c92 Anexo V Informe Geotecnico

SIGA Minera & Geotecnia S.A.
Av. Diego de Almagro N 5210, uoa, Santiago de Chile Fono: (56-02) 7990 900 Fax: (56-02) 7990 901 www.siga.cl

INFORME GEOTECNICO FINAL
PROYECTO 06170501
" PROGRAMA DE ENSAYOS DE CARACTERIZACION
MECANICA DE ROCAS, PROYECTO TIGRESA

Preparado para:
COMPAIA MINERA CARMEN BAJO
COPIAPO

Elaborado por:
DIVISION LABORATORIO DE MECANICA DE ROCAS
SIGA MINERIA & GEOTECNIA S.A.

NOVIEMBRE 2007


Programa de Ensayos de Caracterizacin Mecnica Informe Geotcnico Final, Proyecto 06170501
de Rocas, Proyecto Tigresa, Ca. Minera Carmen Bajo, Copiap Indice de Contenido
INDICE DE CONTENIDO Pgina

1. Introduccin. 1.
2. Programa de Ensayos Geomecnicos. 1.
2.1 Identificacin de Muestras 1.
2.2 Programa de Ensayos Realizados 1.
3. Metodologa de Trabajo. 2.
4. Preparacin de Muestras. 2.
5. Peso Unitario (Mtodo Geomtrico). 3.
6. Peso Unitario (Mtodo de Inmersin). 4.
7. Porosidad Aparente. 4.
8. Compresin Uniaxial Simple. 5.
9. Mdulos Elsticos Estticos. 6.
10. Compresin Triaxial Simple. 7.
11. Traccin Indirecta. 8.
12. Mdulos Elsticos Dinmicos. 9.
13. Angulo de Friccin Bsico (Tilt Test). 10.
14. Presentacin de Resultados. 11.
14.1 Peso Unitario. 11.
14.2 Porosidad Absorcin. 11.
14.3 Angulo de Friccin Bsico. 12.
14.4 Compresin Uniaxial Simple. 12.
14.5 Mdulos Elsticos Estticos. 12.
14.6 Velocidad de Ondas P&S. 12.
14.7 Mdulos Elsticos Dinmicos. 13.
14.8 Traccin Indirecta. 13.
14.9 Compresin Triaxial Simple. 13.
Criterio de Falla MohrColumb: Roca Intacta 13.
Criterio de Hoek&Brown: Roca Intacta 14.
Criterio Generalizado de Hoek&Brown: Masa Rocosa 14.
15. Observaciones. 15.
16. Referencias & Bibliografa. 16.

ANEXOS.
Anexo Resultados: Diorita de Brea No Alterada
Anexo Resultados: Diorita de Brea con Vetillas
Anexo Resultados: Diorita de Brea Alterada
Anexo Grficos de Ensayos Triaxiales
Anexo Bibliografa
Anexo Fotografas


de Rocas, Proyecto Tigresa, Ca. Minera Carmen Bajo, Copiap Pgina 1.
1. INTRODUCCION.

El presente documento corresponde al Informe Tcnico de Resultados
del Programa de Ensayos de Caracterizacin de Rocas del Proyecto
Tigresa, realizado por la Divisin Laboratorio de Mecnica de Rocas
de SIGA Minera & Geotecnia S.A., para la Ca. Minera Carmen Bajo,
segn lo solicitado por el Sr. Ioan Filip.

2. PROGRAMA DE ENSAYOS GEOMECANICOS.

2.1 IDENTIFICACION DE MUESTRAS.

Las muestras enviadas al Laboratorio de Mecnica de Rocas de SIGA
consistieron de testigos de sondajes 41 mm. de dimetro, a partir de
los cuales se obtuvieron las probetas para los ensayos.

Estas muestras comprendieron los siguientes 3 grupos de roca:

Diorita de Brea no Alterada (7 muestras)
Diorita de Brea con Vetillas (5 muestras)
Diorita de Brea Alterada (8 muestras)

2.2 PROGRAMA DE ENSAYOS REALIZADOS.

El programa de ensayos geotcnicos comprendi la determinacin de
los siguientes parmetros:

- Peso Unitario Seco
- Porosidad Aparente
- Absorcin (peso-volumen)
- Traccin Indirecta
- Compresin Uniaxial Simple
- Compresin Triaxial Simple (c, )
- Mdulos Elsticos Estticos (E, )
- Mdulos Elsticos Dinmicos (Ed, d)
- Velocidades de Ondas P&S (Vp & Vs)
- Angulo de Friccin Bsico (b)


3. METODOLOGIA DE TRABAJO.

La metodologa que utiliza SIGA en los ensayos de su Laboratorio de
Mecnica de Rocas, se basa en normas y procedimientos propuestos
por diversas instituciones especialistas en la materia, entre las cuales
destacan, por ejemplo:

ISRM : International Society for Rock Mechanics
ASTM : American Society for Testing and Materials
CANMET : Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology
USBM : United State of America Bureau of Mines

4. PREPARACION DE MUESTRAS.

La preparacin de las muestras se realiz segn la norma establecida
para cada ensayo en particular, destructivo, o no destructivo.

En el caso de una probeta de roca intacta, con la forma de un cilindro
recto perfecto, la preparacin se basa en la norma ASTM D4543.

La preparacin de probetas para el presente programa de ensayos, se
realiz mediante las siguientes etapas secuenciales.

- Dimensionamiento de cada testigo mediante 2 cortes diamantinos,
diametrales, a fin de obtener una probeta con una geometra cuya
razn longitud a dimetro es igual, o muy cercana a 2.

- Rectificado de las 2 caras basales de las probetas, a fin de obtener
el paralelismo entre ellas y poder distribuir uniformemente la carga
de compresin aplicada sobre ella.

- Verificacin del paralelismo de las 2 caras basales de las probetas,
con una tolerancia mxima de 1 milsima de pulgada, la cual, si es
excedida, las probetas vuelven a la etapa de rectificado.

En el caso del ensayo de traccin indirecta, las muestras consistieron
de discos de roca de 41 mm. de dimetro con un espesor variable, y
entre 10 y 11 mm.


5. PESO UNITARIO (Mtodo Geomtrico).

Este mtodo est basado en la norma ASTM D2845, y en el mtodo
sugerido por la ISRM, Commission on Standardization of Laboratory
and Field Tests, Committe on Laboratory Tests.

Es aplicable a muestras de geometra muy regular, y cuyo volumen se
puede determinar en base a sus dimensiones geomtricas, las que en
el caso de una probeta cilndrica, corresponden a su dimetro, D, y a
su altura, L, determinadas mediante mediciones micromtricas.

Para efectos del clculo de su volumen, este dimetro D corresponde
al promedio aritmtico de 3 mediciones del dimetro de la probeta, las
que se realizan en la base, a media altura, y en su parte superior.

De similar manera, la altura L corresponde al promedio aritmtico de 2
mediciones de la altura de la probeta, las que se realizan en 2 lneas
paralelas, y ubicadas en sentido opuesto, a unos 180.

El peso de la probeta se determina en una balanza de precisin (con
una resolucin de 0.01 g).

La frmula para el clculo del peso unitario, o simplemente densidad
aparente, corresponde a la siguiente:

= Pp / Vp

en que:
= Peso Unitario
Pp = Peso total de la probeta
Vp = Volumen total de la probeta
Vp = 0.25 D L
D = Dimetro promedio de la probeta
L = Largo promedio de la probeta

Segn el Grado de Saturacin (S) de la muestra se obtiene:

- Peso Unitario Natural (con 0%<S<100%)
- Peso Unitario Seco (con S=0%)
- Peso Unitario Saturado (con S=100%)


6. PESO UNITARIO (Mtodo de Inmersin).

Este mtodo est basado en la norma ASTM C97, y en los mtodos
sugeridos por la ISRM y el CANMET.

El mtodo de inmersin (Buoyancy) se usa en muestras cuyo volumen
no puede ser determinado en base a sus dimensiones geomtricas.

El peso unitario se determina mediante la siguiente expresin.

= w Pm / (Psat Psus)

en la cual:
= Peso Unitario
Pm = Peso total de la muestra
Vm = Volumen total de la muestra = (PsatPsus)
Psat = Peso saturado (inmersin en agua destilada, 48 horas)
Psus = Peso suspendido (en recipiente con agua destilada)

7. POROSIDAD APARENTE.

Con los parmetros obtenidos en este mtodo se puede determinar la
porosidad de la muestra, la cual est dada por la siguiente expresin.

n = Vp / Vm 100

en que:
n = Porosidad
Vp = Volumen de poros = (PsatPsec)
Vm = Volumen de la muestra = (PsatPsus)
Psec = Peso seco (en horno a 105 C por 24 horas)
Psat = Peso saturado (inmersin en agua destilada, 48 horas)
Psus = Peso suspendido (en recipiente con agua destilada)

El grado de absorcin se obtiene con las siguientes expresiones.

Ap = (Psat Psec) / Psec 100 Av = G Ap

en las cuales:
Ap = Grado de Absorcin en peso (%)
Av = Grado de Absorcin en volumen (%)
G = Peso especfico del material


8. COMPRESION UNIAXIAL SIMPLE.

Este ensayo permite evaluar la resistencia a la compresin uniaxial, o
no confinada, a una probeta cilndrica de roca segn el procedimiento
indicado en norma ASTM D2938, y el procedimiento sugerido por la
ISRM, Commission on Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests,
Committe on Laboratory Tests.

Tal como se ha indicado, el proceso de preparacin de probetas para
este ensayo, se realiza de acuerdo al procedimiento establecido en la
norma ASTM D4543.

La probeta debe tener una razn a largo a dimetro igual a 2, con sus
caras basales paralelas entre s, para permitir la distribucin uniforme
de la carga de compresin axial que es aplicada sobre la probeta.

Bsicamente, el procedimiento de este ensayo consiste en aplicar una
carga de compresin axial, normal a las caras basales de la probeta, y
segn incrementos predeterminados de carga, hasta que se produce
la ruptura de la probeta mediante un modo de falla caracterstico.

La frmula de clculo de la resistencia a la compresin uniaxial simple
(C.U.S) se expresa de la siguiente manera.

c = Q / A

en que:
c = Esfuerzo de ruptura en compresin uniaxial
Q = Carga mxima de compresin, o de ruptura
A = Area en que se aplica la carga
A = 0.25 D
D = Dimetro de la probeta

Adems, se procedi a determinar la resistencia a la compresin de la
roca intacta con el criterio de falla emprico de Hoek&Brown, en base
a los datos obtenidos en los ensayos de compresin triaxial.


9. MODULOS ELASTICOS ESTATICOS.

La obtencin de los mdulos elsticos estticos se realiza de acuerdo
al procedimiento indicado en la norma ASTM D3148, utilizando para
el registro de las deformaciones que experimentan las probetas al ser
sometidas a una carga de compresin axial, el sistema sensor LVDT
(Linear Variable Differential Transformers), o el sistema de estampillas
elastomtricas Strain Gage.

carga de compresin sobre una probeta, de acuerdo a incrementos de
carga predeterminados, y registrar simultneamente la carga aplicada,
y la deformacin axial y diametral que la probeta experimenta.

Con los pares de valores as obtenidos, se confeccionan los grficos
de esfuerzo v/s deformacin axial y deformacin axial v/s deformacin
diametral, para analizar las curvas de comportamiento y determinar el
valor numrico de las constantes elsticas del material involucrado: es
decir, el Mdulo de Young y la Razn de Poisson.

Ambos valores se determinan aproximadamente al 50% de Q, en que
Q corresponde a la resistencia a la compresin uniaxial, no confinada,
de la probeta ensayada, o del material correspondiente.

El Mdulo de Young promedio corresponde a la pendiente de la curva
esfuerzo axial v/s deformacin axial, determinada en el tramo lineal de
esta curva, empleando la tcnica de mnimos cuadrados para obtener
la recta de ajuste con los puntos del tramo indicado.

A su vez, la Razn de Poisson corresponde a la pendiente de la curva
deformacin axial v/s deformacin diametral, determinada tambin en
el tramo de comportamiento lineal de la curva.

De esta manera, el Mdulo de Young y la Razn de Poisson quedan
definidos numricamente por las siguientes expresiones.

E = a / a = (a /a) / (a /d)

a = Esfuerzo de compresin axial
a,d = Deformaciones axial y diametral


10. COMPRESION TRIAXIAL SIMPLE.

Este ensayo se basa en el procedimiento de la Norma ASTM D-2664,
y en el mtodo sugerido por la ISRM, Commission on Standardization
of Laboratory & Field Tests, Committe on Laboratory Tests.

El ensayo est orientado a determinar la resistencia de una probeta
cilndrica de roca intacta en un estado de compresin triaxial.

