GSI: A GEOLOGICALLY FRIENDLY TOOL FOR ROCK MASS

STRENGTH ESTIMATION

Paul Marinos1 and Evert Hoek2

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a review of the estimation of rock mass strength properties through the use of GSI.
The GSI classification system greatly respects the geological constraints that occur in nature and are
reflected in the geological information. A discussion is given regarding the ranges of the Geological Strength
Index for typical rock masses with specific emphasis to heterogeneous rock masses.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Reliable estimates of the strength and deformation characteristics of rock masses are required for almost
any form of analysis used for the design of surface excavations. Hoek and Brown (1980a, 1980b) proposed a
method for obtaining estimates of the strength of jointed rock masses, based upon an assessment of the
interlocking of rock blocks and the condition of the surfaces between these blocks. This method was
modified over the years in order to meet the needs of users who applied it to problems that were not
considered when the original criterion was developed (Hoek 1983, Hoek and Brown 1988). The application
of the method to poor quality rock masses required further changes (Hoek, Wood and Shah, 1992) and,
eventually, the development of a new classification called the Geological Strength Index (Hoek 1994, Hoek,
Kaiser and Bawden 1995, Hoek and Brown 1997, Hoek, Marinos and Benissi, 1998), extended recently for
heterogeneous rock masses (Marinos and Hoek, 2000). A review of the development of the criterion and the
equations proposed at various stages in this development is given in Hoek and Brown (1997).

2.0 ESTIMATE OF ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

The basic input consists of estimates or measurements of the uniaxial compressive strength (
ci) and a
material constant (mi) that is related to the frictional properties of the rock. Ideally, these basic properties
should determined by laboratory testing as described by Hoek and Brown (1997) but, in many cases, the
information is required before laboratory tests have been completed. To meet this need, tables that can be
used to estimate values for these parameters are reproduced in Tables 1 and 2. Note that both tables are
updated from earlier versions (Marinos and Hoek, 2000).
The most important component of the Hoek – Brown system for rock masses is the process of reducing
the material constants
ci and mi from their “laboratory” values to appropriate in situ values. This is
accomplished through the Geological Strength Index GSI that is defined in Table 3.
GSI has been developed over many years of discussions with engineering geologists with whom E. Hoek
has worked around the world. Careful consideration has been given to the precise wording in each box and to
the relative weights assigned to each combination of structural and surface conditions, in order to respect the
geological conditions existing in nature.

1
Professor of Eng. Geology, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece, e-mail:marinos@central.ntua.gr
2
Consulting Engineer, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, e-mail: ehoek@attglobal.net
 Table 1: Field estimates of uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock.3
Uniaxial Point
Comp. Load Field estimate of
Grade* Term Strength Index strength Examples
(MPa) (MPa)
R6 Extremely > 250 >10 Specimen can only be Fresh basalt, chert,
Strong chipped with a diabase, gneiss, granite,
geological hammer quartzite

R5 Very 100 - 250 4 - 10 Specimen requires many Amphibolite, sandstone,

strong blows of a geological basalt, gabbro, gneiss,
hammer to fracture it granodiorite, peridotite ,
rhyolite, tuff

R4 Strong 50 - 100 2-4 Specimen requires more Limestone, marble,

than one blow of a sandstone, schist
geological hammer to
fracture it

R3 Medium 25 - 50 1-2 Cannot be scraped or Concrete, phyllite, schist,

strong peeled with a pocket siltstone
knife, specimen can be
fractured with a single
blow from a geological
hammer

R2 Weak 5 - 25 ** Can be peeled with a Chalk, claystone, potash,

pocket knife with marl, siltstone, shale,
difficulty, shallow rocksalt,
indentation made by
firm blow with point of
a geological hammer

R1 Very 1-5 ** Crumbles under firm Highly weathered or

weak blows with point of a altered rock, shale
geological hammer, can
be peeled by a pocket
knife

R0 Extremely 0.25 - 1 ** Indented by thumbnail Stiff fault gouge

Weak
* Grade according to Brown (1981).
** Point load tests on rocks with a uniaxial compressive strength below 25 MPa are likely to yield highly ambiguous
results.

