Rock Mass Rating

Related terms:

Internal Friction, Tunneling, Excavation, Reduction, Deformation, Rock Mass, Rock

Mass Classification, Rock Slope, Rock Structure

View full index

Learn more about Rock Mass Rating

Rock Mass Rating

Bhawani Singh, R.K. Goel, in Engineering Rock Mass Classification, 2011

The geomechanics classification or the rock mass rating (RMR) system was initially
developed at the South African Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) by
Bieniawski (1973) based on his experiences in shallow tunnels in sedimentary rocks
(Kaiser et al., 1986). Since then the classification has undergone several significant
evolutions: in 1974 classification parameters were reduced from 8 to 6, in 1975
the ratings were adjusted with reduction of recommended support requirements,
in 1976 class boundaries were modified to even multiples of 20, in 1979 the
ISRM (1978) rock mass description was adopted. Because of these evolutions, it
is important to state which version is used when RMR-values are quoted. The
geomechanics classification is presented in this chapter with its applications for rock
mass characterization to assess cohesion, angle of internal friction, bridge action
period, allowable bearing pressure, modulus of deformation, and the cut-slope
angle along hill roads and rail lines. The rock mass excavability (RME) index for TBM
proposed by Bieniawski (2007) is also discussed in detail.

> Read full chapter

Allowable Bearing Pressure for Shallow

Foundations
Bhawani Singh, R.K. Goel, in Engineering Rock Mass Classification, 2011

Using Rock Mass Rating

Bieniawski's rock mass rating (RMR; Chapter 6) may also be used to obtain net allow-
able bearing pressure as per Table 20.2 (Singh, 1991; Mehrotra, 1992). Engineering
classifications listed in Table 20.2 were developed based on plate load tests at about
60 sites and calculating the allowable bearing pressure for a 6 m wide raft foundation
with settlement of 12 mm. Figure 20.2 shows the observed trend between allowable
bearing pressure and RMR (Mehrotra, 1992), which is similar to the curve from plate
test data from IIT Roorkee (Singh, 1991). The permissible settlement is reduced as
failure strain of a geological material decreases such as in rock mass. The plate load
test is the most reliable method for determining the allowable bearing pressure of
both rock mass and soil.

Table 20.2. Net Allowable Bearing Pressure (qa) Based on RMR

Class No. I II III IV V

Description of Very good Good Fair Poor Very poor
rock
RMR 100–81 80–61 60–41 40–21 20–0
qa (t/m2) 600–440 440–280 280–135 135–45 45–30

The RMR should be obtained below the foundation at depth equal to the width of
the foundation, provided RMR does not change with depth. If the upper part of the
rock, within a depth of about one-fourth of foundation width, is of lower quality
the value of this part should be used or the inferior rock should be replaced with
concrete. Since the values here are based on limiting the settlement, they should not
be increased if the foundation is embedded into rock.During earthquake loading,
the values of allowable bearing pressure from Table 20.2 may be increased by 50%
in view of rheological behavior of rock masses.

Source: Mehrotra, 1992.

Figure 20.2. Allowable bearing pressure on the basis of rock mass rating and natural
moisture content (nmc = 0.60–6.50%).(From Mehrotra, 1992)

Sinha et al. (2003) reported that contamination of rock mass by seepage of caustic
soda not only reduces the bearing capacity of foundation by about 33% in compar-
ison to that of uncontaminated rock mass, but it also causes swelling and heaving
of the concrete floors. Because of this, the alkaline soda was neutralized by injecting
acidic compound and grouting the rock mass with cement grout.

> Read full chapter

Slope Mass Rating
Bhawani Singh, R.K. Goel, in Engineering Rock Mass Classification, 2011

For evaluating the stability of rock slopes, a classification system called slope mass
rating (SMR) from Romana (1985) is discussed. SMR is obtained from Bieniawski's
rock mass rating (RMR) by subtracting adjustment factors of the joint-slope rela-
tionship and adding a factor that depends on method of excavation. Based on the
SMR value, five stability classes of rock slope have been defined with the supporting
measures of each class for stabilizing the slopes. Subsequently, a modified SMR is
also provided that also takes care of wedge failure. A case history highlighting the
use of modified SMR is also presented. The SMR is found to be excellent for rock
slopes.

