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

2010 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 690-697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza R. Osgoui ◽  
Resat Ulusay ◽  
Erdal Unal
2013 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 29-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaya Laxmi Singh ◽  
Naresh Kazi Tamrakar

The rock slopes of the Thopal-Malekhu River areas, Lesser Himalaya, were characterized applying various systems of rock mass classification, such as Rock mass Rating (RMR) and Geological Strength Index (GSI), because the study area comprises well exposed rock formations of the Nawakot and Kathmandu Complexes, across the Thopal-Malekhu River areas. In RMR system, mainly five parameters viz. Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of rock, Rock Quality Designation (RQD), spacing of discontinuity, condition of discontinuity, and groundwater condition were considered. The new GSI charts, which were suitable for schistose and much disintegrated rock masses, were used to characterize rock slopes based on quantitative analysis of the rock mass structure and surface condition of discontinuities. RMR ranged from 36 to 82 (poor to very good rock mass) and GSI from 13.5±3 to 58±3 (poor to good rock mass). Slates (of the Benighat Slate) are poor rock masses with low strength, very poor RQD, and close to very close spacing of discontinuity, and dolomites (Dhading Dolomite) are fair rocks with disintegrated, poorly interlocked, and heavily broken rock masses yielding very low RMR and GSI values. Phyllites (Dandagaun Phyllite), schist (Robang Formation) and quartzite (Fagfog Quartzite, Robang Formation and Chisapani Quartzite), dolomite (Malekhu Limestone), and metasandstone (Tistung Formation) are fair rock masses with moderate GSI and RMR values, whereas quartzose schist and gneiss (Kulekhani Formation) are very good rock masses having comparatively higher RMR and GSI. The relationship between GSI and RMR shows positive and good degree of correlation. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/bdg.v16i0.8882   Bulletin of the Department of Geology Vol. 16, 2013, pp. 29-42


2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-261
Author(s):  
Xiaohu Huang ◽  
Changming Wang ◽  
Tianzuo Wang ◽  
Zhiming Zhang

2004 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 1767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Β. Μαρίνος ◽  
Π. Μαρίνος ◽  
E. Hoek

After one decade of application of the Geological Strength Index, GSI, and its extensions, in the quantitative characterisation of the rock mass, the present paper attempts to answer the questions that have been raised by the users about the determination of the GSI for various qualities of rock masses and various conditions. Recommendations are given and cases are discussed where GSI is not applicable. The paper also gives general guidance on the field of GSI values of rock masses for the most common rock types based on their pétrographie and their most usual structural characteristics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document