ARMA 17-760

Study of scale effects of rock quality designation (RQD) measurements

using a discrete fracture network approach

Wang, R.
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Elmo, D.
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Stead, D.
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Rogers, S.
Golder Associates, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Copyright 2017 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics

Association
st
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 51 US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, California, USA,
25-
28 June 2017. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical
and critical review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of
ARMA, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the
written consent of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations
may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: RQD (Rock Quality Designation) is a parameter that describes rock mass quality in terms of percentage recovery of core
pieces greater than 10 centimeters. The RQD represents a basic element of several classification systems. In this paper, scale effects for
RQD measurements are studied using synthetic rock masses generated by means of Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) models. RQD
measurements are performed for rock masses with varying fracture intensity and by changing the orientation of the simulated borehole
to account for orientation bias. The objective is to demonstrate the existence of a Representative Elementary Length (REL, 1D analogue
of a 3D Representative Elementary Volume, or REV) above which RQD measurements would represent an average indicator of rock
mass quality. For the synthetic rock masses, calculation of RQD measurements were also performed using the relationship proposed by
Priest and Hudson (1967) and compared to the simulated RQD measurements along the boreholes. A DFN generated for a room-and-
pillar mine using mapped field data is then used as an initial validation of the results, which are preliminary in nature. It is planned to
use several other case studies to further validate the results of the current study.

1. INTRODUCTION have proposed a quantification of the original Geological

Strength Index (GSI, Hoek et al., 1995) that incorporates
Assigning numbers to geology requires a delicate balance
RQD. The advantage of the RQD is largely due to its
between the commonly held opinion that geology cannot
simple definition; however, the RQD index is known to be
be quantified and an engineering approach that attempts to
sensitive to the relative orientation of the fractures with
assign precise mathematical terms to every physical
respect to the orientation of the borehole (or scanline).
quantity (Hoek, 1999). Rock mass classification systems
RQD values may also depend on the experience of the
can be viewed as attempts to formalize this balance in terms
engineer logging the core and the ability to distinguish
of the ratings given to several rock mass parameters. For
natural fractures from drill and core handling induced
instance, the Rock Quality Designation index (RQD) was
fractures.
developed by Deere (Deere et al., 1967) to provide a
quantitative estimate of rock mass quality from drill core
Measured RQD values are sensitive to the length of the
logs. RQD is defined as the cumulative length of intact core
core run (Deere, 1988). The same author recommended a
pieces longer than 10 cm as a percentage of the total length
core run no greater than 1.5m. Whereas such a limited core
of core (Figure 1); RQD ratings are given in Table 1. RQD
length may be useful to identify poor quality zones, it is
represents a fundamental parameter in several rock mass
argued that it cannot be representative of the rock mass as
classification systems, including the Rock Mass Rating
whole. When using RQD as an input parameter in rock
(RMR, Bieniawski, 1976) and the Rock Quality, Q index
mass classification systems, it may be useful to use
(Barton et al., 1974). More recently, Hoek et al. (2013)
“variable core run lengths” to estimate a more
representative RQD value for the entire
geotechnical/structural domain under consideration. As
discussed by Palmstron (2001), most core logging is
performed by measuring the joints along each metre of the
core. This approach may introduce measurement errors if
there were alternating sections with lower and higher
densities of joints. The uncertainty in predicting the
mechanical behavior of a naturally fractured mass is
associated with scale effects (Elmo et al., 2011). Using
variable core run lengths would also allow to better account
for the transition from small scale anisotropic rock mass
behavior to large scale isotropic (even though heavily
jointed) rock masses. The objective would be to define, for
a given geotechnical domain, a representative elementary
length (REL), as a 1D analogue to the 3D representative
elementary volume (REV) for a naturally fractured rock
mass.
2. DISCRETE FRACTURE NETWORK (DFN)
MODELS
DFNs are synthetic stochastic models of naturally fractured
rock masses that can be generated using data collected from
a variety of sources (e.g. 1D boreholes and 2D rock
exposures). Relatively undisturbed rock core samples can
be obtained by high quality drill coring, while observations
on exposed rock faces, at or near the project site, have the
advantage of allowing direct measurements of
discontinuity orientation, spacing, and fracture length.
DFN modelling has been widely used in geomechanics
applications. Examples include stability design of tunnels
(Starzec and Tsang in 2002), open stope stability (Grenon
and Hadjigeorgiou, 2003) analysis of rock mass strength
and fragmentation (Elmo and Stead, 2010 and Rogers, et
al., 2011). The typical process involved in the generation
of a DFN model requires the definition of four primary
fra cture properties (Table 2), including: i) fracture
ori entation; ii) fracture length; iii) fracture terminations;
and iv) fracture intensity. The reader should refer to Elmo
et al. (2014) for a detailed discussion of the methodology
required to generate calibrated DFN models.

