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

net/publication/257564309

Rock Mass Classification and Slope Stability Assessment of Road Cut Slopes in
Garhwal Himalaya, India

Article  in  Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · August 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s10706-012-9501-x

CITATIONS READS

15 4,090

3 authors, including:

Shantanu Sarkar D. P. Kanungo

CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, India Central Building Research Institute
97 PUBLICATIONS   1,416 CITATIONS    134 PUBLICATIONS   1,406 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

International Roundtable on The Impacts of Extreme Natural Events: Science and Technology for Mitigation (IRENE2017) View project

ENGINEERING OF DISASTER MITIGATION AND HEALTH MONITORING FOR SAFE AND SMART BUILT ENVIRONMENT - A NETWORK PROJECT Under CSIR-12TH FIVE YEAR
PLAN View project

All content following this page was uploaded by D. P. Kanungo on 26 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotech Geol Eng
DOI 10.1007/s10706-012-9501-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
Rock Mass Classification and Slope Stability Assessment
of Road Cut Slopes in Garhwal Himalaya, India
S. Sarkar • D. P. Kanungo • Sandeep Kumar
Received: 26 October 2010 / Accepted: 24 February 2012
 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract There are many rock mass classification
schemes which are frequently used for different
purposes such as estimation of strength and deforma-
bility of rock masses, stability assessment of rock slopes,
tunneling and underground mining operations etc. The
rock mass classification includes some inputs obtained
from intact rock and discontinuity properties which have
major influence on assessment of engineering behaviour
of rock mass. In the present study, detail measurements
were employed on road cuts slope faces in Garhwal
Himalayas to collect required data to be used for rock
mass classification of Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and
Geological Strength Index (GSI). The stability assess-
ment of rock slopes were also done by using Slope Mass
Rating. In addition the relation between RMR and GSI
were also evaluated using 50 data pairs.
Keywords Rock mass rating  Geological strength
index  Slope mass rating  Slope stability  Himalaya
1 Introduction
There are various field based rock mass classification
systems proposed in literature. The properties of
S. Sarkar (&)  D. P. Kanungo  S. Kumar
CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, India
e-mail: shantanu_cbri@yahoo.co.in
D. P. Kanungo
e-mail: debi.kanungo@gmail.com
discontinuities considered as main input parameters
in most of the classification schemes. The CSIR
classification system (RMR, Bieniawski 1974) and
the NGI index (Q system, Barton et al. 1974) have been
used as popular classification systems since they were
proposed. Although some modifications were proposed
to improve applicability of two classification systems,
the latest forms of RMR and Q proposed by Bieniawski
(1989) and Barton (2002) respectively. The ratings of
both RMR and Q were also used as numerical input to
estimation of strength and deformability of rock masses
based on some empirical equations (Hoek and Brown
1980; Hoek et al. 2002; Barton 2002; Sonmez et al.
2006). Slope Mass Rating (SMR) technique developed
by Romana (1985) based on RMR system to assess the
slope stability of rock slopes. This system can be used
as preliminary assessment to distinguish stability of
rock slopes into similar zones. Later, to overcome some
difficulties encountered about the classification of weak
rock masses, Hoek and Brown (1997) proposed
Geological Strength Index (GSI) as practical tool to
be used in Hoek and Brown failure criterion. Some
measurable joint parameters were induced to the
original GSI chart by Sonmez and Ulusay (1999 and
2002) and Cai et al. (2004).
Roads in hilly terrain are often excavated without
prior knowledge on the rock mass strength and slope
stability. A rapid assessment of rock mass properties
and slope stability of road cut slopes in Garhwal
Himalayas, India were studied in the present study.
For this aim Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Geological
123

Strength Index (GSI) of road cut slopes were deter-
mined to evaluate the rock mass which may be useful
for slope stability assessment of road cut slopes in
Himalayas. RMR and GSI values of rock masses in
which 50 road cut slopes excavated were determined
based on field studies. Slope Mass Rating (SMR)
technique was also applied to classify slopes based on
failure potential.
2 Rock Mass Classification of Road Cuts
As mentioned above RMR, GSI and SMR systems
were used in this study. Therefore, a brief description
of them is given below.
The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system was devel-
oped by Bieniawski (1973) and has been modified
over the years (Bieniawski 1979, 1989). RMR has a
wide application in different rock engineering fields
such as mining, hydro power projects, tunneling and
hill slope stability. The RMR include five input
parameters to obtain basic RMR value (RMRbasic).
1. Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of rock
mass
2. Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
3. Spacing of discontinuities
4. Condition of discontinuities
5. Groundwater condition
The ratings for these five parameters are summed to
yield the RMRbasic ranging between 0 and 100. The
rating tables for these five parameters and the rock
mass classes are given by Bieniawski (1989).
To overcome difficulties encountered during the
classification of weak rock masses, Hoek and Brown
(1997) proposed a rock mass classification called
Geological Strength Index (GSI) which is an engi-
neering geological evaluation of the rock mass. GSI
allows the influence of variables, which make up a
rock mass, to be assessed and hence the behaviour of
rock masses to be explained more clearly (Marinos
et al. 2005). The GSI is essentially based on the
blockiness of the rock mass and the conditions of
discontinuities, and is simple to apply in the field. A
chart was proposed by Hoek and Brown (1997) which
classifies the rock mass structure into four classes and
depending upon the surface condition a range of GSI
can be obtained for a given rock mass exposed on a
slope. Hence the GSI chart represents a range of values
123
Geotech Geol Eng
for each rock mass class. Since 1997 GSI has been
continuously modified over the years. Hoek et al.
(1998) introduced a new rock mass category into the
GSI System called foliated/laminated rock mass
structure. Hoek (1999a) included a rock mass structure
to the GSI system to deal with intact or massive rock.
Later Marinos and Hoek (2000) slightly changed the
uppermost part of the GSI chart and classified the rock
mass structure into six classes.
Sonmez and Ulusay (2002) provided a quantitative
numerical basis to estimate more precise values of
GSI. This modified quantitative rock mass classifica-
tion is based on the structure rating (SR) and surface
condition rating (SCR). SR is based on volumetric
joint count (Jv) and SCR is based on roughness,
weathering and infilling in joints. The relationship of
Jv and SR is given in the chart which can be used to
assign a rating for SR. The modified chart represents
five rock mass categories ranging between 5 and 100
(Fig. 1).
Cai et al. (2004) also suggested a quantitative
measure for the GSI system based on the concept of
block size which considers a prismatic block resulted
from three discontinuity sets and surface conditions.
This GSI chart has a limitation in the estimation of
block volume with different geometries and the
approach is not consistent with the last rock mass
groups of the GSI chart. On the contrary volumetric
joint count (Jv), considered in the modified GSI chart
of Sonmez and Ulusay (2002) considers both block
size and roundness of the block, and is a more suitable
parameter to define the rock mass structure (Sonmez
et al. 2004). In the present study GSI for rock slopes
were obtained using the chart proposed by Marinos
and Hoek (2000) which gives a GSI range and the
modified quantitative approach proposed by Sonmez
and Ulusay (2002) which gives a precise value.
Romana (1985) developed the Slope Mass Rating
technique for stability assessment of the rock slopes
which is primarily based on the application of
RMRbasic and the orientation of discontinuities. This
technique is suitable for preliminary assessment of
slope stability in the rocks, including the very soft or
heavily jointed rock masses. In this SMR approach
adjustment rating for joints depending on the orien-
tation of joints in relation to the slope has been
introduced by Romana (1985). Later it was slightly
modified by Anbalagan et al. (1992) to incorporate
wedge failure along with plane and topple failures.
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 1 The modified quantitative GSI System (Sonmez and Ulusay 2002)

The adjustment rating for joints is the product of the
three following factors:
• F1 is a measure of parallelism between the slope
face and the joint plane or the line of intersection
between two joint planes
• F2 depends on the dip of the joint plane or the
plunge of the line of intersection between two joint
planes
• F3 depends on the relation between the dip of the
slope face and dip of the joint plane or plunge of
the line of intersection of two joint planes

123

The ratings (F4) assigned to the excavation methods
range from ?15 (natural slope) to -8 (deficient
blasting). The adjustment ratings for joint orientations
and method of excavations are given in the paper by
Romana (1985). SMR can be obtained from the
RMRbasic as follows:
SMR ¼ RMRbasic þ ðF1  F2  F3 Þ þ F4 ð1Þ
where, F1, F2, F3—adjustment ratings for joints and
F4—adjustment rating for excavation method.
The SMR values range from 0 to 100. This range
has been classified into five different stability classes
(Table 1).
3 Field Studies
Field data were collected from 50 road cut slopes
along Rishikesh–Chamoli road (NH-58) of Garhwal
Himalaya. The rock slopes were selected in such a
manner that they represent varied geological and slope
stability conditions. The data includes slope angle,
rock type, joint orientation, joint set number, joint
spacing, joint condition, joint roughness, joint alter-
ation, rock mass structure and hydrological condition.
These data were collected to determine RMRbasic, GSI
and SMR of these slopes.
The selected slopes present a variety of rock types
having various degrees of weathering and joint
conditions. The rock types encountered in these slopes
are sand stone, greywacke, shale, limestone, slate,
quartzite, schist and gneiss. The parameters of
discontinuities of the studied slopes varied consider-
ably. The compressive strength of rock mass showed a
large variation for different rock types. Joint spacing
and openings also show a wide range of values. The
presence or absence of filling was noted along with
type of filling. Number of joints per cubic meter was
Table 1 Description of SMR classes (Romana 1985)
Class no V IV
SMR 0–20 21–40
Description Very bad Bad
Stability Completely unstable Unstable
Failures Big planar or soil like Planar or big wedges
123
Geotech Geol Eng
determined to estimate the RQD following Palmstrom
(2005) equation, in which RQD is estimated from the
number of joints per unit volume.
RQD ¼ 110  2:5 Jv ;
where Jv is the total number of joints per m3.
The hydrological conditions of the slopes were also
observed. Most of the cases it was dry. Along with
these data, attitude of discontinuities and slope angles
were also measured.
To determine GSI, structure of rock mass and
surface condition of the discontinuities was studied in
detail in the field. The rock mass were classified into
five classes i.e., massive, blocky, very blocky, blocky
disturbed and disintegrated. The two extreme classes
were less in numbers as compared to other classes. For
surface condition rating, weathering, roughness and
infilling material data were collected. Surface rough-
ness data has shown a wide range from very rough to
slickensided. Weathering varied from low to decom-
posed. Field photographs of few of the slopes are
shown in the Figs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
4 Evaluation of Data
The joint data for all the five parameters such as
compressive strength, RQD, joint spacing, joint con-
dition and hydrological condition were evaluated for
all the fifty slopes to determine RMRbasic. Hydrolog-
ical condition was considered to be drained so that
the results can be compared with the GSI values. The
ratings for these parameters were assigned from the
Bieniawaski (1989) rating. RMRbasic for all the slopes
were determined by adding all the ratings. The values
of RMR obtained range from 23 to 87.
GSI for these slopes were determined following the
GSI chart given by Marinos and Hoek (2000) which is
III II I
41–60 61–80 81–100
Normal Good Very good
Partially stable Stable Completely stable
Some joints or many wedges Some blocks None
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 2 Massive rock mass structure (Slope 48)

Fig. 3 Blocky structure in quartzites (Slope 40)

based on structure of the rock mass and surface the bottom row. GSI ranges were obtained for all the
condition. This considers six rock mass structures, fifty slopes. To obtain a quantitative value of GSI the
which includes massive at the top row and laminated at modified quantitative approach as suggested by

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 4 Rock mass showing very blocky structure (Slope 29)

Fig. 5 Very blocky rock structure potential for wedge failure along two intersecting joint planes (Slope 46)

Sonmez and Ulusay (2002) was used. Structure rating From this structure rating (SR) and surface condition
(SR) was obtained from the volumetric joint count rating (SCR), GSI were obtained from the chart
based on the relation of SR and Jv shown in the Fig. 1. (Fig. 1). This gives a quantified GSI value. Hence for

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 6 Disturbed blocky structure in folded phyllites (Slope 34)

Fig. 7 Completely disintegrated rock mass (Slope 10)

each slope a range of GSI was initially obtained which the quantified GSI values are given in the Table 2.
was further downscaled to a particular value with the The GSI obtained for the studied slopes range from
help of modified chart. The values of range of GSI and 10 to 72.

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 2 GSI range (Hoek

Slope GSI Quantified Slope GSI Quantified
and Brown 1997) and the
reference range GSI reference range GSI
quantified GSI values
obtained from modified 1 20–35 28 26 30–45 38
approach (Sonmez and
Ulusay 2002) 2 20–35 27 27 45–65 58
3 65–85 72 28 35–55 43
4 45–65 63 29 35–55 40
5 30–45 42 30 30–45 32
6 37–55 45 31 20–35 24
7 55–75 69 32 65–85 72
8 15–30 26 33 65–85 72
9 30–45 39 34 10–25 15
10 5–20 13 35 45–65 62
11 75–95 85 36 30–45 32
12 45–65 60 37 20–35 27
13 20–35 23 38 45–65 60
14 30–45 36 39 55–75 72
15 45–65 58 40 55–75 72
16 45–65 60 41 45–65 58
17 20–35 30 42 20–35 27
18 45–65 58 43 37–55 54
19 35–55 45 44 5–20 15
20 5–20 20 45 5–20 19
21 45–65 61 46 35–55 45
22 15–30 27 47 15–30 19
23 20–35 32 48 65–85 70
24 37–55 45 49 15–30 20
25 45–65 60 50 30–45 36

After obtaining RMRbasic of the rocks exposed J1  42=N350; J2  41=N120;

on the slopes, Slope Mass Rating (SMR) technique
was applied to each slope for stability assessment.
SMR was obtained from RMRbasic and adjustment
ratings (F1, F2 and F3) for discontinuity. F1, F2
and F3 were determined from the discontinuity and
slope orientation data. Since all the slopes are road
cut slopes where rock mass has undergone pre-
liminary blasting with mechanical excavation, the
rating for method of excavation (F4) was assigned
as 0. The discontinuity orientations and slope
direction data were also plotted in stereographic
projections for stereo analysis to assess the probable
failure modes. SMR was computed considering the
joint plane(s) along which maximum probability of
failure exists. For example, in one of the slopes
(Table 3, Slope Ref. 9), there are three major
discontinuity planes. The joint and slope orientation
data are as follows:
J3  51=N225 and Slope  60=N215
Analysing the stereo plots it was observed that the
maximum chance of planar failure to occur is along
the plane J3 (Fig. 8a). Hence SMR was determined for
the joint plane J3 as follows:
aj  as ¼ 225  215 ¼ 10; F1 ¼ 0:85
bj ¼ 51; F2 ¼ 1
bj  bs ¼ 51  60 ¼ 9; F3 ¼ 50
RMR ¼ 55
Where, aS—slope strike; aj—joint strike; bs—slope
dip and bj–joint dip. Following Eq. 1,
SMR ¼ 55 þ ð0:85  1:0  50Þ ¼ 12:5
The values of F1, F2 and F3 were determined from the
rating table of adjustment factor for joint orientation

123
Geotech Geol Eng

(a)

J3
J1

J2

(b)

J1

J2

J3

Fig. 8 Stereo plots and photographs of slope potential for a planar failure and b wedge failure

given by Romana (1985). In this case SMR value of
12.5 falls in the class V of completely unstable
category. The stereo plot and field photograph in case
of a wedge failure is shown in the Fig. 8b for which
SMR was found to be 59.1.
The values of RMR and SMR are given in the
Table 3. SMR values obtained for the 50 slopes range
from 0 to 79. This is to be mentioned here that to define
the slope stability in terms of factor of safety, a
deterministic approach has to be used which needs a
detailed geotechnical investigation. In the present
study, only preliminary assessment of slope stability
has been attempted using the SMR concept.
5 Results and Discussion
Rock mass of the studied slopes were classified into
various classes based on RMR values which ranges from
23 to 87. Rock mass classification was also done by GSI.
It is observed that the specific GSI values obtained from
the quantified approach lie well within the GSI range

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 3 RMR, SMR and inferred slope stability classes of the road cuts
Slope Ref. RMR SMR Slope stability class Slope Ref. RMR SMR Slope stability class

1 37 33.4 Unstable 26 55 49 Partially stable

2 34 33.1 Unstable 27 72 54.5 Partially stable
3 77 74.6 Stable 28 61 57.4 Partially stable
4 77 69.35 Stable 29 50 59.1 Partially stable
5 58 7 Completely unstable 30 47 5 Completely unstable
6 58 7 Completely unstable 31 35 0 Completely unstable
7 82 73 Stable 32 77 77 Stable
8 35 29.9 Unstable 33 82 75.62 Stable
9 55 12.5 Completely unstable 34 25 16 Completely unstable
10 24 20.4 Completely Unstable 35 74 38.3 Unstable
11 87 87 Completely Stable 36 47 40.62 Unstable
12 74 73.1 Stable 37 35 28.7 Unstable
13 37 1 Completely unstable 38 74 50 Partially stable
14 50 50 Partially stable 39 80 71 Stable
15 70 61 Stable 40 82 77.8 Stable
16 71 29 Unstable 41 74 69.8 Stable
17 45 10 Completely unstable 42 35 35 Unstable
18 72 12 Completely unstable 43 65 62.6 Stable
19 59 9 Completely unstable 44 25 16 Completely unstable
20 27 21 Unstable 45 23 15.35 Completely Unstable
21 72 52 Partially stable 46 61 55.9 Partially stable
22 37 33.4 Unstable 47 27 27 Unstable
23 43 23 Unstable 48 77 77 Stable
24 58 58 Partially stable 49 25 25 Unstable
25 69 18 Completely unstable 50 48 21.4 Unstable

obtained using the GSI chart of Marinos and Hoek
(2000). However there is no definite trend observed when
specific GSI values were plotted with corresponding GSI
range (Fig. 9). In some cases the values are near the lower
range while in some cases the values lie at higher range.
However, 50% of the data has GSI values close to the
middle of the range. Thus it is possible to assign a precise
GSI value along with a GSI range to describe the rock
mass in terms of engineering geology. However it
depends on the objective and scope of the study.
The study has shown that the GSI values for
disintegrated rock mass ranges from 13 to 27,
however, mostly they are\25. GSI of the rock slopes
with blocky disturbed structure class ranges from 23 to
54, however majority are in between 25 to 45. For very
blocky structure GSI ranges from 43 to 63. The blocky
structure shows GSI values from 69 to 72 and for
massive structure it is more than 80. Hence it can be
stated that in general GSI for disintegrated structure
is \25, for blocky disturbed 25–45, for very blocky
45–65, for blocky 65–80 and for massive [80.
It has been already established that RMR can be
estimated from GSI and the relation between GSI and
RMR89 after Hoek and Brown (1997) is as follows
(Singh and Goel 1999):
GSI ¼ RMR89  5 for GSI [ 18
The GSI values for the 50 slopes obtained in the
present study were compared with the RMR values
and for this GSI and RMR values were plotted as
shown in the Fig. 10. From the best fit line it can be
inferred that GSI can be roughly correlated with RMR
as GSI & RMR—9. Though the GSI and RMR is
correlated here as both are systems for rock mass
classification but it is preferred not to determine GSI
from RMR or vice versa. Because GSI is only good for

123
Geotech Geol Eng

49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
Slope Reference No.

31
29
27 Quantified GSI
Quantified GSI
25
GSI range
GSI range
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
GSI

Fig. 9 The GSI range and specific GSI values obtained for the slopes

90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
GSI

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
RMR

Fig. 10 Plot of RMR and GSI

a quick assessment of rock mass condition while RMR Slope stability assessment based on SMR values
gives a better understanding of rock mass condition shows that there are 14 unstable and 12 completely
except for a highly disintegrated rock mass. unstable slopes while only 10 slopes fall in stable class

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

out of 50 slopes studied. This is because in the present
study, slopes showing indications of instability were
mostly selected. It is worth mentioning here that the
stability of the slopes may further decrease under wet
conditions as in the present study hydrological con-
dition has been considered as dry. The slopes having
SMR values below 40 i.e., in the unstable to
completely unstable class may produce landslide
under influence of external factors such as heavy
rainfall, earthquake or human intervention. The slopes
having SMR of 40–60 of the partially stable class
could be the potential sites for slope failures in future.
RMR and SMR values were plotted in the Fig. 11.
The Figure shows the trends of RMR values corre-
sponding to respective SMR values. In most of the
cases the difference of both was not very large
(average 10). However, it was observed that in some
slopes SMR is very low even if RMR is considerably

80
RMR SMR
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

85
RMR SMR
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Fig. 11 Graphical representation of RMR and SMR values of the studied slopes

123
Geotech Geol Eng
high. This shows that even if the slopes have
considerable good rock mass quality but due to
unfavourable joint orientation, they could be potential
for slide. This indicates how joint orientation governs
stability of slopes. Further, it was also found that in
general the rock slopes having GSI \25 are unstable
slopes and potential to landslide. This GSI range
reflects blocky/disturbed and disintegrated structure
with poor to very poor surface conditions of the rock
mass. Stability of such slopes is not governed by the
orientation of discontinuities. The other examples of
the slopes with GSI range 45–80 are stable slopes as
per SMR values and field observation. This GSI range
represents blocky to very blocky structure with good
to fair surface condition of the rock mass.
6 Conclusions
The present study deals with analysis of engineering
geological parameters of rock mass discontinuity of
road cut slopes in Indian Himalayas for rock mass
characterisation and slope stability assessment. Two
rock mass classification systems Rock Mass Rating
(RMR) and Geological Strength Index (GSI) were
studied in detail for rock mass characterisation.
Application of GSI, which is based on blockiness of
the rock mass and surface condition of discontinuities,
is found to be very useful to classify rock mass in the
field. This can be used to obtain a preliminary estimate
of rock mass properties based on the engineering
geological data. In common practice GSI gives a range
of values but the study has shown that it is justified to
obtain a specific GSI value using the quantified
approach suggested by Sonmez and Ulusay (2002).
The GSI values were classified into five classes
ranging from \25 to [80 for five different rock mass
structures.
RMR and GSI values obtained for 50 slopes were
compared and it is found that in Indian Himalayan
road cut slopes difference of RMR and GSI is little
more than what suggested by the earlier workers.
However, more case studies are needed to establish
such relation. It is always better to employ GSI and
RMR separately to have a better understanding of rock
mass condition. In the present study Slope Mass
Rating (SMR) was employed to a preliminary assess-
ment of slope stability which uses RMR and discon-
tinuity orientation data. It is inferred that for very poor
rock mass condition GSI alone can be used to define
the instability in slopes.
Acknowledgments Authors are grateful to the Director,
CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee for his
kind permission to publish the work. The technical discussion
with Dr R. K. Goel, CSIR-CIMFR, Roorkee is acknowledged.
References
Anbalagan R, Sharma S, Raghuvanshi TK (1992) Rock mass
stability evaluation using modified SMR approach. In:
Proceedings of the 6th National Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, Bangalore, India, pp 258–268
Barton N (2002) Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site
characterization and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 39(2):185–216
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of
rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech
6:189–236
Bieniawski ZT (1973) Engineering classification of jointed rock
masses. Trans S Afr Inst Civ Eng 15:335–344
Bieniawski ZT (1974) Geomechanics classification of rock
masses and its application in tunneling. In: Proceedings of
3rd International Congress of Rock Mechanics, ISRM,
Denver, VIIA, pp 27–32
Bieniawski ZT (1979) The geomechanical classification in rock
engineering applications. In: Proceedings of the 4th Inter-
national Congress Rock Mechanics, Montreux, Balkema,
Rotterdam, vol 2, pp 41–48
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications.
Wiley-Interscience, New York: ISBN 0-471-60172-1, 251 p
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M (2004) Esti-
mation of rock mass deformation modulus and strength of
jointed hard rock masses using the GSI System. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 41(1):3–19
Hoek E (1999) Putting numbers to geology-an engineer’s view
point. Q J Eng Geol 32:1–19
Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground Excavation in Rock.
Instn Min Metall, London, p 527
Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimation of rock mass
strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(8):1165–1186
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 Engg Geol Env 57(2):151–160
Hoek E, Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Hoek-Brown failure cri-
terion-2002 Edition. In: Proceedings of NARMS-TAC
Conference, Toronto 1, pp 267–273
Marinos P, Hoek E (2000) A geologically friendly tool for rock
mass strength estimation. In: International conference on
geotechnical and geological engineering (GeoEng2000)
proceedings, pp 1422–1440
Marinos V, Marinos P, Hoek E (2005) The Geological strength
index: applications and limitations. Bull Eng Geol Environ
64:55–65
Palmstrom A (2005) Measurements of and correlations between
block size and rock quality designation (RQD). Tunnels
and Underground Space Technology 20:362–377
123

Romana M (1985) New adjustment ratings for application of
Bieniawski classification to slopes, Proceedings of Inter-
national Symposium on ‘‘The role of rock mechanics’’,
Zacatecas, pp 49–53
Singh B, Goel RK (1999) Rock mass classification—a practical
approach in Civil Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 267
Sonmez H, Ulusay R (1999) Modification to the geological
strength index (GSI) and their applicability to stability of
slopes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:743–760
Sonmez H, Ulusay R (2002) A discussion on the Hoek–Brown
failure criterion and suggested modification to the criterion
123
View publication stats
Geotech Geol Eng
verified by slope stability case studies. Yerbilimleri (Earth
sciences) 26:77–99
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R (2004) Indirect determina-
tion of the modulus of deformation of rock masses based on
the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:849–857
Sonmez H, Altinsoy H, Gokceoglu C, Medley EW (2006)
Considerations in developing an empirical strengrh crite-
rion for Bimrocks. 4th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
(ARMS 2006) Nov 6–10, Singapore