K Farahmand-EmpiricalMethodsforEstimatingRockmassStrengthandDeformabilityPropertiesAnOverview

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/329412837
Empirical Methods for Estimating Rockmass Strength and Deformability

Properties – An Overview
Chapter · September 2017
CITATIONS READS
0 91
1 author:
Kiarash Farahmand
Queen's University/Golder Associates, Vancouver, Canada
16 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Characterization of Hydro-Mechanical Properties of Fractured Rockmass Using Synthetic Rock Mass (SRM) Method View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kiarash Farahmand on 05 December 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CHARACTERIZATION OF ROCKMASS PROPERTIES
AND EXCAVATION DAMAGE ZONE (EDZ)
USING A SYNTHETIC ROCK MASS (SRM) APPROACH
by
Kiarash Farahmand
A thesis submitted to the Department of Geological Sciences & Geological Engineering
In conformity with the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Queen’s University
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
(September, 2017)
Copyright ©Kiarash Farahmand, 2017

1
Chapter 2
Empirical Methods for Estimating Rockmass Strength and
Deformability Properties – An Overview
2.1 Introduction
Design of the geotechnical projects requires an adequate knowledge of rockmass quality. From the
geotechnical engineering point of view, the quality of a rockmass is mainly defined by its strength
and stiffness, and that how the jointed medium responds to applied load/perturbation introduced by
engineering activities. The characteristics of rock blocks and conditions of block forming joints
(joints geometry and properties) are two components that control the mechanical properties of the
jointed rock. The laboratory tests normally gives the information about the strength and
deformability of the intact portions of a rockmass, but other steps may have to be taken to estimate
the properties of rock en masse (for example: Paterson and Wong, 2005, Hoek and Diederichs
2006, Hoek et al 2002).
An in situ determination of rockmass properties including strength and deformability is
usually conducted by compressional testing methods such as the Plate Jacking test, the Plate
Loading Test, the Radial Jacking Test, Large Scale Triaxial Test (Van Heerden, 1979; Bieniawski,
1978; Hutchinson and Diederichs, 1996; Palmstrom and Singh, 2001). These methods are seldom
conducted in rock engineering projects since these tests are difficult to perform, require a significant
amount of time and are very expensive (Hoek and Diederichs, 2006). The main issue associated
with laboratory testing of jointed samples is the size of the tested samples and that the tested volume
may not be truly representative of the rockmass due to natural heterogeneity present for most
formations. Back-analysis techniques using modelling and instrumentation are indisputably the
best way to estimate the rockmass properties, however, the use of the approach is only restricted to
the times when the construction has started. For almost all cases of geotechnical problems, back-
15
analysis evaluation of deformation measurements (e.g. tunnel relaxation, and pillar monitoring)
provides the most credible information on the rockmass properties as well as the insights into the
material behavior (Carter and Marinos, 2014).
Empirical-based classification methods such as the Rock Mass Rating System (RMR)
(Bieniawski, 1973 and 1989; Barton et al., 1974; Laubscher, 1990; Laubscher and Jakubek, 2001)
were initially developed to evaluate the rockmass quality based on rating schemes that have been
calibrated from experiences gained in case histories. The rockmass classification schemes rank a
specific rockmass by assigning numerical values to those properties or features of the rockmass
considered likely to influence its behavior, and to combine these individual values into one
classification rating for the rockmass (Brady and Brown, 2007). The attributed rating to a specific
rockmass is then used to provide initial estimate of support requirements and to predict the
strength/deformability characteristics of the jointed medium.
The recent advances in the use of numerical models provide a powerful tool for reliable
characterization of rockmass properties including confined and unconfined strength under complex
loading paths (Ivars et al., 2011; Esmaeili et al., 2010; Duran, 2017). These advanced numerical
methods, which can be generally referred to as Synthetic Rockmass Models (SRMs), synthesize
the rockmass as a series of discrete joints which are embedded within an assembly of particles
bonded together at their contacts. In addition to assessment of rockmass properties, the application
of this method is to provide significant insight into the stages of brittle failure, which involved joint
shearing, propagation and coalescence of new fractures and deterioration of the resulting fully
formed blocks under further straining (Pierce et al., 2009). On the other hand, the SRM modelling
has some advantages over empirical methods in terms of its ability to consider scale effect,
anisotropy of material properties, and strain softening behavior in post-failure stage (Ivars et al.,
2011). Note that rockmass classifications are based on case histories and hence tend to perpetuate
conservative practice (Bieniawski, 1989).
16
In the following some of the most widely used empirical methods to arrive at the rockmass strength
are reviewed.
2.2 Empirical Classification Systems for Rockmass Characterization

The practical and economic difficulties associated with characterization of rockmass mechanical
properties at both laboratory and field urges researchers to develop empirical classification systems
based on the experiences and results obtained from case histories. These empirical systems such as
the RMR, MRMR, and Q were originally developed in an attempt to provide a practical tools for
determination of the stand-up time of unsupported underground excavations and also selection of
support requirements. The first major classification system for the design of the tunnel support was
proposed by Terzaghi (1946). Later, researchers suggested some relationships for determination of
the rockmass properties based on the rockmass quality rated from the RMR system (e.g. Hoek and
Brown, 1980; Ramamurthy et al., 1985), and the Q system (e.g. Barton 2002). The most verified
classification system for estimation of rockmass strength is known as the Geological Strength Index
(GSI) which was first introduced by Hoek et al. (1995) in order to be used in the Hoek and Brown
(1980) failure criterion to derive the rockmass properties under confined and unconfined
conditions. Table 2-1 listed the most common rockmass classification systems developed for design
of the rock engineering structures. In the following the most applied classification systems will be
briefly discussed.
17
Table 2-1 Major rockmass classification systems (after Cosar, 2004).
Rockmass classification Originator Country of Application area

system origin
Rock Load Terzaghi, 1976 USA Tunnels with steel
support
Stand-up time Lauffer, 1958 Australia Tunnelling
Rock Quality Designation Deere et al., 1967 USA Core logging,
(RQD) tunnelling
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) Bieniawski , 1973 South Africa Tunnels, mine,
(last modification (slopes, foundations)
1989-USA)
Modified Rock Mass Rating Unal and Ozkan, Turkey Mining
(MRMR) 1990
Rock Mass Quality (Q) Barton et al., 1974 Norway Tunnels, mines,
(last modification foundations
by Barton, 2002)
Rock Mass Strength (RMS) Stille et al., 1982 Sweden Metal mining
Rock Mass Index (RMi) Palmstrom, 1996 Sweden Tunnellling

Geological Strength Index Hoek et al., 1995 Canada All underground
(GSI) (last modification excavations
by Hoek et al.,
2013-Canada)
2.2.1 The RQD System

The rock quality designation (RQD) index was introduced by Deere in 1967 as a means of using
diamond core to obtain a quantitative assessment of rock mass (Pells et al., 2017). The RQD is
calculated as the ratio of the sum of the lengths of pieces of rock core longer than 10 cm to the total
length of the core (Figure 2-1). It has been used to have an estimate of rockmass strength and
deformability properties and most importantly used as a parameter within other classification
18
schemes such as the RMR and Q. The RQD system classifies the rockmass quality according to
Table 2-2.
Figure 2-1 Procedure for determination of Rock quality designation (RQD) (Abbas and
Konietzky, 2014).
Table 2-2 Rockmass quality classification based on the RQD (Deere et al., 1967).
RQD value Rockmass quality

< 25 Very poor
25-50 Poor
50-75 Fair
75-90 Good
90-100 Excellent
In many situations where cored borehole data are not available, the practical necessity has
led the rock engineers to adopt relationships between RQD and other geometrical characteristics of
discontinuities (Pells et al., 2017). Palmstrom (2005) has suggested the following relationship that
links the volumetric joint spacing (Jv ) to RQD:
RQD = 110 − 2.5Jv (for Jv = 4 − 44) (2.1)
Where the parameter Jv is the sum of the number of joints per unit length for all joint sets.
Similarly, the following equation is proposed by Priest and Hudson (1976) as:
3.8
RQD = 110.4 − ( ) (2.2)
ẋ
19
Where 𝑥𝑥̇ is the mean spacing between discontinuities assuming an exponential distribution.
However, according to Pells et al. (2017), the application of such correlations to have an
estimate of RQD may be misleading and inappropriate because of two reasons. Firstly, rock
included in RQD measurement must comprise only sound core, as Deere (1967) addressed when
developing RQD. Secondly, it is necessary to only consider the discontinuities in RQD
measurements that have zero tensile strength.
2.2.2 The RMR System

Bieniawski (1973) published a classification system called the Geomechanics Classification or rock
mass rating (RMR) scheme which was originally developed based on evaluating 49 case studies of
shallow tunnels in sedimentary rocks in South Africa (Kaiser et al., 1986). The system was
proposed for design of primary support in tunnels and evaluating stand-up time for an unsupported
span. The system has been undergone significant changes and updates by assessment of a total of
351 case histories of tunnels, mines, caverns, and slopes which were constructed in various type of
rocks including sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks. The RMR system discussed here is
based on the 1989 version detailed by Bieniawski (1989). According to this rating scheme, the
geotechnical quality of the rockmass is described by 5 classes, as presented in Table 2-3, based on
the rating system that ranges from 0 to 100. The ranking of a specific rockmass is being carried
out by evaluating six parameters including uniaxial compressive strength of rock, RQD value,
spacing of discontinuities, condition of discontinuities, orientation of discontinuities, and ground
water conditions, as shown in Table 2-4. The overall RMR is calculated by adding the values of
the ratings determined for each parameters. It should be noted that the RMR system does not give
any weighing to the influence of stress on rockmass behavior, and hence the practitioner requires
to consider this effect separately especially when dealing with evaluating rockmass response to
high stress conditions (Bahrani, Estimation of confined peak strength for highly interlocked jointed
rockmasses, 2015). Moreover, the RMR system suggests a conservative estimate for the support
20
system requirement which its use can lead to overdesign of the support system for the geotechnical
projects (Bieniawski, 1989). As the system was originally developed based on the case histories of
competent rockmasses, the RMR system cannot be used reliably in weak rockmasses (Singh and
Geol, 1999; Abbas and Konietzky, 2014).
Table 2-3 RMR rating calibrated against rockmass quality.
RMR rating Description
80-100 Very good rock
61-80 Good rock
41-60 Fair rock
21-40 Poor rock
<20 Very poor rock
The incorporation of the RQD within the Q and RMR systems in no longer necessary, as its
original incorporation in such systems was a matter of historical development (Pells et al., 2017).
Lowson and Bieniawski (2013) recommended against further use RQD in the RMR system.
Instead, they recommend to use ‘fracture frequency’ as an inverse of ‘fracture density’. For the
same reason, in the modified version of Laubscher’s mining rock mass rating (MRMR) which was
introduced by Jakubec and Esterhuizen (2007), RQD is replaced by the fracture frequency
parameter.
21
Table 2-4 Rock Mass Rating (RMR) classification system (Bieniawski, 1989).
2.2.3 The Q System
22
Barton et al. (1974) studied over 200 hard rock tunnels projects in Scandinavia and developed the
Tunneling Quality Index Q. The system was initially proposed as a means of selecting the tunnel
support (Figure 2-2), and later it was updated to extend it applications for estimating rockmass
strength properties and rock slope design. In 2015, Barton and Bar (2015) proposed a slightly
modified the Q-system called Q-slope to allow rock engineer practitioners to rapidly assess the
stability of the unsupported rock slopes. The Q system utilizes six parameters including RQD, Jn,
Jr, Ja, and SRF to calculate a value for Q as:
RQD J J
Q=( ) × (J r ) w
× (SRF) (2.3)
Jn a
Where RQD is the Rock Quality Designation, Jn is the Joint Set Number which represents the
number of joint sets, Jr is the Joint Roughness Number which accounts for roughness of
discontinuities, Ja is the Joint Alteration Number that describes the degree of alteration and surface
texture of the predominant discontinuities in the rockmass. Jw is the Water Reduction Factor
representing the groundwater conditions, and eventually, SRF is the Stress Reduction Factor which
accounts for the influence of stresses acting on the rockmass.

