Peak and residual strengths of jointed rock masses and their

determination for engineering design

M. Cai & P.K. Kaiser

Geomechanics Research Centre, MIRARCO, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Y. Tasaka
Department of Advanced Engineering, Tokyo Electric Power Services Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan

M. Minami
Department of Construction, Tokyo Electric Power Company, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT: Knowledge of the rock mass strength is required for the design of many engineering structures
in or on rocks. GSI system, proposed by Hoek et al. (1995), is now widely used for the estimation of the rock
mass peak strength and the rock mass deformation parameters. There are no guidelines given by the GSI, or
by any other system, for the estimation of the rock mass’ residual strength that yield consistent results. In the
present study, numerical simulations of laboratory strength tests are carried out to investigate the residual strength
behavior of rock masses. Based on the results from numerical simulation and laboratory and field tests, the GSI
system is extended to cover the residual strength of jointed rock masses. It is proposed to adjust the peak GSI
to the residual GSI r value based on the two major controlling factors in the GSI system, i.e., the residual block
volume Vbr and the residual joint surface condition factor Jcr . Methods to estimate the residual block volume and
joint surface condition factor are presented. The peak and residual strength parameters determined from the GSI
system are compared to the data from field block shear tests and the validity of the proposed method is verified.

1 INTRODUCTION estimation of the rock mass peak strength and the

Knowledge of the rock mass strength and deformation
behavior is required for the design of many engi-
neering structures in or on rock, such as foundations,
slopes, tunnels, underground caverns, drifts, and min-
ing stopes. A better understanding of the rock mass
strength behavior, including the peak and residual
strengths, will facilitate the cost-effective design of
such structures.
However, the determination of the global mechan-
ical properties of a jointed rock mass remains one of
the most difficult tasks in the field of rock mechan-
ics. Given the number of parameters that affect rock
mass deformability and strength, it is generally impos-
sible to develop a universal law that can be used in any
practical way to predict the strength of the rock mass.
Traditional methods to determine these parameters
include plate-loading tests for deformation modulus
and in-situ block shear tests for strength parameters.
These tests can only be performed when the explo-
ration adits are excavated and the cost of conducting
in-situ tests is high.
The Geological Strength Index (GSI), proposed
by Hoek et al. (1995), is now widely used for the
rock mass deformation parameters. The GSI system
concentrates on the description of two factors, rock
structure and block surface conditions. It should be
noted that the guidelines given by the GSI system are
for the estimation of the peak strength parameters of
jointed rock masses.
Recently, a means to quantify this approach by use
of field data, which employs the block volume (Vb )
and a joint surface condition factor (Jc ) as quantitative
characterization factors, was presented in Cai et al.
(2004). The newly developed approach adds quantita-
tive means to facilitate use of the system, especially by
inexperienced engineers. It can also facilitate the use
of probabilistic design approach to tunnel and cavern
design using the GSI system (Cai & Kaiser 2006a). In
addition, the approach has been developed and tested
for rock mass’s residual strength estimation (Cai et al.
2006).
In this paper, we will first illustrate some numer-
ical simulation results for the complete stress-strain
curves of rocks and then present a quantitative
approach for the determination of the peak and resid-
ual strengths of jointed rock masses for engineering
design.

259
© 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
 2 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF COMPLETE
STRESS-STRAIN CURVES OF ROCKS
UNDER LOADING

Experimental study of the complete stress-strain rela-

tions of rocks revealed that peak and residual strengths
of rocks increase with increasing confining pressures
(Wawersik & Fairhurst 1970, Rummel & Fairhurst
1970). In the following discussion, numerical sim-
ulation was performed to investigate some of the
dominant factors that control the peak and residual
strengths of rocks.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego (CDL)] at 18:01 07 December 2016

