Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s10064-009-0235-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
Received: 30 June 2009 / Accepted: 20 July 2009 / Published online: 14 August 2009
Springer-Verlag 2009
Introduction
Predicting the ease of excavation of rock and rock masses
is very significant in earthworks for highway construction
or other civil engineering works, in surface mines and also
for foundations. In order to describe the excavation of
rocks, different terms have been used, related to the principle of excavation and the mechanics of fracture. These
include cuttability, rippability, excavatability, diggability
and drillability. In the present work, the term excavatability
is used as a broad term that refers to the ease of excavation
of rock and rock masses and includes the methods of
(a) digging, when easy/very easy excavation conditions
Previous research
Assessment of rock excavatability
(a)
123
14
G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou
123
15
Fig. 3 Folded (a) thinly bedded limestone (b) schist, both corresponding to the blocky/disturbed/seamy rock masses
123
16
G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou
Table 1 Range of point load strength and rock mass classification for different geological formations
Rock mass
type
GSI
Rock
structure
Discontinuity
surface
Is50 (MPa)
average
Is50 (MPa)
range
If (cm)
average
If (cm)
range
Gneiss
3560
S2, S3
D2, D3, D4
2.30
1.304.80
65
30150
Weathered gneiss
35
S3
D4
0.6
Schist
1570
D2, D3, D4
2.20
0.804.60
49
25
23160a
Limestone
2065
S2, S3, S5
D2, D3, D4
2.45
0.704.00
45
2080b
Sandstone
3060
S2, S3, S4
2.30
0.704.80
40
20100
Marble
6575
S2
D1, D2
2.80
1.804.20
50
4070
Siltstone
2530
S4, S5
D3, D4
0.50
Fracture spacing in schists is meaningful only in rock masses with blocky, very blocky and disturbed/seamy structure. Fracture spacing due to
schistosity planes (acting as discontinuity planes) in laminated/sheared rock masses is not applicable
therefore built on the linkage between descriptive geological terms and measurable field parameters such as joint
spacing and roughness.
The rock mass type is a controlling factor in the
assessment of the excavation method, as it is closely
related to the number of discontinuity sets and reflects the
rock mass structure. The Geological Strength Index, in its
original form, was not scale dependant, thus the rock block
size is not directly related to the rock mass type. Nevertheless, each rock type has a broad correlation to the rock
block size, i.e., a blocky rock mass has larger blocks than a
very blocky rock mass or a disintegrated rock mass which
is made up of very small rock fragments. This correlation is
only informative, however, and is not applicable to certain
rock mass types, e.g., sheared schist rock masses, as the
spacing of the schistosity planes equates to the discontinuity planes and hence the concept of block volume is not
applicable. For this reason, the present classification for the
assessment of excavatability is based on the original GSI
charts (2000 version), but specific reference to the block
volume is made.
Field investigationmethodology
According to Palmstrom (2000), block size and discontinuity spacing can be measured by means of the Volumetric
Joint Count Jv, or the mean block volume, Vb. Sonmez and
Ulusay (1999) quantified block size in the GSI chart by the
Structure Rating coefficient (SR) that is related to the Jv
coefficient. Cai et al. (2004) presented a quantified GSI
chart and suggested that the block size is quantified by the
mean discontinuity spacing S or by the mean block volume
Vb. The structure was quantified by joint spacing in order to
calculate the block volume, and the joint surface condition
was quantified by a joint condition factor. The GSI is
The field investigation was carried out at highway construction sites in Greece. In general, the rocks involved
were sedimentary (limestone, sandstone and siltstone) and
metamorphic (gneiss, schist and marble). The most predominant rock types were sandstone and limestone.
The field investigation in sixty-one (61) selected locations included the determination of rock mass properties,
the excavation method and its performance in terms of
production against time. In order to describe and classify
the rock masses the following parameters were recorded
(following ISRM 1981):
123
17
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
rock type,
joint set number,
joint spacing,
joint orientation,
joint surface condition,
degree of weathering.
