Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Extension of tunneling quality index and rock mass rating systems for tunnel T
support design through back calculations in highly stressed jointed rock
mass: An empirical approach based on tunneling data from Himalaya
⁎
Hafeezur Rehmana,c, Abdul Muntaqim Najia,d, Jung-joo Kimb, Hankyu Yooa,
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangnok-gu, Ansan 426-791, Republic of Korea
b
Korea Railroad Research Institute, 176 Cheoldobangmulgwan-ro, Uiwang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Mining Engineering, Balochistan University of Information Technology Engineering and Management Sciences (BUITEMS), Quetta, Pakistan
d
Department of Geological Engineering, Balochistan University of Information Technology Engineering and Management Sciences (BUITEMS), Quetta, Pakistan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A preliminary support design is the basic output of an empirical rock mass classification system. Tunneling
High in-situ stresses quality index (Q) and rock mass rating (RMR) systems are used specifically for tunnel support in moderately
Jointed rock mass jointed and massive rocks; however, they do not provide any information/guidance for jointed rock masses in a
SRF highly stressed environment. Hence, this study focuses on the already supported drill and blast tunnel sections
Stress adjustment factor
mapping data of four tunneling projects in Pakistan. The study extends the application of these systems to the
Back calculation
tunnel support design for highly stressed jointed rock mass through an empirical approach. In each empirical
approach, the parameters for the stress condition are suggested. Rock mass quality (Q or Qc) is determined from
back calculations using an installed support and tunnel span. Empirical equations and charts are proposed for the
stress reduction factor (SRF) characterization. In the proposed equations and charts, the SRF is a function of
intact rock strength, relative block size, and strength–stress ratio. In the case of the RMR system, approximately
90% of the sections show that the actual supports are heavier than the suggested supports by RMR89. The RMR
was determined from the installed support for each tunnel section through the back calculations. To select the
adjustment rating factor for stress, three hypotheses are considered based on the intact rock strength to the major
principal stress ratio. The RMR14 suggested support revealed that all sections are heavily supported. A strong
correlation exists between RMR89 and RMR14. Three hypotheses are considered for the stress adjustment factor
rating selection for RMR14 based on the correlation equation between RMR89 and RMR14. For the evaluation, the
application of modified Q and RMR systems are used in the tunnel support in a case study. The exploration
reports show that the tunnel will pass through a jointed rock mass under high in-situ stress environments. The
comparison shows that heavy support is recommended from the modified systems for tunnel stability.

1. Introduction outputs of rock mass classification systems in tunneling. The rock mass
rating (RMR) and tunneling quality index (Q) are internationally ac-
The classification systems of rock masses have been developed sig- ceptable rock mass classification systems that are widely used in the
nificantly and serve as transmitters of their characteristics. Specifically, field of tunneling for this purpose.
with respect to tunneling, rock mass classification systems divide and The RMR classification was proposed in 1973 as a jointed rock mass
describe ground into different classes and are part of the engineering classification system (Bieniawski, 1973), and major revisions were
design methodologies. Several rock mass classification systems have performed in 1989 and 2014 (Bieniawski, 1989; Celada et al., 2014).
been developed since a pioneering study by Terzaghi involving a rock The Q-system was developed in 1974 (Barton et al., 1974), and major
load factor classification (Yan-jun et al., 2017). The reasons for the changes in characterization and classification were proposed in 1993
popularity of using an empirical classification system in tunnel design and 2002 (Barton, 2002; Grimstad and Barton, 1993). The Q-system
and construction include its simplicity, economy, reliability, and time- was developed based on the tunneling cases for hard and jointed rock
tested approach. A preliminary support design is one of the basic masses (NGI, 2015). The applications of Q-system are more frequent in

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hankyu@hanyang.ac.kr (H. Yoo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.11.050
Received 18 December 2017; Received in revised form 7 June 2018; Accepted 30 November 2018
0886-7798/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Rehman et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

Table 1
Relation of SRF to strength–stress ratios for competent rocks with rock stress problems (Grimstad and Barton, 1993).
Stress level σc/σ1 σθ/ σc SRF* (old) SRF** (new)

1 Low stress near surface, open joints > 200 < 0.01 2.5 2.5
2 Medium stress, favorable stress condition 200–10 0.01–0.3 1 1
3 High stress, very tight structure. Typically, favorable to stability, and may be unfavorable to wall stability 10–5 0.3–0.4 0.5–2 0.5–2
4 Moderate slabbing after > 1 h in massive rock 5–3 0.5–0.65 5–9 5–50
5 Slabbing and rock burst after a few minutes in massive rock 3–2 0.65–1.0 9–15 50–200
6 Heavy rock burst (strain-burst) and immediate dynamic deformation in massive rock <2 > 1.0 15–20 200–400

* Barton et al. (1974).

** Grimstad and Barton (1993).

Table 2
The known parameters for the four tunneling projects.
Project No. of Sections σc (MPa) (No. of sections) Jr Ja Jw Tunnel Span (m) (No. of sections)

Project-1 258 75 (178) 65 (06) 60 (23) 56.25 (40) 37.5 (11) 3 1 1 11.17 (235) 14.17 (23)
Project-2 204 100 (44) 90 (20) 80 (31) 75 (04) 60 (07) 50 (66) 45 (11) 40 (21) 1.5 3 1 9.68 (172) 12 (32)
2 0.66
1
Project-3 50 86 (15) 82 (35) 3 1 1 9.4 (44) 12.4 (06)
0.66
Project-4 30 75 (20) 54 (10) 3 1 1 3.7 (30)

100 80
a) b) Project-1
80 70 Project-2
Project-3
60 60 Project-4
Frequency (%)

40 50
20 40
16
30
12
20
8
4 10
0 0
2-2.5 2.5-3 3-3.5 3.5-4 4-4.5 4.5-5 10-12 8-10 6-8 4-6 <4
c/ 1 RQD/Jn
Fig. 1. Percentage frequency of (a) strength–stress ratio (σc/σ1) and (b) relative block size (RQD/Jn) for four tunnel projects.

Q-system parameters Back calculation of rock mass quality

RQD value Rock bolt Shotcrete Tunnel

Rating for joint spacing (m) thickness (cm) span (m)
alteration (Ja)
Rating for joint
sets (Jn) Q1* Q2*
Rating ground
water (Jw)
Rating for Joint
roughness (Jr) Back calculated rock
mass quality (Q)

RQD Jr 1
SRFQ Jw
Jn Ja Q
SRFQ calculation

Fig. 2. Procedure for the back calculation of SRF (SRFQ).

