See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266265132

Relationship between RMRb and GSI based on

in situ data

Conference Paper May 2014

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1813.3768

CITATIONS READS

0 2,137

3 authors, including:

Fernando Ceballos C. Olalla

Universidad Politcnica de Madrid Universidad Politcnica de Madrid
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 390 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Fernando Ceballos on 01 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Relationship between RMRb and GSI based on in situ data
F. Ceballos
Civil Engineer, Tcnicas y Proyectos S.A. (TYPSA), Madrid, Spain.
C. Olalla, R. Jimnez
Professors, Technical University of Madrid, Spain.

ABSTRACT: Due to the large experience accumulated in the use of the RMRb (Rock Mass Rating), as well
as to the simplicity of the estimation of the GSI (Geological Strength Index) and to the importance of GSI as
input data in the Hoek&Brown failure criteria, both the RMRb and GSI are widely used in geotechnical engi-
neering practice. This article analyzes the relationship between both classifications using in situ data corres-
ponding to different types of rocks collected from different outcrops in Spain. Currently available correlations
between RMRb and GSI have been compiled and analyzed in order to compare them with the results of the
analysis conducted in this study. Finally, the best (most suitable) statistical relations between RMRb and GSI,
depending on the type and quality of rock media, are shown and they are used to establish general correla-
tions. To conclude recommendations are presented, suggesting the use of a particular expression and its limits
of applicability.

1 INTRODUCTION Therefore, and despite the fact that the goal of

Rock masses are generally an inhomogeneous,
inelastic, discontinuous, and anisotropic medium;
such properties make its characterization rather
complex and difficult. Geomechanical classifica-
tions, such as the Q index (Barton, 1974), the Rock
Mass Rating (Bieniawski, 1973/1979), and the Geo-
logical Strength Index (Hoek, 1994) are a common
way of defining rock mass behavior, especially in
the early stages of a project and for tunnels.
These ratings are computed using several observ-
able and measurable characteristics of the rock mass.
The most common geomechanical classifications are
the one mentioned before (Q index, the Rock Mass
Rating and the Geological Strength Index). They use
several parameters (type and spacing of joints, un-
confined compressive strength, etc.) to provide a
single value that serves as a measure of the quality
of the rock mass.
To be able to use them in practice, it seemed in-
teresting to correlate them using the same rock mass
as reference. In this sense, the relation between Q
index and the Rock Mass Rating has been widely
discussed in the literature, based on extensive expe-
rimental campaigns (including as well those pro-
posed by their authors).
However, the relationships between GSI and
RMR or Q are still not so widely accepted and, even
more importantly, they have not been tested by ex-
tensive experimental campaigns that confirm their
applicability.
RMR and GSI in rock engineering design is signifi-
cantly different, a campaign of field data collection
has been carried out, in several locations within
Spain, to develop recommendations for the correla-
tion of these two parameters.
This will allow the use of experimental data ob-
tained with the RMRb in the contrast of the results of
the numerical calculations based on the GSI, and
vice versa.
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE GEOMECHANICAL
CLASSIFICATIONS EMPLOYED
2.1 Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
This index of rock mass quality was originally
developed between 1972 and 1973 by Z.T. Bi-
eniawski; it was based on 8 measurable parameters.
Then, in a subsequent review in1979, the number of
input data was reduced to 5. In this work, the 1989
version ---which introduced slight changes with re-
spect to the 1979 alternative (see Table 1)--- has
been employed.
Although the RMR was originally intended for its
application in tunnel design only, its use has become
common in civil engineering applications, such as
the characterization of rock mass strength and de-
formability and the design of foundations and
slopes.
2.1.1 Definition
The method requires five input data. Four of them
are intrinsic to the rock mass, and the fifth is related
to the hydraulic conditions. These are: unconfined
compressive strength, the RQD, spacing of disconti-
nuities, their state, and presence of water.
For its application, the rock mass is divided into
several regions with similar characteristics, and
these five parameters are quantified separately in all
of them (where each parameter has a different
weight). Then, the RMR is computed as the sum of
their marks, obtaining a final value that ranges be-
tween 0 and 100.
A correction, which depends on the orientation of
the joints with respect to the construction, is needed
in certain applications. In this study, however, the
uncorrected value was used, because it is indepen-
dent of the actual construction, hence making it easi-
er to correlate with the GSI. Following the common
rock mechanics nomenclature, this uncorrected
value is herein referred to as the basic RMR, or
RMRb.
3 PARAMETERS OF THE ROCK MASSES
Fieldwork was conducted to develop a representa-
tive database of rock mass parameters. In this cam-
paign two kinds of data were measured for each rock
mass: those related to the discontinuities and those
related to the (intact) rock matrix.
3.1 Properties of the discontinuities
For discontinuities, the following parameters were
measured:
-Spacing
-Roughness
-Opening
-Persistence
-Filler
-Water (leaks)
All these measurements were made according to
the recommendations given by the International So-
ciety for Rock Mechanics (ISRM; Brown, 1981)

