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

2,031

3 authors, including:
Shantanu Sarkar

D. P. Kanungo

CSIR-Central Building Research Institu

Central Building Research Institute

62 PUBLICATIONS 843 CITATIONS

79 PUBLICATIONS 765 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: D. P. Kanungo

Retrieved on: 01 June 2016

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 deformability 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 assessment 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

Geotech Geol Eng

Strength Index (GSI) of road cut slopes were determined 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 developed 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of rock

mass
Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
Spacing of discontinuities
Condition of discontinuities
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 engineering 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

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 classification 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 orientation 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

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.

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 RMRbasic F1  F2  F3 F4

RQD 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 roughness data has shown a wide range from very rough to
slickensided. Weathering varied from low to decomposed. Field photographs of few of the slopes are
shown in the Figs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

where, F1, F2, F3adjustment ratings for joints and

F4adjustment 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 RishikeshChamoli 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 alteration, 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 considerably. 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

4 Evaluation of Data
The joint data for all the five parameters such as
compressive strength, RQD, joint spacing, joint condition and hydrological condition were evaluated for
all the fifty slopes to determine RMRbasic. Hydrological 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

Table 1 Description of SMR classes (Romana 1985)

Class no

IV

III

II

SMR

020

2140

4160

6180

81100

Description

Very bad

Bad

Normal

Good

Very good

Stability

Completely unstable

Unstable

Partially stable

Stable

Completely stable

Failures

Big planar or soil like

Planar or big wedges

Some joints or many wedges

Some blocks

None

123

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

condition. This considers six rock mass structures,
which includes massive at the top row and laminated at

the bottom row. GSI ranges were obtained for all the
fifty slopes. To obtain a quantitative value of GSI the
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

(SR) was obtained from the volumetric joint count
based on the relation of SR and Jv shown in the Fig. 1.

123

From this structure rating (SR) and surface condition

rating (SCR), GSI were obtained from the chart
(Fig. 1). This gives a quantified GSI value. Hence for

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

was further downscaled to a particular value with the
help of modified chart. The values of range of GSI and

the quantified GSI values are given in the Table 2.

The GSI obtained for the studied slopes range from
10 to 72.

123

Geotech Geol Eng

Table 2 GSI range (Hoek
and Brown 1997) and the
quantified GSI values
obtained from modified
approach (Sonmez and
Ulusay 2002)

Slope
reference

GSI
range

Quantified
GSI

Slope
reference

GSI
range

Quantified
GSI

2035

28

26

3045

38

2035

27

27

4565

58

3
4

6585
4565

72
63

28
29

3555
3555

43
40

3045

42

30

3045

32

3755

45

31

2035

24

5575

69

32

6585

72

1530

26

33

6585

72

3045

39

34

1025

15

10

520

13

35

4565

62

11

7595

85

36

3045

32

12

4565

60

37

2035

27

13

2035

23

38

4565

60

14

3045

36

39

5575

72

15

4565

58

40

5575

72

16

4565

60

41

4565

58

17

2035

30

42

2035

27

18

4565

58

43

3755

54

19
20

3555
520

45
20

44
45

520
520

15
19

21

4565

61

46

3555

45

22

1530

27

47

1530

19

23

2035

32

48

6585

70

24

3755

45

49

1530

20

25

4565

60

50

3045

36

After obtaining RMRbasic of the rocks exposed

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 preliminary 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:

123

J1  42=N350; J2  41=N120;
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 225  215 10; F1 0:85
bj 51; F2 1
bj  bs 51  60 9; F3 50
RMR 55
Where, aSslope strike; ajjoint strike; bsslope
dip and bjjoint dip. Following Eq. 1,
SMR 55 0:85  1:0  50 12:5
The values of F1, F2 and F3 were determined from the
rating table of adjustment factor for joint orientation

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

37

33.4

Unstable

26

55

49

Partially stable

34

33.1

Unstable

27

72

54.5

Partially stable

3
4

77
77

74.6
69.35

Stable
Stable

28
29

61
50

57.4
59.1

Partially stable
Partially stable

58

Completely unstable

30

47

Completely unstable

58

Completely unstable

31

35

Completely unstable

82

73

Stable

32

77

77

Stable

35

29.9

Unstable

33

82

75.62

Stable

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

13

37

14

50

15
16

Stable

37

35

28.7

Unstable

Completely unstable

38

74

50

Partially stable

50

Partially stable

39

80

71

Stable

70

61

Stable

40

82

77.8

Stable

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
20

59
27

9
21

Completely unstable
Unstable

44
45

25
23

16
15.35

Completely unstable
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

123

stated that in general GSI for disintegrated structure

is \25, for blocky disturbed 2545, for very blocky
4565, for blocky 6580 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 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 & RMR9. 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

Geotech Geol Eng

49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35

Slope Reference No.

33
31
29
27

Quantified GSI
Quantified
GSI

25

GSI range
GSI
range

23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1

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

GSI

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

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

gives a better understanding of rock mass condition
except for a highly disintegrated rock mass.

Slope stability assessment based on SMR values

shows that there are 14 unstable and 12 completely
unstable slopes while only 10 slopes fall in stable class

123

Geotech Geol Eng

rainfall, earthquake or human intervention. The slopes

having SMR of 4060 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 corresponding 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

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 condition 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
80

RMR

75

SMR

70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

85
RMR

80

SMR

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

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

123

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

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 4580 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 assessment of slope stability which uses RMR and discontinuity 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 258268
Barton N (2002) Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site
characterization and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 39(2):185216
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of
rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech
6:189236
Bieniawski ZT (1973) Engineering classification of jointed rock
masses. Trans S Afr Inst Civ Eng 15:335344
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 2732
Bieniawski ZT (1979) The geomechanical classification in rock
engineering applications. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Congress Rock Mechanics, Montreux, Balkema,
Rotterdam, vol 2, pp 4148
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) Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus and strength of
jointed hard rock masses using the GSI System. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 41(1):319
Hoek E (1999) Putting numbers to geology-an engineers view
point. Q J Eng Geol 32:119
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):11651186
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):151160
Hoek E, Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002 Edition. In: Proceedings of NARMS-TAC
Conference, Toronto 1, pp 267273
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 14221440
Marinos V, Marinos P, Hoek E (2005) The Geological strength
index: applications and limitations. Bull Eng Geol Environ
64:5565
Palmstrom A (2005) Measurements of and correlations between
block size and rock quality designation (RQD). Tunnels
and Underground Space Technology 20:362377

123

Geotech Geol Eng

Romana M (1985) New adjustment ratings for application of
Bieniawski classification to slopes, Proceedings of International Symposium on The role of rock mechanics,
Zacatecas, pp 4953
Singh B, Goel RK (1999) Rock mass classificationa 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 36:743760
Sonmez H, Ulusay R (2002) A discussion on the HoekBrown
failure criterion and suggested modification to the criterion

123

verified by slope stability case studies. Yerbilimleri (Earth

sciences) 26:7799
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R (2004) Indirect determination of the modulus of deformation of rock masses based on
the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:849857
Sonmez H, Altinsoy H, Gokceoglu C, Medley EW (2006)
Considerations in developing an empirical strengrh criterion for Bimrocks. 4th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
(ARMS 2006) Nov 610, Singapore