Draft for comments only Doc.

CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024

MANAK BHAVAN, 9 BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI 110002

व्यापक परिचालन मसौदा

हमारा संदर्भः सीईडी 48/टी-31 29 मई 2024

तकनीकी समममत: रॉक मै केनिक्स निषय सनमनि, सीईडी 48

प्राप्तकताभ :

क) नसनिल इं जीनियरी निभाग पररषद् , सीईडीसी के सभी सदस्य

ख) सीईडी 48 के सभी सदस्य
ग) रूनि रखिे िाले अन्य निकाय
प्रिय महोदय/महोदया,

निम्िनलखखि भारिीय मािक का मसौदा संलग्ि है :

प्रलेख संख्या र्शीषक

सीईडी 48 (25742)WC शैल संहति का मात्रात्मक वर्गीकरण िंत्र — तिशातििे श तसद्ांि
भार्ग 1 इं जीतियररं र्ग र्गु णधमो के तिधाारण के तलए शैल संहति रे त ं र्ग
(आर एम आर) का भारिीय मािक मसौिा
[ IS 13365 (भाग 1) का पहला पुनरीक्षण ] ICS 93.020

कृपया इस मािक के मसौदे का अिलोकि करें और अपिी सम्मनियॉ यह बिािे हुए भे जे नक यनद यह मािक
के रूप में प्रकानिि हो िो इस पर अमल करिे में आपके व्यिसाय अथिा कारोबार में क्या कनििाइयााँ आ सकिी हैं ।

सम्मनियॉं भे जिे की अंनिम निनथ : 30 जूि 2024

सम्मनि यनद कोई हो िो कृपया अधोहस्िाक्षरी को उपररनलखखि पिे पर संलग्ि फोमे ट में भे जें या
[email protected] पर ईमेल कर दें ।

यनद कोई सम्मनि प्राप्त िही होिी है अथिा सम्मनि में केिल भाषा सम्बन्धी त्रु नट हुई िो उपरोक्त प्रले ख को
यथािि अंनिम रूप नदया जाएगा। यनद सखम्मि िकिीकी प्रकृनि की हुई निषय सनमनि के अध्यक्ष के परामिश से अथिा
उिकी इच्छा पर आगे की कायशिाही के नलए निषय सनमनि को भे जे जािे के बाद प्रले ख को अंनिम रूप दे नदया जाएगा ।

यह प्रले ख भारिीय मािक ब्यूरो की िैबसाइट www.bis.gov.in पर भी उपलब्ध हैं ।

धन्यिाद ।
भिदीय,

( द्वै पायि भद्र )

प्रमुख (मसमिल इं जीमनयरी)
संलग्िक : उपररनलखखि
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024

MANAK BHAVAN, 9 BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI 110002

DRAFT IN WIDE CIRCULATION

Our Ref: CED 48/T-31 29 May 2024

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: Rock Mechanics
Sectional Committee, CED 48

ADDRESSED TO:

a) All Members of Civil Engineering Division Council, CEDC

b) All Members of CED 48
c) All others interests.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find enclosed the following document:

Doc No. Title

CED 48(25742)WC Draft Indian Standard
Quantitative Classification Systems of Rock Mass — Guidelines
Part 1 Rock Mass Rating (RMR) for Predicting Engineering Properties
[ First Revision of IS 13365 (Part 1) ] ICS 93.020

Kindly examine the draft standard and forward your views stating any difficulties which you
are likely to experience in your business or profession, if this is finally adopted as National Standard.

Last Date for comments: 30 June 2024

Comments if any, may please be made in the attached format and mailed to the undersigned
at the above address or preferably through e-mail to [email protected].

In case no comments are received or comments received are of editorial nature, you may
kindly permit us to presume your approval for the above document as finalized. However, in case of
comments of technical in nature are received then it may be finalized either in consultation with the
Chairman, Sectional Committee or referred to the Sectional Committee for further necessary action
if so desired by the Chairman, Sectional Committee.

