Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1165e1170

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Technical Note

Modification of rock mass rating system: Interbedding of strong and

weak rock layers
Mohammad Mohammadi a, *, Mohammad Farouq Hossaini b
a
The Alborz Tunnel Site, Geodata Engineering, Mazandaran Province, Iran
b
Faculty of Mining Engineering, Engineering University College, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

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

Article history: Rock mass classification systems are the very important part for underground projects and rock mass
Received 17 January 2017 rating (RMR) is one of the most commonly applied classification systems in numerous civil and mining
Received in revised form projects. The type of rock mass consisting of an interbedding of strong and weak layers poses difficulties
28 April 2017
and uncertainties for determining the RMR. For this, the present paper uses the concept of rock bolt
Accepted 13 June 2017
Available online 16 October 2017
supporting factor (RSF) for modification of RMR system to be used in such rock mass types. The proposed
method also demonstrates the importance of rock bolting practice in such rock masses. The geological
parameters of the Shemshak Formation of the Alborz Tunnel in Iran are used as case examples for
Keywords:
Rock mass rating (RMR)
development of the theoretical approach.
Strong and weak rock layers Ó 2017 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Interbedding Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
Rock bolt supporting factor (RSF) licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Alborz tunnel

1. Introduction monitoring techniques interpreting the outcome in a scientific

The very first attempt for rock mass classification utilized in
tunnel design was made by Ritter (1879). However, the earliest
reference for application of rock mass classification system for
tunnel support design purpose was Terzaghi (1946). He proposed a
descriptive method to categorize rock mass into seven groups for
estimation of rock load on steel sets. Lauffer (1958) suggested that
the quality of surrounding rock mass controls the stand-up time of
an unsupported tunnel span. In order to obtain a quantitative
description of rock mass quality, Deere et al. (1967) introduced rock
quality designation (RQD) system. As the first rating system for rock
masses, rock structure rating (RSR) was introduced by Wickham
et al. (1972). The system uses three parameters, i.e. geological
features of rock mass, geometry and groundwater, with regard to
joint condition. A two-parameter classification system, i.e. size-
strength classification, which is based on rock material strength
and discontinuity spacing with regard to opening size, and over-
burden stress, was developed by Franklin (1970, 1975). New Aus-
trian Tunneling Method (NATM) which was a modification of
Lauffer’s classification system uses in situ instrumentation and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Mohammadisalmasi@yahoo.com (M. Mohammadi).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences.
manner (Pacher et al., 1974; Muller, 1978).
Rock mass rating (RMR) system also known as geomechanics
classification as one of the most commonly used classification
systems consists of six components, i.e. uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS) of rock material, spacing of discontinuities, RQD,
condition of discontinuities, groundwater condition and joint
orientation favorability. Joint orientation favorability is dependent
on the engineering application of the structure such as mine, tun-
nel, slope or foundation. The other five parameters are intrinsic
characteristics of rock mass (Bieniawski, 1973, 1989). Rock
tunneling quality index or the Q-system was introduced by Barton
et al. (1974) which also consists of six parameters, i.e. RQD, number
of joint sets (Jn), the most unfavorable joint roughness (Jr), filling
and alteration of the weakest joint set (Ja), water inflow (Jw) and
stress condition (SRF). Eq. (1) represents the Q index where block
size in rock mass, roughness and frictional characteristics of joint
walls and stress condition are represented by first, second and third
quotients, respectively:
Q ¼ ðRQD=Jn ÞðJr =Ja ÞðJw =SRFÞ (1)
The fine-grained sediments which contained high percentage of
phyllosilicate minerals were classified by Weaver (1980) based on
physils and grain size where the term “physil” being an abbrevia-
tion of phyllosilicate was introduced for the first time and had no
connotation of size. Eq. (2) was proposed by Palmstrom (1982) for