> Read full chapter

Shear Strength of Rock Masses in

Slopes
Bhawani Singh, R.K. Goel, in Engineering Rock Mass Classification, 2011

Mohr-coulomb strength parameters

Stability analysis of a rock slope requires assessment of shear strength parameters,
that is, cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction ( ) of the rock mass. Estimates
of these parameters are usually not based on extensive field tests. Mehrotra (1992)
carried out extensive block shear tests to study the shear strength parameters of rock
masses. The following inferences may be drawn from this study:

1. The rock mass rating (RMR) system can be used to estimate the shear strength
parameters c and of the weathered and saturated rock masses. It was
observed that the cohesion (c) and the angle of internal friction ( ) increase
when RMR increases (Figure 16.1).Figure 16.1. Relationship between rock
mass rating and shear strength parameters, cohesion (c), and angle of internal
friction ( ) (nmc: natural moisture content).(From Mehrotra, 1992)
2. The effect of saturation on shear strength parameters has been found to be
significant. For poor saturated (wet) rock masses, a maximum reduction of
70% has been observed in cohesion (c), whereas the reduction in angle of
internal friction ( ) is of the order of 35% when compared to those for the
dry rock masses.
3. Figure 16.1 shows that there is a non-linear variation of the angle of internal
friction with RMR for dry rock masses. This study also shows that values of
Bieniawski (1989) are somewhat conservative.

> Read full chapter

Rock Mass Number

Bhawani Singh, R.K. Goel, in Engineering Rock Mass Classification, 2011

Introduction
One of the reasons why rock mass classifications have become popular over the
years is that they are easy to use and provide vital information about rock mass
characteristics. Classification also leads to making fast decisions during tunneling.
Thus, rock mass classification is an amazingly successful approach.

Despite their usefulness, there is some uncertainty about the correctness of the rat-
ings for some of the parameters. How should these uncertainties be managed? With
this objective, two rock mass indices—rock mass number (N) and rock condition
rating (RCR)—have been adopted. These indices are the modified versions of the
two most popular classification systems: N from the Q-system of Barton,Lien, and
Lunde (1974)and RCR from the rock mass rating (RMR) system of Bieniawski (1984).

Rock mass number, denoted by N, is the stress-free rock mass quality (Q). Stress-ef-
fect was considered indirectly in the form of overburden height (H). Thus, N can be
defined by Eq. (9.1), representing basic causative factors in governing the tunneling
conditions.

(9.1)

This is needed because of the problems and uncertainties in obtaining the correct
rating of Barton's stress reduction factor (SRF) parameter (Kaiser, Mackay, & Gale,
1986; Goel, Jethwa, & Paithankar, 1995a). N is found to be complimentary to the
Q-system. Correlations (in Chapter 7) based on N can first be used to identify the
ground conditions and then the rating for SRF, because the ground condition and
degree of squeezing can be selected to get the Q-value.

RCR is defined as RMR without ratings for the crushing strength of the intact rock
material and the adjustment of joint orientation. This is explained in Eq. (9.2).

(9.2)
RCR, therefore, is free from the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), which is
sometimes difficult to obtain on site. Moreover, parameters N and RCR are
equivalent and can be used for a better interrelation.

> Read full chapter

Multi-core Implementation
Gao-Feng Zhao, in High Performance Computing and the Discrete Element Model,
2015

2.5.4 Block caving

Block caving is considered to be the most economic choice for large-scale under-
ground mining, which costs only about 10% (~ 5–10 AUDs per ton) of the cost
of stopping methods (~ 30–60 AUDs per ton). This approach involves a number
of classical rock mechanics problems, for instance deformation of rocks under
excavation at great depth, fracturing of rock under dynamic and quasi-dynamic
loading, fragmentation of fractured rock under gravitational force and granular flow
of rock fragments under gravity. These in turn control many crucial aspects relating
to block caving, such as stability and serviceability of undercuts and draw horizons;
caveability and production; and ground surface subsidence. The ground surface
subsidence can further trigger additional serious geotechnical hazards and may
jeopardize mine infrastructure. One example was reported in the Palabora copper
mine, where a 300 m landslide was trigged by a block caving operation, affecting
the water and power lines, a railway line and water reservoirs. Three approaches are
available to analyze rock mechanics problems in block caving: empirical methods,
experimental methods and numerical methods. Using the design charts with the
design parameters (e.g. mining rock mass rating, height of the caved rock, and
minimum and maximum spans of the footprint), the caveability, production and
ground surface subsidence of block caving can be approximated in a simple manner.
The main shortcoming of the empirical approach is the difficulty of determining
the parameters related to rock masses, for example the mining rock mass rating
and the density of fractured rock. Furthermore, the empirical method also ignores
the stress–strain relationship of the rock masses and the influence of geological
structures, and other site-specific issues that can affect the actual caving behavior
significantly.

