Corrected Rock Fracture Parameters and Other Empirical Considerations for the Rock Mechanics of Rock Masses of Doha, Qatar


The objective of this paper is to provide insights into the intact rock and rock mass properties of the rock formations under the city of Doha, State of Qatar. We also intend to scientifically clarify these properties by presenting and statistically characterizing the ranges of the parameters, and by discussing the correlations between the parameters with respect to their usage and research potential. The rock quality designation corrected (RQDC) parameter is validated and a new parameter, the fracture index corrected (FIC), is proposed. The significantly improved correlation between RQDC and FIC is demonstrated and their derivation is explained. The paper demonstrates the correlation between the rock mass estimation parameters obtained through rock face mapping and discusses the applicability of the Hoek–Brown criterion to the studied rock masses, which is found to be relevant. A discussion about how properly performed triaxial tests can directly provide the rock constant mi values for all geological members is presented. Other estimation approaches for mi are also validated and compared with the existing knowledge base. Data for laboratory and field intact rock and rock mass parameters are combined using equations from various authors to obtain narrow ranges for rock mass strength and rock mass elasticity modulus values. Finally, within the framework of previous studies by other authors on the low-end transition range of rocks toward soils, it is shown that only the Rus formation member is sufficiently soft and can be included in the range.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28

Availability of Data and Materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to proprietary confidentiality but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


\(\overline{x}\) :

Mean value

\(\mu_{1/2}\) :

Median value

n :

Number of data points

σ :

Standard deviation

CV :

Coefficient of variance


  1. Ahmed TMF (2013) Modified value of rock quality designation index RQD in rock formation. In: International conference on case histories in geotechnical engineering. 1.

  2. Aladejare AE, Wang Y (2019) Probabilistic characterization of Hoek–Brown constant mi of rock using Hoek’s guideline chart, regression model and uniaxial compression test. Geotech Geol Eng 37:5045–5060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arshadnejad S, Nick N (2016) Empirical models to evaluate of “mi” as an intact rock constant in the Hoek–Brown rock failure criterion. In: 19th Southeast Asian geotechnical conference and 2nd AGSSEA conference (19SEAGC & 2AGSSEA) Kuala Lumpur 31 May–3 June 2016

  4. ASTM D7012-10 (2010), Standard test method for compressive strength and elastic moduli of intact rock core specimens under varying states of stress and temperatures, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010,

  5. ASTM D5731–08 (2008) Standard test method for determination of the point load strength index of rock and application to rock strength classifications, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008,

  6. ASTM D3967-16 (2016) Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of intact rock core specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016,

  7. Azimian A (2015) A new method for improving the RQD determination of rock core in borehole. Rock mechanics and rock engineering, June 2015. Springer-Verlag Wien 2015.

  8. Barton N (2002) Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterization and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39(2):185–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6:189–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown ET (2008) Estimating the mechanical properties of rock masses. In: SHIRMS 2008–Y. Potvin, J

  11. Cai M (2010) Practical estimates of tensile strength and Hoek–Brown strength parameter mi of brittle rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:167–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carter TG, Diederichs MS, Carvalho, JL (2008) Application of modified Hoek–Brown transition relationships for assessing strength and post yield behavior at both ends of the rock competence scale. In: Proceedings 6th international symposium on ground support in mining and civil engineering construction, SAIMM, Johannesburg, pp. 37–60. Carter, A. Dyskin, R. Jeffrey (eds), © 2008 Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, ISBN 978-0-804185-5-2

  13. Carvalho JL, Carter TG, and Diederichs MS (2007) An approach for prediction of strength and post-yield behavior for rock masses of low intact strength. In: Rock mechanics: meeting society’s challenges and demands, proceedings 1st Canada – U.S. Rock mechanics Symposium, Taylor and Francis, Leiden, 1, pp 249–257

  14. Cavelier C, Salatt A, Heuze Y (1970) Geological description of the Qatar Peninsula (Arabian Gulf): explanation of the 1/100.000 geological map of Qatar. Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières

  15. Chen Q, Yin T, Jia H (2019) Selection of optimal threshold of generalised rock quality designation based on modified blockiness index. Selection of optimal threshold of generalised rock quality designation based on modified blockiness index. Adv Civil Eng 2019:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Deere DU (1963) Technical description of rock cores for engineering purposes. Rock Mech Eng Geol 1(1):18

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fourniadis I (2010) Geotechnical characterization of the simsima limestone (Doha, Qatar), GeoShanghai international conference 2010 June 3–5, 2010 Shanghai, China,

  18. Galera JM, Álvarez M, Bieniawski ZT (2007) Evaluation of the deformation modulus of rock masses using RMR: Comparison with dilatometer tests. In: Proceedings of the ISRM workshop W1, Madrid, Spain, Jul. 6–7, 2007. Taylor and Francis, Madrid. pp 71–77

  19. Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Kayabasi A (2003) Predicting the deformation moduli of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40(5):701–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Haftani M, Chehreh HA, Mehinrad A, Binazadeh K (2015) Practical investigations on use of weighted joint density to decrease the limitations of RQD measurements. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:1551–1558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Harrison JP (1999) Selection of the threshold value in RQD assessments. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36(1999):673–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hatheway A (2009) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring; 1974–2006. Environ Eng Geosci 15:47–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hoek E (1994) Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News J 2(2):4e16

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hoek E (2007) Practical rock engineering. e-book, chapter 11, Rock mass properties

  25. Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock. Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34:1165–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Hoek–Brown failure criterion—2002 Edition. In: Conference: Proceedings of NARMS-TAC Conference, Toronto, 2002, 1, 267–273

  28. Hoek E, Diederichs MS (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass deformation modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43(2006):203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground excavations in hard rock. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hudson JA, Harrison JP (2000) Engineering rock mechanics. Pergamon, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  31. ISO 14689:2017 Geotechnical investigation and testing—identification, description and classification of rock. Technical committee ISO/TC 182, Geotechnics

  32. ISRM (1985) Suggested method for determining point load strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 22:51–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jakubowski J, Stypulkowski JB, Bernardeau FG (2017) Multivariate linear regression and CART regression analysis of TBM performance at Abu Hamour phase-1 tunnel. Arch Min Sci 62(4):825–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Karagkounis N, Latapie B, Sayers K (2016) Mulinti SR (2016) Geology and geotechnical evaluation of Doha rock formations. Geotech Res 3(3):119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kassem AF (2016) Engineering characteristics of rocks in qatar; applications on excavation and tunneling. Master thesis, The American University in Cairo, The School of Sciences and Engineering

  36. Li L, Ouellet S, Aubertin M (2009) An improved definition of rock quality designation, RQDc. In: ROCKENG09: Proceedings of the 3rd CANUS rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, May 2009, M. Diederichs and G. Grasselli (eds)

  37. Mostyn G, Douglas K (2000) Strength of intact rock and rock masses. In: ISRM GeoEng

  38. NGI (2015) Handbook, using the Q-system—rock mass classification and support design

  39. Pells PJ, Bieniawski ZT, Hencher SR, Pells SE (2017) Rock quality designation (RQD): time to rest in peace. Can Geotech J 54:825–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Perras MA, Diederichs MS (2014) A review of the tensile strength of rock: concepts and testing. Geotech Geol Eng 32:525–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Priest S, Hudson J (1976) Discontinuity spacings in rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 13(5):135–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Richards LR, Read SAL (2011) A comparison of methods for determining mi, the Hoek–Brown parameter for intact rock material. In: 45th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium

  43. Sadiq A, Nasir S (2002) Middle-miocene karst evolution in the state of Qatar, Arabian Gulf. J Cave Karst Sci 64(2):132–139

    Google Scholar 

  44. Shen J, Karakus M (2014) Simplified method for estimating the Hoek–Brown constant for intact rocks. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng Am Soc Civil Eng 140:04014025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stypulkowski JB, Bernardeau FG (2018) Abu hamour tunnel phase I the first TBM tunnel in Qatar: The Art of Tunneling in a New World, pp 141–152.

  46. Stypulkowski JB, Pathak AK, Bernardeau FG (2014) Engineering geology for weak rocks of Abu Hamour surface and ground water drainage tunnel Phase-1, Doha, Qatar, ISRM-EUROCK-2014-047. In: International society for rock mechanics and rock engineering, isrm regional symposium-EUROCK 2014, 27-29 May, Vigo, Spain,

  47. Vali B, Arpa G (2012) Finding the relationship between RQD and fracture frequency in the different Ok Tedilithologies. In: International symposium on earth science and technology, CINEST 2012, procedia earth and planetary science 6 (2013), pp 403–410

  48. Vásárhelyi B, Kovács D (2016) Empirical methods of calculating the mechanical parameters of the rock mass. Period Polytech Civil Eng 61(1):39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhang L (2009) Estimating the strength of jointed rock masses. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:391–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Zhi PZ, Jun CZ (2015) Application and improvement of rock quality designation (RQD). Applied mechanics and materials online: 2015-03-23, ISSN: 1662-7482, Vols. 744-746, pp 1371-1373., © 2015 Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland

Download references


The authors wish to express their gratitude to the corresponding author’s work organization, which supported him in performing part-time research work and surrounded him with people who helped and inspired him, and provided the impetus for the research subject.


This research was not founded by any party.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hrvoje Vučemilović.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that influenced the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


Appendix A


Fig. 29

Incorrect determination of FI

29 and

Fig. 30

Correct determination of FI

30 show the rules for the correct determination of the rock fracture parameters FI and FIC. The determination should follow the limits of the existing core runs, as shown in Fig. 30, as opposed to overlapping two adjacent core runs (Fig. 29). It is important to achieve parameter congruence when determining the RQDC via SCR (pr) from core logs or core photos, or when determining the FIC. Otherwise, the transformation from one parameter to the other will not be consistent and may not produce the same number of data points.

Appendix B

See Figs. 

Fig. 31

UCS versus depth


Fig. 32

IS50 versus depth


Fig. 33

ES versus depth


Fig. 34

RQD versus depth


Fig. 35

RQDC versus depth

35, 36 and 37.

Fig. 36

FIC versus depth

Fig. 37

FI versus depth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vučemilović, H., Mulabdić, M. & Miščević, P. Corrected Rock Fracture Parameters and Other Empirical Considerations for the Rock Mechanics of Rock Masses of Doha, Qatar. Geotech Geol Eng (2021).

Download citation


  • Doha
  • Corrected rock fracture parameters
  • Rock mass properties
  • Intact rock propertsies
  • Empirical relations
  • Hoek–Brown criterion