2.1 PFC simulation

PFC (Itasca 2002) model simulation is used to obtain
the complete stress-strain relations of samples consist-
ing of disks. The model, which is 50 mm in width and
100 mm in height, contains disks of different diame-
ters. The minimum disk radius is 0.4 mm and there are
4721 disks. Load is applied by assigning a fixed verti- Figure 1. Influence of ball friction coefficients on the
cal velocity to the top and bottom walls. Confinement stress-strain relations.
is applied using servo-controlled sidewalls. The nor-
mal velocity of the sidewalls is continuously updated
to keep the prescribed confining stress within a small
error range.
When the bonds fail, the cohesion (bond) strength is
lost. Because material heterogeneity is considered, the
bonds fail gradually and thus cohesion strength is lost
gradually. In the simulation, only peak bond strength
is prescribed. The residual bond strength is zero and
only the frictional and dilational effect contributes to
the residual strength of the sample.
In the first simulation, the ball friction coeffi-
cient (= tan φ) at contacts is varied from 0.4 to 1.2.
The stress-strain relations for different ball friction
coefficients are presented in Figure 1. The confin-
ing pressure is 10 MPa for all cases. When the bond
breaks, the bond strength is lost and the balls can
support only the frictional strength. It is seen that
the ball friction coefficient affects not only the resid-
ual strength but also the peak strength because at the
pre-peak stage, as some weak bonds are broken, the
friction strength components are mobilized gradually.
In the post-peak region, strain-softening is observed.
Figure 2. Influence of bond strength on the stress-strain
The residual strength is similarly affected by the ball
relations.
friction coefficient as the peak strength. Due to high
confining pressure and the interlocking along the shear
plane, large residual strength fluctuation is observed.
However, a general trend can be detected that as the standard deviation vary at the same rate, with a COV of
friction coefficient decreases, the residual strength 20%. The simulation result (Fig. 2) demonstrates that
level decreases. the bond strength (cohesion) influences primarily the
Next, the influence of the bond strength (normal peak strength and has limited impact on the residual
and shear) on the stress-strain relations is investigated strength. After large deformation, the bond strength is
and the results are presented in Figure 2. The confin- completely exhausted. If the friction strengths are the
ing pressure is 10 MPa and the friction coefficient is same, then the residual strengths of the samples are
1.0 for all cases. The bond strength and the strength roughly the same.

260
© 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego (CDL)] at 18:01 07 December 2016
Figure 3. Damage initiation and propagation and residual
strength of a rock (φ = 40◦ ) for an unconfined sample.
2.2 ELFEN simulation
ELFEN (Rockfield 2003) is a FEM/DEM combined
numerical simulation tool. The major advantage of this
simulation tool is that it can capture the transition from
a continuum to a discontinuous state.
Again, biaxial compression test simulations are car-
ried out. The model is 50 mm in width and 100 mm in
height. The bottom is fixed in vertical direction and
a constant displacement loading is applied on the top
of the sample. Confining pressure can be applied to
the vertical sidewalls. The cohesion softening and fric-
tional and dilation strength mobilization are based on
a softening/hardening parameter, which is essentially
a measure of plastic shear strain increment. Material
model-19 (RCMC – Rotating Crack Mohr-Coulomb
model in ELFEN), which allows heterogeneity con-
sideration, is used for the simulation.
An example of fracture pattern without confining
pressure is presented in Figure 3. In the pre-peak
region, there is random crack formation, due to the
material heterogeneity. Immediately after the peak
load, the number of cracks increases drastically and
the spalling process begins and continues as the strain
further increases. At a vertical displacement of about
1.7 mm, the rock is highly fractured but a residual load
can be carried by the spalls. The reduction in the load-
bearing capacity in the post-peak region is therefore
due to the cracking of the specimen resulting in area
sample with some loading bearing spalls and some
sheared spalls. Hence, the load bearing capacity is par-
tially cohesive and partially frictional. The fracturing
process eventually disintegrates the rock into smaller
blocks. Note that the displacement loading condition in
the model simulation corresponds to a loading system
with infinite system stiffness. Hence, the post-peak
261
© 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
(A)
(B)
Figure 4. (A) Influence of confining pressure on the
post-peak behavior; (B) crack pattern.
load does not drop to zero as would be observed from
laboratory tests.
The influence of the lateral confining pressure on
the stress-displacement relation is studied and the
results are presented in Figure 4A. The residual load
is substantially higher at a higher confining stress.
This is due to the fact that cracking development is
affected by the confining stress and the contribution
of the frictional strength component depends on the
normal stress (σn tan φ). The crack patterns are shown
in Figure 4B. Spalling type failure is observed at zero
confining stress. As the confinement increases, the
shear band changes its inclination angle with respect
to the horizontal direction.
It is concluded from the above simulations that
the friction of the block surface influences the rock
residual strength considerably. The interlock and cohe-
sion, on the other hand, also influence the rock
residual strength. The post-peak failure disintegrates
the rock into smaller blocks or volumes. In other
words, the residual strength of the rocks is governed
by the shear or kink bands which are formed by
smaller blocks. In addition, the rock residual strength
depends on the loading system stiffness. For dis-
placement loading (rigid loading system), the residual
strength is not zero even without confining pres-
sure. The understanding of the complete rock failure
process from both experiments and numerical simula-
tions will assist us in the development of a method
for the residual strength estimation of jointed rock
masses.
 3 DETERMINATION OF PEAK STRENGTH Joint or Block Wall Condition

