Laubscher Geomechanics Rating (MRMR)

Laubscher – Geomechanics Rating (MRMR)

Laubscher, DH (1977). Geomechanics classification of jointed rock masses –
mining applications, Trans IMM, 86, A1-A8
Laubscher, DH (1984). Geomechanics classification of jointed rock masses. Trans IMM,
93, A70-A81.
Laubscher, DH (1990). A geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock
mass in mine design, J. SAIMM, 90, 257-273.
Laubscher, DH (1994). Cave mining – the state of the art. J. SAIMM, October, 279-293.

RQD
IRS (Intact Rock Strength)
Joint Spacing
Joint Condition (including ground water)

Sum to provide value for Geomechanics Rating

 ROCK MASS RATING (RMR)
Bieniawski (1976 with update in 1989) used the
following parameters to classify a rock mass:
MRMR – Mining or Modified Rock Mass Rating
Adjustments can be applied to individual parameters or applied globally
 DESIGN CHART
STABLE

CAVING

Laubscher (1976)
STABLE

CAVING

Laubscher (1994)
WORKED EXAMPLE

?
(1976)
Hydraulic Radius = 22

Laubscher (1976)
 (1976)

Could therefore mine down-dip to 50m under ‘STABLE’

conditions
CSM Test Mine
Laubscher Rating 50m

Excavation width: 3 to 10m

Depth below surface: 10 to 40m
Rock type: Granite
 RMR

BASIC RMR = 12 + 20 + 15 + 25 + 15 =87

Effects of orientation of discontinuities relative to excavation direction ?

Strike perpendicular v Strike parallel
Adjusted RMR = BASIC RMR + orientationadjustment
= 87 – 12 = 75
Q - system
Q – system: typical values
RQD: range 80 to 95: typical 90
Jn: 2 sets + random: 6
Jr: rough and planar: 1.5
smooth and planar: 1.0
Ja: unaltered, surface staining: 1.0
Jw: dry excavation: 1.0
SRF: competent rock, low stress/near surface: 2.5
or single weakness zone < 50m: 5.0

Q = 80 - 95 x 1.0 -1.5 x 1.0

6 1.0 2.5 - 5.0

Q = range 2.6 to 9.5, typical5 to 9

Neither system explicitly identifies potential failure mechanisms i.e blockfallout
or gravity induced sliding of a kinematically unstable block. This implies that
additional analysis would need to be performed to assess influence of rock
mass on excavation performance. This could include stereographic analysis to
identify unfavourably oriented blocks, identification of most suitable
reinforcement/stabilization method and stress analysis to assess detrimental
effects of stress redistribution and stress-inducedinstability.
Laubscher – Geomechanics Rating System
Assume 3 sets: C

Vertical: 0.6m 21
Vertical: 1.0m 16
Horizontal: 2.0m 13
Assume dry excavation:

A: Planar 75 or 0.75
B: Rough 85 or 0.85
C: No alteration 100 or 1
D: Surface staining 100 or 1

40 x 0.75 x 0.85 x 1 x 1 = 26
Laubscher – Geomechanics Rating System

13

26

Geomechanics rating = 14 + 14 + 13 + 26 = 67
 MRMR – Mining or Modified Rock Mass Rating

No weathering: 100 or 1
Field and induced stresses: little or no effects for typical excavations, so 100 or 1
Changes in stress: Minimal or no changes, so 100 or 1
Orientation of discontinuities: use RMR as basis = 12/75 = 0.16, so adjustment 84 or 0.84
Good conventional blasting: 94 or 0.94

Original RMR =67, MRMR = 67 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 0.84 x 0.94 = 53

TUNNEL SUPPORT – MINE DEVELOPMENT (after Laubscher, 1976)

Note: Maximum
adjustment is
50%