Application of Rock Mass Characterization For Det

Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining the Mechanical Properti...
Page 1 sur 34
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

Springer-Verlag 2009
10.1007/s00603-009-0048-y
Original Paper
Application of Rock Mass Characterization for

Determining the Mechanical Properties of Rock
Mass: a Comparative Study
Mahmoud Hashemi1
, Sh. Moghaddas2 and R. Ajalloeian3
(1) Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Isfahan, 8174473441 Isfahan, Iran
(2) Engineering Geology, Sabir Engineering Co., Tehran, Iran
(3) Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, The University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Mahmoud Hashemi
Email: m.hashemi@eng.ui.ac.ir
Received: 25 July 2008 Accepted: 23 March 2009 Published online: 16 April 2009
Abstract
The results of geotechnical explorations, engineering geological investigation (including
laboratory and in situ tests) and field observations have been used, along with borehole
logging charts, to obtain the rock mass geotechnical data. Based on the data, the rock mass
along the Sabzkuh water conveyance tunnel route was classified by rock mass rating (RMR),
Q-system (Q), rock mass index (RMi) and geological strength index (GSI) (3 methods). A
new series of correlations were established between the systems based on the data collected
from the study area. These relationships were then compared with those reported in the
literature, and two new relations were recommended. The classifications were utilized to
calculate mechanical properties (rock mass strength and deformation modulus) of the rock
mass along the tunnel according to available empirical relations, and to distinguish the upperbound and lower-bound relations.
Keywords Rock mass classification - RMR - Q - RMi - GSI - Mechanical properties Geotechnical explorations - Tunnel
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm
28/03/2012
Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining the Mechanical Properti... Page 2 sur 34
Rock mass classifications play an important role in estimating the strength and deformability
of rock masses and in assessing the stability of rock slopes. They also serve as an index to
rock rippability, dredgeability, excavibility, cuttability, and cavibility (Bieniawski 1989).
During the past 50 years, there have been numerous efforts around the world to create a
suitable engineering rock mass classification system so that the preliminary evaluation of
feasibility, development and stability/service of engineering structures/projects, would be
possible and fairly reliable. Terzaghis (1946) rock-load classification scheme could be
considered to be the first empirical classification system for rock mass. Subsequently, various
researchers proposed different rock mass classification systems, including Laufer (1958),
Deere et al. (1967), Wickham et al. (1972), Bieniawski (1973), Barton et al. (1974), Hoek
(1994), Hoek et al. (1995) and Palmstrm (1995). Many researchers have also tried to
correlate the various classification systems [mostly between rock mass rating (RMR) and Qsystem (Q)]. Some relations have been proposed by Bieniawski (1976), Rutledge and Preston
(1978), Moreno (1980), Cameron-Clarke and Budavari (1981), Abad et al. (1984), Kaiser and
Gale (1985), Al-Harthi (1993), Barton (1995), Turul (1998) and Kumar et al. (2004).
The construction of underground structures, such as powerhouses, gas and petroleum storage
systems, nuclear waste storage spaces, and water conveyance tunnels are of high importance.
The very first step for the design and stability analysis of such structures is to use numerical
and analytical modeling methods. The methods use the mechanical properties (deformation
modulus and strength) of the rock mass as input parameters.
Typically, a series of field tests, such as plate loading, jacking, flat jacking, or block shear
testing, are conducted to obtain the parameters. The tests are expensive and time-consuming,
especially when they are done in underground openings.
Therefore, the empirical (indirect) methods for estimating the parameters are the easiest,
quickest and simplest alternatives.
During years of developments in rock engineering, various empirical methods have been
proposed, where these use the classification systems as a base. To judge the relations, one
needs time to verify the relations by applying them at various sites with different types of
rocks and conditions for rock mass so that the advantages and disadvantages will be apparent
and the relations can be improved. Although none of the relations is absolutely the best, we
may find the best one under certain conditions by comparing them.
The estimation of uniaxial compressive strength of rock mass using classification systems is
important for correct evaluation of underground structure stability.
For this purpose, various relations have been suggested, including those by Yudbir et al.
(1983), Kalamaras and Bieniawski (1993), Singh (1993), Goel (1994), Bhasin and Grimstaad
(1996), Singh et al. (1997), Sheory (1997), Aydan and Dalgi (1998), Hoek et al. (2002),
Barton (2002), and Ramamurthy (2004).
A literature review of existing relations is presented by Edelbro et al. (2007). They
demonstrated that the results of the application of the relations vary significantly, even when
one system is used by different, qualified engineers. A comparison between the estimated rock
mass with in situ measured rock mass strength indicates the reliability of the various systems.
28/03/2012
To determine the engineering properties of rock mass for use in numerical analyses, the
evaluation of deformation modulus using the classification systems is essential. Bieniawski
(1978) estimated the modulus using the RMR value. Subsequently, various empirical relations
estimating the modulus based on the classification systems have been proposed, including
those by Serafim and Pereira (1983), Nicholson and Bieniawski (1990), Verman (1993),
Verman et al. (1997), Mitri et al. (1994), Singh (1997), Hoek and Brown (1997), Palmstrm
and Singh (2001), Barton (2002), Hoek et al. (2002), Kayabai et al. (2003), Gokeoglu et al.
(2003), Ramamurthy (2004), Sonmez et al. (2004), and Zhang and Einstein (2004).
It is important to note that the evaluation of all input data for the various above relations is
subjective; i.e., different input values are estimates by different people based on the same field
conditions. Therefore, different values are derived, even with the same relation.
1.2 The Study Area

The Sabzkuh water conveyance project (including the Sabzkuh diversion dam, open channel
and tunnel and Choghakhor dam rehabilitation) is designed to transfer 90 million m3 of water
annually from the Sabzkuh drainage basin to the Choghakhor dam reservoir. The project is
located about 109 km south of Shahr-e-Kord city and 90 km south west of Borujen city,
Chaharmahal-Bakhtyari province. The study area is situated on the north side of Zagros
mountain between 5050 to 5058 eastern longitude and 3145 to 3158 northern latitude.
The surface run-off along the Sabzkuh River may be kept by a diversion dam, which is a
4.5 km long open channel that runs to a main. The main is 8.574 km long, and the water is
finally carried to the Choghakhor dam reservoir (Fig. 1). The tunnel cross section has a
horseshoe shape with a diameter changing from 4.2 to 3.2 m.
28/03/2012
Fig. 1 Location map of the study area
2 Engineering Geological Assessment

