Bull Eng Geol Environ (2010) 69:1327 DOI 10.

1007/s10064-009-0235-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Excavatability assessment of rock masses using the Geological Strength Index (GSI)
G. Tsiambaos H. Saroglou

Received: 30 June 2009 / Accepted: 20 July 2009 / Published online: 14 August 2009 Springer-Verlag 2009

Abstract In the present study a new classication method for the assessment of ease of excavation of rock masses is proposed, based on the Geological Strength Index and the point load strength of the intact rock. The data originate from excavation sites in Greece in sedimentary and metamorphic rock masses. A wide variety of rock structures were considered, ranging from blocky to disintegrated, and different excavation methods have been used (blasting, hydraulic breaking, ripping and digging). The proposed method cannot be applied to heterogeneous rock masses and soft rocks/hard soils. Keywords GSI Excavatability Rockmass Rippability Rock strength

exist, (b) ripping, for moderate to difcult excavation conditions, and (c) blasting for very difcult excavation conditions. The knowledge of the physical and mechanical characteristics as well as the behavior of the geo-materials to be excavated is vital for the selection of the most effective method of excavation.

Previous research Assessment of rock excavatability All the methods used for the assessment of excavatability or rippability of rock take into account the uniaxial compressive strength, weathering degree and spacing of discontinuities. Some of them also include seismic velocity, as well as the continuity, aperture, orientation and roughness of joints. A detailed review of the principal excavation methods is given in MacGregor et al. (1994) and Basarir and Karpuz (2004). Duncan (1969) states that the assessments to determine the ease or difculty with which a rock mass may be excavated are based upon the consideration of: (a) the rock material forming the rock blocks within the in situ rock massbecause excavation entails fragmentation and rupture of the rock materials when the block volume is large, (b) the nature, extent and orientation of the fractures, and (c) the geological structure with respect to folding and faulting. Initially, Franklin et al. (1971) proposed a method to assess the excavation of rock based on the point load strength of intact rock, Is50, and on the fracture spacing index, If, which is the mean spacing of joints along a

Introduction Predicting the ease of excavation of rock and rock masses is very signicant 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
G. Tsiambaos (&) H. Saroglou Geotechnical Engineering Department, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 9 Iroon Polytechniou str., 157 80 Athens, Greece e-mail: gktsiamb@central.ntua.gr

123

14

G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou

scanline. Atkinson (1971) suggested that the ease of excavation can be predicted using the velocity of longitudinal waves in the rock mass for different rock types. Scoble and Muftuoglu (1984) proposed a classication of rock excavatability based on the rock mass weathering degree, the intact rock strength, the joint spacing and the spacing of bedding planes in a layered rock mass. Pettifer and Fookes (1994) stated that the excavatability of rocks depends on their individual properties, on the excavation equipment and on the method of working. They also stated that, apart from the strength of rock expressed by point load index, the discontinuity characteristics dene the individual size of rock blocks, which constitutes one of the most important parameters for rock rippability. They presented a detailed chart, which is similar to that proposed by Franklin et al. (1971) but with a more detailed categorization of excavation methods. McLean and Gribble (1985) estimated relationships between uniaxial compressive strength and Schmidt hammer hardness (rebound number) of intact rock and the rocks rippability. Karpuz (1990) and Basarir and Karpuz (2004) proposed a rippability classication system for Coal Measures and marls for use in lignite mines. This is based on the seismic P-wave velocity, the point load index or uniaxial compressive strength, the average discontinuity spacing and the Schmidt hammer hardness. Singh et al. (1987) have also proposed a rippability index for Coal Measures. Ripper performance charts have also been proposed for a wide variety of rocks based on their P-wave seismic velocity (Church 1981; Caterpillar 2001). Although a number of methods are available to predict excavatability, no particular method is universally accepted for several reasons, e.g., lack of awareness of previous case studies or difculties in determining input parameters and limitations of applicability to a specic geological environment. A successful classication system should be easy to use (quantiable data, easy to determine, user friendly) and should also give information about currently available equipment. Rock mass classication for estimation of excavatability Rock mass classication systems have also been used for the assessment of excavatability. Weavers (1975) classication was based on the RMR system (Bieniawski 1974). Kirsten (1982) proposed a system for the excavatability assessment in terms of rock mass characteristics, such as mass strength, block size, relative orientation of geological structure and joint walls strength. His classication system is based on engineering properties for the weakest soil to the hardest rock. Kirsten (1982) formulated the excavatability index (N), which is determined by the use of several

parameters based on Barton et al. (1974) Q system. Fowell and Johnson (1982), Smith (1986), MacGregor et al. (1994) and Hadjigeorgiou and Poulin (1998) have also developed