The document is also hosted on BIS website www.bis.gov.in.

Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,

( Dwaipayan Bhadra )
Head (Civil Engineering)
Encl: As above
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024

FORMAT FOR SENDING COMMENTS ON BIS DOCUMENTS

(Please use A-4 size sheet of paper only and type within fields indicated. Comments on each
clause/sub-clause/table/fig etc. be started on a fresh box. Information in column 3 should include
reasons for the comments and suggestions for modified working of the clauses when the existing text
is found not acceptable. Adherence to this format facilitates Secretariat’s work) (Please e-mail your
comments to [email protected])

Doc. No.: CED 48(25742)WC

Title: Draft Indian Standard Quantitative Classification Systems of Rock Mass —

Guidelines
Part 1 Rock Mass Rating (RMR) for Predicting Engineering Properties
[ First Revision of IS 13365 (Part 1) ] ICS 93.020

LAST DATE OF COMMENT: 30 June 2024

NAME OF THE COMMENTATOR/ORGANIZATION: _________________________

Sl. No. Clause/Para/Table/ Comments/Modified Justification of the

Figure No. Wordings Proposed Change
Commented
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

DRAFT FOR COMMENTS ONLY

(Not to be reproduced without the permission of BIS or used as an Indian Standard)

Draft Indian Standard

QUANTITATIVE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS OF ROCK MASS — GUIDELINES

PART 1 ROCK MASS RATING (RMR) FOR PREDICTING
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES

[ First Revision of IS 13365 (Part 1) ]

ICS 93.020
______________________________________________________________________________
Rock Mechanics Last date of Comments
Sectional Committee, CED 48 30 June 2024

FOREWORD

(Formal clauses will be added later)

Quantitative classification of rock masses has many advantages. It provides a basis for
understanding characteristics of different groups. It also provides a common basis for
communication besides yielding quantitative data for designs for feasibility studies of project. This
is the reason why quantitative classifications have become very popular all over the world.

Rigorous approaches of designs based on various parameters could lead to uncertain results because
of uncertainties in obtaining the correct value of input parameters at a given site of tunnelling. Rock
mass classifications which do not involve uncertain parameters are following the philosophy of
reducing uncertainties.

This standard (Part 1) covers the procedure for determining the class of rock mass based on
geomechanics classification system, which is also called the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system.
The classification can be used for estimating the unsupported span, the stand-up time and the
support pressures of an underground opening. It can also be used for selecting a method of
excavation and permanent support system. Further, cohesion, angle of internal friction and elastic
modulus of the rock mass can be estimated. Modified RMR can also be used for predicting the
ground conditions for tunnelling.

This standard has been published in four parts. The other parts in the series are:

Part 2 Rock mass quality for prediction of support pressure, support system and
engineering properties in underground openings
Part 3 Determination of slope mass rating
Part 4 Geological strength index (GSI)

This standard (Part 1) was first published in 1998. This revision of the standard has been brought
out based on the experience gained in use of the standard since its last revision. In this revision,
the following major modifications have been mode:

1
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024
a) Minimum value of RQD has been clarified,
b) Equation for support pressure has been improved,
c) SI unit system has been implemented, and
d) Reference of various Indian standard has been updated.

For the purpose of deciding whether a particular requirement of this standard is complied with, the
final value, observed or calculated, expressing the result of a test or analysis shall be rounded off
in accordance with IS 2 : 2022 ‘Rules for rounding off numerical values (second revision)’. The
number of significant places retained in the rounded off value should be the same as that of the
specified value in this standard.

2
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024
Draft Indian Standard

QUANTITATIVE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS OF ROCK MASS — GUIDELINES

PART 1 ROCK MASS RATING (RMR) FOR PREDICTING
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES

( First Revision )

1 SCOPE

This standard (Part 1) covers the procedure for determining the class of rock mass based on
geomechanics classification system, which is also called the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system.
The classification can be used for estimating the unsupported span, the stand-up time and the
support pressures of an underground opening. It can also be used for selecting a method of
excavation and permanent support system. Further, cohesion, angle of internal friction and elastic
modulus of the rock mass can be estimated. Modified RMR can also be used for predicting the
ground conditions for tunnelling.