The lithology of the tunnel route mainly consists of limestone, marly and dolomitic
limestones, dolostone, shale and variable sizes of alluvium. The lowest and the uppermost
lithologies belong to Camberian and Quaternary, respectively. The Sabzkuh syncline is the
main geologic structure at the project area. The axis of the syncline is extended in the NWSE
direction in which the Sabzkuh River flows. The Sabzkuh tunnel passes the north limb of the
syncline and is extended in the SWNE direction. From the viewpoint of structural geology,
28/03/2012
the stratification is regular along the tunnel route from the inlet section to the F11 fault.
Moving from the F11 fault towards the outlet, the stratigraphy of the area is disturbed due to
the active structural geology, intensive erosion and complex lithology of the area. The
morphology of the area mainly consists of high mountains and deep valleys with steep walls.
At the project area, there are karstic features and traces, including sinkholes, solution dolines,
lapies, poljes and shallow caves, which are locally observed in limestone. A total of six
boreholes have been drilled, with overall length of 1,646 m, using wireline and rotary core
boring methods along the tunnel route. The longest borehole is 522.1 m long. Currently,
approximately ten additional boreholes are being drilled, where these are concentrated in the
weak zones and critical areas. Since the overburden is high (around 1,200 m in the middle of
tunnel route), the borehole drilling has become very difficult and time- and money-consuming.
Therefore, geophysical exploration is preferred for these sections of the tunnel route. In
addition, the pilot (probe) horizontal boreholes are planned ahead of main tunnel excavation
(Fig. 2).
28/03/2012
Fig. 2 The geological map and geotechnical longitudinal cross-section of the tunnel route
28/03/2012
For geotechnical evaluation and rock mass classification, the field observation, geophysical
exploration, borehole logging, the field tests and laboratory experiments have been used and
studied thoroughly. The studies show that the rocks in the area are slightly to moderately
weathered.
Regarding the joint conditions, the wall surfaces of the joints are mostly rough. The infillings
mainly consist of calcite, ferrous oxide and finely ground (clay to silt size) lithic particles.
The joint pattern along most parts of the tunnel consists of three sets (two joint sets and
bedding). In some areas, four joint series are observed (three joint sets and one bedding). The
results of laboratory tests that were mainly carried out on the borehole and some field samples
show that the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks varies from 10 to 125 MPa (Table 1).
Table 1 Summery of laboratory test results of boreholes and field samples
Value of
laboratory
tests
Tunnel section
Segment
no.
Lithology
From
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
10
To
0 + 000 0 + 043 Limestone

Marlstone
0 + 043 0 + 325
and marl
0 + 325 0 + 461 Limestone
Marly
limestone
0 + 461 0 + 679 and
calcareous
shale
0 + 679 1 + 247 Limestone
Limestone
1 + 247 12 + 150 and marly
limeston
2 + 150 2 + 770 Limestone
Dolostone
2 + 770 3 + 088 and dolomitic
limestone
Dolostone
limestone
Dolostone
3 + 868 4 + 015 and marly
limestone
Limestone,
Max.
118
Modulus
of
elasticity
(GPa)
Min. Ave. Max.
Min. Ave.
68 85 33
27 31
28
12
15
21
15
15
105
63
85
32
28
30
74
42
55
25
21
23
95
52
60
32
26
29
75
25
38
28
23
24
110
53
65
30
27
31
118
50
67
33
29
32
112
50
62
33
28
31
98
48
58
29
23
26
Uniaxial
comprehensive
strength (MPa)
28/03/2012
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
dolostone
limestone
Marly
4 + 705 4 + 715
limestone
4 + 715 5 + 120 Dolostone
5 + 120 5 + 745 Dolostone
Marly
5 + 745 5 + 871
limestone
Limestone,
dolostone
5 + 871 6 + 193
and dolomitic
limestone
Marly
6 + 193 6 + 352
limestone
6 + 352 6 + 442 Dolostone
Limestone,
dolostone
6 + 442 6 + 576
and dolomitic
limestone
Marly
6 + 576 6 + 823
limestone
Limestone,
dolostone
6 + 823 7 + 980
and dolomitic
limestone
Brecciated
7 + 980 8 + 059
limestone
Micaceous
8 + 059 8 + 231
shale
108
52
64
31
26
29
45
27
35
22
15
16
125
106
56
53
70
66
32
33
26
27
30
30
44
25
32
23
15
17
92
55
62
30
26
28
42
25
32
23
15
17
100
48
63
30
28
28
90
42
60
32
27
30
42
22
30
22
12
14
90
42
58
28
25
27
20
10
15
10
41
23
29
23
16
18
The RQD is mostly evaluated from the borehole cores, and in some cases, it is determined
using the Palmstrm (1982) method:
where J V is the volumetric joint count and is calculated as:
where s i is the average spacing of ith joint set.

Joint wall aperture is generally higher than 1 mm. In some stations, there are very high joint
apertures (more than 50 mm), which are mostly seen on the ground surface. Figure 3 shows
one of the cases in which a joint set is observed in a calcareous formation (DaryanFahlian
28/03/2012
Formation). The joint set wall spacing has been widened due to a secondary dissolution
process, so that the joint aperture is increased to 1540 cm. The joint has a dip/dip direction of
84/110 and is approximately parallel to the tunnel axis. The joint set wall condition is also
rough.
Fig. 3 One of the cases in which a joint set is observed in a calcareous formation (DaryanFahlian
Formation)
The geological features of the tunnel route are partially shown in Figs. 4, 5 and 6.
28/03/2012
Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining the Mechanical Prope... Page 10 sur 34
Fig. 4 A shear zone is presented near the outlet between the CHT1 and CHT2 boreholes that are a
result of an active fault (F16)
Fig. 5 The joint sets in the Khanekat formation in a level higher than CHT3 borehole and in contact with
Neyriz formation. The joint wall condition is rough and dissoluble
Fig. 6 A dissolution and karstic cavity with dimensions of more than a meter in the SarvakIlam
formation near the ST202 borehole
A shear zone is also presented in Fig. 4, located near the outlet between the CHT1 and CHT2
boreholes; it is a result of an active fault (F16). The zone is extended to 100 m in width and
may affect the rock mass at the tunnel level. The zone consists of lithic pieces with diameters
28/03/2012
ranging from 1 to 100 cm that are connected by a matrix from the original formation. The
lithic pieces belong to the Khanekat formation, which consists mostly of limestone, dolostone
and dolomitized limestone.
The joint sets in the Khanekat formation at a higher level than the CHT3 borehole and in
contact with the Neyriz formation are shown in Fig. 5. The joint wall condition is rough and
dissoluble.
A dissolution and karstic cavity with dimensions more than a meter in the Sarvak-Ilam
formation near the ST202 borehole is also presented in Fig. 6. The cavity was made by the
karstic dissolution process, probably due to the presence of three joint sets. The joint sets
aperture measures more than 1 mm. The joint walls are mostly rough and rarely undulating
(Moghaddas 2004; Hashemi et al. 2004a, b; Ajalloeian et al. 2004).
3 Rock Mass Classification

