Q1) Summarize GSI (geological strength index) system for engineering rock classification

Analysis of the surface and underground excavation requires a reliable estimate of rock mass deformation and strength. In 1994,
Evert Hoek introduced a geological strength index (GSI) method that estimates the strength of the jointed rocks mass and an
assessment of interlocking of rock block and surface condition between these rocks (Hoek, 1983; Hoek and Brown, 1997).
Moreover, GSI was developed to account for the gap identified in the rock mass rating classification scheme. And GSI aimed to
account for two features, such as rock mass structure represented by its blackness and interlocking degree and discontinuities
surface condition(E.T.Brown, 2005).

As mentioned earlier, GSI combines two parameters: surface condition of discontinuity and interlocking condition among the rocky
block. Discontinuity surface ranging from very good (describe fresh, unweathered surface) to very poor (represented by the highly
weathered or slickenside surface with clay fill). Besides, interlocking blocks varying from massive to crushed or laminated rock
mass.

Figure.1 Classifies the rock quality into six groups; intact or massive, block, very block, blocky or folded, crushed and laminated or
sheared. And discontinuity is classified into five groups based on the joint condition. Figure.1 represents a 6X5 matrix which is a
combination of these mentioned two parameters. By picking any block, you can estimate the range of the GSI. In a nutshell, the
GSI needs to be evaluated when the rock mass is undisturbed. Otherwise, when estimation is done after any disturbance such as
excavation, you can get a biased result.

1
Figure 1: Geological Strength Index (GSI) for jointed rock masses (Modified from E.T.Brown, 2005)
Table.1 Rock mass classes determined from GSI modified after Hussian et al., 2020)

2
Q2) Summarize SMR(Slope mass rating) system.
In 1985, Rama proposed a geomechanics rock mass classification that reviews the current rock mass rating (RMR). His method
adopted the five parameters (suggested in the RMR), including uniaxial intact rock, rock quality designation (RQD), joint spacing,
joint condition, and groundwater condition. Rama added the sixth parameter (penalization for adverse orientation) generally applied
to the slope stability analysis. It was evaluated based on the four parameters ( F 1 , F2 , F3 ,∧F 4 ¿. F 1 , F2 ,∧F 3 are related to the rock
slope and joint set geometry and , F 4 accounts the method for slope excavation (Romana, 1991; Abbas, 2017). The final expression
that estimates SMR is illustrated in eq.1.

SMR=RMR +¿ F 1∗F2 ¿ F3 ¿+ F 4 (1)

F 1 = ( 1−sin A )2 (2)

F 2 = ( tan β j )2 (3)

Where A, the angle between the strikes of the slope and the joints, β j , joint dip angle, for toppling, F 2=1. Generally, F 1 relates
parallelism between joints and slope face strike, F 2 refers to the joint dip angle in the planar mode of failure, F 3 reflects the
relationship between slope and joints and F 4And the classification categories of slope mass rock are shown in the table.2 and
table.3 respectively.

3
Table 2: Adjustment rating of F 1 , F2 , F3 ,∧F 4 for joints (modified from Abbas, 2017)

Table 3: Classification of Rock Slope (modified from Abbas, 2017)

4
Q3) Compare the representative rock classification systems, RMR, Q-system, and GSI in terms of advantages and
disadvantages. Also, discuss the limitation of each classification system in terms of input parameters and applications.
Rock quality and identification are based on the systematic classification that quantifies the input parameters. Different researchers
like Bieniawski provided a checklist and guides that can be used for rock mass characterization. Classification results in
quantitative information for design purposes and enables appropriate engineering decision-making and more effective
communication in the rock engineering project. Various classification schemes are provided, and each system has merits, demerits,
and limits basing on its range of application(Abbas, 2017). Table.4 summarizes the advantages, disadvantages, and limitations
associated with Rock Mass Rating (RMR), Tunnel Quality Index (Q-system), and Geological strength index (GSI).
Table 4: RMR, Q-system, and GSI rock mass classification system modified after Rehman et al., 2018; Hussian et al., 2020

Rock Mass Rating (RMR)

