You are on page 1of 46

Accepted Manuscript

Maintaining geological reality in application of GSI for design of


engineering structures in rock

V. Marinos, T.G. Carter

PII: S0013-7952(17)31004-9
DOI: doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.03.022
Reference: ENGEO 4800
To appear in: Engineering Geology
Received date: 7 July 2017
Revised date: 11 March 2018
Accepted date: 21 March 2018

Please cite this article as: V. Marinos, T.G. Carter , Maintaining geological reality in
application of GSI for design of engineering structures in rock. The address for the
corresponding author was captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if
appropriate. Engeo(2018), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.03.022

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Maintaining Geological Reality in Application of GSI for Design of Engineering Structures in Rock
Marinos, V.a, Carter, T.G.b
a
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24, Thessaloniki, Greece
b
TGC Geosolutions & Golder Associates, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Email addresses:

Marinos V.: marinosv@geo.auth.gr

PT
Carter T.G: tcarter@tgcgeosolutions.com

RI
Corresponding author

SC
Assistant Professor Vassilis Marinos
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
School of Geology, Faculty of Sciences
NU
Address: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
MA

School of Geology, Faculty of Sciences


GR-541 24 Thessaloniki, HELLAS
D

Tel: +30 2310 998518


E

Fax: +30 2310 998506


PT

e-mail: marinosv@geo.auth.gr
Webpage: http://www.geo.auth.gr/gr_deps_ggg.htm
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract

In rock engineering design, significant advances have occurred in recent years in numerical modelling

capability with increasing trends to ever greater use of synthetic rock mass models and discrete

fracture network (DFN) modelling, but all too often with little comparative improvement in geologic

base data. As a consequence, there is even more need that reliable estimates be available of strength

and deformation characteristics of the rock masses on which or within which engineering structures

PT
are to be created, be it a tunnel, a foundation or a slope. GSI characterization, linked with Hoek-Brown

strength determination as a basis for modelling has been widely adopted by engineers and geologists

RI
involved in design and construction of engineering structures. The need for geological definition of

SC
rock mass properties required as inputs into numerical analysis, constitutes one of the greatest reasons

for application of the GSI chart, allowing characterization of even difficult-to-describe rock masses,
NU
including tackling even the most problematic of weak and complex rock masses. Back-analyses of

tunnels, slopes and foundation behaviour using GSI and its reliable application in rock engineering
MA

designs attest to its reliability. With continuing use worldwide, the GSI system has continued to

evolve, but greater understanding is needed in the definition of input constants, for establishing both
D

GSI and intact rock properties. This need for improved evaluation, particularly from a geological
E

perspective, is addressed in this paper. Geological processes of tectonism, weathering and alteration all
PT

affect GSI. Evaluation of these factors, which are each critical to proper GSI definition, are analysed
CE

based on real rock mass cases. Suggested ranges in variability of intact rock parameters σci and mi for

common rock masses are presented in the context of a composite new GSI chart. This chart allows
AC

selection of appropriate GSI ranges for any specific rock suite. Specific key engineering geological

characteristics that differentiate igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary one from each other are

highlighted through discussion of various example rock units (including gneisses, granites, ophiolites,

limestones, schists, siltstones / mudstones / shales, and molassic and flysch formations). Illustrations

are given of how geological differentiation dictates variability in geotechnical properties of most

common rock masses.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Keywords

GSI characterization; rock mass strength; Hoek-Brown criterion; weathering; alteration; tectonism.

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction

Despite the fact that significant advances have occurred within almost every area of geotechnical

design, with arguably the greatest developments in rock engineering being in numerical modelling

capability, to date similar levels of advance have not been achieved in improving characterization of

the geological variability that exists in natural rock masses.

Geological representativeness is key to achieving effective rock engineering design. This requires that

PT
reliable estimates be available of strength and deformation characteristics of the rock masses on which

RI
or within which engineering structures are to be created, be it a tunnel, a foundation or a slope cut.

Mostly geological data acquisition for design purposes involves at a minimum implementing one or

SC
other of the following approaches: a) laboratory testing; b) in situ testing, c) use of rock mass
NU
classifications and/or d) back analysis. However, individually, data gathered from these different

approaches do not yield identical results, primarily due to the significant differences in scale that exist
MA

between each of these approaches, and also due to complications of representativeness. Laboratory

and insitu tests because they are very location specific, may not be truly representative of the overall
D

rock mass. Better reflection is often needed of natural heterogeneity and degree of fracturing. Cost and
E

time issues additionally can complicate data acquisition, particularly when it comes to carrying out in
PT

situ tests. Back-analysis, provides one of the best ways to determine appropriate geotechnical

parameters, particularly when construction has started, provided the analysis approach being used for
CE

the parameter definition is valid for the observed field behaviour.


AC

Reasonable geotechnical parameters are needed for the design of most engineering projects, and in

particular for design of tunnel support for long deep tunnels beneath high mountain ranges where

drilling is difficult before construction starts. In such situations, where direct drilling and testing or

insitu performance back-analysis approaches cannot be executed, there is no option but to rely upon

prescriptive geological mapping and interpretation and then make use of some form of rock mass

classification scheme that is correlated with the basic parameters needed for design.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The “Geological Strength Index”, GSI, was developed, initially by Hoek (1994), but then amplified

and improved in subsequent papers published by Hoek, Marinos and Benissi (1998) and Marinos &

Hoek (2000), resulting in the now familiar basic chart, as per Figure 1. As initially formulated, the GSI

chart was structured as a step forward to better meet the need for delivering more reliable, more

geologically based, representative input data.

The not infrequent lack of adequate geological definition of rock mass properties that should

PT
realistically be required as inputs into numerical analysis or into closed form solutions for designing

tunnels, slopes or foundations in rock, constitutes one of prime reasons practitioners, are turning more

RI
and more to use of the GSI chart rather than applying other classification approaches, Arguably, use of

SC
the GSI chart is of particular advantage when data is limited or characterization is needed of difficult-

to-describe rock masses. In fact, one of the most significant problems of numerically based
NU
classification systems, such as the Q, RMR and RMi systems (Barton et al., 1974, Bieniawski, 1976,

Palmström 2005), as pointed out by Palmström and Broch (2006), is that they suffer markedly outside
MA

the range for which they were originally developed. This is particularly the case for describing

geological conditions met in weak complex rock mass conditions. By contrast, the flexibility of the
D

GSI chart for use with many different rock types and difficult-to-describe rock masses has been well
E

demonstrated on numerous projects, most notably by Marinos et al. 2012, describing utilization of the
PT

GSI system during the construction of 62 tunnels along the Egnatia Highway in Northern Greece.
CE

Requirements for applying the Hoek-Brown failure criterion as basis for tunnel support in the difficult

and weak geological conditions encountered along the Egnatia alignment led to one of the first
AC

extensions of the standard GSI geotechnical classification chart specifically for application for

complex flysch conditions.

With the rapid growth of improved numerical design tools, which now allow synthetic rock masses to

be built, progressive failure processes to be modelled and sequentially installed support to be analyzed,

the need for acquisition of more reliable, geologically-based rock mass parameters has also grown.

While introduction of classifications has greatly aided design of structures in a wide variety of rock

masses, their use has in some cases compromised acquisition of holistic geological understanding. In
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

difficult rock masses, changes in conditions brought about through complex geological processes of

tectonism, weathering and/or alteration that significantly affect GSI can be analysed and key

parameter characteristics modified accordingly.

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC

Figure 1. Basic GSI Chart for Visual Geologic Characterization of Rock Masses (Marinos and Hoek, 2000)

2. The Geological Strength Index

The basic GSI classification chart (Figure 1) was set up to allow any competent practitioner to address

the two principal factors considered important influences on the mechanical properties of a rock mass
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

– the structure (or blockiness), and the condition of the joints. The chart definition approach was then

recommended to be used as basis for defining GSI for input into the now standard transfer algebra

moving from rock mass description through to m, s and a definitions for application in the Hoek-

Brown failure criterion for strength definition for design, (as developed by Hoek, Carranza-Torres and

Corkum, 2002), per the following equations (Table 1):

Table 1. Standard Hoek – Brown Transfer Equations relating intact and rock mass properties with respect to GSI
(Hoek, Carranza-Torres and Corkum, 2002)

PT
RI
SC
where
NU
and
MA

where D = Disturbance Factor due to the excavation method


D

with
E
PT

For defining the rockmass deformation modulus, the following relationship, proposed by Hoek and
CE

Diederichs (2006) and again dependent on GSI, provides reasonable estimation:


AC

With more extensive use worldwide, the GSI chart established in 1994 and its applicability in design

continued to evolve, with several new charts published for a range of different rock masses, e.g.

