Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Mining Engineering›Q-System
Process / pipelineRock Mass Classification

Q-System

Q-System (NGI Index) for Rock Mass Classification · Also known as: Q Index, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Classification, Barton System

The Q-System (NGI Index), introduced by Nick Barton and colleagues at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute in 1974, is an alternative rock mass classification to RMR. It combines six parameters into a dimensionless index Q ranging from 0.001 to 1000, where higher Q values indicate better rock quality. The Q-System is particularly valued for tunnel and underground excavation design due to its explicit consideration of joint roughness and groundwater effects.

ScholarGate
  1. Process / pipeline
  2. v1
  3. 2 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Q-System
Hoek-Brown CriterionRock Mass RatingStope Layout

When to use it

Use Q-System for tunnel design and stability assessment, especially where groundwater and joint quality are significant. Preferred over RMR when joint roughness variation is large or groundwater conditions are critical. Works well in weak rock where RMR may be less reliable.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Multiplicative form reflects engineering reality: one poor parameter makes the entire system poor
  • Explicit groundwater term (J_w) makes it superior to RMR in wet environments
  • Extensive international database of tunnel case studies correlated to Q
  • Dimensionless index allows comparison across rock types
  • Good for very weak rock (Q<1) where RMR may be insensitive
Limitations
  • More complex than RMR; requires careful parameter assessment
  • Multiplicative form can be unintuitive; small changes in one parameter dramatically shift Q
  • SRF (stress reduction factor) is difficult to estimate without stress measurement
  • J_a (joint alteration) classification requires experience; different engineers may score differently
  • Q does not explicitly address excavation size; large excavations may require larger support than Q alone predicts

Frequently asked

How do I interpret a very high Q value (e.g., Q=100)?

Q=100 indicates excellent rock: minimal support needed, low deformation risk. However, even high-Q rock can fail if excavation is very large or stress is high. Use Q as one input; combine with stress analysis and excavation geometry considerations.

What is the relationship between Q and RMR?

Approximate correlation exists: RMR ≈ 9 ln(Q) + 44. However, the correlation varies by rock type. Q and RMR use different parameters, so they can disagree. Both should be calculated and compared for confidence.

How do I handle fractured rock with many small, tight joints?

High RQD (many core pieces) but small J_n (many sets). The Q formula balances these: RQD/J_n may be moderate. This is realistic: fragmented rock with tight joints has moderate stability, not as good as coarse-jointed strong rock.

Can I use Q for mine pillar design?

Q is primarily for opening stability and support design, not pillar design. Modified versions (Q') and modifications to account for confinement have been proposed. For pillar design, use RMR, GSI, or specialized pillar design formulas.

How sensitive is Q to small changes in joint characteristics?

Very sensitive: J_r and J_a are on a scale of roughly 0.5 to 4, so changing from 'slightly rough' (Jr=1.5) to 'smooth' (Jr=1.0) reduces Q by 33%. Small errors in parameter assessment can shift Q significantly. Report Q with uncertainty ranges.

Sources

  1. Barton, N., Lien, R., & Lunde, J. (1974). Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mechanics, 6(4), 189-236. DOI: 10.1007/BF01239496 ↗
  2. Barton, N. (2002). Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterisation and tunnel design. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(2), 185-216. DOI: 10.1016/S1365-1609(02)00011-4 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Q-System (NGI Index) for Rock Mass Classification. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/mining-engineering/q-system

Related methods

Hoek-Brown CriterionRock Mass RatingStope Layout

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Hoek-Brown CriterionMining Engineering↔ compare
  • Rock Mass RatingMining Engineering↔ compare
  • Stope LayoutMining Engineering↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

Hoek-Brown CriterionRock Mass Rating

Similar methods

Rock Mass ClassificationRock Mass RatingHoek-Brown CriterionStope LayoutStereographic Slope AnalysisGeomechanical ModelingHydrogeological SurveySlope Stability (Bishop-Janbu)

Related reference concepts

Measurement Validity and ReliabilityQ MethodologyQuality AssuranceManagement SystemsConstructionReliability

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Q-System (Q-System (NGI Index) for Rock Mass Classification). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/mining-engineering/q-system · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Nick Barton (Norwegian Geotechnical Institute)
Subfamily
Rock Mass Classification
Year
1974
Type
Empirical index for tunnel support and stability prediction
Related methods
Hoek-Brown CriterionRock Mass RatingStope Layout
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account