Table 1. Rating of parameters in different versions

___________________________________________________ 3.2 Properties of the rock matrix
RMR79 RMR89
Min Max Min Max For the rock matrix, the following parameters were
RQD and spacing 8 50 8 40 measured or estimated:
of discontinuities -Uniaxial compressive strength: It was estimated
Condition of the 0 25 0 30 using the point load test (PLT). Because of the dis-
discontinuities persion of the values associated to this test, the ad-
Presence of 0 10 0 15 justment ratio (c/Is), was selected according to the
water
___________________________________________________ type of rock, as listed in Table 2.

Table 2. (c/Is) ratios for different rock types

2.2 Geological Strength Index (GSI)
Interval Adopted value
The Geological Strength Index was developed by Igneous 20-25 20
Evert Hoek in 1994, and was slightly but conti- Metamorphic (high 16-22 17
nuously modified throughout the years. strength)
This index, which was mainly developed to rate Metamorphic (low 12-16 12
the rock mass in a quick and simple way, and to es- strength)
timate its strength in the context of the Hoek & Calcareous 18-24 20
Brown failure criterion, (1980, 2002 and 2007) is Sedimentary (Good 10-15 12
based on the qualitative description of two elements: cemented)
the structure of the rock (i.e., the number and the po- Sedimentary (Good 6-10 10
cemented)
sition of discontinuities), and the condition of the
surface of the discontinuities. From these descrip-
tions, and using visual charts for reference, the GSI - Surface Hardness: It was measured using the
score for the rock mass can be obtained. Schmidt hammer (esclerometer), following the in-
Hoek and Marinos (2001) have proposed GSI structions provided by the manufacturer.
charts for heterogeneous rocks. They also indicate - Weathering: The recommendations given by the
that GSI must only be used with isotropic media. (In ISRM (Brown 1981) were followed.
rock masses with few discontinuities, whose magni-
tude is similar to the size of the construction, the
rock mass behavior would heavily depend on the tri-
dimensional behavior of individual blocks, and then
estimations based on GSI are not valid.)
4 BACKGROUND
Before correlating RMRb and GSI, both classifica-
tions were compared with the intention of obtaining
conceptual similarities and differences between
them.
4.1.1 Parameters
In the Rock Mass Rating system, there are five rock
mass parameters, which define the final rating of the
rock (including the presence of water), each one of
them with a certain weight. On the other hand, the
GSI is based on the observation and qualitative de-
scription of only two aspects: the structure of the
rock mass and the condition of its discontinuities. It
can be considered that, for this classification, these
two parameters have the same weight. Table 3
shows the aspects that influence the final grade in
both systems:
Table 3. Influence of different parameters
___________________________________________________
RMRb(89) GSI
UCS 15 0 el.
Structure of rock mass 40 50
Condition of discontinuities 30 50
Presence of water 15 0 rocks, in accordance with the problems related to the
In this comparison, the parameters of RMRb,
RQD and spacing have been included, as sum, in the
so called structure of the rock mass.
4.1.2 Goal
One of the main differences between these two
geomechanical classifications is their objective.
The Rock Mass Rating was designed to give an
indicative index of the quality of the rock mass dedi-
cated to the design of tunnels, so that a comparison
with a series of historical cases could be possible.
Thus, some recommendations for tunnel's lining and
reinforcements could be proposed, based on past ex-
perience. As it is a design method based on expe-
rience, without any further calculations, all external
factors such as the orientation of the joints with re-
spect to the construction must be taken into account
through correction parameters.
The Geological Strength Index was created with
the intention of giving a numerical value to define
the quality of the rock mass in a very simple way.
This quality index is used as input data for subse-
quent analysis, like other classic geotechnical para-
meters such as shear strength and deformability. Ex-
trinsic conditions to the work, such as water effects
or the orientation of the joints, are taken into account
