Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full Length Article

Reliability-based design in rock engineering: Application of Bayesian

regression methods to rock strength data
Nezam Bozorgzadeh a, *, John P. Harrison b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s-RMC (Royal Military College of Canada), Kingston, Canada
b
Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Reliability-based design (RBD) is being adopted by geotechnical design codes worldwide, and it is
Received 1 August 2018 therefore necessary that rock engineering practice evolves to embrace RBD. This paper examines the
Received in revised form Hoek-Brown (HeB) strength criterion within the RBD framework, and presents three distinct analyses
11 February 2019
using a Bayesian approach. Firstly, a compilation of intact compressive strength test data for six rock
Accepted 18 February 2019
Available online 13 April 2019
types is used to examine uncertainty and variability in the estimated HeB parameters m and sc, and
corresponding predicted axial strength. The results suggest that within- and between-rock type vari-
abilities are so large that these parameters need to be determined from rock testing campaigns, rather
Keywords:
Reliability-based design (RBD)
than reference values being used. The second analysis uses an extensive set of compressive and tensile
Hoek-Brown (HeB) criterion (both direct and indirect) strength data for a granodiorite, together with a new Bayesian regression
Bayesian regression model, to develop joint probability distributions of m and sc suitable for use in RBD. This analysis also
Indirect tensile strength shows how compressive and indirect tensile strength data may be robustly used to fit an HeB criterion.
Characteristic strength criterion The third analysis uses the granodiorite data to investigate the important matter of developing char-
acteristic strength criteria. Using definitions from Eurocode 7, a formal Bayesian interpretation of char-
acteristic strength is proposed and used to analyse strength data to generate a characteristic criterion.
These criteria are presented in terms of characteristic parameters mk and sck, the values of which are
shown to depend on the testing regime used to obtain the strength data. The paper confirms that careful
use of appropriate Bayesian statistical analysis allows the HeB criterion to be brought within the
framework of RBD. It also reveals that testing guidelines such as the International Society for Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering (ISRM) suggested methods will require modification in order to support
RBD. Importantly, the need to fully understand the implications of uncertainty in nonlinear strength
criteria is identified.
Ó 2019 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction engineering data was essentially absent, possibly due to a lack of

The empirical Hoek-Brown (HeB) criterion, pragmatically
developed about four decades ago (Hoek and Brown, 1980a, b;
Hoek, 1994), remains one of the most widely used peak strength
criteria for intact rock in rock engineering. This may be attributed to
the fact that it fits acceptably well to much rock strength data and
uses a small number of parameters, and to its important application
in predicting the strength of rock masses.
At the time of the original development of the criterion, so-
phisticated statistical analysis of rock mechanics and rock
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nezam.bozorgzadeh@rmc-cmr.ca (N. Bozorgzadeh).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
computational tools (including desktop computers) and the fact
that rock engineering design, as it was developing, did not need
such analysis. As a result, a simple approximate method was
devised to fit the criterion to strength data that used linear
regression to calculate estimates of its parameters (Hoek, 1983). It
was many years later that nonlinear regression methods were
introduced (Hoek et al., 2002; Langford and Diederichs, 2015), and
only recently Bayesian regression models have become available
(Bozorgzadeh et al., 2018a, b; Contreras et al., 2018).
Turning to structural engineering, since the 1940s, the
reliability-based design (RBD) has been steadily developed in
structural engineering, and it now forms the basis of structural
design codes and standards in many regions of the world (e.g. ACI
318-14, 2014; ACI 318R-14, 2014; CSA-A23.3-14, 2014a). The early
literature discussing the concepts that became known as RBD is

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.02.002
1674-7755 Ó 2019 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627
enlightening, because it shows how engineers were grappling with
a number of issues related to the failure of complex structures
under ill-defined loading conditions.
One paper by Tye (1944), with the memorable title “Factors of
safety e or of habit?”, was seminal in the way it crystallised the
problem. In the paper, Tye (1944) discussed emerging concepts of
aeronautical design, and proposed that “The designer shall produce
evidence that the probable rate of accidents likely to cause injury to
personnel arising from structural failure is not more than once in ‘x’
thousands of hours of flying”. This statement succinctly encapsulated
how designers should address aeronautical design, and soon led
to the recognition that, in order to support it, designers would
need to:
(1) develop clear definitions of failure;
(2) determine acceptable failure rates; and
(3) collect substantial data related to material properties,
loading and structural behaviour.
It was from the work such as this in the 1940s and 1950s that RBD
was developed, which shows clearly why RBD is based on probabi-
listic principles and uses probability of a structure failing to perform
as required rather than factors of safety. Nevertheless, it was quickly
recognised that designers would need to be freed from the compu-
tational burden associated with probabilistic calculation, and so a
simplified form of calculation based on factors (often referred to as
partial factors) was developed. The values of these factors are set so
as to ensure that the probabilistic requirements are met, and pre-
scribed in the structural design standards of limit state design (LSD)
and (North America) load and resistance factor design (LRFD). Un-
fortunately, the abbreviations RBD, LSD and LRFD proliferate in the
literature, and although it has been noted that they mean different
things to different people (Becker, 1996a, b), here we use RBD when
referring generally to the probabilistic design approach.
Recognising both that RBD is in many ways superior to design
using factors of safety (the latter continues to form the basis of most
rock engineering designs) and that many geotechnical designs need
to interface with structural designs, since the 1980s, there has been
increasing recognition that geotechnical design codes and stan-
dards should also adopt RBD (e.g. Phoon, 2017). Now a number of
LSD and LRFD geotechnical codes exist that are engaging RBD
principles (EN-1997-1, 2004; CSA-S6-14, 2014b; AASHTO, 2016).
The literature on the applications of RBD to rock engineering is
generally sparse, and mostly includes applications to specific
design situations (e.g. Jimenez-Rodriguez and Sitar, 2007; Wang
et al., 2015; Liu and Low, 2017), and rarely fundamental discus-
sion of its applicability in the context of customary rock engineer-
ing practice procedures (e.g. Low and Phoon, 2015; Spross and
Johansson, 2017). Nevertheless, many of the geotechnical LSD and
LRFD codes claim to apply to rock as well as soil, and as one
fundamental aspect of RBD is that it requires rigorous statistical
analysis, it is now entirely appropriate that statistical analysis
procedures which support RBD are developed and introduced into
rock engineering. Additionally, of significant interest in geotech-
nical engineering in general, and rock engineering in particular, is
the pressing need to develop statistical models that are robustly
applicable to limited data e after all, in the majority of rock engi-
neering projects, site-specific data are severely limited, and it is
incumbent upon us to wring as much knowledge as possible out of
the limited data we have. Similarly, as there seems to be no reason
to suggest that the HeB criterion will not continue in widespread
use for many years to come, it is important to develop statistical
models and procedures that are appropriate for this criterion in the
contexts of RBD and limited data. It is as a contribution to these
requirements that this paper has been written.
613
As a precursor to addressing the practical matter of rock mass
strength in the context of RBD, here we concentrate on the
somewhat simpler problem of statistical analysis of intact rock
strength. For the case of applying the HeB criterion to intact rock
strength data, Bozorgzadeh et al. (2018a) identified and dis-
cussed some of the key shortcomings in current analysis
methods. They also strongly noted that, with regard to RBD,
reporting in the literature of strength results is often incomplete.
Here, and following this work, we first summarise the key as-
pects of regression models and then use regression to investigate
a number of data sets, covering various rock types, in the context
of RBD. Subsequently, we show how a combination of compres-
sive and tensile strength data requires use of special regression
techniques, and use a previously developed Bayesian regression
model (Bozorgzadeh et al., 2018a) to analyse an extensive data
set that contains these strength data. Finally, we discuss how
regression models may be used in the context of modern design
standards, particularly in Eurocode, to obtain characteristic
values.
2. Regression models
Bozorgzadeh et al. (2018a) discussed how to formulate fre-
quentist and Bayesian regression models for analysis of intact rock
strength data. This work pays particular attention to the form and
location of variability in rock strength data, as illustrated in Fig. 1. It
is only through recognition of this variability that regression can be
performed correctly.
Customary regression models are based on frequentist princi-
ples, and as will be shown later, these models are inappropriate
when handling combined compressive and tensile data. This,
together with the need to robustly handle limited data, is why we
turn to Bayesian models. To facilitate further discussion in this
paper, below we present a concise summary of these Bayesian
regression models, emphasising the role of different variables
(dependent, independent, and uncertain statistical parameters) in
these models.
σ1 >0
σ3 > 0
Probability density
Mean
strength
criterion σ 1|(σ 3>0) ~ Normal(H-B, ς 2σ1)
Same random
variables with
similar variance
σ1|(σ 3=0) ~ Normal( σ c, ς2σ1)
σ1
ax
is
σ3= 0
σ1>0 Different random
is
σ 3 ax variables with
different variance
0
σ 3<
0 σ 1=
σ3|(σ 1=0) ~ Normal(σ t, ς2σ3 )
Fig. 1. Illustration of variability in tensile and compressive regions (from Bozorgzadeh
et al., 2018a).
614 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627
2.1. Regression using compressive strength data
The simplest regression model is for the situation where the
data consist solely of compressive data (both uniaxial and triaxial),
and this may be concisely written as

