Applicability of Classifications for Tunnelling Valuable for Improving Insight,

but Problematic for Contractual Support Definition or Final Design.

T. G. Carter1
Golder Associates, Toronto, Canada

Rock Mass Classifications have been applied worldwide since the 1940s and nowadays form the backbone for empirical design approaches for rock tunnelling [1]. Singh and Goel [2] in the introduction to their
book on classifications quote Lord Kelvins philosophy as almost a justification for why classifications
developed and why they are still so necessary in rock engineering viz. "When you can measure what
you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you cannot
measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory
kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts, advanced to the
stage of science." This statement, however, lies at the heart of the continuing problem that has plagued
applicability of rockmass classifications to tunnelling that geological conditions vary and thus cannot be
reliably and repeatably quantified in numeric terms. Hence, because of this imprecision there continues to
be a disconnect between prediction and reality (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Characteristic mismatch between classification-based predictions and as-encountered

conditions. Tunnel support class predicted and mapped data on the left, and design strength estimate
predictions and field data on the right, (9 classifications, 11 observers from Edelbro et al., 2007) [3] .
This disconnect is not solely related to uncertainty and inaccuracy in the degree to which prescriptive
characterization of natural variability in actual geology can be achieved. Some uncertainty arises because
of ambiguous parameter definition. This to some degree is tractable by statistical evaluation [4]. Some
though arises due to differences in observer perspective, and this is much more difficult to resolve
(particularly when classification values have contractual significance). This divergence of opinion
oftentimes is taken as true differences in fact, and frequently then forms the basis for claims. Partly as a
result of this, tunnel contracting has moved progressively towards use of Geotechnical Baseline Reports
(GBRs) and risk sharing contract language [5]. GBRs however have not proved to be a panacea to
solving the fundamental disconnect. As a consequence there still remains a need to solve this problem
(i) ideally, by completely divorcing classifications from being tied directly to contract payments and (ii) by
returning them to their original and most useful role as aids to preliminary design where they have real
value for improving insight and understanding of likely tunnelling rockmass conditions and variability.

Proc. World Tunnelling Conference (WTC 2010), 36th ITA Congress. Vancouver, Paper 00401, Session 6c