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.06.002
1674-7755 Ó 2017 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/).
1166 M. Mohammadi, M.F. Hossaini / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1165e1170
calculation of RQD values for clay-free rock mass where there are
no core logs available and discontinuity traces can be seen:
RQD ¼ 115  3:3Jv
where Jv is the volumetric joint count which is the sum of number
of joints per unit length for all discontinuity sets. In order to esti-
mate the UCS of rock mass, Palmstrom (1995) introduced the rock
mass index (RMi). This system consists of two parameters, i.e. UCS
of rock material and jointing condition where four parameters, i.e.
block volume, joint roughness, joint alteration and joint size,
compose the jointing condition. For both weak and hard rock
masses, the geological strength index (GSI) was first proposed by
Hoek and Brown (1997) after which a chart making classification of
rock mass by visual inspection very easy for experts was introduced
by Marinos and Hoek (2000). The six qualitative rock classes of the
GSI system were mainly adopted from Terzaghi’s classification.
Most recently, Marinos (2014) classified the flysch of Northern
Greece into 11 rock types using a special GSI chart.
Slope mass rating (SMR) system as the most commonly used
classification system for slopes based on RMR system was intro-
duced by Romana (1985) and Romana et al. (2003). Some other
modifications to SMR or rock classification systems for slope sta-
bility were reported by Robertson (1988), Chen (1995), Al-Homoud
and Masanat (1998) and Pantelidis (2009). Also, the Kargar slope
failure in Iran was examined via analytical and numerical back
analyses by Sharifzadeh et al. (2010).
Fuzzy set theory was applied for classification of rock mass by
Aydin (2004) as well as Hamidi et al. (2010) using the fuzzy
concept for rock mass excavability (RME) classification. Engi-
neering geological assessment or evaluations of different zones
around the world has been carried out and reported by various
researchers during recent decades (Fookes and Knill, 1969;
Doyuran et al., 1993; Yassaghi et al., 2005; Kocbay and Kilic,
2006; Berhane, 2010). Also, many studies were conducted and
aimed at understanding the strength and deformation properties
of rock mass, such as strength and deformation measurements for
basaltic rocks, discussion on different factors affecting strength of
weak sandstones, use of neural networks and empirical equation
for intact rock and rock mass, respectively, estimating rock mass
strength based on RQD with an empirical relation, and intro-
duction of a modified empirical criterion for determination of
strength of transversely anisotropic rocks (Schultz, 1995; Chen
and Hu, 2003; Sonmez et al., 2006; Zhang, 2010; Saeidi et al.,
2013). An extension known as tunneling analyst (TA) was devel-
oped in ArcScene 3D GIS by Choi et al. (2009), which could in-
crease the functionality of ArcScene. The TA was applied in
Daecheong tunneling project in Korea, presenting rational eval-
uation of different rock mass classes along tunnel alignment.
Identifying rock mass composition (RMC), rock type (RT), clay-
bearing content (CBC), UCS and tunnel depth (TD) as the major
factors affecting tunnel inflow, Zarei et al. (2013) proposed a new
tunnel inflow classification (TIC) system for sedimentary rock
masses. Data compiled from 33 tunneling projects were used for
development of the system which can provide a quantitative
measurement and prediction of tunnel inflow.
RMR system has been extended by many researchers in
different branches. Some of these extensions or applications, as
mentioned by Bieniawski (1989), are mining applications
(Laubscher, 1977, 1984), rippability (Weaver, 1975), hard rock
mining (Kendorski et al., 1983), coal mining (Unal, 1983; Newman
and Bieniawski, 1985), dam foundations (Serafim and Pereira,
1983), tunneling (Gonzalez de Vallejo, 1983), slope stability
(Romana, 1985), and Indian coal mines (Venkateswarlu, 1986).
The development of RMR system was reviewed by Aksoy (2008).
Most recently, a theoretical study on the difference of rock mass
types having the same RMR value with different conditions of
(2) parameters used led to introduction to rock bolt supporting factor
(RSF) or rock bolting capability of rock mass. The concept can be
used for calculation of rock bolting efficiency as well as mathe-
matical explanation of rock bolting mechanism (Mohammadi
et al., 2017). This concept is going to be used for modification of
the RMR system for Shemshak Formation in the Alborz Tunnel of
Iran.
The engineering geological conditions of the Alborz Mountains
of Northern Iran are outlined and specific attention is given to the
problems related to reservoir construction in varied geological
condition, reservoir siltation, tunnels and earthquake activity
(Fookes and Knill, 1969). The Shemshak Formation of Alborz
Mountain chains has been studied by Fürsich et al. (2005) and the
sedimentation and biofacies as well as its evolution were described.
Different studies with varied purposes were performed in the
Shemshak Formation in recent years (Hassani et al., 2008; Monjezi
et al., 2011; Dehkordi et al., 2013; Torabi et al., 2013). The capability
of the RMR system in prediction of engineering behavior of
Shemshak Formation was investigated and discrepancies in the
results of the RMR system (and other classification systems) were
reported by Gonbadi et al. (2009) where the surrounding rock mass
of the Siah Bishe underground excavation project consists of an
alternation of strong sandstone and siltstone as well as weak layers
of shale, mudstone and coal (Shemshak Formation). Their work
resulted in some adjustments based on the dip and thickness of
weak layers in the RMR in order to obtain better prediction of rock
mass behavior. Later, the incompetency of RMR system in coping
with the behavior of rock mass in Shemshak Formation was
mentioned by Hossaini et al. (2016). During the excavation of
Alborz Tunnel in northern excavation face located in Shemshak
Formation, the authors encountered weak layers of argillite with a
thickness of less than 1 cm alternated with thick layers of sand-
stone, leading to difficulties and uncertainties about the rock mass
classification procedure. Thus, at first step, the present paper shows
the difficulties and uncertainties related to Shemshak Formation as
well as all other rock masses which consist of alternation of weak
and strong layers. Then the paper introduces a new methodology
based on RSF to cope with the uncertainties related to Shemshak
Formation, which also demonstrates the importance of rock bolting
in such rock mass types.
2. Rock bolt supporting factor
Concept of RSF or rock bolting capability of rock mass was
introduced by Mohammadi et al. (2017) and applied for definition
of rock bolting mechanism. The theory is based on the difference
among varied combinations of parameters used but yielding the
same values of RMR. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the combination of
different conditions of parameters led to the same RMR values of 85
and 45, respectively. Thus, what is the difference between rock
types mentioned in Table 1 which have the same RMR values of 85?
This goes for Table 2 as well, where the same RMR value of 45 is
repeated. As discussed by Mohammadi et al. (2017), the difference
of such rock masses can be explained benefitting from the concept
of RSF. For instance, rock mass states shown in Table 1 have the
same RMR value of 85, while the intrinsic characteristic of these
rock types, i.e. RSF index (in %) which can be calculated from Eq. (3),
is different for each case. As stated previously, RSF is the rock
bolting efficiency which depends only on joint condition parameter
of rock mass, provided that the rock bolt design and implementa-
tion are satisfactorily done.
 M. Mohammadi, M.F. Hossaini / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1165e1170 1167

