ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

A correlation of four rock mass classication systems

through their fabric indices
S. Tzamosa,, A.I. Soanosb
a

Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration , Mesoghion 70, 115 27 Athens, Greece
b
National Technical University of Athens, 157 80 Zografou, Greece

Received 26 April 2006; received in revised form 13 July 2006; accepted 29 August 2006
Available online 4 December 2006

Abstract
Four classication systems are investigated in this work, RMR, Q, GSI and RMi. The common parameters of these systems, which
concern and characterize solely the rock mass, are those used for rating the rock structure and the joint surface conditions. Rock
structure is quantied by the block size or the discontinuity spacing ratings (BS) and the joint surface conditions are quantied by the
joint conditions ratings (JC). A Rock Mass Fabric Index, denoted as F, may thus be dened as a scalar function of the components rock
structure and joint conditions i.e., F F BS; JC. All rock mass classication systems ratings are grouped together in a common Fabric
Index chart. The validity of the chart is tested using data extracted from various projects. The use of the chart simplies input, correlates
rock mass classication systems and improves their utility.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rock mass; Classication; Block size; Joint conditions

1. Introduction
Rock mass classication systems try to consider the most
important aspects affecting the rock mass, in order to rate
its quality. These aspects, assumed to be independent from
each other, become parameters to which ratings are
assigned. The most common systems quantify the rock
mass quality as a scalar value that is a function, linear or
non-linear, of the above-mentioned independent parameters. However, contrary to the term rock mass, the
parameters used are not related to the rock mass itself.
Stress regime, water pressure, and direction of excavation
are examples of parameters employed by various systems
that do not characterize the rock mass quality but the
construction of the project as a whole. Further, the aspects
considered as important by the systems are not common to
all of them. Therefore, any attempt to correlate these
systems will include a large scatter above and below a
general trend. It would therefore be appropriate to
Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 210 777 80 86;
fax: +30 210 770 55 88.
E-mail address: stetzam@igme.gr (S. Tzamos).

1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.08.003

correlate the parts of the quality ratings of these systems

that are common and concern the rock mass only.
Four such classication systems are investigated, i.e., the
RMR or CSIR system introduced by Bieniawski [1],
modied over the years and arrived in its contemporary
state by Bieniawski [2]; the Q system developed originally
at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute by Barton, Lien,
Lunde [3], and evolved to its nal state by Grimstad and
Barton [4] with minor updates by Barton [5]; the GSI
system introduced by Hoek [6] and evolved over the years
into its contemporary state by Marinos and Hoek [7]; and
the RMi system introduced by Palmstrom [8] and developed over the years by Palmstrom [9,10].
Common parameters in these systems are those concerning rock structure and joint surface conditions (JC), in
which the rock structure may be quantied by the block
size (BS). A Rock Mass Fabric Index, denoted as F, may
thus be dened as a scalar function of the components rock
structure and joint conditions, i.e., F F BS; JC. Equipotential contours may thus be drawn in the rock
structurejoint conditions coordinate system, with the
component rock structure as the ordinate and the
component joint condition as the abscissa.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

478

Nomenclature
sci
S
Jv
RQD
RMR

uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock

material
spacing of joints within a set
Volumetric joint count ( the number of joints
per m3)
rock quality designation
rock mass rating inPthe Geomechanics classication system, 6i1 Ri , where, R1 is the
rating for intact rock strength, R2 is the rating
for RQD, R3 is the rating for discontinuity
spacing, R4 is the rating for discontinuity
conditions, R5 is the rating for ground water,
and R6 is the rating for discontinuity orientation
rock mass quality value in the Q classication
system, given by Q RQD=J n J r =J a
J w =SRF or Q BS Q  JC Q  ST, and Q0
RQD=J n J r =J a or Q0 BS Q  JC Q , where,
Jn is the factor for joint set number, Jr is the

In the RMR system, the parameters concerning rock

structure are the drill core quality RQD and the spacing of
discontinuities, denoted as parameters R2 and R3. Their
sum, R2+R3, denes the ordinate component, which may
be related to the block size. The abscissa component, which
represents condition of discontinuities, is dened by the
parameter denoted as R4. The sum
F RMR R2 R3 R4

(1)

denes the rock mass fabric index of the system. Its range
extends from 8 to 76.
In the Q system, parameters concerning rock structure
are the RQD and the joint set number Jn. Their ratio is the
ordinate component and represents block size. Joint
condition parameters are accounted by the parameters
joint roughness number Jr and joint alteration number Ja.
Their ratio is the abscissa component that represents joint
condition and may be related to inter block shear strength.
The product of the abscissa and the ordinate components
denes the rock mass fabric index of the system, i.e.,
FQ

RQD J r
Q0 .
Jn Ja

(2)

The range of the index extends from 0.0208 (for

RQD 10, J n 20, J r 1, J a 20) to 1000, as stated
in [11].
In the GSI system, the rock structure is dened directly
in the ordinate component of the GSI chart, whereas the
joint condition is dened in the abscissa component.
However, the denition of each of the components is quite
subjective as it is based on non-scaled sketches and
linguistic non-quantied terms. The work by Sonmez and

RMi

jK
FGSI
FQ
FRMR
FRMI

factor for joint roughness, Ja is the factor for

joint alteration and lling, Jw is the factor for
joint water pressure or inow, SRF is the stress
reduction factor, and BS Q RQD=J n block
size, JC Q J r =J a joint conditions, ST
J w =SRF active stress coefcient
Rock Mass Index, given by RMi sci  JP,
wherepJP is the jointing parameter
0:2
0:2 jC V D
, jC is the joint
b ; D 0:37 jC
conditions rating, Vb the block volume (m3), L
the mean block
p diameter [10] ( mean joint
spacing) 3 V b S
joint waviness factor (large scale planarity of
joint wall)
Rock Mass Fabric Index for the GSI systemGSI
Rock Mass Fabric Index for the Q system Q0
Rock Mass Fabric Index for the RMR
system R2+R3+R4
Rock Mass Fabric Index for the RMi system JP

Ulusay [12] and Cai et al. [13] allowed for a quantication

of these rock structure and joint condition components,
and for a more objective denition of them. The rock mass
fabric index FGSI is the geological strength index dened on
the GSI contour lines of the chart, i.e.,
F GSI GSI.