1. Background
The progression from the first real tunnel design-related classifications of the 1940s and 50s [6][7],
through introduction of RQD in the 60s and development in the mid-70's of Q and RMR [8][9] with links
to the Hoek-Brown failure criterion [10] in the early 80s led to a maturity of rock mass characterization
use by the 1990s [1][4]. This however, marked the emergence of an unfortunate trend away from real
geological description to more a pursuit of numerical value data per se. As a consequence, through the
1980s and early 90s numerous adaptations and modifications to the original classifications appeared in
the literature some aimed at mining [11][12][13], some aimed at surface slopes [14][15], and some
aimed at application to TBMs [16][17][18]. In some cases these adaptations just added complexity which
only served to widen credibility gaps.
2. Classifications for Design
GSI was introduced in the mid 90s complete with a series of charts for aiding its use. Although much
more descriptive than the other classification systems, over the last decade it has nevertheless become
the defacto standard for categorizing rockmass quality for input into most continuum numerical analysis
codes [19]. An opposite trend, to a more quantitative approach, has continued in parallel though, mainly
based on utilizing the sub-parameters from the Q system for defining input variables for application to
individual fractures within discrete element models [20].
From the rockmass classification perspective though, industry has remained reluctant to completely
abandon numerically-based classifications. In fact, over the last decade the numeric classifications have
become even more entrenched, partly because of Palm and tablet style data entry and partly due to their
increasing use in a contractual framework for compilations within Geotechnical Data and Baseline
Reports, [5][21][22][23]. The RMi system, has tended this way, differing markedly from the GSI approach,
by attempting to more prescriptively define key parameters numerically. However, practitioners have
found this system very complex to use, thus it has not gained as widespread an acceptance as the other
systems. Unfortunately, also in concert with its introduction it spawned a rather disputatious series of
papers, workshops and articles discussing which classification and which input parameters were the most
reliable [24][25][26][27][30]. This discussion, and the ongoing need for quantification of the divergence
between classifications, in parallel, also fostered a plethora of correlation papers [28][29][31][32][33][34].
Most of these papers looked at the overall classifications, but some examined more specific parameter
differences, viz RQD/Jn versus Block Size [35][36].
Correlations with GSI, because of its more qualitative input have been more difficult. Nevertheless,
several attempts have been made to develop a quantitative GSI chart, (ref. Figure 2 right side lower
diagrams). This is an ironic twist as this was exactly what GSI was originally set up to avoid
prescriptive codings. Nevertheless, there does appear to be some merit in this approach, as these
nomogram charts still allow a graphical smudge to be drawn defining actual, field-observed rockmass
quality variability. Their introduction is important also because it marks an industry recognition that
rockmass classification for design should not end up with a single value number but rather should be
defined as a spread or range [4]. This speaks also to an ongoing problem of support definition using
classifications in practice and to the significant difference between applicability in blocky ground (Classes
I to III typically) and ground with low stability (Classes IV to VI). For the latter, it is often difficult at the
tunnel face (or even worse through a TBM port) to get much understanding of the structure and
composition of the rockmass. Arguably, the more numeric classification systems may in fact be