Table 1
Different combinations of parameters to yield the basic RMR value of 85 (after Mohammadi et al., 2017).

State UCS RQD Spacing Condition of discontinuities Groundwater inflow

per 10 m tunnel
Persistence Aperture Roughness Infilling Weathering
length (L/min)

Value Rating Value Rating Value Rating Value Rating Value Rating Condition Rating Value Rating Condition Rating Condition Rating
(MPa) (%) (mm) (m) (mm)

A 260 15 85 17 200 8 <1 6 e 6 Very rough 6 e 6 Unweathered 6 Completely dry 15

B 260 15 90 18 650 12 1e3 4 <0.1 5 Rough 5 e 6 Slightly 5 Completely dry 15
weathered
C 110 10 100 20 2200 20 Slightly rough surfaces; Separation <1 mm; Highly weathered wall 20 Completely dry 15
D 260 15 100 20 2200 20 10e20 1 0.1e1 4 Smooth 3 e 6 Highly 1 Completely dry 15
weathered

Table 2
Different combinations of parameters to yield the basic RMR value of 45 (after Mohammadi et al., 2017).

State UCS RQD Spacing Condition of discontinuities Groundwater

inflow per 10 m
Persistence Aperture Roughness Infilling Weathering
tunnel length
(L/min)

Value Rating Value Rating Value Rating Value Rating Value Rating Condition Rating Value Rating Condition Rating Condition Rating
(MPa) (%) (mm) (m) (mm)

A 68 7 30 7 50 6 1e3 4 0.1e1 4 Very rough 6 e 6 Slightly weathered 5 Flowing 0

B 80 8 30 7 50 6 3e10 2 0.1e1 4 Slightly rough 3 e 6 Slightly weathered 5 Dripping 4
C 110 10 40 8 100 8 10e20 1 0.1e1 4 Smooth 1 e 6 Moderately 3 Dripping 4
weathered
D 140 12 40 8 200 8 10e20 1 1e5 1 Smooth 1 e 6 Highly weathered 1 Wet 7
E 260 15 60 12 200 8 >20 0 >5 0 Slickensided 0 e 6 Decomposed 0 Dripping 4
F 80 8 95 19 500 11 Soft gouge >5 mm thick or separation >5 mm continuous 0 Wet 7

