number of structural indices like joint spacing. The layer
thickness of the rock masses is also an important parameter in
GRMR method. It is also measured by the scale in an average basis
as given by CMRI-RMR system (Venkateswarlu et al., 1989). How-
ever, joint spacing and layer thickness do not give any indication for
relative proportion of small and large spacings due to the nature of
their average spacing values. For this reason, RQD value suggested
by Deere (1964) is generally used. Similarly, it is difficult to un-
derstand joints formed from a single origin or more. Moreover,
multiple joint sets propagate faster, and thereby they need to be
considered for rock classification. Number of joints suggested by
NGI-Q system (Barton et al., 1974) is considered in GRMR to account
for the same reason. With this, orientation of these joints
(Bieniawski, 1993) is considered to account for strike and dip
orientation depending on application. For joint condition, the
roughness value (Bieniawski, 1993) and type of filling (material) are
considered (Barton et al., 1974).
To account for groundwater, its pressure (Barton et al., 1974;
Bieniawski, 1993) or flow rate and weatherability (Venkateswarlu
et al., 1989) or weathering (Miscevi
c and Vlastelica, 2014) of rock
masses towards water is considered. Weatherability can be cali-
brated by slake durability number test suggested in CMRI-RMR
system. The nature of rock stresses (Barton et al., 1974) changes
after excavation is done. This will cause instability in opening. To
account for this instability, rock stress parameter has been
considered in this system with depth of excavation (to account for
ease of working at higher depth). With above parameters, the effect
of swelling or squeezing rocks (Barton et al., 1974) is also consid-
ered by suitable factor. Presence of weakness zones (Barton et al.,
1974) reduces the rock mass strength and also needs to be
109
considered. To summarize above discussion, the GRMR and rock
load are considered to be the functions of the following factors:
rock strength, breakage in rock, groundwater, rock stresses,
swelling or squeezing of rock, and weakness zones.
3.3. Methodology
The existing method, B-RMR system, uses six rock parameters
which are not directly similar to other six parameters of NGI-Q
system and other five parameters of CMRI-RMR system. In the
present work, it was attempted to combine these parameters (all
together 15 parameters) which are likely to be independent. Each of
these 15 parameters is analyzed according to its base classification
method(s) for rock load (which is the basis for support design and
treated as the post process of rock classification). It is expected that
the calculated rock load value should be unique of a given set of
rock parameters irrespective of the classification methodology
encountered). Therefore, establishing a RMR classification method
on the basis of rock load seems to be more realistic. The variation of
rock load with respect to individual rock parameter value de-
termines the parameter’s influence, and a relative rating was
assigned to the parameter according to their weights or influences.
Finally, the ratings corresponding to all parameters were combined
to obtain a final numerical value as the base method does. Towards
rock load calculation, two approaches are presented. The first
approach will be applicable for rock field with influences of all
parameters (ground condition). The second approach is for inter-
mediate rock condition where only selected rock parameters are
involved. Out of these approaches, the best one is to be chosen,
which will represent actual field conditions more closely.
3.4. Rating allocation
In the GRMR system, the rating of each rock parameter is
assigned on the basis of a sensitivity analysis for rock load. For each
rock parameter, the rock load is found out using the empirical
formula suggested by the related RMR classification method, while
keeping other rock parameters at their average values (as shown in
Table 2). If a rock parameter is common in multiple RMR methods,
the average value of the rock loads obtained by the rock load
equations corresponding to different RMR systems was considered.
The difference between the maximum and minimum rock loads (d)
for the entire range (as suggested by the existing RMR systems) of
each rock parameter is calculated.
The percentage sensitivity of the i-th rock parameter, Si, is
calculated as
di
Si ¼  100% (10)
P
15
di
j¼1
It is to be noted that the larger variations of rock load indicate
that the corresponding rock parameter has more influence or is
having higher sensitivity towards determining RMR value.
Using similar technique, sensitivities (S) of all parameters are
calculated. It should be noted that when determining S, fluctua-
tion in rock load was considered, not the actual values of rock
loads. As a result, it avoids the effect of variation of safety factors
on rock load among the base RMR methods. For any given
parameter, the corresponding S value suggests the contribution of
that parameter, and will be the maximum influence or rating to
find the RMR value.
The percentage sensitivity values for various rock parameters
calculated using Eq. (10) are listed in Table 7. It was observed that
RS is the most dominating parameter. This is because in case of
110 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116

Table 7 7
Sensitivities of rock parameters to rock load values.

Parameter S (%) Maximum positive Rounded off values 6

influence on RMR of positive influence
on RMR 5

Rock load (10 kPa)

UCS 5.26 5.42268 5.5
RQD 4.9 5.0515 5 4
SOD 3.6 3.7113 4
COD 8.34 8.5979 8.5
3
GWP 6.04 6.2268 6.5
OOD 2.88 0 0 B-RMR
WD 7.88 8.1237 8 2
CMRI-RMR
LT 12.38 12.7628 12.5
SF 10.5 10.8247 11 Avg RL
1
RS 13.67 14.0927 14
NOJ 9.52 9.8144 10
AOJ 3.96 4.0824 4 0
S&S 5.39 5.5567 5.5 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
NOWZ 3.16 3.2577 3 UCS (MPa)
DOW 2.51 2.5876 2.6
Fig. 2. Variation of average RL with UCS.

