See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351578594

Do Rock Mass Classifications truly classify the rock masses? Contractual

implications

Conference Paper · October 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 289

2 authors, including:

Philippe Vaskou
Université de Cergy-Pontoise
27 PUBLICATIONS   77 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Improvement of Site Investigation campaigns View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Philippe Vaskou on 14 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

© International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering ISRM International Symposium
Norwegian Group for Rock Mechanics Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering
ISBN: 978-82-8208-072-9 Trondheim, Norway, 14-19 June
C.C. Li, H. Ødegaard, A.H. Høien, J. Macias (Eds.)

Do Rock Mass Classifications truly classify the rock

masses? Contractual implications

P. Vaskou
Independent Expert, Croissy, France
philippe.vaskou@outlook.fr

J. Kasperski
Centre d’Etudes des Tunnels, Bron, France

Abstract
Empirical approaches are now used in tunnelling works for decades. Several systems exist (Q system,
RMR and others) that have parameters which describe the different components of the rock mass.
They surely succeed in describing rock mass parameters including the matrix, fractures and, for some
of them, external constraints. Thus, these systems allow describing various elements of rock masses,
covering geological, mechanical and hydrogeological aspects to some extent. Because of the
description of the rock forming elements and rock mass global rating, it is now common language to
call them Rock Mass Classifications.

However, do Rock Mass Classifications truly classify the rock masses, as suggested by their name?
For most rock mass classifications, the global scoring does not represent the rock mass by itself but the
interactions of the rock mass on a considered underground opening (tunnel, cavern or mine). This
direct link between a project and the characterization or scoring of a rock mass is neither obvious nor
implicit in Rock Mass Classifications.

Therefore, many users consider that once the rock mass is rated, the rating can be used regardless of
the project (span, orientation, depth, etc.). Such common misuse may explain why the Rock Mass
Classification systems are widely criticised when their link to a specific project is where their real
strength lies. Finally and even if too late, calling the empirical approaches “project rock mass
classification” would have been more appropriate by highlighting the link between the rock mass and
the specificities of the project on which they are applied.

Practical examples are provided to highlight these interactions and the subsequent contractual issues
that may ensue, if rock masses are disconnected from engineering projects.

Keywords
Rock Mass Classifications, Q-system, RMR, GSI, engineering, interactions
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

1 Introduction
Apart from minor attempts, the very first system to estimate the quality of rock masses and classify
them is the RQD (Deere 1964; Deere and Deere 1988). Most of today’s classifications already used
this parameter, to estimate the intensity of jointing. The development of empirical approaches started
during the 70’s with the RMR (Bieniawski 1973) and the Q-system (Barton et al. 1974). Followed by
other systems - the Chinese BQ (in Feng and Hudson 2011), the GSI (Marinos and Hoek 2000), the
RMQR (Aydan et al. 2014), etc. - more than 30 systems, classifications or adaptations of existing
classifications can be found today. However, the two initial classifications, updated (Bieniawski 1989;
Barton and Grimstad 1994) and now based upon much more cases, are still widely used, worldwide,
along with the GSI.

Empirical approaches are now common practice in tunnelling for decades and the number of systems
is the direct expression of the need to characterise but also to compare rock masses. It is neither
necessary to describe what empirical approaches can provide nor what are their limitations, so many
publications existing on this subject (Marinos et al. 2005; Palmstrom and Broch 2006; Palmstrom
2008; Vibert and Vaskou 2011; Bertuzzi 2019). They have benefits and some flaws, but they do
succeed in describing rock mass parameters, essentially matrix and fractures and for one of them (Q-
system) external constraints such as stress and water pressure. Even if not clearly evidenced, they
cover the description of geological and mechanical features of the rock mass and, to some extent, the
hydrogeological aspects and the effects of in situ stresses. The Q-system gives more emphasis to the
geological description of fractures, in particular the type of filling in joints (Ja) and the tectonisation
such as the slickensides (Jr) and the weak zones (SRF) whereas the RMR puts forward geomechanical
aspects (the strength in particular with the UCS and the orientation of the excavation as regard to the
attitude of fractures). All the systems have parameters which are (visually like the GSI) directly related
to the structure of the rock mass, including fractures, faults and fault zones, shear zones, weakness
zones and folds.