RQD
In Eq. 2.3, the first quotient ( ) is a crude representation of the average block size of the
Jn
J
rockmass, and the second quotient � r � may be taken as inter-block frictional shear strength and
J a
w J
surface integrity of the discontinuities, while the third quotient (SRF) accounts for the effect of
active stress acting on the rockmass with taking into the account the effect of water flowing through
joints in reduction of effective stress (Hutchison and Diederichs, 1996). SRF is a parameter that
accounts for faulting, for strength/stress ratios in hard massive rocks, for squeezing or for swelling.
For the case of competent rockmass, the parameter SRF is a measure of the stress/strength ratio in
prediction of a stress-fractured damage zone surrounding over-stressed tunnels (Barton, 2002).
23
The possible Q values ranges from 0.001 to 1000 on a logarithmic scale. The system classifies
the rock quality into 9 geotechnical classes ranging from exceptionally poor (Q ≤ 0.01) to
exceptionally good (Q ≥ 400).
Figure 2-2 The Q-support chart for selecting permanent reinforcement and support for
underground excavations in rock (Grimstad and Barton, 1993).
2.2.4 The GSI System

Hoek et al. (1995) introduced a new classification system known as the Geological Strength Index
(GSI) to be used as a geological data input for the Hoek-Brown failure criterion in order to estimate
the confined and unconfined strength of rockmass (see Figure 2-3). This classification scheme was
24
developed as an index for estimating the rockmass strength by the reduction in intact rock strength
for different geological conditions. The GSI system assumes that the peak strength of a jointed rock
is a function of properties of intact blocks and also depends on the freedom of the blocks to slide
and rotate under a range of imposed stress conditions (Marinos and Hoek, 2000). This freedom
tends to be controlled by the shape of the blocks and also the condition of discontinuity surface
separating them. As a result, the GSI seeks to account for these two features of the rockmass, its
structure as presented by its blockiness and degree of interlocking, and the condition of
discontinuity surface.
The main reason for developing such a system was to overcome some of the deficiencies that
had been identified in using the RMR system in the characterization of poor quality rockmasses
and also to avoid double counting of the uniaxial strength of intact blocks and discontinuity spacing
as occurs in the RMR system (Marios and Hoek, 2000; Brady and Brown, 2007; Hutchinson and
Diederichs 1996). In addition to that, the GSI system does not account for the in situ stress and
groundwater conditions itself as the influences of these factors are intended to be separately
incorporated into numerical analyses.
Day (2016) introduced a composites GSI chart that accounts for the influence of intra-block
structures and micro defects such as veins to characterize the complex rockmass condition.
25
Figure 2-3 Qualitative GSI chart with added massive and laminated/sheared categories
(Marinos and Hoek, 2000).
2.2.4.1 GSI Input Parameter Quantification

The original GSI system proposed by Hoek et al. (1997) infers the rockmass condition based on
the concise descriptions for the two input parameters of blockiness and discontinuity surface
26
conditions. The evaluation of these two parameters was intended to be made by direct visual
inspection of the rock condition in the field. The interpreted GSI value for a specific rockmass is
therefore dependent upon the level of experience of the practitioner and also whether the user have
a geological or an engineering background (Hoek et al., 2013).
In order to overcome the challenges of subjectivity faced by the user with different level of
experience and to facilitate the use of the system, different authors have proposed quantitative
methods to obtain GSI values (Sonmez and Ulusay 1999; Cai et al., 2004; Hoek et al., 2013).
Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) proposed a more quantitative numerical basis for evaluating GSI by
introducing two quantitative measures that are indicators of the block size and joint surface
condition. To characterize the degree of blockiness, the authors introduced the term structure rating
(SR), which is based on volumetric joint counts Jv (joint/m3). The value for the SR parameter is
determined using the Jv -SR plot given in the left margin of Figure 2-4 according to the estimated
Jv values for the rockmass. In this approach, the Jv value determines the degree of blockiness of the
rockmass according to Table 2-5. The structure rating ranges from 0 to 100 and is equally divided
among five categories of structure in the GSI chart.
The joint surface conditions is presented by a parameter known as surface condition rating
(SCR), and is obtained using the following expression:
SCR = R r + R W + R f (2.4)
where R r , R W and R f denote the ratings for joint surface roughness, weathering, and infilling,
respectively. The values for these parameters can be estimated using the rating scheme presented
in in the top section of Figure 2-4.
27
Table 2-5 Relationship between the block size, volumetric joint count (𝐉𝐉𝐯𝐯 ) and descriptive
structure categories in the GSI system (after Sonmez and Ulusay, 1999).
Description Jv (joint/𝑚𝑚3 ) Description for GSI
Very large blocks <1 Intact or massive
Large blocks 1-3 Blocky
Medium sized blocks 3-10 Very blocky
Small blocks 10-30 Blocky/Disturbed/Seamy
Very small blocks 30-60 Disintegrated
Crushed >60 Disintegrated
Cai et al., (2004) proposed an alternative approach that defines the GSI as a function the joint
condition rating (Jc ) defined by Palmstrom (1995) and the mean joint spacing or block volume (see
Figure 2-5). In this approach, the strength of joints is represented by Jc , and can be estimated using
the following expression:

Jw Js
Jc = Ja
(2.5)
Where Jw represents the joint weaviness, Js is the joint smoothness, and Ja is the joint alteration
condition. These parameters can be estimated using the rating schemes presented in Tables 2-6, 2-
7, and 2-8.
For a rockmass with persistent joints, the mean block volume (Vb) can be calculated using
the angles between joint sets (γi ) and the mean joint spacing for each set (Si ) as follows (Palmstrom,
1996):
S1 S2 S3
Vb = (2.6)
sin γ1 sin γ2 sin γ3
For the rockmasses with non-persistent joints, Vb can be calculated as (Cai et al., 2004):
S1 S2 S3
Vb = sin γ1 sin γ2 sin γ3 3�p1 p2 p3
(2.7)
28
where pi is the persistent factor for each joint set. Cai et al. (2004) also suggest that Vb can be
estimated by direct measurement of representative blocks in the field.
Figure 2-4 Quantitative GSI chart proposed by Sonmez and Ulusay (2002).
29
Figure 2-5 Qualitative GSI chart by Cai et al. (2004).
30
Table 2-6 Rating of the joint roughness parameter 𝐉𝐉𝐬𝐬 (Palmstrom, 1995).
Smoothness Description Rating for

terms smoothness, Js
Very rough Near vertical steps and ridges occur with 3
interlocking effect on the joint surface
Rough Some ridge and side-angle are evident; 2
asperities are clearly visible; discontinuity
surface feels very abrasive (rougher than
sandpaper grade 30)
Slightly rough Asperities on the discontinuity surfaces are 1.5
distinguishable and can be felt (like sandpaper
grade 30-300)
Smooth Surface appear smooth and feels so to touch 1
(smoother than sandpaper grade 300)
Polished Visual evidence of polishing exists. This is 0.75
often seen in coating of chlorite and specially
talc
Slickensided Polished and striated surface that results from 0.6-1.5
sliding along a fault surface or other movement
surface
Table 2-7 Rating of the joint waviness parameter 𝐉𝐉𝐰𝐰 (Palmstrom , 1995).
Waviness terms Undulation Rating for waviness, 𝐽𝐽𝑤𝑤

Interlocking (large scale) 3
Stepped 2.5
Large undulation >3% 2
Small to moderate 0.3-3% 1.5
undulation
Planar <0.3% 1
31
Table 2-8 Rating of joint alteration parameter 𝐉𝐉𝐀𝐀 (Palmstrom , 1995).
Term Description JA
Rock wall Clear joints

contact
Healed or “welded” joints Softening, impermeable filling
0.75
(unweathered) (quartz, epidote, etc.)
Fresh rock wall (unweathered) No coating or filling on joint surface,

1
except for staining
Alteration of joint wall: slightly The joint surface exhibits one class
2
to moderately weathered higher alteration than the rock
Alteration of joint wall: highly The joint surface exhibits two classes
4
weathered higher alteration than the rock
Coating or thin filling
Sand, silt, calcite, etc. Coating of frictional material without

3
clay
Filled joints Clay, chlorite, talc, etc. “Hard” filling of softening and
4
with partial or cohesive materials
no contact
Sand, silt, Calcite, etc. Filling of frictional material without
between the 4
clay
rock wall
surfaces Compacted clay materials Medium to low over-consolidated of
6
filling
Soft clay materials Medium to low over-consolidation of

8
filling
Swelling clay materials Filling material exhibits swelling

8-12
properties
32
Figure 2-6 Quantitative GSI chart based on the block size (scale A) and joint condition (Scale
B) (after Hoek et al., 2013).
Hoek et al. (2013) revised the original GSI chart by adding two qualitative scales representing
the discontinuity surface condition (Scale A) and the blockiness of the rockmass (Scale B), as
shown in Figure 2-6. The two indices representing the rockmass conditions are the RQD defined
by Deere (1967) and the Joint Condition (JCond89) defined by Bieniawski (1989). The authors
selected these rating indices as both the indices have been in use for decades and rock engineers
and geologist have found it to be simple and reliable to apply in the field (Hoek et al., 2013). As
RQD
shown in the Figure 2-6, is used to quantify the degree of blockiness and the 1.5JCond89 gives
2
a value for the discontinuity surface condition. The value of JCond89 can be determined by referring
33
to the Tables 2-9 and 2-10. An alternative to calculate GSI without using the chart is to use the
relationship presented in Eq. 2.8:
RQD
GSI = 1.5JCond89 + (2.8)
2
Table 2-9 Guidelines for estimating the joint surface condition (after Bieniawski, 1989).
Discontinuit <1 m 1 to 3 m 3 to 10 m 10 to 20 More than
y length m 20 m
(persistence)
rating 6 4 2
1 0
Separation None <0.1 mm 1. m 1-5 mm More than 5
(aperture) m mm
rating 6 5 1
4 0
Roughness Very rough Rough Slightly rough Smooth Slickensided
rating 6 5 1 0
Infilling None Hard Hard infilling> 5 mm Soft Soft
(gouge) infilling< 2 infilling, infilling>5
5 mm 5 mm mm
6 2
rating 5 0
Weathering Unweathere Slightly Moderate weathering Highly Decompose
d weathered 3 weathere d
rating 5 d
6 1 0
34
Table 2-10 Rating the discontinuity surface condition based on the Joint Condition (𝐉𝐉𝐉𝐉𝐉𝐉𝐉𝐉𝐉𝐉𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖)
concept defined by Bieniawski (1989).
Condition of discontinuities Rating
Very rough surfaces, not discontinuous, no separation, unweathered wall rock 30
Slightly surfaces, Separation<1 mm, Slightly weathered walls 25
Slightly rough surfaces, separation<1 mm , highly weathered walls 20
Slickensided surfaces or Gouge<5 mm thick or separation 1-5 mm, continuous 10
Soft gouge>5 mm thick or, separation >5 mm, continuous 0
Pells et al. (2017) tested Eq. 2.8 using the data from a number sites in the Australia and South
Africa. They concluded that the GSI can be estimated from GSI look-up chart as accurately as
calculated from the RQD and JCond89 .
2.3 Rockmass Classification Systems and its Application for Estimation of

