Rock mass characterisation using the IQ' and RMR systems

Caracterisation des massifs rocheux utilisant les systernes 'a' et MRMR pour la conception du depot souterrain des matenaux radioactifs au RU Charakterisierung der Felsmasse unter Verwendung der Q- und RMR-Systeme des UK Radioactive Waste Repository Design (Entwurf eines Endlagers fOrradioaktive Abfalle in GroBbritannien)
COLIN G. RAWLINGS, WS.Atkins Consultants Limited, Woodcote Grove, Epsom, Surrey, UK (Formerly: Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway) NICK BARTON, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Ullevaal Hageby, Oslo, Norway ALAN SMALLWOOD, W S.Atkins Consultants Limited, Woodcote Grove, Epsom, Surrey, UK NICK DAVIES, UK Nirex Limited, Harwell, UK
ABSTRACT: Both the Q and RMR rock mass classification systems have been used to log a series of volcanic rocks and to subdivide them into (structural and) geotechnical zones ranging in thickness from 1m to 20m. In general the core was logged in units of 3m lengths (a core box). Some 640 observations of Q-values with the corresponding Rock Mass Ratings have been obtained enabling a new bilinear relationship between the Q-system, Barton (1974) and Rock Mass Rating method, Bieniawski, (1973). RESUME: Les deux systemes de classification Q et RMR ont ete utilises pour enregistrer une serie de roches volcaniques et pour les subdiviser en des zones (structurelles et) ge6techniques variant en epaisseur entre 1m et 20m. En general la carone a ete enregistree en des unites de 3m de longueur (une boite de carotte), Quelques 650 observations des valuers Q, ainsi que les Rock Mass Ratings correspondants, ont ete obtenues, ce qui permet d'identifier un nouveau rapport bi-lineaire entre Ie systeme Q (Barton, 1974) et la methode de Rock Mass Rating (Bieniawski, 1973). ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Sowohl das Q-als auch das RMR-System zur Klassifizerung von Felsmasse wurden dazu verwandt, eine Sequenz von Vulkangestein zu erfassen und in (strukturelle und) geotechnische Zonen mit einer Dicke von I-20m einzuteilen. In der Regel wurden die Bohrproben in Einheiten von 3m Lange erfaflt (Bohrprobenkasten). Dadurch konnten an die 640 Erhebungen von Q-Werten mit den entsprechenden Rock-Mass-Ratings durchgefiihrt werden, die es ermoglichten, einen neuen bilinearen Zusammenhang zwischen dem Q-system von Barton (1974) und der Rock-Mass-Rating-Methode von Bieniawski (1973) aufzuzeigen. I. INTRODUCTION Of the various rock mass classification systems the Q-system and Rock Mass Rating (RMR) method are the ones which seem to be most widely used internationally. These two rock mass classification systems are now described in detail. 2. Q-SYSTEM The Q-system of rock mass classification was developed in Norway in 1974 from the analyses of212 tunnel and cavern case histories from Scandinavia and elsewhere. It has since been updated (Grimstad and Barton, 1993) being now based on a further 1050 recent case histories where the rock support installed has been correlated with observed Q-values. The Q-system is b~~ on a numerical assessment of the rock mass quality using SIX different parameters: I. RQD (Rock Quality Designation); 2. Number of joint sets (J, = joint set number); 3. Roughness of the most unfavourable joint or discontinuity set (J,=joint roughness number);4. Degree of alteration or filling along the weakest (m~t .critical ~or the type of excavati~m proposed) joint set (J,=Jo.mt alteration number); 5. ~8:ter inflow (J.=joint water reduction number); 6. Stress condition (SRF=stress reduction factor). . These six parameters are grouped into three quotients to give overall rock mass quality:
X

