Rock Quality Designation (RQD) After Twenty Years

S./.
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION

TWENTY YEARS
(ROD)
/,,AD/A207
AFTER
Don U. Deere, Consultant

Gainesville, FL
Feb 89
______--------__--____-
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Technical Information Service
9- !:OF':1G
I, '. -8.
1";,
597
CONTRACT REPORT GL-89-1
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD)

AFTER TWENTY YEARS
by
Don U. Deere
Consultant
Gainesville, Florida
32608
and
Don W. Deere
Geotechnical Engineer
Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc.

Longmont, Colorado 80501
1
February 1989
Final Report
Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
REPRODUCED BY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

US Army Corps of Engineers
Prepared for
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Under Contract No. DACW39-86-M-4273
Monitored by Geotechnical Laboratory
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
PO Box 631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39181-0631
)
IINflI ASSTFTFD
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0?88
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

lb
Ia. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
Unclassified
3
2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORIT'Y

2b. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING
RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
Approved for public release;

distribution unlimited.
SCHEDULE
S MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
Contract Report GL-89-1

6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
6o. OFFICE SYMBOL
USAEWES
Geotechnical Laboratory
(if applicable)
lb. ADDRESS(City, State, and ZIP Code)
6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)
P0 Box 631
Vicksburg, MS
(See reverse)
9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
SYMBOL
OFFICE
Sb. (if
app~licable)
NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING
Ba. ORGANIZATION
DACW39-86-M-4273
US Army Corps of Engineers
10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
Or. ADDRESS (Ciy, Stat., and ZIP COde)
20314-1000
Washington, DC
39181-0631
PROGRAM
PROJECT
ELEMENT NO.
NO
WORK UNIT
JTASK
CCESSION NO
NO.
11. TITLE (IncludeSecurCty Oasfication)
Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
After Twenty Years
12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
Deere, Don U.,

Final report
13a. TYPE OF REPORT
DonTIMEW.COVERED
Deere,1t3b.
114. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Mon-,h, Day)
TO
FROMVI
115. PAGE COUNT
100
February 1989
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
Available from National Technical Information Service, 5245 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
VA
22161.
17.
FIELD
COSATI CODES
SUB"ROUP
GROUP
18.SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and idertfy by block number)
RQD
Rock classification
Rock mechanics
Rock alitY
Drill core
Fracture frequency
In-S;itij modulIu
by bock number)
19. ABSTRACT (Continue On reverse if necessary and identify
Twenty years of experience is now available in the use of the Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
in practice. The RQD is an index of rock quality in which a modified core recovery per
centage is obtained by counting only pieces of sound core 4-in. (100 mm) or greater in
length of NX size or larger core diameters. Experience now indicates both smaller (NQ) and
larger core diameters are appropriate; that slightly and moderately weathered core that can
not be hand broken be included; that length measurements be made along the center-line or
axis of the core piece; and that the requisite length of 4-in. (100 mm) be retained.
Problems with core breakage and loss occur in thinly bedded and schistose rocks, and,
particularly, with weak argillaceous rock interbedded with harder sandstone or limestone, a
problem that can be ameliorated by large diameter cores, shorter coring runs, and by use of
the best drilling equipment and techniques. Correlations of RQD with certain engineering
parameters are given, but the more recent classification system of Bieniawski or Barton
et al, which include the RQD as a parameter, are preferred for estimating the design -over)
20. DISTRIBUTION/AYAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT

0 SAME AS RPT.
[I UNCLASSIFIEDUNLIMITED
22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL
DD Form 1473, JUN 96
21.ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
03
DTIC USERS
Unclassified
22b.TELEPHONE (include Area Code) 22. OFFICE SYMBOL

editions
PreviouS
are Obsolete.
Previouseditions are obsolete.
~ ~
ECUI~IYLA
Se
IIAIN
URITY rIAC.IPFICAICN
UNCLASSI FIED
11
.'i
OF) IHMPAIQ"/.,;
UNCLASSIFIED
6a.
Name of Performing Organization
Don U. Deere, Consultant

6b.
Address
Don U. Deere
6834 S.W. 35th Way
Gainesville, FL
32608
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC.
1960 Industrial Circle, Suite A
Longmont, CO
80501
19.
ABSTRACT
-and construction parameters.

For obtaining the RQD, the best drilling techniques
and prompt core logging in the field by a qualified engineering geologist or
geotechnical engineer should be used. The RQD is not a design parameter
that stands alone, but must be used together with an appreciation of the
detailed geology and the geotechnical aspects.
UNCLASSIFIED
PREFACE
This report was written by Don U.
Deere,
international consultant on dams, tunnels,

from Gainesville,
powerplants,
an independent
and underground
Florida, and Don W. Deere,
geotechnical engineer and principal of Rocky Mountain

Inc.
Consultants,
of Longmont, Colorado.
The work was done under the sponsorship of the US Army Corps
of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station (WES),
(GL),
Laboratory
DACW39 86M 4273,
Vicksburg, Mississippi,
Geotechnical
under Contract No.
under date 86 SEP 02 and Amendment P00001 dated
86 OCT 22.
The project was conducted under the general supervision of
Dr. Don C.
Banks,
Chief, Engineering Geology and Rock Mechanics
Division; and Dr. W.F.

G.,
Lee,
EN,
Col.
Marcuson III, Chief, GL, WES.
Dwayne
Dr. Robert
was the Commander and Director of WES.
W. Whalin was the Technical Director.
u-" " r"'-:

S;......
C;
1 . 00/.
.,
~-,
~ J....----
,~ -
-. . - - -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE .
PART I:
INTRODUCTION.
....
Background
Purpose . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....
.
Approach
PART II: DEVELOPMENT OF THE RQD CONCEPT .
The
1963 RQD Precursor
..
PART III:
....
RECOMMENDED TECHNIQUES OF RQD LOGGING S.
Core Diameter.
..
. 11
............
11
13
16
19
21
....
Length Measurement of Core Pieces.

.
Assessment of Soundness.
Length of Coring Run .....

.
PART IV: RQD CORRELATIONS.
.
....
....
Tunnel Support/Reinforcement Design.

Prediction of In-Situ Modulus.
....
21
26
30
31
Foundation Settlement Correlations .

Fracture Frequency
3
3
6
8
The 1964-65 Developmental Period

The 1966-69 Testing Period .
1
1
2
....
Linear fracture frequency . .

Volumetric fracture frequency
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 32
. 32
35
35
. .
37
. 40
PART V: UTILIZATION OF THE RQD IN LATER ROCK

.
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS.
Bieniawski's Rock Mass Rating System

.
Classification).
(Geomechanics
. *.
Bartons Q System (Norwegian Geotechnical

.
Institute)
. .
. .
PART VI: PERTINENT QUESTIONS OF RQD IN PRACTICE .

Mechanics
of Determining RQD
Core diameter
(UA).
(1)
interval
Length measurement of core'pieces
,ength
(IlB)
40
40
: :
42
...
of coring run and of RQD

(1C)
. .
ii
44
Special RQD Logging Problems
(2)
....
46
Drilling equipment and techniques (2A).
46
Prompt logging of core (2B)
47
47
..
Applicability to various rock types (2C).

.
. 47
sedimentary rocks. . . . . . . .
Limestone with solution cavities
Volcanics and metamorphics . . .
49
. 50
. 51
General problems .
Shales,
(2D).
Orientation Effects
interbedded
claystones,
.* .
52
. .
52
52
53
Desirability of Additional Geological

Observations
(3)
(3A)
Joint conditions
(3B).
....
fracture
weathering,
Local geology,
frequency
....
Applications to Engineering and Construction (4)

General
(4A)-.
48
. .
...
. .
53
Excavation, dredging, underwater

(4B)
blasting
Tunnels
(4D).
(4E).
. .
.
.
. .
..
...
..
. .
56
57
.
.
. 57
. 59
. 61
. .
. .
. ...
.
.
. . .
. . .
..
limitations (5B).
Shortcomings,
. . .
...
(5A)
Favorable experience
REFERENCES.
55
55
....
General Usefulness of RQD (5) .
PART VII: CONCLUSION.
54
...
roughness
Erosion resistance,
coefficient
in-situ modulus (4C)
Foundations,
64
APPENDIX A: COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON THE RQD FROM THE US

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
ROCK QUALITY CLASSIFICATION . . .

GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF
..
40-FT TUNNELS IN ROCK .
. .
INDEX.
PRIMARY SUPPORT FOR 20-FT TO

-
. .
CORRELATIONS OF MODULUS RATIO WITH RQD AND

-VELOCITY
TABLE 4
. .
.*.
ALLOWABLE CONTACT PRESSURE q, ON

JOINTED ROCK.
. .
. .
iii
. 22
.
23
. 28
*.
..
30
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - RQD LOGGING. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 2 - LENGTH MEASUREMENT OF CORE FOR RQD . .
FIGURE 3 - ROCK QUALITY AND SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS
FOR TUNNELS OF VARYING
DIMENSIONS.
FIGURE 4 - RQD VERSUS MODULUS RATIO . . .

FIGURE 5 - RQDVERSUS FRACTURE FREQUENCY
iv
.
.
12
14
24
27
33
.
.
PART I:
INTRODUCTION
Background
The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) was developed as an index
of rock quality and was first
job in
1964,
used on a design and construction
and on two additional jobs in
Research
1964-1965.
continued at the University of Illinois over the next several

years under the sponsorship of the US Air Force and US Department
of Transportation.
The RQD was also used during this period on
several consulting jobs involving tunnels and shafts.

The publication that first
brought the RQD to the attention
of the engineering and geology profession was the 1967 paper by

Deere and his colleagues at the University of Illinois (Deere et
1967).
al.,
The following year a chapter by Deere (1968)
rock mechanics book by Stagg and Zienkiesicz
(1968)
in
the
introduced
the concept to an international audience and led to its

acceptance and growing use in many countries.
The later rock classification systems for engineering
purposes developed by Bieniawski (1973)
(1974)
and by Barton et al.,
both include the RQD as an input parameter.
systems are increasingly being used,
there is
Because these
interest in the RQD
logging techniques and applications.
Purpose
The purpose of the study was to evaluate twenty years of
experience by the senior author with the RQD in which many rock
types at a great number of engineering projects in many countries
have made their contribution.
Conversations and correspondence

1
with many field engineering geologists and geotechnical engineers

have raised questions regarding the origin of the RQD,
different techniques of measuring and logging,
the
the optimal core
diameter and length of coring runs, and problems with core

breakage during drilling and handling,
regarding its
use in
as well as questions
engineering design.
The junior author
brings his own experience and questions after having logged a

variety of cores,
managed geotechnical investigations,
and
utilized RQD design correlations on many sites in the United

States and overseas over the past decade and a half.
Approach
The approach to the study was to organize the background
material relating to the early development in
Part II,
and state the recommended RQD logging techniques in

present and evaluate RQD correlations in Part IV,
briefly in Part V the Bieniawski (1973)
classification systems (Barton et al.,
Part VI is
to discuss
Part III, to
and to discuss
and Barton rock mass

1974).
concerned with questions of RQD in practice as
posed by engineers and geologists of the US Army Corps of

Engineers and by some of their geotechnical consultants.
Conclusions are given in Part VII.
During the studies for this report, a shorter, preliminary
version entitled, "The Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
Index in
Practice" was presented to the ASTM Symposium on Rock

Classification Systems for Engineering Purposes"
Deere,
1988).
(Deere and
PART II: DEVELOPMENT OF THE RQD CONCEPT
The 1963 ROD Precursor

During the development of rock mechanics in the United
States in the early 1960's, there was considerable interplay with
the European engineers and geologists and particularly with the
Salzburg School of Rock Mechanics in Austria, under the
leadership of Leopold Muller.
Many of the senior author's
concepts were formulated from papers given and discussions held

at several of the annual Proceedings,
Mechanics.
It
Salzburg Colloquia on Rock
was therefore with appreciation and satisfaction
that he accepted the invitation to author a paper for the first

volume of the new journal Felsmechanik und Ingenieuraeolocie
(Rock Mechanics and Engineering Geology) edited by Dr. Muller, an
outgrowth of the journal Geologie und Bauwesen.
That paper was entitled, "Technical Description of Rock
Cores for Engineering Purposes" (Deere, 1963).
The ideas
presented were based not only on the background of the Salzburg

connection but also on the author's consulting practice in
foundation engineering, engineering geology and mining
engineering, and his program of graduate courses and research in
rock mechanics being developed at the University of Illinois.
The RQD concept was not presented in the 1963 paper as it
had not as yet been conceived in its entirety.
However,
the
important geological features that influence rock engineering

were emphasized, as was the information that could be obtained
from study of rock cores.
A number of the passages are quoted in
the following paragraphs because (1) the published article is not

3
readily available,
and (2)
the ideas expressed formed a direct
precursor to the development of the RQD the following year:
"...Technical Description of Rock Cores.

A careful
study of rock cores from boreholev can yield valuable
information concerning the nature of the in-situ rock
mass.
The significant geological features are those
that influence the homogeneity of the rock mass and
include the occurrence of (1) surfaces of discontinuity
and (2) zones with materials of different hardnesses.
Detailed observations of these features should be made
and recorded on the boring logs.
Complete and accurate
descriptions are necessary for rock mechanics studies
and for allowing the contractor to appraise the nature
of the in-situ rock and to plan and carry out his
construction procedure.
... Emphasis is given in this paper to those geological
features which can be observed in rock cores, and which
appear to the author to be significant in rock
engineering.
The significant features include those
which have a direct bearing, almost overwhelmingly so,
on the homogeneity of the rock mass with respect to (1)
variations in hardness, and (2) physical discontinu
ities.
The pertinent features when observed in the
rock cores should be carefully described and recorded
in the boring logs in such a manner so as to present a
factual record containing a minimum of interpretation.
From such boring logs interpretations may be made
concerning the character of the rock mass.
... Physical discontinuities are present in all rock
masses in the form of planes or surfaces of separation.
Geologically, these discontinuities are recognized as
joints, faults, bedding planes, or rock cleavage
planes.
Terzaghi has referred to such features as
mechanical defects of rock.
The permeability, shear
strength, and deformability of a rock mass are all
influenced by the number and kind of discontinuities
existing in the mass.
Engineering projects involving
dam foundations, tunnels, underground chambers, and cut
slopes may be adversely affected unless the discontinu
ities
are evaluated and their influence taken into
account during design and construction.
... A critical examination of rock cores
valuable data concerning the occurrence
the mechanical defects in the rock mass
cores were obtained.
The various types
can yield
and nature of
from which the
of observations
that can be made are discussed in the following

paragraphs.
4
The article goes on to describe types of discontinuities

(joints, bedding planes,
cleavage planes,
faults) and proposed
terminology for describing joint spacing and the thickness of

bedding units [e.g.,
ft.
(30 cm -
cm -
1 m)].
moderately close joint spacing,
1 m); and medium thick bed,
also 1 ft.
Probably of more significance in
1 ft.
-
- 3
3 ft.
(30
the development of
the RQD was the following statement:
... In describing the rock cores it is advised that the

length of the pieces of the core obtained in each
coring run be measured and recorded (e.g., 1 piece of
20 cm, 4 pieces of 10-15 cm, and 25 pieces of 2-10 cm,
These lengths are a direct response to the
etc.)
spacing of the joints and fractures and the thickness
Unfortunately, they are also
of the bedding.
influenced by the drilling method and technique.
in the author's opinion, they are of sufficient
Still,
import to warrant describing.
Emphasis was then given to the importance of the surface

characteristic of the discontinuities and of filling materials:
... The behavior in an engineering project of a rock

mass transversed by discontinuities is probably more
influenced by the character of the joint surfaces and
the type of filling material along the discontinuities
than by the mere presence of the discontinuities.
Therefore in describing rock cores particular attention
should be given to those observations regarding the
tightness and irregularity of the surfaces as well as
to the kind of filling material between or along
adjacent surfaces.
It
was noted that the degree of tightness could be described
as tight or Ope ; the degree of planeness by plane, curved, or

irregular; the degree of smoothness by slick,
5
smooth, or rough;
and the infilling or altered materials as to thickness, t_,

hardness.
and
The paper closes with discussion of lithology and
hardness, noting in particular the severe design and construction

problems that may arise from differences in hardness:
...
Illustrative conditions are those encountered with
interbedded shales and limestones; with solution

widened and clay-filled joints, fault zones, and
bedding planes in limestone terrain; with altered and
weakened rocks along faults and shear zones in any type
of rock; and with the varied products of weathering in
the weathered rock zone where joint-block remnants
(often spheroidal) of fairly hard rock are surrounded
by soil-like material resulting from advanced
weathering and decomposition of the rock adjacent to
the joint. Many of these conditions will become
apparent during the geological mapping; however, the
extent of the condition can often only be determined by
Consequently, the rock cores
means of boreholes.
should be studied with utmost consideration being given
to the detection of significant variations in hardness.
The 1964-65 Developmental Period

While consulting on the siting and design of a shaft,
tunnel, and chamber in granite in 1964 at the Nevada Test Site
for underground nuclear testing, it
became clear to the senior
author that the site had poorer quality granite than an alternate
site.
However, the detailed core logs prepared by well-qualified
geologists did not readily reveal the difference, perhaps because

of the emphasis on lithology, mineralogy,
and alteration and the
lengthy descriptions of the jointing.
The ittributes of the core that visually indicated poor rock

conditions were the great number of small core pieces bounded by
weathered joints and sheared surfaces, the presence of numerous
6
rock fragments,
granite.
and occasional core pieces of visibly altered
By contrast, the rock cores from the alternate site
were of hard, nearly unweathered granite in core pieces of much

greater length.
Even a casual examination showed that the
chemical alteration and the amount of jointing and shearing was

much less at the alternate site.
In
an effort to illustrate this lesser alteration and
jointing at the alternate site as compared with the original site

and to be able to portray the rock quality graphically,
it
was
decided to use a "modified core recovery" procedure in which only

(100 mm)
sound pieces of granite of 4 in.

