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

net/publication/223335992

Determination of Residual Strength Parameters of Jointed Rock Masses Using

the GSI System

Article  in  International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences · February 2007

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.07.005

CITATIONS READS

181 3,386

4 authors, including:

M. Cai P. K. Kaiser
Laurentian University Laurentian University
120 PUBLICATIONS   3,355 CITATIONS    201 PUBLICATIONS   6,014 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Shear Rupture View project

Distributed Brillouin Sensing (DBS) for underground mining applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Cai on 10 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Determination of residual strength parameters of jointed

rock masses using the GSI system
M. Caia,, P.K. Kaisera, Y. Tasakab, M. Minamic
a
Geomechanics Research Centre, MIRARCO, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont., Canada
b
Department of Advanced Engineering, Tokyo Electric Power Services Company Limited, Tokyo, Japan
c
Department of Construction, Tokyo Electric Power Company, Tokyo, Japan
Accepted 13 July 2006
Available online 26 September 2006

Abstract

The Geological Strength Index (GSI) system, proposed in 1995, is now widely used for the estimation of the rock mass strength and the
rock mass deformation parameters. The GSI system concentrates on the description of two factors, rock structure and block surface
conditions. The guidelines given by the GSI system are for the estimation of the peak strength parameters of jointed rock masses. There
are no guidelines given by the GSI, or by any other system, for the estimation of the rock mass’ residual strength that yield consistent
results. In this paper, a method is proposed to extend the GSI system for the estimation of a rock mass’s residual strength. It is proposed
to adjust the peak GSI to the residual GSIr value based on the two major controlling factors in the GSI system—the residual block
volume V rb and the residual joint condition factor J rc . Methods to estimate the residual block volume and joint condition factor are
presented. The proposed method for the estimation of rock mass’s residual strength is validated using in-situ block shear test data from
three large-scale cavern construction sites and data from a back-analysis of rock slopes. The estimated residual strengths, calculated
using the reduced residual GSIr value, are found to be in good agreement with field test or back-analyzed data.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Rock mass; Rock mass classification; Geological strength index; Rock failure

1. Introduction universal model that can be used to a priori predict the

Knowledge of the rock mass strength and deformation
behaviors is required for the design of many engineering
structures in or on rock, such as foundations, slopes,
tunnels, underground caverns, drifts, and mining stopes.
A better understanding of the rock mass strength behavior,
including the peak and residual strengths, will facilitate the
cost-effective design of such structures.
The determination of the global mechanical properties of
a jointed rock mass remains one of the most difficult tasks
in rock mechanics. Many researchers have developed
constitutive models to describe the strength and deforma-
tion behaviors of jointed rock masses e.g., [3–5]. Because
there are so many parameters that affect the deformability
and strength, it is generally impossible to develop a
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 705 675 1151; fax: +1 705 675 4838.
E-mail address: mcai@mirarco.org (M. Cai).
strength of the rock mass. Traditional methods to
determine these parameters include plate-loading tests for
deformation modulus and in-situ block shear tests for
strength parameters. These tests can only be performed
when the exploration adits are excavated and the cost of
conducting in-situ tests is high. Although back-analyses
based on field measurement are helpful in determining the
strength and deformation parameters as a project proceeds,
they do not provide design parameters at the pre-feasibility
or feasibility study stages.
Few attempts have been made to develop methods to
characterize the jointed rock mass to estimate the deform-
ability and strength indirectly. The Geological Strength
Index (GSI), developed by Hoek et al. [1], is one of them. It
uses properties of intact rock and conditions of jointing to
determine/estimate the rock mass deformability and
strength. GSI values can be estimated based on the
geological description of the rock mass and this is well

1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.07.005
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
248 M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265
suited for rock mass characterization without direct access
to the rock mass from tunnels. The GSI system concen-
trates on the description of two factors, rock structure and
block surface conditions. It is a system that provides a
complete set of mechanical properties (Hoek–Brown
strength parameters mb and s, or the equivalent Mohr–
Coulomb strength parameters c and f, as well as the elastic
modulus E) for design purposes. Recently, a means to
quantify this approach by use of field data, which employs
the block volume (Vb) and a joint condition factor (Jc) as
quantitative characterization factors, was presented in [2].
Guidelines given by the GSI system are for the
estimation of the peak strength of jointed rock masses. In
general, rock masses, except when highly disturbed, exhibit
strain-softening post-peak behavior, so that the residual
strength parameters are lower than the peak parameters.
Both are required for design. Strain-softening behavior
describes the gradual loss of load-bearing capacity of a
material. For hard rocks, the term ‘‘strength weakening’’
seems more appropriate than the term ‘‘strain-softening’’
because softening refers to reduction of rock stiffness.
At lower confinement levels such as near excavation walls,
most rock masses exhibit some post-peak strength loss, and
when strained sufficiently reach the residual strength. The
peak and residual strengths are respectively the maximum
and minimum stresses of a rock mass that can be sustained
under a given confinement condition. The residual strength
is generally only reached after considerable plastic defor-
mation. There are some guidelines for the estimation of the
rock mass’ residual strength, given by some researchers
[6,7], but upon application of these guidelines, it is often
observed that there are significant inconsistencies in the
residual strengths derived from them. Hence, a new method
has been developed and tested to extend the GSI system for
rock mass’s residual strength estimation. For this purpose,
we propose to adjust the peak GSI value based on the two
major controlling factors in the GSI system, the block
volume Vb and the joint condition factor Jc to arrive at a
residual GSI–value (GSIr) based on a residual block
volume V rb and residual J rc . The residual GSIr value is
calculated from a relationship involving residual V rb and
J rc . The proposed method for the estimation of rock mass’s
residual strength is then validated using in-situ block shear
Peak
5 to 10 εPeak
Residual
Stress
εPeak
(a) Strain
Fig. 1. (a) Strain-softening of rocks; (b) perfectly brittle failure of rocks.
test data from three large-scale cavern construction sites
and data from a back-analysis of a rock slope stability
study.
The following definitions for the peak and residual
strength are illustrated in Fig. 1. The residual strength is
defined by the plateau after the peak, in a strain range of
about 5–10 times the strain corresponding to the peak
strength. This level of load bearing capacity is commonly
referred as the ‘‘residual strength’’ in most civil and mining
engineering applications. If straining is allowed to con-
tinue, then, the strength can further decreases and
eventually reaches a lower strength.
2. Influence of the rock’s residual strength on support design
for underground excavations
The post-peak behavior of rocks is important in the
design of underground excavations because it has a
significant influence upon the stability of the excavations.
Rock mechanics test data are available on the strength of
rock masses, especially for intact rocks. A brief review is
presented in the following sub-sections, with focus on the
post-peak behavior of rocks.
2.1. Laboratory tests
Pioneers in experimental study of the complete stress–
strain relations of rocks include Paulding [8], Cook [9],
Hoek [10], Bieniawski [11], Wawersik [12], Wawersik and
Fairhurst [13], and many others. The post-peak behavior of
rocks was studied only after the development of stiff servo-
controlled test machines in the middle of 1960s. In uniaxial
compression, two failure modes are observed [13]. One is
the local tensile or spalling fracture sub-parallel to the
applied load direction and the other is a local and
macroscopic shear fracture. In heterogeneous rocks and
under low confinements, spalling-type failure dominates.
The post-failure behavior of the rocks can be divided into
two classes [13]. Class I behavior is characterized by a
stable fracture propagation. The rocks retain some strength
even when their maximum load-carrying capacity has been
exceeded. Unstable fracture propagation behavior is
characteristic of the Class II behavior.
Peak
Stress
Residual
(b) Strain