Rockmass Deformability and Strength
In order to have an estimate of the rockmass strength and deformability attempts have been made
by many researchers to correlate the strength and modulus of intact rock to those of rockmass
through rockmass classifications (Bieniawski, 1989; Laubscher, 1990; Laubscher and Jakubec,
2001; Barton, 2002; Diederichs, 2007; Ramamurthy et al., 2017). These proposed equations were
derived based on the curve fitting to the data obtained from case histories, and the obtained
correlations have been adopted to assess the Young’s modulus, compressive strength, cohesion and
friction and to predict stress-strain behavior of jointed rock. These empirical relationships are
supposed to be applicable only to rockmasses with isotropic behavior. A brief summary of the
35
widely used empirical methods for determination of the rockmass strength and deformability is
discussed in the following.
2.3.1 Strength Prediction using the RQD Value
Zhang and Einstein (2004) suggested a correlation (Eq. 2.9) that link the RQD value to unconfined
strength of the rockmass based a notion that strength of jointed specimens decreases with the
increase in spacing between the joints.
UCSrm
= 100.013RQD−1.34 (2.9)
UCSi
2.3.2 Strength Prediction using the RMR Value

The RMR value has been used to estimate rockmass properties. For example, Bieniawski (1989)
and Seirafim and Pereira (1993) have given a relationship between the RMR and the rockmass
deformation modulus. The RMR value is also used as one way to estimate the mb and s factors in
the Hoek-Brown failure criterion (Hoek and Brown, 1997) as well as the GSI value to evaluate the
rockmass strength. These give, however, only empirical relations and have nothing to do with rock
engineering classification in its true sense. Several researchers has proposed empirical relationships
that relate the unconfined strength of jointed rock to the RMR value, as listed in Table 2-11. The
estimated strength can be used to as input data for numerical models or for empirical design.
Historically, Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion has been used to derive peak and post-peak
strength behavior of soil and rock materials. This shear failure criterion considers a linear failure
envelope for the material, which is not a realistic assumption for the case of moderately to sparsely
jointed rocks. This model, which was originally developed for soil-like materials, assumes that the
size of the rock blocks in highly jointed rockmass is equivalent to an isotropic mass of soil particles
(Read and Stacey, 2009). According to this model, the strength properties of a rockmass can be
represented by two measures of cohesion (c) and friction angle (φ). In many rock engineering
36
problems, these two equivalent continuum parameters are used to represent the strength
characteristics of rockmass, and their estimated values are commonly served as input data into
numerical tools for the design and stability analysis of rock slopes and tunnels. In an attempt to
derive the frictional and cohesive components of the jointed rock based on the rock classification
systems, Bieniawski (1976) calibrated the RMR rating against rockmass strength based on the
experience gained from the field observations and back-calculations (see Table 2-12).
Table 2-11 Empirical equations for estimating the unconfined strength of rockmass based on
the RMR system (modified after Bahrani, 2015).
UCSrm
UCSi
= �e((RMR−100)/9 (2.10) Hoek and Brown (1980)
UCSrm (2.11) Yudhbir et al. (1983)

= e7.65(RMR−100)/100
UCSi
UCSrm (2.12) Ramamurthy et al. (1985)
= e(RMR−100)/18.75
UCSi
UCSrm (2.13) Kalamaras and Bieniawski (993)
= e(RMR−100)/24
UCSi
UCSrm (2.14) Sheorey (1997)
= e(RMR−100)/20
UCSi
UCSrm RMR (2.15) Aydan and Dagic (1998)
=
UCSi (RMR + 6(100 − RMR)
Table 2-12 RMR calibrated against rockmass strength and quality (Bieniawski, 1976).
RMR rating ≤ 20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100

Description Very poor Poor rock Fair rock Good rock Very good
rock rock
Rockmass <100 100-200 200-300 300-400 >400
cohesion (kPa)
Rockmass friction <15 15-25 25-35 35-45 >45
angle (°)
UCSrm (MPa) <0.3 0.3-0.6 0.6-1 1-2 >2
37
Aydan et al. (1993) and Tokashiki and Aydan (2010) suggested the following equations
respectively, in order to have an estimate of the rockmass Poisson’s ratio (νrm ):

RMR
νrm = 0.5 − 0.2 (2.16)
RMR+0.2(100−RMR)
νrm = 0.25(1 + e−UCSrm/4 ) (2.17)
2.3.3 Strength Prediction using the Q Value

Barton (2002) has given an empirical relationship between the Q value and the unconfined strength
of the rockmass as presented in Eq. 2.18. The author recommended to use Q c values for estimating
the uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock using Eq. 2.19. In this way, unlike the earlier Q
values given by Barton et al. (1974), the Q c values obtained from Eq. 2.19 considers the influence
of uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock (UCSi ) in determining the overall strength of
rockmass (UCSrm ).
UCSrm = 5γQ c1/3 (2.18)
Q UCSi
Qc = (2.19)
100
Where γ is the rock density in g/cc.
Barton (2002) also used the modified version of Q system (Q c ) in order to give a pair of
cohesion (crm ) and friction angle (φrm ) values for rockmass using the following expressions.
J
φrm = tan−1 �( Jr )Jw � (2.20)
a
RQD 1 UCS
crm = ( )( )( 100i) (2.21)
Jn SRF
Bahrani (2015) argues that in Eq. 2.20, the friction angle of the rockmass (𝜑𝜑𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ) is a function
of frictional properties of joints (Ja , Jr , and Jw ). However, the overall frictional properties of
rockmass in reality is controlled by frictional behavior of both intact rock blocks and joints.
Additionally, Eq. 2.21 yields realistic value of cohesive strength of the rockmass only for the
materials that are subjected to low confinement condition. This is due to fact that SRF used in Eq.
2.16 which represents the ratio of rock strength and stress for near excavation materials (i.e. low
38
confinement). Therefore, Eq. 2.21 is not applicable for the estimation of cohesion strength of
rockmass at high confinement relevant for the design of abutments and cores of pillars.
In addition to the equations suggested by Barton (2002), the relationships presented in Table
2-13 can be used to calculate the equivalent friction angle and cohesion for the jointed rockmass.
Table 2-13 Equations for calculating the rockmass cohesion and friction angle.
0.25
φrm = 20UCSrm (2.22) Ayden et al. (1993)
φrm = 20 + 0.5RMR (2.23) Aydan and Kawamoto (2001)
UCSrm 1−sin φrm
Crm = ( 2
)( cos φ ) (2.24) Aydan and Kawamoto (2001)
rm
2.3.4 Strength Prediction using the GSI Value and Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion
Hoek and Brown (1980) introduced an empirically derived criterion used to describe the non-linear
nature of the rock and rockmass failure envelope under various range of confinements. As
demonstrated in Figure 2-7, the criterion started from the properties of intact rock and then
introduced parameters to reduce these properties on the basis of the characteristics of joints in a
rockmass (Hoek et al., 2002).
Figure 2-7 (left) Strength degradation from the intact rock strength to the rockmass strength
using Hoek and Brown criterion. (right) GSI chart (after Eberhardt, 2012).
39
The criterion was derived based on Hoek’s (1965) experience with brittle rock fracturing and
his use of a parabolic Mohr envelope derived from Griffith’s crack theory (Griffith 1921) in order
to define the relationship between shear and normal stress at fracture initiation (Eberhardt, The
hoek–brown failure criterion., 2012). Hoek (1965) performed laboratory tests on samples of
annealed glass plates containing a pre-fabricated a penny-shaped single crack (see Figure 2-8 (a)).
The samples were subjected to biaxial compressive loadings in order to establish the relationship
between the crack initiation and propagation stresses with normal and shear stresses (see Figure 2-
8 (b)). According to this relationship, Hoek and Brown (1980) proceeded through trial and error to
fit a variety of parabolic curves to a significant quantity of triaxial test data for variety of rock types,
as shown in Figure 2-9, to derive their failure criterion (Eberhardt, The hoek–brown failure
criterion., 2012).
Figure 2-8 Dependency of crack length to confining stress. (a) Relationship between the stable
crack length (L/2c) and ratio of applied principal stresses. L is the length of stable crack and
2c is the length of initial crack (after Hoek and Bieniawski, 1965). (b) Increase in crack
propagation with reduced confining stress for an open penny-shaped single crack in a
homogeneous isotropic elastic solid loaded (Hoek and Martin, 2014).
40
In order to determine the degradation of rockmass strength from the intact rock due to the
existence of joints network in the rockmass, a series of triaxial tests were carried out on the jointed
Panguana Andesite from the slopes of Bougainvellie open pit copper mine in Papua New Guinea.
The studied Andesite jointed samples (152 mm diameter) were very strong with intact unconfined
strength of about 270 MPa where the multiple persistent joint sets with varying joint surface
conditions (i.e., clean, rough, unfilled joints) separate the rockmass into some individual blocks
(see Figure 2-10) (Marinos and Hoek, 2000; Bahrani, 2015). In addition to that, Hoek and Brown
(1980) analyzed the different fracturing stages involved in progressive failure of intact Westerly
granite tested under unconfined and confined conditions in order to understand the strength
degradation of the jointed rockmass from intact rock (Bahrani, 2015). The results of the
experiments was used for development of the early version of the Hoek-Brown criterion. Later, the
criterion was being widely used for stability analyses of a variety of underground and slope
structures. In response to the experienced gained from application of the criterion to various
projects and to address certain practical limitations the original criterion has been updated several
times over the years (Hoek and Brown 1988; Hoek et al. 1995 and 2002).
41
Figure 2-9 The triaxial test data assembled by Hoek (1965) and used in developing the Hoek
and Brown criterion for estimating the strength of intact material (Hoek and Martin, 2014).
Although the criterion has been validated on observations from excavations in many different
geological conditions, the calibration of the criterion was only carried out against a few number of
field data (Kaiser, 2016). In addition to that, its ability for predicting the rockmass strength has
been verified for the estimation of rock classes of blocky to disturbed failure which are located
close to the boundary of the excavation and as a result are subjected to low-confining stresses
(Kaiser, 2016). The lists of the projects used in development of the criterion are given in Table 2-
14.
42
Figure 2-10 (a) Surface exposure of jointed andesite on the site of the Bougainville open pit
mine; (b) triaxial cell that was used for testing 152 mm diameter rockmass specimens (after
Bahrani, 2015).
Table 2-14 List of projects used to develop and modify the Hoek-Brown failure criterion and
the rockmass conditions described by the GSI system (Bahrani, 2015).
Type of project UCSi GSI References

(MPa)
Mine drift 50 75 Hoek and Brown (1997)
Underground powerhouse 110 75 Hoek and Brown (1997)
Powerhouse cavern 30 65 Hoek and Brown (1997)
Tunnel 5-10 20 Hoek and Brown (1997)
Hydroelectric tunnel 10 6 and 45 Hoek (1999)
Highway tunnel 10-100 15-50 Goricki et al. (2006)
Water transport tunnel 15-110 25 Hoek et al. (2008)
The current version of the criterion, which is being known as ‘generalized’ Hoek-Brown
criterion (1995), is given by:

𝑎𝑎
σ′
σ1′ = σ′3 + UCSi �mb UCS
3
+ s� (2.25)
i
43
Where σ1′ and σ′3 are maximum and minimum effective principal stresses, UCSi is the uniaxial
compressive strength of intact rock, mb is the reduced value of the material constant mi for the
rockmass, and s and a are parameters which depends on the characteristics or quality of the jointed
rockmass. From a continuum mechanics point of view, in fact the dimensionless parameters of mb,
σ′3
s, and UCSi
in the Eq. 2.25 reduce the contribution of unconfined strength of the intact block UCSi
to reflect the influences of fracturing on degrading the strength of jointed rock (Carter and Marinos,
σ′3
2014). Accordingly, depending on the degree of block interlocking (mb), confinement ( ), and
UCSi
condition of the inter-block surfaces (s), these dimensionless components act to downgrade the
strength of the intact pieces to a strength considered representative for the overall rockmass (Carter
and Marinos, 2014).
The values of 𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏 and 𝑠𝑠 are related to the GSI for the rockmass by the relations:
GSI−100
mb = mi exp � � (2.26)
28−14D
GSI−100
s = exp � � (2.27)
9−3D
GSI 20
1
𝑎𝑎 = 0.5 + (e− 15 − e− 3 ) (2.28)
6
Where D is a parameter which depends on the degree to which the rockmass has been disturbed by
blasting or stress relief. D varies from 0 for undisturbed in situ rockmass to 0.1 for very disturbed
rockmasses. For good quality blasting, it might be expected that D ≈ 0.7. The exponential term a
defines the curvature of the failure envelope, while mb accounts for the strength reduction of the
rockmass condition from its intact strength. Note that parameters mi is an indicator of the brittleness
of the rock with weaker and more ductile rocks having low mi values while stronger and more
brittle rocks have high 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 values. For undisturbed rockmass (GSI > 25), 𝑎𝑎 ≈ 0.5, and for disturbed
rockmass (GSI < 25):

GSI
𝑎𝑎 = 0.65 − . (2.29)
200
44
The uniaxial compressive strength of the rockmass (UCSrm) is obtained by setting σ′3 = 0 in
Eq. 2.25, giving (Brady and Brown, 2007):
UCSrm = UCSi s𝑎𝑎 (2.30)
Assuming that the uniaxial and biaxial tensile strengths of brittle rocks are approximately
equal, the tensile strength of the rockmass may be calculated by substituting 𝜎𝜎1′ = 𝜎𝜎3′ = 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 in Eq.
2.25 to obtain:
UCSi
Trm = −s mb
(2.31)
Hoek and Martin (2014) suggest a relationship between the Hoek-Brown parameter𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 , and
the ratio between the unconfined strength (UCSi ), and tensile strength (Ti ) of intact rock as follow:
UCSi
|Ti |
=8.62+0.7mi (2.32)
This relationship, which is obtained on the basis on a few number of reliable direct tensile,
test data, provides a practical mean for calculating a tensile cutoff for the Hoek-Brown criterion
(Hoek and Martin, 2014).
Several researchers have proposed empirical equations for determining the value of the
Young’s modulus of isotropic rockmass on the basis of classification systems such as the RMR, Q,
and GSI. Some of these empirical relationships are given in Table 2-15. According to Hoek and
Diederichs (2006), while most of these equations gives reasonable fit to the in situ data, all of the
exponential equations give poor estimates of the Young’s modulus of the massive rock because of
the poorly defined asymptotes. The proposed equations in forms of a third power function such as
those given by Read et al. (1999), Barton (2002), Mitri et al. (1994), and Carvalho (2004) give
relatively poor fits to the full range rockmass geological conditions (Hoek and Diederichs, 2006).
Table 2-15 Empirical equations for estimation of rockmass modulus (Hoek and Diederichs,
2006).
Erm = 2RMR − 100 (2.33) (Bieniawski, 1978)

Erm = 10(RMR−10)/40 (2.34) (Serafim and Pereira, 1983)
45
Ei (2.35) (Nicholson and Bieniawski,
Erm = ,
RMR 1990)
100 �0.0028RMR2 + 0.9 exp �22.82��
Ei = 50 GPa
Erm = Ei �0.5(1 − cos(πRMR/100))�, Ei = 50 MPa (2.36) (Mitri et al., 1994)
Erm = 0.1(RMR/10)3 (2.37) (Read et al., 1999)

1/3 QUCSi
Erm = 10Q c where Q c = 100
, UCSi = 100 MPa (2.38) (Barton, 2002)
(2.39) (Hoek et al., 2002)

D UCSi
Erm = �1 − � � × 10(RMR−10)/40 , D = 0,
2 100
UCSi = 100 MPa

GSI − 100 (2.40) (Sonmez et al. 2004)
Erm = Ei (s a )0.4 , Ei = 50 GPa, s = exp( )
9
1
a=0.5+
GSI 20
6 �exp �- 15 � - exp �- 3 ��
, GSI=RMR
Erm = Ei s 0.25 , Ei = 50 GPa, s = exp(GSI − 100/9) (2.41) (Carvalho, 2004)
Erm = 7(±3)�Q′ , Q′ = 10(RMR − 44)/21 (2.42) (Diederichs and Kaiser, 1999)
The relationship given in Hoek et al. (2002) for estimating the Young’s modulus of the rock
mass (Erm ) using the GSI system has been modified by Hoek and Diederichs (2006) into a single
equation in form of a sigmoid function incorporating both GSI and D:
1−𝐷𝐷/2
Erm = Ei �0.02 + � (2.43)
1+e((60+15D)−GSI)/11)
Eq. 2.43 are applicable to isotropic rockmasses. Note that field data showed that the rate of
increase in rockmass modulus decreases as joint spacing increases (Zhang and Einstein, 2004). The
reason for adopting a sigmoid equation for the rockmass modulus was to constrain the increase of
modulus as the rockmass becomes less jointed (Hoek and Diederichs 2006). Note that selection of
a representative value for parameter D is very important to have a correct estimate of rockmass
modulus using Eq. 2.43. For practical applications, the user can consult with Table 2-16 to select
the representative input value of disturbance factor (D). Note that D should only be applied to the
46
blast damage zone created by blasting operation and definitely should not be applied to the entire
rockmass (Carter and Marinos, 2014). The depth of this blast-induced damage zone is typically up
to few meters into the boundaries of the excavation and for open pit slopes a non-zero value for D
should be considered for some portion of depth into each bench face based on the slope height
(Carter and Marinos, 2014).
Table 2-16 Guidelines for the selection of the disturbance factor D (after Hoek et al., 2002;
and Carter and Marinos, 2014).
Location D value Disturbance characteristics

Underground 0 High quality perimeter blasting (100% half barrel traces)
excavations or mechanical excavation with TBM or roadheader
(confined conditions) 0 NATM excavations in weak rock with mechanical
excavation
0.5 As above (but with invert heave issues)
0.8 Poor quality blasting (<50% half barrel traces
Open cuts and open pits 0.7 Controlled blasting (>80% half barrel traces)
(de-stressed conditions) 1 Poor quality blasting (<50% half barrel traces)
0.7 Mechanical excavation in weak rock with face shovel
etc
1 Typical open pit production blasting/quarry blasting
2.3.4.1 Limits of Applicability of the GSI System

Development of almost all of the widely used rockmass classification systems were largely based
on the filed observation and back-analysis of the case histories. Therefore, the bounds of
applicability of a classification system should be limited to the geological conditions that the
empirical scheme has been originally calibrated and verified (Bahrani, 2015). As an example, refer
to Table 2-14 for more information about the geological conditions and projects that used in
development of the Hoek-Brown criterion.
47
In a broadest sense, application of the Q, RMR, and GSI systems for the assessment of rock
behavior tends to be effective for the rockmasses with closely spaced and persistent structures (i.e.
30 < GSI < 65) under relatively low confinement. For an example, the Hoek-Brown criterion was
primarily developed based on the observations of rockmasses behavior at relatively low-
confinement conditions where the failure of the assessed rockmass is dominated by the rotation of
blocks and shearing along pre-existing structures. It implies that the application of this criterion is
not well suited for the case of sparsely to massive hard rocks (GSI≥ 65, UCSi >100 MPa, mi ≈
UCSi /Ti >15, and rough structure surface) where the brittle extensile fracturing of intact blocks,
and not the movement of discrete blocks, controls failure mode of the material (Carter et al., 2008).
The inability of the criterion is also valid for the case of highly-jointed-poor-quality rocks (GSI <
30, UCSi ≤ 15 MPa) where the strength is mainly controlled by matrix strength and structure has
minimal impact (Carter et al. 2008). As a result, three different modes of failure can be identified
for the rockmasses, namely (a) the matrix-dominated failure mode for the weak rocks with GSI <
30 (Carvalho et al., 2007), (b) the inter-block-shear-dominated failure mode for the
heavily/persistent jointed rocks with GSI ranges between 30 to 65 (Hoek and Brown, 1995), and
(c) the brittle-fracturing-dominated failure for sparsely jointed to massive rocks with GSI > 65
(Martin, 1999; Diederichs, 2004, and 2007). On the basis of this classification, Carter et al. (2008)
divided the rockmass condition and its associated behaviors into three distinct categories namely
the spalling-prone condition for the moderately jointed brittle rocks, inter-block shear-failure
condition for the normal jointed rocks, and squeezing conditions for the equivalent homogenous
soil-like rockmasses (Figure 2-11).
48
Figure 2-11 Zones of applicability of GSI system and Hoek-Brown failure criterion with
relation to transitions to brittle spalling criterion (Diederichs, 2007) (top right) and (lower
left) to Mohr-Coulomb criterion (Carter et al., 2008) (for soil-like material with potential in
tunneling for squeezing) (after Carter et al., 2008).
Diederichs (2004, 2007) demonstrated that for the spall-prone rockmasses with high GSI, the
unconfined strength of a large-scale sparsely to massive rock is approximately equal to 30% to 50%
of the short-term uniaxial compressive strength of intact blocks (UCSrm ≈ (0.3 − 0.5) UCSi ). In
tunnels excavated in spall-prone rockmasses, the spontaneous development of extension fractures
in near excavation boundaries occurs at deviatoric stresses between 30-50% of the UCSi. This in
situ strength corresponds to the crack initiation strength (CI ≅ (0.3 − 0.5) UCSi ) of intact
laboratory samples of low-porosity crystalline and sedimentary rocks (Diederichs and Martin,
2010; Walton, 2014). To determine the in situ strength of the rockmass under low and relatively
49
high confinement (0 ≤ σ3 ≤ ≈ UCSi /10), the strength parameters of the Generalized Hoek-
Brown (Hoek et al., 2002) can be determined using Eq. 2.44 and Eq. 2.45 (Diederichs, 2007):
1
ssp = (CI�UCS ) �𝑎𝑎sp (2.44)
i
UCSi
msp = ssp ( �|T |) (2.45)
i
Where CI and Ti are the crack initiation and tensile strength of intact rock. The peak strength
of the rockmass can be estimated by setting 𝑎𝑎sp =0.25. The residual parameters 𝑎𝑎residual , and
sresidual should be 0.75 and 0.001, respectively. A value between 6 to 10 should be considered
for the residual parameter mresidual.
In order to extend the limits of applicability of GSI and the Hoek-Brown criterion for the
case of weak rockmasses with GSI< 30 and UCSi ≤ 10 − 15 MPa, Carter et al. (2008)
recommended a set of relationships to be used to adjust generalized Hoek-Brown equations for
derivation of rockmass strength parameters. Carvalho et al. (2007) argues that the inability of Hoek-
Brown criterion in its general form for anticipation of the weak and broken rockmasses behavior is
in fact due to the considering a non-linear failure envelope. In this case the behavior is similar to
soil-like material for which the confined strength or the rockmass tends to be more linear (“a”
parameter→ 1) over various range of confinements (in the conventional 𝜎𝜎1 and 𝜎𝜎3 space) (Carter et
al., 2008). As a result, although the conventional Hoek-Brown criterion tends to arrive at a correct
unconfined strength for the material, the anticipated confined strength is unrealistically
underestimated. As a treatment to this inability, Carter et al. (2008) proposed a correction function
with the following form:
1 UCSi ≤ 5 MPa
fT (UCSi ) = � −(UCSi −5)2 /250 (2.46)
e UCSi ≥ 5 MPa
Incorporating this correction function into the Hoek-Brown criterion is simply given the
modified strength parameters as:
s ∗ = s + (1 − s)fT (UCSi ) (2.47)