30
H. Rehman et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

Fig. 3. Comparison of back-calculated SRF with results of Eq. (7).

jointed rock mass (Palmstrom and Broch, 2006) and display optimal with Central Asia, and the LRT was enlarged for two-way road traffic.
performance for a tunnel with an equivalent dimension (De) ranging This was termed MRT and was completed at the beginning of 2016.
between 2.5 and 30, and Q values ranging between 0.1 and 40 Based on exploration of the LRT, five geological units were summarized
(Palmstrom et al., 2002). along with the tunnel route. These geological units are meta-sedimen-
A comparison of the application between the two systems for tun- tary, meta-volcanic, meta-igneous, granite, and biotite granite, and were
neling in a high-stress environment indicates that the Q-system is pre- matched during the tunnel construction.
ferred owing to the stress reduction factor (SRF) for this purpose; The Project-2 involves a headrace tunnel with an entire length of
however, its applicability is limited to the presence of massive rocks 28.5 km that is a combination of single and twin tunnels, and tunnels
(Table 1) (Grimstad and Barton, 1993). The primary features that de- that pass through the Murre formation. The Murre formation includes
termine the mode of the ground behavior due to underground ex- alternate beds of sandstone (SS), siltstone, mudstone, and shale.
cavations include the ground composition (rock mass, stresses, and Sandstone is subdivided into SS-1 and SS-2 based on their properties for
water) and project-related features (size, shape and excavation twin tunnels excavated in sandstone with the drill and blast method.
method); further, supports are applied for tunnel stability according to The Project-3 is the first long (1.9 km) two-lane road tunnel project
the ground behavior (Palmstrom and Stille, 2007; Stille and Palmström, that was opened to traffic in June 2003. The tunnel was constructed in a
2008). The RMR system is based on the shallow tunneling experience; difficult geological setting. The major rock types along the tunnel in-
thus, a characterization parameter is not applied for the stresses in a cluded limestone and shale.
RMR structure in a high-stress environment. Both classification systems A headrace tunnel with a total length of 3.8 km is the major com-
are inappropriate for the tunnel support design in highly stressed ponent of the Project-4. The maximum length of the tunnel (approxi-
jointed rock mass, and this is the limitation of the data on which these mately 2.775 km) passes through granite rock. The remaining headrace
systems are based. tunnel consists of metamorphosed rock types, including quartz mica
In this study, the applications of Q and RMR systems are empirically schist, marble, and calcareous quartzite.
extended in a highly stressed jointed rock mass environment for two
subcategories (4 and 5) in Table 1 from the already supported 542 3. Tunneling quality index (Q) system in highly stressed jointed
tunnel sections of the relevant environment through back calculations. rock mass
For the extension of the Q system to a high-stress jointed rock mass
environment, equations and charts are proposed for the SRF char- 3.1. Q-system parameters for four tunnel projects
acterization. Furthermore, an adjustment factor is applied to the RMR
value for its fitness in the aforementioned conditions. Modified Q and The tunneling quality index system, also known as the Q-system, is a
RMR systems are applied to a case study in an appropriate in-situ en- tunneling-data-based empirical rock mass classification system that was
vironment for the support comparison. developed in 1974 (Barton et al., 1974) and several modifications were
proposed for the system (Barton, 2002; Grimstad and Barton, 1993).
This classification system classifies the ground into nine rock mass
2. Description of projects
classes. On a logarithmic scale, the quality index ranges from 0.001 to
1000 and is calculated using Eq. (1) as follows:
A brief overview on the four projects: the Lawari Tunnel (project-1),
Neelum Jhelum Hydroelectric (project-2), Kohat Tunnel (project-3), RQD ⎞ ⎛ Jr ⎞ J
and Golen Gol Hydropower (project-4) projects are provided. The 8.51- Q=⎛ ⎜ × ⎟ ⎜×⎛ w ⎞
⎟

⎝ Jn ⎠ ⎝ Ja ⎠ ⎝ SRF ⎠ (1)
km long Lawari Rail Tunnel (LRT) project is now termed as the
Modified Road Tunnel (MRT), and it is the longest road tunnel in where RQD denotes the rock quality designation; Jn denotes the rating
Pakistan. The original design involved a rail tunnel that was planned of the number of joint sets; Jr is the rating for the joint surface rough-
with a small cross-sectional area termed as LRT. After the completion of ness; Ja denotes the rating for the degree of alteration or clay-filling
the excavation work in 2009, the same tunnel was decided for trade joint set; Jw denotes the rating for the ground water inflow and pressure

31
H. Rehman et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

a) σc/σ1=2-3 b) σc/σ1=3-4

c) σc/σ1=4-5
Fig. 4. Variation in SRFQ with respect to the relative block size (RQD/Jn) for different ranges of σc/σ1.

effects. Water may cause an outwash of discontinuity infillings. SRF is adequate for the characterization of RQD, Jn, Jr, Ja, Jw, and σc.
the rating for weakness zones intersecting the excavation, stress–- The ratio of RQD to Jn (i.e., RQD/Jn) is the relative block size. This
strength ratios in hard rocks, and squeezing or swelling rock. ratio is suitable for distinguishing massive rock-burst-prone rock mass
The role of uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of an intact rock from jointed rock mass. The jointed rock mass has a relative block size
(σc) is significant in rock mass properties; thus, a normalization factor is of < 16.5 (typical value of 10), while the massive rock-burst-prone rock
applied to Eq. (1) and modified to Qc (Barton, 2002) as follows: mass has an RQD/Jn ratio in the range of 25–200 (Barton, 2002;
Tzamos and Sofianos, 2007). The tunnel stability issue during its ex-
RQD ⎞ ⎛ Jr ⎞ J σ cavation is either from the geological structural features or from the low
Qc = ⎛⎜ × ⎟ ⎜×⎛ w ⎞×⎛ c ⎞
⎟

⎝ Jn ⎠ ⎝ Ja ⎠ ⎝ SRF ⎠ ⎝ 100 ⎠ (2) strength-to-stress ratio and the rock burst condition prevailing when the
rock mass surrounding the tunnel is massive (Bhasin and Grimstad,
In all the aforementioned projects, the New Austrian Tunneling 1996). The excavation of a tunnel in a highly stressed jointed rock mass
Method (NATM) was used for the tunnel construction. The rock masses is less hazardous for rock bursting as compared to a massive rock mass
classification and support installation for tunnel stability were applied (Barton, 1986; Palmstrom, 1995). De-stress blasting is effectively used
based on the rock mass behavior. In the NATM guidelines, the geolo- as one of the rock burst avoidance technique by fracturing the intact
gical documentation is a part of the tunnel construction with the drill rock mass (Konicek et al., 2013; Mazaira and Konicek, 2015). This
and blast method (Schubert et al., 2003); thus, the available data are