Advantages
 RMR is easy to practice because it
needs few basic parameters related to
the geometry and mechanical
condition of the rock.
 RMR incorporates updated positive
impact of the mechanical excavation.
Disadvantages
 It is not sensitive to the slight change 
of the RMR. Due to ranging
classification schemes.
 It does not include in-situ stress 
conditions.
 RMR is the lowest tool among other
classification schemes because it is
developed based on a few parameters. 
Limitation
RMR system application is still
limited to the high-stress location
rock mass.
It can lead to overdesign the
supporting system due to its
conservative rock classification (No
support limit for opening size).
It does not consider a new design
approach because it deals with an old
version of the system

Tunnel Quality Index (Q-system)

Advantages Disadvantages Limitation
 Q-system determines the rock mass  Jw/ SRF does not provide a  In situ stress is less represented,
characteristics and tunnel support meaningful with the stress acting on leading to this method being effective
5
 requirement.
 It represents active stress by 
incorporating water pressures and
flows, presence of the shear zone,
clay-bearing rocks, squeezing and 
swelling rock, and in-situ stress state
 It measures the support for the tunnel
of a given dimension and usage of
excavation by defining equivalent
dimensions.
 It also is used for identifying
squeezing in underground structures.
Advantages
 GSI determines the rock mass strength
and deformation properties of weak to 
very weak rock mass and addresses rock
heterogeneity in the best way.
 Qualitative and quantitative approaches 
incorporated in GSI are suitable for
evaluating the weak, jointed, layered,
and heterogeneous rock mass for
engineering design purposes.
Q4)
Table.5 Result for question 4
the rock mass to be supported. for engineering rock design.
RQD/ Jn does not provide a  Q-system is not suitable for soft rock
meaningful measure of relative block
size and the ratio.
It is difficult to obtain a stress
reduction factor, and any of its values
cover a wide range of in-situ stress
for rocks of a specific strength
Geological strength index (GSI)
Disadvantages Limitation
 The GSI system is based on assumptions
that the rock mass behaves like isotropic
This system did not cover the design of
media, and the behavior of rock mass is
the support system for tunnels and other
not reliant on the direction of the applied
structures.
load.
The qualitative approach for estimating
 GSI is not effective in tectonically
the GSI system required better
disturbed rock masses having destroyed
knowledge and skills to collect and
structural fabric.
evaluate the field data.
 GSI system is not applied to already
excavated faces.
6
 Joint 1 Joint 2 Joint 3
Parameter Description Rating Description Rating Description Rating

