See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330048934

Quantitative assessments of the correlations between rock mass rating (RMR)

and geological strength index (GSI)

Article  in  Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology · January 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2018.09.015

CITATIONS READS

13 1,102

4 authors, including:

Xianbin Huang
Tongji University
3 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Xianbin Huang on 18 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 83 (2019) 73–81

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Quantitative assessments of the correlations between rock mass rating T

(RMR) and geological strength index (GSI)
⁎
Qi Zhanga,c, , Xianbin Huangb, Hehua Zhub, Jianchun Lia
a
School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, Jiangsu, China
b
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
c
State Key Laboratory for GeoMechanics and Deep Underground Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology, Xuzhou 221116, Jiangsu, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Among various engineering classification systems, RMR and GSI are two of the most widely used rock mass
Rock mass rating classification systems. Correlation between RMR and GSI can provide an alternative approach to determine one
Geological strength index from the other. Based on the latest improved RMR, known as RMR14, the quantitative assessments of the cor-
Quantitative correlation relations between RMR and GSI is conducted systematically based on the studies on the correlations of basic
Basic classified indices
classified indices, which are mainly related to the structural conditions of rock mass. 260 groups of field in-
Monte Carlo simulation method
vestigating results obtained directly from the tunnel excavation faces of six new construction tunnels are col-
lected to assess the quantitative correlations of the basic classified indices for the rock mass integrity condition
and the surface condition of discontinuities, respectively. Monte Carlo simulation method is employed to gen-
erate sufficient samples based on the statistical characteristics of the collected 260 group results, and a simplified
quantitative correlation between RMR and GSI is proposed statistically. Then, an expression merely related to
the uniaxial compressive strength of rock is derived to reflect the basic classified indices for the strength and
alterability of intact rock. A comprehensive quantitative correlation combined with the intact rock properties is
suggested. Finally, the two proposed quantitative correlations between RMR and GSI are applied to evaluate 36
sites of the surrounding rock mass of Suocaopo Tunnel in Guizhou Province, China. The validated results show
that the proposed simplified quantitative correlation shows a rather good performance to reflect the correlation
of RMR and GSI. Moreover, the comprehensive quantitative correlation is more accurate because that the intact
rock properties are considered merely with the uniaxial compressive strength.

1. Introduction
Engineering rock mass classifications, which try to consider the
most important geological aspects affecting rock mass so as to rate its
quality, form the back bone of the empirical design approach and were
widely applied in rock engineering (Tzamos and Sofianos, 2006; Singh
and Goel, 2011). Engineering rock mass classifications utilize the en-
gineering observation, experience, and judgement to correlate with
rock mass, and provide effective communication between geologists,
designers and engineers. There are many engineering classifications
which are rock mass rating (RMR) (Bieniawski, 1973; Bieniawski,
1989), the rock mass quality Q-system (Q) (Barton et al., 1974), rock
mass index (RMi) (Palmstrøm, 1996), the geological strength index
(GSI) (Hoek, 1994), the modified BQ (National Standard of PRC, 2014),
and so on. All the classification systems belong to the multifactor
quantitative classification schemes. Among these classification systems,
RMR, GSI, and BQ are hundred-mark systems, while Q and RMi are
denary logarithmic systems. The current classification systems have
been applied in rock mass engineering widely and provided a reliable
basis in the engineering field for the projects designing and planning.
RMR and Q have been proposed as earliest as 1970s, and the both
two classification systems have the widest applied range, especially
RMR. In the rock engineering and rock mechanics, the Hoek-Brown
(HB) strength criterion is inevitably to be mentioned owing to its sig-
nificant influence. The HB strength criterion has the prominent ad-
vantage that the input parameters for the criterion are derived directly
from unconfined compression testing of the rock materials, miner-
alogical examination, and characterization of the rock discontinuities.
In the early period, the input parameters can be estimated by means of
RMR (Hoek and Brown, 1988). However, the estimation did not work
for very poor rock mass since the minimum value which was 18 for the
RMR of 1973 or 23 for the RMR of 1989. In order to overcome this

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, Jiangsu, China.
E-mail address: zhangqi@seu.edu.cn (Q. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.09.015
Received 27 April 2018; Received in revised form 21 September 2018; Accepted 26 September 2018
0886-7798/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Q. Zhang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 83 (2019) 73–81

Nomenclature RDC rating on discontinuities

Rf infilling rating in GSI
dn number of discontinuities per meter, /m RIR rating on intact rock
GSI geological strength index RMi rock mass index
Id2 intact rock alterability, % RMR rock mass rating
JC joint condition factor RMR14 RMR improved by Celada et al. (2014)
Jv volumetric discontinuity frequency, /m3 RMR89 RMR developed by Bieniawski (1989)
MSE mean-square error RMSE root-mean-square error
Q Q-system RQD rock quality designation
R-square coefficient of determination Rr roughness rating in GSI
R1 rating of intact rock strength in RMR14 Rw weathering rating in GSI
R2 rating of drill core quality-RQD and spacing of dis- S discontinuity spacing, m
continuities in RMR14 SCR surface condition rating in GSI
R3 rating of condition of discontinuities in RMR14 SR structural rating in GSI
R4 rating of ground water in RMR14 UCS unconfined compression strength, MPa
R5 rating of intact rock alterability in RMR14 Vb block volume, m3