10rco
RSF ¼ 100 
3 (Fig. 1). The service tunnel has been excavated with a tunnel boring
where rco is the overall rating of condition of discontinuities in the
RMR system. The value of RSF denotes the efficiency of rock bolting
practice and capability of rock mass to be reinforced by rock bolting
in different rock types. The more the RSF value is, the more the ef-
ficiency of rock bolting process and capability of rock mass to be
reinforced are. Eq. (4) is also introduced by Mohammadi et al. (2017)
which is a mathematical definition of rock bolting mechanism:
RMReq ¼ RMR þ 0:3RSF
3. The Alborz tunnel project
The excavation of Alborz Twin Tunnels with a length of
approximately 6.4 km, as the longest tunnels of Tehran-Shomal
Freeway Project in Iran, has been going on where the twin tun-
nels are supported by an exploratory service tunnel in between
(3)
machine (TBM) with diameter of 5.2 m and excavation of Eastern
Tunnel has begun from both ends known as southern and northern
excavation faces with drill-and-blast method. The northern exca-
vation face is located in the aforementioned Shemshak Formation
where the alternation of strong and weak rock layers makes it
difficult and challenging for engineering classification of sur-
rounding rock mass. At approximately 800 m into the Eastern
Tunnel from the northern portal, an alternation of strong layers of
(4) sandstone with thin weak layers of argillite made the rock mass
classification procedure a bit difficult. Table 3 shows the properties
of rock layers encountered in the Alborz Eastern Tunnel. It should
be noticed that in some parts of the tunnel, thick layers of argillite
appeared which was used for determination of UCS of rock by point
load test. The input parameters for rock mass classification were
obtained by the authors in the field and were used here as case

Fig. 1. A schematic view of the Alborz twin tunnels (Technical Report, 2009).
1168 M. Mohammadi, M.F. Hossaini / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1165e1170

Table 3 The main problem here is the movement of sandstone blocks

Properties of rock types encountered in northern excavation face of the Alborz
Tunnel.
Rock type Thickness of UCS (MPa) Number of point
bedding (cm) load tests
Minimum Maximum Average
Sandstone 18e190 69 118 88 11
Argillite 0.5e1 5 18 9 12
examples. After that, a theoretical approach based on the RSF
concept is proposed to demonstrate the importance of rock bolt
implementation in such rock masses. Joint condition for two states
of Alborz Tunnel surrounding rock mass is shown in Table 4. The
parameters R, VR, Sm, SR, e, Ca and UN represent rough, very rough,
smooth, slightly rough, empty, calcite and unweathered,
respectively.
As indicated in Table 3, the UCS of rock mass varies from 5 MPa
to 118 MPa for argillite and sandstone. If the goal is to calculate the
RMR value for this rock mass for support design purposes, it is
logical to consider the UCS of argillite which is the critical one. Thus,
the UCS for this rock mass would range from 5 MPa to 18 MPa
which can be rated 2 (Bieniawski, 1989). The RQD and spacing of
discontinuities are correlated and must be considered to be in
accordance while rating. The RQD differs from 55% to 75% based on
volumetric joint count approach while the range of spacing varia-
tion is very wide (from 0.5 cm to 300 cm). The overall rating for
RQD and spacing is 21 for both states A and B in Table 4. The
groundwater condition for state A is “completely dry” and for state
B is “dripping” which can be rated 15 and 4, respectively. The joint
condition rating for states A and B are 19 (for bedding) and 10 (for
joint III), respectively. Thus, the value of critical basic RMR for states
A and B would be 57 and 37, respectively. These basic RMR values in
the Alborz Tunnel were logical based on the experience of the
authors in the field. However, as the majority of rock mass in these
cases is sandstone, use of UCS of sandstone would be a mistake
which will lead to basic RMR values of 64 and 44 for states A and B,
respectively, if we assign an average rating of 9 for UCS. As it is
obvious in both cases, class of rock mass is estimated to be one class
higher than that of critical RMR.
having weak layers of argillite in between which lead to low shear
strength of discontinuity surfaces. This is the reason for some
problems encountered in such rock mass types. As previously
mentioned, some of these problems were discussed by Gonbadi
et al. (2009) and Hossaini et al. (2016). The next section is going
to present a new approach based on the RSF concept which can
cope with difficulties related to these kinds of rock masses. Also, the
new approach demonstrates the importance of rock bolting in such
rock mass types.
4. Proposed classification technique
As discussed previously, the RSF is an indicator of rock bolting
capability of a given rock mass, showing the rock bolting efficiency
in different rock mass conditions. Its value ranges from 0% to 100%,
where the value of 100% denotes the highest capability of rock mass
to be reinforced by rock bolting. Here, in order to employ the
concept of RSF for rock mass classification, a brief introduction to
joint condition rating in the RMR system is presented.
The joint condition parameter in the RMR system has five
components, i.e. discontinuity length (persistence), separation
(aperture), roughness, infilling material and weathering condition.
The ratings for these components are shown in Table 5. However,
some conditions are mutually exclusive. For instance, in the pres-
ence of infilling material, the roughness of discontinuity surface
may be irrelevant as its effect will be overshadowed in the presence
of infilling material. In such cases, Table 6 should be used directly
(Bieniawski, 1989).
As the thickness of weaker rock layer (argillite in Alborz Tunnel)
is very low with regard to the strong rock layer (sandstone in Alborz
Tunnel), it is possible to assume the weaker rock to be an infilling
material. This simple assumption is the base of new proposed
method for classification of such rock mass types. Assuming the
weaker layer as infilling material, the rating for joint condition
must be carried out directly from Table 6 which assumes the rating
of 0 when the separation (thickness of weaker layer) is more than
5 mm. The other parameters of basic RMR will not change except
for UCS of rock material which in this case is UCS of sandstone