inappropriate for these conditions, particularly if practitioners adopt only a single value number estimate
for such complicated rock masses [30][36].
The left side chart on Figure 2, provides a probabilistically contoured combined GSI and Q nomogram in
the same style as the nomograms included in the right side lower diagrams, but structured to provide a
more practical basis for improving observer repeatability, in much the same way as has been done for
decades by statistically contouring stereonets to better define joint sets. Because observer repeatability
can be improved by use of such contoured plots, the chart in Figure 2 has the potential also for helping
resolve some of these definition difficulties, while also at the same time, addressing many of the
contractual problems of using single value classification numbers in GBRs.

The curves across the chart in Figure 2 relate block volume, characterizing rockmass brokenness,
plotted using the RMi parameter Vb, correlated with the Q-system quotient RQD/Jn based on regression
of Palmstrms 1995 plot (viz. RQD/Jn =((5 + log(Vb))^1.75),[36]) to Jr/Ja from the Q system, (a crude
measure of shear strength) and the RMR76 Joint Condition parameter; Cj, related one to the other
through Jr/Ja = e^{(Cj -17.186)/4.5458}. In the plot, the RMR Joint Condition parameter has been chosen
for the x-axis as it incorporates descriptors that (a) provide a well defined scale that reflects shear
strength and (b) includes terms that define joint continuity, and hence address rock bridge conditions in a
way that no other classification descriptor currently captures well. The main Q and GSI curves were
then plotted across the chart on Figure 2 on the basis of correlations between the two principal Q-system
quotients RQD/Jn and Jr/Ja, respectively reflecting block volume and shear strength [9][37][44]. These
were then linked to GSI (RMR76) by the well known correlation RMR=9ln(Q) + 44, as this relationship,
despite numerous others having been published, appears to have stood the test of time,[31][45]

Figure 2 Probabilistic Hoek-Marinos GSI Chart (left diagram) and alternative nomograms (lower right) [15][34][39] allowing description of central range of rock competence for Hoek-Brown parameter definition
(top right diagram) [42], with Joint Condition and Block Size based on Q, RMR and RMi correlations.
In keeping with the original formulation of the GSI chart, Q and GSI (=RMR76) within the relationships
used to develop the chart assume no water pressure influence or stress reduction effects, ie., Jw=1, dry
and SRF=1, normal conditions. With the RMR water parameter term set to dry (=10) and no orientation
derating adjustment used, there is equivalence also between the RMR76 values and the original data
entry scales for GSI [43]. While these refinements are helpful for clarification of rock quality for improving
insight regarding rockmass variability, it must be borne in mind that such charts should be considered
merely the starting point for undertaking more rigorous design using derived Hoek-Brown parameters
suitable for the rock conditions of concern [42].
3. Classifications for Payment
The divergence of classifications each from each other, and the whole issue of quantifying classification
differences becomes even more thorny when they are to be used as part of contractual bid documents.
Classifications, since their inception, have been heavily utilized in both civil and mining construction, but
with one profound difference, certainly in North America the legalistic framework in which they have
been applied. In the mining industry they are routinely utilized to describe rockmass conditions for
optimizing implementation of a mining methodology, [12][13] and rarely are they used in any context
where the parameter values have legal payment overtones. In civil practise, by contrast, the main use of
classifications, other than for generating understanding for design is for support or excavation class

