Determination Rock Quality Designation

RQD Basis on Joints

Hamed A. Keykha
Department of Civil Engineering,Faculty of Engineering, UPM, Malaysia
Hamed_geology@yahoo.com

Bujang B. K. Huat
Department of Civil Engineering,Faculty of Engineering, UPM, Malaysia
bujang@eng.upm.edu.my

ABSTRACT
This paper is a critical review on the role of joints in determination of rock quality designation (RQD)
in observation plane. It show that the analyzing joint sets with using simple method like get data from
surface of rock mass, can be effective to indicate RQD. It is estimated by counting joint volumetric
and compared with weighted joint density(WJD).

KEYWORDS: RQD, weighted joint density, intersection angle, joint sets.

INTRODUCTION
Rock quality designation RQD was introduced by D.V. Deere in 1964 as an index of assessing rock
quality quantitatively. It is a more sensitive index of the core quality than the core recovery.

The RQD is a modified percent core-recovery which incorporates only sound pieces of core that one
100mm (14inch) or greater in length along the core aims (Singh & Gole 1999).
RQD =

Sum of core pieces 10 cm

100
Total drill run

Following are the methods of obtaining RQD

For RQD determination, the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) recommends a core size of
at least NX (size 54.7mm) drilled with double-tube core barrel using a diamond bit. Artificial fractures
can be identified by close fitting of cores and unstained surfaces. All the artificial fractures should be
ignored while counting the core length for RQD. A slow rate of drilling will also give better RQD. The
- 522 -

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D

523

relationship between RQD and the engineering quality of the rock mass as proposed by Deere (1968) is
given in Table 1.

Table 1: the correlation between RQD and rock mass quality

No
1
2
3
4
5

RQD%
<25
25-50
50-75
75-90
90-100

Rock quality
Very poor
Poor
Fair
good
Excellent

Volumetric Joint Count

When cores are not available, RQD may be estimated from number of joints (discontinuities) per unit
volume J . A simple relationship which may be used to convert J into RQD for clay- free rock masses is
(palmstrom, 1982).

= 115 3.3
where J represents the total number of joints per cubic meter or the volumetric joint count.
The volumetric joint count J has been described by palmstrom (1982, 1985, 1986) and Sen and Eissa
(1992). It is a measure for the number of joints within a unit volume of rock mass defined by

where Si is the average joint spacing in meters for the ith joint set and J is the total number of joint sets
except the random joint set.
Random joints may also be considered by assuming a random spacing. Experience indicates that this
should be set to S = 5m (Palmstrom 1996). Thus, the volumetric joint count can be generally expressed
as

1
Nr
+

where Nr can easily be estimated from joint observations, as it is based on common measurements of
joint spacing or frequencies. In cases where random or irregular jointing occurs, J can be found by
counting all joints observed in an area of known size. Table 2 shows the classification of J .

Table 2: classification of
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Term for jointing

Massive
Very weakly jointed
weakly jointed
moderately jointed
strongly jointed
Very strongly jointed
Crushed

Term for
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Moderately high
high
Very high
Extremely high

<0.3
0.3-1
1-3
3-10
10-30
30-100
> 100

Though the RQD is a simple and inexpensive index, when considered alone it is not sufficient to
provide an adequate description of a rock mass because it disregards joint orientation, joint condition,
type of joint, filling and stress condition (Singh & Gole 1999).

Weighted Joint density

The weighted joint measurement method, proposed by Palmstrom (1996), is developed to achieve
better information from borehole and surface observations. In principle, it is based on the measurement of
the angle between each joint and surface or drill hole. The weighted joint density (WJD) is defined as

1
1
=

(for measurement in rock surface)

where intersection angle, i.e, the angle between the observation plane and individual joint; A is the size
of the observed area in meters ; f is a rating factor, shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Selected interval of the angle ()

and the corresponding factor

>60
31-60
16-30
<16

Rating factor of the

1.0
1.5
3.5
6.0

In practice, each joint is multiplied by the value of f for the actual angle interval. After some training
it should be possible to quickly determine the intervals in Table 3 for the angle . The interval chosen
remove the strong influence of the smallest angle, i.e., angle parallel or nearly parallel to the observation
plane or bore hole.
Because the weighted joint density method reduces the inaccuracy caused by the orientation of the
observation surface or bore hole, it leads to a better characterization of the rock mass which, in turn, may
reduce the number of bore hole required in an investigation. The weighted joint density is approximately
equal to the volumetric joint count, i.e., J = WJD (Palmstrom 1996).
To solve the problem of small intersection angles and to simplify the observations, the angles have
been divided into intervals for which a rating of f has been determined from a simulation.
- 524 -