The experimental approach can provide physical insights into the behavior of rock
masses mined in block cavings. However, due to the large expense and time in
the model construction, only a few tests on block cavings can be found in the
literature, for example the 2D caving model tests conducted by McNearny and Abel
[MCN 93] from Colorado School of Mines, and the three-dimensional (3D) model
tests conducted by Trueman et al. [TRU 08] from the University of Queensland.
These physical models provided useful information on the response of rock masses
during block caving (e.g. the failure patterns of the caving zone and the deflection
of the whole model including the ground surface subsidence). However, given the
cost associated with each test and the construction time, physical tests are cost
prohibitive for practical purposes. Moreover, some unrealistic assumptions must be
made in the model testing, for example the horizontal stresses are not simulated
correctly, the blocks are arranged uniformly [MCN 93] and the rock mass is in a
discrete/granulated state without undergoing failure or fracturing [TRU 08]. These
assumptions lead to model test results that can only be used for research purposes
rather than a predictive model to guide the actual operation in block caving.

With the improvement of modern computers and computing power, numerical

modeling techniques have become exceptionally useful in scientific research and
engineering applications, and provide the most promising solution to study me-
chanical behavior of rock masses [BRO 08]. However, there are many limitations
in current numerical techniques and, in practice, empirical methods, such as Laub-
scher’s method [LAU 00], are still the most commonly used methods in block caving.
For example, the FEM, as the mainstream numerical tool in scientific research and
engineering applications, is still limited in modeling fracturing and fragmentation of
rock masses due the lack of sophisticated constitutive models for rock mass and the
difficulty in parameter selection. The DEM is promising in simulating the complex
mechanical interactions of rock masses such as fracturing and fragmentation. Nev-
ertheless, a major shortcoming of the DEM is that proper calibration of the model
parameters is required to obtain reasonable results [CAM 13]. In addition, due to
the lack of advanced constitutive models for the DEM, it is unlikely that the DEM
with a large element size (required for practical problems) can capture the nonlinear
deformation of rock masses at the pre- and post-failure stage. The FEM/DEM [MUN
95] is a newly developed method to integrate FEM and DEM while avoiding their
disadvantages. However, implementing this method into a computer code requires
complex routines. Moreover, there are 12 DOFs for each numerical unit of the 3D
FEM/DEM (6 DOFs for DEM) and is computationally costly. In addition, proper
calibration is still required for the FEM/DEM to model fracturing and fragmentation;
furthermore, a sophisticated constitutive model is still needed for the FEM/DEM to
realistically model the nonlinear deformation of rock masses.

In this example, DICE2D is preliminarily used to model the block caving process.
The computational model of the block caving model used in DICE2D is shown
in Figure 2.23(a). A long-wall mining model is built as shown in Figure 2.23(b) to
provide a comparison. The particle model uses the final packed particles in the
previous example. In the block caving, a portion of the middle wall is removed to
further fracture the ore body. In contrast, in the long-wall mining simulation, the
right support wall is moved downward during the calculation. Figures 2.24 and 2.25
show the failure process of the rock masses under these two conditions. It can be
found that the failure of the block mining is a granular-like type. The long-wall
mining method first makes fractures in the continuum and then breaks it into blocks
that will further be broken into small pieces.

Figure 2.23. Simplified model configurations for block caving and long wall mining

Figure 2.24. Block caving simulation using multi-core DICE2D. For a color version
of the figure, see www.iste.co.uk/zhao/computing.zip

Figure 2.25. Long-wall mining simulated by multi-core DICE2D. For a color version

of the figure, see www.iste.co.uk/zhao/computing.zip

> Read full chapter

Testing techniques
John P. Harrison, John A. Hudson FREng, in Engineering Rock Mechanics Part II,
2000

11.1 Rock properties

The term ‘rock properties’ refers here to those intact rock or rock mass properties
that are needed for engineering design purposes. For example, the rock properties
may be used to

• obtain a general impression of the mechanical nature of the rock mass, e.g.
the rock is strong because it has a compressive strength of 300  MPa,
• compare the rock properties with a previous project where the rock properties
were also obtained, e.g. this rock is stronger than the one we had at the
Golconda Mine,
• generate a rock mass classification scheme value, e.g. the RQD is needed for
the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) scheme, see Chapter 12, or
• support numerical modelling, e.g. the shear stiffness of fractures is required
for a distinct element numerical code.