It is emphasized that recommended correlations should be used for feasibility studies and
preliminary designs only. In-situ tests are essential for final design of important structures.

2 REFERENCES

The standards listed in Annex A contain provisions which through reference in this text, constitute
provisions of this standard. At the time of publication, the editions indicated were valid. All
standards are subject to revision, and parties to agreements based on this standard are encouraged
to investigate the possibility of applying the most recent editions of the standards indicated in
Annex A.

3 PROCEDURE

To apply the geomechanics classification system, a given site should be divided into a number of
geological structural units in such a way that each type of rock mass present in the area is covered.
The following geological parameters are determined for each structural unit:

a) Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock material (IS 8764),

b) Orientation of discontinuities [IS 11315 (Part 1)],
c) Spacing of discontinuities [IS 11315 (Part 2)],
d) Condition of discontinuities [IS 11315 (Part 4)],
e) Ground water condition [IS 11315 (Part 8)], and
f) Rock quality designation [IS 11315 (Part 11)].

3.1 Collection of Field Data

Various geological and other parameters given in 3.1.1 to 3.1.6 should be collected and recorded in
data sheet shown in Annex B.

3
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024
3.1.1 Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Material (𝑞c )

The strength of the intact rock material should be obtained from rock cores in accordance with IS
9143 or IS 8764 as applicable based on site conditions. The ratings based on uniaxial compressive
strength and point load strength are given in Annex B (Item I). However, the use of uniaxial
compressive strength is preferred over that of point load index strength.

3.1.2 Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

Rock quality designation (RQD) should be determined as specified in IS 11315 (Part 11). The
details of rating are given in Annex B (Item II).

Where the rock cores are not available, RQD can be determined with the help of following formula:

RQD = 115 − 3.3 𝐽v

= 100 for 𝐽v < 4.5
where

𝐽v = number of joints per metre cube.

Minimum value of RQD is taken as 10 percent even if it is zero.

3.1.3 Spacing of Discontinuities

The term discontinuity covers joints, beddings or foliations shear zones, minor faults, or other
surfaces of weakness. The linear distance between two adjacent discontinuities should be measured
for all sets of discontinuities. The details of ratings are given in Annex B (Item III).

3.1.4 Condition of Discontinuities

This parameter includes roughness of discontinuity surfaces, their separation, length or continuity,
weathering of the wall rock or the planes of weakness and in filling (gauge) material. The details
of rating are given in Annex B (Item IV). The description of the term used in the classification is
given in IS 11315 (Part 4) and IS 11315 (Part 5).

3.1.5 Ground Water Condition

In the case of tunnels, the rate of inflow of ground water in litre per minute per 10 m length of the
tunnel should be determined, or a general condition can be described as completely dry, damp, wet,
dripping, and flowing. If actual water pressure data are available, these should be stated and
expressed in terms of the ratio of the water pressure to the major principal stress. The latter should
be either measured from the depth below the surface (vertical stress increases with depth at 0.027
MN/m2 per metre of the depth below surface). The details are given in Annex B (Item V).

Rating of above five parameters (see 3.1.1 to 3.1.5) is added to obtain what is called the basic rock
mass rating (RMR basic ).

3.1.6 Orientation of Discontinuities

Orientation of discontinuities means the strike and dip of discontinuities. The strike should be
recorded with reference to magnetic north. The dip angle is the angle between the horizontal and

4
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024
the discontinuity plane taken in a direction in which the plane dips. The value of the dip and the
strike should be recorded as shown in Annex B (Item VI) for each joint set of particular importance
that are unfavourable to the structure. In addition, the orientation of tunnel axis or slope face or
foundation alignment should also be recorded.