32
H. Rehman et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

a) σc/σ1=2-3 b) σc/σ1=3-4

c) σc/σ1=4-5
Fig. 5. Normalized SRFQ variation with respect to the relative block size for different values and ranges of σc and σc/σ1, respectively.

fracturing of intact rock mass decreases the effective modulus of elas- chart of the Q-system (NGI, 2015) is used. According to the support
ticity of the rock mass. Consequently, the stress concentration migrates chart, the equivalent dimension (De) defines the bolt length. This De
beyond the tunnel boundary. Owing to this migration of stresses, the depends upon the tunnel span and safety demanded excavation support
risk of rock burst decreases. ratio (ESR). The ESR value selection should be performed based on the
The Q-system parameters were characterized for the selected sec- safety of the working crew in an individual country, as each country has
tions in which the relative block size (RQD/Jn) ≤ 13 and the intact rock its own safety standards (Palmstrom and Broch, 2006). The relation
strength to the major principal stress ratio (σc/σ1) is in the range of 2–5 between rock bolt length and De for all projects reveals that ESR = 1 is
(two sub categories in Table 1). The known parameters of Eq. (2) are the appropriate value for the hydropower tunnels in the study. In the Q-
summarized in Table 2, and the details of the relative block size and σc/ system support chart, the rock bolt spacing is the function of rock mass
σ1 are shown in Fig. 1. quality only. This spacing of rock bolts was used for the back calcula-
tion of rock mass quality (Q1*). The thickness of the fiber-reinforced
shotcrete is a function of the tunnel span and the rock mass quality. The
3.2. SRF determination through back calculation thickness of the fiber-reinforced shotcrete along with the tunnel span
were also used for the back calculation of the rock mass quality (Q2*).
To back calculate SRF for the supported sections, the latest support

33
H. Rehman et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

Table 3
RMR89 rating for four tunnel projects.
Parameter Rating

Project-1 Project-2 Project-3 Project-4

RQD (%) 6.44–20 3.33–20 10.44–20 6.44–20

UCS (MPa) 4.042–6.95 4.245–8.73 7.46–7.75 5.35–6.95
Spacing (m) 7.88–16.89 7.88–14.69 4.69–14.69 8.2–11.24
Joint condition Persistence (m) 2 2 2 2
Aperture (mm) 3 3 3 3
Roughness 5 3 5 5
Infilling (mm) 6 2,4,6 6 6
Weathering 5 3,5,6 5 6
GW 0–15 0–15 0–15 10–15
RMR b 56.53–79.84 32.98–73.84 52.80–72.22 58.6–75.19
F0 −12 to −2 −12 to 0 −12 to 0 −12 & −10
RMR89 45.6–72.64 30.5–66.62 40.8–72.22 48.6–63.19
Min . − Max . 45.6 − 72.64 30.5 − 66.62 40.8 − 72.22 48.6 − 63.19
(st. dev) (6.21) (7.97) (7.53) (3.97)
Mean 64.0 51.51 62.85 59.48

The procedure for the back calculation of rock mass quality (Q) is de- follows:
scribed in Fig. 2 and is illustrated through example 1. 0.346 −1.322 1.413
σ σ σ
The resultant rock mass quality from different support categories SRF = 28.29 × ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ × ⎛ c⎞
⎜ ⎟ + 0.00107 × ⎛ c ⎞ ⎜ ⎟

and tunnel span was defined as Q or Qc. Eqs. (1) and (2) are rearranged ⎝ σ3 ⎠ ⎝ σ1 ⎠ ⎝ σ1 ⎠ (6)
as Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively; further, two different SRF values (SRFQ Similar to Eq. (6), an empirical equation is suggested for the Aus-
and normalized SRFQ) were calculated by considering the back-calcu- tralian mining (Eq. (7)), in which the high in-situ stresses acting on the
lated rock mass quality value as either Q or Qc, respectively, as follows: jointed rock mass are either due to the mining depth or an advancing
RQD ⎞ ⎛ Jr ⎞ ⎛ Jw ⎞ mining front (Peck, 2000) as follows:
SRFQ = ⎛ ⎜ × × ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
0.3
⎝ Jn ⎠ ⎝ Ja ⎠ ⎝ Q ⎠ (3) σ σ
−1.2
SRF = 31 × ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ × ⎛ c⎞⎜ ⎟

RQD ⎞ ⎛ Jr ⎞ ⎛ Jw ⎞ σ ⎝ σ3 ⎠ ⎝ σ1 ⎠ (7)
Normalized SRFQ = ⎛ × × ⎜ ×⎛ c ⎞⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟

⎝ Jn ⎠ ⎝ Ja ⎠ ⎝ Qc ⎠ ⎝ 100 ⎠ (4) The study by Barton agreed with the exponential of Eq. (7) for the
SRF calculation in a jointed rock mass under stresses (Barton, 2007).
Out of the 542 sections, only 44 tunnel sections possess the nor-
As Eqs. (6) and (7) are almost similar, the SRF was calculated using
malized SRFQ equaling to SRFQ as σc is equal to 100 MPa. In the re-
Eq. (7) and was plotted against σc/σ1 as shown in Fig. 3 for different
maining sections, the normalized SRFQ is less than SRFQ, and the dif-
values of k (σh/σv = 0.3, 0.5, 0.75,1). The back-calculated SRF (SRFQ or
ference depends on the intact rock strength.
normalized SRFQ) values were obtained using Eqs. (3) and (4). The
Example 1. RQD = 80%, Jn = 9, Jr = 3, Ja = 1, Jw = 1, σc = 75 MPa, back-calculated SRF values are very scattered; hence, Eqs. (5) and (7)
tunnel span = 11.17 m, rock bolt spacing = 1.6 m, shotcrete cannot be used for the SRF calculation in tunneling. Eqs. (5) and (7)
thickness = 9 cm focus on the ratio of the intact rock compressive strength to the major
Back calculation yields Q1* = 0.7, Q2* = 1.7 principal stress but do not consider the extent to which the rock is
Back calculated rock mass quality (Q): jointed.
Eq. (8) was developed for the SRF characterization in the Q-system
Q1∗ + Q2∗ 0.7 + 1.7
Q= = = 1.2 from the Nathpa Jharki project data in India (Kumar et al., 2004).
2 2
σ 0.001 ⎛ Jr3 ⎞
Back-calculated SRFQ using Eq. (3): SRF = 5.84 × ⎛ c ⎞ × ⎜ ⎟ + 2.58
⎝H⎠ ⎝ Jn ⎠ (8)
80 3 1
SRFQ = ⎛ ⎞ × ⎛ ⎞ × ⎛ ⎞ = 22.22 3
For the 27 kN/m unit weight of the rock, Eq. (8) is expressed as Eq.
⎝ 9 ⎠ ⎝ 1 ⎠ ⎝ 1.2 ⎠
(9) as follows:
Back-calculated normalized SRFQ using Eq. (4):
0.001 3
σ J
80 3 1 75 SRF = 5.82 × ⎛ c ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ × ⎛⎜ r ⎞⎟ + 2.58
Normalized SRFQ = ⎛ ⎞ × ⎛ ⎞ × ⎛ ⎞×⎛ ⎞ = 16.67 ⎝ σ1 ⎠ ⎝ Jn ⎠ (9)
⎝ 9 ⎠ ⎝ 1 ⎠ ⎝ 1.2 ⎠ ⎝ 100 ⎠
In Eq. (9), the SRF variation is not significant with σc/σ1 owing to its
superscript value (0.001), and the results from Eqs. (3) and (4) are
highly different.
3.3. Comparison of back-calculated SRF with previous studies
3.4. Suggested SRF for highly stressed jointed rock mass
As shown in Table 1, an extreme value of the old SRF (1974 version)
for the competent rock with a rock stress problem is 20. Eq. (5) is used The back-calculated value of rock mass quality is considered as Q,
for the old SRF calculation in the rock stress problem situation for a and the SRFQ obtained from Eq. (3) is used to develop an empirical
South African mining field (Kirsten, 1988) as follows: relation. The new empirical equation (Eq. (10)) based on the data was
1.322 developed to calculate the SRFQ for the jointed rock mass under a high-
H σ 1.413
SRF = 0.244 × K 0.346 × ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ + 0.176 × ⎛ c ⎞ stress environment.
⎝ σc ⎠ ⎝H⎠ (5)
RQD ⎞ σ
The average unit weight of the rock for maximum sections in the SRFQ = 2.0 × exp ⎛0.21 × ⎜ + 12.0 × exp ⎛−α × c ⎞
⎟ ⎜ ⎟

⎝ Jn ⎠ ⎝ σ1⎠ (10)
study is approximately 27 kN/m3. Eq. (5) is simplified to Eq. (6) as

34
H. Rehman et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

80 100
a) Project-1 b)
LT
60
Project-2
NJHPP 80
Project-3
KT
GGHPP 60
a) Project-4
40
Frequency (%)

40

20
20
10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
20-18 18-16 16-14 14-12 12-10 10-08 08-06 <06 17-15 15-13 13-11 11-09 09-07 <5
RQD Rating Joint Spacing Rating
100 80
c) d)
80
60

60
40
Frequency (%)

40
20
20 10

16 8

12 6

8 4

4 2

0 0
Flowing Dripping Wet Damp Dry V. Unfavorable Unfavorable Fair Favorable V. Favorable
Groundwater Rating Joint Orientation Rating
60
e)
50

40

30
Frequency (%)

20

10
5

0
75-70 70-65 65-60 60-55 55-50 50-45 <45
Adjusted RMR89

Fig. 6. Percentage frequency of (a) RQD rating, (b) joint spacing rating, (c) rating for groundwater, (d) adjustment rating for the joint orientation with respect to the
tunnel axis and excavation direction, and (e) RMR89 values for the four tunnel projects.

The constant α in Eq. (10) depends on the strength–stress ratio and from the support diagram is considered as Qc, and the normalized SRFQ
is shown in Fig. 4. value gained from Eq. (4) is also obtained from Eq. (10) for any value of
Fig. 4 shows that the SRFQ increases with the increase in the relative σc using the normalized factor as Eq. (11):
block size. A maximum change in the RQD/Jn below seven results in a
σ
comparatively low variation in SRFQ. However, for the same change in Normalized SRFQ = (SRFQ ) × ⎛ c ⎞
⎝ 100 ⎠ (11)
RQD/Jn above seven, the SRFQ fluctuates significantly. The total change
in the SRFQ is 21.68 as observed with the RQD/Jn for a given value of The normalized SRFQ values calculated from Eq. (4) or (11) were
σc/σ1. With the increase in the RDQ/Jn, the difference in SRFQ for plotted with respect to the relative block size for different values of
different values of σc/σ1 is comparatively low for a given value of RQD/ intact rock strength and ranges of strength–stress ratios as shown in
Jn. Fig. 5. The normalized SRFQ value and its variations with RQD/Jn de-
The resultant value of rock mass quality through back calculations pend upon σc. For the same value of σc/σ1, a high principal stress (σ1) is

35
H. Rehman et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

RMR89 calculation Back calculation of RMR

Rating for σc Discontinuity Rock bolt Shotcrete Tunnel

orientation spacing (m) thickness (cm) span (m)
Rating for RQD adjustment

Rating for joint

RMR1* RMR2*
spacing

Rating for joint

condition
Back calculated rock
Rating for RMR89 mass rating (RMR*)
ground water

Difference= RMR89-RMR*

Hypothesis

Case-1 Case-2 Case-3

Stress adjustment factor for RMR89

Fig. 7. Procedure for selection of stress adjustment factor for RMR89 using back calculated rock mass rating (RMR*).

35 (Fig. 5(b)). Inadequate information is present during the design stage of

the tunnel. Therefore, given σc (the basic parameter that should be
30 determined) and the tunnel location, Fig. 5 can be used to obtain an
approximate value of the normalized SRFQ for different values of the
25 relative block size. In the construction phase of the tunnel, when ade-
quate informations are available for the excavation face, Eqs. (10) and
Frequency (%)

20 (11) can be used to calculate the normalized SRFQ.

15
4. Rock mass rating (RMR) system in highly stressed jointed rock
10 mass

5 4.1. Proposed stress adjustment factor for RMR89

0 The geomechanics classification or the RMR classification system

<5 5-10 10-15 15-20 >20 was developed by Bieniawski (1973). This system was continuously
Difference (RMR89-RMR*) refined over several years. The major amendments to the system were
proposed in 1989 (Bieniawski, 1989), and new charts and tables were
Fig. 8. Difference in RMR89 and RMR* in terms of percentage frequency for the added to obtain the rating of σc, RQD, spacing of discontinuities, and
cases in which RMR* is lower than RMR89. condition of discontinuity parameters. The refined RMR system is
termed as the RMR89 version. The basic RMR (RMRb) value is the sum
Table 4 of the five declared parameters, and RMR89 is determined after ad-
Ratings tested for stress adjustment based on σc/σ1 for RMR89. justing for discontinuities orientation with respect to the tunnel or-
ientation and excavation direction.
Hypothesis Values of σc/σ1 Mean Standard Ratio
(RMR89*- deviation (RMR*/
Generally, the state of stress is barely considered in the RMR clas-
5–4 4–3 3–2 RMR*) RMR89*) sification systems for tunneling. The RMR calculation practice
(Bieniawski, 1973, 1979) does not consider stress in tunneling, but an
Case-1 Fstress-89 −5 −10 −15 3.31 4.72 0.94 adjustment factor is suggested for the stress condition (in-situ stress and
Case-2 (de −5 −10 −10 4.87 4.45 0.92
Vallejo,
changes of stresses) to the RMR89 rating when it is used for mining
2003) applications (Bieniawski, 1989). This stress adjustment factor varies
Case-3 −10 −10 −10 3.42 4.45 0.94 from 0.6 to 1.2 and is multiplied with RMR89 to obtain the stress-ad-
justed RMR89 value. The case histories on which RMR89 is based show
that the tunnels are at a shallow depth and that stress is not a major
required for the rock with high σc. Tunnel excavation in strong rocks factor involved in the tunnel design. In this study, the rock mass was
are comparatively more hazardous than that in weak rocks under high characterized and classified based on RMR89. The results are summar-
in-situ and mining-induced stresses (Yang et al., 2017). The high-level ized in Table 3 and the details are shown in Fig. 6.
of stress means more support is required, and the value of the nor- Based on RMR89, the recommended tunnel support guidelines were
malized SRFQ is high. The minimum variation in the normalized SRFQ limited to a 10-m span and were available in the table form where the
with RQD/Jn is 7.38 for σc of 37.5 MPa (Fig. 5(a)), and the maximum support requirement changes with rock mass quality (Bieniawski,
variation is 20.14 for σc of 100 Mpa with σc/σ1 ranging from 3 to 4 1989). The support technology improves with time, and thus, tunnel

36
H. Rehman et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

25 than the calculated RMR89, and the details of the difference between
Case-1
Case-2 RMR89 and RMR* are shown in Fig. 8.
Case-3
20 Example 2. Tunnel span = 11.17 m, rock bolt spacing = 1.6 m,
shotcrete thickness = 9 cm
RMR1* = 48.6 (using Eq. (12))
Frequency (%)

15 RMR2* = 55.6
Back-calculated rock mass quality (RMR*)
RMR1∗ + RMR2∗ 48.6 + 55.6
10 RMR∗ = = = 52.1
2 2

5
The cases in which the RMR difference is high (> 5 points) were
considered, and the data were evaluated. Three hypotheses were con-
sidered to select the ratings for the stress adjustment, and they are
0
-10--8 -8--6 -6--4 -4--2 -2-0 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 >10 presented in Table 4. Case-2 was already applied for weak rocks under
Difference (RMR89-RMR89*) high tectonic stresses (de Vallejo, 2003). The selections of cases 1 and 3
were performed by considering case-2 as a reference. The resultant
∗
Fig. 9. Percentage frequency of RMR difference i.e., (RMR89-RMR89*) using the RMR89 after adjusting for the stresses was defined as RMR89 that is
three hypotheses listed in Table 4. calculated using Eq. (13), in which Fstress-89 denotes the stress adjust-
ment factor for the RMR89 version of the RMR based on σc/σ1 as follows
designers used supports for different tunnel spans using the RMR89 (de Vallejo, 2003):
tunnel support guidelines (Basarir et al., 2005; Rahimi et al., 2014; Sari ∗
RMR89 = RMR89 + Fstress − 89 (13)
and Pasamehmetoglu, 2004). After 24 years, a major update in the
tunnel support through the RMR system was performed in which the The hypothesis results are summarized in Table 4 and their details
rock support is a function of tunnel span and rock mass quality (Lowson are shown in Fig. 9. The ratios (RMR*/RMR89*) for cases 1 and 3 are
and Bieniawski, 2013). better than that for case-2. When compared with case-3, case-1 exhibits
Similar to the Q-system, bolt spacing is used as a function of the a better mean difference value (RMR89*-RMR*) albeit with a slightly
RMR only. The need for shotcrete to provide adequate support depends high standard deviation. Case-2 is the worst in terms of the ratio and
on the fracture-frequency-dependent bolt spacing. Systematic bolting is mean difference value. Hence, the different adjustment factor (case-1)
required for RMR < 85 and spot bolting is required for RMR ≥ 85 based on the strength–stress ratio is selected as a stress-adjustment
(Lowson and Bieniawski, 2013). parameter (Fstress-89) in high-stress environments for RMR89.
The bolt spacing (Sb) is calculated using Eq. (12) as follows:
4.2. Proposed stress adjustment factor for RMR14
RMR − 20
Sb (m) = 0.5 + 2.5 × (20 < RMR ⩽ 85)
65 (12) Following 25 years of research, an updated version of RMR89 that is
termed as RMR14 was suggested with a few new parameters, revised
The shotcrete thickness is a function of tunnel span and RMR value rating, and final structure (Celada et al., 2014). The structure of RMR14
(Lowson and Bieniawski, 2013). Rock mass rating obtained from dif- is given by Eq. (14) to determine the rock mass rating as follows:
ferent support categories and the supported span of the tunnel for all
RMR14 = (RMRb + F0) × Fs × Fe (14)
the sections of four projects using back calculation and was defined as
RMR*. The spacing of the bolts was used in Eq. (12) for the back cal- where
culation of rock mass rating (RMR1*). The thickness of fiber-reinforced
shotcrete along with tunnel span was also used for the back calculation RMRb = basic RMR of the rock mass without the effect of excava-
of rock mass rating (RMR2*). The procedure for the back calculation of tion.
rock mass rating (RMR*) is described in Fig. 7 which is also illustrated F0 = joint orientation and excavation direction with respect to the
in example 2. Approximately 90% of the data shows that RMR* is lower

Table 5
RMR14 rating for the four tunnels.
Parameter Rating

Project-1 Project-2 Project-3 Project-4

Joint frequency (λ) 10.66–32.56 6.51–30.33 4.46–30.33 10.66–28.02

UCS (MPa) 4.042–6.95 4.245–8.73 7.46–7.75 5.35–6.95
GW 0–15 0–15 0–15 10–15
F0 −12 to −2 −12 to 0 −12 to 0 −12 & −10
Fe 1 1 1 1
Fs 1.186–1.296 1.22–1.3 1.12–1.296 1.06–1.25
Joint condition Persistence (m) 2 2 2 2
Roughness 3 2 3 3
Infilling (mm) 5 2,5 5 5
Weathering 4 3,4,5 4 5
Alterability (%) 10 10 10 10
RMRb 55.49–78.51 32.88–72.55 50.92–75.64 57.61–74.94
RMR14 56.33–88.5 41.37–84.63 58.02–85.29 59.53–59.53
Min . − Max . 56.33 − 88.5 42.74 − 84.63 58.02 − 85.29 59.53 − 72.075
(st. dev) (7.52) (9.387) (6.023) (3.73)
Mean 79.188 67.086 77.03 67.85

37
H. Rehman et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

70
a) Project-1
60 Project-2
50 Project-3
Project-4
40

30

20
Frequency (%)

10

0
4-8 8-12 12-16 16-20 20-24 24-28 28-32 >32
Joint frequency rating
50
b)
40

30

20
Frequency (%)

10

0
40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 >85

Adjusted RMR14

Fig. 10. Details of (a) joint frequency and (b) RMR14.

tunnel axis adjustment factor. and Priest, 1979), given as follows:

Fs = stress–strain behavior adjustment factor at the tunnel faces.
RQD = 100 × e (−0.1 × λ) × (1 + 0.1 × λ ) (15)
Fe = adjustment factor for the excavation method.
where λ = joint frequency.
A modified criteria was introduced for the RMRb calculation and Another method to determine joint frequency is to use the RQD and
replaced the RQD assessment and the spacing of the discontinuities by joint spacing rating by Eq. (16) (Gibson, 2005) as follows:
the number of joints per meter (frequency) in the face of the excavation,
40
and extended the criteria to assess the condition of the discontinuities Nf = (RQDrating + Spacingrating − 8) ×
32 (16)
(GEoConTRoL, 2012). The frequency parameter consists of the RQD
and joint spacing parameters, and it is a combination that is evaluated where Nf is the fracture frequency rating. The joint frequency can be
with the chart given by Lowson and Bieniawski (Lowson and calculated from Nf using the rating graph for the discontinuity density
Bieniawski, 2013). (Lowson and Bieniawski, 2013).
The joint frequency can be determined directly or indirectly. The In the case when the data is available in terms of both the number of
data related to the rock fracturing is available in terms of joint spacing, joint sets and the average spacing between the joints of each joint set,
number of joints, and RQD; thus, indirect approaches are used to cal- the joint frequency is determined using Eq. (17) as follows:
culate the joint frequency.
No.s of Joint set
The first indirect approach used for the joint frequency is the λ=
Avg. spacing between joint (m) (17)
mathematical equation between RQD and fracture frequency (Hudson

38
H. Rehman et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

35 RMR14 = 0.9686 × RMR89 + 17.483 (R2 = 0.92) (18)

30
The cases in which the difference is higher than 5 points were
considered, and the data were analyzed. To select the ratings for the
stress adjustment for RMR14, three hypotheses were considered based
25
on the data in Table 4 using the regression equation, Eq. (18). The
Frequency (%)

details of the ratings for the stress adjustment in RMR14 are shown in
20
Table 6, and the procedure is shown in Fig. 13. The mean difference for
RMR14 (RMR14*-RMR*) in case-1 is the best compared to cases 2 and 3
15
in Table 6. The ratio for case-2 is comparatively better than cases 1 and
3; however, case-2 is the worst in terms of the mean difference. When
10
compared with case-3, case-1 exhibits a better mean difference and
standard deviation albeit the ratio is equal. Hence, the different ad-
5
justment factors (case-1) based on strength–stress ratio is also selected
as a stress-adjustment parameter (Fstress-14) in high-stress environments
0 for RMR14. The resultant RMR from the stress adjustment was defined
<5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 >40
as RMR14* and is calculated from Eq. (19) as follows:
Difference (RMR14-RMR*) ∗
RMR14 = RMR14 + Fstress − 14 (19)
*
Fig. 11. Difference in RMR14 and RMR in terms of the percentage frequency.

5. Application of modified classification systems to a case study

for the support comparison

Based on the exploration reports of the Bunji Hydropower Project,

Pakistan, the 8-km-long headrace tunnels will pass through the jointed
rock masses under high in-situ stresses. The Iskere Gneiss and
Amphibolite are the rock units along the tunnels route. The rock masses
were classified according to the RMR89 and RMR14 version with and
without including the stress factor (Fstress). The RMR89 is 61.22 and
65.60 without the stress adjustment factor for Iskere Gneiss and
Amphibolite, respectively, as shown in Table 7. After using the stress-
adjustment factor (Fstress-89), RMR89 decreased by 5 points and 10
points for the Iskere Gneiss and Amphibolite rock units, respectively.
The RMR14 classification is summarized in Table 8 with and without
the stress-adjustment factor (Fstress-14). The RMR14 is 76.8 and 79.95
without the stress-adjustment factor for Iskere Gneiss and Amphibolite,
respectively. After using the stress-adjustment factor, RMR14 decreases
by 22.326 and 27.169 points for the Iskere Gneiss and Amphibolite rock
units, respectively.
For the Q-value calculation, SRFQ values were calculated using Eqs.
(5), (7), and (10). The corresponding results of the Q classification for
Iskere Gneiss and Amphibolite are summarized in Table 9.
Based on the rock mass quality (Tables 7–9), supports in terms of
rock bolt spacing and shotcrete thickness were estimated for a 11.17-m
Fig. 12. Linear correlation between RMR89 and RMR14 for RMR89 > RMR*. span horseshoe-shaped tunnel using Eq. (12) and the support chart
(Lowson and Bieniawski, 2013; NGI, 2015) as shown in Table 10. The
The RMR values based on RMR14 for all the selected sections of four results show that heavy supports are suggested by the modified systems
tunnel projects are summarized in Table 5, and the details of joint in a highly stressed jointed rock mass environment.
frequency and RMR14 are shown in Fig. 10.
The back-calculated RMR (RMR*) values are compared with RMR14; 6. Conclusion
RMR* is less than RMR14, and the details are shown in Fig. 11.
The RMR14 values exceed those of RMR89 (Celada et al., 2014; Kanik The following conclusions were obtained from the study:
et al., 2015), and a similar trend is shown in Fig. 12. The RMR89 system
is widely used for purposes other than support; thus, Fig. 12 shows an 1. The RMR and Q rock mass classifications systems are based on the
excellent correlation between RMR89 and RMR14 as shown in Eq. (18) jointed rock mass data and are extensively used in the support de-
as follows: sign of tunnels. However, they were not used in a highly stressed