Fig. 1 Layered marble corresponding to the blocky rock mass type

Fig. 2 a Sandstone and b limestone, both corresponding to the very blocky rock mass type

123

Excavatability assessment of rock masses using GSI

15

Fig. 4 Heavily fractured limestone corresponding to the disintegrated rock mass type

Fig. 3 Folded (a) thinly bedded limestone (b) schist, both corresponding to the blocky/disturbed/seamy rock masses

grading classication systems for the assessment of rock rippability. Additionally, Abdullatif and Cruden (1983) presented an assessment of ease of excavation and productivity in relation to rock mass quality using the RMR system. Recently, Hoek and Karzulovic (2000) used the data from Abdullatif and Cruden (1983) to estimate the Geological Strength Index, GSI and strength of these rock masses and suggested a range of GSI for different excavation methods. They proposed that rock masses can be dug up to GSI values of about 40 and rock mass strength values of about 1 MPa, while ripping can be used up to GSI values of about 60 and rock mass strength values of about 10 MPa. Blasting was the only effective excavation method for rocks exhibiting GSI values greater than 60 and rock mass strengths of more than 15 MPa.

Fig. 5 Studied rocks superimposed on the Franklin chart

In the present study the Geological Strength Index (GSI), as proposed by Marinos and Hoek (2000) was used in order to describe the rock masses and correlate each rock mass type with the applicability of the available excavation methods. In this approach, the intact rock strength was taken into account and the properties of the discontinuity sets and fracture spacing (controlling the size of rock blocks) were carefully evaluated. The advantage of the proposed classication is that it is a qualitative tool for easy and quick assessment of excavatability.

123

16 Table 1 Range of point load strength and rock mass classication for different geological formations Rock mass type Gneiss Weathered gneiss Schist Limestone Sandstone Marble Siltstone
a

G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou

GSI 3560 35 1570 2065 3060 6575 2530

Rock structure S2, S3 S3 S2, S3, S4, S6 S2, S3, S5 S2, S3, S4 S2 S4, S5

Discontinuity surface D2, D3, D4 D4 D2, D3, D4 D2, D3, D4 D1, D2, D3, D4 D1, D2 D3, D4

Is50 (MPa) average 2.30 0.6 2.20 2.45 2.30 2.80 0.50

Is50 (MPa) range 1.304.80 0.804.60 0.704.00 0.704.80 1.804.20

If (cm) average 65 25 49 45 40 50

If (cm) range 30150 23160a 2080b 20100 4070

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 Fracture spacing in disintegrated limestones affected by fault activity is not applicable

Geological Strength Index The Geological Strength Index (GSI) was introduced by Hoek et al. (1992), Hoek (1994) and Hoek et al. (1995). This index was subsequently extended for weak rock masses in a series of papers by Hoek et al. (1998) and Marinos and Hoek (2000). Later, Marinos and Hoek (2001) proposed a chart of the Geological Strength Index for heterogeneous rock masses, such as ysch, which is frequently composed of tectonically disturbed alternations of strong and weak rocks (sandstone and siltstone, respectively). This chart was modied by Marinos et al. (2007). The GSI relates the properties of the intact rock elements/blocks to those of the overall rock mass. It is based on an assessment of the lithology, structure and condition of discontinuity surfaces in the rock mass and is estimated from visual examination of the rock mass exposed in outcrops, surface excavations such as road cuts, tunnel faces and borehole cores. It utilizes two fundamental parameters of the geological process (blockiness of the mass and condition of discontinuities), hence takes into account the main geological constraints that govern a formation. In addition, the index is simple to assess in the eld. Quantication of GSI classicationblock volume of the rock mass m (2000), block size and discontiAccording to Palmstro nuity spacing can be measured by means of the Volumetric Joint Count Jv, or the mean block volume, Vb. Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) quantied block size in the GSI chart by the Structure Rating coefcient (SR) that is related to the Jv coefcient. Cai et al. (2004) presented a quantied GSI chart and suggested that the block size is quantied by the mean discontinuity spacing S or by the mean block volume Vb. The structure was quantied by joint spacing in order to calculate the block volume, and the joint surface condition was quantied by a joint condition factor. The GSI is

therefore built on the linkage between descriptive geological terms and measurable eld 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 reects 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 classication for the assessment of excavatability is based on the original GSI charts (2000 version), but specic reference to the block volume is made.