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D

525

Evaluation of weighted joint density requires small additional effort over currently adopted logging
practices. The only additional work is to determine which angle interval the intersection between the
observation plane or (drill hole) and each joint belongs. The angles chosen for interval between the joint
and the drill hole should be familiar to most people and this should make the observations for WJD quick.
The use of only four intervals makes the registration simple and easy. In time to come, WJD may proved
a useful parameter to measure the joint density accurately (Singh & Gole 1999).

METHOD
RQD are measured by the evaluation of joints (discontinuities) per unit volumeJ . To estimate J first
we counted numerous joint sets in every 10 square meter surface (fig1). Having measured the average of
joints spacing for every 1m , the data was shown as volumetric unit (m ). We also classified joints for
better description aiming more precise RQD. Finally RQD was measured through joint sets in rock
mass.

Figure 1: Distribution of joint sets in surface of rook mass.

The weighted joint density (WJD) estimated in every section and sum up for the whole area. In
this method the intersection angle () was picked up between the observation plane and joint in
each 1 m surface.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In analyzing RQD, the J measured basis on joints in rack mass surface. Achieved J roughly was 19
in 1m and the accounted RQD was equal to 52. According to the table no.1, RQD described as poor and
table no.2 demonstrated J is high and the rock mass strongly jointed.
The weighted joint density (WJD) measured from the joints. The average intersection angle ()
between the observation plane and joint was 85 for each m surface. According to the table no.3 rating
factor of f estimated 1. This evaluation expresses the measured WJD equal to 19 or J .

RQD determination through volumetric joints considered to be an effective method due to it is ease
and cost effectiveness features. When the RQD define by drilling core, is time consuming and expensive
to use. In contrast, with using volumetric joints in observation plane, the results are exact and usable. It is
also feasible within the short time before the operation.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper evaluated RQD of observation plane basis on the joint sets in a volumetric way. The result
indicate that the method could be effective in the determination of RQD because it is easy in operation
and cost effectiveness. It completely evaluated RQD of rock mass with simple tools.

REFERENCES
1. Deere, D.u. (1968), Geological Considerations Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice, ed.R.G.
Stage and D.C. Zienkiewicz, Wiely. Newyork, pp.1-20.
2. Palmstrom, A. (1982), The Volumetric Joint Count A Useful and Simple Masure of the Degree
of Jointing, IVth Int. Congress IAEG, New Delh, pp.v221-v228.
3. Palmstrom, A. (1985), Application of the Volumetric Joint Count as a Measure of Rock Mass
Jointing. Proc.Int. SVmp. On Fundamentals of Rock Joints, Bjorkliden, Sweden, pp.103-110.
4. Palmstrom, A. (1986), A General Practical Method for Identification of Rock Masses to be
Applied in Evaluation of Rock Mass Stability Conditions and TBM Boring Progress. Proc. Conf.
on Fjellsprengingsteknikk, Bergmekanikk. Geoteknikk, Oslo, Norway, pp.31.1-31.31.
5. Palmstrom, A. (1996), RMi- Asystem for Characterizing Rock Mass strength for Use in Rock
Engineering, Jr. of Rock Mech. And Tunneling Tech., India. Vol.1, No.2, pp.69-108.
6. Sen, Z. and Essa, E.A. (1992), Rock Quality Charts for Long Normally. Distributed Block Size,
Int. J.Rock Mech. Min. Sci& Geomech. Abstr. ,Pergamon, Vol.29, No.1, pp.1-12.
7. Singh B. & Coel R.k. (1999), Rock Mass classification, A Practical Approach in Civil
Engineering, Elsevier science, pp.17-23.

2011 ejge

- 526 -