Table 8
Zones and corresponding ratings of UCS in GRMR.

Gradient of Fractional Range of Gradient of Rating Rounded

average RL gradient UCS (MPa) maximum off rating
underground excavation, the stress field is disturbed and instability
of average positive
in structure will be induced. The higher the initial stresses are, the RL (%) sensitivity (%)
higher the instability after excavation will be. LT indicates spacing
0.596917 0.264498 0e22.5 1.454737 1.586986 1.6
between bedding planes which is desirable to be at its maximum
0.507006 0.224658 22.5e45 1.235616 2.690354 2.7
value to reduce layer-by-layer collapse of roof. The LT is observed to 0.384376 0.17032 45e67.5 0.936758 3.627112 3.6
be the second most influencing parameter (12.38%). Similar to the 0.40782 0.180708 67.5e90 0.993893 4.621005 4.6
stresses, the faults present in rock masses increase instability. These 0.051525 0.022831 90e112.5 0.125571 4.746575 4.7
0.051525 0.022831 112.5e135 0.125571 4.872146 4.9
faults are represented by structural index. LT, SOD and RQD will tell
0.051525 0.022831 135e157.5 0.125571 4.997717 5
about how much is rock fractured but not about its future severity. 0.051525 0.022831 157.5e180 0.125571 5.123288 5.1
NOJ indicates this future severity, which shows that S ¼ 9.52%. A 0.051525 0.022831 180e202.5 0.125571 5.248858 5.2
rock mass containing a single continuous joint with high fracture is 0.051525 0.022831 202.5e225 0.125571 5.374429 5.4
always more stable than multiple jointed rocks. This is because 0.051525 0.022831 225e250 0.125571 5.5 5.5

multiple jointed rocks propagate fracture in multiple directions.

With this, the COD (roughness) will also affect roof separation and
collapse. The rough joints will have frictional force to help them
against separation. In this analysis, weight associated with COD is
8.34%. The above-mentioned parameters are associated with the
stress condition and fracture in rocks. With this, groundwater also
affects the behavior of rock masses. The amount of groundwater
and pressure (GWP) shows that S ¼ 6.04% whereas rock response to
this groundwater (WD) shows 7.88%. The UCS of rock scales the
effect of other parameters in its low value. It has been given the
weight of 5.26%. S&S makes rock masses weak, and herein is
weighted 5.39%. With this, RQD, SOD and AOJ in rock joints have
been given the weights of 4.9%, 3.6% and 3.96%, respectively. NOWZ
is observed in few rocks but cannot be ignored (S ¼ 3.16%). DOW is
found the least sensitivity with S ¼ 2.51%. This variation in rock load
will decide the variation of rating for all parameters. For this, the
gradient of rock load curve was found out, and the same gradient
was applied for rating variation.
The sensitivity value (S) directly expresses the importance of
that parameter compared to rest of the parameters. Here, these S
values are converted directly into the maximum ratings except
OOD. OOD is an adjustment parameter for discontinuity orientation
and is given a negative rating. This is because the influence of OOD
depends on application (such as mine/tunnel, slope, or foundation).
Here, the OOD is considered only for mine/tunnel application.
The maximum positive influence of a rock parameter towards
RMR is recalculated based on its sensitivity keeping the total Si
corresponding to all rock parameters equals 100%, and the
maximum positive influence of OOD equals zero. The rounded off
values of maximum positive influences of rock parameters are also
listed in Table 7.
3.5. Finding GRMR
Like other methods, first the entire range of a rock parameter is
divided into a number of zones. Finding an optimum number of
divisions/zones of rock parameter range is important, with respect
to the complexity of the RMR system, especially when a larger
number of rock parameters associated with RMR system are
involved. The range of a rock parameter is decided based on the fact
that all the corresponding base RMR methods in which the rock
parameter is considered are taken into account. In order to find the
number of divisions, the variation of effective rock load (average RL)
with respect to a rock parameter is evaluated. The effective rock
load of a rock parameter is the same as the rock load when the
parameter is considered by only one RMR system (among that
considered in the present paper). Otherwise an average of the rock
loads is considered as the average RL (if multiple base RMR
methods consider the rock parameter). Then, an analysis of the
average RL vs. rock parameter plot is made to identify the zones for
which an approximately constant gradient is valid. Fig. 2 presents
the average RL vs. UCS plot, and the different zones are found based
on the (approximate) constant gradient and the corresponding
ratings are listed in Table 8. Using the same methodology, the rat-
ings of other rock parameters are determined. Table 9 presents the
divisions of various rock parameters with allocation ratings. The
GWP in Table 9 is represented in 0e1 scale. The conversions of GWP
scale with rate of water seepage are presented in Table 10.
For any given rock mass site, the rock mass properties consid-
ered by GRMR method are to be computed as described earlier.
 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116 111

Table 9
Rating values of different rock parameters in GRMR system.

