CHAPTER- 25

GEOLOGICAL STRENGTH INDEX (GSI)

"The function of Rock Mechanics Engineers is not to compute

accurately but to judge soundly"
Hoek and Londe

25.1 Geological Strength Index (GSI)

Hoek and Brown (1997) introduced recently the Geological Strength Index (GSI), both for
hard and weak rock masses. Experienced field engineers and geologists generally show a
liking for a simple, fast, yet reliable classification which is based on visual inspection of
geological conditions. Past experiences suggest that a classification system should be non-
linear for poor rocks as strength deteriorates rapidly with weathering. Further, increased
applications of computer modelling has created an urgent need for a classification system
tuned specially to computer simulation of rock structures. To meet these needs, Hoek and
Brown (1997) devised simple charts for estimating GSI based on the following two
correlations:

GSI = RMR - 5 f o r G S I > 1 8 or R M R > 2 3 (25.1)

= 9 lnQ' + 44 for GSI < 18 (25.2)

where,
Q' = modified tunnelling quality index
= [RQD/Jn].[Jr/Ja] (25.3)
RMR = Rock Mass Rating according to Bieniawski (1989)

Sometimes, there is difficulty in obtaining RMR in poor rock masses. The Q' may thus be
used more often as it is relatively more reliable than RMR, specially in weak rocks.

Hoek and Brown (1997) have recently proposed a chart for GSI (Table 25.1) as experts can
classify a rock mass by visual inspection alone. In this classification, there are four main
qualitative classifications, adopted from Terzaghi's classification (Table 5.3).

(i) Blocky
(ii) Very Blocky
(iii) Blocky / Folded
(iv) Crushed

242
 Geological strength index (GSI)

Engineers and geologists are already familiar with it for 50 years. Further, discontinuities are
classified into 5 surface conditions which are similar to joint conditions in RMR (Chapter 6).

(i) Very Good

(ii) Good
(iii) Fair
(iv) Poor
(v) Very Poor

Now a block in the matrix of 4 x 5 of Table 25.1 is picked up according to actual rock mass
classification and discontinuity surface condition. Then corresponding GSI is read. According
to Hoek (1998), a range of values of GSI (or RMR) should be estimated in preference to a
single value. This practice has a significant impact on design of slopes and excavations in
rocks.

For avoiding double accounting, ground water condition and insitu stresses are not considered
in GSI as these are accounted for in computer models. Further, GSI assumes that the rock
mass is isotropic. Therefore, only cores without weak planes should be tested in triaxial cell to
determine qc and m r as GSI down-grades strength according to schistosity.

Obviously, an undisturbed rock mass should be inspected for classification. However, heavy
blasting creates new fractures. So, Hoek and Brown (1997) have recommended addition of 10
points to the geological strength index for a seriously blast-damaged rock mass to obtain GSI
of the undisturbed rock mass.

25.2 Modified Strength Criterion

Hoek (1994) has suggested the following modified strength criterion for a rock mass

(25.4)
o.1 = o'3 + qc[m 0.3 + s] n
qc

where,
cy1 - m a x i m u m effective principal stress,
cy3 = m i n i m u m effective principal stress,
qc = UCS of rock material (intact) for standard NX size core,
m = rock mass constant,
qcmass (25.5)
S n = strength reduction factor = ~ ,
qc
n - 0.5 for GSI > 25, and
GSI. (25.6)
= 0.65 - (~) < 0.60 forGSI<25
2O0

243
 Rock Mass Classification." A Practical Approach in Civil Engineering

T A B L E 25.1
ESTIMATE OF GEOLOGICAL STRENGTH INDEX OSI BASED ON VISUAL INSPECTION OF
GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS (HOEK AND BROWN, 1997)

244
 Geological strength index (GSI)

H o e k ( 1 9 9 4 ) and H o e k and B r o w n (1997) h a v e found the f o l l o w i n g correlation from the back

analysis o f i n s t r u m e n t e d o p e n i n g s and slopes,

GSI - 100
( /
m = mr. e 28 = 0.135. mr. ( Q ) 1 / 3 (25.7)

GSI - 100
( ) (25.8)
s = e 9 for G S I > 25

I'rl
= 0.002. Q = Jp

s = 0 for GSI < 25

where,
m r = rock m a t e r i a l c o n s t a n t to be found from triaxial tests on rock cores, and
Jp = j o i n t i n g p a r a m e t e r ( P a l m s t r o m , 1995) in C h a p t e r 10.