Characteristics of investigated rock masses Field investigationmethodology The eld 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 eld 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

Excavatability assessment of rock masses using GSI Fig. 6 Studied rocks superimposed on the PettiferFookes chart

17

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

rock type, joint set number, joint spacing, joint orientation, joint surface condition, degree of weathering.

Rock mass classication The rock masses studied generally have a blocky (18 sites) and very blocky structure (29 sites). The discontinuity conditions of the blocky rock masses are fair, good and very good. For the very blocky rock masses, the discontinuities are poor, fair and good. Some rock masses (7 sites) have a blocky/disturbed/seamy structure and good to fair discontinuity surface conditions. Finally, a few disintegrated (5 sites) and laminated/sheared rock masses (2 sites) were found with fair to poor joint surface conditions.

Laboratory testing of the block samples from each site included determination of unit weight and point load strength in accordance with the methods suggested by ISRM (1985). All the rock masses examined were rated according to the Geological Strength Index.

123

18

G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou

The sandstone, limestone, gneiss, marble and schist (amphibolitic and micaceous) rock masses have a blocky structure, as shown in Fig. 1. Gneiss, limestone and sandstone rock masses were also found to have a very blocky structure (Fig. 2a, b). Blocky/disturbed/seamy rock masses were found in folded thinly bedded limestone (Fig. 3a) and in folded schist environments (Fig. 3b). Finally, some heavily fractured limestones affected by tectonic activity appear totally disintegrated and broken (as shown in Fig. 4). The laminated/sheared structure was encountered only in the schists. The point load index (Is50) of the different rocks ranges between 0.5 and 5.0 MPa. The lower values originate from weathered rocks. The range of point load strength, Is50, and fracture spacing, If, of discontinuities as well as the rock classication of the different geological formations are given in Table 1. The fracture spacing (If) had a relatively wide range. The average fracture spacing is higher for the gneiss and marble rock masses with a blocky and very blocky structure. The limestone, schist and sandstone rock masses with a blocky/disturbed/seamy and disintegrated structure have lower average fracture spacings. It should be emphasized that a realistic determination of fracture spacing is often difcult. The three-dimensional development of discontinuities should not be underestimated when calculating the fracture spacing. Moreover, fracture spacing in laminated/sheared schist rock masses expressed by the schistosity planes (acting as the predominant discontinuity) and in disintegrated limestones, which are brecciated by faults, is not meaningful.

Assessment of excavatability using existing methods Franklin et al. (1971) method The oldest graphical indirect rippability assessment method is that of Franklin et al. (1971). It considers two parameters: the fracture spacing, If, and strength values of intact rock. Franklins method has been re-evaluated and modied by many researchers; the most well known being Pettifer and Fookes (1994). Although this graph allows excavatability to be assessed rapidly, the subdivisions have become outdated as more powerful, more efcient equipment has become available. The Franklin et al. (1971) chart shows that most of the rock masses encountered in the selected sites would have to be excavated with blasting to loosen the rock mass and some (9 of the 61) with ripping. However, as shown in Fig. 5, most of the rock masses (29) were excavated using rippers, indicating that the chart is quite conservative and predicts more difcult excavation conditions than is actually the case with modern machinery. PettiferFookes (1994) classication method Pettifer and Fookes (1994) emphasized the value of a threedimensional discontinuity spacing index as this provides a more realistic assessment of the average block size. With Pettifer and Fookes chart (Fig. 6), the evaluation of excavatability is simple and hence the chart is still commonly used (Kentli and Topal 2004; Gurocak et al. 2008). However, the rock mass data from the present study indicate that it underestimates the difculty of excavation.