3.1 Introduction
Over the past five decades, various rock mass classification systems have been proposed by
different researchers. All the systems tend to utilize the rock mass characteristics using either
quantitative or qualitative methods in rock engineering. The characteristics are undoubtedly
the essential requirements for empirical design and numerical modeling. However, none of the
systems could utilize all of the characteristics. This may be due to lack of homogenity and
isotropy in the material.
The characteristics of a particular rock mass could vary from one site to another site, perhaps
due to differences in engineering judgments and site conditions. This has led to the creation of
various classification systems instead of a single system.
The most well-known classification systems are briefly explained in the following sections.
3.1.1 The RMR System

Bieniawski (1973) proposed a geomechanical classification system (RMR). The system has
been revised many times, and the latest version was proposed in 1989. The system calculates
an index by summing the ratings for six main factors: the uniaxial compressive strength of the
rock material, the RQD value, spacing, condition and orientation of discontinuities, and
ground water conditions.
The system defines the rock mass as one of five classes based on structural geology and
strength characterization.
3.1.2 The Q-System

Barton et al. (1974) from NGI presented a tunneling quality index, called the Q-system. The
system is widely applied to various underground openings. Multiple revisions have been
28/03/2012
proposed for the system (Grimstaad and Barton 1993; Barton 2002), which classifies the rock
mass as one of nine classes. The index of the system ranges from 0.001 to 1000 on a
logarithmic scale and is calculated as:
(1)
RQD rock quality designation

Jn
the joint set number
Jr
roughness number of least favorable joint
Ja
alteration number of least favorable joint
Jw
the joint water reduction factor
SRF
stress reduction factor.
3.1.3 The RMi System

Palmstrm (1995) proposed the rock mass index (RMi) classification system. The RMi is a
volumetric parameter indicating the approximate uniaxial compressive strength of a rock mass
by combining c and a jointing parameter (JP). JP represents the block volume (V b) plus the
joint condition (jC). The joint condition can be estimated by joint roughness (jR), joint
alteration (jA) and joint size (jL).
The RMi system is similar to the Q-system. For instance, jA and jR in the RMi are
approximately similar to J r and J a in the Q-system, respectively.
The system evaluates the rock mass as one of seven classes. In addition, it has been recently
revised (Palmstrm 2000; Palmstrm and Singh 2001).
3.1.4 The GSI System

Hoek et al. proposed the geological strength index (GSI) to obtain reliable input data,
especially those related to rock mass properties required as inputs into numerical analysis
(Hoek 1994; Hoek et al. 1995; Hoek and Brown 1997). In the last decade, the index was
further developed and modified, particularly in poor and heterogeneous rock masses for
designing projects such as tunnels, slopes and foundations in rocks (Hoek et al. 1998, 2005;
Sonmez and Ulusay 1999, 2002; Marinos and Hoek 2000, 2001; Cai et al. 2004).
The GSI has been evaluated using three different methods that are described in the following
sections.
3.1.4.1 Evaluation of GSI Based on Field Observations

The GSI was first developed based on field observation: the experienced engineering geologist
evaluates the rock mass conditions from outcrops (overview and structural geology). Then, the
results are compared with the corresponding evaluation table (Hoek and Brown 1997). Finally,
the table yields the GSI.
28/03/2012
3.1.4.2 Evaluation of GSI Based on Other Rock Mass Classification

Systems
According to this method, the GSI is determined through other rock mass classification
systems, such as RMR (1976 and 1989) and Q (Hoek et al. 1995). The method is mostly
convenient for the sites in which the stratification outcrops and rock formations are not
present, but GSI estimation is required.
Based on RMR76 (Bieniawski 1976), the GSI is equal to the sum of the ratings for four
parameters: UCS, RQD, spacing and condition of discontinuities, but the rating for the
groundwater condition and joint orientation are set to ten and zero, respectively (Hoek et al.
1995):
(2)
For RMR76 < 18, a new parameter, Q is introduced:

(3)
For RMR89 (Bieniawski 1989), the formulation is similar to that of RMR76. The only
difference is that the groundwater condition rating is set to 15:
(4)
Again, for RMR89 < 23, Q has been used.

It should be mentioned that the minimum rating for RMR76 and RMR89 are 18 and 23,
respectively, according to the above conditions.
3.1.4.3 Evaluation of GSI Based on Block Volume and Joint Surface

Condition Factor
Cai et al. (2004) recently proposed a new approach based on the block size and condition,
block volume (V b) and joint condition factor (J C). The approach was intended to increase the
performance of GSI and to make it more quantitative. Block size is determined from the joint
spacing, joint orientation, number of joint sets and joint persistence. Compared to the variation
in joint spacing, the effect of the intersection angle between join sets is relatively small. Thus,
for practical purpose, the block volume for three or more joint sets can be approximated as
(5)
where S i is the spacing of each joint.
28/03/2012
The joint surface condition (J C), which is defined by the roughness, weathering, and infilling,
is similar to the factor used by Palmstrm (1995) to quantify the joint surface conditional and
is defined as:
(6)
where J W, J S and J A are the large-scale waviness, small-scale smoothness and joint
alteration factor, respectively.
The background of the chart provided by Cai et al. is the same as the chart produced by Hoek
and Brown (1997), but the HoekBrown chart has been precisely quantified by Cai et al. using
V b and J C.
3.1.5 The RCR and N

Goel et al. (1996) studied the various relationships between Q and RMR and found them to be
diverse and divergent. They noted that the UCS of intact rock ( c) indirectly presents the Q
formulation. In addition, the SRF is not present in the RMR calculation. Therefore, they
assumed that the UCS and joint orientation, and SRF may be dropped from the RMR and Q
formulations, respectively.
This led to the creation of two new concepts: rock condition rating (RCR) and rock mass
number (N). Based on the correlation between RCR and N values for the 63 case studies from
India, and other countries, they proposed the following relationships with a satisfactory
correlation coefficient of 0.92:
(7)
where RCR = RMR (rating for c and joint orientation) and N = Q (assuming SRF = 1).
3.2 Correlation Between the Rock Mass Classification