E q u a t i o n s 25.7 and 25.8 m a y be s i m p l i f i e d as follows 9

m
-- S1/3 for G S I > 25 (25.9)
mr

Thus, uniaxial c o m p r e s s i v e strength o f a rock m a s s o b t a i n e d from Eqn. 25.5 is,

n
qcmass -- qc" S (25.10)

and uniaxial tensile strength o f a g o o d rock m a s s (GSI > 25, n = 0.5) is

(25.11)
qtmass -- qc" (m/s)

25.3 Mohr-Coulomb Strength Parameters

M o h r - C o u l o m b ' s strength criterion for a rock m a s s is e x p r e s s e d as follows,

(25.12)
0.1 - 0"3 = qcmass + A 0"3

where,
qcmass = uniaxial c o m p r e s s i v e strength o f the rock mass,
= 2 c cos~ / (1-sin~)
c = c o h e s i o n o f the rock m a s s ,
A = 2 sin~) / (1-sin~),

245
 Rock Mass Classification: A Practical Approach in Civil Engineering

= angle of internal friction of the rock mass.

Hoek and Brown (1997) have made extensive calculations on linear approximation of non-
linear strength criterion (Eqn. 25.4). It is found that strength parameters c and ~ depend upon
cy3. Thus, they have plotted charts for average values of c (Figure 25.1) and ~ (Figure 25.2)
for a quick assessment. It may be noted that c and q~ decrease non-linearly with GSI unlike
RMR (Table 6.10).

... .._-_--_. 0.20

O
. . . . . . . .
9
. . . i O . 1 0
z-

! t t ...... o.o8 c
i,.

0.05 "-
L- O u
0.04 "E O
E

C ,,,
tO
35
30 0.02
25
20
16
13 IW

u0
? - 0.01
5 v
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o.ooe
I0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Geological Strength I n d e x ~ G S I

Figure 25.1" Relationship between ratio of cohesive strength to uniaxial compressive strength
on intact rock (c/qc) and GSI for different m r values (Hoek and Brown, 1997)

The angle of dilatancy of a rock mass after failure is recommended approximately as

(25.13)
= (d~/4) for GSI=75
- (~/8) for GSI=50
- 0 for GSI<30

The Hoek and Brown's (1997) correlations for 's' are valid for rock slopes and open pit mines
only. For tunnels and caverns, there is an enormous strength enhancement (Chapter 13).

246
 Geological strength index (GSI)

55 mr

50 [l I I ::
IV
.... i -J-
IV
L

IV

35 7

.j ~. ~.., ,..-'-""~ w
30
c-
o
o,_
25
u
o..
L

20

15

10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Geological Strength lndex ~G $ I

Figure 25.2: Friction angle ~ for different GSI and m r values (Hoek and Brown, 1997)

25.4 Modulus of Deformation

The correlation of Serafim and Pereira (1983) has been modified for poor rocks (qc < 100
MPa) after replacing RMR by GSI as follows:

~/qc 10(GSI- 10)/40 GPa (25.14)

Ed = 100

According to Hoek and Brown (1997), limited field experience tends to validate the correction
for strength in weak rock (qc < 100 MPa). However, more field experience is needed for a
firm correlation.

25.5 Selection of Rock Parameters for Intact Schistose

In argillaceous or anisotropic rocks (shales, phyllites, schists and gneisses, etc.), the uniaxial
compressive strength of rock material qc depends upon the orientation of the plane of
weakness. The geological strength index GSI and RMR take into account the orientation of

247
 Rock Mass Classification." A Practical Approach in Civil Engineering

joints. To avoid double accounting for joint orientation in both UCS and GSI, it is a common
engineering practice to use the upper bound value of qc and corresponding m r for rock cores
with nearly horizontal planes of weakness for estimating m, s, and E d for jointed rock masses.

Further, cohesion along joints is needed for wedge analysis or computer modelling. Cohesion
along bedding planes or planar continuous joints (longer than 10m) may be negligible.
However, cohesion along discontinuous joints (assumed continuous in the wedge analysis)
may be the same as cohesion (c) of the rock mass. In fact the cohesion of rock mass is the
cohesion of the discontinuous joints. Furthermore, the ratio of c and cohesion of rock material
(Figure 25.1) may be of the same order as the area of intact rock bridges per unit area of the
discontinuous joints.