It is interesting to note that the respective authors of the RMR and Q-system named their respective
systems “Engineering Rock mass classifications” and “Engineering Classifications of rock masses”
which clearly expresses the purpose: to classify the rock masses for engineering purpose (at that time
essentially underground works such as tunnels and mines).

Later, the term “Engineering” disappeared and now it is now common language to call these systems
Rock Mass Classifications. Such an evolution tends toward a disconnection of the systems from the
initial objective that was rock engineering, suggesting they have been established only for
characterising rock masses.

2 Use of Rock Mass Classifications

The use of rock mass classifications increased during the last decades and practitioners used them
commonly in tunnelling works, mines and slopes, essentially for two reasons: assessing the quality of
rock masses and defining the necessary support for stability of the work.

However, against criticisms on the practical applicability and the relevance of the systems, some
authors of Rock Mass Classifications have added to their systems guidelines and explanatory
publications which were initially missing (Barton and Grimstad 2014; NGI 2015; Marinos and Carter
2018).

The Q system, unlike the RMR, the Chinese BQ or even the GSI, makes a direct link through the rock
mass quality (Q value), the type of underground opening mine, tunnel, etc.) and the size of the opening
(span) by a chart that graphically gives both the length and pattern of rock bolts as well as the
thickness of shotcrete. This direct link with the support makes this system rather useful at the tunnel
face, immediately after the blasting sequence.

Such statements are not new and that said, good results when using Rock Mass Classifications only
rely on two factors:

- the skill of the team in charge of the mapping/rock mass assessment,

- the representativity of the calculated number, value or rock class.

2
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

The first aspect is relatively easy to solve by having practitioners knowing the system they use and
aware of the possibilities of the system as well as the most frequent misuses. One has to note that
geologists feel generally more confident when using the Q-system or even the GSI whereas rock
mechanical or mining engineers do prefer using the RMR system. Sometimes, the mapping is made by
one (or more) geologist and the rock mass assessment by one (or more) geotechnical engineer. This
practice is not recommended, a mixed team or a senior engineering geologist, skilled in rock
mechanics, being the best way to maximise the accuracy and efficiency of the assessment while
minimising the time spent. This aspect is a real human resource concern for the designer team as well
as a human risk factor for the project.

The second factor - the representativity of the score obtained by the use of the Rock Mass
Classification - is surprisingly subject to variability. This variability, often observed during the early
phases of projects (e.g. after a Site Investigation), can (partly) be due to the fact that even experienced
and skilled practitioners do assess the rock mass quality itself, without making the link with a specific
engineering project, because not yet fixed or more frequently because they ignore this link.

This very specific aspect is neither highlighted by the authors of the classifications nor by the authors
of publications on Rock Mass Classifications, while mistakes or errors may come from this
misunderstanding. In other words, the score or the rock class calculated using a rock mass
classification (e.g. Q-value or RMR number) is not an intrinsic parameter, say it does not describe the
rock mass itself but the interaction(s) between a specific structure (natural or man-made, tunnel, mine
or slope) and the rock mass. Many authors still work on how to improve the assessment of Rock Mass
Classifications (Khatik and Nandi 2018) and they focus on the technical parameters of the systems,
while the variability they observe can come from the lack of link from rock mass to projects.

This relationship between the work or project and the rock mass is unique because the project is
unique and a different score could be obtained within the same rock mass with a different project, in
terms of size, orientation, etc.

Indeed, classifying a rock mass independently from an engineering project will give a result that
represents average conditions which may change later, once the project is fixed in terms of type, depth,
section, etc. A few examples and case studies are presented in the following sections to illustrate this
unique relationship and highlight the technical and subsequent contractual impact that may potentially
rise from considering that empirical approaches exclusively classify the rock masses.

3 Examples evidencing that Rock Mass Classifications cannot depict

the rock mass
3.1 Size of the excavation (scale effect)
Several authors (Palmstrom and Broch 2006; Vibert et Vaskou 2011) have already pointed out the
effects of the size of the project (span of a tunnel, large cavern, cavern) on the assessment of a rock
mass value. The scale effect is a common problem but most of practitioners consider the same rock
mass value whatever the size of the excavation.

