Geological Strength Index Overview

The Geological Strength Index (GSI), developed by Evert Hoek, is a system for characterizing rock
masses in engineering rock mechanics. It emerged due to the increasing demand for reliable data on
rock mass properties required for designing tunnels, slopes, and foundations. The GSI system aids in
predicting rock mass strength and deformability, offering a tool for assessing engineering properties
when direct testing is impractical.

• Background and Evolution: GSI originated to complement the Hoek-Brown rock mass failure
criterion, evolving as an essential tool for geotechnical engineering. The system primarily
focuses on assessing the geological features of rock masses, including lithology and
discontinuities, to estimate their strength and deformability. Initially introduced in the 1990s, it
was refined for weak and fractured rock masses, which traditional systems like the Rock Mass
Rating (RMR) system could not adequately handle.
• Function and Application: GSI is not a replacement for systems like RMR or the Q-system, which
focus on tunnel reinforcement. Instead, GSI's primary function is to estimate rock mass
properties. It relies heavily on visual geological observations, avoiding complex numerical
parameters for certain conditions, especially in tectonically disturbed or poor-quality rock
masses. GSI inputs can be used with the Hoek-Brown failure criterion to derive mechanical
properties for numerical analysis.
• Limitations: GSI is not applicable in all cases. It is unsuitable for rock masses where anisotropy
plays a critical role, such as those dominated by a specific structural orientation. In such cases,
the rock mass behavior is influenced by discontinuities rather than overall rock strength, making
GSI less reliable.
• Adaptability: The system is flexible enough to accommodate complex conditions, but this
requires considerable engineering judgment. GSI must be cautiously applied, ensuring that it
properly reflects the rock's geological characteristics and their effect on the rock mass's
mechanical behavior.
• Practical Use: The index is primarily estimated from outcrops, slopes, and tunnel faces, although
surface weathering or excavation effects may influence the assessment. Engineers must adjust
GSI values to account for deeper or unaltered rock masses to ensure accurate extrapolation for
design purposes.

1/21
The Geological Strength Index (GSI) classification criteria are based on the visual assessment of
rock mass characteristics, particularly focusing on two primary factors: structure and surface
condition of the discontinuities within the rock mass. The classification can be visualized as a chart or
table that combines these two factors to derive a GSI value. Here's a detailed breakdown of the criteria
used:

1. Rock Mass Structure (Blockiness)

• The structure of the rock mass is defined by the size, shape, and arrangement of the blocks
formed by discontinuities (e.g., fractures, joints, bedding planes). The rock mass can fall into
several categories based on its structural complexity:
0 Massive: Very few or no visible discontinuities. The rock is largely intact.

0 Very Blocky: The rock mass is divided into large, distinct blocks by a few discontinuities.

0 Blocky: The rock mass is divided into smaller blocks by more frequent discontinuities.

0 Blocky/Disturbed: The rock mass contains smaller, angular blocks or fragments, often

caused by geological disturbances.

0 Disintegrated: The rock is highly fractured, broken into very small blocks or individual

particles.

2. Surface Condition of Discontinuities

• This criterion evaluates the surface conditions of the discontinuities, which impact how the
blocks interact and move relative to each other. The factors considered include the roughness,
weathering, and infilling material between the discontinuities.
0 Good (Rough, Fresh): The discontinuities are rough and unweathered, with no infilling

material. This generally indicates strong interlocking between blocks.

0 Fair (Somewhat Weathered, Rough): The discontinuities are slightly weathered but still

retain some roughness and strength.

0 Poor (Weathered, Smooth): The discontinuities are significantly weathered and smooth,

with little resistance to block movement.

0 Very Poor (Highly Weathered, Filled with Weak Material): The discontinuities are highly

weathered, often filled with weak material (e.g., clay), resulting in minimal interlocking.

3. Combining Structure and Surface Condition

• The GSI chart plots rock mass structure against the surface condition to determine the GSI
value. The chart is typically divided into a grid, where the x-axis represents the structure (from
"massive" to "disintegrated") and the y-axis represents the surface condition (from "good" to
"very poor"). By locating the intersection of the structure and surface condition, engineers can
estimate the GSI value, usually ranging from 10 to 100:
0 GSI of 90-100: Represents massive, intact rock with very good surface conditions.

0 GSI of 75-90: Represents blocky or slightly disturbed rock masses with good surface

conditions.
0 GSI of 50-75: Represents rock masses that are blocky or fractured with fair surface

conditions.
0 GSI of 25-50: Represents disturbed or fractured rock masses with poor surface conditions.

0 GSI of 10-25: Represents highly disintegrated or fractured rock masses with very poor

surface conditions.

4. Modifications for Special Conditions

2/21
 • Adjustments to the GSI values may be necessary in specific cases, such as for heavily
weathered rock masses, anisotropic conditions (e.g., schistosity or bedding planes), or
surface alteration due to excavation. In these cases, the standard chart values should be
modified to reflect the actual conditions that impact rock mass strength and behavior.

Practical Example

• A rock mass that is blocky with poorly weathered, smooth discontinuities would likely fall into
a GSI range of around 30-50.
• A massive rock mass with rough and fresh discontinuities would have a GSI value of above
90.

