Engineering Geology 67 (2003) 269 280

www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Modified rock mass classification system by continuous rating

Zekai Sen a,*, Bahaaeldin H. Sadagah b
b

a
Civil Engineering Faculty, Hydraulics Division, Istanbul Technical University, Maslak 80626, Istanbul, Turkey
Faculty of Earth Science, Environmental and Engineering Geology Department, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80206, Jeddah 21589,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Received 18 December 2001; accepted 13 June 2002

Abstract
It is not the purpose of this paper to propose a new rock mass classification system but rather to improve the existing ones by
incorporating some simple quantitative interpretations. The geomechanics classification system of naturally fractured rock
masses is modified to decrease personal judgement involved in its calculation. Instead of six parameters in the classical rock
mass rating (RMR) system, only five basic parameters are considered in the proposed system, which are namely, rock quality
designation (RQD) value with the underlying frequency distribution function of intact lengths; uniaxial or point load strength of
intact rock material; conditions of the most unfavorable joints; groundwater condition; and joint orientation. Classical lumprating system is replaced by continuous grading system which leaves no ambiguity for an inexperienced engineer in allocating
grades based on quantitative field or laboratory measurements. Finally, necessary charts are presented for obtaining
straightforward design values concerning average stand-up time and corresponding unsupported span of excavations in
fractured rock mass; cohesion as well as friction angle of the rock mass. The continuous RMR system is very convenient for
calculators or in writing computer software. The proposed methodology reduces the scale of subjectivity and leads to a unique
rock mass design value.
D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Classification; Rock mass; Continuous rating; Geomechanics; RQD

1. Introduction
In the planning, design and maintenance of engineering structures such as dam, tunnel, underground
power plant, highway, spillway, etc., it is necessary to
consider four rather independent steps for a successful

* Corresponding author. Fax: +90-212-2853139.

E-mail address: [email protected] (Z. Sen).

performance. First, the dimensions and geometry of

the problem must be determined in addition to the
magnitude of loads that the structure should resist.
Second, the engineering properties of the artificial
(metal, concrete) and natural (geological set up of
the site) materials must be determined. The third step
involves selection of tentative design and its performance in terms of requirements for stability, deformation, economy and safety. This step depends on
personal experience and rule-of-thumb. The final step
involves verification of the selected design by engineering judgment as to the stability and suitability of

0013-7952/02/$ - see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 3 - 7 9 5 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 8 5 - 0

270

Z. Sen, B.H. Sadagah / Engineering Geology 67 (2003) 269280

the design with respect to the predicted behavior and

its comparison with other potential alternative
designs.
It is by now well known that the behavior of rock
masses is governed by intact rock material properties
and discontinuities. The relative importance of each
depends mainly on the ratio between the dimensions
of the structure under construction and the frequency
of intact lengths.
Deere (1964) has suggested rock quality designation (RQD), which has proven useful in logging
rock cores. Simply, RQD represents the percentage
of intact core lengths that are greater than 10 cm (4
in.). RQD provides a preliminary estimate of in situ
rock mass property variations but problems arise in
its use for determining the in situ rock mass quality.
For instance, some fresh breaks may occur during
drilling and handling of cores and they are not
related to the quality of rock mass. Besides, it is
universally accepted that no single parameter or
index such as RQD can describe completely and
quantitatively rock mass behaviour for engineering
purposes.
Different parameters have different significance
and only a meaningful combination of basic parameters can describe a fractured rock mass satisfactorily. In addition to RQD, joint roughness,
orientation, compression and shear strengths of the
intact rock and infilling material properties of fracture aperture should be considered for more effective
rock mass quality assessments. For this purpose,
Wickham et al. (1972) proposed rock structure
rating (RSR) system for geological prediction in
determining support requirements. Their system
had some definite limitations and cannot cover all
geological possibilities and stress conditions. Bieniawski (1973) recognized some of these limitations
and modified RSR system, and finally, developed a
lump-rating system for accounting contributions of
different factors on the final rock mass quality
decision. His system of rock mass quality classification is known as either geomechanics classification or as the rock mass rating (RMR) system.
Another rather closely related system, namely, rock
mass quality (Q) which is suggested by Barton et al.
(1974). Q differs considerably from those described
by Wickham et al. (1972) and Bieniawski (1973).
Comparative assessment of these systems are pre-

