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 classification 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 meta-
morphic 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
Introduction
Predicting the ease of excavation of rock and rock masses
is very significant in earthworks for highway construction
or other civil engineering works, in surface mines and also
for foundations. In order to describe the excavation of
rocks, different terms have been used, related to the prin-
ciple 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
exist, (b) ripping, for moderate to difficult excavation
conditions, and (c) blasting for very difficult 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 com-
pressive strength, weathering degree and spacing of dis-
continuities. 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 difficulty 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 frag-
mentation 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
123
14 G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou

scanline. Atkinson (1971) suggested that the ease of parameters based on Barton et al. (1974) Q system. Fowell
excavation can be predicted using the velocity of longitu- and Johnson (1982), Smith (1986), MacGregor et al. (1994)
dinal waves in the rock mass for different rock types. and Hadjigeorgiou and Poulin (1998) have also developed
Scoble and Muftuoglu (1984) proposed a classification
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 define the
individual size of rock blocks, which constitutes one of the
most important parameters for rock rippability. They pre-
sented a detailed chart, which is similar to that proposed by
Franklin et al. (1971) but with a more detailed categori-
zation 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 classifi- Fig. 1 Layered marble corresponding to the blocky rock mass type
cation system for Coal Measures and marls for use in lig-
nite 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 rippa-
bility 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 difficulties in determining input parameters and
limitations of applicability to a specific geological envi-
ronment. A successful classification system should be easy
to use (quantifiable data, easy to determine, user friendly)
and should also give information about currently available
equipment.

Rock mass classification for estimation

of excavatability

Rock mass classification systems have also been used for

the assessment of excavatability. Weavers (1975) classi-
fication 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 classification system
is based on engineering properties for the weakest soil to
the hardest rock. Kirsten (1982) formulated the excavat- Fig. 2 a Sandstone and b limestone, both corresponding to the very
ability index (N), which is determined by the use of several blocky rock mass type

123
Excavatability assessment of rock masses using GSI
Fig. 3 Folded (a) thinly bedded limestone (b) schist, both corre-
sponding to the blocky/disturbed/seamy rock masses
grading classification systems for the assessment of rock
rippability.
Additionally, Abdullatif and Cruden (1983) presented an
assessment of ease of excavation and productivity in rela-
tion 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.
15
Fig. 4 Heavily fractured limestone corresponding to the disintegrated
rock mass type
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 classification is that it is a qualitative tool for easy
and quick assessment of excavatability.
123
16 G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou

Table 1 Range of point load strength and rock mass classification for different geological formations
Rock mass GSI Rock Discontinuity Is50 (MPa) Is50 (MPa) If (cm) If (cm)
type structure surface average range average range

Gneiss 3560 S2, S3 D2, D3, D4 2.30 1.304.80 65 30150

Weathered gneiss 35 S3 D4 0.6 25
Schist 1570 S2, S3, S4, S6 D2, D3, D4 2.20 0.804.60 49 23160a
Limestone 2065 S2, S3, S5 D2, D3, D4 2.45 0.704.00 45 2080b
Sandstone 3060 S2, S3, S4 D1, D2, D3, D4 2.30 0.704.80 40 20100
Marble 6575 S2 D1, D2 2.80 1.804.20 50 4070
Siltstone 2530 S4, S5 D3, D4 0.50
a
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
b
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 flysch, which is fre-
quently composed of tectonically disturbed alternations of
strong and weak rocks (sandstone and siltstone, respec-
tively). This chart was modified by Marinos et al. (2007).
The GSI relates the properties of the intact rock ele-
ments/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 out-
crops, 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 field.
Quantification of GSI classificationblock volume
of the rock mass
therefore built on the linkage between descriptive geolog-
ical terms and measurable field parameters such as joint
spacing and roughness.
The rock mass type is a controlling factor in the
assessment of the excavation method, as it is closely
related to the number of discontinuity sets and reflects the
rock mass structure. The Geological Strength Index, in its
original form, was not scale dependant, thus the rock block
size is not directly related to the rock mass type. Never-
theless, 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 disconti-
nuity planes and hence the concept of block volume is not
applicable. For this reason, the present classification for the
assessment of excavatability is based on the original GSI
charts (2000 version), but specific reference to the block
volume is made.
Characteristics of investigated rock masses
Field investigationmethodology