Table 2. Fracture data and derived input data for a DFN model
from digitally and conventionally mapped data (modified from
Staub et al., 2002).

Fracture
Source DFN Input Data
Data
Orientation of
Boreholes,
Orientation fractures for every
outcrops, tunnels
fracture set
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of RQD measurement and Tunnels, outcrops, Fracture radius
Length
calculation for a core run (Deere and Deere, 1998). lineaments distribution

Tunnels, outcrops, Choice of the model

Terminations
Table 1. Rock Quality Designation RQD (Barton et al., 1974). lineaments hierarchy of the sets

Condition RQD Boreholes,

A. Very Poor 0 - 25 Fracture intensity (P10
Intensity scanlines (P10),
B. Poor 25 - 50 or P32)
outcrops(P21)
C. Fair 50 - 75
D. Good 75 - 90
E. Excellent 90 - 100

The objective of this paper is to systematically study the
influence of core run length on the measurement of RQD
values for synthetic rock masses generated using a Discrete
Fracture Network Approach (DFN). A parametric study
on core run length, fracture intensity and orientation of the
core run is conducted for two scenarios: i) a conceptual
synthetic rock mass; and ii) a synthetic rock mass generated
using field data mapped in a room-and-pillar mine.
Typically, in the DFN community fracture intensity is
expressed with reference to a unified system of fracture
intensity measures that provide an easy framework to move
between differing scales and dimensions (Dershowitz and
Herda, 1992). Fracture intensity is referred to as Pij
intensity, where the subscript i refers to the dimensions of
sample, and subscript j refers to the dimensions of
measurement. In DFN modelling, fractures are represented
by circular discs or polygons with n sides. Fracture length
is a critical DFN input and a key parameter for sensitivity
studies as it has a significant influence on block size and
fracture connectivity (Rogers et al., 2006).
3. REPRESENTATIVE ELEMENTARY
VOLUME
The concept of a Representative Elementary Volume
(REV) is a prime consideration in the adoption of a
continuous-media methodology and is of great importance
in understanding the behavior of fractured rock masses.
The definition of a REV is inherently related to scale
effects, and a REV can be defined for various physical
parameters. For example, Bear (2013) defined the REV
using the concept of porosity in rock masses according to
applicability of the theory of porous media (Figure 2).
According to Hoek (2007), rock mass strength will reach a
constant value when the size of individual rock pieces is
sufficiently small relative to the size of the problem being
considered. Elmo et al. (2011) captured this phenomenon
in relation to the mechanical behavior of fractured pillars
subjected to compressive loading, Figure 3. Similarly, it is
reasonable to assume that a rock mass rating, (e.g. RQD,
RMR, Q or GSI) calculated for different problem scales Fig. 4. Transition from intact to a heavily jointed rock mass with
would change, reaching a constant value with increasing increasing sample size (modified from Hoek, 2007).
problem scale (for a single geotechnical domain). As
shown in Figure 4, as the problem scale increases, so does
4. A DFN APPROACH TO ANALYZE SCALE
the sampling area used to calculate rock mass parameters.
If a parameter (e.g. RQD) were to be measured with
EFFECTS IN RQD MEASUREMENT
reference to a relatively short core run or scanline, it would
likely show large variations, similar to those shown in 4.1 Conceptual DFN Model
Figure 2 for small scale porosity. A conceptual rock mass was generated using the
parameters listed in Table 3. The model represents a
homogeneous rock mass (i.e. single geotechnical domain)
with no faults or shear zones.

Table 3. Parameters used to generate the conceptual rock mass.

Fracture Data DFN Input Data

Three near orthogonal fracture sets
Fracture (dip/dip direction of 00°/000°, 00°090°
orientation and 90°/000° respectively). Fisher
dispersion value of 80 for all sets.
ig. 2. Variation in porosity as a function of the representative
lementary volume (Bear, 2013). Log-Normal distribution, Mean 3m,
Fracture Length
standard deviation 3m. No truncation.

Fracture
0%
Terminations

Linear fracture intensity P10 intensity of

-1
Fracture intensity 3, 5, 7 and 10 m (for each of the three
sets)

An example of the DFN model is shown in Figure 5. Three

Fig. 3. Variation of the simulated pillar strength as a function
of pillar width (modified from Elmo et al., 2011).
orthogonal boreholes passing through the center of the rock
mass were used to constrain the model’s fracture intensity.
The same boreholes were then used for the measurement of
the RQD for variable core run lengths, in addition to fours
inclined boreholes (Figure 6).
 P 10_ 3
99.40% 98.70% 96.64% 94.15%
100% 95.14%
90%
80% 91.14% 92.79% 94.15%
88.74%
70%
85.48%
60%

RQD
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Core Run Lengths (m)

Min Max

d using the
parameters listed in Table 3 (the stereonet with the fracture sets Fig. 7. Calculated RQD vs. core run length for orthogonal
is also shown). boreholes for the model with P10 of 3 (every set).

P 10_ 5
95.67%
91.38% 90.01%
100% 86.49% 85.46%
90%
80%
70% 84.42% 85.46%
81.95%
60% 76.26%
69.71%

RQD
50%
40%
Fig. 5. Example of a DFN realization generate 30%
20%
10%
0%
Orthogonal boreholes 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
(2 visible, third one is normal to the page) Core Run length (m)

Min Max

Fig. 8. Calculated RQD vs. core run length for orthogonal

boreholes for the model with P10 of 5 (every set).

P 10_ 7

100% 87.20%
83.27%
90% 79.82% 78.19% 75.93%
80%
70%
60% 75.93%
71.42% 72.89%
07%
RQD

50%
Inclined boreholes (side view and plan view) 58.24%
40%
30%

Fig. 6. Location and orientation of the boreholes used for the 20%
10%
measurements of the RQD for variable core run lengths. (Top) 0%
orthogonal boreholes; (bottom), inclined boreholes. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Core Run length (m)

Min Max

4.1.1 Core run lengths

Core run lengths of 3m, 5m, 10m, 15m and 30m were used Fig. 9. Calculated RQD vs. core run length for orthogonal for the
for the three orthogonal and the four inclined boreholes. model with P10 of 7 (every set).
Because of the stochastic nature of the DFN approach, each
DFN model was generated 5 times and the average RQD
(for a selected core run length) for the 5 realizations was
reported.

4.1.2 Conceptual modelling results

Maximum and minimum of RQD values were recorded for
every core run length. The results are shown in Figures 7
to 10 for an increasing linear intensity (P10) of 3, 5, 7, and
10 respectively.

67.
 P1 0 _ 1 0
pre-defined shear and fault zones. Despite that, for
relative short core run lengths (e.g. 3m), the rock
100%
90% 78.01% mass quality ranges from fair to excellent (P10 ≤ 5)
73.28%
80%
70%
67.77% 66.99%
62.73% and poor to fair (P10 ≥ 5)
60% • The relative difference (max RQD minus Min RQD)
RQD

50% 62.73%
40%
49.02%
57.44% 58.69%
increases with increasing fracture intensity (for a
30%
20%
40.04% selected core run length).
10%
0%
 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Core Run Length 4.2 Room-and-Pillar DFN Model

Min Max
Fig. 10. Calculated RQD vs. core run length for orthogonal
boreholes for the model with P10 of 10 (every set).
The results for the inclined boreholes show a very similar
pattern. For simplicity, the results are summarized in
Figure 11 using 3D charts, to show the relationships
between the range of measured RQD values (for a selected
core run length) and input fracture intensity P10.
Orthogonal Boreholes
The analysis was repeated using a DFN model generated
by Elmo (2006) using data collected at Middleton mine
(Derbyshire, UK). The mine is a classic square room-and-
pillar mining operation with drift access working mostly
under a cover of about 100m. Pillars are planned for
nominal 16m x 16m dimensions in plan with rooms 14m
wide. However, completed pillars are usually smaller, due
to over-break. Because the rock mass quality for
Middleton mine is generally good to very good, the original
DFN model was modified by increasing the mapped
intensity (the same increment was applied to all sets). All
other parameters were unchanged. The objective was to
simulate a poor to good rock mass (45 ≤ RQD ≤ 85), this
time using real field data in terms of fracture orientation,
fracture length and fracture terminations.

4.2.1 Modelling results (room-and-pillar

mine)
RQD values were measured along three orthogonal
boreholes and four inclined boreholes. Figure 12 and
Figure 13 show the average RQD for orthogonal and
inclined boreholes respectively.

Inclines Boreholes
Ort h o g o na l B o re ho l es

100% 87.95%
85.42% 81.44% 81.30%
90% 79.69%

80%
70%
77.56% 77.28% 79.69%
60% 72.68%
RQD

50% 65.76%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Core Run length (m)

Min Max

Fig. 11. RQD relative difference (Max RQD - Min RQD) versus
measured length and P10. Fig. 12. Room-and-pillar mine DFN model. Calculated RQD vs.
core run length for orthogonal boreholes.
The following key observations and results can be
highlighted:

• For every fracture intensity, the range of measured

RQD values decreases with increasing core run
length, and the RQD values converge to a constant
value for a 30m core run length.
• The above result is quite interesting, considering that
the synthetic rock mass model used in the analysis
represented a very homogeneous rock mass without
 Inclined Borehole
s Table 4. Comparison of simulated vs calculated RQD.
100% 87.96%
90% 79.60%
70.00%
80% 76.75%
Orthogonal

Simulated
70%
71.17%
4.0 6.4 9.2 13.3
60%
70.00%
boreholes (OB)

λ
RQD

50%
68.62%
40%
.31% 64.03% Inclined boreholes
 56
2.7 5.0 7.0 10.1
30% 51.05%
(IB)
20%
-0.1λ
10% 100e (0.1λ+1) 93.8 86.2 76.3 61.6
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 (OB)
-0.1λ
Core Run length (m) 100e (0.1λ+1)
96.8 90.9 84.2 73.1
(IB)

Min Max
Fig. 13. Room-and-pillar mine DFN model. Calculated RQD vs.
core run length for the inclined boreholes.
The results confirm the key observations made for the
conceptual model, and clearly show the existence of a
Representative Elementary Length (REL) above which
RQD values assume a constant value for the rock mass.
Similar to the previous case, the room-and-pillar DFN
model represented a single homogeneous geotechnical
domain without shear or fault zones. For both models the
REL is approximately 15m (independent of the orientation
of the core run). However, the definition of REL would also
depend on the orientation of the core run. For example, a
REL of 10m could be defined for the room-and-pillar DFN
model with reference to the orthogonal boreholes (Figure
12 vs. Figure 13).
4.3 Comparison with empirical formulae for the
determination of RQD.
Priest and Hudson (1976) defined a relationship between
RQD and discontinuity (fracture) spacing measurements
made on core or from surface exposures for different rock
types (the majority sedimentary rock types). The
relationship is given in Equation 1 below:
𝑅�𝐷 = 100 �
)*., -
(1)
Where λ which represents the mean fracture frequency
(equivalent to the linear P10 intensity used in DFN
modelling).
The results are presented in Table 4. There is a good
agreement between simulated RQD values and those
obtained using Equation (1) for orthogonal boreholes. The
difference between the simulated RQD values and those
calculated using Equation (1) for inclined boreholes could
be explained considering the orientation of the fracture sets
and the fact that Equation (1) was developed mostly from
data collected for sedimentary rock types. It is safe to
assume that for sedimentary rock types there would be a
much better agreement between fracture frequency
(spacing) and RQD along core orientations that are normal
to the orientations of the main fracture sets.
RQD
Conceptual DFN
(OB) 94.1 85.4 75.9 62.7
Conceptual DFN
91.8 77.6 66.7 48.8
(IB)
Note:
i) In the DFN model λ represents the number of fractures
intersecting the entire length of the borehole (i.e. core length
of 30m for orthogonal boreholes). For the inclined holes the
total length of the borehole is 52m.
ii) The simulated RQD results refer to a core length of 30m.
iii) The simulated RQD results refer to an input P10 of 3, 5, 7
and 10 respectively. Note that the input P10 differs from the
measured λ as the latter represent the total number of fractures
intersecting the entire length of the borehole and not just the
input frequency along that borehole for one of the three sets.
5. CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
DFN models allow generation of synthetic rock masses
based on mapped fracture data; these synthetic rock masses
can then be sampled to characterize rock mass variability
in terms of RQD and rock mass quality. In this paper, the
influence of core run length on the estimated RQD value
was used to define a representative elementary length
(REL) above which the quality of the rock mass becomes
constant. The definition of REL and REV would be very
0.1 � + 1 dependent on the variation in geotechnical domains. Note
that the results of the current analysis apply to relatively
homogeneous geotechnical domains, as both shear and
fault zones should be treated separately.
For the models under consideration, the size of the REL
was calculated as 10 times the recommended core run
length by Deere (1988). The estimated REL would
represent the dimension at which the rock mass could be
considered as a continuum medium, and its properties
defined using an equivalent continuum approach. The
results show that relative difference between Max and Min
RQD values occurs for the shorter core run lengths, and it
increases with increasing fracture intensity. Similar trends
were observed for the orientations used to calculate RQD.
There is a need to extend the current work to consider DFN
models with more complex fracture sets and to compare
actual RQD measurements along boreholes to the
simulated RQD values measured in the associated DFN
models. It is expected that further work will also consider
the relationship between the simulated RQD values (for
different core run length) and rock mass fragmentation, and
the relationship between rock mass scale and assumed
threshold used to calculated RQD (e.g. 10cm vs. 20cm).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank NSERC (Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada) for the
financial support provided to this research through a
Collaborative Research Development grant (Grant No.
CRDPJ-453374; Characterization of secondary
fragmentation processes using a combination of laboratory
experiments and numerical analysis). Golder Associates
kindly provided an academic license for the DFN code
(FracMan) used to carry out this work.
REFERENCES
1. Barton, N., Lien, R., Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering
classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel
support. In: Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4, 189-236.
2. Bear, J., 2013. Dynamics of fluids in porous media. Courier
Corporation.
3. Bieniawski, Z. T. 1976. Rock mass classification in rock
engineering. In: Exploration for Rock Engineering, Ed. Z.T.
Bieniawski, Balkema, Cape Town, 97-106.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering rock mass
classifications: a complete manual for engineers and
geologists in mining, civil, and petroleum engineering.
John Wiley & Sons.
Deere, D., 1988. The rock quality designation (RQD) index
in practice. In Rock classification systems for engineering
purposes. ASTM International.
Deere, D.U. and Deere, D.W., 1998. The rock quality
designation index in practice. Rock classification for
engineering purposes. ASTM Spec. Publ, 984, pp.91-101.
Deere, D.U. and Hendron, A.J., J., Patton, FD, and Cording
EJ (1967). Design of surface and near-surface construction
in rock. In Failure and Breakage of Rock-Eighth
Symposium on Rock Mechanics (pp. 237-302).
12. Elmo, D., Rogers, S., Dorador, L., and Eberhardt, E., 2014.
An FEM-DEM numerical approach to simulate secondary
fragmentation. Computer Methods and Recent Advances in
Geomechanics, 1623-1628. doi:10.1201/b17435-286
13. Elmo, D., Rogers, S., Stead, D. and Eberhardt, E., 2014.
Discrete Fracture Network approach to characterise rock
mass fragmentation and implications for geomechanical
upscaling. Mining Technology, 123(3), pp.149-161.
14. Grenon, M. and Hadjigeorgiou, J., 2003. Open stope
stability using 3D joint networks. Rock Mechanics and
Rock Engineering, 36(3), pp.183-208.
15. Hoek, E., 1999. Practical Rock Engineering.
https://www.rocscience.com/learning/hoek-s-corner.
16. Hoek, E., 2007. Rock mass properties. Practical rock
engineering. Available at www. rocscience.
com/learning/Hoek’s-Corner.
17. Hoek, E., Carter, T.G. and Diederichs, M.S., 2013.
Quantification of the geological strength index chart.
In 47th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium.
American Rock Mechanics Association.
18. Hoek, E., Kaiser P.K. and Bawden W.F. 1995. Support
of underground excavations in hard rock. Rotterdam,
Balkema.
19. Palmstron A. 2001. In In-situ characterization of rocks.
Sharma V.M. and Saxena K.R. eds. A.A. Balkema
publishers, 2001, pp. 49 - 97.
20. Priest, S.D. and Hudson, J.A., 1976, May. Discontinuity
spacings in rock. In International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts (Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 135-148). Pergamon.
Rogers S., D. Elmo, G. Webb and A. Catalan. 2010. A DFN
based approach to defining in situ, primary and secondary
fragmentation distributions for the Cadia East panel cave.
2nd Int. Symp. on Block and Sublevel Caving. Perth,
Australia.
4.

21.

5.

6. 22. Rogers, S.F., Moffitt, K.M., Kennard, D.K. 2006.

Probabilistic slope and tunnel block stability analysis using
realistic fracture network models. In: The 4l US.
7. ,
Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS),
ARMAIUSRMS 06-1052
23. Starzec, P. and Tsang, C.F., 2002. Use of
intersection density for predicting the volume of unstable
8. Dershowitz, W.S., Herda, H.H. 1992. Interpretation of
blocks in underground openings. International Journal of
fracture spacing and intensity. In: Proceedings ofthe 33’’
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(6), pp.807-813.
US Rock Mechanics Symposium, Publ. 33, 757-766.
24. Staub, I., Fredriksson, A., Outers, N. 2002. Strategy for a
9. Elmo, D. and Stead, D., 2010. An integrated numerical
rock mechanics site descriptive model, development and
modelling–discrete fracture network approach applied to
the characterisation of rock mass strength of naturally testing of the theoretical approach. Svensk
fractured pillars. Rock Mechanics and Rock Karnbranslehantering AB, Rapport R-02-02, May 2002.
Engineering, 43(1), pp.3-19.
10. Elmo, D., 2006. Evaluation of a hybrid FEM/DEM
approach for determination of rock mass strength using a
combination of discontinuity mapping and fracture
mechanics modelling, with particular emphasis on
modelling of jointed pillars (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Exeter).
11. Elmo, D., Clayton, C., Rogers, S., Beddoes, R. and Greer,
S., 2011. Numerical simulations of potential rock bridge
failure within a naturally fractured rock mass.
In Proceedings International Symposium on Rock Slope
Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering (Slope
Stability 2011).