later on by modeling and calculation with numerical
methods.
4.2 Existing correlations
The possibility of benefiting from the great amount
of RMRb data available from real projects, as well
as taking advantage of the simplicity of the methods
to estimate GSI, makes it worthwhile to try to obtain
a correlation between both indexes. It would allow
developing numerical models based on the GSI and
contrasting the experimental designs based on the
RMRb by numerical calculations.
There have been several previous efforts to corre-
late both magnitudes. One of the most used correla-
tions, based on the experience of different authors, is
the following (Hoek et al, 1995):
RMR>23 GSI=RMR5
RMR<23 The RMR should not be used to
directly estimate the GSI.
It should be noted that, for these relationships, the
RMR' expression is used. This implies that a dry
condition has been assumed or, equivalently, that a
value of 15 was assigned to the parameter related to
water. In this way, the action of water is not dupli-
cated if (or when) considered in the numerical mod-
It's noteworthy to mention the application's limit
of this relation for very fractured and weathered
use of the RMRb for this kind of outcrops.
4.3 Developing a field report model
As a preliminary step to the fieldwork, a specific
field datasheet was developed for this work. Its pur-
pose was to allow the user to record, in an easy way,
all the necessary parameters to estimate RMRb and
GSI. The field datasheet employed by the Geotech-
nical Department of CEDEX (Centro de Estudio y
Experimentacin de Obras Pblicas, Ministerio de
Fomento Spain,) was taken as a reference.
5 USED ROCKY OUTCROPS
5.1 Criterion for selection
The main criterion to select the geomechanical sta-
tions employed was that they should be representa-
tive of different rock masses and, due to budget limi-
tations, located in a nearby area. Additionally, to be
able to develop accurate correlations for all rock
mass qualities, it was intended that they should cov-
er a wide range of rock mass qualities, from rock
masses of very high quality (with low weathering
and few fractures), to outcrops representative of the
boundary between rock (V degree of weathering)
and residual soil.
Experience suggested that the uniaxial compres-
sive strength (UCS) is the most difficult parameter
to obtain. As discussed in Section 3.2, estimates
based on both the Schmidt hammer and the point
load test (PLT) were obtained. This allowed to iden-
tify and discard invalid values (in that case, the val-
ue recorded is the one that provides closer results to
the strength values estimated with the geological
hammer); and, if both values do not differ signifi-
cantly, it allows to take their average as the repre-
sentative strength value.
Regarding the presence of water, the specific sta-
tus at the time of observation has been considered,
therefore not necessarily taking into account the
worst case scenario. That is because, although the
worst scenario should probably often be assumed for
design, it should not be considered when establish-
ing the correlation between the two classifications.
5.2 Description of the Database
Geomechanical stations were classified by type of
rock: Sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous, re-
spectively. This classification was made, not only
through direct observation, but with the support of
maps published by the Geological Institute of Spain
(IGME) about the geology of Spain (mainly the
MAGNA50 series, with 1:50.000 scale).
Similarly, each geomechanical station was classi-
fied based on its type, following these four criteria:
Natural, quarries, slopes and others (tunnels, excava-
tion of foundations, etc.).
This classification allows the development of dif-
ferent correlations between RMRb and GSI, and the
assessment of whether they are different depending
on the origin of the data.
5.3 Data used in this study
59 data pairs (RMRb and GSI) from the following
types of geomechanical stations were employed:
- NATURAL: In this category the naturally rocky
outcrops, without any man-made influence, were in-
cluded.
Five stations have been made in this category,
with four of them on sedimentary rock, and only one
on metamorphic rock.
- QUARRIES: Stations in the vicinity of quarries
are included in this category (for both active and
abandoned quarries). These outcrops have been
