International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Modi®cations to the geological strength index (GSI) and their

applicability to stability of slopes
H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay*
Geological Engineering Department, Applied Geology Division, Faculty of Engineering, Hacettepe University, 06532 Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey
Accepted 10 May 1999

Abstract

Determination of the strength of closely jointed rock masses is dicult since the size of representative specimens is too large
for laboratory testing. This diculty can be overcome by using the Hoek±Brown failure criterion. Since its introduction in 1980,
the criterion has been re®ned and expanded over the years, particularly due to some limitations in its application to poor quality
rock masses. In the latest version, the geological strength index (GSI) was introduced into the criterion by its originators.
However, the GSI classi®cation scheme, in its existing form, leads to rough estimates of the GSI values. Another particular issue
is the use of undisturbed and disturbed rock mass categories for determining the parameters in the criterion, for which clear
guidelines are lacking. Furthermore, the data supporting some of these revisions, particularly the latest one, have not been
published, making it dicult to judge their validity. In this study, in order to provide a more quantitative basis for evaluating
GSI values, some modi®cations are suggested by introducing easily measurable parameters with their ratings and/or intervals
which de®ne the blockiness and surface condition of discontinuities. In addition, a method is proposed to assess the in¯uence of
disturbance on rock mass constants due to the method of excavation. The modi®cations to the GSI and the suggested method
have been applied to slope instability case histories selected from Turkey by performing back analysis, to discuss the validity of
the criterion and the methodology of parameter estimation. It was shown that the failure conditions in each case were
con®rmed, i.e. the analysed failure surfaces satis®ed factors of safety of unity, when the suggested modi®cations and disturbed
rock mass condition are considered. On the basis of the results, a chart to assess the e€ect of disturbance in terms of method of
excavation was also suggested. The back analysis of a spoil instability indicated that spoil pile materials consisting of blocky and
angular rock pieces could be categorized as a disintegrated rock mass in the GSI classi®cation and the criterion seemed to be
applied to such materials. The method suggested herein must, however, be veri®ed by additional data from slope failures before
more precise guidelines can be formulated. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction criterion [1] is commonly used in conjunction with the

The standard method for assessing the strength of a
geotechnical material is to recover representative
samples and test them in the laboratory. In the case of
a closely jointed rock mass it is clearly not possible to
recover a sample that is large enough to represent the
joint system. In order to overcome the diculties in
laboratory determination of the shear strength of
jointed rock masses, the empirical Hoek±Brown failure
* Corresponding author. Tel.:+90-29-777-62.
E-mail address: resat@hacettepe.edu.tr (R. Ulusay)
Geomechanics Classi®cation System [2].
This failure criterion has been re®ned and expanded
over the years [3±7] as summarized in Table 1. The
limitations in Bieniawski's RMR classi®cation scheme
[2] for very poor quality rock masses and for unrealis-
tic rating adjustments for discontinuity orientation in
slopes have necessitated some signi®cant changes in
the criterion. This is probably one of the main reasons
why the originators of the technique continue modify-
ing their criterion. Recently, Hoek and Brown [6±9]
proposed the geological strength index (GSI) based
upon the visual impression on the rock mass structure.
Fig. 1 shows twenty codes to identify each rock mass

0148-9062/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 8 - 9 0 6 2 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 4 3 - 1
744 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760

Fig. 1. Characterization of rock masses on the basis of interlocking and surface condition of discontinuities: GSI classi®cation (rearranged from
Tables 3 and 4 given by Hoek and Brown [8]).

category and estimate the GSI value. It is also noted,
on the basis of their recent studies on the Athens
schist, Hoek et al. [9] introduced a new rock mass cat-
egory into the GSI system called `foliated/laminated
rock mass structure'. This new category accommodates
thinly foliated, folded and predominantly sheared
weak rocks of non-blocky structure. The equivalent
GSI contours range from a new value of 5 up to 30 in
the lower right portion of the disintegrated rock mass
category.
The latest version of the GSI chart [8] (Fig. 1) is suf-
®cient for ®eld observations, since it is only necessary
to note the letter code which identi®es the rock mass
category. The GSI also seems a more practical par-
ameter to estimate the strength of jointed rock masses
from ®eld observations when compared to the method
employing rock mass classi®cation. Because rock mass
classi®cation requires time consuming procedures and
has some limitations as discussed by Sonmez et al. [10]
in detail. However, due to lack of measurable and
more representative parameters, and related interval
limits or ratings for describing the surface conditions
of the discontinuities, value of the GSI for each rock
mass category appearing in Fig. 1 represents a range
of values. For example, for a blocky rock with very
good surface condition of discontinuity (B/VG), GSI
values varying between 63 and 85 are obtained from
Fig. 1. This consideration placed focus on the question
``how can a more precise GSI value be obtained from
the existing chart for design?''. Hoek [11] indicates that
 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760 745

Table 1
Historical development of the Hoek±Brown criterion (rearranged from Hoek and Brown [8])

Publication Coverage Equations

p
Hoek and Brown original criterion for heavily jointed rock masses with no ®nes; Mohr s10 ˆ s30 ‡ sp ms30 =sci ‡ s;
ci  s1 ˆ
[1] envelope was obtained by statistical curve ®tting to a number of (sn ' …sci =2†…m ÿ m2 ‡ 4s†; t ˆ Asci ……sn0 ÿ
t ) pairs calculated by the method published by Balmer [28]. s1 ', s3 ' st †=sci †B ;
are major and minor e€ective principal stresses at failure, sn0 ˆ sp 0
‡ ……s10 ÿ s30 †=…1 ‡ @ s10 =@ s30 ††;
3  t ˆ …sn0
respectively; s1 is the tensile strength of the rock mass, m and s are ÿ s30 † @ s10 @ s30 ; @ s10 =@ s30 ˆ msci =2…s10 ÿ s30 †
material constants; sn ', t are e€ective normal and shear stresses,
respectively p
Hoek [3] original criterion for heavily jointed rock masses with no ®nes with a s10 ˆ s30 ‡ sci ms30 =sci ‡ s; …cot fi0 ÿ
tpˆ
0 0
discussion on anisotropic failure and solution for the Mohr envelope cos fi †msci =8; f
piˆ arctan…1= 4hcos y ÿ 1†;
2