Tal como se ha indicado, el proceso de preparacin de probetas para
este ensayo, se realiza de acuerdo al procedimiento establecido en la
norma ASTM D4543.

La probeta debe tener una razn Largo a Dimetro igual a 2, con sus
caras basales paralelas entre s, para permitir la distribucin uniforme
de la carga de compresin axial que se aplica sobre ella.

carga de compresin axial a una probeta que est sometida, en forma
simultnea, a una presin de confinamiento lateral constante, hasta la
ruptura de la probeta.

La resistencia a la compresin triaxial se obtiene mediante la siguiente
conocida relacin de esfuerzos.

tx = Q / A

en la cual:
tx = Resistencia a la compresin triaxial
Q = Carga de ruptura en compresin triaxial
A = Area en que se aplica la carga axial
D = Dimetro de la probeta

Del anlisis de los resultados obtenidos en una serie de ensayos, con
diversas presiones de confinamiento, se determinan los 2 parmetros
de resistencia de la roca intacta: cohesin y ngulo de friccin interna.

Adems, se procedi a determinar los parmetros del criterio de falla
emprico de Hoek&Brown de la roca intacta, as como los parmetros
resistentes para la masa rocosa de acuerdo a este criterio.


11. TRACCION INDIRECTA (Mtodo Brasileo).

Este ensayo est basado en el procedimiento indicado por CANMET,
Pit Slope Manual, Supplement 31, Laboratory Classifications Tests, y
en el mtodo sugerido por la ISRM, Commission on Standardization of
Laboratory and Field Tests, Committe on Laboratory Tests, as como
en la norma ASTM D3967 (Splitting Tensile Strength).

Bsicamente, el ensayo consiste en aplicar una carga de compresin
lineal sobre una muestra de roca con la forma de disco, hasta que se
produce la ruptura del disco en la forma de una fractura vertical.

La ruptura del disco se produce al desarrollarse esfuerzos de traccin
en direccin perpendicular a la direccin en que se aplica la carga de
compresin lineal (eje vertical del disco).

Este disco debe tener un dimetro (D) mayor o igual que 50 mm, y un
espesor (T) entre 0.200.75 D, y la carga compresiva aplicada sobre
el disco se distribuye linealmente en su eje longitudinal mediante dos
placas metlicas, una en la parte superior y la otra en la inferior.

De esta manera, la resistencia a la traccin indirecta se determina con
la siguiente expresin.

t = 2 P / D T
t = 0.636 P / D T

en que:
t = Resistencia a la traccin indirecta
P = Carga mxima de compresin, o de ruptura
D = Dimetro del disco de roca
T = Espesor del disco de roca
(con T/D entre 0.20 y 0.75)

El valor de resistencia a la traccin obtenido en este ensayo es mayor
que el valor de la resistencia a la traccin directa obtenida mediante el
ensayo de traccin uniaxial simple.


12. MODULOS ELASTICOS DINAMICOS.

La determinacin de los mdulos elsticos dinmicos, ultrasnicos, se
realiza mediante la norma ASTM D-2845, que es aplicable a probetas
cilndricas de rocas de caractersticas homogneas e istropas.

Las velocidades de propagacin de la Onda de Compresin, Vp, y de
la Onda Corte, Vs, se obtienen mediante el mtodo de generacin de
pulsos con ultrasonido.

Las velocidades de onda se obtienen con las siguientes expresiones.

Vp = Lp / Tp Vs = Ls / Ts

en las cuales:
Vp = Velocidad de propagacin de la onda P
Vs = Velocidad de propagacin de la onda S
Lp = Distancia recorrida por la onda P
Ls = Distancia recorrida por la onda S
Tp = Tiempo efectivo de recorrido de la onda P
Ts = Tiempo efectivo de recorrido de la onda S

A su vez, los mdulos elsticos dinmicos se determinan en base a la
velocidad de propagacin de dichas ondas, y la densidad del material
a travs del cual ellas se propagan.

Los mdulos elsticos dinmicos se obtienen mediante las siguientes
expresiones de clculo basadas en la teora de elasticidad lineal.

Ed = Vs ( 3Vp 4 Vs) / ( Vp Vs)
d = ( Vp 2Vs) / 2 (Vp Vs)
Gd = Vs

en las cuales:
Ed = Mdulo de elasticidad dinmico
Gd = Mdulo de corte dinmico
d = Razn de Poisson dinmica
Vp = Velocidad de propagacin de onda P
Vs = Velocidad de propagacin de onda S
= Densidad de la roca


13. ANGULO DE FRICCION BASICO (Tilt Test).

Este ngulo se obtuvo con el mtodo sugerido por B. Stimpson (ISRM
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Vol 18, 1981).

El procedimiento de ensayo (Tilt Test) utiliza un dispositivo mecnico
simple denominado Mesa de Friccin, que consiste en una superficie
plana (mesa) que puede inclinarse entre 0 y 90 sobre la horizontal, y
un lector del ngulo de inclinacin de la mesa en el ensayo.

Este mtodo requiere el montaje de 3 testigos cilndricos en la mesa
de friccin, de igual dimetro, con el siguiente esquema.

Dos testigos ubicados en la parte inferior, e impedidos de deslizar, y el
tercero ubicado sobre los anteriores, posibilitado de deslizar a lo largo
del contacto con los testigos inferiores al inclinar la mesa, con lo cual
el ngulo de friccin bsico se determina con la siguiente expresin.

b = arctan (1.155 tan)

en que:
b = Angulo de friccin bsico
= Angulo de inclinacin de la mesa (Tilt)

El ngulo de inclinacin es el que produce el deslizamiento del testigo
superior sobre los inferiores (punto de ruptura del equilibrio lmite), y el
clculo asume idntico ngulo de friccin en sus contactos.

Este ngulo de friccin bsico se utiliza en la ecuacin emprica para
estimar la resistencia al corte mxima de una discontinuidad, segn la
siguiente relacin general (N. Barton & V. Choubey, 1977).

sm = n tan(JRC log(JCS/n) + b)

en la cual:
sm = Resistencia al corte mxima
n = Esfuerzo normal sobre el plano
JRC = Coeficiente de rugosidad
JCS = Resistencia de las paredes
b = Angulo de friccin bsico


14. PRESENTACION DE RESULTADOS.

Los resultados de este programa de ensayos se presentan tabulados
y graficados adecuadamente, indicndose los parmetros geotcnicos
de inters determinados con planilla de clculo Excel.

14.1 PESO UNITARIO:

El peso unitario se determin con el mtodo geomtrico, en probetas
con forma de un cilndrico recto perfecto.

Peso Unitario (Mtodo Geomtrico).

Tipo de Roca Identificado
(Unidad Litolgica)
P. Unitario
MG

(t/m)
Desviacin
Estndar
D. de Brea no Alterada 2,90 0,01
D. de Brea con Vetillas 2,89 0,03
D. de Brea Alterada 2,90 0,05
P. Unitario
MG
= Peso Unitario con Mtodo Geomtrico (Caliper)

Adicionalmente, se determin el peso unitario trozos de testigos con el
mtodo de inmersin.

(Unidad Litolgica)
P. Unitario
MI

(t/m)
Desviacin
Estndar
P. Unitario
MI
= Peso Unitario con Mtodo de Inmersin (Buoyancy)

14.2 POROSIDAD ABSORCION:

Los valores obtenidos en estos ensayos son los siguientes.

Tipo de Roca
(Unidad Litolgica)
Porosidad
(%)
Absorcin en
Peso (%)
Absorcin en
Volumen (%)
DB no Alterada 0,46 0,15 0,16 0,05 0,46 0,15
DB con Vetillas 0,42 0,19 0,15 0,07 0,42 0,19
DB Alterada 0,44 0,15 0,15 0,05 0,44 0,15


14.3 ANGULO DE FRICCION BASICO:

Los valores promedios obtenidos en este ensayo son los siguientes.

Ang. de Friccin
Bsico ()
Desviacin
Estandar

14.4 COMPRESION UNIAXIAL SIMPLE:

Los valores promedios obtenidos (con seleccin), son los siguientes.

Tipo de Roca Identificado CUS50 (MPa) Desv. Estandar
D. de Brea no Alterada (2 datos) 215,5 10,1
D. de Brea con Vetillas (1 dato) 204,8 -
D. de Brea Alterada (2 datos) 191,3 25,8

14.5 MODULOS ELASTICOS ESTATICOS:

Los valores promedios obtenidos, son los siguientes.

Tipo de Roca Identificado M. de Young (GPa) R. de Poisson ()
D. de Brea no Alterada (3 datos) 53,78 3,84 0,29 0,02
D. de Brea con Vetillas (2 datos) 47,72 35,47 0,26 0,06
D. de Brea Alterada (3 datos) 46,92 19,33 0,12 0,01

14.6 VELOCIDAD DE ONDAS P&S:

Los valores promedios obtenidos son los siguientes.

Tipo de Roca Vp (m/s) Vs (m/s)
D. de Brea no Alterada 5316 95 3114 62
D. de Brea con Vetillas 5315 361 3143 259
D. de Brea Alterada 5512 236 3234 167


14.7 MODULOS ELASTICOS DINAMICOS:

Los valores promedios obtenidos son los siguientes.

Tipo de Roca
M. de Young
(GPa)
M. de Rigidez
(GPa)
R. de Poisson
()
D. de Brea no Alterada 69,8 2,3 28,2 1,0 0,24 0,01
D. de Brea con Vetillas 70,3 10,3 28,7 4,5 0,23 0,02
D. de Brea Alterada 75,6 8,4 30,6 3,7 0,24 0,01

14.8 TRACCION INDIRECTA:

Los valores promedios obtenidos (sin seleccin), son los siguientes.

Tipo de Roca T. Indirecta (MPa) Desv. Estandar

14.9 COMPRESION TRIAXIAL SIMPLE:

Todos los valores obtenidos en el ensayo triaxial se procesaron con el
software RockData para determinar los parmetros tpicos de la roca
intacta segn los Criterios de MohrCoulomb y Hoek&Brown.

Adems, se determinaron los parmetros tpicos para la masa rocosa
en base al Criterio Generalizado de Hoek&Brown, adoptando valores
estimados para las variables GSI y D.

Criterio de Falla de MohrCoulomb: Roca Intacta.
(Criterio de MohrCoulomb: s = co+n tan

Parmetros Resistentes
(Criterio MohrCoulomb)
Diorita de Brea
Cohesin, co (MPa) 23,56
Angulo de Friccin, () 48,51
Coefic. de Correlacin 0.8445


Criterio de Falla de Hoek&Brown: Roca Intacta.
(Criterio Original de Hoek&Brown: 1 = 3+c(m3/c +s)

(Criterio Hoek&Brown)
Diorita de Brea
Compresin Uniaxial Simple (MPa) 119,16
Resistencia a la Traccin (MPa) 6,79
Parmetro mi (con s=1) 17,50
Coeficiente de Correlacin 0.80409

Criterio Generalizado de Hoek&Brown: Masa Rocosa.
(Criterio de Hoek&Brown: 1 = 3+c (mb3/c+s)

Para el criterio de falla generalizado de Hoek&Brown se determinaron
con el software RocData los parmetros de la masa rocosa indicados
en la siguiente tabla, y en las figuras anexas.

(Criterio de Hoek&Brown)
Diorita de Brea
Resistencia a la Compresin (MPa) 20,385
Resistencia a la Traccin (MPa) 0,532
Parmetros mb / s / a 7,264 / 0,0357 /0,501
Mdulo de Deformacin, E (MPa) 8793,77
Parmetros de Clasificacin GSI= 70 y D= 0

Para efectos de esta aplicacin interactiva se adoptaron los siguientes
valores de los parmetros de caracterizacin de la masa rocosa.

Parmetro de Resistencia: Sigma-c.
Este corresponde a la resistencia a la compresin de la roca intacta, y
es determinada de los ensayos triaxiales por RocData.

Parmetro Emprico: mi.
Este corresponde al parmetro m para la roca intacta requerido para
el criterio de Hoek&Brown (s=1 para la roca intacta), y es determinado
con los datos de ensayos triaxiales por RocData.

Parmetro Emprico: mb.
Este corresponde al parmetro m para la masa rocosa, y que tambin
es determinado por RocData.


Indice Geolgico de Resistencia: GSI=70.
Este valor debe ser estimado, y que en esta aplicacin corresponde al
valor medio asociado a una muestra de roca intacta, o a una masa de
roca in situ masiva con muy pocas discontinuidades de superficies no
rugosas, levemente meteorizadas y alteradas (ver Tablas para GSI en
el Anexo Bibliografa).

Un valor ms representativo para el GSI puede ser definido por Ca.
Minera Carmen Bajo.

Factor de Perturbacin: D=0.
Este corresponde al grado de perturbacin de la masa rocosa por los
efectos de la tronadura, asociado a una reduccin de los parmetros
resistentes de la masa rocosa (perturbacin geotcnica).