7
Intact Rock
55 Mpa 7 55 Mpa 7 55 Mpa 7
strenght
RQD RQD estimated as 60% 13 RQD estimated as 60% 13 RQD estimated as 60% 13
Fracture Average spacing is 0.4 m Average spacing is 0.4 m = Average spacing is 0.4 m =
10 10 10
spacing = 400 mm 400 mm 400 mm
Fracture Lenght Fracture is continous, it Fracture is continous, it Fracture is continous, it
0 0 0
means > 20 m means > 20 m means > 20 m
Fracture
High weathered 1 slightly weathered 5 slightly weathered 5
weathering
Fracture No one specified (no
6 No one specified (no one) 6 No one specified (no one) 6
aperture one)
Fracture
Slightly rough 3 Slightly rough 3 Slightly rough 3
Roughness
Fracture No one specified (no
6 No one specified (no one) 6 No one specified (no one) 6
infilling one)
Water condition Due to the condition of Due to the condition of Due to the condition of
mudstone, we can mudstone, we can assume mudstone, we can assume the
7 7 7
assume the fracture water the fracture water condition fracture water condition to be
condition to be (wet) to be (wet) (wet)
Fracture 90/80, It has dip direction of
180/10, It has a dip 185/75, It has a dip direction
orientation 90 and dip of 80 degrees, this
direction of 180 and a dip of 185 and a dip of 75
implies that tunnel driven in
of 10 degrees; this degrees; this implies that the
east-west (driven
implies that the tunnel is -5 tunnel is driven east-west -12 0
perpendicular to the fracture
driven east-west (driven (driven along the fracture
strike and driven with dip). It
along the fracture strike). strike). It is classified as
is classified as VERY
It is classified as FAIR VERY UNFAVOURABLE
FAVOURABLE
Total RMR 　 48 　 45 　 57
The lowest RMR joint is selected to class whole rock mass (for higher safety factor). Total Rock mass rating is 45, classified as
FAIR ROCK.
According to guidelines for excavation and support of 10 m span rock tunnels by the RMR System; During tunneling in fair rock,
advance in top heading and bench should be ranging between 1.5 -3 m. Commencing with support after each blast—complete
support of 10 m from the face. Systematic rock bolting, using 4 m long spaced 1.5 – 2 m in crown and walls with wire mesh in the
8
crown. And 50 – 10 mm in the crown and 30 mm in sides are recommended.
Q5)
Sandstone
 Basing on the information given, sandstone
is not subjected to weathering; it implies
sandstone is still fresh.
 Moreover, fracture spacing, aperture, and
roughness indicate semi-loose to loose rock
with minor fractures resulting from some
bedding plane or joints shown by the
medium to low RQD.
 Based on the mentioned parameter, this
rock can be classified as a strong rock
mass.
Mudstone Granitic intrusion
 Generally, mudstone rock is characterized by  250 Mpa strength indicates
tightened fractures, blocky and non-fractured core very strong rock.
samples.  Very low RQD, high
 Basing on the information provided, 75% RQD aperture, and fracture
indicates a non-fracturing core sample. roughness show very
 Slightly roughness, fracture spacing, and aperture broken ships of the core
indicate the tightness of the blocky. sample.
 It is highlighted that rock subjected slightly  We can classify the rock as
weathering and has affected the mudstone a very strong rock mass.
strength.
 We can classify the rock in the range of weak
rock.
9
 Sandstone Mudstone Granitic intrusion
Parameter Ratin
Description Description Rating Description Rating
g
Intact Rock
80 Mpa 7 20 Mpa 2 250 Mpa 15
strenght
RQD RQD estimated as 45% 8 RQD estimated as 75% 13 RQD estimated as 10% 3
Fracture
spacing is 0.4 m = 400 mm 10 spacing is 0.3 m = 300 mm 10 spacing is 0.2 m = 200 mm 8
spacing
Fracture Length
5--8 2 1.5--2.5 4 2 4
(persistance)
Fracture
None 6 slightly weathered 5 None 6
weathering
Fracture
1.5 1 0.5 4 6 0
aperture
Fracture
rough 5 Slightly rough 3 very rough 6
Roughness
Fracture
None 6 None 6 None 6
infilling
Water condition Damp 10 Wet 7 Completely Dry 15
Fracture Assumed to be very
0 Assumed to be very favorable 0 Assumed to be very favorable 0
orientation favorable
Total RMR 　 55 　 54 　 63
RMR
Fair Rock Fair Rock Good Rock
Classification
Basing on the description of these three rock types, shown different engineering behavior. RMR of the sandstone and mudstone
falls in the same range led to be classified to have the same engineering behavior, and RMR classified granitic intrusion as good
rock, which does not match the actual behavior of the granitic rock mass. It implies that RMR is not an appropriate tool to describe
the engineering behavior of the rock. It can underestimate or overestimate the behavior of the rock mass.

10
References
Abbas, S. M., 2017, Rock Mass Classification Systems: no. January 2015.

E.T.Brown, B. H. G. B. and, 2005, Rock Mechanics for Undergound Mining: 647 p.

Hoek, E., 1983, Strength of jointed rock masses: no. 3, p. 187–223.

Hoek, E., and E. T. Brown, 1997, Practical estimates of rock mass strength: International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, v. 34, no. 8, p. 1165–1186.

Hussian, S., N. Mohammad, Z. Ur Rehman, N. M. Khan, K. Shahzada, S. Ali, M. Tahir, S. Raza, and S. Sherin, 2020, Review of
the geological strength index (GSI) as an empirical classification and rock mass property estimation tool: Origination,
modifications, applications, and limitations: Advances in Civil Engineering, v. 2020, doi:10.1155/2020/6471837.

Rehman, H., W. Ali, A. M. Naji, J. J. Kim, R. A. Abdullah, and H. K. Yoo, 2018, Review of rock-mass rating and tunneling quality
index systems for tunnel design: Development, refinement, application and limitation: Applied Sciences (Switzerland), v. 8,
no. 8, doi:10.3390/app8081250.

Romana, M., 1991, SMR Classification .

11