Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration , Mesoghion 70, 115 27 Athens, Greece
b
National Technical University of Athens, 157 80 Zografou, Greece
Received 26 April 2006; received in revised form 13 July 2006; accepted 29 August 2006
Available online 4 December 2006
Abstract
Four classication systems are investigated in this work, RMR, Q, GSI and RMi. The common parameters of these systems, which
concern and characterize solely the rock mass, are those used for rating the rock structure and the joint surface conditions. Rock
structure is quantied by the block size or the discontinuity spacing ratings (BS) and the joint surface conditions are quantied by the
joint conditions ratings (JC). A Rock Mass Fabric Index, denoted as F, may thus be dened as a scalar function of the components rock
structure and joint conditions i.e., F F BS; JC. All rock mass classication systems ratings are grouped together in a common Fabric
Index chart. The validity of the chart is tested using data extracted from various projects. The use of the chart simplies input, correlates
rock mass classication systems and improves their utility.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rock mass; Classication; Block size; Joint conditions
1. Introduction
Rock mass classication systems try to consider the most
important aspects affecting the rock mass, in order to rate
its quality. These aspects, assumed to be independent from
each other, become parameters to which ratings are
assigned. The most common systems quantify the rock
mass quality as a scalar value that is a function, linear or
non-linear, of the above-mentioned independent parameters. However, contrary to the term rock mass, the
parameters used are not related to the rock mass itself.
Stress regime, water pressure, and direction of excavation
are examples of parameters employed by various systems
that do not characterize the rock mass quality but the
construction of the project as a whole. Further, the aspects
considered as important by the systems are not common to
all of them. Therefore, any attempt to correlate these
systems will include a large scatter above and below a
general trend. It would therefore be appropriate to
Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 210 777 80 86;
fax: +30 210 770 55 88.
E-mail address: stetzam@igme.gr (S. Tzamos).
1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.08.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
478
Nomenclature
sci
S
Jv
RQD
RMR
(1)
denes the rock mass fabric index of the system. Its range
extends from 8 to 76.
In the Q system, parameters concerning rock structure
are the RQD and the joint set number Jn. Their ratio is the
ordinate component and represents block size. Joint
condition parameters are accounted by the parameters
joint roughness number Jr and joint alteration number Ja.
Their ratio is the abscissa component that represents joint
condition and may be related to inter block shear strength.
The product of the abscissa and the ordinate components
denes the rock mass fabric index of the system, i.e.,
FQ
RQD J r
Q0 .
Jn Ja
(2)
RMi
jK
FGSI
FQ
FRMR
FRMI
(3)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
479
Table 1
Terzaghis [14] rock mass classication, with adjustments by Sinha [15], as adapted from Palmstrom [16]
Rock class
Rock type
Description
II
III
Massive and
moderately jointed
IV
BS: Joints are less spaced. Block size is about 1 m in size, intimate interlocking
JC: Joints may or may not be healed
Failure: The rock may or may not be hard. No side pressure is exerted or expected
BS: Closely spaced joints. Block size is less than 1 m. It consists of almost chemically intact rock
fragments which are entirely separated from each other and imperfectly interlocked
Failure: Some side pressure of low magnitude is expected
Vertical walls may require support
VI
BS: Comprises chemically intact rock having the character of a crusher run aggregate. No
interlocking. Block size could be few cm to 30 cm
VII
Squeezing rock
moderate depth
Failure: Squeezing is a mechanical process in which the rock advances into the tunnel opening
without perceptible increase in volume. Moderate depth is a relative term and could be up to
1501000 m
VIII
Squeezing rockgreat
depth
Failure: The depth may be more than 150 m. The maximum recommended tunnel depth is
1000 m (2000 m in very good rocks)
IX
Swelling rock
Failure: Rocks containing swelling minerals such as montmorillonite, illite, kaolinite, and others
can swell. Some shales absorb moisture from the air and swell. Swelling is associated with
volume change and is due to the chemical change of the rock usually in presence of moisture or
water. Heavy pressure is exerted on rock supports
Table 2
Discontinuity spacing descriptions according to ISRM [17]
Discontinuity spacing
Description