Table 4
Joint condition and orientation for two states of Alborz Tunnel surrounding rock mass.

State Discontinuity set Persistence Aperture Roughness Infilling Weathering Overall rating

Value (m) Rating Value (mm) Rating Condition Rating Condition Rating Condition Rating

A Bedding 10e20 1 1.2 1 R 5 e 6 UN 6 19

Joint I 4e5 2 3 1 VR 6 e 6 UN 6 21
Joint II 1e2 4 0.5 4 Sm 1 e 6 UN 6 21
Joint III 2e3 4 1.5 1 SR 3 e 6 UN 6 20
B Bedding 10e20 1 1.5 1 SR 3 e 6 UN 6 17
Joint I 3e4 2 0.5 4 VR 6 e 6 UN 6 24
Joint II 3e4 e 0.5 e VR e Ca e UN e 25
Joint III 8e10 e 4 e R e Ca e UN e 10

Table 5
Guidelines for classification of discontinuity condition (after Bieniawski, 1989).

Discontinuity length Separation (aperture) Roughness Infilling (gouge) Weathering

(persistence/
continuity)

Value (m) Rating Value (mm) Rating Condition Rating Type Value (mm) Rating Condition Rating

<1 6 e 6 Very rough 6 e 6 Unweathered 6

1e3 4 <0.1 5 rough 5 Hard filling <5 4 Slightly weathered 5
3e10 2 0.1e1 4 Slightly rough 3 >5 2 Moderately weathered 3
10e20 1 1e5 1 Smooth 1 Soft filling <5 2 Highly weathered 1
>20 0 >5 0 Slickensided 0 >5 0 Decomposed 0
 M. Mohammadi, M.F. Hossaini / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1165e1170
Table 6
Guidelines for classification of discontinuity conditions in the presence of infilling
material (after Bieniawski, 1989).
Condition of discontinuities
Very rough surfaces; Not continuous; No separation;
Unweathered wall rock
Slightly rough surfaces; Separation <1 mm; Slightly
weathered walls
Slightly rough surfaces; Separation <1 mm; Highly
weathered wall
Slickensided surfaces or gouge <5 mm thick or separation
1e5 mm continuous
Soft gouge >5 mm thick or separation >5 mm continuous
instead of argillite, since argillite is treated as infilling material.
Thus, assuming the average rating of 9 for UCS of sandstone, the
basic RMR value for states A and B in Table 4 would be 45 and 34,
respectively. The classification outcomes in case of using conven-
tional and proposed methods are compared in Table 7. As can be
seen, the proposed method gives more conservative result than the
critical RMR which can be a tool to cope with the discrepancy and
difficulties mentioned by Gonbadi et al. (2009) and Hossaini et al.
(2016). This method was successfully used in the Alborz Tunnel
northern excavation face for classification purposes by the authors.
5. Discussion
The important feature in Table 7 is the difference between the
obtained RMR values in both states. The lower the rating of joint
condition in the critical RMR, the lower the difference between the
obtained RMR values. In fact, in the proposed method, the joint
condition and UCS ratings are different from those of conventional
method. Therefore, assuming r and rco to be ratings for UCS and
joint condition, respectively, in conventional method as well as R to
be rating for UCS in the proposed method, the difference between
RMR values in conventional and proposed methods will be
expressed as
RMRc  RMRn ¼ rco  ðR  rÞ
where RMRc and RMRn are the obtained values of RMR by con-
ventional and proposed methods, respectively. Eq. (5) can be
rewritten as
RMRc  RMRn ¼ rco þ r  R
The difference between RMR values obtained through conven-
tional and proposed methods can be discussed in three states, i.e.
RMRc > RMRn, RMRc ¼ RMRn and RMRc < RMRn. These three states
are going to be discussed separately:
(1) State 1: RMRc > RMRn
If we assume f(x) ¼ rco þ r  R, then under the condition
RMRc > RMRn, the value of f(x) will be positive. Thus, f(x) > 0, then
rco þ r > R.
Table 7
Comparison between classification outcomes based on conventional and proposed
methods.
State RMR value
Conventional method Proposed method
A 57 45
B 37 34
1169
Table 8
RSF values of rock types in Alborz tunnel based on conventional and proposed
methods.
Rating State RSF value (%)
30 Conventional method Proposed method
A 36 100
25
B 66 100
20
10 (2) State 2: RMRc ¼ RMRn
0
In this case, f(x) ¼ 0, therefore, rco þ r ¼ R.
(3) State 3: RMRc < RMRn
Hence, f(x) < 0, then, rco þ r < R.
Only in State 3, the proposed method yields RMR values more
than that of conventional method. However, in practical cases as