Marinos and Hoek, 2000. The need to address the validity and applicability of the 2002 transfer

equations was also recognized. In consequence, several additional publications, from 1998 onwards

were directed towards providing clarification of application methodology, primarily aimed at


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

addressing difficulties for practitioners, particularly with usage for both ends of the rock competence

scale (Carter et al., 2008). At the low end of the competence scale, for weak inhomogeneous rock

masses, many of the most notable improvements come from work that Hoek and Marinos had

undertaken during tunnelling in difficult ground in Northern Greece (Hoek et al. 1998, Marinos and

Hoek 2000, Marinos 2007, Marinos 2017), (Figure 2) and from work on saprolitic slopes (Castro et al,

2013). At the other end of the competence scale, where brittle spalling dominates behaviour, key

PT
advances in understanding have come from work by Martin, Diederichs, Cai, Kaiser and others (Cai et

al., 2004, Diederichs 2007, Hoek and Martin 2014). Following introduction of the observational GSI

RI
chart, several attempts were made by various authors to quantify the chart axes. Various quantitative

SC
scales for the original GSI chart axes were suggested by, for example, Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) and

Cai et al. (2004), while a recent study about quantification of GSI was also suggest by Hoek, Carter
NU
and Diederichs (2013), all advocating different parameter choices.
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC

Figure 2. Difficult Ground Conditions for undertaking rock mass classification (Photo from Egnatia Highway):

tectonically deformed intensively folded/faulted siltstone with broken and deformed sandstone layers forming an

almost chaotic structure.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3. Definition of GSI for Real Rock masses

3.1 Defining Geological Reality & Representative GSI’s

Defining a representative GSI value range requires the observer to make a careful mental engineering

geological “description” of the rock mass as basis for reaching an estimate of the most applicable

classification value range appropriate for the rock mass under consideration. In dealing with specific

PT
rock masses, it is suggested that the selection of an appropriate zone location on the chart not be

RI
limited merely to checking the visual similarity with these sketches of the structure of the rock mass as

they appear in the left-hand side of the charts, but rather should be based on gaining real understanding

SC
by examining actual face exposures or outcrops. The most appropriate case may well lie at some
NU
intermediate point between the limited number of rock mass sketches or descriptions included around

the charts. Outcrops, excavated slopes, tunnel faces and drill cores are the most common sources of
MA

information for the estimation of a GSI value for a rock mass, but these are not of equal calibre.

Outcrops are an extremely valuable source of good observational data, particularly in the initial stages
D

of a project. However, if the project is ultimately underground such outcrops, suffer from the
E

disadvantage that relaxation and weathering may have significantly influenced their condition as
PT

compared with the appearance of the same rock mass when exposed deep underground.

Excavated slopes and exposed tunnel faces are probably the most reliable source of information for
CE

estimating GSI for project design provided that these faces are representative of likely project
AC

conditions. For design of tunnels however, particularly in hard strong rock masses with limited

structural dislocation, it is important that some appropriate allowance be made for damage due to

mechanical excavation or blasting that may have degraded the appearance of any mapped rock face.

As the purpose of estimating GSI values for many such situations is aimed at assigning properties to

the insitu undisturbed rock mass, failure to allow for effects of blast damage may result in assigning

values that may be too conservative. Attempts should therefore be made in such circumstances to

properly estimate the degree of disturbance, and thereby define D, according with the descriptive

tabulations presented by Hoek et al. 2002.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Drilled cores of reasonable diameter and core quality (e.g. by use of triple tube equipment) provide

one of the best sources for acquiring data from depth into the rock, but one has to be cognizant that it

is necessary to extrapolate the almost two-dimensional information provided by core drilling to the

three-dimensional insitu rock mass. Almost all experienced engineering geologists are comfortable

with this extrapolation process in order to formulate an engineering geological conceptual model of

the investigated area. Multiple boreholes and also inclined boreholes are of particular help in this

PT
regard as a means for acquiring data necessary for achieving the most accurate 3D interpretation of

rock mass characteristics with depth.

RI
SC
3.2. Interaction between GSI and Tectonism NU
Rock masses disturbed and broken by structural dislocation, shearing, folding or compression can be

termed “tectonized”.
MA

When tectonism is low, jointing intensities typically are also low and GSI values are high to very high

(Intact to slightly Blocky structure). Low GSI values can however occur when even quite competent
D

rock masses are crossed by multiple discontinuities, such as frequent bedding or schistosity planes or
E

by fault zones, often with these discontinuities creating Fair or Poor rock mass conditions.
PT

In tectonic areas, particularly if compressional, GSI values may be considerably reduced, since
CE

structure in such areas tends to be quite intense with significant numbers of fractures (typically joints)

present. In some cases, the rock mass may even be sheared. These types of rock mass frequently
AC

behave in a more ductile manner, particularly if the parent material is also relatively weak (e.g. for

mudstones, shales or siltstones). For these rock masses, joint condition on the GSI chart moves further

to the right on the x-axis scale to Poor, or even to Very Poor (eg., when sheared, when slickensided or

soft clay coatings are commonly observed). For weak parent rock material, intact rock strength σci and

mi values may also be reduced. This influence of tectonism on GSI values for two different rock types

is illustrated by the different track paths of the various zones identified within Figure 3.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT

Figure 3. Indicative example of how tectonism (from low to severe) affects GSI. Shifts from Low to Severe on
the left size of the chart corresponds to a more brittle parent material and on the right size of the chart to a more
ductile original parent rock material (e.g. mudstone, shale, or weak siltstone).
CE

3.3. Interaction between GSI and Weathering - Alteration


AC

GSI can be severely affected by weathering or alteration. Infrequently will a project be executed

entirely in fresh rock. Only in deep tunnels and deep mining situations is it likely that one would be

entirely in essentially dry, fresh (unweathered) rock. On the other hand, alteration can range from none

to severe, even to significant depths, as often observed in close proximity to ore zones in deep mining

situations. In most construction projects, serious consideration thus needs to be given to the impact

that these natural processes of weathering and alteration can have in degrading intact rock material

quality, strength and deformability from the initial intact state.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Considerable confusion exists in the engineering rock mechanics (non-geological) literature regarding

the two processes of weathering and alteration. This is because often the two terms are so frequently

used interchangeably that to non-geologists there is no clarity as to the difference.

Alteration is typically brought about by deep geological processes – hydrothermal alteration,

metamorphic alteration etc. Ore zone rocks in mines are quite often heavily altered as they tend to be

mineralised, so oftentimes the county rock forming the hanging wall or footwall of the stopes for

PT
which rock engineering design is needed are also significantly altered.

RI
Rock mass weathering, by contrast, particularly in glaciated regions, typically extends only to shallow

depths, with decomposition brought about by two different, but linked processes – mechanical and

SC
chemical degradation. Taken in the context of the Hoek-Brown failure criteria and GSI, the influence

that either process exerts on GSI can be significant, as both processes degrade not just the parent intact
NU
rock material but also, they change the character and competence of the rock-mass fabric.
MA

According to the weathering degree the discontinuity surface condition becomes poorer and the

interlocking of rock blocks becomes loosened. The structure on the other hand may not in principle be
D

affected, at least if weathering is not very advanced. The typical characteristics of rock masses that
E

have been subjected to these different degrees of weathering have been described by ISRM (1981) and
PT

by the Engineering Group of the Geological Society of London (Anon, 1995), with respect to certain

grades (from fresh rock, W-I to clayey-sandy soil, W-VI), as listed on the left of Figure 4.
CE

As can be appreciated from the descriptions in this figure, both mechanical and chemical weathering
AC

of the intact rock results not only in changes to the rock mass fabric (by breaking down insitu blocks

into smaller pieces), but also these processes alter properties like σci and mi, as a consequence of their

weakening the interlocking and bonding of mineral grains within the rock skeleton. The central

column in Figure 4 (after Stacey and Page, 1986), provides some guidance for defining estimates of

the degree of intact rock strength reduction per weathering grade. As will be clear from this strength

reduction column, the onset of fully pervasive weathering, such that any original intact fragments have

become fully friable due to the influence of chemical/mineralogical change, occurs only for rocks

weathered to grade W-IV. At a W-III state the intact rock material within the fabric still retains much
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of its parent characteristics, while the condition of discontinuities may have deteriorated appreciably.