Thus,
were counted.
in length or longer
the quality of rock core was downgraded by
not counting the rock fragments, the pieces of core less than the
requisite length, pieces of altered granite,
core.
The 4 in.
(100 mm)
and unrecovered
requisite length was chosen after
considerable deliberation as being a reasonably lower limit for a

fair quality rock mass containing three or four joint sets of
close to moderate spacing.
The following day an oral and graphical presentation was
made to the designers and managers.
Large-scale boring logs were
presented for each site with the "modified core recovery" plotted
with depth.
Where this value was greater than 95 percent (later
changed to 90 percent) the interval was colored blue and was

designated as excellent quality rock; the 75-95 percent interval
colored green and designated aood quality; the 50-75 percent
interval colored orange and designated fair quality; the 25-50
percent and the 0-25 percent intervals colored red and
designated,
respectively,
Roor and very poor.

7
The name Rock
Quality Designation
(RQD)
was applied to the overall procedure.
The visual display and associated descriptions were readily

assimilated by the audience and a rapid decision was made to
select the alternate site with the indicated good rock
conditions.
Later construction of the facility corroborated the
generally good rock conditions at the selected site.

In
the past, the percentage of core recovery had often been
used as an indicator of rock quality.
However,
drilling techniques and with advancements in

barrels,
with better
coring bits and
the percentage of core recovery was often nearly 100
percent even in closely jointed zones and fault zones.

Therefore,
the "modified core recovery" and RQD concept offered
the possibility of a more valid technique of indexing the rock

quality for engineering purposes that took into account the
effects of fracturing,
and alteration.
shearing,
The concept was next tested on consulting projects in
1964
65 on highway tunnels on the Pigeon River for the North Carolina

Highway Department (quartzite, gneiss,
and schist) and for the
foundation studies for the World Trade Center in New York on

massive schist and schistose gneiss.
Meaningful results were
obtained on the delineation of rock zones of differing qualities

that resulted in
substantial differences in design and
construction (personal files).
The 1966-69 TestinQ Period

The early success of the RQD on consulting projects
indicated that the concept was worthy of additional study and
research by the rock mechanics and engineering geology groups at
8
the University of Illinois.
Sponsorship was obtained from the US
Air Force on the development of an engineering classification of

in-situ rock.
Deere et al.
(1969b)
presented the complete report
of that investigation; some of the more pertinent results were

1967; Deere,
presented earlier (Deere et al.,
1968; Hendron,
1968).
The 1967 reference by Deere and his colleagues at the
University of Illinois (Deere et al.,
1967) was the first
time
that the RQD concept had been presented in published form to the
engineering and geology profession'
The published work that
introduced the RQD to a wide international audience,

doubt was responsible for its
and that no
rapid acceptance in many countries,
was the 1968 book by Stagg and Zienkiewicz "Rock Mechanics in

Engineering Practice" that contained one chapter by Deere (1968)
and one by Hendron (1968)
in which the RQD concept and
applications were discussed.

In
the US Air Force studies,
a number of sites were visited
and RQD measurements were made of existing rock core or of cores

from borings drilled specifically for that research project.
Different requisite lengths for core pieces to be counted for the
RQD were tried, as well as a weighting procedure.
The weighting
procedure involved counting all pieces but giving
An incorrect reference was cited inadvertently in this paper

accrediting Deere with the introduction of the RQD in his
1964-paper "Technical Descriptions of Rock Cores for
Actually, two mistakes were
Engineering Purposes."
First, the date of the cited paper should have
involved.
been 1963, not 1964; and second, the RQD concept was not
given in that paper as it was not developed until 1964 and
copies of consulting reports.
was only available in file
9
less weight to the smaller pieces by using the square of the

lengths for all pieces less than 1 ft.
(100 mm),
eliminated the discontinuity at 4 in.
While this
(300 mm).
it
complicated
the procedure and the results did not appear appreciably better.
Therefore,
the original 4 in.
(100 mm) requisite length was
retained.
The Air Force study also included correlation with other
rock quality indices, with some in-situ rock properties,
tunnel supports and advance rates.
correlations are discussed in
and with
A number of these
Part IV.
The US Department of Transportation in the late 1960's also

sponsored research at the University of Illinois on tunnel
support systems that included the RQD as a quality index for
predicting type and amount of required support (Deere et al.,
1969a; Peck et al.,
1969; and Deere et al.,
10
1970).
PART III: RECOMMENDED TECHNIQUES OF RQD LOGGING
In this section several of the techniques for the RQD

logging of cores are reviewed.
original references
The procedures as given in
(Deere et al.,
1967; Deere,
the
1968) are
discussed together with some of the problems encountered and

modifications proposed by others or by the authors.
The RQD is
a modified core recovery percentage in which all
the pieces of sound core over 4 in.
long (100 mm)
divided by the length of the core run.

measuring RQD is
The correct procedure for
illustrated in Figure 1.
The RQD is
rock quality in that problematic rock that is

soft, fractured,
mass.
Thus,
it
sheared,
is
and jointed is
are summed and
an index of
highly weathered,
counted against the rock
simply a measurement of the percentage of
"good" rock recovered from an interval of a borehole.
Core Diameter
The RQD was originally developed using NX-size core (2.155
in.
or 54.7 mm diameter').
Deere (1968)
specified that a minimum
NX-size core obtained with double-tube core barrels should be

used.
This minimum size was specified to discourage a common
practice of the time of utilizing excessively small core sizes or

single barrel coring in geotechnical investigations; both of
which can result in poor recovery and excess core breakage.
Core diameters referred to in this report are nominal

Actual diameters may vary slightly depending
dimensions.
upon core barrel manufacturer.
11
L =10"
ROD=
LzO
HIGHLY WEATHERED
DOES NOT MEET
SOUNDNESS REQUIREMENT
LENGTH OF
CORE > 4 INCHES (100mm.)
PIECES
TOTAL CORE RUN LENGTH
Z SOUND
RQD =
10+ 7.5+8
48
wi
x 1000%
C-)
RQD=
530/
(FAIR)
0
I-
~
CENTER LIN
PIECES<4
8HIGHLY WEATHERED
ROD
(ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION)
0-25%
25-50 %
50-75%
75-90 %
90-100%
DESCRIPTION OF
ROCK QUALITY
VERY POOR
POOR
FAIR
GOOD
EXCELLENT
7.5"
L: 8"1
FIG. I- RQD LOGGING
Experience in recent years indicates that diameters both

larger and slightly smaller than NX may be utilized for computing
RQD.
The popular wire-line core, NQ (1.875 in.,
diameter) is
47.6 mm
considered acceptable;
now used extensively and in
so are the larger HQ and PQ of the wire-line series and the 2-3/4
in.,
4-in.,
and 6-in. sizes.
The smaller BQ and BX sizes are
discouraged because of more potential core breakage and loss.
If
they are used, a note should be made on the boring log indicating
that both core recovery and RQD may be slightly lower than if
taken on the preferred NQ size or larger.
diameter is
addressed in more detail in
The topic of core
Part VI.
Variable length requirements for RQD measurement have been

proposed (Heuze,
standard 4-in.
1971).
For example,
instead of using the
(100 mm) requisite length, a length equal to
double the core diameter was advocated (such as a 60-mm length

when using 30-mm diameter AX core).
The authors believe that
(100 mm) requisite length should be used for all cases for
4-in.
the purposes of standardization and comparison.

good drilling techniques,
center-line measurement,
Moreover,
the lengths of the core pieces,
with
at
will be the same regardless of core
diameter since the spacing of natural unbonded joints does not

change.
Length Measurements of Core Pieces

The same piece of core could be measured three ways: along
the centerline,
from tip to tip, or along the fully circular
barrel section (Fig. 2).
No specific instructions were given in

13
2" 0 CORE
2"0 CORE
20 0 CORE
4"0 CORE
LENGTH
B. INCORRECT METHOD FOR CORE

LENGTH MEASUREMENT
-LENGTH
DEPENDENT ON
CORE DIA
MEASUREMENT
4" 0 CORE
FULLY CIRCULAR
TIP TO TIP
CENTERLINE
A. CORRECT METHOD FOR CORE
LENGTH MEASUREMENT
- LENGTH OF-CORE
INDEPENDENT OF CORE DIA.
FIG. 2 -
4"0 CORE
C. INCORRECT METHOD FOR CORE

LENGTH MEASUREMENT
-LENGTH
DEPENDENT ON
CORE DIA.
OF CORE
FOR RQD.
1967; Deere,
Deere's previous papers (Deere et al.,

et al.,
The recommended procedure is
1969b).
length along the centerline
1968; Deere*
to measure the core
This method is
(Fig. 1).
advocated
by the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM),

Commission on Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests
(1978,
The center-line measurement is
1981).
The reasons that the center-line
scanline along the core axis.

measurement is
RQD that is
equivalent to a
preferred are that 1)
results in
it
not dependent on the core diameter,
a standardized
and 2)
it
avoids
unduly penalizing the quality of the rock mass for cases where
fractures parallel the borehole and are cut by a second set.
Core breaks caused by the drilling process should be fitted
Drilling breaks are usually
together and counted as one piece.
For schistose and laminated
evidence by rough fresh surfaces.

rocks,
it
is
often difficult to discern the difference between
natural breaks and drilling breaks.

it
should be considered as natural,
When in doubt about a break,

order to be conservative
in
This practice would not
in the calculation of RQD for most uses.
be conservative when the RQD is used as part of a ripping or

dredging estimate.
Some rocks,
such as shales and claystones,
into small discs or chips with time.
often break up
Rock core with initial
RQD
of 100 percent may break up in a period of hours or days into

core with zero RQD.
This phenomenon is
deleterioUs processes of slaking,

cracking,
or swelling.
Thus,
it
logged on site when the core is
due to one or more
desiccation,
is
imperative that the RQD be
retrieved.
15
stress relief
The breakup of the
core over time, however,

this is
should be noted on the drilling logs,
as
evidence of a rock property that may control design of a
structure.
Assessment of Soundness
Pieces of core which are not "hard and sound" (International
Society for Rock Mechanics,
1978,
1981)
should not be counted for
the RQD even though they possess the requisite 4-in.
(100 mm)
length.
to downgrade
The purpose of the soundness requirement is
the rock quality where the rock has been altered and weakened
either by agents of surface weathering or by hydrothermal
activity.
Obviously,
in many instances,
a judgment decision must
be made as to whether or not the degree of chemical alteration is

sufficient to reject the core piece.
One procedure,
a piece of core if
which the authors have used,

there is
any doubt about is
is
not to count
meeting the
soundness requirement (because of discolored or bleached grains,

heavy staining, pitting, or weak grain boundaries).
procedure may unduly penalize the rock quality,
the side of conservatism.
This
but it
errs on
A second procedure which occasionally
has been used by the authors in recent years is
to include the
altered rock within the RQD summed percentage but to indicate by

means of an asterisk (RQD*)
not been met.
that the soundness requirement has
The advantage of the method is
that the RQD* will
provide some indication of the rock quality with respect to the

degree of fracturing, while also noting its
Bieniawski (1974)
lack of soundness.
addresses the soundness requirement as
follows:
16
... Since only hard, sound core is included in RQD

determination, this means that rock core which is
For this purpose
highly weathered receives zero RQD.
"highly weathered rock" means that weathering extends
The rock material is partly
throughout the rock mass.
friable, has no lustre and all material except quartz
Highly weathered rock can be
is discolored or stained.
pick...
a
geologist's
with
excavated
The assessment of the soundness requirement merits further

consideration.
There is
no disagreement with Bieniawski's
suggestion that "highly weathered rock" receives zero RQD.
Using
the weathering grades of the International Society for Rock

Mechanics
(1978,
1981)
IV-Highly Weathered; V-Completely
Moderately Weathered;
Weathered;
(I-Fresh; II-Slightly Weathered; III
and VI-Residual Soil),
there is
no doubt about Grade
I-Fresh being included and Grade VI-Residual Soil being excluded

from the RQD count.
The remaining four categories all represent
degrees of weathering where judgment decisions must be made.

Grade II-Slightly Weathered is
described as "Discoloration
indicates weathering of rock materials and discontinuity

surfaces.
All the rock material may be discolored by weathering
and may be somewhat weaker externally than in

condition."
Since the alteration is
its
fresh
limited to discoloration,
possibly with somewhat lowering of strength,
it
appears logical
in the RQD
to accept this degree of "slightly weathered" Grade II

count.
The Grade V-Completely Weathered state by its
eliminates any core so described from the RQD count.

description is,
"All rock material is
disintegrated to soil.
Its
decomposed and/or
The original mass structure is
17
very name
still
1978,
largely intact" (International Society for Rock Mechanics,

1981).
The two remaining categories are III-Moderately and IV
The latter category,
Highly Weathered.
IV-Highly Weathered is
eliminated from the RQD count.
the one which Bieniawski
(1974)
The ISRM description is,
"More than half of the rock material is
decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil.

rock is
present either as a discontinuous framework or as

Little (1969)
corestones."
in his description of residual
"Rock so weakened by weathering that fairly large pieces
can be crumbled in the hands.
Sometimes recovered as core by
Stained by limonite."
careful rotary drilling.
Highly Weathered rock should not be included in

since it
and
Highly Weathered,
tropical soils uses the same terminology,

states,
Fresh or discolored
has been weathered to the point that it
It
is
clear that
the RQD count

can be crumbled
in the hands.
The Grade III-Moderately Weathered category is
(International Society for Rock Mechanics,
than half of the rock material is
to a soil.
some strength; large pieces (e.g., NX drill

Often limonite stained.
to the borderline,
description
it
is
Little (1969)
"Considerably weathered.
states for
Possessing
cores) cannot be
Difficult to excavate
Because this category is
without the use of explosives."
of interest to consider another
(Fookes and Horswill,

18
"Less
as,
present either as a
continuous framework or as corestones."
broken by hand.
1981)
decomposed and/or disintegrated
Fresh or discolored rock is
Moderately Weathered rock,
1978,
described
1970),
"Term-Moderately
close
Weathered,
Grade III, Abbreviation Mw...The rock is
discolored;.
discontinuities may be open and surfaces will have greater

discoloration with the alteration penetrating inward; the intact
noticeably weaker,
rock is
as determined in the field, than the
fresh rock."
is
It
recommended that Grade III-Moderately Weathered rock
be accepted in the RQD count but that it

asterisk as being less than sound.
be identified with an
However,
it
possesses
sufficient strength, although moderately weathered,
to resist
hand breakage of core pieces.

summary,
In
Grade I
(Fresh) and II
included in the RQD count, as is
are
(Slightly Weathered)
Grade III (Moderately Weathered)

Grades IV (Highly Weathered),
but with the asterisk qualifier.
and VI (Residual Soil) are disregarded in
(Completely Weathered),
the RQD count.
Length of Coring Run

The RQD is
example,
sensitive to the length of the core run.
a 11.8 in.
(300 mm)
long, highly fractured zone within a
massive rock would result in RQD values of 90 percent,

percent,
(3 m),
and 40 percent,
4.9 ft.
(1.5 m),
For
80
for respective run lengths of 12.9 ft.

and 1.6 ft.
(0.5 m).
Thus,
the shorter
the run length, the greater the sensitivity of the RQD and,
this case, the lower its
in.
(300-mm)
in
value [becoming equal to zero for a 11.8
run encompassing the fractured zone).
The authors recommend that in
general the calculation of the
RQD be based on the actual drilling-run length used in

19
the field,
(1.5 m) and certainly not more
preferably, no greater than 5 ft.

than twice that length.
Actual length and nature of zones of
poor and good rock should be described in the drilling log and
could be supplemented by calculation of RQD on variable
"artificial
run lengths" to highlight poor quality or good
quality zones.
Many times this discrimination occurs naturally
in the drilling process; as zones of poor rock are encountered,

the run lengths are shortened to prevent blockage of the coring
The ISRM Commission on
bit and to enhance core recovery.
Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests (International

Society for Rock Mechanics,
1978,
1981) recommends RQD logging
using variable "run lengths" to separate individual beds,

structural domains,
weakness zones,
etc.,
so as to indicate any
inherent variability, and to provide a more accurate picture of

the location and width of zones with anomalously low or high RQD
values.
20
PART IV: RQD CORRELATIONS
early
The original development of the RQD was for use in
The difference
site evaluation to predict tunneling conditions.
in rock quality could be easily visualized between borings and

between different depth zones.
Zones of poor rock within a mass
could be easily "red flagged."
Shortly after its
development,
correlations were made between RQD and tunnel support

requirements.
This application was expanded to correlate the RQD
with rock mass modulus and rock foundation settlement.