The Geological Strength Index (GSI) is a widely used tool in rock engineering to estimate the
mechanical properties of rock masses. However, like any classification system, GSI has its limitations.
Below are some of the key limitations of GSI:

1. Dependence on Visual Assessments

• Subjectivity: The GSI system relies heavily on the visual interpretation of rock mass
characteristics such as block size and surface conditions. Different engineers may have different
interpretations of the same rock mass, leading to variability in GSI assessments.
• Surface Exposure: GSI is often estimated from exposed surfaces such as outcrops, tunnel faces,
or slopes. If the exposed surface is weathered or altered by excavation, it may not accurately
represent the deeper, more intact rock mass. This can result in an inaccurate GSI value.

2. Limited Applicability in Anisotropic Rock Masses

• Anisotropy: GSI is not well-suited for rock masses where anisotropy (i.e., directional
dependence) significantly affects the behavior of the rock. In highly anisotropic rock masses,
such as those dominated by bedding planes, foliation, or schistosity, GSI may not adequately
capture the influence of these features. This is because GSI is designed for more isotropic
conditions, where the rock mass behaves similarly in all directions.
• Layered and Bedded Rocks: In rocks that exhibit strong layering, such as sedimentary
formations with distinct bedding planes, the GSI system may not effectively account for the
behavior of the rock mass along these planes.

3. Not Suitable for Weak Soils or Extremely Fractured Rock

3/21
 • Highly Fractured or Disintegrated Rock: GSI may struggle to provide accurate assessments for
very weak, highly fractured, or disintegrated rock masses where block size is extremely small. In
these cases, the rock mass may behave more like a soil or debris material rather than a rock
mass, and the mechanical properties derived from GSI may not be reliable.
• Transition to Soils: The GSI system is designed for rock masses and does not extend well into
weak soils or soil-like materials. In highly weathered or deeply decomposed rock masses where
soil-like behavior dominates, the use of GSI becomes questionable.

4. Simplification of Complex Geological Conditions

• Oversimplification: GSI is a simplified classification system that does not capture all the
complexities of geological conditions. In cases where the rock mass is influenced by multiple
interacting geological features, such as fault zones, folding, or karst features, GSI may not
provide a complete representation of the rock mass behavior.
• Lack of Consideration for In-Situ Stress Conditions: GSI does not take into account in-situ
stress conditions, which can have a significant impact on the stability and behavior of the rock
mass. For example, rock masses under high confining stresses may behave differently than
those under low stress conditions, and GSI does not address this factor.

5. Limited Information on Deformability

• Focus on Strength: GSI primarily provides an estimation of rock mass strength but offers limited
direct information on deformability characteristics such as modulus of elasticity. While GSI can
be used in conjunction with the Hoek-Brown criterion to estimate deformability, the relationship
is indirect and may not be as reliable as direct testing.

6. Difficulties in Applying to Certain Rock Types

• Metamorphic Rocks: In metamorphic rocks where foliation or other directional features play a
dominant role, the GSI system might not be the most accurate predictor of rock mass behavior,
as it does not fully account for the strength differences along and across foliation planes.
• Heterogeneous Rock Masses: GSI may not perform well in heterogeneous rock masses with
significant variability in rock types or properties. For instance, in areas where strong rock is
interbedded with weak layers, GSI may oversimplify the conditions and lead to incorrect strength
and deformability estimates.

7. Adjustments Required for Unusual Conditions

• Special Conditions: In certain cases, engineers need to apply judgment and adjust GSI values
for unusual or site-specific conditions that the basic GSI chart does not account for. These
adjustments require a deep understanding of both the GSI system and the specific geological
conditions, introducing potential for errors if misjudged.

8. Lack of Rigorous Quantification

• No Numerical Parameters for Some Conditions: GSI lacks rigorous numerical definitions for
certain rock mass conditions, relying instead on qualitative descriptions. While this allows for
flexibility in application, it also introduces subjectivity and potential inconsistencies when
engineers apply the system across different projects.

4/21
Geological Strength Index (GSI) vs. Rock Mass Rating (RMR)

The Geological Strength Index (GSI) and the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system are two widely used
rock mass classification systems in geotechnical engineering. While they serve similar purposes—
estimating rock mass properties for design and construction projects—there are significant
differences in their approaches, applications, and methodologies.

1. Origin and Development

• GSI: Developed by Evert Hoek in the 1990s, GSI was specifically created to complement the
Hoek-Brown failure criterion for estimating rock mass strength and deformability. Its main
purpose is to provide a quick, visual classification of rock masses, particularly in poor-quality or
heavily disturbed rock, where traditional systems like RMR fall short.
RMR: Developed by Z.T. Bieniawski in the 1970s, the RMR system is one of the most
• established rock mass classification methods. It was designed as a more quantitative system,
used to assess the quality of rock masses for various engineering purposes, including tunnel
stability, slope stability, and foundation design.

2. Key Parameters

• GSI Parameters: GSI primarily focuses on two visual factors:

0 Structure (Blockiness): Describes the size and arrangement of blocks formed by the

discontinuities.
0 Surface Condition of Discontinuities: Evaluates the roughness, weathering, and presence

of infill material between the blocks.

GSI is plotted on a chart that cross-references these two parameters to derive a GSI value
ranging from 10 to 100. This value is then used with the Hoek-Brown failure criterion to estimate
rock mass strength and deformability.
• RMR Parameters: RMR uses a more detailed, quantitative approach and considers six key
parameters:
1. Uniaxial Compressive Strength of the Rock.
2. Rock Quality Designation (RQD), which measures the quality and continuity of the rock
core.
3. Spacing of Discontinuities.
4. Condition of Discontinuities (e.g., roughness, weathering, aperture).
5/21
 5. Groundwater Conditions.
6. Orientation of Discontinuities relative to the engineering structure.
Each of these parameters is scored, and the sum of the scores results in an RMR value, typically
ranging from 0 to 100. The RMR value is then used for design decisions related to tunnels,
slopes, and other engineering structures.

3. Applicability

• GSI: Best suited for poor-quality, highly fractured, or tectonically disturbed rock masses
where a more simplified, visually based system is appropriate. It is often used in environments
where traditional testing methods are difficult or where rock masses are complex. GSI is widely
used in preliminary design stages, particularly for estimating parameters for the Hoek-Brown
failure criterion.
• RMR: More commonly applied to rock masses with moderate to good quality, where the rock
is not as severely fractured or disturbed. RMR is also widely used in tunneling, mining, and slope
stability, providing a more quantitative approach that includes factors such as groundwater and
orientation of discontinuities, making it suitable for a broader range of rock mass conditions.

4. Methodology

• GSI: GSI is a qualitative, visual assessment system. It relies on visual observations of the rock
mass structure and the condition of discontinuity surfaces. Because of its simplicity, GSI can be
used quickly in the field, even in challenging environments where detailed measurements are
impractical.
• RMR: RMR is a quantitative system that requires numerical inputs for its various parameters.
Engineers must gather specific data, such as uniaxial compressive strength, RQD, and
groundwater conditions. This often requires more detailed site investigations and testing
compared to GSI.

5. Use with Failure Criteria

• GSI: Designed to be used directly with the Hoek-Brown failure criterion, which is a non-linear
empirical relationship used to predict rock mass strength and deformability. GSI provides the
necessary input for this criterion, which is particularly useful for designing structures in poor-
quality rock masses.
• RMR: RMR is traditionally linked to empirical methods, such as the Barton’s Q-system, and it is
often used in conjunction with other classification systems for determining support
requirements in tunnels and other rock structures. RMR can also be correlated with rock mass
strength parameters, though less directly than GSI with the Hoek-Brown criterion.

6. Treatment of Groundwater and Discontinuity Orientation

• GSI: GSI does not explicitly consider groundwater conditions or the orientation of
discontinuities. These factors must be accounted for separately when using GSI for design
purposes.
• RMR: RMR includes groundwater conditions and discontinuity orientation as two of its six key
parameters. These are directly incorporated into the RMR score, providing a more holistic
evaluation of rock mass conditions and their implications for stability and support design.

6/21
7. Limitations

• GSI: The primary limitation of GSI is its subjectivity and dependence on visual observations,
which can lead to inconsistencies between different users. Additionally, GSI is not as effective in
anisotropic rock masses (e.g., those with strong bedding planes) or extremely weak soils
where blocky behavior is less prominent.
• RMR: The main limitation of RMR is its reliance on numerical data, which requires more
extensive field testing and laboratory work. In highly fractured or poor-quality rock masses,
RMR may not perform as well because it assumes that certain quantitative inputs can be reliably
measured, which is not always possible in complex environments.

Comparison

Aspect GSI (Geological Strength Index) RMR (Rock Mass Rating)

Visual assessment of rock mass Quantitative assessment of rock

Focus
quality mass quality
Structure (blockiness) and surface Uniaxial strength, RQD, spacing,
Main Inputs
condition groundwater, etc.

Poor-quality, fractured, disturbed Moderate to good-quality rock

Application
rock masses masses

Directly used with Hoek-Brown Empirical methods, sometimes

Failure Criterion
criterion linked with Q-system

Consideration of Groundwater No Yes

Consideration of Discontinuity
No Yes
Orientation
Methodology Qualitative, visual Quantitative, data-driven

Tectonically disturbed, complex, or More stable, less complex rock

Suitability
fractured rocks masses

GSI and RMR serve different purposes and are applicable to different rock mass conditions. GSI is
more appropriate for visually assessing complex, poor-quality rock masses, especially in the early
stages of a project or in difficult environments. RMR, on the other hand, is better suited for a more
quantitative and detailed assessment of rock masses with moderate to good quality, and it
incorporates factors like groundwater and discontinuity orientation. Both systems are valuable tools
in geotechnical engineering, but their use depends on the specific conditions of the rock mass and the
goals of the engineering project.

The Geological Strength Index (GSI) is a useful tool in the design and construction of tunnels,
particularly in challenging geological environments. When constructing tunnels, it is critical to assess
the strength and behavior of the surrounding rock mass to ensure stability and safety. GSI provides a

7/21
means to estimate the mechanical properties of rock masses, such as strength and deformability,
which are vital for tunnel design.

Applications of GSI in Tunneling

1. Estimation of Rock Mass Strength and Deformability:

0 GSI is commonly used to estimate the strength and deformability of rock masses around

tunnels. These parameters are essential for designing tunnel linings, supports, and
reinforcements. The GSI value is combined with the Hoek-Brown failure criterion to
calculate the rock mass's uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and deformation modulus,
which are critical for evaluating how the rock mass will behave during tunneling.
2. Preliminary Design and Planning:
0 GSI is particularly useful during the early stages of tunnel design when detailed site

investigations may not yet be available. By visually assessing the rock mass in the field or
using existing geological data, engineers can assign a GSI value and estimate the necessary
support measures for the tunnel.
0 The simplicity of GSI makes it ideal for rapid, on-site evaluations, which is often necessary

during the planning phase of tunnel projects, especially in complex geological conditions.
3. Selection of Tunnel Support Systems:
0 GSI is often used to help select the appropriate support systems for tunnels. Lower GSI