50
𝑎𝑎∗ = 𝑎𝑎 + (1 − 𝑎𝑎)fT (UCSi ) (2.48)
[mb +(mi −mb )UCSi ]

m∗b = (2.49)
(4𝑎𝑎∗ −1)
It should be noted that for rockmasses with major pre-exiting structures (i.e. widely spaced
but persistent), the overall mechanism of failure is a combination of the brittle fracturing through
intact block as well as shearing along major discontinuities.
51
References
Abbas, S., and Konietzky, H. (2014). Rock Mass Classification Systems. In Introduction to
Geomechanics (p. 43). Freiberg: Department of Rock Mechanics, Technical University
Freiberg, Germany.
Aladejare, A., and Wang, Y. (2017). Evaluation of rock property variability. Georisk: Assessment
and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards, 11(1), 22-41.
Alzo’ubi, A. (2012). Modeling of rocks under direct shear loading by using discrete element
method. A bi-annual, refereed journal published by ALHOSN University-Abu Dhabi-UAE, 4.
Amadei, B. (1996). Importance of anisotropy when estimating and measuring in situ stresses in
rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics
Abstracts, 33(3), 293-325.
ANDRA. (2005). Dossier 2005 Argile. Synthesis: Evaluation of the Feasibility of a Geological
Repository in an Argillaceous Formation, Meuse/Haute Marne Site. Paris, France.
Armand, G., LeBon, P., Cruchaudet, M., Rebours, H., Morel, J., & Wileveau, Y. (2007).
Characterization of the excavation-damaged zone in the Meuse Haute Marne Underground
Research Laboratory. Proceeding Clays in natural & engineered barriers for radioactive waste
confinement–September 17-20, 2007, Lille, France.
Arzúa, J., Alejano, L., and Walton, G. (2014). Strength and dilation of jointed granite specimens in
servo-controlled triaxial tests. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
69, 93-104. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.04.001
52
Atkinson, C., Smelser, R., and Sanchez, J. (1982). Combined mode fracture via the cracked
Brazilian disk test. International Journal of Fracture, 18(4), 279-291.
Aydan, O., and Dalgic, S. (1998). Prediction of deformation behaviour of 3-lanes Bolu tunnels
through squeezing rocks of North Anatolian fault zone (NAFZ). In Proceedings of the regional
symposium on sedimentary rock engineering, (pp. 228-2). Taipei.
Aydan, Ö. and Kawamoto, T. (2001). The stability assessment of a large underground opening at
great depth. In Proceedings of the 17th international mining congress and exhibition of Turkey
(IMCET 2001), 1, pp. 277-288. Ankara, Turkey.
Aydan, Ö. Akagi, T., and Kawamoto, T. (1993). The squeezing potential of rocks around tunnels;
theory and prediction. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 26(2), 137-163.
Azocar, K. (2017). Investigating the mesh dependency and upscaling of 3D grain-based models for
the simulation of brittle fracture processes in low-porosity crystalline rock. Master thesis,
Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada.
Backers, T. (2005). Fracture toughness determination and micromechanics of rock under mode I
and mode II loading. Doctoral dissertation: University of Potsdam.
Baecher, G. B. (1983). Statistical analysis of rockmass fracturing. Mathematical Geology, 15(2),

329-348.
Baghbanan, A., and Jing, L. (2008). Stress effects on permeability in a fractured rock mass with
correlated fracture length and aperture. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 45(8), 1320-1334.
Bahrani, N. (2015). Estimation of confined peak strength for highly interlocked jointed rockmasses.
Doctoral dissertation: Laurentian University of Sudbury.
Bahrani, N., and Kaiser, P. (2013). Strength degradation of non-persistently jointed rockmass.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 62, 28-33.
Bahrani, N., Kaiser, P., and Valley, B. (2014). Distinct element method simulation of an analogue
for a highly interlocked, non-persistently jointed rockmass. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 71, 117-130.
Bandis, S., Lumsden, A., and Barton, N. (1983). Fundamentals of rock joint deformation.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts,
20(6), 249-268.
53
Barenblatt, G. (1962). The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture. Advances
in applied mechanics, 104(7), 55-129.
Barton, N. (2002). Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterization and tunnel
design. International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences, 39(2), 185-216.
Barton, N., and Bar, N. (2015). Introducing the Q-slope method and its intended use within civil
and mining engineering projects. ISRM Regional Symposium-EUROCK 2015. International
Society for Rock Mechanics.
Barton, N., and Choubey, V. (1977). The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 10(1), 1-54.
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J. (1974). Engineering classification of rock masses for the design
of tunnel support. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 6(4), 189-
236.
Bass, J. (1995). Elasticity of minerals, glasses, and melts. Mineral physics and crystallography: a
handbook of physical constants, 45-63.
Bernier, F., Li, X. L., Bastiaens, W., Ortiz, L., Van Geet, M., Wouters, L., and Bühler, C. (2007).
Fractures and self-healing within the excavation disturbed zone in clays (SELFRAC). Final
report, 5th EURATOM Framework Programme (1998–2002).
Bewick, R., Ouellet, A., Otto, S., and Gaudreau, D. (2017). Importance of understanding laboratory
strength and modulus testing data for deep mining in hard brittle rocks. 8th International
Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining. Perth: Australian Center for Geomechanics.
Bieniawski, Z. (1973). Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Civil Engineer in South
Africa, 15(12).
Bieniawski, Z. (1976). Rock mass classifications in rock engineering. In Proceedings of

Symposium on Exploration for Rock Engineering, 1, pp. 97-106.
Bieniawski, Z. (1978). Determining rock mass deformability: experience from case histories.
15(5), 237-247.
Bieniawski, Z. (1989). Engineering rock mass classifications: a complete manual for engineers and
geologists in mining, civil, and petroleum engineering. John Wiley and Sons.
Bieniawski, Z., and Van Heerden, W. (1975). The significance of in situ tests on large rock
specimens. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics
Abstract, 12(4), 101-113.
54
Biot, M. (1941). General theory of three‐dimensional consolidation. Journal of applied physics,
12(2), 155-164.
Bobet, A., and Einstein, H. (1998). Fracture coalescence in rock-type materials under uniaxial and
biaxial compression. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 35(7),
863-888.
Bossart, P., T. Trick, P.M. Meierand, and J.C. Mayor, (2004). Structural and hydrogeological
characterization of the excavation-disturbed zone in the Opalinus Clay (Mont Terri Project,
Switzerland). Applied Clay Science; 26, 429-448.
Boutt, D. F., Cook, B. K., McPherson, B. J., and Williams, J. R. (2007). Direct simulation of fluid‐
solid mechanics in porous media using the discrete element and lattice‐Boltzmann methods.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth (1978–2012), 112(B10).
Brace, W., and Martin, R. (1968). A test of the law of effective stress for crystalline rocks of low
porosity. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics
Abstracts, 5(5), 415-426.
Brady, B., and Brown, E. (2007). Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. Springer Science and
Business Media.
Brown, E., and Trollope, D. (1970). Strength of a model of jointed rock. Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Div.
Bruno, M. (1994). Micromechanics of stress-induced permeability anisotropy and damage in

sedimentary rock. Mechanics of materials, 18(1), 31-48.
Byerlee, J. (1975). The fracture strength and frictional strength of Weber sandstone. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts, 12(1), 1-4.
Cai, M., Kaiser, P., and Martin, C. (2001). Quantification of rock mass damage in underground
excavations from microseismic event monitoring. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 38(8), 1135-1145.
Cai, M., Kaiser, P., Uno, H., Tasaka, Y., and Minami, M. (2004). Estimation of rock mass
deformation modulus and strength of jointed hard rock masses using the GSI system.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(1), 3-19.
Cai, Y., Liu, D., Mathews, J., Pan, Z., Elsworth, D., Yao, Y., Guo, X. (2014). Permeability
evolution in fractured coal—Combining triaxial confinement with X-ray computed
tomography, acoustic emission and ultrasonic techniques. International Journal of Coal
Geology, 122, 91-104.
55
Carter, T., and Marinos, V. (2014). Use of GSI for rock engineering design. In Proceedings 1st
international conference on applied empirical design methods in mining. Lima, Peru.
Carter, T., Diederichs, M., and Carvalho, J. (2008). Application of modified Hoek-Brown transition
relationships for assessing strength and post yield behaviour at both ends of the rock
competence scale. 108(6), 325-338.
Carvalho, J. (2004). Estimation of rock mass modulus. Personal communication.
Castro, L., McCreath, D., and Kaiser, P. (1995). Rockmass strength determination from breakouts
in tunnels and boreholes. 8th ISRM Congress. 8th ISRM Congress, 2, pp. 531-536. Tokyo,
Japan.
Chandler, N., Cournut , D., Dixon , C., Fairhurst , C., Hansen, F., Gary, M., Vignal, B. (2002). The
five-year report on the tunnel sealing experiment: an international project of AECL, JNC,
ANDRA, and WIPP, AECL Laboratories, Pinawa, AECL-12127.
Chandler, N. (2004). Developing tools for excavation design at Canada's Underground Research
Laboratory. International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences, 41(8), 1229-1249.
Chen, W., Konietzky, H., and Abbas, S. (2015). Numerical simulation of time-independent and-
dependent fracturing in sandstone. Engineering Geology, 193, 118-131.
Christianson, M., Board, M., and Rigby, D. (2006). UDEC simulation of triaxial testing of
lithophysal tuff. in: Proceedings of the 41st US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS) ,
American Rock Mechanics Association, Golden, CO, USA.
Cosar, S. (2004). Application of rock mass classification systems for future support design of the
Dim Tunnel near Alanya. Master thesis: Middle East Technical University.
Damjanac, B., Board, M., Lin, M., Kicker, D., and Leem, J. (2007). Mechanical degradation of
emplacement drifts at Yucca Mountain—A modeling case study: Part II: Lithophysal rock.
Day, J. (2016). The influence of healed intrablock rockmass structure on the behaviour of deep
excavations in complex rockmasses. Doctoral dissertation: Queen's University, Kingston,
Canada.
Deere, D., Hendron, A., Patton, F., and Cording, E. (1967). Design of surface and near surface
construction in rock: Failure and breakage of rock. 8th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics.
New York: Society of Mining Engineers, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
Petroleum Engineers.
Dershowitz, W. S., and Herdra, H. H. (1992). Interpretation of Fracture Spacing and Intensity. (pp.
757-766). Santa Fe, NM: Proceedings of the 32nd US Rock Mechanics Symposium.
56
Detournay, E., and Berchenko, I. (2001). Thermoporoelastic response in low porosity rock:
characterization of material properties and numerical modeling of near-field rock pore
pressures. Ontario Power Generation Nuclear Waste Management Division Report.
Detournay, E., and Cheng, A. (1993). Fundamentals of poroelasticity. In: Fairhurst C, editor.
Comprehensive rock engineering, Vol. II.Comprehensive rock engineering, Vol. II. In C.
Fairhurst (Ed.). Oxford: Pergamon.
Diederichs, M. (2000). Instability of hard rockmasses: the role of tensile damage and relaxation.
Ph.D. thesis: University of Waterloo.
Diederichs, M. (2007). The 2003 Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Mechanistic interpretation