M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265
300
Axial stress, σa (MPa)
200
100 6.9 MPa
3.45 MPa
0 nent, the geometrical component, and the asperity compo-
0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
∋ constitute the roughness strength that has to be mobilized
Axial stress, a (%)
Fig. 2. Stress–strain curves for Tennessee Marble at different confining
stresses [13].
Triaxial test data on marbles by Wawersik and Fairhurst
[13] (Fig. 2) and Rummel and Fairhurst [14] revealed that
peak and residual strengths of rocks increase with
increasing confining pressures. At low confinements, the
loss of the cohesive strength component around peak load
leads to strain localization with significant stress-drop
which is traditionally called strain-softening behavior.
Seeber [15] noticed that if the confining pressure was
greater than one-fifth of the axial stress at failure, strain-
softening was unlikely to occur. For reference, the brittle-
ductile transition limit given by Mogi [16] is s3/s1 ¼ 1/3.4.
Clearly, strain-softening behavior must be expected to
dominate near underground excavations where confine-
ment is reduced.
The post-peak behavior of rocks tested in the laboratory
is dependent on the specimen geometry. This is because
that the post-failure curve is altered depending on the
relative stiffness of the machine and the specimen, as well
as the internal confinement profile. With the development
of fractures in the post-peak region, the effective area at the
center of the specimen slowly decreases. The relative
decrease in cross-sectional area is greater for the specimens
of greater height (h) to diameter (d) ratio (h/d). Conse-
quently, the post-peak stress strain curves of specimens
with higher h/d ratios are steeper [17].
Besides the uniaxial and triaxial tests, double shear
testing method are utilized by some researchers to study the
complete shear stress–shear displacement relations of rocks
[18,19]. The residual shear strength typically depends on
the applied axial pressure (frictional materials).
The behavior of joints affects the strength and deforma-
tion properties of jointed rock masses significantly. The
shear strength of joints is a major factor in controlling the
strength of jointed rock masses. Early experimental studies
on rock joints were carried out by Patton [20], followed by
Goodman [21] Barton and Choubey [22], Bandis et al. [23],
Barton et al. [24], and others. Conceptually, there are
three modes of failure confirmed from these tests, i.e.,
(a) asperity (roughness) override at low normal stresses;
ARTICLE IN PRESS
249
(b) failure through asperities at elevated normal stresses;
48.3 MPa and (c) combinations of asperity override and failure at
34.5 MPa intermediate normal stresses.
Barton and Choubey [22] proposed the concept of joint
roughness coefficient (JRC) to describe the peak strength
27.6 MPa
of a joint. This concept was further developed incorporat-
20.7 MPa ing the mobilized JRC to account the joint surface
13.8 MPa evolution at different deformation stages [23]. The joint
shear strength is known to be dependent on three
components, i.e., the residual or basic frictional compo-
nent. The asperity and the geometrical components
0.50 0.60 0.70
during shearing of the joint.
One important observation from Barton’s joint model is
that within limited displacements, only an ultimate
mobilized joint roughness coefficient (JRCmob) can be
reached. JRCmob is roughly half of JRCpeak when the
displacement is about 10 times of the joint peak strength
displacement (Fig. 3). According to this figure, the residual
strength is only reached when the shearing displacement is
extremely large. In most engineering applications, such
large straining cannot be tolerated. Therefore, the joint
strength at dE10dpeak can be considered as corresponding
to the rock’s residual strength defined in Fig. 1.
2.2. In-situ tests
Strength and deformation properties determined from
the laboratory tests are seldom applicable to field condi-
tions. To overcome this problem, large-scale in-situ tests
have been conducted in some engineering projects. The
tests include in-situ uniaxial compressive tests, triaxial
tests, block shear tests, etc. Uniaxial compressive tests have
been conducted mostly in coalmines to study the stability
of pillars [25]. In-situ block shear tests are often executed in
large civil projects to obtain the shear strength of rock
masses and strengths of bedding or other weakness planes.
The block shear test is often conducted in an underground
gallery or adit. The roof and sidewalls are used to carry the
reaction of the applied normal and shear loads. The rock
blocks are of square base of suitable dimensions in width
and height. The shear stress vs. shear displacement relation
is recorded to identify the peak and residual strengths. It is
observed that the block shear test has a major deficiency
that it provides residual strength of a single shear plane
where in the rock mass, some degree of interlocking is
retained even at its residual state. Thus, in-situ block
shear tests tend to underestimate the residual values. In
addition, the loading system can generally be viewed as a
soft system so that the post-peak stress–displacement
curves may not characterize the strain-softening process
properly for confined states. Most large-scale cavern
designs in Japan, however, employ the residual strength
parameters obtained from these in-situ block shear tests
and utilize post-peak brittle failure models for precautious
design (Fig. 1(b)).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
250 M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265

Example : JRCm= 15
12·75
°
10·5

PEAK
1.0 45°

ULTIMATE
ROUGHNESS

ROUGHNESS
0.5 DESTROYED

MOBILIZED
RESIDUAL
JRCmob / JRCpeak

0 30°
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
DILATION
BEGINS
AT
(δ/δ PEAK)
JRCM = 0
-0.5
δ JRCm i = φ p − φr
δp JRCp JCS
N

i = JRC log ( σ )
N OF FRICTIO

n
0 −φr/i START
-1.0 0.3 0 15°
0.6 0.75
1.0 1.0 φpeak EXAMPLE:
MOBILIZATIO

2.0 0.85
φr = 30°, i = 15°
4.0 0.70
φultimate JRC = 15, σn = 10.0 MPa.
-1.5 10.0 0.50
100.0 0 φresidual JCS = 100 MPa

-2.0 − φr/i( ) 0°

Fig. 3. Normalized joint roughness–shear displacement relationship [24].

2.3. Need for accurate determination of the residual strength the plastic zones and the associated rock mass deforma-
of rock masses tion, affecting the final rock support system design. For
example, the current version of Phase2D [29], an FEM
It is observed that following the strain-softening program developed by Rocscience, allows the user to define
behavior of rocks under loading, the residual strength both peak and residual strength parameters of rock masses.
represents more or less the shear strength along a surface or When the stress of an element has exceeded its peak
shear zone of the fractured rock. In most cases, the residual strength, it fails in a perfectly brittle manner, switching
strength can be described by the Mohr–Coulomb criterion directly from peak to post-peak residual parameter values,
with near zero cohesive strength. The post-peak strength with no strain-dependent softening mechanism (Fig. 1(b)).
depends on the resistance developed on the failure plane Although extremely important for these numerical models,
against further straining. Initially, the fracture orientation, only limited suggestions are given in the user’s manual on
degree of interlocking, surface irregularity or roughness how to determine the residual strength parameters.
will affect the level of resistance. However, as strain If the residual strengths are not determined appropri-
increases, the residual strength will be less. In the field, the ately, an optimal rock support design can never be
post-peak strength level will be influenced by the boundary achieved. The influence of the residual strength on the
conditions as well. If further straining is constrained, then, yielding zone around a 6 m wide tunnel is illustrated in
the residual strength level cannot be reached and the rock Fig. 4. The tunnel is located at a depth of about 500 m and
mass can thus support a higher load than the residual the maximum and minimum in-situ stresses are 12.5 and
strength would suggest. 4.8 MPa, respectively. The angle between the maximum
It is a very challenging and difficult task to correctly principal stress direction and the vertical is 261. Rock mass
represent the strain-softening behavior of rock masses, due peak cohesion, friction angle, dilation angle, and tensile
to a lack of large-scale test data. Most numerical tools strength are 3 MPa, 551, 51, and 0.6 MPa, respectively. It is
designed for rock engineering application, however, assumed that after peak strength, the rock mass reaches the
provide strain-softening constitutive models of varying residual strength in a brittle manner. The residual tensile
sophistication to describe the behavior of jointed rock strength is assumed to be zero and the dilation angle
masses [26–28]. In these models, the residual strength of the unchanged from the peak dilation. It should be noted that
rock mass and the rate of post-peak strength degradation constant dilation is an approximation that is clearly not
play an important role in the determination of the size of physically correct. This assumption is made largely because
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 4. Influence of residual strength on the yielding zone around a tunnel.
little is known about how the dilation of a rock mass
changes past peak. Even if the peak strength is the same for
all cases, for different residual friction angles and cohesions
shown in Fig. 4, the yielding zones are drastically different.
The underlying implication is that the residual strength of
rock masses has to be properly determined in order to
design appropriate rock support systems.
2.4. Review of existing methods to determine the residual
strength of rock masses
To design underground structures properly, both the
peak and residual strengths of the rock mass are needed.
Much research has been focused on the determination of
peak strengths, and limited attempts have been made to
estimate the residual strength of jointed rock masses.
The existing GSI system only provides guidance for rock
mass peak strength estimation. To address the issue of rock
mass residual strength, Hoek [6,30] suggested elastic-
brittle, strain-softening, and elastic-perfect plastic post-
peak rock mass behavior for very good, average, and very
poor quality rock masses, respectively. Hoek also suggested
that in the case of an average quality rock mass, it is
reasonable to assume that the post failure characteristics
can be estimated by reducing the GSI value from the in-situ
value to a lower value which characterizes the broken rock
mass. The reduction of the rock mass strength from an
undisturbed to a broken state corresponds to the strain-
softening behavior. However, the validity of this assump-
tion is unknown, and new study is needed to understand
251
the strength reduction mechanism and hence provide a
method for residual strength estimation [6].
Russo et al. [7] proposed to set the residual GSIr value at
36% of the peak GSI value. This empirical relation may
underestimate the residual GSI values for poor-quality
rock masses. On the other hand, for very good-quality rock
masses, it may overestimate the residual GSIr values. Based
on laboratory triaxial test on limestone, Ribacchi [31]
suggested to use the following relations to estimate the
residual strength of jointed rock masses:
mr ¼ 0:65mb ; sr ¼ 0:04s or ðsc Þr ¼ 0:2sc , (1)
where mb and s are the Hoek–Brown peak strength
parameters, the subscript ‘‘r’’ indicates residual values,
and sc is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact
rock. Taking into account the structure of the tested rock,
these relations may be valid only for rock masses in which
joints are characterized by a thin infilling or slightly
weathered to unweathered joint walls. The corresponding
GSI reduction that would fit such parameters is approxi-
mately GSIr ¼ 0.7GSI.
The opinions of several rock mechanics experts on the
post-peak strength parameters were summarized in [32]. It
is generally agreed that the reduction of sc would be
physically and conceptually incorrect because this is a
‘‘fixed’’ index parameter that is determined from intact
rock specimens.
In summary, several attempts have been made to
estimate the residual strength of jointed rock masses. The
reduction of GSI to its residual value is a logical choice,
because the failure of rock masses is associated with the
crushing of intact rock and the wearing of the joint surface
roughness. Current reduction methods, however, lack
generality and lead to inconsistent results for different
rock masses. Here, a new method is proposed based on the
observation of actual rock mass failure process from
laboratory and in-situ tests, as well as on the understanding
of the rock fracturing process from numerical simulation.
3. Determination of the strength parameters using the GSI
system
3.1. Estimation of peak strength of rock masses using the
GSI system
Two types of strength criteria, i.e., the Mohr–Coulomb
and Hoek–Brown failure criteria, are widely used in rock
engineering. The equivalent Mohr–Coulomb parameters
can be obtained based on the Hoek–Brown envelope and a
chosen range of confinement (s3). In terms of major and
minor principal stresses, s1 and s3, the Mohr–Coulomb
failure criterion can be expressed as
2ccosf 1 þ sinf
s1 ¼ þ s3 , (2)
1  sinf 1  sinf
where c and f are the cohesive strength and angle of
friction of the rock mass, respectively.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
252 M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265

