KARATERISTIK

MASSA BATUAN - 7

JURUSAN TEKNIK PERTAMBANGAN

FAKULTAS TEKNIK UNP
2019

7-1
Rock Mass Variation
(Stille & Palmstrom, 2008)

7-2
Strength of Intact Rock & Rock Mass

7-3
 Bidang Diskontinu / Kekar

 Bidang Kekar di dalam massa batuan

dapat membantu mudahnya proses
penggalian namun belum tentu untuk
pemboran dan juga untuk penentuan
kestabilan struktur permukaan atau bawah
tanah.

 Keberadaan bidang Kekar dalam massa

batuan dapat membantu pencapaian
fragmentasi yang diinginkan.

7-4
 Inventarisasi Data & Pengukuran Kekar

 Data yang berupa kedudukan bidang perlapisan dan bidang kekar diperoleh
dengan melakukan pengukuran arah kemiringan & kemiringan (dip direction/dip)
bidang perlapisan dan bidang kekar dengan menggunakan kompas geologi dan
rol meter.
 Analisis kekar dilakukan untuk mengetahui arah umum dan kemiringannya serta
untuk memperkirakan jenis dan potensi longsoran yang mungkin terjadi pada
suatu lereng.
 Pengukuran kekar dilakukan di lokasi dimana terdapat perbedaan tipe massa
batuan.
 Inventarisasi data kekar dilakukan dengan metoda scanline. Pada metoda ini,
rol meter dibentangkan sepanjang dinding pengamatan

7-5
Karakterisasi Massa Batuan

1. Discontinuity/Joint orientation & Joint set / family

2. Discontinuity/Joint spacing / frequency - Rock

Quality Designation (RQD) & Joint Block size

3. Discontinuity/Joint Condition:

i. Persistance

ii. Roughness

iii. Aperture

iv. Filling material

v. Seepage

vi. Strength
7-6
Pengumpulan Data Geologi Struktur

7-7
7-8
Kompas & Inklinometer

7-9
7-10
7-11
 Pengukuran Kekar (Cleat) pada Singkapan
Batubara

 Cleat adalah rekahan alami yang terdapat di dalam lapisan batubara, terdiri dari ”face
cleat” dan lebih kecil lagi disebut ”butt cleat” (Laubach et al., 1998).
 Ward, 1984; Laubach et al., 1998; Frodsham,1999; Charles, 2002; Cristina, 2003; Paul,
2003:, cleat dapat terbentuk pada periode yang berbeda di dalam sejarah pembentukan
batubara akibat berbagai mekanisme, yaitu pengaruh proses dehidrasi atau desiccation,
devolatilisasi, mekanisme pengendapan, tebal lapisan batubara, kandungan maseral,
litotip batubara, derajat batubara, lingkungan pengendapan batubara, kontraksi termal,
tektonik regional, struktur geologi, dan aktivitas pekerjaan tambang.
 Ryan (2003), orientasi optimal cleat batubara adalah sejajar terhadap tegasan maksimum
horisontal atau dipengaruhi tegasan kompresif regional.
 Kekar/Cleat terdiri dari dua tiga jenis, di antaranya:
 Kekar Gerus (shear joint),
 Kekar Regang (tensional joint),
 Kekar Campuran (hybrid joint).
 Face cleat kedudukannya hampir tegak lurus terhadap bidang perlapisan, sedangkan ”butt
cleat” tampil seakan-akan tidak beraturan dan tidak punya pola yang jelas.
 Jarak antara “face cleat” berkisar antara 3 – 12 cm. Pada umumnya face cleat tidak
memotong parting
 ”Butt cleat” tampil lebih rapat dan seakan-akan tidak beraturan.
7-12
Cleat

7-13
 Cleat

Face cleat

Butt Cleat

7-14
 Kedudukan Face Cleat & Butt Cleat

No. N0E / 0 No. N0E / 0 No. N0E / 0 No. N0E / 0 No. N0E / 0

1 25/70 11 86/78 21 20/70 31 75/68 41 97/88

2 30/70 12 22/77 22 25/74 32 89/80 42 93/84

3 22/75 13 18/65 23 23/82 33 105/88 43 69/82

4 20/72 14 20/80 24 30/74 34 100/78 44 80/86

5 12/80 15 25/80 25 25/78 35 86/84 45 73/88

6 18/82 16 12/80 26 64/80 36 78/80 46 75/78

7 18/79 17 27/84 27 90/78 37 74/80 47 100/76

8 23/67 18 17/72 28 79/80 38 65/76 48 91/80

9 20/84 19 21/66 29 76/82 39 86/80 49 97/80

10 22/86 20 20/78 30 82/80 40 94/86 50 88/80

7-15
Karakteristik Penting Bidang Kekar

7-16
 Orientasi Bidang Kekar

Horizontal Dip out to face Dip into face Strike perpendicular to face

Strike

Dip bench slope

ABC = Dip joint
B

Joint plane

A
Dip direction
Dip direction joint bench slope

C
7-17
7-18
Orientasi & Keluarga Bidang Kekar

I Massive, occasional random fractures

II One joint set
III One joit set plus random fractures
IV Two joint sets
V Two joint sets plus random fractures
VI Three joint set
VII Three joint sets plus random fractures
VIII Fourjoint set
IX Four joint sets plus random fractures

7-19
Pembuatan
Stereonet
Bidang
N40oE/50o

7-20
 Pengukuran Kekar di Air Laya-4, Tanjung Enim

No aj bj

1 120 48
2 96 51
3 113 51
4 81 62
5 85 61
6 88 61
7 102 52
8 110 63
9 20 37
10 20 35
11 21 29
12 27 37
13 22 36
14 22 31
15 16 30
16 24 40
17 22 42
18 19 41
19 31 40
20 302 66
21 300 71
22 304 68
23 290 71
24 270 70
25 293 62
26 270 72

7-21
Contoh 3 Set
Kekar

7-22
 Longsoran Bidang

Surface failure

7-23
Longsoran Baji

7-24
 Jatuhan Blok di Lubang Bawah Tanah

 Blok terlepas dari atap tanpa meluncur pada salah satu rusuk.
 Arah luncuran tegak lurus ke bawah.
 Proyeksi stereografis 7-25
7-26
 S3 2. Jarak antar Kekar
a

Scanline
d3

S3 = d3 sina
Set no. 1
Set no. 2 S1 S2 J2
Set no.3 S1
J1
J2
J1

J1

 Jarak pisah antar kekar adalah jarak tegak lurus antara dua bidang Kekar yang berurutan sepanjang
sebuah garis pengamatan yang disebut scan-line dan dinyatakan sebagai intact length.
 Panjang scan-line minimum untuk pengukuran jarak Kekar sekitar 50 kali jarak rata-rata Kekar yang
hendak diukur.
 Sedangkan menurut ISRM (1981) panjang ini cukup sekitar 10 kali, tergantung kepada tujuan
7-27
pengukuruan scan-line-nya.
 Prosedur Normal Untuk Pegukuran Kekar

 Permukaan dinding atau lereng massa batuan

jelas dan aman tersedia dan survey dilakukan
minimum 2 orang
 Set up scan line untuk jarak 10 kali jarak rata-rata
kekar atau minimum 50 m
 Pengukuran setinggi mata dari lantai jenjang
 Meliputi variasi kekar dan orinentasi dan jarak
 Lakukan pada dua muka bidang lereng yang saling
tegak lurus
 Variasi jenis batuan
 Pengukuran maju dan mundur
 Amati cuaca dan kondisi air permukaan
 Miliki peralatan pembantu secukupnya: paku beton,
tali, compas, meteran, loupe, penggaris,
comparator, point scracther, palu geologi, panduan
standard, minum dll
7-28
 af : Dip direction bench slope
bf : Dip bench slope
Pengukuran Kekar as : Dip direction scan line
bs : Dip scan line

af
as
bs
Scan line measurement bf

7-29
 Catatan Parameter Pengukuran

 θ = Sudut antara normal terhadap kekar dan garis bentangan

 di+(i+1) = Ji+(i+1) cos {(θ(i) + θ(i+1))/2}
 cos θ = │cos (αn – αs) cos βn cos βs+ sin βn sin βs│
 af / βf = Arah dip dan dip muka jenjang / dinding terowongan
 an / βn = Arah dip dan dip yang normal terhadap bidang kekar
 αs / βs = Arah dip garis bentangan / dip garis bentangan
 αd / βd = Arah dip kekar / dip kekar
 αd ≤ 180 αn = αd + 180
 αd ≥ 180 αn = αd – 180
 βn βn = 90 – βd

7-30
 Prosedur Penentuan Perkiraan Jarak Antar Kekar Dari
Pengukuran Suatu Garis Bentangan-1

1. Asumsikan ada tiga pasang bidang Kekar dalam set A

dswA12 cos(12 )  dswA23 cos( 23 )  dswA34 cos( 34 )

dswA 
3
1   2 2  3 3   4
12   23   34 
2 2 2

( i   i 1 )
d i ,i 1  j i ,i 1 cos
2

 ji,i+1 : jarak semu antar bidang kekar

 i : sudut antara garis normal dengan scanline
 di,i+1 : jarak sebenarnya antar bidang kekar
7-31
 Prosedur Penentuan Perkiraan Jarak Antar Kekar Dari
Pengukuran Suatu Garis Bentangan-2

2. Bentuk persamaan umum di atas dapat ditulis kembali sebagai (k = n – 1 =

jumlah pasangan bidang Kekar dalam satu set )
n

 dswAi  ( i 1) cos( i  ( i 1) )

dswA  i 1
k

 Jarak rata-rata antar bidang kekar set A

 dswAi,i+1: jarak semu antar bidang kekar pada set A
 k : jumlah bidang kekar dalam satu set

7-32
 Prosedur Penentuan Perkiraan Jarak Antar Kekar Dari
Pengukuran Suatu Garis Bentangan-3

3. Perkiraan jarak antarbidang Kekar sepanjang scanline adalah (m = jumlah set

bidang Kekar)

 dsw m
dsw  i 1

 Jarak rata-rata antar bidang kekar sepanjang scanline

 dswm : jumlah jarak kekar sebenarnya sepanjang scanline setiap set
 m : jumlah set kekar
 dsw : rata-rata jarak kekar sepanjang scanline

