72 Rock mass

classification

In earlier chapters there was discussion about the influence of the rock mass
structure on the rock mass properties necessary for both the theory
and practice of rock engineering. In Chapter 20, we will refer to block
theory and to the fact that there is now a complete topological solution
to the rock block geometry. This validity of the theory depends critically
on the persistence of the discontinuities. We also mentioned that,
given the discontinuity geometry and all the associated stiffnesses, the
deformability of a rock mass can be calculated. But the ability to make this
calculation depends on the availability of data on the discontinuity
geometry and stiffnesses.
It is evident that even with the most generous resources available for site
investigation, there remain problems in applying the theories in practical
engineering circumstances. As a consequence, several engineers have
developed rock mass classification schemes-which are essentially a
compromise between the use of a complete theory and ignoring the rock
properties entirely. All the classification schemes consider a few of the key
rock mass parameters, and assign numerical values to the classes within
which these parameters lie for a given rock type. As we will see, the
schemes provide a short-cut to the rock mass properties that are more
difficult to assess (eg. the prediction of rock mass deformability) and
provide direct guidance for engineering design (e.g. in predicting the
amount of support required for a tunnel). One of the pioneers of rock mass
classification, Professor Z. T. Bienawski, has recently written a book
Engineering Rock Muss Clussifications (1989) on the subject.
Here we will provide a brief review of the two main classification
schemes which have been widely used. We wiIl also be discussing the
classifications within the overall philosophy of this book, noting their
strengths and deficiencies.

12.1 Rock M a s s Rating (RMR) system

The advantage of the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system, in common with
the Q-system described in the next section, is that only a few basic
194 Rock mass classification
parameters relating to the geometry and mechanical condition of the rock
mass are used. In the case of the RMR system, these are:
(a) the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock;
(b) RQD;
(c) discontinuity spacing;
(d)condition of discontinuity surfaces;
(e) groundwater conditions; and
( f ) orientation of discontinuities relative to the engineered structure.
The way in which these parameters are used to provide an overall rating
is shown in Table 12.1.

Table 12.1 The rock mass rating system (after Bieniawski, 1989)
Rock Mass Rating System
A. CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERSAND THEIFI mnffis
I P-ICC I Ragesofnlua
1
>IO I 4-10 I 2-4 I I -2
ForIbislawrangs.
uniaxialcompressiw
Lest is pnfentd

I5 12 7 4 2 1 0

90-100 75 .go 50.75 25 - 50 Q5

quality RQD

2 0 1 1 s 1 1 0 1 8 I 5

Conditionof
dirontinuitiu
I I I I
Rating 30 I 25 20 I IO 0
Inflow psi 1Om
NMCI
lcnglh
(hin)

(joint warn

principalsmn)
0 I 4.1 10.1-0.2 I 0.2-0.5 1 >os

conditions

I Ratlns I IS 10 7 4 0
UIDEUNESFOR CLASSIFICATIONOF DISCONTINUNCONMnONS
c
PWMCIU Ratings
<Im I-3m 3-10111 I0-2hn >zon,
Dimlinuity length ( ~ ~ )
c I I I I
 Q-system 195

Table 12.1 (cont)

C.EFFECT OF DISCONTINUITY ORIENTATIONSIN TUNNELLING
I S u h Dsmcndisullr to N d ui8 i

-
h p 20 45 Ihp45-90 Ihpo-20
Fur V a y unfavourabk I -
D. RATINQ ADJUSTMENT FOR DISCWNUIW ORlENTAllONS
OnenlahOnsof D~sconunuluu Fer
-
Very Favounblc Favowable
-
k

Tunnels & mines 0 -2 -5 -10 -12

Raungr Foundaoons 0 -2 1 -I5 -25

Slop 0 -5 -25 -50 M)