1970,
Since
the RQD has been used as a basic element of rock mass
classification systems.
Subsequent correlations between RQD and
fracture frequency were made so that RQD or fracture frequency

could be theoretically calculated when only one of the parameters
was measured.
Tunnel Support/Reinforcement Design

The RQD was an early and simple method of classifying rock
masses for prediction of tunneling conditions and selection of
tunnel support.
The US Army Corps of Engineers (1978)
the use of the RQD method in
discuss
their publication "Tunnels and
Shafts in Rock."
The RQD support criteria relate RQD and construction methods
to alternate support systems of steel sets,
rockbolts.
shotcrete,
or
The method was developed utilizing numerous actual
consulting cases and published case histories.
Detailed
discussions of the use of the RQD for tunnel support design are
21
provided in papers by Deere et al.,
Cecil (1970),
(1970),
(1969),
Deere et al.,
(1972),
and Merritt (1972).
(1969a,
1969b),
Peck et al.,
Cording and Deere,
The RQD can be generally correlated to the common tunnelers'

classification as follows in Table 1 (after Deere et al.,
1970):
TABLE 1
ROCK QUALITY CLASSIFICATION
Classification
Rock Quality
ROD (t)
General Tunnelers'
Excellent
90-100
Intact
Good
75-90
Massive, moderately jointed
Fair
50-75
Blocky and Seamy
Poor
25-50
Shattered, very blocky and seamy

Crushed
0-25
Very Poor
Guidelines (Deere et al.,
1970)
for the selection of tunnel
support/reinforcement systems based on the RQD for tunnels

between 20 and 40 ft.
Table 2.
(6.1 m and 12.2 m) in diameter are given in
Reduced support is
shown for machine bored tunnels over
conventionally excavated drill-and-blast tunnels due to less rock

disturbance.
Merritt (1972)
prepared correlations between RQD and
required tunnel support (no support or local bolts; pattern

bolting; or steel sets) for various sized tunnels.
correlation is
presented in Figure 3,
recommendations of Cecil (1970)
His
together with the
which include shotcrete.
Although the RQD does not take directly into account

important rock mass characteristics such as joint infillings,
22
TABLE 2
GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF PRIMARY SUPPORT FOR 20-FT TO 40-FT TUNNELS IN ROCK
Alternative Support Systems
Rock Quality
Rock Bolts(a)
(Conditional use in poor and very
poor rock)
Steel Sets
Construction
Method
Rock Load
(B-Tunnel
Width)
Weight
ofSets
Boring
machine
Drilling and
blasting
(0.0-0.2)B
Light
(0.0-0.3)B
Light
Boring
machine
Drilling and
blasting
Boring
machine
Drilling and
blasting
Boring
machine
(0.0-0.4)B
Light
(0.3-0.6)6
Light
(0.4-1.O)B
Light to 5 to 6 ft
sedium
Light to 4 to 5 ft
medium
Medium
3 to 4 ft
circular
Drilling and
blasting
(1.3-2.0)B
Very Poor
ROD < 25
(excluding
squeezing
and swelling
ground)
Boring
machine
(1.6-2,2)B
Drilling and
blasting
(2.0-2.8)B
Very Poor,
squeezing or
swelling
ground
Both
methods
up to 250 ft Very
2 ft
heavy
circular
Excellent(d)
RQD 90
Good(d)
RQD - 75
to 90
Fair
ROD - 50
to 75
Poor
RQD - 25
to 50
NOTE:
(0.6-1.3)6
(1.0-1.6)8
Spacing(c)
Spacing of
Pattern
Bolts
Additional
Requirements and
Anchorage Limitations(a)
None to
occasional
None to
occasional
Occasional
to 5 to 6 ft
5 to 6 ft
Occasional
Occasional mesh and
to 5 to 6 ft straps
5 to 6 ft
Occasional mesh and
straps
4 to 6 ft
Mesh and straps as
required
3 to 5 ft
Mesh and straps as
required
3 to 5 ft
Anchorage may be hard
to obtain. Considerable
mesh and straps required.
2 to 4 ft
Anchorage may be hard
to obtain. Considerable
mesh and straps required.
2 to 4 ft
Anchorage may be impossible.
100% mesh and straps re
quired.
Heavy
2 ft
circular
3 ft
2 to 3 ft
Total Thickness
-------------------------------Crown
Sides
Additional
Support (b)
S................................................................................................................................................................................
None to
occasional
None to
occasional
Medium
2 to 4 ft
to heavy
circular
Medium
2 ft
to heavy
circular
Shotcrete (b)
(Conditional use in poor and very poor rock)
Rare
Rare

100% mesh and straps re
quired.
100% mesh and straps as re
required.
None to occasional
local application
None to occasional
local application
2 to 3 in.
Local application
2 to 3 in.
Local application
2 to 3 in.
2 to 4 in.
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
4 in.
4 in.
or more
None
or more
4 to 6 in.
4 to 6 in.
6 in.
6 in.
or more
or more
Provide for
rock bolts
Provide for
rock bolts
Rock bolts am
required (approx.
4-6 ft cc.)
Rock bolts as
required (approx.
4-6 ft. cc.)
Medium sets as
required
6 in.
or more on whol a section
6 in.
or more on whole section
Medium to heavy
sets as required
6 in.
or more on whole section
Heavy sets as
required
Groundwater conditions and the details of jointing and weathering

Table reflects 1969 technology in the United States.
See Deere et. al. (1969a)
should be considered in conjunction with these guidelines particularly in the poor quality rock.
for discussion of use and limitations of the guidelines for specific situations.
a Bolt diameter - 1 in. length - 1/3 to 1/4 tunnel width. It may be difficult or impossible to obtain anchorage with mechanically
anchored rock bolts in poor and very poor rock.
Grouted anchors may also be unsatisfactory in very wet tunnels.
b Because shotcrete experience is limited, only general guidelines are given for support in the poorer quality rock.
c Logging requirements for steel sets will usually be minimal in excellent rock and will range from up to 25 percent in good rock
to 100 percent in very poor rock.
/
d In good and excellent quality rock, the support requirement with in general be minimal but will be dependent on joint geometry,
tunnel diameter, and relative orientations of joints and tunnel.
roughness,
it
still
is
orientation,
or state of stress, the authors believe
a useful tool in predicting ground conditions and
support requirements for tunnels.
The analysis is
quick and
inexpensive and may be used as the sole design method for

experienced tunnel engineers or geologists or simply be used as a
check guide on other more comprehensive design methods.
The authors have encountered cases where the RQD did not
correlate well with required tunnel support.
For example,
there
are cases where the RQD was in the good to excellent range yet
considerable tunnel support was required.
Two examples of this
are as follows:
o
open solution-widened joints in
a massive limestone.
Tunnelling through this rock mass resulted in shifting

of large rock blocks bounded by the solutioned joints.
o
Small clay-filled joints or shears that were moderately

spaced but adversely oriented within a generally
massive rock mass.
Tunneling through this rock
resulted in very blocky ground requiring more support

than predicted by RQD.
Cases where very low RQD's have overpredicted support/

reinforcement requirements include the following:
o
Highly fractured volcanic
(or granitic) rocks --
the
joints or fractures were rough, tight, discontinuous,

.well-interlocked, and under sufficient stress to
prevent loosening.
25
Prediction of In-Situ Modulus

Another aspect of the University of Illinois RQD research in
the late 1960's was the correlation of the RQD (or velocity
Obviously,
ratio) with the in-situ modulus of deformation.
the
greater the fracturing and alteration the lower the RQD and,
also, the lower the modulus; correlations showed this to be true
(Deere et al.,
Merritt,
1967; Hendron,
1968; Deere et al.,
1969b; Coon and
1970).
The modulus or elasticity of an intact rock specimen can be

measured in the laboratory by plotting stress versus strain in
The laboratory modulus of an
the unconfined compression test.
intact rock specimen may be defined by Et 50 (the slope of a line

tangent to the stress-strain curve taken at 50 percent of failure
stress).
This modulus of elasticity in the lab is,
of course, higher
than the modulus of deformability (static modulus of elasticity)

of the rock mass because the in-situ rock mass has discontinu
ities
or joints.
The ratio of intact lab modulus (Ets 0 or Elab)
to the in-situ rock mass modulus
(Ed or Erk mm)
correlates in
a general way with the RQD.

The relationship of the modulus ratio to the RQD as
developed by Coon and Merritt
correlation is
(1970)
is
shown on Figure 4.
The
useful above RQD>60 percent but insufficient data
exist for the low RQD range.

The junior author has used this correlation on small
projects where it
is
not economically feasible to perform large
scale in-situ testing.
For example, the correlation has proved

26
U)
U)
a
w0
0
I
.-J
0
QUALITY
ROCK
0
0
0
DWORSHAK
DAM,GRANITE
DESIGNATION
GNEISS,
, ROD , %
SURFACE GAGES
BURIED
TWO FORKS DAMSITE , GNEISS

YELLOWTAIL
DAM , LIMESTONE
GLEN CANYON , SANDSTONE
AFTER COON a MERRITT

1970
FIG. 4 - RQD. VERSUS MODULUS RATIO
quite useful in
evaluating the safety of existing concrete dams
subject to loading from flood-overtopping,

deformation of the foundation is
where the modulus of
required as an input factor.
Drill cores of the rock foundation are tested for lab moduli and
then corrected by the modulus ratio reduction factor.
The Velocity Index can be substituted for RQD where RQD
information is
performed.
not available or only limited borings are
The Velocity Index is
defined as the square of the
ratio of field in-situ seismic compressional velocity (Vf) to the

laboratory compressional sonic velocity (V1 ) or (Vf/Vl)
field velocities may be taken via seismic refraction,
or downhole techniques.
The
cross-hole,
Laboratory sonic velocities are measured
on core specimens loaded to 3000-psi (211-kg/cm2 ) stress levels.

The correlation is
Index.
nearly one to one between RQD and Velocity
Table 3 displays the correlation between RQD,
Index, and the Modulus Ratio (after Coon and Merritt,
Velocity
1970).
TABLE 3
CORRELATIONS OF MODULUS RATIO WITH RQD
AND VELOCITY INDEX
Velocity
Ro
Classification
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
0
25
50
75
90
Kulhawy (1978)
Index
25
50
75
90
0-0.20
0.20-0.40
0.40-0.60
0.60-0.80
0.80-1.00
100
Modulus Ratio
Ek-mas-.
< 0.20
< 0.20
0.20-0.50
0.50-0.80
0.80-1.00
expounded on the RQD/Modulus Ratio or
Reduction Factor by including an additional parameter of joint

stiffness.
He developed a series of curves that allowed
estimation of the modulus reduction if

28
RQD was measured and joint
stiffness was estimated from a table of representative measured

The estimated modulus was then
values for different rock types.
proposed for use in a rational estimation of settlement on rock

foundations.
Bieniawski (1978)
proposed a method for estimating the
modulus of deformation based on his RMR ratings of which RQD is
His preliminary work showed reasonably good
parameter.
correlation.
The correlation was given as:

Emck ma
where
Emck ma
and
'
2 X RMR - 100
(1)
" in-situ static modulus of
deformation in GPa
RMR = rock mass rating in accordance with the

Geomechanics Classification - for RMR >50.
(2)
Erok mas = 1 0 (RMR-10)/40 for RMR <50
(Serafim et al., 1983)
The senior author over the last decade has not used the RQD
correlation extensively but has employed for preliminary
estimates the unpublished correlation of seismic P-wave velocity
or seismic modulus and the in-situ modulus
=
rock ma"
1.5 to 10, often 4 to 5),
(Ei,JE,t,tiC of
or the correlation with the
shear wave frequency of Schneider as given by Bieniawski

For critical cases,
(1978).
the authors prefer large-scale in-situ
testing where the loading direction in the testing approximates

that in the prototype structure so that the significant rock
joints can be appropriately tested.
In
summary,
the RQD - Modulus Reduction correlation is
useful for obtaining a rough estimate of in-situ modulus of

deformation.
The authors recommend that it
be used in
conjunction with other modulus estimating techniques.

29
Foundation Settlement Correlations

Peck et al.,
(1974)
proposed allowable foundation contact
pressures on jointed rock on the basis of the RQD.
They stated
with respect to settlement on unweathered rock:
Unless the strength of the intact rock is extremely

low, roughly equal to or less than that of plain
concrete, the allowable contact pressure beneath
foundations is governed exclusively by the settlement
associated with the defects in the rock, and not by
The compressibility is closely related to
strength.
the spacing and direction of the joints, whether they
are tight or open, and whether they are filled or
If the joints are tight
coated with softer materials.
or are not wider than a fraction of an inch, the
compressibility is reflected by the RQD (Art. 5.3).
Table 4 presents the maximum allowable contact pressure for

different RQD values for a total maximum settlement of 0.5 in.
(12.7 mm)
proposed by Peck et al.,
(1974).
of allowable pressure should not be used if
The tabulated value

it
exceeds the
unconfined compressive rock strength.

TABLE 4
ALLOWABLE CONTACT PRESSURE q. ON JOINTED ROCK
(tons/sQ ft)
300
200
120
65
30
10
100
90
75
50
25
0
Peck (1976)
notes,
in
(lb/sa
in)
4170
2780
1660
970
410
140
a later paper presents the same table and
"...This correlation can give useful results if

30
tempered
However,
by a detailed knowledge of the geology of the deposit.

it
crude step..."
only a first
is
Kulhawy (1978)
that "It
reviewed this concept in his paper and agreed
does provide a convenient starting point for evaluating
foundations on rock masses."
He proposed a method for providing
a quantative estimate of rock foundation settlement based on RQD,

Modulus Reduction or Ratio,
and joint stiffness, as previously
noted.
Fracture Freauency
There are instances where it
is
useful to convert fracture
For example,
frequency to RQD or vice versa.
use of rock mass
classification systems usually require RQD as an input,
and if
RQD has not been directly measured in core, measurement of

fracture frequency from outcrop scanline surveys can be
converted.
Various conversion factors have been derived and are
discussed below.
A word of caution should be noted; there is
not a direct or
totally appropriate conversion available since RQD is
a much more
general measure of rock mass or rock core quality than fracture

frequency.
RQD discounts for core loss and highly weathered or
soft rock zones
(soundness requirement).
RQD are closely related, however,

that is
Fracture frequency and
for an unweathered rock mass
degraded only by fracturing.
Therb have been various publications that discuss the

fracture frequency/RQD correlation.
include,
Deere et al.,
Chronologically these
(1967); Priest and Hudson

31
(1976);
Kulhawy (1978); Goodman and Smith (1980); Wallis and King (1980);
Priest and Hudson (1981); Palmstrom (1982); Hudson and Priest
(1983); Sen (1984); Sen and Kazi (1984); Kazi and Sen (1985).
Linear fracture freguency

define the correlation between
Priest and Hudson (1976)
linear fracture frequency and RQD as randomly distributed

RQD = 100e -O.1?
(3)
(0.1N+ 1)
where A = mean discontinuity frequency per meter.

or
RQD = 110.4 -
(4)
3.68 ?, when 6 < X < 16
These appear to be reasonable correlations for use in
rock
outcrop scanline surveys and were confirmed by 27 surveys in

chalks and mudstones.
This randomly distributed theoretical
relationship was also confirmed in the field by Wallis and King

(1980)
at a site within granite.
Goodman and Smith (1980)
explored the theoretical models and
bounds of possibility in the correlation.
The relationships
between RQD and fracture frequency are shown in

Priest and Hudson relationship
(1976),
Figure 5.
The
as presented above,
approximates the line of averages shown in Figure 5 and appears

to be a preferred formula.
Volumetric fracture freguency

Palmdtrom
count (Jv).
(1982)
This is
developed the concept of volumetric joint

a simple measure of the degree of jointing
and refers to the number of joints per cubic meter.

