Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 389e397

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full length article

Determination and applications of rock quality designation (RQD)

Lianyang Zhang*
Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Characterization of rock masses and evaluation of their mechanical properties are important and chal-
Received 16 September 2015 lenging tasks in rock mechanics and rock engineering. Since in many cases rock quality designation (RQD)
Received in revised form is the only rock mass classication index available, this paper outlines the key aspects on determination of
1 November 2015
RQD and evaluates the empirical methods based on RQD for determining the deformation modulus and
Accepted 14 November 2015
Available online 9 March 2016
unconned compressive strength of rock masses. First, various methods for determining RQD are pre-
sented and the effects of different factors on determination of RQD are highlighted. Then, the empirical
methods based on RQD for determining the deformation modulus and unconned compressive strength of
Keywords:
Rock quality designation (RQD)
rock masses are briey reviewed. Finally, the empirical methods based on RQD are used to determine the
Rock mass classication deformation modulus and unconned compressive strength of rock masses at ve different sites including
Deformation modulus 13 cases, and the results are compared with those obtained by other empirical methods based on rock
Unconned compressive strength mass classication indices such as rock mass rating (RMR), Q-system (Q) and geological strength index
Empirical methods (GSI). It is shown that the empirical methods based on RQD tend to give deformation modulus values close
to the lower bound (conservative) and unconned compressive strength values in the middle of the
corresponding values from different empirical methods based on RMR, Q and GSI. The empirical methods
based on RQD provide a convenient way for estimating the mechanical properties of rock masses but,
whenever possible, they should be used together with other empirical methods based on RMR, Q and GSI.
2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Natural rock mass differs from most other engineering materials
in that it contains discontinuities such as joints, bedding planes,
folds, sheared zones and faults which render its structure discon-
tinuity. To determine the engineering properties of rock masses, it
is important to consider the effect of discontinuities. As Palmstrm
(2002) noted: The engineering properties of a rock mass often
depend far more on the system of geological defects within the rock
mass than on the strength of the (intact) rock itself. Thus, from an
engineering point of view, a knowledge of the type and frequency
of the joints and ssures is often more important than the types of
rock involved. The observations and characterization of the joints
should therefore be done carefully.
Because of the discontinuous nature of rock masses, it is important
to choose the right domain that is representative of the rock mass
affected by the structure analyzed when determining the engineering
properties (Fig. 1). The behavior of the rock mass is dependent on the
* Tel.: 1 520 626 0532.
E-mail address: lyzhang@email.arizona.edu.
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences.
relative scale between the problem domain and the rock blocks
formed by the discontinuities. When the structure is signicantly
larger than the rock blocks formed by the discontinuities, the rock
mass may be simply treated as an equivalent continuum for the
analysis (Brady and Brown, 1985; Brown, 1993; Hoek et al., 1995;
Zhang, 2005). Treating the jointed rock mass as an equivalent con-
tinuum (i.e. the equivalent continuum approach), different empirical
correlations have been proposed for estimating the engineering
properties of jointed rock masses based on the classication indices
such as rock quality designation (RQD) (Deere et al., 1967; Coon and
Merritt, 1970; Seram and Pereira, 1983; Zhang and Einstein, 2004;
Zhang, 2010), rock mass rating (RMR) (Bieniawski, 1978; Seram
and Pereira, 1983; Yudhbir and Prinzl, 1983; Nicholson and
Bieniawski, 1990; Mitri et al., 1994; Sheorey, 1997; Aydan and
Dalgic, 1998), Q-system (Q) (Barton et al., 1980; Barton, 2002), and
geological strength index (GSI) (Hoek and Brown, 1997; Hoek, 2004;
Gokceoglu et al., 2003; Hoek and Diederichs, 2006).
Since in many cases RQD is the only information available for
describing rock discontinuities, this paper focuses on the determi-
nation of RQD and its utilization for evaluating the engineering
properties (mainly deformation modulus and unconned compres-
sive strength) of rock masses. First, different methods for