E. ROCK MASS CLASSESDETERMINED FROM TOTAL runffis

RUIng 100-81 80-61 60-41 40-21 00

Clus no I 11 111 N V
Descnpuon
FROCK MASS CIASSES
Vuygaodrcck Gmdmk Pan mek P o a d Vaypoornuk
-
SI no.
I I I If

rand-uptim 2Oyrforl5mapnu IyrfalOmw

RMR = ~(ciassificationparameters) + discontinuity orientation adjustment

In Section A of Table 12.1, with the first five of the classification

parameters and their ratings, the parameters are grouped in five classes,
each one covering a range of values appropriate to that parameter. When
assessing a given rock mass, one establishes into which of these groups the
parameter lies, and then sums the resulting numerical ratings for the five
parameters.
In Section B of Table 12.1, there are ratings for discontinuity character-
istics. The orientation of the discontinuities becomes progressively more
important from tunnels and mines, through foundations, to slopes, Sections
C and D.
In Sections E and F of the table, the rock mass classes are given with a
description from ‘very good rock‘ through to ‘very poor rock‘, with
estimates for tunnel stand-up time and the Mohr-Coulomb strength
parameters of cohesion and friction angle for the rock mass.
Despite the simplicity of approach when dealing with complex rock
masses, considerable engineering benefit has accrued through the applica-
tion of this classificationscheme and the resultant thinking that it has provoked.
Bieniawski (1989) mentions 351 case histories covering 15 years.

12.2 Q-system
In a similar way to the RMR system, the Q-rating is developed by assigning
values to six parameters. These are:
196 Rock mass classification

(a) RQD;
(b) number of discontinuity sets;
(c) roughness of the ’most unfavourable’ discontinuity;
(d) degree of alteration or filling along the weakest discontinuity;
(e) water inflow; and
( f ) stress condition.
The Q-value is expressed as

where
RQD = rock quality designation,
h = joint set number (related to the number of discontinuity sets),
Jr = joint roughness number (related to the roughness of the
discontinuity surfaces),
Ja = joint alteration number (related to the degree of alteration or
weathering of the discontinuity surfaces),
Jw = joint water reduction number (relates to pressures and
inflow rates of water within the discontinuities),and
SRF = stress reduction factor (related to the presence of shear zones,
stress concentrations and squeezing and swelling rocks).
The motivation in presenting the Q-value in this form is to provide some
method of interpretation for the three constituent quotients.
The first, RQDIJ, is related to the rock mass geometry: Q increases with
increasing RQD and decreasing number of discontinuity sets. RQD
increases with decreasing number of discontinuity sets, so the numerator
and denominator of the quotient mutually reinforce one another.
Basically, the higher the value of this quotient, the better the ’geometrical
quality’ of the rock mass. We noted, in Chapter 7, that RQD determined
using the conventional threshold of 0.1 m is insensitive to discontinuity
frequencies less than about 3 m-’, so this quotient may also be insensitive.
Moreover, there is also the problem (which is, in fact, common to both the
RMR system and the Q-system) that RQD generally exhibits anisotropy,
yet anisotropy is not considered.
The second quotient, Jr/Ja, relates to the ’inter-blockshear strength’ with
high values of this quotient representing better ‘mechanicalquality’ of the
rock mass: the quotient increases with increasing discontinuity roughness
and decreasing discontinuity surface alteration. The different discontinuity
sets in the rock mass may have different roughnesses and degrees of
alteration, so the Q-system uses the worst case.
The third quotient, JJSRF, is an ’environmental factor’ incorporating
water pressures and flows, the presence of shear zones, squeezing and
swelling rocks and the in situ stress state. The quotient increases with
decreasing water pressure or flow rate, and also with favourable rock mass
strength to in situ stress ratios.
The Q-system is more complex to use than the RMR system. We are
therefore including, in Table 12.2, the full range of classes for the six
parameters involved in the system.
 Q-system 197

Table 12.2 Q-system parameters

Q-~ystemOf Q = -ReDnLnL
Rock Mass Classification I 7 SRR

J. F o r h u r x e c t h . we (3.0 n JJ ForpomL, WI
a: Mmive. now m fmjoinu 054.0 (2.0 x JJ
b Oncjointrcc 2
iiJg e: Oncjoint set plus Mdom 3

5
J -.
1
d Two joint r o
e: Twojoin1 acu plus mdom
f : ThRC joint sets
ThRCjoinI rctr plw Mdom
4
6
9
I2
.I :i Pour or more joint reo. d o m . heavily jointed 'mgu
cuk', eo. IS
j: cwhdmk.cadllike 20

0.75
1.o

2.0

3.0

4.0

4.0
6.0
8.0

8.0-12.0 16'42'
198 Rock mass classification

Table 12.2 (cont)

Q-vstem of ReD J,
Rock Mass Classification e 7 J.
- SRF
6.0.8.0 a
8.0-12.0

5.0
m: ~~con(inuourumaorhodrofclay(rccp:,h.j:
fa 0.0.13.0 a
descriptionof clay coadition) 13.0-m.0