Fig. 7 Relationship between point load strength and excavation method

Fig. 8 Plot of point load strength versus GSI for different excavation methods

123

Excavatability assessment of rock masses using GSI

19

For material falling in the region of the chart where D6 and D7 rippers are proposed, in four sites D8 rippers were required and in six sites D9 rippers were used. In only three sites were the D7 rippers appropriate. In ten sites the predicted D8 equipment was used, but in six sites heavier (D9) rippers were necessary. In eight sites where D8 or D9 rippers were predicted, hydraulic breaking, or rippers and hydraulic hammers were used. This deviation from the predicted conditions could be attributed to the accuracy of measuring the fracture index of the predominant joint sets, which is somewhat

subjective, and also to the fact that in many sites other construction matters may have been involved in the decision to use heavier equipment. Prediction using the RMR and Q rock mass classication systems Abdullatif and Cruden (1983) proposed that a rock mass can be dug up to Rock Mass Rating (RMR) values of 30 and ripped up to RMR values of 60 while a rock mass rated as good or higher would require blasting. They also state

Fig. 9 GSI classication for tested rocks with intact rock strength (Is50 \ 3 MPa)

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) Site number B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Rock type Schist Limestone Sparitic Marble Marble Marble Sandstone Amphibolitic Schist Amphibolitic Schist Mica schist Mica schist Amphibolitic Schist Limestone micritic Gneiss Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone quartzitic Sandstone quartzitic Sandstone quartzitic Sandstone quartzitic Sandstone silty Mica Gneiss Gneiss Gneiss Limestone micritic Mica Gneiss Mica Gneiss Granitic Gneiss Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone Schist Sandstone Sandstone SandstoneSiltstone Sandstone Siltstone Mylonitic limestone Schist Limestone Calcareous schist Structure/ discontinuity S2D3 S2D2 S2D1 S2D1 S2D1 S2D2 S2D2 S2-3D3 S2D2 S2D3 S3D2 S2D3 S3D2 S2D2 S2D3 S2D2 S4D2 S2D2 S4D3 S4D3 S3D3 S3D3 S3D4 S2D3 S2-3D3 S3D3 S3D4 S3D4 S3D3 S3D1-2 S3D2 S3D2 S4D2 S3D3 S3D4 S3D4 S3D3 S4D4 S5D4 S6D4 S5D4 S6D4 GSI 60 65 75 70 65 60 7075 5055 65 55 5560 55 60 5055 50 50 45 5055 40 35 4045 40 35 50 45 45 35 3540 4045 5560 5560 55 4045 4045 30 3035 4045 30 25 15 20 15 Fracture spacing If (cm) 80 40 40 40 50 100 36 26 70 72 30 80 150 50 80 40 50 20 30 30 30 30 100 100 30 30 30 30 50 23 20 30 Is50 (MPa) 2.6 1.7 2.5 1.8 2.7 2.7 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 2.9 2.2 1.7 2.3 1.3 1.7 2.8 0.9 2.2 1.3 1.7 0.7 0.6 1.4 1.7 1.9 0.8 2.0 2.2 0.7 2.9 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.9 Excavation method Blasting Blasting Blasting Blasting Blasting Blasting Hammer Hammer Hammer Hammer Hammer Hammer Hammer Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D9 Ripper D9 Ripper D9 Ripper D9 Ripper D9 Ripper D9 Ripper D9 Ripper D10 Ripper D7-Digger Ripper D7-Digger Ripper D7-Digger Ripper D7-Digger Digger Digger Digger Digger Digger

that rocks with a Q value up to 0.14 can be dug but those with Q values above 1.05 require ripping. However, they pointed out that the use of Q as a guide to excavation methods presents problems, as there is an overlap where

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

123

Excavatability assessment of rock masses using GSI

21

agreement with the methods actually used at the investigated sites but the use of the Q system was less consistent with eld practice.

(a)

Guidelines concerning If and Is50 From the evaluation of the data from this study using the classication methods of Franklin et al. (1971) and Pettifer and Fookes (1994), the following conclusions can be drawn concerning fracture spacing and point load strength of intact rock.