32
Palmstrom
100
75
6
0a,
50
25
15
20
25
30
35
DISCONTINUITIES PER I.5m. RUN

AFTER GOODMAN
1980
FIG. 5
RQD. VERSUS FRACTURE FREQUENCY
33
8 SMITH
derived the theoretical correlation between Jv and RQD as

RQD = 115 -
3.3
(Jv) for Jv > 4.5
(5)
This conversion factor has been advocated by Barton et al.,

(1974)
for use in the Q System Rock Mass Classification as well
as by the International Society of Rock Mechanics

Kazi and Sen (1985)
volumetric RQD (V.
RQD).
(1978).
proposed a rock mass parameter termed

The V. RQD is
calculated by summation
of the volumes of intact blocks bigger than 0.001 m3 [i.e.,

cubic block with 4 in.
mass volume,
(100 mm)
for a
sides] divided by the total rock
expressed as a percentage.
The volumetric joint count (Jv) and volumetric RQD (V.
RQD)
are refinements on linear fracture frequency and RQD that account

for 3-dimensionality of discontinuities.
in
They may prove useful
cases where oriented coring and 3-D rock exposures are
available for inspection and when one has case history experience
with these parameters.
34
PART V: UTILIZATION OF THE RQD IN LATER ROCK

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
were
system
In the early 1970's a number of rock classification
Two that have gained international acceptance
introduced.
Bieniawski
and that are increasingly being used are those of
Both systems use the RQD as an
(1973) and Barton et al., (1974).
input parameter.
Bieniawskil's Rock Mass Rating System (Geonechanics
Classification)
Bieniawski (1973)
in
the presentation of his classification
of jointed rock masses notes:
...
7 has a
Deere's very practical and simple approach
considerable potential in relating 21his rock alitYin

as well as
desiqnation (RQD) to tunnel support
22.
However,
masses
rock
of
estimating deformability
joint
of
influence
the
disregards
the RQD method
may
orientation, continuity and gouge material which
all be of great importance in some cases.
Bieniawski proposed (1973)
that for his Geomechanics
be incorporated:
Classification the following parameters should
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Rock Quality Designation (RQD);

State of weathering;
Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock;
Spacing of joints or bedding;
strike and dip orientations;
separation of joints;
Continuity of joints; and
Groundwater inflow.
With respect to the RQD he notes:
35
...
The state of the rock cores recovered in
a drilling
program is a valuable indication of the in-situ

condition and probable engineering behavior of a rock
mass1 . Various criteria may be used for quantitative
description of the rock quality in the cores, such as
core recovery, fragment size, fracture frequency or
rock quality designation (RQD).
While the actual
choice is largely a matter of personal preference, the
Author advocates the use of RQD because it has been
found particularly useful in classifying rock masses
for selection of tunnel support systems 2 , 20, 21.
...
It
should be noted that for RQD determination,
core
of at least 50 mm in diameter should be used and double

tube N size core barrels (75 mm OD) with non-rotating
inner barrels are strongly recommended 24 .
With respect to the limitations of RQD and its practical

advantages Bieniawski (1973)
...
states:
The limitations of the RQD are that is
disregards
the influence of joint orientations, continuity and

gouge material. On the other hand, the RQD procedure
is simple, inexpensive and reproducible.
As a result
it is used extensively in the U.S.A. and Europe and is
currently quickly gained acceptance in South Africa.
...
If
the RQD method is
used in
core logging, there is
no need for determination of also fracture frequency

(i.e. the number of fractures over an arbitrary length)
or the fragment size, as this would be duplication of
effort.
The RQD parameter was given a rating in the classification

procedure which in the 1973 article ranged from 3 for very poor
rock to 16- for very good rock.
Ratings for the other parameters
were obtained and summed to give the total rating.
The value of
the total rating then defined the rock mass class; for example,
rating of 70 to 90 indicated Class No.
36
2, good rock.
Over the years,
as more experience was obtained,
changes were made to the classification system.
several
The reader is
referred to Bieniawski's recent paper given at the ASTM Symposium

in
on Rock Classification Systems for tngineering Purposes held
June 1987 in Cincinnati (Bieniawski,
1988)
for current
classification procedures and utilization of the method.

term Rock Mass RatinQ System (RMR)
The
appears to be gaining
preference over the previous name of Geomechanics Classification.
Barton's 0 System
(Norwegian Geotechnical Institute)
A group from the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI)

proposed an engineering classification of rock masses for the
The rock mass
design of tunnel support (Barton et al., 1974).
quality Q was proposed, being the result of six classification
parameters:
the RQD index, the number of joint sets Jn, the
or
roughness of the weakest joints Jr, the degree of alteration
filling along the weakest joints Ja, the degree of water inflow
Jw,
and a stress reduction factor SRF.
With respect to the RQD
they note:
...
The RQD index happens to be one of the better
single
parameters since it is a combined measure of joint

frequency and degree of alteration and discontinuity
However, it is relatively
fillings, if these exist.
insensitive to several important properties of rock
masses, in particular the friction angle of altered
joint fillings (Cording and Deere, 1972), and the
roughness or planarity of joint walls.
Barton el al.,
(1974)
modified the RQD by multiplying the
indicators of:
value by appropriate factors that were considered
37
1.
Relative block size,
2.
Inter-Block shear strength,
3.
Active stress,
The overall quality Q is
(RQD/Jn)
(Jr/Jn)
(Jw/SRF)
given by the product:
Q = (RQD/Jn)
(Jr/Ja)
(Jw/SRF)
(6)
Nine ranges of Q were identified with the following

descriptive terminology
(eliminating herein the lowest and
highest ranges for simplicity and as being of lesser interest):

Extremely poor,
10; Good,
0.01-0.1; Very poor,
10-40; Very good,
Barton et al.,
unavailable,
(1974)
0.1-1; Poor, 1-4; Fair, 4
40-100; and Extremely good,
100-400.
stated that when borecore was
the RQD could be estimated as follows (Barton quotes
personal communication with Palmstrom,

RQD-
1974):
115 - 3.3 Jv
(7)
where Jv - total number of joint per m3

(RQD -
100 for Jv < 4.5)
For details of the methodology and the application to

selecting tunneling support the reader is
directed to the recent
publication by Barton (1988).

Hoek and Brown (1980)
in their book state:
The large amount of information contained in . . . (the

instruction table] . . . may lead the reader to suspect
that the NGI Tunneling Quality Index is unnecessarily

complex and that it would be difficult to use in the
analysis of practical problems.
This is far from the
case and an attempt to determine the value of Q for a
typidal rock mass will soon convince the reluctant user
that the instructions are simple and unambiguous and
that,
with familiarity .
very easy to use.
38
[the tables]
. become
Bieniawski
(1976)
made a comparison of his RMR ratings and
Barton's Q rock quality for 111 cases and found a reasonably good
correlation with the following relation:
(8)
RMR = 9 ln Q + 44
Bieniawski
NGI system is
(1976)
states,
".
. the author has found the
relatively easy to apply once the user is
familiarized with its
principles."
Geomechanics Classification
(RMR)
He recommends that both the

and the NGI Classification (Q)
be used on each project for cross-checking purposes.

agree that this is
fully
The authors
worthwhile in order to accumulate experience,
not only in the correlation of the two classifications but also

in the correlation with design parameters and construction
experience.
39
PART VI: PERTINENT QUESTIONS OF RQD IN PRACTICE
Each District and Division of the US Army Corps of Engineers

submitted comments and questions about the RQD to Dr.
Banks,
Don C.
Chief, Engineering Geology and Rock Mechanics Division,
Geotechnical Laboratory, US Army Waterway Experiment Station,

Vicksburg, Mississippi.
A total of 28 letters were received in
December 1986 and January 1987 from the Corps as well as from a
number of geotechnical consultants to the Corps.
The authors of this report have placed each question or
comment into one of five general categories that have been
established as follows:
1.
Mechanics of Determining RQD,
2.
Special RQD logging Problems,
3.
Desirability of Additional Geological Observations,
4.
Applications to Engineering and Construction, and
5.
General Usefulness of RQD.
The categorized questions and comments as excerpted from the

28 letters of response are presented in the Appendix.
section presents the authors'
replies.
This
The number following each
topic heading corresponds to the outline in the Appendix.
Mechanics of Determining ROD (1)

Core diameter (1A)
The topic of core diameter proved to be one of the more
popular subjects for comments and questions.
addressed this item.
Thirteen responses
The principal question was if

40
diameter
larger or smaller than NX size could be used and if
Several Corps of Engineer
coefficients would be necessary.

Districts use NQ,
HQ,
correlation
and PQ wire-line coring and/or 4 in.
(100
mm) coring.
As noted in Part III, the original work on RQD was done
almost exclusively on NX-size core.
Deere (1968)
recommended
that cores of at least NX size obtained by double-tube core

barrels be used together with proper drilling supervision.
Experience of the last decade has shown that the wire-line
increasingly being used,
series of core bits and barrels is

particularly for the deeper holes.
diameter'
(or NWM)
(1.875 in.,
47.6 mm)
size (2.155 in.,
either size,
The NQ core of 1-7/8-in.

now perhaps as common as NWX
is
54.7 mm)
and the RQD is
being taken on
interchangeably without any correlation coefficient,
which appears to be acceptable practice.

The question then arises as to the next size smaller in both
categories [BWX,
or BWM,
of diameter 1-7/16 in.
of diameter 1.655 in.

(1.438 in.,
36.5 mm)].
(42.0 mm); and BQ,

Experience has
shown that in good quality rock these sizes give similar results
to those obtained with the larger sizes.
However,
in weathered
and heavily fractured rock, and in weak sedimentary and foliated

and schistose metamorphic rocks,
there is
a tendency for more
core breakage and, perhaps, more core loss.

to fit
Attempts can be made
the core breaks back together for core measurements to
Core diameters referred to in this report are nominal

Actual diameters may vary slightly depending
dimensions.
upon core barrel manufacturers.
41
The authors believe that
compensate for some of the breakage.
the RQD should be taken on the BWX and BQ cores but that a note
should be added to the boring log pointing out that both core
taken with
recovery and RQD values may be slightly lower than if

the recommended NQ size or larger.
The AWX-AWM and AQ sizes

27.0 mm,
30-mm diameter; and 1-1/16 in.,
(1.185 in.,
respectively)
are considered too small to be used for RQD because

grinding, and loss.
of their potential for core breakage,
At the other end of the scale the larger diameter HQ (2-1/2

in.,
63.5 mm); the 2-3/4 in.

3.343 in.,
11/32 in.,
and the 6 in.

RQD.
(2.690 in.,
68.3 mm); the PQ (3
(5.970 in.,
151.6 mm)
100.8 mm);
(3.970 in.,
85.0 mm); the 4 in.
are all acceptable for the
The HQ and 2-3/4-in. sizes are quite common now,
particularly for the upper portion of a borehole.
In
using the
larger diameter cores the RQD measurements must be taken along

the core axis centerline as described in the following section.
The 4-in.
(100 mm)
counted still
requisite length for a core piece to be
would apply.
Length measurement of core pieces (1B)

Included among the ten comments and questions received on
this topic were three different items:
measurement,
(2)
the recommendation
(1)
the position of the
(by others) of using a
requisite length of twice the core diameter,
and (3)
the problem
of distinguishing between natural and induced fractures.

discussion of these items is
also presented in Part III.
42
The original RQD papers by Deere and his colleagues at the

University of Illinois never specifically outlined where the
length measurement should be taken on a core and thus
clarification is
Experience has shown that the length
needed.
should be measured at the core axis or centerline advocated by

the International Society of Rock Mechanics (1978,
1980).
This
equivalent to a scanline and thus is
method of measurement is
independent of core size and is
less sensitive to joint angle.
Confusion as to the requisite length measurement arose due

1971; Goodman,
to publications by others (Heuze,
defined RQD as "percentage recovery of core in

than twice its
diameter."
This statement is
correct for the N-sized core only.

length, measured at centerline,
The 4-in.
1981) that
lengths greater
approximately
(100 mm)
requisite
should be used for all applicable
The spacing of natural unbounded joints does not
core sizes.
change with core size.

It
is
often very difficult to distinguish between natural
and induced fractures.

of Rock Mechanics
(1978,
A committee of the International Society

1981)
addressed the problem as follows:
.. When estimating frequency or RQD from drillcore it

breaks (frac
is necessary to discount fresh artificial
and also
process,
tures) clearly caused by the drilling
the core
into
core
those made deliberately when fitting
suggested:
The following criteria are
boxes.
(i)
surface with fresh cleavage

A rough brittle
planes in individual rock minerals indicates
fracture.
an artificial
(ii)
A generally smooth or somewhat weathered

surface with soft coating or infilling
materials such as talc, gypsum, chlorite,
43
mica or calcite obviously indicates a natural

discontinuity.
(iii)In
rocks showing foliation, cleavage or

bedding it may be difficult to distinguish
between natural discontinuities and
artificial
fractures when these are parallel
with the incipient weakness planes.
If
drilling has been carried out carefully then
the questionable breaks should be counted as
natural fractures, to be on the conservative
side.
(iv)
Depending upon the drilling equipment part of

the length of core being drilled may
occasionally rotate with the inner barrels in
such a way that grinding of the surfaces of
discontinuities and fractures occurs.
In
weak rock types it may be very difficult to
decide if the resulting rounded surfaces
represent natural or artificial
features.
When in doubt the conservative assumption
should be made, i.e.
assume that they are
natural.
(v)
It may be useful to keep a separate record of

the frequency of artificial
fractures (and
associated lower RQD) for assessing the
possible influence of blasting on the weaker
sedimentary and foliated or schistose
metamorphic rocks.
Length of corinQ run and of ROD interval (1C)

A total of five questions or comments were received
regarding the appropriate interval or run length over which to
measure the RQD.
This concept is
discussed in
Part III with
further discussion below.

The RQD is
highly sensitive to core-run length or interval,
providing more delineation of anomalously "poor" or "good" rock

zones with-shorter lengths.
The authors advocate the-following
procedure:
44
1.
Log RQD as the core comes out of the ground based on

the actual drill-run lengths and record on the drilling
The length of coring-run should preferably not
logs.
(1.5 m)
exceed 5 ft.
recovery is
but in more massive rocks where
100 percent,
10-ft.
(3 m) runs are
acceptable.
2.
During drilling, the actual length of poor and good

rock zones should be described by prose in the drilling
log and should be supplemented by calculation of RQD on
"variable artificial
run lengths" to highlight poor
quality or good quality zones,

etc.
This is
changes in
lithology,
analogous to the standard practice of
performing packer permeability tests on 20-ft.

intervals within a boring,
(6 m)
followed up by select tests
on smaller intervals in areas of high water "takes."

3.
After one has gathered the proper information in
the
field by the logging procedures described above,
the
RQD values can then be assembled for different areas,

etc. by calculation of weighted averages.
depths,
example,
For
a weighted average for RQD can be calculated
for each boring to compare one area of the site with

another.
-within
The weighted average of RQD for core taken
2 or 3 tunnel diameters of a tunnel alignment
could be assembled and used for classification of the

tunnelling rock.
Weighted averages can also be
calculated for each rock type encountered,

structural domain,
each
and for the upper weathered zone.
45
Special ROD LoQginQ Problems (2)
Drilling eciuipment and technigues
(2A)
Three comments were submitted with respect to the

questionable reproducibility of RQD since it
is
human factors (skill and attitude of the drill

the equipment used.
serious problem.
It
dependent on
operator) and on
The authors agree that these can be a

is
important in all aspects of geotechnical
investigations to obtain the best information possible, not just

for RQD measurement.
The engineering geologist or geotechnical
engineer can reduce the influence of these operational factors

by:
(1)
specification of proper drilling equipment in the bid
documents (e.g.,
(2)
double- or triple-tube core barrels,
etc.)
and
providing for trained technical supervisory personnel on-site
during drilling.
In
addition,
correct measurement of RQD calls for dis
counting mechanically induced core breaks,

always easily discerned.
although there are not
The junior author has had some success
reducing drilling breakage and core loss by specifying a two

tiered payment system, whereby footage was paid for at one scale
for recovery above 95 percent,
poorer recovery.
and at a second lower scale for
This system of payment helps counter the
traditional system whereby the drill

footage bonuses from his company,
hole advance.
46
operator receives daily

which may result in
overzealous
Prompt logging of core (2B)

The problem of core deterioration with time and handling was
pointed out, especially when drilling thinly bedded argillaceous
rocks.
The authors advocate logging of the core immediately after
it
is
Valuable information is
removed from the ground.
every time the core is
This requirement is
handled.
lost
paramount
when dealing with shales that undergo time-dependent slaking,

desiccation,
stress-relief cracking,
or swelling.
Applicability to certain rock types (2C)

By far, the greatest number of comments and questions
received were with respect to the applicability of RQD to certain
rock types.
A total of 16 comments were received on this subject
and are tabulated in the Appendix,

been subdivided into (1)
General Problems;
Interbedded Sedimentary Rocks;

Cavities; and (4)
Section 2C.
(3)
(2)
The comments have

Shale, Claystone,
Limestone with Solution
Volcanics and Metamorphics.

Six comments or queries were received
General problems.
that have been lumped together under this heading.

pal question appears to be if
all rock types.
Yes,
it
the RQD procedure is
The princi
applicable to
has been applied to all lithologies.
Difficulties often arise with thinly bedded,
laminated
sedimentary rocks and schistose or foliated metamorphic rocks.