I SRF
(I) We~ssronuin&rseclingacava&~whkhmaycau~

a:
loosenin8 of m k IMU when auvul & Ucowed
MUltipk O e C U m n a r OfWC&US rOmr COllUiriillgShJ
or chcmidly disintegratedmck, very lmre rumwndirq
rod: (MY depth) 10.0
rcowtion

I
b Single w&ur l o l smuininp ~ ~ clay or chcmiullj
disintcgnlcd rock (excavation depth d l m) 5.0
C: siagk W&U3 ZmCI C O I
l
d w Clay OI e h u n i d J
disintegnlcdrock (uclvatica dcptb >Mm) 2.5
d MultipkrbcvroDesincomp~trock(clay-froc).loo~
CunOundingrock (My depth) 1.3
e: Singleshm zone$in Eompnent rock (clay-free) (dcptl
of ucavmion 6 0 m) 5.0
f: Single shcv zcmu in Eompcml mck (clay- frcc) (dcptl
of excavation >SO m) 2.3
g: Loose open jointa. hcavily jointcd 01 'rugascub'. CIC
(MY depth) 5.0

(ii) Compeunr rock rock SITUS problem

h Lowrtrtrs,ncarswfaa 2.3
j: Mcdiumsmsr 1.O
k High-SllUS. V U y dghl IIIUClUIO (USUdy f8VOUnbk I t
stability. may b unfavourble for wall stability) 0.5-20
L: Mild rock bunt (murive rock) 5-10
m: Hcdvy rock bunt (massive rock) 10-m
(Ill) Squeezln8 rock: pbrricpow of h m p e l e n r rock d e
rlu iqRuence of high rod pressures
n: Mild squcuingrock pmsun 5-10
p: Heavy squeezing rock pressure 10-m
(lv) Swellin8 m k : chemkd nvelllng activiry depending 01
presence ofwanr
q: Mild swelling mck prruwc 5-10
I: Heavy swelling
.rock.PIUSUR 10-15

s k' Dry ucavations a minor inflow. e.g. 5 ymin locally

J.
I .o
2 b Medium inflow or pressure, oeeasiond outwash of
joint fiUingl 0.66
c: Large inflow or high prruvls in wmpetcnr mck with
unfilled joints 0.5
d Large inflow or high p w u r c , considuableoutwash o
joint Illlings 0.33 .5-10.0
e: Exceptionally high inflow (x warn prarun at
blasting, decaying with time 0.2-0.1
E Exceptionally high inflowor W~ICI p-un Eontinuin,
without noticeabledecay 0.1-0.05

.Ibc(ulor.!
d * d W
~tmsLlsdE
rrddmdude
ofttaban
ItbcIISbiUQ,

luhvmmblo

12.3 Applications of rock mass classification

systems
Using either of the classification systems described in the previous two
sections, the engineering quality of a rock mass can be assessed. The RMR
system gives a number between 0 and 100, and the Q-system gives a
number between 0.001 and 1000. By these approaches, we are able to
produce a description of the rock mass based on classes defined by the
 Applications of rock muss cluss;f;cafion systems 199

L I I I I I I
10-1 10" 10' 102 lo3 I o4 io5 I06
Stand-up time, hrs
Figure 12.1 Excavation stand-up time for the RMR system.

numbers in the classifications. For example, an RMR value of 62 is a 'good

rock: similarly, a Q-value of 20 indicates a 'good rock'. The RMR value
provides five such quality classes and the Q-system provides nine.
Both the classifications described were developed for estimating the
support necessary for tunnels excavated for civil engineering schemes. The
engineer should be careful when using classification schemes for other
projects. It is one thing to utilize the rock mass parameters in a taxonomic
system for classifying and describing the rock; it is quite another to
extrapolate the information to the general design of excavations and their
support. Bieniawski (1989) has noted "it is important that the RMR system
is used for the purpose for which it was developed and not as the answer
to all design problems".