El parmetro D=0 asume una excelente tronadura controlada con nula
perturbacin geotcnica, o dao, en la roca (ver en Anexo Bibliografa:
Hoek&Brown Failure Criterion 2002 Edition).

15. OBSERVACIONES.

El desarrollo de este programa de ensayos se considera tcnicamente
satisfactorio, aunque no exento de la natural problemtica asociada a
las caractersticas fsicas y estructurales en el comportamiento de los
materiales rocosos.

Es necesario indicar que SIGA ha procesado la informacin en forma
estndar, segn normas, sin efectuar un anlisis exhaustivo de ella,
ya que ello excedera el alcance de este servicio de laboratorio.

Sin embargo, esta informacin es presentada en forma detallada, a fin
de que Ca. Minera Carmen Bajo pueda analizarla con la metodologa
que estime conveniente.


16. REFERENCIAS & BIBLIOGRAFIA.

1. Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring.
ISRM Suggested Methods, E.T. Brown, Editor, 1981

2. Pit Slope Manual, Chapter 3: Mechanical Properties.
CANMET: Canada Centre for Mineral & Energy Technology

3. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.08, Soil and Rock.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1996

5. A Suggested Technique for Determining the Basic Friction Angle
of Rock Surfaces Using Cores.
Stimpson, B., ISRM Journal, Vol. 13, 1976

6. Strength of Jointed Rock Masses.
Hoek, E., Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique 33

7. Strength of Rock and Rock Masses.
Hoek, E., ISRM New Jornal, 2

8. The HoekBrown Failure Criterion a 1998 Update.
E. Hoek & E. T. Brown, 1988.

9. GSI: A Geological Friendly Tool for Rock Mass Strength
Estimation.
Paul Marinos and Evert Hoek

10. HoekBrown Failure Criterion 2002 Edition.
E. Hoek, C. Carranza-Torres & B. Corkum.

11. ROCKDATA: User`Guide
Hoek, E. & Shah, S., U, of Toronto, 1991.

12. ROCKDATA: Version 4.0, User`Guide
Rocscience Inc., 2007.

13. ROCLAB: User`Guide
Rocscience Inc., 2004


de Rocas, Proyecto Tigresa, Ca. Minera Carmen Bajo, Copiap Anexo Resultados

ANEXO RESULTADOS
DIORITA DE BREA NO ALTERADA
PESO UNITARIO SECO
POROSIDAD APARENTE
ABSORCION: PESOVOLUMEN
ANGULO DE FRICCION BASICO
COMPRESION UNIAXIAL SIMPLE
MODULOS ELASTICOS ESTATICOS
VELOCIDAD DE ONDAS P&S
MODULOS ELASTICOS DINAMICOS
TRACCION INDIRECTA
COMPRESION TRIAXIAL SIMPLE


Unidad : Diorita de Brea No Alterada
Ensayo : Peso Unitario (Mtodo GeomtricoCaliper)
(Determinado en Probetas Cilndricas)

Rotulacin
Probeta
ML
Dimetro
(mm.)
Longitud
(mm.)
Peso Seco
(g)
P. Unitario
MG

(t/m)
Tig 1 3,0 41,0 83,6 319,17 2,89
Tig 1 5,0 41,0 85,7 325,80 2,88
Tig 2 6,0 41,0 85,7 330,45 2,92
Tig 6 16,5 41,0 83,6 319,80 2,90
Tig 18 27,0 41,0 85,0 326,23 2,91
Tig 20 10,0 41,0 83,2 320,17 2,91
Tig 20 13,0 41,0 85,0 326,59 2,91

Ensayo : Porosidad Aparente (Mtodo de InmersinBuoyancy)
(Determinada en Trozos de Testigos)

Rotulacin
Probeta
ML
P. Seco
(g)
P. Satu.
(g)
P. Susp.
(g)
P. Unitario
MI

(t/m)
Porosidad
(%)
Tig 1 3,0 240,60 241,14 157,13 2,86 0,64
Tig 1 5,0 158,63 158,98 103,33 2,85 0,63
Tig 2 6,0 262,80 263,21 173,07 2,92 0,45
Tig 6 16,5 243,57 243,98 159,79 2,89 0,49
Tig 18 27,0 259,76 260,00 171,41 2,93 0,27
Tig 20 10,0 298,44 298,90 195,84 2,90 0,45
Tig 20 13,0 209,87 210,08 137,39 2,89 0,29


Ensayo : Absorcin en PesoVolumen (Mtodo de Inmersin)

Rotulacin
Probeta
ML
P. Seco
(g)
P. Satu.
(g)
P. Susp.
(g)
Absorcin en
Peso (%)
Absorcin en
Volumen (%)
Tig 1 3,0 240,60 241,14 157,13 0,22 0,64
Tig 1 5,0 158,63 158,98 103,33 0,22 0,63
Tig 2 6,0 262,80 263,21 173,07 0,16 0,45
Tig 6 16,5 243,57 243,98 159,79 0,17 0,49
Tig 18 27,0 259,76 260,00 171,41 0,09 0,27
Tig 20 10,0 298,44 298,90 195,84 0,15 0,45
Tig 20 13,0 209,87 210,08 137,39 0,10 0,29
P. Sat.u. = Peso Saturado P. Susp. = Peso Suspendido

Ensayo : Angulo de Friccin Bsico (Tilt Test)

Rotulacin
Muestras
Experimento
N
Inclinacin Mesa
de Friccin ()
Ang. de Friccin
Bsico ()
Tig 1 30 34
Tig 2 1 28 32
Tig 6 29 33
Tig 2 28 32
Tig 6 2 27 30
Tig 18 29 33
Tig 6 30 34
Tig 18 3 27 30
Tig 20 29 33
Tig 20 29 33
Tig 18 4 30 34
Tig 20 28 32
Tig 1 30 34
Tig 18 5 29 33
Tig 20 30 34


Ensayo : Compresin Uniaxial Simple (C.U.S.)
(Experimental y Corregida a = 50 mm)

Rotulacin
Muestra
ML
C.U.S.
(kg/cm)
C.U.S.(50 mm)
(kg/cm)
C.U.S.(50 mm)
(MPa)
Tipo de Falla
Observada
Tig 18 27,0 2.201 2.123 208,4 Matriz
Tig 20 10,0 2.351 2.268 222,6 Matriz
Tig 20 13,0 876 846 83,0 Matriz-Estructura

Ensayo : Mdulos Elsticos Estticos (YoungPoisson)

Rotulacin
Muestra
ML C.U.S.
(50 mm)
(MPa)
Mdulo de Young
(GPa)
Razn de Poisson
()
Tig 18 27,0 208,4 57,84 0,12
Tig 20 10,0 222,6 53,30 0,09
Tig 20 13,0 83,0 50,20 0,10

Ensayo : Mdulos Elsticos Dinmicos (YoungRigidezPoisson)
Velocidad de Ondas P&S (Vp & Vs)

Rotulacin
Muestra
ML
Velocidad
de Onda P
(m/s)
Velocidad
de Onda S
(m/s)
Mdulo de
Elasticidad
(GPa)
Mdulo de
Rigidez
(GPa)
Razn de
Poisson
()
Tig 18 27,0 5.314 3.149 71,0 28,9 0,23
Tig 1 5,0 5.465 3.195 72,9 29,4 0,24
Tig 20 10,0 5.203 3.083 68,0 27,7 0,23
Tig 2 6,0 5.289 3.108 69,7 28,2 0,24
Tig 20 13,0 5.310 3.034 67,4 26,8 0,26


Ensayo : Traccin Indirecta (Mtodo Brasileo)
(Tipo de Muestra: Discos de Roca)

Rotulacin
Muestra
ML
Dimetro
(mm)
Espesor
(mm)
Carga de
Ruptura (N)
T. Indirecta
(kg/cm)
T. Indirecta
(MPa)
Tig 1 5,0 41,0 10,3 11.351 174,4 17,1
Tig 6 16,5 41,0 10,0 9.605 152,0 14,9
Tig 18 27,0 41,0 10,0 6.985 110,5 10,8
Tig 20 10,0 41,0 10,0 12.225 193,4 19,0
Tig 20 13,0 41,0 10,7 10.478 154,9 15,2

Ensayo : Compresin Triaxial Simple (CTx)

Rotulacin
Muestra
ML
Dimetro
(mm)
Carga de
Ruptura (Kg)
Sigma1
(MPa)
Sigma3
(MPa)
Tig 1 3,0 41,0 17.717 131,7 2,9
Tig 1 5,0 41,0 24.573 182,7 7,9
Tig 2 6,0 41,0 28.490 211,8 9,8
Tig 6 16,5 41,0 32.675 242,9 13,7
Sigma1 = Esfuerzo Principal de Ruptura
Sigma3 = Presin de Confinamiento



ANEXO RESULTADOS
DIORITA DE BREA CON VETILLAS
PESO UNITARIO SECO
POROSIDAD APARENTE
TRACCION INDIRECTA


Unidad : Diorita de Brea Con Vetillas

Rotulacin
Probeta
ML
Dimetro
(mm.)
Longitud
(mm.)
Peso Seco
(g)
P. Unitario
MG

(t/m)
Tig 3 18,0 41,0 84,8 325,41 2,91
Tig 9 9,0 41,0 84,8 317,75 2,84
Tig 6 16,0 41,0 84,9 323,83 2,89
Tig 6 11,0 41,0 83,2 319,31 2,91
Tig 18 13,0 41,0 85,9 330,84 2,92


Rotulacin
Probeta
ML
P. Seco
(g)
P. Satu.
(g)
P. Susp.
(g)
P. Unitario
MI

(t/m)
Porosidad
(%)
Tig 3 18,0 293,89 294,47 191,40 2,85 0,56
Tig 9 9,0 256,80 257,12 167,17 2,85 0,36
Tig 6 11,0 244,94 245,37 160,63 2,89 0,51
Tig 6 16,0 245,00 245,10 160,13 2,88 0,12
Tig 18 13,0 171,99 172,32 114,34 2,97 0,57
P. Satu. = Peso Saturado P. Susp. = Peso Suspendido



Rotulacin
Probeta
ML
P. Seco
(g)
P. Satu.
(g)
P. Susp.
(g)
Absorcin en
Peso (%)
Absorcin en
Volumen (%)
Tig 3 18,0 293,89 294,47 191,40 0,20 0,56
Tig 9 9,0 256,80 257,12 167,17 0,12 0,36
Tig 6 11,0 244,94 245,37 160,63 0,18 0,51
Tig 6 16,0 245,00 245,10 160,13 0,04 0,12
Tig 18 13,0 171,99 172,32 114,34 0,19 0,57

(Determinada en Testigos Cilndricos con Mtodo de Kenty)

Rotulacin
Muestras
Experimento
N
Inclinacin Mesa
de Friccin ()
Ang. de Friccin
Bsico ()
Tig 3 31 35
Tig 9 1 28 32
Tig 6 30 34
Tig 9 29 33
Tig 6 2 30 34
Tig 6 31 35
Tig 6 28 32
Tig 6 3 30 34
Tig 18 31 35
Tig 3 30 34
Tig 6 4 31 35
Tig 18 30 34
Tig 9 31 35
Tig 6 5 29 33
Tig 18 30 34



Rotulacin
Muestra
ML
C.U.S.
(kg/cm)
C.U.S.(50 mm)
(kg/cm)
C.U.S.(50 mm)
(MPa)
Tipo de Falla
Observada
Tig 6 11,0 2.162,6 2.086,7 204,8 Matriz
Tig 18 13,0 660,2 637,0 62,5 Matriz-Estructura


Rotulacin
Muestra
ML C.U.S.(50 mm)
(MPa)
Mdulo de Young
(GPa)
Razn de Poisson
()
Tig 6 11,0 204,8 72,80 0,15
Tig 18 13,0 62,5 22,64 0,07


Rotulacin
Muestra
ML
Velocidad
de Onda P
(m/s)
Velocidad
de Onda S
(m/s)
Mdulo de
Elasticidad
(GPa)
Mdulo de
Rigidez
(GPa)
Razn de
Poisson
()
Tig 9 9,0 5.712 3.428 81,3 33,4 0,22
Tig 6 11,0 5.549 3.330 78,6 32,3 0,22
Tig 3 18,0 5.346 3.156 71,4 29,0 0,23
Tig 18 13,0 4.772 2.771 55,9 22,4 0,25
Tig 6 16,0 5.198 3.029 65,5 26,3 0,24