The generalized Hoek–Brown criterion for jointed rock jointing. To facilitate the use of the system, Cai et al. [2]
masses [33] is presented a quantitative approach that employed the block
 a volume Vb and a joint surface condition factor Jc as
s3
s1 ¼ s3 þ sc mb þ s , (3) quantitative characterization factors. The quantitative
sc approach was validated using field test data and applied
where mb, s, a are constants for the rock mass, and sc is the to the estimation of the rock mass properties at two cavern
uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock. The GSI sites in Japan. The quantified GSI chart is presented in
system was developed to determine the Hoek–Brown Fig. 5. It provides a means for consistent rock mass
strength parameters, using the rock structure and joint characterization and thus improves the utility of the GSI
surface condition description to describe the rock mass system.

Joint or Block Wall Condition

compact coating or fillings of angular fragments

Slickensided, highly weathered surfaces with

Slickensided, highly weathered surfaces with
Very rough, fresh unweathered surfaces

Smooth, moderately weathered or

soft clay coatings or fillings

Rough, slightly weathered,
iron stained surfaces

altered surfaces
Very good

Very poor
Block Size
Good

Poor
Fair

Massive - very well interlocked

undisturbed rock mass blocks formed 10E+6
e

by three or less discontinuity sets

ne

on

95
zo

with very wide joint spacing

ez

150
ure

Joint spacing > 100 cm

lur

85
fai
ail

100 cm 90
1E+6
ef

le

90
ritt

Blocky - very well interlocked (1 m3)

ittl

80 75
lb
Br

undisturbed rock mass consisting 70

tia

of cubical blocks formed by three 60 80

ten

65
orthogonal discontinuity sets 50
Po

Joint spacing 30 - 100 cm 100E+3

40 70
30 cm 55
Very Blocky - interlocked, partially
disturbed rock mass with multifaceted
Block Volume Vb (cm3)

20 45 10E+3
angular blocks formed by four or more 60
discoutinuity sets
Joint spacing 10 - 30 cm 50 35
10 cm
40 1000
(1 dm3)
Blocky/disturbed - folded and/or 25
faulted with angular blocks formed by
many intersecting discontinuity sets
5 30
Joint spacing 3 - 10 cm 100
15
3
Disintegrated - poorly interlocked,
20
heavily broken rock mass with a
2 10
mixture or angular and rounded
rock pieces
Joint spacing < 3 cm
10
1 cm
1
Foliated/laminated/sheared - thinly
laminated or foliated, tectonically sheared
weak rock; closely spaced schistosity N/A N/A 5
prevails over any other discontinuity set,
resulting in complete lack of blockiness 0.1
Joint spacing < 1 cm 12 4.5 1.7 0.67 0.25 0.09
Joint Condition Factor Jc

Fig. 5. Quantification of GSI chart [2].

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265
Fig. 6. Visualization of the GSI system [34].
In numerical model implementation, it is sometimes
troublesome to refer to a chart for the determination of the
GSI values. Recently, based on the proposed quantitative
chart, and using surface fitting techniques, the following
equation for the calculation of GSI from Jc and Vb was
developed [34]:
26:5 þ 8:79 ln J c þ 0:9 ln V b
GSI ðV b ; J c Þ ¼ , (4)
1 þ 0:0151 ln J c  0:0253 ln V b
where Jc is a dimensionless factor, and Vb is in cm3. A
graphic representation of Eq. (4) is presented in Fig. 6. In
other words, the Hoek–Brown strength parameters and
deformation modulus can be directly expressed as a
function of Vb and Jc:
 
GSI  100
mb ¼ mi exp , (5)
28  14D
 
GSI  100
s ¼ exp , (6)
9  3D
1  GSI=15  rock masses with non-persistent joints. Besides rock
a ¼ 0:5 þ e  e20=3 , (7)
6
where D is a factor that depends on the degree of
disturbance to which the rock mass has been subjected by
blast damage and stress relaxation. The D factor was
introduced in the latest update [35] of the Hoek–Brown
failure criterion.
3.2. Estimation of residual strength of rock masses using the
GSI system
As is demonstrated by the identification and visualiza-
tion of influencing parameters in major rock mass
classification systems, the block volume and the joint
surface condition are the two most important factors that
control the quality and hence the strength and deform-
ability of jointed rock masses [34]. Block volume is affected
253
by the joint set spacing and persistence. Joint condition is
controlled by joint roughness, weathering, and infilling
material. These are important factors that need to be
characterized for rock mass’s residual strength estimation.
Sjöberg [36] reported that when using the GSI system to
estimate the rock mass strength at the Aznalcollar open pit
mine in Spain, it was found that by assuming the disturbed
rock mass category, good agreement was found between
estimated strength values and back-calculated strengths
from observed slope failures in the footwall. The same
author reckoned that these strength values were probably
conservative and representative of the residual strength of
the rock mass. Although this hypothesis needs to be further
verified by additional data from other slope failures, it
suggests that the reduction of GSI for residual strength
estimation is logical.
To extend the GSI system for rock mass residual
strength estimation, we propose to adjust the original
GSI value based on the two major controlling factors in the
GSI system, i.e., block volume Vb and joint condition
factor Jc, to reach their residual values.
3.2.1. Residual block volume
Block size, which is determined from the joint spacing,
joint orientation, number of joint sets and joint persistence,
is an extremely important indicator of rock mass quality.
Block size is a volumetric expression of joint density. The
block volume spectrum from ‘‘massive’’ to ‘‘very blocky’’
rock masses ranges from 103 to 107 cm3, and for
‘‘disturbed’’ to ‘‘sheared’’ rock from 0.1 to 103 cm3.
Joints are often of limited length, even in a larger scale
[37]. If the joints are not persistent, i.e., with rock bridges,
the rock mass strength is higher and the global rock
stability is enhanced. This effect can be considered using
the concept of equivalent block volume as suggested in [2].
The difference between the peak and residual strength of
a rock mass with non-persistent joints is larger than that
of a rock mass with persistent joints. The implication is
that a drop of GSI from peak to residual values is larger for
bridges, rock asperity interlocking also contributes to the
difference between peak and residual strengths.
If a rock experiences post-peak deformation, the rock in
the broken zone is fractured and consequently turned into
a poor and eventually ‘‘very poor’’ rock. Hence, the rock
mass properties of a rock mass after extensive straining
should be derived from the rock class of ‘‘very poor rock
mass’’ in the RMR system [38] or ‘‘disintegrated’’ in the
GSI system.
For the residual block volume, it is observed that the
post-peak block volumes are small because the rock mass
has experienced tensile and shear fracturing. After the peak
load, the rock mass becomes less interlocked, and is heavily
broken with a mixture of angular and partly rounded rock
pieces. Numerical simulation using ELFEN [39] and DIGS
[40] revealed that the rock masses in the fracture zone
around underground openings are broken to small blocks.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
254 M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265
Fig. 7. Example of sheared Flysches in Greece (photo courtesy of Evert
Hoek).
ELFEN was also used to simulate the rock failure process
in uniaxial and biaxial loading conditions [41]. The results
indicate that the rock will gradually disintegrate into small
blocks, mostly along the localized shear or kink band zone,
before the residual strength in reached.
Detailed examination of the rock mass damage state
before and after the in-situ block shear tests at some
underground cavern sites in Japan revealed that in areas
that were not covered by concrete, the failed rock mass
blocks are 1–5 cm in size. The rock mass is disintegrated
along a shear zone in these tests.
It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the block volume sizes of
the disintegrated rock masses are in the range of 1–27 cm3,
with an average of about 10 cm3. This is supported by fault
outcrop observations. The strength of a fault can be
regarded as the lower-bound strength of the rock mass.
Shearing disintegrates and damages the rock mass and
weathering further weaken the fault strength. Another
example of residual block size is presented in Fig. 7, in
which a sheared Flysches in the middle of the picture are
totally disintegrated with a block volume of about 10 cm3.
In summary, the residual block volumes can be
considered independent of the original (peak) block
volumes for most strain-softening rock masses. This is
illustrated in Fig. 8, showing the fractured residual rock
mass will have more or less the same residual block volume
in the shear band for intact rocks, moderately jointed and
highly jointed rock masses. As an estimate, if the peak
block volume Vb is greater than 10 cm3, then, the residual
block volume V rb in the disintegrated category can be taken
to be 10 cm3. If Vb is smaller than 10 cm3, then, no
reduction to the residual block volume is recommended,
i.e., V rb ¼ V b .
3.2.2. Residual joint condition factor
In the GSI system, the joint surface condition is defined
by the roughness, weathering and infilling condition [1,2].
The combination of these factors defines the strength
of a joint or block surface. The joint condition factor is
Intact
Moderately
jointed
Highly
jointed
Initial state Residual state
Fig. 8. Illustration of the residual block volume.
defined as
J WJS
Jc ¼ , (8)
JA
where JW, JS, and JA are the joint large-scale waviness
factor, small-scale smoothness factor, and alteration factor,
respectively. The tables for peak JW, JS, and JA are given
in [2].
The failure process affects the joint surface condition,
especially the joint roughness. According to [24], the
difference between peak and residual JRC is large if the
peak JRC value is high. The underlying implication is that
the drop of GSI from peak to residual values should be
larger for rock masses with fresh and rough joints.
The major factor that alters the joint surface condition in
the post-peak region is the reduction of joint surface
roughness, as shown in Fig. 3 for the gradual degradation
of JRC. Peak mobilized roughness angle is given as JRC
log(JCS/sn), where JCS is the joint wall compressive
strength, and sn is the normal stress acting on the joint.
The mobilized joint residual roughness is zero according to
the same figure, which can only be achieved when the joint
experiences a very large shearing displacement. On the
other hand, the concept of ultimate mobilized joint
roughness was suggested by Barton et al. [24]. According
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265 255