Table 6
Rating tested for the stress adjustment based on σc/σ1 for RMR14.
Hypothesis Values of σc/σ1 Mean (RMR14*-RMR*) Standard deviation RMR*/RMR14*

4–5 3–4 2–3

Case-1 Fstress-14 –22.326 −27.169 –32.012 −1.06 6.98 1.08

Case-2 –22.326 −27.169 −27.169 −2.48 6.98 1.05
Case-3 −27.169 −27.169 −27.169 −2.45 7.05 1.08

39
H. Rehman et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

RMR14 calculation Back calculation of RMR

Rating for σc Discontinuity Rock bolt Shotcrete Tunnel

orientation spacing (m) thickness (cm) span (m)
0 Joint frequency adjustment
rating
Excavation
RMR1* RMR2*
Rating for Joint method
condition
Stress-strain
Intact rock behavior at
alterability rating tunnel face

Rating for Back calculated rock

ground water RMR14 mass rating (RMR*)

Difference= RMR14-RMR*

Hypothesis based on correlation equation

Case-1 Case-2 Case-3

Stress adjustment factor for RMR 14

Fig. 13. Procedure for the selection of stress adjustment factor for RMR14 using back-calculated rock mass rating (RMR*).

Table 7 jointed rock mass environment owing to the limitation of relevant

The RMR89 rating for the rock masses in the tunnel route with and without data for these systems. A back-calculation approach was used to
stress-adjustment factor (Fstress-89). modify the RMR and Q classification system empirically for the
Classification parameters Iskere Gneiss Amphibolite tunnel support design in a high-stress jointed rock mass environ-
ment.
Value Rating Value Rating 2. In a high-stress environment, the Q-system did not provide the SRF
values for a jointed rock mass. The Q-system application was ex-
UCS (Mpa) 50.7 5.1 61 5.9
RQD (%) 85 17 90 18 tended in this situation and empirical equations were suggested for
Spacing (m) 0.4 11.24 0.85 14.7 the SRF characterization in a competent rock with a rock stress
Discontinuities Persistence (m) 3–10 2 3–10 2 problem in the case of a jointed rock mass from 542 tunnel sections,
condition Aperture (mm) 0.1–1 4 0.1–1 4 involving data related to four tunneling projects that were already
Roughness Very rough 6 Rough 5
Infilling (mm) None 6 None 6
supported. The proposed equations indicate that the SRF depends on
Weathering Slightly 5 Slightly 5 the intact rock strength, ratio of intact rock strength to the major
Groundwater Conditions Dry 15 Dry 15 principal stress, and the relative block size.
RMRb 71.22 75.60 3. Significantly heavier supports than those estimated by RMR89 are
Discontinuities orientation −10 −10
required for tunnel support in a highly stressed jointed rock mass.
RMR89 (without Fstress-89) 61.22 65.60
Strength stress ratio σc/σ1 = 4.5 −5 σc/σ1 = 3.5 −10 Further, an adjustment factor for stress was suggested based on the
RMR89 (with Fstress-89) 56.22 55.60 three hypotheses to extend the application of the RMR89 system for
a highly stressed jointed rock mass.

Table 8
The RMR14 rating for the rock masses in tunnel route with and without stress adjustment factor (Fstress-14).
Classification parameters Iskere Gneiss Amphibolite

Value rating Value rating

UCS (Mpa) 50.7 5.1 61 5.9

Joints per meter 7 25 3.5 28.5
Discontinuities condition Persistence (m) 3–10 2 3–10 2
Roughness Very rough 5 Rough 3
Infilling (mm) None 5 None 5
Weathering slightly 4 Slightly 4
Groundwater Conditions Dry 15 Dry 15
Alterability > 85% 10 > 85% 10
RMRb 71.1 73.4
Adjustment factor F0 −10 −10
Fe 1 1
Fs 1.257 1.261
RMR14 (without Fstress-14) 76.8 79.95
Strength stress ratio σc/σ1 = 4.5 –22.326 σc/σ1 = 3.5 −27.169
RMR14 (with Fstress-14) 54.47 52.78

40
H. Rehman et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

Table 9
SRF calculation using different equations and the corresponding Q rating for the rock masses.
Classification parameters Iskere Gneiss Amphibolite

Value Rating Value Rating

RQD (%) 85% 85 90% 90

Joint set number (Jn) 3 joints sets 9 3 joints sets 9
Joint alteration number (Jr) Rough, undulating 3 Rough, undulating 3
Joint alteration number (Ja) Unaltered, surface staining only 1 Unaltered, surface staining only 1
Joint water reduction factor (Jw) Dry condition 1 Dry condition 1
Intact rock strength (σc) 50.7 MPa 50.7 61 MPa 61
SRF Kirsten equation (Eq. (5)) 5.08 5.08 6.8 6.8
Peck equation (Eq. (7)) 6.28 6.28 8.49 8.49
Author’s equation (Eq. (10)) 15.18 15.18 19.56 19.56
Q based on Kirsten equation 5.58 4.41
Q based on Peck equation 4.51 3.53
Q based on Author’s equation 1.87 1.53

Table 10
Support comparison with empirical systems before and after modification.
Classification system Iskere Gneiss Amphibolite

Rock bolt spacing (m) Shotcrete thickness (cm) Rock bolt spacing (m) Shotcrete thickness (cm)

Original RMR89 2.1 7 2.25 6

RMR14 2.7 4 2.8 3
Modified for stress factor RMR89* 1.9 10 1.87 9
RMR14* 1.8 10 1.76 9
Based on Kirsten equation Q 2.2 6 2.1 6
Based on Peck equation 2.1 6 2.1 6
Based on authors equation 1.8 9 1.75 9