3
Note that this table contains a few changes in the column of examples from previously published version.
Table 2: Values of the constant mi for intact rock, by rock group4. Note that values in parenthesis are
estimates. The range of values quoted for each material depends upon the granularity and interlocking of the
crystal structure – the higher values being associated with tightly interlocked and more frictional
characteristics.
Rock Class Group Texture
type Coarse Medium Fine Very fine
Conglomerates Sandstones Siltstones Claystones
* 17 ± 4 7±2 4±2
Breccias Greywackes Shales
Clastic
* (18 ± 3) (6 ± 2)
SEDIMENTARY

Marls
(7 ± 2)
Crystalline Sparitic Micritic Dolomites
Carbonates Limestone Limestones Limestones (9 ± 3)
(12 ± 3) ( 10 ± 2) (9 ± 2 )
Non- Gypsum Anhydrite
Clastic Evaporites 8±2 12 ± 2
Chalk
Organic
7±2
Marble Hornfels Quartzites
METAMORPHIC

Non Foliated 9±3 (19 ± 4 ) 20 ± 3

Metasandstone
(19 ± 3)
Migmatite Amphibolites Gneiss
Slightly foliated (29 ± 3) 26 ± 6 28 ± 5

Foliated** Schists Phyllites Slates

12 ± 3 (7 ± 3) 7±4
Granite Diorite
32 ± 3 25 ± 5
Light Granodiorite
(29 ± 3)
Plutonic
Gabbro
Dolerite
27 ± 3
Dark (16 ± 5)
Norite
20 ± 5
IGNEOUS

Hypabyssal Porphyries Diabase Peridotite

(20 ± 5) (15 ± 5) (25 ± 5)

Rhyolite Dacite
(25 ± 5) (25 ± 3)
Lava
Andesite Basalt
Volcanic 25 ± 5 (25 ± 5)

Pyroclastic Agglomerate Breccia Tuff

(19 ± 3) (19 ± 5) (13 ± 5)
* Conglomerates and breccias may present a wide range of mi values depending on the nature of the cementing material
and the degree of cementation, so they may range from values similar to sandstone, to values used for fine grained
sediments (even under 10).
** These values are for intact rock specimens tested normal to bedding or foliation. The value of mi will be
significantly different if failure occurs along a weakness plane.

4
Note that this table contains several changes from previously published versions, These changes have been made to
reflect data that has been accumulated from laboratory tests and the experience gained from discussions with geologists
and engineering geologists.
Table 3: Geological strength index for jointed rock masses.
 Having defined the parameters
ci, mi and GSI as described above, the next step is to estimate the
mechanical properties of the rock mass. The procedure for making these estimates has been described in
detail by Hoek and Brown (1997) it will not be repeated here. A spreadsheet for carrying out these
calculations is given in Table 4 5.

Table 4: Spreadsheet for the calculation of rock mass properties

Input: sigci = 10 MPa mi = 10 GSI = 30
Depth of failure surface or tunnel below slope = 25 m Unit wt. = 0.027 MN/n3

Output: stress = 0.68 MPa mb = 0.82 s = 0.0004

a= 0.5 sigtm = -0.0051 MPa A = 0.4516
B= 0.7104 k= 3.95 phi = 36.58 degrees
coh = 0.136 MPa sigcm = 0.54 MPa E= 1000.0 MPa