The use of rock mass classification systems for designing support has gained increasing acceptance over the last 20 years. Since their development in the early 70's ( e.g. the Q-system, Barton et aI., 1974, and the Rock Mass Rating, Bieniawski,I?13,) these systems have been modified and updated e.g. Grn~s~ an~ Barton, (1993), Barton and Grimstad, (1994); and Ble~law~kl (1974,1975,1976,1979,1989), to include more data, case ~Istor.les and further refinement. The main rock mass classitication systems are the Rock Quality Designation (RQD), the Rock Structure Rating (RSR), the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and the Qsystem. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) Index, Deere (1967) ~as introduced almost 30 years ago at a. time when rock qU~h~ information was usually only available from geo.lo.glst s descriptions and the per cent core r~very. Although Originally developed for predicting tunnelhng conditions a~d sup~rt requirements, its application was ext:ended to CC?rrelationWith ~n situ rock mechanical properties and, m the.I970 s to form a basic element of other classification systems (i.e. the RMR and Qsystem). . ped rnai The Rock Structure Rating (RSR) was develo mainly to determine steel arch tunnel support under contract research by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Wickham et al. (1972). The RSR correlation with support (steel ribs, shotcrete, and ~ock bolts) utilizes the "rib-ratio" which relates the actual support installation to a theoretical support spacing. The RSR system is based ~n Terzaghi's (1946) rock classification and support system and IS a further development of it. The Q-system, Barton et al. (1974) .w~ d~veloped independently of Wickham et al. (1972) and Bieniawski (1973) but it builds extensively on the RQD method of Deere et ~1. (1967) introducing five additional parameters in order to modify the RQD value. The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) method, also ~o~n as. ~e Geomechanics Classification, was developed by. Ble.mawskl m 1973 and subsequently modified as. more ~e histories became available and to conform With international standards and procedures (Bieniawski 1974,1975,1976, 19?9, 1989). The RMR system also includes five parameters in additon to RQD. 29

JT.. x

J..

.Tv. SRI"

(see the most recent updates of the Q-system given by Grimstad and Barton (1993), and Barton and Grimstad (1994) for the valu~ assigned to these six pararnetrs). In the Q-system the rock quahty can range from Q=O.ool to Q= 1000 on a logarithmic r~k mass quality scale being subdivided into 7 classes (A to G) With recommended support based on the Norwegian Method of Tunnelling (Figure 1). This elaborate support method with its commentary almost amounts to an expert system for ground support selection. The very detailed treatment of joint roughness and. ~lteration, are the strongest features of the Q-system. In addition, the numeric value of Q ranges from 0.001 (exceptionally poor - Class G) to 1000 (exceptionally good -

ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION

e .s

"
,
8

h"' ~
!
,. I
I

I ..
i

~
I

i;
u.
t Q. ~
II

O.OlM0.01

OJ)I

0.1

U quality

Rock muI

1;-

10
II

0&0

""

'000

~;F

parameters i.e (RMR) = [1 +[2]+ [3]+[4]+[5]+[6] (see the most recent update, Bieniawski (1989), for the ratings assigned to each of these six parametrs). The rock mass quality (RMR) can range from <20 (very poor rock) to 81-100 (very good rock) and is subdivided into 5 classes (I to V). To apply the Geomechanics Classification the rock mass is divided into a number of structural regions so that certain features are more or less uniform within each region. A (conserative) relationship between the stand-up time and span for various rock mass classes, accordi.ngto the RMR method, is given in Figure 2. The Rock Mass Rating Method has undergone several changes since its introduction in 1973 (1974 -reduction of classification parameters from 8 to 6; 1975-adjustmentof ratings and reduction of recommended support requirements; 1976 -modification of class boundaries to even multiples of 20; 1979 -adoption of ISRM (1978) rock mass descriptions and 1989 -detailed subdivision of joint condition). In order to avoid confusion care should be
ld t lmo lyt lOy'

REINFORCEMENJ' CAnGORlES, \lU_

2) Spot bo'

5) Fibre tCUlforcecllhotcrete 7) Fibre reinforced lhotcrete

and bo11inl. 5-9 em, Str+B and bollin 12-15 em, Sf,+ B

30
20

6) Fibre reinrorctd shocereteand bollinl. 9-12 em. Sf,+B ') Fibre reinforced shotcrete > 15 em, reinfot'ccd ribl of sbotcme aDd bo1tinl. srr.RRS+ B
9) Cast concrete linina, CCA

3) Sya&ematie bo1tina. B 4) S_lic: bo (and unreinfon:ed IbotCI'ete.~lO em), B(+5)