o20 mm
2060 mm
60200 mm
2060 cm
60 cm2 m
2 m6 m
46 m
Extremely close
Very close
Close
Moderate
Wide
Very wide
Extremely wide
ARTICLE IN PRESS
480
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
Table 3
Classication of block volume according to Palmstrom [9]
Degree of jointing or (density of joints)
Massive/no joints
Massive/very weakly jointed
Weakly jointed
Moderately jointed
Strongly jointed
Very strongly jointed
Crushed
410 m
310 m
13 m
30 cm1 m
1030 cm
310 cm
o3 cm
(5)
S1 S2 S3
,
sin g1 sin g2 sin g3
3
Vb
Block volume Vb
(7)
(6)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
481
ARTICLE IN PRESS
482
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
It is observed that the logarithm of BSQ is a monotonically increasing function of the logarithm of disconti-
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
483
Table 4
Rock mass behaviour, adapted from Barton, Bandis, Shinas [20]
Rock mass description
Intactmassive
Extremely massive
rock mass, high
strength, rough
joints, strong
dilution
Continuum
Intactjointed
Massive, low
jointed, unaltered,
rough joints,
medium dilution
Mediumhigh
jointed,
weathered,
smooth
undulating joins,
medium dilution
Discontinuous
Failure
Design
Intact rock
failure,
sliding of
individual
joints
Finite element
method (FEM)
or boundary
element method
(BEM)
Sliding of
some joints
Sliding of
many joints
Discrete
element method
(DEM) eg.
UDEC/3DEC
or DDA
Rotated shear 3
Continuum
Weakness
and Shear
zones. Clay
presence
Finite element
method (FEM)
or nite
difference
method (FDM)
eg. FLAC
Joint spacing
S
Span/S
1001000
42 m
55
13
10100
0.52 m
520
24
110
1050 cm
20100
44
0.11
510 cm
100500
o0.1
o5 cm
b500
Joint sets
ARTICLE IN PRESS
484
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
Table 5
Joint condition factor after Cai et al. [13]
Waviness terms
Interlocking (large-scale)
Stepped
Large undulation
Small to moderate undulation
Planar
Undulation a/D
jK rating
43%
0.33%
o0.3%
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Jc
Table 6
Surface conditions rating after Sonmez and Ulusay [12]
Variable
Roughness
Rr
Weathering
Rw
Inlling material
Rf
SCR Rr+Rw+Rf
Rating
Very rough
6
Unweathered
6
None
6
Rough
5
Slightly weathered
5
Hard lling o5 mm
4
Slightly rough
3
Moderately weathered
3
Hard lling 45 mm
2
Smooth
1
Highly weathered
1
Soft lling o5 mm
2
Slickensided
0
Decomposed
0
Soft lling 45 mm
0
Fig. 4. Relation between block size (BSQ RQD=J n ) and discontinuity spacing S or block volume Vb. Dots are data generated from a computer
simulation of lines penetrating blocks in different angles, from Palmstrom [10]. Highlow bars indicate average and standard deviation distribution (66%
of all data points) of data collected from constructed underground openings. Dashed lined area denes possible BSQ ranges according to RQDS relations
of Fig. 1. Numbered rectangular areas show the ranges of the rock mass categories. 1 Massive, 2 Low Jointed, 3 Blocky, 4 Very Blocky,
5 Blocky/Disturbed, 6 Disintegrated.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
485
Table 7
Qualitative denition of rock mass structure
Terzaghi [14]
Palmstrom [9]
Massive/no joints
Massive/very weakly
jointed
I. Intactmassive
Extremely massive
rock mass, high
strength
Intact or massive
Weakly jointed
IIa. Intactjointed
Massive, low jointed
IV. Moderately
blocky and seamy
Moderately jointed
IIb. Intactjointed
Mediumhigh jointed
Blocky
Strongly jointed
IIIa. Moderately
disturbedheavily
jointed
Heavily jointed rock
mass
Very blocky
Blocky-disturbed
Crushed
Disintegrated
VI. Completely
crushed but
chemically intact
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
486
Table 8
Joint spacing denitions
1
RMR Bieniawski
[2]
Intact or massive
None or random joints
4200 cm
4200 cm
4100 cm
4200 cm
4300 cm
Low jointed
1 or 2 Joint sets
60200 cm
50200 cm
60200 cm
100300 cm
Blocky
3 Joint sets
2060 cm
1050 cm
30100 cm
2060 cm
30100 cm
Very blocky
43 Joint sets
620 cm
510 cm
1030 cm
620 cm
1030 cm
Blockydisturbed
44 Joint sets
26 cm
15 cm
310 cm
o6 cm
310 cm
Disintegrated
Many joint sets
o2 cm
o1 cm
o3 cm
o3 cm
(8)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
487
ARTICLE IN PRESS
488
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
Table 9
Description of discontinuity conditions
1
RMR R4
Q System Jr/Ja
Very good
Very rough, fresh, unweathered surfaces
1814
4.512
2330
1.75.33
Good
Rough, slightly weathered, iron stained surfaces
1114
1.74.5
1723
0.51.7
711
0.671.7
1017
0.120.5
0.250.67
410
0.070.12
0.10.25
04
0.050.07
Fair
Smooth, moderately weathered or altered surfaces
Poor
Slickenslided, highly weathered surfaces with
compact coatings or llings of angular fragments
Very poor
Slickenslided, highly weathered surfaces with soft
clay coatings or llings
3.57
03.5
(2)
Fig. 6. Chart for the selection of discontinuity surface conditions.