to Fig. 3, the joint surface roughness is gradually destroyed where mr , sr, ar are the residual Hoek–Brown constants for
during the shearing process and the ultimate mobilized the rock mass. It is postulated that these constants can be
roughness is about half of the peak roughness (JRCmob/ determined from a residual GSIr value using the same
JRCpeak ¼ 0.5). As stated before, the strain levels in most equations for peak strength parameters (Eqs. (5–7)). This
civil and mining underground excavation structures are not simply means that the equations for peak strength
large so that the shearing of joints at the displacement level parameter calculation hold true to the residual strength
around 10dp would correspond to the straining of jointed parameter calculation. This statement is supported by the
rock masses at the residual strength level defined in Fig. 1. fact that the rock mass in its residual state represents one
It is therefore proposed here that the large-scale waviness particular kind of rock mass in the spectrum in the GSI
and the small-scale smoothness of joints be calculated by chart (Fig. 5). The rock mass spectrum is defined by the
reducing its peak value by half to calculate the residual GSI combination of the block volume spectrum and the joint
value. In a short time period, joint alteration is unlikely to surface condition factor spectrum. In fact, the GSI chart
occur so that the joint alteration factor JA will be had been expanded from its original spectrum [1] to
unchanged in most circumstances. However, when water account for weak or fractured rocks [42,43].
and clay infill material is involved, the fractured rock Once the reduced GSIr is obtained, the residual
surface can have a lower residual JA. Hoek–Brown strength parameters or the equivalent re-
The residual joint surface condition factor J rc is sidual Mohr–Coulomb strength parameters can be calcu-
calculated from lated, assuming that other parameters such as sc and mi are
J rW J rS unchanged, i.e.,
J rc ¼ , (9)  
J rA GSI r  100
mr ¼ mi exp , (15)
where J rW , J rS , and J rA are residual values for large-scale 28
waviness, small-scale smoothness, and joint alteration  
GSI r  100
factor, respectively. The residual values are obtained based sr ¼ exp , (16)
on the corresponding peak values. The reduction of J rW and 9
J rS are based on the concept of mobilized joint roughness,
1  GSIr =15 
and the equations are given as ar ¼ 0:5 þ e  e20=3 . (17)
6
JW JW
If o1; J rW ¼ 1; Else J rW ¼ , (10) Because the rock masses are in a damaged, residual state,
2 2
D ¼ 0 is used for the residual strength parameter calcula-
JS JS tion.
If o0:75; J rS ¼ 0:75; Else J rS ¼ , (11)
2 2
There is no reduction for JA in the present study. 3.3.1. Discussion
When GSI is reduced in the post-peak yielding, the
3.3. Residual GSI value and strength parameters frictional and cohesive strength components will reduce at
different rates. This can be clearly seen in Figs. 9 and 10.
According to the logic of the original GSI system, the The frictional strength component, mb, decreases gradually
strength of a rock mass is controlled by its block size and
joint surface condition. The same concept is valid for failed
rock masses at the residual strength state. In other words, 25
the residual GSIr is a function of residual J rc and V rb , i.e., mi=25
mi=20
GSI r ¼ f ðJ rc ; V rb Þ, (12) 20 mi=15
mi=10 25
or, applying the explicitly Eq. (4) to rewrite Eq. (12) as
26:5 þ 8:79 ln J rc þ 0:9 ln V rb 15 20
GSI r ðV rb ; J rc Þ ¼ . (13)
1 þ 0:0151 ln J rc  0:0253 ln V rb
mb

As for the intact rock properties, fracturing and shearing 10

do not weaken the intact rocks (even if they are broken into
smaller pieces) so that the mechanical parameters (sc and mi=10
mi) should be unchanged. What has changed are the block 5
size and joint surface condition (especially the roughness).
Therefore, the generalized Hoek–Brown criterion for the
0
residual strength of jointed rock masses can be written as 0 20 40 60 80 100
 ar
s3 GSI
s1 ¼ s 3 þ s c m r þ s r , (14)
sc Fig. 9. Relationship between mb and GSI.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
256 M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265

with decreasing GSI value. The relationships between GSI
and a and s are shown in Fig. 10. For GSIo40, s, the
cohesive strength component, becomes very small and can
be ignored in defining the residual rock mass strength. For
GSI440, a is approximately 0.5, whereas a is slightly larger
than 0.5 for 20oGSIo40.
Table 1 presents several GSI estimations on the residual
strength parameters of some typical rock masses. For
example, for a strong rock mass whose Vb is 12 500 cm3,
JW ¼ 2, JS ¼ 2, JA ¼ 1, the peak Hoek–Brown strength
parameters are mb ¼ 4.845 and s ¼ 0.012. According to the
proposed method, V rb ¼ 10 cm3 and J rc ¼ 1 for the residual
rock mass. The residual GSIr is 30.3, and the corresponding
residual Hoek–Brown strength parameters are: mr ¼ 1.659,
sr ¼ 0. For other rock types, similar strength parameters
can be obtained following our proposed approach. A plot
of the peak and residual Hoek–Brown strength envelops
given by our approach is presented in Fig. 11 for massive
brittle rocks, jointed strong rocks and jointed intermediate
rocks. The methodology described here provides consistent
results for different rock types considered.
The average residual block size of 10 cm3 is suggested for
the determination of the residual GSI value. To evaluate
the influence of the residual block size on the residual
strength, maximum (V rb ¼ 27 cm3) and minimum (V rb ¼
1 cm3) residual block volumes in the disintegrated category
are used to calculate the equivalent residual Mohr–Cou-
lomb strength parameters. It is seen from the results
presented in Table 2 that the maximum difference in the
friction angle is about 21 and the difference of the residual
cohesion is small if the maximum and the minimum block
140
Massive brittle rocks (Peak)
Residual
Jointed strong rock (Peak)
120 Residual
Jointed intermediate rocks (Peak)
Residual

100

1 1
a s 80
σ1 (MPa)

0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7 60

0.6 0.6
a 0.5 0.5 S 40
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 20
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0
0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 20 40 60 80 100 σ3 (MPa)
GSI
Fig. 11. Peak and residual Hoek–Brown strength envelops for three
Fig. 10. Relationship between GSI and a and s. typical rock masses.