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2015.11.008
1674-7755 2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
390 L. Zhang / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 389e397
Fig. 1. Simplied representation of the inuence of scale on the type of rock mass
behavior (after Hoek et al., 1995).
determining RQD are presented and the effects of different factors on
determination of RQD are discussed. Then, different empirical
methods based on RQD for estimating the deformation modulus and
unconned compressive strength of rock masses are presented and
briey discussed. Finally, these empirical methods are used to
determine the deformation modulus and unconned compressive
strength of rock masses at ve different sites including 13 cases, and
the results are compared with those using other empirical methods
based on rock mass classication indices RMR, Q and GSI. This paper
outlines the key aspects on determination of RQD and provides useful
information for effective evaluation of the deformation modulus and
unconned compressive strength of rock masses based on RQD.
2. Determination of RQD
RQD was proposed by Deere (1964) as a measure of the quality
of borehole core. The RQD is dened as the ratio (in percentage) of
the total length of sound core pieces that is 0.1 m (4 inch) or longer
to the length of the core run. Besides the direct method for deter-
mining RQD from coring, different indirect methods are also
available for evaluating RQD.
For determination of RQD using core boring, the International
Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) recommended a core size of at
least NX (size 54.7 mm) drilled with double-tube core barrel using a
diamond bit. Articial fractures can be identied by close tting of
cores and unstained surfaces. All the articial fractures should be
ignored while counting the core length for RQD. The correct pro-
cedure for determining RQD from coring is shown in Fig. 2.
RQD can also be determined from discontinuity frequency ob-
tained from scanline sampling. Correlations between RQD and
linear discontinuity frequency have been derived for different
discontinuity spacing distribution forms (Priest and Hudson (1976);
Sen and Kazi, 1984; Sen, 1993). For example, for a negative expo-
nential distribution of discontinuity spacings, Priest and Hudson
(1976) derived the following relationship between RQD and linear
discontinuity frequency l:
RQD 100elt lt 1
where t is the length threshold. For t 0.1 m as for the conven-
tionally dened RQD, Eq. (1) can be expressed as
Fig. 2. Procedure for determination of RQD using coring (after Deere, 1989).
RQD 100e0:1l 0:1l 1 (2)
Fig. 3 shows the relations obtained by Priest and Hudson (1976)
between measured values of RQD and l, and the values calculated
using Eq. (2). For values of l in the range of 6e16 m1, a good
approximation to measured RQD values is found to be given by the
following linear relation:
RQD 110:4  3:68l (3)
It is noted that Eq. (1) was derived based on the assumption that
the length of the sampling line L is large so that the term elL is
negligible. For a short sampling line of length L, Sen and Kazi (1984)
derived the following expression for RQD with a length threshold t:
100 h i
RQD elL lt 1  elL lL 1 (4)
1 elL l
 Le l L
Fig. 4 shows the variation of RQD with the length of sampling
line L for discontinuity frequency l 10 m1 and length threshold
t 0.1 m. It can be seen that when L is smaller than about 0.5 m,
RQD increases signicantly as L increases. When L is larger than
0.5 m, RQD changes slightly with L. Therefore, it is important to use
sampling lines that are long enough so that eL can be negligible.
Seismic velocity measurements have also been used to estimate
RQD. By comparing the P-wave velocity of in situ rock mass with
laboratory P-wave velocity of intact drill core obtained from the
same rock mass, the RQD can be estimated by (Deere et al., 1967):
  2
(1) RQD vpF vp0  100% (5)
where vpF is the P-wave velocity of in situ rock mass, and vp0 is the
P-wave velocity of the corresponding intact rock.
 L. Zhang / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 389e397 391

heavily fractured calcareous rock masses outcropping in southern

Italy, Budetta et al. (2001) obtained as vpq 1:22 km/s and
kq 0.69. Thus Eq. (8) yields:

1:22  vpF
RQD  100% (9)
1:22vpF  0:69

It is noted that RQD varies with the direction of the borehole or

Fig. 3. Relationship between RQD and discontinuity frequency l (after Priest and
Hudson, 1976).
sampling line. As an example, Fig. 5 shows the variation of esti-
mated RQD by Choi and Park (2004) for a site in the west-southern
part of Korea on the lower hemisphere equal-angle stereo projec-
tion net. The variation of RQD with direction can be clearly seen.
Therefore, it is important to specify the corresponding direction
when stating a RQD value.
The RQD can also be estimated using the correlation between
RQD and volumetric discontinuity frequency lv (Palmstrm, 1974;
ISRM, 1978):