Rock masses that have a joint spacing, If, greater than 0.30.5 m and a point load strength of intact rock greater than 1 MPa have to be excavated using either hydraulic breaking or blasting. (b) Rock masses with fracture spacing of less than about 100 mm (close to very close spacing according to ISRM 1981) can be excavated by rippers or diggers irrespective of the point load strength of the intact rock. (c) Rock masses exhibiting a point load index for intact rock of less than about 0.5 MPa can be excavated easily by ripping or digging, irrespective of fracture

Fig. 10 GSI classication for tested rocks with intact rock strength (Is50 C 3 MPa)

123

22

G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou

spacing (If). No data from rock masses with intact rock strength lower than 0.5 MPa were available. A point load strength value equal to Is50 = 3.0 MPa and fracture spacing of If = 0.3 m proved to be threshold values below which ripping was performed in the majority of the sites. The intact rock strengths obtained were analyzed for the different excavation methods and the results are presented in the bar chart in Fig. 7. In summary, (a) Rock masses excavated with blasting had an intact point load strength of between 2 and 5 MPa, with a mean value of 3 MPa. (b) Rock masses excavated using a hydraulic hammer in conjunction with ripping are characterized by point load strengths between 1.2 and 3 MPa (mean strength 2.3 MPa). (c) Rock masses excavated using rippers have point load strengths in the range of 0.55 MPa with a mean value of 2 MPa.

Proposed classication General An assessment of the excavatability of the rock masses encountered on the selected sites, based on the most

commonly used prediction methods, proved that the selection of the excavation method depends on the parameters which are taken into account. In the RMR and Q classication systems, ground water and joint orientation will inuence the total ranking, while in both the Franklin and PettiferFookes classication charts, the correct assessment of the fracture spacing is signicant. The study has shown that the GSI classication in conjunction with the intact rock strength can produce a qualitative categorization of excavation methods for rock masses. In this procedure, the rock structure and the joint surface conditions are important. For example, if the joints in a rock mass are tight or very tight (separation of discontinuity surfaces less than 0.5 mm) it is most probable that the rock blocks cannot be detached and thus the rock mass will not be rippable, although, a joint spacing in the range of 0.10.5 m would allow ripping in most circumstances. If the joints are open (separation is between 2.5 and 10 mm) or very wide (between 10 and 25 mm), either empty or lled with soft material, and their spacing is between 0.5 and 1.0 m, rippers are commonly used as the rock blocks are separated relatively easily. However, the strength of the intact rock in the individual rock blocks is also important as excavation with rippers entails fragmentation and rupture of the rock itself. Sedimentary rocks which are well-bedded and jointed or closely interbedded strong and weak rocks can be excavated by ripping or digging.

Table 3 Detailed rock mass data and excavation methods used on study sites (point load strength of intact rock Is50 C 3 MPa) Site number B1 B2 B3 B4 H1 H2 H3 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 D1 D2 Rock type Schist Schist Marble Sandstone Schist Crystalline limestone Crystalline limestone Limestone Limestone Limestone Mica Gneiss Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone Mica Gneiss Gneiss Mylonitic limestone Mylonitic limestone Siltstone Structure/ discontinuity S2D3 S2D2 S2D2 S3D2 S2D3 S3D2 S3D2 S3D3 S3D3 S3D4 S3D3 S3D4 S4D4 S4D3 S3D4 S3D2 S5D3 S5D4 S5D3 GSI 60 70 65 5560 50 55 5560 45 4045 35 40 40 30 35 35 50 30 20 25 20 20 30 100 35 50 10 20 30 54 Fracture spacing If (cm) 90 160 70 Is50 (MPa) 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.8 4.6 3.1 3.1 3.7 4.0 3.4 4.7 4.8 4.1 3.9 3.1 4.8 Excavation method Blasting Blasting Blasting Blasting Hammer Hammer Hammer Ripper D9 Ripper D9 Ripper D9 Ripper D9 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D8 Ripper D7 Digger Digger

123

Excavatability assessment of rock masses using GSI Fig. 11 Proposed GSI chart for the assessment of excavatability of rock masses (Is50 \ 3 MPa)

23

A rst assessment of the excavation methods in the study sites based on a GSI classication of the excavated rock mass and the point load strength of the intact rock is presented in Fig. 8. It is evident that three distinct regions exist in the GSI-Is50 chart, which correspond to the different excavation methods (blasting and/or use of hydraulic hammer, ripping and digging). For a given strength of rock, the ease of excavation increases as the rock mass quality decreases (lower GSI values), thus blasting can be substituted by ripping or even digging. The study also indicated the threshold value of strength of an intact rock, beyond which the rock mass requires blasting, is equal to 3 MPa. This value is similar to the

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 classication charts are proposed for the assessment of excavation method based on GSI: For rock masses with a point load strength (Is50) between 0.5 and 3 MPa; (b) For rock masses with a point load strength (Is50) equal to or above 3 MPa. In order to correlate the excavatability method with GSI classication, categories of rock mass types were (a)

123

24 Table 4 Excavation method for different rock mass types (Is50 \ 3 MPa)
Intact rock strength Method of excavation S2D1 S2D2 S2D3 S2D4 S2D5 S3D1 S3D2 S3D3 S3D4 S3D5 S4D1 S4D2 S4D3 S4D4 S4D5 S5D1 S5D2 S5D3 Rock mass type based on GSI (Structure-Discontinuity condition)

G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou

S5D4
X

Drill & Blast or hammer Is 50 <3 MPa Ripper (D8, D9) Ripper (D7) Digging

X X

X X X

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)
Intact rock strength Method of S2D1 S2D2 S2D3 excavation S1 Rock mass type based on GSI (Structure-Discontinuity condition) S2D4 S2D5 S3D1 S3D2 S3D3 S3D4 S3D5 S4D1 S4D2 S4D3 S4D4 S4D5 S5D1 S5D2 S5D3 S5D4
X

Drill & Blast or hammer Is 50 3 MPa Ripper (D8, D9) Ripper (D7) Digging

X X X X X

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

determined based on the structure of the rock mass and the surface conditions of discontinuities. Each rock mass type is given a code in the form of S (number) for rock mass structure and D (number) for discontinuity condition. For example, the intact/massive structure is dened as S1 and the laminated/sheared rock mass as S6, while discontinuities with a very good condition are dened as D1 and those with a very poor condition D6. Thus, a rock mass that has a very blocky structure and good condition of discontinuities would be described with S3 and D2 (S3D2). Excavatability assessment using GSI Samples with a rock strength lower than 3 MPa are classied in the GSI chart shown in Fig. 9; the detailed data concerning the rock mass characteristics and excavation method are presented in Table 2. It is evident that blasting was required in blocky rock masses with a fair to very good discontinuity condition (S2D1 to S2D3). Hydraulic breaking was used in similar rock conditions and in some cases in very blocky rock masses. Most of the rock masses excavated with rippers (D8, D9 and D10) have a very blocky structure with poor to

good joint surface conditions (S3D2 to S3D4), while some have a blocky/disturbed/seamy structure (S4D2 to S4D3). To some extent ripping was also successful in blocky rock masses with fair joint surface conditions (S2D3). Easy ripping conditions (D7 rippers) were encountered in very blocky rock masses with poor joint conditions (S3D4) while rocks with a seamy, disintegrated and laminated/sheared structure and poor joint (or schistosity) surface conditions (S4D4 to S6D4) were excavated with digging equipment. The GSI classication for rock masses with strengths above 3 MPa is shown in Fig. 10 and their relevant rock mass characteristics and the excavation method used are summarized in Table 3. Blasting was used for rock masses with a blocky structure and fair to good joint surface conditions (S2D2 to S2D3) and for rocks with a very blocky structure with good joint conditions (S3D2). Hydraulic breaking was used in some very blocky rock masses while heavy ripping equipment (D8, D9) was used to excavate the very blocky and blocky/disturbed/seamy rock masses with poor to fair joint surface conditions (S3D3 to S3D4 and S4D3 to S4D4). Diggers were only used in the disintegrated limestone rock masses (S5D3 to S5D4).