The influence of the strike and the dip of the discontinuities is considered with respect to the
orientation of tunnel axis or slope face or foundation alignment. To facilitate the decision whether
the strike and dip are favourable or not, reference should be made to Annex C, Tables C1 and C2,
which give assessment of joint favourability for tunnels and dams foundations respectively. Once
favourability of critical discontinuity is known, adjustment for orientation of discontinuities is
applied as per Item VII of Annex B in earlier obtained basic rock mass rating to obtain RMR.

4 ESTIMATION OF ROCK MASS RATING (RMR)

4.1 The rock mass rating should be determined as an algebraic sum of ratings for all the parameters
given in Items I to VI after adjustments for orientation of discontinuities given in item VII of
Annex B. The sum of Items II to V is called Rock Condition Rating (RCR), which discounts the
effect of compressive strength of intact rock material and orientation of joints. This is also called
as the modified RMR.

4.2 On the basis of RMR values for a given engineering structure, the rock mass should be classified
as very good (rating 100 to 81), good (80 to 61), fair (60 to 41), poor (40 to 21) and very poor
(< 20) rock mass.

4.3 RCR may also be obtained from (𝑄. SRF) value as follows:

RCR = 8 𝑙n (𝑄. SRF) + 30

𝑄. SRF has been named as rock mass number and denoted by 𝑁. By doing so, the uncertainties in
obtaining correct rating of SRF is eliminated as explained below:

𝑄 = (RQD/𝐽n )(𝐽r /𝐽a )(𝐽w /SRF)

or
𝑁 = 𝑄. SRF = (RQD/𝐽n )( 𝐽r /𝐽a ) 𝐽w

It can be seen in above equation that 𝑁 is free from SRF. The RQD, 𝐽n , 𝐽r , 𝐽a and 𝐽w are parameters
as defined in IS 13365 (Part 2).

4.4 In the case of larger tunnels and caverns, RMR may be somewhat less than obtained from drifts.
In drifts, one may miss intrusions of other rocks and joint sets.

4.5 Separate RMR shall be obtained for different orientation of tunnels after taking into account the
orientation of tunnel axis with respect to the critical joint set (Item VI, Annex B).

4.6 Wherever possible, the undamaged face should be used to estimate the value of RMR, since the
overall aim is to determine the properties of the undisturbed rock mass. Severe blast damage may
be accounted for by increasing RMR and RMR basic by 10 to get the RMR value of undisturbed rock
mass.

5
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024
5 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF ROCK MASSES

5.1 The engineering properties of rock masses can be obtained from this classification as given in
Table 1 based on assumptions given in 5.1.1 to 5.1.3. If the rock mass rating lies within a given
range, the value of engineering properties may be interpreted between the recommended range of
properties.

5.1.1 Average Stand-up Time

The stand-up time depends upon effective span of the opening which is defined as size of the
opening or the distance between tunnel face and the adjoining tunnel support, whichever is
minimum (see Fig. 1). For arched openings the stand-up time would be significantly higher than
that for flat roof openings. Controlled blasting will further increase the stand-up time as damage to
the rock mass is decreased.

5.1.2 Cohesion and Angle of Internal Friction

Assuming that a rock mass follows Coulomb criterion, its shear strength will depend upon cohesion
and angle of internal friction. Usually, the strength parameters are different for peak failure and
residual failure conditions.

The values of cohesion for dry rock masses of slopes are likely to be significantly higher.

For underground openings, the values of cohesion will still be higher (see 5.1.5 and 5.1.6) due to
more confinement.

5.1.3 Modulus of Deformation

There are three correlations for determining deformation modulus of rock mass.

5.1.3.1 Figure 2 gives correlations between rock mass rating (RMR) and modulus reduction factor
(MRF), which defined as ratio of modulus of deformation of rock mass (𝐸d ) to elastic modulus of
rock core (see IS 9221). Thus, modulus of deformation of rock mass be determined as product of
modulus of elasticity of rock core (𝐸r ) and modulus reduction factor corresponding to rock mass
rating from the equation below (for hard jointed rock).