UCS RQD SOD COD GWP

Zone (MPa) Rating (R1) Zone (%) Rating (R2) Zone (mm) Rating (R3) Zone Rating (R4) Zone (MPa) Rating (R5)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (very smooth) 0 0 (low) 6.5

22.5 1.6 25 2.2 500 0.8 0.25 (slightly smooth) 3.3 0.25 5
45e67.5 2.7 50 3.8 1000 1.3 0.5 (average) 5.8 0.5 (medium) 3.4
67.5e90 3.6 75 4.8 1500 2.7 0.75 (slightly rough) 7.3 0.75 2.2
90e112.5 4.6 100 5.5 2000 4 1 (very rough) 8.5 1 (high) 0
112.5e135 5
135e225 5.2
>225 5.4

OOD WD LT SF RS

Zone Rating (R6) Zone (%) Rating (R7) Zone (mm) Rating (R8) Zone Rating (R9) Zone Rating (R10)

0 (unfavorable) 3 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0
0.25 2.5 25 0.5 125 2.9 3.5 8.6 50 3.2
0.5 1.3 50 1.4 250 6.7 7 6.4 100 10.8
0.75 0.5 75 3.2 375 10.1 10.5 2.8 150 14
1 (good) 0 85 4.1 500 12.5 14 0 200 12.8
97 6
100 8

NOJ AOJ S&S NOWZ DOW

Zone Rating (R11) Zone Rating (R12) Zone Rating (R13) Zone Rating (R14) Zone (m) Rating (R15)

0 10 0 (smooth) 0 Mild 5.5 Single 3 <250 2.5

1 8 0.25 2.3 Heavy 0 Multiple 0 250e400 2
2 5.9 0.5 3.2 400e600 1
3 1.9 0.75 3.9 >600 0
4 0 1 (rough) 4.5

Note: Parameters ranging from 0 to 1 indicate value of parameter from worst to best with intermediate steps.

Table 10
Groundwater guidelines.
The value of adjusted GRMR can be used to classify rocks into
Water seepage rate (mL/min) GWP (MPa) Scale five classes, which are the same as that observed in the existing
Dry e 0 systems. The basis for classification method of adjusted GRMR is
0e20 0.1e0.25 0.25 the rock load values. In this method, for each GRMR value (in the
20e200 0.25e0.5 0.5 range of 0e100), the rock load value is calculated using the nu-
200e2000 0.5e1 0.75 merical approach discussed in Section 3.6. Using this rock load, the
>2000 >1 1
RMR values and the corresponding rock mass classes are calculated
by B-RMR, NGI-Q and CMRI-RMR systems. One hundred different
RMR values are considered. By analyzing the classes obtained by B-
Then, corresponding rating can be selected and called as R1, R2, ., RMR, NGI-Q and CMRI-RMR methods (which are almost similar),
R15. The final value of GRMR can be calculated by five classes of rock masses in GRMR system are determined, as
given in Table 12.
GRMR ¼ R1 þ R2 þ / þ R15 (11)
As such in GRMR method, most of the rock information is 3.6. Rock load calculation
considered in terms of 15 parameters presented in Table 1. But sta-
bility of underground excavations also depends on the method of The formation of new techniques and equations in spite of
rock excavation. With blasting, heavy external stress caused insta- having old ones is always an attempt to obtain better results. In this
bility occurs. The adjustment factor (k1) has been suggested to ac- section, rock load calculation is underlined. There are bunch of
count for excavation method (presented in Table 11). The further equations available to calculate rock load. However, the available
part of the paper will take adjusted GRMR and will be simply written equations fail to consider all rock parameters in rock load calcula-
as GRMR. Using adjustment factor, k, the RMR is corrected as follows: tion. The rock load estimation is of prime importance for designing
support in underground mining. In rock masses, it is also a function
GRMRadjusted ¼ ðGRMRÞk (12) of rock quality and rock density. The rock load equation is consid-
ered in the following form:

PGRMR ¼ BDðc1 GRMRn þ c2 GRMR þ c3 Þ (13)

Table 11 where c1, c2, c3 and n are the unknown constants.

Adjustment factors in GRMR.
Method of rock excavation
Continuous miners
Blasting with undercut
Solid blasting
To find out the above four unknowns, it requires some kind of
Adjustment factor (k) Remark rock load basis. As mentioned earlier, the rock load equations
suggested by the B-RMR, NGI-Q and CMRI-RMR methods were
1.1 10% addition
1 No correction considered as the basis. The huge computational datasets have
0.9 10% reduction been generated to calculate rock parameter values and corre-
sponding rock load can be obtained by
112 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116

Table 12
Rock classification using GRMR.
Adjusted GRMR Class Description
0e20 1 Very poor
20e50 2 Poor
50e75 3 Fair
75e95 4 Good
95e100 5 Very good
 
Pavg ¼ xr PBRMR þ xq PNGIQ þ xc PCMRIRMR
where PB-RMR, PNGI-Q and PCMRI-RMR are the rock loads calculated by
Eqs. (2), (5) and (8), respectively; xr, xq and xc represent the relative
weights comparing to base methods B-RMR, NGI-Q and CMRI-RMR,
respectively. The following two approaches were suggested for
assigning the values of weight factors xr, xq and xc.
(1) Approach 1
In this approach, a large number of training datasets
(N ¼ 3.5  107) of rock parameters are considered. The rock load is
calculated for each training dataset using three base RMR methods (B-
RMR, NGI-Q and CMRI-RMR). Then, a combined rock load (Pavg) which
is equivalent to PGRMR is calculated by taking a simple average of the
rock loads obtained using the three base RMR methods. That means
the values of xf, xq and xc become 1/3. Based on these Pavg values
corresponding to different training sets, the values of unknown pa-
rameters (c1, c2, c3 and n) of Eq. (13) are found out through appropriate
fitting by solving the corresponding optimization problem.
(2) Approach 2
The second approach primarily considers the rock conditions
where the parameters of all base RMR methods are unlikely to be
presented. In this approach, there are two tasks for developing rock
load equation for the GRMR system. The same training datasets
The second task is to take into account the dependence of rock
load on individual datasets and it is called dynamic criterion. It was
found that, in certain conditions, the method which includes less
number of parameters (or rated less in GRMR) can also have a
higher influence on rock load, if the parameters associated with it
have more dominance comparing to other methods. Under such
situations, it is necessary to weight such system more comparing to
other systems. This depends on individual dataset (on rock field)
irrespective of method and its importance in GRMR. A simple sta-
tistics is given below to accomplish this task. The x values can be
determined by the following equations:
(14)
 
dr
xr ¼ 3fr (16)
d
 
dq
xq ¼ 3fq (17)
d
 
dc
xc ¼ 3fc (18)
d
where dr ¼ Grmax =Gr ; dq ¼ Gqmax =Gq ; dc ¼ Gcmax =Gc ; d ¼ dr þ
dq þ dc ; and Gr, Gq and Gc are the sums of actual GRMR ratings
found for the rock parameters associated with B-RMR, NGI-Q and
CMRI-RMR, respectively, in any given dataset. By substituting the
values of xr, xq and xc in Eq. (14), Pavg which is equivalent to PGRMR is
calculated. Similar to Approach 1, the values of unknown parame-
ters (c1, c2, c3 and n) of Eq. (13) are obtained through an appropriate
fitting.
The problem of appropriate fitting to find the unknown pa-
rameters in Eq. (13) is basically an optimization problem which is
defined as follows:

1 X
N
PGRMR_actual  PGRMR_calculated ðc1 ; c2 ; c3 ; nÞ
Minimization of average error ¼  100% (19)
N 1 PGRMR_actual

used in Approach 1 are considered in Approach 2. where PGRMR_actual and PGRMR_calculated are the rock loads found
The first task is to consider the dependence of rock load on the based on Approach 1 or 2 and optimization process, respectively.
base methods, and the importance in GRMR system. To this end, a Genetic algorithm (GA) (Goldberg, 1989) which is a search and
factor, f, is calculated for each base method. Since the value of f re- optimization technique mimics the principle of natural selection
mains the same for all rock datasets, it is called static criterion. The and natural genetics to find the best solution for a specific problem.
values of static criterion factors, fr, fq and fc for the base RMR methods GA is used here to solve the presented optimization problem. GA
B-RMR, NGI-Q and CMRI-RMR, are respectively calculated as follows: operates on a population of feasible solutions by applying the
principle of survival of the fittest to produce better approximations
to a solution. At each generation, a new set of approximations is
9 created by the process of selecting individuals according to their
Grmax >
>
fr ¼ >
> level of fitness in the problem domain and breeding them together
Grmax þ Gqmax þ Gcmax >
>
>
> using operators borrowed from natural genetics. This process leads
>
=
Gqmax to the evolution of populations of individuals that are better suited
fq ¼ (15)
Grmax þ Gqmax þ Gcmax >
> to their environment than the individuals that they were created
>
>
>
> from, just as in natural adaptation. Various GA variables, such as
Gcmax >
>
fc ¼ >
; population size, chromosome length, number of generations in
G þG
rmax þG
qmax cmax
each run, crossover probability and mutation probabilities, are
considered as 30, 20, 30, 0.9 and 0.01, respectively. The gallery
where Grmax, Gqmax and Gcmax are the sums of the maximum ratings
width (B) and rock density (D) were taken as 4.5 m and 2290 kg/m3,
from GRMR table (Table 9) for rock parameters associated with the B-
respectively.
RMR, NGI-Q and CMRI-RMR, respectively. Among the three base RMR
The feasible solution for Approach 1 is obtained with GA-fitness
methods, NGI-Q system considers the highest number of parameters
value (average error) of 30.232% and the rock load equation for
and also has a greater importance (fq ¼ 0.449) in GRMR, followed by
GRMR is expressed by
CMRI-RMR system (fc ¼ 0.326) and B-RMR system (fr ¼ 0.225).
 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116 113