heavily affected by human action, so that many of
their existing discontinuities can be due to such hu-
man effects.
This group has six stations, four of them on igne-
ous rock and two on sedimentary rock.
- SLOPES: It is the largest study group. These
outcrops have been created by human action, nor-
mally in association with excavations for road
works.
Thirty one stations are included in this group:
nine on metamorphic rocks, six on igneous rocks
and sixteen on sedimentary rocks.
- OTHERS: This group was considered in order
to include other sources of data. However, in this
particular work, it was not possible to take data from
tunnels, excavations for foundations, or other types
of outcrops different to the previously mentioned
categories.
In addition to these directly acquired data, RMR
and GSI values from other published studies, as well
as from geotechnical studies of different projects,
have been used. This comprises a total of 17 pairs of
new data, distributed as follows: four on natural out-
crops and thirteen on other outcrops (excavations,
tunnels, etc.). Four stations correspond to igneous
rocks, eight to metamorphic rocks and five to sedi-
mentary rocks.
Tables 4 and 5 summarize all the data used and
their distribution by material and type of outcrop.
(Note that, although there are more sedimentary
rocks, it can be assumed that there are enough values
of all rock types. Also note that samples from slopes
clearly dominate over the other sources.)
Table 4. Data used by material
___________________________________________________
N pairs %
Igneous 14 24
Metamorphic 20 34
Sedimentary 25 42
Table 5. Data used by source
___________________________________________________
N pairs %
Quarries 6 10
Natural 9 15
Slopes 31 53
Others 13 22
6 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN RMR AND GSI
After the data was filtered and classified, a statistical
analysis was carried out. This analysis was per-
formed from three points of view:
- Considering all samples together, without diffe-
rentiating type of rock or source. This was made
with the intention to define a generally valid formula
for correlation between both indexes.
- Considering each rock type separately, for a bet-
ter fit of the correlation, obtaining formulae with va-
lidity limited to each material.
- Distinguishing qualities, to test the limits of va-
lidity, depending on the range of values of RMRb or
GSI in which the rock masses were found.
6.1 Main results
The most significant results from the statistical anal-
ysis of the data are shown below.
 After testing different types of formulae for fit-
ting, it could be concluded that a linear model fits
well to the available data. See Equation (1) and Fig-
ure 1.
GSI=1,13RMR11,63; R=0,89 (1)
Figure 1. Lineal correlation between RMRb and GSI, for all 59
pair of values.
Likewise, a similar analysis was performed using
RMR', in which the parameter of water was always
assumed to be 15 (dry conditions). For this case, Eq-
uation (2) is obtained:
GSI=1,17RMR-11,36 ; R=0,864 (2)
As observed, there is a slight increase in the dis-
persion, with a small decrease of the linear correla-
tion coefficient. See Figure 2, where the line current-
ly used to correlate both magnitudes has also been
included, i.e.:
GSI=RMR-5 (3)
Figure 2. Lineal correlation between RMR and GSI, for all
values.
In the analysis considering each rock type sepa-
rately, a very good correlation was obtained for ig-
neous rocks (R=0.954, n=14). The correlation is al-
so good for sedimentary rocks (R=0.936, n=24)
and, with a larger deviation, for metamorphic rocks
(R=0.848, n=20). The corresponding formulae for
linear correlation are:
(1)
GSI=1,08RMR-10,44 ;Igneous (4)
GSI=0,95RMR-10,44 ;Metamorphic (5)
GSI=1,30RMR-20,19 ;Sedimentary (6)
A third analysis separates the data according to
the rock mass quality. For low values (RMRb <30),
the RMRb is always bigger than the GSI (see Figure
3, left). For average RMRb values (30 <RMRb <60),
most data values are in a range between
RMRb=GSI+10 and RMRb=GSI-10 (see Figure 3,
right). Finally, for rock masses with higher quality
(RMRb> 60), the fit is fairly accurately for the line
GSI=RMRb.
Figure 3. Values of RMRb-GSI for poor quality (left) and me-
dium quality (right)
The results of the statistical analysis for these
populations are not representative, since the values
are concentrated in a certain range (for example,