Table 1
Examples of rock mass residual strength parameters of typical rock masses

Massive brittle rocks Jointed strong rock Jointed intermediate rocks Very weak rock (GSIo30)
(70oGSIo90) (50oGSIo65) (40oGSIo50)

Peak Residual Peak Residual Peak Residual Peak Residual

JW 3 1.5 2 1 1.5 1 1 1
JS 3 1.5 2 1 1.5 0.75 1 0.75
JA 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4
Jc 9 2.25 4 1 1.125 0.375 0.25 0.1875
Vb (cm3) 500,000 10 12,500 10 6000 10 100 10
GSI 82.2 37.4 60.3 30.3 45.2 21.5 21.4 15.1
m 10.591 2.138 4.845 1.659 2.805 1.212 1.208 0.964
s 0.138 0.001 0.012 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000

Note: Peak and residual strength parameters are calculated based on sc ¼ 100 MPa and mi ¼ 20. We only recommend use of these residual values for
GSIo75. The brittle Hoek–Brown criterion [44,45] is recommended for GSI475.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265 257

volumes in the disintegrated category are used. Therefore, 4. Verification of GSI reduction approach
in most applications, it is reasonable to use V rb ¼ 10 cm3 to
calculate the residual GSI value and hence the correspond- 4.1. Verification from in-situ block shear tests at three
ing strength parameters. cavern sites in Japan
For very weak and sheared rock masses such as the
Athens Schist Formation [42] and flysch [43], the peak and 4.1.1. Kannagawa site
residual block volumes are roughly the same, with an The Kannagawa pumped hydropower project [46] in
average block volume of about 1 cm3 and very poor joint Gumma Prefecture in Japan is now under construction
surface condition. The estimated GSI values are in the with a maximum output of 2820 MW. The powerhouse
range of 5–15 for this type of rock masses. The volume and cavern at 500 m depth has a width of 33 m, a height of
joint surface condition degradation methodology presented 52 m, and a length of 216 m. The cavern excavation was
above is able to consistently consider the residual strength started in 1998 and the last bench was completed in 2000.
even for the weak rock masses. The validation of the The rock mass at the site consists of conglomerate,
proposed method using in-situ test data and back analysis sandstone, and mudstone. The rock masses are classified
data is presented in the next section. into five major groups or domains. Sixty-four uniaxial
compressive tests were conducted to determine the average
strength and standard deviation of each rock type. The
Table 2 parameter mi for each rock types was obtained from a
Comparison of residual strength parameters for different residual block limited number of tri-axial tests. A total of 21 block shear
sizes
tests were conducted at six test locations. The peak and
Residual Jc Residual block GSIr Residual strength residual strength parameters estimated from the GSI
volume Vb(cm3) parameters system are given in Table 3, along with the data obtained
from the in-situ block shear tests, for domains CG1, CG2,
fr cr (MPa)
FS1 and M1. A residual block volume of 10 cm3 is used in
2.25 Max. 27 39.4 51.4 1.10 the calculation. The residual joint surface condition factor
Average 10 37.4 50.9 1.04 is obtained by degradation of the joint roughness. For
Min. 1 33.2 49.8 0.92 example, J rW ¼ JW =2 ¼ 1:25, J rS ¼ JS=2 ¼ 1 are obtained
1 Max. 27 32.1 49.4 0.90 for rock CG1. For rock FS1, J rW ¼ 1 instead of JW/2 ¼
Average 10 30.3 48.9 0.85 0.75 is used because of the minimum constraint on JW is
Min. 1 26.5 47.6 0.77 that it cannot be smaller than 1 according to the rating [2].
0.375 Max. 27 23.1 47.1 0.57 GSIr is calculated using Eq. (13), and cr and fr ( ¼ fb+i)
Average 10 21.5 46.3 0.55 are equivalent residual Mohr–Coulomb strength para-
Min. 1 18.1 44.7 0.51 meters calculated from the Hoek–Brown strength para-
0.1875 Max. 27 16.6 43.9 0.48 meters for a s3 range of 0–5 MPa. The predicted residual
Average 10 15.1 43.1 0.46 strength in terms of cohesion and friction angle for CG1,
Min. 1 12.1 41.3 0.41 CG2 and FS1 are comparable to the results obtained from
Note: The calculation of the residual strength parameters is based on the in-situ block shear tests. For M1 rock mass, the GSI
sc ¼ 100 MPa and mi ¼ 20. estimation underestimates the field residual friction angle.

Table 3
Characterization of the rock mass peak and residual strengths at the Kannagawa site using the GSI system

Rock zone CG1 CG2 FS1 M1

Peak Residual Peak Residual Peak Residual Peak Residual

GSI system JW 2.5 1.25 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1

JS 2 1 1.5 0.75 1.5 0.75 1.5 0.75
JA 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Jc 5 1.25 2.25 0.75 2.25 0.75 1.125 0.38
Vb (cm3) 309,000 10 303,000 10 295,000 10 110,000 10
GSI 73.8 32.3 64.9 27.8 64.8 27.8 53.6 21.5
sc (MPa) 111 111 162 162 126 126 48 48
mi 22 22 19 19 19 19 9 9
c (MPa) 4.1 1.1 3.7 0.96 3 0.96 1.1 0.35
f ¼ fb+i (degree) 58 51.8 57.8 51.0 56.6 49.3 42 33.2
Block shear test c (Mpa) 5.2 1.3 3.4 1.3 3.4 0.5 1.9 0.5
f ¼ fb+i (degree) 57 52.8 57 52.8 57 49 40 40
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
258 M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265

25 Table 4
GSI (peak) Characterization of the rock mass peak and residual strengths at the
Test data (peak) Kazunogawa site using the GSI system
GSI (residual)
CH rock mass
Test data (residual)
20 Peak Residual

GSI system
JW 2 1
JS 2 1
JA 1 1
Jc 4 1
Shear stress (MPa)

15
Vb (cm3) 12,500 10
GSI 60.3 30.3
sc (MPa) 108 108
mi 19 19
c (MPa) 2.29 0.87
10 f ¼ fb+i (degree) 54.7 49
Block shear test
c (MPa) 1.5 0.47
f ¼ fb+i (degree) 58 50.3

5
0 indirectly obtained from joint profiles in previous labora-
0 2 4 6 8 10
Normal stress (MPa)
Fig. 12. Comparison of peak and residual strength calculated from the
GSI system and field test data (FS1).
The residual strength estimated from the GSI system
roughly represents the lower bound of the field test data for
M1 rock mass. Note that the peak and residual strength
parameters determined from the in-situ block shear test
have been used in the cavern design. The displacement and
yielding zone predicted by the FEM analysis agree well
with the field monitoring data [46].
A comparison of the GSI estimate and the field test data
for FS1 rock mass is presented in Fig. 12. The average
residual strength estimated from the GSI system is slightly
lower than the field data average, but is well within the data
variability shown in the field test data [41].
4.1.2. Kazunogawa site
Kazunogawa power station [47], located in Yamanashi
Prefecture, Japan, at about 500 m depth, has a generating
capacity of 1600 MW. The cavern dimensions are: width
34 m, height 54 m, and length 210 m. The cavern excavation
was started in 1994 and the last bench was excavated in
1996.
The rock mass consists of sandstone and composite
rocks of sandstone and mudstone, described as two groups
(CH and CM) of rock mass types based on the Denken rock
mass classification system [48]. Three joint sets are
observed at this site. The joint spacing of the major joint
set (JEW-h) is in the range of 1–20 cm. The average joint
spacings of the other two joint sets are 25 and 50 cm,
respectively. Joints are fresh, have small undulation and
are rough. Rough joint surface assessment can also be
tory joint test. The block sizes are basically controlled by
the joint frequency of the major joint set. From the joint
density distribution graph, it is seen that the average joint
spacing is about 10 cm for CH rock mass.
Seventy-five uniaxial compressive tests were conducted
to determine the strength parameters of the intact rocks.
The peak and residual shear strengths of the rock mass
were obtained from 12 in-situ block shear tests. The peak
and residual strength parameters of CH rock mass
estimated from the GSI system are given in Table 4,
along with the data obtained from the in-situ block shear
tests. A method similar to the Kannagawa case is
employed to determine the residual block volume and
joint surface condition factor. The residual GSIr is about
half of the peak GSI value. The predicted residual
strength in terms of cohesion and friction angle is
comparable to the results obtained from the in-situ
block shear tests. A comparison the GSI estimate to the
field test data is presented in Fig. 13. The GSI system
approach slightly overestimates the cohesion of both
peak and residual strengths.
4.1.3. Okawachi site
Okawachi powerhouse, which is about 280 m deep
underground, has a generating capacity of 4 
320,000 KW. The cavern dimensions are: width 24 m,
height 46.6 m, and length 134.5 m. The cavern excavation
was started in 1988 and the last bench excavation was
completed in 1991. Detailed information about the cavern
construction can be found in Harada et al. [49].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265 259

20 Table 5
GSI (peak) Characterization of the rock mass peak and residual strengths at the
Test data (peak) Okawachi site using the GSI system
18 GSI (residual)
CH rock mass
Test data(residual)
16 Peak Residual

GSI system
14 JW 2.5 1.25
JS 2 1
JA 1 1
Shear stress (MPa)