7-33
 Penggunaan Faktor Koreksi
Untuk Jarak Kekar

 θ = Sudut antara normal terhadap kekar dan garis bentangan

 θA = Nilai rata-rata θ untuk kekar keluarga A
 Jika θ > 70o, gunakan faktor bobot W = - 7.0317 + 0.1425 (θ)
 W = Faktor bobot Terzaghi = {1/Cos (θ)}
 i–m = Nomor jalur
 Ji–m = Jarak semu kekar untuk nomor jalur im
 d(im) = Jarak duga kekar atau sebenarnya untuk nomor jalur im
 dxw = Jarak duga kekar rata-rata dari satu keluarga kekar
 dsw = Bobot rata-rata jarak sebenarnya kekar dari garis bentangan
7-34
 Upaya Mengurangi Bias Pengukuran Kekar

 Kurangi bias selama pengukuran di lapangan

 Proses data pengukuran dengan melakukan konturing
 Proses data secara analitis dengan metoda statistik
 Faktor bobot W = bila jumlah data pengukurannya banyak,
 Faktor bobot akan mengurangi kesalahan yang mungkin timbul akibat garis
bentangan tunggal
 Bila θ mendekati 900, W menjadi tak hingga, maka sebuah titik pengukuran
akan mendominasi distribusi
 Pada kenyataannya, koreksi ini hanya dibuat untuk nilai-nilai tertentu
 Terzaghi (1965) : θ > 70
 Hergert (1988) : θ > 85
 Priest (1993) : W = 10 (θ = 84.30)
7-35
 Penentuan Jarak Kekar

J cos ji-m d(im) dxw

J J no ad bd an bn cos bn cos bs sin bn sin bs abs[cos ]  i-m
(m) (an-as) (m) (m) (m)
A 1 75 61 255 29 0.87 0.87 1 0.48 0.03 0.77 39.29
A 2 40 54 0.15 220 36 0.42 0.81 1 0.59 0.03 0.36 68.76 1 2 0.15 0.09
A 3 18 32 0.22 198 58 0.05 0.53 1 0.85 0.03 0.06 86.71 2 3 0.22 0.05
A 4 50 80 0.5 230 10 0.57 0.98 1 0.17 0.03 0.57 55.21 3 4 0.5 0.16
A 5 45 89 0.13 225 1 0.5 1 1 0.02 0.03 0.5 59.98 4 5 0.13 0.07
B 48 136 75 316 15 0.86 0.97 1 0.26 0.03 0.84 33.23 A 0.18
B 49 152 85 0.3 332 5 0.68 1 1 0.09 0.03 0.68 47 48 49 0.3 0.23
B 50 145 58 0.25 325 32 0.77 0.85 1 0.53 0.03 0.67 48.11 49 50 0.25 0.17
B 51 150 60 0.2 330 30 0.71 0.87 1 0.5 0.03 0.63 50.99 50 51 0.2 0.13
B 52 105 80 0.2 285 10 1 0.98 1 0.17 0.03 0.99 8 51 52 0.2 0.17
C 78 215 63 35 27 -0.34 0.89 1 0.45 0.03 0.29 73.22 B 0.31
C 79 232 82 0.5 52 8 -0.6 0.99 1 0.14 0.03 0.59 53.79 78 79 0.5 0.22
C 80 208 66 0.15 28 24 -0.22 0.91 1 0.41 0.03 0.19 78.98 79 80 0.15 0.06
C 81 221 56 0.42 41 34 -0.44 0.83 1 0.56 0.03 0.34 69.9 80 81 0.42 0.11
C 82 196 47 0.27 16 43 -0.02 0.73 1 0.68 0.03 0.01 89.37 81 82 0.27 0.05
D 116 274 50 94 40 -0.98 0.77 1 0.64 0.03 0.73 43.19 C 0.21
D 117 320 48 0.2 140 42 -0.82 0.74 1 0.67 0.03 0.59 54.2 116 117 0.2 0.13
D 118 334 60 0.16 154 30 -0.66 0.87 1 0.5 0.03 0.55 56.61 117 118 0.16 0.09
D 119 334 38 0.4 154 52 -0.66 0.62 1 0.79 0.03 0.38 67.9 118 119 0.4 0.19
C 0.27
fA 63.33 w-A 2.23
fB 45.27 w-B 1.42 0.44 dsw 0.24
fC 63.01 w-C 2.2
fD 48.8 w-D 1.52

7-36
 RQD vs. l & Jv

RQD (%) Velocity Index Rock Quality

< 25 < 0.2 Very poor

 If core drilling is not available, RQD can 25 – 50 0.2 – 0.4 Poor
be determined using indirect method, that
50 – 75 0,4 – 0,6 Fair
is based on joint spacing data obtained
from an exposed rock face. 75 – 90 0.6 – 0.8 Good

 Priest dan Hudson (1976, error 5%) 90 – 100 0.8 – 1.0 Excellent

 RQD = 100 e-0.1 l (0.1 l + 1)

 For l  6 – 16/m, RQD = 110.4 – 3.68l
Jv Block size
 l = frequency discontinuities per meter
<1 Massive
 Palmstorm (1975) :
1–3 Large
 RQD = 115 – 3,3 Jv
 RQD = 100, Jv < 4,5 3 – 10 Medium

 Jv is much affected by joint frequency 10 – 30 Small

rather than RQD > 30 Very small

7-37
 RQD Hasil Pengukuran Kekar

Spasi kekar, A = 0.18 m

Spasi kekar, B = 0.31 m
Spasi kekar, C = 0.21 m
Spasi kekar, D = 0.27 m
Spasi kekar rata-rata sebenarnya = 0.24 m
Frekuensi kekar, l= 1/spasi = 4.17 kekar/m

RQD = 100 e-0,1l (0,1l + 1) = 93.38%

7-38
 TRQD vs Frekuensi Kekar
100
90 Nilai pengukuran
80 Pendekatan fungsi linier
RQD = 105,8 – 3,15 l
70
60 Kurva teoritis dengan t = 0,1 m
TRQD (%)

RQD = 100 e-lt (1 + lt)

50
40
30 Pendekatan fungsi Polinomial
RQD = -0.12 l2 - 1.75 l + 102.45
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-1 Untuk 2 < l < 11
Frekuensi kekar (m )
7-39
 RQD vs. Jumlah Kekar per Meter

100
90
80 RQD = 115 – 3.3 Jv
(ISRM, 1981)
70
60
RQD

50
40 RQD = 105.8 - 3.15 l
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Jumlah kekar per meter

7-40
 λ = 1/spacing discontinuity = 1/0.9 =1.11 λ = 1.11 joints/m
Joint Survey Air Laya-4, Tanjung Enim, South Sumatera
RQD measured = 97 %: RQD calculated = 100e-0.1 λ (λ0.1 +1) = 99 %
Scanline: αs = 175 – βs = 5; 90 m: Material : Soft claystone & siltstone
Disc. = discontinuity: Cond. = condition: Space. = Spacing
Bench: αf = 85 – βf = 65 Excavation Material = Over Burden
GW = Ground water: αj = Disc. Dip Dir: βj = Disc. Dip
Date : 25-09-94 noon Condition: Good, no rain and sunny
SM = Smooth (planar): SL = Slickenside (undulating, smooth condition)
Location: West Air HW = Highly weathered: C = Continuous: D = Discontinuous: U = Undulating

Spacing UCS RQD

No Js*) (m) Joint Conditions aj bj
(m) (NPa) (%)
1 89.20 443.2 97 - SLHWUC10 120 48
2 88.70 443.2 97 0.50 SHWD12.5 96 51
3 86.40 443.2 97 2.30 SLHWUC10 113 51
4 86.20 443.2 97 0.20 SLHWUC10 81 62
5 Covered Rock falls - - - - -
6 52.80 443.2 97 SLHWUC10 85 61
7 52.10 443.2 97 0.70 SLHWUC10 88 61
8 50.60 443.2 97 1.50 SLHWUC10 102 52
9 50.60 443.2 97 0.00 SLHWUC10 110 63
10 48.50 443.2 97 2.10 SLHWUC10 20 37
11 45.70 443.2 97 2.80 SLHWUC10 20 35
12 44.40 443.2 97 1.30 SLHWUC10 21 29
13 Covered Rock falls - - - -
14 9.80 443.2 97 SHW-D12.5 27 37
15 7.60 443.2 97 2.20 SHWD12.5 22 36
16 7.40 443.2 97 0.20 SHWD12.5 22 31
17 6.40 443.2 97 1.00 SHWD12.5 16 30
18 5.70 443.2 97 0.70 SHWD12.5 24 40
19 5.30 443.2 97 0.40 SLHWUC10 22 42
20 5.10 443.2 97 0.20 SLHWUC10 19 41
21 4.50 443.2 97 0.60 SLHWUC10 31 40
22 4.30 443.2 97 0.20 SLHWUC10 302 66
23 3.60 443.2 97 0.70 SLHWUC10 300 71
24 3.40 443.2 97 0.20 SLHWUC10 304 68
25 2.80 443.2 97 0.60 SHWD12.5 290 71
26 2.40 443.2 97 0.40 SLHWUC10 270 70
7-41
27 0.50 443.2 97 1.90 SHWD12.5 293 62
28 0.20 443.2 97 0.30 SLHWUC10 270 72
λ = 1/spacing discontinuity = 1/0.9 =1.11 λ = 1.11 joints/m
RQD measured = 97 %: RQD calculated = 100e-0.1 λ (λ0.1 +1) = 99 %
Disc. = discontinuity Cond. = condition Space. = Spacing
GW = Ground water αj = Disc. Dip Dir βj = Disc. Dip
SM = Smooth (planar) SL = Slickenside (undulating, smooth condition)
HW = Highly weathered C = Continuous D = Discontinuous U = Undulating