by Dr. J.W. Bray y ˆ …90 ‡ arctan…1= h3 ÿ

1†=3†; h ˆ 1 ‡ …16…msn0 ‡ ssci †=…3m2 sci ††
Hoek and Brown as for Hoek [3] but with the addition of relationships between disturbed rock masses:
[4] constants m and s and a modi®ed form of RMR (Beniawski) [2] in mb/mi=exp((RMRÿ100)/14);
which the groundwater rating was assigned a ®xed value of 10 and s = exp((RMRÿ100)/6); undisturbed or
the adjustment for joint orientation was set at 0; also a distinction interlocking rock masses:
between disturbed and undisturbed rock masses was introduced mb/mi=exp((RMRÿ100)/28);
together with means of estimating deformation modulus E s = exp((RMRÿ100)/9); E = 10((RMRÿ10)/40);
mb, mi are for broken and intact rock, respectively
Hoek et al. [5] modi®ed criterion for account for the fact the heavily jointed rock s10 ˆ s30 ‡ sci …mb s30 =sci †a ; sn0 ˆ s30 ‡ ……s10 ÿ
masses have zero tensile strength; Balmers technique for calculating s30 †=…1 ‡ @ s10 =@ps
0
3 †† ; 
shear and normal stress pairs was utilised t ˆ …sn0 ÿ s30 † @ s10 =@ s30 ; @ s10 ˆ
a 0 …aÿ1†
1 ‡ amb …s3 =sci †
Hoek [6] and introduction of the generalised Hoek±Brown criterion, incorporating s1 '=s 3 '+sc (ms3 '/sci+s )a;
Hoek et al. [7] both the original criteiron for fair to very poor quality rock masses for GSI>25;
and the modi®ed criterion for very poor quality rock masses with mb/mi=exp((GSIÿ100)/28);
increasing ®nes content; The geological strength index, GSI, was s = exp((GSIÿ100)/9); a=0.5; for GSI < 25;
introduced to overcome the de®ciencies in Bieniawski's RMR for s = 0; a=0.65ÿGSI/200
very poor quality rock masses; the distinction between disturbed and
undisturbed rock masses was dropped on the basis that disturbance
is generally induced by engineering activities and should be allowed
for by downgrading the value of GSI
Hoek and Brown as for Hoek [6] and Hoek et al. [7], but with the addition of a chart as for Hoek [6]
[8] to estimate GSI based upon the visual impression of the rock
structure and the surface condition of the discontinuities indicated
by joint roughness and weathering
Hoek et al. [9] as for Hoek and Brown [8], with the addition of a new `foliated/ as for Hoek [6]
laminated' rock mass structure category to accommodate thinly
laminated or foliated, folded and predominantly sheared weak rocks
of non-blocky structure

although some geologists go to extraordinary lengths
to try to determine an `exact' value of GSI or RMR,
geology does not lend itself to such a precision and it
is simply not realistic to assign a single value. He also
states that for preliminary ®eld investigations or low-
budget projects, it may be prudent to assume larger
standard deviations for the input parameters (uniaxial
compressive strength of the intact rock, intact rock
material constants and GSI) and they can be rep-
resented by normal distribution. Although its origin-
ators have always pointed out the criterion's
approximate nature, it seems questionable to obtain a
mean value represented by a normal distribution from
the existing form of the GSI chart. It is also con-
sidered that it is possible to estimate di€erent GSI
values for the same rock mass by di€erent persons,
depending on their personal experience, when the chart
given in Fig. 1 is employed.
From the review of the criterion, it is clear that the
continuous update of the Hoek±Brown failure cri-
terion has not been complemented by equal e€orts to
verify the same. Furthermore, the data supporting of
these revisions have not been published, making it dif-
®cult to judge their validity. One important issue is use
of the undisturbed and disturbed rock mass categories
when determining the parameters in the criterion for
which clear guidelines are lacking. Any disturbance on
the rock mass due to some local factors (e.g. blasting,
the presence of discrete fault zones, etc.) should be
considered and, therefore, an adjustment should be
746 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760
applied to RMR values [2]. Although the rock mass
classi®cation schemes and the Hoek±Brown criterion
have been generally applied in tunnelling and under-
ground mining, the back analyses of slope failures in
heavily jointed rock masses, by assuming disturbed
rock mass conditions showed good agreement between
the estimated and the back-calculated strength par-
ameters from the observed slope failures [10]. On the
contrary, in the latest version of the criterion [7,8]
average undisturbed in situ conditions are considered
to estimate the GSI without application of any adjust-
ment. Hoek and Brown [8] indicated that one of the
practical problems which arose when assessing the
value of GSI in the ®eld was related to blast damage.
According to these investigators, where all the visible
faces have been damaged by blasting, some attempt
should be made to compensate for the lower values of
GSI obtained from such faces. Also, in recently blasted
faces, new discontinuity surfaces occurring due to
blasting will give a GSI value which may be as much
as 10 points lower than that for the undisturbed rock
mass. Therefore, Hoek and Brown [8] suggest that
severe blast damage can be allowed for by moving up
one row in Fig. 1. This approach may be correct for
the estimation of GSI from blasted rock exposures
during excavation. However, moving the GSI value up
one row seems to be a rough approach and also results
in an increase in uniaxial compressive strength of the
rock mass by more than 70%. Therefore, the reason of
this assumption is still open to discussion. On the
other hand, method of excavation, major planes of
weakness or change in stress are treated as local fea-
tures which have in¯uenced the rock mass at a particu-
lar location, and are not rock mass constants [12±14].
Therefore, in order to compensate the in¯uence of
such local factors, necessary adjustments should be
taken into consideration. An additional practical ques-
tion arising from the latest version of the Hoek and
Brown's approach is ``how can the in¯uence of the
method of excavation can be taken into account by
using the existing Hoek±Brown's equations which con-
sider only undisturbed rock mass, when the GSI is
estimated from borehole cores or natural exposures
before excavation or blasting?''. It is also noted that
there is no any published case history on the back
analysis of slopes in heavily jointed rock masses which
con®rms that the latest GSI classi®cation yields satis-
factory results when an adjustment factor is not taken
into consideration.
This paper is an attempt to provide a more quanti-
tative numerical basis for evaluating GSI by introdu-
cing new parameters, and ratings, such as surface
condition and structure rating. For meaningful in-
terpretation and for providing a common basis for
communication between engineers and designers, stan-
dard interval limits and ratings for the input par-
ameters are suggested. In addition, a method is
proposed to assess the in¯uence of disturbance. The
modi®cations and the suggested method have been
applied to slope instability case histories from Turkey
to discuss the validity of the criterion and the method-
ology of parameter estimation.
2. Suggested modi®cations for estimating GSI values
Once the GSI has been estimated, the parameters
which describe the rock mass strength characteristics,
are calculated as follows:
 