0.00I 0.01 0. I I IO 100 I'

Rock mass quality Q

Figure 12.2 Support requirements for the Q-system (for fuller details see
Bieniawski, 1989).
200 Rock mass classification

Using the rock mass parameters in each case to provide a quantitative

assessment of the rock mass, and utilizing experience gained from
previously excavated stable and unstable tunnels, design charts have been
constructed, as shown in Figs 12.1 and 12.2, for estimating 'stand-up time'
or support requirements. For a description of the complete technique for
establishingthe support requirements, the reader is referred to Bieniawski
(1989), which expands on the fundamentals given here of the two
systems.
Attempts have been made to extend the classification system to slopes
(Romana, 1985).Naturally, the six parameters utilized in the RMR system are
relevant to slope stability, but the classification value needs to be adjusted
for different engineering circumstances. The way in which Professor
Romana numerically adjusted the RMR value was by considering the
following factors:
(a) F1associated with parallelism between the slope and the discontinuity
strike direction;
(b) F2 related to the discontinuity dip for plane failure;
(c) F3 concerning the slope angle compared to the discontinuity dip angle;
and
(d) F4 relating to the method of excavation.
The classification value is then found from the formula

Table 12.3 indicates the numerical values of the four factors required to
adjust R M R B A s l c to RMRsLOpE, together with the SMR classes, the types of
failure anticipated, and any remedial measures necessary to improve
stability.

Table 12.3 The SMR rating system (from Romana, 1985 and Bieniawski, 1989)
VW
-0 Very FevoraMe Fernable Far Unfauorable Unfavorable
P
T
-
1q -.I
Iq-%-180.1
>w 30-w 20-10. 10-5' <5'

P/T .=I 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00

P lei1 <w 20-w 90-35' 35-45' >45*
P Fz 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
T F2 1 1 1 1 1
P Pi - B. >lo. 10-0- 0. 0--(-10.) c-10-
T R+R <llV 110-1w 2120.
P/T
P -
pluu flilure.
T = (oppung IailuIo.
F3

4
8. -- skwa dip direaim.
~2.~8dip.
0
-
-6
9 pM d@ dimckm.
&-iowdP.
-25 -50 -60

SMR - RMR - (F, x h x h l + Fa

Tentative~ e s c r i i r i o nd SMR classes
 links between the classification systems and rock properties 201

In the same vein, extensions to the RMR and Q-classification systems

have been made to estimate rippability, dredgeability, excavatability, cutta-
bility and cavability (Bieniawski, 1989).

12.4 Links between the classification systems

and rock properties
The rock mass classificationsystems have some common parameters, so we
might expect a link to exist between the RMR and Q-systems. The most
well-known correlation is given by the equation
RMR = 9log,Q + 44.
Naturally, this has to be an approximation, because in situ stress and rock
strength are not common to the two systems.
Since the rock mass properties, e.g. deformability and strength, are also
functions of the intact rock properties and the discontinuity properties, it
follows that we may be able use the classificationscheme values to estimate
the modulus and strength of rock masses. Empirical relations are available
for both of the systems described.
Bieniawski (1989) has suggested that
EmSS = 2 x RMR - 100 GPa (for RMR > 50).
Another relation has been proposed by Serafim and Pereira (1983),which
covers the entire RMR range, and is
EMASS= GPa.
For the Q-system, Barton et al., (1985) proposed that
10 logloQ < EMASS < 40 loglo Q, with EM,, = 25 loglo Q.

Other expressions have been developed (Hoek and Brown, 1988).For the
Hoek-Brown strength parameters rn and s (see Section 6.5.3) as:

undisturbed rock : rn = m iexp (yyoo] =exp['""R9-'"']

[
disturbed rock : rn = rn, exp (R),,: = exp[RMR6-~ooj

where RMR is the unadjusted rating from the system.

12.5 Discussion
It is important to place the value of rock mass classification schemes and
the estimations described above within the context of practical rock
engineering. It is easy to point to the value of the classificationswhen, often
inexperienced, personnel have to make assessments of rock mass quality
and support requirements, especially when faced with no other clear alter-
native. Similarly, it is easy to say that none of the techniques has any solid
scientific foundation and can quite clearly be dangerously misleading if the
202 Rock mass classification