shown about the Alborz Tunnel in Table 7, State 3 seldom occurs.
Also, for State 3 to occur in practical cases, it is necessary for joint
condition rating to be very low which is similar to the condition of
proposed method assuming the value of 0 for joint condition rating.
Overall, in cases with condition of State 3, the proposed method
should not be applied.
As mentioned previously, Eq. (3) shows the rock bolting capa-
bility of rock mass or the rock bolting efficiency in a given rock
mass. The rock bolting efficiency based on conventional and pro-
posed methods are computed and compared in Table 8. The RSF
values in the proposed method are 100% (Eq. (3)) in all cases as it
assumes the rating of 0 for condition of discontinuities. Therefore,
the importance of rock bolting practice in such types of rock masses
is demonstrated by the presented method.
6. Concluding remarks
The difficulties of using rock mass classification systems where
rock mass consists of an alternation of strong and weak layers
such as the Shemshak Formation of Alborz Tunnel in Iran are
(5) shown and then using RSF, a new methodology is proposed for
such rock masses classification. The proposed methodology can
cope with discrepancies in results of rock mass classification
systems in such rock mass types as well as demonstrating the
importance of rock bolting practice. The geological parameters of
Alborz tunnel are used as case examples while developing the
(6)
theory.
Conflict of interest
The authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
interest associated with this publication and there has been no
significant financial support for this work that could have influ-
enced its outcome.
References
Aksoy CO. Review of rock mass rating classification: historical developments, ap-
plications, and restrictions. Journal of Mining Science 2008;44(1):51e63.
Al-Homoud AS, Masanat Y. A classification system for the assessment of slope
stability of terrains along highway routes in Jordan. Environmental Geology
1998;34(1):59e69.
Aydin A. Fuzzy set approaches to classification of rock masses. Engineering Geology
2004;74(3e4):227e45.
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of
tunnel support. Rock Mechanics 1974;6(4):183e236.
Berhane G. Engineering geological soil and rock characterization in the Mekelle
town, Northern Ethiopia: implications to engineering practice. Momona Ethi-
opian Journal of Science 2010;2(2):64e86.
1170 M. Mohammadi, M.F. Hossaini / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1165e1170
Bieniawski ZT. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Transactions of the
South African Institution of Civil Engineers 1973;15(12):335e44.
Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classification: a complete manual for engi-
neers and geologists in mining, civil and petroleum engineering. Wiley-Inter-
science Publication; 1989.
Chen H, Hu ZY. Some factors affecting the uniaxial strength of weak sandstones.
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 2003;62(4):323e32.
Chen Z. Recent developments in slope stability analysis. In: Proceedings of the 8th
international society for rock mechanics (ISRM) congress. ISRM; 1995.
Choi Y, Yoon SY, Park HD. Tunneling Analyst: a 3D GIS extension for rock mass
classification and fault zone analysis in tunneling. Computers & Geosciences
2009;35(6):1322e33.
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 mechanics. New York: American Rock Mechanics Association; 1967.
p. 237e302.
Dehkordi MS, Shahriar K, Moarefvand P, Gharouninik M. Application of the strain
energy to estimate the rock load in squeezing ground condition of Eamzade
Hashem tunnel in Iran. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 2013;6(4):1241e8.
Doyuran V, Toprak V, Topal T, Koçyıg^ıt A, Rojay FB, Bozkurt E. Engineering geological
evaluation of the of-Solakli hydropower development project (NE Turkey).
Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology 1993;47(1):
97e107.
Fookes PG, Knill JL. The application of engineering geology in the regional devel-
opment of northern and central Iran. Engineering Geology 1969;3(2):81e120.
Franklin J. Observations and tests for engineering description and mapping of rocks.