According to Palmstrom (2000), block size and disconti-
nuity spacing can be measured by means of the Volumetric
Joint Count Jv, or the mean block volume, Vb. Sonmez and
Ulusay (1999) quantified block size in the GSI chart by the
Structure Rating coefficient (SR) that is related to the Jv
coefficient. Cai et al. (2004) presented a quantified GSI
chart and suggested that the block size is quantified by the
mean discontinuity spacing S or by the mean block volume
Vb. The structure was quantified by joint spacing in order to
calculate the block volume, and the joint surface condition
was quantified by a joint condition factor. The GSI is
The field investigation was carried out at highway con-
struction sites in Greece. In general, the rocks involved
were sedimentary (limestone, sandstone and siltstone) and
metamorphic (gneiss, schist and marble). The most pre-
dominant rock types were sandstone and limestone.
The field investigation in sixty-one (61) selected loca-
tions 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 17

Fig. 6 Studied rocks

superimposed on the
PettiferFookes chart

(a) rock type, Rock mass classification

(b) joint set number,
(c) joint spacing, The rock masses studied generally have a blocky (18 sites)
(d) joint orientation, and very blocky structure (29 sites). The discontinuity
(e) joint surface condition, conditions of the blocky rock masses are fair, good and
(f) degree of weathering. very good. For the very blocky rock masses, the disconti-
nuities are poor, fair and good. Some rock masses (7 sites)
Laboratory testing of the block samples from each site
have a blocky/disturbed/seamy structure and good to fair
included determination of unit weight and point load
discontinuity surface conditions. Finally, a few disinte-
strength in accordance with the methods suggested by
grated (5 sites) and laminated/sheared rock masses (2 sites)
ISRM (1985). All the rock masses examined were rated
were found with fair to poor joint surface conditions.
according to the Geological Strength Index.

123
18
The sandstone, limestone, gneiss, marble and schist
(amphibolitic and micaceous) rock masses have a blocky
structure, as shown in Fig. 1. Gneiss, limestone and sand-
stone 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 ran-
ges 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 classification of the different geological forma-
tions 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 difficult. The three-dimen-
sional 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 disinte-
grated limestones, which are brecciated by faults, is not
meaningful.
Fig. 7 Relationship between point load strength and excavation
method
123
G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou
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 parame-
ters: the fracture spacing, If, and strength values of intact
rock. Franklins method has been re-evaluated and modi-
fied 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 efficient equip-
ment 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 difficult excavation conditions than is actu-
ally the case with modern machinery.
PettiferFookes (1994) classification method
Pettifer and Fookes (1994) emphasized the value of a three-
dimensional 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 difficulty of excavation.
Fig. 8 Plot of point load strength versus GSI for different excavation
methods
Excavatability assessment of rock masses using GSI
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 pre-
dicted 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
Fig. 9 GSI classification for
tested rocks with intact rock
strength (Is50 \ 3 MPa)
19
subjective, and also to the fact that in many sites other
construction matters may have been involved in the deci-
sion to use heavier equipment.
Prediction using the RMR and Q rock mass
classification 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
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 Rock Structure/ GSI Fracture Is50 Excavation
number type discontinuity spacing If (cm) (MPa) method

B5 Schist S2D3 60 80 2.6 Blasting

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

that rocks with a Q value up to 0.14 can be dug but those rocks with Q values between 3.2 and 5.2 can be ripped and/
with Q values above 1.05 require ripping. However, they or require blasting.
pointed out that the use of Q as a guide to excavation The present study found Abdullatif and Crudens (1983)
methods presents problems, as there is an overlap where ranges for digging, ripping and blasting are in good

123
Excavatability assessment of rock masses using GSI
agreement with the methods actually used at the investi-
gated sites but the use of the Q system was less consistent
with field practice.
Guidelines concerning If and Is50
From the evaluation of the data from this study using the
classification 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.
Fig. 10 GSI classification for
tested rocks with intact rock
strength (Is50 C 3 MPa)
21
(a) 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
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 classification
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 classification systems, ground water and joint orientation
will influence the total ranking, while in both the Franklin
and PettiferFookes classification charts, the correct
assessment of the fracture spacing is significant.
The study has shown that the GSI classification in con-
junction with the intact rock strength can produce a qualita-
tive categorization of excavation methods for rock masses. In
this procedure, the rock structure and the joint surface con-
ditions 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 rip-
pable, 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 filled 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 indi-
vidual rock blocks is also important as excavation with rip-
pers 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 Rock Structure/ GSI Fracture Is50 Excavation
number type discontinuity spacing If (cm) (MPa) method