This may lead to wrong assessment and subsequently to wrong support placement.

The following figure and misunderstanding for teams in charge of tunnel mapping and support
placement using rock mass classifications. Experience show that the ratings obtained in large tunnels
or caverns may be significantly different from the one assessed in small investigation galleries.

The authors have faced the difficulty of geologists to understand the concept of rock mass in tunnels.
If considering Q or RMR as a parameter - or a procedure - to characterize a rock mass, why two
volumes of the same rock should have different ratings? Conversely, does a calculated Q value only
represent a rock mass with regard to the size (span) of a tunnel, as from the chart given for support
assessment ?

To illustrate this situation, Fig. 1 represents a classical structural situation in a granitic environment
with 3 joint sets (thin lines) and a fault zone (thick solid line). A small-section tunnel is represented in
green while a larger one appears in blue. Even oversimplified and limited to a 2D cross-section, this

3
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

figure shows pretty well the scale effect: the number of joint sets and the persistence of each set are
size-dependent parameters. The RQD (a parameter used in the Q-system and almost all Rock Mass
Classifications), and JCond89 (used in the RMR) which are parameters that describe the jointing
conditions of the rock mass are scale-dependent (Priest and Hudson 1976; Hudson and Harrison 1977;
AFTES 2003).

Fig. 1 Effect of tunnel span in similar rock mass conditions (modified from Vibert and Vaskou 2011)

Moreover, when considering the Q-system which depicts quite well the geological conditions of a rock
mass, one can consider that all the parameters are scale-dependent, even the filling/coating of joints,
the SRF or the Jw. As an example, based upon the number of joint sets (Jn), the presence of a fault
zone with slickensided and clay filled fractures (Jr and SRF affected, possibly Ja), the Q value that
could be assessed at the face in the two tunnels of Fig. 1 may vary from around 60 (Very Good) to
around 1 (Very Poor to Poor) respectively for the small-span tunnel and the larger one. This example
depicts a simple situation that clearly demonstrates the effect of the size (scale effect) on the Q value.
Such effect would be rather similar with other Rock Mass Classifications.

The users need to consider the scale of the problem (Bertuzzi 2019) when using a Rock Mass
Classification. In other words, the value or score calculated using a Rock Mass Classification is not an
intrinsic parameter of the rock mass (Vibert and Vaskou 2011).

3.2 Effect of the orientation of the structure

Another common situation comes from the orientation of a project or part of a project. A tunnel can be
re-oriented or linked by other branches, having different orientations. Except if the rock is perfectly
isotropic (which is extremely rare), the same rock mass value is generally considered and taken for the
tunnel sections having different orientations.

Yet, the classifications include the effect of the orientation into the rock mass assessment with the
RQD (which may strongly vary depending on the orientation), the F parameter in the RMR (Effect of
Discontinuity Strike and Dip orientation on Tunnelling) or even the Jn (Joint Set Number) in the Q-
system. In this regard, rock mass classifications demonstrate their efficiency to describe the geometry
of the fractures and their effect on tunnels having various orientations.

Thus, assessing and/or keeping a similar ranking with different orientations damages the quality and
the accuracy of the rock mass assessment. Even more, some rock mechanical engineers still argue
about the inadequacy of rock mass classifications because they experienced different ranking in

4
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

perpendicular tunnels within the same rock mass (Habib P. personal communication) which simply
expresses the sensitivity of the classifications.

Again, the problems come from the fact that rock mass classifications do not only depict the rock mass
but the effect of the rock mass on a specific underground opening.

3.3 Modification or resumption of a project

It is a real concern that more and more projects are launched and executed (investigation, design and
construction as well) at a minimum cost and above all within a minimum time frame. This
administrative and contractual scheme, which applies whatever the country or the type of project, may
induce the following situations:

- a Site Investigation is launched for a specific project (e.g. tunnelling) but the project is
modified after some time, with the objective to reduce the budget;
- a project reaches the Basic Design phase but is not launched because of lack of funding or
political will. It is finally resumed after several years, with another design and different
technical parameters (e.g. length, volume, sections) corresponding to new economic criteria.
- a project is awarded, and a Company is in charge of the construction. After some time, the
company stops the works, generally for rentability concerns; then, the project can be
undertaken by another company, on different technical bases.