Systems
As the various engineering rock mass classification systems were being developed, a question
arose: if two classification systems are applied to two different sites, how can the rock masses
in the two sites be compared. The answer is to establish a correlation between the systems in
order to calculate one from another. Since some parameters may be used in one system but not
in the other, such correlations may be used as an approximate tool and not as an alternative for
routine calculation of another system.
Various researchers have tried to correlate the systems. If the systems are simultaneously
applied in various sites, the relations will become more convergent. Some of the relations are
listed in Table 2.
Table 2 Comparision of various correlations among the rock mass classifications
28/03/2012
Researcher(s)
Correlation (relation no.)
Estimated
parameter
Bieniawski (1976)
RMR from Q
Rutledge and Preston (1978)
RMR from Q
Moreno (1980)
RMR from Q
Cameron-Clarke and Budavari

(1981)
RMR from Q
Abad et al. (1984)
RMR from Q
Kaiser and Gale (1985)
RMR from Q
Al-Harthi (1993)
RMR from Q
Barton (1995)
RMR from Q
Turul (1998)
RMR from Q
RMR from Q
RMR from RMi
Kumar et al. (2004)
RMi from Q
RCR from N
3.3 Results and Discussion

3.3.1 Classification Systems
Each classification system contains various parameters with different ratings. One may find a
parameter common between the systems while the rating (dividing the boundaries and
assigned values) is different among the systems. Roughness, spacing, alteration, and infilling
are some of the parameters. Another difference is that the systems utilize the parameters in
different ways and ranges. For example, RQD has a maximum value of 15 in the RMR
system, whereas it is directly involved in Q evaluation and varies from 10 to 100. On the other
hand, the RQD is a way to calculate block volume (J v) in RMi system. Some parameters are
present in one system, but absent in another system. Some examples of such parameters are
the groundwater condition in the RMi system, the strike and dip of joints and uniaxial
compressive strength ( c) in the Q system, and the rock mass stress reduction factor (SRF) in
RMR and RMi systems. In addition, the RQD depends on the drilling method, and the effect
of the groundwater condition depends on the drainage conditions.
28/03/2012
Considering the range of the ratings, the Q and RMi systems are more sensitive than the RMR.
In RMR, a range is established, whereas in the other two methods (Q and RMi, and especially
Q), the parameters are individually and directly involved in formulas. Therefore, the main
disadvantage for the present systems is the different ranges for a particular parameter in
various systems due to their different logic and structure.
As another example, the rating sensitivity of the joint spacing in RMR is less than in RMi and
GSI (third method, Cai et al. 2004) because the parameter is very important in determining the
block volume, and therefore the final rating in RMi and GSI. Thus, the joint spacing rating for
RMi and GSI is more sensitive than RMR.
Finally, none of the systems as considered to be complete. This is also the reason that no
consistent relations can be found between the various systems.
The engineering rock mass classification has been done for 23 segments passing rock
formations using four systems: RMR89, Q, RMi and GSI (2 methods) (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7 The engineering rock mass classification for 23 segments passing rock formations using 4
systems: RMR89, Q, RMi and GSI (3 methods)
The GSI was determined for almost all the segments using the first method. There were two
lithological units (marly limestone of Khanekat Formation and dolostone of Dalan Formation)
whose outcrops were not available near the tunnel. Their GSI were evaluated based on the
available outcrops away from the tunnel route applying the geological conditions of the tunnel
route. The third GSI method (3.1.4.3) was also used for all the segments to compare it with the
other two methods of GSI. Figure 7 shows that there was no apparent difference between first
and third methods of GSI. Marinos et al. (2005) implied that the determination of GSI from
third method is not applicable for tectonically disturbed structures, such as segment 22. They
also recommended that where direct assessment of depth conditions is not possible, such as
segment 10 (Fig. 3), the GSI in depth can be evaluated by proper adjustment of the depth
28/03/2012
condition in their recommended GSI chart.

However, the first GSI method is mainly based on the real GSI characteristic (quick field
evaluation of rock mass strength). Both (first and third) methods are similar in the sense that
they evaluate the rock mass strength according to the exposed-in-surface (outcrop) conditions,
where the rock mass is determined by the number of joint sets, alteration, wall roughness,
degree of fracturing (blocky structure) in rock mass. Therefore, GSI does not consider the
underground (depth) conditions, such as groundwater, dip and strike of discontinuities (with
respect to excavation direction) and in situ stress characteristics.
It is also evident that the third method is similar to the RMi system in the sense that it involves
the block volume measurement and joint condition factor. Perhaps, the only difference
between the GSI and RMi systems is that GSI does not consider the UCS ( c) of intact rock.
For the rock masses along the tunnel route, the GSI varies in the ranges of 2260 and 2556,
for the first (Hoek et al. 1995) and third (Cai et al. 2004) methods, respectively.
Moreover, based on the surface field evaluation, and considering the shear zones due to faults
activities, the rock mass along the tunnel lies in the Disintegrated-Blocky class, as per the
GSI system.
The other systems such as RMR89, Q and RMi evaluate the rock mass as very poor and fair,
exceptionally poor and poor, and low and high quality, respectively.
Overall, based on the qualitative description of rock mass, the Q is the most conservative
method (considering the weakest description for rock mass), whereas the RMi gives the
radical (strongest) description for rock mass.
Along segment 1: as compared to other segments, RMR and Q present high values and
evaluate the rock mass similarly to the RMi description, probably due to low overburden,
reasonable strength of intact rock (leading to SRF 1) and dry conditions for groundwater in
this segment. In addition, the rock mass is mostly blocky, leading to higher values of RMi and
GSI (Fig. 7).
Along segments 8 and 9: the RMi yields higher values than Q because of the thick bedding,
high values of Jv or the block volume formed by discontinuities, high RQD and the uniaxial
compressive strength of intact rock, whereas these parameters are not involved in the Q
calculations, except RQD and ci (indirectly). The high SRF due to high overburden and
groundwater condition are the other reasons for the low Q values. In this segment of the
tunnel, the RMR and GSI values are also high due to the above reasons.
Along segment 21: due to a relatively low overburden, and therefore, low SRF, the Q value is
increased even more than that for RMi. In addition, the RMR and GSI values are relatively
low and high, respectively, due to groundwater conditions and other effective factors.
Along segment 22: there is a likely intersection of a shear zone and the tunnel in depth.
Therefore, the rock mass classification calculations are very difficult for almost all the
systems. Due to the high crushing effect, the block volume value is very low, leading to
minimum values for RMi and GSI. The Q values are also low, due to an important factor
28/03/2012
(SRF). The RMR evaluation is also low due to various factors, such as very low strength and
groundwater conditions.
These were the most effective parameters, whereas the other parameters could be effective as
well.
In segments 12, 15, 17 and 20: the values of all the systems are low and almost similar. This
may be due to the intersection of the tunnel with a deep low-strength layer that belongs to the
base of the Khanekat formation, which consists of marlstone, marly limestone, and siltstone.
3.3.2 Proposed Correlations Between the Systems