T A B L E 25.2
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING PARAMETERSOF ROCK MASS

S. [Rock Mass Reference Recommended Remarks

No. i Parameter , Value
n , Eqn. 25.6 ,0.5
m , Eqn. 25.7 , 1.1
s Eqn. 25.8 6.7 x 10 .3
i i

2 , Cp , Figure 25.1 , 3 . 6 MPa

3 ~p 32 ~ Same as that of
rock material
4 UCS qcmass 2 Cp cOS~p/(1 - sin~p ) 13 M P a intercept on Cyl and
cy3 envelop
5 , UTS qtmass , 0.029 ], Q0.31 0.15 MPa
6 Angle of (~p - 000/2 5~
, dilatancy A ,
7 , ~r , q~p- 10-> 14 ~ , 22"
8 Residual Art. 13.8 0.1 MPa
cohesion c r
9 Residual UCS 2 c r cosq~r/(1 - sindPr ) 0.3 MPa
| i |

10 Modulus of Uniaxialjacking test 7.5 MPa Pressure dependen-

deformation E d cy not observed
iI | i

11 l
Poisson's ratio i
-- i
0.20 !

12 Shear modulus E d/10 0.75 MPa Axis of anisotropy

along bedding
, , , ,plane
13 Suggested Eqn. 13.12 13+2.2(cy1+~3)/2
model for peak MPa
, strength
14 Model for Mohr's theory 0.3+ 1.2 cy3 MPa
, residual strength i

248
 Geological strength index (GSI)

25.6 Example

In a major hydroelectric project in dry quartzitic phyllite, the rock mass quality Q is found to
be in the range of 6 - 10. The joint roughness number Jr is 1.5 and joint alteration number Ja
is 1.0 for critically oriented joints in the underground machine hall. The unit weight of phyllite
rock is 2.78 gm/cc. The upper bound strength envelop between ~1 and cy3 from triaxial tests
gave UCS qc = 80 MPa, ~p = 32 ~ m r - 5.3 and E r = 116 MPa when plane of schistosity is
either horizontal or vertical. The average UCS for various angle of schistosity is 40 MPa.
The GSI is estimated to be about 55 as rock mass is micro-folded and joints are very rough
and unweathered. With these values, it is required to suggest the engineering parameters of
the rock mass for the machine hall cavity (width 24m and height 47m).

The average rock mass quality is 4(6x10) = 8 (approx.). Other calculations are presented in
Table 25.2 for the undisturbed rock mass. The peak angle of internal friction works out to be
27 ~ from Figure 25.2 and 32 ~ from triaxial tests and 56 ~ from Jr / Ja value. Thus, a value of
~p = 32 ~ appears to be realistic. A blast damaged zone of about 2m depth may be assumed in
the computer modelling alround the cavity with half the values of Cp, qcmass, Ed and G.

It may be emphasized that Table 25.2 suggests parameters for the first iteration only in the
computer modelling. The more realistic model and parameters may be back-calculated from
the observed displacements of the cavity during upper half-excavation.

Referen ces

Bieniawski, Z.T.(1989). Engineering Rock Mass Classifications, John Wiley, p. 251.

Hoek, E. (1994). Strength of Rock and Rock Masses, News Journal of ISRM, Vol. 2, No.2,
pp. 4-16.
Hoek, E. (1998). Reliability of Hoek-Brown Estimates of Rock Mass Properties and their
Impact on Design, Int. Jr. Rock Mech. and Mitt. Sci., Pergamon, Technical Note, Under
Print.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T. (1997). Practical Estimates of Rock Mass Strength, hit. Jr. Rock
Mech. and Min. Sci., Pergamon, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 1165-1186.
Palmstrom, A. (1995). Characterising the Strength of Rock Masses for Use in Design of
Underground Structures, Proc. Design and construction of underground structures, New
Delhi, pp. 43-52.
Serafim, J.L. and Pereira, J. P. (1983). Considerations of the Geomechanics Classification of
Bieniawski, Proc. Int. Symp. Eng. Geol. Underground Construction, LNEC, Lisbon, Vol.
1, pp. 127-140.

249