Other empirical correlations similar to Eq. (5) were also pro-

posed by researchers, including (El-Naqa, 1996; Bery and Saad, RQD 115  3:3lv (10)
2012):
where the volumetric discontinuity frequency lv is the sum of the
  1:05
RQD 0:77 vpF vp0  100% (6) number of discontinuities per unit length for all discontinuity sets,
which can be determined from the discontinuity set spacings
  2 within a volume of rock mass as (Palmstrm, 1982):
RQD 0:97 vpF vp0  100% (7)

although Sjogren et al. (1979) and Palmstrm (1995) proposed the 1 1 1

following hyperbolic correlation between RQD and P-wave lv / (11)
s1 s2 s3
velocities:

vpq  vpF where s1, s2 and s3 are the mean discontinuity set spacings. Random
RQD  100% (8) discontinuities in the rock mass can be considered by assuming a
vpq vpF kq
random spacing sr for each of them. According to Palmstrm
(2002), sr 5 m can be assumed. So the volumetric discontinuity
where vpq is the P-wave velocity of a rock mass with RQD 0, and
frequency lv can be generally expressed as
kq is a parameter taking into account the actual conditions of the in
situ rock mass. Based on regression analysis of the data obtained for

Fig. 5. Variation of estimated RQD (%) with scanline direction (after Choi and Park,
Fig. 4. Variation of RQD with the length of sampling line L. 2004).
392 L. Zhang / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 389e397
1 1 1 Nr
lv / (12)
s1 s2 s3 5
where Nr is the number of random discontinuities.
The use of volumetric discontinuity frequency lv for estimating
RQD provides a quite useful way in reducing the directional
dependence of RQD. It is also possible to do core boring, scanline
sampling and/or wave velocity measurements at different di-
rections and then evaluate the overall RQD of the rock mass.
3. Empirical methods based on RQD for estimating rock mass
properties
3.1. Estimation of deformation modulus
Based on eld studies at Dworshak Dam, Deere et al. (1967)
suggested that RQD be used for determining the deformation
modulus of rock masses. By adding more data from other sites,
Coon and Merritt (1970) developed a relation between RQD and the
modulus ratio Em/Er as shown in Fig. 6, where Em and Er are the
deformation moduli of the rock mass and the intact rock,
respectively.
Gardner (1987) proposed the following relation for estimating
Em from Er by using a reduction factor aE which accounts for the
frequency of discontinuities by RQD:
 masses at RQD 100% and thus Em may be smaller than Er even
Em aE Er
(13)
aE 0:0231RQD  1:32  0:15
This method was adopted by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Ofcials in the Standard Specication
for Highway Bridges (AASHTO, 1996). For RQD >57%, Eq. (13) is the
same as the relation of Coon and Merritt (1970), while for
RQD < 57%, Eq. (13) gives Em/Er 0.15. (valor arbitrrio)
It is noted that the RQD-(Em/Er) relations by Coon and Merritt
(1970) and Gardner (1987) have the following limitations (Zhang
and Einstein, 2004):
Fig. 6. Variation of Em/Er with RQD proposed by Coon and Merritt (1970).
(1) The range of RQD < 60% is not covered or only an arbitrary
value of Em/Er is selected for the whole range.
(2) For RQD 100%, Em is assumed to be equal to Er. This is
obviously unsafe in design practice because RQD 100%
does not mean that the rock is intact. There may be discon-
tinuities in rock masses with RQD 100% and thus Em may
be smaller than Er even when RQD 100%.
Zhang and Einstein (2004) expanded the database shown in
Fig. 6 by collecting more data from the published literature (see
Fig. 7). The expanded database covers the entire range
(0  RQD  100%) and shows a nonlinear variation of Em/Er with
RQD. The rocks for the expanded database include mudstone, silt-
stone, sandstone, shale, dolerite, granite, limestone, greywacke,
gneiss, and granite gneiss. Again, one can see the large scatter of the
data, especially when RQD >65%. Zhang and Einstein (2004) dis-
cussed the possible reasons for the large scatter, including test
methods, directional effect, discontinuity conditions and insensi-
tivity of RQD to discontinuity frequency (or spacing). Using the
expanded database, Zhang and Einstein (2004) derived the
following RQD-(Em/Er) relation for the average trend:
Em
aE 100:0186RQD1:91 (14)
Er
The average RQD-(Em/Er) relation gives aE 0.95 at RQD 100%,
which makes sense because there may be discontinuities in rock
when RQD 100%. By plotting the RQD-(Em/Er) relations by Coon
and Merritt (1970) and Gardner (1987) also in Fig. 7, one can
clearly see that it is not reasonable to assume a constant Em/Er value
at the low RQD region.
3.2. Estimation of unconned compressive strength
Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) suggested that, as a rst
approximation, the unconned compressive strength scm of rock
masses be taken as 0.33sc when RQD is less than about 70% and
Fig. 7. Expanded data and different relations between Em/Er and RQD (Ebisu et al.,
1992).
 L. Zhang / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 389e397 393