Table 13 understanding about GRMR system behavior. From Table 13, it is

Comparative results of GRMR with other methods. observed that the rock class and rock load obtained from GRMR
RMR classification system RMR value Description Rock load (kPa) method have a slight variation from the results found in the
B-RMR 57 Fair 44.31
existing RMR methods. However, by simultaneous comparisons
NGI-Q 3.75 Poor 28.6 with all methods, the value of rock load in GRMR is found quite
CMRI-RMR 58 Fair 23.3717 reasonable and acceptable.
GRMR 72 Fair 30.74 A study has been carried out for comparison of GRMR method
with the existing RMR methods using Indian coal mine data. Pri-
 marily, data are collected from three mine sites located in different
PGRMR ¼ BD 0:0000574656GRMR2:01162  0:0187552GRMR places of India, i.e. Jhamuria, Jarangdih and Maheshpur. For three
 case studies, the values of RMR, type of rock and corresponding
þ 1:32665 rock loads obtained using different RMR systems are presented in
(20) Table 14.
In the first case study, various rock parameters were measured
Analogous to Approach 1, the solution for Approach 2 is ob- at Central Jhamuria (ECL) coal mine site and it was found to be weak
tained with 34.9631% GA-fitness and the corresponding rock load rock site. Though excavation on this site is comparatively easy,
equation is expressed as support load will be very high and needs special attention for
 recommendation of support. First of all, it should be understood
PGRMR ¼ BD 0:000047577GRMR2:0104  0:0185343GRMR that RMR values cannot have direct comparison, due to hypothet-
 ical ratings assigned to individual rock properties by inventor of the
þ 1:37492 technique. Also, there is no any standard scale of results available
(21) for validation of RMR system. But irrespective of method, rock load
should be unique for a particular site and thus, it can have some
4. Comparative analysis of GRMR with other methods sense of comparison. In the first case study, the rock load predicted
by GRMR method is found to lie in between the rock loads evalu-
Initially, the proposed GRMR was tested for randomly generated ated by rest of the RMR methods, and it is very closer to their
rock data. The rock mass is considered to have the following average value. The second case study was carried out using data
properties: UCS ¼ 200 MPa; RQD ¼ 40%; SOD ¼ 1500 mm with collected at Jarangdih (CCL) coal mine which was found to be good-
slightly rough condition, favorable orientation and with frictional quality rock site. Rock load suggested by CMRI-RMR system is about
filler material; GWP ¼ 0.5 MPa; WD ¼ 97%; LT ¼ 500 mm; structural 8.36 kPa. But due to unfavorable orientation of discontinuities
index ¼ 11; stress ratio ¼ 100; two pairs of joints with no swelling, which is not included by CMRI-RMR method, the B-RMR system
no weakness zones and working depth of 200 m. The comparative predicts higher load of 23.7 kPa. Whereas in GRMR system
results of GRMR with other existing RMR system are presented in (Approach 2), rock load is found to be 23.148 kPa. In the third case
Table 13. In this table, the rock load in GRMR is calculated using Eq. study, the comparison was carried out based on the data at
(20). The width (B) and rock density (D) were taken as 4.5 m and Maheshpur (BCCL) coal mine where fair quality of rock mass was
2290 kg/m3, respectively. observed. The rock load in GRMR system (57.7 kPa) is found to be
The purpose of arbitrary data based comparison of GRMR sys- higher than that observed in B-RMR and CMRI-RMR, but lower than
tem with various approaches is to have a preliminary NGI-Q.

Table 14
Comparison of GRMR with other methods based on coal mines data.