compact coating or fillings of angular fragments

Slickensided, highly weathered surfaces with

Slickensided, highly weathered surfaces with
3.1 Generalized Hoek-Brown criterion for peak

Very rough, fresh unweathered surfaces

strength
GSI

Smooth, moderately weathered or

soft clay coatings or fillings

Rough, slightly weathered,
The generalized Hoek-Brown criterion for jointed rock

iron stained surfaces

masses (Hoek & Brown 1988) is

altered surfaces
Very good

Very poor
Block Size

Good

Poor
Fair
Massive - very well interlocked
undisturbed rock mass blocks formed 10E+6

e
by three or less discontinuity sets

ne

on
95

zo
with very wide joint spacing

ez
150

re
Joint spacing > 100 cm

lur
u
85

fai
ail
100 cm 90
1E+6

ef
where mb , s, a are constants for the rock mass, and

le
90 3

ritt
Blocky - very well interlocked

ittl
80 75 (1 m )

lb
Br
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego (CDL)] at 18:01 07 December 2016

undisturbed rock mass consisting 70

σc is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact

tia
of cubical blocks formed by three 60 80

ten
65
orthogonal discontinuity sets 50

Po
rock. In order to apply the Hoek-Brown criterion for Joint spacing 30 - 100 cm
40 70
100E+3

estimating the strength of jointed rock masses, three 30 cm 55

Block Volume Vb (cm3)

Very Blocky - interlocked, partially
properties of the rock mass have to be obtained. The disturbed rock mass with multifaceted
angular blocks formed by four or more
20
60
45 10E+3

first one is the uniaxial compressive strength of the discoutinuity sets

Joint spacing 10 - 30 cm 50 35
intact rock. The second is the value of the Hoek-Brown 10 cm
40 1000
3
(1 dm )
constant mi for the intact rock and the last one is the Blocky/disturbed - folded and/or
faulted with angular blocks formed by
25

value of GSI for the rock mass. σc and mi can be deter- many intersecting discontinuity sets
Joint spacing 3 - 10 cm 5 30
100
mined by statistical analysis of the results of a set of 3
15

triaxial tests on carefully prepared core samples. GSI Disintegrated - poorly interlocked,
heavily broken rock mass with a
20
10
2
mixture or angular and rounded
values can be obtained from a chart provided in Hoek rock pieces
Joint spacing < 3 cm
et al. (1995) or other relevant references. Once the GSI 1 cm
10
1
value is known, other Hoek-Brown parameters mb , s, Foliated/laminated/sheared - thinly
laminated or foliated, tectonically sheared
a are given as (Hoek et al. 2002): weak rock; closely spaced schistosity
prevails over any other discontinuity set,
N/A N/A 5

resulting in complete lack of blockiness 0.1

Joint spacing < 1 cm 12 4.5 1.7 0.67 0.25 0.09
Joint Condition Factor Jc

Figure 5. GSI chart (Cai et al. 2004).