Calculation:
Sums
sig3 1E-10 0.10 0.19 0.29 0.39 0.48 0.58 0.68 2.70
sig1 0.20 1.01 1.47 1.84 2.18 2.48 2.77 3.04 14.99
ds1ds3 21.05 5.50 4.22 3.64 3.29 3.05 2.88 2.74 46.36
sign 0.01 0.24 0.44 0.62 0.80 0.98 1.14 1.31 5.54
tau 0.04 0.33 0.50 0.64 0.76 0.86 0.96 1.05 5.14
x -2.84 -1.62 -1.35 -1.20 -1.09 -1.01 -0.94 -0.88 -10.94
y -2.37 -1.48 -1.30 -1.19 -1.12 -1.06 -1.02 -0.98 -10.53
xy 6.74 2.40 1.76 1.43 1.22 1.07 0.96 0.86 16.45
xsq 8.08 2.61 1.83 1.44 1.19 1.02 0.88 0.78 17.84
sig3sig1 0.00 0.10 0.28 0.53 0.84 1.20 1.60 2.05 7
sig3sq 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.15 0.23 0.33 0.46 1
taucalc 0.04 0.32 0.49 0.63 0.76 0.87 0.97 1.07
sig1sig3fit 0.54 0.92 1.30 1.68 2.06 2.45 2.83 3.21
signtaufit 0.14 0.31 0.46 0.60 0.73 0.86 0.98 1.11

Cell formulae:
stress = if(depth>30, sigci*0.25,depth*unitwt*0.25)
mb = mi*EXP((GSI-100)/28)
s = IF(GSI>25,EXP((GSI-100)/9),0)
a = IF(GSI>25,0.5,0.65-GSI/200)
sigtm = 0.5*sigci*(mb-SQRT(mb^2+4*s))
sig3 = Start at 1E-10 (to avoid zero errors) and increment in 7 steps of stress/28 to stress/4
sig1 = sig3+sigci*(((mb*sig3)/sigci)+s)^a
ds1ds3 = IF(GSI>25,(1+(mb*sigci)/(2*(sig1-sig3))),1+(a*mb^a)*(sig3/sigci)^(a-1))
sign = sig3+(sig1-sig3)/(1+ds1ds3)
tau = (sign-sig3)*SQRT(ds1ds3)
x = LOG((sign-sigtm)/sigci)
y = LOG(tau/sigci)
xy = x*y x sq = x^2
A = acalc = 10^(sumy/8 - bcalc*sumx/8)
B = bcalc = (sumxy - (sumx*sumy)/8)/(sumxsq - (sumx^2)/8)
k = (sumsig3sig1 - (sumsig3*sumsig1)/8)/(sumsig3sq-(sumsig3^2)/8)
phi = ASIN((k-1)/(k+1))*180/PI()
coh = sigcm/(2*SQRT(k))
sigcm = sumsig1/8 - k*sumsig3/8
E = IF(sigci>100,1000*10^((GSI-10)/40),SQRT(sigci/100)*1000*10^((GSI-10)/40))
phit = (ATAN(acalc*bcalc*((signt-sigtm)/sigci)^(bcalc-1)))*180/PI()
coht = acalc*sigci*((signt-sigtm)/sigci)^bcalc-signt*TAN(phit*PI()/180)
sig3sig1= sig3*sig1 sig3sq = sig3^2
taucalc = acalc*sigci*((sign-sigtm)/sigci)^bcalc
s3sifit = sigcm+k*sig3
sntaufit = coh+sign*TAN(phi*PI()/180)

5
For an electronic version of this Excel spreadsheet, contact Evert Hoek <ehoek@attglobal.net>
2.1 Deep tunnels
For tunnels at depths of more than 30 m, the rock mass surrounding the tunnel is confined and its
properties are calculated on the basis of a minor principal stress or confining pressure of 0 < σ 3 < 0.25σ ci ,
in accordance with the procedure defined by Hoek and Brown (1997).
For the case of “deep” tunnels, equivalent Mohr Coulomb cohesive strengths and friction angles can be
calculated by means of the spreadsheet given in Table 4. Note that any depth greater than 30m can be used
for this calculation. In addition, the deformation modulus E and the uniaxial compressive strength σcm of the
rock mass can be estimated. Plots of these estimated values are given in Figures 1 to 4.
The uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass σcm is a particularly useful parameter for evaluating
potential tunnel squeezing problems. The following equation, obtained by a curve fitting process on the plots
presented in Figure 4, gives a very close approximation of σcm for selected values of the intact rock strength
σci, constant mi and the Geological Strength Index GSI :