sented by Bianewski (1989) and their practical usage

by Priest (1993). So far, various studies have indicated that RMR system is preferable for applications
with relatively less expertise requirement.
The main purpose of this paper is to modify the
RMR system of rock classification by introducing
simple charts that relate various basic parameters to
their respective rating values in a continuous manner
rather than lump rating. Besides, the modified version proposes identification of intact length distribution from borehole core readings. The purpose of
such an identification is to combine RQD and joint
spacing (average intact length) under a single rating
and hence leaving only five basic parameters in the
RMR-value calculation. Although a continuous rating might seem less convenient on site when tables
are being used but with the calculators, its use is
more objective without personal judgment in the
final decisions. In the discrete case, an interval value
is adopted as the final decision for rating value but
the continuous rating as presented here provides a
point estimation.

2. Basic parameters and RMR

The six basic significant parameters that are
adopted in the description of RMR system are
drill core RQD; average joint spacing, that is,


average intact length, X ; uniaxial compressive
strength of intact rock material, r; joint conditions,
J; groundwater conditions, G; and finally, joint
direction, D. A successful design is achieved rationally after obtaining basic information on these
parameters by considering in situ measurements, remarks, observations and their careful office assessments.
In the RMR system, each parameter is grouped
into five mutually exclusive but adjacent intervals
which are not of equal importance for overall RMR.
Ratings are allocated to these intervals in a lump
manner as proposed by Bieniawski (1976, p. 102,
Table 2). The higher the rating, the better the rock
mass quality. Let us denote the ratings that are
attached to each one of the aforementioned six
parameters as rRQD, rX
, rr, rJ, rG and rD. With these
notations at hand, the six parameters chosen to
describe the rock mass quality, (RMR-system value),

Z. Sen, B.H. Sadagah / Engineering Geology 67 (2003) 269280

are combined in the following manner (Bieniawski,

1973)
RMR rRQD rX
rr rG rJ
rD

It is shown either empirically (Deere et al., 1966;

Olivier, 1976) or by the computer simulation
(Goodman and Smith, 1980; Sen, 1990) or analytically (Priest and Hudson, 1976, 1981) that RQD


and X are directly related to each other. Such
relationships are given by Sen (1984) for different
intact length distributions in uniform, negative exponential, normal, log-normal and Gamma distribu

tions. In fact, both RQD and X are functions of
the average number of discontinuities, that is, frac

ture frequency, k and by definition X = 1/k. In the
case of negative exponentially distributed intact

271

lengths, Priest and Hudson (1981) have presented

that
RQD 1001 0:1ke
0:1k

It thus become obvious that RQD value depends on

the joint spacing distribution function but not
on the average intact length only. In other words,
the same average intact length may lead to different RQD values for different intact length distributions. Fig. 1 shows the relationship between and
RQD through joint spacing distribution (Goodman
and Smith, 1980). The role of RQD is thought to
be particularly important and a study of the implications in addition to possible modifications including relationship to natural fracture frequency is

Fig. 1. Discontinuity number and RQD relationship.

272

Z. Sen, B.H. Sadagah / Engineering Geology 67 (2003) 269280

Fig. 2. RQD rating function.

very necessary (Hougton, 1976). Such a relationship has been used in modified RMR system in this
paper. In practice, if limited or no information

is available on RQD, then the fracture frequency

concept can be used. Results of a scanline survey
in three orthogonal directions can be used to

Fig. 3. Intact length rating function.

Z. Sen, B.H. Sadagah / Engineering Geology 67 (2003) 269280

calculate the number of joints per cubic meter, JV,

and its substitution into Palmstrom (1982) equation
gives reasonably acceptable results provided that

273

the underlying intact length distribution abides by

a negative exponential function as explained by Sen
and Eissa (1991, 1992). It is important to remem-

Fig. 4. Strength functions, (a) point-load; (b) uniaxial load.

274

Z. Sen, B.H. Sadagah / Engineering Geology 67 (2003) 269280

Fig. 5. Unsupported span rating function.

ber at this stage that both Q and RMR systems

attach the greatest importance to discontinuities in
the forms of RQD, joint set number and joint
spacings.

3. Classification parameter rating functions

In the discrete RMR calculations, first five basic
parameters are considered as lump values within

Fig. 6. Average stand-up time rating function.

Z. Sen, B.H. Sadagah / Engineering Geology 67 (2003) 269280

275

Fig. 7. Groundwater conditions rating function.

relevant intervals. It is obvious that as the RQD value

increases, better rock qualities are obtained, and
therefore, high RQD values are rated highly. Fig. 2

shows the change of RQD and lump RQD ratings.

Herein, it is suggested to represent this change in a
continuous manner through a straight line with con-

Fig. 8. Cohesion rating function.

276

Z. Sen, B.H. Sadagah / Engineering Geology 67 (2003) 269280

tinuous ratings. The best-fitting straight line to the

lump ratings yields
rRQD 0:2RQD

The lump-rating values for X as proposed by
Bieniawski (1973) are plotted on semi-logarithmic
paper
in Fig. 3. Similarly, the continuous rating of


X can be expressed by means of a straight line as


rX
24 151logX
4
which can be rewritten in terms of k as
rX
24
15:1logk

Hence, a logarithmic rating system is valid for the

joint spacing. Similarly, the continuous rating for

RMR

rr 1:671 r
rr 0:075r

point
load strength

uniaxial compressive strength

7
where rr is the stress rating. However, the groundwater condition, G, has a semi-logarithmic relationship with rating rG as
rG 10
2:9logG

Substitutions of Eqs. (2) (6) into RMR-system

definition in Eq. (1) lead after some simple algebra to

8


< 0:2RQD 15logX 1:670r
2:9logG 35:67 rJ
rD

for point
load strength

for uniaxial compressive strength

0:2RQD 15logX 0:075r
2:9logG 34:00 rJ
rD

In this expression, only rJ and rG are subject to subjective adjustments and their convenient values for the
problem at hand require field reconnaissance studies.

RMR

uniaxial compressive strength, r, and unsupported

span rating function are presented in Figs. 4 and 5,
respectively. The linear rating functions for intact rock
mass are obtained as

However, other classification parameters (RQD, X , r,

G) can be determined from field measurements. RMR
can also be written in terms of k as

8
< 0:2RQD
15logk 1:670r
2:9logG 35:67 rJ
rD

for point
load strength

for uniaxial compressive strength

0:2RQD
15logk 0:075r
2:9logG 34:00 rJ
rD

10

To incorporate the theoretical information, Eq. (2) is substituted into this last expression which leads to

RMR

8
< 201 0:1ke
0:1k
15logk 1:670r
2:9logG 35:67 rJ
rD

for point
load strength

for uniaxial compressive strength

201 0:1ke
0:1k
15logk 0:075r
2:9logG 34:00 rJ
rD

This expression shows clearly that RMR can be

expressed in terms of five parameters, namely, k, r, G,
rJ and rD.

4. Decision variables rating functions

In general, four decision variables, namely, unsupported span, average stand-up time, cohesion and

11

friction angle of rock mass are partially related to RMR

value (Bianewski 1989). According to RMR value,
these decision variables assume specific values but
Bieniawski (1976) used also a lump-rating system in
final decisions. Herein, his system is also converted to
an equivalent continuous rating function for each
decision variable as presented in Figs. 4 9, respectively, for span, S, in meters; time, t, in minutes:
cohesion, C, in kilopascal; and finally, friction angle,

Z. Sen, B.H. Sadagah / Engineering Geology 67 (2003) 269280

277

Fig. 9. Rock friction angle rating function.

H0, in degrees. The relevant prediction equations are

obtained as follows:
S RMR=18

12

t 1:19e0:178RMR

13

C 3:625RMR

14

and
H0

8
< 251 0:01RMR

for RMRz20

for RMRV20

1:5RMR

15

After having obtained the RMR value from the previous section, it is sufficient to substitute this value into
Eqs. (12) (15) so as to obtain relevant point decision
variable values for design.

5. Applications
The implementation of continuous rating RMR
system as proposed in the previous sections is presented for two sets of field data. The first data set is
presented by Hougton (1976) for the Kielder tunnel

which is situated in the Weardale Valley, near Stanhope in the northeast of England. During the construction of tunnel, four different types of lithological
units were encountered as shown in the first sector of
Table 1. Field and laboratory observations of basic
rock classification parameters are presented in the
same table. Application of RMR method gives rock
mass classifications with lump, that is, interval values
for decision variable ratings. The same data set is
subjected to continuous RMR system as developed


here first by considering that RQD and X are independent from each other. Arithmetic averages of the
basic parameters are substituted into relevant equations for determining corresponding rating values.
Discrete and continuous RMR results are presented
in Table 1. In this table, sectors under the titles
continuous-I and continuous-II refer to the use of
Eqs. (9) and (11) in the RMR calculations, respectively. In the discrete sector of the table, all the values
appear as interval values. The selection of a single
value out of these intervals requires personal judgement and hence subjectivities. However, the continuous cases of I and II provide single values for each
variables, hence avoiding ambiguities and subjectivities. Comparison of results indicates significant differences especially in values of average stand-up time

278

Z. Sen, B.H. Sadagah / Engineering Geology 67 (2003) 269280

Table 1
Summary of basic RMR parameters at Kielder tunnel
Lithology

Great
limestone

Four
Four
fathom
fathom
limestone mudstone

Natrass
gill
limestone

r
RQD


X
G
Jr
Dr

100 200
79 95
0.3 0.1
30
0
0

100 200
82 97
1.0 3.0
15
12
0

25 50
25 80
0.05 0.1
50
6
0

50 10
50 90
0.3 1.0
40
6
0

Discrete
RMR
t
S
C
F

II III
6 mo 1 we
3.0 4.0
150 300
35 45

II
6 mo
4.0
200 300
40 45

III IV
1 we 5 ho
1.5 3.0
100 200
30 40

III
1 we
3.0
150 200
35 40

Continuous-I
RMR (Eq. (9))
t (Eq. (12))
S (Eq. (13))
C (Eq. (14))
H0 (Eq. (15))

56
18 da
3.1
203
39

74
15 mo
4.1
268
44

31
5 ho
1.7
112
33

52
9 da
2.9
189
38

Continuous-II
RMR (Eq. (11))
t (Eq. (12))
S (Eq. (13))
C (Eq. (14))
H0 (Eq. (15))

58
76
33
58
25 da
21 mo
17 mo
25 da
3.2
4.2
4.2
3.2
210
276
272
210
40
44
44
40


Units: r (MN/m2); X (cm); G (lt/min/10 m); S (m); C (kN/m2); H0
(deg).
Abbreviations: ho = hour, da = day; we = week, mo = month.

