Rock Mass Rating and Geological Strength Index of rock masses of Thopal-Malekhu River areas, Central Nepal Lesser Himalaya

Abstract

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

Study of Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Geological Strength Index (GSI) Correlations in Granite, Siltstone, Sandstone and Quartzite Rock Masses

“…Reviewing the results, it is evident that the equation of Osgoui and Ünal [47] is the only one focusing on RMR 89 below 30. The results also suggest that equations by Cosar [41] and Singh and Tamarkar [43] underestimate GSI for RMR 89 > 30 when compared to the others. The remaining five formulae converge with similar results between RMR 89 values of 60 and 70, while drifting apart above and below.…”

Geophysical Investigations of a Potential Landslide Area in Mayoon, Hunza District, Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan

“…According to Rock Mass Rating (RMR), the foliated/ sheared, low to medium-grade metamorphic slates or phyllites belongs to the Class V (very poor rock) (Singh and Tamrakar., 2013). The rocks at the site bounded between MKT and the Chalt Fault have already lost their shear strength due to intense tectonic activity (see Figure 2).…”

Modified RMR to determine rock mass quality, study case of diversion tunnel in Meninting Dam, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia

“…There are several mathematical models that have been developed to predict the value of RMR89 based on the value of GSI observed, some of them summarized below. Sequently from equation (1) to (3) is developed by Hoek Brown [6], Cosar [10], Singh and Tamrakar [11]. RMR89 = GSI + 5…”