𝐸d = 𝐸r . MRF

The correlation for MRF is shown in Fig. 2.

5.1.3.2 There is an approximate correlation between modulus of deformation and rock mass rating
for hard rock masses (𝑞c ≥ 50 MPa).

𝐸d = 2 × RMR − 100, in GPa

or
𝐸d = 10(RMR−10)/40 , in GPa (for all values of RMR)

These correlations are shown in Fig.3.

For dry soft rock masses (𝑞𝑐 < 50 MPa) modulus of deformation is dependent upon confining
pressure due to overburden.

6
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024

𝐸d = 0.3𝑧 α 10(RMR−20)/38, in GPa;

𝛼 = 0.16 to 0.30 (higher for poor rocks); and
𝒵 = depth of location under consideration below ground surface in metres (for depths
50 m).

The modulus of deformation of poor rock masses with water sensitive minerals decreases
significantly after saturation and with passage of time after excavation. For design of dam
foundations, it is recommended that uniaxial jacking tests with bore hole extensometers, wherever
feasible, should be conducted very carefully soon after the excavation of drifts particularly for poor
rock masses in saturated condition.

5.1.4 Allowable Bearing Pressure

Allowable bearing pressure is also related to RMR and may be estimated as per IS 12070.

5.1.5 In stability analysis of rock slopes, strength parameters are needed in cases of rotational slides.
The same may be obtained from RMR parameters which is sum of rating of Items I to IV of Annex
B. The seepage condition should be considered in the analysis. The same strength parameters are
also applicable in case of wedge sliding along discontinuous joint sets (see 5.1.6 and Table 2).
However, it would be better if strength parameters are obtained from back analysis of distressed
slopes in similar rock conditions near the site.

5.1.6 Shear Strength of Jointed Rock Masses

𝜏n = 𝐴 (𝜎n + 𝑇)𝐵
= 0 if 𝜎n < 0

where

𝜏n = 𝜏/𝑞c ,
𝜎n = 𝜎/𝑞c ,
𝑞c = mean uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock material, and
𝐴, 𝑇, 𝐵 = constants.

In case of underground openings, the increase in strength occurs due to limited freedom of fracture
propagation in openings than that in block shear test. Another reason for strength enhancement is
that the in-situ stress along the axis of tunnels and caverns prestresses rock wedges both in roof and
walls. The mobilised uniaxial compressive strength of rock mass may be estimated from the
following correlations for tunnels and caverns:

𝑞c mass = 7𝛾 𝑄1/3 in MPa ; 𝑄 ≤ 10 ; 𝐽w = 1; 𝑞c < 100 MPa

tan ∅ = 𝐽r /𝐽a ≤ 1.5

7
 Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024
Table 1 Engineering Properties of Rock Mass
(Clause 5.1)

Item Rock Mass Rating 100 to 81 80 to 61 60 to 41 40 to 21 < 20

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 Class I II III IV V
2 Classification of rock mass Very good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
3 Average stand-up time 10 years 6 months for 8 1 week for 5 10 h for 30 min for 1
for 15 m span m span m span 2.5 m span m span
4 Cohesion of rock mass1) > 0.4 0.3 to 0.4 0.2 to 0.3 0.1 to 0.2 < 0.1
(MPa)
5 Angle of internal friction > 45° 35 to 45° 25 to 35° 15 to 25° 15°
of rock mass1)
1)
Values are also applicable for saturated rock masses in slopes

FIG. 1 STAND-UP TIME V/S UNSUPPORTED SPAN AS PER ROCK MASS RATING

8
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024

FIG. 2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RMR AND MODULUS REDUCTION FACTOR

where

𝛾 = unit weight of rock mass in g/cc,

𝑄 = rock mass quality [IS 13365 (Part 2)],
𝐽r = joint roughness number, and
𝐽a = joint alteration number.