10 8

Figure 1. Simplified diagram for design of rock support based on the Q-system, Grimstad and Barton, (1993). Class A) which encompasses the whole spectrum of rock mass qualities from heavily squeezing ground up to sound unjointed rock. Of the six parameters in the Q-system, J. (Joint Alteration Number) and SRF (Stress Reduction Factor) are probably the two most subjective. A correct assessment of the Joint Alteration Number (J.) is probably the most subjective aspect of the Qsystem and requires proper training in the use of the system. Grimstad and Barton (1993) have modified some of the ratings for the Stress Reduction Factor. This was done to bring rock burst cases into the correct bolting and fibre reinforced shoterete location on the chart. The SRF rating in rock affected by high stress is difficult to estimate by visual observations. If possible SRF should be estimated by the ratio between unconfined compressive strength (CT,) and the major principal stress (CT,), or by the ratio between the estimated tangential stress (CT9) and the compressive strength (CT.). Grimstad and Barton (1993) note that for squeezing rock further case records are required before provision of specific SRF values can be made but provisionally recommend SRF values in the range 5 to 10 when CTBICTc ratios are in the range from 1 to 5 while SRF values as high as 10 to 20 will be applicable when the CTBICTc ratio exceeds 5. Singh (1993) has confirmed that squeezing may occur when the overburden H (metres) exceeds 350 Q'13.He also proposed that the compressive strength of the rock mass can be expressed as 7"YQ'13 where "y is the rock density in gm/cc. The original (1974) Q-system recommends predominantly mesh reinfored shoterete and rock bolts or dowels as permanent support. In the recent update, Grimstad and Barton (1993) show how wet mix, steel fibre reinforced, sprayed concrete (Stfr) together with rock bolts has become the main components of permanent rock support in underground openings in Norway since the early 1980s. In addition, in extremely poor rock mass quality a concept using rebar steel reinforced sprayed concrete ribs in addition to S(fr) and rock bolts has been developed which has been actually replacing cast concrete linings as permenent support over the last few years. 3. ROCK MASS RATING The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) method was developed by Bieniawski in 1972-1973. It is based on relatively large openings using both steel ribs, rock bolts, and shoterete. Originally 49 case histories were investigated in 1973, followed by 62 coal mining case histories that were added by 1987. By 1989 the RMR method of predicting stand up times was based on 351 case histories. The RMR method is based on six parameters used to classify the rock mass: I. Uniaxial compressive strength of rock material CT,; 2 RQD; 3. Spacing of discontinuities; 4.Condition of discontinuities; 5. Groundwater conditions; 6. Orientation of discontinuities. In the RMR method ratings are assigned to each of these 30

r:

II)

~
10-

'a: 8

-----4-.-.- ..
10 1 102 103 104

Standup Time, hr.

Figure 2. Relationship between the stand-up time and span for various rock mass classes, according to the Geomechanics Classification (RMR method). taken to use only the latest version of the system (currently that published in 1989). The RMR method has the advantage that its six parameters are relatively easy to estimate and the RMR value is formed simply on the basis of adding the ratings for the various parameters. However this limits the range of materials over which the system can be applied. Tallon (1982) found that the RMR method exhibits a predeliction for the central class, i.e, fair rock. Kirsten (1987) notes that this problem can be avoided by not hesitating to assign values for the parameters across their full range. The RMR system considers RQD and joint spacing separately, both of which are measures of block size which is therefore overemphasised (receiving up to 50% of the total rating) at the expense of other parameters which may have a greater influence on engineering properties. In addition, Bieniawski (1989) recommends that where less than three joint sets are present the joint spacing ratings should be increased by 30% which puts even more emphasis on block size. The most recent update, Chart E Guidelines for Classification of Discontinuity Conditions(1989). gives a more detailed explanation on how to treat the condition of joints, i.e, discontinuity persistence, separation, roughness, infilling and weathering are included. The output of the RMR system tends to be rather conservative which can lead to overdesign of support. Although originally applied to tunnelling in rock, subsequent applications and extensions feature the use of the RMR Method in hard rock mining, coal mining, rock slope stability, foundations in rock, rock boreability and others. 4. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN RMR AND Q INDEX Various authors have put forward correlations between the Qsystem and Rock Mass Rating. These include: Bieniawski (1976) Rutledge & Preston (1978) RMR = 9.OlnQ + 44 RMR = 5.91nQ + 43 Moreno (1980) RMR = 5.41nQ

+ 55

Cameron-Clarke and Budavari (1981) RMR = 4.61nQ + 56 19 (drill

core) RMR = 5.01nQ results) Abad et al. (1984) RMR = lO.5lnQ + 42 Trunk and Homisch (1990) RMR = 9.lInQ + 45 6

61

27 (insitu

for Q>0.65

Kaiser et al. (1986) RMR = 8.71nQ + 38

SRF values RMR = 5.71nQ + 54.1 for Q values with relevant SRF factors The bilinear relationship for the unfactored Q values fitted very well with the data and this relationship has been plotted in Figure 4.