definition,[29] which inevitably ties them to payment aspects of the civil contract. In fact, this has long
been recognized as one of the major benefits of classifications that they could be used for assessing
geology and rockmass quality along a planned tunnel route. Their use in this role [40] and as a basis, also
in general terms, for zoning a tunnel for assessment of project costs is appropriate, but not without
pitfalls. The advent of Geotechnical Baseline Reports and Geotechnical Data Reports, [5][21][22] is at last
seen as a serious attempt by the construction industry to orchestrate a way of using classifications to
advantage whilst minimizing potential contractual claim situations by various risk-sharing measures [23].
This however has not removed the observational problems inherent in their application.
Use of multiple classifications and hand sketched histogram plotting of key parameters, although
advocated for years [4][37] still seems a rarity. Graphic plotting of a smudge on a GSI chart, such as
Figure 2, can however help address some of the major contractual problems with classifications, by
forcing improvements in consistency. This has the potential to resolve one of the main dispute problems
in a contractual framework, namely the inability of two observers to precisely define the same specific
numerical values for a given classification parameter when there are contractual overtones. The move to
more and more EPC styles of contracting has exacerbated this problem in that there are often now three
parties involved in defining a rock class for payment purposes the Owners geologist, the Contractors
geologist and the Contractors Design Engineers geologist. This means that three interpretations could
result as each might have some degree of bias in what he or she wishes to describe with respect to the
observed face condition. As an example of the possibilities for classification differences having direct
contractual payment significance, explore the data in Table 1, below

Table 1 Classification mismatch problems resulting from subjective observational differences

In this table it can be seen that there are only minor differences in individual parameter definitions viz all
three observers are assessing that the RQD likely is from 70-80%, with the bottom of the range picked by
one observer and the top picked by another in this case observing that face conditions were degraded
due to blasting damage. Similarly, the number of controlling joint sets defined by each observer also
differs only by one class division but again depends on a subjective assessment of the face and
appreciation of possible excavation damage enhancement to rockmass fracturing. In the adjustments
segment of the table, again only one division difference in stress and orientation factors is evident in the
definitions arguably also in this case all within the range that could be considered appropriate.
Nevertheless all these small subjective differences mount up and the end result is that the same tunnel
face in this situation is classified with three different support categories.

4. Back-Analysis for Benchmarking Classifications

While classifications can be helpful for gaining insight [4][40], they should not be applied with their
attendant support charts as the sole method for defining what support should be utilized. The final
decision about what support is needed depends on actual tunnel conditions [28][29][33][26] and as such
should be decided based on careful evaluation of any local stability problems, which demands
implementing appropriate support. Blindly following rockmass classification predictions is not sensible,
neither is blindly spraying shotcrete as this often merely hides kinematic problems not solves them.

Figure 3; Bieniawski [45] and Franklin & Palassi [47] stand-time charts showing back-analysis for 6m
span heading for 24hr and 1 month unsupported span times. ( NOTE: Inset diagram from Lauffer, 1958
defines unsupported span to face for use of curves to be assumed as tunnel span at maximum value).
Some estimates and checks of actual rock mass quality can however be made by back-analyzing
convergence data, using numerical modelling approaches or more simply based on comparison of
behaviour back to Lauffers or Bieniawskis stand time graphs, [8][7][45] or to the more recently published
Franklin and Palassi [47] stand-time chart as shown on the right of Figure 3. In fact, such charts provide
a powerful and effective means for calibrating and back-analyzing field rockmass classification accuracy.

