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

net/publication/240362845

An assistant tool for the Geological Strength Index to better characterize poor
and very poor rock masses

Article  in  International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences · June 2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.04.001

CITATIONS READS

13 1,098

3 authors, including:

Reza Osgoui
GEODATA Engineering SPA
16 PUBLICATIONS   121 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

SFRC Segmental Tunnel lining View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Reza Osgoui on 29 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 690–697

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Technical Note

An assistant tool for the Geological Strength Index to better characterize poor
and very poor rock masses
Reza R. Osgoui a, Resat Ulusay b,, Erdal Unal c
a
GEODATA SpA. Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 48/E, 10129, Torino, Italy
b
Department of Geological Engineering, Hacettepe University, 06800 Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey
c
Department of Mining Engineering, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e in f o

Article history:
Received 17 June 2009
Received in revised form
5 February 2010
Accepted 6 April 2010

1. Introduction
Rock mass classification systems such as Bieniawski’s Geome-
chanics Classification (RMR) [1,2] and Barton’s Q-system [3,4], in
which RQD plays a dominant role are, to a certain extent,
subjective to apply in poor rock masses due to limitations and
difficulty in the estimation of RQD (in most cases the value of RQD
for such rock masses is lower than 10 and even zero) as discussed
in detail by some investigators [5–9]. Even though the introduc-
tion of Palmström’s Rock Mass index (RMi) [10,] and Hoek’s
Geological Strength Index (GSI) [11–13], independent of RQD;
instead based solely on rock structural fabric (i.e., degree of
jointing and joint condition) [14] have alleviated such constrai-
ners and difficulties, there are still difficulties in measuring the
degree of jointing of such a poor rock mass as denoted by N/A (not
applicable) parts at the bottom of the existing GSI charts.
In the GSI system, very poor rock masses are generally defined by
a GSI value below 27 [15,16] or 25 [12]. Due to its widespread
acceptance in the field of rock engineering over the past 15 years, an
attempt has been made to provide an alternative practical approach
to assist GSI in characterizing such poor rock masses where GSIo27.
To improve the applicability of the GSI in poor rock masses and to
effectively quantify the joint properties, in this study a linkage
between descriptive geological terms and measurable field para-
meters such as broken structure domain (BSTR), structure rating (SR),
and some modifications are suggested. BSTR and SR are considered to
define the degree of jointing of poor rock structure and to overcome
the limitations of RQD. To characterize joint condition for poor rock
masses, the combination of intact core recovery (ICR) and weathering
 Corresponding author. Tel.: + 90 312 297 7767; fax: + 90 312 299 2034.
E-mail address: resat@hacettepe.edu.tr (R. Ulusay).
(W), more sensible and measurable in highly jointed poor rock mass,
is recommended. The proposed approach results in the modified-GSI,
which mainly relies on measurable quantitative parameters. By
adding measurable quantitative input in N/A parts of the existing GSI
charts, they will be enhanced in characterizing poor rock mass while
maintaining its overall simplicity. The modified-GSI is recommended
as an assistant tool for GSI to better characterize the poor and very
poor rock masses without disregarding its original concept.
2. Critical review
After several years of use, it became obvious that the RMR and
Q-system were difficult to apply to rock masses that are of very poor
quality since they are dependent on RQD, which in most of the poor
rock masses is essentially zero [5–9]. With the advent of the GSI,
based on an assessment of the lithology, structure and condition of
joint surfaces in the rock mass, such a problem has been overcome.
This characterization index (Fig. 1) is directly linked to engineering
parameters such as the Mohr–Coulomb or Hoek–Brown strength
parameters, or rock mass modulus. It has been a universal rock mass
characterization approach capable of characterizing wide spectrum
of rock masses and has attracted keen interest in rock engineering
community. However, the application of the existing GSI system is
hindered by the facts that its use is to some extent subjective and
requires long-term experience [17].
The recent form of the GSI charts is on account of tunnelling in
difficult ground conditions in Greece [18–21]. These charts
specially oriented to determination of the GSI for foliated/
laminated/sheared, heterogeneous (such as flysch) and for very
weak (such as molasses) rock masses. Most recently, Marinos
et al. [6,7] have published papers putting forward some
significant suggestions related with the appropriate selection of

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.04.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.R. Osgoui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 690–697
Fig. 1. General chart for GSI estimates from the geological observations [18].
the GSI index for a range of rock masses under various conditions.
In these papers, recommendations on the use of GSI and cases
where the GSI is not applicable have been discussed.
However, the definition of each component of the original GSI
charts is quite subjective, as it is based on non-scaled sketch and
linguistic non-quantified terms [22]. In an effort to provide a
quantitative means for characterizing jointed rock masses, the
original GSI was modified by Sonmez and Ulusay [23,24] and Cai
et al. [17]. The former uses the volumetric joint count (Jv) for
determining the SR and Bieniawski’s RMR system for rating the joint
surface condition in terms of roughness, weathering and infilling of
joint (Fig. 2). The latter one, on the other hand, utilizes a new
category of weak rock structure namely; foliated/laminated/sheared
introduced first by Hoek et al. [18]. Cai et al. [17] also suggested a
3-D method for estimating block volume and used the RMi system
for rating the joint condition. Marinos et al. [6,7] have recently
acknowledged that the quantifications do not work well in
tectonically disturbed rock masses in which the structural fabric
has been destroyed. In such rock masses, they recommend the use of
the original qualitative approach based on careful visual
observations. Furthermore, they have denied the correlation of
adjusted RMR and Q values with GSI, as it becomes meaningless in
the range of weak, very weak and heterogeneous rock masses [6,7].
691
Although in the available GSI charts, careful consideration has
been given to the precise wording for each category and to the
relative weights assigned to each combination of degree of jointing
and joint condition, the use of the GSI involves some subjectivity
[17,22–24]. Even though Marinos et al. [6,7] have pointed out that it
is not meaningful to attempt to assign a precise number to the GSI
value for a typical rock mass, and GSI is best described by assigning
it a range of values, it seems that assigning a range of values for poor
rock mass causes misleading characterization of such rock mass.
There could be ranging of GSI values for a given poor rock mass in
which the differences in quality might not be well distinguished. For
instance, if the range of GSI is considered lower than 20 to define a
poor rock mass, to what extent this range is able to differentiate the
quality between GSI¼20 and GSI¼10. Moreover, some engineers
tend to be uncomfortable with the system if some parameters
cannot be measured.
The lower part of the original GSI chart related to poor rock
masses is believed to be fairly improved to the extent of assisting
the sensibility of such a quality index. The less sensible
characterization of the available GSI charts are attributed to
examples of a fair joint condition is assigned for a very poor rock
mass like a fully sheared zone or the line indicating GSI of 50 (fair
rock), signifying a fair and good joint condition, is embedded in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
692 R.R. Osgoui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 690–697
Fig. 2. The quantitative GSI chart proposed by Sonmez and Ulusay [24].
the disintegrated category of rock structure or a sheared rock
mass structure as shown in Fig. 1. Such confusion could be, in
turn, overcome using the modified-GSI that acts as a supplement
for the original GSI charts without any incompatibility.
3. Modified-GSI for poor and very poor rock masses
3.1. The parameters used and the modified-GSI chart
The approach recommended in this study is built on the
linkage between descriptive geological terms and measurable
field parameters; namely, SR and its relation with Jv, BSTR, intact
core recovery (ICR) and joint surface properties. All required
parameters can readily be obtained from overall field observation
and core-box surveying.
For the purpose, a block in the matrix of 2  2 of GSI chart is
selected in terms of two axes showing the rock mass blockiness
(interlocking/degree of joining) and joint surface conditions. As
shown in Fig. 3, the vertical axis of the matrix demonstrates the
degree of disintegration of rock mass. One quantitative parameter
SR and one qualitative parameter BSTR are embedded in this axis
to assist the user to characterize the blockiness of the rock mass.
The horizontal axis, on the other side, is assigned for the joint
condition based on ICR and Joint Condition Index (IJC). It should
be noted that the boundary which defines the threshold of poor
rock mass is GSI ¼27 [15,16].
In order to aid in using the modified-GSI chart, it is necessary
that its input parameters suitably be known. Those parameters
are readily obtained from the geological visual impression,
judgments and the core-box logs. Five distinguishable stages in
estimating the modified-GSI is as follows: (a) Geological survey-
ing: overall field observation and core-box logging. (b) Determin-
ing the type of broken structural domain (BSTR) to which poor
rock mass is mostly governed and corresponded. (c) Estimating