from 30 to 60), so the correlation coefficient values
are always low.
(3)
7 RECOMMENDATIONS AND
CORRELATIONS
7.1 Recommendations
One of the main differences (which has great impact
when attempting to correlate both indexes) is the
goal: the RMR defines the quality of the rock mass
for a given use (e.g., to propose a valid support in
tunnels), while the GSI serves mainly as input data
to estimate the strength and deformability of rock
masses.
This implies that, when correlating both indexes,
extrinsic aspects to correct the basic RMR value,
such as the orientation of discontinuities, should not
be considered. Similarly, the water parameter in the
RMRb is a conflictive point; for instance, when us-
ing the GSI, the hydraulic conditions should be tak-
en into account by the numerical model.
7.2 Proposed correlations
Based on the analysis above, recommendations for
the correlation of both indexes can be proposed. The
following two options are considered: using the val-
ue of RMRb, or RMR'. In both cases, most of the
values are within the range defined by GSI=RMR+5
and GSI=RMR-15, as shown, for the case or RMR,
in Figure 4.
Therefore, the following formulae are proposed:
GSI=RMRb-5 (7)
GSI=RMR-5 (8)
These formulae, with significance for practical
application, are similar to the ones proposed by other
authors.
Figure 4. Proposed correlation between RMR and GSI
From a statistical point of view (besides the sim-
ple correlations described before), the most approx-
imate formula is the one shown in Equation (1).
8 CONCLUSSIONS AND DISCUSSION
Based on a compiled database of GSI and RMRb
values from different locations in Spain, correlation
formulae are proposed to correlate GSI and RMRb.
A linear fit is observed to be acceptable; the formula
that provides the best fit is the one shown in equa-
tion (1). Other regression analyses conducted to con-
sider different rock types, rock origin, or rock quali-
ty also seem to provide good fits.
Although, as previously described, these correlations
can be accepted in practice (at initial stages of a
project), it is important, when using such formulae,
to take into account the following aspects: (1) ex-
trinsic parameters to rock masses should not be con-
sidered when evaluating RMR; (2) there are concep-
tual differences that exist at the origin of RMR and
GSI that could affect the computed estimates; and
View publication stats
finally (3), subjectivity in the measurement of GSI
makes difficult the correlation with other indexes.
9 REFERENCES
Barton, N, & Lien R. & Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering classifica-
tion of rock masses for the design of tunnel support (eds).
Oslo (Norway): Springer-Verlag.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering rock mass classification
(eds). Pennsylvania (USA): Wilry-interscience.
Brown, E.T. 1981. Rock characterization testing and monitor-
ing (eds). London (England): Pergamon Press.
Deisman, N. & Khajeh, M. & Chalaturnyk, R. J., 2013. Using
geological strength index (GSI) to model uncertainty in
rock mass properties of coal for CBM/ECBM reservoir
geomechanics. I International Journal of Coal Geology 112,
76-86.
Hoek. E. 2007. Practical rock engineering (ed.). Online ver-
sion: Rocscience.
Hoek. E, Marinos, P. 2001. Estimating the geotechnical prop-
erties of heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch. Bulletin
of Engineering Geology and the Environment
Marinos, P. & Hoek, E.& Marinos, V., 2006. Variability of the
engineering properties of rock masses quantified by the
geological strength index: the case of ophiolites with spe-
cial emphasis on tunneling. Bulletin of Engineering Geolo-
gy and the Environment, vol. 65, 129-142
Serrano, A. 2002. Mecnica de rocas, Volumen I & II (ed.).
Madrid (Spain): Escuela Tcnica Superior de Ingeniero de
Caminos
Sonmez, H. & Ulusay, R. & Gokceoglu, C. 2004. Indirect de-
termination of the modulus of deformation of rock masses
based on the GSI system. International journal of rock me-
chanics and mining sciences, 849-857
Tzamos, S. & Sofianos, A.I., 2007. A correlation of four rock
mass classification systems through their fabric indices. In-
ternational Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, vol. 4, 477-495
Zekai Sen & Bahaaeldin H. Sadagah, 2003. Modified rock
mass classification system by continuous rating. Eng.
Geol., 67, 269280.