Figure 4: Tunnelling Case Record Stand-time Data compared with Mining Crown Pillar Data
(from Carter & Miller, 1996 [48]). Note: Two clear data trends, the crowns reflecting longevity from
ravelling, and the tunnelling cases showing immediate roof fall behaviour with the vertical spread
between the tunnelling and mining data likely reflecting differences in underground span dimensions.

Application of these simple checks might help restrain wide divergence from reality in different observers
field determinations of rockmass quality, and help diminish the problems illustrated earlier in Table 1.
Figure 4 in fact illustrates how easily time to spalling and a crude assessment of rockmass behaviour
can be established, thus allowing such charts to be used as a diagnostic indicator of classification
reliability. Two zones are highlighted in the chart on the left of Figure 4 a zone with RMRs > 80, Qs
>100 (coloured blue) where the two data trends coalesce, to the right of which very long term stability
seems assured. Open excavations of considerable span can be made in these types of rock without need
for support (ref. upper right photo), although, these days, for health and safety protocol reasons, a
minimum nominal support would often be stipulated. The second rock quality, (shown in orange) for an
RMR of about 20, Q<0.1 exhibits instant spalling, and if unsupported will freely cave ultimately reaching
surface if left unrestrained (ie., sufficient void space exists for the rubble to fall into). This is the design
basis for a classic caving mine [11]. It is also the design basis for crown pillar dimensioning [49].
5. Conclusions
Two main observations arise from the foregoing discussions:
(1) Mining industry experience suggests that conceptually nothing is fundamentally wrong with the four
principal classifications, (Q, GSI, RMR, or RMi), for design application, especially if multiple classification
use is adopted around a probabilistic graphical chart, such as shown in Figure 2.
(2) Rather, the problem with classification misuse seems to be mostly confined to civil contract works,
mainly as a consequence of their being tied to contract payment terms.
Invariably, given the nuances of payment arrangements in many contracts, experience shows that, almost
irrespective of which classification is used, individual parameter selection can be curiously manipulated to
maintain consistency of perceived geological description suitable for the observers contractual
perspective. When checked against more quantifiable rockmass performance behaviour by
extensometers, by convergence arrays and/or by back-analysis modelling, these cases can show a clear
disconnect. As illustrated by the graphic photos of 100 year old stopes in Figure 4, real openings behave
in a way that can be checked by a variety of means. In the mining industry, classifications are used
extensively and frequently form the sole basis for opening design. For example, using the Mathew's
method [12][13] for stope design the first thing that is calculated is N, defined as the first two quotients of
Q = RQD/Jn x Jr/Ja. Here, because the mining engineer is interested in actually developing stopes which
are just on the margin of stability in order to maximise ore recovery while at the same time controlling
dilution (sloughing from sidewalls and crown), rockmass quality definition must be very precise and very
close to reality or designs are not economic. Back-analysis checking even using sophisticated modelling
of stope geometry combined with mine site observation of rockmass behaviour and instrumented data,
(with inclusion of cable bolting and other support) suggests good conformance of observed rockmass
quality with classification data. This again reinforces the argument that classifications per se are not the
problem, it is their application and misuse in a contractual context that is the real issue.
It is patently obvious, therefore, that some resolution of this problem is needed, mainly on the application
side. In addition, contract arrangements and practitioner mapping reliability both need to be enhanced if
classifications are to continue to be used within GBRs and GDRs for defining base case rock conditions
and deviations therefrom. To resolve the contractual problem it seems that more reliance on third party
evaluation is needed right from project initiation. In at least two recent cases one in S.America and one
in N.America, the concept of an independent adjudicator role has been introduced. Here, instead of the
Owner's engineer or the Contractor's engineer defining the classification at the face, a fully independent
geological engineering organization or individual, funded 50% by the Contractor and 50% by the Owner,
defines the classifications in the tunnel on a daily round-by-round basis, where these are to be used as
payment terms; and both parties must accept the defined classification. In one of these cases, for
administrative purposes, the independent geological engineering group is under contract to the main
Contractor, in the other case the group has been contracted through the Owner. In both cases strict rules
have been agreed by all parties regarding mapping procedures as the tunnel is advanced. In addition,
specific mapping sheets have been developed with a format that has also been agreed by all parties.
These mapping sheets typically include a comprehensive face and crown map sketch and have been
developed to attempt to also address the second issue namely that of the significant divergences in
classification of a given rock mass by different individual observers. In the mapping sheets multiple