important indicators of poor rock mass: ICR, volumetric joint
count (Jv), SR. (d) Determining the weathering condition of joint
surface correlated with filling. (e) Estimating GSI value for poor
and very poor rock masses using the modified-GSI chart (Fig. 3).
3.2. The parameters associated with degree of jointing (blockiness
and interlocking)
3.2.1. Broken structural domain (BSTR)
Broadly speaking, broken drill-core zones recovered from a
very weak rock mass having a length greater than 25 cm are
defined as the BSTR [25]. Various types of BSTR domains can be
categorized into five groups, based on their degree of size and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.R. Osgoui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 690–697
Fig. 3. The section of the GSI chart modified for poor and very poor rock masses.
composition. BSTR types included in the modified-GSI to define
the rock-mass structure are demonstrated in Figs. 4a–c.
Having recognized the BSTR type, one can distinguish the poor
rock mass from very poor rock mass. As can be indicated from
Fig. 4, the poor and very poor rock masses are best characterized
by BSTR types. It should be noted that the assignment of only one
type of BSTR for a rock medium is not logical; rather, it is
suggested to know the types of BSTR governing whole poor rock
mass. Otherwise, the assignment of only BSTR 1/2 for a domain
cannot signify very poor rock mass; rather it stands for a soil
material. For the very poor rock mass, it is supposed that a large
amount of medium is governed by the BSTR 1/2 while poor rock
mass is dominantly governed by BSTR 3/4/5.
This approach can also be regarded as one of the overall
observation methods for description of rock mass quality, but it is
appropriate that BSTR be described through core-box logging
rather than overall rock mass observation. BSTR 3/4/5 are
assigned for disintegrated–decomposed rock masses while BSTR
1/2 signifies the extremely crushed/sheared rock masses. It is
worth noting that the disc types of broken rock cores (Fig. 4d),
denoted to high horizontal stress field, can be categorized into the
BSTR type 4.
3.2.2. Structure rating (SR)
In the original GSI charts introduced by Hoek [11,13], Hoek
et al. [26], and Hoek and Brown [12], the structure of the rock
mass was qualitatively defined in terms of interlocking or
blockiness of the rock pieces. This definition gives no quantitative
information of the rock mass structure. An effort has been made
by Sonmez and Ulusay [23,24] to let the rock mass structure be
quantitatively defined. For this purpose, a term called SR was
suggested. In fact, the definition of the SR is made mainly on the
basis of the block size (volume) which signifies the degree of
disintegration. Based on the intervals of Jv and corresponding
descriptions for the blockiness ratings of the GSI charts, SR was
assigned to each defined category of rock mass; namely, massive
693
or intact, blocky, very blocky, blocky/disturbed/seamy, disinte-
grated/decomposed and extremely crushed/sheared. In the exist-
ing GSI charts, for example Sonmez and Ulusay [24], the intervals
between the structural categories were equally divided and
selected as 100, 80, 60, 40, 20 and 0 (Fig. 2).
It is felt necessary here to adjust the previous SR intervals in
order to include the poor and very poor rock mass categories or
BSTR types. Therefore, the SR intervals are modified between 100,
80, 60, 40, 20, 10 and 0 to adopt also the BSTR types. Also, the
corresponding values of the Jv (0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 10, 30, 60, 100) are
taken into account in accordance with its definition by ISRM [27]
and Sönmez and Ulusay [24]. By doing this, a plausible way to
quantitatively define the BSTR types is attained as illustrated in
Fig. 5. The correlation between SR limits and corresponding Jv
values, encompassing the wide range of the rock mass quality is
given in Fig. 5.
The BSTR values assigned for poor and very poor rock masses
lie between 0 and 20 as presented in Fig. 5. A very helpful
distinction to notice is that the BSTR can be categorized in range
of the Jv between 30 and 100; i.e. in the regions of disintegrated–
decomposed and extremely crushed/sheared rock mass to
calibrate the modified-GSI chart.
3.2.3. Volumetric joint count (Jv)
Jv is defined as the number of joints intersecting a volume of
1 m3 of rock mass [28]. For heavily jointed rock mass referred to
as the BSTR 3/4/5, a mixture of angular and rounded rock pieces is
free from high proportion of fines caused. It can be considered
that categorizing such materials as the BSTR 3/4/5 in the GSI
seems to be possible. It is, however, impossible to estimate the
number of joint sets in such rock. In order to overcome this
difficulty, Sonmez and Ulusay [24] have recognized that it would
be logical and more practical counting the faces of individual rock
pieces involved by the BSTR 3/4/5. For the purpose, by assuming
that parallel or nearly parallel surfaces represent the same joint
set, such parallel surfaces should be counted once. In the case of a
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
694 R.R. Osgoui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 690–697

Fig. 4. (a–c) Various types of BSTR and (d) disc types of broken rock cores.

Disintegrated Extremely Crushed/ where Dn is the estimated number of joint sets as mentioned
Decomposed (BSTR 3 / 4/5 ) Sheared (BSTR 1/2)
above, and Sb is the average size of the block or rock pieces, which
represents average spacing of joints and estimated from the
Blocky
Massive / Intact Blocky Very Blocky selected pieces of the BSTR 3/4/5. The BSTR types, very important
Disturbed
100 indicator of poor and very poor rock masses used in the modified-
90 GSI chart (Fig. 3), are pertained to the Jv intervals.
80
Structure Rating (SR)

70 3.3. Joint condition indicators

60 SR = -15.58 ln (Jv) + 74.62
50 R≈ 1 Joint condition plays a significant role in characterizing highly
40 jointed rock masses. Almost in all of the existing classification
systems, the ratings for the joint condition account for a large
30
percentage of total ratings. In RMR system [2], for instance, the
20 joint condition rating accounts for 30% of the total ratings.
10 Similarly, for Q-system [3] and RMi [10], joint condition rating
0 constitutes a major percentage of the total rating. In the modified-
0.1 1 10 100 GIS, the parameters used for joint condition are adopted from the
Volumetric Joint Count (Jv) modified-RMR (M-RMR) system [25,29,30] and a new rating was
assigned.
Fig. 5. The relationship between SR and the Jv is suggested in this study.
Joint persistency and joint roughness used in joint condition
rating of the mentioned classification systems do not provide a
rock piece from a rock mass including three joint sets approxi- proper sense in characterizing very poor rock mass with very high
mately perpendicular to each others, prismatic blocks with six degree of fracturing and decomposition. Instead, weathering is
surfaces are formed and if the parallel surfaces are considered believed to be a useful property that can be used for joint rating of
from a single joint set the number of joint sets (Dn) is estimated as such a poor rock mass. Taking into account the BSTR in connection
3. While in the case of a tetrahedral rock pieces of which surfaces with ICR and weathering (W), it is possible to set up some suitable
are not parallel to each others, the number of joint sets is correlations, depending also on infilling and separation situation
considered as 4. Assuming that BSTR types of rock masses are of joints, which are calibrated for the horizontal axis (IJC) of the
homogenous and isotropic, the following expression is suggested modified-GSI chart.
for the approximate estimation of Jv in conjunction with Dn [24]: ICR is defined as the total length of the cylindrical core pieces
  greater than 2 cm divided by the total length of the structural
1 region or drill-run. The ICR for poor and very poor rock masses
Jv ¼ Dn ð1Þ
Sb (disintegrated or BSTR 3/4/5, and extremely crushed/sheared or
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.R. Osgoui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 690–697 695

BSTR 1/2) is assumed to be less than 25 to satisfy the modified-GSI
requirements.
The upper part of modified-GSI chart (Fig. 3) is divided into
two categories; namely, poor and very poor. For ICR o25%, the
total rating of IJC varies between 0 and 16. A simple way of
determining IJC is simply given in Table 1. With reference to
Table 1, there are three alternatives to assign a rating for
weathering condition. The first and second alternatives use the
weathering conditions described and classified by Unal [25] and
ISRM [27]. The third alternative is to use the Weathering
Condition Index (W), which is suggested by Gokceoglu and
Aksoy [31] and based on the ratio between the Schmidt
hammer rebound values obtained from fresh and weathered
rock surfaces as given in Table 1.
4. Application of the modified-GSI: A case study from Turkey
4.1. General
The 357-m-long Malatya no. 7 railroad tunnel being 5 m wide
and situated in the southeastern part of Turkey, was excavated in

Table 1
Joint Condition Index (IJC) ratings for using in the modified-GSI.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
696 R.R. Osgoui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 690–697

1930 through a toe of a paleo-landslide slope. This tunnel with
overburden of 60–70 m passes close to the creek side of the slope
descended to a river. The water table varied between 8 and 14 m
below the tunnel discharged to the river level. Since its
construction, this horseshoe shape tunnel has struggled with
severe stability problems due to the existence of very poor rock
mass, presence of voids, underground water seepage and high
level of tunnel deformation. A large amount of time dependent
deformation developing through many years resulted in mis-
alignment of the tunnel for about 160 m of the tunnel length. This
amount of large deformation (1.67 m) shifted the tunnel towards
the creek side and formed an undulating tunnel shape; ultimately
resulting in transit blockage. In 2003, during the rehabilitation of
the tunnel two collapses occurred inside the tunnel followed by a
failure in tunnel supports. As a result of this, quite a big sinkhole
was developed at slope surface following a flow of 500 m3
material into the tunnel.
4.2. Geology
The landslide medium around the tunnel is a mixture type
having a complex geology. The rock mass around the tunnel
consists of metavolcanics, schist, fractured limestone blocks,
antigorite and radyolarite in patches. The matrix material consists
of clay and schist having low swelling potential. Limestone blocks
are generally closely jointed, highly fractured and weathered.
There are also voids within such a poor quality rock mass. Such
complex lithological units surrounding the tunnel where very low
permeability schist and metavolcanics taking part as blocks in the
matrix material indicate a medium permeability. However, in the
existence of limestone blocks the permeability level increases due
to the existence of dense cracks and fractures. The landslide
morphology and poor quality rocks are illustrated in Fig. 6.
4.3. Rock mass characterization by the modified-GSI
Core box logging of 50 exploratory boreholes drilled at
different locations of the landslide slope proved very poor rock
mass quality around the tunnel. The value of RQD in most cores
was 0 while the ICR was lower than 25% as illustrated in Fig. 4b.
The total core recovery (TCR) was very low and varied between
17–28% in the deformed tunnel section. During drilling boreholes,
washed soil, presence of voids and water loss were recorded. In
order to characterize such a poor rock mass, the modified-GSI was
realized to be more practical due to limitations and constrains of
comparable rock mass classification systems such as RMR and Q-
system as outlined in Table 2. The characterization parameters
which were either difficult or in many cases impossible to be
quantified are indicated with N/A in Table 2.
Rock cores could have been well defined in terms of BSTR
types. In addition to the presence of BSTR types 1, 4 and 5, most of
the rock cores were dominantly governed by BSTR 2 and 3. Taking
into consideration the ICR lower than 25% for completely
weathered rock (class 5, W5) and very poor joint condition

Fig. 6. Views from the rock mass to which the modified-GSI was applied: (a) landslide slope at mountain side and (b) highly weathered rock mass with very poor quality.

Table 2
Applicability of three rock mass characterization systems used for the Malatya railroad tunnel.

Classification/characterization system used RMR Q-system GSI (application of assistant modified-GSI)

Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock (x) (N/A)

RQD (x) (N/A) (x) (N/A)
Joint spacing/joint number (x) (N/A) (x) (N/A)
Joint condition
Persistency (x) (N/A)
Separation (x) (N/A)
Roughness (x) (N/A) (x) (N/A)
Infilling (x) (x) (x)
Weathering (x) (x) (x)
Ground water (x) (x)
Stress reduction factor (SRF) (x)
Intact core recovery (ICR) (x)
Broken structure domain (BSTR) (x)
Structure rating (SR) (x)
Applicability N/A N/A Yes

The characterizations were valid for the dry condition.

N/A: not applicable.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.R. Osgoui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 690–697
without filling for most rock cores, the value of IJC ranged between
7 and 9. Accordingly, the dominant modified-GSI for such a very
poor rock mass of landslide slope varied between 13 and 18.
5. Conclusion
The use of rock mass classification systems, in which RQD plays
a dominant role, is not suggested for poor and very poor rock
masses due to difficulty in its estimation (in most cases the value of
RQD for such rock masses is zero). Due to its considerable potential
in characterizing a wide spectrum of rock mass qualities, a
supplementary approach was developed to aid at the GSI,
particularly in better characterizing poor rock masses. In this
study, efforts have been made to improve the GSI parameters to
better classify poor and very poor rock masses and to develop a
quantitative supplementary approach (modified-GSI) which is easy
to use. The modified-GSI, based on both geological visual
impression and quantitative measures, may be integrated with
the original GSI. The drawback of RQD in evaluating rock cores with
the length of less than 10 cm (commonly in core box logging of
poor rock masses) can be compensated with introduction of BSTR
and SR in the modified-GSI, which are qualitative and quantitative
means, respectively, for the definition of the degree of jointing. The
joint condition in the modified-GSI is well defined by means of ICR
and weathering condition since the evaluation of joint roughness is
meaningless for such a very highly fractured poor rock masses.
The modified-GSI is valid for poor rock mass that behaves as a
homogenous isotropic medium. These charts can be used for poor
and very poor rock masses with GSI ranging between 6 and 27.
During characterization of poor rock masses, the modified-GSI chart
which could be integrated with existing GSI charts, i.e. in the case of
GSI427, the existing GSI charts mentioned earlier should be used.
References
[1] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Trans S Afr
Inst Civ Eng 1973;15:335–44.
[2] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classification. New York: Wiley; 1989.
[3] Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J. Engineering classification of rock masses for the
design of tunnel support. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1974;6(4):189–239.
[4] Barton N. Some new Q value correlations to assist in site characterization and
tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:185–216.
[5] Palmström A. Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock
quality designation (RQD). Tunnell Underge Space Tech 2005;20:362–77.
[6] Marinos V, Marinos P, Hoek E. The geological strength index: applications and
limitations. Bull Eng Geol Env 2005;64(1):55–65.
[7] Marinos P, Marinos V, Hoek E. Geological Strength Index (GSI). A
characterization tool for assessing engineering properties for rock masses.
In: Romana M, Perucho A, Olalla C, editors. Underground Works under Special
Conditions, 2007, pp. 13–21.
View publication stats
697
[8] Hack R. An evaluation of slope stability classification. In: Proceedings of
EUROCK 2002, Madeira, Portugal, 2002, pp. 3–32.
[9] Pantelidis L. Rock slope stability assessments through rock mass classification
systems. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2009;46:315–25.
[10] Palmström A. RMi—A rock mass characterization system for rock engineering
purposes. PhD. thesis, University of Oslo, 1995.
[11] Hoek E. Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News J 1994;2(2):4–16.
[12] Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1997;34(8):1165–86.
[13] Hoek E. Putting numbers to geology—an engineer’s viewpoint. Q J Eng Geol
1999;32:1–19.
[14] Tzamos S, Sofianos AI. A correlation of four rock mass classification systems
through their fabric indices. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2007;44:475–95.
[15] Morales T, Uribe-Etxebarria G, Uriarte JA, de Valderamma F. Geomechanical
characterisation of rock masses in Alpine regions: the Basque Arc (Basque–
Cantabrian basin, North Spain). Eng Geol 2004;71:343–62.
[16] Osgoui R, Unal E. Rock reinforcement design for unstable tunnel originally
excavated in poor rock mass. In: Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress,
Turkey, 2005, pp. 291–296.
[17] Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M. Estimation of rock mass
deformation modulus and strength of jointed hard rock masses using the GSI
System. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41(1):3–19.
[18] Hoek E, Marinos P, Benissi M. Applicability of the Geological Strength Index
(GSI) classification for very weak and sheared rock masses: the case of the
Athens Schist Formation. Bull Eng Geol Env 1998;57(2):151–60.
[19] Marinos PG, Hoek E. GSI: a geological friendly tool for rock mass strength
estimation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering (GeoEng 2000), Melbourne, 2000, pp. 1422–1440.
[20] Marinos P, Hoek E. Estimating the geotechnical properties of heterogeneous
rock masses such as flysch. Bull Eng Geol Env 2001;60(2):85–92.
[21] Hoek E, Marinos P, Marinos V. Characterization and engineering properties of
tectonically undisturbed but lithologically varied sedimentary rock masses.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2005;42(2):277–85.
[22] Tzamos S, Sofianos AI. A correlation of four rock mass classification systems
through their fabric indices. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2007;44:477–95.
[23] Sonmez H, Ulusay R. Modifications to the geological strength index (GSI) and
their applicability to stability of slopes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1999;36:743–60.
[24] Sonmez H, Ulusay R. A discussion on the Hoek–Brown failure criterion and
suggested modification to the criterion verified by slope stability case
studies. Yerbilimleri (Earth Sciences) 2002; 26: 77–99, /www.yerbilimleri.
hacettepe.edu.trS.
[25] Unal E. Modified rock mass classification: M-RMR system. In: Milestone in
Rock Engineering: A Jubilee Collection, ZT Bieniawski, ed. Rotterdam:
Balkema, 1996, pp. 203–223.
[26] Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF. Support of underground excavation in hard
rock. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1995.
[27] ISRM. The Complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization,
Testing and Monitoring: 1974–2006. In: Ulusay R, Hudson JA, editors.
Suggested methods prepared by the ISRM commission on testing methods,
International Society for Rock Mechanics, Ankara, 2007.
[28] Palmström A. The volumetric joint count—A useful and simple measure of
the degree of rock mass jointing. In: Proceedings of IAEG Congress, New
Delhi, 1982, pp. 221–228.
[29] Ozkan I. Modified rock mass rating (M-RMR) system and roof behaviour
model. PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, 1995.
[30] Ulusay R, Ozkan I, Ünal E. Characterization of weak, stratified and clay
bearing rock masses for engineering applications. In: Myer LR, Cook NGW,
Goodman RE, Tsang CF, editors. Proceedings of Fractured and Jointed Rock
Masses Conference, Lake Tahoe, California. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1995, pp.
233–240.
[31] Gokceoglu C, Aksoy H. New approaches to the characterization of clay-
bearing, densely joints and weak rock masses. Eng Geol 2000;58:1–23.