This change from W-III to W-IV can thus constitute a critical GSI definition boundary since there is

generally considerable reduction in intact properties at this change, in addition to block size changes

resulting from reduction of incipient fragment size associated with weathering.

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC

Figure 4. GSI and intact strength change for weathering grade W-I to grade W-VI (grades according to ISRM
1981 with additions after Stacey and Page, 1986).

An indicative example of how increased degrees of weathering affects GSI is illustrated in Figure 5.

For rocks exhibiting weathering grades W-II and W-III, discontinuity condition is shifted to the

middle or right columns of the GSI chart; whereas for grades W-IV to W-V, joint conditions are likely

Poor to Very Poor due to the presence of weathering products along the joints, shifting the location

even further right and downwards on the chart.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA

Figure 5. Indicative example of how weathering degree (W-I to W-V) affects GSI.
E D

A good example of application of a modified GSI chart developed specifically for examining
PT

weathering in gneissic rocks is shown in Figure 6. Here the horizontal joint condition scale of the
CE

standard chart has been modified to reflect specific weathering grades, W-I through W-V, allowing

direct definition of decreased GSI values to appropriately reflect the effects of weathering. This chart
AC

was developed and calibrated on a site-specific basis during the construction of six tunnels in Northern

Greece, by comparison of GSI classifications and their respective temporary support categories as

designed and as implemented, the latter clearly showing a decrease of around 10 units from the initial

“design” values. The chart in Figure 6 was developed for GSI definition for gneisses as well as for

other rock masses with similarities in weathering behaviour, such as granite.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE

Figure 6. Modified GSI classification chart for description of variously weathered gneisses or petrographically
AC

similar rock masses, eg. Granite, (after Marinos 2007)

Actual degradation changes however, tend to be very much rock-type dependent. Some rocks are

resistant to intact material fabric change. These typically are the rock types that the aggregate industry

chooses because of their high durability, examples include diabase, diorite and most quartzites. Other

rocks, such as mudstones, tend to decompose completely with penetrative weathering or alteration.

Even quite competent rocks, can degrade and decompose. Granites, for instance often weather

appreciably, with the feldspars turning to clay minerals. Some particular rock materials absorb water
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and because of this volume change, as a consequence of major interstitial forces within the rock

matrix, completely disintegrate the parent rock mass. Some minerals disintegrate rock masses by swell

processes, others by drying processes.

All of the common weathering processes cause rock mass changes that can affect GSI estimates.

Decomposition can however differ between even the same types of rock, dependent on cementation.

Commonly quartz cements are stronger and more durable than calcite/carbonate cements and even

PT
better than iron oxide/haematitic cements. Degradation and disintegration can also occur as a result of

laterization - which is typically observed in deep, tropically weathered areas. Rock material strength,

RI
particularly at the saprolite boundary can be significantly reduced. In some rocks, the intact structure

SC
may become so pervasively degraded within the rock material itself that it is no longer recognizable in

terms of initial fabric.


NU
All of these weathering and alteration processes affect also parent material properties (notably mi, σci
MA

and Ei). It is therefore recommended to always use caution if attempting to take published mi and

strength values for dry unweathered intact material based on tables, such as Table 2 or from Rocdata

(Rocscience Inc.) listings as these could be seriously in error for actual rock mass conditions.
E D

Similar to weathering, the processes resulting in rock material and rock mass alteration also affects
PT

both the intact rock properties of the material and joint surface conditions, both of which, again

influence GSI (Figure 7). In a fresh state, unaltered rock masses can be quite massive, irrespective of
CE

strength, generally with sparsely spaced discontinuities. By contrast, even slightly to moderately

altered rock masses can exhibit significantly degraded discontinuities, often with recrystallized or
AC

slickensided joint surfaces evident (e.g. through serpentinization, provided that serpentinization has

not fully affected the intact part of the rock material).

For rock masses subjected to weakening styles of alteration, GSI values can be reduced considerably

with severity of alteration. In such situations, the structure becomes progressively disturbed (changing

from Blocky to Very Blocky or perhaps even to Disintegrated) according to the alteration degree, as

illustrated in Figure 7. Where tectonized, this degradation process can also result in the formation of

schistose fabrics within the altered rock mass. Joint conditions in such cases are almost always Poor to
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Very Poor towards the lower end of the GSI scale, while intact properties σ ci and mi may also be

considerably reduced.

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT

Figure 7. Indicative example of how typical “weakening” alteration (e.g. sericitization processes) (none to
CE

severe) affects GSI.


AC

4. GSI for Specific Rock Suites

From the preceding discussion, it will have been realised that while fabric appearance (from intact to

disintegrated) can be similar for a wide range of rock masses (i.e. GSI values can remain remarkably

consistent per the chart descriptions), major changes in strength and deformability will occur between

similarly broken rock masses because of differences in parent rock material. A wide range of

variability in terms of σci and mi can thus be expected, as is evident by inspection of each of the range

of small GSI charts included within the overall chart comprising Figure 8.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

This overall chart, when read in combination with Table 2, provides a compendium for describing

most common rocks and rock masses. Most of the common GSI ranges for typical gneisses, granites,

ophiolites, limestones, schists, siltstones / mudstones / shales and molassic and flysch formations have

been illustrated, highlighting how geological differentiation affects the geotechnical properties of the

various formations.

While Figure 8 was basically built from data acquired during the construction of numerous tunnels

PT
along the Egnatia Highway across Northern Greece, it is not restricted to application solely within

such locations. Although conceptually other rock type divisions (ie., additional small charts) can be

RI
readily added anywhere within the overall chart diagram, it is considered that most of the most

SC
common ranges of rock mass quality and rock type variability are already included within Figure 8.

Accordingly, at least at a preliminary level it can be used directly for characterizing any particular
NU
rock masses that might be encountered worldwide. For more details on each of the specific rock types

characterized within the overall diagram of Figure 8, the interested reader is referred to the original
MA

publications presenting the individual charts (i.e. Marinos and Hoek, 2000; Hoek et al.,2005; Marinos

et al., 2005; Marinos, 2017).


E D
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2. Typical values for σci and mi for range of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks (to be read in
conjunction with Figure 8 regarding parent rock type characteristics)

Igneous
Typical
Extrusive
σci Metamorphic Intrusive Sedimentary mi
(Volcanic)
(MPa)
Felsic Mafic
Coarse
125-250 31-33
(Granite)
Granular
Texture Medium
100-300 (Granulites, (Granodiorite, 28-30
Quartz Diorite)

PT
Gneiss)
Mafic
Medium, Coarse (Basalt)
Coarse
amorphous (Gabbro, Intermediate

RI
85-350 (Conglomerate - 25-27
(Amphibolite, Peridotite) (Andesite)
not clayey)
Gneiss) (in Ophiolites) Felsic
(Rhyolite)

SC
Medium
(Quartz cemented
Fine, Medium Sandstone)
amorphous (Dolerite / Sandstone
NU
75-350 17-20
(Homfels, Diabase) members of flysch
Quartzite) (in Ophiolites) or
molasse/greywac
ke)
MA

Banded, Medium
Fine
Gneissose carbonates
50-200 (Serpentinite) 13-16
(Biotitic (Limestone)
(in Ophiolites)
Gneiss) Sandstone
Fine, (clastics)
D

Foliated (Siltstone/
30-100 (Schists, Siltstone 10-12
E

Phyllite) members of flysch


or molasse/tuff)
PT

Strongly
Fine, Calc-
Schistose
20-60 rock (Chalk/marl, 7-9
(Schist,
& siltstone)
CE

Phyllite)
Ultrafine
(Claystone,
Mudstone /
10-50 Mylonites 4-6
AC

sheared Siltstone,
Shale within
flysch)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC

Figure 8. Most common GSI ranges for typical gneisses, granites, ophiolites, limestones, schists,
siltstones/mudstones/shales, molassic and flysch formations in conjunction with a range of mi and σci. (Refer to
text and reference list for original papers for more details on charts)

It should also be appreciated that within this overall diagram differences in assigned GSI commonly

occur due to different tectonism, weathering and alteration effects. As previously discussed, these
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

effects on rock material integrity and rock mass fabric may differ significantly dependent on (brittle or

plastic) parent rock behaviour, which in turn also affects GSI values. Care must thus be taken in

picking positions within the overall chart to make sure due consideration is given to these overarching

process changes. Fortunately, as almost all such changes are visually observable, use of the standard

observational GSI chart still readily allows these distinguishing differences to be identified and

quantified (specifically by reference to the small charts incorporated within Figure 8).