limitation, Hoek (1994) and Hoek et al. (1995) introduced the geolo- 2. Existing correlations between RMR and GSI
gical strength index (GSI) based on visual inspection of geological
conditions, which was improved by Hoek and Brown (1997) and A concise review on existing correlations between RMR89
quantified by Sonmez and Ulusay (1999, 2002), Cai et al. (2004) sub- (Bieniawski, 1989) and GSI (Hoek, 1994) is introduced. RMR89 was
sequently. improved experience-based by Celada et al. (2014) to be the latest
RMR and GSI have different investigate indexes and different ap- version of RMR14, which is an important link for the quantitative as-
plied range respectively. It is very useful to refer to classifications ac- sessments of the correlation in this study. The main classification in-
cording to different situations to make better use of respective ad- dices of RMR14 and their ratings are presented briefly. Then several
vantage. Many researchers (Hoek and Brown, 1997; Coşar, 2004; existing correlations between RMR and GSI are concluded.
Osgoui and Ünal, 2005; Irvani et al., 2013; Singh and Tamrakar, 2013;
Ali et al., 2014) attempted consistently to found correlation between
2.1. Rock mass rating (RMR)
RMR and GSI. However, the existing correlations are empirical and
based on comparison of the total classified values directly. That is be-
Bieniawski (1973) firstly developed the rock mass rating (RMR)
cause that RMR is quantified according to unconfined compression
system on the basis of the experiences in shallow tunnels in sedimentary
strength (UCS), rock quality designation (RQD), the spacing of dis-
rocks at the South African Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
continuity, and the condition of discontinuity and ground water. While
(CSIR). Over the years, RMR has been successively refined as that more
GSI merely focuses on the structural conditions of rock mass, such as
case records have been examined. RMR has several significant changes
the frequency and the surface condition of discontinuity, which is re-
in the ratings assigned to different classified indices. After the sustained
fined in roughness, weathering degree, and infilling property (Sonmez
developments until 1989 (Bieniawski, 1989), the 1989 version RMR is
and Ulusay, 2002).
quite steady during the next two decades and has been widely accepted
Tzamos and Sofianos (2007) investigated the rock mass classifica-
and applied, which is known as RMR89 generally.
tion systems and proposed a common basic classified index chart to
Celada et al. (2014) improved RMR recently which was known as
correlate RMR and GSI, but the correlation of basic index given by the
RMR14. RMR was revised based on experience gained in the last dec-
chart is a range comparison and not quantitative owing to the different
ades so as to incorporate the innovations introduced in recent decades.
evaluation methods for the basic classified indices. This dilemma has
The revised quantification of RMR14 according to new five basic clas-
been existed until Celada et al. (2014) improved the RMR to a latest
sified indices is shown in Table 1. The RQD assessment and the spacing
version, which is named RMR14 for short in order to make it distinct
of the discontinuities are replaced by the number of discontinuities per
from RMR89. RMR14 proposes a new classified system comprising five
meter to eliminate the difficulty to determine the RQD from excavation
basic classified indices and the new quantified methods for each basic
faces (Geocontrol, 2012) and have a maximum rating (R2) of 40 points.
index. There are several correlations which can be deduced from the
Also the new assessment of the condition of discontinuities proposed by
existing frequency and condition of discontinuities. It indicates that a
Geocontrol (2012) is extended for improving the accuracy. Compared
more accurate and quantitative correlation between RMR14 and GSI
to RMR89, the maximum rating of the condition of discontinuities (R3)
based on the comparative study on the basic classified indices can be
in RMR14 is 20 points, which is evaluated by persistence (continuity) of
accessed.
discontinuities, roughness of discontinuities, infilling type in the dis-
The present study aims to assess quantitative correlations between
continuities, and degree of weathering of the discontinuities. So the
RMR and GSI based on the studies on the correlations of basic classified
maximum rating of the discontinuities is reduced to 60 points compared
indices systematically. Firstly, several existing correlations between
with RMR89. A new index on intact rock alterability which has a
RMR and GSI are concluded in Section 2. Then the quantitative corre-
maximum rating (R5) of 10 points is rated according to the results of the
lations of the basic classified indices including the rock mass integrity
Slake Durability Test. R5 is an index representing the resistance of the
condition and the surface condition of discontinuities are assessed by
intact rock to weakening and disintegration resulting from two standard
collected data. A simplified quantitative correlation between RMR and
cycles of drying and wetting. For the convenience of application, sev-
GSI is proposed by Monte Carlo simulation method statistically in
eral continuous rating expressions are fitted and listed in Table 1 for
Section 3. By considering the uniaxial compressive strength, a com-
improving the ladder-like ratings of R1, R2, and R5 in this study.
prehensive quantitative correlation combining the intact rock proper-
Celada et al. (2014) also provided a correlation expressed in Eq. (1)
ties is improved in Section 4. Finally, the validations of the two pro-
between RMR89 and RMR14 based on calculation of 2298 cases. With an
posed quantitative correlations are conducted by applying to the
excellent correlation, the essence of the RMR system for practical use
surrounding rock mass of Suocaopo Tunnel in Section 5.
over 40 years was inherited. Eq. (1) is activated when RMR89 is bigger

74
Q. Zhang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 83 (2019) 73–81

Table 1
Quantification of basic RMR14 (After Celada et al., 2014).
Classification indices and their ratings for RMR14b

Indices Range of values

R1 Intact rock strength (UCS)

R2 Drill core quality-RQD and spacing of discontinuities

R3 Condition of discontinuities
R3-1 Continuity <1m 1–3 m 3–10 m > 10 m
Rating 5 4 2 0
R3-2 Roughness Very rough Rough Smooth Slickensided
Rating 5 3 1 0
R3-3 Gouge infilling Hard filling Soft filling
< 5 mm > 5 mm < 5 mm > 5 mm
Rating 5 2 2 0
R3-4 Weathering Unweathered Moderately weathered Highly weathered Decomposed
Rating 5 3 1 0

R4 Ground water Dry Slightly humid Humid Dripping Water flow

Rating 15 10 7 4 0

R5 Intact rock alterability Id2 (%)

than 10 and less than 80. 2.2. Geological strength index (GSI)

RMR14 = 1.1RMR 89 + 2 (1) GSI was introduced initially by Hoek (1994) and Hoek et al. (1995),
and improved by Hoek and Brown (1997) for both hard and weak rock
masses, and was focus on the rock structural condition such as the