persistence, is an extremely important indicator of rock

mass quality. The block volume can be calculated from

where mi is a Hoek-Brown constant for the intact rock,

D is a factor that depends on the degree of disturbance
to which the rock mass has been subjected by blast
damage and stress relaxation.
3.2 Determination of GSI value based on Vb and Jc
To facilitate the use of the system, Cai et al. (2004)
presented a quantitative approach that employed the
block volume Vb and a joint surface condition factor
Jc as quantitative characterization factors. The quanti-
tative approach was validated using field test data and
applied to the estimation of the rock mass properties
at two cavern sites in Japan. The quantified GSI chart
is presented in Figure 5.
It provides a means for consistent rock mass char-
acterization and thus improves the utility of the GSI
system.
Block size, which is determined from the joint spac-
ing, joint orientation, number of joint sets and joint
where si , γi and pi are the joint spacing, the angle
between joint sets, and joint persistence factor, respec-
tively. If the joints are not persistent, i.e., with rock
bridges, the rock mass strength is higher and the global
rock stability is enhanced. This effect can be consid-
ered using the concept of equivalent block volume as
suggested in Cai et al. (2004). The consideration of
joint persistency has been verified using numerical
simulation by UDEC and 3DEC (Kim et al. 2006).
For persistent joint sets, pi = 1.
In the GSI system, the joint surface condition is
defined by the roughness, weathering, and infilling
condition (Hoek et al. 1995, Cai et al. 2004). The com-
bination of these factors defines the strength of a joint
or block surface. The joint surface condition factor is
defined as

262
© 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
 where JW , JS , and JA are the joint large-scale waviness
factor, small-scale smoothness factor, and alteration
factor, respectively. The tables for peak Jw , JS , and
JA are given in Cai et al. (2004). Once Vb and Jc are
determined, users can refer to Figure 5 or the following
equation (Cai & Kaiser 2006b) to calculate GSI value.
4 DETERMINATION OF RESIDUAL
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego (CDL)] at 18:01 07 December 2016
STRENGTH
So far, much research has been focused on the deter-
mination of peak strengths, and limited attempts have
been made to approximate the residual strength of
jointed rock masses. Several attempts have been made
to estimate the residual strength of jointed rock masses
(e.g. Hoek 2000, Russo et al. 1998, Ribacchi 2000),
however, these methods lack generality and lead to
inconsistent results for different rock masses. A new
approach is proposed here to estimate the residual
strength parameters of jointed rock masses.
4.1 Generalized Hoek-Brown criterion for
residual strength
It is observed that the rock mass in its residual state
represents one particular kind of rock mass in the
spectrum in the GSI chart. The rock mass spectrum
is defined by the combination of the block volume
spectrum and the joint surface condition factor spec-
trum. Hence, the generalized Hoek-Brown criterion
for the residual strength of jointed rock masses can be
written as
where mr , sr , ar are the residual Hoek-Brown constants
for the rock mass. It is postulated that these constants
can be determined from a residual GSIr value using
the same equations for peak strength parameters, i.e.,
Because the rock masses are in a damaged, residual
state, D = 0 is used for the residual strength parameter
263
© 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
calculation. According to the logic of the original GSI
system, the strength of a rock mass is controlled by
its block size and joint surface condition. The same
concept is valid for failed rock masses at the residual
strength state. In other words, the residual GSIr is a
function of residual joint surface condition factor Jcr
and block volume Vbr .
4.2 Residual block volume
The block volume spectrum from “massive” to “very
blocky” rock masses ranges from 103 –107 cm3 , and for
“disturbed” to “sheared” rock from 0.1–103 cm3 . If a
rock experiences post-peak deformation, the rock in
the broken zone is fractured and consequently turned
into a poor and eventually “very poor” rock.
For the residual block volume, it is observed that
the post-peak block volumes are small because the
rock mass has experienced tensile and shear fractur-
ing. After the peak load, the rock mass becomes less
interlocked, and is heavily broken with a mixture of
angular and partly-rounded rock pieces. Numerical
simulation using ELFEN revealed that the rock masses
in the fracture zone around underground openings are
broken to small blocks. Detailed examination of the
rock mass damage state before and after the in-situ
block shear tests at some underground cavern sites in
Japan revealed that in areas that were not covered by
concrete, the failed rock mass blocks are 1 to 5 cm
in size. The rock mass is disintegrated along a shear
zone in these tests. The strength of a fault can be
regarded as the lower bound strength of the rock mass.
Shearing disintegrates and damages the rock mass
and weathering further weakens the fault strength.
Block sizes observed from fault outcrop also support
the concept of block size of rock mass at residual
state.
In summary, the residual block volumes can be
considered independent of the original (peak) block
volumes for most strain-softening rock masses. The
fractured residual rock mass will have more or less
the same residual block volume in the shear band for
intact rocks, moderately jointed and highly jointed
rock masses, as illustrated in Figure 6. As an estimate,
if the peak block volume Vb is greater than 10 cm3 ,
then, the residual block volume Vbr in the disintegrated
category can be taken to be 10 cm3 . If Vb is smaller
than 10 cm3 , then, no reduction to the residual block
volume is recommended, i.e., Vbr = Vb .
4.3 Residual joint surface condition factor
The failure process affects the joint surface condition,
especially the joint roughness. According to Barton
et al. (1985), the difference between peak and residual
JRC is large if the peak JRC value is high. The under-
lying implication is that the drop of GSI from peak to
 Intact
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego (CDL)] at 18:01 07 December 2016