(3)

In the RMi system, the rock structure ordinate

component is represented by the block volume Vb, whereas
the abscissa component, i.e., the joint condition, is
represented by the joint condition factor jC. The rock
mass fabric index FRMi of the system is equal to the jointing
parameter JP, which is given by
p
0:2
F RMi JP 0:2 jC V D
.
(4)
b ; D 0:37 jC
The range of the index extends from 0.00001 to 1.
Correlation between the four classication systems is
attempted in terms of their Rock Mass Fabric Indices. The
four indices depend on the same two components;
however, these components are not scaled to a common
base. Correlation therefore necessitates the scaling of the
two components of each Rock Mass Fabric Index in a
common base.
2. Rock mass fabric indices components
2.1. Rock structure component
Block size may be chosen as the common entity
quantifying the rock structure in the various systems.
It is related to the discontinuity spacing and the drill
core quality. Discontinuities delineate the independent

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

479

Table 1
Terzaghis [14] rock mass classication, with adjustments by Sinha [15], as adapted from Palmstrom [16]
Rock class

Rock type

Description

Hard and intact

BS: No joints or cracks

JC: Unweathered rock
Failure: If fractured, it breaks across intact rock. At high stresses rock burst may occur.
scm4150 MPa

II

Hard stratied and

schistose

BS: Layers widely separated

JC: May or may not have planes of weakness
Failure: Spalling is quite common

III

Massive and
moderately jointed

BS: Widely spaced joints. Huge blocks intimately interlocked

JC: The joints may or may not be cemented
Failure: Walls do not require lateral support. Spalling may occur

IV

Moderately blocky and

seamy

BS: Joints are less spaced. Block size is about 1 m in size, intimate interlocking
JC: Joints may or may not be healed
Failure: The rock may or may not be hard. No side pressure is exerted or expected

Very blocky and seamy

BS: Closely spaced joints. Block size is less than 1 m. It consists of almost chemically intact rock
fragments which are entirely separated from each other and imperfectly interlocked
Failure: Some side pressure of low magnitude is expected
Vertical walls may require support

VI

Completely crushed but

chemically intact

BS: Comprises chemically intact rock having the character of a crusher run aggregate. No
interlocking. Block size could be few cm to 30 cm

VII

Squeezing rock
moderate depth

Failure: Squeezing is a mechanical process in which the rock advances into the tunnel opening
without perceptible increase in volume. Moderate depth is a relative term and could be up to
1501000 m

VIII

Squeezing rockgreat
depth

Failure: The depth may be more than 150 m. The maximum recommended tunnel depth is
1000 m (2000 m in very good rocks)

IX

Swelling rock

Failure: Rocks containing swelling minerals such as montmorillonite, illite, kaolinite, and others
can swell. Some shales absorb moisture from the air and swell. Swelling is associated with
volume change and is due to the chemical change of the rock usually in presence of moisture or
water. Heavy pressure is exerted on rock supports

blocks found in the rock mass. The block size is

described qualitatively and quantitatively by many
authors.
Terzaghi [14] was the rst to classify rock mass into
categories dened by the block size. His descriptions are
dened linguistically and many authors have extended this
classication to accommodate numerical values of the
block size. Table 1 displays Terzaghis rock mass classes as
adjusted by Sinha [15].
Discontinuity spacing is standardized by ISRM [17]
relating qualitative descriptions with numerical measurements, shown in Table 2. This standardization is also
followed by the RMR system. According to the RMR
system, the sum R2+R3 ranges from 8 to 40 and can be
taken as a measure of the block size. Fig. 1 plots the
combined RQD (R2) and spacing ratings (R3), as shown by
Bieniawski [2].
In the Q system, block size is dened by the ratio RQD/
Jn [3], which may be expressed [18] in cm units, as it takes
values from 0.5 to 200.

Table 2
Discontinuity spacing descriptions according to ISRM [17]
Discontinuity spacing

Description

o20 mm
2060 mm
60200 mm
2060 cm
60 cm2 m
2 m6 m
46 m

Extremely close
Very close
Close
Moderate
Wide
Very wide
Extremely wide

Palmstrom [9] standardized qualitative rock mass

structure descriptions with their numerical equivalents, as
shown in Table 3. Block size and discontinuity spacing can
be measured by means of the Volumetric Joint Count Jv, or
the mean block volume, Vb. The values of the table are
valid for blocks that are equidimensional, but include some
error if they are moderately long or at. If these
measurements are not easily obtained in the eld the mean

ARTICLE IN PRESS
480

S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

Fig. 1. Relation between RQD and mean discontinuity spacing [2].

Table 3
Classication of block volume according to Palmstrom [9]
Degree of jointing or (density of joints)

Joint spacing S (Block diameter) S

Massive/no joints
Massive/very weakly jointed
Weakly jointed
Moderately jointed
Strongly jointed
Very strongly jointed
Crushed

410 m
310 m
13 m
30 cm1 m
1030 cm
310 cm
o3 cm

discontinuity spacing can be used. Moreover he states that

the use of the Jv coefcient or the mean block volume Vb
characterize rock structure better than the use of RQD.
According to Sonmez and Ulusay [12] block size in the
GSI chart is quantied by the Structure Rating coefcient
(SR) that is related to the Jv coefcient with the following
formula:
SR 17:5 logJ v 79:8.

(5)

The structure rating may take values from 0 to 100. Such

a quantied GSI chart is shown in Fig. 2.
Cai et al. [13] suggest that the block size in the GSI chart
is quantied by the mean discontinuity spacing S or by the
mean block volume Vb. For cases where more than three
regular joint sets occur, block volume Vb can be found
from the joint spacings as
Vb

S1 S2 S3
,
sin g1 sin g2 sin g3

3
Vb

Volumetric joint count Jv

Block volume Vb

Extremely low o0.3

Very low 0.31
Low 13
Moderately high 310
High 1030
Very high 30100
Extremely high 4100

Extremely large size 41000 m3

Very large size 301000 m3
Large size 130 m3
Moderate size 0.031 m3
Small size 130 dm3
Very small size 0,031 dm3
Extremely small size o30 cm3

spacings. However, Cai et al. [13] state that compared to

the variation in joint spacing, the effect of the intersection
angle between joint sets is relatively small, and the block
volume Vb can be approximated for practical purpose as
V b S1 S2 S3 .

