Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2018) 11:344

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3696-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

Interpretation of variability of rock mass rating by geostatistical analysis:

a case study in Western Turkey
H. Ozturk 1 & M. Erkayaoglu 1

Received: 17 November 2017 / Accepted: 18 June 2018

# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Abstract
Geotechnical interpretation of drillholes for rock mass characterization is commonly based on the engineering judgment. This
might result in misrepresentation of the rock mass at unsampled locations. This paper investigates the reproducibility of the
spatial variability of rock mass quality (rock mass rating, RMR) using geostatistics. Geotechnical data from an exploratory phase
mining project in Western Turkey that covers 2.7 km depth with a total of 14 drillholes composed of 700 samples was used to
perform a geostatistical analysis. RMR values of positions, where geotechnical logging was missing, were estimated by applying
inverse distance weighting (IDW) and the ordinary kriging (OK) methods. The validation process showed that the OK method is
consistently estimating the RMR values better than IDW. The spatial variability of RMR values by geostatistical analysis could
provide valuable information in the design and development of underground or surface structures.

Keywords Geostatistics . Inverse distance weighting . IDW . Ordinary kriging . OK . Mining . RMR

Introduction 1994; Brady et al. 2005), stand-up times of unsupported exca-

Feasibility and preliminary design stages of mining and civil
engineering projects commonly benefit from following rock
mass classifications, especially when the geomechanical prop-
erties of the rock mass and its stress characteristics are limited.
There are various rock mass classifications that are commonly
used to represent a rock mass according to composition and
other characteristics, to conduct preliminary evaluations about
support requirements, and to estimate the strength and defor-
mation characteristics of the rock mass for either surface- or
underground-related projects such as, slopes, tunnels, mines,
caverns, and foundations.
The rock mass rating (RMR) (Bieniawski 1989) is com-
monly used in projects during their design and implementation
by assessing geomechanical attributes and stability conditions.
A detailed literature review of classification systems can be
found at Gokceoglu and Aksoy (2000). RMR has been used
to compile the stable spans of unsupported excavations (Lang
* H. Ozturk
ozhasan@metu.edu.tr
1
Department of Mining Engineering, Middle East Technical
University, Ankara, Turkey
vations, ground support conditions of various spans
(Bieniawski 1989), mine pillar design (Esterhuizen 2006),
cavability of a rock mass (Laubscher 1990), stable pit slope
angles (Duran and Douglas 2000), and the determination of the
deformation modulus for various design applications (Aydan et
al. 2014). A complete list of direct relations between RMR and
geomechanical properties (deformation modulus, cohesion, in-
ternal friction angle, uniaxial compressive strength, and
Poisson’s ratio) of rock mass can be found in Aydan et al.
2014. Rock mass characteristics were further investigated by
Yasrebi et al. (2014) that proposed density–volume fractal
model and Yasrebi et al. (2013) that used the RQD-Number
(RQD-N-S) and RQD-Volume (RQD-V) fractal models to in-
vestigate and delineate various RQD populations. Rock mass
classifications should be utilized with care and should only be
applied with a thorough understanding of the design procedure.
RMR is defined by the six parameters given as follows:
rock quality designation (RQD), compressive strength of the
intact rock material (UCS), spacing and condition of discon-
tinuities, groundwater conditions, and an adjustment for dis-
continuity orientation. In this study, basic RMR is used by
summing the first five inputs. Bieniawski included an adjust-
ment for the orientation of predominant discontinuity sets rel-
ative to the orientation of the tunnel drive. At this stage of the
current project, adjustment for discontinuity orientation was
344 Page 2 of 13
ignored as development excavation (ramps, crosscuts, drifts,
etc.,) orientations would vary and were unknown at this stage.
Q-system (Barton et al. 1974), another very popular empirical
rock mass classification system, performs well also in very
poor rock masses. Because of the existing in-house RMR
database of the project, RMR was preferred in the analysis.
The rock mass is separated into domains by their structure
and classified separately. It is a commonly observed condition
that these structural domains occur together with major discon-
tinuities such as faults or variation in lithology. Considerable
changes in discontinuity characteristics such as spacing ob-
served in the samples taken to represent a rock type might
indicate that separating the rock mass into structural
subdomains is required. In preliminary studies, because of time
and cost reasons, it is a custom procedure to execute a drilling
project to determine RMR and geomechanical properties,
which provide punctual information in few representative
areas. This deterministic approach is limited as the spatial var-
iance of rock mass properties are neglected even if the RMR
values and geomechanical properties determined from labora-