Such rocks are prone to breakage along the incipient-weak
surfaces during drilling and handling.
Good drilling techniques
with minimum vibration and large diameter cores (HQ or larger)

47
can yield intact cores.
These must be logged immediately before
they break up due to handling, drying, and stress-relief

cracking.
it
When drilling subparallel to the weakness direction,
is very difficult to obtain cores without breakage or core
loss.
Boreholes should be drilled at various orientations to
investigate the directional sensitivity.

Another problem is
count at the 4-in.
the artificial
(100 mm)
discontinuity in
requisite length.
the RQD
Such a break
penalizes too heavily the hard, thin-bedded siltstone,
limestone,
etc. that have bed thicknesses
(and bedding plane joints) at say
3 in.
it
(76 mm).
In
retrospect,
might have been better to have
chosen some form of weighted average so that all

could contribute to the RQD count.
usage, however,
it
core pieces
At the present state of
seems best to retain the requisite length and
to note on the boring log the reason for the low RQD.
larger diameter drill
bits, best drilling techniques,
Employing
and short
runs will reduce core breakage along the incipient bedding plane
joints and will lead to higher,
and more realistic, RQD values.
Such would not apply, of course, to pre-existing bedding joints

formed in
nature by stress-relief and weathering.
Shale, claystones,
interbedded sedimentary rocks.
queries have been assigned to this category.

overlap with the previous comments.
There is
Five
some
The argillaceous rocks
present the most trouble because they are weak and susceptible to
breakage during drilling, handling,
and moisture changes.
and storage due to vibration
Routine drilling and logging will not
give good samples or correct RQD values.

48
The more careful
technique mentioned in the previous section must be employed to

obtain optimal results.
The senior author recalls examining cores on a hydro project
in Columbia many years ago.
The shale cores had broken into
(poker chips) and RQD logging appeared next to impossible.
disks
site and examining the cores as
when going to the drill
However,
they were retrieved,
the cores were seen to be intact across the
lightly bonded bedding planes and the cross-cutting joints could

easily be recognized.
RQD logging was possible.
The applicability of the RQD to shales or claystones inter

bedded with hard limestone or sandstone was of common concern in
several of the inquiries.
This is
a common condition in many
parts of the United States as well as elsewhere.
There is
tendency for the harder core pieces to spin on the softer shale
and vice versa.
Shorter runs,
2-1/2 ft.
to 5 ft.
and larger core diameter usually result in

It
(0.75 to 1.5 m),
improvement.
would be of value for the different Districts that have
this interbedded geology to conduct a series of field tests in

which adjacent holes are drilled with variations in core
diameter,
run length, and drilling techniques to isolate the most
important variables.
Limestone with solution cavities.
this condition.
geology.
Four comments dealt with
The RQD should not be isolated from the site
The presence of a cavity within a core run should be
duly recorded on the boring log.

partial "artificial"
In addition to the -overall RQD,
run lengths can be shown with the
appropriate RQD for each,
including zero for the cavity.

49
Volcanics and metamorphics.

with basalts and metamorphics,
One comment dealt specifically
noting that these strong rock
masses may receive lower ratings than they deserve because of the
elimination of short core pieces.
The authors agree.
Rock
masses that contain tight, interlocked,
irregular discontinuous
joints may be quite strong, impervious,
and of high modulus.
At a recent project in Argentina,
a wide, highly fractured
zone in andesite between two small faults was questionable as a

foundation for two blocks of a high concrete gravity dam because
of its
fractured nature (mostly small pieces in the muck pile
following blasting; highly fractured appearance in-situ; and RQD

of about 25 in
several of the short borings that had been
recently made to investigate the zone).
Seismic traverses were
performed and surprisingly high P-wave velocities were obtained,

around 13,000 to 15,000-ft/sec.
(4,000 to 4,500-m/sec.),
values
similar to those for the adjacent less fractured andesite that

contained hard rhyolite intrusions.
A closer examination was
made of the highly fractured zone and it
was noted to be very
tight, difficult to remove with a pick, and the joints were

rehealed with hard epidote coatings.
The thin hard coatings were
sufficient to improve the rock mass quality and make it

acceptable foundation rock; the coring and the blasting, however,
had broken the bonding of the joints,
This example is
one of many,
resulting in small pieces.
no doubt, where the RQD gives
values too low for the rock with respect to bearing capacity and
modulus.
But,
for production of aggregate or riprap one might
say the RQD gave values consistent for those uses.

50
Orientation effects (2D)

the bias
Three questions or comments were received regarding
with
in RQD that may result from differing borehole orientations
The problem is not severe where 3
respect to joint orientation.
be some
or 4 joint sets exist, although, even then, there can
bias when the boreholes parallel one of the sets.
The major problem is
created when there is
a Predominant
joint set, such as foliation or schistosity joints in metamorphic

bedded
rocks, or one or two vertical joint sets in horizontally
For best results from the viewpoint of good
sedimentary rocks.
joints
core recovery, less breakage, and crossing the predominant
normal
at their true spacing, the borehole orientation should be
Such orientation is often not practical but an
to the joints.
should
intersection of no greater than 45 degrees to 55 degrees
be attempted.
Where the intersection is
to 90 degrees,
breakage,
at a steep angle, say 60 degrees
in addition to the greater potential for core
there can be a considerable bias in one of two ways.
or only
borehole may miss the predominant jointing altogether
On the other
cross it once or twice, leading to a higher RQD.
and follow
hand, the borehole may hit a joint from the beginning
and to
it for a considerable distance, leading to core breakage
So as not be penalize the rock
no pieces of cylindrical core.
is
quality too greatly, the center-line or axis measurement
recommended,
as previously discussed.
more than one

A recommended procedure that has been used on
set exists, is
occasion by the writers, where a predominant joint
51
to drill
the boreholes at both favorable and unfavorable crossing
angles so as to determine the directional bias.
Notes can be
added to the boring logs pointing out this fact.
Desirability of Additional Geological Observations
(3)
The importance of observing and recording other rock mass

characteristics was commented on by eight inquirers.
The authors
certainly agree that RQD does not stand alone when attempting to
describe or characterize rock mass behavior (Deere,
1963).
The
RQD may be characterized as a simple index, analogous to the SPT

blow count for soils, that has not only many useful design
correlations but also many limitations.
Joint conditions (3A)

It
was recognized in the development of the RQD that many of
the important joint characteristics would not be included in the

RQD procedure and that additional engineering geological
observations and description would be necessary.
mass classification systems of Bieniawski
al.,
(1974)
istics,
in
(1973)
The later rock

and Barton et
do include most of the important joint character

fact, an important contribution of their systems was
to provide check lists
of joint characteristics to be determined
from the core logging and field mapping.
Local geologv,
weathering,
fracture freauency
(3B)
The many excellent comments received on these topics speak

for themselves.
The RQD is
only one of several tools or

52
techniques that help in understanding the site geology, siting

structures, and selecting foundation depths or tunnel supports.
It
should not be used without a good knowledge of the
local geology including weathering,
lithology,
stratigraphy,
and
structural features.
Applications to EngineerinQ and construction

General
asks
(4)
(4A)
One
Two comments or queries were assigned to this category.
for revision and expansion of the RQD - Rock Quality Table
to have,
,'... built in restrictions to prevent misinterpretation
for
of the rock quality descriptions (very poor - excellent)
rock
qualifying the meaning of the terms as applied to different
types and to the design of various types of structures,
tunneling,
excavations and foundations."
The suggestion is
good but because the two new classifi
cation systems of Bieniawski (1988)
and of Barton (1988)
have
improved on the RQD and have more recent and more comprehensive
case histories relating to various design and construction
experience,
it
appears advisable to use their relationships.
a design
The second comment relates to the use of the RQD as
Certainly, the
aid without the consideration of other factors.
be
site geology with all of its pertinent factors must
of
As noted above, the newer classification systems
considered.
They include the RQD
Bieniawski and of Barton are recommended.
factors.
but as only one of several other important
53
The RQD in
itself
should not be modified,
opinion; the usefulness of the RQD is
in
its
in the authors
simplicity.
The low
RQD values act as a "red flag" to the engineering geologist and

rock engineer who must investigate the- cause of the low values rock weathering,
techniques.
shear zone,
thin bedding,
The RQD is not an end in
etc.,
itself
or poor drilling
but an indicator of
conditions to be investigated and explained.
Excavation. dredging. underwater blasting (4B)

Three queries were received on the general subject of
excavation.
The RQD can not stand alone as a correlation tool
with excavatability,
in
but has been used as one of the parameters
excavatability prediction.
The junior author has made his own
successful predictions of excavatability on projects using:
(1)
RQD measured on short intervals and unconfined compressive

strength for a prediction of excavatability of a slurry wall with
a clamshell,
and (2)
the RQD,
unconfined compressive strength,
and seismic refraction velocity for prediction of single-tooth

rippability with a D-8 dozer, all correlated by field rippability
tests.
Recently,
two excavatability prediction systems using RQD as
a parameter have been published.
Correlations have been
developed using several case histories.
Smith (1986)
the RMR System to estimate rippability.
Kirsten (1988)
characterizes excavatability for trenching, digging,

ripping using a modified Q System.
54
utilizes
dozing,
and
For any type of underwater excavation,
it
is
important to
have a sufficient number of well controlled borings so that a

realistic geologic profile can be prepared with appropriate
descriptions and parameters for each geotechnical unit.
Foundations,
in-situ modulus (4C)
Approximately one-third of the respondents queried the

usefulness of the foundation bearing or in-situ modulus
correlations with RQD.
These topics are described within Part
IV.
Both correlations are useful as starting points and should
be utilized in
conjunction with other correlations or as checks
with field tests.
Kulhawy's (1978)
settlement and Bieniawski's (1978)
model for rock foundation

correlation with deformation
modulus both improve on the RQD concept by including joint

properties.
The senior author's primary use of RQD for foundations is
for project siting when comparing depths of excavation to
acceptable rock for high concrete dams.
Tunnels
In
(4D)
response to a query on the applicability of RQD to
openings at great depths,

applicable for its
the authors believe it
is
still
primary use for project siting or "red
flagging"- of zones of poor quality rock.
Core disking due to
high in-situ stress may occur which would preclude the use of the
RQD.
The ratio of in-situ stress to the intact unconfined

55
compressive strength controls the core disking as it

wall stability.
would tunnel
Reference should be made to Barton (1988)
for
more on this topic.

Horizontal borings along the tunnel line would be most
helpful in
intersecting the steep structural features of shears,
faults, and closely jointed zones and allowing the RQD to be

During the construction of several tunnels
determined for each.
horizontal "feeler" or probe holes have been drilled from the

face of the tunnel to give advance warning of weak zones and any
contained groundwater.
Occasionally,
horizontal holes from the tunnel portal area
have been drilled during the exploratory phase.
For practical
purposes, however, most of the exploratory drilling for tunnels

will be vertical with some angled holes to cross suspected weak
fractures and to give a 3-dimensional picture of the bedding and
the jointing.
Erosion resistance,
rouahness coefficient
(4E)
Two interesting questions were received regarding erosion of

rock masses caused by flowing water in hydraulic tunnels and in
channels.
The senior author has inspected numerous unlined
diversion tunnels, pressure tunnels, trailrace tunnels,
and rock
channels after a few months to a few years of operation.

Pressure tunnels have low flow velocities of perhaps 13 ft.
to 16 ft.
(4 m to 5 m) per second maximum and fair to good
quality rock has resisted erosion very well.
In these cases the
zones of weak and heavily fractured rock and shear zones had been
56
protected by concrete or by reinforced shotcrete and rock bolts.

Diversion tunnels during flood will be subjected to higher
velocities,
perhaps 36 ft.
to 46 ft.
(11 m to 14 m) per second,
and some erosion has been noted in both the invert and lower side
walls in unprotected weak zones and heavily fractured zones.
Similar velocities and even higher may occur in
spillway
channels; weak zones have been eroded considerably

zones,
(schistose
within a more massive gneiss in one case).
While the RQD can be helpful in detecting the presence of

the weak zones and in delineating the more massive rock areas,
it
probably can do no more than could good engineering geology

descriptions in predicting erodibility or roughness.
General Usefulness of ROD (5)

Many comments were received on both the favorable
experiences and the shortcomings of the RQD.
This discussion
summarizes the comments received and attempts to place the use of

the RQD in perspective.
Favorable experience
(SA)
Three comments were singled out from the responses that

specifically indicated the RQD has been helpful.
One comment
noted that the index had been found to be a practical parameter

for estimating rock core quality and no problems had been
experienced with its
Another,
application as an engineering index.
while noting its
shortcomings,
felt
that it
had allowed
coordination of the nature of the rock mass to engineering

57
characteristics
in
a quick and simple manner --
modification that would detract from its

disservice.
further,
And,
and any
simplicity would be a
"...What the RQD system does is
the experience factor for the inexperienced people."

comment noted that the RQD was one tool available,
add
A third
like other
for the evaluation of rock behavior in various
index properties,
engineering applications.
The authors believe that the usefulness of the RQD can be
divided into these basic categories:
o
The "Red FlaQ" effect.
The RQD directs the attention
of the engineering geologist and design engineer to

areas of rock with poor engineering properties.
These
are areas that may control the design of a project and

should be avoided or have sufficient means available to
cope with them.
DesiQn guidance.
Correlations of RQD with rock
properties and project performance provide preliminary

design guidance for structures on rock.
o
Stimulation of Profession.
The RQD was developed at a
time when the field of Rock Mechanics was in

infancy.
its
RQD helped focus the attention on the
importance of rock weathering and discontinuities and

on obtaining information from rock cores regarding
them.
The RQD concept stimulated others, no doubt,
"related studies of fracture frequency,

surveys,
to
scan-line
and to the development of modern engineering
classifications systems.
58
limitations (5B)
Shortcominas.
The shortcomings and limitations of the RQD were popular

subjects and 10 comments or queries specifically addressed this
(See Appendix).
The authors appreciate the many thoughtful
comments that were presented in the letters and are in general

agreement with the majority of them.
Perhaps the most common compliant was not against the RQD
is
pr se but the manner in which it
often used in design as the
sole parameter without considering the geologic details and the

overall geologic evaluation of the site.
Certainly,
the core
logging should be done at the site by a qualified engineering

geologist or geotechnical engineer at the time of the drilling
and not left
to the driller or technician,
or done in the
laboratory days or weeks later after the core has been

transported, dried,
stress-relieved,
The structural, hydraulic,
and otherwise disturbed.
or highway design engineer could
well misuse the correlation tables without the input of the

engineering geologist, geotechnical engineer,
or rock mechanics
specialist who has knowledge not only of the critical geologic

details but also of the precedent in engineering design and
construction.
The RQD can not stand alone.
Its inclusion into
the later classification systems that include other geological

factors -(Barton, 1988; Bieniawski,
1988) was a logical
progression in use.
One- comment noted that the RQD was not very helpful in
selecting foundation depth in weathered rock.
contrary to the authors'
This experience is
experiences where such application has

59
had excellent results (Deere and Deere,
1988),
not only for
foundation depth but also for tunneling and selection of dam

excavation depths.
A few comments dealt with the simplicity of the method,
which is
both favorable and unfavorable,
and the misuse that may
result from the qualitative terminology of good,
fair, etc.,
that
may not always apply to the specific site or a specific

engineering problem.
The authors agree and recommend that the
more comprehensive classification systems noted above be applied

--
as they are developing a good base of case histories.
60
PART VII: CONCLUSIONS
Twenty years'
experience with the RQD logging and
in
application of the RQD index to engineering has been discussed
the previous parts of this report.
The main conclusions may be
summarized as follows:
Core diameters for RQD logging should normally be of NQ
1.
or NWX (NWM)
rocks,
size; for weak argillaceous or foliated
larger sizes are preferred; and the smaller BQ
and BWX sizes should be discouraged and; when used,

should be identified with a disclaimer.
Length measurements of the core pieces should be made
2.
along the centerline (axis) as advocated by the ISRM

(1978,
1981); core breaks caused by drilling and
handling should be fitted together and counted as one

piece; and the requisite length should be retained as
4-in.
(100 mm)
for all size cores.
Fresh and slightlv weathered rock should be used in
3.
the
RQD count; moderately weathered rock that resists hand

breakage should be included but an asterisk used with
the RQD (RQD*); and highly weathered rock (that breaks
under hand pressure),
completely weathered,
and
residual soil should not be included.

Length of
4.
-
coring run ideally should be 5 ft.
(1.5 m)
but realistically may be longer or shorter; for good

quality rocks which give 100 percent core recovery,
10-ft.
(3-m) runs are acceptable;

61
for difficult
schistose,
laminated, soft and hard interbedded, and
rocks with unfavorable joint or bedding orientations,

short run lengths of 2-1/2 ft. to 5 ft. (0.75 to 1.5 m)
or less are recommended; short "artificial" run
lengths, or intervals, may be created when logging the
core to identify zones of vastly different RQD.
5.
ROD correlations with tunnel support requirements,
in
situ modulus, allowable bearing pressure, and fracture

frequency are available in the literature, some of
which have been included herein; these are still
considered helpful in preliminary studies.
Perhaps the
most important use of the RQD in practice is
in early
delineation or "red flagging" of zones of poor rock.