Moderately
jointed

Highly
jointed Figure 7. Normalized joint roughness – shear displacement
relationship (Barton et al. 1985).

Hence, the residual joint surface condition factor Jcr

is calculated from
Initial state Residual state

Figure 6. Illustration of the residual block volume.

where JWr , JSr , and JAr are residual values for large-scale
residual values should be larger for rock masses with waviness, small-scale smoothness, and joint alteration
fresh and rough joints. factor, respectively. The residual values are obtained
The major factor that alters the joint surface con- based on the corresponding peak values assessed from
dition in the post-peak region is the reduction of joint field mapping. The reduction of JWr and JSr are based
surface roughness, as shown in Figure 7 for the grad- on the concept of mobilized joint roughness, and the
ual degradation of JRC. Peak mobilized roughness equations are given as
angle is given as JRC · log (JCS/σn ), where JCS is the
joint wall compressive strength, and σn is the normal
stress acting on the joint. The mobilized joint resid-
ual roughness is zero according to the same figure,
which can only be achieved when the joint experi-
ences a very large shearing displacement. On the other
hand, the concept of ultimate mobilized joint rough-
ness was suggested by Barton et al. (1985). According 4.4 Residual GSI value and strength parameters
to Figure 7, the joint surface roughness is gradually
destroyed during the shearing process and the ultimate Once the residual block volume and joint surface con-
mobilized roughness is about half of the peak rough- dition factor are obtained, one can refer to the GSI chart
ness (JRCmob /JRCpeak = 0.5). It is therefore proposed or use the following equation to obtain the residual GSI
here that the large-scale waviness and the small-scale value
smoothness of joints be calculated by reducing its peak
value by half to calculate the residual GSI value. In a
short time period, joint alteration is unlikely to occur
so that the joint alteration factor JA will be unchanged
in most circumstances. However, when water and clay As for the intact rock properties, fracturing and
infill material is involved, the fractured rock surface shearing do not weaken the intact rocks (even if they
can have a lower residual JA . are broken into smaller pieces) so that the mechanical

264
© 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
 Table 1. Characterization of the rock mass peak and residual 25
strengths for FS1 at the Kannagawa site using the GSI system. GSI (peak)
Test data (peak)
FS1 GSI (residual)
Test data (residual)
Peak Residual 20

Jw 1.5 1
Js 1.5 0.75

Shear stress (MPa)

JA 1 1
GSI system Jc 2.25 0.75 15
Vb (cm3 ) 295000 10
GSI 64.8 27.8
σc (MPa) 126 126
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego (CDL)] at 18:01 07 December 2016

mi 19 19 10
c (MPa) 3 0.96
φ = φb + i (0 ) 56.6 49.3
Block shear test c (MPa) 3.4 0.5
φ = φb + i (0 ) 57 49
5