tory testing or field studies exhibit high variance and uncertain-
ty. Design engineers commonly utilize randomly selected fac-
tor of safety values or coefficients for the reduction of strength
properties to deal with this uncertainty. The variance and un-
certainty is still not commonly integrated in the design stage of
rock mechanics engineering projects. Hence, the accurate rep-
resentation of the spatial variability of the geomechanical de-
sign parameters of project locations is crucial.
This paper investigates the reproducibility of the variance
of RMR having a spatial meaning using geostatistics.
Geotechnical data from 14 drillholes of an exploratory phase
for a mining project were used to execute a geostatistical anal-
ysis. Inverse distance weighting (IDW) and the ordinary
kriging (OK) (Matheron 1971) estimation methods were ap-
plied to estimate RMR values of areas that missed sampling.
The comparison of different geostatistical methods has also
been commonly studied for reserve estimation of different
ores (Shahbeik et al. 2014; Daya and Bejari 2015). Although
the methods implemented are the same, the estimation of re-
serves and RMR values have inherent differences. Therefore,
common approaches that are suggested for certain ore types
were not followed in this study.
In literature, geostatistics has a wide application area in rock
mass characterization for engineering projects. Hoerger and
Young (1987) approached the geotechnical design process by
utilizing geostatistics for the local estimation of rock mass con-
ditions that are commonly used as inputs. Syrjänen and Lovén
(2003) used geostatistics and concluded that parameters used
in geomechanical studies could be estimated by geostatistical
interpolation based on data collected on site. Another study
was conducted on RQD values by Einstein (2003) by
implementing geostatistics for estimation. Stavropoulou et al.
(2007) also used kriging to represent the spatial variability of
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:344
RMR around tunnels. Tripathi et al. (2015) characterized spa-
tial variability of soil properties by using kriging and concluded
that geostatistical methods could be utilized for high-risk areas.
Researchers estimated the RMR values by using various
geostatistical analysis methods (Oh et al. 2004; You and Lee
2006; Stavropoulou et al. 2007; Exadaktylos and Stavropoulou
2008; Exadaktylos et al. 2008; Choi et al. 2009;
Kaewkongkaew et al. 2011; Egaña and Ortiz 2013; Ferrari et
al. 2014; Pinheiro et al. 2016). The novelty of this research is
the field study that covered geotechnical logging of over 700
samples from different depths. This way, RMR values were not
limited to a geospatial representation by only X and Y direc-
tions, but also in the Z direction. Drillhole data is a widely used
source of information for the kriging method and RMR values
are commonly allocated to a variable with spatial meaning
rather than a parameter consisting of the total of different var-
iables (Ferrari et al. 2014; Wang and Zhu 2016). The collected
data for this study has the benefit of covering a depth over
2.7 km that was investigated in all directions. The approach
of estimating RMR values for the 3D block model by iterative
passes also enhanced the accuracy of estimation overall.
Kriging has also been utilized for creating maps of seismic
and gravity data (Djebbi and Gabtni 2015).
Material and methods
The project is located in North west Turkey and is an
epithermal gold deposit hosted within Upper Cretaceous
phyllite and schist. The host rocks are locally silicified to
hornfels and moderately dipping faults that are exploited by
epithermal veins are present (Fig. 1).
Mineralogy of the vein can be considered as a variable but
primarily consists of quartz, rhodonite, and sulfide assem-
blages including pyrite, galena, chalcopyrite, and sphalerite.
The structure-controlled gold vein strikes northwest-southeast
and moderately dips northeast. The vein marks the boundary
between phyllites and hornfels whereas fracture zones domi-
nated by rhyolite also exist without any relation to the gold
mineralization.
Geotechnical data collection
A total 700 domains from 14 diamond core drilling were
logged geotechnically in the project (Fig. 2). The data aids
design engineers in the decision making process of ground
support alternatives and the sizing of excavations opened in
a rock mass that can be operated under safe and economic
conditions.
Geotechnical core logging is a process of recording phys-
ical properties of rock core in terms of graphic log, written
description, and numerical values for the purpose of
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:344 Page 3 of 13 344

Fig. 1 Geological map of the area

(modified from MTA 2002)

Phyllite Quaternary
alluvium

Hornfels
Neogene

Serpentine
Pre-Neogene
basement
Rhyolite

Miocene
Ore vein

geological engineering. There are a number of reasons to per-
form geotechnical core logging:
& To describe and assess the material to develop engineering
design parameters.
& To aid in the prediction of the behavior of a rock mass.
There are various systems available for the classification of
rock mass that utilize certain geotechnical properties. The fol-
lowing geomechanical properties are most often recorded
344 Page 4 of 13 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:344