and practical application of damage and spalling prediction criteria for deep tunnelling.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44(9), 1082-1116.
Diederichs, M., and Kaiser, P. (1999). Stability of large excavations in laminated hard rock masses:
the voussoir analogue revisited. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
36(1), 97-117.
Diederichs, M., Kaiser, P., and Eberhardt, E. (2004). Damage initiation and propagation in hard
rock during tunnelling and the influence of near-face stress rotation. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(5), 785-812.
Dugdale, D. (1960). Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics
of Solids, 8(2), 100-104.
Duncan, J., and Goodman, R. (1968). Finite element analyses of slopes in jointed rock. California:
California University Berkeley Office of Research Services.
Dunn, D., LaFountain , L., and Jackson, R. (1973). Porosity dependence and mechanism of brittle
fracture in sandstones. Journal of Geophysical Research, 78(14), 2403-2417.
Duran, F. (2017). A numerical investigation of stress path and rock mass damage in open pits.
MASC thesis: Queen's University.
Eberhardt, E. (1998). Brittle rock fracture and progressive damage in uniaxial compression.
Doctoral dissertation: University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon.
Eberhardt, E. (2012). The Hoek–Brown failure criterion. In The ISRM Suggested Methods for
Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring: 2007-2014 (pp. 233-240). Springer
International Publishing.
Einstein, H., and Hirschfeld, R. (1973). Model studies on mechanics of jointed rock. Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Div, 99 (sm3).
57
Elmo, D., and Stead, D. (2010). An integrated numerical modelling–discrete fracture network
approach applied to the characterisation of rock mass strength of naturally fractured pillars.
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 43(1), 3-19.
Emsley, S., Olsson, O., Stenberg, H., and Alheid, S. (1997). ZEDEX – A study of damage and
disturbance from tunnel excavation by blasting and tunnel boring. SKB TR-97-30.
Esmaieli, K., Hadjigeorgiou, J., and Grenon, M. (n.d.). Estimating geometrical and mechanical
REV based on synthetic rock mass models at Brunswick Mine. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 47(6), 915-926.
Evans, R., and Marathe, M. (1968). Microcracking and stress-strain curves for concrete in tension.
Materials and Structures, 1(1), 61-64.
Everitt, R., and Lajtai, E. (2004). The influence of rock fabric on excavation damage in the Lac du
Bonnett granite. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(8), 1277-
1303.
Fairhurst, C., 2004. Nuclear waste disposal and rock mechanics: contributions of the Underground
Research Laboratory (URL), Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(8), pp.1221-1227.
Farahmand, K., and Diederichs, M. (2014). Modeling of Stress-Induced Permeability Change with
Progressive Damage in Intact Rock Using a Micro-Mechanical Approach. Minneapolis, USA:
Proceedings of the 48th US Rock Mechanics Symposium.
Farahmand, K., and Diederichs, M. (2015). A Calibrated Synthetic Rock Mass (SRM) Model for
Simulating Crack Growth in Granitic Rock Considering Grain Scale Heterogeneity of
Polycrystalline Rock. San Francisco, USA: Proceedings of the 49th US Rock Mechanics
Symposium.
Farahmand, K., Baghbanan, A., Shahriar, K., and Diederichs, M. (2015). Effect of fracture dilation
angle on stress-dependent permeability tensor of fractured rock. San Francisco, USA: In
Proceedings 49th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. American Rock Mechanics
Association.
Farahmand, K., and Diederichs M.S. (2016). Hydro-Mechanical Effects of Pore Pressure on
Deformability and Fracture Strength of Rock: A numerical modeling study. In Proceedings of
the 50th US Rock Mechanics Symposium, Houston, USA.
Fekete, S., Diederichs, M. S., and Lato, M. J. (2010). Geotechnical and operational applications for
3-dimensional laser scanning in drill and blast tunnels. Tunneling and Underground Space
Technology, 25(5), 614-628.
58
Fowell, R. (1995). Suggested method for determining mode I fracture toughness using cracked
chevron notched Brazilian disc (CCNBD) specimens. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts, 32(1).
Gao, F., and Stead, D. (2014). The application of a modified Voronoi logic to brittle fracture
modelling at the laboratory and field scale. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 68, 1-14.
Germanovich, L., and Dyskin, A. (2000). Fracture mechanisms and instability of openings in
compression. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 37(1), 263-284.
Gerogiannopoulos, N. (1977). A critical state approach to rock mechanics. Doctoral dissertation:

Imperial College London (University of London).
Ghazvinian, E., Perras, M., Langford, C., Diederichs, M., and Labrie, D. (2013). A comprehensive
investigation of crack damage anisotropy in Cobourg limestone and its effect on the failure
envelope.. In: Proceedings of GeoMontreal 2013 – Canadian Geotechnical Society. Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.
Gowd, T., and Rummel, F. (1977). Effect of fluid injection on the fracture behavior of porous rock.
14(4), 203-208.
Grasselli, G. (2001). Shear strength of rock joints based on quantified surface description. Doctoral
dissertation: Ecole Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne (EPFL).
Grasselli, G., Lisjak, A., Mahabadi, O.K. and Tatone, B.S., 2015. Influence of pre-existing
discontinuities and bedding planes on hydraulic fracturing initiation. European Journal of
Environmental and Civil Engineering, 19(5), pp.580-597.
Griffith, A. (1921). The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philosophical transactions of the
royal society of London. Series A, containing papers of a mathematical or physical character,
(pp. 163-198).
Grimstad, E., and Barton, N. (1993). Updating the Q-system for NMT. In O. a. in Kompen (Ed.),
International Symposium on Sprayed Concrete-Modern use of wet mix sprayed concrete for
underground support, Norwegian Concrete Association. Oslo.
Hajiabdolmajid, V., Martin, C., and Kaiser, P. (2000). Modeling brittle failure. (pp. 991-8).
Proceedings of the 4th North American rock mechanics Symposium, NARMS 2000. A.A.
Balkema.
Hamdi, P., Stead, D., and Elmo, D. (2015). Characterizing the influence of stress-induced
microcracks on the laboratory strength and fracture development in brittle rocks using a finite-
59
discrete element method-micro discrete fracture network FDEM-mDFN approach. Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 7, 609-625. doi:10.1016/j.jrmge.2015.07.005
Handin, J., Hager, R., and Friedman, M. (1963). Experimental deformation of sedimentary rocks
under confining pressure: pore pressure tests. Aapg Bulletin, 47(5), 717-755.
Hazzard, J., Young, R., and Maxwell, S. (2000). Micromechanical modeling of cracking and failure
in brittle rocks. : Solid Earth, Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(B7), 16683-16697.
Hillerborg, A., Modéer, M., and Petersson, P. (1976). Analysis of crack formation and crack growth
in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cement and concrete research,
6(6), 773-781.
Hoek, E. (1965). Rock fracture under static stress conditions. Doctoral dissertation: University of
Cape Town.
Hoek, E. (1999). Putting numbers to geology—an engineer's viewpoint. Quarterly Journal of

Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 32(1), 1-19.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E. (1980). Underground Excavations in Rock. London: Institution of Mining
and Metallurgy.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E. (1997). Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 34(8), 1165-1186.
Hoek, E., and Diederichs, M. (2006). Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. International
journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences, 43(2), 203-215.
Hoek, E., and Martin, C. (2014). Fracture initiation and propagation in intact rock–a review. Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 6(4), 287-300.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., and Corkum, B. (2002). Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002 edition.
Proceedings of NARMS-Tac, 1, pp. 267-273.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., Diederichs, M., and Corkum, B. (2008). The 2008 Kersten Lecture
Integration of geotechnical and structural design in tunneling. In 56th Annual Geotechnical
Engineering Conference, (pp. 1-53). Minneapolis (USA).
Hoek, E., Carter, T., and Diederichs, M. (2013). Quantification of the geological strength index
chart. In 47th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
Minnesota: American Rock Mechanics Association.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P., and Bawden , W. (1995). Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock.
Rotterdam, Balkema.
60
Homand-Etienne, F., Hoxha, D., and Shao, J. (1998). A continuum damage constitutive law for
brittle rocks. 22(2), 135-151.
Horii, H., and Nemat-Nasser, S. (1986). Brittle failure in compression: splitting, faulting and brittle-
ductile transition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A,
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 319(1549), 337-374.
Huang, T., Chang, C., and Yang, Z. (1995). Elastic moduli for fractured rock mass. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 28(3), 135-144.
Hudson, J.A., Bäckström, A., Rutqvist, J., Jing, L., Backers, T., Chijimatsu, M., Christiansson, R.,
Feng, X.T., Kobayashi, A., Koyama, T. and Lee, H.S., 2009. Characterising and modelling the
excavation damaged zone in crystalline rock in the context of radioactive waste
disposal. Environmental geology, 57(6), pp.1275-1297.
Huespe, A., and Oliver, J. (2011). Crack models with embedded discontinuities. Springer Vienna.
Hutchinson, D., and Diederichs, M. (1996). Cablebolting in underground mines. BiTech
Publishers.
Ida, Y. (1972). Cohesive force across the tip of a longitudinal‐shear crack and Griffith's specific
surface energy. Journal of Geophysical Research, 77(20), 3796-3805.
Ingraffea, A. (1981). Mixed Mode fracture initiation in Indiana limestone and Westerly granite.
(pp. 186-191). Proceedings of the 22th US Rock Mechanics Symposium. Cambridge, MA.
Innovemtrics. (2016). Polyworks V 11.0.4. Quebec City, Canada: Innovemtrics.
Intera. (2007). Laboratory geomechanical strength testing of DGR-1 and DGR-2 core, Technical
memorandum TM-07-03R01. CANMENT Mining and Mineral Sciences Laboratories, Natural
Resources Canada.
ISRM. (2007). The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and
monitoring: 1974-2006. International Society for Rock Mechanics, Commission on Testing
Methods.
Itasca. (2008). Particle Flow Code in 2 dimensions (PFC2D), Ver. 4.0. Minneapolis, USA; 2008.
Itasca. (2013). 3DEC, Ver. 5.0. Minneapolis, USA: Itasca Consulting Group Inc.
Itasca. (2014). Itasca Consulting Group Inc., The Universal Distinct Element Code (UDEC), Ver.
6.0., Minneapolis, USA; 2014.
61
Ivars, D., Pierce, M., Darcel, C., Reyes-Montes, J., Potyondy, D., Young, R., and Cundall, P.
(2011). The synthetic rock mass approach for jointed rock mass modelling. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 48(2), 219-244.
Jaeger, J., Cook, N., and Zimmerman, R. (2009). Fundamentals of rock mechanics. John Wiley and
Sons.
Jakubec, J., and Esterhuizen, G. (2007). Use of the mining rock mass rating (MRMR) classification:
industry experience. In Proceedings International Workshop on Rock Mass Classification in
Underground Mining,. In R. P. C. Mark (Ed.), In Proceedings International Workshop on Rock
Mass Classification in Underground Mining. 9498, pp. 413-421. Vancouver, BC, Canada:
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Information Circular (IC).
Jiang, T., Shao, J., Xu, W., and Zhou, C. (2010). Experimental investigation and micromechanical
analysis of damage and permeability variation in brittle rocks. International Journal of Rock
Jiang, Y., Li, B., and Yamashita, Y. (2009). Simulation of cracking near a large underground cavern
in a discontinuous rock mass using the expanded distinct element method. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 46(1), 97-106.
Jing, L., and Stephansson, O. (2007). Fundamentals of discrete element methods for rock
engineering: Theory and applications. Elsevier Science.
Joughin, W. (2017). Dealing with uncertainty and risk in the design of deep and high stress mining
excavations. 8th International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining. Perth: Australian
Center for Geomechanics.
Kaiser, P. (2005). Tunnel stability in highly stressed, brittle ground - Rock mechanics
considerations for Alpine tunnelling. Zurich, Switzerland, 20 p, in press: Keynote lecture,
Geological AlpTransit Symposium GEAT'05.
Kaiser, P. (2016). ISRM lecture on “Challenges in rock mass strength determination for the design
of underground excavations”. Web-Cast March 15, 2016; WWW.isrm.net/gca/?id=1104.
Kaiser, P., MacKay, C., and Gale, A. (1986). Evaluation of rock classifications at BC Rail tumbler
ridge tunnels. Rock mechanics and rock engineering, 19(4), 205-234.
Kaiser, P., Maloney, S., and Yong, S. (2016). Role of large scale heterogeneities on in-situ stress
and induced stress fields. In 50th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. American
Rock Mechanics Association.
62
Kalamaras, G., and Bieniawski, Z. (1993). A rock mass strength concept for coal seams. In
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, (pp. 3-5).
Morgantown.
Kazerani, T., Yang, Z., and Zhao, J. (2012). A discrete element model for predicting shear strength
and degradation of rock joint by using compressive and tensile test data. Rock mechanics and
rock engineering, 45(5), 695-709.
Kemeny, J. (2005). Time-dependent drift degradation due to the progressive failure of rock bridges
along discontinuities. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 42(1),
35-46.
Khani, A., Baghbanan, A., Norouzi, S., and Hashemolhosseini, H. (2013). Effects of fracture
geometry and stress on the strength of a fractured rock mass. International Journal of Rock
Kranz, R. (1983). Microcracks in rocks: a review. Tectonophysics, 100(1-3), 449-480.
Labuz , J., Shah , S., and Dowding , C. (1983). Post peak tensile load-displacement response and
the fracture process zone in rock. (pp. 421-428). College Station, Texas: Proc. 24th U.S.
Symposium on Rock Mechanics.
Labuz, J., Shah, S., and Dowding, C. (1985). Experimental analysis of crack propagation in granite.
22(2), 85-98.
Ladanyi, B., and Archambault, G. (1969, January). Simulation of shear behavior of a jointed rock
mass. The 11th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics
Association.
Laigle , F. (2003). A new viscoplastic model for rocks: application to the mine-by-test of AECL-
URL. Flac and numerical modelling in geomechanics. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Lama, R., and Vutukuri, V. (1978). Handbook on mechanical properties of rocks (Vol. 101). Trans
Tech Publications.
Langford, J., and Diederichs, M. (2013). Reliability based approach to tunnel lining design using a
modified point estimate method. nternational Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
I(60), 263-276.
Laqueche, H., Rousseau, A., and Valentin, G. (1986). Crack propagation under Mode I and II
loading in slate schist. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and
Geomechanics Abstracts, 23(5), 347-354.
63
Lato, M. J., and Voge, M. (2012). Automated mapping of rock discontinuities in 3D lidar and
photogrammetry models. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 54,
150-158.
Lau, J., and Chandler, N. (2004). Innovative laboratory testing. International Journal of Rock
Laubscher, D. (1990). A geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock mass in mine
design. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 90(10), 257-273.
Laubscher, D., and Jakubec, J. (2001). The MRMR rock mass classification for jointed rock masses.
Underground Mining Methods: Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies,
WA.
Lauffer, H. (1958). Gebirgsklassifizierung für den Stollenbau. Geology Bauwesen, 24, 46-51.
Levasseur, S., Charlier, R., Frieg, B., and Collin, F. (2010). Hydro-mechanical modelling of the
excavation damaged zone around an underground excavation at Mont Terri Rock Laboratory.
Li, G., and Tang , C. (2015). A statistical meso-damage mechanical method for modeling trans-
scale progressive failure process of rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 74, 133-150.
Lim, S., Martin, C., and Åkesson, U. (2012). In-situ stress and microcracking in granite cores with
depth. Engineering Geology, 147, 1-13.
Lisjak, A. (2013). Investigating the influence of mechanical anisotropy on the fracturing

obehaviour of brittle clay shales with application to deep geological repositories. Doctoral
dissertation: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lisjak, A., Grasselli, G. and Vietor, T., 2014. Continuum–discontinuum analysis of failure
mechanisms around unsupported circular excavations in anisotropic clay shales. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 65, pp.96-115.
Lowson, A., and Bieniawski, Z. (2013). Critical assessment of RMR based tunnel design practices:
a practical engineer's approach. In Proceedings of the SME, Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling
Conference, (pp. 180-198). Washington, D.C.
Lundborg, N. (1968). Strength of rock-like materials. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts, 5(5), 427-454.
Mahabadi, O., Randall, N., Zong, Z., and Grasselli, G. (2012). A novel approach for micro‐scale
characterization and modeling of geomaterials incorporating actual material heterogeneity.
Geophysical Research Letters, 39(1).
64
Makhnenko, R., and Labuz, J. (2016). Elastic and inelastic deformation of fluid-saturated rock.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 374(2078), 20150422.
Marinos, P., and Hoek, E. (2000). GSI: a geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength
estimation. In ISRM International Symposium. International Society for Rock Mechanics.
Martin, C. (1993). The strength of massive Lac du Bonnet granite around underground openings.
Ph.D thesis: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Martin, C. (1997). Seventeenth Canadian geotechnical colloquium: the effect of cohesion loss and
stress path on brittle rock strength. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34(5), 698-725.
Martin, C., Kaiser, P., and McCreath, D. (1999). Hoek-Brown parameters for predicting the depth
of brittle failure around tunnels. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(1), 136-151.
Martino, J., and Chandler, N. (2004). Excavation-induced damage studies at the underground
research laboratory. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(8),
1413-1426.
Mathworks. (2016). Mathworks, 2016. Matlab Product Documentation. (http://mathworks.com).
Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., and Dvorkin, J. (2009). The rock physics handbook: Tools for seismic
analysis of porous media. Cambridge university press.
Min, K., and Jing, L. (2004). Stress dependent mechanical properties and bounds of poisson's ratio
for fractured rock masses investigated by a DFN-DEM technique. International Journal of Rock
Mirarco. (2016). MoFrac v2.0. Sudbury: MIrarco.
Mitchell, T., and Faulkner, D. (2008). Experimental measurements of permeability evolution

during triaxial compression of initially intact crystalline rocks and implications for fluid flow
in fault zones. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 11.
Mitri, H., Edrissi , R., and Henning , J. (1994). Finite element modeling of cabelbolted stopes in
hard rock ground mines. Presented at the SEM annual meeting, (pp. 94-116). New Mexico,
Albuqueque.
Mortazavi, A., and Molladavoodi, H. (2012). A numerical investigation of brittle rock damage
model in deep underground openings. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 90, 101-120.
Munjiza, A. (2004). The combined finite discrete element method. Chichester, UK. John Wiley and
Sons LtD.
65
Murrell, S. (1965). The effect of triaxial stress systems on the strength of rocks at atmospheric
temperatures. Geophysical Journal International, 10(3), 231-281.
Nagra (2016). ENSI-Nachforderung zum Indikator, Tiefenlage im Hinblick auf bautechnische

Machbarkeit” in SGT Etappe 2-Projektkonzepte fur die Lagerkammern und
Versiegelungsstrecken und deren Bewertung. Nagra Arbeitsbericht NAB 16-45.
Nicholson, G., and Bieniawski, Z. (1990). A nonlinear deformation modulus based on rock mass
classification. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 8(3), 181-202.
Nirex. (1997). Evaluation of heterogeneity and scaling of fractures in the Borrowdale Volcanic
Group in the Sellafield area. Harwell, UK: Nirex Report SA/97/028.
Norouzi, S., Baghbanan. , A., and Khani, A. (2013). Investigation of Grain Size Effects on
Micro/Macro-Mechanical Properties of Intact Rock Using Voronoi Element—Discrete
Element Method Approach. Particulate Science and Technology, 31(5), 507-514.
Okubo, S., and Fukui, K. (1996). Complete stress-strain curves for various rock types in uniaxial
tension. International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences and geomechanics
abstracts, 33(6), 549-556.
Olsson, M., Markstr𝑜𝑜̈m, I., and Pettersson, A. (2008). Methodology study for documentation and
3D modelling of blast induced fractures. SKB R-08-90.
Pacher, F., Rabcewicz, L., and Golser , J. (1974). Zum der seitigen Stand der Gebirgsklassifizierung
in Stollen-und Tunnelbau, XXII. Geomechanics colloqium, (pp. 51-58). Salzburg.
Palmer, A., and Rice, J. (1973). The growth of slip surfaces in the progressive failure of over-
consolidated clay. 332(1591), pp. 527-548. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A.
Mathematical and Physical Sciences.
Palmstrom, A. (1995). RMi-a rock mass characterization system for rock engineering purposes.
Univeristy of Oslo, Norway.
Palmström, A. (1996). Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in practical rock engineering,
part 2: some practical applications of the rock mass index (RMi). Tunnelling and underground
space technology, 11(3), 287-303.
Palmstrom, A. (1996). RMi - A system for characterizing rock mass strength for use in rock
engineering. Journal of rock mechanics and tunnelling technology, 1, 69-108.
Palmstrom, A. (2005). Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock quality
designation. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 20(4), 362-377.
66
Palmström, A., and Singh, R. (2001). The deformation modulus of rock masses—comparisons
between in situ tests and indirect estimates. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
16(2), 115-131.
Paraskevopoulou, C., Perras, M., Diederichs, M., Amann, F., Löw, S., Lam, T., and Jensen, M.
(2017). The three stages of stress relaxation-Observations for the time-dependent behaviour of
brittle rocks based on laboratory testing. Engineering Geology, 216.
Paterson, M., and Wong, T. (2005). Experimental rock deformation-the brittle field. Springer
Science and Business Media.
Pelli, F., Kaiser, P., and Morgenstern, N. (1991). An interpretation of ground movements recorded
during construction of the donkin-morien tunnel. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 28, 239-254.
Pells, P., Bieniawski, Z., Hencher, S., and Pells, S. (2017). Rock quality designation (RQD): time
to rest in peace. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 999, 1-10.
Perras, M. (2014). Understanding and predicting excavation damage in sedimentary rocks: A

continuum based approach. Doctoral dissertation: Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario,
Canada.
Perras, M., and Diederichs, M. (2016). Predicting excavation damage zone depths in brittle rocks.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 8(1), 60-74.
Perras, M.A., Wannenmacher, H. and Diederichs, M.S. (2015). Underground excavation behaviour
of the Queenston Formation: tunnel back analysis for application to shaft damage dimension
prediction. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 48(4), pp.1647-1671.
Pierce, M., Mas Ivars, D., and Sainsbury, B. (2009). Use of synthetic rock masses (SRM) to
investigate jointed rock mass strength and deformation behaviour. In Anonymous proceedings
of the international conference on rock joints and jointed rock masses. Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Popp, T., Salzer, K., and Minkley, W. (2008). Influence of bedding planes to EDZ-evolution and
the coupled HM properties of Opalinus Clay. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 33, S374-
S387.
Potyondy, D., and Cundall, P. (2004). A bonded-particle model for rock. International journal of
rock mechanics and mining sciences, 41(8), 1329-1364.
Priest, S., and Hudson, J. (1976). Discontinuity spacings in rock. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts, 13(5), 135-148.
67
Radakovic-Guzina, Z., Riahi, A., and Damjanac, B. (2015). Long-Term Stability Analysis of APM
Mark II Conceptual Design in Sedimentary and Crystalline Rock Settings. Itasca report to the
Nuclear Waste Management Organization NWMO,, NWMO TR-2015.
Ramamurthy, T., Rao , G., and Rao , K. (1985). A strength criterion for rocks. In Proceedings of
Indian geotechnical conference, Roorkee, 1, pp. 59-64.
Ramamurthy, T., and Arora, V. (1994). Strength predictions for jointed rocks in confined and
unconfined states. International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences and
geomechanics abstracts, 31(1), 9-22.
Ramamurthy, T., Latha, G., and Sitharam, T. (2017). Modulus ratio and joint factor concepts to
predict rock mass response. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 50(2), 353-366.
Read, J., and Stacey, P. (2009). Guidelines for open pit slope design. CSIRO publishing.
Read, R. S. (2004). 20 years of excavation response studies at AECL's Underground Research