6.
More recent classification systems (Bieniawski RMR,

Barton Q) have included the RQD together with other
parameters that broaden the scope and more closely
define the rock quality for engineering purposes; these
have gained international acceptance and are
recommended herein.
7.
Pertinent auestions and comments regarding the RQD

logging procedures and utilization within the various
Districts and Divisions of the US Army Corps of
Engineers have been reviewed and discussed under five
categories; many of the concerns were the same as those
rioted in the first six conclusions herein; of
particular concern were the additional topics:
first,
the need for drilling supervision and prompt logging in

62
the field by a qualified engineering geologist or

geotechnical engineer of cores obtained by the best
drilling equipment and techniques;
misuse of RQD in design by using it
second,
the possible
as the sole
parameter without the necessary geological and geotech

nical input; and third, the difficulties of obtaining
intact cores and reliable RQD values in shales and in
interbedded hard and soft rocks.
8.
A research Program is
recommended wherein the Corps of
Engineers does comparative studies in bedded soft and

hard rocks of recoveries and RQD's in
adjacent borings
drilled at differing angles, core sizes, lengths of

drill
run, and drilling techniques.
The authors acknowledge the interest, questions,
and
comments of the users of the RQD in the various Districts and

in
Divisions of the US Army Corps of Engineers which have helped
focusing on critical issues.
63
REFERENCES
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J., (1974), "Engineering Class
ification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support,"
Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, pp. 189-236.
Barton, N., (1988), "Rock Mass Classification and Tunnel
Reinforcement Selection Using the Q-System," Roc
Classification Systems for Enqineering Purposes, ASTM STP
984, ed. Louis Kirkaldie, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 59-88.
Bieniawski, Z.T., (1973), "Engineering Classification of Jointed
Rock Masses," Transactions. South African Institution of
Civil EnQineers, Vol. 15, pp. 335-344.
(1974),
.,
"Geomechanics Classification of Rock
Masses and Its Application in Tunneling," Proceedincs. 3rd

International Congress on Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Denver,
Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, Vol. 2A, pp. 27-32.
., (1976), "Rock Mass Classification in Rock
Engineering," Proc. Symp. on Exploration for Rock
Engineering, ed. Z.T. Bieniawski, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.
97-106.
., (1978), "Determining Rock Mass Deformability;

Experience from Case Histories," International J. Rock Mech.
Min.
Sci.,
Vol.
.,
15,
(1988),
pp.
237-247.
"The Rock Mass Rating
(RMR)
System
(Geomechanics Classification) in Engineering Practice," Rock

Classification Systems for Engineering Purposes, ASTM STP
984, ed. Louis Kirkaldie, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 17-34.
Cecil III, O.S., (1970), Correlations of Rock Bolt--Shotcrete
Support and Rock Quality Parameters in Scandinavian Tunnels,
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, 414 pp.
Coon, R.F. and Merritt, A.H., (1970), "Predicting In-Situ Modulus
of Deformation Using Rock Quality Indexes," Determination of
the In-Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock, ASTM STP 477,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
pp. 154-173.
Cording, E.J., and Deere, D.U., (1972), "Rock Tunnel Supports and
Field Measurements," in Proceedings, North American Rapid
ExcaIation and Tunneling Conference, Chicago, Society of
Mining Engieers of AIME, New York, Vol. 1, pp. 601-622.
Deere, D.U., (1963), "Technical Description of Rock Cores for
Engineering Purposes," Felsmechanik und InQenieurgeologie
(Rock Mechanics and Engineering Geology), 1:1, pp. 16-22.
64
01P
(1968),
"Geologic Considerations",
Mechanics in Engineerinq Practice, ed. K.

Zienkiewicz, Wiley, N.Y., pp. 1-20.
Chapt.
1,
Rock
Stagg and 0.
D.U., Hendron, A.J., Jr., Patton, F.D., and Cording, E.J.,

(1967), "Design of Surface and Near-Surface Construction in
Rock:, Failure and Breakaqe of Rock, ed. C. Fairhurst, Soc.
of Min. Eng., AIME, N.Y., pp. 237-302.
Deere,
Deere, D.U., Peck, R.B., Monsees, J.E. and Schmidt, B., (1969a),
"Design of Tunnel Liners and Support Systems," UIUC Final
Rept. for U.S. Department of Transportation (OHSGT),
Contract 3-0152, 287 pp. (available from the U.S. Department
of Commerce, NTIS, Springfield Virginia, Publ. No. PB 183
799).
Deere, D.U., Merritt, A.H., Coon, R.F., (1969b), "Engineering

Classification of In-Situ Rock," Tech. ReDt. No. AFWL-TR-67
(available
144, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, 280 pp.
from the U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS, Springfield
Virginia, Publ. No. AD 848 798).
Deere, D.U., Peck, R.B., Parker, H.W., Monsees, J.E., and
Schmidt, B., (1970), "Design of Tunnel Support Systems,"
Highwav Research Record, No. 339, Highway Research Board,
pp. 26-33.
Deere, D.U., and Deere, D.W., (1988), "The Rock Quality
Designation (RQD) Index in Practice," Rock Classification
Systems for EnaineerinQ Purposes, ASTM STP 984, ed. Louis
Kirkaldie, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, pp. 91-101.
Fookes, P.G., and Horswill, P., (1970), "Discussion, Session A:
Properties of Rocks; Foundations of Surface Structures,"
Proc. Conf. on In-Situ InvestiQations in Soil and Rocks, The
British Geot. Soc., London, pp. 53-57.
Goodman, R.E.,
and Sons,
(1980), Introduction to Rock Mechanics,

New York, p.478.
John Wiley
Goodman, R.E., and Smith, H.R., (1980), "RQD and Fracture

Spacing," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE 106:191-193.
Hendron, Jr., A.J., (1968), "Mechanical Properties of Rock,"
Chapt. 2, Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice, ed. K.
Stagg and 0. Zieniewicz, Wiley, N.Y., pp. 21-53.
Heuze, F.E., (1971), "Sources of Errors in Rock Mechanics Field
Measurements and Related Solutions," Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci.,
Vol. 8,
pp. 297-310.
65
Hoek,
E., and Brown, E.T., (1980) Underground Excavations in

Rock, Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Hudson, J.A., and Priest, S.D., (1983), "Discontinuity Frequency

in Rock Masses," International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 20:73-89.
International Society for Rock Mechanics, (1978), "Suggested
Methods for the Quantitive Description of Discontinuities in
Rock Masses," Commission on Standardization of Laboratory
and Field Tests, International Society for Rock Mechanics,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 15, pp. 319-368.
, (1981), ISRM Sugaested
Methods:
Rock Characterization. Testing and Monitorin , ed.
E.T. Brown, Pergamon Press, London, 211 pp.
Kazi,
A., and Sen, Z., (1985), "Volumetric RQD: An Index of Rock

Quality," Proceedinas of the International Syposium on
Fundamentals Rock Joints, BJorklliden.
Kirsten, H.A.D., (1988), "Case Histories of Groundmass Character

ization for Excavatability," Rock Classification Systems for
Engineerina Purposes, ASTM STP 984, ed. Louis Kirkaldie,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadephia, pp.
102-120.
Kulhawy, F.H., (1978), "Geomechanical Model for Rock Foundation
Settlement," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT2, pp. 211-228.
Little, A.L., (1969), "The Engineering Classification of Residual
Tropical Soils," Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found.
Engng., Mexico,
Vol. 1, pp. 1-10.
Merritt, A.H., (1972), "Geologic Predictions for Underground
Excavations," Proc. North Amer. Rapid Excav. and Tunneling
Conf., 1:115-132.
Palmstrom, A., (1982), "The Volumetric Joint Count: A Useful and
Simple Measure of the Degree of Rock Mass Jointing,"
Proceedings of the 4th Congress of the International
Association of Engineering Geoloav, 5:221-228.
Peck, R.B., (1976), "Rock Foundations for Structures," Rock
Engineering for Foundations and SloRes, Specialty Conference
of Geotech. Div., ASCE, Boulder, Vol. II,
pp. 1-21.
Peck, R.B;, Deere, D.U., Monsees, J.E., Parker, H.W., and
Schmidt, B., (1969), "Some Design Considerations in the
Selection of Underground Support Systems," UIUC Final Rept.
for U.S. Department of Transportation (OHSGT) (UMTA),
108
pp. (available from U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS,
Springfield, Virginia, Publ. No. PB 190, 443).
66
Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H., (1974),

"Foundations on Rock," Foundation Enaineering. 2nd ed.,
Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, N.Y., pp. 361-371.
John
Priest, S.D., and Hudson., J.A., (1976), "Discontinuity Spacings

in Rock," International Journal of Rock Mechanics and MininQ
Sciences, 13:135-148.
Priest, S.D., and Hudson, J.A., (1981), "Estimation of
Discontinuity Spacing and Trace Length Using Scanline
Survey," International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, Vol. 18, pp. 183-197.
Sen,
Z., (1984), "RQD Models and Fracture Spacing," Journal of

Geotechnical EnqineerinQ, ASCE 110:203-216.
Sen,
Z.,and Kazi, A., (1984), "Discontinuity Spacing and RQD

Estimates from Finite Length Scanlines," International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 21:203-212.
Serafim, J.L., and Pereira, J.P., (1983), "Considerations of the

Geomechanics Classification of Bieniawski," Proc. Int.
Symposium on Engineering Geology and Underground
33
Construction, LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 1, pp. II.
II.
42.
Smith, H.J., (1986), "Estimating Rippability by Rock Mass

Classification," Proc. 27th U.S. Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, AIME, New York, pp. 443-448.
Stagg, K.G., and Zienkiewicz, O.C., (1968), Rock Mechanics in
Engineering Practice, Wiley, N.Y., 442 pp.
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, (1978), "Tunnels and Shafts in

Rock,"Encfineer Manual, EM 1110-2-2901.
Wallis, P.F., and King, M.S., (1980), "Discontinuity Spacings in

a Crystalline Rock," International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, Vol. 17, pp. 63-66.
67
APPENDIX A
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON THE RQD
FROM THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
A-i
APPENDIX A
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON THE RQD
FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CONTENTS
1.
MECHANICS OF DETERMINING ROD

IA.
CORE DIAMETER
lB.
LENGTH MEASUREMENT OF THE CORE PIECES

-
IC.
2.
4.
Distinguishing between Natural and Induced

Fractures
LENGTH OF CORING RUN AND RQD INTERVAL
SPECIAL ROD LOGGING PROBLEMS

2A.
DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES
2B.
PROMPT LOGGING OF CORES
2C.
APPLICABILITY TO VARIOUS ROCK TYPES
2D.
3.
Position of the Measurement

Core Length of Twice the Diameter
Problems
Shale, Claystone; Interbedded Sedimentary Rocks

Limestone with Solution Cavities
Volcanics and Metamorphics
ORIENTATION EFFECTS
DESIRABILITY OF ADDITIONAL GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS

3A.
JOINT CONDITIONS
3B.
LOCAL GEOLOGY,
WEATHERING,
FRACTURE FREQUENCY
APPLICATIONS TO ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION

4A.
GENERAL
4B.
EXCAVATION,
4C.
7OUNDATIONS,
4D.
TUNNELS
4E.
EROSION RESISTANCE,
DREDGING,
UNDERWATER BLASTING
IN-SITU MODULUS
ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT
A-2
5.
GENERAL USEFULNESS OF ROD

5A.
FAVORABLE EXPERIENCE
5B.
SHORTCOMINGS,
LIMITATIONS
A-3
1. MECHANICS OF DETERMINING ROD

IA.
CORE DIAMETER
Ouestion
1A 1:
RQD was based upon use of NX, double tube, core

sampling which has not been used by Mobile District for
Has any correlative work been done
a number of years.
between NX, NQ wire line and/or other sizes and types
of sampling?
1A 2:
Is it valid to apply RQD to cores greater than NX-size

by increasing the length of core used in determining
the Modified Core Recovery to twice the core diameter
(i.e.,
count only 12-inch long pieces for 6-inch
diameter core)?
1A 3:
Are RQD values applicable to other than NX size core?
1A 4:
RQD is based on NX core - how can RQD be used,

measured, correlated on larger or smaller diameter
cores?
1A 5:
I would like to see the RQD table revised by including

information on applying this system to different rock
lithology, in-situ geology, core size, etc...
1A 6:
... It does not provide for core diameters larger or

smaller than NX and does not give an indication of
highly fractured zones within core runs...
1A 7:
... In recent years, this District has utilized 4" core

barrels almost exclusively though we are now making
Due to the
considerable use of HQ wire line equipment.
nature of our rocks, highly fractured in Puerto Rico
and weak limestones in Florida, we do not use NX size
When the question arose among field
core equipment.
geologists as how to measure fragment length in core
other than NX, we decided to piece the core run
together and use the top center of core as a reference
line.
It was apparent we could not measure the long or
short side of individual pieces and have a direct
We decided a
-correlation between 4" and NX core.
center reference line would produce a medium length
width would be representative regardless of the core
diameter...
1A 8:
-The "Geotechnical Handbook" being prepared-should

include a discussion comparing RQD values taken on
similar rock, but cored with a different size or type
I have been told that Dr. Deere
of core barrel.
intended RQD's to be used with only NX size cores.
Several texts discuss the determining of RQD values on
A-4
APPENDIX
As you know a larger diameter

core 50 mm and larger.
core results in better core recovery and in most cases
a higher RQD values.
Can RQD be reasonably extended to core sizes other than
NX? If so, which ones and why, or why not?
1A 9:
1A 10:
Is there any experience of relating RQD to diameter of

It is our understanding that RQD was
the core.
developed for NX core and length of solid core divided
With 3-inch core this
by the core diameter equal to 2.
pieces being 6
solid
on
based
RQD
would result in
It is
core.
NX
in
as
inches
4
inches rather than
inch
four
using
to
is
practice
believed that common
be
should
This
sizes.
core
all
solid pieces in
clarified.
1A 11:
RQD is of extremely limited use in today's core

drilling work when NX is only one of the choices for
processing the work in the most cost-efficient and/or
More and more we
highest rock recovery/quality manner.
Will this re-study
are using wire line systems.
address correlations of RQD to other sizes of core
besides NX? In particular, correlation should be made
for large diameter (4", 2-3/4") as well as wire line
sizes such as PQ, HQ, etc. and triple tube c.b.
1A 12:
relationship
One of the major drawbacks of RQD is its
the
diameter,
core
to core size, i.e., the larger the
property
index
true
a
as
To be useful
smaller the RQD.
of a rock mass, RQD should be independent of hole size.
Can compensation be made for this problem?
1A 13:
... We have had much discussion recently about the

definition and use of RQD, and we would like to relay
(1) As we
our feelings on the following three areas:
those
only
counting
calculated
is
RQD
understand it,
length.
in
inches
4
than
greater
core
pieces of drill
This does not seem to be the appropriate method since
it is not a true reflection of the condition of the
rock mass in place; (2) the use of RQD by the Corps of
This is very
Engineers is confined only to NX core.
holes in
drill
the
of
portion
restrictive since a major
NX...
than
(HQ)
the Northwest are larger diameter
lB.
LENGTH MEASUREMENT OF THE CORE PIECES
ouestion
Position of the Measurement:
lB 1:
Measuring RQD needs clarification - where on core?
A-5
APPENDIX
lB 2:
... When the question arose among field geologists as to

how to measure fragment length in core other than NX,
we decided to piece the core run together and use the
top center of core as a reference line.
It was
apparent we could not measure the long or short side of
individual pieces and have a direct correlation between
4"1 and NX core.
We decided a center reference line
would produce a medium length which would be represent
ative regardless of the core diameter...
lB 3:
Fractures parallel to the axis of coring need to be

accounted for.
TVA uses the rule that if a section of
core is split into two longitudinal halves of length
"x" that is more than 4" in length, the value of x/2 is
counted in the summation of intact pieces of core.
Core Length of Twice the Diameter:
lB 4:
Is it valid to apply RQD to cores greater than NX-size

by increasing the length of core used in determining
the Modified Core Recovery to twice the core diameter
(i.e., count only 12-inch long pieces for 6-inch
diameter core)?
1B 5:
Is there any experience of relating RQD to diameter of

the core? It is our understanding that RQD was
developed for NX core and length of solid core divided
by the core diameter equal to 2.
With 3-inch core this
would result in RQD based on solid pieces being 6
inches rather than 4 inches as in NX core.
It is
believed that common practice is to use four solid
pieces in all core sizes. This should be clarified.
1B 6:
Based on the original data available, the 4-inch core

length was adopted for RQD determinations.
Does the
data from the last 20 years support this, or would some
other length be better?
lB 7:
... If the RQD of the core is measured using only

natural breaks, it should be close to the value
obtained using downhole photographic methods...
Many
of the drill
holes presently drilled here in the
Northwest are HQ-sized which, by the Corps of
Engineers' policy, cannot be used in the calculation of
RQD.
If the above method of calculating RQD were to be
used, there would be no difference in the results of
calculations made in NX holes or 6-inch holes since
they are both a measure of what is in the ground.
The
-present method of RQD calculation would probably arrive
at different values because of differing mechanical
stresses on the drill
core during drilling causing
differing degrees of breaks along healed fractures,
bedding planes, or foliations.
Again, counting only
A-6
APPENDIX
those naturally occurring breaks allows any size of

hole to be used in the calculation of RQD.
drill
lB 8:
Distinguishing Between Natural and Induced Fractures:

Clarification on natural vs. mechanical break needed.
lB 9:
lB 10:
lB 11:
lB 12:
Are there techniques other than fitting core pieces,

which can be used by a field geologist or technician,
to differentiate between natural (in-situ) separations
and drilling induced separations in shales or shaley is
siltstone, sandstone sequences? This determination
vital to an accurate definition of the RQD.
Stress
Stress relief discing of deep cores does occur. cores
smaller
relief discing is a larger problem with
Stress relief discing should
that with larger cores.
Some
no be included in RQD counts of core breaks.
Some
geologists could confuse discing as joints.
guidance on field logging techniques would be helpful.
The definition of RQD, according to Technical Report
GL-85-3, Geotechnical Descriptions of Rock and Rock of
Masses, is a method used to describe the condition
It is assumed that
the rock mass from core borings.
the condition of the rock mass refers to those it.
naturally occurring breaks and fractures within
This is not what is described when the RQD is greater
calculated counting only those pieces of core
In describing the rock mass
than 4 inches in length.
in-situ, one has to look at only the spacing between by
the unhealed fractures in the rock mass intersected
If the core could be obtained without
hole.
the drill
places
the mechanical forces that drilling and handlingand
open
the
be
would
on the core, the only breaks
None of
closed fractures and shear zones for faults.
of
bedding
and
broken
be
the healed fractures would
during
occurs
as
place
take
not
foliation parting would
the
be
then
would
RQD
The
normal drilling operations.
with
measure of all the cores containing natural breaks in
This is a concern
spacings of 4 inches or greater.
RQD measured
an
because
the Walla Walla District
from a RQD measured
greatly
differs
core
looking at the
or the borehole
downhole with the NX borehole camera,
is measured
core
the
of
RQD
the
If
analysis package.
to the
using only natural breaks, it should be close
value obtained using downhole photographic methods.
mainly
.In the New York District rock drilling is
shallow
during
encountered
feet
5
first
limited to the
As a geologist who subsequently examines rock
borings.
of
core, I have found that general rock descriptions,
which RQD's are not always given, can often under for
estimate the rock quality, due to the difficulty
A-7
APPENDIX
inspectors in distinguishing between natural and

mechanical breaks.
The Districts can be faced with
claims for excavating equipment not being able to
remove "highly fractured" rock.
Consequently I would
appreciate it if Dr. Deere would consider this problem
in his evaluation of RQD and possible ways to avoid it.
I am familiar with the different rock coring methods
and ways that core can be broken mechanically.
I at
times have trouble identifying natural breaks but can
usually eliminate 3/4 of the breaks as mechanical.
Besides odd fractures I do not include tight fractures
which were opened by the coring process.
I have recently completed a 1-1/2 year deep-hole coring
program along a proposed flood diversion tunnel for the
Passaic River Basin in New Jersey.
It is the first
time in recent years that extensive rock coring has
been done in the New York Districts.
Rocks encountered
were shale and sandstone with 100-200 bedding joints
and basalt with 10o-200 stress release and 800-900
columnar joints.
I took RQD values for only the 3
tunnel diameter zone which was usually at least 100
feet below the rock surface.
The rock quality was good
to excellent though the cores themselves were highly
fractured.
Fortunately because of the rock quality,
after eliminating mechanical breaks, I estimated the
RQD for most cases without measuring the rock core.
One day the consultants who were going to get the rock
data came out to inspect the drilling.
They were
shocked to look at a highly fractured 10 foot core and
hear me give it a 95% RQD value.
Another case of not
being able to detect the mechanical breaks.
To satisfy
myself and reassure the consultants I made some graphs
for the GDM report using my drilling logs and downhole
camera photographs of undisturbed rock.
Bill Tanner's
camera from the Southwestern Division lab was used
mainly to determine structures yet individual natural
fractures were also detected on the film.
Enclosed are copies of my graphs.
I first
totalled the
joints from both data sources and divided them into 100
intervals.
As you can see I missed many natural breaks
S400).
Part of the large discrepancy can be attributed
to my not logging each joint from a highly fractured
(ex. 2 joints per inch) zone on my drilling logs.
The
percentage of missing joints can not be determined.
The enclosed graph comparing the undisturbed rock data
(photography) and the disturbed rock data (core logs)
show that the addition of missing natural breaks does
not reduce the RQD values.
Instead, for the most part,
the undisturbed rock had higher RQD values than I
determined.
The missing natural breaks add an average
A-8
APPENDIX
of 1 joint per 11 feet which does not reduce RQD values

based on RQD measuring requirements eliminating rock
core less than 4 inches.
IC.
LENGTH OF CORING RUN AND OF RQD INTERVAL
ouestion
iC 1:
1C 2:
1C 3:
1C 4:
1C 5:
Only one question really comes to mind, did Dr. Deere

have any set dimensions such as core run, footage of
core box or total core hole footage for computation of
the index? For convenience and uniformity of
intervals, we used the total footage of a core box to
determine RQD.
Clarification needed if RQD should be measured as a %
over every 5 feet, 10 feet, length of run, core box,
etc.
No guidelines are uniformly followed in selecting
For example, arbitrary
intervals for reporting RQD.
up to 10 feet may be
run
core
of
and varying lengths
RQD of 50 over 10
average
An
given an average RQD.
field conditions
reflect
feet does not satisfactorily
of 0 and the
RQD
an
has
rock
of
feet
where to upper 5
changes
abrupt
Where
100.
of
RQD
an
lower 5 feet has
reported
be
should
values
RQD
quality,
occur in rock
separately for each interval.
Since RQD is based on the total length of rock drilled,
the results are affected by the quality of not only the
Inappropriate bit
rock but also the drilling process.
types, feed rates, water pressures, barrel adjustments,
core size and other factors can greatly affect the
These
condition.
percent rock recovered and it's
. . .
shales
in
problematic
particularly
are
influences
recovered;
RQD could be based on the length of core
however, the wealth of experience and "feel" for ranges
would be jeopardized by such a change.
... We follow the guidelines in the South Atlantic by
Division Geotechnical Manual which is as described
We divided the total
Dr. Deere in his original paper.
of sound, fresh pieces of rock over 4" long The
-length
recovered during the run by the length of the run. the
contractor's position was that you should only use
Our position
length of the run in rock not total run.
is, that unless you get 100% recovery
was, and still
-(uncorrected) you have no way to know what-was "soil"
I use the quotes because in our
or what was "rock".
case it was not a soil in the true meaning, but rather
a soft zone or layer of unconsolidated material within
Using the contractor's
harder, consolidated layers.
technique, losses experienced were considered "soil"
A-9
APPENDIX
and all soft zones were also called "soil".

In effect
you always get 100% recovery (uncorrected) in "rock".
Your RQD's are then computed based on this total
length, counting all pieces 4" or longer in length.
naturally results in a much higher RQD.
A-10
It
APPENDIX
2.
2A.
SPECIAL ROD LOGGING PROBLEMS
DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES
ouestion
2A 1:
A factor that seems to be ignored in the application of

RQD is the skill of the drill operator. This seems to
be an important factor. How should it be evaluated?
2A 2:
Since no two drillers, rigs or equipment will produce

the same results in sampling identical materials, what
"Mickey Mouse" factor(s) are to be applied to provide
comparable data?
The bit type,
"stone" size and
distribution, rotational speed, tool weight, drilling

fluid type, pressure and volume, core barrel length,
use of drill collars and or "trash baskets" and length
of core runs are also factors which contribute to
recovery and condition of samples.
Since RQD is based on the total length of rock drilled,
the results are affected by the quality of not only the
Inappropriate bit
rock but also the drilling process.
types, feed rates, water pressure, barrel adjustments,
core size and other factors can greatly affect the
condition. These
percent rock recovered and it's
influences are particularly problematic in shales.
2A 3:
2B.
PROMPT LOGGING OF CORES
Ouestion
2B 1:
If the sample condition is not observed upon removal

from the core barrel, during handling and boxing and
immediately logged by a qualified person, the data
presented may be far from the original characteristics.
We often have core samples which are not logged until
after transportation and sometimes days or weeks after
obtained.
2B 2:
In the Huntington District, we work almost exclusively

We
in thin-bedded sedimentary shales and sandstones.
becomes
RQD
that
shales,
in
particularly
have found,
-dependent on drilling techniques, core handling and
rapid deterioration due to fissility. We feel that RQD
is, at best, only a vary general indicator of quality
for shales, indurated clays and poorly consolidated
claystones.
A-11
APPENDIX
2C.
APPLICABILITY TO VARIOUS ROCK TYPES
Question
General Problems
2C 1:
... I would like to see the RQD table revised by

including information on applying this system to
different rock lithology, in-situ geology, core size,
etc...
2C 2:
Has sufficient experience developed to indicate that

RQD is more or less applicable to different rock
categories - igneous vs. sedimentary vs. metamorphic
shale vs.
or even within a given category, i.e.,
sandstone vs. limestone?
2C 3:
The following would all tend to reduce the RQD:

foliated zones, fault zones, shale, cavernous
limestone, and thinly bedded competent rocks such as
Although the rock units above and below the
limestone.
above-mentioned zones may be of substantial strength
Would it be
and competence, the RQD would appear low.
possible to increase the RQD based on each in-situ
case?
2C 4:
RQD does not distinguish between fractures, broken

rock, and thin interbedded formations with minimal
fracturing and weathering if the beds are less than
4 in. thick.
2C 5:
Should there be a way to account for in influence of

features such as bentonite seams in shale or micaceous
layers in igneous rocks, which are intact but represent
definite planes of greatly reduced strength, using RQD.
2C 6:
Several problems have been encountered in the field

application of RQD during core logging:
a.
Difficult to use in soft rock formations where

drilling action causes separation along incipient
fracture planes.
b.
Weak, brecciated-type rocks often don't break

along natural fractures, and therefore, rate high
in RQD when in reality they are often very poor in
rock mass quality.
Shale- Claystones,
2C 7:
Interbedded Sedimentary Rocks
Are RQD values applicable for soft rock cores such as

compaction type clay shales or in interbedded clay
shale and harder limestone?
A-12
APPENDIX
The Vicksburg District has not used the RQD method and
does not anticipate having to work in an area where it
The
can be utilized anytime in the near future.
information
RQD
with
worked
has
District
Vicksburg
gathered by other districts and was of the opinion that
it was inappropriate due to the soft nature of the
rock.
2C 8:
2C 9:
documentation is available regarding RQD,

Very little
For example, thin
application in various rock types.
bedded limestone or even massive soft shale may have
similarly poor RQD values or opposite RQD values
depending upon when the shale is logged or who logs it.
Can more specific guidance be provided for
QUESTION:
this aspect?
2C 10:
The original correlations did not include weak rocks

Can correlations
such as some sandstones and shales.
for these now be developed?
2C 11:
Irrespective of the potential misuse of RQD, the

For
has some inherent problems.
procedure itself
result
can
RQD
of
use
certain types of lithology, the
engineering
the
in a gross misunderstanding of
Particularly
properties of the rock in-situ.
limestones
shaley
troublesome are the thin-bedded
Many
example.
for
Tennessee,
common to much of Middle
experienced
by
cored
of these rocks, even though
drillers, tend to break along shaley laminations which
cannot be reliably designated as in-situ or drilling
induced to the extent that RQD for any length of core
The erroneous implication then
run will be very low.
being that the rock is of poor engineering quality.
However, the presence of lamination in the bedrock does
not significantly influence the capability of those
Owing to
rocks to sustain very high compressive loads.
mechanical
the
in
anisotropy
of
the high degree
properties of these types of rock, reliance on the RQD
to any degree can be highly misleading in making an
engineering evaluation.
Limestone with Solution Cavities

2C 12:
In addition, solution activity in carbonate rocks often

produces cavities and corresponding low RQD's and core
However, if the cavities are isolated and
recoveries.
surrounded by hard continuous limestone, the low values
may misrepresent the quality of the continuous rock for
-support of loads.
For these reasons, an alternate parameter such as
fracture frequency can be a better indicator of rock
quality than RQD.
A-13
APPENDIX
2C 13:
Weathering features such as solutioning and open seams,

voids, mud seams, etc. can not be distinguished from
fracturing or thin bedding.
2C 14:
Another problem with using RQD to describe the

engineering qualities of limestone or other soluble
bedrock is that the RQD procedure does not consider the
,impact of the thickness or location of cavities within
the bedrock mass on its structural integrity. For
instance, a ten-foot run of core that is essentially
sound except for a two-foot thick void in the middle of
the run would have an RQD of 80%, which is described as
"good."
In this case, even though the majority of the
rock is hard and competent, the presence of a void
comprising twenty percent of the mass cannot be
overlooked.
In fact, it is the nature and location of
the void, not the condition of the recovered core, that
would be the most important issue affecting the
engineering properties of that bedrock.
2C 15:
In addition, solution activity in carbonate rocks often

produces cavities and corresponding low RQD's and core
recoveries.
However, if the cavities are isolated and
surrounded by hard continuous limestone, the low values
may misrepresent the quality of the continuous rock for
support of loads.
For these reasons, an alternate parameter such as
fracture frequency can be a better indicator of rock
quality than RQD.
RQD could be based on the length of
core recovered; however, the wealth of experience and
"feel" for ranges would be jeopardized by such a
change.
More practically, it may be valuable to simply note the
conditions which can affect RQD and suggest the use of
another parameter if conditions are suspect.
Volcanics and Metamorphics

2C 16:
Problems have been inherent with the system since its

inception and prevent our wholehearted adoption.
First, the elimination of short core pieces from
-determining rock quality causes some strong rock
masses, such as, basalt and metamorphics to receive
lower ratings than they deserve.
Good examples are the
local diced basalt units which stand in vertical cliffs
(even overhanging) due to the irregular nature of the
-fracture planes.
A-14
APPENDIX
2D.
ORIENTATION EFFECTS
Ouestion
2D 1:
2D 2:
2D 3:
result in
Drill hole orientation can, and often does, holes
that
considerable bias in the RQD values, i.e.,
a
parallel major fracture sets could indicate
misleading high RQD value. How can this shortcoming be
addressed?
There is a difference in RQD based on the orientationIs
of joints and bedding in relation to the bore hole.the
there some correlation that can be used or should
procedure contain some warning.
How can RQD measurements on core from vertical borings
hope to give an accurate prediction of the effects of
vertical and high angle joints on the engineering
properties of a rock mass?
A-15
APPENDIX
3.
3A.
DESIRABILITY OF ADDITIONAL GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS
JOINT CONDITIONS
ouestion
3A 1:
Continuity, planarity, mineral alteration along joints

and shear planes are properties of rock discontinuities
that have primary affect on rock mass properties.
RQD
frequently does not reflect these important features.
3A 2:
There should be some way to connect RQD to fracture

roughness or infillings, such as clay, etc.
How can
RQD reflect the significant contribution of fracture
nature toward overall rock mass quality?
3A 3:
Will RQD systems, such as rock mass classifications, be

expanded - will joint conditions, joint sets, water,
etc. have an increased role?
3B.
LOCAL GEOLOGY,
WEATHERING,
FRACTURE FREQUENCY
ouestion
3B 1:
In regard to your inquiry about our use of RQD

measurements, we use it routinely in core drilling.
However, I do not think it is useful in our practice.
Generally, I am trying to estimate the average depth of
weathering into rock for foundation design and cost
estimating.
That usually involves looking at each core
carefully and trying to pick the depth where any
significant rock weathering stops.
RQD does not help
much in that regard.
3B 2:
We have found that RQD, although a neat number to

calculate, is not always the best method to use in
evaluating the drill
core.
RQD is not meant to be a
stand alone method of evaluating core and is best used
in the calculation of geomechanical properties of rock
masses.
For other situations a fracture frequency plot
of the core is more useful since one can visually see
at once where the fractured areas occur in the drill
hole.
We also make a fracture frequency plot of the
healed fractures, since they are typically healed with
chlorites and tend to part when excavated, as a part of
the evaluation for possible quarry material.
3B 3:
Anyone who uses RQD as a tool to understanding the

engineering properties of bedrock must also understand
the limitations inherent in such a simplistic approach
to assessing the engineering properties of bedrock.
When considered by itself,
outside the context of the
local geology, i.e.,
the lithology of the rock, the
geologic structure of the bedrock and the potential
A-16
APPENDIX
influence of bedrock weathering, RQD becomes arecognizes

Deere (1968)* certainly
meaningless number.
for
the limitations of the RQD system and the necessity
when
site
a
of
considering the overall geology
with the
designing engineering projects that interact must be
RQD
used,
Therefore, to be properly
bedrock.
considered as only one small part of the overall
geologic evaluation and cannot be used as the sole
of
basis for determining the engineering qualities
bedrock.
3B 4:
has been
... Most of my experience:with the use of RQD
an
years
the
through
favorable but I have noticed
the
of
misinterpretation
and
increase in the misuse
geotechnical
the
in
trained
system by engineers not
As most of us know, the RQD method is one of
field.
to
many tools which must be used with other factors
mass.
rock
total
the
of
determine the suitability
There is a growing number of engineers and architects
to the RQD
(structural and highway) that have locked on went into
table without regard to the many factors that that must
the system or the many geological conditions
or
be considered when designing foundations, tunnels,
excavation slopes.
An increasing number of firms are using inexperienced
inspectors who are not trained in good
core drill
in poor
descriptive logging techniques which results values.
RQD
on
dependence
total
rock descriptions and
to
I suspect the AE regards the RQD method as a panacea
the rising cost of detailed geotechnical investigations
and rock testing.
3B 5:
many of
... We do not require use of the RQD system, but
We
our geologists use it because of certain benefits.
do not mind the use, as long as additional ininformation
their logs
which is not provided by the RQD is given
logging
a
Its benefits are simplicity as
or reports.
charts
tool, universal fame and published correlation
as,
such
containing engineering design parameters,
modulus, shotcrete thickness needed, etc.
the end of the

References in this appendix can be found at
main -text.
A-17
APPENDIX
4.
4A.
APPLICATIONS TO ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION
GENERAL
Question
4A 1:
I would like to see the RQD table revised by including

information on applying this system to different rock
lithology, in-situ geology, core size, etc.
The table
should have built in restrictions to prevent misinter
pretation of the rock quality descriptions (very poor
excellent) by qualifying the meaning of the terms as
applied to different rock types and to the design of
various types of structures, tunneling, excavations and
foundations.
4A 2:
RQD is a tool that has been widely used.