  extended to include tensile strength data, as discussed below.
s1ðiÞ

ms1 ðiÞ ; us1 wNormal ms1 ðiÞ ; us1
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ms1 ðiÞ ¼ s3ðiÞ þ msc s3ðiÞ þ s2c
where s3 is the confining pressure, s1 is the axial compressive
strength, ms1 is the mean of s1, us1 is the precision, and m and sc
are the parameters of the regression model that are to be estimated
from data.
In this model, s3 is the independent variable and s1 is the
dependent variable whose measurements exhibit variability. Eq.
(1a) shows that this variability is modelled as a normally distrib-
uted random variable with mean ms1 and a common precision (i.e.
reciprocal of variance) us1 ¼ 1=22s1 at all confining pressures. Note
that the use of precision rather than the variance is common in the
Bayesian literature. The mean axial strength ms1 is modelled as the
nonlinear HeB criterion (Eq. (1b)). Note that although the observed
rock strength data generally support the assumptions of normally
distributed axial strength with equal variance at all confining
pressures, these assumptions may be relaxed if the data warrant it.
For example, a t-distribution may be used rather than a normal
distribution to model heavy-tailed data.
In the Bayesian framework, the unknown statistical parameters
are also modelled probabilistically, and the analysis requires prior
distributions to be assigned to them. The following prior distribu-
tions are used in this paper:
mwUniformð0; 50Þ
 
sc wNormal msc ¼ 0; usc ¼ 1  108 ðtruncated below zeroÞ
 
us1 wGamma a ¼ 1  108 ; b ¼ 1  108
The uniform prior distribution for m reflects the accepted range
of this parameter (i.e. 0  m  50), while showing no prior pref-
erence for any particular value within this range. In the Bayesian
context, this prior might be considered “weakly informative” since
it brings in some information e in this case the range and the fact
that there is no preferred value within the range. As a “vague” prior
for sc, a normal distribution with a very small precision (i.e. large
variance) is used. Vague prior distributions contrast with weakly
informative distributions in that they aim to play a minimal role in
comparison to the data for estimation of the parameters. This
particular distribution is practically flat (i.e. locally uniform) over
the positive real numbers, and thus shows no prior preference for
any specific values. The truncation below zero ensures compati-
bility with the physical limitation on this parameter. Eq. (2c) shows
that a prior distribution is also assigned to precision. Precision is the
reciprocal of variance, and the gamma distribution on the precision
with practically zero values of shape and rate parameters as used
here is known to model vagueness in variance (Lunn et al., 2012;
Gelman et al., 2013).
The vagueness in this Bayesian regression model means that
when used with large numbers of data, it generates results that are
practically indistinguishable from those obtained using frequentist
nonlinear regression (Bozorgzadeh et al., 2018a). Although it
therefore offers no analytical advantages over nonlinear regression
in such cases, the Bayesian approach is valuable in that it allows a
straightforward and easy-to-understand probabilistic interpreta-
tion of uncertainties, and also in that it permits the analysis to be
(1a)
2.2. Incorporation of tensile strength data
(1b)
In some cases, both compressive and tensile strength data are
available, the latter often in the form of indirect tensile strength
determined either formally using the Brazilian test or more infor-
mally using the point load test. Regression of a combination of
tensile and compressive data is a considerably more complex sta-
tistical situation than that of just compressive data, since the
random variable is different for each type of data. As shown in Fig. 1,
it is the axial strength s1 for compressive data and s3 for tensile
strength (Bozorgzadeh et al., 2018a). Currently, there is no statis-
tically correct solution to this using frequentist nonlinear regres-
sion. That is why we turn to a Bayesian model. The following
equations, together with Eqs. (1a), (1b), and (2a)e(2c), form the
regression model for this data structure.
The tensile strength data Tj (j ¼ 1, 2,., nT) are modelled as a
normal distribution with mean st and precision uT:
TðjÞ wNormalðst ; uT Þ (3)
Simultaneously, the uniaxial tensile stress state is defined on
average as s1 ¼ 0 and s3 ¼ st (see Fig. 1). For this stress state, the
HeB criterion yields (Jaeger et al., 2007):
 
sc  0:5
st ¼ m2 þ 4 m (4)
2
(2a)
For m  5, we have the following approximation (Jaeger et al.,
2007):
jst jzsc =m (5)
(2b)
and for m  10 (which is the case with the data analysed here), the
(2c) error associated with this approximation is less than 1%.
Eq. (5) allows the value of st to be determined using the dis-
tributions of sc and m that are already available within the model
(see Eq. (1b)). With this simultaneity, m, sc and st may be estimated
from both tensile and compressive data. Note that, if desired, Eq. (4)
may be used in the Bayesian model instead of the approximation
given by Eq. (5). However, for the range of estimated parameters in
this paper, the approximation error is about one order of magnitude
smaller than the standard errors of various estimates of st values,
and therefore, it is considered negligible in these cases. Also, it is
noted that in recent years, the applicability of this approximation
has been challenged (e.g. Hoek and Martin, 2014; Langford and
Perras, 2014), a discussion of which will be presented in Section
4.3. In the following, we continue to rely on Eq. (5).
To complete the above Bayesian model, the gamma distribution
is used as a vague prior on uT:
 
uT wGamma 1  108 ; 1  108 (6)
Note that no relation is assumed between us1 and uT, the vari-
ability of the compressive and tensile data, and thus these two
parameters will be estimated only from their corresponding data
type. Also, this model shows that a combination of tensile and
uniaxial compressive strength data (which will be analysed later) is
 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627
merely a particular regression case where only compressive data
for which s3 ¼ 0 are considered in Eqs. (1a) and (1b).
2.3. Model updating and computation
Given the relevant data for each regression model, the prior
distributions are updated according to Bayes’ rule to give posterior
distributions of the parameters. These parameters are m, sc (mean
uniaxial compressive strength), st (mean tensile strength), us1
(precision of axial compressive strength), and uT (precision of
tensile strength). The posterior distribution of each parameter
represents the estimate of that parameter based on both its prior
distribution and the data. Because we have used vague and weakly
informative priors, we allow “the data to speak for themselves”.
Also, because they are distributions, these estimates include both
the mean value and the associated uncertainty, and it is this un-
certainty that we primarily investigate in the analyses that follow.
Finally, it is important to recognise that these estimated parameters
are not observable random variables (like rock strength in a single
compression test) but are statistical parameters that describe the
regression model, the values of which are uncertain and are char-
acterised using probability in the Bayesian context. More details
about the Bayesian regression models and the interpretation of
posterior distributions may be found in Bozorgzadeh et al. (2018a).
The posterior distributions of the nonlinear regression models
do not have an analytical form, and thus have to be determined
numerically. The numerical approximation usually uses Markov
chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), and the MCMC for the Bayesian models
in this paper has used the OpenBUGS computer package (Lunn
et al., 2009). MCMC is numerically intensive, and requires the
computational power of modern desktop computers to make it a
practicable proposition.
3. Observed variability of strength parameters
As noted in the Introduction, knowledge of the variability of rock
strength parameters is critical for RBD. Although some information
on variability is available in the literature, for example, when tables
of typical parameter values indicate likely ranges, few analyses of
rock strength report variability (in terms of standard deviation, or
precision as shown in Eq. (1a)) and no rigorous and extensive
treatment of the matter appears in the literature except very gen-
eral summary statistics for different rock types (Aladejare and
Wang, 2017). Some initial efforts have been made in this direc-
tion for soils (Phoon and Kulhawy, 1999), showing how the
geotechnical engineering community is beginning to tackle the
issue.
Here, we make use of 268 of rock strength data compilations
from Douglas (2002), each with at least four strength measure-
ments, to statistically explore the nature of rock strength variability
using the regression model of Eqs. (1a) and (1b). These compila-
tions include many rock types, and we have extracted strength data
for rocks reported as coal, granite, limestone, marble, mudstone
and sandstone. As the presence of anisotropy in these materials has
not been recorded, we assume that they may be regarded as
isotropic and thus the data are analysed on that basis.
For each rock type, we report posterior estimates of the values
and variability of the HeB regression parameters m, sc and,
importantly, the standard deviation of axial compressive strength.
Fig. 2 shows these results for 25 granite data sets. To aid compar-
ison between the figures, they all use the same limits on the ordi-
nate axes. In these figures, the data sets have been arranged in
ascending order of size (the number of results in each set is shown
at the top of the figure). For each data set, two analyses have been
615
performed: the left-hand filled circle and vertical line are the re-
sults of a Bayesian analysis using the model of Eqs. (1a), (1b) and
(2a)e(2c), and the right-hand open circle and vertical line are the
equivalent of a frequentist analysis made using the Bayesian model
of Eq. (1b). For the Bayesian analysis, the filled circles are posterior
mean values that may be considered as the best estimate of the
parameter in question and the vertical lines associated with each
point are the 95% posterior credible interval (i.e. the 95% probability
range) for the parameter. For the frequentist analysis, the open
circles are point estimates with the line indicating the associated
95% confidence interval. It is noted that a Bayesian credible interval
has a straightforward direct probabilistic interpretation: it is simply
the probability that the parameter of interest will have a value that
lies within the credible interval itself. This contrasts sharply with
the frequentist concept of confidence intervals, which strictly
should be interpreted in terms of a hypothetical long-run of
repeated similar experiments. A discussion on confidence intervals
and their interpretation in the context of HeB regression, together
with a conceptual comparison to credible intervals, has been given
by Bozorgzadeh et al. (2018a), and a general discussion about them
may be found in applied statistics textbooks (e.g. Ang and Tang,
2006).
We make a number of observations about these analyses. Firstly,
and most significantly in the context of RBD, we note the prepon-
derance of small sample sizes: very few sets comprise more than
ten results, and only one comprises more than 100 (although one
set contains 95 results). These sizes are in stark contrast to the
requirement noted in the Introduction that “designers . collect
substantial data related to material properties”, and exemplify a
significant problem that is faced in applying RBD to rock engi-
neering. The call for more extensive testing of rock strength is not
new, and the situation seems unlikely to change. This suggests that
another powerful aspect of Bayesian data analysis e namely, the
objective incorporation of information from other sources e may
be required as standard practice in rock engineering design
(Bozorgzadeh, 2018).
For smaller data sets, there are often discrepancies between the
estimates from the two regression approaches, but there are sig-
nificant overlaps between the 95% Bayesian credible interval and
the 95% confidence interval. Generally, this is expected due to the
use of vague and weakly informative prior distributions in the
Bayesian model, as such a model is similar to a frequentist model
(Bozorgzadeh et al., 2018a). It will be seen that in a few cases, the
frequentist estimate is missing from the plots. This indicates that
the nonlinear regression model is not able to converge to a solution,
and it suggests that those data sets are not amenable to having the
HeB criterion fitted to them in the frequentist sense.
Although we have arranged the results in these figures in
increasing order of sample size, from visual assessment of the re-
sults for all rock types we have analysed, we conclude that there is
no discernible pattern for variability in terms of sample size,
beyond saying that for larger sample sizes (Bozorgzadeh et al.,
2017), the estimates from both analysis methods are very similar.
Indeed, as shown in Fig. 2a, small variability in m may be found for
small (set 6) and large (set 24) data sets, but the same is true for
large variability (sets 5 and 21). We have insufficient knowledge of
the particular data sets to say why these differences exist, but the
results suggest that variability in m must be determined on a case-
by-case basis.
One aim of this work is to investigate the variability in strength
parameters in order to assess whether broadly applicable reference
values of variability could be determined for use in lieu of values
obtained from rock testing. We conclude from the analyses pre-
sented here that this will not be possible. Unfortunately, we note
616 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627

341
sample size:

10

10

10

11

12

16

17

17

38
4

9
100
Bayesian posterior mean &
80 95% credible interval

Estimated m Frequentist estimate &

60 95% confidence interval

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Data set number
(a) Estimates of m.

341
sample size:

10

10

10

11

12

16

17

17

38
4

9
600 1029 1064 615 689

500
Estimated σ c (MPa)

400

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Data set number
(b) Estimates of σc.

341
sample size:
10

10

10

11

12

16

17

17

38
4

250 509 655 290

Estimated standard deviation

200

150

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Data set number
(c) Estimates of standard deviation of axial strength.

Fig. 2. Estimates of H-B regression parameters for granite.

that estimates of parameter variability are currently seldom
included in rock strength testing reports. In the context of RBD, this
indicates that customary rock testing and reporting procedures e
such as those set forth in the International Society for Rock Me-
chanics and Rock Engineering (ISRM) suggested methods e will
need to be modified to ensure that the necessary statistical data are
obtained.
4. Combined tensile and compressive data
The principal aim of this section is to investigate the effect that
different combinations of compressive and tensile strength results
have on the values of uncertainties in m, sc and standard deviation
of axial strength. Two secondary investigations have been
performed, one examining the ratio between direct and indirect
tensile strengths, and the other examining the evidence for a ten-
sile cut-off in the HeB criterion.
The subject of the analysis is an extensive strength dataset of
medium-grained metagraniteegranodiorite occurring at the
Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB)
Forsmark site, Sweden (Elorant, 2004a,b,c; Jacobsson, 2004a,b,c,
2006, 2007; Gorski and Conlon, 2007). These results are from
strength testing of core arising from boreholes KFM01A and
KFM01D at the Forsmark site, and we analyse them as a single
group that, for brevity, is hereafter referred to as the Forsmark data.
These data consist of uniaxial compressive (abbreviated as Cu,
nCu ¼ 21), triaxial compressive (Ct, nCt ¼ 31), direct tensile (Td,
nTd ¼ 20) and indirect tensile (Ti, nTi ¼ 80) strengths. The Cu, Ct and
 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627 617

about one half of the Ti data are attributable to borehole KFM01A,

while the Td and the remaining Ti data come from borehole 280 Cu & Ct
KFM01D. The two subsets of Ti data have statistically significantly Cu & Td
different mean values, and we have insufficient information to Cu & Ct & Td
explain this beyond surmising that the difference may be attrib- 260

Posterior σ c (MPa)
utable to factors such as geological differences, or the strength
measurements being performed by different laboratories. Never-
theless, for the purpose of analysis presented below, which is a
discussion of uncertainties in strength parameter estimation
240
arising from different combinations of strength data type using
Bayesian regression models, we combine the Ti data into one set.
We address the appropriateness of this decision in the following 220
sub-section.
Recognising the testing regimes seen in practice, we have ana-
lysed three combinations of strength data: uniaxial and triaxial
compressive strengths, uniaxial compressive and tensile strengths,
200
10 15 20 25 30
and uniaxial and triaxial compressive strengths in conjunction with
Posterior m
tensile strength. The analysis makes use of the Bayesian regression
(a) Using direct tensile strength data.
model presented in Section 2.2 that combines tensile and
compressive data.
It has been known for some time that direct and indirect tensile
280 Cu & Ct
tests give different strength values, and factors relating the two (i.e.
the ratio Td/Ti) are available in the literature (e.g. Perras and Cu & Ti
Diederichs, 2014; Read and Richards, 2014). In the rock me- Cu & Ct & Ti
t
chanics literature, these are often called “correction factors”, but in 260 tme n
a djus
Posterior σ c (MPa)
the context of RBD, they should be referred to as either “model
factors” (EN 1990, 2002) or “transformation factors” (Phoon and
Kulhawy, 1999). For clarity, we adopt the latter term. Also, we 240
emphasise that the data and summary statistics reported in the t
tme n
literature allow for calculation of a mean transformation factor but a djus
does not allow for variability in Td and Ti data to be accounted for. Ti data adjusted by
As the Forsmark data contain both Td and Ti data, we take the 220
multiplying by the
opportunity to investigate the nature of the uncertainty that they
deterministic ratio
bring to strength analysis, and also to determine whether published
mean(Td)/mean(Ti)=0.58
transformation factors are adequate for practical application. 200
The HeB criterion was developed with emphasis on shear 10 15 20 25 30
strength in the compressive regime, and recent work questions its Posterior m
validity in the tensile regime (Hoek and Martin, 2014; Langford and (b) Using indirect tensile and adjusted indirect tensile strength data.
Perras, 2014). In particular, as there is evidence that fitting the HeB
criterion to shear strength data and extrapolating to the s1 ¼ 0 axis Fig. 3. Joint posterior distributions of m and sc for Forsmark data.
may underestimate or overestimate the tensile strength of the rock,
the use of a tensile cut-off has been proposed and is adopted in the
most recent version of the HeB criterion (Hoek and Brown, 2019). Table 1
Posterior summary statistics for Forsmark data (see Fig. 3).
As the Forsmark data are sufficiently comprehensive to allow us to
assess uncertainty surrounding adoption of a tensile cut-off, we Data Parameter Mean st. dev. 95% credible interval Correlation
take the opportunity to do so. Cu-Ct m 23.92 1.86 (20.38, 27.72) 0.68
sc (MPa) 241.16 6.22 (228.8, 253.3)
4.1. Analysis using direct tensile data st. dev. (MPa) 34.42 3.55 (28.32, 42.22) N/A
Cu-Td m 21.69 0.86 (20.07, 23.45) þ0.53
sc (MPa) 239.18 5 (229.3, 249.1)
For clarity, the results of the analyses applied in this section are st. dev. (MPa) 22.66 3.8 (16.68, 31.5) N/A
shown as joint probability distributions of m and sc. Fig. 3a shows Cu-Ct-Td m 22.44 0.68 (21.16, 23.82) þ0.1
joint posterior distributions for three different combinations of sc (MPa) 245.26 4 (237.07, 252.7)
st. dev. (MPa) 34.26 3.51 (28.24, 41.93) N/A
compressive and direct tensile strengths for the Forsmark data, and
CueTi m 14.41 0.43 (13.59, 15.27) þ0.7
Table 1 shows summary statistics of these posterior distributions. sc (MPa) 239.15 5.01 (229.2, 249)
These results show that, depending on the data combination st. dev. (MPa) 22.68 3.81 (16.67, 31.48) N/A
used, different best estimates (i.e. posterior mean, shown as crosses Cu-Ct-Ti m 16.1 0.42 (15.3, 16.93) þ0.55
at the centres of the iso-density contours) of pairs of m and sc are sc (MPa) 263.3 4.83 (253.9, 272.8)
st. dev. (MPa) 41.24 4.26 (33.87, 50.55) N/A
obtained. Furthermore, the uncertainties (i.e. standard deviations
of posterior m and posterior sc, shown by the extent of the con- Note: st. dev. is the standard deviation, and N/A means that the results are not
available.
tours), and correlations between the estimates (shown by the ec-
centricity of the elliptical contours) are also different for the three
data combinations. The close mean values and the notable overlap single group. The figure also supports the general observation that
of the three joint posterior distributions in Fig. 3a suggest similarity more data (even when provided in different categories of tensile
in strength, and thus support the earlier decision of combining the and compressive strengths) tend to result in reduced uncertainty:
data from boreholes KFM01A and KFM01D and analysing them as a here, the case of Cu and Ct data (n ¼ 52) shows the largest
618 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627
uncertainty, with the case of Cu, Ct and Td (n ¼ 72) exhibiting the
smallest uncertainty.
It is to be expected that different combinations of data generate
different correlations between the posterior m and sc from a purely
theoretical point of view: for Cu and Ct data, the dependent variable
s1 increases with an increase in the independent variable s3
(Eq. (1b)), and thus the parameter estimates are negatively corre-
lated; and for Cu and Td data, the estimates are positively corre-
lated because, by Eq. (5), m is defined as a proportion of sc. Finally,
for the data analysed here, the combination of Cu, Ct and Td data
produces a posterior distribution that shows no significant
correlation.
Although the significant overlap of the regions of high posterior
probability indicates similarities between these estimates, overall
these results appear problematic for rock strength testing. In
addition to the previously known effect of sample size
(Bozorgzadeh et al., 2017), we now see that the estimates of
parameter value and variability are dependent on the type of
testing used. There are two principal conclusions to be drawn from
these results. Firstly, as uncertainty is dependent on the type of
testing used, for RBD purposes, it must always be reported as part of
the analysis. Secondly, a combination of tensile with both uniaxial
and triaxial compressive results is required to obtain minimal un-
certainty in m and sc estimates. Once again, these suggest that
revisions are required for guidelines such as the ISRM suggested
methods.
4.2. Analysis using indirect tensile data
Fig. 3b shows the joint posteriors of m and sc for different data
combinations for the case where indirect tensile data are used
instead of direct tensile data. Unlike the earlier results of Cu, Ct and
Td data, these three joint posteriors are different to the extent
where there is no overlap between them, and are therefore seen to
generate different estimates of strength parameters.
This misfit is due to the indirect tensile strength being greater
than direct tensile strength, to the extent that when combined with
the compressive data, they no longer fit well as predictors of an
HeB criterion. The boxplots presented in Fig. 4 clearly show the
difference between the direct and indirect tensile strengths. This
difference is well known, and is due to the different stress regimes
25
Tensile strength (MPa)
20
15
10
5 turbulence (Richardson, 1922). Following this seminal work, we
direct indirect
Fig. 4. Comparison of direct and indirect tensile strengths for Forsmark data.
induced by these test configurations: the indirect (Brazilian) tensile
test induces a combination of compressive and tensile stresses,
whereas the direct tensile test induces tensile stress only. As the
Bayesian model requires pure tensile rather than a combined stress
state, it incorrectly analyses the indirect tensile data. Nevertheless,
as it is indirect tensile data that are generally encountered in
practice, it is important to overcome this problem in order to make
best use of this widely available data type.
A simple potential solution to this problem is to factor indirect
tensile strength measurements (Bozorgzadeh et al., 2018a), and for
the Forsmark data, a published value for the ratio of mean direct
tensile strength to mean indirect tensile strength is 0.58 (Read and
Richards, 2014). Fig. 3b shows the effect of applying this trans-
formation factor, and comparison with Fig. 3a clearly represents a
significant improvement in the fit of the data to the HeB criterion.
The distributions of sc shown in Fig. 3b also allow us to assess the
validity of combining the Ti data from boreholes KFM01A and
KFM01D. As there is no indication that these distributions are
bimodal, we assume that the data in each of the two boreholes may
be regarded as random samples from the same distribution of rock
strength, and thus may be combined.
Although the transformation factor value of 0.58 applied here is
within the range of such values (0.5e1.1) reported in the literature
for different types of granite, Bozorgzadeh et al. (2018a) suggested
caution when using these factors, and pointed out that the uncer-
tainty associated with them should be taken into account. These
authors did not discuss this further, but the following shows how a
Bayesian analysis may be used to assess and incorporate such
uncertainty.
Unfortunately, and possibly due to the deterministic tradition of
rock engineering, variability in these transformation factors is not
always reported. However, in addition to reporting the mean factor
of 0.58 (Ti/Td), Read and Richards (2014) also reported the standard
deviation and sample size of both direct and indirect tensile test
results. We will discuss later how this information may be used in
the context of our regression model, but first examine the more
straightforward case of how the Forsmark direct and indirect ten-
sile data allow us to investigate uncertainty in the value of trans-
formation factor.
Our analysis incorporating variability in Ti/Td begins by
randomly separating the indirect tensile data into two subsets of
equal size: the first subset is used in conjunction with the direct
tensile data to estimate the distribution of strength ratio, while the
second subset is pooled with the compressive data to estimate the
HeB strength parameters. This separation ensures that the same
data are not used twice in the same analysis. Two normal distri-
maximum butions e with vague prior distributions on their mean and vari-
ance e are fitted to the first subset of indirect and direct tensile
data, respectively. For each distribution, we obtain the posterior
3rd quartile distribution of the mean, which gives the best estimate and its
median associated uncertainty. Dividing these two uncertain means gives
the probabilistic ratio as shown in Fig. 5. Note that the mean value
1st quartile
of 0.64 here differs from the published value of 0.58, but impor-
tantly we are also able to show that the standard deviation of the
ratio is 0.03. This uncertainty in the ratio means that there is 95%
probability that its value lies within 0.58 and 0.7. When fitting the
HeB criterion to the combination of the second indirect tensile data
minimum subset and compressive data, we use this probabilistic ratio as if it
was information reported in the literature. An interesting aspect of
this analysis is that we are effectively applying distributions to
distributions. We are reminded of similar effects in atmospheric
offer the observation that for Bayesian analysis of rock strength, big
models have little models that feed on their uncertainty, and little
models have lesser models and so on as a hierarchy.
 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627 619

20 direct to indirect tensile data as a deterministic transformation

factor, and comparison with Fig. 3b shows that the two analyses
Approximated using generate largely similar results despite the factors being 0.64 and
0.58, respectively. Fig. 6b shows the effect of using the probabilistic
Normal( μ=0.64, ς2=0.03 2 )
15 transformation factor that takes into account the uncertainty in the
Probability Density

estimate of the ratio of the means of two tensile strength data

types. As expected, the means of the adjusted joint distributions in
Fig. 6a and b are similar, but the uncertainties are very different in
10 terms of both variance and correlation of the estimates. Again, this
shows that a full understanding of the effect of uncertainty needs
uncertainty in all parameter estimates to be accounted for.
Finally, as noted earlier in this sub-section, the literature review
5 by Read and Richards (2014) includes summary statistics (mean,
number of tests and standard deviation) for direct and indirect
strength data of some rock types. These summary statistics may be
used as follows to construct a probabilistic transformation factor.
0 For each type of tensile data, if we had accessed to and analysed the
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 actual data, we would have been able to obtain the posterior dis-
mean(Td)/mean(Ti) tributions of the tensile strengths. The mean of these distributions
would be equal to the reported mean, and the variance would be
Fig. 5. Ratio of mean direct tensile to mean indirect tensile strength for randomly b2 2 =n; where b2 is the reported estimate of the standard deviation of
separated data.
the strength data, and n is the number of data points. Note that
these are results of the central limit theorem in the context of
The joint posterior distributions of m and sc resulting from frequentist statistics and match those of an analogous Bayesian
fitting regression models to different combinations of compressive model with vague priors.
data and the second subset of indirect tensile data are shown in Read and Richards (2014) reported a mean of 11.1 and standard
Fig. 6. Fig. 6a shows the effect of applying the ratio of the means of deviation of 1.55 for nTd ¼ 20, and a mean of 19 and standard de-
viation of 1.47 for nTi ¼ 40. Subsequently, Monte Carlo simulation
can be used to obtain values from the two posterior distributions
and simulate the distribution of their ratio. The distribution of the
280 Cu & Ct transformation factor and the corresponding results of regression
Cu & Ti analysis are shown in Fig. 7. The mean value of 0.58 in this figure
Cu & Ct & Ti
corresponds to the ratio of the two reported means, i.e. 11.1/19.
260 t
Posterior σ c (MPa)

tmen While the outcome of this analysis is not that different from the
adjus
one presented earlier with the Normal (0.64, 0.032), the fact that it
was possible at all is only due to the authors reporting standard
240 t deviation and sample size along with the mean value. This em-
tmen
adjus phasises the critical importance of reporting not only measured
Ti data adjusted by data but also sufficient summary statistics to allow others to make
220 multiplying by the use of either the data or the statistics in their analyses. This is not a
deterministic ratio new reporting requirement, but is given new importance by the
mean(Td)/mean(Ti)=0.64 move to RBD. It is unfortunate that rock engineering generally lags
200 behind other engineering disciplines in terms of today’s standards
10 15 20 25 30 of reporting data and data summaries.
Posterior m These analyses go some way to address the problem of per-
(a) Using deterministic transformation factor. forming the statistical analyses required by RBD, and also support
Tye (1944)’s observation (noted above) that designers would need
280 Cu & Ct to collect substantial data related to material properties. We also
Cu & Ti believe that we have been able to wring more knowledge out of the
Cu & Ct & Ti data than is customary. However, as important as these analyses are
260 tmen
t e particularly in terms of input data for Monte Carlo simulation as
adjus
Posterior σ c (MPa)

part of rock engineering design e they do not address the needs of

designers attempting to apply the current versions of geotechnical
RBD codes. We tackle this important matter in Section 5, but before
240 t
tmen doing so, we briefly discuss the matter of the tensile cut-off, as
adjus
mentioned in Section 2.2.
Ti data adjusted by
220
multiplying by the 4.3. Tensile cut-off
probabilistic ratio
mean(Td)/mean(Ti) ~ Normal(0.64,0.03 2) The most recent version of the HeB criterion (Hoek and Brown,
200 2019) incorporates a tensile cut-off based on the generalised Grif-
10 15 20 25 30
Posterior m fith criterion and with the form:
(b) Using probabilistic transformation factor. sc
¼ B0 þ B1 m (7)
Fig. 6. Deterministic vs. probabilistic transformation factor for indirect tensile data. jst j
620 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627

Approximated using ratio of sc/m is found to have a posterior mean of 10.16 MPa and a
20 Normal(μ=0.58,ς2=0.022 ) 95% credible interval of (8.39 MPa, 12.29 MPa). This is shown in
Fig. 8 as estimate B. These two estimates differ visually, and the
Probability Density

figure shows that the mean value of estimate B falls outside the 95%
15 credible interval of estimate A. However, the non-negligible overlap
of the two credible intervals indicates that these data do not offer
10 strong evidence to refute the use of the approximation jstj z sc/m
to determine the tensile strength.
Applying the tensile cut-off of Eq. (7) with B0 ¼ 7 and B1 ¼ 0.81
5 to the same distributions of m and sc yields for st a posterior mean
of 9.19 MPa and a 95% credible interval of (7.88 MPa, 10.66 MPa).
This is shown as estimate C in Fig. 8, and is seen to differ more from
0 estimate A than estimate B. Nevertheless, and similarly to estimate
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
mean(Td)/mean(Ti) B, its 95% credible interval overlaps with that of estimate A e albeit
only slightly. Also, it is important to note that this credible interval
(a) Histogram of transformation factor simulated using information from the
is only based on the uncertainty associated with the posteriors of m
literature.
and sc, and does not include any uncertainties associated with the
linear cut-off relationship (i.e. those of the estimated values of m, sc
280 Cu & Ct and st used in fitting the equation, and also those of the slope and
Cu & Ct intercept of the fitted line, none of which are reported or discussed
Cu & Ct & Ti in the literature). The omission of these means that the uncertainty
t
260 tmen
adjus
Posterior σ c (MPa)

associated with estimate C is underestimated. Nevertheless, a vi-

sual assessment of estimates B and C would suggest that, for these
data, the approximation jstj z sc/m gives a better estimate of
240 t tensile strength than the tensile cut-off of Eq. (7) does.
tmen
adjus Finally, Fig. 8 shows for further comparison estimates D and E,
which result from Bayesian models that simultaneously incorpo-
Ti data adjusted by
220 multiplying by the
rate all available data (i.e. Cu, Ct and Td). Estimate D is based on the
approximation jstj z sc/m, while estimate E results from imple-
probabilistic ratio
menting the tensile cut-off of Eq. (7). These two estimates are
mean(Td)/mean(Ti)~Normal(0.58,0.02 2)
200 visually similar to each other, and to estimate A. This indicates
10 15 20 25 30 firstly that there is no strong evidence for adopting the tensile cut-
Posterior m off with these data, and secondly that the direct tensile data have a
(b) Using probabilistic transformation factor. stronger influence on estimating st than does on m and sc.
An alternative interpretation of estimates B, D and E is provided
in Fig. 9, which illustrates the joint posterior distributions of m and
Fig. 7. Calculation and application of probabilistic transformation factor using infor- sc resulting from the analyses. This figure confirms that estimates D
mation from the literature. and E display similar uncertainty, but it also shows that estimate E
exhibits a much smaller overlap with estimate B and the Cu-Ct data
combination than does estimate D. Once again, this suggests that,
Table 2 summarises the few values for B0 and B1 available in the for the Forsmark data, the approximation jstj z sc/m gives a better
literature, which result from analyses of data sets comprising estimate of tensile strength than the tensile cut-off of Eq. (7) does.
compressive and tensile data. Using the Forsmark data, we have Preliminary analysis of some other strength data sets available
performed various analyses to examine both the evidence for the to the authors has led to qualitatively similar conclusions as above,
tensile cut-off and reliability of these estimates of the tensile cut-off i.e. the original form of HeB criterion does not necessarily misfit
parameters B0 and B1. In this paper, we have adopted the specific tensile data. However, these data sets mostly comprise a limited
values of B0 ¼ 7 and B1 ¼ 0.81 suggested by Hoek and Brown (2019) number of strength measurements, with tensile data being limited
as these are based on the analysis of a number of data sets. to either uniaxial conditions or indirect tensile data modified by a
We begin by taking the direct tensile strength data (Td) as the transformation factor taken from the literature. This is in contrast to
base case. Using these data, we obtain a posterior mean of the data sets used in Hoek and Martin (2014), which are more
11.06 MPa and 95% credible interval of (10.34 MPa, 11.79 MPa), comprehensive strengths in terms of the tensile regime despite
shown as estimate A in Fig. 8. Next, we consider the estimate of the comprising small numbers of strength measurements (i.e. s1 > 0
mean tensile strength and its credible interval obtained using the fit and s3 < 0).
presented earlier of the Cu-Ct data to the original form of the HeB These results all concur with the findings of Hoek and Martin
criterion with the approximation jstj z sc/m. The summary sta- (2014) in that more work remains to be done on this topic,
tistics of this fit are presented in Table 1, and the corresponding particularly with regard to performing and gathering more reliable
and representative strength measurements. To this we add that, in
order to guard against over-fitting and over-generalisations, such
Table 2
future work should embrace rigorous uncertainty quantification.
Parameters of the linear tensile cut-off (Eq. (7)).
Recently developed Bayesian statistical models for analysis of intact
Intercept (B0) Slope (B1) Number of Source rock strength (Bozorgzadeh et al., 2018a, b; Contreras et al., 2018),
data sets used
together with visual presentation such as that used in Figs. 8 and 9,
9.92 0.58 6 Langford and Perras (2014) may be useful in this regard.
8.62 0.7 6 Hoek and Martin (2014) To summarise, our analysis of the uncertainty associated with
7 0.81 12 Hoek and Brown (2019)
the tensile cut-off, encapsulated in Figs. 8 and 9, does not indicate
 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627 621

Estimate E
Estimate A Estimate C
σt from tensile cut-off,
mean of σt from tensile cut-off,
13 m, σt & σc estimated
direct tensile m & σc estimated
simultaneously
data from Cu & Ct
12 from Cu, Ct & Td

11
σ t (MPa)
10
Estimate D
σt=m/σc,
9 m, σt & σc estimated
Estimate B simultaneously
8 from Cu, Ct & Td
σt=σc/m,
m & σc estimated
7
from Cu & Ct

Fig. 8. Mean tensile strength of Forsmark data estimated from different data combinations and assumptions.

280 Cu & Ct Although EC7 is comprehensive in that e as explicitly noted at

Cu & Ct & Td numerous places within the code e it applies to geotechnical
and assuming Cu & Td
design in both soil and rock, for material strength, it currently only
Cu & Ct & Td
tensile cut-off recognises the shear stress form of the linear Coulomb strength
260
Posterior σ c (MPa)

criterion and thus requires strength to be characterised in terms of

240
220
200
10 15 20
Posterior m
Fig. 9. Joint posterior distribution of m and sc for Forsmark data using tensile cut-off.
that the tensile strength approximation of jstj z sc/m is inappli-
cable, and so for simplicity, we use this in the remainder of this
paper. Nevertheless, we stress that if evidence should be accumu-
lated to the contrary, it is straightforward to use posterior distri-
butions resulting from introduction of a tensile cut-off (Fig. 9).
5. Regression models and characteristic values
5.1. The concept of characteristic values in Eurocode 7
Modern geotechnical design standards such as the Eurocodes
(En 1990, 2002) employ partial factors, or load and resistance fac-
tors in case of North American standards like AASHTO (2016) and
CSA-S6-14 (2014), rather than factors of safety. In the context of
such standards, the general procedure is that the designer de-
termines the value of the design variable of interest (i.e. material
strength or applied load), which is often referred to as the char-
acteristic value, and then applies a code-prescribed partial factor to
this to obtain the design value. Detailed discussion of such pro-
cedures is not needed here, and may be found elsewhere (e.g. Orr,
2000; Bond and Harris, 2008). This section instead focuses on the
statistical definition given in EN-1997-1 (2004), commonly known
as Eurocode 7 and referred to as EC7 hereafter, for characteristic
values in relation to the above regression models and the strength
of intact rock.
the angle of shear resistance and the cohesion intercept. Of course,
it has long been known that nonlinear criteria better describe the
triaxial strength of intact rock: after all, this was one of the reasons
why Hoek and Brown developed their criterion (Hoek, 1994). Now,
almost 40 years later, a considerable amount of the published in-
formation on triaxial strength of intact rock is available in terms of
the HeB parameters m and sc, and the linear Coulomb criterion is
seldom used to predict rock strength. It is therefore critical that an
understanding of how the concepts of EC7 may be applied to a
nonlinear strength criterion such as HeB is developed.
Recognising that substantial quantitative data for strength may
not be available, EC7 deviates from the general requirements of EN
25 30 1990 (2002) in that it allows the characteristic value of a geotech-
nical parameter to be selected as a “cautious estimate” of the value
affecting the occurrence of the limit state. Here, we consider the
situation where sufficient data exist to permit application of sta-
tistical methods to determine the characteristic values. In such
cases, EC7 states that “. the characteristic value should be derived
such that the calculated probability of a worse value governing the
occurrence of the limit state under consideration is not greater than
5%”. Clearly, this is a formal definition of a cautious estimate, and e
provided that the 5% value has a rational background e is a riposte
to Tye (1944)’s “factors of habit”.
Now, the term “the value governing the occurrence of the limit
state” in this phrase has been interpreted as applying to different
components of the statistical model depending on the volume of
ground involved (Orr, 2000; Bond and Harris, 2008). Thus, for cir-
cumstances involving large volumes, EC7 defines the characteristic
value as “a selection of the mean value . with a confidence level of
95%”, and for cases involving small volumes, it is “a 5% percentile” of
the parameter of interest. The first of these is interpreted as the
lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval associated
with the true mean strength (i.e. the mean value of every element
of the large volume of ground, which is of course unknown) and the
second as the lower bound of the one-sided 95% prediction interval
of the strength (i.e. a prediction of the strength of a particular
element of ground) (Orr, 2000; Bozorgzadeh and Harrison, 2016).
These three cases e the mean strength, and large and small volume
cases e represent increasing levels of caution, for example, when
the reliability of a design relies entirely on the behaviour of a small
element of ground, then our estimate of the strength of that small
volume is required to be particularly cautious. In the context of a
622 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627

nonlinear strength criterion, these cases require curves represent- Characteristic curves:

Probability density
ing increasingly weaker materials.
With regard to rock engineering, the large volume case may be Lower bound of
Distribution of σ1 confidence interval
applicable to the rock mass surrounding an underground excava-
tion, while the small volume case may apply to cases like the rock for the mean
surrounding the anchor region of rock anchors, small pillars in hard
rock mines, and also the rock beneath the toes of piles bearing on 5th percentile curve
rock. Also, although rock engineering design generally concentrates Fitted H-B
on lower bound estimates of strength, upper bound estimates are (mean curve)
appropriate for design situations where attainment of peak
strength is an engineering objective, for example, caving tech-
niques in mining and rock excavation (both by mechanical means
and by blasting). For brevity, and also to avoid visual clutter in the
figures to follow, we focus our discussion on the lower bounds (for
both the small and large volume cases), although all the concepts
presented are equally applicable to the upper bounds.
Although it is rock mass strength that is of concern for most
engineering design situations, there are cases such as well-bore σ1
ax is
breakout, hydraulic fracturing or rock and strain bursting for is σ 3 ax
which intact rock strength is a design parameter. For this strength
parameter, Bozorgzadeh and Harrison (2016) discussed and
showed how to utilise the above definitions to estimate charac-
teristic values according to EC7 applying nonlinear regression (i.e. a Fig. 10. Schematic representation of characteristic values in the frequentist concept
(after Bozorgzadeh and Harrison, 2016).
frequentist approach) to a large data set comprising uniaxial and
triaxial compressive strength data. The authors particularly note
that, because strength is a function of confining pressure s3, char-
acteristic triaxial strength s* is also a function of s3. This indicates Posterior
that for the case of large ground volumes, we have mean
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi strength 90% credible Mean
Probability density

s*1 ¼ s*3 þ mbs b c s*3 þ b s 2c  ta; n2 SEðE½s1 Þ (8) interval strength
criterion
and for small ground volumes, we have 5th percentile
Posterior of the posterior
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi predictive mean strength
s*1 ¼ s*3 þ mbs b c s*3 þ b s 2c  ta; n2 SEðs1 Þ (9) strength
5th percentile
where s* is the value of confining pressure for which the charac-
of the posterior
teristic strength is to be determined; m b and sb c are the point esti-
predictive strength
mates; ta; n2 is the critical t-value for n data that gives a (1 
a)  100% one-sided confidence interval (for example, a ¼ 0.05 for a Shaded area:
95% confidence interval); SE (E [s1]) and SE(s1) are the estimated 5% probability
standard error of the expected value or mean curve, i.e. the fitted
strength criterion, and that of the estimation of the axial strength,
respectively, evaluated at confining pressure s*. Note that for the σ1
ax is
case of nonlinear HeB regression, they must be approximated using is 90% credible σ 3 ax
numerical sampling methods like bootstrap or approximation interval σ3*
methods like the Delta method, details about which may be found
in e.g. Efron (1979) and Casella and Berger (2002), respectively.
Application of Eqs. (8) and (9) at various values of s* allows con- Fig. 11. Schematic representation of characteristic criteria in the Bayesian context.
struction of characteristic curves (Bozorgzadeh and Harrison,
2016). The resulting two curves are shown schematically in
Fig. 10 as the dash-dot and dashed curves, respectively. the first of which is a deterministic value and the other two are
It is necessary to recognise that the above discussion of char- characterised using probability distributions in the Bayesian
acteristic values from Bozorgzadeh and Harrison (2016) is strictly models of Eqs. (2a)e(2c) and illustrated in Fig. 3a. In the context of
frequentist. Recasting this discussion into a Bayesian context results this analysis, these are posterior distributions as they have been
in Fig. 11, and allows us to determine the two characteristic curves obtained from analysis of previously obtained strength data. Now,
in terms of the Bayesian regression models introduced earlier. In at a given value of s* (i.e. the confining stress at which the char-
the discussion that follows, we apply these concepts to the analysed acteristic strength is required) and sampling from the joint distri-
data, on the basis that intact rock strength may be a design bution of m and sc (which also accounts for any correlation
parameter in certain endeavours. between these parameters), we obtain an estimate of the mean
Firstly, consider the case where we are dealing with a large strength. In other words, at each MCMC iteration, a pair of m and sc
volume of ground. Following the discussion above, we need a lower values is sampled and used together with a value of s* in Eq. (1b) to
bound (or upper bound in cases where rock breakage is the design obtain a simulated value of mean axial strength ms1 . Many such
objective) estimate of the mean strength. Eq. (1b) shows that the iterations generate the posterior distribution of ms1 , the mean of
mean strength is a function of the three parameters s3, m and sc, which represents the best estimate of axial strength (as shown in
 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627 623

Fig. 11). The distribution characterises our uncertainty in the 800

strength estimate, and also emphasises that e in the Bayesian 5th percentiles of posterior
context e statistical parameters such as mean axial strength are mean strength &
directly characterised using probability in the same way as H-B curve approximating them

Axial strength, σ 1 (MPa)

observable random variables such as unconfined compressive
600
strength. Additionally, this interpretation is straightforward and means of
easy-to-understand, unlike in the classical or frequentist methods
posterior mean
where confidence intervals should be interpreted with regard to a
hypothetical long-run of similar experiments. Finally, from this strength
distribution, we can objectively obtain the EC7 cautious estimate of 400
the mean, and it is simply the 5th percentile of the distribution for
the lower bound. 5th percentiles of posterior
The second case is that where a small volume of ground is predictive distribution of strength &
involved. Following the above discussion, we need a lower bound 200
H-B curve approximating them
(again, upper bound in the case of rock breakage being the design
objective) estimate of the axial strength itself (cf. the use of mean
strength in the large volume case). This is the posterior predictive
distribution of axial strength, which is normally distributed with 0
the same mean as presented above (i.e. that given by Eq. (1b)) but 0 10 20 30 40 50
with a standard deviation equal to the posterior standard deviation Confining pressure, σ 3 (MPa)
of axial strength, 2s1 (see Fig. 11). Simply put, the small volume
characteristic strength is essentially a prediction of a future value of Fig. 13. Approximating a continuous characteristic criterion with parameters mk and
s1 at a given confining pressure. Now, at each MCMC iteration, sck.
values of m, sc and 2s1 , are sampled. Eq. (1b) is used with the
sampled values of m and sc and a particular value of s* to obtain a
value for mean axial strength ms1 . This in turn is used in Eq. (1a) displaying the relative positions shown in Fig. 11. However, and in
together with the sampled 2s1 to simulate a predictive value of s1. contrast to the results of Fig. 3 that show different values of m and
Finally, the 5th percentile of the simulated s1 values represents the sc for different test configurations, within each of these subfigures,
EC7 definition of lower bound characteristic value for the small the individual curves differ only moderately. Indeed, we see that
volume case. the differences between the test configurations reduce as we pass
from the mean strength (Fig. 12a), through the case for large vol-
5.2. Rock strength characteristic curves umes of ground (Fig. 12b), and on to the case for small volumes of
ground (Fig. 12c). This suggests that as the need for caution in-
For the Forsmark data, the results of such a Bayesian analysis are creases, the influence of testing configuration reduces. In effect, we
shown in Fig. 12aec. The figure shows the curves for the mean are seeing that strength reduction imposed by the need for caution
strength (i.e. the best-fit to the data), and curves representing the is overwhelming any errors induced by deficient testing proced-
5th percentiles of the posterior mean strength (the large volume ures. This has implications for the design of rock testing pro-
situation) and the 5th percentiles of the posterior predictive dis- grammes, and may in due course require appropriate revisions to
tribution of axial strength (the small volume case), all super- testing guidelines such as the ISRM suggested methods (Kovari
imposed on the data themselves. The curves in Fig. 12 are et al., 1983).
constructed by applying the above procedure at many values of s*. It will be noted that in Fig. 12c, the data point with the smallest
Crucially, Fig. 12aec shows the results obtained using the test type axial strength value at a confining pressure of 50 MPa falls below
combinations used in Section 4.1. It is clear that each figure shows a the 5th percentile of the predictive distribution. This simply in-
different set of curves, with e as required e the three curves dicates that, according to the fitted model, there is a probability of

800 800 800

Cu & Ct Cu & Ct Cu & Ct
Cu & Td
Axial strength , σ 1 (MPa)

Cu & Td
Axial strength , σ 1 (MPa)

Cu & Td
Axial strength , σ 1 (MPa)

600 Cu & Ct & Td 600 Cu & Ct & Td 600 Cu & Ct & Td

400 400 400

200 200 200

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Confining pressure, σ 3 (MPa) Confining pressure, σ 3 (MPa) Confining pressure, σ 3 (MPa)

(a) Mean (best- it) criteria for different data (b) 5th percentile of the posterior mean for (c) 5th percentile of the posterior predictive strength for
combinations. different data combinations. different data combinations.

Fig. 12. Mean and characteristic strength criteria for the Forsmark data in the compressive region.
624 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627

27 observing such a value. In practice, such points should be consid-

95% uncertainty ered outliers under the fitted model, and it is recommended that
range they are examined using formal Bayesian model checking tech-
Estimated characteristic m

niques (e.g. as suggested in Gelman et al. (2013)) to evaluate how

26
the model fits them, and if necessary, expand or modify the
regression model to better accommodate them. Discussion and
application of such model checking techniques are beyond the
25 scope of this paper, and here we continue to use the fitted models.
Finally, although the curves of Fig. 12b and c result from statis-
Estimated value tical sampling, they are nevertheless similar to the curves obtained
24 by direct plotting of the HeB criterion. Indeed, Bozorgzadeh and
Harrison (2016) discussed that a characteristic curve constructed
using Eqs. (8) and (9) (i.e. using a best-fit and an additive error
term) is not the most convenient form for practical purposes,
23 particularly numerical modelling. Instead, a characteristic curve of
5 10 20 50 200 500 2000
Number of σ 3 values used in simulation the following form would be preferred:
(a) Sensitivity analysis of estimates of mk for approximation of characteristic
(percentile) curves. qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
195 s1 ¼ s3 þ mk sck s3 þ s2ck (10)
Estimated characteristic σ c (MPa)

where mk and sck are the HeB parameter values that result in an
HeB curve equivalent to that calculated using Eqs. (8) and (9). For
190 large numbers of compressive strength data, values of mk and sck
95% uncertainty may be calculated using frequentist quantile regression
range (Bozorgzadeh and Harrison, 2016), but when both tensile and
185 compressive data are required to be combined, or only small
numbers of results are available, a Bayesian model is appropriate.
As discussed in the previous sub-section, the results (i.e. pos-
teriors) of the Bayesian model allow the 5th percentile values at
180
Estimated value large numbers of s* values to be simulated, as shown in Fig. 13 for
the posterior distributions resulting from an analysis of uniaxial
and triaxial compressive and direct tensile Forsmark data. A curve
175 of HeB form is then fitted to these discrete points, the fitted pa-
5 10 20 50 200 500 2000 rameters of which may be regarded as mk and sck : Performing the
Number of σ 3 values used in simulation
simulation at large numbers of s* produces estimates of mk and sck
(b) Sensitivity analysis of estimates of σck for approximation of characteristic
that have negligible errors in comparison to the other uncertainties
(percentile) curves.
involved in the original regression model. This is demonstrated in
Fig. 14, which shows estimates and corresponding 95% uncertainty
bounds of mk and sck for the 5th percentile curve of the mean
Fig. 14. Sensitivity analysis of estimates of mk and sck for approximation of charac-
strength of Forsmark data (uniaxial and triaxial compressive and
teristic (percentile) curves.
direct tensile strengths) using a range of 5e2000 values for s*. We

Characteristic parameter values corresponding to:

95th percentile of posterior predictive distribution of strength
5th percentile of the posterior predictive distribution of strength
95th percentile of posterior distribution of mean strength
5th percentile of posterior distribution of mean strength
350 Cu & Ct & Ti Cu & Ct Cu & Ti

300
Posterior σ c (MPa)

×Km0.05
250
×Kσc0.05

200

150
20 25 30 20 25 30 20 25 30
Posterior m Posterior m Posterior m

Fig. 15. H-B parameter values that express characteristic strength criteria (direct tensile strength data).
 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627 625

Table 3
Characteristic parameter values for Forsmark data (see Fig. 15).

Data Parameter Posterior mean (large volume of ground) Posterior predictive (small volume of ground)

5th percentile 95th percentile 5th percentile 95th percentile

Cu-Ct m 22.28 25.44 27.19 22.06

sc (MPa) 237 245.5 178.8 301.8
Cu-Td m 13.81 15.02 15.2 13.9
sc (MPa) 231.1 247.2 198.8 279.1
Cu-Ct-Td m 15.56 16.62 18.21 14.95
sc (MPa) 255.7 271 190.5 334.7

350 ƽ parameter value to be the 5th percentile of the posterior distribu-

tion (i.e. the lower or left boundaries of the dashed rectangles) gives
Ct & Cu
HeB parameter values that differ, sometimes significantly, from
ƽ Cu & Ti those associated with the posterior predictive axial strength (i.e.
300 Ct & Cu & the filled diamonds).
Posterior ³c (MPa)

ƽ These results allow us to make the following key observations:

ƽ
(1) In moving from the mean point to the point corresponding
ƽ
250 ƽ ƽ to the 5th percentile of the posterior predictive distribu-
ƽ tion of strength (i.e. the strength corresponding to small
ƽ
ground volume) in Fig. 15, the value of mk increases
whereas the value of sck reduces. This may seem counter
200 intuitive e should they not both reduce? e but this is a
ƽ
result of the probabilistic constraint of the 5th percentile
ƽ
ƽ imposed on our predictions of s1 values. What is seen here
is the interaction between mk and sck in producing a 5th
150 percentile strength.
10 15 20 25 30
(2) For all cases, and particularly for the cases of the 5th and
95th posterior predictive percentiles (i.e. the curves cor-
Posterior m responding to large and small ground volumes, respec-
Fig. 16. H-B parameter values that express characteristic strength criteria (indirect
tively), the ratios of characteristic parameter values mk and
tensile strength data). sck to posterior mean are different (see the arrows labelled
as multipliers in Fig. 15 and also the values presented in
Table 4). These multipliers differ, albeit slightly, but suggest
that it will not be possible to undertake a regression anal-
note that while this procedure does not have the statistical rigour of ysis, obtain point estimates of m and sc, and then apply a
quantile regression, it demonstrably produces estimates of mk and predetermined factor to obtain a lower bound character-
sck values that are suitably accurate for practical use. istic curve. This emphasises that when dealing with char-
Four different characteristic values of the parameters mk and sck acteristic strength values (or, in general, lower or upper
calculated using Forsmark Cu, Ct and Td data are shown in Fig. 15 as bound based on some probability of occurrence), it may not
the vertices of the quadrilateral superimposed on the joint poste- be correct e as is sometimes proposed in practice e to
rior distributions of m and sc. The numerical values of these pa- factor point estimates of the HeB parameters: Bayesian
rameters are summarised in Table 3. Also shown in Fig. 15 as the models and the approximation procedures presented in
boundaries of the dashed-line rectangles are the 5th and 95th this paper should be used. However, before a definitive
percentiles of the posterior distributions of m and sc. Fig. 16 shows statement can be made about this, more analyses of
similar results for the case of adjusted indirect tensile data. different rock types under various combinations of testing
Generally, these figures show that directly taking the characteristic conditions are required.

Table 4
Multipliers for obtaining characteristic values for Forsmark data (see Fig. 15).

Data Parameter Posterior mean (large volume of ground) Posterior predictive (small volume of ground)

5th percentile 95th percentile 5th percentile 95th percentile

Cu-Ct m 0.93 1.06 1.14 0.92

sc 0.98 1.02 0.74 1.25
Cu-Td m 0.96 1.04 1.05 0.96
sc 0.97 1.03 0.83 1.17
Cu-Ct-Td m 0.97 1.03 1.13 0.93
sc 0.97 1.03 0.72 1.27
626 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627
A lack of data for other rock types has prevented us from
examining other forms of adjustment and correction based on
factors that may lead to practical lower bound characteristic curves.
One such example would be to factor measured values of strength
(both tensile and compressive) such that the HeB curve fitted to the
factored strengths closely approximates the curve found from
formal statistical analysis. To be of practical value, the factors would
need to either be constant across all rock types, or have different
values that apply to customary rock type groups (as is currently the
case with look-up tables for values of m). The search for such factors
is perhaps a task that the wider rock mechanics community could
be usefully engaged in.
6. Summary and conclusions
It is over 70 years since the foundations of RBD were laid, and
not only does it now form the basis of structural engineering design
codes globally, but also it is being adopted by geotechnical design
codes worldwide. It is therefore necessary that rock engineering
practice evolves to embrace RBD, both by modification of current
practices and development of new ones.
Among other things, at its core RBD requires acquisition and
probabilistic characterisation of material properties. This includes
rock strength, and as the HeB strength criterion remains the
foremost model for this in rock engineering, in moving to RBD, it is
critical that the rock engineering community begins to characterise
it in probabilistic terms. Such characterisation is the theme of this
paper.
In this context, we have presented three distinct analyses, all of
which use a Bayesian approach to model probability and perform
regression. The choice of a Bayesian approach is necessary because
of both the complexity of variability encountered and the limited
data generally available from rock strength testing campaigns.
The first of these analyses uses a compilation of compressive
strength testing results of intact rock to examine the variability in
the HeB parameters m and sc, and the predicted axial strength for
rock types including coal, granite, limestone, marble, mudstone and
sandstone. The results suggest that, in the context of RBD, vari-
ability shows so little similarity within and between rock types that
it will not be possible to make use of reference values for this, and
that it will need to be determined during each rock testing
campaign.
The second of the analyses uses an extensive set of compressive
and tensile (both direct and indirect) strength data for a granodi-
orite, together with a Bayesian regression model, to develop joint
probability distributions of m and sc. This model is an enhancement
to the one developed in Bozorgzadeh et al. (2018a) in that it im-
plements a probabilistic transformation factor for mean indirect
tensile strength data rather than a fixed single value. These joint
distributions are suitable for further engineering analysis, including
design, and are used here to confirm the efficacy of applying a
transformation factor to indirect tensile results when fitting the
HeB criterion to such data. The work also shows that deterministic
and probabilistic factors generate different results, and probabi-
listic factors can only be made available if variability in direct and
indirect tensile strengths is reported.
Finally, the granodiorite data are used to investigate the
important matter of developing characteristic strength criteria.
Using definitions from EC7, a formal Bayesian interpretation of
characteristic strength is proposed and used to show how strength
data can be robustly analysed to generate a characteristic criterion.
Formal probabilistic sampling allows these criteria to be presented
in terms of characteristic parameters mk and sck . The values of both
m and sc and the ratios mk/m and sck =sc are shown to depend on
the testing regime used to obtain the strength data.
Overall, the paper shows how, with careful use of appropriate
statistical analysis, the HeB criterion can be applied within the
framework of RBD, and concludes that modifications are needed to
testing guidelines such as the ISRM suggested methods in order to
render them suitable to support RBD. Furthermore, as this is but a
first attempt at placing the HeB criterion within the RBD frame-
work, it is clear that significant further analysis is required in order
to fully understand the implications of uncertainty on predicting
rock strength and to generate the knowledge necessary to confi-
dently apply such nonlinear criteria to the whole gamut of rock
types and rock masses.
Conflicts of interest
The authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
interest associated with this publication and there has been no
significant financial support for this work that could have influ-
enced its outcome.
References
ACI 318-14. Building code requirements for structural concrete. Farmington Hills,
USA: American Concrete Institute (ACI); 2014.
ACI 318R-14. Commentary on building code requirements for structural concrete.
Farmington Hills, USA: ACI; 2014.
Aladejare AE, Wang Y. Evaluation of rock property variability. Georisk: Assessment
and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards 2017;11(1):
22e41.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 7th ed. Washington, D.C., USA:
AASHTO; 2016.
Ang AH, Tang WH. Probability concepts in engineering: emphasis on applications to
civil and environmental engineering. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons;
2006.
Becker D. Limit states design for foundations. Part I. An overview of the foundation
design process. Limit states design for foundations. Part I. An overview of the
foundation design process. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1996a;33(6):956e
83.
Becker D. Limit states design for foundations. Part II. Development for national
building code of Canada. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1996b;36(3):984e
1007.
Bond A, Harris A. Decoding Eurocode 7. London: Taylor & Francis; 2008.
Bozorgzadeh N, Harrison JP. Characteristic triaxial strength of intact rock for LSD.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers e Geotechnical Engineering
2016;169(3):291e8.
Bozorgzadeh N, Yanagimura Y, Harrison JP. Effect of small numbers of test re-
sults on accuracy of HoekeBrown strength parameter estimations: a sta-
tistical simulation study. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 2017;
50(12):3293e305.
Bozorgzadeh N, Escobar MD, Harrison JP. Comprehensive statistical analysis of
intact rock strength for reliability-based design. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2018a;106:374e87.
Bozorgzadeh N, Harrison JP, Escobar MD. Hierarchical Bayesian modelling of
geotechnical data: application to rock strength. Geotechnique 2018. https://doi.
org/10.1680/jgeot.17.P.282.
Bozorgzadeh N. Contributions in uncertainty quantification towards reliability-
based rock engineering design. PhD Thesis. Toronto, Canada: University of
Toronto; 2018.
Casella G, Berger RL. Statistical inference. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, USA: Duxbury
Press; 2002.
Contreras LF, Brown ET, Ruest M. Bayesian data analysis to quantify the uncertainty
of intact rock strength. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineer-
ing 2018;10(1):11e31.
CSA-A23.3-14. Design of concrete structures. Canadian Standards Association (CSA);
2014a.
CSA-S6-14. Canadian highway bridge design code (CHBDC). CSA; 2014b.
Douglas KJ. The shear strength of rock masses. The University of New South Wales;
2002. PhD Thesis.
Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics
1979;7(1):1e26.
Elorant P. Forsmark site investigation e drill hole KFM01A: indirect tensile strength
test (HUT). SKB P-04-171. Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management
Company (SKB); 2004a.
 N. Bozorgzadeh, J.P. Harrison / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 612e627
Elorant P. Forsmark site investigation e drill hole KFM01A: triaxial compression test
(HUT). SKB P-04-177. SKB; 2004b.
Elorant P. Forsmark site investigation e drill hole KFM01A: uniaxial compression
test (HUT). SKB P-04-176. SKB; 2004c.
EN 1990. Eurocode e basis of structural design. Brussels, Belgium: European
Committee for Standardisation (CEN); 2002.
EN-1997-1. Eurocode 7: geotechnical design e Part 1: general rules. Brussels,
Belgium: CEN; 2004.
Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB. Bayesian data
analysis. 3rd ed. CRC Press; 2013.
Gorski B, Conlon B. Forsmark site investigation: determination of the direct and
indirect tensile strength on cores from borehole KFM01D. SKB P-07-76. SKB;
2007.
Hoek E, Brown ET. Empirical strength criteria for rock masses. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 1980a;106(9):1013e35.
Hoek E, Brown ET. Underground excavations in rock. London: Institution of Mining
and Metallurgy; 1980b.
Hoek E. Strength of jointed rock masses. Geotechnique 1983;33(3):187e223.
Hoek E. Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News Journal 1994;2(2):4e16.
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B. HoekeBrown failure criterion e 2002 edition.
In: NARMS-TAC 2002: Mining and Tunnelling Innovation and Opportunity,
Proceedings of the 5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and the
17th Tunnelling Association of Canada Conference (NARMS-TAC 2002), vol. 1.
Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press; 2002. p. 267e73.
Hoek E, Martin CD. Fracture initiation and propagation in intact rock e a review.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2014;6(4):287e300.
Hoek E, Brown ET. The HoekeBrown failure criterion and GSI e 2018 edition.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2019;11(3):445e63.
Jacobsson L. Forsmark site investigation e borehole KFM01A: triaxial compression
test of intact rock. SKB P-04-227. SKB; 2004a.
Jacobsson L. Forsmark site investigation e borehole KFM01A: uniaxial compression
test of intact rock. SKB P-04-223. SKB; 2004b.
Jacobsson L. Forsmark site investigation e drill hole KFM01A: indirect tensile
strength test. SKB P-04-170. SKB; 2004c.
Jacobsson L. Forsmark site investigation e borehole KFM01D: triaxial compression
test of intact rock. SKB P-06-214. SKB; 2006.
Jacobsson L. Forsmark site investigation e boreholes KFM01A and KFM02B: micro
crack volume measurements and triaxial compression tests on intact rock. SKB
P-07-93. SKB; 2007.
Jaeger JC, Cook NG, Zimmerman R. Fundamentals of rock mechanics. 4th ed. Wiley-
Blackwell; 2007.
Jimenez-Rodriguez R, Sitar N. Rock wedge stability analysis using system reliability
methods. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 2007;40(4):419e27.
Kovari K, Tisa A, Einstein HH, Franklin J. Suggested methods for determining the
strength of rock materials in triaxial compression: revised version. Interna-
tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Ab-
stracts 1983;20(6):285e90.
Langford JC, Perras MA. Obtaining reliable estimates of intact tensile strength. In:
The 48th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium. Minneapolis, USA:
American Rock Mechanics Association; 2014.
Langford JC, Diederichs MS. Quantifying uncertainty in HoekeBrown intact strength
envelopes. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2015;74:91e102.
Liu H, Low BK. System reliability analysis of tunnels reinforced by rockbolts.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 2017;65:155e66.
Low BK, Phoon KK. Reliability-based design and its complementary role to Euro-
code 7 design approach. Computers and Geotechnics 2015;65:30e44.
Lunn D, Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N. The BUGS project: evolution, critique
and future directions. Statistics in Medicine 2009;28(25):3049e67.
627
Lunn D, Jackson C, Best N, Thomas A, Spiegelhalter D. The BUGS book: a practical
introduction to Bayesian analysis. CRC Press; 2012.
Orr T. Selection of characteristic values and partial factors in geotechnical designs to
Eurocode 7. Computers and Geotechnics 2000;26(3e4):263e79.
Perras MA, Diederichs MS. A review of the tensile strength of rock: concepts and
testing. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 2014;32(2):525e46.
Phoon KK, Kulhawy FH. Evaluation of geotechnical property variability. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 1999;36(4):625e39.
Phoon KK. Role of reliability calculations in geotechnical design. Georisk: Assess-
ment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards
2017;11(1):4e21.
Read S, Richards L. Correlation of direct and indirect tensile tests for use in the
HoekeBrown constant mi. In: Alejano R, Perucho Á, Olalla C, Jiménez R, editors.
Rock engineering and rock mechanics: structures in and on rock masses. CRC
Press; 2014. p. 161e6.
Richardson LF. Weather prediction by numerical process. Cambridge University
Press; 1922.
Spross J, Johansson F. When is the observational method in geotechnical engi-
neering favourable? Structural Safety 2017;66:17e26.
Tye W. Factor of safety e or of habit? The Aeronautical Journal 1944;48(407):487e
94.
Wang L, Gong W, Luo Z, Khoshnevisan S, Juang CH. Reliability-based robust
geotechnical design of rock bolts for slope stabilization. In: Iskander M,
Suleiman MT, Anderson JB, Laefer DF, editors. Proceedings of the international
foundations congress and equipment expo 2015 (IFCEE 2015). American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2015. p. 1926e35.
Nezam Bozorgzadeh is currently a post-doctoral fellow at
the GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s-RMC, Kingston,
Canada. He obtained his PhD degree from University of
Toronto. His research interests are probabilistic design, un-
certainty quantification, and Bayesian data analysis for
soil/rock engineering. His current research is probabilistic
LRFD calibration of internal limit states of mechanically
stabilised earth (MSE) walls for the Canadian Highway
Bridge Design Code.
John P. Harrison holds the W.M. Keck Chair of Engineering
Rock Mechanics at the University of Toronto, Canada. He
obtained his PhD degree in rock mechanics from the
University of London, UK. His current principal research
interest is developing reliability-based design techniques
for rock engineering, and since 2011, he has been actively
participating in the revision of Eurocode 7 to support rock
engineering design.