GSI ÿ 100
mb ˆ mi exp …1†
28
For GSI>25, i.e. rock masses of good to reasonable
quality,
 
GSI ÿ 100
s ˆ exp …2†
9
and
a ˆ 0:5 …3†
For GSI < 25, i.e. rock masses of very poor quality,
the criterion applies with
sˆ0 …4†
GSI
a ˆ 0:65 ÿ …5†
200
From the above equations it is clear that the rock
mass strength parameters are sensitive to the GSI
value. The lack of parameters to describe surface con-
ditions of the discontinuities and the rock mass struc-
ture prevents to obtain a more precise value of GSI.
For these reasons, the authors suggest two terms
namely, `structure rating, SR' based on volumetric
joint count (Jv) and `surface condition rating, SCR',
estimated from the input parameters (e.g. roughness,
weathering and in®lling).
The suggested ratings by the RMR system [2] for
these parameters are selected for the purpose.
According to the rating of each input parameter (Rr,
Rw and Rf ) estimated from the right upper margin of
the table given in Fig. 2, the total rating for surface
conditions (SCR) is obtained using the following ex-
pression:
SCR ˆ Rr ‡ Rw ‡ Rf …6†
where Rr, Rw and Rf denote the ratings for roughness,
weathering and in®lling, respectively. Since the sum of
 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760 747

Fig. 2. The modi®ed GSI classi®cation suggested in this study.

the maximum ratings of these parameters is 18, the
SCR axis in Fig. 2 is divided into 18 equal divisions.
In the earlier version of the criterion (Fig. 1), Hoek
et al. [7] used the terms BLOCKY/SEAMY and
CRUSHED, following the terminology proposed by
Terzaghi [16]. After they recognized that these terms
proved to be misleading, they have been replaced, by
BLOCKY/DISTURBED and DISINTEGRATED.
The authors agree with this change. On the other
hand, Hoek et al. [9] proposed a new rock mass cat-
egory to accommodate thinly foliated or laminated,
folded and predominantly sheared weak rocks of non-
blocky structure. However, Hoek [6] emphasizes that
the criterion is only applicable to intact rock or to
heavily jointed rock masses which can be considered
homogenous and isotropic. On the contrary, the
748 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760
strength and deformability characteristics of such rock
masses are governed by the displacements along the
numerous very thinly spaced presheared and slicken-
sided foliation planes. Due to anisotropic and inhom-
ogenous features of such rocks, introducing of this
new category into the GSI scheme seems not to be rea-
listic. The other questionable issue is that the validity
of the GSI values assigned for this new category has
not been con®rmed yet by case studies. Therefore, only
four structural categories as previously suggested by
Hoek and Brown [8] are considered in this study.
Block size is an extremely important indicator of a
rock mass. Large blocks tend to be less deformable
and develop favourable arching and interlocking in
underground openings. In the case of slopes, a small
block size may cause rotational slides instead of struc-
turally controlled modes of failure. Block dimensions
are determined by three rock mass parameters, namely
discontinuity spacing, the number of discontinuity sets
and the persistence of the discontinuities delineating
potential blocks. However, in order to decrease the
number of inputs, the use of a single parameter which
can take into account one or two of the above men-
tioned parameters was considered to be more practical.
Thus, volumetric joint count (Jv), which is de®ned as
the sum of the number of joints per meter for each
joint set present, is suggested to be used for the
description of structure of the rock mass. Jv is esti-
mated by one of the following expressions:
N1 N2 Nn
Jv ˆ ‡ ‡ ... ‡ …
L1 L2 Ln
1 1 1
Jv ˆ ‡ ‡ ... ‡ …
S1 S2 Sn
where S is the true spacing, N is the number of joints
along a scanline, L is the length of the scanline and n
is the number of joint sets.
On the other hand, estimation of Jv for heavily
jointed rock masses with no identi®able structural pat-
tern is extraordinarily dicult. Since the discontinuities
in such rock masses do not introduce considerable
di€erences in their spacing in all directions, they can
be assumed as homogeneous and isotropic. Therefore,
expressions given in Eqs. (7a) and (7b) are not advised
to be used for the determination of Jv. Instead of
these, the authors suggest the following approach
which is more practical in the estimation of the num-
ber of discontinuities in a rock mass with a volume of
1 m 3.
Nx Ny Nz
Jv ˆ   …
Lx Ly Lz
where Nx, Ny and Nz are the number of discontinuities
counted along the scanlines (Lx, Ly and Lz ) perpen-
dicular to each other. However, in some cases it can
be dicult to ®nd exposures along which three scan-
line surveys in perpendicular directions can be carried
out. In such circumstances, by assuming the rock mass
is homogeneous (i.e. the terms appearing in Eq. (7c)
are equal to each other), Eq. (7c) can be rewritten in
the following form.
 3
N
Jv ˆ …7d†
L
The intervals of Jv and related descriptions
suggested by ISRM [15] were adopted for the blocki-
ness categories to be used in the GSI classi®cation
(Table 2). Based on the intervals of Jv and correspond-