potential failure mechanism is not identified within the classification

system. Stress is not included in the RMR system; the intact strength of rock
is not included in the Q-system. Either of these parameters could be a
fundamental cause of failure in certain circumstances. Even more
severely, a shear or fault zone in the rock could exist which dominates the
potential failure mechanism of, say, a cavern or slope.
Because the perceived main governing parameters for rock engineering
have been included in the RMR and Q-systems, their use must provide
some overall guidance. However, the use of these systems as the sole
design tool cannot be supported on scientific grounds. For example, the fact
that the measured values of discontinuity frequency and RQD depend on
the direction of measurement has been clearly explained in Chapter 7, yet
this is not accounted for in either of the systems described. Similarly,
because the rock mass modulus depends on the discontinuity stiffnesses
to a large extent, the modulus is also anisotropic, yet the predictions of E
only provide a single (i.e. isotropic) value.
We feel, therefore, that despite its past contributions, the rock mass
classification approach will be supplemented by other methods in due
course, as the correct mechanisms are identified and modelled directly.
Moreover, it is an unnecessary restriction to use the same classification
parameters without reference to either the project or the site. For exam-
ple, in a hydroelectric scheme pressure tunnel, the in situ stress and proximity
of the tunnel to the ground surface are two of the most important
parameters. The RMR system cannot help under these circumstances. The
Q-system cannot be used for predicting E below a dam if the stratified nature
of the rock mass means that there is sigruficant anisotropy of stiffness.
12.6 Extensions to rock mass classification
techniques
Given our comments in the previous section, we believe that there are two
main ways in which the rock mass classification approach can be improved.
The first is a straightforward extension of the current systems, but
incorporating fuzzy mathematics to account for variations in the individual
component parameters. The second is to choose those parameters that are
most relevant to a particular engineering objective and hence the classifi-
cation systems for different projects would involve different constituent
parameters-using the RES (rock engineering systems) approach briefly
described in Chapter 14 (Hudson, 1992).

72.6.I Use of fuzzy muthemutics

Engineers may encounter problems in using the current rock mass clas-
sification systems because the inherent variability of rock masses is difficult
to take into account-for example, ifmean discontinuity spacing vanes from
0.3 to 2.0 m, what value should be used in the system? By assigning a fuzzy
number to such parameters, and then using the techniques of fuzzy arith-
metic to combine the numbers, it is possible to generate a fuzzy number
representing the classification value. Such a number then embodies the
'most certain' classification value, together with information regarding its
 Extensions to rock mass classification techniques 203

maximum and minimum values, and the manner in which it varies

between the two. Hence, fuzzy mathematics permits the ‘uncertainty’
surrounding the assessment of parameters to be included. Also, the appli-
cation of this technique in rock mass classification is straightforward and
direct, because fuzzy numbers may be assigned easily to the parameters in
a rock mass classification scheme.
Some examples of fuzzy numbers and fuzzy arithmetic are shown in
Fig. 12.3. It is important to realize that the distributions of uncertainty illus-
trated in Fig. 12.3 ure not probability density distributions. The parameters A
and B illustrated in Fig. 12.3 are uncertain numbers: we know that A varies
between 3 and 10, with a most likely value of 7-but we are uncertain as
to which precise value it will take; similarly, B will vary between 12 and 20
with a most likely value of 14. The fuzzy sum and fuzzy multiplicand of
two fuzzy numbers are shown in Fig. 12.3.
In Fig. 12.4, as an example we have applied fuzziness to. the six para-
meters of the Q-system, presenting illustrations of the nature of fuzzy
assessment of parameters. The assessment of RQD and Jr are straight-
forwardly analogous to A and B in Fig. 12.3. However, in the case of
parameter Jw,its most likely value coincides with its maximum value-with
the result that the skewed number shown is generated. Similarly, for Jn its
most likely value also coincides with its minimum value. The two
parameters Ja and SRF have been assessed as having only one value: these
are crisp, i.e. conventional, numbers.
Applying fuzzy arithmetic to the basic formula of the Q-system, given
in Section 12.2, results in the fuzzy classification value shown in Fig. 12.4.
Taking all of the most likely values of the individual parameters, and
combining them, gives a value of 5.8, which is the most likely value of the
classification value. Similarly, the maximum and minimum values of the

Addition of two fuzzy numbers

Multiplication o f two fuzzy numbers

Figure 12.3 Fuzzy numbers and their additive and multiplicative forms.
 LO[ A /y
204 Rock mass classification

RQD , LO[ , LOI ~~ I.O[

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ,

40 50 60 70 80 90 0 I 2 3 4 0 051.015 8 9 10 11 12 13

*
0.0 1.O
2 3 NRF

Figure 12.4 Application of fuzzy methods to the assessment of Q.