123

S5D5

S5D5
X

S1

Excavatability assessment of rock masses using GSI

25

Fig. 12 Proposed GSI chart for the assessment of excavatability of rock masses (Is50 C 3 MPa)

Proposed excavatability charts using GSI Based on the GSI classication of the rock masses, the following excavation charts are proposed: GSI excavation chart with Is50 \ 3 MPa The proposed excavation method categories in the GSI chart for rock masses with intact rock strength less than about 70 MPa (Is50 \ 3 MPa) are shown in Fig. 11. Blasting is necessary for rock masses with GSI [ 65 and

blocky or very blocky rock structures. Hydraulic breaking is required for the loosening of rock masses with GSI between 55 and 65 while ripping is successful in rock masses with GSI \ 55. The lower margin for ripping depends on the rock structure, thus for very blocky rock masses it is around 25 but in blocky/disturbed/seamy and disintegrated material it is 35. Rock masses with GSI up to 25 (or 35) can be dug, obviously with increasing difculty. The applied excavation method in relation to rock mass type for material with Is50 \ 3 MPa is presented in Table 4.

123

26 Fig. 13 Overall assessment of excavatability of rock masses

G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou

GSI excavation chart with Is50 C 3 MPa Figure 12 shows the proposed excavation method categories in the GSI chart, for rock masses with intact rock strengths greater 70 MPa (Is50 C 3 MPa). It can be seen that blasting is required when GSI [ 60 (the rock structure is blocky or very blocky). The transitional zone where hydraulic breakers should be used to loosen the rock mass is applicable to rock masses with a blocky, very blocky or seamy structure and GSI between 45 and 60, although in some cases blasting might be necessary in this zone of the chart. Although the rock material itself is not rippable due to its high strength, the fractured rock mass indicates a low block volume which would allow ripping. Heavy rippers (D8 and heavier) can be used up to GSI of between 20 and 45 for very blocky rock masses and 30 for seamy and disintegrated rock masses. It can be seen from the chart, however, that for rock masses with a disintegrated and laminated/sheared structure, digging is only applicable for GSI \ 30. The applied excavation method in relation to rock mass type for intact rock strength higher than 3 MPa is presented in Table 5. Heterogeneous rock masses (ysch and molasses) and soft rocks The proposed classication cannot be used for the assessment of the excavation method/ease of excavation in heterogeneous rock masses, as the ysch or molasse formation (alternations mainly of siltstone or clay shales and stronger sandstone layers) and in bimrocks (blocks in matrix rocks) such as ophiolitic complexes with strong blocks in weak surrounding material, as well as volcanic formations, i.e., agglomerate tuffs. However, the proposed method of

excavatability assessment is appropriate in the case of ysch formations with thick beds of sandstones. It is also not applicable to hard soils/soft rocks, especially those characterized as very weak to moderately weak rocks (Hawkins 2000) with intact rock strengths between 1.25 and 10 MPa. In this case, the discontinuities have a secondary and minor role in the behavior of the rock mass (i.e., marly formations). Excavation in these formations should always be undertaken using conventional methods, e.g., shovels and bulldozers. An overall assessment of excavatability of rock masses is presented in the decision chart in Fig. 13.

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 signicant number of blocky/disturbed/seamy and disintegrated rock masses. The proposed classication method takes into account the point load strength of the intact rock and the rock mass structure. Two GSI classication 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

123

Excavatability assessment of rock masses using GSI

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 modied 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) classication 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 classication 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 classication 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 ysch. 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 m A (2000) Recent developments in rock support estimates Palmstro 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 classication. In: Proceedings of the 27th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, pp 443448 Sonmez H, Ulusay R (1999) Modications 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 signicant in the assessment of rippability. Civ Eng S Afr 17(12):313316

strength affects the ripping, the GSI range is between 20 and 45 for rock masses with point load strength of intact rock Is50 C 3 MPa and between 25 and 55 for those with Is50 \ 3 MPa. In the transitional zone between the ripping and blasting areas of the GSI charts, excavation with hydraulic breakers is necessary. It is emphasized that the proposed classication is applicable only for rock masses where discontinuities control the excavation, thus is should not be used for the assessment of excavation in heterogeneous rock masses (i.e., sheared ysch, bimrocks and soft rocks).
Acknowledgments The contribution of Athanasiou J., Makrinikas A. and Zalachoris G., graduate students of the Geotechnical Engineering Department, NTUA in the eldwork is gratefully acknowledged.

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 classication of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Publication, Oslo, pp 415 Basarir H, Karpuz C (2004) A rippability classication 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 classication 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 Classication 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

123