75
Q. Zhang et al.
frequency and the surface condition of discontinuities. Simple charts for
estimating GSI were devised based on visual inspection of geological
conditions. Although the charts were simple and convenient, different
GSI ratings for the same rock mass evaluated by different persons were
largely dependent on personal experiences. Marinos and Hoek (2000)
proposed a chart with six main qualitative rock classes adopted from
Terzaghi’s classifications, and the evaluated rating of GSI was also a
range rather than an explicit value.
For the requirement of a relatively precise rating of GSI that can
reflect relatively actual condition of concerned rock mass, Sonmez and
Ulusay (2002) introduced surface condition rating (SCR) of dis-
continuities and structural rating (SR) to estimate ratings based on the
quantified chart of GSI. SCR is rated by roughness rating (Rr), weath-
ering rating (Rw), and infilling rating (Rf), which are similar with the
ratings applied in RMR14. Cai et al. (2004) provided another quantified
GSI chart by introducing block volume (Vb) and joint condition factor
(JC), JC is determined by the indices of large-scale discontinuities wa-
viness, small-scale smoothness and discontinuities alteration factor
which adopted the rating method of Q and RMi. In this study, the GSI
chart proposed by Sonmez and Ulusay (2002) is involved to obtain the
quantitative assessments of the correlation with RMR14.
2.3. Existing correlations between RMR89 and GSI
In order to refer to classifications to make better use of respective
advantage, many researchers (Hoek and Brown, 1997; Coşar, 2004;
Osgoui and Ünal, 2005; Irvani et al., 2013; Singh and Tamrakar, 2013;
Ali et al., 2014) attempted consistently to obtain the correlations be-
tween RMR89 and GSI. Several equations of the existing correlations
[Eqs. (2)–(7)] are summarized and listed in Table 2. The existing
equations of correlations are obtained just by comparison on the clas-
sified value directly. There is rare study that can focus on the basic
classified indices to assess a quantitative correlation between RMR and
GSI. So a systematic study on the basic classified indices need be carried
out to seek a quantitative correlation by means of RMR14. Several
quantitative correlations based on the basic classified indices are stu-
died and assessed according to the mutual intrinsic correlations in next
part.
3. A simplified quantitative correlation based on structural
conditions of rock mass
Considering that GSI is merely related to the rock mass structural
conditions containing the frequency and the surface condition of dis-
continuities, RMR14 is divided mainly into two groups. One group is
focused on the discontinuities of rock mass, and the integrity condition
and surface condition of discontinuities are applied to represent the
structural conditions of rock mass. R2 and R3 are classified as the rating
on discontinuities (RDC) which is corresponding with SR and SCR in
GSI. The other group is a rating on intact rock containing R1 and R5,
which R1 is a directly rating the intact rock strength by uniaxial com-
pressive strength (UCS) and R5 is a rating on intact rock alterability
(Id2). R1 and R5 are categorized as the rating on intact rock (RIR).
However, RIR is not considered in GSI. In addition, R4 rating on ground
water is not considered when the correlation is assessed in the study.
The sketch map of quantitative assessments on the correlation between
RMR and GSI is shown in Fig. 1.
In this Section, the correlation of rock mass integrity condition is
studied firstly which includes the basic classified indices R2 in RMR14
and the SR in GSI. R2 is rating based on the drill core quality RQD and
spacing of discontinuities, while SR is the structural rating which can be
determined by volumetric discontinuity frequency correspondingly.
Then surface condition of discontinuities, which includes the basic
classified indices R3 in RMR14 and SCR in GSI, is compared to assess the
correlation directly. R3 is rating on surface condition of discontinuities
based on persistence, roughness, infilling type, and degree of
76
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 83 (2019) 73–81
weathering, while SCR is rated by roughness, weathering, and infilling.
Based on a larger amount of samplings generated by Monte Carlo si-
mulation method, a simplified quantitative correlation is assessed sta-
tistically, as shown in the red box of Fig. 1.
3.1. Rock mass integrity condition
In RMR14, in order to eliminate the difficulty of the assessment of
the RQD and the spacing of discontinuities, a relationship between R2
and the number of discontinuities per meter (dn) was concluded (Celada
et al., 2014), as shown in Table 1. A definite rating of R2 was de-
termined according to dn increasing from 0 to 50, and maximum of R2
was 40 points. A relational expression is derived through the method of
least square regression as Eq. (8), which agrees with well the definite
rating, as shown in the R2 row of Table 1.
R2 = 34.25−1.55dn + 0.033dn2−3.25 × 10−4dn3 (8)
While in GSI, the rock mass integrity condition is expressed by SR
for the blocky degrees of rock mass, and rating range of SR is from 0 to
100 points. Volumetric discontinuity frequency (Jv) was suggested to
quantitatively evaluate the blocky degrees, which was equal to the sum
of the number of discontinuities in a rock mass with a volume of 1 m3
(Sonmez and Ulusay, 2002). A specific expression for SR based on Jv is
provided as following Eq. (9).
SR = 79.8−17.5 ln Jv (9)
It is a dilemma that the rock mass integrity condition is measured
under different dimensions. R2 is observed along a drill core or scanline,
while SR is measured according to the block volumes in a certain ob-
served range. The critical point for a quantitative correlation between
R2 and SR is assessing an accurate correlation between dn and Jv, which
are quantified by the mean discontinuity spacing (S) and by the mean
block volume (Vb) respectively. From the definition, a direct correlation
between dn and Jv can be expressed as Eq. (10) (Cai et al., 2004).
dn = 1 S ⎫ ⇒ Jv = d 3
n
Jv = 1 Vb = (1 S )3 ⎬
⎭ (10)
When three or more discontinuity sets are present and the dis-
continuities are persistent, the effect of the intersection angle between
discontinuity sets is relatively small and the Eq. (10) can be applied for
practical purpose approximately. However, in most cases that the ir-
regular discontinuities are encountered, which is difficult to delineate
three or more discontinuity sets, Eq. (10) is not suitable for the corre-
lation between dn and Jv. Jv is always overestimated by counting the
cubic blocks with assuming the discontinuity set perpendicular to each
other.
Palmstrom (2005) proposed a correlation between Vb and Jv with
considering the characterizations of the block size, as shown in Eq. (11).
Jv = (Vb β )3 (11)
where β is a block shape factor whose range is greater than 20 and
selected according to the characterizations of blocks, such as cubical or
compact, slightly long and flat, moderately long and flat, long and flat,
or very long and flat respectively. And Palmstrom (2005) also suggested
a common value for β is 36. Then the correlation between dn and Jv can
Table 2
Equations of the existing correlations between RMR89 and GSI.
Existing correlations Proposed by Eq.
RMR89 = GSI + 5 Hoek and Brown (1997) (2)
RMR89 = 2.38GSI − 54.93 Coşar (2004) (3)
RMR89 = 20ln(GSI/6) Osgoui and Ünal (2005) (4)
RMR89 = 1.35GSI − 16.40 Irvani et al. (2013) (5)
RMR89 = 1.36GSI + 5.90 Singh and Tamrakar (2013) (6)
RMR89 = 1.01GSI + 4.95 Ali et al. (2014) (7)
Q. Zhang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 83 (2019) 73–81