In: Proceedings of the ISRM. ISRM; 1970. p. 1e19.
Franklin JA. Safety and economy in tunneling. In: Proceedings of the 10th Canadian
rock mechanics symposium; 1975. p. 27e53.
Fürsich FT, Wilmsen M, Seyed-Emami K, Cecca F, Majidifard MR. The upper
Shemshak formation (ToarcianeAalenian) of the Eastern Alborz (Iran): biota
and palaeoenvironments during a transgressiveeregressive cycle. Facies
2005;51(1e4):365e84.
Gonbadi MB, Oromiehea A, Nikudel MR, Lashkaripour GR. Evaluation of RMR
classification efficiency while predicting the engineering behavior of Shemshak
Formation in underground excavations of Siah Bishe area. In: Proceedings of the
6th Iranian conference on engineering geology and environment; 2009. p. 753e
64 (in Farsi).
Gonzalez de Vallejo LI. A new rock classification system for underground assess-
ment using surface data. In: Proceedings of international symposium on engi-
neering geology and underground construction. Lisbon: Laboratório Nacional
de Engenharia Civil; 1983.
Hamidi JK, Shahriar K, Rezai B, Bejari H. Application of fuzzy set theory to rock
engineering classification systems: an illustration of the rock mass excavability
index. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 2010;43(3):335e50.
Hassani H, Arshadnejad S, Hajhassani HR. Optimum static and dynamic design of
displacement chamber of headrace tunnel with bedding parallel shear zones in
Siah Bishe Dam, Iran. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
2008;23(5):531e8.
Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 1997;34(8):1165e86.
Hossaini MF, Mohammadi M, Ghadimi J, Abbasi A. Causes of overbreak in tunneling:
a case study of the Alborz Tunnel. In: Proceedings of the 16th coal operators’
conference. Wollongong: University of Wollongong; 2016. p. 137e41.
Kendorski FS, Cummings RA, Bieniawski ZT, Skinner EH. Rock mass classification for
block caving mine drift support. In: Proceedings of the 5th ISRM congress.
IRSM; 1983.
Kocbay A, Kilic R. Engineering geological assessment of the Obruk dam site (Corum,
Turkey). Engineering Geology 2006;87(3):141e8.
Laubscher DH. Geomechanics classification of jointed rock masses e mining
applications. Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy
1977;86:1e8.
Laubscher DH. Design aspects and effectiveness of support systems in different
mining conditions. Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy
1984;93:70e81.
Lauffer H. Gebirgsklassifizierung für den stollenbau. Geologie und Bauwesen
1958;74:46e51 (in German).
Marinos P, Hoek EGSI. A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation.
In: Proceedings of the GeoEngineering 2000 conference; 2000.
Marinos V. Tunnel behaviour and support associated with the weak rock masses of
flysch. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2014;6(3):
227e39.
Mohammadi M, Hossaini MF, Bagloo H. Rock bolt supporting factor: rock bolting
capability of rock mass. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment
2017;76(1):231e9.
Monjezi M, Ghafurikalajahi M, Bahrami A. Prediction of blast-induced ground vi-
bration using artificial neural networks. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 2011;26(1):46e50.
Muller L. Removing misconceptions on the new Austrian tunnelling method. Tun-
nels & Tunnelling International 1978;10(8):29e32.
Newman DA, Bieniawski ZT. A modified version of the geomechanics classification
for entry design in underground coal mines (No. CONF-851054-). Littleton:
Society of Mining Engineers of AIME; 1985.
Pacher F, Rabcewicz L, Golser J. Zum der seitigen stand der gebirgs e klassifizierung
in stollen-und tunnelbau. In: Proceedings of the XXII geomechanics colloquia;
1974. p. 51e8 (in German).
Palmstrom A. Characterizing the strength of rock masses for use in design of un-
derground structures. In: Proceedings of the conference of design and con-
struction of underground structures; 1995. p. 43e52.
Palmstrom A. The volumetric joint count: a useful and simple measure of the de-
gree of rock mass jointing. In: Proceedings of the international association of
engineering geology (IAEG) congress. IAEG; 1982.
Pantelidis L. Rock slope stability assessment through rock mass classification sys-
tems. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2009;46(2):
315e25.
Ritter W. Die statik der tunnelgewölbe (in German). Berlin: Springer; 1879.
Robertson AM. Estimating weak rock strength. In: Proceedings of the American
institute of mining, metallurgical, and petroleum engineers (AIME) annual
meeting. AIME; 1988. p. 1e5.
Romana M, Serón JB, Montalar E. SMR geomechanics classification: application,
experience and validation. In: Proceedings of the 10th ISRM congress. ISRM;
2003.
Romana M. New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski classification to
slopes. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on the role of rock
mechanics. ISRM; 1985. p. 49e53.
Saeidi O, Vaneghi RG, Rasouli V, Gholami R. A modified empirical criterion for
strength of transversely anisotropic rocks with metamorphic origin. Bulletin of
Engineering Geology and the Environment 2013;72(2):257e69.
Schultz RA. Limits on strength and deformation properties of jointed basaltic rock
masses. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 1995;28(1):1e15.
Serafim JL, Pereira JP. Considerations of the geomechanics classification of Bien-
iawski. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on engineering geology
and underground construction. Lisbon: Laboratorio National De Engenharia
Civil; 1983. p. 1133e42.
Sharifzadeh M, Sharifi M, Delbari SM. Back analysis of an excavated slope failure in
highly fractured rock mass: the case study of Kargar slope failure (Iran). Envi-
ronmental Earth Sciences 2010;60(1):183e92.
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Kayabasi A. Estimation of rock modulus:
for intact rocks with an artificial neural network and for rock masses with a
new empirical equation. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 2006;43(2):224e35.
Technical report. Technical office, TehraneShomal highway. 2009.
Terzaghi K. Rock defects and loads on tunnel support. In: Proctor RV, White T,
editors. Rock tunneling with steel supports. Youngstown, USA: Commercial
Shearing Co.; 1946.
Torabi SR, Shirazi H, Hajali H, Monjezi M. Study of the influence of geotechnical
parameters on the TBM performance in TehraneShomal highway project using
ANN and SPSS. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 2013;6(4):1215e27.
Unal E. Development of design guidelines and roof-control standards for coal-mine
roofs (PhD Thesis). Pennsylvania State University; 1983.
Venkateswarlu V. Geomechanics classification of coal measure rocks vis-a-vis roof
supports. In: Bieniawski ZT, editor. Engineering rock mass classification. John
Wiley and Sons; 1986.
Weaver CE. Fine-grained rocks: shales or physilites. Sedimentary Geology
1980;27(4):301e13.
Weaver JM. Geological factors significant in the assessment of rippability. The Civil
Engineer in South Africa 1975;17(12):313e6.
Wickham GE, Tiedemann HR, Skinner EH. Support determinations based on
geologic predictions. In: Proceedings of the North American rapid excavation
and tunnelling conference, vol. 1; 1972.
Yassaghi A, Salari-Rad H, Kanani-Moghadam H. Geomechanical evaluations of Karaj
tuffs for rock tunneling in TehraneShomal freeway, Iran. Engineering Geology
2005;77(1):83e98.
Zarei HR, Uromeihy A, Sharifzadeh M. A new tunnel inflow classification (TIC)
system through sedimentary rock masses. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 2013;34:1e12.
Zhang L. Estimating the strength of jointed rock masses. Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering 2010;43(4):391e402.
Mohammad Mohammadi obtained his BSc degree in
Mining Engineering from Urmia University in 2009 and
MSc degree in Mining Engineering from University of
Tehran in 2013. He was affiliated as tunnel resident engi-
neer in the Alborz Tunnel excavation site from 2012 up to
now where he currently leads the team of rock mechanics
and geological experts on site in both excavation portals as
well as lining operation supervision. His research interests
include (1) underground and surface blasting design and
implementation, (2) overbreak minimization in tunnels
being excavated by drill-and-blast method, (3) mechanism
of grouting in jointed rock mass, and (4) collapse mecha-
nism in underground structures located in jointed rock
mass.