Case study CMRI-RMR B-RMR NGI-Q GRMR

Case study #1 (Jhamuria (ECL) coal mine, India) RMR ¼ 24 RMR ¼ 35 Q¼1 RMR ¼ 41.9
At 100 m depth, UCS ¼ 12.6 MPa, RQD ¼ 15%, Poor rock Poor rock Poor rock Poor rock
smooth discontinuities with average spacing Rock load ¼ 97.6 kPa Rock load ¼ 67 kPa Rock load ¼ 47.1 kPa Rock load ¼ 70.6 kPa
of 4 m unfavorable orientation, low discharge
groundwater with 20 mL/min, structural index
found to be 19, SDI ¼ 77%, LT ¼ 3 cm, single set
of joints altered with low frictional material,
medium stress condition and multiple weakness
zones.
Case study #2 (Jarangdih (CCL) coal mine, India) RMR ¼ 71 RMR ¼ 77 Q ¼ 13.5 RMR ¼ 78.7
At 100 m depth, UCS ¼ 35 MPa, RQD ¼ 93%, rough Good rock Good rock Good rock Good rock
discontinuities with average spacing of 2 m Rock load ¼ 8.367 kPa Rock load ¼ 23.7 kPa Rock load ¼ 13 kPa Rock load ¼ 23.148 kPa
favorable orientation, low discharge groundwater
with 5 mL/min, structural index found to be
9, SDI ¼ 98.7%, LT ¼ 32 cm, single set of joints
altered with low frictional material, low stress
condition.
Case study #3 (Maheshpur (BCCL) coal mine, India) RMR ¼ 48 RMR ¼ 54 Q ¼ 2.046 RMR ¼ 50.9
At 275 m depth, UCS ¼ 29.4 MPa, RQD ¼ 93%, smooth Fair rock Fair rock Poor rock Fair rock
discontinuities with average spacing of 2 m Rock load ¼ 39.65 kPa Rock load ¼ 47.4 kPa Rock load ¼ 64.316 kPa Rock load ¼ 57.7 kPa
unfavorable orientation, low discharge
groundwater with 170 mL/min, structural index
found to be 15, SDI ¼ 98.7%, LT ¼ 11 cm, two sets
of joints altered with low frictional material,
high stress condition with mild swelling.
114 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116
5. ANN modeling of GRMR system
RMR systems are basically empirical and nonlinear in nature.
This is typically due to the shortage of data available in system
development. This makes systems discrete in a given range of input
parameter values (e.g. rating is 2 if working depth lies between 250
m and 400 m, and the depths of 250 m and 400 m are treated as the
same), which is really not a case in actual scenario. To make the
RMR system continuous, an attempt is made to develop a mathe-
matical model using data-driven modeling technique. The effec-
tiveness of ANN has been proved in modeling of such nonlinear
systems. Recently, ANN is widely used in the area of rock engi-
neering. Hong et al. (2017) used ANN to model geological strength
index (GSI) system. ANN is a biologically inspired system that
mimics the human nervous system. Similar to human brain, it
possesses a number of neurons connected together with weighted
connections (Homik et al., 1989). In this study, we used single
hidden layer network with ten neurons.
Various ANN variables (such as training-learning algorithms and
activation function) are selected based on a study conducted by
Khatik et al. (2017). The activation function, satlins (symmetric
saturating linear transfer function) whose output falls in
between 1 and 1 (for a given input vector, the output of activation
function turns to 1 when the function input is 1 or greater, and 1
when it is 1 or less), is used for both inputeoutput layer neurons
of ANN. The total data available (1.5  107 datasets, each dataset
contains 15 inputs (rock parameters) and 1 output (RMR value))
were randomly divided into two parts. Seventy percent data are
used for training the network, and 30% of data are used for testing
and validation of the network. The batch training was used with
Levenberg Marquardt back-propagation (trainlm) algorithm. Dur-
ing learning of ANN, the values of weight and bias of the network
are updated according to the learning rules which are defined by an
appropriate algorithm (Homik et al., 1989). Here, Learngd (gradient
descent weight/bias based learning function) with a constant
Fig. 3. ANN structure for modeling of GRMR method.
learning rate (0.01) was used to minimize error function. The error
function is mathematically represented as
xkþ1 ¼ xk  ak dk (22)
where xk is the vector of current weight and bias, dk is the current
gradient, and ak is the learning rate.
The final (trained) ANN structure and the corresponding
network weight-bias values are presented in Fig. 3 and Table 15,
respectively. In Fig. 3, the notations of network inputs correspond
to the rock parameters, as presented in Table 16. It is noted that the
sequence of inputs is different from that of Table 1. ILN, HLN and
OLN represent the input, hidden and output layer neurons,
respectively. The weight values are mentioned between two suc-
cessive layer neurons, e.g. 0.0694 is the weight between ILN1 and
HLN1 (1 represents the neuron number). BHL and BOL show the
bias values for hidden and output neurons, respectively. No bias is
used for input layer neurons.
Based on the network structure (Fig. 3) and weight and bias
values (Table 15), GRMR value can be determined directly for any
arbitrary values of 15 rock mass parameters (within the range
mentioned in Table 9). The ANN result is calculated by
8 " # 9
<X10 X
15   =
0
GRMR ¼ g g Wij xi Wj1 þ b21 (23)
: ;
j¼1 i¼0
where g is the satlins activation function; Wij and Wj10 are the
weight values between input-hidden and hidden-output layers,
respectively; W0j ¼ b1j and x0 ¼ 1.
The performance of GRMR model was observed for all rock
parameters. Two of them, UCS and RS, are plotted in Figs. 4 and 5,
respectively. We can see from Fig. 4 that GRMR predicted by ANN
model shows a linear relationship with UCS. For UCS between
75 MPa and 175 MPa, the GRMR predicted by ANN model is very
 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116 115

Table 15
Weight and bias values for ANN structure.