In the earlier studies, a series of correlations have been established, and various relations were
proposed which are mostly between the Q and RMR (Table 2).
Correlated data from the Sabzkuh tunnel, along with the other correlations available in
literature (10 cases), are presented in Fig. 8.
Fig. 8 Correlated data from the Sabzkuh tunnel, along with the other correlations available in the
literature (10 cases)
It is shown that the closest relation to the Sabzkuh tunnel data is the one proposed by Rutledge
and Preston (1978).
The recommended relation for the Sabzkuh tunnel data is
(22)
28/03/2012
Figure 9 shows the correlation between RMi and RMR values for the Sabzkuh tunnel route
(23)
Fig. 9 Correlation between RMi and RMR values for the current case and comparing with relation by
Kumar et al. (2004)
It is observed that there is no similarity between the above relation and the available literature
(Kumar et al. 2004).
Figure 10 presents the correlation between Q and RMi for the Sabzkuh tunnel data
(24)
28/03/2012
Fig. 10 Correlation between Q and RMi in this case and available literature (Kumar et al. 2004)
A comparison of the above relation with available literature (relation 20, Table 2, Kumar et al.
2004) shows that the relations match well, especially for low values of Q (Q < 0.35).
However, relation (20) by Kumar et al. 2004 did not show good agreement with the Sabzkuh
data for high values of Q (Q > 0.35).
Figure 11 presents correlation between N and RCR for the Sabzkuh tunnel data as:
(25)
Fig. 11 Correlation between N and RCR in this case and available literature (Goel et al. 1996 and
Kumar et al. 2004)
Comparison of the recommended relation and available literature (Goel et al. 1996; Kumar et
28/03/2012
al. 2004) shows that the proposed relation in the current study lays between the two relations
in available literature.
Figure 12 shows the correlation between RMR and GSI (Hoek et al. 1995) in the current study
as:
(26)
Fig. 12 Correlation between RMR and GSI (Hoek et al. 1995) in the current study
This relation is calculated based on the first method of GSI (Hoek et al. 1995) and RMR89.
Figure 13 shows the correlation between the first method of GSI (Hoek et al. 1995) and the
third method of GSI (Cai et al. 2004) in the current study with a strong correlation coefficient:
(27)
Fig. 13 Correlation between first method of GSI (Hoek et al. 1995) and third method of GSI (Cai et al.
2004) in the current study
28/03/2012
It is evident that there is little difference between the two methods.
4 Determination of Mechanical Properties for

Rock Masses
4.1 Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock Mass
4.1.1 Background
Various parameters have been used as input for different empirical relations to get the UCS of
rock mass. The parameters are mostly related to classification systems and the rock mass
constants. However, the uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock is used in the majority of
the relations. Some of the relations are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 Various relations for estimation of rock mass strength
Researchers
Yudbir et al.
(1983)
Kalamaras and
Bieniawski
(1993)
Equation (in terms of MPa) (relation no.)
Limitation
Singh (1993)
(kN/m3)
Goel (1994)
N = Q (with
SRF = 1)
B = tunnel width
(m)
Bhasin and
Grimstaad (1996)
Sheory, 1997
Aydan and
Dalgi 1998
Hoek et al.
(2002)
s = exp
[(GSI 100)/
(9 3D)]
a = 1/2 + (1/6)
(eGSI/15
e20/3)
Q c = Q 0 ci/100
28/03/2012
Barton (2002)
Q 0 = Q (with
RQD0)
Ramamurthy
(2004)
The following points are interesting regarding the relations presented in Table 3. First, Yudbir
et al. modified the original intact rock criterion (Bieniawski 1973) for rock mass. In addition,
Singh et al. (1997) evaluated the relation given by Bhasin and Grimstaad (1996). They
concluded that the relation is convenient for good classes of rock mass (Q > 10,
ci > 100 MPa). They also evaluated the relation given by Singh (1993) and concluded that the
relation can be properly used for weak classes of rock mass (Q < 10, ci > 2 MPa).
Ramamurthy (2004) found the following relation for rock mass:
(38)
where Jf is the joint factor and is set to 0 and 500 for intact rock and rock mass, respectively,
in site conditions. In addition, Ramamurthy (2001) found the following relation as:
(39)
Substituting (38) into (39), the relation is obtained as given by Ramamurthy (2004), which is
very similar to the relation proposed by Kalamaras and Bieniawski (1993) (Table 3).
In addition, the RQD0 is the oriented RQD in the loading or measurement direction (in the
TBM model, it is in the tunneling direction).
4.1.2 Results and Discussion

The rock mass strength estimated using the above relations shows a wide range (Fig. 14).
28/03/2012
Fig. 14 The rock mass strength estimated using relations available in literature
The relations proposed by Goel (1994) and Singh (1993) estimate high values (upper bound)
for cm, whereas the relation proposed by Barton (2002) and Yudbir et al. (1983) yields low
values (lower bound).
Some relations, such as those proposed by Aydan and Dalgi (1998) and Kalamaras and
Bieniawski (1993), give average (medium) values. It seems that the relation given by Hoek et
al. (2002) that is widely used in geotechnical softwares is somewhat conservative. As
explained earlier, the relations given by Kalamaras and Bieniawski (1993) and Ramamurthy
(2004) give similar results.
The cm parameter decreases as the stability and strength condition of the rock mass becomes
weaker, due to the direct effect of ci and the values given by the classification systems.
Interestingly, none of the relations directly consider the tunnel dimension (diameter) as a
parameter, except the relation given by Goel (1994).
For the upper bound relations, the variation of cm is much higher, whereas the input
parameter of the relations (such as intact rock strength) varies in a small range (for example
for segments 1 and 2 with strong and weak rock masses, respectively) (Fig. 14).
The other case studies by Edelbro et al. (2007) revealed that the N, Yudhbir-RMR76, RMi, Q-,
28/03/2012
and HoekBrown-GSI methods appeared to yield reasonable agreement with the measured
strengths. These methods are thus considered the best candidates for realistic strength
estimation, provided that care is taken when choosing values for each of the included
parameters in each method. This study has also clearly shown the limits of the presently
available strength estimation methods for rock masses, and further work is required to develop
more precise, practical, and easy-to-use methods for determining the rock mass strength
(Edelbro et al. 2007).
4.2 Deformation Modulus of Rock Mass

4.2.1 Background
The deformation modulus of a rock mass is apparently different from that of intact rock. To
obtain the modulus of a rock mass, there are direct (in situ) methods, which require extensive
and costly field operations, similar to those needed to obtain cm.
Therefore, indirect empirical relations were proposed to calculate the E m based on a particular
classification system for rock mass. Some of the relations are listed in Table 4.
Table 4 Various relations for estimation of rock mass deformation modulus
Researchers Equation (relation no.)

