8 Strength of rock and rock masses 8.1 Introduction One of the major problems in designing underground openings is that of estimating the strength and deformation properties of the i situ rock mass. Inthe ¢288 of jointed rock masses. an evaluation of these propemies presents formidable theoretical and experimental problems. However since this question is of fundamentat importance mont all major designs involving excavations ks rock. i 6 easen- ‘ial that some atempt be made 19 estimate these srength and defor= ‘mation properties and that these estimates should be as realistic and reliable as possible 3.2 Definition of the problem Table 8.1 illustrates the range of problems to be considered. Uinder- standing the behaviour of joimted rock masses requitesa study ofthe limact rock material and of the individual dicontinuity surf‘ces ‘which go together to make up the system. Depending upon the number, orientation and nature of the discootimuties, the intact rock pieces will anslaz, rate or rush in response to siesses imposed "upon the rock mass. Since a large number of possible combinations of block shapes and sizes exit its obviously necessary to find any behavioural trends which are common to all ofthese combinations. ‘The extablishment of such common trends isthe mow important ob- jective in this chaptez ‘Before embarking upon a study ofthe individual corposents and cof the system asa whole its necessary to set down somne base Se Init rock refers to the unfractered blocks which oocur between strotural disotinutes in atypieal rock mass. These pieces may range from a few millimetes to several metes in size and their behaviour is genecally elastic and isouepic. For most hard ig- neous and metamorphic rocks failure can be classified as brite, ‘which implies a sudden reduction in srength when a Limiting siress level is exceeded. Weak sedimentary rocks may fail in 3 move ductile manner. in which thee i ile of no strength reduc- tion when a limiting stress level is reached. Viscoelastic ce tine sependent behaviour is not usually considered 10 be significant tnlest one is dealing with evaporits such as salt or potash. The mechanical properies ofthese viscoelastic materials are nat dealt ‘vith in this Volume © Joints ace a particular ype of geological discontinuity, but the term tends to be wed penariclly in rock mechanics and it usually ‘overs all ypes of structural weakness, The shear strength of such ‘sructural weakness plane is discussed in Chapter 5, + Strengeh, in the context of this discussion, refers to the maximumstress level which can be carried by a specimen. The presentation of rock strength data and its incorporation into a failure criterion depends upon the preference of the individual and upon the end use for which the criterion is intended. In dealing with gravity driven wedge failure problems. where limit equilibrium methods of analyses are used, the most useful failure criterion is one which expresses the shear strength in terms of the effective normal stress, acting across a particular weakness plane or shear zone, as discussed. in Chapter 5. On the other hand, when analysing the stability of underground excavations in medium to high stress re gimes, the response of the rock to the principal stresses acting Upon each element is of paramount interest. Consequently, for the underground excavation engineer, a plot of triaxial test data, in terms of the major principal stress at failure versus minimum principal stress, is the most useful form of failure criterion. 8.3 Strength of intact rock ‘A vast amount of information on the strength of intaet rock has been published during the past fifty years and it would be inappropriate to Attempt to review all this information here. Interested readers are referred to the excellent review presented by Jaeger (1971). Hoek and Brown (1980a, 1980b) and Hoek (1983) reviewed the published information on intact rock strength and proposed an em- pirical failure criterion for rock. In developing their empirical failure eniterion, Hoek and Brown attempted to satisfy the following condi- tions: ‘a) The failure criterion should give good agreement with rock strength values determined from laboratory triaxial tests on core Samples of intact rock, These samples are typically 50 mm in diameter and should be oriented perpendicular to any discontinui- ty surfaces in the rock. ) The failure criterion should be expressed by mathematically simple equations based, to the maximum extent possible, upon di- mensionless parameters. «) The failure criterion should offer the possibility of extension to deal withthe failure of jointed rock masses. Based on their experimental and theoretical experience with the fracture mechanics of rock, Hoek and Brown (1980a, 1980b) experi- mented with a number of distorted parabolic curves to find one which gave good coincidence with the original Griffith theory (Griffith, 1921, 1924). Griffith was concerned with brittle failure in glass and. he expressed his relationship in terms of tensile stresses. Hoek and Brown sought a relationship which fitted the observed failure conditions for brittle rocks subjected to compressive stress conditions. Note that the process used by Hoek and Brown in deriving their empirical failure criterion was one of pure trial and error. Apart from the conceptual starting point provided by the Griffith theory, there is ‘no fundamental relationship between the empirical constants in- Cluded in the criterion and any physical characteristics of the rock. ‘The justification for choosing this particular criterion over the86 Support of undererowad excavations in hard rock Dasa rege Teecic rary “Tew eng at com Wohviow oe os imeneecisivly opi eck aul ‘pean! nengenive_underond or mou > ndrewtare wuuly al sppieations Fnac ck witha High annoy dee ‘Tana diffi and Behav of caso ge ics’? fekbeen mearurens® eapetve Director adequnely waded ieioeanuty,—Sndiocinanon of inc see peered Cuetal fr ma praccl mpc wy Taeycn offense om sore! Massise mck Anhotrpi. depending on Laborcry leing very Benson of compen aa eal somberseiaunn and heat become Of txmple tek PA pane, TRAE eMcginedncemi- Sane and equipment fy pte eck manes me Seetimisione Foor ender Weanly pinned Reasonably scopic, Tail wing repress Behaviour of necking TRTELST Nip ata w weess emtve sarge cntemey angola pces prety ei wih panicle weak fica bers Ofsanele | Sere CCompaced chs Rearonaby otic eit Thala ting sample but ehaviou reaomahy wll Gircheeiy disamand iowerorengh expensive dot tolaygs ——Unred from sa > cemened cor Spuipmeseregnred es sc hanes sis oo ral Boece CSnpedue umpies arate Loe woe rock Pececompacionand Tansee shaar_—_‘Beaviou of oot om oped ong aioe pancle tesing siege bovenpem- puted wae TOGA A ‘fowctce pring in Sse gurvolarprste of fave adequcly ule frakiny and low sven egepnee ‘ina Yor mow oplicatone sumerous alteracives lies inthe adequacy of its predictions of o- Served rock facture behaviour, and the convenience of its appicar thon toa range of typical engineering problems. "The Hoek Brown failure erterion for intact rock may be expres sed inthe following farm: ¢; 30 wa) we) ‘viet ste major principal effective stress a failure ‘Sr isthe minor principal effeccve sess at failure ‘Gris the umarial compressive strength of the intact rock mis amateral constant forthe itaet rock.Strength af rock and rock masses $7 Whenever possible the value of, should be determined by labors- ‘ory testing on cores of approximately 50 mum diameter and 100 nm in length In some cases. where the individual pleces of intact rock ae too smal 0 permit simples of this sie to be tested. sales dia- eter coves may be tested. Hock and Brown ((80a) stopgested thot the equivalent uniaxial compressive strength of a $O mm diameter ‘sore specimen G48 be estmated from: oe ey * a) *4) swhere oyiste unanial strength measured ana sample of dom in Sameer The most celiuble values of both the uniaxial compressive siteagth 9; and the maierial constant mare Obtained from the results of trial tests. For typical igneous and metamorphic rocks and for strong sedimentary rocks, such as sandstones. these laboratory tests are routine and there are many laboratories around the work which have excellent facilities for trianial testing. fn weak sedimestacy rocks, such as shales and silisiones, preparation of specimens for triaial testing can be very dificult because of the tendency of these materials t slake and de-laminate. when subjected 9 changes in moisture content. A solution which has been used on several major engineering projects is 10 carry out the tanal tests in the fil. usually in exploration adits or access tunnels, using a triaial cell de seribed by Franklin and Hoek (1970) and iihusrated in Figure &.1, ‘This cll Ras a rubber sealing sleeve, which is designed fo comin Woe pressursing fluid (usually oil), s0 that cher is no need for drainage bermeen test. A diamood saw is used to tim che ends of the core sample and a capping compound is applied to produce paralle! ends. ‘A'50 o capacity load frame provides a sufficiauy high axial load for mos of these weak rocks. Confining pressure ts provided by a simple Band operated purap. ‘The specimen should be cored normal to significant discontia\- tics, such a bedding planes, and the tess should be cartied out on specimens which have a moisture content as close to if situ cond Hons 3s possible. Although it x possible to obtain porous platens 30 ‘that pore Nid pressures can be controlled. this control is not prscti- alin field testing situations and a reasonable conspromise is to keep toading rates low in order to avoid generation of dynamic pore pres- sures. ‘The tianial test results can be processed using a program called ROCKDATA' developed by Shah (1992). This program is based Upon the simplex reflection statistical technique which has teen found w produce the most reliable interpretation of wiaxial test é3t2 ‘When time or budget constraints donot atlow 2 triaxial resting programme to be caried out, the values of the cowseant o, and om, "availabe from The Rack Engioetring Growp, 12 Selwoad Avenve, Toes, ‘Onis, Canada MAE 182, Fax | 416 6980008, Pose | 416698 £21788° Support of underground excavations in hard rock Figure 8.1: Simple wana cel wed for resi rock core in fe Iaborcres. The aber sealing sleeve desipad o rian the ol that he ell des not need to be aimed beeen eu Celli ares accommostie wane of tancar core ‘san be estimated from Tables 3.2 and 8,3, Tobe 8.3 is based upon ‘analyses of published triaxial test resuks-om intact rock (Hoek, 1983, ‘Doruk, 1991 and Hoek etal, 1992), ‘A detailed discussion on the characteristics and limitations of the Hioek-Brown failure enterion, including the transition from brite stuctile flute and the mechanics of anisoeropic failure. has been given by Hoek (1983). These considerations are very important in the application ofthe failure criterion tothe Behaviour of intact rock, ‘They may peed fo be considered ‘when dealing with foliated rocks such as which can exhibit strongly anisotropic behaviour, ‘or with sedimentary rocks such as limestones and marbles, which may become ductile at low stress levels. However im the context of ‘his chapter, these detailed considerations are of secondary impor-Strength of rock and rock masses 89. “Table 2: Fed estimates of niaial compressive seni. Gease® Term Until comp. Pointload Reh eximase of aeng Tamper surength SAP) inex MPa) Re Eaeme > 20) 310 ‘Rech material only chipped wader Fob Bat cer. Sabaie. arg Tepes Nammer Slows rigs Eanes Frante. rare ‘shes snuck RE Vey eos Requires any bows of» gevlog- Amphibole, sandione, bel sag iealtammerto break inactrock” pate. grein. panos, Speman mesons aie, yl, ah BA Seng S100 a Hand held specimens ben bya Limestone, mache. phyla, ‘ungle low of pevogsat Bammer randione sci sale Ri Meum 35.50 a Famblow with gelogiclpick Caystone cna, concrete schist. sires. indoor sock to mem Knifes shite. iene senges srtace Ca oo if cuts mei! but soo ard a9 Chal, ck posh ape io tna specimens Riley 1S a Matera rumbles wader frm Maghty wether or aered ck wak ‘lows of poolopcl pick. canbe pete ee Ro Exremes 12541 = tndested by ebnat Cay gouge yea Grade scoring RM Allrock iyps eit aoa range of wets compressive strengths wich elect the Baten a Smnpoon and wucropy ta urtcree. Song fects are chartered ty wel loceracked cry bead few Yon ‘soph with snail comprestivesrengih low 25 ADs ae ely toed highly amon res under post 84 The strength of jointed rock masses The original Hoek Brown criterion was published in 1980 and, based lapon experience in using the criterion on a number of projects, an updated version was published in 1983 (Hock and Brown, 1988) and almodified.criterion was published in 1992 (Hoek et al, 1992). ‘The most general form of the Hock-Brown criterion, which incor- porates hoth the original and the modified form, is given by the ‘equation ay ‘where my isthe value ofthe constant m for the rock mass 5 and a are constans which depend upon the characteristics ‘of the rock mass is the unianial compressive strength of the intact rork pieces and 4) and oy are the axial and confining effective principal Sresans mansoni “The original criterion has been found! to work well for most rocks of {t00d {© reasonable quality in which the rock mass strength is controlled by tighly interlocking angular rock pieces. The failure of such rock masses can be defined by sewing 2 = 0.5 in Equation 8.3, siving90 Suppor of underground excavations in hard rock “Tie: Vato enon for act ok, by ook grou. Mok thls rte eimat 8 Ne Foti : on g w Tp Nie F Sigh eae ‘ton ic 5 cont or 3 ane 3 ‘a0, to ° Tae Tysine Oban tn 3 et ‘i we Ceumatorte Passe 70) a 8 Dron aceite & om ” 8 ure came at * 7 Ce big rece Tait TEurusivegyrocian type | ARBPmerte See eee stato] FFor poor quality rock masses in which the tight interlocking has been partially destrayed by shearing o¢ weathering. the rack mass has no fens strength or “eohesion’ and specimea will (all spart without confinement. For such rock masses the modified criterion is mare ap- propriate and this is ebcained by puting s = 0 im Equation 3 which Bien=) +9, (85) Iv is practically impossible 1 carry out taxa or shear tests on gock masses at a scale which is appropriate for surface or underground ex ovations in mining o¢ civil engineering. Numerous attempes have been made to overcome this problem by testing small scale models. ‘made up from assemblages of blocks or elements of rock or of eare- fully designed mode! materials, While these asedel studies have pra- vided a great deal of valuable information, they generally suffer from limitations arising from the assumptions and simplifications. which have to be made in order to permit construction of the models. Con- Sequently. our ability to predict the strength of jointed rock masses be the bass af direct tests or of model studless severely limited. Equations 8.4 and 8.5 aft of no practical value unless the values ofthe material CORStARS my sand a-can be estimated in some way. ‘Hoek and Brown (1988) suggested that these constants could be esti- rated from the 1976 vesion of Bieniawski's Rock Mass Rating (RMR). assuming completely dry conditions and a very favourable jpint orientation. While this process is acceptable for rock masses ‘with RMR values of more than about 25, it dors not work for very poor rock masies soce the minimum value which RMR san assume PTs. th order to overcome this limitation. a new index called. the Geological Strength Index (GSN) is introduced. The value of GSF ranges from about 10, for extremely poor rock masses, to 100 for intact rock. The relationships between GS! and the rock mass classi- fications of Bieniawski and Barton, Lein and Lunde will be discus- sed ina later section of this chapter: “The relationships between me/mte s and @ and the Geological Strength Index (CSI) are a follows: For GSI > 25 (Undisturbed rock masses) m, __(GSt=100) “eal ” # sweo( SH) bes as05 a8) $ivtincraaniares aad Bo GSI a= 065-5 (8.10) ‘Since many of the numerical models and limit equilibrium analyses used im rock mechanics are expressed in terms of the Mobr-Coulamb Teslie eiterion iis necessary to estima an ev ‘cobe ‘Soni ticbe aracies for pen Hoeirbrewn value Ths fan be done using a solution published by Balmer (1952) in which the normal and shear stresses are expressed im terms of the come- sponding principal stresses as follows:92 Suppor of underground excavations in hard rock 38 a= a 7 FG day +1 210, -¢))0579, (iz) For the O81 > 25, whena = 05: Bo (8.13) aa"! a-a) se For G3l <25, when s= 0: ee Bevel wn (Once a set of (6, ¥) values have been ealevated from Equations 8.11 and §.12, average cohesion ¢ and friction angle @ values can be cal- ulated by linear regression analysis, in which the best fing straight Tine is calculated fo the range of ts. 2 pai ‘The uniatial compressive strength of a rock mass defined by a cohesive strength c and a fiction angie i piven by’ a 2ES088 a5) =aing A simple spreadstert for carying aut the full range of calculations resented above is given ia Figure 82 85 Use of rock mass classifications for estimating GSI In searching for 3 volution tthe problem of estimating te serength of ome och masses and o provide abu for he desig of wder- round ercavaoner imrock Fisek nd Brown (1930. 19000) fee that some tere had to be made o ik the constants re and sof ther crea Wo measuremeais oe Obsrvaioes which cul! be eat- ‘ed eu by ay corpses geologist in the fl Resogrising hat the Gfarcrinics of the rock mas hich coatol it seagth and deformation behaviour ar similar tothe arctica. whch fed teen adoped by Biosawsk (1973) and by Baron etal (197) for theirteck mass latieauons. Hoek and Brown propose thal these ‘Tashfeaton coud be esed fr estimating the material concn ts. In preparing the presen bok i became obvious that there was 2 need fo consolidate these varoot vertons of the enierion fom a Single simplified and fenced cterion o cover all of the rick normally encountered in underround eefines hi. "TP eck ais clsfcabons By Bieniawss (1970) and Baron et were adopted i and Valles Because they were already avallable and well exablished 1940, and because (here appeared 1 be no jasiication for proponnyet anocher classification system. However, there is 2 potential prob fem in using these existing rock mass classification systems as a basis foe eximating the strength of a rock mass, ‘Consider a tunne! ina highly jointed rock mass subjected to an in situ stress field such that falufe ean occur in the rock surrounding the tunnel, When using the Tunnelling Quality Index @ proposed by Baron et al. (1974) for estimating the support cequired for the tun- el the in situ sess field is allowed for by means of a Stress Reduc- tion Factor. This factor can have a significant influence upon the level of seppor: recommended on the basis of the calculated value of @. An akemative approach to suppor design is 10 estimate the Strength ofthe rock mass by means of the Hock-Brown failure erite= rion. This strength is thea applied t0 the results of an analysis ofthe Stress distribution around the tunnel. in order to estimate the extent cof zones of overstressed rock requiring support. IF the Barton etal ‘classification has been used to estimate the values of m and s, and if the Stress Reduction Factor Bas been used in calculating the value of Q. itis cleae that the influence of the in situ stress level will be accounted for twice in the analysis ‘ESTIMATE OF HOEK BROWN ANO MORR-COULOME PARAMETERS ‘npur GSt= a sigci = 100 mi= 24 Oupue: sigh sig datds3— sign tau signtau_signsa mbimi= 0.26 oi 6 4dszedy Ot 281 2OF Ost mb= 618 02 «185598908 BAY 15 033 «2003 1888150455 BBS 228 ova 287 1381253 63382 Es 19059 «1564911028452 ay 2.90208 a13 48700778 Sa 10.89.18 625 6958 S88 ISAS 221 a0 2B 7S 9 125 10120 443-2868 2G BRST B22. Sume= 6270 97.88 1518.17 1161.16 ‘mbimi = EXP((GS(-100)28) EXP((GSL-100)28) g= IF(GSb-25 THEN EXP((GSI-100\/9) ELSE 0) a= IF(GSI>25 THEN 0.5 ELSE (0.65-GSU200)) E= 100010 (GS!-1040) sgh Sgei2n waren stars at 10 and decreases by 1 foreach subeaquent cell ig) ((mb"sigdVsigal) + sia. dstds3.= IF(GSI>25 THEN 1+(mb"sigciM(2"(sigt-sig3)) ELSE 1+(a°mb*a)"(siga/sigei){a-1)) signs sg3e{sigt ig tadtcs3) tau (egnegh SORT(estdd) signtau = signttau ‘signeg = sig’? phi = ew 6GIP i) aie Figure 82: Sprendhoc othe clelaton af Hock-2roas and Motr-Coplont parame.94 Sunport of underground excavations in hard rock ‘Table. Eaimacon of onsen 6 oration mada Fane Piao rai fer the Generis oe rw ure eto toned upoe rich mats rect and secon aurfceconduicns. Nove ta the vars B= 8 table we Fras waded ack Pash GENERALISED HOEK-BROWN CRITERION = manor pencpalafecive stress at fate c= wraal compressive strength of react ‘locas of rock my. anda.re constr which depend on 1h compeaiion, sata and eutaee ‘constr oo TOO MES. ‘SURFACE CONOMONStrength of rock and rock masies 98 ‘Similar considerations apply to the Joint Water Re@uction Factor in Barton et al’s classification and to the Ground Water term and the Rating Adjustment for Joint Orientations in Bicniawski's RM& classi« ‘cation. Is a eases there is a potential for double counting. if these fetors age not treated with care when using these clasifications as a basis for estimating the sireagth of rock masses, In order to minimise potential problems of the type described above, the following guidelines are offered foe the selection of para- ‘eters when using rock mass elasifications as a basis for estimating ‘mand 5 values forthe Hoek-Brown failure criterion, Bieniawshi's 1976 RMR classification Bicniawski has made several changes tothe ratings used in his clas- sification (Bieniawski, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1979, 1989) and the signi fieance of these changes is best appreciated by considering the fol- lowing typical example: 'A slighily weathered granite has an average Point load stzagih index value of 7 MPa, an average RQD value of 70%. and slightly rough joints with a separation of « 1 ram, are spaced at 300 mm. The RMR values for this rock mass. calculated using tables published by Bieniaws in the years indicated, are as follows: hem Nate 197) 19e_1975 197089 Pom hed idee TPs =F. @ a 00 som «ao oo oo Spacing of icontimatien 300 mn x om % 6 Conshton of Suosenuises Dewmibes = 121030 Genus oy © 0 os ig Jeumteneuston suviment Very Gvounble 51S 0G @ iar a ‘The differences in these valves demonsrate that it is essential that the comect ratings be used. The 1976 poper by Bleniawski iy the basis reference for thie werk. Por the convestceve of the Feadet: rs relevant pars of Bieniawskis 1976 Geomechanics Classification table are reproduced in Table 8.3. ln Using Bientawaki's 1976 Rock Mass Rating to estimate the value of GSI, Table $.J should be used to calculate the ratings for the frst (Our veers. The rock mast should be assumed wo be com- pletely dry and a rating of 10 assigned to the Groundwater value “Very favourable Joint optestations should be aesured aed the Adjoe rent for Foiat Greotation value set to zero, The final rating. called Rath", can then be used to estimate the value of GSI: For RMR 318 estimate GS! and Barton, Lein and Lunde’s Q value should be wed instead.96 Support af underground excavations in hard rock. Bieniawsti's 1980 RMI classification BBieniawski's 1989 classification. given in Table 4.4 on pare 3S. can be used to estimate the value of GSY in a similar manner to that described above for the 1976 version. In this case a value of 15 ix asigned to the Groundwater rating and the Adjustment for Joint ‘Oniematon is again ce i 2er0. Noe that tbe miniraum value which ‘ea be Obtained for the 1989 classification is 23 and that. in general, ie gives a slightly higher value chan the 1976 classification. The final rating, called RR, cam be used to estimate the valuc of GSE: Foe Rit’ 323 GSI = Rib 5 em For RMfq;'¢ 23 Bieniawski’s 1976 classification cannot be used to -euimate GS and Barton. Lein and Lunde's Q” value should be used instead. Modified Baran, Liew and Lunde’ Q° classification In using thie classification to estimate CSI, the Rock Quality Designation (RQD), joint set number (J, joint roughness number ‘d,}and joint aeration number (J) should be used exactly as defined in the tales published by Barton etal. (1974) and given in Table 4.6 ‘on pages 41 1943, For the joint water redurtion factor (J) and the stress reduction {faite (SKF), use a valve Of 1 for both Of these parameters, cqui« ‘valent to a dry rock mass subjected to mediam stress conditions. The influence of both water pressure and stress should be included inthe aly fon the rock mass for hich failure is @e- Hence, for substitutica info Equation 6.2, the modified Tumnet- Ting Quality Index (Q7 is eabeulted from:Strengih of rock and rock masses 97 owtete an tromagmmrtneewiaasees cian ge 9 Het ine 908 wi ge preter reer $6 When to.use the Hoek-Brown failure criterion The rock mass conditions under which the Hoek- Brown failure cite ‘Soa can be appbied are summarised ia Figure &.398 Support of underground excavations in hard rock “The Hoek-Brown failure criterion is only applicable to intact rock orto heavily jointed rock masses which ean be considered homoge- neous and isotropic. a other words the properties ofthese materials are the same in ll directions. ‘The esterion chould not be applied to highly schistose rocks such as slates ota rock masses in which the properties are controlled by single set of discontinuities such as bedding planes, In cases where such rock masses are being analysed, the Hoek-Brown fail erte- rion applics to the intaet rock components only. The strength of the discontinuities should be analysed in terms af the shear strength criteria discussed in Chapter 5. "When two joint sets occur in a rock mass. the Hoek Brown crite- rion can be used with extreme care, provided that neither ofthe joist fet has a'dominant influence on the behaviour of the rock mass. For txample, ifone of the jofot sets is clay coated and is obviously very ‘uch weaker than the other set, the Hoek-Brown criterion should not be used except for the intact rock components. On the other hand, whea both joint sets are fresh, rough aad unveathered and when their onentation i such that no- local wedge failures are likely, the Upper left hand box in Table 8.4 can be used to estimate the Hock- Brown parameters. For ore heavily joimed rock masses in which many joints occur, the Hoek-Birown criterion can be applied and Table 8.4 can be used to estimate the strength parameters.