values (indicating poorer quality rock) generally require more robust support, such as
thicker shotcrete, steel ribs, or rock bolts, to ensure stability. Conversely, higher GSI values
(indicating better quality rock) may require minimal support.
0 Empirical relationships have been developed between GSI and various types of tunnel

support systems. For instance, GSI values can help in estimating the thickness of shotcrete
or the length and spacing of rock bolts required to stabilize the tunnel walls.
4. Tunnel Behavior Prediction:
0 GSI helps predict the behavior of the rock mass during excavation. Tunnels passing

through low-GSI rock masses are more likely to experience problems such as spalling,
squeezing, or collapsing. GSI provides a quick way to assess the likelihood of such problems
and plan mitigation strategies in advance.
0 GSI is also used in conjunction with numerical modeling software to simulate rock mass

behavior during tunneling. This allows engineers to predict potential deformations, stress
distributions, and failure zones around the tunnel, leading to more informed design
decisions.
5. Adjustments During Construction:
0 Tunneling often reveals unexpected geological conditions, and GSI can be updated on-site

to reflect new observations as the tunnel advances. This flexibility allows engineers to
adjust support measures in real time, adapting the design to the actual rock mass
conditions encountered during excavation.

Benefits of GSI in Tunneling

• Simplicity and Practicality: The GSI system is easy to use, relying on visual assessments of rock
mass structure and discontinuity conditions. This makes it ideal for application in the field,
especially in areas where more complex testing may not be feasible.
• Adaptability to Poor Rock Masses: GSI is particularly beneficial in tectonically disturbed,
highly fractured, or weathered rock masses, which are commonly encountered during
tunneling. Traditional systems like RMR may struggle to classify these types of rock masses
effectively, but GSI is better suited for such environments.

8/21
 • Integration with Hoek-Brown Criterion: GSI’s direct link to the Hoek-Brown failure criterion
makes it a valuable tool for predicting rock mass strength and deformation behavior in tunnels,
allowing engineers to make more accurate design decisions.

Challenges of Using GSI in Tunneling

1. Subjectivity:
0 GSI is a qualitative system, meaning it relies on the visual judgment of the engineer

assessing the rock mass. Different engineers might assign different GSI values to the same
rock mass, leading to variability in design outcomes. This subjectivity can be a challenge in
ensuring consistent and reliable support designs.
2. Limited Consideration of Groundwater and Anisotropy:
0 GSI does not explicitly account for groundwater conditions or the anisotropy of the rock

mass (e.g., the influence of bedding planes or foliation). Both of these factors can
significantly impact tunnel stability. Groundwater can reduce rock mass strength, while
anisotropy can lead to asymmetric deformations or failure modes. These factors must be
considered separately when using GSI for tunnel design.
3. Not Comprehensive for Complex Geology:
0 In areas with very complex geological features, such as fault zones, karst formations, or

highly variable rock types, GSI may oversimplify the rock mass conditions. More detailed
site investigations or complementary classification systems (e.g., RMR or Q-system) might
be required to fully capture the complexities of the geology.
4. Limited Applicability to Soils or Extremely Weak Materials:
0 GSI is not designed for soil-like materials or extremely weak, highly weathered rock

masses that behave more like soils than rocks. For tunnels passing through such materials,
other systems (such as soil mechanics approaches) may be more appropriate.

Comparison with RMR for Tunneling

• GSI is more suited for poor-quality rock masses and can be applied quickly in the field based on
visual observations. It is particularly useful in highly fractured, weathered, or tectonically
disturbed rock masses.
• RMR, on the other hand, is more detailed and includes factors such as groundwater conditions,
orientation of discontinuities, and rock quality designation (RQD). RMR is often used for
moderate to good-quality rock masses and is more quantitative, which can provide more
precision in tunnel design but requires more data.

9/21
In geotechnical engineering, Geological Strength Index (GSI) is used to estimate the strength and
deformability of rock masses. However, since GSI is a qualitative, visually-based system, it is often
correlated with other quantitative parameters to provide more reliable estimates for use in design and
analysis. These correlation factors help convert GSI values into usable mechanical properties such as
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), deformation modulus, and other parameters relevant to rock
mechanics. Below are some key correlation factors commonly associated with GSI.

1. Correlation with Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS)

The UCS of a rock mass is a critical parameter for design in rock engineering. GSI provides an indirect
means to estimate the UCS of a rock mass using the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. The correlation
factors are derived based on empirical relationships between GSI, intact rock strength, and rock mass
properties.

• Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion:

The relationship between GSI and UCS is often derived using the Hoek-Brown failure criterion.
The UCS of a rock mass (σcm ) is estimated as:
​

2
GSI − 10
σcm = σci × [( )]
40
​ ​

Where:
0 σci is the UCS of the intact rock.
0 GSI is the Geological Strength Index value.
This relationship assumes that the strength of the rock mass decreases as the GSI value
decreases, reflecting poorer rock mass quality and higher degrees of fracturing and
discontinuities.

2. Correlation with Deformation Modulus (Em)

The deformation modulus of the rock mass (Em) is another critical parameter that measures the
stiffness of the rock mass and its ability to deform under load. Correlations between GSI and
deformation modulus help engineers estimate the elastic properties of the rock mass without
extensive testing.

• Empirical Correlation for Deformation Modulus:

One commonly used correlation for the deformation modulus is based on GSI and the intact rock
modulus (Ei ):
​

× (1 + )
Ei GSI
Em =
2 100

This relationship indicates that as GSI increases, the deformation modulus of the rock mass
approaches that of the intact rock. For low GSI values (e.g., 10-30), the modulus is significantly
reduced due to the presence of fractures and discontinuities.
Another simplified empirical correlation is:

log Em = 0.02GS I + 0.4 log Ei

10/21
 Here, Em and Ei are in the same units (e.g., MPa).
​

3. Correlation with Rock Mass Strength

The rock mass strength (σcm ) can be estimated from GSI values using the Hoek-Brown criterion and
​

specific constants related to rock type and conditions.

• Hoek-Brown Parameter (mb):

The mb parameter in the Hoek-Brown criterion is influenced by GSI and is calculated as:

GSI − 100
mb = mi × exp ( )
28
​ ​

Where:
0 mi is the material constant for intact rock.
0 GSI is the Geological Strength Index.
This relationship illustrates that as GSI decreases, the value of mb (which represents the rock
​

mass strength relative to intact rock strength) also decreases, indicating weaker rock mass
strength.

4. Correlation with Rock Mass Parameters in Slope Stability

In slope stability analysis, GSI can be used to estimate the shear strength parameters of the rock
mass, particularly cohesion (c) and friction angle (ϕ).

• Cohesion and Friction Angle Correlation:

The following empirical relationships are often used to estimate cohesion and friction angle from
GSI:
α
c = σci × ( )
GSI
100
​

β
ϕ = ϕi × ( )
GSI
100
​

Where:
0 c is the cohesion of the rock mass.

0 ϕ is the friction angle.

0 σci is the UCS of the intact rock.
0 ϕi is the friction angle of the intact rock.
0 α and β are constants determined empirically.
These correlations are useful for slope design, particularly for estimating potential sliding and
failure surfaces in fractured rock masses.

5. Correlation with the Hoek-Brown Constant “s”

The Hoek-Brown constant “s” reflects the overall condition of the rock mass, ranging from 0 to 1,
where 1 represents intact rock and lower values represent increasingly fractured rock masses.

11/21
 • The value of s is correlated with GSI as follows:

GSI − 100
s = exp ( )
9

This correlation indicates that as GSI decreases, the rock mass becomes more fractured, and the
value of s decreases accordingly. This is a key factor in assessing the mechanical behavior of rock
masses, particularly under loading conditions.

6. Correlation with Weathering and Disturbance

GSI also correlates with the degree of weathering and disturbance in a rock mass. Disturbance can
be due to factors such as blasting, excavation, or natural tectonic events. GSI can be adjusted to
account for these effects by using disturbance factors (D):

• Disturbance Factor (D): A disturbance factor is used to modify GSI values in highly disturbed
rock masses. For example:
0 D = 0 for undisturbed in situ rock masses.

0 D = 0.7 for heavily disturbed rock masses (e.g., due to blasting).

The Hoek-Brown parameters, including mb, s, and a, are then modified to reflect the
disturbance, reducing the overall strength of the rock mass.

The GSI correlations with parameters such as UCS, deformation modulus, cohesion, friction angle,
and the Hoek-Brown constants provide engineers with valuable tools to estimate the mechanical
properties of rock masses. These correlations allow for more precise predictions in design, stability
analysis, and construction of geotechnical structures like tunnels, slopes, and foundations. However,
these correlations are empirical and should be used with caution, calibrated with site-specific data
whenever possible.

In the Geological Strength Index (GSI) system, weathering plays a significant role in determining the
quality of the rock mass. Weathering can weaken the intact rock and affect the discontinuities within
the rock mass, which in turn impacts the GSI value. To account for these effects, adjustments are
made to the GSI classification to reflect the degree of weathering.

Weathering and Its Impact on GSI

Weathering can result in the breakdown of rock into soil-like material, weakening the overall structure
of the rock mass. The primary impacts of weathering on GSI include:

• Reduced rock mass strength due to chemical or physical decomposition of the intact rock.
• Changes in the rock mass structure, such as the widening of discontinuities and the
development of new fractures.

12/21
 • Alteration of discontinuity conditions, including the smoothness of joint surfaces, infill
materials, and overall stability.

Adjustments to GSI for Weathered Rock Masses

The adjustments to GSI based on weathering involve several factors:

1. Reduced GSI Values:

0 Highly weathered rock masses typically receive lower GSI values. For example, a rock

mass that might be classified with a GSI of 60-70 in fresh conditions could be downgraded
to 30-40 or lower when highly weathered.
0 This reduction in GSI reflects the loss of strength and integrity in the rock mass due to

weathering.
2. GSI Chart Adjustments for Weathering:
0 The standard GSI charts include descriptions for different levels of weathering. For

example, separate charts are often provided for fresh, moderately weathered, highly
weathered, and completely weathered rock masses.
0 In the context of weathered rock masses, the visual indicators used to determine GSI (such

as blockiness and discontinuity conditions) are modified to account for the effects of
weathering. This results in the selection of lower GSI values.
3. Hoek-Brown Parameters for Weathered Rock:
0 In the Hoek-Brown failure criterion, the parameters mb, s, and a are affected by

weathering through adjustments to the GSI value.

0 For weathered rock masses, the strength parameters derived from GSI are reduced,

reflecting the diminished mechanical properties.

4. Influence of Groundwater:
0 Weathering is often exacerbated by the presence of groundwater, which can chemically

alter the rock and lubricate discontinuities, further weakening the rock mass.
0 In weathered rock masses, the influence of water should be considered in the GSI

adjustments, as it can cause additional reductions in GSI due to softening of the rock matrix
and weakening of the discontinuities.
5. Adjustment for Completely Weathered Rock Masses:
0 When a rock mass is completely weathered, it may behave more like soil than rock. In these

cases, the GSI classification may no longer be applicable, and alternative classification
systems, such as soil mechanics-based methods, may be more appropriate.

Practical Example of GSI Weathering Adjustments

• Fresh Rock Mass: If a rock mass is fresh, with tight and rough discontinuities and unweathered
intact rock, the GSI value will be higher (e.g., 60-80).
• Moderately Weathered Rock Mass: In moderately weathered rock masses, the discontinuities
may start to degrade, becoming smoother and wider. The intact rock is still mostly sound, but
signs of weathering appear. The GSI value might drop to 40-60.
• Highly Weathered Rock Mass: As weathering progresses, the rock mass breaks down further.
The joints become filled with weathered material, and the intact rock loses strength. The GSI
value could fall to 20-40.
• Completely Weathered Rock Mass: In completely weathered rock, the rock mass may consist
mostly of soil-like material, with little to no original rock strength remaining. The GSI might fall
below 20, or the rock mass may no longer be classified using GSI at all.

Weathering Adjustments
13/21
 • Fresh Rock Masses: High GSI values (60-80), indicating strong and intact rock with minimal
weathering.
• Moderately Weathered Rock Masses: Moderate GSI values (40-60), reflecting some
degradation of discontinuities and minor weakening of the intact rock.
• Highly Weathered Rock Masses: Low GSI values (20-40), showing significant weakening of both
the intact rock and discontinuities.
• Completely Weathered Rock Masses: Very low GSI values (<20) or transition to soil-like
behavior, indicating a severely degraded rock mass.

Weathering adjustments in GSI are essential to accurately represent the condition of the rock mass in
weathered environments. These adjustments reduce the GSI value, reflecting the weakened state of
the rock mass due to the breakdown of both the intact rock and discontinuities. Understanding and
applying these adjustments is critical for designing geotechnical structures in weathered rock, as
failure to account for weathering can lead to overestimation of rock mass strength and subsequent
stability issues.

The Geological Strength Index (GSI) and the Q-system are both widely used classification systems in
geotechnical engineering to evaluate rock masses, particularly for tunnel design and stability analysis.
While both systems serve similar purposes, they have different approaches, parameters, and
strengths. Here is a comparison of the two systems:

1. Purpose and Application

• GSI (Geological Strength Index):

0 Purpose: GSI is primarily used to estimate the strength and deformability of rock masses

for use in the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. It is a visually based system that helps derive
key mechanical properties like the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and deformation
modulus of the rock mass.
0 Application: GSI is typically used in tunnel design, slope stability analysis, and foundation

design. It is especially useful in highly fractured, weathered, or tectonically disturbed

rock masses.
• Q-system:
0 Purpose: The Q-system is used primarily for rock mass classification in tunneling and

underground excavations. It is designed to assess the rock mass quality and provide
recommendations for tunnel support systems based on empirical relationships.
0 Application: Q-system is focused on providing quantitative assessments and is commonly

used for tunnel design, particularly in predicting support requirements for underground
excavations.

2. Parameters and Methodology

• GSI:

14/21
 0 Parameters: GSI is based on two main factors—rock structure (blockiness) and the
surface condition of discontinuities. The system uses visual estimates of these factors to
assign a GSI value between 10 and 100.
■ Rock Structure: Describes the blocky nature of the rock mass (e.g., massive, blocky,

or very blocky).
■ Discontinuity Conditions: Describes the surface conditions of joints and fractures

(e.g., rough, smooth, weathered).

0 Methodology: GSI is a qualitative system based on visual inspection, making it relatively

simple and fast to use in the field. It is often applied in combination with the Hoek-Brown
failure criterion to estimate rock mass properties for engineering purposes.
• Q-system:
0 Parameters: The Q-system is based on six parameters that describe the quality of the rock

mass:
■ RQD (Rock Quality Designation): Measures the percentage of core recovery in a

borehole of intact rock greater than 10 cm.

■ Jn (Joint Set Number): Describes the number of joint sets in the rock mass.

■ Jr (Joint Roughness Number): Reflects the roughness of joints.

■ Ja (Joint Alteration Number): Indicates the degree of alteration or weathering of

joint surfaces.
■ Jw (Joint Water Reduction Factor): Accounts for the presence of water in joints.

■ SRF (Stress Reduction Factor): Accounts for the influence of stress conditions on rock

mass behavior.
0 Methodology: The Q-system is quantitative and involves calculating a Q-value using the

following formula:

RQD Jr Jw
Q= × ×
Jn Ja SRF

This Q-value is then used to predict the support requirements for tunnels and underground
excavations.

3. Strengths and Limitations

• GSI:
0 Strengths:
■ Simple and easy to use in the field with minimal data requirements.

■ Well-suited for highly fractured and weathered rock masses, where systems like

RMR or Q might struggle.

■ Directly linked to the Hoek-Brown failure criterion, making it useful for estimating

strength and deformability parameters.

0 Limitations:

■ Subjective: Since GSI relies heavily on visual assessments, different engineers may

assign different GSI values to the same rock mass, leading to variability.
■ Does not account for groundwater conditions or stress effects explicitly, which can

be critical in tunnel stability.

■ Limited applicability in soil-like materials or very weak rock masses that behave more

like soils.
• Q-system:
0 Strengths:

15/21
 ■ Comprehensive: It includes parameters for rock quality, joint conditions, water
conditions, and stress factors, making it more thorough than GSI in many cases.
■ Predictive capability: The Q-system offers empirical relationships to predict tunnel

support requirements based on the calculated Q-value, making it highly practical for
tunneling.
■ Widely used: The Q-system is one of the most commonly used systems for classifying

rock masses in tunneling worldwide, providing an extensive database of case

histories.
0 Limitations:
■ Complexity: Requires detailed input data (e.g., RQD, joint conditions, groundwater),

which may not always be available during the initial stages of a project.
■ May not perform as well in highly disturbed or weathered rock masses, where the

visual approach of GSI might be more appropriate.

■ Can be less intuitive than GSI due to the complexity of the parameters and

calculations involved.

4. Typical Uses in Tunneling

• GSI:
0 Use Case: GSI is typically used for early-stage estimates of rock mass properties and as
part of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion to predict rock mass behavior in tunnels. It is
especially useful in areas with highly fractured or weathered rock, where quantitative
systems like Q may not provide accurate results.
0 Design Adjustments: GSI can be updated during tunneling operations as new geological

conditions are encountered, providing flexibility in the design of support systems.

• Q-system:
0 Use Case: The Q-system is primarily used for designing tunnel support systems based on

the rock mass classification. It provides a clear relationship between the Q-value and the
necessary support, making it a practical choice for tunnel construction.
0 Support Recommendations: The system provides empirical guidelines for tunnel

support, ranging from light to heavy support depending on the Q-value and the specific
conditions of the tunnel.

5. Comparison

Aspect GSI Q-system

Type Qualitative Quantitative
Rock mass strength and deformability Tunnel support design and rock mass
Focus
estimation classification
Parameters Rock structure, discontinuity condition RQD, joint conditions, water, stress
Primarily tunneling and underground
Application Slope stability, tunnel design, foundations
excavations
Simple, adaptable, suitable for disturbed rock Comprehensive, empirical support
Advantages
masses recommendations
Subjective, limited in groundwater and stress Data-intensive, less applicable in highly
Limitations
considerations disturbed rocks

16/21
Both the GSI and Q-system are valuable tools in geotechnical engineering, but they are suited for
different scenarios. GSI is more flexible and easier to apply in the field, especially in disturbed or
weathered rock masses, and it integrates well with the Hoek-Brown failure criterion for estimating
rock mass properties. The Q-system, on the other hand, offers a more comprehensive and
quantitative approach, particularly useful for tunnel support design, where detailed data is available.
Choosing between GSI and the Q-system depends on the project’s requirements, the rock mass
conditions, and the availability of data. In some cases, both systems may be used in conjunction to get
a more complete understanding of the rock mass behavior and support needs.

The Geological Strength Index (GSI) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) are both classification
systems used to assess rock mass quality, but they measure different aspects of the rock mass and are
used in different ways. However, a relationship between them can be established for practical
engineering purposes, particularly in the estimation of rock mass properties in cases where detailed
geological observations are lacking. Here's a breakdown of their relationship:

Overview of GSI and RQD

• GSI (Geological Strength Index):

0 GSI is a qualitative system that classifies the rock mass based on its structure (blockiness)

and the condition of discontinuities (e.g., joint surface roughness, weathering, and infill).
0 GSI is typically used to estimate rock mass strength and deformation properties in

conjunction with the Hoek-Brown failure criterion.

• RQD (Rock Quality Designation):
0 RQD is a quantitative measure of rock mass quality based on the percentage of intact

core pieces longer than 10 cm in a drilled core sample.

0 It provides an indication of the degree of fracturing and block size within the rock mass and

is often used in rock mass classifications like the Q-system and RMR (Rock Mass Rating).

Relationship Between GSI and RQD

Although GSI and RQD are not directly equivalent, empirical relationships have been established
between the two, particularly for use in engineering applications where only limited data (such as
RQD) is available, and GSI needs to be estimated.

1. Empirical Correlations

Several empirical correlations between GSI and RQD have been developed to help convert RQD values
into approximate GSI values. These relationships allow engineers to estimate GSI based on RQD data,
which is easier to obtain from core drilling.

• Hoek and Marinos (2000) proposed a commonly used correlation:

GSI = 9 ln(RQD) − 29

17/21
 where GSI is a function of RQD. This relationship is approximate and assumes that the RQD is
representative of the rock mass quality in terms of fracturing and jointing.
• Hoek (1994) also provided a rough estimate for converting RQD to GSI:
0 For blocky and disturbed rock masses: GSI ≈ RQD - 5

0 For very blocky and disturbed rock masses: GSI ≈ RQD - 10

These formulas allow for a quick estimation of GSI from RQD but should be used with caution, as they
are based on general assumptions and may not be accurate for all rock masses.

2. General Trends

In general, the relationship between GSI and RQD reflects the following trends:

• High RQD (80-100): Indicates an intact rock mass with few fractures and larger blocks, which
correlates with a high GSI (60-90). The rock mass is expected to have good strength and stability,
with minor fracturing.
• Moderate RQD (50-80): Represents a moderately fractured rock mass, corresponding to a
moderate GSI (40-60). The rock mass has more fractures and weaker joint conditions, reducing
its overall strength.
• Low RQD (<50): Indicates a highly fractured or broken rock mass with smaller block sizes,
leading to a low GSI (10-40). This suggests weak and unstable rock mass conditions, often
associated with poor mechanical properties.