RMR89 have great differences comparing with the results of field investigation,
Eq. (1) Assessing a quantitative correlation GSI owing to the simplified assumption that Vb is equal to the third power of
S. The extreme case can be satisfied merely when the discontinuity sets
RMR14 are perpendicular to each other, so for the general cases, Jv is over-
estimated by Eq. (10) especially. The correlations expressed by Eq. (16)
RDC=R2+R3 (0~60) GSI (0~100) and Eq. (17) are well agree with the obtained results when dn is less
R2 (0~40) Drill core quality RQD and SR (0~100) Structural rating than 15 or Jv is less than 26 approximately. However, the correlations
spacing of discontinuities
SCR (0~18) Surface condition cannot cover the most field investigating results when dn and Jv are
R3 (0~20) Condition of discontinuities rating larger, which is representing the rock mass is quite weak and heavily
A simplified quantitative correlation [Eq. (22)] broken.
Owning to the limitation of the existing correlations, a new and
RIR=R1+R5 (0~25) more reasonable correlation between dn and Jv is extracted by the re-
R1 (0~15) Intact rock strength A comprehensive quantitative gression analysis with a quite high R-square (0.817), which is plotted in
R5 (0~10) Intact rock alterability Id2 correlation [Eq. (27)] Fig. 2 and the expression is listed as following.

R4 (0~15) Ground water (Not considered) Jv = 0.63dn1.33 (18)

Fig. 1. Sketch map of quantitative assessments on the correlation between Rock
Mass Rating (RMR) and Geological Strength Index (GSI).
be specified as following Eq. (12).
Jv = 3.3 S = 3.3dn
The new correlation of Eq. (18) is convenient and easily to be ap-
plied. So combing Eqs. (8), (9) and (18), a quantitative relationship
between R2 and SR, which is the basic classified index used to evaluate
the rock mass integrity condition from RMR14 and GSI respectively, is
assessed.
(12)

On the other hand, dn and Jv are always the key indices measured to
evaluate RQD. So RQD can be used as a connected point for assessing
several indirect correlations between Vb and Jv. Priest and Hudson
(1976) derived the following correlation [Eq. (13)] between RQD and
dn.
RQD = 100e−0.1dn (0.1dn + 1)
Barton (1978) presented the following approximate correlation
between RQD and Jv. which is a suggested method recommend by
Commission on standardization of laboratory and field tests, Interna-
tional Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM). As shown in Eq. (14), RQD is
equal to 0 when Jv is greater than 35, and RQD is equal to 100 when Jv
is less than 4.5.
RQD = 115−3.3Jv
In order to give a more appropriate average correlation between
RQD and Jv, Palmstrom (2005) adjusted the formulation as the fol-
lowing form. As shown in Eq. (15), RQD is equal to 0 when Jv is bigger
than 44, and RQD is equal to 100 when Jv is less than 4.
RQD = 110−2.5Jv
Combining the Eqs. (13)–(15), two indirect correlations between Vb
and Jv are deduced and expressed in Eqs. (16) and (17) respectively.
3.2. Surface condition of discontinuities
In RMR14, R3 is involved to evaluate the surface condition of dis-
continuities, while SCR takes the similar effect in GSI. R3 and SCR are
determined based on roughness, infilling type, and degree of weath-
(13) ering of discontinuities. On the other hand, there is a difference that the
persistence of discontinuities is considered in R3, and the maximum
ratings of R3 and SCR are same incompletely, which are 20 points and
18 points respectively. Detailed sub-indices and rating of R3 and SCR are
concluded and compared in Table 3. It is obviously shown that the
ratings of sub-indices such as roughness, gouge infilling and weathering
are very close with the small difference of no more than 1–2 points.
Considered that the persistence of discontinuities has some inherent
(14) correlations with other three sub-indices, 260 groups of the tunnel
excavation faces are conducted to evaluate the surface condition of
discontinuities. R3 and SCR are obtained respectively, as shown in
Fig. 3. A linear correlation between R3 and SCR is fitted by the re-
gression analysis with high R-square (0.886). The quantitative corre-
lation of surface condition of discontinuities is concise and expressed in
(15) Eq. (19).
SCR = 0.884R3−0.927 (19)

Jv = [115−100e−0.1dn (0.1dn + 1) ] 3.3 (4.5 ⩽ Jv ⩽ 35) (16) 100

90
Jv = [110−100e−0.1dn (0.1dn + 1) ] 2.5 (4 ⩽ Jv ⩽ 44) (17)
80
Jv 3.3d n
Volumetric joint frequency (Jv)

In the study, 260 groups of results obtained by the field investiga-

tion from the excavation faces of six new construction tunnels are 70
collected real-timely with the constructing. The rock mass surrounding 60 Jv dn3 Jv 0.63dn1.33
the six tunnels is sandstone, gneiss, diorite, limestone, or phyllite
mainly. The structure condition of the investigated rock mass is 50
Jv (110 100e 0.1dn (0.1dn 1)) / 2.5
blocked, very blocked, or disturbed. Six tunnels are all constructed by 40
the new Austrian tunnelling method on the dry or slightly humid
30
condition. After drilling and blasting of the excavation face, the geo-
logical information of the rock mass such as integrity condition and 20
surface condition of discontinuities is measured by using geological
10 Jv (115 100e 0.1dn (0.1dn 1)) / 3.3
sketch, binocular photogrammetry and 3D laser scanning methods
(Chen et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2016). The rock mass was 0
evaluated according to RMR14 and GSI classification systems. 260 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
scatters of dn and Jv are listed in Fig. 2. The existing correlations of dn Number of discontinuities per meter (dn)
and Jv, which are concluded and expressed in Eqs. (10), (12), (16), and
(17) are plotted respectively. The correlations of Eqs. (10) and (12) Fig. 2. Correlation between dn and Jv.

77
Q. Zhang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 83 (2019) 73–81

Table 3 simulation method controls the accuracy of quantitative correlation.

Detailed sub-indices and rating of R3 and SCR (Celada et al., 2014; Sonmez and Generally more outputting samples bring about a more accurate result
Ulusay, 2002). until that the outputting quantity reaches a certain value when the
Sub-indices R3 (RMR14) Rating SCR (GSI) Rating result is steady. So a pre-test on the quantity of the outputting samples
is conducted to determine a reasonable outputting quantity. 10, 100,
Continuity (Persistence) <1m 5 – – 500, 1000, and 2000 samples of the ratings of SR and SCR generated
1–3 m 4
simultaneously according to the characteristic of statistical distribu-
3–10 m 2
> 10 m 0 tions. The statistical characteristics of outputting SR and SCR are also
listed in Table 4. According to the quantified GSI chart, the ratings of
Roughness Very rough 5 Very rough 6
Rough 3 Rough 5 GSI are determined based on the ratings of SR and SCR. Using the
Slightly rough 3 generated SR and SCR, the ratings of RDC are calculated by the derived
Smooth 1 Smooth 1 correlations of structural conditions expressed as Eqs. (8), (9), (18) and
Slickenside 0 Slickensided 0 (19). The linear correlations between RDC and GSI are fitted by the
Gouge infilling Hard < 5 mm 5 None 6 regression analysis, and the results are shown in Fig. 5. It is observed
Hard < 5 mm 4 that with increasing of the outputting quantity, the results are very
Hard > 5 mm 2 Hard > 5 mm 2
closely especially when the outputting quantity is bigger than 500. Thus
Soft < 5 mm 2 Soft < 5 mm 2
Soft > 5 mm 0 Soft > 5 mm 0 it is reasonable to assume that 1000 samples are sufficient for accessing
the simplified quantitative correlation.
Weathering Unweathered 5 None 6
Slightly 5 The 260 groups of ratings of SR and SCR collected from the ex-
Moderately 3 Moderately 3 cavation faces of six new tunnels are applied to fit the quantitative
Highly 1 Highly 1 correlation directly, and shown in Fig. 5 for validation of the Monte
Decomposed 0 Decomposed 0 Carlo simulation method. The result of the 260 groups of collected
ratings is close to that of the 100 samples, but slightly different from
18 that of the 1000 and 2000 samples. It is because of that the statistical
quantity is not big enough to access a steady quantitative correlation.

15 0.20
Surface condition rating (SCR)

Average=44.094
SCR 0.884R3 0.927
12 Standard deviation=23.099

0.15
Relative Frequency

9
Normal distribution
0.10
6

3 Results evaluated
0.05
from field tests

0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Condition of discontinuities (R3) 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fig. 3. Correlation between R3 and SCR. (Some data points with same R3 and Ratings-SR
SCR coincide.)
(a) Statistical distribution of 260
collected ratings evaluated by SR.
3.3. A simplified quantitative correlation based on structural conditions
0.30
With the correlations of structural conditions of rock mass expressed Average=8.908
as Eqs. (8), (9), (18), and (19), a simplified quantitative correlation 0.25 Standard deviation=3.785
between RMR and GSI is derived based on the correlation between RDC
and GSI. However, there is no explicit expression for determining GSI
Relative Frequency

0.20
according to the SR and SCR. So the simplified quantitative correlation
Normal distribution
can be derived merely by the statistical method. Although there are 260
groups of results collected from the excavation faces of six new tunnels, 0.15
a more accurate quantitative correlation is assessed by generating more
samples. To inherit statistical characteristic from 260 collected results, 0.10
the Monte Carlo simulation method is applied to generate a number of
samples, which has been widely used in many geotechnical engineering
0.05
(Sari et al., 2010; Cai, 2011; Idris et al., 2015). Firstly the statistical
distribution of 260 collected ratings evaluated by SR and SCR are
analyzed. As can be seen from Fig. 4, 260 groups of ratings of SR and 0.00
SCR are taken to follow the normal distribution respectively. The 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Ratings-SCR
averages and standard deviations of SR and SCR are determined and
also presented in Fig. 4. The statistical characteristics of inputting SR
(b) Statistical distribution of 260
and SCR are listed in Table 4.
collected ratings evaluated by SCR.
The quantity of the outputting samples generated by Monte Carlo Fig. 4. Statistical distributions of the ratings evaluated by SR and SCR.

78
Q. Zhang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 83 (2019) 73–81

Table 4
Statistical characteristics of inputting and outputting SR and SCR in Monte Carlo simulation.
Inputs Outputs

10 samples 100 samples 500 samples 1000 samples 2000 samples

SR Minimum 1.109 21.494 1.273 1.250 0.434 0.032

Average 44.094 60.808 42.726 44.965 44.537 43.478
Maximum 99.686 90.125 89.423 97.454 99.388 98.341

SCR Minimum 1.000 6.482 1.048 0.340 0.041 0.076

Average 8.908 10.810 9.017 9.025 9.177 8.967
Maximum 16.000 16.596 15.960 17.842 17.815 17.830

100
60 Eq. (22) Proposed simplified quantitative correlation
RDC_500 0.578GSI 9.869 Eq. (2) (Hoek and Brown, 1997)
500 samples Eq. (3) (Cosar, 2004)
80 Eq. (4) (Osgoui and Unal, 2005)
50
RDC_10 0.677GSI 5.519 Eq. (5) (Irvani et al., 2013)
10 samples RDC_1000 0.546GSI 11.360 Eq. (6) (Singh and Tamrakar, 2013)

Ratings-RMR89
1000 samples Eq. (7) (Ali et al., 2014)
60
40
RDC

RDC_2000 0.555GSI 10.923

RDC_100 0.522GSI 13.019 2000 samples
100 samples 40
30
RDC_260 0.521GSI 11.890
260 groups of data collected from field
20
20 Evaluated ratings based on
RMR89 and GSI

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
GSI 0 20 40 60
Ratings-GSI
Fig. 5. Linear correlations between RDC and GSI obtained by 10, 100, 500,
1000, and 2000 samples generated by Monte Carlo simulation method and 260 Fig. 7. Evaluated ratings based on RMR89 and GSI and comparisons between
groups of data collected from six new tunnels. the existing quantitative correlations and the proposed simplified quantitative
correlation [Eq. (22)].

Then a simplified quantitative correlation between RMR89 and GSI

is derived and expressed as Eq. (22).

40 RMR 89 = (RMR14−2) 1.1 = 0.827GSI + 15.394 (22)

RDC 0.546GSI+11.360 4. A comprehensive quantitative correlation considered on intact

RDC

rock
20
In RMR14, RIR containing R1 and R5 is a rating on the intact rock,
which is not considered in GSI. R1 is the strength rating of UCS and the
1000 samples generated by maximum rating is 15 points. R5 is a rating on intact rock alterability Id2
Monte Carlo simulation method
and the maximum rating is 10 points. Therefore RIR has an obvious
0 influence on the quantitative correlation between RMR and GSI. Id2 can
0 20 40 60 80 100 be determined by the slake durability test developed firstly by Franklin
GSI and Chandra (1972), then which was recommended by the Interna-
tional Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM, 1979) and the American
Fig. 6. Correlation between RDC and GSI.
Society for Testing and Material (ASTM, 1990). Many test results from
literature (Koncagül and Santi, 1999; Yagiz, 2011; Yagiz et al., 2012)
In the study, the generated 1000 samples of SR and SCR are used to show that a high correlation was existed between UCS and Id2. While R5
access a quantitative correlation between RMR and GSI. A linear cor- is inferred based on UCS same as R1, RIR can be determined by UCS
relation between RDC and GSI is fitted by the regression analysis with which is measured by the uniaxial compression tests in laboratory or
high R-square (0.909) as shown in Fig. 6. The correlation between RDC the point load tests in field conveniently.
and GSI is expressed as Eq. (20). Koncagül and Santi (1999) proposed a simple relationship between
RDC = R2 + R3 = 0.546GSI + 11.360 (20) UCS and Id2, and expressed as Eq. (23). When UCS is less than 9.08 MPa,
Id2 is equal to 0, and when UCS is greater than 74.87 MPa, Id2 is equal to
Thus a simplified quantitative correlation only considered on 100.
structural conditions of rock mass is proposed. The simplified quanti-
tative correlation between RMR14 and GSI is assessed and expressed as Id2 = 1.52UCS−13.80 (23)
Eq. (21), which R1, R4, and R5 in RMR14 are not considered.
According to the continuous rating expression of R5 as listed in
RMR14 = (100 60) RDC = 1.667(R2 + R3) = 0.910GSI + 18.933 (21) Table 1, R5 can be determined by the Eq. (24) directly.

79
Q. Zhang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 83 (2019) 73–81

Table 5
MSE and RMSE of the results predicted by the existing quantitative correlations [Eqs. (2)–(7)] and two proposed quantitative correlations [Eqs. (22) and (27)].
Existing quantitative correlations Proposed quantitative correlation

Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (22) Eq. (27)

MSE 37.547 426.389 146.039 192.592 198.183 72.449 11.229 5.890

RMSE 6.128 20.649 12.085 13.878 14.078 8.512 3.351 2.427

70 RMR14 = (100 85)(RDC + RIR ) = 0.642GSI + 0.494UCS0.65

+ 0.179UCS + 11.985 (26)
60 Then a comprehensive quantitative correlation between RMR89 and
GSI is assessed and expressed as Eq. (27), when UCS is greater than
9.08 MPa and less than 74.87 MPa.
50
Ratings-RMR89

RMR 89 = (RMR14−2) 1.1 = 0.584GSI + 0.449UCS0.65 + 0.163UCS + 9.077

(27)
40 And when UCS is equal and greater than 74.87 MPa, the compre-
hensive quantitative correlation is expressed as Eq. (28).
RMR 89 = (RMR14−2) 1.1 = 0.584GSI + 0.449UCS0.65 + 21.027 (28)
30 Evaluated ratings based on RMR89
Predicted RMR89 by simplified quantitative correlation [Eq. (22)]
Predicted RMR89 by comprehensive quantitative correlation [Eq. (27)]
5. Validation of the two quantitative correlations
20
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
In order to validate the proposed quantitative correlations, the rock
No. of datasets mass geological information of 36 sites was collected systemically from
(a) Predicted ratings based on RMR89 Suocaopo Tunnel at Guizhou, China, which is a highway tunnel and
from two quantitative correlations. 852 m in length. The surrounding rock mass of the tunnel is mainly
8 composed of sandstone. To improve the precision of geological collec-
tion, binocular photogrammetry technique and automated dis-
continuity trace mapping method on rock mass 3D surface model (Chen
4
et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2016) were implemented at the
tunnel excavating faces. The uniaxial compressive strengths of intact
Predicted errors of RMR89

rock were obtained using point loading test method. Ratings of rock
mass were evaluated according to RMR14 (Table 1) and quantified GSI
0 chart simultaneously. The 36 groups of evaluated ratings are shown in
Fig. 7. Existing quantitative correlations [Eqs. (2)–(7)] in Section 2.3
are involved to compare with the proposed simplified quantitative
-4 correlation [Eq. (22)]. Mean-square error (MSE) and root-mean-square
error (RMSE) of results predicted by Eqs. (2)–(7) and (22) are listed in
Table 5.
-8 Predicted errors by simplified quantitative correlation [Eq. (22)] The proposed simplified correlation [Eq. (22)] shows rather good
Predicted errors by comprehensive quantitative correlation [Eq. (27)] performance to reflect the correlation of the evaluated ratings based on
RMR89 and GSI obtained from the tunnel excavating faces, especially
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 when the evaluated ratings are small for the weak rock mass. The
No. of datasets evaluated ratings based on RMR89 are common slightly bigger than the
(b) Predicted errors of ratings based on RMR 89 ratings obtained by the simplified quantitative correlation. That is be-
from two quantitative correlations. cause the rock mass surrounding Suocaopo Tunnel is in a dry or slightly
humid condition. R4 is almost graded to 10–15 points when the ratings
Fig. 8. Comparison for ratings predicted by the proposed simplified and the based on RMR89 are evaluated.
comprehensive quantitative correlations [Eqs. (22) and (27)] respectively. In addition, for validating the proposed simplified and compre-
hensive quantitative correlations, the ratings predicted from the ratings
R5 = 0.1Id2 = 0.152UCS−1.380 (24) based on GSI by the two proposed correlations are applied to comparing
the rating evaluation directly based on RMR89, and ratings are plotted
Then RIR is derived by UCS merely based on the continuous rating and compared in Fig. 8(a). Predicted errors of ratings based on RMR89
expression of R1 (Table 1) and Eq. (24). by the proposed simplified and comprehensive quantitative correlations
are plotted as well in Fig. 8(b).
RIR = R1 + R5 = 0.420UCS0.65 + 0.152UCS−1.380 (25) As shown in Fig. 8, most errors predicted by the proposed com-
prehensive quantitative correlation [Eq. (27)] are less than 6, which are
Thus combining the simplified quantitative correlation in Eq. (22), a smaller than those predicted by the proposed simplified quantitative
comprehensive quantitative correlation considered on intact rock is correlation. MSE and RMSE of results predicted by proposed compre-
improved. The quantitative correlation between RMR14 and GSI is as- hensive correlation given in Table 5 are also shown the best perfor-
sessed and expressed as Eq. (26), which the effect of ground water is not mances. Taking into consideration of intact rock strengths, the com-
considered. prehensive quantitative correlation can consider more geological
information of rock masses and is thus more accurate. Only one