123
18
123
G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou
Fig. 8 Plot of point load strength versus GSI for different excavation
methods
19
123
20
G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou
Table 2 Detailed rock mass data and excavation methods used on study sites (point load strength of intact rock Is50 \ 3 MPa)
Excavation
method
2.6
Blasting
Rock
type
Structure/
discontinuity
GSI
B5
Schist
S2D3
60
B6
Limestone Sparitic
S2D2
65
40
1.7
Blasting
B7
Marble
S2D1
75
40
2.5
Blasting
B8
Marble
S2D1
70
40
1.8
Blasting
B9
Marble
S2D1
65
50
2.7
Blasting
B10
Sandstone
S2D2
60
100
2.7
Blasting
H4
H5
Amphibolitic Schist
Amphibolitic Schist
S2D2
S2-3D3
7075
5055
36
26
1.8
1.2
Hammer
Hammer
H6
Mica schist
S2D2
65
70
1.3
Hammer
H7
Mica schist
S2D3
55
72
1.3
Hammer
H8
Amphibolitic Schist
S3D2
5560
30
1.4
Hammer
H9
Limestone micritic
S2D3
55
80
2.9
Hammer
H10
Gneiss
S3D2
60
150
2.2
Hammer
R11
Sandstone
S2D2
5055
50
1.7
Ripper D8
R12
Sandstone
S2D3
50
80
Ripper D8
R13
Sandstone
S2D2
50
40
2.3
Ripper D8
R14
Sandstone
S4D2
45
1.3
Ripper D8
R15
Sandstone quartzitic
S2D2
5055
50
1.7
Ripper D8
R16
Sandstone quartzitic
S4D3
40
20
2.8
Ripper D8
R17
Sandstone quartzitic
S4D3
35
30
Ripper D8
R18
Sandstone quartzitic
S3D3
4045
30
0.9
Ripper D8
R19
R20
Sandstone silty
Mica Gneiss
S3D3
S3D4
40
35
30
30
2.2
1.3
Ripper D8
Ripper D8
R21
Gneiss
S2D3
50
100
Ripper D8
R22
Gneiss
S2-3D3
45
100
1.7
Ripper D8
R23
Limestone micritic
S3D3
45
30
0.7
Ripper D9
R24
Mica Gneiss
S3D4
35
30
0.6
Ripper D9
R25
Mica Gneiss
S3D4
3540
30
1.4
Ripper D9
R26
Granitic Gneiss
S3D3
4045
30
1.7
Ripper D9
R27
Sandstone
S3D1-2
5560
50
1.9
Ripper D9
R28
Sandstone
S3D2
5560
0.8
Ripper D9
R29
Sandstone
S3D2
55
2.0
Ripper D9
R30
Schist
S4D2
4045
23
2.2
Ripper D10
R31
Sandstone
S3D3
4045
20
0.7
Ripper D7-Digger
R32
Sandstone
S3D4
30
2.9
Ripper D7-Digger
R33
SandstoneSiltstone
S3D4
3035
0.9
Ripper D7-Digger
R34
Sandstone
S3D3
4045
30
1.1
Ripper D7-Digger
D3
D4
Siltstone
Mylonitic limestone
S4D4
S5D4
30
25
0.5
Digger
Digger
D5
Schist
S6D4
15
0.8
Digger
D6
Limestone
S5D4
20
0.7
Digger
D7
Calcareous schist
S6D4
15
0.9
Digger
123
Fracture
spacing If (cm)
Is50
(MPa)
Site
number
80
rocks with Q values between 3.2 and 5.2 can be ripped and/
or require blasting.
The present study found Abdullatif and Crudens (1983)
ranges for digging, ripping and blasting are in good
agreement with the methods actually used at the investigated sites but the use of the Q system was less consistent
with field practice.
21
(a)
123
22
G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou
Proposed classification
General
An assessment of the excavatability of the rock masses
encountered on the selected sites, based on the most
Table 3 Detailed rock mass data and excavation methods used on study sites (point load strength of intact rock Is50 C 3 MPa)
Is50
(MPa)
Excavation
method
90
3.9
Blasting
160
4.2
Blasting
4.2
Blasting
Site
number
Rock
type
Structure/
discontinuity
GSI
Fracture
spacing If (cm)
B1
Schist
S2D3
60
B2
Schist
S2D2
70
B3
Marble
S2D2
65
70
B4
Sandstone
S3D2
5560
H1
Schist
S2D3
50
H2
Crystalline limestone
S3D2
55
H3
R1
Crystalline limestone
Limestone
S3D2
S3D3
5560
45
R2
Limestone
S3D3
R3
Limestone
S3D4
R4
Mica Gneiss
R5
Sandstone
R6
4.8
Blasting
35
4.6
Hammer
50
3.1
Hammer
10
3.1
3.7
Hammer
Ripper D9
4045
20
4.0
Ripper D9
35
30
3.4
Ripper D9
S3D3
40
54
4.7
Ripper D9
S3D4
40
4.8
Ripper D8
Sandstone
S4D4
30
20
4.1
Ripper D8
R7
Sandstone
S4D3
35
20
3.9
Ripper D8
R8
Mica Gneiss
S3D4
35
30
3.1
Ripper D8
R9
Gneiss
S3D2
50
100
4.8
Ripper D8
R10
Mylonitic limestone
S5D3
30
Ripper D7
D1
Mylonitic limestone
S5D4
20
Digger
D2
Siltstone
S5D3
25
Digger
123
23
threshold values proposed in the literature; most researchers suggesting a UCS of 70 MPa, equivalent to a point load
strength of 3 MPa (Bell 2004; McLean and Gribble 1985;
Bieniawski 1975).
Two classification charts are proposed for the assessment of excavation method based on GSI:
(a)
123
24
G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou
Table 4 Excavation method for different rock mass types (Is50 \ 3 MPa)
S5D4
S5D5
S5D4
S5D5
S5D3
S5D3
S5D2
S5D1
S4D5
S4D4
S4D3
S4D2
S4D1
S3D4
S3D5
S3D3
S3D2
S3D1
S2D5
S2D4
S2D3
excavation
S2D1
Method of
strength
S1
Intact rock
or hammer
Is 50 <3 MPa
Ripper (D8,
D9)
Ripper (D7)
Digging
Underlined symbols represent areas of application that are suggested (with no records from the study sites)
Symbols in bold represent marginal conditions for application of the proposed excavation method
Table 5 Excavation method for different rock mass types (Is50 C 3 MPa)
S5D2
S4D5
S5D1
S4D4
S4D3
S4D2
S4D1
S3D5
S3D4
S3D3
S3D2
S2D5
S2D4
S3D1
S2D3
excavation
S2D1
Method of
strength
S1
Intact rock
or hammer
Is 50 3 MPa
Ripper (D8,
D9)
X
Ripper (D7)
Digging
Underlined symbols represent areas of application that are suggested (with no records from the study sites)
Symbols in bold represent marginal conditions for application of the proposed excavation method
123
25
Fig. 12 Proposed GSI chart for the assessment of excavatability of rock masses (Is50 C 3 MPa)
123
26
G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou
123
Conclusions
The Geological Strength Index (GSI) was used to assess the
ease of excavation of rock masses. The 61 sites investigated included sedimentary (limestone, sandstone and
siltstone) and metamorphic (gneiss, schist and marble) rock
masses with a variety of rock structures and discontinuity
surface conditions. The majority of the rocks exhibited a
blocky to very blocky structure with a significant number
of blocky/disturbed/seamy and disintegrated rock masses.
The proposed classification method takes into account
the point load strength of the intact rock and the rock mass
structure. Two GSI classification charts are proposed:
(a) for rock masses with Is50 \3 MPa, and (b) for rock
masses with Is50 C 3 MPa.
It was found that blasting is required when GSI values
are greater than 65 when Is50 C 3 MPa and 60 when
Is50 \ 3 MPa, hence blasting is usually required in massive, blocky and very blocky rock masses or when joints
are tight.
Successful ripping is generally achieved for rock masses
with GSI values between 20 and 45. However, as the
References
Abdullatif OM, Cruden DM (1983) The relationship between rock
mass quality and ease of excavation. Bull Eng Geol Environ
28:183187
Atkinson T (1971) Selection of open pit excavating and loading
equipment. Trans Inst Min Metall 80:A101A129
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute Publication, Oslo, pp 415
Basarir H, Karpuz C (2004) A rippability classification system for
marls in lignite mines. Eng Geol 74:303318
Bell FG (2004) Engineering geology and construction. Taylor and
Francis Group, London, p 791
Bieniawski ZT (1974) Geomechanics classification of rock masses
and its application to tunelling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
Congress of I.S.R.M., Denver 1:2732
Bieniawski ZT (1975) The point-load test in geotechnical practice.
Eng Geol 9:111
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M (2004) Estimation of
rock mass deformation modulus and strength of jointed hard rock
masses using the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:319
Caterpillar TC (2001) Caterpillar performance handbook. Caterpillar
Inc., Preoria
Church HK (1981) Excavation handbook. McGraw-Hill Inc., New
York
Duncan N (1969) Engineering geology and rock mechanics, vol 2.
Leonard Hill, London
Fowell RJ, Johnson ST (1982) Rock Classification and assessment for
rapid excavation. In: Farmer IW (ed) Proceedings of Symposium
on Strata Mechanics. Elsevier, New-York, pp 241244
Franklin JA, Broch E, Walton G (1971) Logging the mechanical
character of rock. Trans Inst Min Metall 80:A1A9
Gurocak Z, Alemdag S, Zaman MM (2008) Rock slope stability and
excavatability assessment of rocks at the Kapikaya dam site,
Turkey. Eng Geol 96(12):1727
Hadjigeorgiou J, Poulin R (1998) Assessment of ease of excavation of
surface mines. J Terramech 35:137153
Hawkins AB (2000) General report: the nature of hard rocks/soft
soils. The Geotechnics of Hard SoilsSoft Rocks. In: Evangelista A, Picarelli L (eds) Rotterdam, Balkema, pp 13911402
27
Hoek E (1994) Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News J
2(2):416
Hoek E, Karzulovic A (2000) Rock mass properties for surface mines.
Slope Stability in Surface Mining. In: Hustralid WA, McCarter
MK, van Zyl DJA (eds) Littleton, Colorado: Society for Mining,
Metallurgical and Exploration (SME), pp 5970
Hoek E, Wood D, Shah S (1992) A modified HoekBrown criterion
for jointed rock masses. In: Proceedings of Rock Characterization, Symposium on International Society of Rock Mechanics:
Eurock92. Hudson JA (ed) British Geotechnical Society,
London, pp 209214
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground
excavations in hard rock. Rotterdam, Balkema
Hoek E, Marinos P, Benissi M (1998) Applicability of the Geological
Strength Index (GSI) classification for very weak and sheared
rock masses. The case of the Athens Schist Formation. Bull Eng
Geol Environ (IAEG) 57(2):151160
International Society for Rock Mechanics ISRM (1981) Rock
characterization, testing and monitoring. In: Brown ET (ed)
ISRM suggested methods. Pergamon Press, Oxford, p 211
International Society for Rock Mechanics ISRM (1985) Point load
test, suggested method for determining point load strength. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci and Geomech Abstr 22:5160
Karpuz C (1990) A classification system for excavation of surface
Coal Measures. Min Sci Technol 11:157163
Kentli B, Topal FT (2004) Evaluation of rock excavatability and
slope stability along a segment of motorway, Pozanti, Turkey.
Environ Geol 46:8395
Kirsten HAD (1982) A classification system for excavation in natural
materials. Civ Eng S Afr 24:293308
MacGregor F, Fell R, Mostyn GR, Hocking G, Nally G (1994) The
estimation of rock rippability. Q J Eng Geol 27:123144
Marinos P, Hoek E (2000) GSI: A geologically friendly tool for rock
mass strength estimation. In: Proceedings of GeoEng2000
Conference, Melbourne, 1:14221446
Marinos P, Hoek E (2001) Estimating the geotechnical properties of
heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch. Bull Eng Geol
Environ (IAEG) 60:8592
Marinos P, Marinos V, Hoek E (2007) Geological Strength Index (GSI).
A characterisation tool for assessing engineering properties for rock
masses. In: Romana, Perucho, Olalla (eds) Underground works
under special conditions. Taylor and Francis, Lisbon, pp 1321
McLean AC, Gribble CD (1985) Geology for Civil Engineers, 2nd
edn edn. George Allen and Unwin, Australia, p 314
Palmstrom A (2000) Recent developments in rock support estimates
by the RMi. J Rock Mech Tunnell Techn 6(1):119
Pettifer GS, Fookes PG (1994) A revision of the graphical method for
assessing the excavability of rock. Q J Eng Geol 27:145164
Scoble MJ, Muftuoglu YV (1984) Derivation of a diggability index
for surface mine equipment selection. Min Sci Technol 1:305
322
Singh RN, Denby B, Egretli I (1987) Development of a new
rippability index for Coal Measures excavations. In: Proceedings
of the 28th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Tucson, AZ,
Balkema, Boston, pp 935943
Smith HJ (1986) Estimating rippability by rock mass classification.
In: Proceedings of the 27th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
pp 443448
Sonmez H, Ulusay R (1999) Modifications to the geological strength
index (GSI) and their applicability to stability of slopes. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 36:743760
Weaver JM (1975) Geological factors significant in the assessment of
rippability. Civ Eng S Afr 17(12):313316
123