then linearly increase to 0.8sc when RQD increases from 70% to
100% (see Fig. 8), where sc is the unconned compressive strength
of the intact rock. The Standard Specications for Highway Bridges
adopted by AASHTO (1996) suggested that scm be estimated using
the following expression:

scm as sc
as 0:0231RQD  1:32  0:15
The variation of scm/sc with RQD based on Eq. (15) is also shown
in Fig. 8. It can be seen that the general trend of these two relations
between scm/sc and RQD is about the same: scm/sc is constant
when RQD is smaller than a certain value and then linearly in-
creases when RQD increases. Obviously it is inappropriate to as-
sume that scm/sc is constant when RQD varies from 0 to a certain
value (70% for the relation of Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) and
64% for the relation of AASHTO (1996)). For example, for a very poor
quality rock mass (RQD < 25%) and a fair quality rock mass
(RQD 50e75%), different scm/sc values should be expected.
It is also noted that the scm/sc versus RQD relation in Eq. (15) is
the same as the Em/Er versus RQD relation in Eq. (13), which may
not be appropriate. Researchers have studied the relation between
scm/sc and Em/Er and found that they can be related approximately
by the following equation (Ramamurthy, 1993; Singh et al., 1998;
Singh and Rao, 2005):
 q
scm Em
as aqE
sc Er
where the power q varies from 0.5 to 1 and is most likely in the
range of 0.61e0.74 with an average of 0.7. It can be seen that the
AASHTO method (Eq. (15)) uses the upper bound value of q 1.
It needs to be noted that the relation between scm/sc and Em/Er
(Eq. (16)) is derived based only on triaxial test data on jointed rock
mass specimens with different joint frequencies, orientations and
conditions (Ramamurthy, 1993; Singh et al., 1998; Singh and Rao,
2005) and has not been tested against eld cases. The power q in
Eq. (16) may vary signicantly for different rock types and
discontinuity conditions. Nevertheless, using the average value of
q 0.7 and the Em/Er versus RQD relation in Eq. (14), Zhang (2010)
derived the following scm/sc versus RQD relation:
scm
as 100:013RQD1:34 (17)
sc
Fig. 8 shows a comparison of the scm/sc versus RQD relation (Eq.
(17)) with the suggestions, respectively by Kulhawy and Goodman
(15)
(1987) and AASHTO (1996). Eq. (17) covers the entire range
(0  RQD  100%) continuously. For RQD >70%, Eq. (17) is in good
agreement with the suggestions of Kulhawy and Goodman (1987)
and AASHTO (1996). For RQD <70%, however, Eq. (17) is different
from the suggestions of Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) and
AASHTO (1996), with Eq. (17) considering the continuous variation
of scm/sc with RQD while the suggestions of Kulhawy and Goodman
(1987) and AASHTO (1996) both assuming constant scm/sc values.
4. Comparative analysis and discussion
4.1. Comparative analysis
To evaluate the empirical methods by Zhang and Einstein
(2004) and Zhang (2010) for estimating the deformation
modulus and unconned compressive strength of rock masses
using RQD, they are applied to ve sites with detailed geotech-
nical information available: the Sulakyurt dam site in central
Turkey (Ozsan et al., 2007), the Tannur dam site in south Jordan
(16) (El-Naqa and Kuisi, 2002), the Urus dam site also in central
Turkey (Ozsan and Akin, 2002), a high tower site at Tenerife Is-
land (Justo et al., 2006), and an open pit mine site in the vicinity
of Berlin, Germany (Alber and Heiland, 2001). The results are
compared with those from other empirical methods based on the
commonly used rock mass classication indices RMR, Q and GSI
in order to indirectly check the accuracy of the empirical
methods based on RQD. Table 1 lists the properties of rocks at the
ve sites which cover a reasonable but clearly limited range of
rock types. Tables 2 and 3 list the empirical methods based on
RMR, Q and GSI for estimating the deformation modulus and
unconned compressive strength of rock masses, respectively. It
is noted that these empirical methods were developed based on
databases of different sources and, as shown below, may give
very different estimation values.
Fig. 9 summarizes the estimated deformation modulus values
from the empirical method based on RQD by Zhang and Einstein

Table 1
Summary of rock properties at ve sites (after Alber and Heiland, 2001; El-Naqa and
Kuisi, 2002; Ozsan and Akin, 2002; Justo et al., 2006; Ozsan et al., 2007).