Neuron HLN1 HLN2 HLN3 HLN4 HLN5 HLN6 HLN7 HLN8 HLN9 HLN10 BOL

ILN1 0.0694 0.0742 0.0154 0.0151 0.0126 0.0176 0.0065 1.4111 0.0048 0.0007
ILN2 0.0003 0.0002 0.0001 0 0.0001 0.5738 0.2644 0.0125 0.0008 0
ILN3 0.0001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9598 0.0001
ILN4 0.0244 0.0058 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0006 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
ILN5 0 0.0001 1.106 0.0001 0.0002 0.0626 0.0505 0.0535 0.0569 0.0518
ILN6 0.0905 0.0714 0.0991 0.0517 0.0589 0.0321 0.0264 0.0624 0.0277 0.1244
ILN7 0.2018 2.3469 0.0118 0.0573 0.0622 0.0403 3.5223 0.0147 0.0077 0.0007
ILN8 0.0006 0.0004 0 0.0001 0 0.0775 0.0421 0.0019 0.0004 0.0002
ILN9 0.0001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0001 0 1.6735
ILN10 0.0013 0.0012 0.0001 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0001 0.0002 1.9995 0
ILN11 0 0 0 0 0.0001 0.0288 0.079 0.0575 0.0044 0.0142
ILN12 0.8456 0.0003 0.0046 0.0005 0.0001 0 0.0003 0 0 0.0002
ILN13 0.1811 0.1414 0.0525 0.0056 0.7098 0.0014 0.0006 0.0006 0 0
ILN14 0 0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.1647 0.2011 0.0344 1.5136 0.0637
ILN15 0.0343 0.0197 0.0022 0.002 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0008 0.0039 0.0016
OLN1 0.0303 0.0057 0.0624 1.0447 0.0022 0.0143 0.1972 0.0788 0.3723 0.043 0.2428
BHL 1.1909 0.7221 1.2639 0.0217 1.9942 1.2146 0.5007 0.6497 1.7888 1.0399

Table 16 65
Notations for ANN inputs corresponding to rock parameters.

Notation Description Notation Description 60

x1 UCS x9 RS
x2 RQD x10 S&S 55

GRMR
x3 SOD x11 NOWZ
x4 COD x12 DOW GRMR by method
50
x5 WD x13 NOJ GRMR by ANN model
x6 AOJ x14 OOD
x7 GWP x15 LT 45
x8 SF
40
0 50 100 150 200
Rock stress factor
similar to that of proposed method. In Fig. 5, the rock stress factor
up to 150 (inversely proportional to rock stresses) increases GRMR Fig. 5. Variations of GRMR with rock stress factor.
and then reduces for both proposed method and ANN model.
Similar study was also conducted considering other rock parame-
ters, and the model predictions were found very close to the the 15 parameters are sensitive, then the second equation (Eq. (21))
analytical method of GRMR (with accuracy of 85%e95%). can be used. The accuracy of the proposed method can be further
improved by adding a number of case studies. An ANN-based semi-
empirical model is developed for the GRMR method. The ANN
6. Conclusions
model results are found to be very close to that of the analytical
GRMR predictions.
Based on the rock load analysis of three most commonly used
rock mass classification systems and with additional case histories,
a new GRMR is presented. The GRMR system takes into account the
Conflicts of interest
effects of 15 rock parameters, and the order of importance of these
parameters is decided from their sensitivities to rock load.
The authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
Consideration of more number of parameters makes the system
interest associated with this publication and there has been no
more reliable. Two equations have been suggested to find the rock
significant financial support for this work that could have influ-
load in GRMR system, in which the first one (Eq. (20)) should be
enced its outcome.
used when all 15 rock parameters have influence; whereas, if few of

68 Acknowledgement

65
This work is an outcome of the Network project (Project No.
62 ESC0303) of CSIR, New Delhi, India. The authors also wish to thank
Mr. Leeladhar Rajput of Industrial and Production Engineering
GRMR

59 Department, Institute of Technology, Guru Ghasidas University,

GRMR by method
Bilaspur and Prof. Harish Hirani, Director of CSIR-Central Mechan-
56
GRMR by ANN model ical Engineering Research Institute, Durgapur for their constant
53 support and encouragement for this work. Authors are also
thankful to scientists of CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel
50
0 50 100 150 200 250
Research, India for providing real coal mine data to carry out the
UCS (MPa)
validation work of the proposed GRMR system. The authors are
thankful to the reviewers and editor for their valuable suggestions
Fig. 4. Variations of GRMR with UCS. to improve the quality of the paper.
116 V.M. Khatik, A.K. Nandi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 102e116