Fig. 2 Plan view of drilling

during routine logging: rock type and hardness (strength), core study, multiple UCS laboratory tests for each domain were
recovery, RQD, fracture frequency, joint condition, degree of carried out.
weathering/alteration. The data may be tabulated on appropri- RQD is a quantity that is defined for the core recovery and is
ate recording forms and integrated in a spreadsheet format. determined by including only the length of core pieces that are
In the field study of this research, the rock mass was sepa- greater than 100 mm. RQD values are given as a percentage of
rated into structural domains and each domain was logged
individually recording the UCS and RQD values of the speci-
mens, discontinuity spacing and conditions such as,
weathering, persistence, aperture, roughness, infilling, and
existing groundwater conditions. The strength of the intact core
(UCS) is commonly estimated on site by using a pocket-knife
and a geological hammer. Direct measurements can be per-
formed by point-load testing of the drill core or samples may
be taken for intact laboratory strength determination. For this Fig. 3 Typical domains in a core box
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:344 Page 5 of 13 344

It should be noted that a geotechnical domain may not

Fig. 4 Shear zone domain
the length of the holes drilled in the unit/domain under obser-
vation. Cores with lengths less than 100 mm are ignored.
For discontinuity spacing, the possible distributions of dis-
continuity spacing along a straight line through a rock mass
are considered and rated accordingly, far spaced ones being in
favor of rating. Ratings for condition of discontinuities are
represented by parameters such as aperture, joint surface
weathering and alteration, persistence, roughness, and pres-
ence of infilling. Groundwater condition is another parameter
that is allocated to the rock mass to represent the flow in the
excavation for stability purposes. For this project, dry condi-
tions were assumed based on the in-house groundwater mea-
surement database of the project.
A rock mass domain is an area where the rock types, rock
strength, and discontinuity patterns are similar. In this context,
a geotechnical domain may range from a few meters (Fig. 3),
or extend more than hundreds of meters.
The full extent of the rock mass exposure should be exam-
ined for consistency. Each domain should be described sepa-
rately on the basis of different strength and discontinuity pat-
terns. This exercise should be performed in addition to the
normal lithological mapping of the rock types and should be
recorded on the same log.
be co-incident with the lithological contacts. If a structural
pattern, (i.e., a pattern of similar jointing), crosses over two
rock types which possess different mechanical properties,
(i.e., compressive strength), then this will define two sep-
arate geotechnical domains for design purposes. Major
structures may form the boundaries of domains, or if they
are extensive, such as a shear or fault zone, they may form
a separate domain (Fig. 4).
An extensive geotechnical core logging and laboratory test-
ing program have been carried out for the project. A total of
700 domains from 14 drillholes have been logged for RMR
classification. The frequency values of the collected parame-
ters are listed below (Table 1).
Almost half of the RQD data is within the range of 75–
100% and approximately 60% of the intervals are under
100 MPa regarding the strength parameter represented by
UCS (MPa). Majority of the discontinuities are unweathered,
slightly rough, and have no filling material. Half of the inter-
vals were rated to have a discontinuity spacing less than 6 cm.
It should be noted that in underground hard rock mining,
especially at deep levels, rock mass weathering and the influ-
ence of water usually are not significant and may be ignored.
Therefore, dry climatic conditions were considered during
discontinuity weathering.
After the on-site data collection is complete, data pro-
cessing and analysis is performed to gain information for
decision making and for the interpretation of results. The
descriptive statistics of the RMR and RQD values are sum-
marized in Table 2.
The RMR and RQD values had a mean of 52.8 and 76.2,
respectively. In order to investigate whether the RMR values

Table 1 Details of collected parameters for RMR logging

RQD (%) 0–25 (%) 25–50 (%) 50–75 (%) 75–100 (%)
31% 9% 11% 49%
UCS (MPa) 1–50 (MPa) 51–100 (MPa) 101–150 (MPa) 151–250 (MPa)
40% 21% 5% 34%
Discontinuity condition
- Weathering Highly weathered Moderately weathered Slightly weathered Unweathered
3% 7% 23% 67%
- Persistence 3–10 m
% 100
- Roughness Slickensided Smooth Slightly rough Rough Very rough
14% 16% 43% 12% 15%
- Aperture None
% 100
- Filling Soft filling > 5 mm Hard filling < 5 mm Hard filling > 5 mm None
16% 16% 4% 64%
Discontinuity spacing >2 m 0.6–2 m 20–60 cm 6–20 cm < 6 cm
3% 12% 17% 18% 50%
344 Page 6 of 13 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:344