No. Rock Er (GPa) sc (MPa) RQD (%) RMR Q GSI References

1 Granite 31.5a 74 8.5 24 0.08 19 Ozsan et al.

2 Diorite 19.5a 60 1.5 21 0.05 16 (2007)
3 Limestone (L1) 24.8a 31 54 57 4.23 52 El-Naqa and
4 Limestone (L2) 10.4a 13 50 59 5.29 54 Kuisi (2002)
5 Limestone (R1) 29.6a 37 48 59 5.29 54
6 Limestone (R2) 21.6a 27 45 54 3.04 59
7 Marly limestone 22.4a 28 44 55 3.39 50
8 Andesite 41.9 93 41 34 0.56 41 Ozsan and
9 Basalt 40 142 15 38 0.63 42.5 Akin (2002)
10 Tuff 11.6 24 10 21 0.11 31
11 Basalt (d1) 60.9 69 77 59 6.6 52 Justo et al.
12 Basalt (d2) 5.3a 15 42.5 38 3.4 39 (2006)
13 Limestone 25.7 41 50 57 2.4b 52 Alber and
Heiland
(2001)
a
Estimated using the modulus ratio (MR Er/sc) values from Hoek and
Fig. 8. Comparison of scm/sc versus RQD relations by Kulhawy and Goodman (1987), Diederichs (2006).
b
AASHTO (1996), and Zhang (2010), respectively. Estimated from GSI using the correlation GSI 9lnQ 44.
394 L. Zhang / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 389e397

Table 2 modulus of rock masses compared to the different empirical

Empirical relations based on RMR, Q and GSI for estimating deformation modulus Em methods based on RMR, Q and GSI.
of rock masses.
Fig. 10 summarizes the estimated unconned compressive
Authors Relation Equation strength values from the empirical method based on RQD by Zhang
No. (2010) and other empirical methods based on RMR, Q and GSI for all
Bieniawski (1978) Em 2RMR  100 RMR > 50 (18) 13 cases at the ve sites. The estimated values from the empirical
Seram and Em 10
RMR10
40 RMR  50 (19) method based on RQD are essentially in the middle of the estimated
Pereira (1983) values from the different empirical methods based on RMR, Q and
Nicholson and Em
Er 0:0028RMR2 0:9eRMR=22:82
100 (20) GSI.
Bieniawski (1990)
Em 1cospRMR=100
Mitri et al. (1994) (21)
Er 2 4.2. Discussion
3
Read et al. (1999) Em 0:1RMR=10 (22)
Barton (2002) Em 25 log10 Q (23)
Determination of the deformation modulus and unconned
compressive strength of jointed rock masses is an important and
Barton (2002) Em 10Q sc =1001=3 (24)
q GSI10 challenging task in rock mechanics and rock engineering. The
sc
Hoek et al. (2002) Em 1  D=2 100 10 40 sc  100 MPa (25) empirical methods based on RQD provide a convenient way for
Gokceoglu Em 0:0736e0:0755RMR (26)
estimating the deformation modulus and unconned compressive
et al. (2003) strength of rock masses because, in many cases, RQD is the only
Gokceoglu Em 0:1451e0:0654GSI (27) available information about discontinuities in routine site in-
et al. (2003) vestigations. However, care should be taken when applying the
GSI=15 20=3
Em
s0:4
GSI100
1 e e
Sonmez a ; s e ; a (28)
9
Er 2 6 empirical methods based on RQD for determining the deformation
et al. (2004)
Hoek (2004) Em 0:33e0:064GSI (29) modulus and unconned compressive strength of rock masses

because RQD is only one of the many factors that affect the
1D=2
Hoek and Em 100 1e7525DGSI=11 (30)
deformability and strength of jointed rock masses. Other factors
Diederichs (2006)
Hoek and Em 1D=2
0:02 1e6015DGSI=11 (31) such as discontinuity orientation and discontinuity surface condi-
Er
Diederichs (2006) tions can also have a great effect on the deformability and strength
Sonmez et al. (2006) Em
Er 10RMR100100RMR=4000 expRMR=100 (32) of jointed rock masses.
Note: The empirical relations before 1989 use RMR76 which is smaller than RMR89 To apply the empirical methods based on RQD for determining
by 5. D is the disturbance factor. the deformation modulus and unconned compressive strength of
rock masses, the following aspects should be noted:

(2004) and other empirical methods based on RMR, Q and GSI for (1) When RQD is the only information available about rock
all 13 cases at the ve sites. It can be seen clearly that the estimated discontinuities, the empirical methods based on RQD can
values from the empirical method based on RQD are mostly at or be used to estimate the rock mass deformation modulus
slightly smaller than the low values (lower bound) of the estimated and unconned compressive strength but care should be
values from the different empirical methods based on RMR, Q and taken when applying the estimated values. The empirical
GSI. So the empirical method based on RQD by Zhang and Einstein methods based on RQD should be used only for a rst
(2004) tends to give conservative estimation of the deformation estimation.
(2) When RQD and other information are available for deter-
mining the rock mass classication indices RMR, Q and GSI,
the empirical methods based on RQD should be used
Table 3
together with the empirical methods based on RMR, Q and
Empirical relations based on RMR, Q and GSI for estimating unconned compressive
strength scm of rock masses. GSI to evaluate the rock mass deformation modulus and
unconned compressive strength. The estimated values from
Authors Relation Equation
the empirical methods based on RQD can be compared with
No.
the ranges of the estimated values from the empirical
scm 7:65RMR100
Yudhbir and Prinzl (1983) sc e (33) methods based on RMR, Q and GSI to get an idea on the effect
100

scm RMR100
Ramamurthy et al. (1985); sc e 18:75 (34) of RQD on the deformability and strength of rock masses.
Ramamurthy (1996)
Trueman (1988); Asef et al. scm 0:5e0:06RMR MPa (35)
(2000) 5. Conclusions
scm RMR100
Kalamaras and Bieniawski sc e 24 (36)
(1993)  

GSI 20 This paper reviewed the methods for determining RQD and
26
GSI100 1 1
e 15 e 3
scm 93D
Hoek et al. (2002) sc e (37) evaluated the empirical methods based on RQD for estimating the
Bhasin and Grimstad (1996); scm 7gfc Q 1=3 MPa; (38) deformation modulus and unconned compressive strength of rock
Singh and Goel (1999) where fc sc/100 for Q > 10 masses. The conclusions are as follows:
and sc > 100 MPa, otherwise
fc 1; and g is the unit weight
(1) There are different methods for determining RQD. It is
of the rock mass in g/cm3
important to consider the effect of different factors such as
scm RMR100
Sheorey (1997) sc e 20 (39)
sampling length and direction on RQD when using a method
scm RMR
Aydan and Dalgic (1998) sc RMR6100RMR (40) to determine RQD.
Barton (2002) scm 5gQ sc =1001=3 MPa (41) (2) The empirical method based on RQD by Zhang and Einstein
scm GSI (2004) for estimating deformation modulus of rock masses
Hoek (2004) sc 0:036e 30 (42)
tends to give low (conservative) values compared to the
Singh et al. (1997) scm 7gQ 1=3 MPa (43)
different empirical methods based on RMR, Q and GSI.
 L. Zhang / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 389e397 395

Fig. 9. Estimated rock mass deformation modulus values from the existing empirical methods based on RMR, GSI or Q and the method based on RQD.

Fig. 10. Estimated rock mass strength values from the existing empirical methods based on RMR, GSI or Q and the method based on RQD.