References Palmstron A, Broch E. Use and misuse of rock mass classification systems with
particular reference to the Q-system. Tunnels and Underground Space Tech-
nology 2006;21(6):575e93.
Akin M. Slope stability problems and back analysis in heavily jointed rock mass: a
Panthee S, Singh PK, Kainthola A, Singh TN. Control of rock joint parameters on
case study from Manisa, Turkey. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
deformation of tunnel opening. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
2013;46(2):359e71.
Engineering 2016;8(4):489e98.
Aksoy CO. Review of rock mass rating classification: historical developments, ap-
Paul A, Murthy VMSR, Singh AK. Rock load estimation in development galleries and
plications, and restrictions. Journal of Mining Science 2008;44(1):51e63.
junctions for underground coal mines: a CMRI-ISM rock mass rating approach.
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J. Engineering classification of rock masses for design of
Journal of Mining 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/618719.
tunnel support. Rock Mechanics 1974;6(4):189e236.
Sen Z, Sadagah BH. Modified rock mass classification system by continuous rating.
Bieniawski ZT. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Transaction of
Engineering Geology 2003;67(3/4):269e80.
South African Institution of Civil Engineering 1973;15(12):335e44.
Venkateswarlu V, Ghose AK, Raju NM. Rock mass classification for design of roof
Bieniawski ZT. Estimating the strength of rock materials. Journal of the South Af-
support e a statistical evaluation of parameters. Mining Science and Technol-
rican Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 1974;3:312e20.
ogy 1989;8(2):97e107.
Bieniawski ZT. Rock mechanics design in mining and tunneling. Rotterdam: A.A.
Zhang L. Determination and applications of rock quality designation (RQD). Journal
Balkema; 1984.
of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2016;8(3):389e97.
Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classifications: a complete manual for Engi-
neers and Geologists in Mining, Civil and Petroleum Engineering. Wiley; 1989.
Bieniawski ZT. Classification of rock masses for engineering: the RMR system and
future trends. In: Hudson JA, editor. Comprehensive Rock Engineering, vol. 3.
New York: Pergamon Press; 1993. p. 553e73.
Central Mining Research Institute (CMRI). Geomechanical classification of roof
rocks vis-à-vis roof supports. S&T Project Report. Dhanbad, India: CMRI; 1987.
Vitthal M. Khatik is currently a PhD student at Compliant
Deere DU. Technical description of rock cores. Rock Mechanics and Engineering
and Robotic Systems (CARS) laboratory, Indian Institute of
Geology 1964;1:16e22.
Technology, Kanpur. He obtained his Bachelors in Me-
Deere DU, Hendron AJ, Patton FD, Cording EJ. Design of surface and near surface
chanical Engineering from Savitribai Phule Pune University
construction in rock. In: Failure and breakage of rock. Of the 8th US Symposium
in 2015 and Master degree in Mechanical Design from
on Rock Mechanics. American Rock Mechanics Association; 1967. p. 237e302.
Bilaspur Central University (G.G.V.) in 2017. He was a
Goldberg DE. Genetic algorithms for search, optimization, and machine learning.
research student with Dr. Arup Kr. Nandi (MTech thesis
Reading, MA, USA: Addision-Wesley; 1989.
supervisor) at CSIR-Central Mechanical Engineering
Homik K, Stinchcombe M, White H. Multilayer feed forward networks are universal
Research Institute, Durgapur in the Network project (Proj-
approximators. Neural Networks 1989;2(5):359e66.
ect No. ESC0303) of CSIR, New Delhi, India. His research in-
Hong K, Han E, Kang K. Determination of geological strength index of jointed rock
terests include geotechnical rock mass classification
mass based on image processing. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
systems (RMR) formulations and applications in under-
Engineering 2017;9(4):702e8.
ground structure designs, soft computing, machine
Hudson JA, Harris JP. Engineering rock mechanics. Elsevier; 1997.
learning using ANN, GA, fuzzy logic and design of robotic
Khatik VM, Rajput L, Nandi AK. A study on finding optimal ANN model for rock mass
soft hand exoskeletons for rehabilitations.
classification. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Next Generation
Mining & Fuel Research; 2017. p. 565e74. Arup Kr. Nandi is currently a principal scientist at CSIR-
Li X, Gong F, Tao M, Dong L, Du K, Ma C, Zhou Z, Yin T. Failure mechanism and Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, Durga-
coupled static-dynamic loading theory in deep hard rock mining: a review. pur, India. His main research focuses on the area of artifi-
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2017;9(4):767e82. cial intelligence (fuzzy logic, neural network, evolutionary
Mis
cevi
c P, Vlastelica G. Impact of weathering on slope stability in soft rock mass. algorithms) and its application to manufacturing and engi-
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2014;6(3):240e50. neering design. He has published more than 35 articles in
National Institute of Rock Mechanics (NIRM). Annual report (2008e09). NIRM, various refereed international journals and presented
Ministry of mines. Government of India; 2008. more than 24 papers in national and international confer-
Noorian Bidgoli M, Zhao ZH, Jing L. Numerical evaluation of strength and deform- ences. He obtained various national and international
ability of fractured rocks. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engi- awards (such as DAAD, BOYSCAST, and IUSSTF).
neering 2013;5(6):419e30.
Palmstrom A. Comparing the RMR, Q and RMi classification systems. 2008. http://
www.rockmass.net.