σ cm = (0.0034mi0.8 )σ ci {1.029 + 0.025e ( −0.1mi ) }GSI (1)

0.20

Cohesive strength / Uniaxial strength of intact rock

0.10

0.08

0.06
0.05

0.04

0.03
mi
35
30 0.02
25
20
18
16
14
12
10
7 0.01
5
0.008
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Geological Strength Index GSI

Figure 1. Relationship between ratio of cohesive strength to uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock
c σ ci and GSI for different mi values, for depths of more than 30m.
 55 mi
35
30
50
25
20
18
45
16
14
12
40
Friction angle - degrees
10

35 7

30 5

25

20

15

10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Geological Strength Index GSI

Figure 2. Friction angle φ for different GSI and mi values, for depths more than 30m.

180 100

160
75 U n ia x ia l co m p re ssive stre n g th
D e fo rm a tio n m o d u lu s E m - G P a

140 o f in ta ct ro ck σci - M P a
50
120

100
25
80

60 10

40 5

20 1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
G eo log ica l S tre ng th Inde x G S I

Figure 3. Rock mass Deformation modulus E versus Geological Strenth Index GSI.
 1.0

Rock mass strength σcm / Intact strength σci

0.9
mi
0.8
35
30
0.7
25
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 20
15
0.2 10
5
0.1

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Geological Strength Index GSI

Figure 4. Relationship between rock mass strength σcm, intact rock strength σci, constant mi and the
Geological Strength Index GSI, for depths of more than 30m.

2.2 Shallow tunnels and slopes 1.2

For shallow tunnel and slopes in

which the degree of confinement is 1.0
reduced, a minor principal stress range
of 0 < σ 3 < σ v is used, where σv =
0.8
Shear strength τ MPa

Mohr envelope for

depth x unit weight of the rock mass. Hoek-Brown criterion
In this case, depth is defined as the
depth below surface of the tunnel 0.6
crown or the average depth of a failure
surface in a slope in which a circular Fitted linear relationship
type can be assumed, i.e. where the 0.4 τ = c + σ tan φ
failure is not structurally controlled.
In the case of shallow tunnels or 0.2
slopes, the spreadsheet presented in
Table 4 allows the user to enter the
depth below surface and the unit 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
weight of the rock mass. The vertical
Normal stress σn MPa
stress σv calculated from the product
of these two quantities is then used to Figure 5. Mohr envelope for Hoek Brown criterion and fitted linear
calculate the rock mass properties. relationship for the normal stress range 0 < σ n < σ v where σv =
depth x unit weight. As shown in the spreadsheet in Table 4, the
friction angle φ = 36.6° and the cohesive strength c = 136 kPa for σci
= 10 MPa, mi = 10, GSI = 30 and a depth below surface of 25 m.