Rotulacin
Muestra
ML
Dimetro
(mm.)
Espesor
(mm.)
Carga de
Ruptura (N)
T. Indirecta
(kg/cm)
T. Indirecta
(MPa)
Tig 3 18,0 41,0 10,4 13.971 212,6 20,9
Tig 9 9,0 41,0 10,8 12.225 179,1 17,6
Tig 6 11,0 41,0 10,0 11.351 179,6 17,6
Tig 6 16,0 41,0 10,9 11.351 164,8 16,2
Tig 18 13,0 41,0 10,7 10.478 154,9 15,2


Rotulacin
Muestra
ML
Carga de
Ruptura (Kg)
Sigma1
(MPa)
Sigma3
(MPa)
Tig 3 18,0 17.183 127,7 2,9
Tig 9 9,0 21.813 162,1 5,9
Tig 6 16,0 29.648 220,4 15,7



ANEXO RESULTADOS
DIORITA DE BREA ALTERADA
PESO UNITARIO SECO
POROSIDAD APARENTE
TRACCION INDIRECTA


Unidad : Diorita de Brea Alterada

Rotulacin
Probeta
ML
Dimetro
(mm.)
Longitud
(mm.)
Peso Seco
(g)
P. Unitario
MG

(t/m)
Tig 1 6,0 41,0 85,3 328,66 2,92
Tig 4 10,6 41,0 85,3 325,44 2,89
Tig 3 13,0 41,0 84,5 322,07 2,89
Tig 3 14,5 41,0 84,5 320,31 2,87
Tig 7 37,0 41,0 85,9 342,42 3,02
Tig 7 41,0 41,0 87,4 330,06 2,86
Tig 19 13,0 41,0 87,4 333,31 2,89
Tig 19 18,0 41,0 85,3 324,98 2,89


Rotulacin
Probeta
ML
P. Seco
(g)
P. Satu.
(g)
P. Susp.
(g)
P. Unitario
MI

(t/m)
Porosidad
(%)
Tig 1 6,0 285,48 285,91 186,24 2,86 0,43
Tig 4 10,0 235,16 235,58 152,71 2,84 0,51
Tig 3 13,0 286,14 286,66 186,02 2,84 0,52
Tig 3 14,5 177,64 177,86 115,92 2,87 0,36
Tig 7 37,0 162,85 163,19 109,17 3,01 0,63
Tig 7 41,0 218,35 218,50 141,34 2,83 0,19
Tig 19 13,0 168,79 168,97 110,87 2,91 0,31
Tig 19 18,0 248,25 248,74 162,84 2,89 0,57



Rotulacin
Probeta
ML
P. Seco
(g)
P. Satu.
(g)
P. Susp.
(g)
Absorcin en
Peso (%)
Absorcin en
Volumen (%)
Tig 1 6,0 285,48 285,91 186,24 0,15 0,43
Tig 4 10,0 235,16 235,58 152,71 0,18 0,51
Tig 3 13,0 286,14 286,66 186,02 0,18 0,52
Tig 3 14,5 177,64 177,86 115,92 0,12 0,36
Tig 7 37,0 162,85 163,19 109,17 0,21 0,63
Tig 7 41,0 218,35 218,50 141,34 0,07 0,19
Tig 19 13,0 168,79 168,97 110,87 0,11 0,31
Tig 19 18,0 248,25 248,74 162,84 0,20 0,57


Rotulacin
Muestras
Experimento
N
Inclinacin Mesa
de Friccin ()
Ang. de Friccin
Bsico ()
Tig 1 30 34
Tig 4 1 32 36
Tig 3 31 35
Tig 4 29 33
Tig 3 2 30 34
Tig 7 31 35
Tig 1 31 35
Tig 7 3 29 33
Tig 19 30 34
Tig 3 33 37
Tig 7 4 31 35
Tig 19 32 36
Tig 1 30 34
Tig 19 5 29 33
Tig 4 30 34



Rotulacin
Muestra
ML
C.U.S.
(kg/cm)
C.U.S.(50 mm)
(kg/cm)
C.U.S.(50 mm)
(MPa)
Tipo de Falla
Observada
Tig 7 37,0 2.213 2.135 209,5 Matriz
Tig 7 41,0 1.827 1.763 173,0 Matriz
Tig 19 13,0 934 901 88,5 Matriz-Estructura


Rotulacin
Muestra
ML C.U.S.
(50 mm)
(MPa)
Mdulo de Young
(GPa)
Razn de Poisson
()
Tig 7 37,0 209,5 67,51 0,15
Tig 7 41,0 173,0 29,17 0,07
Tig 19 13,0 88,5 44,08 0,19


Rotulacin
Muestra
ML
Velocidad
de Onda P
(m/s)
Velocidad
de Onda S
(m/s)
Mdulo de
Elasticidad
(GPa)
Mdulo de
Rigidez
(GPa)
Razn de
Poisson
()
Tig 1 6,0 5.557 3.312 78,4 32,0 0,22
Tig 7 37,0 5.725 3.435 86,9 35,6 0,22
Tig 3 14,0 5.685 3.289 77,6 31,1 0,25
Tig 7 41,0 5.459 3.120 70,0 27,8 0,26
Tig 19 13,0 5.134 3.012 64,9 26,2 0,24



Rotulacin
Muestra
ML
Dimetro
(mm)
Espesor
(mm)
Carga de
Ruptura (N)
T. Indirecta
(kg/cm)
T. Indirecta
(MPa)
Tig 3 14,5 41,0 10,8 11.351 166,3 16,3
Tig 7 37,0 41,0 10,1 13.971 218,9 21,5
Tig 7 41,0 41,0 10,0 6.985 110,5 10,8
Tig 19 13,0 41,0 10,2 7.859 121,9 12,0
Tig 19 18,0 41,0 10,0 7.859 124,3 12,2


Rotulacin
Muestra
ML
Carga de
Ruptura (Kg)
Sigma1
(MPa)
Sigma3
(MPa)
Tig 1 6,0 27.333 203,2 7,9
Tig 4 10,6 29.470 219,0 11,8
Tig 19 18,0 30.182 224,3 13,7
Tig 3 13,0 30.716 228,3 15,7
Tig 3 14,5 31.072 231,0 17,7


de Rocas, Proyecto Tigresa, Ca. Minera Carmen Bajo, Copiap Anexo Grficos

ANEXO GRAFICOS
DIORITA DE BREA
ENSAYOS DE COMPRESION TRIAXIAL SIMPLE


Grfico de Resultados
Diorita de Brea Proyecto Tigresa
Ensayos de Compresin Triaxial Simple
Criterio de Falla de Mohr Coulomb
Relacin Sigma1 v/s Sigma3 Crculos y Envolvente Lineal de Mohr
(Datos Procesados con Software ROCDATA Version 4.0)

Sigma1 = Esfuerzo Principal de Ruptura (Major principal stress)
Sigma3 = Presin de Confinamiento (Minor principal stress)
SigmaS = Esfuerzo de Corte (Shear stress)
SigmaN = Esfuerzo Normal (Normal stress)
= Valores Ajustados
= Datos de Ensayos Triaxiales


Criterio de Falla de Hoek & Brown
Relacin Sigma1 v/s Sigma3 Relacin SigmaS v/s SigmaN

= Criterio de Hoek & Brown


Parmetros de Mohr Coulomb ajustados del Criterio de Falla de Hoek & Brown
Envolvente a Sigma1 v/s Sigma3 Envolvente a SigmaS v/s SigmaN

= Criterio de MohrCoulomb ajustado


Criterios de Falla de Hoek & Brown y de Mohr Coulomb
Envolvente a Sigma1 v/s Sigma3 Envolvente a SigmaS v/s SigmaN

= Criterio de MohrCoulomb


de Rocas, Proyecto Tigresa, Ca. Minera Carmen Bajo, Copiap Anexo Bibliografa

ANEXO BIBLIOGRAFIA

HoekBrown Failure Criterion2002 Edition.
Evert. Hoek, Carlos Carranza-Torres and Brent
Corkum, 2002

The Geological Strength Index: Applications
and Limitations.
V. Marinos, P. Marinos and E. Hoek, 2005

HOEK-BROWN FAILURE CRITERION 2002 EDITION

Evert Hoek
Consulting Engineer, Vancouver, Canada

Carlos Carranza-Torres
Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, USA

Brent Corkum
Rocscience Inc., Toronto, Canada

ABSTRACT: The Hoek-Brown failure criterion for rock masses is widely accepted and has been applied in
a large number of projects around the world. While, in general, it has been found to be satisfactory, there are
some uncertainties and inaccuracies that have made the criterion inconvenient to apply and to incorporate
into numerical models and limit equilibrium programs. In particular, the difficulty of finding an acceptable
equivalent friction angle and cohesive strength for a given rock mass has been a problem since the
publication of the criterion in 1980. This paper resolves all these issues and sets out a recommended
sequence of calculations for applying the criterion. An associated Windows program called RocLab has
been developed to provide a convenient means of solving and plotting the equations presented in this paper.

1. INTRODUCTION

Hoek and Brown [1, 2] introduced their failure
criterion in an attempt to provide input data for the
analyses required for the design of underground
excavations in hard rock. The criterion was derived
from the results of research into the brittle failure of
intact rock by Hoek [3] and on model studies of
jointed rock mass behaviour by Brown [4]. The
criterion started from the properties of intact rock
and then introduced factors to reduce these
properties on the basis of the characteristics of
joints in a rock mass. The authors sought to link the
empirical criterion to geological observations by
means of one of the available rock mass
classification schemes and, for this purpose, they
chose the Rock Mass Rating proposed by
Bieniawski [5].

Because of the lack of suitable alternatives, the
criterion was soon adopted by the rock mechanics
community and its use quickly spread beyond the
original limits used in deriving the strength
reduction relationships. Consequently, it became
necessary to re-examine these relationships and to
introduce new elements from time to time to
account for the wide range of practical problems to
which the criterion was being applied. Typical of
these enhancements were the introduction of the
idea of undisturbed and disturbed rock masses
Hoek and Brown [6], and the introduction of a
modified criterion to force the rock mass tensile
strength to zero for very poor quality rock masses
(Hoek, Wood and Shah, [7]).

One of the early difficulties arose because many
geotechnical problems, particularly slope stability
issues, are more conveniently dealt with in terms of
shear and normal stresses rather than the principal
stress relationships of the original Hoek-Brown
riterion, defined by the equation: c

5 . 0
'
3 '
3
'
1
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + = s m
ci
ci
(1)

where
'
1
and
'
3
are the major and minor effective
principal stresses at failure
ci
is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact
rock material and
m and s are material constants, where s = 1 for
intact rock.

An exact relationship between equation 1 and the
normal and shear stresses at failure was derived by
J. W. Bray (reported by Hoek [8]) and later by Ucar
[9] and Londe
1
[10].

Hoek [12] discussed the derivation of equivalent
friction angles and cohesive strengths for various
practical situations. These derivations were based

1
Londes equations were later found to contain errors
although the concepts introduced by Londe were extremely
important in the application of the Hoek-Brown criterion to
tunnelling problems (Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst, [11])
upon tangents to the Mohr envelope derived by
Bray. Hoek [13] suggested that the cohesive
strength determined by fitting a tangent to the
curvilinear Mohr envelope is an upper bound value
and may give optimistic results in stability
calculations. Consequently, an average value,
determined by fitting a linear Mohr-Coulomb
relationship by least squares methods, may be more
appropriate. In this paper Hoek also introduced the
concept of the Generalized Hoek-Brown criterion in
which the shape of the principal stress plot or the
Mohr envelope could be adjusted by means of a
variable coefficient a in place of the square root
term in equation 1.
|
.
|
\
|
=
D
GSI
s
3 9
100
exp (4)

( ) (5)
3 / 20 15 /
6
1
2
1

+ = e e a
GSI

D is a factor which depends upon the degree of
disturbance to which the rock mass has been
subjected by blast damage and stress relaxation. It
varies from 0 for undisturbed in situ rock masses to
1 for very disturbed rock masses. Guidelines for the
selection of D are discussed in a later section.

The uniaxial compressive strength is obtained by
setting in equation 2, giving: 0
'
3
=

a
ci c
s . = (6) Hoek and Brown [14] attempted to consolidate all
the previous enhancements into a comprehensive
presentation of the failure criterion and they gave a
number of worked examples to illustrate its
practical application.

and, the tensile strength is:
b
ci
t
m
s
= (7)

Equation 7 is obtained by setting in
equation 2. This represents a condition of biaxial
tension. Hoek [8] showed that, for brittle materials,
the uniaxial tensile strength is equal to the biaxial
tensile strength.
t
= =
'
3
'
1
In addition to the changes in the equations, it was
also recognised that the Rock Mass Rating of
Bieniawski was no longer adequate as a vehicle for
relating the failure criterion to geological
observations in the field, particularly for very weak
rock masses. This resulted in the introduction of the
Geological Strength Index (GSI) by Hoek, Wood
and Shah [7], Hoek [13] and Hoek, Kaiser and
Bawden [15]. This index was subsequently
extended for weak rock masses in a series of papers
by Hoek, Marinos and Benissi [16], Hoek and
Marinos [17, 18] and Marinos and Hoek [19].

Note that the switch at GSI = 25 for the
coefficients s and a (Hoek and Brown, [14]) has
been eliminated in equations 4 and 5 which give
smooth continuous transitions for the entire range of
GSI values. The numerical values of a and s, given
by these equations, are very close to those given by
the previous equations and it is not necessary for
readers to revisit and make corrections to old
calculations.
The Geological Strength Index will not be discussed
in the following text, which will concentrate on the
sequence of calculations now proposed for the
application of the Generalized Hoek Brown
criterion to jointed rock masses.

Normal and shear stresses are related to principal
stresses by the equations published by Balmer [20].

1
1
2 2
' '
' ' ' ' ' '
1
'
3 1
3 1 3 1 3
+
+
=

d d
d d
n
(8)
2. GENERALIZED HOEK-BROWN CRITERION

This is expressed as
( )
1
' '
' '
' '
1
3 1
3 1
3
+
=

d d
d d
(9)
a
ci
b ci
s m
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =

'
3 '
3
'
1
(2)
where
( )
1
' ' '
3 3 1
1

+ + =
a
ci b b
s m am d d (10)
where m
b
is a reduced value of the material constant
m
i
and is given by

|
.
|
\
|
=
D
GSI
m m
i b
14 28
100
exp (3)
3. MODULUS OF DEFORMATION

The rock mass modulus of deformation is given by:

s and a are constants for the rock mass given by the
following relationships: ) 40 / ) 10 ((
10
100 2
1 ) (

|
.
|
\
|
=
GSI ci
m
D
GPa E

(11a)

The equivalent plot, in terms of the major and minor
principal stresses, is defined by:
Equation 11a applies for
ci
100 MPa. For >
ci

100 MPa, use equation 11b.

'
'
'
'
' '
'
3 1
sin 1
sin 1
sin 1
cos 2
+
+
=
c
(15)
) 40 / ) 10 ((
10
2
1 ) (

|
.
|
\
|
=
GSI
m
D
GPa E (11b)

Note that the original equation proposed by Hoek
and Brown [14] has been modified, by the inclusion
of the factor D, to allow for the effects of blast
damage and stress relaxation.

4. MOHR-COULOMB CRITERION

Since most geotechnical software is still written in
terms of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, it is
necessary to determine equivalent angles of friction
and cohesive strengths for each rock mass and stress
range. This is done by fitting an average linear
relationship to the curve generated by solving
equation 2 for a range of minor principal stress
values defined by
'
3
max 3
< <
t
, as illustrated in
Figure 1. The fitting process involves balancing the
areas above and below the Mohr-Coulomb plot.
This results in the following equations for the angle
of friction and cohesive strength :
'
'
c

(
(
+ + + +
+
=

1 '
1 '
1 '
) ( 6 ) 2 )( 1 ( 2
) ( 6
sin
3
3
a
b b
a
b b
n
n
m s am a a
m s am
(12)

| |
( ) ( ) ) 2 )( 1 ( ) ( 6 1 ) 2 )( 1 (
) ( ) 1 ( ) 2 1 (
1 '
1 ' '
'
3
3 3
a a m s am a a
m s m a s a
c
a
b b
a
b b ci
n
n n
+ + + + + +
+ + +
=

(13)
Figure 1: Relationships between major and minor
principal stresses for Hoek-Brown and equivalent
Mohr-Coulomb criteria.

5. ROCK MASS STRENGTH

The uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass
c
is given by equation 6. Failure initiates at the
boundary of an excavation when
c
is exceeded by
the stress induced on that boundary. The failure
propagates from this initiation point into a biaxial
stress field and it eventually stabilizes when the
local strength, defined by equation 2, is higher than
the induced stresses and . Most numerical
models can follow this process of fracture
propagation and this level of detailed analysis is
very important when considering the stability of
excavations in rock and when designing support
systems.
'
1
'
3
where
ci n

'
max 3 3
=

Note that the value of
'
max 3
, the upper limit of
confining stress over which the relationship
between the Hoek-Brown and the Mohr-Coulomb
criteria is considered, has to be determined for each
individual case. Guidelines for selecting these
values for slopes as well as shallow and deep
tunnels are presented later.

The Mohr-Coulomb shear strength , for a given
normal stress , is found by substitution of these
values of and
'
c
'
in to the equation:

' '
tan + = c (14)
However, there are times when it is useful to
consider the overall behaviour of a rock mass rather
than the detailed failure propagation process
described above. For example, when considering
the strength of a pillar, it is useful to have an
estimate of the overall strength of the pillar rather
than a detailed knowledge of the extent of fracture
propagation in the pillar. This leads to the concept
of a global rock mass strength and Hoek and
Brown [14] proposed that this could be estimated
from the Mohr-Coulomb relationship:
'
' '
'
sin 1
cos 2
=
c
cm
(16)

with and determined for the stress range
'
c
'
4 /
ci t
<
'
3
< giving

( )
) 2 )( 1 ( 2
4 )) 8 ( 4 (
1
'
a a
s m s m a s m
a
b b b
ci
cm
+ +
+ +
=

(17)

6. DETERMINATION OF
3MAX

The issue of determining the appropriate value of
for use in equations 12 and 13 depends upon
the specific application. Two cases will be
investigated:
'
max 3

1. Tunnels where the value of is that
which gives equivalent characteristic curves
for the two failure criteria for deep tunnels
or equivalent subsidence profiles for shallow
tunnels.
'
max 3
2. Slopes here the calculated factor of safety

and the shape and location of the failure
surface have to be equivalent.

For the case of deep tunnels, closed form solutions
for both the Generalized Hoek-Brown and the
Mohr-Coulomb criteria have been used to generate
hundreds of solutions and to find the value of
that gives equivalent characteristic curves.
'
max 3

For shallow tunnels, where the depth below surface
is less than 3 tunnel diameters, comparative
numerical studies of the extent of failure and the
magnitude of surface subsidence gave an identical
relationship to that obtained for deep tunnels,
provided that caving to surface is avoided.

The results of the studies for deep tunnels are
plotted in Figure 2 and the fitted equation for both
cases is:

94 . 0
'
'
'
max 3
47 . 0

|
|
.
|
\
|
=
H
cm
cm

(18)

where is the rock mass strength, defined by
equation 17,
'
cm
is the unit weight of the rock mass

and H is the depth of the tunnel below surface. In
cases where the horizontal stress is higher than the
vertical stress, the horizontal stress value should be
used in place of H .
'
'
3

Figure 2: Relationship for the calculation of
3max

for equivalent Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown
parameters for tunnels.

Equation 18 applies to all underground excavations,
which are surrounded by a zone of failure that does
not extend to surface. For studies of problems such
as block caving in mines it is recommended that no
attempt should be made to relate the Hoek-Brown
and Mohr-Coulomb parameters and that the
determination of material properties and subsequent
analysis should be based on only one of these
criteria.

Similar studies for slopes, using Bishops circular
failure analysis for a wide range of slope geometries
and rock mass properties, gave:

91 . 0
'
max
72 . 0

|
|
.
|
\
|
=
H
cm
cm

(19)

where H is the height of the slope.

7. ESTIMATION OF DISTURBANCE FACTOR D

Experience in the design of slopes in very large
open pit mines has shown that the Hoek-Brown
criterion for undisturbed in situ rock masses (D = 0)
results in rock mass properties that are too
optimistic [21, 22]. The effects of heavy blast
damage as well as stress relief due to removal of the
overburden result in disturbance of the rock mass. It
is considered that the disturbed rock mass
properties [6], D = 1 in equations 3 and 4, are more
appropriate for these rock masses.

Lorig and Varona [23] showed that factors such as
the lateral confinement produced by different radii
of curvature of slopes (in plan) as compared with
their height also have an influence on the degree of
disturbance.

Sonmez and Ulusay [24] back-analysed five slope
failures in open pit coal mines in Turkey and
attempted to assign disturbance factors to each rock
mass based upon their assessment of the rock mass
properties predicted by the Hoek-Brown criterion.
Unfortunately, one of the slope failures appears to
be structurally controlled while another consists of a
transported waste pile. The authors consider that the
Hoek-Brown criterion is not applicable to these two
cases.

Cheng and Liu [25] report the results of very careful
back analysis of deformation measurements, from
extensometers placed before the commencement of
excavation, in the Mingtan power cavern in Taiwan.
It was found that a zone of blast damage extended
for a distance of approximately 2 m around all large
excavations. The back-calculated strength and
deformation properties of the damaged rock mass
give an equivalent disturbance factor D = 0.7.

From these references it is clear that a large number
of factors can influence the degree of disturbance in
the rock mass surrounding an excavation and that it
may never be possible to quantify these factors
precisely. However, based on their experience and
on an analysis of all the details contained in these
papers, the authors have attempted to draw up a set
of guidelines for estimating the factor D and these
are summarised in Table 1.

The influence of this disturbance factor can be
large. This is illustrated by a typical example in
which
ci
= 50 MPa, m
i
= 10 and GSI = 45. For an
undisturbed in situ rock mass surrounding a tunnel
at a depth of 100 m, with a disturbance factor D = 0,
the equivalent friction angle is 47.16 while the
cohesive strength is c 0.58 MPa. A rock mass
with the same basic parameters but in highly
disturbed slope of 100 m height, with a disturbance
factor of D = 1, has an equivalent friction angle of
27.61 and a cohesive strength of 0.35
MPa.
=
'
=
'
=
'
=
'
c

Note that these are guidelines only and the reader
would be well advised to apply the values given
with caution. However, they can be used to provide
a realistic starting point for any design and, if the
observed or measured performance of the
excavation turns out to be better than predicted, the
disturbance factors can be adjusted downwards.

8. CONCLUSION

A number of uncertainties and practical problems in
using the Hoek-Brown failure criterion have been
addressed in this paper. Wherever possible, an
attempt has been made to provide a rigorous and
unambiguous method for calculating or estimating
the input parameters required for the analysis. These
methods have all been implemented in a Windows
program called RocLab that can be downloaded
(free) from www.rocscience.com. This program
includes tables and charts for estimating the
uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock
elements (
ci
), the material constant m
i
and the
Geological Strength Index (GSI).

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions
of Professor E.T. Brown in reviewing a draft of this
paper and in participating in the development of the
Hoek-Brown criterion for the past 25 years.
able 1: Guidelines for estimating disturbance factor D T

Appearance of rock mass Description of rock mass Suggested
value of D

Excellent quality controlled blasting or excavation by
Tunnel Boring Machine results in minimal disturbance
to the confined rock mass surrounding a tunnel.

D = 0

Mechanical or hand excavation in poor quality rock
masses (no blasting) results in minimal disturbance to
he surrounding rock mass. t

Where squeezing problems result in significant floor
heave, disturbance can be severe unless a temporary
invert, as shown in the photograph, is placed.

D = 0

D = 0.5
No invert

Very poor quality blasting in a hard rock tunnel results
in severe local damage, extending 2 or 3 m, in the
surrounding rock mass.

D = 0.8

Small scale blasting in civil engineering slopes results
in modest rock mass damage, particularly if controlled
blasting is used as shown on the left hand side of the
photograph. However, stress relief results in some
disturbance.

D = 0.7
Good blasting

D = 1.0
Poor blasting

Very large open pit mine slopes suffer significant
disturbance due to heavy production blasting and also
due to stress relief from overburden removal.

In some softer rocks excavation can be carried out by
ripping and dozing and the degree of damage to the
slopes is less.

D = 1.0
Production
blasting

D = 0.7
Mechanical
excavation

10. REFERENCES

1. Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1980. Empirical strength
criterion for rock masses. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE
106 (GT9), 1013-1035.
2. Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1980. Underground
Excavations in Rock, London, Instn Min. Metall.
3. Hoek, E. 1968. Brittle failure of rock. In Rock Mechanics
in Engineering Practice . (eds K.G. Stagg and O.C.
Zienkiewicz), 99-124. London: Wiley
4. Brown, E.T. 1970. Strength of models of rock with
intermittent joints. J. Soil Mech. Foundn Div., ASCE 96,
SM6, 1935-1949.
5. Bieniawski Z.T. 1976. Rock mass classification in rock
engineering. In Exploration for Rock Engineering, Proc.
of the Symp., (ed. Z.T. Bieniawski) 1, 97-106. Cape
Town, Balkema.
6. Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1988. The Hoek-Brown failure
criterion - a 1988 update. Proc. 15th Canadian Rock
Mech. Symp. (ed. J.C. Curran), 31-38. Toronto, Dept.
Civil Engineering, University of Toronto.
7. Hoek, E., Wood D. and Shah S. 1992. A modified Hoek-
Brown criterion for jointed rock masses. Proc. Rock
Characterization, Symp. Int. Soc. Rock Mech.: Eurock
92, (ed. J.A. Hudson), 209-214. London, Brit. Geotech.
Soc.
8. Hoek, E. 1983. Strength of jointed rock masses, 23rd.
Rankine Lecture. Gotechnique 33 (3), 187-223.
9. Ucar, R. (1986) Determination of shear failure envelope
in rock masses. J. Geotech. Engg. Div. ASCE. 112, (3),
303-315.
10. Londe, P. 1988. Discussion on the determination of the
shear stress failure in rock masses. ASCE J Geotech Eng
Div, 14, (3), 374-6.
11. Carranza-Torres, C., and Fairhurst, C. 1999. General
formulation of the elasto-plastic response of openings in
rock using the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci., 36 (6), 777-809.
12. Hoek, E. 1990. Estimating Mohr-Coulomb friction and
cohesion values from the Hoek-Brown failure criterion.
Intnl. J. Rock Mech. & Mining Sci. & Geomechanics
Abstracts. 12 (3), 227-229.
13. Hoek, E. 1994. Strength of rock and rock masses, ISRM
News Journal, 2 (2), 4-16.
14. Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1997. Practical estimates of
rock mass strength. Intnl. J. Rock Mech. & Mining Sci. &
Geomechanics Abstracts. 34 (8), 1165-1186.
15. Hoek, E., Kaiser P.K. and Bawden W.F. 1995. Support of
underground excavations in hard rock. Rotterdam,
Balkema.
16. Hoek, E., Marinos, P. and Benissi, M. 1998. Applicability
of the Geological Strength Index (GSI) classification for
very weak and sheared rock masses. The case of the
Athens Schist Formation. Bull. Engg. Geol. Env. 57(2),
151-160.
17. Marinos, P and Hoek, E. 2000. GSI A geologically
friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. Proc.
GeoEng2000 Conference, Melbourne.
18. Hoek, E. and Marinos, P. 2000. Predicting Tunnel
Squeezing. Tunnels and Tunnelling International. Part 1
November 2000, Part 2 December, 2000
19. Marinos. P, and Hoek, E. 2001. Estimating the
geotechnical properties of heterogeneous rock masses
such as flysch. Accepted for publication in the Bulletin of
the International Association of Engineering Geologists
20. Balmer, G. 1952. A general analytical solution for Mohr's
envelope. Am. Soc. Test. Mat. 52, 1260-1271.
21. Sjberg, J., Sharp, J.C., and Malorey, D.J. 2001 Slope
stability at Aznalcllar. In Slope stability in surface
mining. (eds. W.A. Hustrulid, M.J. McCarter and D.J.A.
Van Zyl). Littleton: Society for Mining, Metallurgy and
Exploration, Inc., 183-202.
22. Pierce, M., Brandshaug, T., and Ward, M. 2001 Slope
stability assessment at the Main Cresson Mine. In Slope
stability in surface mining. (eds. W.A. Hustrulid, M.J.
McCarter and D.J.A. Van Zyl). Littleton: Society for
Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc., 239-250.
23. Lorig, L., and Varona, P. 2001 Practical slope-stability
analysis using finite-difference codes. In Slope stability in
surface mining. (eds. W.A. Hustrulid, M.J. McCarter and
D.J.A. Van Zyl). Littleton: Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc., 115-124.
24. Sonmez, H., and Ulusay, R. 1999. Modifications to the
geological strength index (GSI) and their applicability to
the stability of slopes. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 36 (6),
743-760.
25. Cheng, Y., and Liu, S. 1990. Power caverns of the
Mingtan Pumped Storage Project, Taiwan. In
Comprehensive Rock Engineering. (ed. J.A. Hudson),
Oxford: Pergamon, 5, 111-132.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

The following document is subject to copyright agreements.

The attached copy is provided for your personal use on the understanding
that you will not distribute it and that you will not include it in other
published documents.

Dr Evert Hoek
Evert Hoek Consulting Engineer Inc.
3034 Edgemont Boulevard
P.O. Box 75516
North Vancouver, B.C.
Canada V7R 4X1

Email: ehoek@mailas.com

V. Marinos
P. Marinos
E. Hoek
The geological strength index: applications
and limitations
Received: 7 September 2004
Accepted: 9 October 2004
Published online: 2 February 2005
Springer-Verlag 2005
Abstract The geological strength in-
dex (GSI) is a system of rock-mass
characterization that has been
developed in engineering rock
mechanics to meet the need for reli-
able input data, particularly those
related to rock-mass properties re-
quired as inputs into numerical
analysis or closed form solutions for
designing tunnels, slopes or founda-
tions in rocks. The geological char-
acter of rock material, together with
the visual assessment of the mass it
forms, is used as a direct input to the
selection of parameters relevant for
the prediction of rock-mass strength
and deformability. This approach
enables a rock mass to be considered
as a mechanical continuum without
losing the inuence geology has on its
mechanical properties. It also pro-
vides a eld method for characteriz-
ing dicult-to-describe rock masses.
After a decade of application of the
GSI and its variations in quantitative
characterization of rock mass, this
paper attempts to answer questions
that have been raised by the users
about the appropriate selection of the
index for a range of rock masses un-
der various conditions. Recommen-
dations on the use of GSI are given
and, in addition, cases where the GSI
is not applicable are discussed. More
particularly, a discussion and sug-
gestions are presented on issues such
as the size of the rock mass to be
considered, its anisotropy, the inu-
ence of great depth, the presence of
ground water, the aperture and the
inlling of discontinuities and the
properties of weathered rock masses
and soft rocks.
Re sume Le Geological Strength In-
dex (GSI) est un syste` me de classi-
cation des massifs rocheux
de veloppe en me canique des roches.
Il permet dobtenir les donne es rel-
atives aux proprie te s de masses
rocheuses, donne es ne cessaires pour
des simulations nume riques ou per-
mettant le dimensionnement douv-
rages:tunnels, pentes ou fondations
rocheuses. Les caracte ristiques
ge ologiques de la matrice rocheuse
ainsi que celles relatives a` la struc-
ture du massif correspondant sont
directement utilise es pour obtenir les
parame` tres approprie s relatifs a` la
de formabilite et la re sistance de la
masse rocheuse. Cette approche
permet de conside rer une masse
rocheuse comme un milieu continu,
le ro le des caracte ristiques ge ologi-
ques sur les proprie te s me caniques
ne tant pas oblite` re . Elle apporte
aussi une me thode de terrain pour
caracte riser des masses rocheuses
diciles a` de crire. Apre` s une de cen-
nie dapplication du Geological
Strength Index et de ses variantes
pour caracte riser des masses roche-
uses, cet article tente de re pondre
aux questions formule es par les
utilisateurs concernant le choix le
plus approprie de cet index pour une
large gamme de massifs rocheux.
Bull Eng Geol Environ (2005) 64: 5565
DOI 10.1007/s10064-004-0270-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
V. Marinos (&) P. Marinos
School of Civil Engineering,
Geotechnical Department,
National Technical University of Athens,
9 Iroon Polytechniou str.,
157 80 Athens, Greece
E-mail: vmarinos@central.ntua.gr
E-mail: marinos@central.ntua.gr
E. Hoek
Consulting Engineer,
Vancouver, Canada
E-mail: ehoek@attglobal.net
Introduction
Design in rock masses
A few decades ago, the tools for designing tunnels
started to change. Although still crude, numerical
methods were being developed that oered the promise
for much more detailed analysis of dicult underground
excavation problems which, in a number of cases, fall
outside the ideal range of application of the tunnel
reinforcement classications such as the RMR system
introduced by Bieniawski (1973) and the Q system
published by Barton et al. (1974) both furthermore ex-
panded in the following years. There is absolutely no
problem with the concept of these classications and
there are hundreds of kilometres of tunnels that have
been successfully constructed on the basis of their
application. However, this approach is ideally suited to
situations in which the rock mass behaviour is relatively
simple, for example for RMR values between about 30
70 and moderate stress levels. In other words, sliding
and rotation of intact rock pieces essentially control the
failure process. These approaches are less reliable for
squeezing, swelling, clearly dened structural failures or
spalling, slabbing and rock-bursting under very high
stress conditions. More importantly, these classication
systems are of little help in providing information for the
design of sequentially installed temporary reinforcement
and the support required to control progressive failure in
dicult tunnelling conditions.
Numerical tools available today allow the tunnel
designer to analyse these progressive failure processes
and the sequentially installed reinforcement and support
necessary to maintain the stability of the advancing
tunnel until the nal reinforcing or supporting structure
can be installed. However, these numerical tools require
reliable input information on the strength and defor-
mation characteristics of the rock mass surrounding the
tunnel. As it is practically impossible to determine this
information by direct in situ testing (except for back-
analysis of already constructed tunnels) there was a need
for some method for estimating the rock-mass properties
from the intact rock properties and the characteristics of
the discontinuities in the rock mass. This resulted in the
development of the rock-mass failure criterion by Hoek
and Brown (1980).
The Geological Strength Index (GSI): development
history
Hoek and Brown recognized that a rock-mass failure
criterion would have no practical value unless it could be
related to geological observations that could be made
quickly and easily by an engineering geologist or geol-
ogist in the eld. They considered developing a new
classication system during the evolution of the criterion
in the late 1970s but they soon gave up the idea and
settled for the already published RMR system. It was
appreciated that the RMR system (and the Q system)
were developed for the estimation of underground
excavation and support, and that they included param-
eters that are not required for the estimation of rock-
mass properties. The groundwater and structural
orientation parameters in RMR and the groundwater
and stress parameters in Q are dealt with explicitly in
eective stress numerical analyses and the incorporation
of these parameters into the rock-mass property estimate
results is inappropriate. Hence, it was recommended
that only the rst four parameters of the RMR system
(intact rock strength, RQD rating, joint spacing and
joint conditions) should be used for the estimation of
rock-mass properties, if this system had to be used.
In the early days the use of the RMR classication
(modied as described above) worked well because most
of the problems were in reasonable quality rock masses
(30<RMR<70) under moderate stress conditions.
However, it soon became obvious that the RMR system
was dicult to apply to rock masses that are of very
poor quality. The relationship between RMR and the
constants m and s of the HoekBrown failure criterion
begins to break down for severely fractured and weak
rock masses.
Both the RMR and the Q classications include and
are heavily dependent upon the RQD classication
introduced by Deere (1964). Since RQD in most of the
Des recommandations quant a`
lusage du GSI sont donne es et, de
plus, des cas ou` le GSI nest pas
applicable sont discute s. Plus par-
ticulie` rement, des suggestions sont
apporte es sur des questions relatives
a` la taille de masse rocheuse a` con-
side rer, son anisotropie, linuence
des grandes profondeurs, la pre sence
deau, louverture et le remplissage
des discontinuite s ainsi que les pro-
prie te s des masses rocheuses alte re es
et des roches tendres.
Keywords Geological Strength
Index Rock mass Geological
structure Mechanical properties
Selection of the GSI
Mots cle s Geological Strength
Index Massif rocheux Structure
ge ologique Proprie te s me caniques
Conditions dutilisation du GSI
56
weak rock masses is essentially zero or meaningless, it
became necessary to consider an alternative classica-
tion system. The required system would not include
RQD, would place greater emphasis on basic geological
observations of rock-mass characteristics, reect the
material, its structure and its geological history and
would be developed specically for the estimation of
rock mass properties rather than for tunnel reinforce-
ment and support. This new classication, now called
GSI, started life in Toronto with engineering geology
input from David Wood (Hoek et al. 1992). The index
and its use for the Hoek and Brown failure criterion was
further developed by Hoek (1994), Hoek et al. (1995)
and Hoek and Brown (1997) but it was still a hard rock
system roughly equivalent to RMR. Since 1998, Evert
Hoek and Paul Marinos, dealing with incredibly dicult
materials encountered in tunnelling in Greece, developed
the GSI system to the present form to include poor
quality rock masses (Fig. 1) (Hoek et al. 1998; Marinos
and Hoek 2000, 2001). They also extended its applica-
tion for heterogeneous rock masses as shown in Fig. 2
(Marinos and Hoek 2001).
Fig. 1 General chart for GSI
estimates from the geological
observations
57
Functions of the Geological Strength Index
The heart of the GSI classication is a careful engi-
neering geology description of the rock mass which is
essentially qualitative, because it was felt that the num-
bers associated with RMR and Q-systems were largely
meaningless for the weak and heterogeneous rock mas-
ses. Note that the GSI system was never intended as a
replacement for RMR or Q as it has no rock-mass
reinforcement or support design capabilityits only
function is the estimation of rock-mass properties.
This index is based upon an assessment of the
lithology, structure and condition of discontinuity sur-
faces in the rock mass and it is estimated from visual
examination of the rock mass exposed in outcrops, in
surface excavations such as road cuts and in tunnel faces
and borehole cores. The GSI, by combining the two
fundamental parameters of the geological process, the
blockiness of the mass and the conditions of disconti-
nuities, respects the main geological constraints that
govern a formation and is thus a geologically sound
index that is simple to apply in the eld.
Once a GSI number has been decided upon, this
number is entered into a set of empirically developed
equations to estimate the rock-mass properties which
can then be used as input into some form of numerical
Fig. 2 Geological strength
index estimates for heteroge-
neous rock masses such as
Flysch
58
analysis or closed-form solution. The index is used in
conjunction with appropriate values for the unconned
compressive strength of the intact rock r
ci
and the pet-
rographic constant m
i
, to calculate the mechanical
properties of a rock mass, in particular the compressive
strength of the rock mass (r
cm
) and its deformation
modulus (E). Updated values of m
i
, can be found in
Marinos and Hoek (2000) or in the RocLab program.
Basic procedures are explained in Hoek and Brown
(1997) but a more recent renement of the empirical
equations and the relation between the HoekBrown
and the MohrCoulomb criteria have been addressed by
Hoek et al. (2002) for appropriate ranges of stress
encountered in tunnels and slopes. This paper and the
associated program RocLab can be downloaded from
http://www.rocscience.com.
Note that attempts to quantify the GSI classica-
tion to satisfy the perception that engineers are happier
with numbers (Cai et al. 2004; Sonmez and Ulusay
1999) are interesting but have to be applied with caution.
The quantication processes used are related to the
frequency and orientation of discontinuities and are
limited to rock masses in which these numbers can easily
be measured. The quantications do not work well in
tectonically disturbed rock masses in which the struc-
tural fabric has been destroyed. In such rock masses the
authors recommend the use of the original qualitative
approach based on careful visual observations.
Suggestions for using GSI
After a decade of application of the GSI and its varia-
tions for the characterization of the rock mass, this pa-
per attempts to answer questions that have been raised
by users about the appropriate selection of the index for
various rock masses under various conditions.
When not to use GSI
The GSI classication system is based upon the
assumption that the rock mass contains a sucient
number of randomly oriented discontinuities such
that it behaves as an isotropic mass. In other words, the
behaviour of the rock mass is independent of the
direction of the applied loads. Therefore, it is clear that
the GSI system should not be applied to those rock
masses in which there is a clearly dened dominant
structural orientation. Undisturbed slate is an example
of a rock mass in which the mechanical behaviour is
highly anisotropic and which should not be assigned a
GSI value based upon the charts presented in Figs. 1, 2.
However, the HoekBrown criterion and the GSI chart
can be applied with caution if the failure of such rock
masses is not controlled by their anisotropy (e.g. in the
case of a slope when the dominant structural disconti-
nuity set dips into the slope and failure may occur
through the rock mass). For rock masses with a struc-
ture such as that shown in the sixth (last) row of the GSI
chart (Fig. 1), anisotropy is not a major issue as the
dierence in the strength of the rock and that of the
discontinuities within it is small.
It is also inappropriate to assign GSI values to
excavated faces in strong hard rock with a few discon-
tinuities spaced at distances of similar magnitude to the
dimensions of the tunnel or slope under consideration.
In such cases the stability of the tunnel or slope will be
controlled by the three-dimensional geometry of the
intersecting discontinuities and the free faces created by
the excavation. Obviously, the GSI classication does
not apply to such cases.
Geological description in the GSI chart
In dealing with specic rock masses it is suggested that
the selection of the appropriate case in the GSI chart
should not be limited to the visual similarity with the
sketches of the structure of the rock mass as they appear
in the charts. The associated descriptions must also be
read carefully, so that the most suitable structure is
chosen. The most appropriate case may well lie at some
intermediate point between the limited number of sket-
ches or descriptions included in the charts.
Projection of GSI values into the ground
Outcrops, excavated slopes tunnel faces and borehole
cores are the most common sources of information for
the estimation of the GSI value of a rock mass. How
should the numbers estimated from these sources be
projected or extrapolated into the rock mass behind a
slope or ahead of a tunnel?
Outcrops are an extremely valuable source of data in
the initial stages of a project but they suer from the
disadvantage that surface relaxation, weathering and/or
alteration may have signicantly inuenced the appear-
ance of the rock-mass components. This disadvantage
can be overcome (where permissible) by trial trenches
but, unless these are machine excavated to considerable
depth, there is no guarantee that the eects of deep
weathering will have been eliminated. Judgement is
therefore required in order to allow for these weathering
and alteration eects in assessing the most probable GSI
value at the depth of the proposed excavation.
Excavated slope and tunnel faces are probably the
most reliable source of information for GSI estimates
provided that these faces are reasonably close to and in
the same rock mass as the structure under investigation.
In hard strong rock masses it is important that an
59
appropriate allowance be made for damage due to
mechanical excavation or blasting. As the purpose of
estimating GSI is to assign properties to the undisturbed
rock mass in which a tunnel or slope is to be excavated,
failure to allow for the eects of blast damage when
assessing GSI will result in the assignment of values that
are too conservative. Therefore, if borehole data are
absent, it is important that the engineering geologist or
geologist attempts to look behind the surface damage
and try to assign the GSI value on the basis of the
inherent structures in the rock mass. This problem be-
comes less signicant in weak and tectonically disturbed
rock masses as excavation is generally carried out by
gentle mechanical means and the amount of surface
damage is negligible compared to that which already
exists in the rock mass.
Borehole cores are the best source of data at depth,
but it has to be recognized that it is necessary to
extrapolate the one-dimensional information provided
by the core to the three-dimensional in situ rock mass.
However, this is a problem common to all borehole
investigations, and most experienced engineering geolo-
gists are comfortable with this extrapolation process.
Multiple boreholes and inclined boreholes can be of
great help in the interpretation of rock-mass character-
istics at depth.
For stability analysis of a slope, the evaluation is
based on the rock mass through which it is anticipated
that a potential failure plane could pass. The estimation
of GSI values in these cases requires considerable judg-
ment, particularly when the failure plane can pass
through several zones of dierent quality. Mean values
may not be appropriate in this case.
For tunnels, the index should be assessed for the
volume of rock involved in carrying loads, e.g. for about
one diameter around the tunnel in the case of tunnel
behaviour or more locally in the case of a structure such
as an elephant foot.
For particularly sensitive or critical structures, such
as underground powerhouse caverns, the information
obtained from the sources discussed above may not be
considered adequate, particularly as the design advances
beyond the preliminary stages. In these cases, the use of
small exploration tunnels can be considered and this
method of data gathering will often be found to be
highly cost eective.
Figure 3 provides a visual summary of some of the
adjustments discussed in the previous paragraphs. When
direct assessment of depth conditions is not available,
upward adjustment of the GSI value to allow for the
eects of surface disturbance, weathering and alteration
are indicated in the upper (white) part of the GSI chart.
Obviously, the magnitude of the shift will vary from case
to case and will depend upon the judgement and expe-
rience of the observer. In the lower (shaded) part of the
chart, adjustments are not normally required as the rock
mass is already disintegrated or sheared and this damage
persists with depth.
Anisotropy
As discussed above, the HoekBrown criterion (and
other similar criteria) requires that the rock mass behave
isotropically and that failure does not follow a prefer-
ential direction imposed by the orientation of a specic
discontinuity or a combination of two or three discon-
tinuities. In these cases, the use of GSI is meaningless as
the failure is governed by the shear strength of these
discontinuities and not of the rock mass. Cases, how-
ever, where the criterion and the GSI chart can rea-
sonably be used were discussed above.
However, in a numerical analysis involving a single
well-dened discontinuity such as a shear zone or fault,
it is sometimes appropriate to apply the HoekBrown
criterion to the overall rock mass and to superimpose the
discontinuity as a signicantly weaker element. In this
case, the GSI value assigned to the rock mass should
ignore the single major discontinuity. The properties of
this discontinuity may t the lower portion of the GSI
chart or they may require a dierent approach such as
laboratory shear testing of soft clay llings.
Aperture of discontinuities
The strength and deformation characteristics of a rock
mass are dependent upon the interlocking of the indi-
vidual pieces of intact rock that make up the mass.
Obviously, the aperture of the discontinuities that sep-
arate these individual pieces has an important inuence
upon the rock-mass properties.
There is no specic reference to the aperture of the
discontinuities in the GSI charts but a disturbance
factor D has been provided in the most recent version
of the HoekBrown failure criterion (Hoek et al. 2002).
This factor ranges from D=0 for undisturbed rock
masses, such as those excavated by a tunnel boring
machine, to D=1 for extremely disturbed rock masses
such as open pit mine slopes that have been subjected to
very heavy production blasting. The factor allows for
the disruption of the interlocking of the individual rock
pieces as a result of opening of the discontinuities.
The incorporation of the disturbance factor D into
the empirical equations used to estimate the rock-mass
strength and deformation characteristics is based upon
back-analysis of excavated tunnels and slopes. At this
stage (2004) there is relatively little experience in the use
of this factor, and it may be necessary to adjust its
participation in the equations as more eld evidence
is accumulated. However, the limited experience that
is available suggests that this factor does provide a
60
reasonable estimate of the inuence of damage due to
stress relaxation or blasting of excavated rock faces.
Note that this damage decreases with depth into the
rock mass and, in numerical modelling, it is generally
appropriate to simulate this decrease by dividing the
rock mass into a number of zones with decreasing values
of D being applied to successive zones as the distance
from the face increases. In one example, which involved
the construction of a large underground powerhouse
cavern in interbedded sandstones and siltstones, it was
found that the blast damaged zone was surrounding
each excavation perimeter to a depth of about 2 m
(Cheng and Liu 1990). Carefully controlled blasting was
used in this cavern excavation and the limited extent of
the blast damage can be considered typical of that for
civil engineering tunnels excavated by drill and blast
methods. On the other hand, in very large open pit mine
slopes in which blasts can involve many tons of explo-
sives, blast damage has been observed up to 100 m or
more behind the excavated slope face. Hoek and Karz-
ulovic (2000) have given some guidance on the extent of
this damage and its impact on rock mass properties.
Fig. 3 Suggested projection of
information from observations
in outcrops to depth. White
area: a shifting to the left or to
the left and upwards is recom-
mended; the extent of the shift
shown in the chart is indicative
and should be based on geo-
logical judgement. Shadowed
area: shifting is less or not
applicable as poor quality is
retained in depth in brecciated,
mylonitized or shear zones
61
Geological Strength Index at great depth
In hard rock, great depth (e.g. 1,000 m or more) the
rock-mass structure is so tight that the mass behaviour
approaches that of the intact rock. In this case, the GSI
value approaches 100 and the application of the GSI
system is no longer meaningful.
The failure process that controls the stability of
underground excavations under these conditions is
dominated by brittle fracture initiation and propagation,
which leads to spalling, slabbing and, in extreme cases,
rock-bursts. Considerable research eort has been de-
voted to the study of these brittle fracture processes and
a recent paper by Diederichs et al. (2004) provides a
useful summary of this work. Cundall et al. (2003) have
introduced a set of post-failure ow rules for numerical
modelling which cover the transition from tensile to
shear fracture that occurs during the process of brittle
fracture propagation around highly stressed excavations
in hard rock masses.
When tectonic disturbance is important and persists
with depth, these comments do not apply and the
GSI charts may be applicable, but should be used with
caution.
Discontinuities with lling materials
The GSI charts can be used to estimate the character-
istics of rock-masses with discontinuities with lling
materials using the descriptions in the columns of poor
or very poor condition of discontinuities. If the lling
material is systematic and thick (e.g. more than few cm)
or shear zones are present with clayey material then the
use of the GSI chart for heterogeneous rock masses
(Fig. 2) is recommended.
The inuence of water
The shear strength of the rock mass is reduced by the
presence of water in the discontinuities or the lling
materials when these are prone to deterioration as a
result of changes in moisture content. This is particularly
valid in the fair to very poor categories of discontinuities
where a shift to the right may be made for wet condi-
tions (Fig. 4).
Water pressure is dealt with by eective stress anal-
ysis in design and it is independent of the GSI charac-
terization of the rock mass.
Weathered rock masses
The GSI values for weathered rock masses are shifted to
the right of those of the same rock masses when these are
unweathered. If the weathering has penetrated into the
intact rock pieces that make up the mass (e.g. in weath-
ered granites) then the constant m
i
and the unconned
strength of the r
ci
of the Hoek and Brown criterion must
also be reduced. If the weathering has penetrated the
rock to the extent that the discontinuities and the struc-
ture have been lost, then the rock mass must be assessed
as a soil and the GSI system no longer applies.
Heterogeneous and lithologically varied sedimentary
rock masses
The GSI has recently been extended to accommodate
some of the most variable of rock masses, including
extremely poor quality sheared rock masses of weak
schistose materials (such as siltstones, clay shales or
phyllites) sometime inter-bedded with strong rock (such
as sandstones, limestones or quartzites). A GSI chart for
ysch has been published in Marinos and Hoek (2001)
and is reproduced in Fig. 2. For lithologically varied but
tectonically undisturbed rock masses, such as the
molasses, a new GSI chart is (Hoek et al. 2005).
Rocks of low strength
When rocks such as marls, claystones, siltstones and
weak sandstones are developed in stable conditions or a
post tectonic environment, they present a simple struc-
ture with few discontinuities. Even when bedding planes
exist they do not always appear as clearly dened dis-
continuity surfaces.
In such cases, the use of the GSI chart for the blocky
or massive rock masses (Fig. 1) is applicable. The dis-
continuities, although they are limited in number, cannot
be better than fair (usually fair or poor) and hence the GSI
values tend to be in the range of 4060. In these cases, the
low strength of the rock mass results from low values of
the intact strength r
ci
and the constant m
i
.
When these rocks form continuous masses with no
discontinuities, the rock mass can be treated as intact
with engineering parameters given directly by laboratory
testing. In such cases the GSI classication is not
applicable.
Precision of the GSI classication system
The qualitative GSI system works well for engineering
geologists since it is consistent with their experience in
describing rocks and rock masses during logging and
mapping. In some cases, engineers tend to be uncom-
fortable with the system because it does not contain
parameters that can be measured in order to improve the
precision of the estimated GSI value.
The authors, two of whom graduated as engineers, do
not share this concern as they feel that it is not mean-
ingful to attempt to assign a precise number to the GSI
62
value for a typical rock mass. In all but the very simplest
of cases, GSI is best described by assigning it a range of
values. For analytical purposes this range may be dened
by a normal distribution with the mean and standard
deviation values assigned on the basis of common sense.
In the earlier period of the GSI application it was
proposed that correlation of adjusted RMR and Q
values with GSI be used for providing the necessary
input for the solution of the Hoek and Brown criterion.
Although this procedure may work with the better
quality rock masses, it is meaningless in the range of
weak (e.g. GSI<35), very weak and heterogeneous rock
masses where these correlations are not recommended.
Estimation of intact strength r
ci
and the constant m
i
While this paper is concerned primarily with the GSI
classication, it would not be appropriate to leave the
related topic of the HoekBrown failure criterion with-
out briey mentioning the estimation of intact strength
r
ci
and the constant m
i
.
Fig. 4 In fair to very poor
categories of discontinuities, a
shift to the right is necessary for
wet conditions as the surfaces of
the discontinuities or the lling
materials are usually prone to
deterioration as a result of
change in the moisture content.
The shift to the right is more
substantial in the low quality
range of rock mass (last lines
and columns)
63
The inuence of the intact rock strength r
ci
is at least
as important as the value of GSI in the overall estimate
of rock mass properties by means of the HoekBrown
criterion. Ideally, r
ci
should be determined by direct
laboratory testing under carefully controlled conditions.
However, in many cases, this is not possible because of
time or budget constraints, or because it is not possible
to recover samples for laboratory testing (particularly in
the case of weak, thinly schistose or tectonically dis-
turbed rock masses where discontinuities are included in
the laboratory samples). Under such circumstances,
estimates of the value of r
ci
have to be made on the
basis of published information, simple index tests or by
descriptive grades such as those published by the
International Society for Rock Mechanics (Brown
1981).
Experience has shown that there is a tendency to
underestimate the value of the intact rock strength in
many cases. This is particularly so in weak and tecton-
ically disturbed rock masses where the characteristics of
the intact rock components tend to be masked by the
surrounding sheared or weathered material. These
underestimations can have serious implications for
engineering design and care has to be taken to ensure
that realistic estimates of intact strength are made as
early as possible in the project. In tunnelling, such esti-
mates can be rened on the basis of a detailed back-
analysis of the tunnel deformation and, while this may
require considerable eort and even the involvement of
specialists in numerical analysis, the attempt will gen-
erally be repaid many times over in the cost savings
achieved by more realistic designs.
The value of the constant m
i
, as for the case of the
intact strength r
ci
, is best determined by direct labora-
tory testing. However, when this is not possible, an
estimate based upon published values (e.g. in the pro-
gram RocLab) is generally acceptable as the overall
inuence of the value of m
i
on the rock-mass strength is
signicantly less than that of either GSI or r
ci
.
GSI and contract documents
One of the most important contractual problems in rock
construction and particularly in tunnelling is the issue of
changed ground conditions. There are invariably
arguments between the owner and the contractor on the
nature of the ground specied in the contract and that
actually encountered during construction. In order to
overcome this problem there has been a tendency to
specify the anticipated conditions in terms of the RMR
or Q tunnelling classications. More recently some
contracts have used the GSI classication for this pur-
pose, and the authors are strongly opposed to this trend.
As discussed earlier in this paper, RMR and Q were
developed for the purposes of estimating tunnel rein-
forcement or support whereas GSI was developed solely
for the purpose of estimating rock-mass strength.
Therefore, GSI is only one element in a tunnel design
process and cannot be used, on its own, to specify tun-
nelling conditions.
The use of any classication system to specify antic-
ipated tunnelling conditions is always a problem as these
systems are open to a variety of interpretations,
depending upon the experience and level of conservatism
of the observer. This can result in signicant dierences
in RMR or Q values for a particular rock mass and, if
these dierences fall on either side of a major change
point in excavation or support type, this can have
important nancial consequences.
The geotechnical baseline report (Essex 1997)
was introduced in an attempt to overcome some of
these diculties and has attracted an increasing
amount of international attention in tunnelling
1
. This
report, produced by the Owner and included in
the contract documents, attempts to describe the
rock mass and the anticipated tunnelling conditions
as accurately as possible and to provide a rational
basis for contractual discussions and payment. The au-
thors of this paper recommend that this concept should
be used in place of the traditional tunnel classications
for the purpose of specifying anticipated tunnel
conditions.
Conclusions
Rock-mass characterization has an important role in the
future of engineering geology in extending its usefulness,
not only to dene a conceptual model of the site geol-
ogy, but also for the quantication needed for analyses
to ensure that the idealization (for modelling) does not
misinterpret actuality (Knill 2003). If it is carried out in
conjunction with numerical modelling, rock-mass char-
acterization presents the prospect of a far better under-
standing of the reasons for rock-mass behaviour
(Chandler et al. 2004). The GSI has considerable po-
tential for use in rock engineering because it permits the
manifold aspects of rock to be quantied thereby
enhancing geological logic and reducing engineering
uncertainty. Its use allows the inuence of variables,
which make up a rock mass, to be assessed and hence the
behaviour of rock masses to be explained more clearly.
One of the advantages of the index is that the geological
reasoning it embodies allows adjustments of its ratings
to cover a wide range of rock masses and conditions
but it also allows us to understand the limits of its
application.
1
A simple search for geotechnical baseline report on the Internet
will reveal the extent of this interest.
64
References
Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engi-
neering classication of rock masses for
the design of tunnel support. Rock
Mech 6(4):189239
Bieniawski ZT (1973) Engineering classi-
cation of jointed rock masses. Trans S
Afr Inst Civ Eng 15:335344
Brown ET (ed) (1981) Rock characteriza-
tion, testing and monitoringISRM
suggested methods. Pergamon, Oxford,
pp 171183
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y,
Minami M (2004) Estimation of rock
mass strength and deformation modu-
lus of jointed hard rock masses using
the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 41(1):319
Chandler RJ, de Freitas MH, Marinos P
(2004) Geotechnical characterization of
soils and rocks: a geological perspective.
Advances in geotechnical engineering:
the Skempton conference, vol 1, Tho-
mas Telford, London, pp 67102
Cheng Y, Liu SC (1990) Power caverns of
the Mingtan Pumped Storage Project,
Taiwan. In: JA Hudson (ed) Compre-
hensive Rock Engineering, vol 5, pp
111132
Cundall P, Carranza-Torres C, Hart R
(2003) A new constitutive model based
on the HoekBrown criterion. In:
Brummer et al. (eds) Proceedings of the
3rd international symposium on FLAC
and FLAC3D numerical modelling in
Geomechanics, Sudbury, October 21
24, pp 1725
Deere DU (1964) Technical description of
rock cores for engineering purposes.
Rock Mech Eng Geol 1(1):1722
Diederichs MS, Kaiser PK, Eberhardt E
(2004) Damage initiation and propaga-
tion in hard rock during tunnelling and
the inuence of near-face stress rota-
tion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
41(5):785812
Essex RJ (1997) Geotechnical baseline re-
ports for underground construction.
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston
Hoek E (1994) Strength of rock and rock
masses. News J ISRM 2(2):416
Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground
excavations in rock. Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, London
Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical esti-
mates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 34:1165
1186
Hoek E, Karzulovic A (2000) Rock mass
properties for surface mines. In: Hu-
stralid WA, McCarter MK, van Zyl
DJA (eds) Slope stability in surface
mining. Society for Mining, Metallur-
gical and Exploration (SME), Littleton,
pp 5970
Hoek E, Wood D, Shah S (1992) A modi-
ed HoekBrown criterion for jointed
rock masses. In: Hudson JA (ed) Pro-
ceedings of the rock mechanic sympo-
sium. International Society of Rock
Mechanics Eurock 92, British Geo-
technical Society, London, pp 209214
Hoek E, Marinos P, Marinos V (2005)
Characterization and engineering prop-
erties of tectonically undisturbed but
lithologically varied sedimentary rock
masses under publication. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995)
Support of underground excavations in
hard rock. AA Balkema, Rotterdam
Hoek E, Marinos P, Benissi M (1998)
Applicability of the geological strength
index (GSI) classication for weak and
sheared rock massesthe case of the
Athens schist formation. Bull Eng Geol
Env 57(2):151160
Hoek E, Caranza-Torres CT, Corcum B
(2002) HoekBrown failure criterion-
2002 edition. In: Bawden HRW, Curran
J, Telsenicki M (eds) Proceedings of the
North American Rock Mechanics
Society (NARMS-TAC 2002). Mining
Innovation and Technology, Toronto,
pp 267273
Knill J (2003) Core values (1st Hans-Closs
lecture). Bull Eng Geol Env 62:134
Marinos P, Hoek E (2000) GSI: a geologi-
cally friendly tool for rock mass
strength estimation. In: Proceedings of
the GeoEng2000 at the international
conference on geotechnical and geolog-
ical engineering, Melbourne, Technom-
ic publishers, Lancaster, pp 14221446
Marinos P, Hoek E (2001) Estimating the
geotechnical properties of heteroge-
neous rock masses such as ysch. Bull
Eng Geol Env 60:8292
Sonmez H, Ulusay R (1999) Modications
to the geological strength index (GSI)
and their applicability to the stability of
slopes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
36:743760
65


de Rocas, Proyecto Tigresa, Ca. Minera Carmen Bajo, Copiap Anexo Fotografas

ANEXO FOTOGRAFIAS
DIORITA DE BREA
TRACCION INDIRECTA


ENSAYOS TRACCION INDIRECTA

DIORITA DE BREA: NO ALTERADA

Tig 3 ml 14,5

Tig 7 ml 41

Tig 19 ml 13

Tig 7 ml 37

Tig 19 ml 18


DIORITA DE BREA: CON VETILLAS

Tig 3 ml 18

Tig 6 ml 11

Tig 18 ml 13

Tig 9 ml 9

Tig 6 ml 16


DIORITA DE BREA: ALTERADA

Tig 20 ml 13

Tig 18 ml 27

Tig 6 ml 16,5

Tig 20 ml 10

Tig 1 ml 5




Tig 6 ml 16,5

Tig2 ml 6

Tig 1 ml 5

Tig 1 ml 3



Tig 3 ml 18

Tig 9 ml 9

Tig 6 ml 16

Tig 19 ml 18


DIORITA DE BREA. ALTERADA

Tig 3 ml 14,5

Tig 3 ml 13

Tig 4 ml 10,6

Tig 1 ml 6


COMPRESIN UNIAXIAL SIMPLE

DIORITA DE BREA: ALTERADA

Tig 7 ml 37

Tig 19 ml 13

Tig 7 ml 41



Tig 20 ml 10

Tig 20 ml 13

Tig 18 ml 27



Tig 6 ml 11

Tig 18 ml 13



MUESTRAS USADAS PARA DETERMINACION DE POROSIDAD

c92 Anexo V Informe Geotecnico

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

c92 Anexo V Informe Geotecnico

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SIGA Minera & Geotecnia S.A.

2. Slopes here the calculated factor of safety

is the unit weight of the rock mass

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen