STRENGTH OF INTACT ROCK AND ROCK MASSES

Garry Mostyn
1
and Kurt Douglas
2
ABSTRACT
This paper is in two parts. The first part presents an overview of the strength of intact rock. A short
commentary on various methods of fitting failure criteria to experimental data follows, it is demonstrated
that the method of fitting the criterion to the test data has a major effect on the estimates obtained of the
material properties. The results of a recent analysis of a large data base of test results is then presented. This
demonstrates that there are inadequacies in the Hoek-Brown empirical failure criterion as currently proposed
for intact rock and, by inference, as extended to rock mass strength. The parameters m
i
and s
c
are not
material properties if the exponent is fixed at 0.5. Published values of m
i
can be misleading as m
i
does not
appear to be related to rock type. The Hoek-Brown criterion can be generalised by allowing the exponent to
vary. This change results in a better model of the experimental data. Analysis of individual data sets
indicates that the exponent, a, is a function of m
i
which is, in turn, closely related to the ratio of s
c
/s
t
. A
regression analyis of the entire data base provides a model to allow the triaxial strength of an intact rock to
be estimated from reliable measurement of its uniaxial tensile and compressive strengths. The method
proposed is the most accurate of those methods that do not require triaxial testing and is adequate for
preliminary analysis. Analysis is presented that shows applying the Hoek-Brown criterion to most rocks
results in systematic errors. Simple relationships for triaxial strength that are adequate for slope design are
presented.
The second part of this paper presents a discussion of the application of the Hoek-Brown criterion to
estimating the shear strength of rock masses for slopes. The current methodology is presented. Problems
with the estimation of GSI and scale dependency for slopes are discussed. A critical review of the
parameters s, m
b
and a is presented with a view to improving the application of the criterion to slopes. A
new approach to parameter estimation is introduced. Work is on going to validate the method.
INTRODUCTION
The application of the Hoek-Brown criterion to intact rock and rock masses is common in slope
engineering, therefore it is important that it is validated in both applications. This paper presents a detailed
analysis of the application of the criterion to intact rock and suggests modifications that provide improved
predictions of triaxial strength based on easily measured material properties. Modifications to the
application of the criterion to rock mass are introduced and the way ahead discussed.
FAILURE CRITERIA FOR INTACT ROCK
There are two approaches to the selection of a failure criterion for intact rock, theoretical and empirical.
The base of the most commonly adopted theoretical approaches are those of Coulomb or Griffiths and these
are well presented in most rock mechanics textbooks, with good examples being Jaeger and Cook (1976) and
Brady and Brown (1993). Most practical engineering relies on a linear Mohrs envelope being fitted to
experimental data or to the relevant portion of a theoretical or empirical criterion. Notwithstanding this it is
becoming increasingly common for computer software to be able to deal directly with one or more non linear
criteria. Thus while the limits and pitfalls of linearisation are well understood, it is now important to assess
the accuracy of non linear criteria.

1
Garry Mostyn, Pells Sullivan & Meynink, 11/10 East Pde, Eastwood, NSW, 2122, Australia,
g.mostyn@psmsyd.com.au
2
Kurt Douglas, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, The University of NSW, Sydney, 2052, Australia,
k.douglas@unsw.edu.au
Equation 1 presents a generalised criterion where a
1
, a
2
, etc are material properties. Figure 1 presents a
generalised failure criterion in the s
1
-s
3
plane and shows the locations of the s
c
, s
Bt
, s
ut
and s
pt
.
,....) , , , , ( fn 0
2 1 3 2 1
a a s s s = (1)
It is well known that the theoretical criteria
do not accurately predict the failure strength of
rock and often rely on parameters that are
difficult to measure. For this reason many
criteria have been developed that seek to
capture the important elements of measured
rock strengths or seek to modify theoretical
approaches to accommodate experimental
evidence, several of these empirical criteria are
listed in Hudson and Harrison (1997) and
Sheorey (1997). Most of these share a
reasonably similar structure and all have
elements that are likely to fail at the extremes.
Given the variability typical of rock test results
it is likely that any one criteria is as suitable
overall as any of the alternatives. The Hoek-
Brown empirical failure criterion (Hoek &
Brown, 1980) was developed in the early 1980s for intact rock and rock masses, it has been subject to
continual refinement for rock masses. For intact rock its form has not changed and is given in Equation 2.
5 . 0
3
3 1
1

+ + =
c
i
c
m
s
s
s s s (2)
In common with most of the empirical failure criteria, the Hoek-Brown criterion is formulated in terms of
s
1
and s
3
and is independent of s
2
. The authors do not consider this a major impediment for practical
purposes.
It is the authors experience that the Hoek-Brown criterion is virtually the only non linear criterion now
used by practicing engineers and is now in almost universal use. Further it forms the basis for extension into
rock mass strength. It thus has been adopted as the basis of examination for the rest of this paper. Further
for these reasons it is important to establish that the criterion does accurately represent actual intact rock
behaviour.
LABORATORY TEST DATABASE FOR INTACT ROCK
The authors have assembled a large data base of test results on a wide variety of rocks; tests include
uniaxial tensile strength, Brazilian tensile strength, unconfined compressive strength and triaxial
compression and tension. Many of the results were sourced from Sheorey (1997), Hoek and Brown (1980),
Shah (1992) and Johnston (1985) and checked against original sources where possible. Further test
information from other sources was obtained. Full details of the data are contained in Douglas and Mostyn
(2000). At present, the data consists of 3817 test results forming 485 sets and is being continuously
extended.
ANALYSIS OF ANALYSIS OF DATA
When confronted with a set of data, there are a number of questions that have to be addressed:
What data should be included in the analysis?
What equation should be fitted?
What method of fitting should be adopted?
Sigma 3 / Sigma C
S
i
g
m
a

1

/

S
i
g
m
a

C
-1
0
1
2
3
-0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50
s
c
s
pure t
s
uniaxial t
s
Brazillian t
Figure 1 : Generalised failure criterion
The authors have devoted a moderate portion of this paper to these questions as it is of little value
undertaking a comprehensive test program or detailed analysis of the results if the methodology is flawed. In
fact, parameters determined can vary from very conservative to quite the opposite, both situations have
consequences in analysis and design.
Turning to the first question, the data included is that described in the previous section. It has been
common practice for researchers fitting empirical failure criterion to intact rock to exclude results thought to
exhibit ductile behaviour; this approach has been adopted by Hoek and Brown (1981), Shah (1992), Johnston
(1985) and Sheorey (1997). In general these researchers have adopted the brittle-ductile transition suggested
by Mogi (1966) of s
1
=3.4s
3
. The exclusion of ductile data would be appropriate if (i) only brittle behaviour
was of interest, (ii) the boundary was clear and (iii) the failure criterion was disjoint across the transition. In
the case of a criterion based solely on Griffiths theory, exclusion of ductile tests results would be
appropriate. It is not necessary, is counter productive and is arbitrary, for an empirical criterion. Research
(Evans et al., 1990) shows that the transition is not well defined for all rocks and certainly occurs over a wide
range of stresses. Further this same research shows that the failure envelope is not necessarily disjoint at the
brittle-ductile transition. Thus an appropriate criterion can model strength on both sides of the transition.
The authors have included as many test results as possible and only excluded results for which there is
significant doubt as to their accuracy.
There are several forms of the Hoek-Brown criterion that can be adopted for data analysis, these include
equation 2 and:

- =
- >

+ + =
i c
i c
c
i
c
m
m
m
s s s s
s s
s
s
s s s
3 3 1
3
5 . 0
3
3 1
for
for 1
(3)
( )
2
3
2
3 1 c c i
m s s s s s + = - (4)
( ) ( )
2
3 3 1
log 5 . 0 log
c c i
m s s s s s + = - (5)
Equation 2 is strictly the Hoek-Brown criterion, but is undefined for s
3
less than -s
c
/m
i
. Equation 3
ensures that the criterion is defined over the full range of s
3
. Equations 4 and 5 are linearisations of the
criterion. The impact of adopting these different forms is discussed at the end of this section.
The method of least squares is very widely adopted in fitting models to data; there are often very sound
statistical reasons to so do. Shah (1992) suggests that the simplex method with the function (observed-
predicted)
2
is a better method than least squares. In fact, the method presented by Shah is least squares, the
simplex is purely a numerical method to optimise some function, in this case minimising the sum of squared
differences (ie errors). The authors have verified that the resulting parameter estimates are the same as those
from other robust least squares procedures.
If the departure of the measured s
1
from the predicted s
1
(ie the error) is normally distributed with a
variance that is independent of the predictor variables (here s
3
), then the predictions obtained with least
squares, either with a simplex or otherwise, will be uniform minimum variance unbiased estimators; this is
highly desirable. But consideration of data with multiple measurements of s
ut
or s
Bt
will indicate that
straight least squares is not appropriate for fitting the Hoek-Brown criterion.
Consider an experimental program with multiple measurements of s
ut
, it is clear that if a failure criterion
is to be fitted to the test data it is desirable that the estimated tensile strength should be the average of these
measurements (ie the fitted curved should pass through the middle of the measured values). Equation 2 is
not defined for measured values of s
ut
less than the fitted value (ie larger tensile strengths) and this forces
many fitting methods to fit the maximum measured (ie most negative) tensile strength as the estimated
tensile strength. Equation 3 overcomes this problem, but reference to Figure 1 shows that the slope of the
equation to the left of the estimated s
ut
is much less than that to the right; the figure is drawn for an m
i
of 8
and the slope to the right is much steeper for higher m
i
. Given that a general least squares approach assesses
the error as the observed s
1
(ie zero) minus the predicted s
1
, then data a given distance to the right of the
estimated s
ut
will have a much larger error than data the same distance to the left. Thus a standard least
squares procedure will result in a very poor fit at low stresses and force a small s
ut
and high m
i
, ie the
opposite effect to adopting equation 2
A resolution of the above problem comes about by recognising that in a uniaxial tensile strength test, the
controlled variable is s
1
and the measured variable is s
3
, thus the real error is observed s
3
minus the
predicted s
3
. But this error is scaled in s
3
and needs to be adjusted if it is to have equal status with
measurements in s
1
. The authors suggest that scaling by m
i
is a convenient and accurate approach. Given
this they recommend a least squares procedure where the error is defined as:
( )
( )

- -
- > -
3 1 3 3
3 1 1 1
3 for predicted measured
3 for predicted measured
s s s s
s s s s
i
m
(6)
This has been found to provide very good fits for a wide variety of data.
It is the authors experience that the method of parameter estimation can, and often does, have a large
impact on parameters derived from experimental data but the effect is often camoflaged by the variability of
test data. Table 1 and Figure 2 show the results of analysis of a simulated test program with results
generated for a material with a Hoek-Brown failure criterion, s
c
and m
i
are both normally distributed with
mean/standard deviation of 10/2 MPa and 12/2 respectively. Results generated were 10 uniaxial tensile
strength tests, 20 unconfined compressive strength tests, and 4 each triaxial strength tests at confining
pressures of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 MPa. Thus there were 58 data points in all, simulating a very
comprehensive test program from which it should be possible to determine accurate estimates of material
properties.
Table 1 : Results of different regression methods on artificial data
Case Equation Fitting method Number s
c
(MPa) m
i
r
2
(%)
1 Actual data 58 10.0 12.0 na
2 Normal equation 2 Least squares 58 14.9 7.75 97.88
3 Extended equation 3 Least squares 58 8.46 15.6 99.12
4 Extended equation 3
Modified least
squares, eqn 6
58 10.7 12.0 99.00
5
Adopting known s
c
and
normal equation
2 Least squares 58 na 5.21 91.69
6
Excluding s
t
results and
normal equation
2 Least squares 48 9.53 13.7 99.06
7
Excluding s
c
& s
t
results
and normal equation
2 Least squares 28 6.20 21.4 98.80
8 Stress difference squared 4 Least squares 58 3.97 35.2 95.53
9
Stress difference squared
and known s
c
4 Least squares 58 na 13.8 95.47
10 Stress difference squared 4
Least sum of
absolute
differences
58 9.18 15.4 95.45
11 Logarithms 5 Least squares 58 8.09 4.12 55.97
12
Logarithms and excluding
s
t
results
5 Least squares 48 9.67 12.2 95.00
The entire generated data and selected fits are shown on Figure 2a. It can be seen that, with two
exceptions, the methods provide a reasonable fit for the majority of the data. But reference to Figure 2b
shows that most methods provide a very poor fit to the data at low stresses, that is over the stress range of
interest in slope analysis.
The following comments are offered on the various analyses undertaken, listed in the same order as in
Table 1.
1. The generated data, the
authors consider that this is a
reasonable representation of a
comprehensive test program in a
moderately variable unit.
2. The strict application of
least squares to Equation 2, ie
the usual form of the Hoek-
Brown criterion, results in the
uppermost curve in Figure 2b.
The criterion cannot be
evaluated for s
3
less than the
estimated tensile strength. This
results in large estimates of s
ut
and s
c
and thus a low m
i
. From
5 to 80 MPa the curve passes
through the middle of the data.
Below 1 MPa the estimated
strength is nearly 50% higher
than the true strength even
though the regression r
2
is
nearly 98%. This problem
could be partially fixed by
including only the average
measured tensile strength in the
analysis but this ignores
considerable readily obtained
and economic data and
disguises the true variability.
3. Least squares applied to
Equation 3 results in vastly
improved parameter estimation
but the lower slope to the left of
the estimated s
ut
produces a low
estimate of s
ut
and thus
somewhat low estimated s
c
and high estimated m
i
. A good fit overall with the highest r
2
, but approximately
15% underestimate of true strength for low s
3
.
4. Modified least squares, Equation 6, applied to Equation 3 results in accurate estimation of the
parameters and does so in almost all circumstances. The fact that r
2
is slightly less than for method 3 is a
necessary consequence of the treatment of variability of the measured tensile strengths.
5. Least squares applied to Equation 2 with s
c
fixed at the average of the test results. It might be
thought that knowing one property should help with estimating a second unknown property, this is not the
case here. The problem in 2 above is now magnified to produce almost the worst fit imaginable. It shows
that an r
2
of over 90% can be obtained with a fit that bears virtually no relationship to the data.
6. Least squares applied to either Equation 2 or 3, with the tensile strength test results excluded, results
in a good fit. Again the problem is that good economic data is ignored and the fit at low stress will be more
variable.
7. Least squares applied to either Equation 2 or 3 with both the tensile and unconfined compression test
results excluded. In this case more than half the data is ignored and, in the present case, the fit at low s
3
is
more than 30% out. This is a random error and the fit could be low or high. The problem with this approach
is that it is poorly controlled at the stresses of interest in slope analysis.
8. Least squares applied to Equation 4. This is a common form of fitting the Hoek-Brown criterion to
data and estimating s
c
and m
i
. This method virtually minimises errors to the fourth power, hence the
lowish r
2
, and dramatically overweights the larger values of s
1
. Errors in parameter estimates are not
Sigma 3 (MPa)
S
i
g
m
a

1

(
M
P
a
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
-10 10 30 50 70
UCS mi
Artificial data 10.012.0
Normal eqn & LS14.97.75
Extended eqn & LS 8.4615.5
Ext eqn & mod LS 10.712.0
Fix UCS & LS 10.05.21
Excl Sc or St & LS 6.1921.4
DS^2 & LS 3.9735.2
Log & LS 8.094.12
Not shown
Excl St & LS 9.5213.7
DS^2 with UCS fixed 10.013.8
DS^2 & Least abs sum 9.1815.4
Log with excl St 9.6712.2
Sigma 3 (MPa)
S
i
g
m
a

1

(
M
P
a
)
0
10
20
30
40
-2 0 2 4 6
UCS mi
Artificial data 10.012.0
Normal eqn & LS14.97.75
Extended eqn & LS 8.4615.5
Ext eqn & mod LS 10.712.0
Fix UCS & LS 10.05.21
Excl Sc or St & LS 6.1921.4
DS^2 & LS 3.9735.2
Log & LS 8.094.12
Not shown
Excl St & LS 9.5213.7
DS^2 with UCS fixed 10.013.8
DS^2 & Least abs sum 9.1815.4
Log with excl St 9.6712.2
Figure 2 : Fits to artificial data (a) full range (b) low stress range
predictable, but in this example, estimated s
c
and m
i
are 40% and 300% of the true values respectively, even
though the corrupted r
2
is over 95%. Over most of the range of the test results it is a very good fit but not
over that portion of interest in slope design. It is not recommended.
9. As for 8 above but with s
c
fixed at the mean value, in contrast to 5 above this results in a good fit
across the range but relies on a good estimate of s
c
and increased faith that this accurately represents triaxial
behaviour.
10. Least sum of absolute differences applied to Equation 4. This in large measure compensates for the
overweighting of large s
1
values of method 8. The resulting estimates are good.
11. Least squares applied to Equation 5, again a common form of fitting the Hoek-Brown criterion. As
for Equation 2 this equation is not defined for s
3
less than s
pt
. This method has major problems fitting any
data which includes a moderate spread of tensile testing.
12. Least squares applied to Equation 5 with the tensile strength test results excluded. A robust method
weighted to low stress results and good for slope analysis but unable to take advantage of economic and
readily available data.
From Table 1 it can be seen that r
2
is not a useful indicator of accuracy of estimates of the parameters and
that these estimates can vary widely depending on the method of analysis. Methods with r
2
in excess of 95%
and that model the data very well over most of the range have estimates of s
c
varying from 3.97 to 14.9 MPa
and m
i
from 7.75 to 35.2 and this is for artificial data that follows exactly the criterion with only test
variability. Thus many of these methods are very poor estimators of strength in the low stress region that is
of interest in slope analysis.
HOEK-BROWN CRITERION FOR INTACT ROCK
Modified least squares, Equation 6, was combined with the extended formulation of the Hoek-Brown
criterion, Equation 3, to estimate s
c
and m
i
for all test data in the data base. Discussion in the previous
section indicates that the fit is poorly controlled at low stresses for sets with little data, particularly s
c
and s
t
.
Small changes in the data can lead to wildly varying estimates of both s
c
and m
i
, in general with s
c
becoming
very small and m
i
very high but with the fit being almost identical over the range of the test results. In fact
for many data sets s
c
and m
i
are not independent but s
c
0 as m
i
. The best solution to this issue is to
place plausibility limits on the parameters. A number of limits were considered and the following ones
adopted:
As all the test results were taken from materials described as rock, s
c
was limited to be not less than 1
MPa.
Published values of m
i
fall in the range of 4 to 33 (Hoek & Brown, 1998). As will be discussed later
m
i
is very closely related to the ratio -s
c
/s
ut
, reference to the figures in Lade (1993) indicates that this ratio
varies from less than
2 to over 50. This
limits m
i
to the range
1 to 50. Further m
i
is related to the
angle of friction at
s
3
=0 (ie f
0
), which
is of great interest in
slope analysis. It
was considered that
f
0
should be limited
to the range of 15 to
65, which for the
Hoek-Brown
cri t eri on furt her
limits m
i
to the range
1.4 to 40.
The process was
completed for 475
m
i
from literature, m
ipub
m
i