In all the previous situations, the rock mass has been assessed in a preliminary step for a certain
project, but the risk is that this initial assessment, because of technical ignorance or to reduce the time
schedule, is kept for modified project or even for a totally new one. Underground engineers may feel
totally confident because the initial assessment of the rock mass has been established on sound bases
by specialists. In such situations, for many engineers, why re-assessing the rock mass values or
classes, the rock mass being totally similar? Indeed, even if the rock mass is the same, the project has
been changed and thus the RM assessment is different and has to be re-estimated, regarding both the
rock mass value/class and the associated support. In all these situations, in order to save time, or by
ignorance, engineers use unsuitable values for their design.

3.4 Rock mass map

From the above, it is obvious that it is very dangerous to establish a rock mass quality map. Such maps
are sometimes elaborated at the end of a Site Investigation or when the facility is excavated.

Fig. 2 Example of Rock Mass Quality map with isovalues and contours (extract from Zhao et al. 2004)

5
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

The first situation represents the worst case and the issuance of this kind of document is nonsense
because the isovalues or the rock classes reported on the maps are not yet linked to a design (and
especially a section). An example rock mass quality map (here a map of Q isovalues) is presented in
Fig. 2. It is interesting to note that the authors (Zhao et al. 2004) have established the map for a project
of storage caverns at a certain depth (60 to 80m) considering, with good reason, the influence of this
parameter on the Rock Mass Quality, but without any reference to a design, even a standard storage
cavern section.

Even more, once elaborated, a Q-map can be incorporated into the package of reference documents
that from a tender list. At that point, the Rock Mass assessment becomes a real (but certainly wrong)
input value in the contract and when the Geotechnical Baseline approach (Essex 2007) is followed,
different assessments may be found during the construction, leading to contractual issues and
subsequent disputes.

Nevertheless, a rock mass map can be established and published during the construction of an
underground facility because at that time, the rock mass s linked to a specific project having design
parameters that will not change in the future (section of tunnels, orientation, etc.)

4 Analysis and conclusion

The use of Rock Mass Classifications does provide much help in many projects worldwide. However,
apart from technical misuses, a real issue can be observed when using Rock Mass Classifications as
only for classifying rock masses. We have highlighted and provided examples about the fact that rock
mass classifications, whatever the type of classification used, do not reflect inherent rock mass
conditions but the interactions between the rock mass and a specific project, such as a tunnel, a cavern
or a shaft. This interdependency makes that different projects in the same rock mass may have
different Q or RMR values. As a consequence, it becomes very dangerous to use a rock mass
assessment established for a previous project for a new one, except if the new project is completely
similar to the existing one. By similar, we mean same orientation, same type of underground work,
same section, same depth, etc. Thus, and contractually speaking, rock mass assessment should always
be linked to a specific project and stipulated in this sense. The provision of a rock mass quality
assessment alone shall be avoided because technically unsound.

Finally, rock mass classifications cannot classify rock masses as their name may sound. Whereas the
name empirical fits very well because perfectly adapted to the approach, the name rock mass
classification may lead to profound misunderstanding because the approach does not (and cannot)
describe intrinsically the rock masses. The examples presented above clearly demonstrate that the
empirical approaches cannot dissociate rock masses from the projects interacting with them.

However, it is too late after several decades of utilisation of such terms to envisage to change it. A
better naming could have been “project rock mass classification” because more appropriate and
highlighting the link between the rock mass and a specific project.

Because of this misnaming, errors (such as the establishment of rock mass quality maps) have
occurred during industrial or research projects, especially in heterogeneous geological environments
where the sensitivity to the orientation of the size of an underground opening is more obvious.
Homogeneity and isotropy do not exist in geological environments (Barton and Quadros 2014) but
some of them are less anisotropic than others, such as some granitic or gneissic environments. This is
probably one of the reasons why rock mass classifications are considered by many practitioners as
better adapted to crystalline rock masses than sedimentary or tectonised environments. This is
probably why rock mass classifications are so disparaged in “alpine” countries where sedimentary
rocks and tectonics prevail.