PT
Together this suite of small charts within the overall diagram encompass a very wide range of rock

mass competence, covering most material and fabric character changes observable in typical rock

RI
masses commonly found around the globe. In the top left corner of the overall chart extremely

SC
competent hard rock masses with non-degradable fabrics are found, typical of the deep mines in high-

strength/high stress conditions where spalling and bursts characterize behaviour. The other extreme
NU
occurs in the lower right corner of the matrix diagram in Figure 8, where rock mass competence is low

and where squeezing and often significant closure problems are the characteristic hallmarks (e.g.
MA

flysch, shales, weak faults etc.). Within this framework, specific additional individual rock-type

specific charts can easily be developed to extend the overall conceptual GSI chart not just diagonally
D

across the chart but also downwards and upwards on the rock mass competence scale.
E
PT

However, for any rock engineering design, the first issue is always geological characterization. This

basically defines where you are within Figure 8 and this then allows one to establish the potential
CE

range of characteristics for the rock mass of concern, based on the competence of the parent rock

material. For example, if one were working, within a hard-rock mine in Canada or South Africa at
AC

significant depth, one would probably be looking towards the top left corner of Figure 8, while for

rock with the characteristics of the flysch conditions of central and southern Europe then one might be

looking at a point plotting in the lower right third of the diagram. Himalayan, Andean or Alpine

mountain belt conditions would cover the complete suite, top left to bottom right of Figure 8.

The flexibility that the concept sketched within Figure 8 affords, is that it allows new material-specific

or new site-specific individual GSI charts to be developed for any particularly difficult rock masses or

for those not already within the scope of published charts. The size and spread of any such individual
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

new chart in the suite of charts can thus be tailored on a site-specific basis to capture the variation

expected in local rock mass characteristics, depending on parent rock type and mineralogy,

macrofabric and overall rock mass competence.

In the following paragraphs, each of the different groups listed in Table 2, and within Figure 8 are

explored. GSI characterisation issues for each are then discussed in order to illustrate how key

differences in origin exert changes on the engineering geological characteristics of each geomaterial.

PT
RI
4.1. GSI and Igneous Rocks

SC
4.1.1 Intrusive Rocks

Two basic column divisions have been drawn on Table 2 between intrusive and extrusive igneous
NU
rocks, with the intrusive group further subdivided between felsic and mafic composition as mineralogy

directly affects behaviour and engineering characteristics.


MA

Felsic Intrusives: Granites and diorites are typical light-coloured igneous intrusives. When they are

fresh, granitic rock masses can be projected in the three first rows and two columns of the standard
D

GSI chart. According to their degree of weathering, they may shift to the right and down to the lower
E

rows. If weathering is slight to moderate (weathering grades II, and to some extent III), GSI values just
PT

decrease to the right, into the poor to very poor columns due to the increasing presence and width of
CE

completely degraded granite (CDG in Hong-Kong nomenclature) within the joints. If, however,

weathering is more intense (weathering grades III, IV, and V), the rock mass has started to degrade en
AC

masse and the index also shifts downward to a poorer overall structure. Intact rock properties also

change in relation to the weathering degree. If they are completely weathered, granitic rock masses

should not really be described in terms of GSI, rather they should be treated and described as soils.

Given similarity in mineralogy, certain facets of the GSI classification chart (Figure 6) for gneiss

presented in Section 3.3., gives parallels for description and categorization of granites and similar

intrusive rocks.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mafic Intrusives: The darker, more basic suite of plutonic igneous rocks, such as peridotites and

gabbros, contain significantly less siliceous content than the felsic suite, and as a consequence, once

exposed, are somewhat more susceptible to deterioration by weathering than their similar grain sized

siliceous (felsic) counterparts. However, again, like the granites, where the coarser grained and

feldspathic types degrade most, the coarser grained, more olivine rich, basic intrusive rocks tend also

to degrade the most.

PT
Typically, the intermediate and the basic (mafic suite) igneous rocks, when they are fresh, mostly are

classified in the three first rows and three first columns on a standard GSI chart. However, when they

RI
are heavily fractured and weathered, they tend to disintegrate on structure first and thus move to the

SC
right section of the chart, and then downwards to the bottom right corner when severely degraded.

Ophiolitic Complexes: Many of the suite of basic plutonic rocks and swathes of altered and
NU
metamorphosed seafloor originated sediments are commonly observed in ophiolite complexes. In such
MA

situations, peridotites and other basic plutonic rocks are often found interlayered with each other due

to overthrusting, resulting in a wide variability of characteristics. In some cases, rocks closely

associated with overthrusts can vary remarkably in geotechnical qualities, right from excellent,
D

through to very poor when serpentinisation is extensive and/or shearing present. Mostly peridotites
E
PT

become more completely serpentinized with weathering and alteration. As such, examples of

serpentinites, schisto-serpentinites, and sheared serpentinites can be seen amid pillow lavas and
CE

chaotic masses in ophiolitic melanges. When very high degrees of serpentinisation occur, together

with intense shearing, the resulting rock mass may be difficult to identify for any initial texture or
AC

fabric.

In ophiolitic melanges, particularly within tectonic thrusts, specific individual rock units are often

mixed in complete disorder with other rocks of various origins (flysch, chert, shales etc). As a

consequence such rock masses can be so disturbed and disintegrated or sheared-laminated that only

low to very low GSI values can be assigned. The interested reader is referred to the work by Marinos,

Hoek and Marinos (2005) for examples of representative GSI charts, such as that on the lower right
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

hand side of Figure 8, which were specifically created for describing and characterizing these difficult

rocks.

4.1.2 Extrusive and Pyroclastic Rocks

Like the intrusive rocks, the extrusive and pyroclastic volcanic assemblages (i.e. lavas and

ejectamenta) can be of widely ranging mineralogy and character. Competence of original deposition

can also vary remarkably from extremely competent, hard, brittle rock types (dolerites, rhyolites etc.)

PT
of aggregate quality, through to weak, friable and often swell-sensitive materials (tuffs, pumices etc.).

RI
Composition ranges from siliceous through to basic with cementation also varying dramatically. In

consequence, some of these rocks can be the most challenging engineering materials anywhere.

SC
Characterization for GSI, and hence for Hoek-Brown mi requires careful calibration, as intact-looking

volcaniclastic rocks can have quite significant adverse degradation characteristics. Many of such rocks
NU
are slake-sensitive and thus GSI values and intact strengths can drop significantly from the intact
MA

undisturbed state in hours to days, to almost soil-like composition.

4.2. GSI and Metamorphic Rocks


D

Metamorphic rocks grade from lightly altered (meta-sandstones, meta-conglomerates etc), which
E

exhibit characteristics similar to the original rock type through to completely re-melted and re-
PT

crystallized rocks and/or sheared and dislocated foliates. Metamorphic grade and mineralogical

character changes influence mi, while foliation and texture, if intrinsically weak, (such that the rock
CE

breaks and deteriorates along such structure, e.g. phyllites and schists) significantly influences GSI
AC

values.

Two basic metamorphic rock units can thus be recognized from the view-point of differences in

character from a GSI perspective: (i) competent crystalline rocks (including most gneisses, quartzites

and hornfels etc.) and (ii) schistose, anisotropically textured rocks (including schists, slates and

phyllites).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.2.1. Competent Crystalline Rock Masses

Gneisses: Most gneissic rock masses are generally competent with, high strength. Fresh rock masses

are typically sound, often massive with minor to moderate fracture fabrics. Intact rock strength is

generally very high, and structure is typically tight. Intrinsic foliation can often be seen, with

considerable persistence. Sometimes gneissic banding is only mineralogic and does not constitute a

specific fabric weakness. Banding is most often intrinsic within the rock mass and tightly “stitched”

PT
together, so that no clear detachable blocks are recognizable. The decreasing quality of a slightly

weathered gneissic rock mass is however discernible from its degree of incipient fracturing, as

RI
weathering is typically initially confined to the discontinuities. In many gneisses, as weathering

SC
progresses, foliation bands, although initially tight, can become more evident, eventually constituting

basic discontinuity surfaces. When more pervasively weathered such banding sometimes opens up to
NU
create a flaky fabric, often exploiting foliation planes, which then separate, ultimately creating

distinctly slabby rock blocks.


MA

GSI values for gneissic rock masses can thus vary dramatically, with very large ranges in quality

evident from fair to very poor, controlled largely by weathering degree. It should be appreciated that
D

as gneissic rocks are commonly the product of intense tectonism and disturbance, weathering and
E
PT

alteration may vary markedly with depth. In consequence, complications in assessing GSI values for

design of underground works can be expected to range from simple to extremely problematic, as an
CE

expected increase in quality with depth below surface may not always be apparent.

Quartzites: Quartzite and meta-sandstone rock masses mainly project in the first three rows and the
AC

left two columns of a GSI chart, due to their strong and brittle nature and their mineralogical

composition. Typically, these highly siliceous rocks are quite resistant to weathering and frequently

exhibit only minor degradation on the typically smooth uncoated discontinuities that characteristically

dissect them. The exception occurs however where, frequently, quartzites exist alternating with

phyllites, reflecting a metamorphosed original siltstone-sandstone sequence. In such conditions, the

major inter-bed bedding planes can be quite degraded, such that they are often coated with films of

phyllitic material. In such situations, care must be taken in characterising such a rock mass with a
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ubiquitous GSI, as depending on the scale of the engineering problem such discontinuities may need

specific definition.

Marbles and Skarns: Metamorphosed limestone rock masses are typically more competent than, but

similar in composition and behaviour to strong limestones. Typically, they are often however more

brittle, typically with much higher moduli values, but some may have lower mi than expected, due to

their coarser calcite crystals, when compared with their unmetamorphosed parent carbonate rocks,

PT
(which are discussed subsquently).

RI
4.2.2. Highly Anisotropic Metamorphic Rocks

SC
Basically, four types of schistose metamorphic rocks are of engineering significance: schistose
NU
gneisses, schists, phyllites and slates. Gneisses can vary from competent, almost granite-like

composition with minimal mineralogical foliation weakness as described in paragraph 4.2.1, right
MA

through to almost schistose. Here only the more anisotropic gneisses are considered along with the

other foliates.
D

Schists: Schistose rock masses, including the more foliated gneisses, rarely plot in the top left corner
E

of the GSI chart. They usually project in the Very Blocky-Blocky/Disturbed rows. Strong schists (e.g.
PT

quartz-mica schists) would be expected in the left columns (Very rough to fair), while weak schists
CE

would report typically in the right columns. Extreme foliation weakness occurs in phyllites. By

contrast, slates can be remarkably competent, even though possessing a characteristic slaty cleavage.
AC

When weak schists are sheared (also sheared phyllites) GSI’s can shift to the last row and last two

columns of the GSI chart. Anisotropy however has to be seriously taken into account in any analysis

where these foliates are involved, as their properties can be significantly different parallel and

perpendicular to foliation.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.3. GSI and Sedimentary Rocks

Two basic divisions of sedimentary rock can be recognised: clastic and non-clastic with the latter

divided into those directly or indirectly chemically precipitated in or associated with water

(limestones, dolomites etc.) and those created by evaporation processes – gypsiferous mudstones being

one example. Volcanic deposits laid down in water are also sedimentary, but because of their origin

such volcaniclastic rocks can have quite specific deleterious characteristics that markedly differentiate

PT
them from their equivalent grain size, non-volcanic counterparts. Accordingly, GSI variability can be

significant.

RI
4.3.1. Clastic rocks of Arenaceous and Argillaceous composition

SC
As the origin of all water-borne sedimentary rocks (conglomerates, sandstones, siltstones, claystones
NU
and mudstones) varies due to the water velocity controlling their original deposition, different original

fabrics characterize each of these rock types over and above their basic differences in grain size.
MA

Similarly, air-borne derived rock units - æolian sandstones, siltstones and loess deposits, which are

widespread across the globe also vary appreciably dependent on their parent composition and original

depositional environment. GSI’s characteristically will be similar for similar rock types, irrespective
E D

of origin, but because mineralogical differences and distinctions in depositional fabrics will govern
PT

engineering behaviour with weathering and alteration, extreme care needs to be taken in characterizing

GSI to reflect the different origin of the parent materials composing the rock mass.
CE

Conglomerates: Conglomerates present variable quality when plotted on a GSI chart depending on
AC

the cementation material and the fracturing degree. Clear distinction must be made between

conglomerates that are of water-laid origin, and breccias - which may be basically consolidated debris

derived from many varied origins ranging from collapse deposits, tectonic processes to volcanic vent

infills. The rock mass quality of any conglomerate depends not just on the matrix material and the

fracture degree after any tectonic disturbance of the rock mass, but also on the angularity and interlock

of the original debris. When the matrix is composed of calcite or silicate the rock mass may exhibit

high intact rock strength and dependent on structural dislocation would be expected to plot within the

upper rows of the GSI chart (from compact to blocky-very blocky), depending on the number of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

discontinuities present throughout the mass. At surface, many conglomeratic rock masses with

competent matrix cementation tend to be relatively resistant to weathering, although some may show

loosening around original clasts within the rock mass due to differential weathering and distress, while

others some show dissolution phenomena along joints if calcite is present. On the other hand, when the

matrix is of low competence (eg., silty, clayey or marly), often disaggregation around original clasts

dominates disintegration. Commonly these types of conglomerates show little in the way of

PT
continuous joints with the result that the rock mass often does not appear broken into systematic

blocks.

RI
Sandstones: Sandstones are amongst the commonest rocks worldwide, and in consequence they may

SC
have widely different characteristics depending on parent origin. Sandstones, in general, are strong and

usually exhibit quite brittle behaviour. The finer grained sandstones with calcitic or silicate
NU
cementation material are characteristically the strongest of the sandstone suite. Depending on tectonic

disturbance sandstones can range from compact to very blocky (with high GSI values) but many be
MA

disintegrated (with low GSI values) along, for instance, fault zones.

Thickly bedded, unweathered sandstones can be massive in appearance with brittle spalling behaviour
D

evident in underground works and with such major block sizes that they plot in the top left corner of
E
PT

any GSI chart. By contrast, thinly bedded sandstones, when folded, characteristically show ductile

deformation structures, and thus would project into the “seamy-disturbed” row in the GSI chart.
CE

Surface conditions for discontinuities present in these rock masses are generally rough to smooth, but

can also be poor particularly where severe dislocation has occurred of the sandstone matrix when such
AC

rocks have been tectonically disturbed by thrusting or shearing mechanisms.

Sandstones can also be silty or marly and these varieties commonly exhibit low strengths, typically of

the order of about 10 MPa compared to more than 50 MPa in their typical granular form. Silty

sandstones are also more susceptible to weathering, with the result that the rock mass tends to loosen

more quickly than more sandy varieties, with disintegration often becoming quite flaky due to fissility

opening up parallel to bedding when these rocks have been heavily weathered close to surface. GSI
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

values for these types of sandstones are therefore quite low, plotting usually along the bottom two

rows of the chart.

Marls: Marls are typically akin to fine grained siltstone, almost mudstone, but often with a percentage

of calcite. Calcitic marls tend to be the most competent and demonstrate relatively good

characteristics since their intact rock strength is moderate to high and GSI values remain high with

blocky to very blocky rock mass structure, depending on the degree of fracturing, including bedding.

PT
A characteristic example is the behaviour of blocky calcitic marls along the Isthmus of Corinth in

central Greece, where 6km long and steep (70o) cuts of 80m height have remained stable for well over

RI
than 100 years. Clayey marls, on the other hand, have low intact rock properties and show a more

SC
ductile behaviour with no persistent blocky structure. Clayey marls are also generally dissected by

even weaker discontinuities and thus exhibit low GSI values. Low values are particularly apparent
NU
when such rock masses are encountered close to surface, due to weathering and distress on fissility or

foliation or due to shearing. When such rock masses are not highly tectonised they may be projected
MA

into the upper few rows of the GSI chart but always in the right columns, due to their soft nature.