parameters (σc and mi ) should be unchanged. What has

changed are the block size and joint surface condition
(especially the roughness). Once the reduced GSIr is
obtained, the residual Hoek-Brown strength parame-
ters or the equivalent residual Mohr-Coulomb strength
parameters can be calculated.
The proposed method for the estimation of rock
mass peak and residual strength has been validated
using in-situ block shear test data from some large-
scale cavern construction sites and the data from the
back-analysis of a rock slope stability. Due to space
limitation, only one example is given in the next
section.
5 APPLICATION EXAMPLE
The Kannagawa pumped hydropower project (Mae-
jima et al. 2001) in Gumma Prefecture in Japan is
now under construction with a maximum output of
2,820 MW. The powerhouse cavern at 500 m depth has
a width of 33 m, a height of 52 m, and a length of
216 m. The cavern excavation was started in 1998 and
the last bench was completed in 2000.
The rock mass at the site consists of conglomerate,
sandstone, and mudstone. The rock masses are clas-
sified into five major groups or domains. Sixty-four
uniaxial compressive tests were conducted to deter-
mine the average strength and standard deviation of
each rock type. The parameter mi for each rock types
was obtained from a limited number of tri-axial tests.A
total of 21 block shear tests were conducted at six test
locations. Since the intact rock strength, joint spacing,
and joint surface condition vary even within the same
rock type designation zone, the point estimate method
(PEM) (Rosenblueth 1981) is used to represent the
encountered variability of rock mass properties.
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Normal stress (MPa)
Figure 8. Comparison of peak and residual strength calcu-
lated from the GSI system and field test data (FS1).
The average peak and residual strength parameters
estimated from the GSI system are given in Table 1,
along with the data obtained from the in-situ block
shear tests, for domain FS1. The average peak strength
estimated from the GSI is slightly lower than the field
data average (Fig. 8), and the average residual strength
estimated from the GSI is slightly higher than the field
data average. However, the differences are well within
the data variability shown in the field test data (Cai &
Kaiser 2005).
The quantitative approach presented in this paper
uses the block volume and joint surface condition fac-
tor to determine both the peak and residual GSI values.
These input parameters in the example were obtained
from field mapping and from borehole logging data.
The strength and deformation parameters estimated
from the GSI system are very close to those obtained
from in-situ tests, indicating that the GSI system can
be effectively applied to the design of engineering
structures in rocks.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The Geological Strength Index (GSI) system is a rock
mass classification system that is directly linked to
engineering parameters such as Mohr-Coulomb or