It can also
be misused by the fact that a lot of design aids have
been developed using RQD along with other information
on rock properties.
With these aids some designers can
take RQD alone to use in design. A discussion on the
intended use and limitations should be included if a
report is prepared.
4B.
EXCAVATION,
DREDGING, UNDERWATER BLASTING
Ouestion
4B 1:
I would appreciate it if you would include among your

questions to Dr. Deere whether he has had any
experience in correlating RQD values with the use of
particular kinds of capacities of excavating and
dredging equipment (backhoe, clamshell, dipper, dredge,
etc.) without blasting.
4B 2:
May I add for underwater blasting.

previous submission.
4B 3:
We would like Dr. Deere's thoughts on the utility

of
RQD in determining rock excavatability for both
dredging projects and surface construction projects.
4C.
FOUNDATIONS,
Please add it
to my
IN-SITU MODULUS
Question
4C 1:
4C 2:
Some propose the use of RQD to arrive at allowable

bearing values for foundations bearing in bedrock.
tuch methods realistic or valid?
Are
It is our understanding that RQD was originally

developed as a method for tunnel design evaluations.
Over the past several years, it has become a generic
guide to rock foundations quality. As such, RQD is now
A-18
APPENDIX
being applied to all types of foundation design by

some. At the present time, it is assumed that the use
of the RQD value by the engineer/geologist is based on
experience together with other known parameters or when
correlated to allowable contact pressures as referenced
in Table 22.2 of Peck, Hanson and Thorburn, "Foundation
Engineering" and other rock quality indices. However,
when supplied to an unknowing or inexperienced engineer
or contractor who looks at the RQD recorded on a raw
boring log, the resulting interpretation can be
misleading. QUESTION: Can the method of describing
the rock core be modified or the quality designations
be better defined for specific uses?
4C 3:
In summary, RQD serves a purpose and can be a useful

tool to describe certain properties of rock core.
However, its design application is severely limited.
The fact that RQD is correlated with such terms as
"excellent", "good" and "poor", and is sometimes even
correlated with allowable bearing capacities (Peck,
Hansen, Thornburn, 1974), affords much opportunity for
its misuse. Designers must not rely on RQD alone as a
basis for foundation design decisions. At best, it can
only serve as a tool of limited use in the assessment
of the engineering qualities of bedrock.
4C 4:
The original correlations between RQD and rock modulus

or deformation ratio did not appear to be exceptionally
Does more data verify these correlations or do
good.
they need revision?
4C 5:
RQD is an index of in-situ rock quality, but the

information provided by it affords only a rough
qualitative measure of rock quality. Attempts have
been made to relate RQD with modulus of deformation of
rock mass, but the procedure ignores many factors which
control the deformation modulus. Therefore, a large
number of engineers consider the RQD method of
evaluating rock mass modulus unreliable. Is it safe to
use the deformation modulus determined by the RQD
method for stability analysis of structures on rock
foundations?
4C 6:
The deformation modulus of rock mass not only depends

upon the number of discontinuities, but also on their
RQD does not provide information as
characteristics.
to these characteristics; therefore, it is not
appropriate to correlate the RQD in its present form
Can the form of
,with deformation modulus of rock mass.
the RQD be changed to include the characteristic of
discontinuities?
4C 7:
To perform stability analysis of concrete structures on

rock foundations, deformation moduli of rock mass in
APPENDIX
A-19
three mutually perpendicular directions are required.

In addition, shear moduli in these directions are also
required.
The RQD method provides deformation modulus
only in the vertical direction.
Can this method be
extended to determine modulus in horizontal direction
and shear modulus in three mutually perpendicular
directions?
4C 8:
4D.
The correlations between a modulus reduction factor and

RQD established by Dr. Deere is based on limited field
data and it has many shortcomings; i.e.,
it is not
applicable for RQD less than 57 and it is not realistic
to use this correlation for rock mass where
discontinuity characteristics are significantly
different from those in the Deere's correlation.
Is it
possible to make the correlations realistic by
incorporating field test data gathered from sources
with different discontinuity characteristics?
TUNNELS
Ouestion
4D 1:
Has sufficient evidence emerged to recommend RQD

applications or interpretations for very deep problems,
e.g., for rock openings at depths of the order 1,000
meters (as opposed to 10 or 100 meters)?
4D 2:
Some engineering geologists have expressed the idea

that RQD, when applied to tunneling, should be
determined from horizontal holes.
Is this correct?
4D 3:
We have used the RQD index two or three times in past

years to determine an appropriate tunnel support
system.
The index was required for analyzing rock mass
behavior with both the Rock Structure Rating Concept
and Bieniawski's Geomechanics Classification.
These
qualitative studies have proved to be a very useful way
to describe rock mass quality in addition to practical
experience.
4E.
EROSION RESISTANCE,
ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT
Question
4E 1:
A question that seems to come up often on both open

channel and tunnel excavations in rock is how to assess
the rock in such excavations for its durability against
"erosion under various velocities of streamflow.
The
question we propose is:
"Can RQD be used as an
indicator of the durability of rock against streamflow
erosion?" Additionally:
"Can RQD be used to predict
the maximum stream velocity a rock mass can withstand?"
A-2 0
APPENDIX
4E 2:
how to
Another problem that seems to come up is on Manning's
in
used
coefficient
estimate the roughness
open
equation for determination of discharge in an bedrock
The problem with an open channel in
channel.
due to
is on how to predict what this value might be
amount
all the variables such as degree of weathering,RQD be
Can
and orientation of discontinuities, etc.
value of the
the
what
estimate
help
to
way
used in some
roughness coefficient may be?
A-21
APPENDIX
5. GENERAL USEFULNESS OF ROD

5A.
FAVORABLE EXPERIENCE
Question
5A 1:
No problems have been experienced with the application
of RQD as an engineering index. In fact, in the use

for which it was intended, we have found the index to
be a practical parameter for estimating rock core
quality.
5A 2:
These remarks are not intended to belittle the

usefulness of the RQD system, but to point out its
shortcomings in practical work.
The system has allowed
coordination of the nature of the rock mass to
engineering characteristics in a quick and simple
manner.
Any modifications that detract, very much,
from its simplicity would be a disservice. After all,
the natural occurring features of a rock mass are quite
simple and easy to note and provide the basic data
needed for just about any analysis. When experience in
engineering characteristics is added, you have all that
is necessary. What the RQD system does is add the
experience factor for the inexperienced people. Of
course, it does it well, because it draws on a broad
experience base.
5A 3:
Like many other index properties, RQD appears to be one

tool available for the evaluation of the behavior of
rock in various engineering applications.
This new
study should set RQD in its proper perspective,
including where and how it should be used, and where
and how it should not be used.
5B.
SHORTCOMINGS,
LIMITATIONS
Question
5B 1:
... We also found during our survey that some of the
largest companies did not use RQD unless specifically

requested by their clients. This was due largely to
the problems with the method as derived in the field
and also with its use in design. Many engineers
apparently will design based strictly on the RQD number
without regard to other factors.
5B 2:
... Most of my experience with the use of RQD has been
favorable but I have noticed through the years an

increase in the misuse and misinterpretation of the
system by engineers not trained in the geotechnical
field. As most of us know, the RQD method is one of
many tools which must be used with other factors to
determine the suitability of the total rock mass.
A-2 2
APPENDIX
There is a growing number of engineers and architectsRQD

(structural and highway) that have locked on to the into
table without regard to the many factors that went must
the system or the many geological conditions that or
be considered when designing foundations, tunnels,
excavation slopes.
5B 3:
5B 4:
5B 5:
5B 6:
An increasing number of firms are using inexperienced

inspectors who are not trained in good
core drill
descriptive logging techniques which result in poor
I
rock descriptions and total dependence on RQD values.
to
panacea
a
as
suspect the AE regards the RQD method
the rising cost of detailed geotechnical investigations
and rock testing.
It can be
RQD is a tool that has been widely used.
have been
aids
misused by the fact that a lot of design
on
information
developed using RQD along with other
can
designers
With these aids some
rock properties.
the
on
discussion
A
take RQD alone to use in design.
a
if
included
be
intended use and limitations should
report is prepared.
We have had much discussion recently about the
relay
definition and use of RQD, and we would like to As
we
(1)
areas:
three
our feelings on the following
those
only
counting
RQD is calculated
understand it,
core greater than 4 inches in length.
pieces of drill
since
This does not seem to be the appropriate method
the
of
condition
the
of
it is not a true reflection
of
rock mass in place; (2) the use of RQD by the Corps
very
is
This
core.
NX
to
Engineers is confined only
holes in
restrictive since a major portion of the drill
and (3)
NX;
than
(HQ)
diameter
the Northwest are larger
many
In
be.
should
it
that
more
RQD seems to be used
of
representation
graphical
a
situations, we feel that
best
seems
RQD
useful.
more
is
the fracture frequency
as the
suited for use in rock mass rating schemes such
system,
Geomechanics Classification System, or the Qproperties
engineering
the
estimating
in
which is used
of the rock mass.
RQD
In regard to your inquiry about our use of
measurements, we use it routinely in core drilling.
our
However, I do not think it is that useful in
Generally, I am trying to estimate the
practice.
average depth of weathering into rock for foundation
That usually involves
design and cost estimating.
pick the
-looking at each core carefully and trying to stops.
RQD
depth where any significant rock weathering
does not help much in that regard.
account for
I am not sure a simple index property can
Obviously a study of geologic
these problems.
A-2 3
APPENDIX
conditions and core inspection should always be made by

a geotechnical designer, and he should never be tempted
to circumvent this process by relying on simple
parameters prepared by drillers and/or technicians.
Therefore any improvements in RQD must be viewed with
caution if they take emphasis away from performing a
comprehensive evaluation of geologic details that could
adversely effect project performance.
5B 7:
A rock quality designation as described by Deere (1968)

provides a means of communicating certain physical
characteristics about bedrock cores.
The procedure has
been widely used by geologists and engineers to assess,
in very general terms, the competency of bedrock as it
relates to engineering work.
Unfortunately, the
simplicity of the procedure together with the common
practice of correlating numerical RQD with terms like
"poor", "good" and "excellent" often lead to the misuse
and misunderstanding of RQD.
Anyone who uses RQD as a tool of understanding the
engineering properties of bedrock must also understand
the limitations inherent in such a simplistic approach
to assessing the engineering properties of bedrock.
When considered by itself,
outside the context of the
local geology, i.e.,
the lithology of the rock, the
geologic structure of the bedrock and the potential
influence of bedrock weathering, RQD becomes a
meaningless number.
Deere (1968) certainly recognizes
the limitations of the RQD system and the necessity for
considering the overall geology of a site when
designing engineering projects that interact with the
bedrock.
Therefore, to be properly used, RQD must be
considered as only one small part of the overall
geologic evaluation and cannot be used as the sole
basis for determining the engineering qualities of
bedrock.
5B 8:
In summary, RQD serves a purpose and can be a useful

tool to describe certain properties of rock core.
However, its design application is severely limited.
The fact that RQD is correlated with such terms as
"excellent," "good" and "poor," and is sometimes even
-correlated with allowable bearing capacities (Peck,
Hanson, Thornburn, 1974), affords much opportunity for
its misuse.
Designers must not rely on RQD alone as a
basis for foundation design decisions.
At best, it can
only serve as a tool of limited use in the assessment
of the engineering qualities of bedrock.
5B 9:
Problems have been inherent with the system since its

inception and prevent our wholehearted adoption.
First, the elimination of short core pieces from
determining rock quality causes some strong rock
A-24
APPENDIX
masses, such as, basalts and metamorphics to receive

Good examples are the
lower ratings than they deserve.
local diced basalt units which stand in vertical cliffs
(even overhang) due to the irregular nature of the
The RQD system does not incorporate
fracture planes.
the attitude of fractures or the presence of clay
It does not provide for core
fillings along fractures.
diameters larger or smaller than NX and does not give
an indication of highly fractured zones within core
Unfortunately, some geologists have logged only
runs.
RQD values and thought that they had done a meaningful
We find that the most
job of fracture logging.
method notes
logging
fracture
meaningful core
fillings, and
attitude,
their
with
individual fractures
spaced to
closely
too
are
fractures
Where
smoothness.
then
are,
usually
they
as
be treated individually,
and
zones
or
brackets
with
logs
boring
marking
describing the fractures within the brackets pins down
the weak horizons where they actually are and works out
the best.
5B 10:
If the sample condition is not observed upon removal

from the core barrel, during handling and boxing and
immediately logged by a qualified person, the data
presented may be far from the original characteristics.
We often have core samples which are not logged until
after transportation and sometimes days or weeks after
obtained.
Some of our staff feel that, as presently determined
and used, the RQD is nothing more than a statistical
useful application in the real
exercise with little
Deere could probably spend another 20 years in
world.
developing correction/adjustment values for the
variables which are not actually related to rock
quality but which can greatly affect the RQD numbers.
A-25
APPENDIX
OMLIBMY. LASVEGAS
//Ill)6IIII/IIIIItIIIIIII
010000149968lt

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) After Twenty Years

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) After Twenty Years

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) After Twenty Years

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is RQD and what does it measure?

What is RQD and what does it measure?

What are some limitations of using RQD alone to characterize rock quality?

What are some limitations of using RQD alone to characterize rock quality?

S./.

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION

Don U. Deere, Consultant

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

CONTRACT REPORT GL-89-1

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD)

Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Ia. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORIT'Y

Approved for public release;

S MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

Contract Report GL-89-1

7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

6o. OFFICE SYMBOL

lb. ADDRESS(City, State, and ZIP Code)

6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)

9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

US Army Corps of Engineers

10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

Or. ADDRESS (Ciy, Stat., and ZIP COde)

11. TITLE (IncludeSecurCty Oasfication)

Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

After Twenty Years

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)

Deere, Don U.,

13a. TYPE OF REPORT

114. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Mon-,h, Day)

115. PAGE COUNT

16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

18.SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and idertfy by block number)

20. DISTRIBUTION/AYAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT

DD Form 1473, JUN 96

21.ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

22b.TELEPHONE (include Area Code) 22. OFFICE SYMBOL

Name of Performing Organization

Don U. Deere, Consultant

-and construction parameters.

This report was written by Don U.

international consultant on dams, tunnels,

Florida, and Don W. Deere,

geotechnical engineer and principal of Rocky Mountain

Waterways Experiment Station (WES),

DACW39 86M 4273,

under Contract No.

under date 86 SEP 02 and Amendment P00001 dated

Chief, Engineering Geology and Rock Mechanics

Division; and Dr. W.F.

Marcuson III, Chief, GL, WES.

was the Commander and Director of WES.

W. Whalin was the Technical Director.

u-" " r"'-: