Geotech Geol Eng
DOI 10.1007/s10706-017-0279-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
Alternative Quantification of the Geological Strength Index
Chart for Jointed Rocks
Gian Luca Morelli
Received: 13 September 2016 / Accepted: 9 June 2017
Ó Springer International Publishing AG 2017
Abstract The paper suggests an alternative quan-
tification of the Geological Strength Index (GSI)
Chart published by Hoek et al. in Paper prepared for
presentation at the 47th US Rock mechanics/ge-
omechanics symposium held in San Francisco
(2013). The engineering parameters proposed for
the horizontal and vertical axes of the Chart are the
most commonly used in routine field investigations
on rock masses by means of standard exposure
surveys and borehole logging. They mainly include
parameters traditionally used for block size charac-
terization (i.e., volumetric joint count Jv, joint
spacing S and RQD/Jn factor) as well as other
parameters purposely defined in the present study
and based on combinations of the traditional ratings
of the Bieniawski’s RMR89 classification. Adopting
these options, new empirical equations for calculat-
ing the GSI have been fine tuned and tested on a
real rock mass dataset. The comparison between the
GSI values calculated using the new equations and
those directly mapped during underground excava-
tions has demonstrated the potentiality of the
proposed methodology. The new quantification of
the GSI Chart can be regarded as a useful and
practical tool suitable to integrate the Hoek et al.
(2013) approach. The complementary use of
G. L. Morelli (&)
Geotecna Progetti S.r.l., Milan, Italy
e-mail: gl.morelli.geo@gmail.com;
gianluca.morelli@geotecna.it
different and independent methods represents an
effective practice to properly check and validate the
final estimation of the GSI.
Keywords Geological strength index 
Hoek–Marinos chart  Joint condition  Rock mass
structure  Rock mass interlocking
1 Introduction
The Geological Strength Index (GSI) was firstly
introduced in the mid-nineties as a qualitative
approach to relate the Hoek–Brown criterion to
geological field observations in hard rocks (Marinos
et al. 2007; Day et al. 2012) and has been successively
extended to accommodate also the most variable of
rock masses, including extremely poor quality sheared
rock masses of weak schistose materials and typical
heterogeneous lithological formations such as flysch
and molasses (Hoek et al. 1998, 2005; Marinos and
Hoek 2000, 2001; Marinos et al. 2006).
The GSI system was specifically formulated to
attempt to characterize rock masses from a more
geological perspective, in order to better meet the need
for delivering reliable input data related to those
properties considered to govern the mechanical
behaviour of a rock mass (Carter and Marinos 2014).
According to Marinos and Hoek (2000) and Mari-
nos et al. (2007), the heart of the GSI system is a
123

careful engineering geology description of the rock
mass which is currently based first upon the lithology
and secondary on structure (blockiness and degree of
interlocking of the rock blocks) and condition of the
discontinuity surfaces assessed from visual examina-
tion of rock exposures.
As such, the estimation of the GSI value, which
theoretically varies in the nominal range 0–100, is
essentially a qualitative procedure whose accuracy
may, therefore, depend on the level of experience and
judgment of the observer directly involved in field
mapping.
To improve the objective assessment of the GSI,
quantitative charts based on a numerical quantification
of the parameters defining the rock mass structure and
of the condition of discontinuities, have been fine-
tuned and presented by several Authors over the time
(see e.g. Hoek et al. 1995; Sonmez and Ulusay 1999;
Cai et al. 2004; Cai and Kaiser 2006; Russo 2009; Day
et al. 2012).
All these quantitative methods are generally
expressed by empirical equations which apply input
parameters and ratings borrowed from the best known
rock mass classification index systems, principally the
RMR (Bieniawski 1989), the Q (Barton et al. 1974)
and the RMi (Palmström 1995).
More recently, the Hoek-Marinos Chart was
updated by Hoek et al. (2013) to include numeric
scales on the horizontal and vertical axes and to adjust
the GSI iso-lines so that they followed a linear
equation.
In this last version of the GSI Chart, two simple
linear scales have been found to be suitable to
consistently represent the discontinuity surface
conditions on the horizontal axis and the blockiness
of the rock mass on the vertical axis. In particular,
the horizontal axis of the chart uses the JCond89
parameter from Bieniawski (1989), while the
vertical axis uses RQD/2 as an approximation of
the block size.
The main purpose of this paper is to address some
possible alternatives for the rock mass parameters
used for scaling the two axes of the Hoek et al. (2013)
Chart.
On the basis of the proposed parameters, new
empirical equations for calculating GSI can be fine
tuned and their validity tested on a real rock mass
dataset.
123
Geotech Geol Eng
2 Previously Published Charts to Quantify the GSI
Attempts to quantify the qualitative GSI Chart origi-
nally proposed by Marinos and Hoek (2000) have been
published by several authors during the last two
decades.
Generally, all these approaches incorporate quan-
titative scales for rock mass structure and joint surface
conditions based on the ratings used in the traditional
RMR, Q or RMi classification systems.
Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) were first to suggest a
quantification of the original Chart by expressing the
rock mass structure (y-axis) trough the Volumetric
Joint Count (Jv), i.e. the number of discontinuities per
cubic meter defined by Palmström (1982, 1985, 1986),
and the discontinuity characteristics (x-axis) by a
parameter called SRC (Surface Condition Rating),
which is based on the ratings for the condition of
discontinuities used in the RMR89 classification sys-
tem (Fig. 1).
Cai et al. (2004) successively proposed a quantifi-
cation of the original GSI Chart by employing, as scale
factors, the equivalent volume of the rock blocks (Vb)
on the vertical axis and the joint condition factor (JC),
used for the determination of the RMi index of
Palmström (1995), on the horizontal axis, both plotted
on logarithmic scales (Fig. 2).
In this case, the representative block volume is
assessed using a ‘‘persistence factor’’, in order to take
into account the effect of the persistence of the
discontinuities on the block size.
Such a quantitative approach was validated suc-
cessively using field test data and numerical model
simulations (Cai et al. 2004; Kim et al. 2007).
More recently, Hoek et al. (2013) have updated the
2000 Hoek-Marinos Chart providing a simplified
quantification of the two scales for the horizontal
and vertical axes of the chart (Fig. 3).
In detail, the Scale A (horizontal x-axis) has been
set to represent the five divisions of surface quality
with a range of 45 points. The Scale B (vertical y-axis)
represents the five divisions of the rock mass inter-
locking and blockiness scale with a total range of 50
points, thus excluding the lower row of the original
Hoek-Marinos chart referred to ‘‘laminated/sheared’’
rocks.
The updated GSI Chart (Fig. 4) includes, on the
horizontal axis, the Joint Condition (JCond89) rating
Geotech Geol Eng

123

b Fig. 1 Modified Hoek’s Chart for determining the GSI (from
Sonmez and Ulusay 1999)
defined by Bieniawski (1989) (see Table 1) and the
RQD index of Deere (1963) to express the rock mass
structure on the vertical axis.
In order to match the established ranges of the axis
scales, the horizontal Scale A has been defined as
(1.5 9 JCond89) and the vertical Scale B as (RQD/2).
The final value of the GSI is given by the sum of the
two scales:
GSI ¼ 1:5JCond89 þ RQD=2
Figure 4 shows the updated Chart finally proposed
by Hoek et al. (2013).
In the 2013 update, the lower and upper rows of the
original 2000 Chart have been excluded since authors
pointed out that rows represent type of rock masses
that do not satisfy fundamental conditions for homo-
geneity and isotropy required for the use of GSI as
input into the Hoek–Brown criterion. Therefore, in
these rock masses the quantitative GSI chart should
not be used.
In this way, the conventional range of the parameter
(RQD/2) suggested by Hoek et al. (2013) for the y-axis
presents an upper limit of 40 (i.e. RQD = 80%).
Following Hoek et al. (2013), the updated Chart is
principally applicable to tunnels of about 10 m span or
less and slopes no taller than 20 m.
3 Limitations of the Quantitative Approaches
All quantitative methods currently in use to estimate
the GSI tend to quantify the rock mass structure,
which, by definition, incorporates both the effects of
size (blockiness) and degree of interlocking (com-
pactness) of the individual rock blocks forming the
mass, using measures of the block size or of the
density of joints (i.e., RQD, volumetric joint count,
block volumes).
In particular, the use of the conventional RQD
index for scaling the vertical axis of the GSI Chart, as
proposed by Hoek et al. (2013), suffers of a number of
well-known limitations. Specifically, the value of
RQD can change for the same rock mass depending on
sampling direction and on the selected threshold value
for the minimum intact core length (Li et al. 2009). In
123
Geotech Geol Eng
addition, RQD only covers a limited part of the range
of jointing (Palmström 2005) and it is unsuitable to
characterize rock masses with discontinuity spacing
larger than 0.3 m (Priest and Hudson 1976).
Generally, the use of only jointing parameters to
quantify the rock mass structure excludes other
parameters which have a considerable influence on
the interlocking degree of the rock blocks, such as the
aperture and the persistence of discontinuities.
In this regard, Dinc et al. (2011), Sonmez and
Ulusay (1999) state that there is a clear relation
between the degree of induration and the ‘‘distur-
bance’’ of a rock mass, as can arise from tectonism,
excavation effects and weathering or alteration pro-
cesses, all affecting the integrity of the original rock
mass structure. In particular, the degree of induration
of a rock mass significantly decreases as the degree of
disturbance increases, mainly as a consequence of the
occurrence of new discontinuities (increase of the
density of joints) and of the increase in their apertures
(increase of the degree of freedom of the rock blocks).
Following Cai et al. (2004), Kim et al. (2007), the
degree of interlocking of the individual blocks can be
also related to the persistence of discontinuities, since
it increases as the persistence or length of discontinu-
ities become shorter and rock bridges start to exist
between discontinuity terminations.
In addition to these aspects, it has to be observed that
the ratio of block size to the size of the tunnel or slope,
which has a significant influence on the application of
the original 2000 GSI chart (Fig. 5), is not explicitly
taken into account in the existing quantitative methods,
which, consequently, could not have general validity
(Hoek et al. 2013). Therefore, quantitative methods are
considered suitable only for common-size engineering
designs, such as tunnels with diameter lower than about
10 m and slopes no taller than 20 m (see Cundall et al.
2008; Hoek et al. 2013).
Many authors, among which Marinos et al. (2007),
Carter and Marinos (2014), Hoek et al. (2013), also
pointed out that all existing quantification methods of
GSI should be limited to rock masses in which the
discontinuities play a prominent role in defining their
mechanical behaviour. Such conditions are repre-
sented in the central area of the original Hoek-Marinos
Chart, where rockmass can be thought of as blocky and
both qualitative and quantitative methods can be used
for assessing GSI properly (Carter and Marinos 2014).
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 2 Quantification of the GSI Chart (from Cai et al. 2004)

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 3 Quantification of the original 2000 Hoek-Marinos Chart as proposed by Hoek et al. (2013)

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 4 Quantification of the GSI Chart by Joint Condition, as graded by RMR, and RQD (from Hoek et al. 2013)
As a consequence, quantitative methods become
inappropriate for rocks lying at both ends of the rock
competence scale and for massive or tectonically
disturbed rock masses in which the structural fabric has
been destroyed (see Marinos et al. 2007; Carter et al.
2008; Hoek et al. 2013; Carter and Marinos 2014).
In such particular type of rock masses, including
extremely poor quality sheared rocks of weak
schistose materials and typical heterogeneous litho-
logical formations such as flysch and molasses, the
original qualitative method based on a careful visual
observation of the rock structure and the use of GSI
charts purposely published (Hoek et al. 1998; Marinos
and Hoek 2000, 2001; Hoek et al. 2005; Marinos et al.
2006) is still the most suitable and recommended
approach.
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 1 Basic ratings scheme for calculating the RMR89 index, including the JCond89 parameter
Rating Parameter (rating range)

R1 Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock (0–15)

R2 Rock quality designation (3–20)
R3 Spacing of discontinuities (5–20)
R4 Condition of discontinuities (JCond89) (0–30)
R4a Length (0–6) R4b Aperture (0–6) R4c Roughness (0–6) R4d Infilling (0–6) R4e Weathering (0–6)
R5 Groundwater condition (0–15)
R6 Orientation of discontinuities (-50–0)

Fig. 5 Limitations on the

use of the GSI and of the
Hoek–Brown criterion
depending on scale (from
Carter and Marinos 2014)

4 Possible Alternative Quantifications of the GSI
Chart
Taking into consideration the known limitations of
using RQD alone to quantify the rock mass structure in
the quantitative Hoek et al. (2013) Chart, five alter-
native options to scale the vertical axis (Scale B) of the
Chart are presented in the follow.
The parameters identified for this aim include some
combinations of ratings of the RMR89 classification
system, besides other traditional parameters directly
related to the quantification of the block size in a rock
mass, such as the volumetric joint count (Jv), the
spacing of discontinuities (S) and the RQD/Jn factor
adopted in the Barton’s Q-System classification.
For these traditional parameters, the scales of
values previously established by Tzamos and Sofianos
(2007) for correlating the different rock mass fabric
indices have been adopted without significant
modifications.
All proposed parameters can be easily quantified
from rock face surveys and drill core logging and their

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 6 New quantification scales proposed for the original 2013 Hoek-Carter-Diederichs Chart
meaning has been well established for many years
through common engineering geological practice.
An alternative scale parameter for the horizontal
axis (Scale A) of the Chart has been also proposed
in the present work, consistent with the terms used
in the original Marinos-Hoek’s Chart to describe the
condition of discontinuities. In particular, the sum of
the RMR89 ratings for the surface conditions of
discontinuities, namely the roughness (R4c), the
infilling (R4d) and the weathering (R4e), has been
considered. In such a way, the horizontal scale is
well adherent to the original definition of the
discontinuity conditions used in the Hoek-Marinos
Chart. The ratings for length (persistence) and
aperture of discontinuities (R4a and R4b) have not
been included in the scale parameter for the x-axis,
as they represent properties that can be more
properly related to the degree of interlocking of
the rock mass structure (see § 3).
On the basis of selected parameters, five new
equations to quantify the GSI have been developed
and presented.
Figure 6 shows the new parameters proposed for
scaling the two axes of the 2013 GSI Chart, compared
to the original scales suggested by Hoek-Carter-
Diederichs; Table 2 summarizes the new Eqs. 1–5
developed to calculate GSI on the basis of the
proposed scale parameters.
The use of the full scale range for the vertical axis of
the GSI chart (Scale B = 0–50 points in Fig. 6) is
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 2 New equations for Ref. Fig. 6 GSI = Scale A ? Scale B

assessing GSI developed to
quantify the 2013 Chart
Eq. 1 GSI = 2.5 (R4c ? R4d ? R4e)-8.59 ln(Jv) ? 39.74 [for Jv B 100]
Eq. 2 GSI = 2.5 (R4c ? R4d ? R4e) ? 1.56 (R2 ? R3 - 8)
Eq. 3 GSI = 2.5 (R4c ? R4d ? R4e) ? 1.14 (R2 ? R3 ? R4a ? R4b-8)
Eq. 4 GSI = 2.5 (R4c ? R4d ? R4e) ? 8.72 ln(S) ? 20.21
Eq. 5 GSI = 2.5 (R4c ? R4d ? R4e) ? 8.49 ln(RQD/Jn) ? 10.5 [for RQD/Jn B 100]

Fig. 7 RQD values (left) and RMR89 ratings for joints condition (right) typical of the tested rock mass

motivated only considering that the scale parameters
used in new equations are borrowed from Q, RMR and
RMi classification systems, which are applicable also
in the rock mass category referred to ‘‘massive-low
jointed’’ (upper row of the original 2000 GSI Chart)
(see Tzamos and Sofianos 2007).
However, according to concepts well established
by previous Authors (see e.g., Carter et al. 2008;
Hoek et al. 2013; Carter and Marinos 2014), the
quantitative charts should not be used for estimating
GSI in massive/low jointed rock masses that,
depending on the scale of the engineering problem
with respect to the rock mass scale, do not satisfy
fundamental conditions for homogeneity and iso-
tropy. For these rock masses the adoption of the
original qualitative approach is still considered more
appropriate.
5 Validation of the New Chart Quantification
In order to test the credibility and potentiality of the
proposed alternative quantifications of the Hoek
et al. (2013) Chart, about 350 rock mass data
gathered in the underground during the excavation
of an hydraulic tunnel in the Western Italian Alps,
mainly involving pre-Mesozoic polimetamorphic
gneissic hard rocks of the alpine Pennidic basement,
have been analyzed.
The surveys were performed during the drill-and-
blast excavation of a 6 m span tunnel. The rock
consists of jointed quartz-feldspar gneiss having an
average value of the uniaxial compressive strength of
the intact rock of about 100 MPa.
The RQD of the rock mass, as estimated by tunnel
face mapping, mostly ranges in the interval 80–100%
(Fig. 7a). The parameter Jv (volumetric joint count)
spans between 1 and 15, indicating a low to moderate
degree of jointing of the rock mass.
Relevant rock discontinuities are, for most part,
slightly rough, unweathered or slightly weathered,
feeble open and with thin hard infillings; the joint
condition factor JCond89 of the Bieniawski’s RMR89
classification mostly lies in the range 12722 (Fig. 7b).
With few exceptions, the excavated rock mass falls
in classes II and III of the RMR89 classification.

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 8 Rock mass dataset plotted in the 2013 Hoek-Carter-Diederichs GSI Chart and in the proposed alternative charts

Figure 8 displays the field data plotted in the Hoek Except for the 2013 Chart, where the data concen-
et al. 2013 Chart and in the five alternative charts trate in the upper region of the chart, which is mainly
proposed. pertinent to ‘‘massive-low jointed’’ rock masses

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 9 Comparison between mapped and calculated GSI

(RQD [ 80%, see Figs. 6 and 7a), in proposed alter- The values of GSI predicted by new Eqs. 1–5 (ref.
native charts data mostly fall in the conventional range Table 2) have been checked against field mapped GSI
where rock mass can be though of as ‘‘blocky’’ and estimated from the direct observation of the excava-
quantitative methods for assessing GSI can be applied. tion faces.

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Figure 9 shows the correlations obtained between
mapped and predicted GSI.
The diagrams show that the correlation between
calculated and mapped GSI is reasonably close to the
ideal 1:1 relationship especially for new Eqs. 2 and 3,
while deviations become more apparent using other
equations.
On the basis of such a comparison, it can be
observed that the best approximation is obtained by
scaling the horizontal and vertical axes of the GSI
Chart using parameters defined by appropriate com-
binations of the traditional ratings used in the RMR89
classification system.
In particular, for the examined dataset the best
predictive potential has been demonstrated by Eq. 3,
which uses a scale parameter to quantify the rock mass
structure (Scale B on the y-axis) based on the sum of
the RMR89 ratings for RQD, spacing, persistence and
aperture of discontinuities.
The 2013 GSI Chart, although theoretically inap-
plicable in the specific case because of the high values
of the index RQD, has revealed a general tendency to
overestimate GSI.
6 Conclusions and Recommendations on the use
of the New GSI Chart
The five alternative scales proposed to quantify the
horizontal and vertical axes of the Hoek et al. (2013)
Chart have been based on engineering parameters
commonly assessed during routine rock mass field
investigations.
In particular, they include parameters in general use
for block size characterization (i.e., volumetric joint
count Jv, joint spacing S and RQD/Jn block size
factor), as well as other parameters defined in the
present study and based on appropriate combinations
of the ratings used for describing the rock mass
jointing and the discontinuity conditions in the tradi-
tional Bieniawski’s RMR89 classification.
All proposed parameters are generally easy to
obtain from standard surface surveys or borehole
mapping and represent concepts that have been well
established in literature for many years and that are
still largely adopted in engineering geological appli-
cations, both for underground excavation and slope
design.
Applicability of the new GSI Chart do not over-
come the known limitations related to application of
quantitative methods and, therefore, should be utilized
only for common-size engineering designs in jointed
hard rocks.
The comparison between GSI values predicted
using the proposed alternative equations and those
mapped during a real underground excavation work
has demonstrated that Eq. 3, which uses a combina-
tion of RMR89 ratings for RQD, spacing, persistence
and aperture of discontinuities to scale the vertical axis
of the Hoek et al. (2013) Chart, has the best predictive
potential for the examined case.
Such a new quantification can, thus, represent a
simple and promising approach for practical uses in
engineering geological characterization of jointed
hard rocks.
References
Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of
rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech
6(4):189–239
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifica-
tion.Wiley, New York
Cai M, Kaiser PK (2006) Visualization of rock mass classifi-
cation systems. Geotech Geol Eng 24(4):1089–1102
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 41:3–19
Carter TG, Marinos V (2014) Use of GSI for rock engineering
design. In: Proceedings 1st international conference on
applied empirical design methods in mining, Lima-Perú,
9–11th June, 19
Carter TG, Diederichs MS, Carvalho JL (2008) Application of
modified Hoek–Brown transition relationships for assess-
ing strength and post yield behaviour at both ends of the
rock competence scale. In: Proceedings the 6th interna-
tional symposium on ground support in mining and civil
engineering construction, 30 March–3 April 2008. Cape
Town, South Africa, p. 37–59. J South Afr Inst Min Metall,
108:325–338
Cundall PA, Pierce ME, Mas Ivars D (2008) Quantifying the
size effect of rock mass strength. SHIRMS 2008—Y.
Potvin, J. Carter, A. Dyskin (eds), Australian Centre for
Geomechanics, Perth, 3-15
Day JJ, Hutchinson DJ, Diederichs MS (2012) A critical look at
geotechnical classification for rock strength estimation.
46th U.S. Rock mechanics geomechanics symposium,
ARMA, Chicago
Deere DU (1963) Technical description of rock cores for engi-
neering purposes. Felsmechanik und Ingenieurgeologie
(Rock Mechanics and Engineering Geology), 1 (1):16–22
123

Dinc OS, Sonmez H, Tunusluoglu C, Kasapoglu KE (2011) A
new general empirical approach for the prediction of rock
mass strengths of soft to hard rock masses. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 48:650–665
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground
excavations in hard rock. Balkema, Rotterdam, p 225
Hoek E, Marinos P, Benissi M (1998) Applicability of the
geological strength index (GSI) classification for weak and
sheared rockmasses. The case of the Athens Schist for-
mation. Bull Eng Geol Env 57(2):151–160
Hoek E, Marinos P, Marinos V (2005) Characterisation and
engineering properties of tectonically undisturbed but
lithologically varied sedimentary rock masses. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 42:277–285
Hoek E, Carter TG, Diederichs MS (2013) Quantification of the
Geological Strength Index Chart. Paper prepared for pre-
sentation at the 47th US rock mechanics/geomechanics
symposium held in San Francisco, June 23–26
Kim BH, Cai M, Kaiser PK, Yang HS (2007) Determination of
block sizes of rock masses with non-persistent joints. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 40(2):169–192
Li L, Ouellet S, Aubertin M (2009) An improved definition of
rock quality designation, RQDc. ROCKENG09. In: Die-
derichs M, Grasselli G (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd
CANUS rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, May 2009
Marinos P, Hoek E (2000) GSI: a geologically friendly tool for
rock mass strength estimation. Proceedings of GeoEng
2000 at the international conference on geotechnical and
geological engineering (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia).
Technomic Publishers, Lancaster, pp 1422–1446
Marinos P, Hoek E (2001) Estimating the geotechnical prop-
erties of heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch. Bull
Eng Geol Environ 60:82–92
Marinos P, Hoek E, Marinos V (2006) Variability of the engi-
neering properties of rock masses quantified by the
123
Geotech Geol Eng
geological strength index: the case of ophiolites with spe-
cial emphasis on tunnelling. Bull Eng Geol Environ
65:129–142
Marinos P, Marinos V, Hoek E (2007) Geological Strength
Index (GSI) A characterization tool for assessing engi-
neering properties for rock masses. In: Romana, Perucho,
Olalla (eds.) Underground works under special conditions.
Lisbon: Taylor and Francis: 13–21
Palmström A (1982) The volumetric joint count—A useful and
simple measure of the degree of rock mass jointing. IAEG
Congress, New Delhi., 221–228
Palmström A (1985) Application of the volumetric joint count as
a measure of rock mass jointing. Int symp on Fundamentals
of Rock Joints, Björkliden, pp 103–110
Palmström A (1986) The volumetric joint count as a measure of
rock mass jointing. Invited lecture at the F3 (Fracture,
Fragmentation and Flow) Conference, Jerusalem, 19 pp
Palmström A (1995) RMi—A rock mass characterization sys-
tem for rock engineering purposes. PhD thesis, University
of Oslo, Norway, pp. 400 http://www.rockmass.net
Palmström A (2005) Measurements of and correlations between
block size and rock quality designation (RQD). Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 20:362–377
Priest SD, Hudson JA (1976) Discontinuity spacings in rock. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 13:135–148
Russo G (2009) A new rational method for calculating the GSI.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 24:103–111
Sonmez H, Ulusay R (1999) Modifications to the geological
strength index (GSI) and their applicability to the stability
of slopes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:743–760
Tzamos S, Sofianos AI (2007) A correlation of four rock mass
classification systems through their fabric indices. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 44(4):477–495