and cohesion of the rock between the discrete and

continuous approaches. Otherwise, unsupported span
and friction angle of rock mass are close to each other
within practically acceptable limits. Calculations with
the continuous system must be regarded as more
accurate since they do not present any ambiguity in
their determinations. The last portion of Table 1
presents results with the assumption that there are
only five basic parameters available. Most often in
practice, RQD value determination requires drill holes
which increase the cost of engineering projects. Availability of joint spacing readings along freshly cut rock
surfaces gives an opportunity to calculate the RMR
value with the methodology developed in this paper.
The essence of the methodology is the use of Eq. (11)
which has a fundamental assumption that joint spac-

ings are negative exponentially distributed. Experience of the authors along with other researchers
(Priest and Hudson, 1976, 1981) show that such a
distribution is valid, in general, for limestone and
sandstone layers. Comparison of the corresponding
results from the two continuous sectors of Table 1
confirms this last statement.
Another set of data has been presented by Al-Subai
(1984) in his study of tunnel construction in the
Precambrian rocks of the Arabian Shield. The study
area is located in the mountain chains of the Precambrian belt of the Western Arabian Shield in a transition
zone between the northern and southern Shields. The
first sector in Table 2 presents relevant geomechanical

Table 2
Summary of basic RMR parameters in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia
Group

II

III

IV

(%)
r
RQD


X
G
Jr
Dr

21.4
50 73
75 90
0.5 1.0
20
20

5

16.6
30 45
50 75
0.6 2.0
20
12

5

48.4
20 30
25 50
0.2 0.6
100
6

5

13.6
20.0
0 20
0.06 0.2
150
0

6

Discrete
RMR
t
S
C
H0

66
6 mo
4.0
200 300
40 45

41
1 we
3.0
150 200
35 40

27
5 ho
1.5
100 150
30 35

5
10 mi
0.5
< 100
< 30

Continuous-I
RMR (Eq. (9))
S (Eq. (12))
t (Eq. (13))
C (Eq. (14))
H0 (Eq. (15))

65
3.6
3 mo
236
41

54
3.0
12 da
196
38

43
2.4
42 ho
156
36

13
0.7
12 mi
47
28

Continuous-II
RMR (Eq. (11))
S (Eq. (12))
t (Eq. (13))
C (Eq. (14))
H0 (Eq. (15))

68
54
51
11
3.8
3.0
2.8
0.6
5 mo
12 da
6 da
8.5 mi
247
196
182
40
42
39
38
17


Units: r (MN/m2); X (cm); G (lt/min/10 m); S (m); C (kN/m2); H0
(deg).
Abbreviations: mi = mile, ho = hour, da = day; we = week, mo =
month.

Z. Sen, B.H. Sadagah / Engineering Geology 67 (2003) 269280

classification. Based on surface geologic and physiographic studies supplemented by the laboratory investigations, the proposed tunnel has four RQD
classifications, namely, good, fairly good, poor and
very poor rock types which appear in 21.4%, 16.6%,
48.4% and 13.6%, respectively. Such a preliminary
grouping helps to refine the overall rock mass quality
classification. He then applied the discrete RMR
system independently to each group. The results are
shown in Table 2. As usual, by using the discrete
RMR method, rather rough or lump values are
obtained as decision variables. The last two sectors
in this table present results of continuous RMR
system with six and five basic parameters, respectively. Since the percentage of each group is available,
the weighted averages of each decision variable are
also calculated as overall representative values.

6. Conclusions
Rock mass classification systems provide a practical tool for mutual understanding and specific
agreement between planner, designer, field and
project engineers, consultant and contractors. Very
complex nature of fractured rock mass is described
simply and economically by these systems which
quantify some qualitative information concerning
the rock strength, fracture pattern, orientation, spacing, roughness, groundwater conditions and personal experience. Possibly the most widely used
system is discrete rock mass rating (RMR) which
has been modified in this study. Lump rating in this
system leads to quite subjective adjustments, and
therefore, they are replaced with the continuous
rating functions which appear as straight lines on
either arithmetic or logarithmic papers. Necessary
charts are presented for obtaining rating values
objectively provided that rock quality designation
(RQD), fracture frequency, uniaxial or point-load
strength as well as the groundwater discharge per
unit surface of excavation are measured. Hence, the
subjective assessments in RMR calculations are
confined to joint condition and orientation only.
Decision variable functions that show the change
of RMR value with unsupported span, average
stand-up time, rock cohesion and friction angle
have also appeared as straight lines. Hence, with

279

the use of continuous RMR system, the maximum

difference between experienced end inexperienced
engineers decision is less than 10%. Further modification in RMR system is suggested by rating
combination of RQD and joint spacing through the
use of average fracture number and theoretical
instant length distribution as negative exponential
distribution function.