(3)
(4)
4. Applications
For the validation of the proposed rock mass fabric
charts various projects were examined. Rock structure
discontinuity conditions ratings were extracted from the
following projects:
(1) Shallow diversion tunnel at Guledar dam site, Turkey
[21]. The main purpose of the construction of the
(5)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
489
ARTICLE IN PRESS
490
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
Fig. 8. Zoom in the common chart for all rock mass fabric indices.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
491
Table 10
Measured data, from published papers
1
Site
Section
RMR system
Q system
R2+R3
R4
FRMR
BSQ
10
11
GSI system
JCQ
FQ
Limestone
Sandstone
Diabase
23
16
13
11
8
3
34
24
16
7.67
5.67
1.87
0.32
0.2
0.08
1.88
0.45
0.12
d1
d2
d3
27
16
8
25
20
15
52
36
23
5.5
2.83
0.56
1.5
1.5
0.75
8.25
4.25
0.42
Sandstone
Sandstone
Mudstone
Mudstone
Fault zone
Fault zone
28
16
23
16
18
8
20
20
20
10
10
0
48
36
43
26
28
8
8.33
5.56
4.17
2.08
1.25
0.75
1.5
0.333
0.667
0.25
0.125
0.05
12.5
1.85
2.78
0.52
0.16
0.04
Blocky
Breciated
Clayey
23
11
8
14
6
0
37
17
8
Blocky
Disintegrated
16
8
20
8
36
16
2
1
0.5
0.1
1
0.1
Rosh-Haniqra
Beit-shearim
Mesilat-Zion
Maresha
Avedat
Ramat-Hovav
Ein-Ziq
21
16
16
23
23
18
16
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
46
41
41
48
48
43
41
8.33
6.67
2.4
5
5.83
7.5
3.58
1.0
1.0
1.5
3.0
0.67
0.75
0.67
8.33
6.67
3.6
15
3.89
5.63
2.39
I
II
III
IV
V
32
31
25
15
11
25
22
20
10
10
57
53
45
25
21
45
20
16.3
4.17
0.83
3
3
0.75
0.666
0.333
135
60
12.2
2.78
0.28
K1
K2
K3
M1
M2
M3
P1
P2
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
30
30
30
30
33
33
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
25
25
25
30
30
30
25
25
25
30
25
25
30
25
25
55
55
55
60
63
63
55
55
55
60
55
55
60
55
55
15.3
15.9
15.9
29.5
31.7
30.6
21.3
20.5
15.9
15.9
16.4
16.4
16.4
16.4
15.9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
SR
SCR
FGSI
43
33
19
62
25
5
12
11
8
52
39
28
62
43
52
30
19
18
35
25
15
46
48
48
89
95
92
64
62
48
48
49
49
49
49
48
ARTICLE IN PRESS
492
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
Table 11
Estimated data, predicted from the charts
1
10
11
Site
Section
R2+R3
R4
FRMR
BSQ
JCQ
FQ
SR
SCR
FGSI
From Q ratings
From Q ratings
Limestone
Sandstone
Diabase
32
29
16
11
7
2
43
36
18
0.33
0.2
0.1
1.2
0.37
0.14
45
33
20
7
5
2
38
27
16
2. Tenerive Spain
d1
d2
d3
29
21
8
22
22
18
51
43
26
5.0
2
0.5
2
1.1
0.45
10.0
2.2
0.22
57
40
5
12
12
10
58
48
31
3. Constantinople metro
Sandstone
Sandstone
Mudstone
Mudstone
Fault zone
Fault zone
33
29
25
18
12
9
22
12
17
10
5
0
55
41
42
28
17
9
6.03
3.72
3.55
3.72
2.24
0.5
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.05
66
57
51
36
24
14
13
7
10
6
4
0
65
43
49
32
22
9
4. Tuzla tunnel
Blocky
Breciated
Clayey
45
22
0
9
4
0
43
22
8
5.Beykoz tunnel
Blocky
Disintegrated
17.5
10
16
3
33.5
13
3.72
0.5
1
0.16
3.7
0.1
Rosh-Haniqra
Beit-shearim
Mesilat-Zion