12 Jc 5 1.25
Vb (cm3) 13,352.9 10
GSI 62.8 32.3
10 sc (MPa) 236.7 236.7
mi 19 19
c (MPa) 4.45 1.32
8 f ¼ fb+i (degree) 59.2 54.8
Block shear test
6 c (MPa) 4.53 1.23
f ¼ fb+i (degree) 60.9 55.1

20
2 GSI (peak)
Test data (peak)
18 GSI (residual)
0 Test data (residual)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Normal stress (MPa) 16

Fig. 13. Comparison of peak and residual strength calculated from the
GSI system and field test data at the Kazunogawa site (CH). 14
Shear stress (MPa)

Rock mass around the cavern is porphrite with an 12

average uniaxial compressive strength of 237 MPa. Three
sets of joints exist at the site with an RQD value that varies
10
in the range of 60–70. Joints are fresh and rough. In-situ
block shear tests were conducted to obtain the peak and
residual shear strength of the jointed rock masses. Plate 8
loading tests were also conducted to determine the in-situ
deformation modulus of the rock masses. The average
6
deformation modulus obtained from the field test is
24.1 GPa, which roughly corresponds to a peak GSI value
of 63. 4
The peak block volume shown in Table 5 was calculated
using the relationship between the Vb and RQD [50], i.e.,
2
Vb ¼ b ((115-RQD)/3.3)3, where RQD ¼ 70 and b ¼ 35.
The large-scale roughness (JW ¼ 2.5) is determined based
on the data fitting by matching the peak strength 0
parameters of the GSI estimate to the peak strength 0 2 4 6 8 10
parameters from the in-situ tests. This matching excise is Normal stress (MPa)
also supported by the good agreement between the Fig. 14. Comparison of peak and residual strength calculated from the
deformation moduli obtained from the GSI system GSI system and field test data at the Okawachi site (CH). Note that the
(21.1 GPa) and the field test (24.1 GPa). The peak and measured and predicted residual strength envelopes are overlapping.
residual GSI values are about 63 and 32, respectively. As
can be seen from Table 5 and Fig. 14, the predicted residual 4.2. Verification from a slope stability back-analysis
strength in terms of cohesion and friction angle is
comparable to the result obtained from the in-situ block Back-analysis of the strength and deformation para-
shear tests. meters of the rock mass has been applied to many
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
260 M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265

engineering projects [51]. It is especially useful when failure Fig. 15 presents the relationship between the friction
has occurred and reached to the residual state as is in the angles and cohesive strengths mobilized at failure for some
case of slope instability. It is tempting to consider the slopes [52]. Cohesion is generally small (o 0.2 MPa) and
possibility of back analyzing existing slope failures in order the friction angle varies between 201 and 451 for most
to determine the shear strengths that must have been cases. It is interesting to note that for ‘‘undisturbed hard
mobilized in the full-scale rock mass at the time of the rock masses,’’ (f ¼ 40–451 in Fig. 15) the cohesion is in the
failure. In fact, back-analysis of slope failures can be a very range of 0.3–0.5 MPa. Based on our experience, we
important source of shear strength data [52]. consider the back-analyzed c and f values representative
In back-analysis of slope stability, the shear strength of the residual strength parameters.
parameters, c and f are adjusted till the factor of safety is Sjöberg [36] used the Hoek–Brown strength criterion to
unity (1.0) as a prerequisite for failure in a limit equilibrium estimate the strength of the rock mass at the Aznalcollar
analytical model. This pair of parameters can be considered open pit mine located in southern Spain. The dominant
as the residual strength parameters. This is so because it is footwall rock types are slates and schist with well-
generally required that the rock mass must experience a large developed cleavage. At the end of mining, the pit was
deformation in excess of that required to mobilize the peak approximately 1300  700 m in area and 270 m deep with
strength. Thus, the resistance mobilized by reactivated an overall slope angles varied from 301 to 381. Despite the
landslides is equal to the residual strength of the material relative moderate slope, the mine has suffered several large-
within the slip zone. This is, however, only valid for rotational scale failures of the footwall slope. Failure was not
or sliding failure involving the entire failure volume, not for structurally controlled but rather stress controlled. The
progressive failures. Thus, a back-analysis using limit failure surfaces were identified from the slope monitoring
equilibrium method or FEM/DEM employing strength using techniques such as surfaces displacement stations and
reduction method can obtain residual strength parameters. inclinometers.
rounded weakly cemented
particles and appreciable
mineral content materials

Disturbed material with

Rockmasses or dumps
containing hard clean
slickensided surfaces

Undisturbed soil and

coated with high clay

clay mineral content

jointed rock masses
clay mineral content
Residual strength of

particles and blocks

angular interlocking
with relatively low

0.5

Undisturbed hard rock

masses with no major
structrural patterns
0.4 dipping towards slope

Undisturbed hard rock

masses with no through-
going structures dipping
towards slope
Cohesion - MPa

0.3

Undisturbed rock masses

with a few structures
dipping towards slope
0.2
Soft rock masses or
jointed hard rock
disturbed by blasting
or excess loading
0.1
Weatherd soft rock or
discontinuities in hard rock
Clay
Soil
0.0 Sand
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction angle - degrees

Fig. 15. Relationship between the friction angles and cohesive strengths mobilized at failure for the some slopes [52].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265 261

Table 6 8
Characterization of the rock mass peak and residual strengths at the GSI (peak)
Aznalcollar open pit mine footwall using the GSI system GSI (residual)
7 Back analysis (lower bound residual)
Slate Schist-foliation Back analysis (higher bound residual)

Peak Residual Peak Residual 6 GSI (peak)

GSI system

Shear stress (MPa)

JW 1.5 1 2 1 5
JS 1.5 0.75 1.5 0.75
JA 1 1 2 2 GSI (residual)
4
Jc 2.25 0.75 1.5 0.375
Vb (cm3) 100,000 10 150,000 10 Back analysis (average)
GSI 61.0 27.8 57.9 21.5 3
sc (MPa) 25 25
mi 9 8
c (MPa) 0.97 0.39 0.87 0.27 2
f ¼ fb+i (degree) 38.8 30.1 37 27.2
Back-analysis using limit equilibrium method [36] 1
c (MPa) 0–0.3 0–0.12
f ¼ fb+i (degree) 25–35 22–30
0
0 2 4 6 8
Normal stress (MPa)

Because failures were not structurally controlled, the
continuum numerical tool FLAC was used to simulate the
slope failure by using a perfectly plastic material model
[36]. It was found that by assuming disturbed rock mass
parameters, good agreement could be achieved between
estimated strength values and back-calculated strengths
from observed slope failures in the footwall. The presence
of the stiff and strong pyrite prevented the failure to initiate
at the toe. The failure was developed rather inside the
slope. At the stage when the toe buttress zone reached
critical state, the post failure state was probably reached
and hence the calibrated strength values were representa-
tive of the residual rock mass strength.
No direct joint spacing and surface condition were
available in the report by Sjöberg [36]. However, peak GSI
values, inferred from the RMR values, were given. The
representative GSI values for slate and schist-foliation are
61 and 58, respectively. As listed from Table 6, the GSI
values can be estimated by using the good and fair joint
surface condition for slate and schist and their correspond-
ing block volume (back-fitted from known GSI value),
respectively. Using the method developed in this study, we
can estimate the peak and residual strength of the rock
masses. From the back-analysis, the residual cohesion for
the slate is found in the range of 0–0.3 MPa and the
residual friction angle in the range of 25–351. The estimated
cohesion and friction angle for the same rock mass, using
the GSI reduction approach, are 0.39 MPa and 301,
respectively. As can be seen from Fig. 16, the estimated
residual strength of the slate is well within the lower and
upper bounds indicated from the back-analysis.
Back-analysis data from slope stability provides excel-
lent in-situ data for method validation. As more data
becomes available, the proposed method for rock mass
residual strength estimation can be further validated.
Fig. 16. Comparison of the residual strength calculated from the GSI
system and back calculated data at the Aznalcollar open pit mine footwall
(slate).
4.3. Discussion of results
Traditionally, the determination of mechanical proper-
ties of jointed rock masses in Japan and other countries is
achieved through well planned and executed in-situ block
shear test and plate-loading test. Such tests are expensive
and time consuming. Most importantly, results only
become available once underground access has been
established. An alternative to the test approach is the use
of a rock mass classification system such as the GSI system
to provide design parameters early in the design phase and
reduce the need for extensive in-situ testing. Nevertheless,
in-situ tests can be used to verify the GSI prediction or the
observational (back-analysis) method [53] will be required
to confirm the GSI predictions.
The quantitative approach uses the block volume and
joint surface condition factor to determine both the peak
and residual GSI values. These input parameters in the
validation examples were obtained from field mapping and
from borehole logging data. The strength and deformation
parameters estimated from the GSI system are very close to
those obtained from in-situ tests or back analysis,
indicating that the GSI system can be effectively applied
to the design of underground caverns and rock slopes.
The degradation of the block volume and the joint
surface condition for CG2 rock mass at the Kannagawa
site is graphically presented in Fig. 17. GSI is reduced from
a peak value of 64.9 to a residual value of 27.8. The gradual
decrease of the GSI value can be linked to the post-peak
strain softening of the rock mass (see Fig. 1(a)). Future
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
262 M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265