6
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

References
AFTES (2003) Guidelines for Characterisation of rock masses useful for the design and the construction of
underground structures. Tunnel et Ouvrages Souterrains, 177, mai-juin, pp. 2-49.
Aydan O, Ulusay R, Tokashiki N (2014) A new rock mass quality 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 N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support.
Rock Mechanics, 6(4): 189-236.
Barton N, Grimstad E (2014) An illustrated guide following forty years in tunnelling. Oslo, Norway, Nick
Barton & Associates, 43 p.
Barton N, Grimstad E (1994) The Q-system following twenty years of application in NMT support selection.
43rd Geomechanics Colloquy, Felsbau, 6/94: 428-436.
Barton N, Quadros E (2014) Most rock masses are likely to be anistropic. Rock Mechanics for Natural
Resources & Infrastructures, SBMR 2014, ISRM specialized conference, 9-12 Sept., Brazil, 8 p.
Barton N (2015) Forty Years with the Q-system – Lessons and Developments. Keynote lecture, Underground
Design and Construction Projects. Hong Kong Inst. of Materials, Minerals & Mining, IoM3, pp. 1-25.
Bertuzzi R. (2019) Revisiting rock classification to estimate rock mass properties. J. Rock Mech. & Geotech.
Engineering, 11: 494-510.
Bieniawski ZT (1973) Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Transactions South African Institution
of Civil Engineers, 15(2):335-342.
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications: a complete manual for Engineers and Geologists in
Mining, Civil and Petroleum Engineering. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 125 p.
Bieniawski ZT (1993) Classification of rock masses for engineering: the RMR system and future trends. In
Hudson JA editor. Comprehensive Rock Engineering, vol. 3, New York: Pergamon, 1: 16-22.
Chinese BQ (2011) in Feng XT, Hudson JA (2011) Rock Engineering Design. CRC Press, London, 434-451.
Deere DU (1964) Technical description of rock cores. Rock Mechanics and Engineering Geology, 1:16-22.
Deere DU, Deere DW (1988) The rock quality designation (RQD) index in practice. In: Kirkaldie (ed.) Rock
classification systems for engineering purposes. ASTM STP 984, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, 91-101.
Essex RJ (2007) Geotechnical Baseline Reports for Construction – Suggested guidelines. American Society of
Civil Engineers, 13 p.
Hudson JA, Harrison JP (1997) Engineering Rock Mechanics: an introduction to the principles. Pergamon,
Oxford, England
Khatik VM; Nandi AK (2018) A generic method for rock mass classification. Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, 10: 102-116.
Marinos P, Hoek E (2000) GSI. A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. in: Proc. Geo.
Eng. 2000 at the Intern. Conf. on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Melbourne, Technomic
Publishers, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, pp. 1422-1446
Marinos V, Marinos P, Koek E (2005) The geological strength index – applications and limitations. Bull. Eeng.
Geol. Environ. 64(1): 55-65.
Marinos V, Carter T (2018) Maintaining geological reality in application of GSI for design of engineering
structures in rock. Engineering Geology 239: 282-297.
NGI (2015) Using the Q-system. Rock mass classification and support design. NGI Publication, Oslo, 54 p.
Palmstrom A, Broch E (2006) Use and misuse of rock mass classification systems with particular reference to
the Q-system. Tunnels & Underground Space Technology, 21(6): 575-593.
Palmstrom A (2008) Comparing the RMR, Q and RMi classification systems. http://www.rockmass.net
Priest SD, Hudson JA (1976) Discontinuity spacing in rock. Int. Journ. Rock Mech. & Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics. 13(5): 135-148.
Vibert C, Vaskou P (2011) Use of rock mass classifications for design: recommendations and suggestions. 12th
ISRM Congress, Beijing (China). Harmonizing Rock Engineering and the Environment. Qian & Zhou
(eds) Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 309-314.
Zhao J, Ng W, Cai J, Zhang X, Bian H (2004) Feasibility of underground hydrocarbon storage caverns at Jurong
Island. Tunnel & Underground Space Technology, 19(4-5): 364-372.

7
View publication stats