Shales: Shales show a fissility not present in typical mudstones. As this fissility (which most often
D

derives from their original consolidation and induration) controls the behaviour of these types of rocks
E
PT

it is thus of critical engineering significance that it be correctly assessed. Typically GSI values for

shales fall in the last few rows of the chart due to their thin stratification (akin to fine schistosity).
CE

When the rock mass is sheared the structure can be described as laminated and thus presents very low

GSI values when plotted in the standard chart. In tectonically undisturbed areas, at depth, their
AC

structure rating can be better than when distorted, and thus these rock masses would project into the

Blocky-Disturbed-Seamy row of the GSI chart. Typically, bedding planes cannot be separately

distinguished within the mass. In consequence, shales, close to the surface, often present a completely

disintegrated-laminated structure, and thus would plot in the lowest row of the standard observational

chart. Even where unstructured, undisturbed and non-folded, anisotropy has to be considered for such

bedded rock masses.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Where claystone and/or siltstone intercalations occur amid limestones or sandstones, these more

plastic members may become sheared when folded, resulting in a highly disturbed rock mass where

the more competent limestone or sandstone beds become broken, whereas the shales become

“stretched”, due to differences in their deformation behaviour. Often parallelism between bedding

planes in the more rigid sandstone or limestone units, limits deformation banding within the more

shaly sequences (with boudinage structures sometimes being apparent). In such cases, the competent

PT
members should not contribute to overall, “weighted” intact rock properties and the overall fabric GSI

should not be rated low.

RI
Siliceous inclusions (cherts) are common in carbonate deformation zones. Most often they are found

SC
intercalated with limestones; such that rock mass quality can typically be projected onto the basic GSI

chart along the Very Blocky-Blocky/Disturbed structure row and between the second and third
NU
column. If cherts are found alternating with clayey shales, such rocks can be classified with the GSI

chart for heterogeneous rock masses, such as flysch (ref. Figure 9, which presents the chart included in
MA

the lower right corner of Figure 8, but at a full-size, readable scale).

4.3.2. Non-clastic rocks – typically Carbonates


E D

Limestones, in general, are neither weak, nor complex formations in the context discussed above with
PT

respect to foliates. Limestone terranes can however be very complex as a result of solution damage

effects and karst. Accordingly, GSI values can be very variable, dependent on proximity to solution
CE

features. Typically, though, when limestones are massive or thickly bedded, and are distant from areas

of tectonic disturbance, or significant karst, the GSI brokenness index would be expected to range
AC

from Intact to Blocky-Very Blocky. Thinly to medium bedded limestones, when undisturbed (ie.,

unfolded, and only perhaps slightly fractured), by contrast, can be characterized as “Blocky” with

“Good” to “Fair” surface conditions and thus would be rated GSI’s in the 55 to 70 range. Calibration

checks, as confirmed from tunnel excavation behaviour, where very light support measures were

applied confirm the validity of this typical range (with GSI design values for such rock masses

generally >55).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

By contrast, even competent limestones, when severely distorted by thrusting and tectonic

displacement, may be so broken up as to comprise solely a mixture of angular and rounded pieces of

limestone, which would register on a GSI chart as only of the poorest rock quality. In worst case

conditions, such rock masses can be found to have disintegrated to such an extent due to brittle

fracturing and break-up of the original limestone blocks that no remnants of the initial, original

structure remain. Rock mass quality for a heavily broken to brecciated rock mass created by this type

PT
of major deformation may end up in the low 30’s for GSI values. Characteristically, though, even

though RQD’s for such rock masses would be approaching zero, they still retain some frictional

RI
strength.

SC
For less broken rock masses, GSI values may increase to the mid 40’s, with cohesion still generally

absent, unless inter-block cementing has developed. In such cases, GSI values range from 30-45. In
NU
the case of heavily broken limestone, with significant pelitic presence along the joints, where the

pieces are not in contact and have very poor interlocking, frictional properties of the rock mass are
MA

significantly reduced. These rock mass types are characterized as Disintegrated on the vertical axis of

the GSI chart with Very Poor surface condition on the horizontal axis of the chart with GSI values
D

between 20 and 25.


E
PT

4.3.3 GSI and Heterogeneous Rock Masses


CE

Establishing a representative range of GSI values for complex, heterogeneous rock units comprising a
AC

strong member alternating with a weaker one, such as flysch (tectonically disturbed series) or molassic

formations (tectonically undisturbed sedimentary series), can be challenging.

4.3.3.1 Tectonically disturbed rock masses with alternating lithology (Flysch Formations)

Flysch formations generally exhibit diverse heterogeneity, tectonically disturbed structures and

presence of significant percentages of low strength geomaterial. In consequence, they are often quite

difficult to accurately characterize. The recently updated GSI chart prepared by Marinos (2017), as

presented in Figure 9, which classifies flysch formations into 11 distinct rock mass types (I to XI),
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

according to its siltstone-sandstone contribution and the tectonic disturbance, however greatly helps

characterization.

This new flysch chart updates the 2001 chart, proposed by Marinos and Hoek (2001) that was

prepared early on during the design phase and before the construction of more than a dozen tunnels in

flysch formation rocks along the Egnatia Highway. This new chart not only updates the earlier chart,

but improves its applicability on the basis of calibrations of behaviour with the monitoring experience

PT
gained from the construction of these tunnels. Its applicability also extends to non-disturbed flysch

rocks, provided bedding anisotropy is carefully and specifically addressed (Marinos, 2017). In this

RI
regard, it should be noted from this chart that high percentages of siltstone beds (when undisturbed) do

SC
not necessarily decrease the computed GSI value, in contrast to cases where significantly, tectonically

disturbed. In consequence, in this updated, flysch-specific chart, GSI values for undisturbed flysch
NU
rock mases, particularly those dominated by siltstones, are respectively increased from 10 to 35 units,

consistent with moving from a Blocky to Undisturbed rating on the y-axis scale of the standard GSI
MA

chart.
E D
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA

Figure 9. Revised GSI classification chart for heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch (Marinos, 2017)
E D

4.3.3.2 Tectonically undisturbed Heterogeneous Sedimentary Rock Masses (Molassic


PT

Formations)
CE

When categorizing tectonically undisturbed heterogeneous sedimentary rock masses, (which in

European terminology are defined as molassic), it is of particular concern to ensure that appropriate
AC

consideration is given to assessing variable heterogeneity, the presence of low strength geo-materials

within the units and the improvement of structure that typically occurs with depth. Typical tectonically

undisturbed sedimentary sequences, commonly comprise sandstone and siltstone or marly strata, with

alternations of different quota and layer thicknesses. Major variations in bed thicknesses can

frequently be observed ranging from millimetre thick alternating laminae through to units of many

tens of centimetres to even several metres; but rarely appearing sufficiently thick as to form physically

massive strata. Cross-bedded sedimentary units are also common.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

These types of molassic rocks differ significantly between surface and depth. Bedding is the essential

joint set in a molassic rock mass, but may only be expressed as a significant weakness plane near the

surface, due to fissility. At depth, bedding is mainly concealed and may be virtually healed.

Weathering though, alters rock mass strength significantly, starting by degrading bedding plane

strength, then the parent block matrix. Siltstone (or marly) units are particularly vulnerable to

weathering, and fissility may thus develop parallel to bedding in these types of rocks, when exposed at

PT
or near ground surface.

Joints in undeformed molassic rocks are generally free from all effects of shear movement

RI
(slickensides) due to limited deformation of such sedimentary sequences after deposition. Similarly,

SC
siltstone and mudstone beds in undeformed sedimentary sequences, can frequently be found to form

an almost continuous medium of mostly consistent composition. In consequence, high GSI values
NU
would be applicable for describing and characterizing such rock masses. A value of 50-60 or more

would typically be ascribed, consistent with values validated during tunnel construction. If no
MA

discontinuities at all are evident, GSI is even higher (potentially>75); allowing the rock mass in such

situations to be treated as more or less intact.


D

Even though GSI’s for such rock masses would be expected to be high, the fact that many of these
E
PT

types of sedimentary rocks are of low UCS reduces their overall rock mass strength, resulting in them

being only a fair to weak rock mass from a tunnelling performance perspective.
CE

At the surface, the heterogeneity of such rock masses is much more discernible. As definition of GSI

for such near-surface conditions can be quite confusing, especially for weathered conditions where
AC

description may be difficult when the rock appear quite heterogeneous. Rather, such rocks should be

described using the specifically prepared version of the observational chart for fissile molassic rocks

presented by Hoek et al. (2005).

For construction at depth in fresh, essentially unweathered, molassic rocks, where, typically evidence

of sedimentary sequence variability is only apparent as colouration layering, and the rocks generally

appear massive, it is recommended that the basic observation GSI chart be used. As discussed in

Hoek, Marinos and Marinos, (2005) and Marinos, Fortsakis and Prountzopoulos (2013),
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

characterization of these types of undeformed rock are better handled using the standard chart,

resulting in much more appropriate (and lighter) support measures than would be envisaged, based on

application of the flysch-like GSI classification approach.

5. GSI limitations

Care should always be taken in appropriately applying the defined GSI value as basis for ascribing

PT
Hoek-Brown material parameters, as the basic GSI correlation equations may not be directly

RI
appropriate for all rock mass situations. The standard expressions relating GSI and the Hoek-Brown

criteria are based upon the assumption that the rock mass contains a sufficiently large number of

SC
intersecting discontinuities that it can be considered to behave as an isotropic mass. As a consequence,
NU
the basic GSI equations should therefore not be applied for design of engineering projects in rock

masses with either (i) a dominant (ie., strongly anisotropic) structural fabric or (ii) with a sparsely
MA

jointed fabric, where large scale kinematics or spalling behaviour may respectively dominate

conditions. Undisturbed slate is an example of a highly anisotropic rock mass, where applying a GSI

value should only be done with great care if the mode of potential failure won’t be governed by the
E D

specific shear strength of the incipient discontinuities within the slate.


PT

For essentially blocky rock masses, defining the relative scale of an engineering problem appropriate

to the scale of the rock mass fabric is key to correct application of GSI into the Hoek-Brown criterion.
CE

While there has been some criticism that GSI should only be reliably applicable to heavily jointed rock
AC

masses, which at the scale of most engineering problems can be treated as homogeneous and isotropic,

this limitation can be readily overcome with a little judgment, as the issue is really one of relative

block size. Basically, as long as incipient block size within the rock mass fabric is less than about

1/10th of the controlling dimension of the engineering construction of concern, GSI and the Hoek-

Brown equations can be applied. Specific weakness zones (such as faults) can and should then be

considered with separately described parameters. Such an approach to consider specific anisotropy in

deformation behaviour using GSI is described in Fortsakis et al. 2012, wherein a single well-defined

shear zone constituting a major geological structure, has been modelled as an equivalent Hoek–Brown
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

material within the layered rock mass, thereby superimposing the specific discontinuity as a

significantly weaker element. In such an analysis framework, a different GSI value needs to be

assigned to the rock mass, ignoring the unique major discontinuity. While this type of approach can be

effective, in other situations it may be more appropriate to characterize the specific properties of the

particular discontinuity utilizing laboratory shear testing data or using the Barton & Bandis approach

(1990).

PT
On a global scale, GSI description and application of the Hoek-Brown equivalent continuity approach

can however be further extended to suggest that, when dealing at very large scale, rock mass strength

RI
will reach a constant value when the sizes of individual rock blocks are sufficiently small in relation to

SC
the overall size of the engineering structure being considered. By contrast, where block sizes of a rock-

mass are close to the same order of size of the engineering structure being analyzed, GSI and the
NU
Hoek-Brown criterion should not be used. Rather, the overall stability of the engineering structure

itself should be analyzed by considering the behaviour of the individual blocks and/or wedges defined
MA

by the intersection of the geological structural features considered controlling stability.

An example of this transition is frequently seen in large open pit mines (such as shown in Figure 10),
D

in which individual structures or intersecting structural features control bench scale stability, while the
E
PT

overall slope can oftentimes be considered as an equivalent homogeneous rock mass. The Hoek-

Brown criterion can thus be applied at pit scale, while at bench scale the blocks must be considered
CE

kinematically as discrete units. These basic differences in scale, with respect to the engineering

structures of importance at each scale are readily apparent from the photograph and sketch diagrams in
AC

Figure 10. In this case many scales of geological structure are involved, and in consequence, for

much of the mechanics controlling slope stability of the overall slopes of the more than 1000m deep

Chuquicamata open pit mine in Chile, the rock mass can be considered as a Hoek-Brown material.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
Figure 10. Examples of different scales of fabric - stability at bench scale is clearly controlled by intersecting
structural features, while at overall slope scale the rock mass can be characterized as a Hoek-Brown material
within which major faults and shear zones must be superimposed
(Photo from 1000m deep Chuquicamata open pit mine in Chile, Hoek, pers comm)
NU
6. Conclusions
MA

Use of the GSI rock mass classification system (and extension through the associated m, s and a

parameter relationships linking GSI with the Hoek-Brown failure criterion) provides a proven,
D

effective and reliable approach for defining rock mass characteristics. It has been widely adopted by
E

engineers and geologists for strength prediction for surface and underground excavation design for a
PT

wide range of most “normal” blocky rock masses for which the Hoek-Brown criteria remains fully
CE

valid. Analytic or practical back-analyses of rock masses where the GSI system has been applied, in

conjunction with the basic H-B equations, continues to certify its appropriateness when applied within
AC

the correct range of blockiness. The GSI system itself however remains effective for describing rock

masses right out to either end of the rock competence scale, allowing characterization also of rock

masses requiring spalling or squeezing analysis utilizing modified Hoek-Brown or other failure criteria

relationships.

GSI permits a wide variety of rock mass fabrics to be easily and reliably quantified, significantly

enhancing geological logic and reducing geo-engineering uncertainty. The influence of various

engineering geological characteristics can be better defined than perhaps can be achieved through
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

generically coded parameter summations or multiplications as the sole means for definitively ranking

and characterizing a rock mass. The process of plotting an envelope on a GSI chart not only allows

better understanding to be gained of rock mass variability, but also allows better appreciation of rock

mass character and behaviour, necessary for consideration in defining parameters for numerical

modelling.

One of the key advantages of the Geological Strength Index is that the geological reasoning it

PT
embodies allows characterization to be made of a very wide range of rock masses and conditions,

including both weak and complex situations, but always maintaining care to keep within valid

RI
applicability limits.

SC
While “structure” appearance (from intact to disintegrated) can be similar for a wide range of rock

masses, major changes in strength and deformability can occur between similarly fractured rock
NU
masses, solely because of differences in parent rock material competence. This variability in terms of
MA

σci and mi, as schematically delineated in the overall chart diagram included in Figure 8, is of critical

importance for correct definition of rock mass strength and deformability behaviour in an overall,

comparative context. As can be observed from the global matrix chart of Figure 8, in relation to each
D

of the already published GSI charts encompassed within the overall matrix chart, complete coverage
E
PT

of any range of GSI can be developed on a site-specific basis for most common rock types and

conditions. Gneisses, granites, ophiolites, limestones, schists, siltstones / mudstones / shales, as well as
CE

molassic and flysch formations are each represented, highlighting how geological differentiation

amongst different rock types affects overall geotechnical properties on a comparative basis. However,
AC

as it is emphasized in the paper, every rock mass has its own features and the presented specific GSI

ranges should be used with caution.

Acknowledgements
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Thanks are due to Evert Hoek and Paul Marinos for their insight in initially developing the GSI

approach and to Mark Diederichs and others for their critiques over recent years of its applicability

over the full range of the rock competence scale.

References

ANON. 1995. The description and classification of weathered rocks for engineering purposes.

PT
Geological Society Engineering. Group Working Party Report. Quarterly Journal of Engineering

RI
Geology, 28, 207-242.

SC
Barton, N.R., Bandis, S. 1990. Review of predictive capabilities of JRC-JCS model in engineering

practice. In Rock joints, proc. int. symp. on rock joints, Loen, Norway, (eds N. Barton and O.
NU
Stephansson), 603-610. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Barton N.R, Lien R and Lunde J. 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of
MA

tunnel support. In: Rock Mech. 6 (4), pp 189-239.

Bieniawski, Z.T. 1976. Rock mass classification in rock engineering. In Exploration for rock
D

engineering. Z.T. Bieniawski (ed), A.A. Balkema, Johannesburg: 97–106.


E
PT

Cai M., Kaiser P.K.,Uno H.,Tasaka Y. and Minami M. 2004. Estimation of rock mass strength and

deformation modulus of jointed hard rock masses using the GSI system. In: Int. Jour. Rock Mechanics
CE

and Mining Sciences. 41, 1, pp 3-19.