Bieniawski
(1978)
Serafim and
Pereira
(1983)
Nicholson
and
Bieniawski
(1990)
Verman
(1993),
Verman et al.
(1997)
Mitri et al.
(1994)
Limitation
Singh (1997)
Q < 10
Palmstrm
and Singh
(2001)
1 > RMi > 0.1

1 < RMi < 30
ci < 100 MPa
Barton (2002)
Qc=Q
(ci/100)
Hoek et al.
RMR > 50
RMR 50
H > 50 m
ci 100 Mpa
28/03/2012
(2002)
ci > 100 Mpa
Kayabai et
al. (2003)
Gokeoglu et
al. (2003)
Ramamurthy
(2004)
Sonmez et al.
(2004)
Zhang and
Einstein
(2004)
Hoek and
Diederichs
(2006)
a
= 0.160.35, (0.16 for hard rocks and 0.35 for weak rock)
D is the disturbance factor or the effect of blast damaged stress relaxation (D = 01)
cWD
is the weathering degree (14)

E i and E m are in GPa, ci in MPa and H is overburden in meter
In addition, values of deformation modulus of intact rock (belonging to various lithologies)

from laboratory tests are given in Table 1.
Regarding the relation proposed by Verman (1993) and Verman et al. (1997), it is assumed
that the deformation modulus of the rock mass increases with RMR and tunnel depth. This
depth dependency of the deformation modulus is likely to be more pronounced in weaker rock
masses and is almost absent in strong, brittle rock masses, due to the effect of the confining
pressure (Verman et al. 1997).
The relation given by Ramamurthy (2004) was also derived by substituting relation (38) in the
following (Ramamurthy 2001):
(40)
4.2.2 Results and Discussion

The above relations were used to estimate the E m along the tunnel route (Fig. 15). It seems
that the convergence of the results calculated by the E m relations is greater than the results
given by the cm relations.
28/03/2012
Fig. 15 Estimated Em by various relations available in literature along the tunnel route
It can be concluded from Fig. 15 that the relation provided by Ramamurthy (2004) gives the
lowest value of E m. Therefore, it is the most conservative relation when compared to the other
relations. The relation by Singh (1997) gives the second lowest values. The other two
relations, provided by Mitri et al. (1994) and Gokeoglu et al. (2003) yield the highest values
of E m.
It seems that the relation by Hoek and Diederichs (2006) is more sensitive than that of Hoek et
al. (2002) to the variation of D values. By increasing the D parameter from 0 to 1, the relation
by Hoek and Diederichs (2006) shows more reduction than the relation by Hoek et al. (2002).
In addition, the modulus values generated by the Hoek and Diederichs (2006) relation are
close to that given by the relation proposed by Singh (1997) in weak lithologies.
The other relations provided by Bieniawski (1978), Serafim and Pereira (1983), and Hoek et
al. (2002) generate medium values for E m. The relations proposed by Palmstrm and Singh
(2001) present medium E m values, but these are not applicable for RMi > 30 and RMi < 0.1,
which is the case for segment 22.
The relation provided by Kayabai et al. (2003) seems to be illogical and, when compared to
28/03/2012
the other relations, it is basically a different relation.

Of course, the relation provided by Kayabai et al. (2003) has been modified by Gokeoglu et
al. (2003). The latter also yields results totally different from the other relations, probably due
to a decrease in ci values.
The two relations given by Verman (1993), Verman et al. (1997), and Singh (1997) consider
the overburden as a parameter, which is a crucial factor, especially at high overburden values.
These two relations overall give reasonable values of E m.
As the overburden increases, the E m values also become higher according to both relations.
It should be recalled that determination of the deformation modulus in loading and unloading
cases shall be differentiated.
5 Conclusions
The rock mass along the Sabzkuh tunnel has been divided into 23 segments and classified
using RMR, Q, RMi and GSI (2 methods). The GSI varies in the ranges of 2260
(Disintegrated-Blocky) and 2556, for the first and third methods, respectively. Please note
that the quantification of GSI (Cai et al. 2004) is not applied in tectonically disturbed rock
masses in which the structural fabric has been destroyed, such as segment 22. In such rock
masses, the application of the original qualitative approach (Hoek et al. 1995) based on careful
visual observations is recommended (Marinos et al. 2005).
The other systems, such as RMR and Q and RMi, evaluate the rock mass as very poor and fair,
exceptionally poor and poor and low and high quality, respectively. Overall, the Q and RMi
yield the most conservative and radical descriptions of rock mass, respectively.
Based on Sabzkuh tunnel data, the following relations are proposed (Table 5). The relations in
the lower two rows of Table 5 are introduced for the first time in the available literature. Note
the RMR value was obtained by summing the rating of all influence factors (six parameters).
However, these relations may not be taken to be unique because they are related to a certain
rock mass type. Moreover, the effects of anisotropy, dissolution and karstification are not
considered in these relations.
Table 5 The recommended relations based on the Sabzkuh tunnel data
Equation (relation no.)

RMR = 5.37 ln Q + 40.48 (22)
RMR = 7.5 ln RMi + 36.8 (23)
r
Fig. no.
0.73 8
0.69 9
RMi = 1.082Q 0.4945 (24)

RCR = 6 ln N + 33.84 (25)
GSI (Hoek et al. 1995 ) = 0.692 RMR89 + 22.32 (26)
0.73 10
0.59 11
0.86 12
28/03/2012
GSI(Hoek et al. 1995) = 0.917 GSI(Cai et al. 2004) + 3.18 (27) 0.9 13
The closest QRMR correlation to the Sabzkuh tunnel data is the Rutledge and Preston
(1978).
The relations proposed by Goel (1994) and Singh (1993) estimate high values (upper bound)
for cm, whereas the relations proposed by Barton (2002) and Yudbir et al. (1983) yield low
values (lower bound); this shows a wide range for cm. For the upper bound relations, the
variation of cm is very sensitive to variation in the input parameter.
The Ramamurthy (2004) relation gives the lowest (lower bound) value of E m, whereas the
Mitri et al. (1994) and Gokeoglu et al. (2003) relations yield the highest (upper bound) values
of E m.
The tunnel overburden is involved directly in E m calculations only by Verman (1993),
Verman et al. (1997) and Singh (1997) relations. As the overburden increases, the E m values
also become higher according to both the relations.
The relation by Hoek and Diederichs (2006) is more sensitive than Hoek et al. (2002) to the
variation of D values. Moreover, the modulus values by the Hoek and Diederichs (2006)
relation are similar to those generated by the Singh (1997) relation in weak lithologies.
Acknowledgments Thanks are expressed to the Mahab-Ghods Consulting Engineers
Company, especially R. Banihashemi and A. Ahangaran for providing a site visit. We also
thank professor Hoek, professor Palmstrm and professor Gokeoglu for providing useful
points while writing this paper.
References
Abad J, Caleda B, Chacon E, Gutierrez V, Hidlgo E (1984) Application of geomechanical classification
to predict the convergence of coal mine galleries and to design their supports. In: 5th Inter. Cong.
Rock Mech., Melbourne, pp 1519
Ajalloeian R, Hashemi M, Mogshaddas Sh (2004) The Engineering Geology Assessment of Sabzkuh
Water Conveyance Tunnel Route, Central Iran, In: Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds) Proc. Int. Conf.
on Site Characterization (ISC-2), Porto, Portugal, pp 13971402
Al-Harthi AA (1993) Application of CSIR and NGI classification systems along tunnel no. 3 at Al-Dela
Descant, Asir Province, Saudi Arabia. In: Cripps JC, Coulthard JM, Culshaw MG, Forster A, Hencher
SR, Moon CF (eds) The Engineering geology of weak rock. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 323328
Aydan , Dalgi S (1998) Prediction of deformation behaviour of 3-lanes Bolu tunnels through
squeezing rocks of North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ). Regional symposium on sedimentary rock
engineering, Taipei, pp 228233
Barton N (1995) The influence of joint properties in modelling jointed rock masses. Keynote Lecture.
In: 8th Cong. ISRM, Tokyo
28/03/2012
Barton N (2002) Some new Q value correlations to assist in site characterization and tunnel design.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:185216
Barton N, Lien NR, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel
support. Rock Mech 6(4):189236
Bhasin R, Grimstaad E (1996) The use of stressstrength relationship in the assessment of tunnel
stability. Tunnel Under Space Tech 11(1):9398
Bieniawski ZT (1973) Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Trans S Afr Inst Civil Eng 15
(12):335344
Bieniawski ZT (1976) Rock mass classification in rock engineering. In: Proc. Symp. On Expl. For Rock
Eng. Johannesburg, South Africa, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 97106
Bieniawski ZT (1978) Determining rock mass deformability: experience from case histories. Inter J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 15:237247
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. Wiley, New York, p 251
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M (2004) Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus
and strength of jointed hard rock masses using the GSI method. Inter J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:319
Cameron-Clarke IS, Budavari S (1981) Correlation of rock mass classification parameters obtained
from borecore and in situ observations. Eng Geol 17:1953
Deere DU, Henderson AJ, Patton FD, Cording EJ (1967) Design of Surface and near surface
construction in rock. In: Proc. 8th US Symp. Rock Mech., AIME, New York, pp 237302
Edelbro C, Sjberg J, Nordlund E (2007) A quantitative comparison of strength criteria for hard rock
masses. Tunnel Under Space Tech 22(1):5768
Goel RK (1994) Correlations for predicting support pressures and closures in tunnels. Ph.D. Thesis,
Nagpur University, Nagpur, India, 154
Goel RK, Jethwa JL, Paithakar AG (1996) Correlation between Bartons Q and Bieniawskis RMR: a
new approach. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 33(2):179181
Gokeoglu C, Sonmez H, Kayabai A (2003) Predicting the deformation moduli of rock masses. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 40:701710
Grimstaad E, Barton N (1993) Updating the Q-system for NMT, Int. Sym. Sprayed Concrete,
28/03/2012
Fagernes, Norway, Norwegian Concrete Association, Oslo, Norway, pp 2028

Hashemi M, Ajalloeian R, Moghaddas Sh (2004a) Rock Mass stability analysis for underground
excavation support system, the Sabzkuh water conveyance Tunnel, Iran, In: Ahmadi M (ed) 2nd edn.
Iranain Rock Mechanics Conf. (IRMC2004), Tehran, IRAN
Hashemi M, Ajalloeian R, Moghaddas Sh (2004b) Rock mass characterization for underground
excavation support system, the Sabzkuh water conveyance tunnel, Iran. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41
(3):532533
Hoek E (1994) Strength of rock and rock masses. News J ISRM 2(2):416
Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34
(8):11651186
Hoek E, Diederichs MS (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Vol 43:203215
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground excavation in hard rock, A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, p 215
Hoek E, Marinos PG, Benissi M (1998) Applicability of the geological strength index (GSI)
classification for weak and sheared rock massesthe case of the Athens schist formation. Bull Eng
Geol Env 57(2):151160
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B (2002) Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002 edition, In: Bawden
HRW, Curran J, Telsenicki M (eds) Proceedings of the fifth North American rock mechanics Society
(NARMS-TAC 2002) symposium, Mining Innovation and Technology, Toronto, Canada, pp 267273
Hoek E, Marinos PG, Marinos VP (2005) Characterization and engineering properties of tectonically
undisturbed but lithologically varied sedimentary rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42(2):277
285
Kaiser TK, Gale AD (1985) Evaluation of Cost and Emprical Support Design at B.C. Rail Tumbler
Ridge Tunnels. Canadian Tunnelling, Tunnelling Association of Canada, Wiley, New York, pp 77106
Kalamaras GS, Bieniawski ZT (1993) A rock mass strength concept for coal seams, In: Peng SS (ed)
12th Conf. Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, pp 274283
Kayabai A, Gokeoglu C, Ercanoglu M (2003) Estimating the deformation modulus of rock masses: a
comparative study. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:5563
Kumar N, Samadhiya NK, Anbalagan R (2004) Application of rock mass classification system for
tunneling in Himalaya, India Paper 3B 14, SINOROCK2004 Symposium. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41
(3):531
28/03/2012
Laufer H (1958) Classification for tunnel construction (in German). Geologie und Bauwesen 24(1):46
51
Marinos P, Hoek E (2000) GSI: a geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. In:
Proceeding of the GeoEng 2000. The international conference on geotechnical and geological
engineering, Melbourne, Technomic publishers, Lancaster, pp 14221446
Marinos P, Hoek E (2001) Estimating the geotechnical properties of heterogeneous rock masses such
as flysch. Bull Eng Geol Env 60:8292
Marinos V, Marinos P, Hoek E (2005) The geological strength indexapplications and limitations. Bull
Eng Geol Environ 64:5565
Mitri HS, Edrissi R, Henning J (1994) Finite element modelling of cable-bolted stopes in hardrock
groundmines. In: SME Annual Meeting. Albuquerque. New Mexico, pp 94116
Moghaddas Sh (2004) Evaluation of engineering geology characteristics of rock mass along the
Sabzkuh water conveyance tunnel, M.Sc. thesis, Engineering Geology group, Department of
Geology, Faculty of Science, The University of Isfahan (UI), Isfahan, IRAN, p 124
Moreno TE (1980) Application de las c1assificaciones geomechnicas a los tuneles de parjares. 11
Cursode Sostenimientos Activosen Galeriasy Tunnels. Foundation Gomez Parto, Madrid
Nicholson GA, Bieniawski ZT (1990) A nonlinear deformation modulus based on rock mass
classification. Int J Min Geol Eng 8:181202
Palmstrm A (1982) The volumetric joint counta useful and simple measure of the degree of
jointing, In: Proc. IV Inter. Congress of IAEG, New Delhi, 1982, pp 221228
Palmstrm A (1995) RMi: a rock mass classification system for rock engineering purposes. Ph. D.
Thesis. The University of Oslo, 400
Palmstrm A (2000) Recent development in rock support estimates by the RMi. J Rock Mech Tunn
Tech 6(1):119
Palmstrm A, Singh R (2001) The deformation modulus of rock masses- comparisons between in situ
tests and indirect estimates tunnelling. Underground Space Tech 16:115131
Ramamurthy T (2001) Shear strength response of some geological materials in triaxial compression.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38:683697
Ramamurthy T (2004) A geo-engineering classification for rocks and rock masses. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 41:89101
28/03/2012
Rutledge JC, Preston RL (1978) Experience with engineering classifications of rock. In: Proc. Int.
Tunnelling Symp. Tokyo, A3.lA3.7
Serafim JL, Pereira JP (1983) Considerations of the geomechanics classification of Bieniawski. In:
Proc. of Int. Symp. Eng. Geol. Underground Construction., LNEC. Lisbon. 1, II. 33II. 42
Sheory PR (1997) Empirical rock failure criterion. Oxford IBH Publishing co. and A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, p 176
Singh B (1993) Workshop on Norvegian method of tunneling. CSMRS, New Delhi, India
Singh S (1997) Time-dependent deformation modulus of rocks in tunnels. M. E. Thesis, Civil
Engineering Department, University of Roorkee, India, p 180
Singh B, Viladkar MN, Samadhiya NK, Mehrotra VK (1997) Rock mass strength parameters
mobalized in tunnels. Tunn Under Tech 12(1):4754
Sonmez H, Ulusay R (1999) Modifcations to the geological strength index (GSI) and their applicability
to stability of slopes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:743760
Sonmez H, Ulusay R (2002) A discussion on the HoekBrown failure criterion and suggested
modification to the criterion verified by slope stability case studies, Yerbilmleri. Earth Sci 26:7799
Sonmez H, Gokeoglu C, Ulusay R (2004) Indirect determination of the modulus of deformation of
rock masses based on the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41(5):849857
Terzaghi K (1946) Rock defects and loads on tunnel support. In: Proctor RV, White T (eds) Rock
tunnelling with steel supports. Commercial Shearing co., Youngstown, pp 1599
Turul A (1998) The application of rock mass classification systems to underground excavation in
weak limestone, Ataturk dam. Turkey Eng Geol 50:337345
Verman M (1993) Rock masstunnel support interaction analysis, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Roorkee, Roorkee, India, p 267
Verman M, Singh B, Viladkar MN, Jeyhwa JL (1997) Effect of tunnel depth on modulus of deformation
of rock mass. Rock Mech Rock Eng 30(3):121127
Wickham GE, Tiedman HR, Skinner EH (1972) Support determination based on geologic predictions,
In: Proc. Rapid Exc. Tunneling Conf., AIME, New York, pp 4364
Yudbir F, Lemanza W, Prinzel F (1983) An empirical failure criterion for rock masses. In: Proc. 5th Int.
Cong. ISRM, Melbourne, vol 1. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 131138
Zhang L, Einstein HH (2004) Using RQD to estimate the deformation modulus of rock masses. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 41(2):337341
28/03/2012
28/03/2012

Application of Rock Mass Characterization For Det

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of Rock Mass Characterization For Det

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining the Mechanical Properti...

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

Application of Rock Mass Characterization for

, Sh. Moghaddas2 and R. Ajalloeian3

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

1.2 The Study Area

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

Fig. 1 Location map of the study area

2 Engineering Geological Assessment

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

0 + 000 0 + 043 Limestone

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

where J V is the volumetric joint count and is calculated as:

where s i is the average spacing of ith joint set.

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

3 Rock Mass Classification

3.1.1 The RMR System

3.1.2 The Q-System

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

RQD rock quality designation

roughness number of least favorable joint

alteration number of least favorable joint

the joint water reduction factor

stress reduction factor.

3.1.3 The RMi System

3.1.4 The GSI System

3.1.4.1 Evaluation of GSI Based on Field Observations

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

3.1.4.2 Evaluation of GSI Based on Other Rock Mass Classification

For RMR76 < 18, a new parameter, Q is introduced:

Again, for RMR89 < 23, Q has been used.

3.1.4.3 Evaluation of GSI Based on Block Volume and Joint Surface

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

3.1.5 The RCR and N

3.2 Correlation Between the Rock Mass Classification

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

Correlation (relation no.)

Rutledge and Preston (1978)

Cameron-Clarke and Budavari

Abad et al. (1984)

Kaiser and Gale (1985)

Kumar et al. (2004)

3.3 Results and Discussion

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

condition in their recommended GSI chart.

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

3.3.2 Proposed Correlations Between the Systems

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

It is evident that there is little difference between the two methods.

4 Determination of Mechanical Properties for

Equation (in terms of MPa) (relation no.)

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm

4.1.2 Results and Discussion

file://F:\geo\Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining.htm