Table 2 Descriptive with over 700 samples. After analyzing the RMR sample
statistics of RMR and RMR RQD
length statistics, samples were composed to a 1.5-m length
RQD values
Mean 52.8 76.2 based on the most frequently observed logging interval.
Standard error 0.82 1.38 RMR values taken from the logged core file vary between 18
Median 55 89.2 and 85, the mean value of the data set was 53, and the standard
Mode 71 100 deviation was found as 18. As seen in Fig. 6, the histogram of
Standard deviation 17.7 28.4 RMR values from the composite data was considered to follow
Sample variance 312.7 804.9 a normal distribution by preliminary analysis, having skewness
Kurtosis − 1.04 − 0.35 and kurtosis close to − 0.47 and − 0.65, respectively.
Skewness − 0.19 − 1.02 The RMR values of the drillhole composites were tested
Range 67 95.2 for normality, as the geostatistical analysis is considered more
Minimum 18 5 accurate for data sets that follow a Gaussian distribution. The
Maximum 85 100 normality test implemented in this study is based on a one-
sample hypothesis test where the null hypothesis states that
the data set is normally distributed. The Anderson-Darling test
were following a normal distribution, further statistical tests is a commonly implemented method for checking normality
were performed. Figure 5 represents the distribution of RMR and compares the cumulative distribution functions of the data
values that are calculated for different rock domains. set and an expected cumulative distribution function when the
A histogram of the RMR values of the geotechnically logged data follows a normal distribution (Anderson and Darling
drillholes utilized in this study was prepared and indicated that a 1954). Figure 7 represents the normality test for the RMR
normal distribution could not be detected. In order to estimate values taken from the geotechnically logged drillholes.
RMR values, the data was analyzed by geostatistical methods. The normality test conducted in Minitab software (Minitab
2013) using the RMR values of the drillholes indicated that
the data set was not normally distributed. The data points at
Geostatistical analysis the minimum and maximum ranges are expected to indicate a
non-normality; however, after removing these outliers, the
Geostatistics provides a methodology for the representation of data could still not be represented by a normal distribution.
spatial continuity, a fundamental characteristic that is benefi- Since majority of geostatistical calculations are considered
cial in various engineering applications, and assists statistical more reliable in case the target variable follows a standard
analysis tools. The geostatistical analysis in this study is based Gaussian distribution, the verification of the normality was
on the objective to reproduce the RMR values over the project considered as important and a data transformation was inves-
location that lays over 2 km2 by using data collected from tigated for applicability. The transformation of data is benefi-
diamond drillhole loggings. The methodology followed in this cial as extreme values are suppressed. Furthermore, systemat-
research covers the analysis of spatially meaningful data with ic trends within the data should preferably be eliminated prior
RMR values as inputs, semi-variogram modeling, estimation to the transformation and the semi-variogram calculation.
of RMR data, and validation of the results. Johnson transformation was implemented in Minitab
Firstly, RMR values were investigated for the descriptive (Minitab 2013) so that RMR values to be used in the kriging
statistics. RMR was evaluated in 14 different drillhole locations application could be represented by a normal distribution. The

Fig. 5 Histogram of RMR values 40%

from lithology data
35%

30% Vein

25%
Frequency

20%
Phyllite
15%

10%

5%
Hornfels
0%
0-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-100
RMR
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:344 Page 7 of 13 344

Fig. 6 Histogram of RMR values 50%

from composite data 45%
40%
35%
30%

Frequency
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100
RMR

transformation is based on 3 different families of Johnson The selection of a theoretical model to represent the distri-
distribution given as follows (Johnson 1949), bution of data is an optional procedure in estimation. The
probability plot is commonly investigated to find linearity
ðx−ϵÞ
Unbounded system ¼ y ¼ γ þ ηsin−1 ð1Þ for accurate estimations although non-linearity might also lead
λ
to the implementation of distribution-based approaches with
ðx−ϵ Þ low error margins. The theoretical basis of some statistical
Bounded system ¼ y ¼ γ þ ηlog ð2Þ
ðλ þ ϵ−xÞ methods depends more extensively on probability distribu-
ðx−ϵ Þ tions assumptions. Estimation tools that rely on normality of
Log−normal system ¼ y ¼ γ þ ηlog ð3Þ the variables might still be beneficial for the case of non-
ðλÞ
normal distributed data (Isaaks and Srivastava 1989).
where y, transformed value; γ, shape 1 parameter; η, shape 2 A normality test was used to verify that the transformed
parameter; ε, location parameter; and λ, scale parameter. RMR values followed a normal distribution by implementing

