s=1

Hoek, 2000
D.J. Hutchison - 2000
 Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion
Generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion for jointed rock masses:
a
  '3 
 '1   '3  ci  mb  s  (11.1)
  ci 
Where:
’1 and ’3 are maximum and minimum effective stresses at failure
mb is the value of the Hoek-Brown constant m for the rockmass
s and a are constants which depend upon the rockmass characteristics
ci is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock pieces

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Generation of Mohr-Coulomb parameters
from the Hoek-Brown failure criterion
• Use Equation 11.1 to generate triaxial test results
• Statistical curve fitting of data, using Equation 11.2:
B
  'n  tm 
  A ci   (11.2)
  ci 
Where:
A and B are material constants
’n is the normal effective stress
tm is the ‘tensile’ strength of the rockmass (Equation 11.3), reflecting
the fact that the rock particles are interlocked and not free to dilate
 ci 
 mb  mb  4 s 
2
 tm  (11.3)
2  
D.J. Hutchison - 2000
 Estimation of Rockmass Strength
• Three rockmass properties are required:
ci: uniaxial compressive strength of the
intact rock pieces

mi: value of Hoek-Brown constant m for

these intact rock pieces

GSI for the rockmass

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Intact Rock Strength
• For intact rock, Equation 11.1 simplifies to:
0.5
  '3 
 '1   '3  ci  mi  1
  ci 
(11.4)
For tests conducted in the range of
0 < ’3 < 0.5ci and at least 5 tests
on each rock type

Hoek, 2000

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Testing UCS for Weak Rock
• Generally very difficult to do as samples
will contain several discontinuities within
their volume.
• Very high skill level and specialized
equipment only available in a few places in
the world is required.
• Use Point Load Test where load is applied
normal to the bedding plane orientations. If
the rock is very weak, and the platens indent
the rock, these tests are invalid.
D.J. Hutchison - 2000
 Foliated rocks display
an anisotropic response
to triaxial testing

Hoek, 2000

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Influence of Sample Size
Hoek, 2000
0.18
 50 
 cd   c 50  
d 

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Table 11.2: Field estimates of uniaxial compressive strength
Grade Term UCS Point Field estimate of strength Examples
* (MPa) Load
Index
(MPa)
R6 Extremely > 250 > 10 Specimen can only be chipped with a Fresh basalt, chert, diabase, gneiss,
strong geological hammer granite, quartzite
R5 Very strong 100 to 250 4 to 10 Specimen requires many blows of a Amphibolite, sandstone, basalt,
geological hammer to fracture it gabbro, gneiss, granodiorite,
limestone, marble, rhyolite, tuff
R4 Strong 50 to 100 2 to 4 Specimen requires more than one Limestone, marble, phyllite,
blow of a geological hammer to sandstone, schist, shale
fracture it
R3 Medium 25 to 50 1 to 2 Cannot be scraped with a pocket Claystone, coal, concrete, schist,
strong knife, specimen can be fractured with shale, siltstone
a single blow from a geological
hammer
R2 Weak 5 to 25 ** Can be peeled with a pocket knife Chalk, rocksalt, potash
with difficulty, shallow indentation
made by firm blow with point of a
geological hammer
R1 Very weak 1 to 5 ** Crumbles under firm blows with point Highly weathered or altered rock
of a geological hammer, can be
peeled by a pocket knife
R0 Extremely 0.25 to 1 ** Indented by thumbnail Stiff fault gouge
weak
* Grade according to Brown (1981).
** Point load tests on rocks with a uniaxial compressive strength < 25 MPa are likely to yield highly ambiguous results.

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Table 11.3 (Hoek, 2000): Values of mi for intact rock, by rock group. Values in parenthesis are estimates.
Texture
Rock type Class Group
Coarse Medium Fine Very fine
Conglomerate Sandstone Siltstone Claystone
(22) 19 9 4
Clastic
Breccia Greywacke
(20) (18)
Chalk
7
Sedimentary Organic
Coal
(8 to 21)
Non-clastic
Spartic Micritic
Carbonate
(10) 8
Gypstone Anhydrite
Chemical
16 13
Marble Hornfels Quartzite
Non foliated
9 (19) 24
Migmatite Amphibolite Mylonite
Metamorphic Slightly foliated
(30) 25 to 31 (6)
Gneiss Schist Phyllite Slate
Foliated*
33 4 to 8 (10) 9
Granite Rhyolite Obsidian
33 (16) (19)
Granodiorite Dacite
Light
(30) (17)
Diorite Andesite
(28) 19
Igneous
Gabbro Dolerite Basalt
27 (19) 17
Dark
Norite
22
Agglomerate Breccia Tuff
Extrusive pyroclastic type
(20) (18) (15)
* These values are for intact rock specimens tested normal to bedding or foliation. The value of m i will be significantly different if
D.J. Hutchison
failure occurs- along
2000a weakness plane.
 Rock Texture
Class Group
type Coarse Medium Fine Very fine
Conglomerate Sandstone Siltstone Claystone
* 17+/-4 7+/-2 4+/-2
Breccia Greywacke Shale
Clastic
* (18+/-3) (6+/-2)
Marl

Sedimentary
(7+/-2)
Crystalline
Spartic Limestone Micritic Limestone Dolomite
Carbonate Limestone
(12+/-3) (10+/-2) (9+/-2) (9+/-3)
Non-Clastic Gypsum Anhydrite
Evaporite
(8+/-2) 12+/-2
Chalk
Organic
7+/-2
Marble Hornfels Quartzite
9+/-3 (19+/-4) 20+/-3
Non foliated
Metamorphic

Metasandstone
(19+/-3)
Migmatite Amphibolite Gneiss
Slightly foliated
(29+/-3) 26+/-6 28+/-5
Schist Phyllite Slate
Foliated**
12+/-3 (7+/-3) 7+/-4
Granite Diorite
32+/-3 25+/-5
Light
Granodiorite
(29+/-3)
Plutonic
Gabbro
27+/-3
Dolerite
(16+/-5)
Hoek and Marinos, 2000
Dark
Norite
Igneous

22
Porphyry Diabase Peridotite
Hypabyssal
(20+/-5) (15+/-5) (25+/-5)
Rhyolite Dacite
(25+/-5) 25+/-3
Lava
Andesite Basalt
Volcanic
25+/-5 (25+/-5)
Agglomerate Breccia Tuff
Pyroclastic
(19+/-3) 19+/-5 (13+/-5)
* Conglomerate and breccia may have a wide range of mi values, depending upon the nature of the cementing material, and
the degree of cementation. Hence their values may range from values similar to that of sandstone to those of fine grained
sediments (even < 10).
** These values are for intact rock specimens tested normal to bedding or foliation. The value of mi will be significantly
D.J. Hutchison - 2000
different if failure occurs along a weakness plane.
 Geological Strength
Index: GSI
Strength of jointed rockmass Hoek, 2000
depends on:
• properties of intact rock
pieces, and
• upon the freedom of these
pieces to slide and rotate
under different stress
conditions,
• controlled by the
geometrical shape of the
intact rock pieces as well as
the condition of the
discontinuities separating the
pieces
D.J. Hutchison - 2000
 GSI

 GSI  100 
mb  mi exp 
 28 

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Mohr-Coulomb Parameters
Hoek, 2000

Hoek, 2000

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Cohesive and Frictional Strength

Hoek, 2000

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Deformation Modulus

For poor quality rockmasses, where ci < 100:

 GSI 10 
 ci  
Em  10  40 
100

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Effect of water on rockmass strength
• Reduction in strength of rock, particularly
shale and siltstone.
• Pressure: why?
• This may not be much of a problem during
excavation, because water pressures in the
surrounding rock are reduced to negligible
levels. If groundwater pressures are re-
established after the completion of the final
lining, then consider in design.
• Water handling.
D.J. Hutchison - 2000
 Hoek, 2000

Post-failure Behaviour:
Very Good Quality Hard
Rockmass

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Hoek, 2000

Post-failure Behaviour:
Average Quality Rockmass

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Post-failure Behaviour:
Hoek, 2000 Very Poor Quality
Rockmass

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Uncertainty in
Rockmass
Strength
Estimates:
INPUT
Hoek, 2000

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Hoek, 2000 Uncertainty in
Rockmass Strength
Estimates: OUTPUT

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Practical Examples of Rockmass Property Estimates:
Massive Weak Rock, Braden Breccia, El Teniente Mine
Hoek, 2000

Hoek, 2000

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Massive Strong Rockmasses,
Rio Grande Pumped Storage Scheme

Hoek, 2000

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Average Quality Rockmass, Nathpa Jhakri Hydroelectric

Partially completed 20 m
span, 42.5 m high
underground powerhouse
cavern of the Nathpa Jhakri
Hydroelectric Project in
Himachel Pradesh, India.
The cavern is approximately
300 m below the surface.

D.J. Hutchison - 2000 Hoek, 2000

 Average Quality Rockmass, Nathpa Jhakri Hydroelectric

Hoek, 2000

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Poor Quality Rockmass at Shallow Depth: Athens Metro

Hoek, 2000

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Poor Quality Rockmass at Shallow Depth: Athens Metro

Hoek, 2000

D.J. Hutchison - 2000 Hoek, 2000

 Poor Quality
Rockmass under
High Stress

D.J. Hutchison - 2000

 Poor Quality Rockmass under High Stress

Hoek, 2000

Figure 11.28: Results of a numerical Figure 11.29: Displacements in the rock

analysis of the failure of the rock mass mass surrounding the Yacambu-Quibor
surrounding the Yacambu-Quibor tunnel tunnel. The maximum calculated
when excavated in graphitic phyllite at a displacement is 258 mm with no support
depth
D.J. of about
Hutchison 600 m below surface.
- 2000 and 106 mm with support.