Limitations of the Correlation

While RQD can give a rough estimate of GSI, there are several limitations to this correlation:

• Different Aspects Measured: RQD primarily focuses on block size, while GSI considers both
block size and the condition of discontinuities (e.g., joint roughness, weathering, and infill). Thus,
RQD alone cannot fully capture the factors that influence GSI.
• Subjectivity of GSI: GSI relies on visual and qualitative assessments of the rock mass structure
and joint conditions, whereas RQD is a purely quantitative measure. As a result, GSI may vary
depending on the engineer's judgment.
• Rock Mass Heterogeneity: In highly heterogeneous rock masses, the correlation between RQD
and GSI may not be reliable, as RQD does not account for variations in joint condition or
weathering across the rock mass.

Practical Use of GSI and RQD Together

In practice, RQD data can be used as an initial estimate to determine the rock mass quality,
especially when drilling data is available, and the GSI system can be further refined with field
observations. The combined use of GSI and RQD provides a more complete understanding of the rock
mass quality:

• When RQD is high, it suggests a more intact rock mass, leading to higher GSI values, which
implies stronger rock mass behavior and fewer support requirements in tunneling or slope
stability projects.
• When RQD is low, GSI is expected to be lower as well, indicating a highly fractured rock mass
with poor mechanical properties, requiring more robust support systems.

18/21
The relationship between GSI and RQD is one of approximation and estimation. RQD provides a
quick, quantitative measure of the rock mass quality, while GSI offers a more comprehensive
classification based on both rock mass structure and joint conditions. Although empirical correlations
exist to estimate GSI from RQD, field verification of GSI through visual inspection is crucial for accurate
geotechnical design.

The Geological Strength Index (GSI) system is a qualitative method used to estimate the strength
and deformation properties of a rock mass. It is derived based on visual observations of the rock mass
structure and the condition of the discontinuities (e.g., joints, fractures) within the rock. The GSI
system simplifies the complexity of rock mass behavior into two main input parameters: rock mass
structure and discontinuity surface conditions.

GSI Input Parameters

1. Rock Mass Structure (Blockiness)

0 This parameter describes the arrangement and size of the blocks within the rock mass,

which is determined by the spacing and orientation of discontinuities such as joints, faults,
or bedding planes.
0 The rock mass structure is typically classified into categories such as:

■ Massive: Very few discontinuities, large blocks, or intact rock.

■ Blocky: Moderately spaced discontinuities resulting in well-defined blocks.

■ Very Blocky: Closely spaced discontinuities leading to smaller blocks.

■ Disintegrated: Highly fractured or fragmented rock with very small blocks.

Key aspects to assess:

0 Block size: Larger blocks indicate better rock mass quality, while smaller blocks suggest a

more fractured, weaker rock mass.

0 Spacing of discontinuities: Widely spaced discontinuities lead to larger blocks, while

closely spaced discontinuities result in smaller, weaker blocks.

2. Discontinuity Surface Conditions
0 This parameter assesses the quality of the discontinuity surfaces, including the

roughness, weathering, and presence of infill material.

0 It is divided into two main factors:

■ Surface Roughness: The roughness of joint surfaces can enhance interlocking and

shear strength.
■ Rough and undulating: Indicates stronger interlocking and higher shear

strength.
■ Smooth and planar: Indicates weaker interlocking and lower shear strength.

■ Degree of Weathering and Alteration: The extent to which the rock mass and

discontinuities have been affected by weathering or chemical alteration.

■ Unweathered or slightly weathered: Indicates a stronger rock mass.

■ Highly weathered or altered: Indicates a weaker rock mass due to breakdown

and chemical decomposition.

■ Infill Material: The presence of soft materials, like clay or gouge, in the joints.

■ No infill: Suggests stronger joint conditions.

19/21
 ■ Soft or weak infill: Suggests weaker joint conditions, leading to lower GSI
values.

Combining the Parameters

In the GSI classification system, the combination of these two input parameters—rock mass
structure and discontinuity conditions—is used to assign a GSI value. Typically, engineers or
geologists refer to GSI charts, which present a matrix or table where these two parameters intersect
to produce the GSI value. The GSI value typically ranges from 10 to 100.

• Higher GSI values (e.g., 60-90) correspond to rock masses that are massive to blocky with
unweathered, rough discontinuities.
• Lower GSI values (e.g., 10-40) correspond to rock masses that are very blocky to disintegrated
with weathered, smooth, or infilled discontinuities.

Field Assessment of GSI Input Parameters

Field engineers or geologists evaluate these input parameters through visual inspection and
geological mapping of the rock face. Some key observational tasks include:

• Measuring discontinuity spacing and recording their orientation and persistence.

• Assessing joint surface conditions, including roughness and the extent of weathering.
• Describing the block size and overall arrangement of the rock mass.

This process often requires expertise in recognizing rock structures and conditions in various
geological settings. The use of GSI charts and photographs of typical rock masses at different GSI
values helps guide the assessment.

Importance of GSI Input Parameters

The GSI value determined from these input parameters is used in the Hoek-Brown failure criterion,
which helps in estimating the strength and deformation properties of the rock mass. These
properties are crucial for designing tunnels, slopes, foundations, and other geotechnical structures,
particularly in rock masses that are fractured or heterogeneous.

GSI Input Parameters

• Rock Mass Structure (Blockiness):

0 Describes block size and arrangement based on the spacing and orientation of

discontinuities.
0 Categories range from massive to disintegrated rock masses.

• Discontinuity Surface Conditions:

0 Assesses the roughness, weathering, and infill of discontinuities.

0 Categories include rough to smooth surfaces, and unweathered to highly weathered

conditions.

Together, these parameters allow for a qualitative assessment of rock mass quality, providing critical
input for geotechnical design through the GSI system.

20/21
21/21