f
r
o
m

f
i
t
t
i
n
g

H
B

e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
,

m
i
t
e
s
t
0
10
20
30
40
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Figure 3 : m
i
from literature against m
i
from test results and Hoek-Brown Equation
data sets involving 3779 test results. The results of the analysis are provided in Figures 3 to 6. Figure 3
shows a box and whisker plot of the values of m
i
estimated from the data, m
itest
, against the values of m
i
provided in Hoek & Brown (1998) and Hoek et al (1995), m
ipub
. Several such figures are presented in this
paper, the whiskers show the range of test results, the box shows the upper and lower quartiles and the bar
the median value. Also shown on this figure is a linear regression between published m
ipub
and m
itest
weighted for the number of data points supporting each estimate. The regression equation is:
ipub itest
m m 441 . 0 58 . 7 + = (7)
This is a very poor relation, r
2
=16.4%, between m
i
determined on the basis of actual testing and that
obtained from the literature.
Figure 4 presents
m
itest
against rock type
ordered in increasing
m
ipub
, it can be seen that
it is difficult to ascribe a
single or even small
range to m
i
on the basis
of rock type. It should
be remembered that
50% of the test data
falls outside the range
indicated by the box for
each rock type, thus for
example 50% of the
values for sandstone fall
below 11 or above 19,
and for granite below
19 or above 31.
Figure 5 presents the
s
c
determined from
fitting the Hoek-Brown
equation against the s
c
determined from s
t
testing or, at least, as
reported in the literature from
which the data was obtained.
Again several figures in this paper
are presented in this style. The
upper and lower dashed lines
represent 1.5 and 0.67 times the
reported s
c
values. Further, the
symbols represent the number of
test results used to determine the
fit, a small cross is 4 or less data
points, a small circle is 7 or less,
large circle is 12 or less and a
square is more than 12 data points.
It can be seen that virtually all the
data lies in a very narrow band,
such that the fitted s
c
is quite close
to the reported s
c
.
Fi gure 6 i s a si mi l ar
presentation to Figure 5 except that
m
i
t
e
s
t
0
10
20
30
40
C
l
a
y
s
t
o
n
F
i
r
e
c
l
a
y
G
r
e
e
n
s
t
o
M
u
d
s
t
o
n
e
S
e
r
p
e
n
t
i
S
c
h
i
s
t
S
h
a
l
e
C
h
a
l
k
C
h
l
o
r
i
t
i
L
i
m
e
s
t
o
n
M
a
r
b
l
e
S
i
l
t
s
t
o
n
S
l
a
t
eB
i
o
c
a
l
c
a
D
o
l
o
m
i
t
e
A
n
h
y
d
r
i
t
S
a
l
t
C
o
a
l
T
u
f
f
P
y
r
o
c
l
a
s
R
h
y
o
l
i
t
e
A
p
l
i
t
e
B
a
s
a
l
t
L
a
m
p
r
o
p
h
T
r
a
c
h
i
t
e
A
g
g

t
u
f
f
G
r
e
y
w
a
c
k
W
h
i
n
s
t
o
n
A
n
d
e
s
i
t
e
D
i
a
b
a
s
e
D
o
l
e
r
i
t
e
Q
u
a
r
t
z
d
o
S
a
n
d
s
t
o
n
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
1
N
o
r
i
t
e
Q
u
a
r
t
z
i
t
D
u
n
i
t
e
E
c
l
o
g
i
t
e
G
a
b
b
r
o
P
e
r
i
d
o
t
i
A
m
p
h
i
b
o
l
D
i
o
r
i
t
e
Q
u
a
r
t
z
d
i
G
r
a
n
o
d
i
o
G
n
e
i
s
s
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
Figure 4 : Rock type against m
i
from test results and Hoek-Brown equation
Unconfined compressive strength (MPa)
U
C
S

f
r
o
m

H
B

e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n

(
M
P
a
)
1
4
7
10
40
70
100
400
700
1000
1 4 7 10 40 70 100 400 700 1000
Figure 5 : Unconfined compressive strength against that
predicted by the Hoek-Brown equation
it presents fitted tensile strength
versus reported tensile strength. It
can be seen that the fitting method
adopted provides a very good
estimate of s
t
for those data sets
which do have reported tensile
strengths. Most of the other
methods fail for such data, so much
so that often practitioners are
forced to ignore the valuable
i nformat i on avai l abl e from
inexpensive tensile testing. This is
particularly a problem as such data
forms a good control on the failure
envelope over the low stress range
(Lade, 1993).
In summary the proposed
method results in good fits of the
Hoek-Brown criterion to the data
and, in particular, results in good
fits in the low stress region. It appears that published values of the parameter m
i
might be quite misleading
as m
i
does not appear to be related to rock type.
GENERALISED CRITERION FOR INTACT ROCK
There are a number of concerns regarding the formulation of the Hoek-Brown criterion:
Several authors, including Johnston (1985), note that soil, soft rock, and brittle rock form a
continuum and thus a failure criterion should be able to accommodate the linear or near linear behaviour
observed in soils and soft rocks. Fixing the exponent at a half means that at best the criterion is a poor model
of soft rocks. This is not surprising as it was developed for brittle rocks but it is a limitation which is often
overlooked by practitioners who apply it to all rocks. Further it is a severe limitation on the extension of the
criterion to rock mass strength.
Lade (1993) in comparing the theories and the evidence regarding rock strength criteria finds that an
appropriate criterion should have three independent characteristics the opening angle, the curvature and the
tensile strength. The fixed exponent on the Hoek-Brown criterion limits it to modelling only two of these
characteristics. In fact as often used, m
i
is varied to model the curvature over the stress range of the test
results and neither the opening angle nor the tensile strength are modelled. Lade also states that it may be an
advantage to include the tensile strength in determination of material parameters as it stabilises the fit at low
stresses. This is particularly important for slope analysis.
If the exponent, a, is allowed to vary the Hoek-Brown criterion can model widely varying curvatures and
opening angles. It is also able to include an accurate representation of the tensile strength. The authors have
applied this generalised Hoek-Brown criterion for intact rock to the full data set. As would be expected,
adding an extra parameter or property always improves the fit but has many other benefits as well.
The equation becomes:

- =
- >

+ + =
i c
i c
c
i
c
m
m
m
s s s s
s s
s
s
s s s
a
3 3 1
3
3
3 1
for
for 1
(8)
The modified least squares, Equation 6, is adopted.
The limits, given above for fitting the Hoek-Brown criterion, are also placed on the parameters. For the
generalised criterion these become, s
c
>1, m
i
in the range 1 to 50, and a m
i
in the range 0.7 to 20 (this is the
equivalent limit on f
0
). In addition, a is limited to the range 0.2 to 1.
Tensile strength (MPa)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

f
r
o
m

H
B

e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n

(
M
P
a
)
0.1
0.4
0.7
1.0
4.0
7.0
10.0
40.0
70.0
100.0
0.1
0.4
0.7
1.0
4.0
7.0
10.0
40.0
70.0
100.0
Figure 6 : Uniaxial tensile strength against that predicted by the
Hoek-Brown equation
Allowing a to vary
provides the ability to
obtain a much better fit
over the low stress range
which is of greatest interest
in slope analysis.
The results of the
analysis are presented in a
series of figures. Figure 7
presents a box and whisker
plot of m
i
determined from
the data against the
published values of m
i
.
Again it can be seen that
there is little relationship
bet ween t he t wo.
Likewise, there was found
to be no relationship
between m
i
and rock type.
The slope of the generalised criterion at s
3
=0 is 1+a m
i
, and is related to f
0
by:
( ) ( ) ( ) 45 1 atan 2
5 . 0
0
- + =
i
m a f (9)
If a classification of
samples, say by m
i
or
rock type, is predictive
of the triaxial envelope
at low stresses then it
will be apparent on a
p l o t o f t h a t
classification against a
m
i
. Figures 8 and 9
present plots of a m
i
against published m
i
and r ock t ype
respectively. From
Figure 8 it can be seen
that published m
i
is not
a good predictor of the
triaxial envelope at
l o w s t r e s s .
Examination of Figure
9 shows that there is a weak correlation of rock type with a m
i
in that fine grained rocks tend to have the
lowest values, medium to coarse grained higher and rocks with tightly interlocked crystals the highest. The
authors do not believe that the relationship is strong enough to be used predictively.
Figure 10 presents the s
c
obtained from fitting the generalised equation against the reported s
c
. It can be
seen that virtually all the data lies in a very narrow band, such that the fitted s
c
is quite close to the reported
s
c
. As would be expected the overall correlation is better than that shown on Figure 5.
Figure 11 presents the fitted tensile strength versus reported tensile strength. It can be shown that the
uniaxial tensile strength s
ut
is bound as:
( ) 1 +
-
< -
i
c
ut
i
c
m m
s
s
s
(10)
m
i
from literature
m
i

f
r
o
m

f
i
t
t
i
n
g

e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n0
10
20
30
40
50
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Figure 7 : m
i
from literature against m
i
from test results and generalised equation
m
i
from literature
a
l
p
h
a
*
m
i

f
r
o
m

f
i
t
t
i
n
g

e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
0
5
10
15
20
25
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Figure 8 : m
i
from literature against
a
m
i
from test results and generalised equation
Table 2 presents the errors involved in
adopting s
c
/(m
i
+1) as s
t
. For simplicity the
lower bound has been adopted in plotting
Figures 6 and 11, the error in doing this is quite
small. It should be noted that it is likely that
many of the reported s
t
are likely to be Brazilian
tensile strengths. The authors are attempting to
resolve as many of these as possible in
continuing work.
The fit in Figure 11 is extremely good.
Figures 10 and 11 provide considerable
confidence that the fitted curves provide a very good model of triaxial strength at low stresses. In both cases
the unexplained variance of the generalised fits is about half that of the Hoek-Brown fits.
Table 2 : Error in approximating s
ut
as -s
c
/(m
i
+1)
a m
i
Error (%)
1 All 0
0.8 All <7.6
0.5 1 19
0.5 >8 <10
0.4 1 23
0.4 >9 <10
A
l
p
h
a
*
m
i
0
5
10
15
20
C
l
a
y
s
t
o
n
F
i
r
e
c
l
a
y
G
r
e
e
n
s
t
o
M
u
d
s
t
o
n
e
S
e
r
p
e
n
t
i
S
c
h
i
s
t
S
h
a
l
e
C
h
a
l
k
C
h
l
o
r
i
t
i
L
i
m
e
s
t
o
n
M
a
r
b
l
e
S
i
l
t
s
t
o
n
S
l
a
t
eB
i
o
c
a
l
c
a
D
o
l
o
m
i
t
e
A
n
h
y
d
r
i
t
S
a
l
t
C
o
a
l
T
u
f
f
P
y
r
o
c
l
a
s
R
h
y
o
l
i
t
e
A
p
l
i
t
e
B
a
s
a
l
t
L
a
m
p
r
o
p
h
T
r
a
c
h
i
t
e
A
g
g

t
u
f
f
G
r
e
y
w
a
c
k
W
h
i
n
s
t
o
n
A
n
d
e
s
i
t
e
D
i
a
b
a
s
e
D
o
l
e
r
i
t
e
Q
u
a
r
t
z
d
o
S
a
n
d
s
t
o
n
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
1
N
o
r
i
t
e
Q
u
a
r
t
z
i
t
D
u
n
i
t
e
E
c
l
o
g
i
t
e
G
a
b
b
r
o
P
e
r
i
d
o
t
i
A
m
p
h
i
b
o
l
D
i
o
r
i
t
e
Q
u
a
r
t
z
d
i
G
r
a
n
o
d
i
o
G
n
e
i
s
s
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
Figure 9 : Rock type against
a
m
i
from test results and generalised equation
Unconfined compressive strength (MPa)
U
C
S

f
r
o
m

f
i
t
t
i
n
g

e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n

(
M
P
a
)
1
4
7
10
40
70
100
400
700
1000
1 4 7 10 40 70 100 400 700 1000
Figure 10 : Unconfined compressive strength against
that predicted by generalised equation
Tensile strength (MPa)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

f
r
o
m

H
B

e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n

(
M
P
a
)
0.1
0.4
0.7
1.0
4.0
7.0
10.0
40.0
70.0
100.0
0.1
0.4
0.7
1.0
4.0
7.0
10.0
40.0
70.0
100.0
Figure 11 : Uniaxial tensile strength against that
predicted by generalised equation
Figure 12 presents a
plot of a against m
i
as
determined for each data
set from the generalised
criterion. Also shown on
the figure are hyperbolae
showing lines of constant
a m
i
, ie f
0
, for 15 to 65.
Inspection of the figure
shows that the constraints
on m
i
, a and a m
i
did not
often limit the regression
procedure.
An interesting and
useful observation from
Figure 12 is that there
appear s t o be a
relationship between a
and m
i
. Such a
relationship is derived in
the next section and is
shown on Figure 12. It is
often thought that the curvature of the strength envelope, ie a against m
i
in the current context, should be
greater for strong rocks than weak rocks. The data set and analysis do not support this contention. Figure 13
shows the relationship between a and m
i
plotted for the data divided into four categories depending on the
s
c
. It can be seen that the relationship is independent of strength. High strength rocks can have linear flat
failure envelopes and low strength rocks can have steep curved envelopes. Thus s
c
is a truly independent
parameter in a rock failure criterion.
mi
A
l
p
h
a
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 10 20 30 40 50
f
0
15
25
35 45 55 65
f
0
Figure 12 :
a
against m
i
mi
a
l
p
h
a
UCS<= 40
0.0
0.5
1.0
0 20 40
40<UCS<=100
0 20 40
100<UCS<=200
0.0
0.5
1.0
0 20 40
200<UCS
0 20 40
Figure 13 :
a
against m
i
categorised by
s
c
A consequence of allowing a to vary at all,
is that a failure envelope with a high f
0
can
have a low f at high stresses and thus failure
envelopes for different rocks normalised on s
c
,
can cross at high stresses. This cannot happen
with a fixed at 0.5 in which case all envelopes
cross only once at s
c
. Figure 14 shows a
family of curves, normalised by s
c
, for various
m
i
and the a typical of the relationship shown
on Figure 12. It can be seen that the m
i
equals
40 curve crosses the m
i
equal 10 and 3 curves
at 1.4 and 2.5 times s
c
respectively. This
implies that high frictional strength at low
stresses is often associated with low frictional
strength at higher stresses. Figure 15 shows
some examples of test data that illustrate this
point.
A relationship between a and m
i
implies
that the triaxial failure envelope can be
estimated from s
c
and either m
i
or s
t
, with a
being determined by the relationship. Thus
there are no more parameters to be determined
than for the usual Hoek-Brown criterion. The
parameters can be based on simple testing and
provide a more accurate prediction of strength
than published m
i
values, particularly in the
low stress region typical of slopes.
Sigma 3 / Sigma C
S
i
g
m
a

1

/

S
i
g
m
a

C
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
mi 40
10
3
1
Figure 14 : Family of failure envelopes
Sigma 3 / Sigma C
S
i
g
m
a

1

/

S
i
g
m
a

C
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Set 382 Sandstone
Set 305 Granite
Set 425 Gabbro
Figure 15 : Results showing failure envelopes crossing
GLOBAL PREDICTION
A single equation could be fitted to the entire data base on the following assumptions:
The value of s
c
obtained from fitting the generalised Hoek-Brown criterion is the best estimate of s
c
for each data set.
A reasonable estimate of |s
t
| is obtained for each data set by dividing s
c
by the value of m
i
obtained
by fitting the generalised Hoek-Brown criterion.
Figures 10 and 11 show that the above assumptions are quite reasonable for those cases where there is
data to confirm them. On this basis m
i
can be set to s
c
/s
t
and Equations 3 and 8 can be rewritten as:
a
s
s
s
s
s
s

- + =
t c c
3 3 1
1 (11)

- + +

- + =
c m b a
t c c
t
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
0
exp 1
3 3 1
1 (12)
Equation 11 is equivalent to the Hoek-Brown criterion but with an exponent not necessarily equal to 0.5.
Equation 12 is equivalent to the generalised Hoek-Brown criterion. The exponent of Equation 12 is a
general function that varies from a to b with a midpoint at m
0
and a variable length of step. These equations
can be fitted to the entire data set using Equation 6.
Two of the data sets produced extremely large residuals and were ignored in reanalysis. Fitting Equation
11, ie a constant exponent, resulted in a being estimated as 0.439 and an r
2
of 83.5%. This is a reasonable fit
when the range of rocks to which it applies is considered. Examination of the residuals reveals that a better
fit will be possible as the residual is a function of m
i
. This is illustrated on Figure 16, for m
i
<10 the residuals
are positive and increase with s
1
. The residuals gradually reduce until for m
i
greater than 40 they are
predominantly negative. This is strong evidence that a is not constant.
Sigma 1 / Sigma c
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

f
o
r

g
l
o
b
a
l

r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
<= 5
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 5 10 15 20
(5,10]
0 5 10 15 20
(10,20]
0 5 10 15 20
(20,30]
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 5 10 15 20
(30,40]
0 5 10 15 20
> 40
0 5 10 15 20
Number under graph is estimated ratio of
-Sigma c / Sigma t
Figure 16 : Residuals for global fit with
a
constant against
s
3
/
s
c
categorised by -
s
c
/
s
t
Fitting Equation 12 resulted in the following estimate for the exponent:
( ) ( ) 455 . 7 exp 1 08585 . 1 4032 . 0
i
m + + = a (13)
This equation is shown on Figure 12 and models the results of the analysis of the individual data sets very
well. This analysis resulted in an r
2
of 94.8%, which is extremely good for such a global fit. The residuals
are plotted on Figure 17, there is no or little trend with m
i
or s
1
and it can be seen that this is a much better fit
than Equation 11 and Figure 16.
Figure 18 shows a three
dimensional plot of the failure
criterion described by Equations 12
and 13, ie s
1
as a function of s
3
and
m
i
(ie s
c
/s
t
). It can be seen that for
m
i
<8 the failure envelope is close to
linear and then becomes more
curved. The ridge at m
i
equals 8 is
well supported in the data and may
reflect more or less than Griffith
behaviour.
Figures 19 and 20 show slices
through the model for high and low
stress ranges respectively with the
equation for the midrange of each
slice also shown. Thus the upper left
subgraph on Figure 19 presents all
the s
1
versus s
3
data, normalised by
s
c
, for sets with s
c
/|s
t
|<=5 together
with the equation for s
c
/|s
t
|=3.
Figure 17 : Residuals for global fit with variable
a
against
s
3
/
s
c
categorised by -
s
c
/
s
t
Sigma 1 / Sigma c
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

f
o
r

g
l
o
b
a
l

r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
l
p
h
a
<= 5
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 5 10 15 20
(5,10]
0 5 10 15 20
(10,20]
0 5 10 15 20
(20,30]
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 5 10 15 20
(30,40]
0 5 10 15 20
> 40
0 5 10 15 20
Number under graph is estimated ratio of
-Sigma c / Sigma t
Figure 18 : 3D plot of global fit
Figure 19 provides the data for s
3
up to three times s
c
and Figure 20 for s
3
to half of s
c
. It can be seen that
the fits are very good. The ridge at high stress and m
i
=8 are apparent on Figure 19 with uniform behaviour at
low stress seen on Figure 20.
Figure 21 presents a
against m
i
including
Equation 13 and showing
those data for which there
Sigma 3 / Sigma c
S
i
g
m
a

1

/

S
i
g
m
a

c
<= 5
0
5
10
15
0 1 2 3
(5,10]
0 1 2 3
(10,20]
0 1 2 3
(20,30]
0
5
10
15
0 1 2 3
(30,40]
0 1 2 3
> 40
0 1 2 3
Number under graph is
estimated ratio of
-Sigma c / Sigma t
Figure 19 :
s
1
/
s
c
with fits for variable
a
against
s
3
/
s
c
categorised by -
s
c
/
s
t
for high stress
Figure 20 :
s
1
/
s
c
with fits for variable
a
against
s
3
/
s
c
categorised by -
s
c
/
s
t
for low stress
Sigma 3 / Sigma c
S
i
g
m
a

1

/

S
i
g
m
a

c
<= 5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(5,10]
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(10,20]
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(20,30]
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(30,40]
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
> 40
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Number under graph is
estimated ratio of
-Sigma c / Sigma t
mi
A
l
p
h
a
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Data with compressive and tensile strengths
Other data
Figure 21 :
a
against m
i
showing cases with measured or reported
s
3
and
s
t
is actual, not estimated, values for both s
c
and s
t
. It can be seen that these sets are distributed similarly to
those for which at least one of these parameters has been estimated by fitting the generalised Hoek-Brown
criterion.
COMPARISON OF CRITERIA
A comparison of the various criterion as fitted to the data base is provided in Table 3. The variance
explained approximates r
2
. As would be expected, the generalised Hoek-Brown criterion provides by far the
best fit, r
2
of 99.5%, as it has three parameters and is fitted to the individual data sets. None the less, the fit
obtained is considerably better than the fit obtained by the Hoek-Brown criterion (ie with a fixed at 0.5) , r
2
of 98.9%. The unexplained variance for the generalised criterion is less than half that of the Hoek-Brown
criterion with a of 0.5.
Table 3 : Comparison of predictions
Variable/prediction Variance
Variance
explained
s
1
/s
c
16.93 0
Global regression with a constant 2.78 83.6
Hoek-Brown with published m
i
2.00 88.2
Global regression with a variable 0.846 95.0
Hoek-Brown fitted to individual sets 0.186 98.9
Generalised Hoek-Brown fitted to individual sets 0.077 99.5
The above methods compare different ways of fitting triaxial data, ie different criteria applied to actual
triaxial data. Table 3 also allows a comparison of three methods of prediction of triaxial strength that are not
based on having actual data but are based on parameters estimated in some other manner. The methods are
discussed in the following points:
Prediction based on global equation with variable a. This method is based on Equations 12 and 13
and estimates of s
c
and s
t
. It has an r
2
of 95.0% when used to predict the test results in the data base. The
accuracy of the predictions are illustrated on Figures 19 and 20.
Prediction based on global equation with constant a. This method, based on Equation 11, is the least
accurate of the three and is not discussed further.
Prediction based on published values of m
i
. This method is based on Equation 3 with values of m
i
estimated from those widely published in the literature. The method has an r
2
of 88.2% when used to predict
the test results in the data base. On average this method predicts the strengths well but with considerably
more scatter than that from the global equation. Figures 22 and 23 present the data categorised by published
m
i
, these figures are in a similar form and can be compared to Figures 19 and 20. It is clear from the figures
that at low published m
i
the triaxial strength is under predicted and at high published m
i
it is over predicted.
In effect what this means is that triaxial strength is poorly predicted by published m
i
values and the method is
predicting the average strength for all tests.
Figure 22 :
s
1
/
s
c
with fits for published m
i
against
s
3
/
s
c
categorised by m
i
for high stress
Sigma 3 / Sigma c
S
i
g
m
a

1

/

S
i
g
m
a

c
<= 7
0
5
10
15
0 1 2 3
(7,9]
0 1 2 3
(9,18]
0 1 2 3
(18,19]
0
5
10
15
0 1 2 3
(19,24]
0 1 2 3
> 24
0 1 2 3
Categorised by published
values of mi
Figure 23 :
s
1
/
s
c
with fits for published m
i
against
s
3
/
s
c
categorised by m
i
for low stress
Sigma 3 / Sigma c
S
i
g
m
a

1

/

S
i
g
m
a

c
<= 7
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(7,9]
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(9,18]
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(18,19]
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(19,24]
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
> 24
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Categorised by
published values
of mi
SYSTEMATIC ERROR IN HOEK-BROWN CRITERION
If a for a particular rock is not equal to 0.5 then there is
a systematic error in fitting the Hoek-Brown criterion to
any triaxial test results obtained on that rock. The error is
illustrated on Figure 24, two data sets are shown, the upper
one is for s
c
, m
i
and a of 30 MPa, 24 and 0.4 respectively
and the lower one for 8 MPa, 5 and 0.8. The different s
c
were chosen to separate the curves, and the m
i
and a are
typical combinations determined in the analysis of the
entire data base. The solid lines represent the Hoek-Brown
fits to these data. The residuals are shown on the bottom
graph, if a is less than 0.5 then there are negative residuals
at both the low and high end of the range of s
3
tested with
positive residuals in the middle range. The sign of the
residuals is reversed if a is greater than 0.5. While the fits
in the upper graph might look satisfactory for engineering
purposes, the errors in estimates of s
c
and m
i
can be
significant. Table 4 shows the parameters estimated from
fitting the Hoek-Brown criterion to these data, it can be
seen that errors in the estimates vary from one half to five times the correct values. Thus the parameters of
this model cannot be considered material properties. These errors are discussed in more detail below.
Table 4 : Errors in fitting Hoek-Brown criterion to materials with a 0.5
Actual parameters
Material s
c
m
i
a r
2
(%)
Upper 30.0 24.0 0.4 100.0
Lower 8.0 5.0 0.8 100.0
Parameters determined by fitting Hoek-Brown criterion
Material Estimated s
c
Estimated m
i
r
2
(%)
Upper 33.0 11.7 99.65
Lower 3.94 48.5 97.47
Consider programs of triaxial testing on rocks with s
c
equal to 3 MPa, and m
i
and a of (a) 40 and 0.4 and
(b) 4 and 0.8. Both are weak rocks and their triaxial strength could be of interest in design of a large rock
slope. Further consider that different test programs are undertaken in which the maximum s
3
is determined
by the capacity of the triaxial apparatus. The following test programs could result:
Program A - 12 stages to a maximum s
3
of 10 MPa,
Program B - 10 stages to 5 MPa (ie omitting the last two stages),
Program C - 8 stages to 3 MPa,
Program D - 6 stages to 1.5 MPa, and
Program E - 4 stages, including UCS, to 0.7 MPa.
If there was no variability in the test apparatus or material, and measurement was perfect, the test results
would be as shown on Figure 25, that is there is no sample or test error. Quite different envelopes result if
the Hoek-Brown criterion is fitted to these test programs. The estimated s
c
and m
i
are given in Table 5.
Estimated s
c
varies from 1.66 to 4.20 MPa and m
i
from 8.0 to 29.6 with very high r
2
.
Sigma 3 (MPa)
S
ig
m
a
1
(M
P
a
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
R
e
s
id
u
a
l (M
P
a
)
-20
-10
0
10
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 24 : Pattern of residuals for
Hoek-Brown fits
Table 5 : Variation of s
c
and m
i
with s
3max
for exact simulated results
Material (a) s
c
= 3 MPa, m
i
= 40 and a = 0.4
Program
s
3max
(MPa)
Stages Estimated s
c
Estimated m
i
r
2
(%)
A 10 12 4.20 11.5 99.43
B 5 10 3.77 14.2 99.41
C 3 8 3.47 16.9 99.38
D 1.5 6 3.22 20.3 99.52
E 0.7 4 3.07 23.4 99.74
Material (b) s
c
= 3 MPa, m
i
= 4 and a = 0.8
Program
s
3max
(MPa)
Stages Estimated s
c Estimated m
i
r
2
(%)
A 10 12 1.66 29.6 97.96
B 5 10 2.23 17.5 98.65
C 3 8 2.59 12.6 98.96
D 1.5 6 2.85 9.60 99.46
E 0.7 4 2.96 8.01 99.85
The dashed lines on Figure 25 show the envelopes fitted to cases A, C and E. It is emphasised that while
the upper line for material (a) and the lower line for material (b) (ie Case E) do not look like good fits, they
are in fact very good fits for the 4 test results, below s
3
equal 0.7 MPa, that form their basis with r
2
of
99.74% and 99.85% respectively. Such results might erroneously be taken to support the contention that the
material was well modelled by the Hoek-Brown criterion. It can be concluded that the estimated parameters
are as much a function of the test program as of the material tested. These errors would generally be
obscured by the material variability but they are still present.
Figure 26 and Table 6 present the results of analysis of data set 434, a sandstone, in which the analysis
has assumed different maximum possible s
3
. This further illustrates the errors that can occur if a Hoek-
Brown envelope is fitted to material for which a does not equal 0.5. Depending on the test program,
Sigma 3
S
i
g
m
a

1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Artificial data for
sc=3 MPa, mi=40 and alpha=0.4
Sigma 3
S
i
g
m
a

1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Artificial data for
sc=3 MPa, mi=4 and alpha=0.8
Figure 25 : Hoek-Brown fits to artificial data
estimates of s
c
obtained by fitting the generalised criterion vary from 85.4 to 57.7 MPa and of m
i
from 6.35
to 13.1, variations of 150% and 205%. If the Hoek-Brown criterion is fitted, the estimates vary from 23.8 to
55.5 MPa (230%) and 31 to 138 (445%). Again the r
2
determined for the fits are very good.
Table 6 : Variation of s
c
and m
i
with s
3max
for data set 434
For generalised Hoek-Brown criterion
s
3max
(MPa) N Estimated s
c
Estimated m
i
Estimated a r
2
(%)
All data 20 85.4 6.71 0.75 99.70
400 16 59.2 13.1 0.65 99.63
200 9 57.7 13.0 0.66 99.50
100 5 64.1 6.35 0.87 98.18
For Hoek-Brown criterion
s
3max
(MPa) N Estimated s
c
Estimated m
i
r
2
(%)
All data 20 23.8 138 97.00
400 16 35.1 75.2 98.49
200 9 44.9 49.7 98.20
100 5 55.5 31.0 93.99
Figure 27 shows the residuals from fitting the Hoek-Brown criterion to data sets with s
c
less than 20 MPa
plotted against s
3
divided by the maximum test s
3
. There are four graphs showing cases where the estimated
a from fitting the generalised criterion is (a) less than 0.4, (b) between 0.4 and 0.6, (c) between 0.6 and 0.8
and (d) greater than 0.8. On each graph the residuals have been fitted with a quadratic relationship. It can be
seen that these residuals conform almost perfectly to those predicted on Figure 24. This is very strong
Sigma 3
S
i
g
m
a

1
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Sigma 3
S
i
g
m
a

1
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Figure 26 : Hoek-Brown fits to actual data
evidence that the Hoek-Brown model is not appropriate. Figure 28 shows the residuals obtained from fitting
the generalised Hoek-Brown criterion. It can be seen that these show little or no trend.
Data with estimated UCS less than 20 MPa
Sigma 3 / Maximum test sigma 3
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

f
r
o
m

f
i
t
t
i
n
g

H
B

e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
Alpha <= .4
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Alpha (.4,.6]
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Alpha (.6,.8]
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Alpha > .8
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 27 : Residuals for Hoek-Brown fits for weak rock against
s
3
/
s
3max
categorised by
a
Figure 28 : Residuals for generalised fits for weak rock against
s
3
/
s
3max
categorised by
a
Data with estimated UCS less than 20 MPa
Sigma 3 / Maximum test sigma 3
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

f
r
o
m

f
i
t
t
i
n
g

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
Alpha <= .4
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Alpha (.4,.6]
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Alpha (.6,.8]
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Alpha > .8
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
APPLICATION TO SLOPE ENGINEERING
In general the triaxial strength of intact rock is not particularly important in the analysis or design of rock
slopes, even large rock slopes. The maximum depth of the failure surface for even a 500 m high slope is
generally only 100 to 150 m deep, and thus the maximum s
3
of interest is around 4 MPa. The relative
contribution of the triaxial component of strength for various rocks (ie s
c
, m
i
and a) and overburden stresses
is given in Table 7. It can be seen that for high f
0
rocks triaxial strength is generally significant, even for
quite low slopes and high strength, but for most of these situations intact rock strength will not be critical
except in forming the basis of rock mass strength. For low f
0
rocks triaxial strength is important for low
strength or high stress conditions and it is these situations for which intact strength may be critical in design.
Table 7 : Triaxial component of strength
s
c
s
3
High f
0
case
m
i
= 50, a = 0.4
%
Low f
0
case
m
i
= 0.8, a = 0.9
%
300 4.0 24 2.3
100 4.0 59 6.9
30 4.0 140 23
10 4.0 280 68
3 4.0 570 230
300 0.5 3.4 0.3
100 0.5 9.8 0.9
30 0.5 29 2.9
10 0.5 70 8.6
3 0.5 160 29
Table 8 and Figure 29 provide a comparison of different methods of predicting the triaxial strength of low
strength rocks at low stress. The predicted strengths are compared with the measured strengths for all cases
in the data base for which s
c
is less than 20 MPa and s
3
is between 0 and 5 MPa (excluding UCS test
results). The variances of the residuals scaled on s
c
are given in Table 8 and the scaled residuals plotted on
Figure 29. In general the order of accuracy of the various prediction methods is the same as discussed for the
overall predictions. It is of interest to note that the global generalised equation (r
2
of 88.6%) is almost as
accurate a prediction of the triaxial strength of these rocks as that obtained by fitting the Hoek-Brown
criterion directly to triaxial test data (r
2
of 90.3%). This reflects the fact that there is abundant evidence that
a does not equal 0.5 for a large proportion of the rocks tested see Figure 12 and thus there will be
systematic errors at low stress.
Table 8 : Comparison of predictions for weak rocks at low stress
Variable/prediction Variance
Variance
explained %
s
1
/s
c
7.69 0
Global regression with a constant 1.91 75.1
Hoek-Brown with published m
i
1.99 74.1
Global regression with a variable 0.88 88.6
Hoek-Brown fitted to individual sets 0.74 90.3
Generalised Hoek-Brown fitted to individual sets 0.12 98.5
The above situation arises because the range of s
3
over which the tests were performed hardly ever
corresponded to 5 MPa and thus there were almost always systematic errors at the lower stresses tested. It is
sometimes argued that the solution to this is to test over a range of s
3
that represents the field conditions, but
this is hardly ever possible as generally the one set of testing is used to design low and high slopes. Further
for a given slope different portions of the failure surface are at different stresses. Another solution is to
determine the parameters as a function of stress, but this virtually defeats the purpose of adopting a non
linear failure envelope and confirms they are not a material property.
A useful approximation of the effective stress
parameters, c
0
and f
0
, at low stress can be obtained in the
following manner. Equation 10 can be rearranged to
provide an estimate of m
i
based on s
c
and s
t
as:
t
c
i
t
c
m
s
s
s
s
< -1 (14)
In addition, a can be estimated from Equation 13, f
o
is
given by Equation 9 and:
( ) ( )
5 . 0
0
1 2
i c
m c a s + = (15)
The writers do not argue that this approximation is a
substitute for triaxial testing but, in the absence of such
testing, the approximation should be more accurate than
other methods of estimation such as using s
c
and
published values of m
i
. Further it results in a linear failure
envelope which is exact at the origin and as such is
convenient to use in many slope stability programs.
Sigma 3
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
s
e
d

H
B
-5
0
5
10
0 2 4
Sigma 3
H
B
-5
0
5
10
0 2 4
Sigma 3
G
l
o
b
a
l
-5
0
5
10
0 2 4
Sigma 3
G
l
o
b
a
l

w
i
t
h

f
i
x
e
d

a
l
p
h
a
-5
0
5
10
0 2 4
Sigma 3
H
B

a
n
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

m
i
-5
0
5
10
0 2 4
Figure 29 : Residuals against
s
3
for various fits
FAILURE CRITERIA FOR ROCK MASS
A rock mass criterion should only be used where there are
a sufficient number of closely spaced discontinuities that
isotropic behaviour involving failure on discontinuities can be
assumed (Hoek and Brown, 1997). Such a situation for slopes
is illustrated on Figure 30, it should be noted that the concept
of closely spaced should be defined in terms of the scale of the
failure surface.
Slope failures in which the failure surface is entirely
through the rock mass are not common. This is due to the low
stresses typically acting in a slope. Failure usually requires
large scale (relative to the slope in question) features
concentrating stresses into regions of weak rock mass. For
example a long vertical joint may lead to stressing of weak
material at the toe of the slope (Figure 31).
Figure 31 : Example of shear failure through rock mass at the toe of a slope - Nattai Escarpment Failure
As mine slopes become higher and longer, the necessity to account for the strength of rock masses in
design increases. Methods used for assessing this shear strength are based on empirical criteria. As a
general rule such criteria are based on laboratory scale specimens with very little, and often no, field
validation.
Yudhbir et al (1983), Ramamurthy et al (1994) and Sheorey (1997) (Equations 16 to 18 respectively)
present rock mass criteria that have been developed as extensions of the strength criteria for intact rock. The
modification process has typically been based on model tests, small sample testing and limited experience.
The criteria all assume a non-zero unconfined compressive strength, s
cm
, and hence tensile strength, s
tm
, for
the rock mass. These criteria would therefore be expected to overpredict the strength for poor quality rock
masses at the low stresses common to failure surfaces in slopes.
Figure 30 : Heavily jointed rock mass
long
subvertical
joint
Rock mass
failure at toe of
slope
a
s
s
s
s

+ =
c
m
c
b a
3 1
(16)
m
b
cm
m
a

+ =
3
3 3 1
s
s
s s s (17)
m
b
tm
cm

+ =
s
s
s s
3
1
1 (18)
The most commonly used strength criterion, having received widespread interest and use over the last two
decades, is the Hoek-Brown empirical rock mass failure criterion, the most general form of which is given in
Equation 19. Hoek and Brown (1980) developed this criterion as there was no suitable alternate empirical
strength criterion. The equation, which has subsequently been updated by Hoek and Brown (1988), Hoek et
al. (1992) and Hoek et al. (1995), was based on their criterion for intact rock discussed earlier in this paper.
The only rock mass tested and used in the original development of the Hoek-Brown criterion was 152mm
core samples of Panguna Andesite from Bougainville in Papua New Guinea (Hoek and Brown, 1980). Hoek
and Brown (1988) later noted that it was likely this material was in fact disturbed. The validation of the
updates of the Hoek-Brown criterion have been based on experience gained whilst using this criterion. To
the authors knowledge the data supporting this experience has not been published.
a
c
b c
s m

+ =
s
s
s s s
3
3 1
(19)
Estimating the parameters in the Hoek-Brown criterion was very difficult, thus correlations with rock
mass rating parameters were developed. The most current of these is the Geological Strength Index (GSI)
(Hoek et al. 1995). These correlations are given in Equations 20 to 24. The parameters m
i
and m
b
are intact
and mass material constants; a and s are constants that depend on the rock mass characteristics; and s
c
is the
uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock.

-
=
28
100
exp
GSI
m
m
i
b
(20)
for GSI>25:

-
=
9
100
exp
GSI
s (21)
5 . 0 = a
(22)
for GSI<25:
0 = s
(23)
200
65 . 0
GSI
a - =
(24)
Hoek (1997) provides Figure 32 to determine the GSI directly. Hoek et al (1995) say that the GSI may
also be calculated using Bieniawskis (1976 and 1989) rock mass rating (RMR), GSI
RMR
, or Bartons (1974)
Q-system, GSI
Q
.
Figure 32 : Estimation of GSI (Hoek, 1997)
DISCUSSION OF THE HOEK-BROWN CRITERION FOR USE WITH SLOPES
Calculation of GSI
GSI
RMR
and GSI
Q
are derived from the rating parameters for several rock mass properties (Equations 25
and 26).
( )

+ + + = condition defect spacing defect strength intact Ratings RQD GSI

RMR
(25)
44 log 9 +

=
a
r
n
e Q
J
J
J
RQD
GSI (26)
where J
r
= joint roughness number
J
n
= joint set number
J
a
= joint alteration number
RMR and the Q-system were developed for underground applications of limited size and thus could be
expected to be reasonable indicators of rock mass properties for underground tunnels and caverns. Douglas
& Mostyn (1999) discuss the following problems with the estimation of the GSI with regards to large scale
slopes.
RQD has a heavy weighting in both rating systems (in
particular the Q-system). Since the RQD is based on a fixed
cutoff length of 100mm the ability of the RQD to give
meaningful information reduces as slopes get larger. For
slopes of several hundred metres the RQD (particularly if
estimated from borehole data) has questionable value. On the
scale of a large pit slope it is unlikely that all the defects
encountered in boreholes would be of significance to the rock
mass stability.
The defect spacing parameter suffers from a similar
problem to that of RQD. The maximum rating is applied for a
spacing interval of greater than 3m and greater than 2m for
Bieniawski (1976) and Bieniawski (1989) respectively. The
spacing increments given by Bieniawski (1976, 1989) were
derived for and on the basis of underground tunnels that were
of the order of 10 20m in span. Where a slope is in the order
of several hundred meters these spacing increments are
unlikely to be valid. Figure 33 shows blocks from a 400m high
slope failure. A tunnel of 15m span is unlikely to have rock
mass strength problems with a block size as big as those in the
figure.
When assessing the RQD and discontinuity spacing from
boreholes, all discontinuities are included however, for large rock slopes those discontinuities that are large
in area will play the major role in the rock mass strength. Without careful orientation techniques, it is
difficult to get either the true spacing or the number of discontinuity sets.
It is well known that intact rock
exhibits a strength scale effect. This
scale effect exists up to block sizes
of at least one metre. Therefore the
parameter for intact rock strength
should be adjusted to account for
scale for large block sizes as in
Figure 33.
When assessing the rating
parameters for defect condition, J
r
and J
a
, the analyst should take into
account the large scale (i.e. scale of
rock mass) joint characteristics as
well as those on the small scale. The
thickness of joint infilling should be
considered proportionately to the
l engt h and shape of t he
discontinuities. Figure 34 shows
Figure 33 : Slope failure block size
Very rough
Smooth
Very rough
Smooth
&
infilled
Defect A
Defect B
Figure 34 : Effect of scale on defect properties
two defects, on the small scale (borehole) defect A would have a high rating and defect B a low rating.
However, when one looks at the large scale (large slope), defect A would be expected to have a lower
strength.
Figure 32 shows estimates of GSI provided by Hoek (1997). The main components affecting the strength
of the rock mass are covered (ie structure and surface conditions). It is not clear how scale is to be
interpreted on this figure. The authors believe that GSI should be interpreted as being on the scale of the
rock mass under assessment. Using judgement the user can estimate the condition of their rock mass at the
scale of their slope. For example, a blocky rock mass at a scale of 10m is vastly different to a blocky
rock mass at the scale of 500m. Smaller relative block size leads to more freedom for block rotation and a
greater chance for mass failure. Liao & Hencher (1997) showed that relative block size was critical in
deciding the mode of failure. The smaller the block size (when compared to slope height) the more likely
rock mass failure would be the dominant failure mechanism.
The authors recommend the use of Figure 32 for calculations of GSI for slopes. The use of GSI
RMR
and
GSI
Q
from boreholes should only be used for preliminary strength estimates. It should be remembered that
the key to the structure column is degree of interlocking. The degree of interlocking should be assessed on
the scale of the slope under consideration. For example, the rock mass controlling the slopes for an ultimate
pit may be considered interlocked whilst the rock mass may be considered as very well interlocked on the
scale of individual benches of the same slope. It should also be remembered that where block size is of the
same order as that of the structure being analysed, the Hoek-Brown criterion should not be used. The
stability of the structure should be analysed by considering the behaviour of blocks and wedges defined by
intersecting structural features (Hoek, 1997).
Estimation of parameters from GSI
Figure 35 shows the variation of the Hoek-
Brown parameters m
b
/m
i
, a and s with GSI based on
Equations 20-24. The figure also indicates the
lower bound for GSI and the upper bound for GSI if
the Hoek (1997) table, Figure 32, is used. m
b
/m
i
,
which mainly accounts for friction, varies gradually
from unity as could be expected for a rock mass.
The value of s (which mainly accounts for
cohesion) diminishes rapidly with a reduction in
GSI thus, indicating a rapid reduction in
compressive strength and an even more rapid
reduction in tensile strength as the quality of the
rock mass decreases. This is as expected. As
rockmass defects become more cohesive it would
be expected that s would be non-zero so as to avoid
zero compressive strength. But GSI reduces for
increasing cohesion and if s is predicted from GSI
then s approaches zero not a finite value. This may
be why the Hoek-Brown criterion will underpredict the shear strength of clayey bench slopes. It should be
remembered at this point that the initial Hoek-Brown criterion was developed for hard rocks and has only
recently been accepted for use with very poor quality rock masses by Hoek and Brown (1997). Thus, it
could be expected that the experience with using the criterion for poor quality rock masses (particularly for
slopes) would be very limited.
The value of a remains relatively constant and has a maximum value of 0.6 (using Figure 32). This is not
consistent with what is known about compacted rockfill strength (a material that could represent a lower
bound to poor quality rock masses) and the strength of intact rock. Thus it is not correct at two known limits.
A statistical analysis of a large number of rockfill tests conducted by the authors indicates only a slight
curvature to the failure envelope (a = 0.90). Where the intact rock approaches that of a soft rock or hard soil
the curvature is also likely to be much less pronounced than an exponent of 0.65 would suggest (Johnston &
Chiu, 1984). The previous section on intact rock indicates that a actually varies from 0.2 to 1.0, with a
m
b
/m
i
s
a
GSI
min
GSI
table max
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
GSI
m
b
/
m
i
,


s
,


a
GSI =25
Figure 35 : Variation of a, s and m
b
/m
i
with GSI
reasonable estimate of 0.4 to 0.9 depending on m
i
. It could be concluded from this that the Hoek-Brown
criterion may over predict the curvature of the strength envelope of poor quality rock masses.
As has been shown for intact rock, fixing or limiting a has a very large impact on the estimation of the
other parameters (m
b
and s) and therefore a cannot simply be changed without addressing the other
parameters as well.
VALIDATION OF CRITERION
Douglas & Mostyn (1999) show that the
prediction of strength using GSI derived
from Figure 32 (ie scale sensitive) gives
better results compared to using GS I
predicted from RMR and the Q-system.
Figure 36 shows back analysed shear
strengths for two slope failures and several
large scale in-situ shear tests divided by
shear strengths estimated from the Hoek-
Brown strength criterion using Figure 32.
The Nattai and Katoomba escarpment
failures were natural slope failures of
approximately 300m and 200m height
respectively. These failures were caused by
the opening of joints in strong sandstones
and the shearing of weaker rock mass in the
underlying claystones (Mostyn et al., 1997).
HOEK-BROWN FOR SLOPES PROPOSED CHANGES
These are proposals for the use of the Hoek-Brown criterion for slopes that the authors are in the process
of validating and intend to publish with fuller details in due course.
The authors propose to use the form of the Hoek-Brown criterion (Equation 27) and to modify some of
the parameters (Equations 28 to 32). The basic assumption is that the rock mass parameters will be factored
versions of the intact parameters developed in the previous section.
b
b
c
b
c
s
m
a
s
s
s s s

+ + =
*
3 *
3 1
(27)
i b
Am m =
(28)
( )
f
GSI f A = (29)
i b
Bs s =
(30)
( )
c
GSI f B =
(31)
( )
f
a GSI m f
b
, = (32)
In general,
*
c
s
is s
c
of the intact rock; unless the scale of discontinuities affects strength (Medhurst, 1996)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
s
n
(MPa)
t
i
n
-
s
i
t
u
/
t
t
a
b
l
e
Katoomba escarpment failure
Aviemore shear tests
Nattai escarpment Failure
Figure 36 : Back-analysis results using Figure 32 for GSI
GSI
f
is calculated using the original GSI (Figure 32) by Hoek (1997) and is used to estimate m
b
/m
i
. It is
proposed that GSI
c
be calculated using a similar approach but using degree of interlocking (or blockiness)
and cohesional, rather than frictional, properties of the defects, as shown in Figure 37. GSI
c
would be used to
estimate s
b
. The value of s
b
is expected to be zero for non-cohesive, non-interlocked rock mass, unity for
intact rock and finite for a cohesive rock
mass. Analysis of rockfill materials indicates
an s
b
of about 0.002 for blocky mass/good
surface quality rock mass.
Figure 38 shows a diagrammatic plot of a
versus m curves. It is expected that m
b
/m
I
will decrease as GSI
f
decreases from 100 and
hence a will increase from the intact value
and eventually approach 0.9 for very low GSI
or very large slopes.
Douglas and Duran (2000) determine
large scale slope angles for values of GSI
based on an analysis of failed and stable
slopes. These can be used to put bounds on
m
b
for large scale slopes. Using these, an
approximate range of m
b
for large rock
masses is one to six.
m
b
= 2
Intact, m
i
a
m
@
0.90
@
0.2
m
b
= 4
Large scale
Figure 38 : Variation of m and
a
from values for intact rock to those for large scale
mass
Figure 37 : Proposed method for estimating GSI
c
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
G
S
I
c
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
k
i
n
g

o
f

r
o
c
k

p
i
e
c
e
s
Decreasing defect cohesion
s 1
s = 0
s = 0.002
CURRENT RESULTS
The authors are attempting to develop bounds on rock mass strength for application to slope design.
Preliminary bounds scaled by s
c
are shown on Figure 39. Intact rock provides an upper bound and curves
are shown for high and low f
0
rock. Good quality rock fill can be adopted as a lower bound for the strength
of rock masses in which the block strength is not important. The bounds to large slopes derived from Duran
and Douglas (2000) also form limits to rock mass strength. The authors analysis of the Nattai escarpment is
shown with respect to these bounds and indicates that this poor quality rock mass is correctly located with
respect to the bounds.
Figure 39 : Preliminary bounds for rock mass strength
Sigma 3 / Sigma c
S
i
g
m
a

1

/

S
i
g
m
a

c
0
1
2
3
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Intact m
i
=40
Intact m
i
=1
Rockfill
Large slope m
i
=4
Large slope m
i
=2
S
lo
p
e

f
a
ilu
r
e
CONCLUSION
The first part of this paper presented an overview of the strength of intact rock. It was demonstrated that
the method of fitting the criterion to the test data has a major effect on the estimates obtained of the material
properties. The results of a recent analysis of a large data base of test results demonstrated that there are
inadequacies in the Hoek-Brown empirical failure criterion as currently proposed for intact rock and, by
inference, as extended to rock mass strength. The parameters m
i
and s
c
are not material properties if the
exponent is fixed at 0.5. Published values of m
i
can be misleading as m
i
did not appear to be related to rock
type. The Hoek-Brown criterion can be generalised by allowing the exponent to vary. This change resulted
in a better model of the experimental data. Analysis of individual data sets indicated that the exponent, a, is
a function of m
i
which is, in turn, closely related to the ratio of s
c
/s
t
. A regression analyis of the entire data
base provided a model to allow the triaxial strength of an intact rock to be estimated from reliable
measurement of its uniaxial tensile and compressive strengths. The method proposed is the most accurate of
those methods that do not require triaxial testing and is adequate for preliminary analysis. An analysis was
presented that showed applying the Hoek-Brown criterion to most rocks results in systematic errors. Simple
relationships for triaxial strength that are adequate for slope design were presented.
The second part of this paper discussed problems with the estimation of GSI and scale dependency for
slopes. It is concluded that the estimation of the parameters s, m
b
and a can be improved for application of
the criterion to slopes. A new approach to parameter estimation was introduced. Work is on going to
validate the method.
REFERENCES
Barton, N., Lien, R. and Lunde, J. (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel
support. Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6 pp. 189-236.
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1976) Rock mass classifications in rock engineering. Proceedings of the Symposium on
Exploration for Rock Engineering, Johannesburg pp. 97-107.
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1989) Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. Wiley, New York.
Brady, B.H.G. and Brown, E.T. (1993) Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. Chapman & Hall.
Brown, E.T. and Hoek, E. (1988) Discussion on Paper No. 20431 by R. Ucar, entitled: 'Determination of
shear failure envelope in rock masses'. A.S.C.E., Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol.
114 (3), pp. 371-373.
Douglas, K.J. and Mostyn, G. (2000) Strength of Intact Rock, UNICIV Report in prep, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Douglas, K.J. and Mostyn, G. (1999) Strength of large rock masses field verification. Rock Mechanics
for Industry, Proceedings of the American Rock Mechanics Association, Vail, Colorado pp. 271-276.
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Duran, A. and Douglas, K. (2000) Experience with empirical rock slope design. GEOENG2000,
Melbourne, Australia.
Evans, B., Fredrich, J.T. and Wong, T. (1990) The brittle-ductile transition in rocks: recent experimental
and theoretical progress. The Brittle-Ductile Transition in Rocks, Geophysical Monograph 56, Duba et
al. Eds, pp. 1-20, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.
Hoek, E. (1983) Strength of jointed rock masses. Geotechnique, Vol. 33 (3), pp. 187-223.
Hoek, E. (1997) Reliability of Hoek-Brown estimates of rock mass properties and their impact on design.
Technical Note. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1980a) Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. A.S.C.E., Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 106 (GT9), pp. 1013-1035.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1980b) Underground Excavations in Rock. The Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, London.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1988) The Hoek-Brown failure criterion - a 1988 update. Proceedings of the
15th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium, Toronto.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences. Vol. 34(8), pp. 1165-1186.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K. and Bawden, W.F. (1995) Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock.
A.A.Balkema,
Hoek, E., Wood, D. and Shah, S. (1992) A modified Hoek-Brown failure criterion for jointed rock masses.
Eurock '92 pp. 209-213.
Hudson, J.A. and Harrison, J.P. (1997) Engineering Rock Mechanics: An Introduction to the Principles.
Pergamon.
Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W. (1979) Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. Chapman & Hall.
Johnston, I.W. (1985a) Comparison of two strength criteria for intact rock. A.S.C.E., Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 111 (12), pp. 1449-1454.
Johnston, I.W. (1985b) Strength of intact geomechanical materials. A.S.C.E., Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, Vol. 111 (6), pp. 730-749.
Lade, P.V. (1993) Rock strength criteria: the theories and the evidence. In Comprehensive Rock
Engineering (E. T. Brown ed.), pp. 255-284, Pergamon, Oxford, New York.
Liao, Q.H. and Hencher, S.R. (1997) The effect of discontinuity orientation and spacing on failure
mechanisms in rock slopes results from systematic numerical modelling. CIM Vancouver 97,
Vancouver, Canadian Institute of Mining.
Medhurst, T.P. (1996) Estimation of the in situ strength and deformability of coal for engineering design.
PhD thesis, University of Queensland.
Mogi, K. (1966) Pressure dependance of rock strength and transition from brittle fracture to ductile flow.
Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Vol. 44 (1), pp. 215-232.
Mostyn, G., M.D. Helgstedt & K.J. Douglas (1997) Towards field bounds on rock mass failure criteria.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences Vol. 34 (3-4): Paper No. 208.
Ramamurthy, T. and Arora, V.K. (1994) Strength predictions for jointed rocks in confined and unconfined
states. International Journal for Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences and Geomechanical Abstracts, Vol.
31 (1), pp. 9-22.
Shah, S. (1992) A Study of the Behaviour of Jointed Rock Masses. PhD, University of Toronto.
Shah, S. and Hoek, E. (1992) Simplex reflection analysis of laboratory strength data. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 278-287.
Sheorey, P.R. (1997) Empirical Rock Failure Criteria. A.A.Balkema.
Yudhbir, Lemanza, W. and Prinzl, F. (1983) An empirical failure criterion for rock masses. Proceedings 5
th
Congress for I.S.R.M., Melbourne.