Fig. 7 Normality test of RMR values from raw lithology data

344 Page 8 of 13 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:344

Fig. 8 Normality test of transformed RMR values

a significance level of 5% in the Anderson-Darling test Variography

(Anderson and Darling 1954) as seen in Fig. 8.
The cumulative distribution function of the transformed
RMR values reached a significance level greater than 5%,
which indicates that the transformation was successful.
Although a normal distribution could not be observed when
the distribution of RMR values was investigated, a multi-
modal population was also not evident. The necessity to use
multiple thresholds prior to indicator kriging method was not
preferred as the RMR values could not distinctively be sepa-
rated into different populations; therefore, RMR values were
first normalized, and then estimated by using ordinary kriging.
As a result, the transformed RMR values that followed a nor-
mal distribution as seen in the histogram given in Fig. 9 were
prepared as input data for ordinary kriging.
The most commonly used approach for the evaluation of con-
tinuity of the spatial meaning of a regionalized variable is the
estimation of the semi-variogram (γ(h)) defined as the square
of the difference between pairs of the data points (z(xi) and the
value at (z (xi + h)) separated by a vector of h referred to as the
lag, as given by (Gringarten and Deutsch 2001; Journel 1988).
1 N ðhÞ
γ ð hÞ ¼ ∑ fzðxi Þ−zðxi þ hÞg2 ð4Þ
2N ðhÞ i¼1
The variogram was modeled in the geostatistics module of
Micromine software by utilizing the data that was subject to
Johnson transformation (Micromine 2016). Eighteen different

Fig. 9 Histogram of transformed 40%

RMR values 35%
30%
Frequency

25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
(-2.5) - (-1.5) (-1.5) - (-0.5) (-0.5) - 0.5 0.5 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.5
RMR
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:344 Page 9 of 13 344

1.4
Table 3 Variogram modeling parameters
1.2
Azimuth Plunge Sill Nugget effect
1.0
Semivariance (γ)

0.8 1st direction 330 66 0.36 0.1

0.6 2nd direction 330 − 24 0.36 0.1
0.4
3rd direction 60 5 0.36 0.1

0.2

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Lag distance (m)
Fig. 10 Omnidirectional variogram for RMR values
interval options were compared to model an omnidirectional
variogram. The parameters selected for this variogram were
used to determine the range value of the omnidirectional
variogram. The omnidirectional variogram given in Fig. 10
was modeled by analyzing the RMR values for potential cor-
relation with different scale parameters while anisotropy was
also factored in the model.
Omnidirectional variograms are commonly the initial stage
of the analysis of spatial continuity as extensive levels of
directional tolerance results in a model that considers any
separation geometry insignificant. As the aim of modeling
omnidirectional variograms is to determine distance-related
parameters, the influence of directions is neglected. Lag dis-
tance and tolerance were determined by comparing different
combinations that represent the same range. The omnidirec-
tional variogram modeled in Micromine software (Micromine
2016) is the basis of directional variogram calculations by
providing number of lags and lag distance.
Experimental variograms were constructed for all 3 direc-
tions by varying options of azimuth, dip, and plunge values.
The tolerance value used to model the directional variogram
was selected as half of the angle values. The maximum corre-
lation for the main direction was observed at an azimuth of
330° and is represented in Fig. 11.
The range of the spherical type semi-variogram was
modeled as 37 m and the partial sill value was used 0.35 with
300 350 a nugget effect of 0.1. The nugget effect can be considered as a
representation of sampling error on site or classification errors
related to the RMR classification process.
The second direction of the variogram was investigated by
fixing the azimuth angle accepted for the main direction and
comparing different plunge angles. The third direction of the
variogram was investigated for a similar behavior, and the
same range and partial sill values were selected.
The experimental variogram for estimation was modeled
by using the distance-related parameters modeled by the om-
nidirectional variogram and investigating the impact of azi-
muth, dip, and plunge angles. Table 3 summarizes the param-
eters that were used to model variograms.
The modeled variogram was used for 3D block model es-
timation by ordinary kriging (OK) and the estimation of RMR
values was compared to a block model calculated by inverse
distance weighting (IDW).
Results and discussion
To estimate the RMR in the whole domain, two different es-
timation techniques, IDW and OK, were used. IDW estimates
were calculated by using a power of 2 due to its common
utilization in block model estimation. For IDW estimation,
the ore body trend and dip values were taken into account as
315° for representing the strike and 60° for the dip angle with
a distance of 100 m of radius for the search ellipsoid. A sig-
nificant anisotropy could not be seen for RMR as shearing and
faulting was the main mechanical effect at the hanging wall