(7)

If in doubt, they suggest the measurement of some

representative blocks in the eld or the use of RQD or Jv.
The quantied GSI chart according to Cai et al. [13] is
presented in Fig. 3.
Barton et al. [20] classify the rock mass into categories I,
IIa, IIb, IIIa, IIIb (Table 4). For every rock mass category
there are: brief descriptions of rock mass properties, the
number of the joint sets encountered, the discontinuity
spacing, the rock mass quality Q, the rock mass failure
mode and the suggested numerical tools/methods for
design.

(6)

where S1, S2, S3 are the spacings between the individual

joints in each set, and g1, g2, g3 are the angles between the
joint sets. For a rhombohedral block, the block volume is
usually larger than that of cubic blocks with the same joint

2.2. Discontinuity conditions component

Discontinuity conditions are rated in the RMR system
by means of the R4 rating (ranging from 0 to 30) taking
into account the persistence, roughness, weathering, inll

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

481

Fig. 2. Quantication of the GSI [12].

material and joint aperture. Total rating R4 is calculated by

the average of individual ratings for every discontinuity set.
The Q system rating for joint conditions is expressed by
the ratio Jr/Ja. Only the most unfavorable joint set for the
project construction is rated.
The RMi system according to Palmstrom [8] takes
into account, in addition to jR and jA, the large-scale
joint waviness jK factor described in Table 5 and the joint
size and continuity factor jL. The joint condition coefcient of the RMi is expressed as jC jL jKjR=jA.
Coefcients jR and jA are similar to Jr and Ja of the Q
system.
According to Sonmez and Ulusay [12], discontinuity
conditions in the GSI chart are numerically expressed by
the surface rating coefcient, SRC. This coefcient uses
three individual subratings of the R4 ratings of the RMR
system, i.e., ratings for roughness, weathering degree and
inlling material, as shown in Table 6.
According to Cai et al. [13] discontinuity conditions
described in the GSI chart can be quantied with the use of
the Jc coefcient that is similar to the one described in the

RMi system, dened as J c jKjR=jA. Thus, jC jLJc,

where jL 1 or 0.75 for joint persistence 110 m and
1030 m, respectively. The Jc coefcient is used for
consistency with the quantication of Cai et al. [13].
3. Common base for the Rock Mass Fabric Indices
3.1. Block size component
Discontinuity
spacing
(S)
and
block
size
(BS Q RQD=J n ) as dened by the Q system are closely
related. Fig. 4 plots the relation of block size BSQ to the
mean discontinuity spacing S and to the block volume Vb.
Shown in the chart are:

Scatter data points extracted from Palmstrom [10]. They

were generated by a computer program that simulates
lines penetrating blocks in different angles. Lowhigh
bars extracted from a database of constructed tunnels.
They dene the average value of BSQ together with the
minimum and maximum of the standard deviation of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
482

S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

Fig. 3. Quantication of the GSI [13].

every joint spacing class. The average and standard

deviation ranges used in this chart illustrate better the
relation between BSQ and S as standard deviation
covers the 66% of the variability in the data.
An area enclosed by dashed lines, of possible BSQ values
for pertinent joint spacings. The area limits were evolved
using the chart of Fig. 1 [2].

It is observed that the logarithm of BSQ is a monotonically increasing function of the logarithm of disconti-

nuity spacing or of the block volume. There is a high

scatter in data records where joint spacing is less than
10 cm, as in this case the rock mass is heavily jointed and
more than four joint sets are present; the Jn coefcient
varies accordingly in this category introducing variability.
The chart of Fig. 4 is useful as a reference for the scaling of
block size BSQ values with the joint spacing or the block
volume.
In Table 7, the rock structure descriptions by four
authors are grouped together. Most of their linguistic

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

483

Table 4
Rock mass behaviour, adapted from Barton, Bandis, Shinas [20]
Rock mass description

Intactmassive
Extremely massive
rock mass, high
strength, rough
joints, strong
dilution

Continuum

Intactjointed
Massive, low
jointed, unaltered,
rough joints,
medium dilution

Mediumhigh
jointed,
weathered,
smooth
undulating joins,
medium dilution

Discontinuous

Moderately disturbedheavily jointed

Heavily jointed,
weathered weak
rock mass, light
dilution

Very disturbed (tectonically)

Very weak,
altered, squeezing
rock mass, if clay
is present; no
dilution (Fault
zone)

Failure

Design

Intact rock
failure,
sliding of
individual
joints

Finite element
method (FEM)
or boundary
element method
(BEM)

Sliding of
some joints

Sliding of
many joints

Discrete
element method
(DEM) eg.
UDEC/3DEC
or DDA

Rotated shear 3

Continuum

Weakness
and Shear
zones. Clay
presence

descriptions are similar. In order to have a common base,

the linguistic description of rock mass structure provided
by the GSI system in the 4th column of the table is
adopted. In Table 8, the adopted rock structure descriptions are related to the joint spacing categories provided by
various authors and systems. Thus, in columns 2 through 6,
the joint spacing ranges as given by ISRM [17], Barton
et al. [20], Cai et al. [13], Bieniawski [2] and Palmstrom [9]
are related to the selected GSI descriptions, given in
column 1. Palmstroms joint spacing categories have
already been found by various authors to be suitable for
the quantication of the GSI rock structure categories.
In Fig. 5, the chart displays all rock mass structure
parameters that are used for the denition of the block size
by the four classication systems and allows easy selection

Finite element
method (FEM)
or nite
difference
method (FDM)
eg. FLAC

Joint spacing
S

Span/S

1001000

42 m

55

13

10100

0.52 m

520

24

110

1050 cm

20100

44

0.11

510 cm

100500

o0.1

o5 cm

b500

Joint sets

and transition between them. The scaling of every

parameter is performed using the descriptions of the
authors dened earlier in Section 2.1 and this section. In
the rst column the rock mass description, as in the GSI
chart, is displayed; there exists a picture of a typical rock
mass structure together with the possible joint sets.
Category Low Jointed is added, as Q, RMR and RMi
systems may be applicable in this category. In the 2nd
column, the average joint spacing is shown, as given by
Palmstrom in Table 8. In column 3, the sum of R2 (RQD
rating) and R3 (discontinuity spacing rating) of the RMR
system is displayed. The sum R2+R3 is calculated using the
discontinuity spacing of column 2 and the combined
ratings of Fig. 1. The R3 values of the low jointed and
massive categories are raised by 30%, according to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
484

S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

Table 5
Joint condition factor after Cai et al. [13]
Waviness terms
Interlocking (large-scale)
Stepped
Large undulation
Small to moderate undulation
Planar

Undulation a/D

jK rating

43%
0.33%
o0.3%

3
2.5
2
1.5
1

a maximum asperity amplitude, D length between maximum amplitudes.

jK jR
jA
jK waviness coefcient, jR and jA similar to Q systems Jr and Ja
coefcients.

Jc

Bieniawskis [2] suggestions. Q systems block size BS Q

RQD=J n is presented in column 4. The BSQ value ranges
are dened in the domains 1 though 6 of Fig. 4 for
pertinent S values of column 2. The mean block volume Vb
(in cm3), the volumetric joint count, Jv and the SR
coefcient are shown in columns 5, 6 and 7, respectively.
They are used by the RMi system and also for the
quantication of the GSI chart. Values are plotted as
described in Fig. 2 [12] and Fig. 3 [13] for all rock mass
categories except the low jointed one. As stated before the
Vb values should be applicable for blocks dened as
common, or nearly equidimensional, or moderately long or
at.
Overall, Fig. 5 provides rock structure numerical
parameters as required by the four classication systems
scaled to t the rock mass categories of the GSI chart. The
gure will be used below as the rock structure component
in the rock mass fabric (BS, JC) coordinate system.

Table 6
Surface conditions rating after Sonmez and Ulusay [12]
Variable
Roughness
Rr
Weathering
Rw
Inlling material
Rf
SCR Rr+Rw+Rf

Rating
Very rough
6
Unweathered
6
None
6

Rough
5
Slightly weathered
5
Hard lling o5 mm
4

Slightly rough
3
Moderately weathered
3
Hard lling 45 mm
2

Smooth
1
Highly weathered
1
Soft lling o5 mm
2

Slickensided
0
Decomposed
0
Soft lling 45 mm
0

Fig. 4. Relation between block size (BSQ RQD=J n ) and discontinuity spacing S or block volume Vb. Dots are data generated from a computer
simulation of lines penetrating blocks in different angles, from Palmstrom [10]. Highlow bars indicate average and standard deviation distribution (66%
of all data points) of data collected from constructed underground openings. Dashed lined area denes possible BSQ ranges according to RQDS relations
of Fig. 1. Numbered rectangular areas show the ranges of the rock mass categories. 1 Massive, 2 Low Jointed, 3 Blocky, 4 Very Blocky,
5 Blocky/Disturbed, 6 Disintegrated.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

485

Table 7
Qualitative denition of rock mass structure
Terzaghi [14]

Palmstrom [9]

Barton et al. [20]

Hoek [6] GSI

I. Hard and intact

Massive/no joints
Massive/very weakly
jointed

I. Intactmassive
Extremely massive
rock mass, high
strength

Intact or massive

III. Massive and

moderately jointed

Weakly jointed

IIa. Intactjointed
Massive, low jointed

Low jointed (not

applicable in the GSI
system)

IV. Moderately
blocky and seamy

Moderately jointed

IIb. Intactjointed
Mediumhigh jointed

Blocky

V. Very blocky and

seamy

Strongly jointed

IIIa. Moderately
disturbedheavily
jointed
Heavily jointed rock
mass

Very blocky

Very strongly jointed

IIIb. Very disturbed

tectonically

Blocky-disturbed

Crushed

Very weak, altered,

squeezing rock mass,
in presence of clay.
(Fault zone)

Disintegrated

VI. Completely
crushed but
chemically intact

3.2. Joint conditions component

Descriptions of discontinuity conditions according to
various authors and systems are grouped in Table 9. In the
rst column of this table the linguistic descriptions of the GSI
system are presented. The 2nd column shows the SCR
coefcient given by Sonmez and Ulusay [12]. The SCR is
calculated from the RMR R4 rating without ratings for

persistence and aperture as shown in Table 6. Column 3

holds Jc ratings as stated by Cai et al. [13]. The Jc ratings are
also used for the calculation of FRMi as jC jL  J c and
jL 1 or 0.75 for joint persistences 110 m and 1030 m,
respectively. In the 4th column, the RMR R4 rating is
presented. Ratings are calculated as of SCR, assuming small
persistence and aperture in very good joint conditions; in
degrading surface qualities persistence and aperture are

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

486

Table 8
Joint spacing denitions
1

GSI Hoek [6] Rock mass

structure description, Joint sets

ISRM [17] cf.

Table 2

Barton et al. [20]

cf. Table 4

Cai et al. [13] cf.

Fig. 3

RMR Bieniawski
[2]

Palmstrom [9] cf.

Table 3

Intact or massive
None or random joints

4200 cm

4200 cm

4100 cm

4200 cm

4300 cm

Low jointed
1 or 2 Joint sets

60200 cm

50200 cm

60200 cm

100300 cm

Blocky
3 Joint sets

2060 cm

1050 cm

30100 cm

2060 cm

30100 cm

Very blocky
43 Joint sets

620 cm

510 cm

1030 cm

620 cm

1030 cm

Blockydisturbed
44 Joint sets

26 cm

15 cm

310 cm

o6 cm

310 cm

Disintegrated
Many joint sets

o2 cm

o1 cm

o3 cm

assumed to increase accordingly. Column 5 holds the Jr/Ja

coefcients of the Q system. Q ratings are applied for every
discontinuity category according to the linguistic descriptions
of discontinuity conditions found in the GSI chart. The
ratings are linearly distributed in the logarithmic space from
the very poor to the very good categories.
Fig. 6 displays the discontinuity condition ratings given
in Table 9, which can be used for the calculation of the
abscissa component in the rock mass fabric (BS, JC)
coordinate system. In this way, equivalent ratings are
available for the denition of discontinuity conditions by
the four classication systems.
3.3. Common base for all Rock Mass Fabric Indices
The block size and discontinuity conditions selection
charts given in Figs. 5 and 6, are used to form the rock mass
fabric chart of Fig. 7. This chart offers easy estimation of the
rock mass fabric indices of the four selected classication
systems, i.e., RMR, Q, GSI and RMi. The chart follows the
GSI concept of a rock structure ordinate and a discontinuity
condition abscissa. Moving from left to right in the chart,
discontinuity surface quality is decreasing. Moving from up
to down, interlocking of rock pieces is also decreased.
Overall rock mass fabric quality is decreasing from very
good quality in the upper left of the chart to very poor
quality in the bottom right. Some equipotential contours of
the four Rock Mass Fabric Indices are also drawn to help
the reader visualize better the relations among them.
Nevertheless, in all circumstances the user must initially
calculate the ordinate and abscissa components to arrive at
an estimate of the Rock Mass Fabric Index.
As the rock mass structure ordinate incorporates a visual
appearance of the rock mass together with the expected
number of joint sets and various system ratings, the user
can choose from the most handy ones, in order to nally

o3 cm

acquire the appropriate rating. The same is followed for the

discontinuity conditions abscissa of the chart, which
incorporates both linguistic descriptions and numerical
values in order to interpolate the required rating. The
procedure is easily summarized as follows:

For the estimation of the FQ index, the user must nd

the appropriate BSQ and JCQ values, either by direct
measurements or by estimating other system parameters. Their product is the FQ index. Traced contours
of FQ in the chart are straight lines as the (BSQ, JCQ)
ratings are linearly distributed in the log space.
For the estimation of the FRMR index, the user must nd
the appropriate R2+R3 and R4 values. Their sum is the
FRMR index. Traced contours of FRMR in the chart are
not straight lines. This is due to the fact that the R2+R3
ratings as given by Bieniawski [1,2] are not linearly
distributed in this rock structure space.
For the estimation of the FGSI index the user may
directly evaluate the index from the GSI chart (as
FGSI GSI). The index may also be evaluated more
objectively by establishing the appropriate rating pairs.
The pairs may be either SR (or Jv) as ordinate and SCR
as abscissa, or Vb as ordinate and Jc as abscissa. Some
contours of FGSI are drawn in the chart. The following
formula is found to give a good t for the index:
F GSI GSI 2:25 SR=120SCR 0:33SR 5.

(8)

The formula has a very high correlation of 99% with

lower accuracy near the borders.
The FRMi index is calculated from the appropriate pair
of (Vb,Jc) with the use of formula (4); Jc is dened in
Section 3.2. The traced contours of FRMi are exponential
curves as the relation between rock structure and
discontinuity conditions components in Eq. (4) is nonlinear.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

487

Fig. 5. Block size selection chart.

An example, a blocky rock mass with good to fair joint

conditions is rated as below:
Rock mass structure: SR 65, RQD=J n 8,
V b 105 cm3 0:1 m3 , R2 R3 31.

Joint conditions: SCR 12, J r =J a 1, J c 1:7,

R4 19.
By visually examining Fig. 7, the Fabric Indices
take approximate values: F GSI 60, F RMR 50, F Q 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS
488

S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

Table 9
Description of discontinuity conditions
1

Hoek [6] GSI

Sonmez and Ulusay [12] SCR

Cai et al. [13] Jc

RMR R4

Q System Jr/Ja

Very good
Very rough, fresh, unweathered surfaces

1814

4.512

2330

1.75.33

Good
Rough, slightly weathered, iron stained surfaces

1114

1.74.5

1723

0.51.7

711

0.671.7

1017

0.120.5

0.250.67

410

0.070.12

0.10.25

04

0.050.07

Fair
Smooth, moderately weathered or altered surfaces
Poor
Slickenslided, highly weathered surfaces with
compact coatings or llings of angular fragments
Very poor
Slickenslided, highly weathered surfaces with soft
clay coatings or llings

3.57

03.5

(2)
Fig. 6. Chart for the selection of discontinuity surface conditions.

(logarithmic distance, closer to the F Q 10 line) and

F RMi 0:12 (logarithmic distance between the 0.5 and 0.1
lines).
By calculating the rock mass components: FGSI (using
Eq. (8)) (2.25+65/120)  12+0.33  65+5 33.5+21.45
+5 59.95, F RMR 31 19 p50,
F Q 8  1 8 and
FRMi (using Eq. (4)) 0:2  1:7  0:1D , where D
0:37  1:70:2 ; thus, F RMi 0:1212.
Rock structure ratings are more consistent in the jointed
rock mass categories numbered 36. For this reason, a
zoom of the chart of Fig. 7 is shown in Fig. 8. The gure
offers better resolution for the selection of parameters in
blocky to disintegrated rock masses.
The charts of Figs. 7 and 8 offer determination of the
rock mass fabric indices by employing the most handy
ratings or descriptions to the user. The latter should be
compatible to the classication system restrictions.

(3)

(4)

4. Applications
For the validation of the proposed rock mass fabric
charts various projects were examined. Rock structure
discontinuity conditions ratings were extracted from the
following projects:
(1) Shallow diversion tunnel at Guledar dam site, Turkey
[21]. The main purpose of the construction of the

(5)

planned tunnel is to regulate, drainage and provide

water for irrigation purposes. The diversion tunnel runs
mainly through formations of limestone, sandstone and
diabase. Rock masses at the site were characterized
using RMR, Q, RMi and GSI. Q parameters were not
mentioned but were rated according to the descriptions
in the article.
Excavation for the foundation of a 40-storey tower in
Tenerife, Spain [22]. A 132.70-m-high apartment tower
(above foundation) has been successfully completed at
Tenerife Island. The foundation of the tower, a 2-m
thick reinforced concrete slab, is supported by jointed,
vesicular and weathered basalt, and scoria. Rock types
are: (d1) massive or vesicular basalt with thin scoriaceous levels, (d2) weathered scoriaceous basalt and
pyroclastic breccia, (d3) scoria and fractured pyroclastic breccia. RQD for d3 type is reported as 0 and is set
to 10 for FQ estimation according to the Q systems
recommendations [3].
Tunnel behavior in the Istanbul Metro [23]. A tunnel for
the Constantinople Metro was excavated under a
densely populated area. Rock masses consist of
alternating sandstones and mudstones, crossed by two
distinct fault systems. There are min/max RMR
measurements of rock masses and fault zones together
with detailed descriptions. From these descriptions Q
system parameters were generated.
The Tuzla Tunnel [24]. This tunnel was excavated mainly
in fault zones, shales and limestones. Classication of
rock masses is performed using the RMR and the GSI
systems. No parameters for the Q system are given.
The Beykoz Tunnel [25]. This tunnel was excavated
mainly in weak rocks that were classied as blocky/
disturbed, disintegrated and foliated/laminated/sheared
rock using the GSI system only, but there is also a
detailed list of geotechnical parameters. The rst two
rock classes were classied using the mentioned
parameters according to the RMR and the Q systems.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

489

Fig. 7. Common chart for all rock mass fabric indices.

(6) Excavations in chalk rock, Israel [26]. Chalk is widely

distributed and well exposed in Israel. For thousands of
years tunnels for various purposes have been excavated
in this rock mass. The RMR and Q system ratings were
estimated for many excavations.
(7) Design of tunnels in the Sydney region [27]. Details are
given of the analytical methods used to design rockbolt
and shotcrete support for tunnels and large span

caverns under relatively low cover in the near

horizontally bedded Triassic sandstones of the Sydney
region. Parameters used for the RMR and Q systems
are listed.
(8) Half tunnels in Himalaya [28]. Half tunnels along hill
roads are excavated as overhangs within steep slopes of
hard rocks. Rock mass properties pertaining to Q and
RMR for the rocks exposed around the half tunnels

ARTICLE IN PRESS
490

S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

Fig. 8. Zoom in the common chart for all rock mass fabric indices.

have been evaluated. The R3 ratings mentioned were

raised by 30% for cases were 2 or less joint sets were
present, according to Bieniawskis [2] suggestions.
The gathered data is given in Table 10. Columns 1 and 2
hold the site name and section described previously.
Columns 3, 4, 6 and 7 hold the measured ratings according
to the RMR and Q systems. Columns 9 and 10 display
some SR and SCR ratings, measured according to the
suggestions made [12]. Column 11 displays FGSI ( GSI)

as measured. The rock mass fabric indices FRMR and FQ in

columns 5 and 8 were calculated from the relevant ratings
given in the pertinent columns.
Table 11 shows the estimation of the rock mass fabric
indices from ratings of other systems shown in Table 10.
In columns 3 and 4 (Table 11) the FRMR components
are evaluated from the pertinent values of the Q
system given in columns 6 and 7 of Table 10 using the
selection chart of Fig. 7. The FRMR index shown in column
5 (Table 11) is estimated from columns 3 and 4 (Table 11).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

In columns 6 and 7 (Table 11) the FQ components are

evaluated from the pertinent values of the RMR system
given in columns 3 and 4 of Table 10. The FQ index shown
in column 8 (Table 11) is estimated from columns 6 and 7
(Table 11). In columns 9 and 10 (Table 11) the FGSI
components are evaluated from the pertinent values of the
Q system given in columns 6 and 7 of Table 10. The FGSI

491

index shown in column 11 (Table 11) is estimated from

columns 9 and 10 (Table 11).
From the data collected a comparison is made, shown in
Fig. 9, between measured and predicted values of the rock
mass fabric indices. It is shown that there is an agreement
between measured and predicted data with limited scatter
and high correlation coefcients. In Fig. 9a, the predicted

Table 10
Measured data, from published papers
1

Site

Section

RMR system

Q system

R2+R3

R4

FRMR

BSQ

10

11

GSI system
JCQ

FQ

1. Guledar Dam Turkey [21]

Limestone
Sandstone
Diabase

23
16
13

11
8
3

34
24
16

7.67
5.67
1.87

0.32
0.2
0.08

1.88
0.45
0.12

2. Tenerife Spain [22]

d1
d2
d3

27
16
8

25
20
15

52
36
23

5.5
2.83
0.56

1.5
1.5
0.75

8.25
4.25
0.42

3. Constantinople metro [23]

Sandstone
Sandstone
Mudstone
Mudstone
Fault zone
Fault zone

28
16
23
16
18
8

20
20
20
10
10
0

48
36
43
26
28
8

8.33
5.56
4.17
2.08
1.25
0.75

1.5
0.333
0.667
0.25
0.125
0.05

12.5
1.85
2.78
0.52
0.16
0.04

4. Tuzla tunnel [24]

Blocky
Breciated
Clayey

23
11
8

14
6
0

37
17
8

5. Beykoz tunnel [25]

Blocky
Disintegrated

16
8

20
8

36
16

2
1

0.5
0.1

1
0.1

6. Excavations in chalk rock, Israel [26]

Rosh-Haniqra
Beit-shearim
Mesilat-Zion
Maresha
Avedat
Ramat-Hovav
Ein-Ziq

21
16
16
23
23
18
16

25
25
25
25
25
25
25

46
41
41
48
48
43
41

8.33
6.67
2.4
5
5.83
7.5
3.58

1.0
1.0
1.5
3.0
0.67
0.75
0.67

8.33
6.67
3.6
15
3.89
5.63
2.39

7. Sydney tunnels [27]

I
II
III
IV
V

32
31
25
15
11

25
22
20
10
10

57
53
45
25
21

45
20
16.3
4.17
0.83

3
3
0.75
0.666
0.333

135
60
12.2
2.78
0.28

8. Himalaya half tunnels [28]

K1
K2
K3
M1
M2
M3
P1
P2
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7

30
30
30
30
33
33
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30

25
25
25
30
30
30
25
25
25
30
25
25
30
25
25

55
55
55
60
63
63
55
55
55
60
55
55
60
55
55

15.3
15.9
15.9
29.5
31.7
30.6
21.3
20.5
15.9
15.9
16.4
16.4
16.4
16.4
15.9

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

SR

SCR

FGSI
43
33
19

62
25
5

12
11
8

52
39
28
62
43
52
30
19
18
35
25
15

46
48
48
89
95
92
64
62
48
48
49
49
49
49
48

ARTICLE IN PRESS
492

S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

from the Q system FRMR index of Table 11, column 5, is

plotted against the measured FRMR index of Table 10,
column 5; the correlation coefcient is 95%. In Fig. 9b the
predicted, from Q, FGSI index of Table 11, column 11 is
plotted against the measured FGSI index of Table 10,
column 11; the correlation coefcient is 95%. In Fig. 9c the
predicted, from RMR, FQ index of Table 11, column 8 is
plotted against the measured FQ index of Table 10, column