classification parameter entry data has been incorporated (predominantly RMR and Q listings, and in the
one case also including a GSI chart). Sufficient detail is then plotted on these sheets that anyone can go
back and check the details. The procedure in both cases is that the mapping at the face is carried out
independently and neither the Contractor nor the Owner are permitted to interfere. The resulting maps are
then issued simultaneously to both participants and form the basis for discussions on any disagreements
or claims. Such an approach, if executed consistently in connection with a reasonably accurate
Geotechnical Baseline Report, appears to have the make-up to allow daily agreements to be reached,
thereby saving any arguments from ending up in front of a Dispute Review Board or in legal proceedings.
This contorted extra level of contractual effort, while apparently workable, might not be necessary in all
cases if probabilistic approaches using contoured data sets plotted in a bulls-eye chart such as in the
left diagram on Figure 2 were more routinely adopted by the tunnelling industry. These, it is thought,
would better constrain observations to reality, thereby better controlling mismatching differences between
observers. In much the same way as stereonet definition of joint sets, agreement between observers of
contoured bulls-eyes might well be much more easily achieved than might be the case for individual Q
or RMR parameter values. Clarification of rockmass quality in terms of means and ranges would then
become much more prescriptive and repeatable than at present, and just like the benefits of contoured
stereonets for defining jointing trends, if applied constructively such charts could bring clarity to the use of
classifications both for input to design and also for definition of classes for payment purposes.
6. Acknowledgements
While the views expressed in this paper are solely the author's, many of the observation have arisen from
participation in review board meetings in projects where others have noticed similar trends. Thanks in
particular are due to Drs Hoek, Barton and Palmstrm for critical review and comments and also to many
owners and contractors organisations for providing the insight on which this paper is based.
7. References
[1] Hoek, E (1999) Putting numbers to geology an engineer's viewpoint. Q. Jnl Eng.Geol. vol. 32, 1, pp. 1-19(19)
[2] Singh, B. & Goel R.K (1999) Rock Mass Classification:a Practical Approach in Civil Engineering, Elsevier 267 pp
[3] Edelbro, C., Sjberg, J. and Nordlund, E. (2007) A quantitative comparison of strength criteria for hard rock
masses. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology22 (1), pp. 57-68.
[4] Carter,T.G. (1992), Prediction and Uncertainties in Geological Engineering and Rock Mass Classification
Assessment. Proc. 4th Italian Rock Mechanics Conference, Torino, pp.1.1-1.22.
[5] Essex, R.J., (2007) Geotechnical Baseline Reports for Construction Suggested Guidelines, ASCE Publ. 62pp
[6] Terzaghi,K.,(1946) Introduction to tunnel geology.Rock Tunnelling with Steel Supports.Proctor & White,pp.5-153.
[7] Lauer, H.,1958. Classification for tunnel construction. Geol Bauwesen 2(1), pp4651 (in German).
[8] Bieniawski Z.T., (1973) Engineering classifications of jointed rock masses. Tr. SAfr In.Civ Eng 15(12) pp 33544.
[9] Barton, N. R., Lien, R. and Lunde, J. (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel
support. Rock Mech., 6(4): pp189-236.
[10] Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T. (1980), Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE v. 106, n. GT9, p. 1013-1035.
[11] Laubscher, D.H. (1977). Geomechanics classification of jointed rock masses mining applications. Trans. Instn.
Min. Metall. 86, A1-8.
[12] Golder Associates (1981). Report 802-1571 to Canmet on Prediction of Stable Excavation Spans for Mining at
Depths below 1000 meters in Hard Rock. Canmet Contract No.17SQ.23440-0-9020. (Authors: Mathews et al.)
[13] Potvin,Y., Hudyma,M.R. & Miller,H.D.S.(1989) Design Guidelines for Open Stope Support. CIM Bull v.82, #926.
[14] Romana M. (1985). New adjustment rating for application of the Bieniawski classification to slopes. Proc. Int.
Symp. Rock Mechanics Mining Civ. Works. ISRM, Zacatecas, Mexico. pp 59-63
[15] Sonmez, H. and Ulusay, R., (1999), Modifications to the geological strength index (GSI) and their applicability to
stability of slopes, International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, v. 36, p. 74360.
[16] Barton,N.,(1999).TBM performance estimation in rock using QTBM. Tunnels & Tunnelling. (September), pp3034.
[17] Ozdemir, L., and Nilsen, B. (1993) Hard Rock Tunnel Boring Prediction and Field Performance, Rapid
Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC) Proceedings, 1993, Boston, USA
[18] Sapigni, M., Bert, M. Bethaz, E., Busillo, A., and Cardone,G.,(2002). TBM performance estimation using
rockmass classifications. Rock Mech. Mining Sci.39, pp771788.
[19] Marinos, P. and Hoek, E., (2000), GSI: A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation,
Proceedings GeoEng2000 Conference, Melbourne, p. 1422-1442.
[20] Barton, N. 2002. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterization and tunnel design. Int. J. Rock
Mech. & Min. Sci. Vol. 39/2:185-216