Fig. 11 Directional variogram in 0.5

main direction for RMR values
Semivariance (γ)

0.25

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Lag Distance
344 Page 10 of 13
Fig. 12 Contour maps of estimated RMR values
and footwall of the vein which resulted in less variable RMR
values within the vein. The dominating formations were clas-
sified as hornfels and phyllites which had similar rock mass
characteristics and this was considered as a reason of not ob-
serving spatial variability in the vicinity of the vein.
The spatial interpolation of RMR values by OK method is
based on the modeled variograms. The estimation uses a
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:344
search geometry that is defined in 3D by using the omnidirec-
tional and directional variogram parameters. The irregularity
of the data representing RMR values was handled by chang-
ing the search geometry radius and number of points used for
OK estimation. Four different calculation passes were com-
pleted for the OK method to fill out the 3D blocks by using
RMR values in the whole area. Contour maps from different
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:344 Page 11 of 13 344

Fig. 13 Normality test plot of

validation drillhole RMR values

levels, as seen in Fig. 12, were generated to represent the
distribution of the estimated RMR values.
As seen in Fig. 12, the northwest region of the RMR map
shows a low quality of rock mass with a rating between 30 and
45 indicating the shearing/faulting effect of the structurally con-
trolled vein intrusion in hornfels. Towards the north east direc-
tion, RMR values increase and reach a range of 70–80 in horn-
fels and phyllite zones. Although the geological units are dif-
ferent, same RMR values are observed due to the similar
geomechanical properties which can also be interpreted as ob-
serving similar characteristics of rock masses. The main
advantage of implementing OK with the objective to interpolate
RMR values was observed in the representation of the spatial
variability. Stope dimensions, support types, ramp design, and
excavation stand-up times can be efficiently determined by
using the OK interpolation block model.
In order to compare the OK and IDW estimation results
with the locations that were not logged, a validation process
was carried out. The true RMR data from a total of 4 drillholes
which were not originally included in the analysis were used
to compare with the OK and IDW estimates.
The normality test plot can be seen in Fig. 13.

Fig. 14 Data validation of IDW 80 80

CHECK DRILLHOLE-1 75 CHECK DRILLHOLE-2
and OK for four different check 75
IDW 70
ESTIMATED RMR
ESTIMATED RMR

drillholes 70 KRIGING 65
65 IDW FIT
60
KRIGING FIT
60 55
55 50
45
50
40
45 35
40 30
40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80
MEASURED RMR MEASURED RMR