8; the correlation coefcient is 93%. It can be seen in Fig.

9a that in good quality rock masses the FRMR predicted
from FQ is, in general, 37 units more than measured. As
the scaling of the rock mass components was performed
solely according to the original authors suggestions, a
renement of the scaling in good quality rock mass may be
possible in the future, taking into account feedback from
the users of the charts.

Table 11
Estimated data, predicted from the charts
1

10

11

Site

Section

R2+R3

R4

FRMR

BSQ

JCQ

FQ

SR

SCR

FGSI

From Q ratings

From RMR ratings

3.63
1.86
1,41

From Q ratings

1. Guledar Dam Turkey

Limestone
Sandstone
Diabase

32
29
16

11
7
2

43
36
18

0.33
0.2
0.1

1.2
0.37
0.14

45
33
20

7
5
2

38
27
16

2. Tenerive Spain

d1
d2
d3

29
21
8

22
22
18

51
43
26

5.0
2
0.5

2
1.1
0.45

10.0
2.2
0.22

57
40
5

12
12
10

58
48
31

3. Constantinople metro

Sandstone
Sandstone
Mudstone
Mudstone
Fault zone
Fault zone

33
29
25
18
12
9

22
12
17
10
5
0

55
41
42
28
17
9

6.03
3.72
3.55
3.72
2.24
0.5

1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.05

66
57
51
36
24
14

13
7
10
6
4
0

65
43
49
32
22
9

4. Tuzla tunnel

Blocky
Breciated
Clayey

45
22
0

9
4
0

43
22
8

5.Beykoz tunnel

Blocky
Disintegrated

17.5
10

16
3

33.5
13

3.72
0.5

1
0.16

3.7
0.1

6. Excavations in chalk rock, Israel

Rosh-Haniqra
Beit-shearim
Mesilat-Zion
Maresha
Avedat
Ramat-Hovav
Ein-Ziq

32
31
20
28
28
31
23

20
20
22
27
17
19
17

52
51
42
55
45
50
40

3.16
1.78
1.78
3.59
3.55
2.24
1.78

2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

6.3
3.5
3.5
7.1
7.1
4.5
3.5

7. Sydney tunnels

I
II
III
IV
V

40
36
35
26
9.5

27
27
19
17
13

67
63
54
43
22.5

7.94
7.08
3.98
1.59
1.15

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.25
0.25

15.8
10.6
4.0
0.4
0.3

8. Himalaya half tunnels

K1
K2
K3
M1
M2
M3
P1
P2
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7

35
35
35
38
38
38
36
36
35
35
35
35
35
35
35

27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27

62
62
62
65
65
65
63
63
62
62
62
62
62
62
62

6.31
6.31
6.31
4.68
6.31
6.31
4.68
4.68
6.31
6.31
6.31
6.31
6.31
6.31
6.31

2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
2.0

12.6
12.6
12.6
23.4
31.5
31.5
9.3
9.3
12.6
31.5
12.6
12.6
31.5
12.6
12.6

6.0
3.7
3.5
0.93
0.56
0.025

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

N 0:5F Q (assuming J w 0:5). Thus, Eq. (10) becomes:

The data collected allowed for a correlation between the

measured FRMR and FQ indices, which is as follows:
F RMR 15 log F Q 32

r 0:96.

F RMR 18:4 log F Q 15

F RMR 18:4 log F Q 24:5

(11)

r 0:92.

for flowing conditions:

(12)

Eqs. (9), (11) and (12) are plotted in Fig. 10 against

measured data, i.e., FRMR from Table 10, column 5, and FQ
from Table 10, column 8. The proposed correlation Eq. (9)
has a high correlation coefcient of 96% for the particular selected data records. The discrepancy between
Eqs. (10)(12) is relatively small and can be attributed to
the fact that the RCRN relation is derived by regression
from a different data set where three components were

(10)

In dry conditions RCR F RMR 15, N F Q (assuming J w 1) and in owing conditions RCR F RMR and

b
80

70

70

60

60

FGSI Predicted from Q .

80

50
40
30
20
10

50
40
30
20
10

r = 95.3%
0

20

40

60

80

r = 95.5%
0

20

FRMR Measured

40
FGSI Measured

c
1000

FQ Predicted from RMR .

FRMR Predicted from Q .

for dry conditions;

(9)

Further, according to Goel et al. [29], RCR is dened as

RMR without ratings for intact rock strength R1 and
orientations of discontinuities R6, while N is Q without the
SRF factor. They have proposed the following equation
that relates RCR with N:
RCR 8 ln N 30

493

100

10

1
0.01

0.1

10

100

1000

0.1
r = 93.4%
0.01
FQ Measured
Fig. 9. Comparison between predicted from other systems and measured ratings.