classificationof 8.0 and 1.1,respectively, are found from the corresponding

values of the individual parameters. The distribution of the remaining
values of the number are found by combining the values of the individual
parameters at membership values of 0.1,0.2 and so on. It is interesting to
see that the result is a number in which the distribution of values is non-
linear: the 'flanks' of the number are curved.
The conclusions to be drawn from this visual examination of the result are
that there is more possibility of Q being less than the most likely value rather
than being greater, and that the convex nature of the flanks has the effect of
increasing the possibility that the conditions will be worse than a single-
valued calculation would imply. Lastly, it should be noted that the final
distribution of Q and the associated conclusions are not at all obvious from
an examination of the nature of the original fuzzy component parameters.

12.6.2 Use of RES (Rock Engineering Systems)

The principle behind the RES system (Hudson, 1992) is that the informa-
tion obtained should match the engineering objective. The two main
classification systems-those of RMR and Q-utilize six main parameters
which are not the same. The developers of these systems have decided on
which parameters are most important for tunnel design, and designed their
classifications accordingly. Both proponents of the systems have warned
users not to attempt to extrapolate the classification methods without
modification and not to make predictions outside the original subjects for
which the classification schemes were intended.
A more general approach is to consider for any specific project the
relative importance of all rock engineering parameters, and then to
concentrate on the most important, say, six or 10 parameters. One could
go further and establish how many parameters contributed to, say, 95% of
the design process, and allocate resources accordingly. To illustrate this
point, we refer the reader to Fig. 11.2 in which the parameters associated
 Extensions to rock mass classification techniques 205

Site parameters
E Rock mass
0 Discontinuity
El Intact rock

Figure 12.5 Relative importance of rock engineering parameters in the design of

large rock caverns (as established from the literature and compiled by Tamai, 1990).

with pressure tunnel design are shown, and to Figs 12.5 and 12.6 which
show the parameters in order of importance for large underground caverns
and radioactive waste disposal, respectively.
Such histograms can be compiled on the basis of past experience, current
practice and recommended practice (the latter, perhaps, arising from
modelling of design requirements). The histograms in Figs 11.2, 12.5 and

Figure 12.6 Relative importance of rock engineering parameters in the design of

radioactive waste repositories (as established from the literature and complied by
Arnold, 1993).
206 Rock mass classification

Table 12.4 Relative importance of rock engineering parameters in three engi-

eering activities

In situ stress Depth of cavem I n situ stress

Discontinuity persistence Discontinuity orientation Induced displacemenm

Topographicfactors In situ stress lhamal aspects

PMenCcof faul~folds of faults Discontinuity geometry
Location of tunnel -type beability
Discontinuity apermrc Discontinuity frcqucncy Time d p d e n t properties
Rock mass geometry Discontinuity apertwe Elastic modulus
Discontinuity fd Recxisting water conditioms Compressive strength
Tunnel water pressure. Intact mck elastic modulus Porosity
Re-uisting w.tcr cnditions RocknuJsclasticmodulus Density

12.6 were developed from literature reviews and could be different if they
were based on current practice or design-led practice.
We present Table 12.4which lists the most important parameters for the
three cases which were derived from their frequency of occurrence in the
literature, reflecting the concentration of research effort. Forty-four papers
were studied for pressure tunnels, 70 for large underground caverns, and
208 for radioactive waste disposal. The key point is that the list of most
important parameters will not be the same for different types of
engineering project, nor indeed will it coincide with one of the current
classification schemes-as is clear from the table. Furthermore, we cannot
divorce the rock mass properties from some of the site and operational
characterisitics. The table includes not only the properties of intact rock,
discontinuitiesand the rock mass, but also factors relating to the prevailing
boundary conditions, site circumstances and project parameters.

12.7 Concluding remarks

In conclusion, it is clear that rock mass classification schemes have assisted
engineers in the past especially in the absence of any other approach. There
are pitfalls associated with the use of the schemes, primarily associated with
the absence of what may be critical parameters for various projects. The
classification systems can be enhanced by the use of fuzzy methods and
strategic parameter selection. In the long term, perhaps beyond the
lifetimes of the readers, and certainly the authors, rock mass classification
systems will be superseded by direct solution of the engineering problems,
although there will always be some comfort in using the classification
schemes to ensure that modelling results do not contravene hard-earned
practical experience. In the meantime, rock mass classification systems are
useful but must be used with care.