80 80
CHECK DRILLHOLE-3 CHECK DRILLHOLE-4
75 75
ESTIMATED RMR

ESTIMATED RMR

70 70
65 65
60 60
55 55
50 50
45 45
40 40
40 50 60 70 80 40 50 60 70 80
MEASURED RMR MEASURED RMR
344 Page 12 of 13
Fig. 15 Validation of selected of 100
ESTIMATED RMR
drillholes 80
60
40
20
0 0
0 20
MEASURED RMR
100
ESTIMATED RMR
80
60
40
20
0 0
0 20
MEASURED RMR
Similar to the RMR values that were transformed, the
check drillholes also do not fit to any known probability dis-
tribution. This indicates the similarity between the RMR
values of estimation and validation drillholes.
Measured versus estimated values were compared for val-
idation purposes to highlight the accuracy obtained for the
check holes that were not used for modeling. The OK estima-
tion resulted in better estimations than those obtained from
IDW, as presented in Fig. 14.
The check drillholes that were not used for OK or IDW
estimation were utilized for validation. Although there are cases
where the IDW estimation is close to OK estimation, the major
drawback of the IDW method was its insensitivity to changes in
the RMR values. Weak zones that were logged as being related
to faults had low RMR values within a range of 20–30.
Intervals that had low RMR values were not represented in
IDW estimation whereas OK estimated RMR values by taking
these values causing irregularities into account. The RMR
values higher than 50 or 55 were generally underestimated
whereas RMR values smaller than 50 or 55 were overestimated.
The main reason of the overestimation related to the rock mass
classified as having RMR values less than 50 or 55 is the pres-
ence of comparably short sample lengths in drillhole logs. This
caused a deficiency in estimating RMR for these locations by
geostatistical analysis using only limited amount of data points.
Scatter plots, as seen in Fig. 15, represent the relationship
between measured and estimated values of RMR. The corre-
lation can be interpreted by investigating the ideal line to
determine the type of regression and the presence of extreme
values that could be classified as outliers.
Figure 15 indicates a positive, almost linear relation-
ship close to the ideal line for the measured data and
predicted data for selected drillholes. The validation by
check drillholes and by selected drillholes indicates that
OK estimation of RMR values can be used especially for
design purposes of underground structures by using lim-
ited amount of drilling data.
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:344
100
ESTIMATED RMR
80
60
40
20
40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
MEASURED RMR
100
ESTIMATED RMR
80
60
40
20
40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
MEASURED RMR
Conclusions
In this study, RMR values of 14 geotechnically logged
drillholes with 700 domains from a mining project in western
Turkey were used as input for estimation by OK and IDW.
The original RMR values that did not follow a normal distri-
bution were composited into equal length intervals and trans-
formed prior to estimation. Validation of the estimated RMR
values was performed by using check drillholes that were not
included during the block model estimation. The estimated
RMR values showed a close relationship to the measured
RMR values that are based on the geotechnical drillhole log-
ging. The OK estimate of RMR values is closer to the original
geotechnical logging compared to the IDW estimate. Different
geological units such as, hornfels, phyllite, and the ore vein
were observed on the site and an anisotropy could not be
observed for RMR. This was attributed to the structure-
controlled epithermal vein intrusion by which shearing and
faulting occurs at the hanging wall and footwall of the vein.
This mechanical effect of faulting causes a less pronounced
RMR variability around close neighborhood of the vein.
Although the smoothing effect of OK estimation results in a
higher error rate for check drillholes at low and high RMR
values, the composite intervals related to these values were
completely ignored by the IDW estimates. Another advantage
of the OK block model estimation in geotechnical studies is
that the considered spatial continuity provides a probabilistic
nature for the estimated variable (RMR, deformability param-
eters, etc.) rather than the common practice of working with
mean values. The uncertainty information provided by the OK
estimation can be used for risk analysis purposes. The 3D
block model of RMR values is also crucial for the design of
underground excavations (support design, road design, stope
design, etc.), operational stages (rock cutting equipment selec-
tion, drilling and blasting, etc.), and surface geotechnical stud-
ies (slope stability, bench design, highway cuts, etc.). This
study introduces the potential benefit of utilizing OK method
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:344
for RMR estimation with a limited amount of drillholes rather
than representing a spatial variable by using a single determin-
istic parameter such as the mean of the RMR data. Other
geostatistical methods such as indicator kriging or Gaussian
simulation may also be used for estimating RMR values of
this field as future research studies.
References
Anderson TW, Darling DA (1954) A test of goodness of fit. J Am Stat
Assoc 49(268):765–769
Aydan O, Ulusay R, Tokashiki N (2014) A new rock mass quality rating
system: rock mass quality rating (RMQR) and its application to the
estimation of geomechanical characteristics of rock masses. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 47:1255–1276
Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6(4):189–239
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classification. Wiley, New
York
Brady T, Martin L, Pakalnis R (2005) Empirical approaches for opening