80
Q. Zhang et al.
additional index as uniaxial compressive strength is involved, which is
very easy to be determined.
6. Conclusions
This study describes the correlation between Rock Mass Rating
(RMR) and Geological Strength Index (GSI) based on the latest im-
proved RMR, known as RMR14. Quantitative assessments of the corre-
lations are conducted systematically based on the studies on the cor-
relations of basic classified indices of RMR and GSI. Several conclusions
from the presented study can be drawn as follows,
(1) By collected 260 groups of field investigating results directly from
the tunnel excavation faces of six new construction tunnels, the
quantitative correlations of the basic classified indices such as the
rock mass integrity condition and the surface condition of dis-
continuities are assessed between RMR14 and GSI respectively.
(2) Monte Carlo simulation method is applied to generate sufficient
samples of SR and SCR according to the statistical characteristics of
the collected 260 groups of field investigating results. Based on
structural conditions of rock mass, a simplified quantitative corre-
lation (RMR 89 = 0.827GSI + 15.394 ) between RMR and GSI is pro-
posed statistically.
(3) An expression merely related to the uniaxial compressive strength is
derived to reflect the basic classified indices for the strength and
alterability of intact rock. A comprehensive quantitative correlation
combining the intact rock properties is improved by involving an
additional index as uniaxial compressive strength, which is very
easy to be determined.
(4) The two proposed quantitative correlations between RMR and GSI
are applied to evaluate 36 sites of the surrounding rock mass of
Suocaopo Tunnel in Guizhou Province, China. The validated results
show that the proposed simplified quantitative correlation shows a
rather good performance to reflect the correlation of RMR and GSI.
Moreover, the comprehensive quantitative correlation is more ac-
curate because that the intact rock properties are considered.
(5) The two proposed quantitative correlations are suggested to apply
for the rock mass with blocked, very blocked, or disturbed
(20 < GSI < 80), owing to that the quantitative correlations of
the basic classified indices are assessed based on the geological
characteristic of 260 groups of rock mass. For the intact rock or
disintegrated rock mass, the correlation of RMR and GSI need to be
studied in the future.
Acknowledgement
This study is supported partially by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 41602300), Natural Science
Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20150618), Open Research
Foundation of the State Key Laboratory for GeoMechanics and Deep
Underground Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology
(SKLGDUEK1503), and the Priority Academic Program Development of
Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (CE01-3-7).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.09.015.
References
Ali, W., Mohammad, N., Tahir, M., 2014. Rock mass characterization for diversion tunnels at
Diamer Basha dam, Pakistan – a design perspective. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. 3 (10),
1292–1296.
ASTM, 1990. Standard test method for slake durability of shales and similar weak rocks
(D4644). In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards. ASTM, Philadelphia, pp. 863–865.
Barton, N., 1978. Suggested methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock
81
View publication stats
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 83 (2019) 73–81
masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 15, 319–368.
Barton, N., Lien, R., Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of
tunnel support. Rock Mech. 6 (4), 189–236.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1973. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Civil Eng. South Africa
15, 335–343.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A Complete Manual for
Engineers and Geologists in Mining, Civil and Petroleum Engineering. John Wiley and
Sons, New York.
Cai, M., 2011. Rock mass characterization and rock property variability considerations for
tunnel and cavern design. Rock Mec. Rock Eng. 44 (4), 379–399.
Cai, M., Kaiser, P.K., Uno, H., Tasaka, Y., Minami, M., 2004. Estimation of rock mass de-
formation modulus and strength of jointed hard rock masses using the GSI system. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (1), 3–19.
Celada, B., Tardáguila, I., Varona, P., Rodríguez, A., Bieniawski, Z.T., 2014. Innovating tunnel
design by an improved experience-based RMR system. World Tunnel Congress.
Proceedings, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, pp. 1–9.
Chen, J., Zhu, H., Li, X., 2016. Automatic extraction of discontinuity orientation from rock mass
surface 3D point cloud. Comput. Geosci. 95, 18–31.
Coşar, S., 2004. Application of Rock Mass Classification Systems for Future Support Design of
the Dim Tunnel Near Alanya. PhD thesis. Middle East Technical University, Turkey.
Franklin, J.A., Chandra, R., 1972. The slake-durability test. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. Abstr. 9 (3), 325–328.
Geocontrol, S.A., 2012. Actualización del Índice Rock Mass Rating (RMR) para mejorar sus
prestaciones en la caracterización del terreno. Centro para el Desarrollo Técnico Industrial
(CDTI). Proyecto: IDI- 20120658. Madrid, España.
Hoek, E., 1994. Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News J. 2 (2), 4–16.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 34, 1165–1186.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1988. The Hoek-Brown failure criterion-a 1988 update. J. Heuristics 16
(2), 167–188.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., Bawden, W.F., 1995. Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock.
Balkema, Canberra.
Idris, M.A., Basarir, H., Nordlund, E., Wettainen, T., 2015. The probabilistic estimation of rock
masses properties in Malmberget Mine, Sweden. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 18 (B),
269–287.
Irvani, I., Wilopo, W., Karnawati, D., 2013. Determination of nuclear power plant site in west
bangka based on rock mass rating and geological strength index. J. Se. Asian Appl. Geol. 5
(2), 78–86.
ISRM, 1979. Suggested methods for determining water content, porosity, density, absorption
and related properties and swelling and slake-durability index properties: Part 2: Suggested
methods for determining swelling and slake-durability index properties. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 16 (2), 151–156.
Koncagül, E.C., Santi, P.M., 1999. Predicting the unconfined compressive strength of the
Breathitt shale using slake durability, Shore hardness and rock structural properties. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36 (2), 139–153.
Li, X., Chen, J., Zhu, H., 2016. A new method for automated discontinuity trace mapping on
rock mass 3D surface model. Comput. Geosci. 89, 118–131.
Marinos, P., Hoek, E., 2000. GSI: a geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation.
In: Proceedings of the GeoEng2000 at the International Conference on Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, Melbourne. Technomic publishers, Lancaster, pp. 1422–1446.
National Standards Compilation Group of People’s Republic of China, 2014. TB 10121–2007
Technical Code for Monitoring Measurement of Railway Tunnel. China Planning Press,
Beijing.
Osgoui, R., Ünal, E., 2005. Rock reinforcement design for unstable tunnels originally excavated
in very poor rock mass. Underground Space Use. In: Analysis of the Past and Lessons for the
Future, Two Volume Set: Proceedings of the International World Tunnel Congress and the
31st ITA General Assembly, Istanbul, Turkey, 7-12 May 2005. CRC Press, pp. 291–296.
Palmstrøm, A., 1996. Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in practical rock en-
gineering: part 1: the development of the rock mass index (RMi). Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 11 (2), 175–188.
Palmstrom, A., 2005. Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock quality
designation (RQD). Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 20 (4), 362–377.
Priest, S.D., Hudson, J.A., 1976. Discontinuity spacings in rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci.Geomech. Abstr. 13 (5), 135–148.
Sari, M., Karpuz, C., Ayday, C., 2010. Estimating rock mass properties using Monte Carlo si-
mulation: Ankara andesites. Comput. Geosci. 36 (7), 959–969.
Singh, B., Goel, R.K., 2011. Engineering Rock Mass Classification, Tunneling, Foundations, and
Landslides. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Singh, J.L., Tamrakar, N.K., 2013. Rock mass rating and geological strength index of rock
masses of Thopal-Malekhu river areas, central Nepal lesser Himalaya. Bull. Dept. Geol. 16,
29–42.
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 (6), 743–760.
Sonmez, H., Ulusay, R., 2002. A discussion on the Hoek-Brown failure criterion and suggested
modifications to the criterion verified by slope stability case studies. Yerbilimleri 26,
77–99.
Tzamos, S., Sofianos, A.I., 2006. Extending the Q system's prediction of support in tunnels
employing fuzzy logic and extra parameters. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43 (6), 938–949.
Tzamos, S., Sofianos, A.I., 2007. A correlation of four rock mass classification systems through
their fabric indices. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 44 (4), 477–495.
Yagiz, S., 2011. Correlation between slake durability and rock properties for some carbonate
rocks. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 70 (3), 377–383.
Yagiz, S., Sezer, E.A., Gokceoglu, C., 2012. Artificial neural networks and nonlinear regression
techniques to assess the influence of slake durability cycles on the prediction of uniaxial
compressive strength and modulus of elasticity for carbonate rocks. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Method Geomech. 36 (14), 1636–1650.
Zhu, H., Wu, W., Chen, J., Ma, G., Liu, X., Zhuang, X., 2016. Integration of three dimensional
discontinuous deformation analysis (DDA) with binocular photogrammetry for stability
analysis of tunnels in blocky rockmass. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 51, 30–40.