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

net/publication/307478803

Determining the Geological Strength Index (GSI) using different methods

Conference Paper · August 2016

DOI: 10.1201/9781315388502-183

CITATIONS READS

13 17,706

4 authors:

Balazs Vasarhelyi Gabor Somodi

Budapest University of Technology and Economics 16 PUBLICATIONS   90 CITATIONS   
149 PUBLICATIONS   1,596 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Krupa Ágnes László Kovács

7 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS   
Komero Ltd. (RockStudy Ltd.)
38 PUBLICATIONS   167 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Investigation of slope stability in Miskolc View project

rock mechanics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Balazs Vasarhelyi on 21 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Determining the Geological Strength Index (GSI) using different
methods
B. Vásárhelyi
Dept. Eng. Geol. & Geotech., Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Somodi, Á. Krupa, L. Kovács
RockStudy Ltd, Pécs, Hungary

ABSTRACT: During the design process in rock engineering Hoek-Brown failure envelope is used for the de-
termination of rock mass failure envelope mainly in brittle rocks. An important input parameter of the Hoek-
Brown failure envelope is the Geological Strength Index (GSI), which varies between 0 and 100, and concen-
trates on the description of rock structure and block surface conditions. There are several methods which de-
fine GSI but a general international standard has not been specified yet. Our aim is to analyze different meth-
ods of GSI determination on the basis of observations during the construction phase of the Bátaapáti
radioactive waste repository. Examinations of the values determined on-site gave significantly different re-
sults. Different correlations were determined between the calculated GSI values.

1 INTRODUCTION and/or variability reflected by most rock masses en-

The Geological Strength Index (GSI) represents to-
day the most widely used engineering index for the
categorization of rock mass quality for obtaining in-
put data into the continuum numerical analysis codes
and closed form solutions based on the Hoek–Brown
failure criterion (e.g. Marinos & Hoek 2000;
Marinos et al. 2007). The exact determination of this
value is very important for the exact calculation of
the failure envelope or the deformation moduli of
the rock mass.
Ván & Vásárhelyi (2014) determined the sensitiv-
ity of the GSI based on mechanical properties, such
as the Hoek-Brown equation (failure envelope of the
rock mass) and the Hoek-Diederichs equation (de-
formation moduli of the rock mass). It was shown
that sophisticated empirical equations can be highly
sensitive to the uncertainties in the GSI values –
even if the error of the GSI is only 5 %, the relative
sensitivity can reach 100 %!
Recently, Morelli (2015) analyzed the different
calculation methods of GSI. Using Monte-Carlo
simulations, his simulation results indicate that the
diverse relationships may predict dissimilar values
of the GSI for the same rock mass. He obtained the
highest GSI value from the equations which apply
the conventional RMR1989 values, and the lowest re-
sults were obtained by using the RMi method for
GSI calculation.
Similar results were found and published by Sari
(2015). Using probability based analysis is per-
formed in his study to account for the uncertainty
countered in large construction projects. He ana-
lyzed three different empirical methods. He found
that different suggested equations generated com-
pletely different values of GSI. It was also found that
the most influential parameters depended on the
equations used in the estimation of rock mass
strength.
Bertuzzi et al. (2016) determined the GSI values
of four different rock masses (namely: Hawkesbury
Sandstone and Ashfield Shale of Sydney; the Green-
land Group greywacke and argillite of South Island,
New Zealand; and the Otago Schist of South Island,
New Zealand). Their calculations based on the sug-
gestion of Hoek et al. (2013): quantifying the Geo-
logical Strength Index (GSI) with the Rock Quality
Designation (RQD) and with the joint condition rat-
ing (JCond89) of the Rock Mass Rating system (RMR).
According to their results, the two methods produce
data points that are generally within ±10 of each
other. The exceptions are rock masses that may not
be captured well by RQD. They recommended that
the quantified GSI approach be used to supplement
and check the visually assessed chart GSI. They also
suggested different GSI values that may be needed
to cater for different numerical methods.
The goal of this paper is to compare the different
GSI calculation systems by using the data measured
in the radioactive waste repository, constructed in
Bátaapáti (Hungary). Up to now, more than 6 km
long tunnel system was constructed and all the tun-
nel faces were documented (Deák et al. 2014,
Kovács et al. 2015). The geographical position of
the research area is shown in Figure 1. Figure
Fig 2 pre-
sents the schematic
hematic view of the tunnel system.
Figure 1. Geographical position of the research area
Figure 2. Schematic view of the National Radioactive Waste
Repository (NRWR) at Bátaapáti, Hungary and tunnels re-
viewed in this paper (A: Access tunnels, B: Research
R tunnel 3,
C: Fault zone, D: Repository chambers).
2 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
CHNICAL
CONDITIONS
The repository was constructed in an intruded and
displaced Paleozoic granite batholith body. The
Mecsekalja Belt, which is an extended tectonic zone
with very complex geological and geotechnical
background, is located near this area.. The granite is
cut through by trachyandesite
trachyandesit dykes with NE-SW
strike but more frequently by randomly distributed
aplitic veins. At shallow depths the tunnels crossed a
completely altered,, weathered rock mass. Towards
greater depths fractured but fresh granite is the
common rock which is sparsely intersected by a few
meter thick fault zones.. Carbonate, chlorite, hema-
tite, limonite are the most typical fracture fillings
minerals. Near the fault zones,
zones high transmissivity
damage zones occur but their fault cores are charac-
terized
ized by intense clay mineralization that indicates a
low-grade hydrothermal alteration and has very low
transmissivity.
In the
he construction plan of the tunnel systems the
behavior of the rock masses was specified by using
the GSI system and it made very important to classi-
class
fy correct GSI data in this project (Kovács et al.,
2015). During the construction of access tunnels
tunnel and
the NRWR for all tunnel faces GSI, RMR and Q val-
ues were determined (Deák et al., 2014, Kovács et
al., 2015). Plan used 5 different
differ rock mass classes
(Class I…V). Examples of the different
dif types of
rock masses are presented in Figures
Fig 3a-3d.
Figure 3a. Tunnel face in class II rock mass
(RMR = 73; Q = 2.621)
Figure 3b. Tunnel face in class III rock mass
(RMR = 58; Q = 0.451)

Figure 3c. Tunnel face in class IV rock mass
(RMR = 37; Q = 0.054)
Figure 3d. Tunnel face in class V rock mass
(RMR = 14; Q = 0.010)
From geotechnical aspect, four main rock types
can be distinguished in the granite formation:
monzogranite, monzonite, hybrid rocks and igneous
veins. The four repository chambers were construct-
ed in a rock mass which is mainly composed of
monzogranite with aplitic veins and scarce
monzonite enclaves (Figs. 3 a., 3b.).
The “safety case” (a determination of whether or
not the proposed facility is able to safely perform its
function in time and space) of a potential deep geo-
logical repository for radioactive waste requires a
sound understanding of both groundwater hydroge-
ology and potential radionuclide transport through
the rock mass (IAEA, 2003). After the main under-
ground research programs, the concept of two dis-
tinct hydraulic domains within individual hydraulic
compartments was introduced at Bátaapáti. Based on
field observations, Molnár et al. (2010) distin-
guished the so-called more transmissive zones and
the less transmissive blocks. The repository for low-
and medium level nuclear waste disposal is placed in
a less transmissive hydraulic compartment. Since the
boundaries between the blocks are fault zones with
clay gauges, it was important to study this natural
barrier to detail. The goal of driving Research tunnel
3 was to demonstrate the cut-through situation and
the final close packing of an important boundary
fault zone.
3 DETERMINATION OF GSI VALUES
In the first approaches to define rock mass geologi-
cal conditions, Bieniawski’s RMR1989 was applied in
the HB failure criteria equation (Bieniawski, 1989),
which has been described as (Hoek et al., 1995):
GSI1 = RMR1989 – 5 =
= R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 + R5(=15) – 5 (1)
where the parameters and their values depend on
different conditions. R1 – Uniaxial Compressive
Strength (0-15), R2 – RQD (3-20), R3 – average joint
space (5-20), R4 – joint wall conditions (0-30) and
R5 – water. In the original definition R5 must be de-
fined as dry (ie. 15). The RMR1989 index theoretical-
ly range from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 100
- consistent with the GSI scale.
Meanwhile it was also necessary to establish the
connection between RMR and GSI. On the basis of
several studies, Hoek et al. (2013) suggested the fol-
lowing simple formula for GSI calculation:
GSI2 = 1.5 R4 + 0.5 RQD (2)
The widespread use of Barton’s Q system re-
quired the specification of a Q-based method of GSI
determination. In this approach, Jn (joint set num-
ber), Jr (joint roughness number) and Ja (joint altera-
tion number) coefficients are used (Barton, 1995):
 RQD Jr 
GSI3 = 15log   + 50 (3)
 Jn Ja 
According to Hoek et al. (1995), this equation
should be used in following form:
 RQD Jr 
GSI4 = 9ln   + 44 (4)
 Jn Ja 
Later Hoek et al. (2013) further developed the
equation (3), and suggested the following solution,
applying the constants of the Q system:
52 Jr / Ja
GSI5 = + 0,5RQD (5)
(1 + Jr / Ja)
Not only Hoek and his co-author attempted to
provide a more and more precise solution for the de-
termination of GSI. One of the most exact methods
was suggested by Cai & Kaiser (2006). They used
Palmström’s theory (1995) where Jc is the coeffi-
cient of joint conditions, Jp is the volumetric joint
count and Vb represents the block volume. In the
view of these coefficients:
 26,5 + 8,79 ln Jc + 0,9 ln Vb similar, the seven different specification methods
GSI6 = (6) provide a very wide range of plots.
1 + 0,0151ln Jc − 0,0253ln Vb
The mean value of GSI with the mini-
On the basis of these considerations, Russo mum/maximum and range values of this tunnel sec-
(2009) suggested equation (7): tion is presented in Figure 5. The ranges of the dif-
ferent GSI systems are between 15 and 38, the
165
GSI7 = 153 − (7) average range value is 27. It is 20 in the most critical
  Jp  0, 44  zone, thus the calculated GSI values are between 0-
1 +    20 in the fault zone. Surprisingly, the real field map-
  0,19   ping values follow the average values. This must be
the result of using three different determination
methods.
4 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE
DIFFERENT METHODS

In this paper, two short tunnel sections are analyzed.

Besides RMR, Q and GSI values were documented
by measuring the different rock mass characteristics.
GSI determination followed equations (2) and (5)
considering field observations also and GSI chart
published by Hoek et al. (2013) was used for plot-
ting the results. The GSI chart and the calculations
of Cai et al. (2006) were applied for the verification
of the results in the field in a MS Excel worksheet.
These 82 independent results represent well the vari-
ation of the Mórágy Granite Formation. After field
mapping, GSI values were recalculated from face Figure 5. Mean GSI values with the minimum/maximum val-
ues of Research tunnel 3.
mapping database according to Eqs. (1)…(7).
According to the calculation it is quite clear that
The calculated minimum and maximum values
GSI has strong connection to other rock mass classi-
are presented in Figure 6. As it is observable, in the
fication systems.
case of weaker rock mass, the difference increases
• determinations based on RMR system:
and the correlation is not close to the origin.
Eqs. (1) and (2)
• determinations based on Q values:
Eqs. (3), (4) and (5).
• determinations based on RMi method:
Eqs. (6) and (7).
Figure 4. shows the variation of GSI values along
the tunnel length.

Figure 6. Calculated maximum GSI values in the function of

the calculated minimum GSI values.

It is concluded that there is a significant variance

between the different methods. Usually, the smallest
figures were obtained by using Eq. (7) (theory of
Russo, 2009), while the highest values were ob-
Figure 4. Calculated GSI values along the longitudinal section tained from Eqs. (1) and (4). In many cases, the dif-
of Research tunnel 3.
ference between these two values was above 100 %.
Rock types were also presented and they also
have some correlation with GSI values. GSI of the
fault zone was also defined. Although the trends are
4.1 RMR based GSI
First, the RMR-based
based calculations were compared
(Eqs. 1 and 2). According to Figure 7., the difference
between the two calculation methodss is not signifi-
cant if GSI > 60. By decreasinging the GSI value, the
difference increases. It can be seen that by using the
newest method (Eq. 2), we can get higher GSI values
than those obtained by applying the older one (Eq.
1). The differences between the two values are gen-
erally within ±10 of each other,, similarly to the re-
r within ±10 of each other in the investigated GSI re-
sults of Bertuzzi et al. (2016). A regression was
found between these two calculation methods:
method
GSI1 = 1.241 GSI2 + 20.435
values (the differences are less, than 10, if GSI4 >30;
and less than 15, if GSI4 > 10):
∆ = -0.2762 GSI3 + 18.152 (10)
where ∆ = GSI4 – GSI3
Comparing the GSI3 and GSI5 values an exponen-
tial relationship was determined (Figure 9). The dif-
ferences between the two calculation methods are
gion. Exponential relationship is found between the
method of Barton (1995) – Eq.3, GSI3 – and the
method of Hoek et al. (2013) – Eq.5, GSI5.
(8)
GSI5 = 5.127e 0.0434 GSI3 (11)

Figure 7. Comparison of the two RMR-based

based GSI values
Figure 9. Relationship between GSI3 and GSI5.

4.2 Q based GSI

4.3 RMi based GSI
Up to now, 3 equations were developedped based on the
main parameters of the Q values (Eqs. 4-6).
4 There are two calculation methods
method based on RMi pa-
Eqs. (3) and (4) are used the similar correlation, rameters (Eqs. 6 and 7). The calculated GSI values
ie. there is linear connection between the two calcu-
calc are different but power relationship was found be-
b
lation systems (Figure 8): tween GSI6 and GSI7. This relationship was plotted
in Figure 10.
GSI3 = 0.724 GSI4 + 18.152 (9)
GSI6 = 0.0141 GSI72 + 0.328 GSI7 – 3.456 (12)

Figure 8. Comparing the calculations according to Eqs.

Eq (3) and
(4). Figure 10. Comparison of the GSI values calculated with RMi
parameters
It means that the differences
fferences between the two
calculations are incerasing
rasing with decreasing
decre GSI We get the same results around 50 GSI values.
Under 50, GSI6 values (equation of Cai & Kaiser,
2006) are always lower than using GSI7 (equation of
Russo, 2009), but the theoretical differences are usu-
ally under 10.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Due to the significant differences, it became neces-
sary to determine the calculation that can be accept-
ed, and also the one that does not give valuable re-
sults in the case of this project. We used three
different GSI determination methods and obtained
acceptable bias from mean GSI values of seven dif-
ferent determination methods. It appears to be a
proper method of GSI calculation in the field.
The GSI correlation in similar classification sys-
tem could be strict, but it can also give very different
results, therefore GSI calculations should be treated
very carefully.
According to these results it can be determined,
that the best way of estimating the Geological
Strength Index (GSI) is by visual observation by an
experienced engineering geologist, not by any of the
calculation methods that are analyzed in this paper.
We assume that there is no exact method for the cal-
culation and it is necessary to develop independent
systems for all projects.
Deák et al. (2014) analyzed a large number of
RMR, Q and GSI values from the tunnel faces of
Bátaapáti. According to their results, it is necessary
to create location-specific correlations from one’s
own database to avoid mistakes during design calcu-
lations. Our results confirm this.
These results underline the importance of the ex-
act determination of the GSI value. It is highly im-
portant for special tunnel systems, such as the radio-
active waste repository (Kovács & Vásárhelyi,
2015).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper has been published with the permission
of Public Limited Company for Radioactive Waste
Management (PURAM). We would like to thank all
our colleagues in RockStudy Ltd for their help.
REFERENCES
Barton, N. 1995. The influence of joint properties in
modelling jointed rock masses. Keynote Lecture, 8.
ISRM Congress, 3: 1023–1032.
Bertuzzi, R.; Douglas, K. & Mostyn, G. 2016. Compari-
son of quantified and chart GSI for four rock masses.
Engng. Geol. 202: 24-35.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering rock mass classifica-
tion. Wiley, New York
View publication stats
Cai, M. & Kaiser, P.K. 2006. Visualization of rock mass
classification systems. Geotech. Geol. Eng.
24(4):1089–1102.
Deák, F.; Kovács, L. & Vásárhelyi B. 2014. Geotechnical
rock mass documentation in the Bátaapáti radioactive
waste repository. Centr. Eur. Geol. 57(2): 197-211.
Hoek, E. & Brown E.T. 1980. Underground excavations
in rock. London, Inst. Min. Metall.
Hoek, E.; Carter T.G. & Diederichs M.S. 2013: Quantifi-
cation of the Geological Strength Index Chart. 47th US
Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symp.
Hoek, E.; Kaiser, P.K. & Bawden, W.F. 1995: Support
underground excavations in hard rock. Balkema.
International Atomic Energy Agency (2003). Scientific
and Technical Basis for the Geological Disposal of
Radioactive Wastes. IAEA Technical Report Series
Number 413. Vienna
Kovács L.; Mészáros, E. & Somodi, G. 2015. Rock Me-
chanical and Geotechnical Characterization of a Gra-
nitic Formation Hosting the Hungarian National Radi-
oactive Waste Repository at Bátaapáti In: Procs. Eng.
Geol. for Soc. Territory – 6. 915-918.
Kovács, L. & Vásárhelyi B. 2015. Special Requirements
for Geotechnical Characterization of Host Rocks and
Designing of a Radioactive Waste Repository. In:
Procs. Eng. Geol. for Soc. Territory – 6. 909-912.
Marinos, P. & Hoek, E, 2000. GSI—a geologically
friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. In:
Procs. GeoEng2000 conference, Melbourne, Austral-
ia.
Molnár, P.; Szebényi, G. & Kovács, L., 2010. Előzetes
földtani értékelés az MTD 2. módosításához. (Prelim-
inary geological interpretation of the Bátaapáti site).
Manuscript, PURAM, Paks, RHK-K-108/10 [in Hun-
garian].
Morelli, G.L. 2015. Variability of the GSI Index Estimat-
ed From Different Quantitative Methods. Geotech.
Geol. Eng. 33(4): 983-995.
Palmström, A. 1995. RMi – a rock mass characterization
system for rock engineering purposes. PhD thesis,
Univ. Oslo, Norway, 400. (www.rockmass.net)
Russo, G. 2009. A new rational method for calculating
the GSI. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol., 24: 103-111.
Sari, M. 2015. Incorporating variability and/or uncer-
tainty of rock mass properties into GSI and RMi sys-
tems using Monte Carlo method. In: Procs. Engng.
Geol. for Soc. Territory – 6. 843-849.
Ván P. & Vásárhelyi B. 2014. Sensitivity analysis of GSI
based mechanical parameters of the rock mass.
Periodica Polytechnica – Ser. Civil Eng. 58(4): 379-
386