5.1.7 Estimation of Support Pressure

The short-term support pressures for arched underground openings in both squeezing and non-
squeezing ground conditions may be estimated from the following empirical correlation in the case
of tunnelling by conventional blasting method using steel rib supports:

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑓 = 7.5 𝐵 0.1 𝐻 0.5 − RMR/20 RMR, in MPa

where

𝐵 = span of opening in metres,

𝐻 = overburden or tunnel depth in metres (> 50 m), and
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑓 = short term roof support pressure in MPa.

The support pressures estimated from Q-system [IS 13365 (Part 2)] are more reliable if Stress
Reduction Factor (SRF) is correctly obtained.

5.1.8 Prediction of Tunnelling Conditions

9
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024

Ground conditions for tunnelling can be predicted by using the following correlations (see Fig. 4):

Sl No. Ground Condition Correlations

(1) (2) (3)

i) Self-supporting 𝐻 < 23.4 𝑁 . 𝐵 −0.1 and 1 000 𝐵 −0.1
0.88

ii) Non-squeezing 23.4 𝑁 0.88 𝐵 −0.1 < 𝐻 < 275 𝑁 0.33 𝐵 −0.1
iii) Mild squeezing 275 𝑁 0.33 𝐵 −0.1 < 𝐻 < 450 𝑁 0.33 𝐵 −0.1
iv) Moderate squeezing 450 𝑁 0.33 𝐵 −0.1 < 𝐻 < 630 𝑁 0.33 𝐵 −0.1
v) High squeezing 𝐻 > 630 𝑁 0.33 𝐵 −0.1

In the above correlations, 𝑁 is the rock mass number, as defined in 4.3. 𝐻 is the overburden in
metres and 𝐵 is the tunnel width in metres.

6 PRECAUTIONS

It must be ensured that double accounting for parameters should not be done in analysis of rock
structures and rating of rock mass. If pore water pressure is being considered in analysis of rock
structures, it should not be accounted for in RMR. Similarly, if orientation of joint sets is considered
in stability analysis of rock structures, the same should not be accounted for in RMR.

NOTE – For the purpose of eliminating doubts due to individual judgements, the rating for different
parameters should be given a range in preference to a single value.

FIG. 3 CORRELATION BETWEEN THE IN-SITU MODULUS OF DEFORMATION AND

THE GEOMECHANICS CLASSIFICATION (ROCK MASS RATING (RMR)
FOR HARD ROCKS (1 GPa = 10 000 kg/cm2).

10
 Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024

Table 2 Recommended Mohr Envelops for Joined Rock Masses

(Clause 5.1.5)
𝜏 𝜎
𝜏n = 𝑞 , 𝜎n = 𝑞 ; 𝜎 in kg/cm2 ; 𝜏 = 0 if 𝜎 < 0
c c

𝑆 = degree of saturation [average value of degree of saturation is shown by 𝑆av ]

= l, for completely saturated rock mass

Rock Type Quality Limestone Slate, Xenolith, Phyllite Sandstone, Quartzite Trap, Metabasic
0.669 0.683 0.683
Good Rock Mass 𝜏n (nmc) = 0.38 (𝜎n + 0.005) 𝜏n (nmc) = 0.42 (𝜎𝑛 + 0.004) 𝜏n (nmc) = 0.44 (𝜎n + 0.003) 𝜏n (nmc) = 0.50 (𝜎n + 0.003)0.698
RMR = 61 to 80 [𝑆av = 0.30]
𝑄 = 10 to 40 𝜏n (sat) = 0.35 (𝜎n + 0.004)0.669 𝜏n (sat) = 0.38 (𝜎n + 0.003)0.683 𝜏n (sat) = 0.43 (𝜎n + 0.002)0.695 𝜏n (sat) = 0.49 (𝜎n + 0.002)0.698
[𝑆 = 1] [𝑆 = 1] [𝑆 = 1] [𝑆 = 1]
Fair Rock Mass 𝜏n (nmc) = 2.60 (𝜎 + 1.25)0.662 𝜏n (nmc) = 2.75 (𝜎 + 1.15)0.675 𝜏n (sat) = 2.85 (𝜎 + 1.10)0.688 𝜏n (nmc) = 3.05(𝜎 + 1.00)0.691
RMR = 41 to 60 [𝑆 = 1] [𝑆av = 0.25] [𝑆av= 0.15] [𝑆av = 0.35]
𝑄 = 2 to 10 𝜏n (sat) = 1.95 (𝜎 + 1.20)0.662 𝜏n (sat) = 2.15 (𝜎 + 1.10)0.675 𝜏n (sat) = 2.25 (𝜎 + 1.05)0.688 𝜏n (sat) = 2.45 (𝜎 + 0.95)0.691
[𝑆 = 1] [𝑆 = 1] [𝑆 = 1] [𝑆 = 1]
Poor Rock Mass 𝜏n (nmc) = 2.50 (𝜎 + 0.80)0.646 𝜏n (nmc) = 2.65 (𝜎 + 0.75)0.655 𝜏n (nmc) = 2.85 (𝜎 + 0.70)0.672 𝜏n (nmc) = 3.00 (𝜎 + 0.65)0.676
RMR = 21 to 40 [𝑆av = 0.20] [𝑆av = 0.40] [𝑆av = 0.25] [𝑆av = 0.15]
𝑄 = 0.5 to 2 𝜏n (sat) = 1.50 (𝜎 + 0.75)0.646 𝜏n (sat) = 1.75 (𝜎 + 0.70)0.655 𝜏n (sat) = 2.00 (𝜎 + 0.65)0.672 𝜏n (sat) = 2.25 (𝜎 + 0.50)0.676
[𝑆 = 1] [𝑆 = 1] [𝑆 = 1] [𝑆 = 1]
Very Poor Rock Mass 𝜏n (nmc) = 2.25 (𝜎 + 0.65)0.534 𝜏n (nmc) = 2.45 (𝜎 + 0.60)0.539 𝜏n (nmc) = 2.65 (𝜎 + 0.55)0.546 𝜏n (nmc) = 2.90 (𝜎 + 0.50)0.548
RMR < 21 𝜏n (sat) = 0.80 (𝜎)0.534 𝜏n (sat) = 0.95 (𝜎)0.539 𝜏n (sat) = 1.05 (𝜎)0.546 𝜏n (sat) = 1.25 (𝜎)0.548
𝑄 = < 0.5 [𝑆 = 1] [𝑆 = 1] [𝑆 = 1] [𝑆 = 1]

11
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024

FIG. 4 CRITERIA FOR PREDICTING GROUND CONDITIONS USING ROCK NUMBER,

TUNNEL DEPTH AND TUNNEL WIDTH.

12
 Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024
ANNEX A
(Clause 2)

LIST OF REFERRED INDIAN STANDARDS

IS No. Title

IS 8764 : 1998 Method of determination of point load strength index of rocks (first revision)
IS 9143 : 1979 Method for the determination of unconfined compressive strength of rock
material
IS 9221 : 1979 Method for the determination of modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio of
rock materials in uniaxial compression
IS 11315 Method for the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock mass:
(Part 1) : 2023 Orientation (first revision)
(Part 2) : 2023 Spacing (first revision)
(Part 4) : 2023 Roughness (first revision)
(Part 5) : 2023 Wall strength (first revision)
(Part 8) : 2023 Seepage (first revision)
(Part 11) : 2023 Core recovery and rock quality designation (first revision)
IS 12070 : 1987 Code of practice for design and construction of shallow foundation on rocks
IS 13365 (Part 2) : Quantitative classification systems of rock mass – Guidelines: Part 2 Rock
2019 mass quality for prediction of support pressure, support system and
engineering properties in underground openings (first revision)

13
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024
ANNEX B
(Clauses 3.1, 4.1 and 5.1.5)

DATA SHEET FOR GEOMECHANICAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROCK MASSES (RMR)

Name of project ……………… Location of site …………………

Survey conducted by ……….. Date …………………………….
Type of rock mass unit ……… Origin of rock mass…………….