3.0 TYPICAL RANGES OF GSI FOR VARIOUS ROCK MASSES

The strength of a jointed rock mass depends on the properties of the intact rock pieces and also upon the
freedom of these pieces to slide and rotate under different stress conditions. This freedom is controlled by the
geometrical shape of the intact rock pieces as well as the condition of the surfaces separating the pieces.
Angular rock pieces with clean, rough discontinuity surfaces will result in a much stronger rock mass than
one which contains rounded particles surrounded by weathered and altered material, or sheared flakes of the
initial rock.
Note that the Hoek and Brown criterion and indeed any of the other published criteria that can be used for
this purpose, assume that the rock mass behaves isotropically. In other words, while the behaviour of the
rock mass is controlled by movement and rotation of rock elements separated by intersecting structural
features such as bedding planes and joints, there are no preferred failure directions.
This failure criteria should not be used when the rock mass consists of a strong blocky rock such as
sandstone, separated by clay coated and slickensided persisting bedding surfaces. The behaviour of such rock
masses will be strongly anisotropic and will be controlled by the fact that the bedding planes are an order of
magnitude weaker that any other features. In such rock masses the predominant failure mode will be planar
or wedge slides in slopes, or gravitational falls of wedges or blocks of rock defined by the intersection of the
weak bedding planes with other features which act as release surfaces in tunnels. However, if the rock mass
is heavily fractured, the continuity of the bedding surfaces will be disrupted and the rock may behave as an
isotropic mass.
This GSI Index is based upon an assessment of the lithology, structure and condition of discontinuity
surfaces in the rock mass and it is estimated from visual examination of the rock mass exposed in surface
excavations such as roadcuts, in tunnel faces and in borehole core.
The Geological Strength Index, by the combination of the two fundamental parameters of geological
process, the blockiness of the mass and the conditions of discontinuities, respects the main geological
constraints that govern a formation and is thus both a geologically friendly index and practical to assess.
The petrographic characteristics of each and every rock do not however allow all the combinations that
can be derived from the GSI charts to exist. A limestone mass, for instance, can not present “poor”
conditions in discontinuities or a thin bedded sequence of rock cannot be better than “seamy” in a folded
geological environment; a siltstone or clayshale cannot present better conditions in the discontinuities than
“fair”.
In order to give the most probable range of GSI values for rock masses of various rock types that most
usually occur in nature, a series of indicative charts are presented in tables 5 to 13. Deviations may certainly
occur but these are the exceptions. From the charts it can be seen:
• Sandstones: A typical rock mass varies in the majority of cases between 45 and 90, but if tectonically
brecciated from 30 to 45. It is understood that in all cases weak interlayers do not interfere and that in
a typical sandstone no clayey or gypsiferous cement is involved; if yes the GSI values may move to
the right of the chart.
• Silstones, clayshales: Siltstones and claystones may be homogeneous with no discontinuities other
than bedding planes, if they are of recent geological age and have not suffered from major tectonic
effects. In these cases the GSI classification is not applicable and its use, even approximately, is not
recommended. In these cases laboratory testing is to be applied. However GSI may be applied when
siltstones exhibit joints and shears (common deformational features in orogenetic belts, etc). In shales,
either silty or clayey, the role of weak schistosity planes is in that case more pronounced, which
cannot however induce an anisotropic character to the mass, as they are developed in thin
discontinuous flake-like sheets. By their nature the condition of discontinuities will usually be poor,
and it cannot be classified beyond the fair type, even in extreme cases. In many cases siltstones and
clayshales are present as thin interlayers (e.g. of few millimetres of thickness) between stronger rocks;
in that case a downgrading of the rock mass towards the right part of the chart is brought about, unless
other unfavourable situations arise from instability on preferred failure orientations.
• Limestones: Limestones in term of bedding may be massive, bedded, thin bedded (few to 10-20cm
thickness of beds). Jointing from the tectonic history is added. In all cases the surface of
discontinuities is mainly “good” and can hardly be “fair”. The thin bedded type is more keen to
differential movement of beds during folding thus lower GSI values are expected. In this type the
many intersecting discontinuity sets diminish the role of the persisting orientations of the bedding
planes, making GSI applicable. In the chart of Table 7 the limestone series with thin interlayers or
films of clayey, marly or silty nature is of course not considered.
• Granite: The range shaded in the chart is considered for sound or non significantly weathered granite.
Thus there is no remarkable decrease of the surface condition or the interlocking of the rock pieces
with fracturing. In case of weathered granite, care has to be taken in the assignment of GSI values,
owing to the enhanced heterogeneity that usually arises at the scale of the excavation, especially where
 poorly interlocked rock masses with smooth planes (e.g. GSI of 30-35) may transpass irregularly to
engineering soils (arrenites).
• Ultrabasic rocks (ophiolites): In ophiolithic rocks (mainly peridotites, diabases) the characteristic is
that, even where they are sound, their discontinuities may be coated by weak minerals that originate
from alteration or dynamic metamorphosis. So they decline a bit to the right in the GSI chart
comparing to a sound granitic mass. Ophiolites are often transformed to serpentinites which along
with the tectonic fatigue may produce very weak masses.
• Gneiss: Compared to sound granitic masses a slight displacement of the assigned range downward and
to the right of the GSI chart may be seen. Same comments as for the granite apply when gneiss is
weathered.
• Schists: They vary from strong micaschists and calcitic schist types to weak chloritic, talcic schists and
phyllites. The persisting schistosity planes and their usually “poor” surface conditions restrain the
range of GSI values.
It is strongly underlined that the shaded areas illustrated in the charts are indicative and should not be
used for design purposes as deviations may occur. But even for indicative cases or for rough approaches the
use of mean values is not, again recommended. For design purposes it is obviously necessary to base the
assessment on detailed site inspection and evaluation of all geological data derived from site investigation.