Joint Joint Dist. Ji-m d(im) dx

ad bd an bn (teta) i-m
set No. (m) (m) (m) (m)
A 1 0.00 120 48 300 42 68.51 1-2 0.50 0.116 0.24
A 2 0.50 96 51 276 39 84.67 2-3 2.30 0.533 0.62
A 3 2.80 113 51 293 39 72.02 3-4 0.20 0.046 0.29
A 4 3.00 81 62 261 28 84.13 5-6 0.70 0.162 0.34
A 5 36.40 85 61 265 29 87.58 6-7 1.50 0.348
A 6 37.10 88 61 268 29 89.81 7-8 1.00 0.232
A 7 38.60 102 52 282 38 79.87 9-10 2.80 A
A 8 39.60 110 63 290 27 70.39 10-11 1.30 1.654
B 9 40.70 20 37 200 53 52.20 12-13 2.20 0.768
B 10 43.50 20 35 200 55 53.90 13-14 0.20 1.3
B 11 44.80 21 29 201 61 59.32 14-15 1.00 0.118
B 12 79.40 27 37 207 53 54.69 15-16 0.70 0.591
B 13 81.60 22 36 202 54 53.68 16-17 0.40 0.414
B 14 81.80 22 31 202 59 57.87 17-18 0.20 0.236
B 15 82.80 16 30 196 60 57.28 18-19 0.60 0.118
B 16 83.50 24 40 204 50 51.18 20-21 0.70 0.355
B 17 83.90 22 42 202 48 48.80 21-22 0.20 B
B 18 84.10 19 41 199 49 48.48 22-23 0.60 0.293
B 19 84.70 31 40 211 50 54.21 23-24 0.40 0.084
C 20 84.90 302 66 122 24 54.33 24-25 1.90 0.251
C 21 85.60 300 71 120 19 55.34 25-26 0.30 0.167
C 22 85.80 304 68 124 22 52.13 0.94 0.795
C 23 86.40 290 71 110 19 64.76 0.126
C 24 86.80 270 70 90 20 83.60 C
C 25 88.70 293 62 113 28 63.01 dsw
C 26 89.00 270 72 90 18 83.71
teta-A= 79.62 w-A= 5.55
teta-B= 53.78 w-B= 1.69
teta-C= 65.27 w-C= 2.39
7-42
Air Laya – 4, αf = 85; βf = 65; αs = 175; βs = 5
 Perhitungan RMR

 λ = 1/spacing discontinuity = 1/0.9 =1.11 λ = 1.11 joints/m

 RQD measured = 97 %
 RQD calculated = 100e-0.1λ (0.1 λ +1) = 99 %
 Disc. = kekar Cond. = kondisi Space. = jarak
 G water = air tanah αj = arah dip kekar βj = dip kekar
 SM = halus (planar) SL = Slickensided U = undulating
 HW = sangat lapuk C = menerus D = tak menerus
 R untuk UCS 0.4 MPa = 0
 R untuk RQD 97 % = {((97-90)/10) x 1.5} + 18.5 = 19.55
 R untuk jarak kekar 0.9 m = {((0.9-0.6)/1.4) x (17.7 – 12.5)} + 12.5 = 13.67
 RMR = 0 + 19.55 + 13.67 + 10.77 + 7 = 50.99 = 51

7-43
Cross Cut IV Ciurug level 500. Strike & Dip Tali N 2E/ 15 Strike & Dip
Dinding N283E/ 90
No Kekar Selang (cm) Jarak (cm) DD Dip No. Kekar Selang (cm) Jarak (cm) DD Dip

1 10 10 91 80 24 51 898 92 77

2 35 45 150 71 25 15 913 206 30

3 27 72 105 85 26 68 981 106 76

4 42 114 134 85 27 26 1007 98 82

5 28 142 95 87 28 22 1029 95 81

6 14 156 112 84 29 21 1050 109 66

7 4 160 98 79 30 26 1076 221 38

8 26 186 120 88 31 15 1091 448 79

9 37 223 110 71 32 66 1157 442 76

10 79 302 440 78 33 36 1193 440 89

11 61 363 139 78 34 36 1229 214 25

12 35 398 444 78 35 53 1282 102 84

13 45 443 105 82 36 65 1347 449 37

14 37 480 413 59 37 45 1392 235 66

15 26 506 446 77 38 52 1444 94 78

16 29 535 165 76 39 36 1480 90 79

17 61 596 95 81 40 67 1547 426 83

18 55 651 115 85 41 53 1600 247 71

19 11 662 91 76 42 26 1626 95 81

20 31 693 149 86 43 42 1668 104 85

21 41 734 100 89 44 69 1737 420 83

22 72 806 101 81 45 46 1783 435 7-44

63

23 41 847 100 82
Joint set No Kekar Jarak-cm Arah Dip Dip Arah Dip Normal Dip Normal f J-cm D-cm Dx-cm

A 1 0 91 80 271 10 25.02

A 2 132 95 87 275 3 18.24 132 48.06

A 3 150 98 79 278 11 26.67 18 6.37

A 4 586 95 81 275 9 24.18 436 137.62

A 5 652 91 76 271 14 29.02 66 19.77

A 6 724 100 89 280 1 17.85 72 24.61

A 7 837 100 82 280 8 24.33 113 41.87

A 8 888 92 77 272 13 28.00 51 15.58

A 9 997 98 82 278 8 23.76 109 33.74

A 10 1019 95 81 275 9 24.18 22 7.37

A 11 1434 94 78 274 12 27.07 415 129.86

A 12 1470 90 79 270 11 26.08 36 10.80

A 13 1616 95 81 275 9 24.18 146 46.67

B 14 0 105 85 285 5 23.79 A 43.53

B 15 151 110 71 290 19 38.34 151 35.29
B 16 371 105 82 285 8 26.36 220 47.00

B 17 734 101 81 281 9 25.60 363 111.82

B 18 909 106 76 286 14 32.14 175 46.70

B 19 978 109 66 289 24 42.39 69 9.20

B 20 1596 104 85 284 5 23.27 618 127.37

C 21 0 80 78 260 12 29.50 B 62.90

C 22 96 84 78 264 12 28.14 96 25.69

C 23 204 86 77 266 13 28.62 108 29.60

C 24 789 88 79 268 11 26.30 585 168.09

C 25 855 82 76 262 14 30.64 66 18.00

C 26 891 80 89 260 1 19.92 36 11.43

C 27 1045 89 37 269 53 68.05 154 2.73 7-45

C 42.59
 Joint Spacing Classification (Attewell, 1993)

Description Discontinuity plane structure Spacing - mm

Very wide spaced Very thickly bedded > 2000

Widely spaced Thickly bedded 600 - 2000
Moderately widely spaced Medium bedded 200 - 600
Closely spaced Thinly bedded 60 - 200
Very thinly bedded 20 - 60
Thickly laminated (sedimentary) 6 - 20
Very closely spaced
Narrow (metamorphic and igneous) 6 - 20

Foliated, cleaved, flow-banded, etc. metamorphic 6 - 20

< 20

Thinly laminated (sedimentary) <6

Extremely closely spaced
Very closely foliated, cleaved flow-banded, etc.
<6
( metamorphic and igneous)

7-46
 Rock Quality Designation – RQD (Deere, 1964)

 RQD = Panjang total inti bor  0.10 m X 100%

Panjang total bor (m)

L = 24 cm
 Jumlah potongan inti
bor diukur pada inti bor
L = 18 cm sepanjang 2 m,
Panjang Total Core Run = 200 cm

Tidak ada yang lebih besar  Potongan akibat

L=0
sama dengan 10 cm
penanganan pemboran
L = 11 cm
harus diabaikan dari
RQD = ((24+18+11+49)/200)) x 100%
perhitungan
L = 49 cm
RQD = 51%
 Into bor yang lembek
dan tidak baik berbobot
RQD = 0 (Bieniawski,
L=0 Tidak ada perolehan 1989).

7-47
Pecahan karena pemboran
Core Drill / Inti Bor

7-48
7-49
7-50
Histogram Normal Distribution Spacing
Formation Kali Set-1

Min. = 0.011237
Max. = 5.748153
Range = 5.736916
µ = 1.173044
σ = 1.33021
N = 445

7-51
Spasi Bidang Kekar dan RQD (Bieniawski,
1989)

7-52
 Block Size

Volumetric Joint
Designation Jv Block size
Count – Joint/m3

Very large blocks <1 <1 Massive

Large blocks 1–3 1–3 Large

Medium-sized blokcs 3 – 10 3 – 10 Medium

Small blocks 10 – 30 10 – 30 Small

Very small blocks > 30 > 30 Very small

Crushed blocks > 60 # #

7-53
 Data Hasil Pengukuran Kekar & RQD

Jumlah Panjang scan line Jarak kekar rata- RQD Kualitas

Kode Blok
kekar (meter) rata (meter) (%) Massa Batuan

Block 1 – 5 110 167 2.2 99.9 Sangat baik

Block 6 – 9 132 84 1.0 99.5 Sangat baik

Block 11 – 14 160 16 0.1 73.6 Sedang

7-54
 3. Joint Condition – i. Persistence

> 0.6 H
Surface trace length
Description
(m)

Very low persistence <1

Low persistence 1–3

< 0.6 H
Medium persistence 3 – 10

High persistence 10 – 20
7-55
Very high persistence > 20
 3. Joint Condition W

ii. Joint Roughness

(a)

(b)

Smooth joint

(a) JMC = 1.0

iIi Rough joint (matched)

(b) JMC – 1.0

iI

Rough joint (Mismatched)

7-56
(c) JMC - 0
3. Kondisi Kekar - Measurement of Surface Roughness
Angle (Patton,1966)

iII-4
iII-3
iII-1 iII-2 iI

 The illustration above depicts an example of roughness angle measurement i that was conducted by Patton
(1966) on a shear surface of rock. The angle of the First Order Projection is the angle of major undulation on
the shear plane and is denoted by iI, whereas minor undulation with greater angle is defined as the angle of
the Second Order Projection and denoted by angles of iII-1 sampai iII-4.
 Barton (1973), low sN - the angle of the Second Order Projection plays an important role in determining the
shear strength (internal friction angle) and the total friction angle becomes (f + i).
 If sN increases, the Second Order Projection roughness will get crushed and its role is replaced by the angle
of the First Order Projection. At high sN, the First Order Projection roughness will also get crushed so that
the behaviour of the shear strength of rock will be much more affected by the UCS of the intact rock rather
than the surface roughness of the shear plane 7-57
 3. Kondisi Kekar - Definition of Inclination
Angle of Asperities

σN

i σH

σN
  = C + σ tan ( + i)
  = Shear stress
i σH
 C = Cohesion
 s = Normal stress
  = Internal friction coefficient of rock = tan 
 i = Angle of dilatancy = Angle of large asperities = First Order
Projection 7-58
3. Kondisi Kekar - Variasi Joint
Roughness Coefficient JRC
(Barton & Choubey, 1977)

7-59
3. Kondisi Kekar - Roughness
Profile
(ISRM, 1981)
Panjang Profile 1 - 10 m
Skala: Vertical = Horizontal

1. Laboratory scale
2. Field scale

7-60
 3. Joint Condition – iii. Aperture
In a natural joint, it is very seldom that two surfaces are in complete
contact. There usually exist a gap or an opening between two
surfaces. The perpendicular distance separating the adjacent rock
walls is termed as aperture. Joint opening is either filled with air and
water (open joint) or infill materials (filled joint). Open or filled joints
with large apertures have low shear strength. Open aperture also
associates with high permeability and storage capacity

Open discontinuity

Closed discontinuity

Aperture Description
Filled discontinuity
< 0.1 mm Very tight
Closed
0.1 – 0.25 mm Tight
fracture
0.25 – 0.5 mm Partly open
0.5 – 2.5 mm Open
Gap fracture
2.5 – 10 mm Widely open
1 – 10 cm Very widely open
10 – 100 cm Extremely widely open Open fracture 7-61

>1m Cavenous
 3. Kondisi
Kekar - Filling

 Goodman (1970): shear strength

decreases & becomes the same
as that of filling material if the
thickness of the filling material is
50% thicker than the amplitude of
the undulation
 Shear strength of a shear plane
also depend on the type of filling
material within the shear plane:
calcite, clay or silt. If the thickness
of the filling material > its
amplitude of the undulation of the
shear plane, the shear strength
characteristics will be determined
by the filling material.
 The shear characteristics becomes
more complicated if the filling 7-62
material thickness < its amplitude.
 3. Kondisi Kekar – Pengaruh Bidang Geser
Pada Kuat Geser

 Shear strength can significantly decrease when part or the entire shear
surface does not directly contact each other since filling material which can a
clay, clacite or silt covers up the shear surface. If the filling material is thicker
than its undulation of the shear surface, the shear characteristics will therefore
be determined by the strength of the filling material (Fig. c & d). However,
should the undulation of the shear plane exceed the filling material (Fig. b) the b
shear behaviour would rather become complex.