The appreciate rating may be encircled as per site conditions.

I STRENGTH OF INTACT ROCK MATERIAL (MPa)

Compressive Strength Point Load Strength Rating

Exceptionally strong > 250 >8 15

Very strong 100 to 250 4 to 8 12
Strong 50 to 100 2 to 4 7
Average 25 to 50 1 to 2 4
Weak 10 to 25 Use of uniaxial compressive 2
Very weak 2 to 10 strength is preferred 1
Extremely weak <2 0

II ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD)

RQD Rating

Excellent 90 to 100 20
Good 75 to 90 17
Fair 50 to 75 13
Poor 25 to 50 8
Very Poor 0 to 25 3

III SPACING OF DISCONTINUITIES

Spacing, m Rating

Very wide >2 20

Wide 0.6 to 2 15
Moderate 0.2 to 0.6 10
Close 0.06 to 0.2 8
Very close < 0.06 5

NOTE – If more than one set of discontinuity are present and the Spacing of discontinuities of each set varies,
consider the set with lowest rating.

IV CONDITION OF DISCONTINUITIES

Very rough and un- Rough and slightly Slightly rough and Slickensided wall rock 5 mm thick soft
weathered wall rock, weathered wall rock moderately to highly surface or 1-5 mm thick gauge 5 mm wide
tight and surface, separation < weathered wall rock gauge or 1-5 mm wide continuous
discontinuous, no 1 mm surface, separation < opening, continuous discontinuity
separation 1 mm discontinuity
Rating 30 25 20 10 0

14
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024

V GROUND WATER CONDITION

Inflow per 10 m tunnel length, (litre/min) none < 10 10-25 25-125 > 125
Joint water pressure/major principal stress 0 0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.5 > 0.5
General description Completely dry Damp Wet Dripping Flowing
Rating 15 10 7 4 0

VI ORIENTATION OF DISCONTINUTIES

Orientation of tunnel/slope/foundation axis….

Set 1 Average strike ………. (from….. to…..) Dip……..

Set 2 Average strike ………. (from….. to…..) Dip……..
Set 3 Average strike ………. (from….. to…..) Dip……..

VII ADJUSTMENT FOR JOINT ORIENTATION (see Annex C)

Strike and dip orientation Very Favourable Fair Unfavourable Very

of joints for favourable unfavourable
Tunnels 0 –2 –5 – 10 – 12
Raft foundation slopes 0 –2 –7 – 15 – 35
Slopes Use slope mass rating (𝑆𝑀𝑅) as per IS 13365 (Part 3)

15
Draft for comments only Doc. CED 48 (25742)WC
May 2024
ANNEX C
(Clause 3.1.6)

ASSESSMENT OF JOINT FAVOURABILITY FOR TUNNELS

AND DAMS FOUNDATIONS

Table C1 Assessment of Joint Orientation Favourability in Tunnels

(Dips are Apparent Dips along Tunnel Axis)
(Clause 3.1.6)

Strike Perpendicular to Tunnel Axis Strike Parallel to Tunnel Irrespective

Axis or Strike
Drive with Dip Drive Against Dip

Dip45°-90 Dip 20°-45 Dip 45°-90 Dip 20°-45 Dip 20°-45° Dip 45°-90° Dip 0°- 20°
Very favourable Favourable Fair Unfavourable Fair Very Fair
unfavourable

Table C2 Assessment of Joint Orientation Favourability for

Stability or Raft Foundation
(Clause 3.1.6)

Dip

0° -10° 10°-30° 30°- 60° 60°- 90°

Dip Direction

Upstream Downstream
Very favourable Unfavourable Fair Favourable Very unfavourable

16