Many of the required rock properties can be categorized according to the subjects
of the earlier chapters, as shown in Table 11.1.

Strictly speaking, in situ stress is a site property rather than a rock property, but
testing techniques are required to determine the in situ stress and so it is one of
the categories below. The ‘permeability’ could be included as a separate item under
each of the ‘intact rock’, ‘fractures’ and ‘rock mass’, but we prefer to consider the
property in a separate category because the subject involves the connectivity of the
rock mass fractures. In each case, there should be information about any variation in
these properties across the site, which was the theme of Chapter 10. The structural
geology and hydrogeological setting information will be strategically helpful for this
purpose.

The rock properties can be measured directly or indirectly. For example, in Q10.3,
the uniaxial compression test and point load test values were compared. Because
the uniaxial compression test provides a direct value for the compressive strength,
it is a direct test. On the other hand, because the point load test gives an index value
which is used to indicate the uniaxial compressive strength via a correlation factor,
the point load test is an index test. There are many possibilities for such indirect
tests in rock mechanics and an advantage of them is that they can provide many
more results than direct tests, more rapidly and more cheaply. Their disadvantage
is a possible lack of precision and knowing whether or not there is any bias in the
values. To make decisions about which type of test to use, one has to recall why the
rock properties are required and the resources available, and hence whether direct
tests, indirect tests, or a mix of the two types are best suited to the project in hand.

In the questions that follow in Section 11.2, we provide a flavour of the nature of site
investigation and how some of the testing problems are solved. This chapter is the
first where we link the rock mechanics with the rock engineering. It is important
when practising rock engineering to understand the rock mechanics concepts first
— which has been our aim in Chapters 1−10Chapters 12345678910. Now, we
highlight the engineering thinking that is required to assess and measure the rock
properties.

> Read full chapter

Geological Strength Index

Bhawani Singh, R.K. Goel, in Engineering Rock Mass Classification, 2011

Geological strength index

Hoek and Brown (1997) introduced the Geological Strength Index (GSI) for both
hard and weak rock masses. Experienced field engineers and geologists generally
show a liking for a simple, fast, yet reliable classification that is based on visual
inspection of geological conditions. A classification system should be non-linear
for poor rocks as strength deteriorates rapidly with weathering. Further, increased
applications of computer modeling have created an urgent need for a classification
system tuned to a computer simulation of rock structures. To meet these needs,
Hoek and Brown (1997) devised simple charts for estimating GSI based on the
following two correlations:

(26.1)

(26.2)

where Q = modified rock mass quality,

(26.3)

RMR 89 = rock mass rating according to Bieniawski (1989) when the groundwater
rating = 15 and joint adjustment rating = 0.

Sometimes, it is difficult to obtain RMR in poor rock masses, and Q may be used
more often because it is relatively more reliable than RMR, especially in openings in
weak rocks.

Hoek (Roclab, 2006) and Marinos and Hoek (2000) proposed a chart for GSI (Figure
26.1) so experts can classify a rock mass by visual inspection alone. In this classif-
ication, there are six main qualitative rock classes, mainly adopted from Terzaghi’s
classification (Table 5.2).

Figure 26.1. Estimate of GSI based on visual inspection of geological conditions.

(From Roclab, 2006; Marinos and Hoek, 2000) Modification by Cai et al. (2004) in terms
of its quantification by block volume and joint condition factor is also shown on the
right side.

1. Intact or massive

2. Blocky

3. Very blocky

4. Blocky/folded

5. Crushed

6. Laminated/sheared

These classifications have been available to engineers and geologists for 60 years.
Discontinuities are classified into five surface conditions that are similar to joint
conditions in RMR (Chapter 6).

1. Very good

2. Good
3. Fair

4. Poor

5. Very poor

A 6 × 5 block in the matrix of Figure 26.1 is picked up first according to actual and
undisturbed rock mass classification and discontinuity surface condition. Then a
corresponding GSI is read. According to Hoek (1998) and Marinos and Hoek (2000),
a range of values of GSI (or RMR) should be estimated instead of just a single value.
This practice has a significant impact on the design of slopes and excavations in
rocks. Drastic degradation in GSI, RMR, and Q-values is found to occur in openings
after squeezing and rock bursts. This is also seen in openings, hence the need for
evaluating the GSI of rock mass in the undisturbed condition (D = 0). Back analysis
of both a model (polyaxial strength criterion) and its parameters (from the observed
behavior of rock structures) is an ideal method of the rock mass characterization,
and GSI is the first step in this direction.

Figure 26.1 is used judiciously for crushed/disintegrated and laminated/sheared

rocks. Similarly, hard, thick laminated rocks in the last row of Figure 26.1 may not
be applicable, because they may have a higher strength classification (see Table 5.2,
Class II).

The GSI chart has been subsequently quantified by Cai et al. (2004) by incorporating
the rock block volume (Vb) formed by the joints or discontinuities and the joint
condition factor JC (see Table 4.6). The suggested quantification is also shown in
Figure 26.1. The block volume (Vb), affected by the joint set spacing and persistence,
can broadly be known by the joint spacing given for six different rock classes in
Figure 26.1. The value of joint condition factor, JC, controlled by joint roughness,
weathering, and infilling material, can be obtained by Eq. (26.4) from Cai et al.
(2004).

(26.4)

where JW = large-scale joint or discontinuity waviness in meters from 1 to 10 m (Table

26.1), JS = small-scale smoothness in centimeters from 1 to 20 cm (Table 26.2), and
JA = joint alteration factor (Table 26.3).

Table 26.1. Terms to Describe Large-Scale Waviness (JW)

Waviness terms Undulation Rating for waviness ( J-

W)

Interlocking (large-s- 3
cale)
Stepped 2.5
Large undulation >3% 2
Small to moderate undulation 0.3–3% 1.5
Planar <0.3% 1

Sources: Palmstrom, 1995; Cai et al., 2004.

Table 26.2. Terms to Describe Small-Scale Smoothness (JS)

Smoothness terms Description Rating for smoothness ( JS)

Very rough Near vertical steps and ridges 3
occur with interlocking effect
on the joint surface
Rough Some ridges and side-an- 2
gles are evident; asperities
are clearly visible; discontinu-
ity surface feels very abrasive
(rougher than sandpaper grade
30)
Slightly rough Asperities on the discontinu- 1.5
ity surfaces are distinguishable
and can be felt (like sandpaper
grade 30–300)
Smooth Surface appears smooth and 1
feels so to the touch (smoother
than sandpaper grade 300)
Polished Visual evidence of polishing ex- 0.75
ists; this is often seen in coating
of chlorite and especially talc
Slickensided Polished and striated surface 0.6–1.5
that results from sliding along
a fault surface or other move-
ment surface

Sources: Palmstrom, 1995; Cai et al., 2004.

Table 26.3. Rating for Joint Alteration Factor (JA)

Term
Rock wall contact
Healed or “welded” joints (un-
weathered)
Fresh rock walls (unweathered)
Alteration of joint wall: slightly
to moderately weathered
Alteration of joint wall: highly
weathered
Coating or thin filling
Sand, silt, calcite, talc, etc.
Clay, chlorite, talc, etc.
Filled joints with Sand, silt, calcite, etc.
partial or no contact
Description JA
Clear joints
Softening, impermeable filling 0.75
(quartz, epidote, etc.)
No coating or filling on joint 1
surface, except for staining
The joint surface exhibits one 2
class higher alteration than the
rock
The joint surface exhibits two 4
classes higher alteration than
the rock
Coating of frictional material 3
without clay
Coating of softening and cohe- 4
sive minerals
Filling of frictional ma- 4
terial without clay
 between the rock
wall surfaces
Compacted clay materials “Hard” filling of softening and 6
cohesive materials
Soft clay materials Medium to low over-consolida- 8
tion of filling
Swelling clay materials Filling material exhibits 8–12
swelling properties

Sources: Palmstrom, 1995; Cai et al., 2004.

Cai and Kaiser (2006), based on the proposed quantitative chart (Figure 26.1), and
using surface fitting techniques, suggested the following equation to calculate GSI
from JC and Vb:

(26.5)

where JC is a dimensionless factor defined by Eq. (26.4) and block volume Vb is in cm3
(see the section Calibration of RMi from Known Rock Mass Strength Data in Chapter
10).

To avoid double-accounting, groundwater condition and in situ stresses are not

considered in GSI because they are accounted for in computer models. GSI assumes
that the rock mass is isotropic; therefore, only cores without weak planes should
be tested in triaxial cells to determine qc and mr as GSI downgrades strength
according to schistocity. This classification reduces many uncertainties in rock mass
characterization. An undisturbed rock mass should be inspected for classification;
however, heavy blasting creates new fractures.

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.