(3) The empirical method based on RQD by Zhang (2010) for
estimating unconned compressive strength of rock
masses tends to give values in the middle of the values
from the different empirical methods based on RMR, Q and
GSI.
(4) The empirical methods based on RQD provide a convenient
way for estimating the deformation modulus and unconned
compressive strength of rock masses but, whenever possible,
they should be used together with other empirical methods
based on RMR, Q and GSI because RQD is only one of the
396 L. Zhang / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 389e397
many factors that affect the deformability and strength of
jointed rock masses.
Conict of interest
The author wishes to conrm that there are no known conicts
of interest associated with this publication and there has been no
signicant nancial support for this work that could have inu-
enced its outcome.
References
Alber M, Heiland J. Investigation of a limestone pillar failure, part 1: geology, lab-
oratory testing and numerical modeling. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
2001;34(3):167e86.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO).
Standard specications for highway bridges. 16th ed. Washington DC: AASHTO;
1996.
Asef MR, Reddish DJ, Lloyd PW. Rock-support interaction analysis based on
numerical modeling. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 2000;18(1):
23e37.
Aydan , Dalgic S. Prediction of deformation behavior of 3-lanes Bolu tunnels
through squeezing rocks of North Anatolian fault zone (NAFZ). In: Proceedings
of Regional Symposium on Sedimentary Rock Engineering, Taipei, China; 1998.
p. 228e33.
Barton N, Loset F, Lien R, Lunde J. Application of Q-system in design decisions
concerning dimensions and appropriate support for underground installations.
In: Bergman M, editor. Subsurface Space: Environmental Protection, Low Cost
Storage, Energy Savings. Proceedings of the International Symposium (Rock-
store80), vol. 2. Pergamon Press; 1980. p. 553e61.
Barton N. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterization and
tunnel design. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2002;39(2):185e216.
Bery AA, Saad R. Correlation of seismic P-wave velocities with engineering pa-
rameters (N value and rock quality) for tropical environmental study. Interna-
tional Journal of Geosciences 2012;3(4):749e57.
Bhasin R, Grimstad E. The use of stress-strength relationships in the assessment of
tunnel stability. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 1996;11(1):
93e8.
Bieniawski ZT. Determining rock mass deformability: experience from case his-
tories. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geo-
mechanics Abstracts 1978;15(5):237e47.
Brady BHG, Brown ET. Rock mechanics for underground mining. London, UK:
George Allen and Unwin; 1985.
Brown ET. The nature and fundamentals of rock engineering. In: Hudson JA, editor.
Compressive rock engineeringeprinciple, practice and projects, vol. 1. Oxford,
UK: Pergamon Press; 1993. p. 1e23.
Budetta P, de Riso R, de Luca C. Correlations between jointing and seismic velocities
in highly fractured rock masses. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment 2001;60(3):185e92.
Choi SY, Park HD. Variation of rock quality designation (RQD) with scanline
orientation and length: a case study in Korea. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2004;41(2):207e21.
Coon RF, Merritt AH. Predicting in situ modulus of deformation using rock quality
indexes. In: Determination of the in situ modulus of deformation of rock. ASTM
International; 1970. p. 154e73.
Deere DU, Hendron AJ, Patton FD, Cording EJ. Design of surface and near surface
construction in rock. In: Proceedings of the 8th U.S. Symposium on Rock Me-
chanicseFailure and Breakage of Rock. New York: American Institute of Mining,
Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; 1967. p. 237e302.
Deere DU. Rock quality designation (RQD) after twenty years. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Contract Report GL-89e1. Vicksburg, USA: Waterways Experiment
Station; 1989.
Deere DU. Technical description of rock cores for engineering purposes. Rock Me-
chanics and Engineering Geology 1964;1(1):16e22.
Ebisu S, Aydan O, Komura S, Kawamoto T. Comparative study on various rock
mass characterization methods for surface structures. In: Rock Character-
ization: ISRM Symposium, Eurock 92. London, UK: Thomas Telford; 1992.
p. 203e8.
El-Naqa A, Kuisi MA. Engineering geological characterisation of the rock
masses at Tannur Dam site, South Jordan. Environmental Geology 2002;
42(7):817e26.
El-Naqa A. Assessment of geotechnical characterization of a rock mass using a
seismic geophysical technique. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering
1996;14(4):291e305.
Gardner WS. Design of drilled piers in the Atlantic Piedmont. In: Smith RW,
editor. Foundations and excavations in decomposed rock of the Piedmont
province. New York, UK: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); 1987.
p. 62e86.
Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Kayabasi A. Predicting the deformation moduli of rock
masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2003;40(5):701e10.
Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 1997;34(8):1165e86.
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B. Hoek-Brown failure criterion e 2002 edition.
In: Proceedings of the 5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium & the
17th Tunneling Association of Canada Conference (NARMS-TAC 2002). Toronto,
Canada: Mining Innovation and Tech.; 2002. p. 267e73.
Hoek E, Diederichs MS. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2006;43(2):203e15.
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF. Support of underground excavations in hard rock.
Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1995.
Hoek E. Personal communication. Rocscience; 2004.
ISRM. Suggested methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock
masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geo-
mechanics Abstracts 1978;15(6):319e68.
Justo JL, Justo E, Durand P, Azanon JM. The foundation of a 40-storey tower in
jointed basalt. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2006;43(2):267e81.
Kalamaras GS, Bieniawski ZT. A rock mass strength concept for coal seams. In:
Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown;
1993. p. 274e83.
Kulhawy FH, Goodman RE. Foundations in rock. In: Bell FG, editor. Ground Engi-
neers reference book, chapter 15. London, UK: Butterworths; 1987.
Mitri HS, Edrissi R, Henning J. Finite element modeling of cablebolted stopes in hard
rock ground mines. Presented at the SME annual meeting. Albuquerque, USA.
1994. p. 94e116.
Nicholson GA, Bieniawski ZT. A nonlinear deformation modulus based on rock mass
classication. International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering
1990;8(3):181e202.
Ozsan A, Akin M. Engineering geological assessment of the proposed Urus Dam,
Turkey. Engineering Geology 2002;66(3e4):271e81.
Ozsan A, Ocal A, Akin M, Basarir H. Engineering geological appraisal of the Sula-
kyurt dam site, Turkey. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment
2007;66(4):483e92.
Palmstrm A. Characterization of jointing density and the quality of rock masses.
Internal report. Norway: A.B. Berdal; 1974 (in Norwegian).
Palmstrm A. Measurement and characterization of rock mass jointing. In:
Sharma VM, Saxena KR, editors. In-situ characterization of rocks. Lisse: A.A.
Balkema; 2002. p. 49e98.
Palmstrm A. RMida rock mass characterization system for rock engineering
purposes. PhD Thesis. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo; 1995.
Palmstrm A. The volumetric joint countea useful and simple measure of the de-
gree of rock mass jointing. In: Proceedings of the 4th Congress of International
Association of Engineering Geology, vol. 2; 1982. p. 221e8. New Delhi.
Priest SD, Hudson J. Discontinuity spacing in rock. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 1976;13(5):
135e48.
Ramamurthy T, Rao GV, Rao KS. A strength criterion for rocks. In: Proceedings of
Indian Geotechnical Conference, vol. 1; 1985. p. 59e64. Roorkee.
Ramamurthy T. Stability of rock mass. Indian Geotechnical Journal 1996;16:1e73.
Ramamurthy T. Strength and modulus response of anisotropic rocks. In: Hudson JA,
editor. Compressive Rock EngineeringePrinciple, Practice and Projects, vol. 1.
Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press; 1993. p. 313e29.
Read SAL, Richards LR, Perrin ND. Applicability of the HoekeBrown failure criterion to
New Zealand greywacke rocks. In: Vouille G, Berest P, editors. Proceedings of the
9th International Congress on Rock Mechanics, vol. 2; 1999. p. 655e60. Paris.
Sen Z, Kazi A. Discontinuity spacing and RQD estimates from nite length scanlines.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts 1984;21(4):203e12.
Sen Z. RQD-fracture frequency chart based on a Weibull distribution. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts
1993;30(5):555e7.
Seram JL, Pereira JP. Consideration of the geomechanical classication of
Bieniawski. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Engineering
Geology and Underground Construction, vol. 1. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema;
1983. II.3e44.
Sheorey PR. Empirical rock failure criteria. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1997.
Singh B, Goel RK, Mehrotra VK, Garg SK, Allu MR. Effect of intermediate principal
stress on strength of anisotropic rock mass. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 1998;13(1):71e9.
Singh B, Goel RK. Rock mass classicationsea practical approach in civil engi-
neering. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.; 1999.
Singh B, Villadkar MN, Samadhiya NK, Mehrotra VK. Rock mass strength parameters
mobilized in tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
1997;12(1):47e54.
Singh M, Rao KS. Empirical methods to estimate the strength of jointed rock
masses. Engineering Geology 2005;77(1e2):127e37.
Sjogren B, vsthus A, Sandberg J. Seismic classication of rock mass qualities.
Geophysical Prospecting 1979;27(2):409e42.
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Kayabasi A. Estimation of rock modulus:
for intact rocks with an articial neural network and for rock masses with a
new empirical equation. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 2006;43(2):224e35.
 L. Zhang / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 389e397 397

Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R. Indirect determination of the modulus of Dr. Lianyang Zhang is an associate professor and the
deformation of rock masses based on the GSI system. International Journal of director of the Sustainable Materials and Recycling
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2004;41(5):849e57. Technologies (SMART) Laboratory at the University of
Trueman R. An evaluation of strata support techniques in dual life gateroads. PhD Arizona, USA. His research interests cover rock mechanics
Thesis. Cardiff, UK: University of Wales; 1988. and rock engineering, deep foundations, geoenvironmental
Yudhbir WL, Prinzl F. An empirical failure criterion for rock masses. In: Proceedings of engineering, sustainable construction materials, and
the 5th International Congress on Rock Mechanics, vol.1; 1983. B1e8. Melbourne. recycling and management of wastes. He is the author of
Zhang L, Einstein HH. Using RQD to estimate the deformation modulus of rock two books and has published more than 100 technical
masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences papers.
2004;41(2):337e41.
Zhang L. Engineering properties of rocks. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.; 2005.
Zhang L. Estimating the strength of jointed rock masses. Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering 2010;43(4):391e402.