Maresha
Avedat
Ramat-Hovav
Ein-Ziq
32
31
20
28
28
31
23
20
20
22
27
17
19
17
52
51
42
55
45
50
40
3.16
1.78
1.78
3.59
3.55
2.24
1.78
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.3
3.5
3.5
7.1
7.1
4.5
3.5
7. Sydney tunnels
I
II
III
IV
V
40
36
35
26
9.5
27
27
19
17
13
67
63
54
43
22.5
7.94
7.08
3.98
1.59
1.15
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.25
0.25
15.8
10.6
4.0
0.4
0.3
K1
K2
K3
M1
M2
M3
P1
P2
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
35
35
35
38
38
38
36
36
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
62
62
62
65
65
65
63
63
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
6.31
6.31
6.31
4.68
6.31
6.31
4.68
4.68
6.31
6.31
6.31
6.31
6.31
6.31
6.31
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
12.6
12.6
12.6
23.4
31.5
31.5
9.3
9.3
12.6
31.5
12.6
12.6
31.5
12.6
12.6
6.0
3.7
3.5
0.93
0.56
0.025
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
r 0:96.
(11)
r 0:92.
(12)
(10)
In dry conditions RCR F RMR 15, N F Q (assuming J w 1) and in owing conditions RCR F RMR and
b
80
70
70
60
60
80
50
40
30
20
10
50
40
30
20
10
r = 95.3%
0
20
40
60
80
r = 95.5%
0
20
FRMR Measured
40
FGSI Measured
c
1000
(9)
493
100
10
1
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
0.1
r = 93.4%
0.01
FQ Measured
Fig. 9. Comparison between predicted from other systems and measured ratings.
60
80
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
494
70
60
50
FRMR
40
30
20
F_RMR measured
r = 96.4%
10
F_RCR flowing
0.01
0.1
10
100
0
1000
FQ
Fig. 10. Correlation between measured rock mass indices FRMR and FQ.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
[12] Sonmez H, Ulusay R. Modications to the geological strength index
(GSI) and their applicability to stability of slopes. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1999;36:74360.
[13] Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M. Estimation of
rock mass deformation modulus and strength of jointed hard rock
masses using the GSI System. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41(1):
319.
[14] Terzaghi K. In: Proctor RV, White T, editors. Rock defects and load
on tunnel support, rock tunneling with steel supports. Youngstown,
OH: Commercial Shearing Co; 1946. p. 1599.
[15] Sinha RS. Underground structuresdesign and instrumentation.
Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1989.
[16] Palmstrom A. /http://www.rockmass.netS.
[17] ISRM. Standardization of laboratory, eld tests. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1978;15:348.
[18] Hoek E. Practical rock engineering, /http://www.rockscience.comS.
[20] Barton N, Bandis S, Shinas C. Engineering criterion of rock mass
strength. In: Proceedings of the fourth Hellenic conference on
geotechnical and geo-environmental engineering, vol. 1. Athens:
Technical Chamber of Greece & Hellenic Society of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering; 2001. p. 11522 [in Greek].
495