Carter, T.G., Diederichs, M.S. and Carvalho, J.L. 2008. Application of modified Hoek-Brown
AC

transition relationships for assessing strength and post yield behaviour at both ends of the rock

competence scale. In Proc. The 6th International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Civil

Engineering Construction, 30 March – 3 April 2008. Cape Town, South Africa, pp.37–59. Journal of

the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. 108: pp 325-338.

Castro, L.A.M., Carvalho, J. and G. Sá. 2013. Discussion on how to classify and estimate strength of

weak rock masses. In P.M. Dight (ed), Slope Stability 2013. Perth: Australian Centre for

Geomechanics.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Diederichs, M.S. 2007. Mechanistic Validation and Practical Application of Damage and Spalling

Prediction Criteria for Deep Tunnelling. The 2003 Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium. Canadian

Geotechnical Journal. Vol.44:9 pp.1082-1116.

Fortsakis P., Nikas K., Marinos V., and Marinos P. 2012. Anisotropic behaviour of stratified rock

masses in tunnelling. Engineering Geology, Volumes 141–142, 19, pp. 74–83.

Hoek E. 1994. Strength of rock and rock masses. In: News journal of the International Society of Rock

PT
Mechanic, 2, 2, pp 4-16

RI
Hoek E., Diederichs M.S. 2006. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. In: International Journal

of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 43, pp 203-215.

SC
Hoek E., Martin C. D. 2014. Fracture initiation and propagation in intact rock. Journal of Rock
NU
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 6., 4, pp.287-300.

Hoek, E., Carter, T.G., Diederichs, M.S. 2013. Quantification of the Geological Strength Index chart.
MA

47th US Rock Me-chanics / Geomechanics Symposium, San Francisco: AR-MA 13-672.

Hoek E., Marinos P. and Benissi M. 1998. Applicability of the Geological Strength Index (GSI)
D

classification for weak and sheared rock-masses – The case of the Athens Schist formation. In: Bull.
E

Eng. Geol. Env. 57, 2, pp 151-160.


PT

Hoek E., Caranza-Torres C.T. and Corcum B. 2002. Hoek-Brown failure criterion - 2002 edition. In:
CE

Bawden, H.R.W., Curran, J. and Telesnicki M., (Eds). Proc. North American Rock Mechanics Society

(NARMS-TAC 2002). Mining Innovation and Technology, Toronto, Canada, pp 267-273.


AC

Hoek, E., Marinos, P. and Marinos, V. 2005. Characterisation and engineering properties of

tectonically undisturbed but lithologically varied sedimentary rock masses. International Journal of

Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 42(2): 277-285.

ISRM. 1981. Rock characterization, testing and monitoring – ISRM suggested methods. In Brown

E.T. (ed), International Society of Rock Mechanics, Pergamon, Oxford.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Marinos P., Hoek E. 2000. GSI: A geologically friendly tool for rock-mass strength estimation. In:

Proc. GeoEng2000 at the Int. Conf. on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Melbourne,

Technomic publishers, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, pp 1422-1446

Marinos P., Hoek E. 2001. Estimating the geotechnical properties of heterogeneous rock masses such

as flysch. In: Bull. Eng. Geol. Env., 60, pp 82-92.

Marinos V. 2007. Geotechnical classification and engineering geological behaviour of weak and

PT
complex rock masses in tunneling, Doctoral thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical

RI
Engineering Department, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Athens. (In greek)

Marinos V., Marinos P. and Hoek E. 2005. The Geological Strength Index – Applications and

SC
limitations». Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 64/1, 55-65.
NU
Marinos, P., Hoek, E. and Marinos, V., 2005. Variability of the engineering properties of rock masses

quantified by the geological strength index: the case of ophiolites with special emphasis on tunnelling.
MA

Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 65(2), pp. 129-142.

Marinos, V., Prountzopoulos, G., Fortsakis, P., Koumoutsakos, D. and Papouli, D. 2012. Tunnel
D

Information and Analysis System: A geotechnical database for tunnels. Geotechnical and Geological
E

Engineering. doi: 10.1007/s10706-012-9570.


PT

Marinos V., Fortsakis P. and Prountzopoulos G. 2013. «Tunnel behaviour and support in molassic
CE

rocks. The experiences from 12 tunnels in Greece». Proceedings of the ISRM International

Symposium EUROCK2013.
AC

Palmström A., (2005) Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock quality

designation. Tunnelling & Underground Space Tech; 20(4): pp362–377

Palmström A., Broch E. 2006. Use and misuse of rock mass classification systems with particular

reference to the Q-system. Tunnelling & Underground Space Tech; 21: pp575-593

Sonmez, H., Ulusay, R., (1999). Modifications to the geo-logical strength index (GSI) and their

applicability to sta-bility of slopes, International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, v. 36,

p. 743–60.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Stacey, T.R., Page, C.H. 1986. Practical Handbook for Underground Rock Mechanics. Trans Tech.

Publications, Clausthal-Zellerfeld publ.

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Standard Hoek – Brown Transfer Equations relating intact and rock mass properties with

respect to GSI (Hoek, Carranza-Torres and Corkum 2002)

Table 2. Typical values for σci and mi for range of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks (to be

read in conjunction with Figure 8 regarding parent rock type characteristics)

PT
LIST OF FIGURES

RI
Figure 1. Basic GSI Chart for Visual Geologic. Characterization of rock masses

SC
Figure 2. Difficult Ground Conditions for undertaking rock mass classification (Photo from Egnatia Highway).

Here, tectonically deformed intensively folded/faulted siltstone with broken and deformed sandstone layers
NU
forming an almost chaotic structure.

Figure 3. Indicative example of how tectonism (from low to severe) affects GSI. Shifts from Low to Severe on
MA

the left size of the chart corresponds to a more brittle parent material and on the right size of the chart to a more

ductile rock (e.g. mudstones, shales, siltstones).


D

Figure 4. Indicative example of how weathering degree (W-I to W-V) affects GSI.
E

Figure 5. GSI classification chart for gneiss or petrographically similar rock masses like granite (Marinos 2007,
PT

Marinos and Drosos 2010)


CE

Figure 6. GSI and intact strength change for weathering grade W-I to grade W-VI (grades according to ISRM

1981 with additions after Stacey and Page, 1986).


AC

Figure 7. Indicative example of how alteration (none to severe) affects GSI.

Figure 8. Most common GSI ranges for typical gneisses, granites, ophiolites, limestones, schists,

siltstones/mudstones/shales, molassic and flysch formations in conjunction with a range of mi and σci. (Refer to

text and reference list for original papers for more details on charts)

Figure 9. Updated GSI classification chart for heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch (Marinos 2017)

Figure 10. Examples of different scales of fabric - stability of individual benches clearly controlled by

intersecting structural features while the overall slope can be characterized as a Hoek-Brown material on which
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

major faults and shear zones must be superimposed (1000m deep Chuquicamata open pit mine in Chile, Hoek,

pers comm)

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights
 Introduction of classifications has in many ways compromised acquisition of holistic
geological understanding, an issue that this paper address in subsequent sections, based on
appropriate application of GSI to engineering design problems.
 With continuing use worldwide, the GSI system has continued to evolve, but greater
understanding is needed in the definition of Hoek & Brown input constants, for establishing
both GSI and intact rock properties. This need for improved evaluation, particularly from a
geological perspective, is addressed in this paper. Geological processes of tectonism,
weathering and alteration all affect GSI. Evaluation of these factors, which are each critical to
proper GSI definition, are analysed based on real rock mass cases.
 GSI permits a wide variety of rockmass fabrics to be quantified, including both weak and
complex situations, thereby enhancing geological logic and reducing geoengineering

PT
uncertainty. The use of the GSI system allows the influence of various engineering geological
characteristics to be better defined than just through generically coded parameter summations
as a means to rank a rockmass, so that its behaviour can be explained and numerical modelling

RI
more realistically undertaken.
 While “structure” appearance (from intact to disintegrated) can be similar for a wide range of
rock masses, major changes in strength and deformability can occur between similarly

SC
fractured rock masses, solely because of differences in parent rock material competence.
 Specific key engineering geological characteristics that differentiate igneous, metamorphic
and sedimentary one from each other are highlighted through discussion of various example
NU
rock units (including gneisses, granites, ophiolites, limestones, schists, siltstones / mudstones /
shales, and molassic and flysch formations). Illustrations are given of how geological
differentiation dictates variability in geotechnical properties of most common rock masses.
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC

You might also like