B1 Schist S2D3 60 90 3.9 Blasting

B2 Schist S2D2 70 160 4.2 Blasting
B3 Marble S2D2 65 70 4.2 Blasting
B4 Sandstone S3D2 5560 4.8 Blasting
H1 Schist S2D3 50 35 4.6 Hammer
H2 Crystalline limestone S3D2 55 50 3.1 Hammer
H3 Crystalline limestone S3D2 5560 3.1 Hammer
R1 Limestone S3D3 45 10 3.7 Ripper D9
R2 Limestone S3D3 4045 20 4.0 Ripper D9
R3 Limestone S3D4 35 30 3.4 Ripper D9
R4 Mica Gneiss S3D3 40 54 4.7 Ripper D9
R5 Sandstone S3D4 40 4.8 Ripper D8
R6 Sandstone S4D4 30 20 4.1 Ripper D8
R7 Sandstone S4D3 35 20 3.9 Ripper D8
R8 Mica Gneiss S3D4 35 30 3.1 Ripper D8
R9 Gneiss S3D2 50 100 4.8 Ripper D8
R10 Mylonitic limestone S5D3 30 Ripper D7
D1 Mylonitic limestone S5D4 20 Digger
D2 Siltstone S5D3 25 Digger

123
Excavatability assessment of rock masses using GSI
Fig. 11 Proposed GSI chart for
the assessment of excavatability
of rock masses (Is50 \ 3 MPa)
A first assessment of the excavation methods in the
study sites based on a GSI classification 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 dif-
ferent 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 substi-
tuted 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
23
threshold values proposed in the literature; most research-
ers suggesting a UCS of 70 MPa, equivalent to a point load
strength of 3 MPa (Bell 2004; McLean and Gribble 1985;
Bieniawski 1975).
Two classification charts are proposed for the assess-
ment of excavation method based on GSI:
(a) 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
classification, categories of rock mass types were
123
24 G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou

Table 4 Excavation method for different rock mass types (Is50 \ 3 MPa)
Intact rock Method of
Rock mass type based on GSI (Structure-Discontinuity condition)
strength excavation

S2D1

S2D2

S2D3

S2D4

S2D5

S3D1

S3D2

S3D3

S3D4

S3D5

S4D1

S4D2

S4D3

S4D4

S4D5

S5D1

S5D2

S5D3

S5D4

S5D5
S1
Drill & Blast
X X X X
or hammer
Ripper (D8,
Is 50 <3 MPa X X X X X X X X X
D9)

Ripper (D7) X X X

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 Method of
Rock mass type based on GSI (Structure-Discontinuity condition)
strength excavation
S2D1

S2D2

S2D3

S2D4

S2D5

S3D1

S3D2

S3D3

S3D4

S3D5

S4D1

S4D2

S4D3

S4D4

S4D5

S5D1

S5D2

S5D3

S5D4

S5D5
S1

Drill & Blast

X X X X X
or hammer
Ripper (D8,
Is 50 3 MPa X X X X X X X X
D9)