 At this condition (Barton & Choubey, 1977), rock shear mechanism will
undergo in two steps. First, stress and displacement of the shear plane will
c
get contact so that the strength of the discontinuous plane will then be
determined by the strength of its shear plane.

 It can be seein in the picture that the roughness model shown is the
roughness of the surface shear plane with slope angle of i at the seond order
d
meaing that at high normal stress, the roughness will get damaged and the
i
projection angle first order will replace the role of the projection angle of the
second order. Filling material
Undulation

7-63
 3. Kondisi Kekar - Seepage

Unfilled discontinuities Filled discontinuities

Seepage Seepage
Description Description
rating rating

The filling materials are heavily consolidated and

The discontinuity is very tight and dry, water
I I dry, significant flow appears unlike due to very
flow along it does not appear possible
low permeability

The discontinuity is dry with no evidence of The filling materials are damp, but no free water
II II
water flow is present

The discontinuity is dry but shows evidence of The filling materials are wet, occasional drops of
III III
water flow, i.e. rust staining, etc. water.

The discontinuity is damp but no free water is The filling materials show signs of outwash,
IV IV
present continuous flow of water (estimate l/min)

The filling materials are washed out locally,

The discontinuity shows seepage, occasional considered water flow along out-wash channels
V V
drop of water, but no continuous flow. (estimate l/m and describe pressure i.e. low,
medium, high)

The filling materials are washed out completely,

The discontinuity shows a continuous flow of
VI water. (Estimate l/min and describe pressure
i.e. low, medium, high)
very high water pressures experienced,
VI
especially on first exposure (estimate l/min and
describe pressure).

7-64
 3. Kondisi Kekar – Kuat Geser

 Alternative approach to predict the shear strength of a rough discontinuity plane is proposed by
Barton (1973, 1976, 1977, 1990) saying that a simple Mohr Coulomb failure criteria or Patton
(1966) is not adequate to describe the shear strength of rock. Thus Barton uses rock joint as the
basis of his research on this matter
 JRC = Joint Roughness Coefficient
 JCS = Joint Wall Compressive Strength
 fb = base friction angle
 The following equation is not valid when sN = 0, and can only be applied for normal stress varies
1 – 30 % of the JCS.

 
  s n tan fb  JRC log JCS s 
  n 

7-65
 3. Joint Condition - Estimate JRC & JCS

 JRC can be determined in two ways,

 Predict visually by matching the surface roughness with the Guideline figure of the Section of various roughness
of shear plane & JRC from Barton & Choubey (1977). This methode is done in laboratroy scale.
 Direct measurment in the field using Guideline figure of Determination of JRC in the field scale from Barton
(1982)

 JCS is defined based on ISRM Suggested Methode (International Society for Rock Mechanics) by first
estimating the Schmidt hardness & specific gravity of the rock.
 The JCS may be lower than the UCS intact rock because chemical alteration and or weathering have taken
place.
 fb is the internal friction angle obtained from direct shear test based on very high normal stress whereby
dilatancy effect is minimized as much as possible. The value is equal to the residual internal friction angle
(fr) or it can be obtained from multi-stage shear stress test, i.e., three high normal stresses are sequentlly
applied, but never exceed 50% of the UCS.

7-66
 Range of Average UCS of Rocks - MPa

Specific Weight of Rock - kN/m3

3. Joint Condition -
Joint Strength
Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Joint - MPa

Estimate of JCS
Based on Schmidt
Hammer & SW of
Rock

Hammer Direction

7-67
Schmidt Hammer – L type hammer
 3. Kondisi Kekar – Menduga JRC di Lapangan
(Barton, 1982)

Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC)

Amplitude asperities roughness - mm

7-68
Length of section - m
cm
10

10 cm

Joint Roughness Coefficient JRC,

(Barton, 1977)

7-69
69
cm
10

cm
10

Joint Roughness Coefficient JRC,

(Barton, 1977)

7-70
70
 Joint Roughness Coefficient JRC,
10 cm

(Barton, 1977)

7-71
71
 Klasifikasi Massa Batuan

 Sistem klasifikasi massa batuan sering gunakan > 2 parameter, tergantung

kepentingannya.
 Klasifikasi massa batuan dibuat untuk memenuhi (Bieniawski, 1989):
1. Untuk mengidentifikasi parameter yang paling mempengaruhi
perilaku massa batuan.
2. Untuk membagi massa batuan kepada kelompok grup yang
berperilaku sama, yaitu kelas massa batuan dengan kualitas
berbeda.
3. Untuk melengkapi suatu dasar pengertian karakteristik masing-
masing kelas.
4. Untuk menghubungkan pengalaman atas pengamatan suatu
kondisi massa batuan di satu tempat dengan lainnya.
5. Untuk menghasilkan data kuantitatif untuk desain rekayasa.
6. Untuk melengkapi suatu dasar umum komunikasi.
7-72
 Beberapa Klasifikasi Massa Batuan

1. Metode klasifikasi beban batuan (rock load, Terzaghi, 1946)

2. Klasifikasi stand-up time (Lauffer, 1958)
3. Rock Quality Designation (RQD Deere, 1964)
4. Rock Structure Rating (RSR, Wickham et al., 1972)
5. Q-system (Barton, Lien & Lunde, 1974)
6. Klasifikasi size strength
7. Klasifikasi ISRM
8. RMR Rock Mass Rating (Bieniawski, 1973, 1976 & 1989)
9. MRMR Mining Rock Mass Rating (Laubshcer, 1977 & 1990)
10. RMS Rock Mass Strength (Selby, 1980)
11. SMR Slope Mass Rating (Romana, 1985)
12. Slope Rock Mass Rating (Robertson, 1988)
13. CSMR Chinese System for SMR (Chen, 1995)
14. GSI Geological Strength Index (Hoek et al. 1995)
15. M-RMR Modified Rock Mass Classification (Unal, 1996)
16. BQ Index of Rock Mass Basic Quality (Lin, 1998)
7-73
 Rock Mass Rating (Bieniawski, 1973)

 Sistem Rock Mass Rating (RMR), atau sering juga dikenal sebagai Geomechanics
Classification
 Klasifikasi ini telah dimodifikasi berulang kali begitu informasi baru dari studi-studi
kasus diperoleh dan menjadikannya sesuai dengan International Standard dan
prosedur.
 RMR terdiri dari 5 parameter utama & 1 parameter pengontrol untuk membagi massa
batuan
1. Kuat Tekan Batuan utuh (UCS)
2. RQD
3. Jarak diskontinu/kekar
4. Kondisi diskontinu/kekar
5. Kondisi air tanah
6. Koreksi dapat dilakukan bila diperlukan untuk “Orientasi
diskontinu/kekar”

7-74
Mark Stephen Diederichs (1999)

7-75
 Langkah Klasifikasi RMR

1. Menghitung total rating dari 5 Parameter

Parameter Selang Nilai

1 Kuat PLI Untuk kuat tekan
> 10 4 - 10 2-4 1-2
tekan (MPa) rendah perlu UCS
batuan UCS
> 250 100 - 250 50 - 100 25 - 50 5-25 1-5 <1
utuh (MPa)
Bobot 15 12 7 4 2 1 0
2 RQD (%) 90 - 100 75 - 90 50 - 75 25 - 50 < 25
Bobot 20 17 13 8 3
3 Jarak Kekar >2m 0.6-2 m 0.2-0.6 m 0.06-0.2 m < 0.06 m
Bobot 20 15 10 8 5

7-76
 Langkah Klasifikasi RMR

1. Menghitung total rating dari 5 Parameter

Parameter Selang Nilai

4 agak
sangat kasar,
agak kasar. kasar. Slicken-sided
tdk menerus, Gouge lunak tebal
pemisahan pemisahan /tebal gouge <
tdk ada > 5 mm, atau
Kondisi kekar < 1 mm, < 1 mm, 5 mm, atau
pemisahan, pemisahan > 5
dinding dinding pemisahan 1-5
dinding batu mm, menerus
agak lapuk sangat mm, menerus
tdk lapuk
lapuk
Bobot 30 25 20 10 0

Air Aliran/10 m
tanah panjang tero-
None < 10 10 - 25 25 - 125 > 125
wongan
(Lt/min)
5 Tekanan air
kekar/Maks
0 < 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.5 > 0.5
Tegangan
utama
Kondiisi
Kering Lembab Basah Menetes Mengalir
umum
Bobot 15 10 7 4 0
7-77
Panduan untuk klasifikasi bidang Kekar (KONDISI KEKAR)
Discontinuity length (persistance) <1 1–3 3 – 10 10 – 20 > 20

Rating 6 4 2 1 0

Separation (aperture) none < 0.1 mm 0.1 – 1.0 mm 1 – 5 mm > 5 mm

Rating 6 5 4 1 0

Roughness Very rough Rough Slightly rough Smooth Slickensided

Rating 6 5 3 1 0

Infilling (gouge) none Hard filling < 5mm Hard filling > 5 mm Soft filling < 5mm Soft filling > 5mm

Rating 6 4 2 2 1

Moderately
Weathering Unweathered Slightly weathered Highly weathered Decomposed
weathered