Laboratory. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(8), 1251-1275.
Read, S., Perrin, N., and Richards, L. (1999). Applicability of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion to
New Zealand greywacke rocks. International Society for Rock Mechanics. In 9th ISRM
Congress.
Ribacchi, R. (2000). Mechanical tests on pervasively jointed rock material: insight into rock mass
behaviour. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, pp.243-266.
Robinson, L., and Holland, W. (1969). Some interpretation of pore fluid effects in rock failure. The
11th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics Association.
Rocscience. (2013). DIPS Version 6.010 - Graphical and statistical analysis of orientation data.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Rocscience Inc.
RocScience Inc. (2015). Examine2D – Phase2 Version 8.0. www.RocScience.com, Toronto, ON,
Canada.
RocScience Inc. (2015). RS2 – Phase2 Version 9.010 64 bit. www.RocScience.com, Toronto, ON,
Canada.
Rosengren, K., and Jaeger, J. (1968). The mechanical properties of an interlocked low-porosity
aggregate. Geotechnique, 18(3), 317-326.
Rutqvist, J., and Stephansson, O. (2003). The role of hydromechanical coupling in fractured rock
engineering. Hydrogeology Journal, 11(7-40).
68
Rutqvist, J., Börgesson, L., Chijimatsu, M., Hernelind, J., Jing, L., Kobayashi, A., and Nguyen, S.
(2009). Modeling of damage, permeability changes and pressure responses during excavation
of the TSX tunnel in granitic rock at URL, Canada. Environmental Geology, 57(6), 1263-1274.
Savanick, G., and Johnson, D. (1974). Measurements of the strength of grain boundaries in rock.
11(5), 173-180.
Schulze, O., Popp, T., and Kern, H. (2001). Development of damage and permeability in deforming
rock salt. Engineering Geology, 61(2), 163-180.
Serafim, J., and Pereira, J. (1983). Considerations of the geomechanics classification of Bieniawski.
In Proceedings international symposium engineering geology and underground construction,
1, pp. 1133-1142.
Serafim, J., and Pereira, J. (1993). Consideration of the geomechanics classification of Bieniawski.
In Proceedings of international symposium on engineering geology and underground
construction, (pp. 1133-1144).
Serdengecti, S., and Boozer, G. (1961). The effects of strain rate and temperature on the behavior
of rocks subjected to triaxial compression. The 4th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics
(USRMS). American Rock Mechanics Association.
Sharifzadeh, M. (2005). Experimental and theoretical research on hydromechanical coupling.

Doctoral dissertation: Kyushu University, Japan.
Sheorey, P. (1997). Empirical Rock Failure Criteria. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Singh, B. (1973). Continuum characterization of jointed rock masses: Part I—The constitutive
equations. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics
Abstracts, 10(4), 311-335.
Singh, B., and Goel, R. (1999). Rock mass classification: a practical approach in civil engineering
(Vol. 46). Elsevier.
Skempton, A. (1984). The pore-pressure coefficients A and B. In SELECTED PAPERS ON SOIL

MECHANICS, 65-69.
Sonmez, H., and Ulusay, R. (1999). Modifications to the geological strength index (GSI) and their
applicability to stability of slopes. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 36(6), 743-760.
Sonmez, H., and Ulusay, R. (2002). A discussion on the Hoek–Brown failure criterion and
suggested modifications to the criterion verified by slope stability case studies. Yerbilimleri,
69
26(1), pp. Yerbilimleri (pp. 77-99). Bulletin of Earth Sciences Application and Research Centre
of Hacettepe University.
Sonmez, H., Gokceoglu, C., and Ulusay, R. (2004). Indirect determination of the modulus of
deformation of rock masses based on the GSI system. International journal of rock mechanics
and mining sciences, 45(5), 849-857.
Souley, M., Homand, F., Pepa, S., and Hoxha, D. (2001). Damage-induced permeability changes
in granite: a case example at the URL in Canada. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences.
Stille, T., Groth, A., and Frederikson, A. (1982). FEM analysis of rock mechanics problems by
JOBFEM. Swed. Rock Eng. Res. Found. Publ., 307, pp. 1-8.
Sturzenegger, M., and Stead, D. (2009). Close-range terrestrial digital photogrammetry and
terrestrial laser scanning for discontinuity characterization on rock cuts. Engineering Geology,
106, 163-182.
Sturzenegger, M., and Stead, D. (2009). Quantifying discontinuity orientation and persistence on
high mountain rock slopes and large landslides using terrestrial remote sensing techniques.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9(2), 267-287.
Tatone, S. (2014). Investigating the evolution of rock discontinuity asperity degradation and void
space morphology under direct shear. Doctoral dissertation: University of Toronto.
Tatone, B., and Grasselli, G. (2015). A calibration procedure for two-dimensional laboratory-scale
hybrid finite–discrete element simulations. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 75, 56-72.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theory of consolidation. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Terzaghi, K. (1946). Rock defects and loads on tunnel supports. In: Rock Tunneling with Steel.
Proctor and White (eds.).
Tokashiki, N., and Aydan, Ö. (2010). The stability assessment of overhanging Ryukyu limestone
cliffs with an emphasis on the evaluation of tensile strength of rock mass. ,. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 66(2), 397-406.
Tsang, C. F., Bernier, F., and Davies, C. (2005). Geohydromechanical processes in the Excavation
Damaged Zone in crystalline rock, rock salt, and indurated and plastic clays—in the context of
radioactive waste disposal. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
42(1), 109-125.
70
Unal, E., and Ozkan, İ. (1990). Determination of classification parameters for clay-bearing and
stratified rock masses. S.S. Peng (Ed.), 9th Int. Conf. Ground Control in Mining, West Virginia
University, (pp. 250-259).
Van Heerden, W. (1975). In situ complete stress-strain characteristics of large coal specimens. ,
75(8), pp., Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 75(8), 207-217.
Vazaios, I., Vlachopoulos, N., and Diederichs, M. (2017). Integration of Lidar-Based Structural
Input and Discrete Fracture Network Generation for Underground Applications. Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, 1-25.
Voge, M., Lato, M. J., and Diederichs, M. S. (2013). Automated rockmass discontinuity mapping
from 3-dimensional surface data. Engineering Geology, 164, 155-162.
Witherspoon, P., Wang, J., Iwai, K., and Gale, J. (1980). Validity of cubic law for fluid flow in a
deformable rock fracture. Water resources research, 16(6), 1016-1024.
Wong, L., and Einstein, H. (2009). Crack coalescence in molded gypsum and Carrara marble: part
1. Macroscopic observations and interpretation. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 42(3),
475-511.
Wong, N. (2008). Crack coalescence in molded gypsum and Carrara Marble, Ph.D. Thesis,
Massachusetts. Doctoral Dissertation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Yang, S., Jing, H., Li, Y., and Han, L. (2011). Experimental investigation on mechanical behavior
of coarse marble under six different loading paths. Experimental mechanics, 51(3), .315-334.
Yudhbir, Y., Lemanza, W., and Prinzl, F. (1983). An empirical failure criterion for rock masses. In
5th ISRM Congress. International Society for Rock Mechanics.
Zhang, L., and Einstein, H. (2004). Using RQD to estimate the deformation modulus of rock
masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(2), 337-341.
Zoback, M., and Byerlee, J. (1975). The effect of microcrack dilatancy on the permeability of
Westerly granite.
71
View publication stats

K Farahmand-EmpiricalMethodsforEstimatingRockmassStrengthandDeformabilityPropertiesAnOverview

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

K Farahmand-EmpiricalMethodsforEstimatingRockmassStrengthandDeformabilityPropertiesAnOverview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Empirical Methods for Estimating Rockmass Strength and Deformability

Chapter · September 2017

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A thesis submitted to the Department of Geological Sciences & Geological Engineering

In conformity with the requirements for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Copyright ©Kiarash Farahmand, 2017

Empirical Methods for Estimating Rockmass Strength and

Deformability Properties – An Overview

2006, Hoek et al 2002).

An in situ determination of rockmass properties including strength and deformability is

material behavior (Carter and Marinos, 2014).

strength/deformability characteristics of the jointed medium.

conservative practice (Bieniawski, 1989).

2.2 Empirical Classification Systems for Rockmass Characterization

Rockmass classification Originator Country of Application area

Rock Mass Index (RMi) Palmstrom, 1996 Sweden Tunnellling

2.2.1 The RQD System

RQD value Rockmass quality

links the volumetric joint spacing (Jv ) to RQD:

RQD = 110 − 2.5Jv (for Jv = 4 − 44) (2.1)

developing RQD. Secondly, it is necessary to only consider the discontinuities in RQD

measurements that have zero tensile strength.

2.2.2 The RMR System

spacing of discontinuities, condition of discontinuities, orientation of discontinuities, and ground

Geol, 1999; Abbas and Konietzky, 2014).

Table 2-3 RMR rating calibrated against rockmass quality.

RMR rating Description

80-100 Very good rock

61-80 Good rock

41-60 Fair rock

21-40 Poor rock

<20 Very poor rock

2.2.3 The Q System

Jr, Ja, and SRF to calculate a value for Q as:

accounts for the influence of stresses acting on the rockmass.

prediction of a stress-fractured damage zone surrounding over-stressed tunnels (Barton, 2002).

exceptionally good (Q ≥ 400).

2.2.4 The GSI System

incorporated into numerical analyses.

2.2.4.1 GSI Input Parameter Quantification

a geological or an engineering background (Hoek et al., 2013).

among five categories of structure in the GSI chart.

(SCR), and is obtained using the following expression:

in in the top section of Figure 2-4.

Description Jv (joint/𝑚𝑚3 ) Description for GSI

Very large blocks <1 Intact or massive

Large blocks 1-3 Blocky

Medium sized blocks 3-10 Very blocky

Small blocks 10-30 Blocky/Disturbed/Seamy

Very small blocks 30-60 Disintegrated

Crushed >60 Disintegrated

the following expression:

estimated by direct measurement of representative blocks in the field.

Smoothness Description Rating for

Waviness terms Undulation Rating for waviness, 𝐽𝐽𝑤𝑤

Rock wall Clear joints

Fresh rock wall (unweathered) No coating or filling on joint surface,

Coating or thin filling

Sand, silt, calcite, etc. Coating of frictional material without

Soft clay materials Medium to low over-consolidation of