Ripper (D7) X

Digging 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 defined as S1 and
the laminated/sheared rock mass as S6, while discontinu-
ities with a very good condition are defined 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 clas-
sified 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 rip-
ping 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 classification 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
Excavatability assessment of rock masses using GSI
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 classification 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
25
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 difficulty.
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
GSI excavation chart with Is50 C 3 MPa
Figure 12 shows the proposed excavation method catego-
ries 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 (flysch and molasses)
and soft rocks
The proposed classification cannot be used for the assess-
ment of the excavation method/ease of excavation in het-
erogeneous rock masses, as the flysch 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
123
G. Tsiambaos, H. Saroglou
excavatability assessment is appropriate in the case of
flysch 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 forma-
tions 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 investi-
gated included sedimentary (limestone, sandstone and
siltstone) and metamorphic (gneiss, schist and marble) rock
masses with a variety of rock structures and discontinuity
surface conditions. The majority of the rocks exhibited a
blocky to very blocky structure with a significant number
of blocky/disturbed/seamy and disintegrated rock masses.
The proposed classification method takes into account
the point load strength of the intact rock and the rock mass
structure. Two GSI classification charts are proposed:
(a) for rock masses with Is50 \3 MPa, and (b) for rock
masses with Is50 C 3 MPa.
It was found that blasting is required when GSI values
are greater than 65 when Is50 C 3 MPa and 60 when
Is50 \ 3 MPa, hence blasting is usually required in mas-
sive, 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
Excavatability assessment of rock masses using GSI
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 classification 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 flysch, 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 fieldwork 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 classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute Publication, Oslo, pp 415
Basarir H, Karpuz C (2004) A rippability classification system for
marls in lignite mines. Eng Geol 74:303318
Bell FG (2004) Engineering geology and construction. Taylor and
Francis Group, London, p 791
Bieniawski ZT (1974) Geomechanics classification of rock masses
and its application to tunelling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
Congress of I.S.R.M., Denver 1:2732
Bieniawski ZT (1975) The point-load test in geotechnical practice.
Eng Geol 9:111
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M (2004) Estimation of
rock mass deformation modulus and strength of jointed hard rock
masses using the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:319
Caterpillar TC (2001) Caterpillar performance handbook. Caterpillar
Inc., Preoria
Church HK (1981) Excavation handbook. McGraw-Hill Inc., New
York
Duncan N (1969) Engineering geology and rock mechanics, vol 2.
Leonard Hill, London
Fowell RJ, Johnson ST (1982) Rock Classification and assessment for
rapid excavation. In: Farmer IW (ed) Proceedings of Symposium
on Strata Mechanics. Elsevier, New-York, pp 241244
Franklin JA, Broch E, Walton G (1971) Logging the mechanical
character of rock. Trans Inst Min Metall 80:A1A9
Gurocak Z, Alemdag S, Zaman MM (2008) Rock slope stability and
excavatability assessment of rocks at the Kapikaya dam site,
Turkey. Eng Geol 96(12):1727
Hadjigeorgiou J, Poulin R (1998) Assessment of ease of excavation of
surface mines. J Terramech 35:137153
Hawkins AB (2000) General report: the nature of hard rocks/soft
soils. The Geotechnics of Hard SoilsSoft Rocks. In: Evangel-
ista A, Picarelli L (eds) Rotterdam, Balkema, pp 13911402
27
Hoek E (1994) Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News J
2(2):416
Hoek E, Karzulovic A (2000) Rock mass properties for surface mines.
Slope Stability in Surface Mining. In: Hustralid WA, McCarter
MK, van Zyl DJA (eds) Littleton, Colorado: Society for Mining,
Metallurgical and Exploration (SME), pp 5970
Hoek E, Wood D, Shah S (1992) A modified HoekBrown criterion
for jointed rock masses. In: Proceedings of Rock Characteriza-
tion, Symposium on International Society of Rock Mechanics:
Eurock92. Hudson JA (ed) British Geotechnical Society,
London, pp 209214
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground
excavations in hard rock. Rotterdam, Balkema
Hoek E, Marinos P, Benissi M (1998) Applicability of the Geological
Strength Index (GSI) classification for very weak and sheared
rock masses. The case of the Athens Schist Formation. Bull Eng
Geol Environ (IAEG) 57(2):151160
International Society for Rock Mechanics ISRM (1981) Rock
characterization, testing and monitoring. In: Brown ET (ed)
ISRM suggested methods. Pergamon Press, Oxford, p 211
International Society for Rock Mechanics ISRM (1985) Point load
test, suggested method for determining point load strength. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci and Geomech Abstr 22:5160
Karpuz C (1990) A classification system for excavation of surface
Coal Measures. Min Sci Technol 11:157163
Kentli B, Topal FT (2004) Evaluation of rock excavatability and
slope stability along a segment of motorway, Pozanti, Turkey.
Environ Geol 46:8395
Kirsten HAD (1982) A classification system for excavation in natural
materials. Civ Eng S Afr 24:293308
MacGregor F, Fell R, Mostyn GR, Hocking G, Nally G (1994) The
estimation of rock rippability. Q J Eng Geol 27:123144
Marinos P, Hoek E (2000) GSI: A geologically friendly tool for rock
mass strength estimation. In: Proceedings of GeoEng2000
Conference, Melbourne, 1:14221446
Marinos P, Hoek E (2001) Estimating the geotechnical properties of
heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch. Bull Eng Geol
Environ (IAEG) 60:8592
Marinos P, Marinos V, Hoek E (2007) Geological Strength Index (GSI).
A characterisation tool for assessing engineering properties for rock
masses. In: Romana, Perucho, Olalla (eds) Underground works
under special conditions. Taylor and Francis, Lisbon, pp 1321
McLean AC, Gribble CD (1985) Geology for Civil Engineers, 2nd
edn edn. George Allen and Unwin, Australia, p 314
Palmstrom A (2000) Recent developments in rock support estimates
by the RMi. J Rock Mech Tunnell Techn 6(1):119
Pettifer GS, Fookes PG (1994) A revision of the graphical method for
assessing the excavability of rock. Q J Eng Geol 27:145164
Scoble MJ, Muftuoglu YV (1984) Derivation of a diggability index
for surface mine equipment selection. Min Sci Technol 1:305
322
Singh RN, Denby B, Egretli I (1987) Development of a new
rippability index for Coal Measures excavations. In: Proceedings
of the 28th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Tucson, AZ,
Balkema, Boston, pp 935943
Smith HJ (1986) Estimating rippability by rock mass classification.
In: Proceedings of the 27th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
pp 443448
Sonmez H, Ulusay R (1999) Modifications to the geological strength
index (GSI) and their applicability to stability of slopes. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 36:743760
Weaver JM (1975) Geological factors significant in the assessment of
rippability. Civ Eng S Afr 17(12):313316
123