ing descriptions for the blockiness ratings, structural
rating (SR) was assigned to each category by the fol-
lowing procedure.
1. Using a semi-logarithmic sheet, SR and Jv are put
on y and x axes, respectively.
2. While the SR axis is divided into the ratings ranging
from 0 to 100, logarithmic Jv axis is divided accord-
ing to the boundaries suggested for four structural
categories as described in Table 2. The upper limit
on the Jv axis is selected as 104 to consider pebble
size.
3. Since the boundaries between the structural cat-
egories in the existing GSI table are equally divided
7a†
(Fig. 1), the SR limits between the codes B-VB, VB-
B/D and B/D-D are selected as 75, 50 and 25, re-
spectively.
7b† 4. By plotting the Jv values for each category as
suggested in Table 2 against the boundary values of
SR mentioned in item (c), the curve shown in the
left margin of Fig. 2 is obtained. This curve can be
used to assign a rating for SR of any rock mass
using the value of Jv.
It is now possible to estimate a more precise GSI
value from the intersection point of SCR and SR rat-
ings when the modi®ed GSI chart (Fig. 2) is used.
Table 2
Descriptive terms corresponding block size and intervals of Jv
suggested by ISRM [15] and by the authors of this study
Descriptions by ISRM Jv (joint/m3) Descriptions for GSI (this study)
Very large blocks <1 BLOCKY (B)
Large blocks 1±3 BLOCKY (B)
Medium sized blocks 3±10 VERY BLOCKY (VB)
7c† Small blocks 10±30 BLOCKY/DISTURBED (B/D)
Very small blocks 30±60 DISINTIGRATED (D)
Crushed >60 DISINTIGRATED (D)
 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760
3. Validity of the Hoek±Brown estimates of rock mass
and their impact on the assessment of stability of slopes
3.1. Theoretical background of the suggested
methodology for the assessment of disturbance e€ect
Some factors, such as method of excavation, major
planes of weakness or change in stress, are treated as
local features in¯uencing the rock mass at a particular
location and are not rock mass constants. These have
been discussed by Laubscher [12], Romana [13] and
Kendorski et al. [14]. The greatest in¯uence of the
method of excavation will be on the spacing of discon-
tinuities. Depending on the blasting damage, blasted
slopes may have closer discontinuity spacing than
natural slopes. Therefore, in order to compensate the
in¯uence of such local factors, necessary adjustments
[2,12±14] are taken into consideration in rock mass
classi®cation. Sonmez et al. [10] showed that by assum-
ing an adjustment factor based on the method of exca-
vation (disturbed rock mass), a good agreement was
found between the estimated and the back-calculated
strengths from the observed slope failures and, there-
fore, e€ect of disturbance should be taken into con-
sideration.
In order to check the validity of the equations used
for the rock mass constants and to assess the e€ect of
disturbance, four approaches with the use of modi®ed
GSI chart have been suggested and applied to failed
slopes from Turkey (Fig. 3). Four cases were selected
from the failures of the pit slopes in heavily jointed
rock masses where joint spacing is a fraction of a
meter and one is from the failures occurred in spoil
piles in Turkey. The authors suggest that spoil piles
composed of rock materials possess the behaviour of
poorly interlocked, heavily broken rock masses with a
mixture of angular and rounded rock pieces and,
therefore, can be considered in disintegrated rock mass
category. On the basis of this assumption, a spoil pile
failure was also examined in this study.
The back analysis procedure starts with the determi-
nation of the GSI value of the rock mass investigated
in each case from the modi®ed chart (Fig. 2) according
to the suggested input parameters. Then the following
approaches are employed in order to check the validity
of the equations:
. Approach 1: the shear strength parameters of the
failed rock masses are estimated using the original
expressions given by Eqs. (1±5) without application
of any adjustment for the method of excavation, i.e.
undisturbed rock mass condition is assumed. These
parameters are then used in the back analyses for
the calculation of factor of safety.
. Approach 2: a disturbance (adjustment) factor of
(df ) depending on the method of excavation [12,14]
749
is assigned in each case and multiplied by the GSI
value appearing in the denominator of Eqs.(1), (2)
and (5). The parameters determined in this way are
then employed in the back analyses.
. Approach 3: a disturbance factor (df ) is assigned in
each case and multiplied by the numbers appearing
in the numerator (28 and 9) of Eqs. (1) and (2) for
the estimation of the rock mass parameters, mb and
s.
. Approach 4: in the previous form of the criterion
the numbers appearing in the denominator of the
equations are 28 and 14 for mb, and 6 and 9 for s
for undisturbed and disturbed rock mass conditions,
respectively (Table 1). In other words, it seems to be
logical to conclude that the denominator of these
equations vary between 14 and 28, and 6 and 9
depending on the degree of disturbance. Based on
this fact, Eqs. (1) and (2) can be rewritten in the fol-
lowing forms:
 
GSI ÿ 100
mb ˆ mi exp …bm ˆ 14 ÿ 28† …8†
bm
 
GSI ÿ 100
s ˆ exp …bs ˆ 6 ÿ 9† …9†
bs
In approach 4, ®ve di€erent values are assigned to
bm (starting from 28 to 14) and to bs (starting from 9
to 6) and then the value of factor of safety (FOS) cor-
responding to the pairs of bm and bs for each particu-
lar case history is calculated. The results of the
analyses are presented in the form of FOS±bm and
FOS±bs curves. From these curves, bm and bs values
which lead a value of factor of safety of unity are
obtained for each case as depicted in Fig. 4(a). The
values of bm and bs from the curves are then plotted
against corresponding disturbance factors (df ) to estab-
lish a relationship between bm, bs and df (Fig. 4b), and
to check the validity of the Hoek±Brown estimates.
3.2. Software description
In this study, a computer program, HOBRSLP
developed and described by Sonmez et al. [10] was
employed. The program HOBRSLP was modi®ed for
this study to include the approaches described above.
It can handle slope stability analysis of circular and
non-circular slip surfaces for slopes involving many
benches with di€erent geometries, various materials
and di€erent groundwater conditions. It also incorpor-
ates external loading conditions.
 750
H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760

Fig. 3. Location map of the back analysed case study sites and views from the investigated slope instabilities: (a) initiation of the instability in the highwall externally loaded by a spoil pile in
Eskihisar strip coal mine; (b) a view from the heavily broken schist rock mass at Baskoyak barite mine; (c) a view from the jointed rock mass in Kisrakdere open pit coal mine; (d) bench failure
in a closely jointed marly rock mass in Himmetoglu lignite open pit mine and (e) a view from the slope instability in a spoil pile at Eskihisar strip coal mine.
 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760
Fig. 4. Basic concept of approach 4 to check the validity of the
Hoek±Brown equations.
3.3. Description of the rock mass conditions and the
examined slope instabilities
3.3.1. Case 1: an externally loaded highwall slope
failure
This case history involves the instability of a high-
wall in Eskihisar (Yatagan-Mugla) strip coal mine in
southwestern Turkey. During a comprehensive slope
stability research project by Ulusay [17], an instability
of the southern part of the highwall of the ninth slice
has occurred due to external loads by a temporary
spoil pile (Fig. 3a).
The failed slope was excavated in marl which lies
above the coal seam with a thickness of 15±20 m.
751
Fig. 5. The model with the parameters for the slope under the in¯u-
ence of a symmetrical vertical triangular spoil loading in the back
analysis of the failed slope in case 1.
There are highly persistent (about 8 m) three dominant
joint sets developed parallel and/or subparallel to nor-
mal faults crossing the Tertiary deposits. The presence
of cross joints, faults and ¯at lying bedding planes
results in a closely jointed rock mass. The groundwater
level rises above the coal seam and tends to decline
toward the marl±coal seam boundary. Thus, the failed
part of the investigated slope was dry.
The structure rating (SR) and surface condition rat-
ing (SCR) were estimated from the scanline survey
data obtained by Ulusay [17] (Table 3). In this pit a
controlled blasting is carried out with slight damage to
loosen the marly overburden. For this condition, a
blasting damage adjustment of 0.94 [14] was assigned.
The average uniaxial compressive strength and mi of
the intact marl specimens were 4.15 MPa and 9.87, re-
spectively [17]. Based on available monitoring records
by Ulusay [17] the model depicted in Fig. 5 for the
slope under the in¯uence of a symmetrical vertical tri-
angular spoil loading, and the failure surfaces illus-
trated in Fig. 6 were used in the analyses. Average
values of unit weight of 13 and 16 kN/m3 were utilized
for the spoil material (in-situ) and the marls, respect-
ively. It was reported by Ulusay [17] and Sonmez et al.
[10] that the back analyses, using the previous form of
the Hoek±Brown estimates [4], which includes the
RMR scheme, con®rmed these failure surfaces.
3.3.2. Case 2: slope failure in a closely jointed rock
mass at a barite open pit mine
A comprehensive slope stability project was carried
out at Baskoyak barite open pit mine, in western
Anatolia between 1987 and 1988 by Ulusay and Yucel
[18]. Based on the scanline surveys and a geotechnical
borehole, it was reported that the schist should be
regarded as comprising two types of rock mass [18].
The ®rst type consists of a heavily broken schist rock
mass by closely spaced discontinuities and schistosity
planes (Fig. 3b) and the second type is a weathered
schist in di€erent degrees. Due to the heavily jointed
752 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760

slightly to moderately weathered (4),

Sx=0.085c, Sy=0.081, Sz=0.083

soft coating < 5 mm (2)

smooth surfaces, (1),
Case 5

1773

0.80
26
4
7
S1=0.37, S2=0.65, Sb=0.11

moderately weathered (3),

slickensided surfaces (0),

soft coating < 5 mm (2)

Case 4

13.3

27.5
0.97
35
5
soft coating < 5 mm (2)
slightly weathered (5),
smooth surfaces, (1),
S1=0.75, S2=1.07,
S3=0.13, Sb=0.4
Case 3

12.5

0.90
42

37
8
The parameters employed in the GSI classi®cation for ®ve cases considered in this study

smooth to slickensided surfaces (1),

soft coating < 5 mm (2)

highly weathered (1),

Estimated by method of photoanalysis along x, y and z axes.

Fig. 6. Slope pro®les, and the predicted and calculated failure sur-
Sx,y,z=0.04

faces employed in the back analysis of the externally loaded highwall True spacing (S1, S2, S3 for joints, Sb for bedding planes).
slope in case 1.
Case 2

15635

0.97

GSI determined from the modi®ed chart in Fig. 2.

16
0
4

nature of the schist, the rock mass was assumed as

homogeneous and isotropic with a joint spacing of
soft coating < 5 mm (2)

0.04 m in all directions and, therefore, Jv of the rock

Adjustment factor for disturbance e€ect.
slightly weathered (5),

mass was estimated by using Eq. (7d). The mean unit

smooth surfaces (1),
S1=0.71, S2=0.82,
S3=1.26, Sb=0.65

weight and uniaxial compressive strength of the heav-

ily broken part of the schist are 22.2 kN/m3 and 5.2
MPa, respectively. The rock mass properties are tabu-
lated in Table 3. No sign of groundwater was encoun-
Case 1

6.14

0.94

tered through the geotechnical and previously drilled

63

43
8

boreholes and on the pit benches. Thus, the pit slopes

was considered as dry for stability assessments. Since
discontinuities

the overburden material and the ore are removed by

Condition of
Spacinga (m)

and ratings
Parameters

excavators without any blasting, an adjustment factor

Table 3

of 0.97 [14] was considered. One of three failures

GSIb
SCR
SR

df d

a
c
b
d

which occurred in closely jointed rock mass along a

Jv
 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760
Fig. 7. Slope geometries before and after the failure, and critical slip
surface in closely jointed schist rock mass (case 2).
circular surface was selected for this study. The results
of the back analysis [18,10] indicated that the calcu-
lated sliding surface con®rms the actual failure surface
delineated from the site measurements (Fig. 7).
3.3.3. Case 3: a slope instability in a coal mine at
western Turkey
A slope instability from the Kisrakdere open pit
mine located at Soma lignite basin, western Turkey,
was selected for the purpose of this study (Fig. 3c).
The necessary data were collected by the authors from
this pit. Fig. 8 shows the geometry of the failed slope
in which a single thin coal seam with a thickness of 4.5
m is overlain by a sequence consisting of compact
marl and soft clay beds about 10 m thick. The obser-
vations on the slope surfaces and available records
indicated that the groundwater was below the failed
marly rock mass, and the coal seam acted as an aqui-
fer. The marly rock with a uniaxial compressive
Fig. 8. Cross-section illustrating the geometry of the failed slope and
the position of the strata (case 3).
753
strength of 40 MPa and mi of 9.04 has a carbonate
content more than its clay content. The observed
actual slip surface was in circular shape and passed
through the compact marl rock mass and along the
clay bed, above the coal seem. Bedding planes dip into
opposite direction of the slope. Three main joint sets
moderately and closely spaced, and bedding planes in
the marly sequence resulted in a jointed rock mass.
The rock mass characteristics and the geomechanical
parameters of the clay are listed in Table 3.
3.3.4. Case 4: a bench failure in a coal mine
Himmetoglu open pit coal mine, operated by the
Turkish Coal Enterprises (TKI), is located in north-
west Anatolia and produces low calori®c value of coal.
A local bench failure occurred in 1998 in the eastern
slope, excavated in heavily jointed marly rock mass, as
a result of steepening of the slope (Fig. 3d). On the
basis of the scanline surveys [19], the parameters of
discontinuities given in Table 3 were obtained and a
GSI value of 27.5 for the rock mass was determined.
Detailed instability plan and cross-section of the
failed bench are shown in Fig. 9. The visible part of
the failure surface was in circular form. Detailed
hydrogeological investigations [19] indicated that the
slope was dry. Since the overburden material was
removed by excavators without blasting, an adjustment
factor of 0.97 was considered in this case. The back
analysis of the failure surface (surface 1 in Fig. 9)
showed that circular failure did not appear as a realis-
tic mechanism for this instability with a factor of
safety considerably greater than unity. The position of
the ¯oor strata dipping towards the excavation and the
visible upper part of the sliding surface indicated the
possibility of another mode of failure by combination
of a planar sliding surface along the weak ¯oor strata
and a circular failure surface through the rock mass
(Fig. 9; failure surface 2). The back analysis of the
multiplanar failures along both bedding planes and the
faults in this pit indicated that the residual shear
strength parameters of the weak and slickensided bed-
ding planes were cr=1.4 kPa and f=128 [19]. By
employing these parameters, rock mass properties of
the marls and Janbu's method of analysis [20] for this
combined failure surface, a back analysis was per-
formed. The analysis which yielded a factor of safety
of unity indicated that a combined failure surface was
the realistic mode of failure for this instability. After
the removal of the failed material, the combined fail-
ure surface clearly appeared and con®rmed the surface
labeled 2 in Fig. 9 as the real failure surface.
Therefore, the parameters given in Table 3 and the
predicted mode of failure were employed in this study
for further assessments.
754 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760
Fig. 9. Plan of the shallow-seated bench failure in a heavily jointed
rock mass (a) and cross-section of the stability (b) deduced from sur-
veying (case 4).
3.3.5. Case 5: spoil pile instability in a strip coal mine
Spoil piles in the Eskihisar mine, su€er from numer-
ous problems. Engineering geological characterization
of the waste material and stability of the piles in this
mine were investigated by Ulusay et al. [21±23], who
reported deep-seated rotational instabilities covering
agricultural areas, shallow-seated rotational failures
both sides of the haul road and bi-planar wedge fail-
ures along the operating slices. The authors of the pre-
sent article consider that spoil pile materials can be
de®ned as poorly interlocked and heavily broken rock
masses with a mixture of angular and rounded rock
pieces, unless they do not contain high proportion of
®nes as a result of hauling, dumping and subsequent
deformation. This approach indicates that the categor-
ization of spoil piles mainly consisting of rock material
as an disintegrated rock mass and the use of the
Hoek±Brown criterion to estimate the shear strength
parameters of such materials seems to be logical.
Therefore, a selected spoil instability from the
Eskihisar mine was also employed for this investi-
gation. For this purpose, an instability occurred along
the haul road (Fig. 3e) was back±analysed. The spoil
pile consisted of marly rock. The cross-sections pre-
pared from the instability plan by Ulusay et al. [21,22]
revealed that the failure did not involve the foundation
material. The curvature of the exposed sliding surface
and slightly curved escarpments in plan con®rmed a
rotational type of failure has occurred (Fig. 10). No
water table or seepage was encountered in the pile. In-
place unit weight determination indicated a mean
value of 14 kN/m3 for the spoil material [21].
The main question in the case of spoil materials is
``how can the structural rating in conjunction with Jv
be estimated?''. It was considered that determination
of the grain size distribution of the fragments in the
spoil, (i.e. measurement of the distance between the
boundaries of the rock fragments along the selected
directions and calculation of the average value), can be
used as a practical and economic method to estimate
Jv. Although sieving the excavated or blasted rock
through screens is the most direct method to determine
rock fragmentation, the cost of this method is high.
Photoanalysis is one of the more recent and well estab-
lished methods [24±26]. In this study the method of
photoanalysis has been employed.
A test site near the investigated spoil pile was
selected for the fragmentation analysis. Using a shovel
truck, a small sized pile was dumped and photographs
of this pile from its two sides were taken by a 35 mm
camera. Since there were no established ®gures in the
literature on the minimum number of photographs
that were needed to accurately sample a given volume
of rock fragments, analysis of two randomly selected
photographs was considered to be sucient for the
purpose of this study. Attention was paid to keep the
camera perpendicular to the surface of which photo-
graph was taken. In each photograph a scaling object
(a circular plate) and a reference area (a wooden
mesh) were used (Fig. 11). Outlines of the rock frag-
ments were then digitized into the computer. Along
the x and y axis (Fig. 11), all fragments larger than ap-
proximately 2 cm were automatically dimensioned. In
order to measure the dimensions along the third axis
(z ), the same process was applied on the photograph
taken in perpendicular direction to the previous one.
The information obtained was used in the statistical
 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760 755

Fig. 10. (a) Plan of the shallow-seated spoil instability along the haul road and (b) cross-sections of the spoil pile showing the failure surfaces
and pile geometries (case 5; after Ulusay et al. [21]).
756 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760

Table 4
The results of the back analysis of the failed slopes based on di€erent approaches to assess the e€ect of disturbance. The values in parentheses in-
dicate the average values for three sections

df b Calculated factor of safety (FOS)

Case No. approach 1 approach 2 approach 3 approach 4: at limiting equilibrium conditiona

bm bs

Case 1: 0.94
Section 1-1'/1 1.48 1.44 1.42 18.9 (18.55) 7.05 (6.98)
Section 1-1'/2 1.48 1.43 1.41 18.2 (18.55) 6.90 (6.98)
Section 2-2' 1.45 1.40 1.39 18.55 (18.55) 6.98 (6.98)
Case 2: 0.97 1.70 1.62 1.59 20.28 7.34
Case 3: 0.90 1.41 1.34 1.28 17.15 6.68
Case 4: 0.97 1.32 1.23 1.19 20.3 7.35
Case 5: 0.80
Section 1-1' 2.71 1.93 2.10 14 6
Section 2-2' 2.64 1.80 2.03 14 6
Section 3-3' 2.64 1.84 2.04 14 6
Section 4-4' 2.69 1.84 2.07

b
Adjustment factor for disturbance e€ect.
a
Obtained from Fig. 12.

 
analyses. By putting the mean fragment sizes of 0.085, GSI  df ÿ 100
mb ˆ mi exp …10a†
0.081 and 0.083 m calculated for x, y and z axes, re- 28
spectively, into Eq. (7c), a Jv value of 1773 which rep-
 
resents a disintegrated rock with a very low structure GSI  df ÿ 100
rating of 4 was obtained. A surface condition rating of s ˆ exp …10b†
9
7 and a GSI value of 26 were estimated.
GSI  df
a ˆ 0:65 ÿ …10c†
3.4. Back analysis of the selected slope instabilities 200
The results of the back analysis of the failed slopes
The results obtained from the back analysis of these
yielded factors of safety considerably greater than
slope failures are evaluated by following the steps sum-
unity suggesting that the slopes were stable (Table
marized below.
4). This approach indicated that the above modi®-
. Step 1: using the GSI value for each case (Table 3), cation did not satisfy the failure condition.
the Hoek±Brown constants were calculated from the . Step 3: in this step, the e€ect of disturbance was
original equations (Eqs.(1), (2) and (5)) which do assigned onto the numbers appearing in the numer-
not consider the disturbance e€ect or an adjustment ators of the Eqs. (1) and (2) as follows:
factor. The factors of safety, based on these par-  
ameters tabulated in the ®rst column of Table 4, are GSI ÿ 100
mb ˆ mi exp …11a†
considerably greater than unity and indicate that 28  df
failure can not occur through these slopes. This situ-
 
ation focuses the attention on the fact that the negli- GSI ÿ 100
gence of an adjustment factor (df ) yields unrealistic s ˆ exp …11b†
9  df
assessments for stability of slopes, and therefore, a
modi®cation based on df value seems to be necess- The results of the analysis indicated that the values
ary for Hoek±Brown equations. of the factor of safety calculated for each case
. Step 2: using the same model, the analyses including (Table 4) were still greater than unity.
an adjustment factor for each case (Table 3) were . Step 4: in this step, considering the results obtained
performed. However, in this step, the adjustment from step 3, ®ve di€erent values were assigned to bm
factor was multiplied by the GSI value to consider and bs in Eqs. (8) and (9), ranging between 14 and
the disturbance e€ect on the rock mass, as applied 28, 6 and 9, respectively. Then the values of factor
in the RMR scheme. Thus, Eqs.(1), (2) and (5) were of safety corresponding to selected values of bm and
rewritten in the following forms: bs for each particular case were calculated to esti-
 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760
Fig. 11. A view from the spoil material taken for image processing, and the scaling factor (case 5).
mate the pairs of bm±bs satisfying the limit equili-
brium condition. Since the disintegrated material
forming the spoil piles were the mixture of exca-
vated, blasted, hauled and dumped overburden, a
lower bound adjustment factor of 0.8 was assigned
for this material. Besides, the values of 14 and 6,
which were suggested as the lower bounds in the
original Hoek±Brown equations [4], were employed.
Therefore, for di€erent values of bm and bs for the
spoil pile instabilities mentioned in case 5 the trial
and error method was not used. The back analysis
of these instabilities yielded values of factor of safety
equal to unity, indicating that the suggested
approach seemed to be satisfactory.
The results of the back analysis are presented in
FOS±bm and FOS±bs forms (Fig. 12) to obtain the
pairs of bm and bs satisfying limiting equilibrium con-
dition. Considering that an adjustment factor (df ) of 1
corresponds to bm and bs values of 28 and 9, respect-
ively, for undisturbed rock masses and, similarly,
values of 14 (bm)and 6 (bs) correspond to a df value of
0.8 for highly disturbed rock mass and using the com-
binations of df ±bm and df ±bs which lead a factor of
safety of unity, the plots given in Fig. 13 are estab-
lished. It is now possible to estimate bm and bs values
for closely jointed rock masses, depending on the dis-
turbance e€ect, when the following expressions derived
from the curve shown in Fig. 13 are used.
 
df
bm ˆ 3:14 ln ‡ 28 …
df ‡ 340…1 ÿ df †
757
 
df
bs ˆ 0:67 ln ‡9 …13†
df ‡ 340…1 ÿ df †
The results of the back analysis of the slope instabil-
ities in closely jointed rock masses and in the spoil
piles with high proportion of disturbed rock pieces
indicated that the disturbance e€ect due to the in¯u-
ence of the method of excavation could not be
ignored. In other words, the equations of the criterion
based on the undisturbed rock mass condition did not
work well if an adjustment factor was not considered.
For this purpose, it is advised that, in the estimation
of the rock mass constants, determination of the values
of bm and bs of any particular rock mass determined
from the curves (Fig. 13) or from Eqs. (12) and (13)
for a given df value seems to be better. The rock mass
constants then should be estimated by using Eqs. (8)
and (9) proposed in this study.
4. Conclusions
Due to the limitations in the RMR classi®cation
scheme, particularly for very poor quality rock masses,
the geological strength index (GSI) has been intro-
duced into the Hoek±Brown failure criterion.
However, there are no published case histories on the
back analysis of slopes or underground openings in
heavily jointed rock masses which con®rm that the
current GSI methodology yields satisfactory results.
In this study, an attempt has been made to provide
a more quantitative numerical basis for evaluating the
12†
GSI and to suggest quantities which make more sense
758 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760

Fig. 12. Variation in bm and bs values with factor of safety (FOS) for the case studies from the slope failures in closely jointed rock masses.
 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760
Fig. 13. Relationship between bm and bs and adjustment (disturb-
ance) factor df derived from the back analysis of the investigated
slope instabilities.
than that of the RMR System when used for the esti-
mation of rock mass strength. For the purpose, two
terms, `structure rating, SR', and `surface condition
rating, SCR', have been introduced into the existing
GSI classi®cation scheme. In order to assign the rat-
ings to these terms, the use of some easily measurable
input parameters such as, roughness, weathering, in®ll-
ing and volumetric joint count have been suggested.
According to the selected rating intervals, the GSI
chart has been modi®ed to estimate more precise
values of GSI.
Five well documented slope instability examples
have been given to illustrate the application of the pro-
posed method in practical geotechnical engineering.
The application of the suggested method and the
approaches indicated that the use of GSI value deter-
mined from the suggested modi®ed chart and consider-
ation of disturbance e€ect con®rmed the limit
equilibrium condition for the failed slopes.
The other issues concluded in the study were that
the spoil pile materials consisting of angular and
rounded rock pieces with low proportion of ®nes could
be categorized as disintegrated rock masses in the GSI
classi®cation and it seemed possible to estimate their
shear strength parameters from the modi®ed Hoek±
Brown equations presented herein.
Some engineering geologists feel that the visual
descriptions upon which the GSI system is based are
preferable to the numbers of Bieniawski's classi®-
cation. On the other hand, some engineers may be
unhappy with the largely descriptive nature of the GSI
system and the comments o€ered by the authors.
However, the attempt by the authors is to address the
discussion of the GSI chart and its perceived de-
®ciencies to improve the GSI and to suggest a method
for practitioners.
A better understanding of the mechanics of jointed
rock mass behaviour is a problem of major signi®cance
in geotechnical engineering. The authors believe that
the Hoek±Brown failure criterion provides a good esti-
mate for the shear strength of closely jointed rock
759
masses and even for rock spoil pile materials.
However, the authors hope that the application of the
suggested modi®cations onto various failure case his-
tories both from surface and underground excavations
may lead to provide a better tool for more precise
guidelines and to check validity of the equations
employed by the non-linear failure criterion.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Professor Dr.
Hasan GERCEK from Zonguldak Karaelmas
University, Turkey for his valuable comments on the
revised manuscript.
References
[1] Hoek E, Brown ET. Underground excavations in rock. London:
Inst. Min. Metall. Stephen Austin and Sons, 1980.
[2] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classi®cations. John
Wiley and Sons, 1989.
[3] Hoek E. Strength of jointed rock masses, 1983 Rankine
Lecture. Geotechnique 1983;33(3):187±223.
[4] Hoek E, Brown ET. The Hoek±Brown failure criterion: a 1988
update. In: Jurran JC, editor. Rock Engineering for
Underground Excavations, Proc. 15th Canadian Rock Mech.
Symp. University of Toronto, 1988. p. 31±8.
[5] Hoek E, Wood D, Shah S. A modi®ed Hoek±Brown criterion
for jointed rock masses. In: Hudson JA, editor. Proc. Eurock
'92. Thomas Telford, 1992. p. 209±13.
[6] Hoek E. Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News J
1994;2(2):4±16.
[7] Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF. Support of underground ex-
cavations in hard rock. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1995.
[8] Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34(8):1165±86.
[9] Hoek E, Marinos P, Benissi M. Applicability of the goelogical
strength index (GSI) classi®cation for very weak and sheared
rock masses: the case of the Athens schist formation. Bull Eng
Geol Environ 1998;57:151±60.
[10] Sonmez H, Ulusay R, Gokc° eoglu C. A practical procedure for
back analysis of slope failures in closely jointed rock masses.
IntJ Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;35(2):219±33.
[11] Hoek E. Reliability of the Hoek±Brown estimates of rock mass
properties and their impact on design. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 1998;35(1):63±8.
[12] Laubscher DH. A geomechanics classi®cation system for the
rating of rock mass in mine design. J South Afr Inst Miner
Metall 1990;90(10):257±73.
[13] Romana MA. Geomechanical classi®cation for slopes: slope
mass rating. In: Hudson JA, editor. Comprehensive rock engin-
eering, Vol. 3. London: Pergamon Press, 1993. p. 575±99 [ch.
22].
[14] Kendorski FS, Cumming RA, Bieniawski ZT, Skinner EH.
Rock mass classi®cation for block caving mine drift support. In:
Proc. 5th Int. Cong. Rock Mech. ISRM., Melbourne, 1983. p.
B51±B63.
[15] ISRM (International Society for Rock Mechanics). In: Brown
ET, editor. ISRM suggested methods: rock characterization,
testing and monitoring. London: Pergamon Press, 1981.
[16] Terzaghi K. Rock defects and loads on tunnel supports. In:
760 H. Sonmez, R. Ulusay / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 743±760
Proctor RV, White TL, editors. Rock tunnelling with stell sup-
pots, vol. 1. Youngstown, OH: Commercial Shearing and
Stamping Company, 1946. p. 17±99.
[17] Ulusay R. Geotechnical evaluations and deterministic design
cosiderations for pitwall slopes at Eskihisar (Yatagan-Mugla)
strip coal mine. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Middle East
Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 1991.
[18] Ulusay R, Yucel Z. An example for the stability of slopes exca-
vated in weak rocks: Baskoyak Barite Open Pit. Earthsciences
(Bull of Earth Sciences Application and Research Center of
Hacettepe University) 1989;15(2):15±27 [in Turkish].
[19] Ulusay R, Ekmekci M, Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Tuncay E,
Erdogan S. Slope stability investigation for Himmetoglu lignite
open pit mine. Hacettepe University Report, Project No.: 97-
0058, 1998. [In Turkish].
[20] Janbu N. Slope stability computations. In: Hirsch®eld RC,
Paulos SJ, editors. Embankment dam engineering: Cassagrande
volume. New York: Wiley, 1973. p. 47±87.
[21] Ulusay R, Arikan F, Yoleri MF, Caglan D. Engineering geo-
logical characterization of coal mine waste material and an
evaluation in the context of back-analysis of spoil pile instabil-
ities in a strip mine, SW Turkey. Eng Geol 1995;40:77±101.
[22] Ulusay R, Yoleri MF, Caglan D, Arikan F. Design evaluations
for spoil piles at a strip coal mine considering safety of the haul
road. Int J Surf Min Recl Environ 1995;9:133±40.
[23] Ulusay R, Caglan D, Arikan F, Yoleri MF. Characteristics of
biplanar wedge spoil pile instabilities and methods to improve
stability. Can Geotech J 1996;33(1):58±79.
[24] Franklin JA, Mearz NH, Bennett CP. Rock mass characteriz-
ation using photoanalysis. Int J Min Geol Eng 1988;6:97±112.
[25] Singh A, Scoble M, Lizotte Y, Crowther G. Characterization of
underground rock fragmentation. Geotech Geol Eng 1991;9:93±
107.
[26] Goktan RM, Ayday CA, Zengin M. Case study on the com-
parison of measured and predicted mean fragment size from a
large-scale blast. In: Fujii T, editor. Proc 8th Rock Mech
Congress, vol. 1. A.A. Balkema, 1995. p. 77±9.