ABSTRACT

Rock mass characterization is an integral part of rock engineering practice especially in

analyzing rock mass failure conditions and their characteristics. This report was based on the
rock mass characterization experiment conducted at the Lugoba quarries in Chalinze, Coast
region by using geomechanics classification or rock mass rating (RMR) system.
It was concluded that the part of the rock mass in the quarry (which I dealt with) described as
very good rock which needs no major supports although there is potential of forming wedges as
drawn in stereonet diagrams by the UNWEDGE software.
It was also concluded that serious care during observations and field level risk assessment should
be done at the site before conducting experiments as the rock mass was highly damaged by poor
drilling and blasting practices, and sufficient equipments for conducting the experiment should
be provided at the site.

Table of Contents
|Page

ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................i
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................ii
1. INTRODUCTON.........................................................................................................................1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................................1
2.1 THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES.............................................................................................2
3. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES............................................................................................3
4. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..............................................................4
4.1 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................4
4.2 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS................................................................................................5
4.3 SOURCES OF ERRORS.......................................................................................................6
5. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................6
6. RECOMMENDATION...............................................................................................................6
7. NOMENCLATURE.....................................................................................................................7
8. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................8
APPENDIX......................................................................................................................................9

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Results from rock mass mapping.......................................................................................4
Table 2: Classifying the discontinuity conditions............................................................................4
Table 3: Determination of RMR value............................................................................................5
Table 4: Stereonet wedge diagrams drawn from UNWEDGE software.........................................5
Table 5: Possible wages formed for section I of 20mW wall..........................................................9
Table 6: Possible wages formed for Section II of 20mW wall......................................................11
Table 7: A. Classification parameters and their ratings.................................................................14
Table 8: B. Guidelines for Classification of Discontinuity Conditions.........................................15
Table 9: C. Effect of Discontinuity Orientations in Tunneling......................................................15
Table 10:D. Rating Adjustment for Discontinuity Orientations....................................................15
Table 11: E. Rock Mass Classes Determined from Total Ratings.................................................15
Table 12: F. Meaning of Rock Mass Classes.................................................................................15

|Page

1. INTRODUCTON
During the feasibility and preliminary design in early stages of a mining or related project, when
very little detailed information on the rock mass and its stress and hydrologic characteristics is
available, the use of a rock mass classification scheme can be of considerable benefit. At its
simplest, this may involve using the classification scheme as a check-list to ensure that all
relevant information has been considered. At the other end of the spectrum, one or more rock
mass classification schemes can be used to build up a picture of the composition and
characteristics of a rock mass to provide initial estimates of support requirements, and to provide
estimates of the strength and deformation properties of the rock mass.
The primary objective of classification systems is to quantify the intrinsic properties of the rock
mass based on past experience. The other objective is to investigate how external loading
conditions acting on a rock mass influence its behavior. Therefore its the purpose of this
practical experiment to bring an understanding of these processes which can lead to the
successful prediction of rock mass behavior for different conditions.
The main objective of the experiment was to characterize rock mass by using geomechanics
classification/Rock Mass Rating (RMR) System and describing the suitability of the rock for
other designing structures and to determine whether there is a necessity of supporting the rock
mass before failure.
The experiment was both quantitative and qualitative where by different rock mass
characteristics were observed and rated according to geomechanics classification scheme. This
report contains literature review and theoretical principles about engineering rock mass
classification, experimental procedures, presentation of results and discussion, conclusion and
recommendation.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Rock mass classification schemes have been developing for over 100 years since Ritter (1879)
attempted to formalize an empirical approach to tunnel design, in particular for determining
support requirements and other purposes. Some of them are Terzaghis rock mass classification,
Terzaghi 1946; Classifications involve stand-up time for unsupported span, Lauffer 1958; Rock
Quality designation index, RQD developed by Deere et al 1967 and Rock Structure rating by
Wickham et al 1972, Geomechanics classification or Rock Mass Rating (RMR) scheme
developed by Bieniawski (1973, 1976) and the tunnelling quality index (Q) developed by Barton
et al. (1974).

|Page

Hoek and Brown (1980), Goodman (1993) and Brown (2003), among others, have reviewed the
considerable number of rock mass classification schemes such as those mentioned in the
previous paragraph. Two of these schemes, the tunnelling quality index (Q) and the CSIR
geomechanics classification or Rock Mass Rating (RMR) scheme are currently widely used in
civil engineering and in mining practice. Bieniawskis RMR scheme has been modified by
Laubscher (1977, 1990), to Modified Rock Mass Rating (MRMR) to make the classification
more relevant to mining application particularly for use in cave mining applications.
2.1 THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES
The following six parameters are used to classify a rock mass using the RMR system:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.

Uniaxial compressive strength of rock material.

Rock Quality Designation (RQD).
Spacing of discontinuities.
Condition of discontinuities.
Groundwater conditions.
Orientation of discontinuities.

Strength of the intact rock material- The uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock may be
measured on cores. Alternatively, for all but very low-strength rocks, the point load index may be
used.
Rock Quality Designation (RQD) is used to provide a quantitative estimate of rock mass quality
from drill core logs. RQD is defined as the percentage of intact core pieces longer than 100 mm
(4 inches) in the total length of core. The core should be at least 54.7 mm or 2.15 inches in
diameter and should be drilled with a double-tube core barrel.
Spacing of joints- In this context, the term joint is used to describe all discontinuities.
Condition of joints- This parameter accounts for the separation or aperture of discontinuities,
their continuity or persistence, their surface roughness, the wall condition (hard or soft) and the
nature of any in-filling materials present.
Groundwater conditions- An attempt was made to account for the influence of groundwater
pressure or flow on the stability of underground excavations in terms of the observed rate of flow
into the excavation, the ratio of joint water pressure to major principal stress, or by a general
qualitative observation of groundwater conditions.
The RMR can be obtained by adding together the first five parameters and then adjusting them
by the sixth parameter. The rock condition can then be explained according to the rating and by
using Bieniawski (1976) standard tables attached to the appendix.
RMR = (classification parameters) + discontinuity orientation adjustment
Rock mass classes are then determined from total ratings in table 11 in the appendix.
|Page

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
In applying this classification system, the rock mass in the selected area to be mapped was
divided into a number of structural regions measured by a measuring tape (20 m each) and each
region was classified separately.
The boundaries of the structural regions usually coincide with a major structural feature such as a
fault or with a change in rock type. Dip, dip direction and strike were measured by compass;
joint sets, surface condition, and continuity of the joints were observed and recorded in a field
notebook. In some cases, where significant changes in discontinuity spacing or characteristics,
within the same rock type, the division of the rock mass into a number of small structural regions
were necessary.

|Page

4. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 RESULTS
The rock mass mapping was done in two sections each of 20m and the following information
was obtained:
Table 1: Results from rock mass mapping
Section I (20 m)

A
B
C
D
E

Joint
spacin
g (m)
0.35
0.40
0.42
0.60
0.52

1
2
3
4
5

0.41
0.57
0.70
0.62
0.47

Joint
set

Dip.

Dip
direction

76
48
61
51
46
03
52
48
79
76

Joint condition

326
Dry, very rough
042
Dry, rough
051
Dry, smooth
016
Dry, smooth
134
Dry, rough
Section II (20m)
009
Dry, Rough
332
Dry,Very rough
290
Dry, Very rough
358
Dry,Very rough
062
Dry, Rough

Alteration

Continuity

Tight
Slightly tight
Slightly tight
Tight
Tight

1
1
1
1
1

Tight
Tight
Slightly tight
Tight
Slightly tight

1
1
1
1
1

DETERMINATION OF RMR
Table 2: Classifying the discontinuity conditions
Parameter
Discontinuity length (persistence)
Separation (aperture)
Roughness
Infilling (gouge)
Weathering

Value of description
10-20m
<0.1mm
Very rough
None
Unweathered
Total

Rating
1
5
6
6
6
24

Table 3: Determination of RMR value

Parameter

Value or description

Rating
|Page

1. Strength of intact rock material

2. RQD
3. Joint spacing
4. Condition of joints

165 MPa (UCS)

93%
200mm 600mm
Very rough surfaces
Not continuous
No separation
Unweathered wall rock
5. Groundwater
Completely dry
6. Orientation
Very favorable*
Total rating
* The dip was averaged 54 and the strike drives with dip

12
20
10
24

15
0
81

Table 4: Stereonet wedge diagrams drawn from UNWEDGE software

Wedges formed in rock classified as Section I

Wedges formed in rock classified as Section II

4.2 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The value of RMR obtained was 81 which indicates that the rock mass was categorized in Class I
(Very good rock) which could stand without major supports although there is possibility of
forming wedges as it can be seen from stereonets drawn from UNWEDGE software in tables 4
above also more possible wedges combination were indicated in tables 5 and 6 in the appendix.
This means the average stand-up time if the 15m span were constructed would be 20 years,
cohesion of greater than 400 kPa and friction angle of greater than 45 (Table 11).
4.3 SOURCES OF ERRORS
a) Parallax errors in reading the compass and measuring of discontinuity lengths via
measuring tape
|Page

b) Insufficient data collection due to hot climate and limited time of conducting the
experiment

5. CONCLUSION
The part of the rock mass in the site described from the RMR in this experiment as very good
rock which needs no major supports instead normal rock bolt supports may be used to restrict
local displacements of rock blocks which can result due to wedges formed.
6. RECOMMENDATION
The area where this work was performed was good for this experiment although the area was
highly hazardous due to rock damages from poor drilling and blasting practices therefore serious
care during observations and field level risk assessment should be done at any time before the
experiment is conducted at the site. Furthermore, sufficient equipments for conducting the
experiment should be provided at the site.

|Page

7. NOMENCLATURE
Abbreviation
CSIR
MRMR
Q
RMR
RQD
UCS
W

Meaning
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
Modified Rock Mass Rating
Rock Tunneling Quality Index
Rock Mass Rating
Rock Quality Designation
Uniaxial Compressive Strength
Width

Unit
None
None
None
None
%
MPa
m

|Page

8. REFERENCES
Brady B.H.G and Brown E.T (2005), Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining, 3 rd Ed., Kluwer
Academic Publishers, New York.
HoekE, Practical Rock Engineering,
http://www.rocscience.com/hoek/pdf/Practical_Rock_Engineering.pdf, Rockscience Inc. Web
2.25 pm 27 Jan 2014.
Hudson J.A and Harrison J.P (1997), Engineering Rock Mechanics An Introduction to the
Principles, Elsevier Science Limited, UK.

|Page

APPENDIX
Table 5: Possible wages formed for section I of 20mW wall

Joints A, B and C

Joints A, B and D

Joints A, B and E

Joints A, C and D

|Page

Joints A, C and E

Joints A, D and E

Joints B, C and D

Joints B, C and E

|Page

Joints B, D and E

Joints C, D and E

Table 6: Possible wages formed for Section II of 20mW wall

Joints 1,2 and 3

Joints 1, 2 and 5

Joints 1, 2 and 4

Joints 1, 3 and 4

|Page

Joints 1, 3 and 5

Joints 1, 4 and 5

Joints 2, 3 and 4

Joints 2, 3 and 5

|Page

Joints 2, 4 and 5

Joints 3, 4 and 5

Average angle of dip = (76 + 48 + 61 + 51 + 46 + 03 + 52 + 48 + 79 + 76)/10 = 54

|Page

ROCK MASS RATING SYSTEM

Table 7: A. Classification parameters and their ratings
Parameter

2
3

Strength of
Intact rock
material

Drill core
quality RQD
(%)
Spacing of
discontinuities

Ranges of values
Point-load
strength index
(MPa)

>10

4-10

2-4

1-2

Uniaxial
compressive
strength (MPa)
Rating

>250

100-250

50-100

25-50

For this low

range, uniaxial
compressive test
is preferred
5-25 1-5 <1

15
90-100

12
75-90

7
50-75

4
25-50

2
<25

Rating

20

17

13

>2m
20
Very rough
surfaces Not
continuous
No
separation
Unweathere
d wall rock

0.6-2m
15
Slightly
rough
surfaces
Separation
<1mm
Slightly
weathered
wall rock

200-600mm
10
Slightly
rough
surfaces
Separation
<1mm
Highly
weathered
wall rock

<60mm
5
Soft gouge
>5mm thick or
Separation
>5mm
Continuous

30
None

25
<10

20
10-25

60-200mm
8
Slickensid
ed surfaces
or Gouge
<5mm
thick or
Separation
1 5mm
Continuou
s
10
25-125

<0.1

0.1-0.2

0.2-0.5

>0.5

Completely
dry
15

Damp

Wet

Dripping

Flowing

10

Rating

Condition of
discontinuities

Groundwater

Rating
Inflow per 10m
tunnel length
(l/min)
Ratio (joint
water pressure)/
(major principle
stress)
General
conditions
Rating

0
>125

|Page

Table 8: B. Guidelines for Classification of Discontinuity Conditions

Parameter
Discontinuity length
(persistence)
Separation (aperture)
Roughness
Infilling (gouge)

<1m
6
None
6
Very rough
6
Hard filling
None
6
Unweathered

Weathering
6

1-3m
4
<0.1mm
5
Rough
5

Ratings
3-10m
2
0.1-1.0mm
4
Slightly rough
3

<5mm
4
Slightly
weathered
5

>5mm
2
Moderately
weathered
3

10-20m
1
1-5mm
1
Smooth
1
Soft filling
<5mm
2
Highly
weathered
1

>20m
0
>5mm
0
Slickensided
0
>5mm
0
Decomposed
0

Table 9: C. Effect of Discontinuity Orientations in Tunneling

Strike perpendicular to tunnel axis
Drive with dip
Dip 45-90
Very favorable

Drive against dip

Dip 20-45
Favorable

Dip 45-90
Fair

Strike parallel to tunnel axis

Dip 20-45
Dip 45-90
Fair
Very unfavorable

Dip 20-45
Unfavorable

Irrespective of strike
Dip 0-20
Fair

Table 10:D. Rating Adjustment for Discontinuity Orientations

Orientation of Discontinuities

Ratings

Very
favourable

Favourable

Fair

Unfavourable

Very
unfavourable

-2

-5

-10

-12

0
0

-2
-5

-7
-25

-15
-50

-25
-60

Tunnels &
mines
Foundations
Slopes

Table 11: E. Rock Mass Classes Determined from Total Ratings

Rating
Class no.
Description

100-81
I
Very good rock

80-61
II
Good rock

60-41
III
Fair rock

40-21
IV
Poor rock

<20
V
Very poor rock

Table 12: F. Meaning of Rock Mass Classes

Class no.
Average stand-

I
20yr for 15m span

II
1yr for 10m span

III
1wk for 5m span

IV
10h for 2.5m

V
30min for 1m

|Page

up time
Cohesion of
rock mass (kPa)
Friction angle of
rock mas (deg)

>400

300-400

200-300

span
100-200

span
<100

>45

35-45

25-35

15-25

<15

|Page