Rating 6 5 3 1 0

7-78
 Strike Kekar Tegak Lurus Sumbu Terowongan

Strike bidang Kekar tegak lurus dengan Strike bidang Kekar tegak lurus dengan
sumbu terowongan dengan arah dip sumbu terowongan dengan arah dip
melawan arah penggalian sebesar 45 – 90° melawan arah penggalian sebesar 20 – 45°

7-79
 Strike Kekar Tegak Lurus Sumbu Terowongan

Strike bidang Kekar tegak lurus dengan Strike bidang Kekar tegak lurus dengan
sumbu terowongan dengan arah dip searah sumbu terowongan dengan arah dip searah
penggalian sebesar 45 – 90° penggalian sebesar 20 – 45°

7-80
 Strike Kekar Sejajar Sumbu Terowongan

Strike bidang Kekar sejajar dengan sumbu Strike bidang Kekar sejajar dengan sumbu
terowongan dengan arah dip searah terowongan dengan arah dip searah
penggalian sebesar 45 – 90° penggalian sebesar 20 – 45°

7-81
 Strike Kekar Sejajar Sumbu Terowongan

Strike bidang Kekar sejajar dengan sumbu terowongan dengan arah dip searah penggalian sebesar 0 – 20°

7-82
 2. Menilai kedudukan sumbu terowongan terhadap jurus (strike)
dan kemiringan (dip) bidang diskontinu

1 Pengaruh orientasi jurus & kemiringan kekar untuk penerowongan

Jurus tegak lurus sumbu terowongan Jurus paralel Dip 0 - 20o
Tdk tergantung
Galian searah kemiringan Galian melawan kemiringan sumbu terowongan
jurus

a = 45-900 a = 20-450
kemiringan
45-90o
a = 20-450 a = 45-900 a = 20-450
Sangat
Mengun- Tidak mengun- Sangat tdk Tdk
mengun- Sedang Sedang
tungkan tungkan menguntungkan menguntungkan
tungkan

2 Koreksi orientasi untuk penggalian dengan RMR (Fowell & Johnson, 1991)
Kelas Batuan I II III IV V
Orientasi jurus Sangat mengun- Tidak Sangat tidak
Menguntungkan Sedang
& kemiringan tungkan menguntungkan menguntungkan
Bobot untuk
-12 -10 -5 -2 0
penggalian

7-83
 3. Menentukan penyesuaian rating
Jurus & kemiringan orientasi Sangat mengun- Mengun- Tidak Sangat tidak
Sedang
Kekar tungkan tungkan menguntungkan menguntungkan
Terowongan 0 -2 -5 - 10 - 12
Bobot Fondasi 0 -2 -7 - 15 - 25
Lereng 0 -5 - 25 - 50 - 60

RMR - C
4. Kelas massa batuan menurut bobot total
Bobot 100 - 81 80 - 61 60 - 41 40 - 21 < 20

No. Kelas I II III IV V

Batuan sangat Batuan Batuan Batuan sangat

Description Batuan buruk
baik baik sedang buruk

RMR - D
5. Arti kelas massa batuan
No. Kelas I II III IV V
1 th. utk 10 m 1 mgg utk 5 m 10 jam utk 2.5 30 min utk 1 m
Stand up time rata-rata 20 th. utk 15 m span
span span m span span

Kohesi massa batuan (kPa) > 400 300 - 400 200 - 300 100 - 200 < 100
Sudut geser dalam > 450 350- 450 250- 350 150 - 250 < 150
7-84
Tampak Tambang Tutupan ADARO

Tanpa skala
7-85
 Hasil Karakterisasi Massa Batuan

Klass Massa Batuan

No Lokasi Jenis Batuan RMR GSI SMR
RMR SMR

1 60 – 40 Sandstone 1 71,33 53,33 67,58 II Class IIB, Good Stable Failure some blocks

2 60 - 40 Sandstone 2 68,85 51,25 65,10 II Class IIB, Good Stable Failure some blocks

3 70 - 41 Sandstone 3 34,19 41,58 33,71 IV Class IVA, Bad unstable planar or big wedges

4 67 - 39 Mudstone 1 28,52 34,77 27,77 IV Class IVA, Bad unstable planar or big wedges

5 67 – 39 Mudstone 2 30,54 36,74 27,69 IV Class IVA, Bad unstable planar or big wedges

6 62 - 37 Mudstone 3 32,54 40,26 37,34 IV Class IVB, Bad unstable planar or big wedges

7 67 - 45 Sandstone 4 37,14 36,54 30,84 IV Class IVA, Bad unstable planar or big wedges

8 67 - 45 Sandstone 5 24,47 43,27 23,3 IV Class IVB, Bad unstable planar or big wedges

9 95 – 44 Sandstone 1 41,50 36,06 51,01 III Class IIIB, Fair Partially Stable Some joint or many wedges

10 95 – 45 Sandstone 2 68.,85 50,85 55,85 III Class IIIA, Fair Partially Stable Some joint or many wedges

11 127 - 63 Mudstone 1 38,35 42,15 33,35 IV Class IVA, Bad unstable planar or big wedges

12 93 – 47 Sandstone 3 45,51 48,12 33,12 IV Class IVA, Bad unstable planar or big wedges

13 96 – 48 Mudstone 2 35,01 37,61 34,81 III Class IIIB, Fair Partially Stable Some joint or many wedges

7-86
Modifikasi Rock Mass Rating System Untuk Tambang
Bawah Tanah - MRMR (Laubscher, 1977, 1984)

7-87
Aplikasi RMR Untuk Stand-up Time

7-88
 Rock Mass Quality - Q System

 Klasifikasi Massa Batuan menurut Q-System dibuat di Norwegia

pada tahun 1974 oleh Barton, Lien dan Lunde, semuanya dari
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
 Pembobotan Q-System didasarkan atas penaksiran numerik
kualitas massa batuan dengan menggunakan 6 parameter
berikut ini:
 RQD
 Jumlah set kekar
 Kekasaran kekar atau Kekar utama
 Derajat alterasi atau pengisian sepanjang kekar yang paling
lemah
 Aliran air
 Faktor reduksi tegangan

7-89
 Q System

RQD Jr Jw
Q x x
Jn Ja SRF

 RQD = Rock quality designation Jn = Jumlah set kekar

 Jr = Angka kekasaran kekar Ja = Angka alterasi kekar
 Jw = Angka reduksi kondisi air SRF = Faktor reduksi tegangan
 Ukuran blok - (RQD/Jn)
 Kuat geser blok utuh - (Jr/Ja)
 Tegangan aktif - (Jw/SRF)
 Kualitas batuan dapat berkisar dari Q = 0,001 sampai Q = 1000 pada skala logaritmik
kualitas massa batuan.
7-90
 Deskripsi & Nilai Q-Sistem (Barton dkk, 1974)
1. Rock Quality Designation RQD (%)

A. Very poor 0 - 25
B. Poor 25 - 50
C. Fair 50 - 75
D. Good 75 - 90
E. Excellent 90 -100

2. Modified Joint Set Number (Kirsten, 1982) Jn

A. Massive, none or few joints 1.0
B. One joint set / fissure set 1.22
C. One joint set / fissure set / plus random 1.5
D. Two joint sets / fissure set 1.83
E. Two joint sets / fissure set / plus random 2.24 (c) No rock wall contact when sheared
F. Three joint sets / fissure set 2.73 H. Zone containing clay minerals thick
G. Three joint sets / fissure set / plus random 3.34 enough to prevent rock wall contact 1.0b
H. Four joint sets / fissure set 4.09 J. Sandy, gravelly/crushed zone thick enough
J. Multiple joint / fissure set 5.0 1.0b

3. Joint Roughness Number Jr

(a) Rock wall contact and Note :
(b) Rock wall contact before 10 cm shear 1.0 Add 1.0 if the mean spacing of the relevant
A. Discontinuous joint 4.0 joint set is greater than 3 m
B. Rough or irregular, undulating 3.0 2. Jr = 0.5 can be used for planar slickensided
C. Smooth, undulating 2.0 joints the lineations are favorable oriented
D. Slickensided, undulating 1.5
E. Rough or irregular, planar 1.5 .
F. Smooth, planar 1.0
G. Slickensided planar 0.5
3. Descriptions B - G refer to small - scale features & intermediate to prevent rock wall contact scale features in that order. b – nominal 7-91
4. Joint Alteration Number
Ja fr
(a) Rock wall contact

A. Tightly healed, hard, nonsoftening, impermeable filling, i.e., quartz or epidote 0.75
B. Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only 1 25-35o
C. Slightly altered joint walls. Non-softening mineral
coatings, sandy particles, clay-free disintegrated rock, etc. 2 25-30o
D. Silty or sandy clay coatings, small clay fraction (non-softening) 3 20-25o
E. Softening or low-friction clay mineral coatings, i.e., kaolinite, mica. Also chlorite, talc, gypsum,
& graphite, etc., & small quantities of swelling clays (discontinuous coatings, 1-2 mm or less in thickness) 4 8-16o

(b) Rock wall contact before 10 cm shear

F. Sandy particles, clay-free disintegrate rock etc. 4 25-30o
G. Strongly over-consolidated, non-softening clay mineral fillings (continuous, < 5 mm in thickness) 6 16-24o
H. Medium or low over-consolidation, softening, clay mineral fillings (continuous,< 5 mm in thickness) 8 12-16o
J. Swelling clay fillings, i.e., monmorilonite (continuous, < 5 mm in thickness). Value of Ja depends on
percentage of swelling clay sized particles, and acces to water, etc.
8 6-12o
(c) No rock wall contact when sheared
K. Zones or bands of disintegrated or crushed rock & clay (see G., H., J., for description of clay condition) 6-8 or 16-24o
8-12
L. Zones or bands of silty or sandy clay, small clay fraction (nonsoftening) 5.0
M. Thick, continuous zones or bands of clay (see G., H., J., for description of clay condition) 10-13 or
13-20 6-24o
Note : Values of fr are intended as an approximate guide to the mineralogcal properties of the alteration products.

7-92
5. Stress Reduction Factor `SRF

(a) Weakness zones intersecting excavation, which may cause loosening of rock mass when tunnel is excavated
A. Multiple occurences of weakness zonescontaining clay or chemically disintegrated rock,
very loose surrounding rock (any depth) 10.0
B. Single-weakness zones containing clay or chemicallydisintegrated rock (depth of excavation < 50 m) 5.0
C. Single-weakness zones containing clay or chemically disintegrated rock (depth > 50 m) 2.5
D. Multiple-shear zones in competent rock (clay-free), loose surrounding rock (any depth) 7.5
E. Single-shear zones in competent rock (clay-free) & (depth of excavation < 50 m) 5.0
F. Single-shear zones in competent rock (clay-free) & (depth of excavation > 50 m) 2.5
G. Loose open joints, heavily jointed or "sugar cube", etc. (any depth) 5.0

(b) Competent rock, rock stress problems sc/s1 st/s1

H. Low stress, near surface >200 >13 2.5
J. Medium stress 200-10 13-0.66 1.0
K. High-stress, very tight structure (usually favorableto stability, may be
unfavorable to wall stability 10-5 0.66-0.33 0.5-2.0
L. Mild rock burst (massive rock) < 25 < 0.16 10-20

(c) Squeezing rock; plastic flow of incompetent rock under the influence of high rock pressures
N. Mild squeezing rock pressure 5-10
O. Heavy squeezing rock pressure 10-20

(d) Swelling rock: chemical swelling activity depending on presence of water

P. Mild swelling rock pressure 5-10
R. Heavy swelling rock pressure 10-15
Note :
(i) Reduce these SRF values by 25-50% if the relevant shear zones only influence but do not intersect the excavation
(ii) For strongly anisotropic stress field (if measured ) : when 5 < s1/s3 < 10, reduce sc and st to 0.8 sc and 0.8 st; when s1/s3 > 10,
reduce sc and st to 0.6 sc and 0.6 st (where sc = UCS and st = tensile strength (point load), s1 and s3 = major and minor principal
stresses)
7-93
6. Joint Water Reduction Factor
Approx water pressure Jw
(kg/cm2)
A. Dry excavations or minor inflow, i.e., 5 litre/min locally 1.0 <1
B. Medium inflow or pressure occasional outwash of joint fillings 0.66 1.0-2.5
C. Large inflow or high pressure in competent rock with unfilled joints 0.5 2.5-10.0
D. Large inflow or high pressure, considerable outwash of joint fillings 0.33 2.5-10.0
E. Exceptionally high inflow or water pressure at blasting, decaying with time 0.2-0.1 > 10.0
F. Exceptionally high inflow or water pressure continuing w/o noticeable decay 0.1-0.05 > 10.0

Note :
(i) Factors C-F are crude estimates. Increase Jw if drainage measures are installed.
(ii) Special problems caused by ice formation are not considered.
___________________________________________________________________
a After Barton et.al (1974)
b Nominal

7-94
Aplikasi Q System

7-95
 Mining Rock Mass Rating MRMR (Laubscher,
1977)

 Laubscher developed

7-96
Rating for MRMR (Laubscher, 1977)

7-97
Defect Condition Rating for MRMR (Laubscher,
1977)

7-98
 SMR Geomechanics Classification
Application, experience and Validation
Manual Romana, Jose B. Seron, Enrique Montalar - 1985
Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain

 Any classification system has to take account:

 Rock mass global characterization (joints frequency, state & water inflow)
 Differences in strike between slope face & prevalent joints
 Differences between joints dip angle & slope dip angle – as they control the daylight of a joint in
the slope face
 Relationship of joints dip angle with normal values of joint friction (plane & or wedge)
 Relationship of tangential stresses, developed along joint with friction (toppling)
 Slope Mass Rating was developed based on 87 case studies in Valencia and put emphasis at
the plane and toppling failures
 Romana (1985, 1993, 1995) proposed modification in the concept of using the RMR
(Bieniawski, 1983) especially for slope stability.
 Slope Mass Rating (SMR) is obtained by adding adjustment factors which depend on:
 Discontinuity orientation
 Exacavation method
7-99
Plane & Toppling Failures (Hoek & Brey, 1980)

7-100
 Plane Failure

Surface failure

7-101
Toppling Failure

7-102
 Previous Application of RMR to Slopes

 In the 1976 version, the ‘rating adjustments for discontinuity

orientation for slopes were: very favorable 0; favorable —
5; fair — 25; unfavorable — 50; very unfavorable — 60
and no guidelines have been published for the definition of
each class.
 No reference is given by Bieniawski (1984) for the use of the
RMR classification in slopes.The reason for this lack of use
is probably the extremely high values of the ‘adjustment
rating value’ (60 points out of 100).
 Steffen (1978) classified 35 slopes and concluded that ‘the
scope for using classification alone as a design method is
still very limited’. Based on his, the next Figure shows ‘a
definite statistical trend’.
 Orr (1996) introduced the application of RMR or slope
cases, whereas Laubscher (1976), Hall (1985), and Orr
Frecuency distribution of slope stability as pedicted
(1992) proposed relationship between RMR and slope by Hoek´s design charts for the Geomechanics
angles. Classification (RMR) (Steffen [8])
 Robertson (1988) determined that RMR > 40 (stable
slopes), but as RMR < 30 failure of the rock mass can be
expected

7-103
 Slope Mass Rating (SMR)

 The proposed ‘Slope Mass Rating’ (SMR) is obtained from RMR

by subtracting a factorial adjustment factor depending on the
joint—slope relationship and adding a factordepending on the
method of excavation
 SMR = RMR + (F1 . F2 . F3) + F4

7-104
 SMR = RMRB - (F1 x F2 x F3) + F4

 RMRB is calculated using RMR Bieniawski (1989)

 F1 depends on parallelism between joints & slope strikes.
 F2 refers to joint dip angle in the planar mode of failure
 F3 reflects the relationship between slope face and joint dips. In the
planar mode F3 refers to the probability that joints daylight in the slope
face. Conditions are fair when slope dips 10o greater than joints, very
unfavorable can not happen in view of the nature toppling, with very few
sudden failures and may toppled slope standing

as slope dip direction aj /bj

bs slope dip
as joint dip direction
as /bs bs joint dip
7-105
 Very Very un-
Case Condition Favorable Fair Un-favorable
Favorable favorable

P |aj – as|
>300 300-200 200-100 100-50 <50
T |aj – as - 180|

P/T F1 = (1-Sin|aj-as|)2 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00

P |bj| <200 200-300 300-350 350-450 >450

P F2 = tan2bj 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00

T F2 = tan2bj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

P |bj – bs| >100 100-00 00 00-(-100) <-100

T |bj + bs| <1100 1100-1200 >1200 - -

P/T F3 0 -6 -25 -50 -60

Smooth Blasting / Defficient

Method of Excavation Natural slope Presplitting
blasting mechanical blasting

F4 +15 +10 +8 0 -8

7-106
 Adjustment Rating for Joints

The adjustment factor for the method of excavation has been fixed empirically as
follows:
i. Natural slopes are more stable, because of long time erosion & built-in protection
mechanisms (vegetation, crust desiccation, etc.): F4 = + 15.
ii. Presplitting increases slope stability for half a class: F4 = ± 10.
iii. Smooth blasting, when well done, also increases slope stability: F4 = ± 8.
iv. Normal blasting, applied with sound methods, does not change slope stability: F4
= 0.
v. Deficient blasting, often with too much explosive, no detonation timing and/or
nonparallel boles, damages stability: F4 = - 8.
vi. Mechanical excavation of slopes, usually by ripping, can be done only in soft
and/or very fractured rock, and is often combined with some preliminary blasting.
The plane of slope is difficult to finish. The method neither increases nor
decreases slope stability: F4 = 0.
7-107
 Comparison Between Disturbance Effects of
Blasting Methods & F4 (Swindells)

Depth of damaged zone

Excavation Methods No SMR F4
Range (m) Average (m)

Natural Slope 4 0 0 15

Presplit Blasting 3 0-0.6 0.5 10

Smooth Blasting 2 2-4 3 8

Poor Blasting -8

Mechanical Excavation 3 3-6 4 0

GSI = 1,07 RMS – 22,39 (r2 = 0,82)

7-108
 Blasting Methods - Presplitting

 A row of holes is drilled along the final face.

 Each hole is carefully marked in the field.
 Holes must be parallel (to ± 2%).
 Distance between boles is in the order of 50—80 cm.
 Charges are decoupled from blasthole walls, leaving air space.
 Charges are very light.
 Row is fired before the main blast.

7-109
 Blasting Methods - Smooth Blasting

 A row of boles is drilled along the final face.

 Each hole is carefully marked in the field.
 Holes must be parallel (to ± 2%).
 Distance between holes is in the order of 60—100 cm.
 Charges are light.
 Row is fired after the main blast (sometimes using microdelays).
Normal blasting
 Each blast is done according to a previously fixed scheme.
 Each hole is marked in the field.
 Charges are kept to the minimum possible.
 Blast is fired sequentially, using delays or rnicrodelays.

7-110
 Blasting Methods - Deficient Blasting

 The blasting scheme is only a general one.

 Charges are not the minimum possible.
 Blast is not fired sequentially.

If blasting is done nominally in one of these categories but some condition is

not fulfilled use the adjusting factor of the next lower one. Most production
blasts in open pits and quarries are designed to gel maximum fragmentation of
rock debris. Usually they must be rated as ‘deficient’ blasting.

7-111
Partial Parametric Ratings for Joint Conditions
(Romana)

7-112
Groundwater Conditions (ISRM, Romana)

7-113
 Tentative Description of SMR Classes

Class No V IV III II I

SMR 0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100

Desciption Very bad Bad Normal Good Very good

Stability Completely unstable Unstable Partially stable Stable Completely stable

Some joints / many

Failures Big planar / soil like Planar / big wedges Some blocks None
wedges

Support Re-excavation Important/corrective Systematic Occasional None

7-114
SMR Intervals for Different Failure Modes

SMR Plane Failures Wedge Failures

>75 None None
60 – 75 None Some
40 – 55 Big Many
15 – 40 Major No
SMR Toppling Failures Mass Failures
10 - 30 - Possible
>30 None None
30 - 35 Major
50 – 65 Minor

SMR < 10 has not been recorded, would not be physically feasible
SMR < 20 fails very quickly
7-115
Recommended Support Measures for Each
Stability Class

SMR Support System

65 – 100 None, scaling

45 – 70 Fences, net

30 – 75 Bolting, anchoring

20- 60 Shotcrete, concrete

Total wall re-excavation normal in soil slopes, but less
10 - 30 practical in rock slopes, except if the instability mode is
planar through a big continuous joint

SMR 75 -100 : normally no need support measures

SMR 65 : there are stable slopes

7-116
 Geological Strength Index
Estimate of Rock Mass Properties
Marinos P, Hoek E. GSI: a geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation.
In: GeoEng2000, Melbourne, Australia,2000

 The basic input consists of estimates/measurements UCS (ci) & a material constant (mi) that is related to
the frictional properties of the rock. Although ideally, these properties should be determined by laboratory
testing but, from the practicality standpoint the information is required prior to laboratory tests. Thus, to
estimate values for these parameters are given in Tables (Marinos and Hoek, 2000).
 The most important component of the Hoek – Brown system for rock masses is the process of reducing the
material constants ci and mi from their “laboratory” values to appropriate in situ values and this is
accomplished through the Geological Strength Index GSI.
 Careful consideration has been given to the precise wording in each box and to the relative weights
assigned to each combination of structural and surface conditions, in order to respect the geological
conditions existing in nature.
 The GSI system is the only rock mass classification system that is directly linked to engineering parameters
such as Mohr–Coulomb, Hoek–Brown strength parameters or rock mass modulus.
 However, the application of the existing GSI system is hindered by the facts that the use of the system is to
some extent subjective and requires long-term experience.

7-117
 Field estimates of UCS
Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. (1980). Underground excavations in rock.
Hoek & Brown (1980). Empirical strength criterion for rock masses

Schmidt
UCS PLI
Grade Hardness Field Estimate of Strength Examples*
(MPa) (MPa)
(Type L)

R6 Rock material only chipped under

fresh basalt, chert, diabase,
Extremely >250 >10 50-60 repeated hammer blows & geological
gneiss, granite, quartzite
Strong hammer

Requires many blows of a geological Amphibolite, sandstone, basalt,

R5
100-250 4-10 40-50 hammer to break intact rock gabbro, gneiss, granodiorite,
Very Strong
specimens limestone, marble rhyolite, tuff

R4 Hand held specimens broken by a Limestone, marble, phyllite,

50-100 2-4 30-40
Strong single blow of a geological hammer sandstone, schist, shale

R3 Firm blow with geological pick indents

Claystone, coal, concrete, schist.
Medium 25-50 1-2 15-30 rock to 5mm, knife just scrapes
shale, siltstone
Strong surface

R2 Knife cuts material but too hard to

5-25 ** <15 chalk, rock salt, potash
Weak shape into triaxial specimens

Material crumbles under firm blows of

R1
1-5 ** geological pick, can be scraped with highly weathered or altered rock
Very Weak
knife

Extremely
0.25-1 ** Indented by thumbnail clay gouge
Weak

Grade according to Brown (1981) 7-118

Point Load Tests on rocks with UCS below 25 MPa are likely to yield highly ambiguous results
 Values of mi for Intact Rock
Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. (1980). Underground excavations in rock.
Hoek & Brown (1980). Empirical strength criterion for rock masses

7-119
 Values of mi for Intact Rock
Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. (1980). Underground excavations in rock.
Hoek & Brown (1980). Empirical strength criterion for rock masses

7-120
 Notes

 Short-term laboratory tests on very hard brittle rocks tend to overestimate

the in situ rock mass strength.
 Laboratory tests and field studies on excellent quality Lac du Bonnet
granite (Martin and Chandler, 1994) show that the in situ strength of this
rock is only 70% of that measured in the laboratory
 Anisotropic and foliated rocks present particular difficulties in the
determination of the UCS (see intact rock properties)

7-121
7-122
Rock Rock
Mass Rock Mass Description Mass
Type Class

Generally rock mass condition is good,

slightly weathered, medium strong rock.
Rough joints, undulation, joint spacing 0.2 – Good
6m average 2.2 m, ight joints 0.1 – 0.5mm, Rock
Type 1
joints filled with iron oxide. Appearance, RMR:
rock mass is competent and undisturbed 69
although some is disturbed and dominated
with sandstone

Generally rock mass condition is fair,

moderately weathered, medium strong rock.
Fair
Rough joints undulation, joint spacing 0.2 –
Rock
Type 2 5.0 average 1.0m, blocky, tight joints
RMR:
opening 0.1 – 2mm, filled with iron oxide.
59
Some rock mass is disturbed and
dominated with sandstone.

Rock mass condition is poor, highly

weathered, weak rock, very blocky and Poor
fractured. Difficult to assess joint condition Rock
Type 3
because heavyli fractured. Rock mass is RMR:
disturbed. Rock mass is dominated with 30
clay and shale.

Fault zone rock mass, the rock is fractured Very

& very much jointed. Discontinuous joints Poor
Type 4 and layering, obvious slickenside, randomly Rock
folliated. Weak rock and sheared joints are RMR:
obvious in some areas 20
7-123
Example of Parameter Geomechanics Based
on Hoek-Brown (2002)

Rock Bench height

RMR GSI UCS (MPa) mi D C (kPa) f (0)
type (m)
Min: 266.6 Min: 44.1
Min: 10
Type-1 69 65 25.70 17 0.7 Max: 683.0 Max: 58.7
Max: 100
Avg: 490.6 Avg: 49.5
Min: 159.0 Min: 39.8
Min: 10
Type-2 59 55 25.70 17 0.7 Max:525.0 Max: 55.8
Max: 100
Avg: 360.1 Avg: 45.6
Min: 39.0 Min: 18.0
Min: 10
Type-3 30 30 13.75 8 0.7 Max: 150.0 Max: 34.3
Max: 100
Avg: 101.6 Avg: 23.9
Min: 39.0 Min: 18.0
Min: 10
Type-4 20 25 13.75 6 0.5 Max:148.0 Max: 32.8
Max: 100
Avg:100.3 Avg: 22.8

7-124
 Typical properties for a very poor quality hard rock mass
Intack rock strength sci 20 MPa
Hoek-Brown constant mi 8
Geological Strength Index GSI 30
Friction angle f' 24o
Cohesive strength c' 0.55 MPa Typical Rock
Rock mass compressive strength scm 1.7 MPa
Rock mass tensile strength stm -0.01 MPa Data
Deformation modulus Em 1400 MPa
Poisson's ratio n 0.3
Dilatation angle a zero
Post-peak characteristics
Broken rock mass strength scm 38 MPa
Deformation modulus Efm 10000 MPa

Typical properties for a very good quality hard rock mass Typical properties for an average rock mass.
Intack rock strength sci 150 MPa Intack rock strength sci 80 MPa
Hoek-Brown constant mi 25 Hoek-Brown constant mi 12
Geological Strength Index GSI 75 Geological Strength Index GSI 50
Friction angle f' 46o Friction angle f' 33o
Cohesive strength c' 13 MPa Cohesive strength c' 3.5 MPa
Rock mass compressive strength scm 64.8 MPa Rock mass compressive strength scm 13 MPa
Rock mass tensile strength stm -0.9 MPa Rock mass tensile strength stm -0.15 MPa
Deformation modulus Em 42000 MPa Deformation modulus Em 9000 MPa
Poisson's ratio n 0.2 Poisson's ratio n 0.2
Dilatation angle a f'/4 = 11.5o Dilatation angle a f'/8 = 4o
Post-peak characteristics Post-peak characteristics
Cohesive strength ff' 38o Broken rock mass strength scm 8 MPa
7-125
Deformation modulus Efm 10000 MPa Deformation modulus Efm 5000 MPa
 Parameters & Their Influence In Classification Systems
Keynote Lecture. Proc. ISRM EUROCK’2002, Portugal, Madeira, Funchal, 25-28 November 2002. Editors: C. Dinis da Gama & L. Ribeira e
Sousa, Publ.Sociedade Portuguesa de Geotecnia, Av. do Brasil, 101, 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal. pp. 3 – 32.

7-126
Kriteria Hoek-Brown

7-127
 Sifat-Sifat Batuan Utuh

 The relationship between the principal stresses at failure for a given

rock is defined by sci and mi.
 The range of s3’ values is critical.
Hoek & Brown (1980) used 0 < s3’ < 0.5 sci
 At least five data points should be included in the analysis.

7-128
Penentuan of sci and mi

y = mscix + ssci
x = s3’
y = (s1’ – s3’)2

7-129
Determination of sci and mi

7-130
 Estimates of m & s Using GSI
(Hoek, 1994; Hoek et al., 1995)

 mb = mi exp [(GSI – 100)/28]

 For GSI > 25
 s = exp [(GSI-100)/9]
 a = 0.5
 For GSI < 25
 s=0
 a = 0.65 – (GSI/200)

7-131
 Estimates of m & s Using GSI
(Hoek, 1994; Hoek et al., 1995)

 For better quality rock mass (GSI>25), the value of GSI can be
estimated directly from 1976 version of Bieniawski’s RMR with
groundwater rating set to 10 (dry) and adjustment for joint
orientation set to 0 (very favourable).
 Bieniawski’s RMR should not be used for estimating the GSI
values for poor quality rock masses.
 If the 1989 version of Bieniawski’s RMR is used:
 GSI = RMR89’ – 5
 RMR89’ has the groundwater rating set to 15 and the adjustment
for joint orientation set to zero

7-132
What is the GSI of This Rock Mass

Controlled blasting Bulk blasting

7-133
 Estimates of m & s Using GSI
(Hoek et al, 2002)

 mb = mi exp [(GSI – 100)/(28-14D)]

 s = exp [(GSI-100)/(9-3D)]

 D = Disturbance Factor

 a = 1/2 + 1/6 [exp(-GSI/15)-exp(-20/3)]

7-134
 Disturbance Factor, D

Suggested
Appearance or rock mass Description of rock mass
value of D

Excellent quality controlled blasting

or excavation by Tunnel Boring
Machine results in minimal D=0
disturbance to the confined rock
mass surrounding a tunnel.

7-135
 Disturbance Factor, D

Suggested
Appearance or rock mass Description of rock mass
value of D

Mechanical or hand excavation in

poor quality rock masses (no
blasting) results in minimal
disturbance to he surrounding rock D=0
mass.
Where squeezing problems result
in significant floor heave,
disturbance can be severe unless a D = 0.5
temporary invert, as shown in the
photograph, is placed. (no invert)

7-136
 Disturbance Factor, D

Suggested
Appearance or rock mass Description of rock mass
value of D

Very poor quality blasting in a hard

rock tunnel results in severe local
D = 0.8
damage, extending 2 or 3 m, in the
surrounding rock mass.

7-137
 Disturbance Factor, D

Suggested
Appearance or rock mass Description of rock mass
value of D

Small scale blasting in civil

engineering slopes results in D = 0.7
modest rock mass damage, Poor blasting
particularly if controlled blasting is
used as shown on the left hand
side of the photograph. However, D = 1.0
stress relief results in some Good blasting
disturbance.

7-138
 Disturbance Factor, D

Suggested
Appearance or rock mass Description of rock mass
value of D

Very large open pit mine slopes

suffer significant disturbance due to D = 1.0
heavy production blasting and also Production
due to stress relief from overburden blasting
removal.
In some softer rocks excavation D = 0.7
can be carried out by ripping and Mechanical
dozing and the degree of damage excavation
to the slopes is less.

7-139
Mohr-Coulomb Parameters

7-140
Mohr-Coulomb Parameters

7-141
 Penentuan Sudut Lereng

 Abrahams dan Parsons (1987) menganalisisa secara statistika data RMS hasil penelitian
Selby, dengan kisaran besarnya sudut lereng tersebar pada kisaran 55 o hingga 90o, dengan
tinggi lereng tidak lebih dari 40 m. Selain kondisi geometri lereng tersebut, juga membagi
lereng sesuai dengan kondisi geologi yang sama.
 Sudut lerang stabil (derajat) = 2,681 RMS – 141,072
 Persamaan tersebut tidak berlaku untuk massa batuan lunak dan sangat lunak atau atau
RMS < 50.
 Orr (1992) mengusulkan penentuan sudut lereng stabil dengan menggunakan RMR. Adapun
tinggi lereng yang masih valid dengan korelasi ini hingga 50 m, dengan kisaran nilai RMR an
Persamaan penentuan sudut lereng dapat untuk memperkirakan hingga tinggi lereng
mencapai 50 m dengan RMR antara 20 dan 77.
 Sudut lereng = 35 ln (RMR) – 71
 Korelasi antara SMR suatu massa batuan dengan faktor keamanan. Metode ini seperti ini
dijumpai pada metode Chine Slopa Mass rating, CSMR (Chen, 1995). Metode ini diperoleh
dari pengembangan suatu metode diusulkan oleh Collado dan Gili (1988). Metode ini
diterapkan pada tinggi lereng 8 hingga 42 m.
 SMR = 100 – [52.5/(F-0.15)]
7-142
 F adalah faktor keamanan
RMR vs. Slope Angle

7-143
Slope Angle vs.
Slope Height

7-144
 Strength of Intact Rock

 Adequate input data for the strength of intact rock is the uniaxial compressive strength (C0) determined
according to ¡SRM Suggested Methods or any other reliable testing standard.
 However, often it is necessary lo assess strength in the field without the aid of laboratory tests.
 Table 7 has been adapted from ¡SRM ‘Suggested Method for the Quantitative Description of Discontinuities
in Rock Masses’ [13] and can be helpful lo assess the uniaxial compressive strength from manual index
tests performed on rock specimens with a pocket knife and/or geological hammer. Extremely strong rocks
are very rare, and very strong rocks are not common, so in most cases it is only necessary lo assess the
strength of rock in the lower categories, where the parameter values are low and the possible error not too
big. Intact rock strength can be tested in the field with the help of a ‘Schmidt Impact Hammer’ (also known
as a ‘Sclerometer’).
 Haramy and DeMarco [14] have summarized the procedures and results of several authors, concluding that
the test is ‘inexpensive, fast and reliable’ to obtain estimates of compressive strength from core samples,
most of them from NX gauge (55 mm diameter). They mention correlations by Deere (1966) and Beverly
(1979) between the Schmidt rebound index (obtained when holding the hammer vertically downwards) and
uniaxial compressive strength.
 Testing procedures are described in ISRM ‘Suggested Method for Determining Hardness and Abrasiveness
of Rocks’ [15] and ‘Suggested Method for the Quantitative Description of Discontinuities in Rock Masses’
[13].
 In practice most tests on rock outcrops must be done in a horizontal (or near horizontal) direction. In these
conditions the maximum estimated strength will be 60 MPa (for the L type hammer). Strength is lower when
the rock surface is saturated. The average dispersion is 40% of estimated strength (and minimum error
10%).
7-145
 Strength of Intact Rock

i. Use Schmidt hammers: L type for hard rock; R-710 type for soft materials.
ii. Apply the hammer in a direction perpendicular to the wall of specimen being tested.
iii. The test surface must be smooth, flat and free from cracks and discontinuities to a depth
of 6 cm.
iv. Clamp individual specimens to a rigid base.
v. Discard ‘anomalous’ tests, easily detected through lack of rebound and ‘hollow’ sound, or
those causing cracks or visible failure.
vi. Conduct 10 to 20 tests on each series. Test locations should be separated by at least one
diameter of the hammer.
vii. Record the angle of orientation of the hammer. Use the correction curves supplied by the
manufacturer for test results.
viii. Discard the half on the tests giving lower results.
ix. The rebound index is obtained as the mean of the higher half of the results.

7-146
Manual Index Text for Assessing Rock
Strength (ISRM)

7-147
Classification for Wall Weathering (ISRM)

7-148
Partial Parametric Ratings for Joint Conditions
(Romana)

7-149
Groundwater Conditions (ISRM, Romana)

7-150
Case Study SMR

7-151
Slope Angle vs.
Slope Height
McMahon, 1976

7-152
Slope Height vs. Slope Angle (Haines &
Terbrugge, 1991)

7-153
 Daftar Pustaka

 Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K. and Bawden. W.F. 1995. Support of underground excavations in hard rock. Rotterdam: Balkema
 Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Intnl. J. Rock Mech. & Mining Sci. & Geomechanics Abstracts.
34(8), 1165-1186.
 Hoek, E., Marinos, P. and Benissi, M. (1998) Applicability of the Geological Strength Index (GSI) classification for very weak and sheared
rock masses. The case of the Athens Schist Formation. Bull. Engg. Geol. Env. 57(2), 151-160.
 Hoek E. and Brown E.T. 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock . London: Institution of Mining and Metallurgy 527 pages.
 Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1980. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE 106(GT9), 1013-1035
 Hoek, E. 1983. Strength of jointed rock masses, 23rd. Rankine Lecture. Géotechnique 33(3), 187-223. 1988
 Hoek E and Brown E.T. 1988. The Hoek-Brown failure criterion - a 1988 update. Proc. 15th Canadian Rock Mech. Symp. (ed. J.H. Curran),
pp. 31-38. Toronto: Civil Engineering Dept., University of Toronto.\\
 Hoek, E. 1990. Estimating Mohr-Coulomb friction and cohesion values from the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Intnl. J. Rock Mech. & Mining
Sci. & Geomechanics Abstracts. 12(3), 227-229.
 Hoek, E., Wood, D. and Shah, S. 1992. A modified Hoek-Brown criterion for jointed rock masses. Proc. rock characterization, symp. Int.
Soc. Rock Mech.: Eurock ‘92, (J.Hudson ed.). 209-213.\
 Hoek, E. 1994. Strength of rock and rock masses, ISRM News Journal, 2(2), 4-16.
 Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K. and Bawden. W.F. 1995. Support of underground excavations in hard rock. Rotterdam: Balkema
 Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Intnl. J. Rock Mech. & Mining Sci. & Geomechanics Abstracts.
34(8), 1165-1186.
 Hoek, E., Marinos, P. and Benissi, M. (1998) Applicability of the Geological Strength Index (GSI) classification for very weak and sheared
rock masses. The case of the Athens Schist Formation. Bull. Engg. Geol. Env. 57(2), 151-160.
 Hoek, E. and Marinos, P. (2000) Predicting Tunnel Squeezing. Tunnels and Tunnelling International. Part 1 - November Issue 2000,. 45-51,
Part 2 - December, 2000, 34-36.
 Marinos, P.G. and Hoek, E. (2000): "GSI: A geological friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation", Proceedings of the International
Conference on Geotechnical & Geological Engineering (GeoEng 2000), Technomic Publishing Co. Inc., p.p. 1422-1440, Melbourne,
Australia.
 Marinos. P, and Hoek, E. (2001) - Estimating the geotechnical properties of heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch, Bull. Engg. Geol.
Env. 60, 85-92.
 Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C.T., and Corkum, B. (2002), Hoek-Brown failure criterion – 2002 edition. Proc. North American Rock
Mechanics Society meeting in Toronto in July 2002.
7-154
 Daftar Pustaka

 Hoek E. & Brown E.T. 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock . London: Institution of
Mining & Metallurgy 527 pages
 Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. 1980. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J. Geotech.
Engng Div., ASCE 106(GT9), 1013-1035.
 Hoek, E. 1983. Strength of jointed rock masses, 23rd. Rankine Lecture. Géotechnique
33(3), 187-223.
 Hoek E & Brown E.T. 1988. The Hoek-Brown failure criterion - a 1988 update. Proc. 15th
Canadian Rock Mech. Symp. (ed. J.H. Curran), pp. 31-38. Toronto: Civil Engineering Dept.,
University of Toronto
 Hoek, E. 1990. Estimating Mohr-Coulomb friction & cohesion values from the Hoek-Brown
failure criterion. Intnl. J. Rock Mech. & Mining Sci. & Geomechanics Abstracts. 12(3), 227-
229.
 Hoek, E., Wood, D. & Shah, S. 1992. A modified Hoek-Brown criterion for jointed rock
masses. Proc. rock characterization, symp. Int. Soc. Rock Mech.: Eurock ‘92, (J.Hudson
ed.). 209-213.
7-155
 Daftar Pustaka

 Hoek, E. 1994. Strength of rock and rock masses, ISRM News Journal, 2(2), 4-16.
 Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K. & Bawden. W.F. 1995. Support of underground excavations in hard
rock. Rotterdam: Balkema
 Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Intnl. J. Rock
Mech. & Mining Sci. & Geomechanics Abstracts. 34(8), 1165-1186.
 Hoek, E., Marinos, P. & Benissi, M. 1998. Applicability of the Geological Strength Index
(GSI) classification for very weak and sheared rock masses. The case of the Athens Schist
Formation. Bull. Engg. Geol. Env. 57(2), 151-160.
 Hoek, E. & Marinos, P. 2000. Predicting Tunnel Squeezing. Tunnels & Tunnelling
International. Part 1 - November Issue 2000,. 45-51, Part 2 - December, 2000, 34-36.
 Marinos, P.G. & Hoek, E. 2000: "GSI: A geological friendly tool for rock mass strength
estimation", Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical & Geological
Engineering (GeoEng 2000), Technomic Publishing Co. Inc., p.p. 1422-1440, Melbourne,
Australia.
 Marinos. P, & Hoek, E. 2001 - Estimating the geotechnical properties of heterogeneous rock
masses such as flysch, Bull. Engg. Geol. Env. 60, 85-92.
 Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C.T., & Corkum, B. 2002, Hoek-Brown failure criterion – 2002
ed. Proc. North American Rock Mechanics Society meeting in Toronto in July 2002. 7-156