7. Notation
Dr
Gr
GC
Jr
RMR
RSR
RQD


Xr
rr
k
H0

Joint orientation
Groundwater condition
Geomechanics classification
Joint condition
Rock mass rating
Rock structure rating
Rock quality designation
Average intact length
Uniaxial compressive strength
Fracture spacing
Friction angle

References
Al-Subai, K.A., 1984. Engineering geology of stormwater drainage
tunnel No. IA/26 Holy City of Makkah. Unpublished MSc Thesis, King Abdulaziz University, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 196 pp.
Barton, N., Lien, R., Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering classification of
rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech. 6,
189 236.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1973. Engineering classification of jointed rock
masses. Trans. S. Afr. Inst. Civ. Eng. 15, 335 344.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1976. Rock mass classification in rock engineering. Proc. Symp. Expl. Rock. Eng., Johannesburg, Balkema,
Cape Town, vol. 1, pp. 97 106.
Bianewski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classification. Wiley, Chichester, 251 pp.
Deere, D.U., 1964. Technical description of cores for engineering
purposes. Rock. Mech. Eng. Geol. 1, 17 22.
Deere, D.U., Hendron, A.J., Patton, F.D., Cordding, E.J., 1966.
Design of surface and near surface construction in rock. Proc.
8th US Symp. Rock. Mech., Minneapolis, MN, pp. 237 303.
Goodman, R.E., Smith, H.R., 1980. RQD and fracture spacing. J.
Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE 106 (GT2), 191 193.
Hougton, D.A., 1976. The role of rock quality indices in the assessment of rock masses. Proc. Symp. Expl. Rock Eng., Johannesburg, Balkema, Cape Town, vol. 1, pp. 129 135.
Olivier, R.J., 1976. Determination of RQD from petroscope obser-

280

Z. Sen, B.H. Sadagah / Engineering Geology 67 (2003) 269280

vations. Proc. Symp. Expl. Rock Eng., Johannesburg, Balkema,

Cape Town, vol. 1, pp. 63 68.
Palmstrom, A., 1982. The volumetric joint counta useful and
simple measure of the degree of rock mass jointing. Proc. 4th
Cong. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol., New Delhi, vol. 2, pp. 221 228.
Priest, S.D., 1993. Discontinuity Analysis for Rock Engineering.
Chapman and Hall, London, 473 pp.
Priest, S.D., Hudson, J.A., 1976. Discontinuity spacings in rocks. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 13, 135 148.
Priest, S.D., Hudson, J.A., 1981. Estimation of discontinuity spacing and trace length using scanline survey. Int. J. Rock. Mech.
Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 18, 183 197.

Sen, Z., 1984. RQD models and fracture spacing. J. Geotech. Eng.
Div., ASCE 110 (2), 203 216.
Sen, Z., 1990. RQP, RQR and fracture spacing. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 127 (2), 135 137.
Sen, Z., Eissa, E.A., 1991. Volumetric rock quality designation. J.
Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE 117 (9), 1331 1346.
Sen, Z., Eissa, E.A., 1992. Volumetric rock quality designation with
log-normal intact lengths. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 19 (1), 1 12.
Wickham, G.E., Tiedemann, H., Skinner, E.H., 1972. Support determination based on geologic predictions. Proc. 1st Rapid Exc.
Tun. Conf., New York, AIME, pp. 43 64.