60

80

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495

494

70
60
50


FRMR

40
30
20
F_RMR measured

r = 96.4%

F_RMR trend line

F_RCR dry

10

F_RCR flowing

0.01

0.1

10

100

0
1000

FQ

Fig. 10. Correlation between measured rock mass indices FRMR and FQ.

taken into account, rock structure, joint conditions and

ground water. The proposed Eq. (9) avoids also the
negative values of FRMR when FQ is low.
5. Conclusions
A correlation of four rock mass classication systems,
i.e., RMR, Q, GSI and RMi, is attempted in their common
parts which concern the rock mass. Common parameters in
these systems are those concerning rock structure and joint
surface conditions. Rock structure descriptions were put
together to form a uniform quick selection chart incorporating linguistic descriptions and numerical values of block
size. The same procedure was followed for the parameters
needed for the discontinuity conditions rating and a chart
was created incorporating equivalent ratings. The rock
structure chart was used as the ordinate together with the
joint conditions one as the abscissa of a coordinate system.
Equipotential contours of the four Rock Mass Fabric
Indices are drawn in this system. Thus, the selection charts
scale together equivalent ratings used by the classication
systems and offer determination of the Rock Mass Fabric
Indices by employing the most handy ratings or descriptions available by the users.
Validation of the proposed rock mass fabric chart is
made to various constructed projects. The measured rock
structurediscontinuity conditions ratings of a system
were used to predict the fabric indices of others. This
achieved good accuracy may allow for the further use of
the charts.
The GSI value which is a function of Vb (or SR) and Jc
(or SCR) may be evaluated either by the pertinent charts or
by a derived formula. Further, FRMR is related to FQ with a
formula that resembles the already well-known correlations
between RMR and Q. Both formulas have high correlation
coefcients.
The selection charts that were the main objective of this
research relating the four classication systems are applicable in the following areas:

In the design. Fabric indices represent the geological

quality of the rock mass that together with the
mechanical parameters of the intact rock may be used
as input to rock mechanics models and calculations.
In characterization. They are helpful in the identication
of the features of the rock mass, offer quick measurement and description of these components giving them
values or ratings according to various classication
systems suggestions.
For the homogeneity of measured data in projects.
Existing data in projects, rated using a certain classication system, can be easily converted to another. This
allows for the construction of databases of constructed
underground openings that may contain easily comparable records offering wider experience from case
histories.
For translation between different geotechnical languages.
Communication between different users is easier when
the rating components are well dened and related to
common understanding and language. Parameters of
one classication system can easily be converted to
another, together with the characterization description,
allowing users to gain an improved mutual understanding and a better overview of the rock mass
geological quality.

Therefore, the proposed charts provide a means for

consistent rock mass characterization, improve the utility
of the rock mass classication systems and may be
suggested for use.
References
[1] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering classications of jointed rock masses.
Trans S Afr Inst Civ Eng 1973;15(12):33544.
[2] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classication. New York:
Wiley Interscience; 1989.
[3] Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J. Engineering classication of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 1974;6(4):
189236.
[4] Grimstad E, Barton N. Updating of the Q-system for NMT. In:
international symposium on sprayed concrete, Fagernes, Norway.
Oslo: Norwegian Concrete Association; 1993.
[5] Barton N. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site
characterization and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2002;39(2):185216.
[6] Hoek E. Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News J 1994;2(2):
416.
[7] Marinos PG, Hoek E. GSI: a geologically friendly tool for rock mass
strength estimation. In: Proceedings of the GeoEng2000, Lancaster,
PA. Melbourne: Technomic Publishers; 2000. p. 142246.
[8] Palmstrom A. Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in
practical rock engineering, part 1: the development of the Rock Mass
Index (RMi). Tunnell Undergr Space Tech 1996;11(2):17588.
[9] Palmstrom A. Recent developments in rock support estimates by the
RMi. J Rock Mech Tunnell Techn 2000;6(1):119.
[10] Palmstrom A. Measurements of and correlations between block size
and rock quality designation. Tunnell Undergr Space Tech
2005;20(4):36277.
[11] Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF. Support of underground
excavations in hard rock. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1995 97p.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Tzamos, A.I. Sofianos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 477495
[12] Sonmez H, Ulusay R. Modications to the geological strength index
(GSI) and their applicability to stability of slopes. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1999;36:74360.
[13] Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M. Estimation of
rock mass deformation modulus and strength of jointed hard rock
masses using the GSI System. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41(1):
319.
[14] Terzaghi K. In: Proctor RV, White T, editors. Rock defects and load
on tunnel support, rock tunneling with steel supports. Youngstown,
OH: Commercial Shearing Co; 1946. p. 1599.
[15] Sinha RS. Underground structuresdesign and instrumentation.
Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1989.
[16] Palmstrom A. /http://www.rockmass.netS.
[17] ISRM. Standardization of laboratory, eld tests. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1978;15:348.
[18] Hoek E. Practical rock engineering, /http://www.rockscience.comS.
[20] Barton N, Bandis S, Shinas C. Engineering criterion of rock mass
strength. In: Proceedings of the fourth Hellenic conference on
geotechnical and geo-environmental engineering, vol. 1. Athens:
Technical Chamber of Greece & Hellenic Society of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering; 2001. p. 11522 [in Greek].

495

[21] Basarir H, Ozsan A, Karakus M. Analysis of support requirements

for a shallow diversion tunnel at Guledar dam site, Turkey. Eng Geol
2005;81:13145.
[22] Justo J, Justo E, Durand P, Azanon J. The foundation of a 40-storey
tower in jointed basalt. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2006;43:26781.
[23] Dalgic- S. A comparison of predicted and actual tunnel behaviour in
the Istanbul Metro, Turkey. Eng Geol 2002;63:6983.
[24] Dalgic- S. Tunneling in fault zones, Tuzla tunnel, Turkey. Tunnell
Undergr Space Tech 2003;18(5):45365.
[25] Dalgic- S. The inuence of weak rocks on excavation and support of
the Beykoz Tunnel, Turkey. Eng Geol 2000;58:13748.
[26] Polishook B, Flexer A. Assessment of chalk rock mass in excavations.
Bull Eng Geol Environ 1998;57:14550.
[27] Pells P. Developments in the design of tunnels and caverns in the
Triassic rocks of the Sydney region. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2002;39:56987.
[28] Anbalagan R, Singh B, Bhargava P. Half tunnels along hill roads of
Himalayaan innovative approach. Tunnell Undergr Space Tech
2003;18(4):4119.
[29] Goel RK, Jethwa JL, Paithankar AG. Indian experiences with Q and
RMR systems. Tunnell Undergr Space Tech 1995;10(1):97109.