[21] Hatem, D.J., (1998) Geotechnical Baselines - Professional Liability Implications. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology 13, 2, pp14350
[22] Smith, R.E., (2001). Geotechnical Baseline Reports: State of the Practice. Proc. 36th Ann. Symp. Engineering
Geology and Geotechnical Engineering, Las Vegas, Nevada pp501-505
[23] ITA (2004) Guidelines for tunnelling risk management: International Tunnelling Association, Working Group
No.2, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 19, pp217237
[24] Milne, D., Palmstrm A. and Peck W. (2002): Reply to Barton's comments on GeoEng2000 workshop summary.
Published in ISRM News 7-2, 2002. under Letter to the Editor of the ISRM News Journal. 18 February 2002
regarding Journal article of December 2001
[25] Blindheim,O.T., (2005).A critique of QTBM. Tunnels & Tunnelling.Int.(June), pp3235.
[26] Palmstrm, A. and Broch, E. (2006). Use and misuse of rock mass classification systems with particular
reference to the Q-system. Tunnels and Underground Space Technology, 21, 575-593.
[27] Russo G. (2007): Improving the reliability of GSI estimation: the integrated GSI-RMi system. Proc. I.S.R.M.
Workshop "Underground Works under Special Conditions", Madrid, pp 123-130
[28] Riedmuller, G. and Schubert, W., (1999) Rock mass modeling in tunneling versus rock mass classification using
rating methods. 37th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), June 7 - 9, 1999 , Vail, CO
[29] Stille H., and Palmstrm A. (2003): Classification as a tool in rock engineering. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, Vol. 18, pp. 331-345,
[30] Palmstrm A. (2000): Recent developments in rock support estimates by the RMi. Journal of Rock mechanics
and tunneling technology, Vol.6, pp.1-9.
[31] Stojkovic H., Stojkovic, G., Uzaravic. D. and Grget, G., (2009) Classification of carbonate and clastic rock
masses by RMR and Q-system. Proc. Eurock 2009 Rock Engineering in Difficult Ground Conditions - Soft Rocks
and Karst -Vrkljan (ed) pp. 361-366
[32] Tzamos, S. and Sofianos, A. I., (2007), A correlation of four rock mass classification systems through their fabric
indices. Intern. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 44 pp.477495
[33] Hack R, (2002) An evaluation of slope stability classification. Keynote Lecture. Proc. ISRM Eurock2002,
Portugal, Madeira, Funchal, November 2002. Eds.: C. Dinis da Gama & L. Ribeira e Sousa, Publ. Sociedade
Portuguesa de Geotecnia, Lisboa, Portugal. pp. 3 32
[34] Russo, G (2009) A New Rational Method for Calculating the GSI. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 24 pp103-111
[35] Palmstrm, A. (1982). The volumetric joint count - a useful and simple measure of the degree of rock jointing.
Proc. 4th congr. Int. Assn Engng Geol., Delhi 5, pp221-228.
[36] Palmstrm A., (2005) Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock quality designation.
Tunnelling & Undergr Space Tech; 20(4): pp362377
[37] Barton, N. & Grimstad, E. (1994) The Q-system following twenty years of application in NMT support selection.
In: Felsbau 12 No.6, pp. 428-436.
[38] Marinos, V., Marinos, P. and Hoek, E., (2005), The geological strength index: applications and limitations,
Bulletin of the Engineering Geology and the Environment, v. 64, pp. 55-65.
[39] Cai, M., Kaiser, P. K., Uno, H., Tasaka, Y. and Minami, M., (2004), Estimation of rock mass strength and
deformation modulus of jointed hard rock masses using the GSI system, Int.J.RockMech.Min.Sci.,v.41,1 p. 319.
[40] Carter, T.G., Steels, D., Dhillon, H.S. and Brophy, D., (2005). Difficulties of Tunnelling under High Cover in
Mountainous Regions. Proc. Int. AFTES Congress, Tunnelling for a Sustainable Europe, Chambery, pp.349-358
[41] Grimstad E and Barton N. R., (1993) Updating of the Q-system for NMT. In: international symposium on sprayed
concrete, Fagernes, Norway. Norwegian Concrete Association, pp.4666.
[42] Carter, T.G., Diederichs, M.S. and Carvalho, J.L. 2008. Application of modified Hoek-Brown transition
relationships for assessing strength and post yield behaviour at both ends of the rock competence scale. The
Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. 108: 325-338.
[43] Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T. (1997), Practical estimates of rock mass strength, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, v. 34, no. 8, p. 1165-1186.
[44] Barton, N. (1976). Recent Experiences with the Q-system of Tunnel Support Design. Proc. Symp. on Exploration
for Rock Engineering, Johannesburg, pp.l07-l17.
[45] Bieniawski, Z.T. (1976). Rock mass classification in Rock Engineering. Proc. Symp., Exploration for Rock
Engineering, Vol. 1: pp.97-106. CapeTown: Balkema.
[46] Hoek, E. (1982). Geotechnical Considerations in Tunnel Design and Contract Preparation. Trans. lnstn. Min.
Metall. (Sect.A:Min.industry) 91, A101-9.
[47] Franklin, J.A. and Palassi, M., (1993) Maximum Span and Stand-time of Underground Excavations, Proc.
Conference on Mine Design, Kingston, pp443-453.
[48] Carter T.G. and Miller R. I (1996) Some Observations on the Time Dependency of Collapse of Surface Crown
Pillars. Proc. 2nd North American Rock Mechanics Conf., Montreal, pp. 285-294
[49] Carter, T.G., Cottrell, B.E., Carvalho, J.L and Steed, C.M. (2008) Logistic Regression improvements to the
Scaled Span Method for dimensioning Surface Crown Pillars over Civil or Mining Openings. Proc. 42nd US
Rock Mechanics Symposium and 2nd Can-US Rock Symp. San Francisco. Paper 08-282 10pp.