4.0 HETEROGENEOUS ROCK MASSES

The design of tunnels and slopes in heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch presents a major challenge
to geologists and engineers. The complex structure of these materials, resulting from their depositional and
tectonic history, means that they cannot easily be classified in terms of widely used rock mass classification
systems.
Flysch consists of alternations of clastic sediments that are associated with orogenesis. It closes the cycle
of sedimentation of a basin before the “arrival” of the poroxysmic folding process. The clastic material
derived from erosion of the previously formed neighbouring mountain ridge. Flysch is characterised by
rhythmic alternations of sandstone and fine grained (pelitic) layers. The fine grained layers contain siltstones,
silty shales and clayey shales. The thickness of the sandstone beds range from centimetres to metres. The
siltstones and schists form layers of the same order but bedding discontinuities may be more frequent,
depending upon the fissility of the sediments.
Different types of alternations occur in the flysch series: e.g. predominance of sandstone, or typical
sandstone/siltstone alternations, or predominance of siltstone. The overall thickness of the formation has
often been reduced considerably by erosion or by thrusting. In fact, the formation is often affected by reverse
faults and thrusts. This, together with consequent normal faulting, results in a significant degradation of the
geotechnical quality of the flysch rock mass. Thus, sheared or even chaotic rock masses can be found at the
scale of a typical engineering design.
The determination of the Geological Strength Index for these rock masses, composed of frequently
tectonically disturbed alternations of strong and weak rocks, presents some special challenges. However,
because of the large number of engineering projects under construction in these rock masses, some attempt
has to be made to provide better engineering geology tools than those currently available. Hence, in order to
accommodate this group of materials in the GSI system, a chart for estimating this parameter has been
developed recently (Marinos and Hoek, 2000) and is presented in Table 12.

4.1 Selection of σci and mi for flysch

In addition to the GSI values presented in Table 12, it is necessary to consider the selection of the other
“intact” rock properties σci and mi for heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch. Because the sandstone
layers or usually separated from each other by weaker layers of siltstone or shales, rock-to-rock contact
between blocks of sandstone may be limited. Consequently, it is not appropriate to use the properties of the
sandstone to determine the overall strength of the rock mass. On the other hand, using the “intact” properties
of the siltstone or shale only is too conservative since the sandstone skeleton certainly contributes to the rock
mass strength.
Therefore, it is proposed that a ‘weighted average’ of the intact strength properties of the strong and weak
layers should be used. Suggested values for the components of this weighted average are given in Table 13.
 Table 5: Most common GSI ranges for typical sandstones.*

*WARNING:
The shaded areas are indicative and may not be appropriate for site specific design purposes.
Mean values are not suggested for indicative characterisation; the use of ranges is recommended
1. Massive or bedded (no clayey cement present)
2. Brecciated (no clayey cement present)
Table 6: Most common GSI ranges for typical siltstones, claystones and clay shales.*

*WARNING:
The shaded areas are indicative and may not be appropriate for site specific design purposes.
Mean values are not suggested for indicative characterisation; the use of ranges is
recommended
1. Bedded, foliated, fractured
2. Sheared, brecciated
These soft rocks are classified by GSI as associated with tectonic processes. Otherwise, GSI is
not recommended. The same is true for typical marls.
 Table 7: Most common GSI range of typical limestone.*