Joint or Block Wall Condition

compact coating or fillings of angular fragments

Slickensided, highly weathered surfaces with

Slickensided, highly weathered surfaces with

Very rough, fresh unweathered surfaces

Smooth, moderately weathered or

soft clay coatings or fillings

Rough, slightly weathered,
iron stained surfaces

altered surfaces
Very good

Very poor
Block Size

Good

Poor
Fair
Massive - very well interlocked
undisturbed rock mass blocks formed 10E+6
by three or less discontinuity sets
95
with very wide joint spacing 150
Joint spacing > 100 cm
100 cm 90 85
1E+6
Blocky - very well interlocked 90 (1m3)
80 75
undisturbed rock mass consisting 70 Degradation of joint surface condition
of cubical blocks formed by three Peak
60 80
orthogonal discontinuity sets 65
50
Joint spacing 30 - 100 cm σ 100E+3
40 70 Peak
Degradation of block volume

30 cm 55
Very Blocky - interlocked, partially
disturbed rock mass with multifaceted

Block Volume Vb (cm3)

20 45 10E+3
angular blocks formed by four or more 60
discoutinuity sets
50
Degra

Joint spacing 10 - 30 cm 35 Residual

10 cm
40 1000
dation

(1 dm3)
Blocky/disturbed - folded and/or 25
faulted with angular blocks formed by
of GS

many intersecting discontinuity sets

Joint spacing 3 - 10 cm 5 30
100
I

15
3
Disintegrated - poorly interlocked,
20
heavily broken rock mass with a
2 10
mixture or angular and rounded
rock pieces Residual
Joint spacing < 3 cm
10
1 cm
1
Foliated/laminated/sheared - thinly
laminated or foliated, tectonically sheared N/A 5
N/A
weak rock; closely spaced schistosity
prevails over any other discontinuity set,
0.1
resulting in complete lack of blockiness
Joint spacing < 1 cm 12 4.5 1.7 0.67 0.25 0.09
Joint Condition Factor Jc

Fig. 17. Degradation of the block volume and joint surface condition of CG2 rock mass from peak to residual state.

research will address the issue of the rate of GSI value the point (0,1). A trend line by forcing it to pass through
decrease associated with the plastic strain. point (0,1) is hence obtained (as shown in Fig. 18). The
The ratios of residual GSIr to peak GSI depend on the residual GSIr value can then be empirically expressed as a
peak GSI values, as shown in Fig. 18. The investigated case function of the peak GSI value as
histories have peak GSI values between 40 and 80 and the
GSI r ¼ GSI e0:134GSI . (18)
GSIr/GSI ratios vary from 0.37 to 0.51. The point with
a low GSI value of 21 is adopted from Table 1 with the Russo et al. [7] suggested that the residual GSIr value is
GSIr/GSI ratio obtained by our proposed method. For 36% of the peak GSI value. This is represented as a
very weak rock masses, the residual GSIr is equal to the horizontal line in Fig. 18. It is observed that their
peak GSI. If a trend line is drawn, it should pass through suggestion may underestimate the residual GSIr values

M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265
1 [44] should be used and proper test program be planned for
0.9
0.8
0.7
GSIr / GSI
0.6
0.5
0.4 GSIr = 0.36GSI
0.3
-0.0134GSI
0.2
GSIr / GSI = e
0.1
0
0 20 40 60
GSI
Fig. 18. Relationship between GSIr/GSI ratio and GSI.
for poor quality rock masses (e.g., GSIo40). For very
good quality rock masses (GSI480), their suggestion may
overestimate the residual GSIr values.
To obtain reliable results of the residual GSIr value, the
method proposed in Section 3.2 should be followed, i.e., by
obtaining the residual block volume and joint surface
condition factor and using the GSI chart or Eq. (13) to
calculate the residual GSIr. For quick estimates, Eq. (18)
can also be utilized if the peak GSI value is known.
Because very large straining is needed to reach the true
residual state, the residual GSIr value discussed here refers
to the post-peak strength in a limited straining range. In
the design of underground structures, most residual
strength parameters utilized are in fact the residual post-
peak strength parameters representing limited post-peak
deformation.
The residual strength of intact rocks, as interpreted from
the triaxial test, is at the same level as the residual strength
of the jointed rock mass. In the low confinement range, the
residual cohesion and friction angle of the Tennessee
Marble are 2.4 MPa and 51.61, respectively. As can be seen
from Table 3 and Table 5, the residual strengths of some of
the hard jointed rock masses (CG1 conglomerate and CH
porphrite) are roughly at the same level of the residual
strength of intact rocks (Tennessee Marble), suggesting
that our assumption of the independence of the residual
block volume on the original jointing state is valid.
As stated previously, if the peak block volume is small
(o10 cm3), the residual block volume is equal to the peak
block volume and the same approach outlined above can
be applied to the estimation of the strength parameters. In
this fashion, consistent estimation of the both peak and
residual strength parameters can be obtained.
The proposed method is applicable to most rock types
when failure is dominated by shear failure. Care must be
given for brittle failure of massive rocks involving spalling
failure and very weak rocks that have been ‘‘over
consolidated’’ or ‘‘re-bonded.’’ In such a case, special
failure criteria such as brittle Hoek–Brown failure criterion
ARTICLE IN PRESS
263
the determination of the residual strengths. Furthermore, if
the rock mass fails by block rotation and local crushing,
probably a different analysis approach such as UDEC or
3DEC should be considered instead of a continuum
analysis. The users must be aware of the limitations when
applying the GSI system and the methodology for
determining the peak and residual strength parameters
using this quantitative approach.
5. Conclusions
80 100
It is observed from laboratory and field test data that
following the strain-softening behavior of rocks under
loading, the residual strength represents more or less the
mobilized shear strength along a surface or shear zone of
the fractured rock. The post-peak strength depends on the
resistance developed on the failure plane (zone) against
further straining. Initially, the fracture orientation, degree
of interlocking, surface irregularity or roughness will affect
the post-peak load level. However, as the straining
continues, the residual strength is less dependent on these
factors.
The Geological Strength Index (GSI) system is a
universal rock mass classification system. It is a rock mass
classification system that is directly linked to engineering
parameters such as Mohr–Coulomb or Hoek–Brown
strength parameters or rock mass modulus. The current
GSI system guidelines, however, are for the estimation of
the peak strength and do not include guidelines for the
estimation of the rock mass’ residual strength that yield
consistent results. A new method is proposed here to
extend the GSI system for the estimation of rock mass’s
residual strength. The peak GSI value is reduced based on
the reduction of the two major controlling factors in the
GSI system, i.e., residual block volume V rb and residual
joint condition factor J rc , to obtain the residual GSIr value.
The residual block volume is found to be in the category of
the ‘‘disintegrated’’ rocks in the GSI chart, characterized
by the facts that the failed rock masses at the residual
strength level are poorly interlocked, heavily broken with a
mixture of angular and rounded rock pieces. The average
block size of 10 cm3 is suggested for the residual GSIr value
estimation. For joint surface condition, the major factor
that alters the condition in post-peak region is the
reduction of joint surface roughness. The actual degrada-
tion of the joint surface is based on the concept of
mobilized residual joint roughness suggested by Barton
et al. [24]. The large-scale waviness and the small-scale
smoothness of joints can be calculated by reducing their
peak values by half with conditions to meet the minimum
values. The joint alteration factor JA is assumed un-
changed. The residual GSIr value is calculated from the
relationship between GSIr and V rb and J rc .
It has also been assumed that the intact rock properties
such as sc and mi remain unchanged as the rock mass
changes from its peak to residual state. Hence, the residual
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
264 M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265
strength parameters are calculated using the same form of
the generalized Hoek–Brown strength criterion. The
equivalent Mohr–Coulomb strength parameters are calcu-
lated based on the Hoek–Brown strength parameters.
The proposed method for the estimation of rock mass
residual strength is validated using in-situ block shear test
data from three large-scale cavern construction sites and
the data from the back-analysis of a rock slope stability.
The estimated residual strengths, calculated using the
residual GSIr value, are in good agreement with field test
data or back analyzed data. The proposed method for
residual strength estimation extends the GSI system and
adds quantitative means to determine the complete set of
rock mass properties needed for design.
When applying the GSI system to a numerical simula-
tion, the users must be aware of the limitation of the
approach related to quantifying a discontinuous rock mass
in a continuum-modeling framework. In certain circum-
stances, a discontinuous analysis tool, rather than con-
tinuum models with parameters obtained by the GSI
system, should be used. In addition, one needs to be aware
of the mechanical instability problem associated with
strain-softening materials in continuum elasto-plastic
analyses. The simulation results could be highly dependent
on the mesh size and slight change of material parameters;
hence the uniqueness of a solution can often not be
guaranteed. Although the paper provides a contemporary
method for rock mass’s peak and residual strength
parameter determination, its successful application relies
heavily on the professional judgment, as is typically the
case in rock mechanics and rock engineering.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by Tokyo Electric Power Services
Co. Ltd (TEPSCO). The authors wish to thank Tokyo
Electric Power Company (TEPCO) for providing access to
test sites and test data and permitting to publish the results.
The authors also thank Evert Hoek for his valuable
comments and suggestions during the preparation of the
manuscript.
References
[1] Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF, Hoek E, Kaiser PK, et al. Support
of underground excavations in hard rock. Rotterdam: Balkema;
1995.
[2] Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M. Estimation of rock
mass strength and deformation modulus of jointed hard rock masses
using the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41(1):3–19.
[3] Oda M. A method for evaluating the effect of crack geometry on the
mechanical behavior of cracked rock masses. Mech Maters
1983;2:163–71.
[4] Amadei B. Strength of a regularly jointed rock mass under biaxial
and axisymmetric loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1988;25(1):3–13.
[5] Cai M, Horii H. A constitutive model of highly jointed rock masses.
Mech Maters 1992;13:217–46.
[6] Hoek E, Practical rock engineering. www.rocscience.com, 2000.
[7] Russo G, Kalamaras GS, Grasso P. A discussion on the concepts of
geomechanical classes behavior categories and technical classes for an
underground project. Gallerie e Grandi Opere Sotterranee 1998;54.
[8] Paulding BW, Crack growth during brittle fracture in compression.
PhD. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1965.
[9] Cook NGW. The failure of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1965;
2(4):389–403.
[10] Hoek E. Rock fracture under static stress conditions. Pretoria, South
Africa: National Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, CSIRO;
1965.
[11] Bieniawski ZT. Mechanism of brittle fracture of rock, Parts I, II and
III. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1967;4(4):395–430.
[12] Wawersik WR. Detailed analysis of rock failure in laboratory
compression tests. PhD. thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapo-
lis, MN, 1968.
[13] Wawersik WR, Fairhurst C. A study of brittle rock fracture in
laboratory compression experiments. Int J. Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 1970;7:561–75.
[14] Rummel F, Fairhurst C. Determination of the post failure behaviour
of brittle rock using a servo-controlled testing machine. Rock Mech
1970;2:189–204.
[15] Seeber G. Druckstollen und Druckschachte. Stuttgart: Enke; 1999.
[16] Mogi K. Pressure dependence of rock strength and transition from
brittle fracture to ductile flow. Bull Earthquake Res Inst Univ Tokyo
1966;44:215–32.
[17] Hudson JA, Brown ET, Fairhurst C. Shape of the complete
stress–strain curve for rock. In: Proceedings of the 13th symposium
on rock mechanics, 1971. p. 773–95.
[18] Maurer WC. Shear failure of rock under axial and hydrostatic
pressure. In: Proceedings of the first international congress ISRM,
vol. 1, 1966, p. 337–41.
[19] Lundborg N. Triaxial shear strength of some Swedish rocks and ores.
In: Proceedings of the first International Congress ISRM, vol. 1,
1966, p. 251–5.
[20] Patton FD. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock and related
materials. PhD. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,
1966.
[21] Goodman RE. Methods of geological engineering in discontinuous
rocks. St Paul: West Publication; 1976.
[22] Barton N, Choubey V. The shear strength of rock joints in theory and
practice. Rock Mech 1977;10:1–54.
[23] Bandis SC, Lumsden AC, Barton NR. Fundamentals of rock joint
deformation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1983;20(6):249–68.
[24] Barton NR, Bandis SC, Bakhtar K. Strength, deformation and
conductivity coupling of joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 1985;22(3):121–40.
[25] Van Heerden WL. In situ complete stress–strain characteristics of
large coal specimens. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 1975;75(8):207–17.
[26] Curran JH, Corkum BT. Phase2-2D finite element program for
calculating stresses and estimating support around underground
excavations. Rock Engineering Group, University of Toronto, 1997.
[27] Tasaka Y, Uno H, Omori T, Kudoh K. Numerical analysis of
underground powerhouse excavation considering strain softening and
failure of joints. In: Proceedings of the 10th Japan Symposium on
Rock Mechanics, 1998, p. 575–80.
[28] FLAC—fast Lagrangian analysis of continua. Minneapolis: Itasca
Consulting Group; 2000.
[29] Phase2. Rocscience Inc. Toronto: Rocscience; 2004.
[30] Hoek E. Rock mass properties for underground mines. In: Under-
ground mining methods: engineering fundamentals and international
case studies. Soc Min Metall Explor (SME) 2001.
[31] Ribacchi R. Mechanical tests on pervasively jointed rock material:
insight into rock mass behaviour. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2000;
33(4):243–66.
[32] Crowder JJ, Bawden WF. Review of post-peak parameters and
behaviour of rock masses: current trends and research. RocNews
2004;Fall:13.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 247–265
[33] Hoek E, Brown ET. The Hoek–Brown failure criterion—a 1988
update. In: Curran JC, editor. Rock engineering for underground
excavations. Proceedings of the 15th Canadian rock mechanics
symposium. Toronto: University of Toronto; 1988. p. 31–8.
[34] Cai M, Kaiser PK. Visualization of rock mass classification systems.
Geotech Geolog Eng 2006;24(4):1089–102.
[35] Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B. Hoek–Brown failure
criterion—2002 edition. In: Proceedings of the fifth North American
rock mechanics symposium, vol. 1, 2002, p. 267–73.
[36] Sjöberg J. Estimating rock mass strength using the Hoek–Brown
failure criterion and rock mass classification—a review and applica-
tion to the Aznalcollar open pit. Division of Rock Mechanics,
Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, Lulea University of
Technology, 1997.
[37] Pollard DD, Aydin A. Progress in understanding jointing over the
past century. Geol Soc Amer Bull 1988;100:1181–204.
[38] Bieniawski ZT. Rock mass classification in rock engineering. In:
Bieniawski ZT, editor. Proc. Symp Explor Rock Eng, vol. 1.
Rotterdam: Balkema; 1976. p. 97–106.
[39] Roberts DP, Sellers EJ, Sevume C. Numerical modelling of fracture
zone development and support interaction for a deep level tunnel in a
stratified rockmass. In: Hagan TO, editor. SARES 99. SANIRE;
1999. p. 264–72.
[40] Sellers EJ, Berlenbach J, Schweitzer J. Fracturing around deep level
stopes: comparison of numerical simulation with underground
observations. In: Rossmanith H, editor. Mechanics of jointed and
faulted rock. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1998. p. 425–30.
[41] Cai M, Kaiser PK. Determination of the residual strength of jointed
rock masses using the GSI system. In: Report to TEPSCO. Sudbury,
Ont.: Geomechanics Research center, Laurentian University; 2005.
[42] Hoek E, Marinos P, Benissi M. Applicability of the geological
strength index (GSI) classification for very weak and sheared rock
View publication stats
265
masses. The case of Athens Schist Formation. Bull Eng Geol Enviorn
1998;57:151–60.
[43] Hoek E, Marinos P. Predicting tunnel squeezing problems in weak
heterogeneous rock masses. Tunnels Tunnel 2000.
[44] Martin CD, Kaiser PK, McCreath DR. Hoek–Brown parameters for
predicting the depth of brittle failure around tunnels. Can Geotech J
1999;36(1):136–51.
[45] Kaiser P.K., Diederichs M.S., Martin C.D., Sharp J., Steiner W.,
Underground works in hard rock tunnelling and mining.
In: Proceedings of the GeoEng 2000, vol. 1. Technomic Publication;
2000. p. 841–926.
[46] Maejima T, Morioka H, Mori T, Aoki K. Evaluation of the loosened
zone on excavation of the large underground rock cavern. In: Adachi
T, et al., editors. Modern tunnel science and technology. Rotterdam:
Balkema; 2001. p. 1033–8.
[47] Koyama T, Nanbu S, Komatsuzaki Y. Large-scale cavern at a depth
of 500 m. Tunnel Underground 1997;28(1):37–45.
[48] Tanaka H. Introduction to geology for civil engineers. Tokyo:
Sankaidou; 1964.
[49] Harada M, Katayama T, Yada A. Design and construction of the
underground cavern of Okawachi pumped-storage powerhouse. Elec
Power Civ Eng 1991;230:46–57.
[50] Palmstrøm A. RMi—a rock mass characterization system for rock
engineering purposes. PhD. thesis, University of Oslo, Norway, 1995.
[51] Sakurai S, Takeuchi K. Back analysis of measured displacement of
tunnels. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1983;16:173–80.
[52] Hoek E, Bray JW. Rock slope engineering. London: Inst Min Metall;
1981.
[53] Kaiser PK. Observational modeling approach for design of under-
ground excavations. In: Proceedings of the international workshop
on observational method of construction of large underground
caverns in difficult ground conditions, 1995. p. 1–17.