90
Bi-linear

80 70

These correllations have been plotted in Figure 3. It should be noted that these correlations have been formulated during the

Rutledge & Preston Moreno

90 80 70

Bianiawski RuUadge & Preston Moreno CsmeronClsl1<a & Budavari Abed alai. Keiser at Tn.nk&

ex: 60
~

Abad etal. Cameron-Clarke & Budvari Kaiser et al.

ex: 50
40 30
&I.

a: 60
~

Linear

a: 50
40 30 28.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000

20 0.01 0.1

10

100 1,000

Honisch

Q-value
Figure 4. Plot of linear and bilinear relationship of unfactored Q against RMR together with published correllations. 7. CONCLUSIONS

Q-value
Figure 3. Published correllations between Q and RMR. various stages of the developmentlr:nodificatio~ ?f ~e RMR method and this may partly explain the variation m these correlations. Another factor is that the ratio afa, and the related SRF in the Q-system make direct comparison of the two numbers Q and RMR difficult when significant SRF values are in operation in the Q-system. In order to account f?r the effect of the SRF factor on the final Q-value and Its consequent comparison with Q an "unfactored" SRF factor of 1 .has ~n used to produce an "unfactored "Q"""",-, for comparl~on WIth RMR. In this paper both Q and Q"""""",! are corr~lated WIth RMR to investigate the Q and RMR correlatIOns obtained. 5. ROCK MECHANICAL DATA COLLECTION

A brief review of the Q-system and Rock Mass Rating method has been made. Both rock mass classification approaches have advantages and disadvantages and consequently in many rock mass classification exercises it is recommended that both systems are used. The published (linear) correlations between Q values and Rock Mass Ratings have been reviewed and there appears to be a wide range of published correlations. Based on recent rock mass classification data a bilinear relationship seems to be most appropriate and the concept of using unfactored Q values has enabled improved correlations. As noted by Kaiser et al. (1986) correlations between Q and RMR can depend on the choice of dependent variable and the method used to obtain a relationship. This needs to be investigated further. The authors would welcome the publication of more data which will add to improved correlations between the two rock mass classification systems in various geological formations and at various sites. REFERENCES
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mechanics, Vol.6, No 4, pp 189-236. Barton, N., and Grimstad, E. 1994. The Q-sysletD following twenty years of application in NMT support selection. In: 43rd Geomechanics Colloquy, Salzburg, Austria. Bieniawslri, Z.T. 1973. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Transactions of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol 12, pp 335-344. Bieniawslri, Z.T. 1974. Estimating the strength of rock materials. J.of South African Institute Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. 74, No.8, pp. 312-320. Bieniawslri, Z. T. 1975. Case studies: Prediction of rock mass behaviour by the Geomechanics classification. In: Proceedings 2nd. Australia-New Zealand conference on geomechanics. Brisbane, Australia, pp. 36-41. Bieniawslri, Z.T. 1976. Rock mass classifications in rock engineering. In: Exploration for Rock En~ineering, Z.T.Bieniawslri ed., A.A.Balkema, Johannesburg, South Africa, pp. 97-106. Bieniawski, Z.T. 1979. The geomechanics classification in rock engineering applications. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Congress in Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Montteux, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol.2,pp 41-48. Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classification -A Complete

A recent comparison has been .made of. Q and RMR. The Q and RMR logging was carried out m three non-pw:all~1 drillholes, in unit lengths of about 3m .wlth~n structural/geotechnical zones in the rock mass ranging m thickness from 1m to 20m. Some 30m to 40m of core was observed at anyone time to enable assessments to be pr~rly made. Approximately 1700I? ~f rock. core was logged within one geological formation compnsmg various volcanic rocks. 6. CORRELATIONS OBTAINED

A comparison of the Q-system an~ th~ Rock M!lSs ~ting method data obtained gave the followmg hnear relatlo~hlps: RMR = 6.5lnQ + 48.6 for unfactored Q values (i.e. SRF value of 1 used) . RMR = 6.lInQ + 53.4 for Q values With relevant SRF factors As expected the addition of the SRF factor has most effect at the lower end of the Q scale leading to many more valu~ of Q < 1. In addition, there is the poorest fit to the hnear relationships in this range where Q < 1. . In order to obtain a better fit of the correlations between Q and RMR bilinear relationships were applied and the results were: for Q~ 1 RMR = 1O.31nQ + 49.3 for unfactored Q values (i.e. SRF value of 1 was used) for Q> 1 RMR = 6.21nQ + 49.2 for unfactored Q values (i.e. SRF value of 1 was used) for Q~0.65 RMR =6.6InO + 53.0 for 0 values with relevant

Manualfor Engineers and Geologists in Mining, Civil and Petroleum Engineering, Wiley-Interscience Publication.
Bieniawski, Z. T. 1994. Personal communication. Grimstad, E. and Barton, N. 1993. Updating of the Q-syStelU for NMT. In:

Proceedings of the international symposium on sprayed concrete - modem use of wet mix sprayed concrete for underground support, Fagernes 1993.

31