*WARNING:
The shaded areas are indicative and may not be appropriate for site specific design purposes.
Mean values are not suggested for indicative characterisation; the use of ranges is recommended
1. Massive
2. Thin bedded
3. Brecciated
 Table 8: Most common GSI range for typical granite.*

*WARNING:
The shaded areas are indicative and may not be appropriate for site specific design purposes.
Mean values are not suggested for indicative characterisation; the use of ranges is recommended
Only fresh rock masses are shown. Weathered granite may be irregularly illustrated on the GSI chart,
since it can be assigned greatly varying GSI values or even behave as an engineering soil.
 Table 9: Most common GSI range for typical ophiolites (ultrabasic rocks).*

*WARNING:
The shaded areas are indicative and may not be appropriate for site specific design purposes.
Mean values are not suggested for indicative characterisation; the use of ranges is
recommended
1. Fresh
2. Serpentinised with brecciation and shears
 Table 10: Common GSI range for typical sound gneiss.*

*WARNING:
The shaded areas are indicative and may not be appropriate for site specific design purposes.
Mean values are not suggested for indicative characterisation; the use of ranges is recommended
Sound gneiss. Shaded area does not cover weathered rockmasses.
 Table 11: Common GSI range for typical schist.*

*WARNING:
The shaded areas are indicative and may not be appropriate for site specific design purposes.
Mean values are not suggested for indicative characterisation; the use of ranges is recommended
1. Strong (e.g. micaschists, calcitic schists)
2. Weak (e.g. chloritic schists, phyllites)
3. Sheared schist
Table 12. GSI estimates for heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch.
Table 13: Suggested proportions of parameters σci and mi for estimating rock mass properties for flysch
(Marinos, P., Hoek, E., 2000).
Flysch type see Proportions of values for each rock type to be included in rock mass property
Table 12 determination
A and B Use values for sandstone beds
C Reduce sandstone values by 20% and use full values for siltstone
D Reduce sandstone values by 40% and use full values for siltstone
E Reduce sandstone values by 40% and use full values for siltstone
F Reduce sandstone values by 60% and use full values for siltstone
G Use values for siltstone or shale
H Use values for siltstone or shale

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Particular acknowledgements are due to Miss Maria Benissi and Mr Kostas Korkaris for their assistance
in the preparation of this paper.

6.0 REFERENCES

Hoek, E. (1983). Strength of jointed rock masses, 23rd Rankine Lecture. Géotechnique 33(3), 187-
223.
Hoek, E. (1994). Strength of rock and rock masses, ISRM News Journal, 2(2), 4-16.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1980), a). Underground excavations in rock. London, Inst. Min. Metall.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1980), b). Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J. Geotech
Engng. Div., ASCE, 106 (GT 9), 1013-1035.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1988). The Hoek-Brown failure criterion – a 1988 update. In Rock
Engineering for Undergraound excavations, Proc. 15th Canadian Rock Mech. Symp. (edited be
Curran J.C.), 31-38. Toronto, Dept. Civil Engineering, University of Toronto.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1997). Practical estimates or rock mass strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. &
Mining Sci. & Geomechanics Abstracts, 34(8), 1165-1186.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K. and Bawden, W.F, (1995). Support of underground excavations in hard rock.
Rotterdam, Balkema.
Hoek, E., Marinos, P. and 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), 151-160.
Hoek, E., Wood, D. and Shah, S., (1992). A modified Hoek-Brown criterion for jointed rock
masses. Proc Rock Characterization, Symp. Int. Soc. Rock Mech.: Eurock ’92, (Edited by
Hudson J.A.), 209-214, London, Brit. Geotech. Soc.
Marinos, P. and Hoek, E., (2000). Estimating the mechanical properties of heterogeneous rock
masses such as flysh. (submitted for publication)