design in weak rock masses. Min Technol IMM Trans Sec A 114:
13–20
Choi Y, Yoon SY, Park HD (2009) Tunneling analyst: a 3D GIS extension
for rock mass classification and fault zone analysis in tunneling.
Comput Geosci 35:1322–1333
Daya AA, Bejari H (2015) A comparative study between simple kriging
and ordinary kriging for estimating and modeling the Cu concentra-
tion in Chehlkureh deposit, SE Iran. Arab J Geosci 8:6003–6020
Djebbi M, Gabtni H (2015) 3D gravity modeling of a salt structure asso-
ciated to the Trozza-Labaied lineament (Central Tunisia)
constrained by seismic and borehole data. J Afr Earth Sci 103:71–80
Duran A, Douglas KJ (2000) Experience with empirical rock slope de-
sign. In: Ervin MC (ed) GeoEng2000 an International Conference
on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Melbourne, p 41
Egaña M, Ortiz J (2013) Assessment of RMR and its uncertainty by using
geostatistical simulation in a mining project. J GeoEng 8(3):83–90
Einstein HH (2003) Uncertainty in rock mechanics and rock engineer-
ing—then and now, ISRM 2003—technology roadmap for rock
mechanics, South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp
281–293
Esterhuizen GS (2006) An evaluation of the strength of slender pillars. In:
Yernberg WR (ed) Transactions of Society for Mining, Metallurgy,
and Exploration, Inc, vol 320. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration, Inc., Littleton, pp 69–76
Exadaktylos G, Stavropoulou M (2008) A specific upscaling theory of
rock mass parameters exhibiting spatial variability: analytical rela-
tions and computational scheme. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45:1102–
1125
Exadaktylos G, Stavropoulou M, Xiroudakis G, de Broissia M, Schwarz
H (2008) A spatial estimation model for continuous rock mass char-
acterization from the specific energy of a TBM. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 41:797–834
Ferrari F, Apuani T, Giani GP (2014) Rock mass rating spatial estimation
by geostatistical analysis. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 70:162–176
Gokceoglu C, Aksoy H (2000) New approaches to the characterization of
clay-bearing, densely jointed and weak rock masses. Eng Geol
58(1):1–23
Page 13 of 13 344
Gringarten E, Deutsch CV (2001) Teacher’s aide variogram interpretation
and modeling. Math Geol 33(4):507–534
Hoerger SH, Young DS (1987) Predicting local rock mass behavior using
geostatistics. 28th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Tucson 29
June–1 July 1987, pp 99–106
Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM (1989) An introduction to applied
geostatistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Johnson N (1949) Systems of frequency curves generated by methods of
translation. Biometrika 36(1/2):149–176
Journel AG (1988) Fundamentals of geostatistics in five lessons, vol 8.
American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC
Kaewkongkaew K, Phien-wej N, Kham-ai D (2011) Prediction of rock
mass along tunnels by geostatistics. In: Fuenkajorn, Phien-wej (eds)
Rock mechanics, pp 269–276
Lang B (1994) Span design for entry-type excavations. Master’s Thesis,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Laubscher DH (1990) A geomechanics classification system for the rat-
ing of rock mass in mine design. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 90(10):
257–273
Matheron G (1971) The theory of regionalized variables and its applica-
tions Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris, Fontainebleau,
p 211
Micromine (2016). http://www.micromine.com/. Accessed 20 January
2017
Minitab (2013). https://www.minitab.com/en-us/products/minitab/.
Accessed 20 January 2017
MTA (2002) 1/500 000 ölçekli Türkiye jeoloji haritaları, 7. Yayınları,
Maden Tetkik Arama (in Turkish)
Oh S, Chung H, Lee DK (2004) Geostatistical integration of MT and
borehole data for RMR evaluation. Environ Geol 46:1070–1078
Pinheiro M, Vallejos J, Miranda T, Emery X (2016) Geostatistical simu-
lation to map the spatial heterogeneity of geomechanical parameters:
a case study with rock mass rating. Eng Geol 205(29):93–103
Shahbeik S, Afzal P, Moarefvand P, Qumarsy M (2014) Comparison
between ordinary kriging (OK) and inverse distance weighted
(IDW) based on estimation error. Case study: Dardevey iron ore
deposit, NE Iran. Arab J Geosci 7:3693–3704
Stavropoulou M, Exadaktylos G, Saratsis G (2007) A combined three-
dimensional geological-geostatistical-numerical model of under-
ground excavations in rock. Rock Mech Rock Eng 40(3):213–243
Syrjänen P, Lovén P (2003) 3-D modeling of rock mass quality, ISRM
2003−technology roadmap for rock mechanics, South African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp 1175–1178
Tripathi R, Nayak AK, Shahid M, Raja R, Panda BB, Mohanty S, Kumar
A, Lal B, Gautam P, Shaoo RN (2015) Characterizing spatial vari-
ability of soil properties in salt affected coastal India using
geostatistics and kriging. Arab J Geosci 8:10663–10703
Wang C, Zhu H (2016) Combination of kriging methods and multi-fractal
analysis for estimating spatial distribution of geotechnical parame-
ters. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:413–423
Yasrebi AB, Wetherelt A, Foster PJ, Afzal P, Coggan J, Ahangaran DK
(2013) Application of RQD-number and RQD-volume multifractal
modelling to delineate rock mass characterization in Kahang cu-mo
porphyry deposit, central Iran. Arch Min Sci 58(4):1023–1035
Yasrebi AB, Wetherelt A, Foster P, Coggan J, Afzal P, Agterberg F,
Ahangaran DK (2014) Application of a density–volume fractal
model for rock characterisation of the Kahang porphyry deposit.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 66:188–193
You K, Lee JS (2006) Estimation of rock mass classes using the 3-
dimensional multiple indicator kriging technique. Tunn Undergr
Space Technol 21(3–4):229