4. The RMR14 system was discussed; all tunnel sections were char- Engineers and Geologists in Mining, Civil, and Petroleum Engineering. John Wiley &
acterized based on it, and it was also correlated with RMR89. The Sons.
Celada, B., Tardáguila, I., Varona, P., Rodríguez, A., Bieniawski, Z., 2014. Innovating
correlation equation was used to determine the stress adjustment Tunnel Design by an Improved Experience-based RMR System, World Tunnel
factor for RMR14 in a high-stress jointed rock mass environment. Congress. Proceedings… Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, p. 9.
5. The modified systems considered the stress factor well. They de- de Vallejo, L.G., 2003. SRC rock mass classification of tunnels under high tectonic stress
excavated in weak rocks. Eng. Geol. 69, 273–285.
creased the rock mass quality and resulted in an increase in support GEoConTRoL, S., 2012. Actualización del Índice Rock Mass Rating (RMR) para mejorar
for the tunnel stability in high-stress jointed rock mass environ- sus prestaciones en la caracterización del terreno. Centro para el Desarrollo Técnico
ments. Industrial (CDTI). Proyecto: IDI-20120658. Madrid, España.
Gibson, W., 2005. Rock Mass Strength derived from Rock Mass Characterization, Alaska
Rocks 2005. The 40th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock
Acknowledgment Mechanics Association.
Grimstad, E., Barton, N., 1993. Updating the Q-system for NMT. In: Proc. Int. Symp. on
Sprayed Concrete-Modern Use of Wet Mix Sprayed Concrete for Underground
This study was supported by Development of Design and
Support, pp. 46–66.
Construction Technology for Double Deck Tunnel in Great Depth Hudson, J., Priest, S., 1979. Discontinuities and rock mass geometry. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Underground Space (17SCIP-B089409-04) from the Construction Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstracts. Elsevier 339–362.
Technology Research Program funded by the Ministry of Land, Kanik, M., Gurocak, Z., Alemdag, S., 2015. A comparison of support systems obtained
from the RMR89 and RMR14 by numerical analyses: Macka Tunnel project, NE
Infrastructure, and Transport of the Korean government. Turkey. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 109, 224–238.
The authors (Hafeezur Rehman and Abdul Muntaqim Naji) are ex- Kirsten, H., 1988. Case histories of groundmass characterization for excavatability. Rock
tremely thankful to the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Classification Systems for Engineering Purposes. ASTM International.
Konicek, P., Soucek, K., Stas, L., Singh, R., 2013. Long-hole destress blasting for rockburst
Pakistan for the HRDI-UESTPs scholarship. control during deep underground coal mining. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 61,
141–153.
References Kumar, N., Samadhiya, N.K., Anbalagan, R., 2004. Application of rock mass classification
systems for tunneling in Himalaya, India. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (Supplement
1), 852–857.
Barton, N., 1986. Deformation phenomena in jointed rock. Geotechnique 36, 147–167. Lowson, A., Bieniawski, Z., 2013. Critical Assessment of RMR based Tunnel Design
Barton, N., 2002. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterisation and Practices: A Practical Engineer’s Approach.
tunnel design. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 39, 185–216. Mazaira, A., Konicek, P., 2015. Intense rockburst impacts in deep underground con-
Barton, N., 2007. Rock mass characterization for excavations in mining and civil en- struction and their prevention. Can. Geotech. J. 52, 1426–1439.
gineering. In: Proceeding of the international workshop on rock mass classification in NGI, 2015. Using The Q-system, Rock mass classification and support design, pp. 34–35.
underground mining. IC, pp. 3–13. Palmstrom, A., 1995. RMi-a rock mass characterization system for rock engineering
Barton, N., Lien, R., Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses for the purposes. na.
design of tunnel support. Rock Mech. 6, 189–236. Palmstrom, A., Blindheim, O., Broch, E., 2002. The Q-system-possibilities and limitations,
Basarir, H., Ozsan, A., Karakus, M., 2005. Analysis of support requirements, for a shallow Norwegian annual tunnelling conference on Fjellsprengningsteknikk/Bergmekanikk/
diversion tunnel at Guledar dam site, Turkey. Eng. Geol. 81. Geoteknikk, Oslo, pp. 41.41–41.38.
Bhasin, R., Grimstad, E., 1996. The use of stress-strength relationships in the assessment Palmstrom, A., Broch, E., 2006. Use and misuse of rock mass classification systems with
of tunnel stability. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 11, 93–98. particular reference to the Q-system. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 21, 575–593.
Bieniawski, Z., 1973. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Civil Eng. South Palmstrom, A., Stille, H., 2007. Ground behaviour and rock engineering tools for un-
Afr. 15. derground excavations. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 22, 363–376.
Bieniawski, Z., 1979. The Geomechanics Classification in Rock Engineering Applications, Peck, W., 2000. Determining the stress reduction factor in highly stressed jointed rock.
4th ISRM Congress. International Society for Rock Mechanics. Aust. Geomech. 35.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A Complete Manual for Rahimi, B., Shahriar, K., Sharifzadeh, M., 2014. Evaluation of rock mass engineering

41
H. Rehman et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85 (2019) 29–42

geological properties using statistical analysis and selecting proper tunnel design underground excavations. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 23, 46–64.
approach in Qazvin-Rasht railway tunnel. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 41, Tzamos, S., Sofianos, A., 2007. A correlation of four rock mass classification systems
206–222. through their fabric indices. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 44, 477–495.
Sari, D., Pasamehmetoglu, A., 2004. Proposed support design, Kaletepe tunnel, Turkey. Yan-jun, S., Rui-xin, Y., Geng-she, Y., Guang-li, X., Shan-yong, W., 2017. Comparisons of
Eng. Geol. 72, 201–216. evaluation factors and application effects of the new [BQ] GSI system with interna-
Schubert, W., Goricki, A., Riedmuller, G., 2003. The guideline for the geomechanical tional rock mass classification systems. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 1–26.
design of underground structures with conventional excavation. Felsbau 21, 13–18. Yang, J., Chen, W., Zhao, W., Tan, X., Tian, H., Yang, D., Ma, C., 2017. Geohazards of
Stille, H., Palmström, A., 2008. Ground behaviour and rock mass composition in tunnel excavation in interbedded layers under high in situ stress. Eng. Geol.

42