265
© 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
 Hoek-Brown strength parameters or rock mass modu-
lus. The original GSI system, which is applied mainly
for the estimation of the peak strength, is based on
a descriptive approach, rendering the system some-
what subjective and difficult to use for inexperienced
personnel.To assist the use of the GSI system, a supple-
mentary quantified approach for the GSI system has
been proposed by incorporating quantitative measures
of block volume and joint surface condition factor. The
concept of residual block volume Vbr and residual joint
surface condition factor Jcr is introduced to extend the
GSI system for the estimation of rock mass’s residual
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego (CDL)] at 18:01 07 December 2016
strength.
The residual block volume is found to be in the cat-
egory of the “disintegrated” rocks in the GSI chart,
characterized by the facts that the failed rock masses
at the residual strength level are poorly interlocked,
heavily broken with a mixture of angular and rounded
rock pieces. The average block size of 10 cm3 is sug-
gested for the residual GSIr value estimation. For joint
surface condition, the major factor that alters the con-
dition in post-peak region is the reduction of joint
surface roughness. The actual degradation of the joint
surface is based on the concept of mobilized resid-
ual joint roughness. The large-scale waviness and the
small-scale smoothness of joints can be calculated by
reducing their peak values by half with conditions to
meet the minimum values. The residual GSIr value is
calculated from the relationship between GSIr and Vbr
and Jcr .
The residual strength parameters are calculated
using the same form of the generalized Hoek-Brown
strength criterion by assuming that the intact rock
properties such as σc and mi remain unchanged as the
rock mass changes from its peak to residual state.
The proposed method for the estimation of rock
mass peak and residual strength is demonstrated using
field mapping and in-situ block shear test data from
a large-scale cavern construction site. The estimated
peak and residual strengths, calculated using the peak
GSI and residual GSIr values, are in good agreement
with field test data. The proposed method for peak and
residual strength estimation extends the GSI system
and adds quantitative means to determine the com-
plete set of rock mass strength properties needed for
design.
The proposed method is applicable to most rock
types when failure is dominated by shear failure.
Care must be given for brittle failure of massive
rocks involving spalling failure and very weak rocks
that have been “over consolidated” or “re-bonded.”
In such a case, special failure criteria such as brit-
tle Hoek-Brown failure criterion (Martin et al. 1999)
should be used and proper test program be planned
for the determination of the residual strengths. Fur-
thermore, if the rock mass fails by block rotation and
local crushing, probably a different analysis approach
266
© 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
such as UDEC or 3DEC should be considered instead
of a continuum analysis. The users must be aware
of the limitations when applying the GSI system
and the methodology for determining the peak and
residual strength parameters using this quantitative
approach.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was funded by Tokyo Electric Power Ser-
vices Co. Ltd (TEPSCO). The authors wish to thank
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) for provid-
ing access to test sites and test data and permitting to
publish the results. The authors also thank Dr. Evert
Hoek for his valuable comments and suggestions for
this study.
REFERENCES
Barton, N.R., Bandis, S.C. & Bakhtar, K. 1985. Strength,
deformation and conductivity coupling of joints. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 22 (3):
121–140.
Cai, M. & Kaiser, P.K. 2005. Determination of the resid-
ual strength of jointed rock masses using the GSI sys-
tem. Report to TEPSCO. Geomechanics Research Centre,
Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario. pp 109.
Cai, M. & Kaiser, P.K. 2006a. Rock mass characterization and
rock mass property variability considerations for tunnel
and cavern design. In Proc 4th Asian Rock Mech Symp
(ARMS 4), Singapore, Paper 144.
Cai, M. & Kaiser, P.K. 2006b. Visualization of rock mass clas-
sification systems. Geotechnical and Geological Engi-
neering 24(4): 1089–1102.
Cai, M., Kaiser, P.K., Tasaka, Y. & Minami, M. 2007. Deter-
mination of residual strength parameters of jointed rock
masses using the GSI system. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
44(2): 247–265.
Cai, M., Kaiser, P.K., Uno, H., Tasaka, Y. & Minami, M.
2004. Estimation of rock mass strength and deformation
modulus of jointed hard rock masses using the GSI system.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41(1): 3–19.
Hoek, E. 2000. Practical Rock Engineering. Available online:
www.rocscience.com), pp 313.
Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. 1988. The Hoek-Brown failure
criterion – a 1988 update. In Rock Engineering for Under-
ground Excavations, Proc. 15th Canadian Rock Mech.
Symp. Toronto, pp. 31–38.
Hoek, E., Carranza_Torres, C. & Corkum, B. 2002. Hoek-
Brown failure criterion – 2002 edition. In Proc. 5th
North American Rock Mech. Symposium, Toronto, vol. 1,
pp. 267–273.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K. & Bawden, W.F. 1995. Support of
Underground Excavations in Hard Rock. A.A. Balkema.
Itasca. 2002. PFC2D-Particle Flow Code, version 3.0. Min-
neapolis: Itasca Consulting Group Inc.
Kim, B.H., Cai, M., Kaiser, P.K. & Yang, H.S. 2006. Esti-
mation of block sizes for rock masses with non-persistent
joints. Rock Mech. Rock Engng.: In Press.
 Maejima, T., Morioka, H., Mori, T. & Aoki, K. 2001.
Evaluation of the loosened zone on excavation of
the large underground rock cavern. In Modern Tun-
nel Science and Technology, Kyoto. A.A. Balkema, pp.
1033–1038.
Martin, C.D., Kaiser, P.K. & McCreath, D.R. 1999. Hoek-
Brown parameters for predicting the depth of brittle failure
around tunnels. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 36(1):
136–151.
Ribacchi, R. 2000. Mechanical tests on pervasively jointed
rock material: insight into rock mass behaviour. Rock
Mech. Rock Engng 33(4): 243–266.
Rockfield Software Ltd. 2003. ELFEN, version 3.7.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego (CDL)] at 18:01 07 December 2016
267
© 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Rosenblueth, E. 1981. Two-point estimates in probabilities.
J. Appl. Math. Modelling 5: 329–335.
Rummel, F. & Fairhurst, C. 1970. Determination of the post
failure behaviour of brittle rock using a servo-controlled
testing machine. Rock Mech. 2: 189–204.
Russo, G., Kalamaras, G.S. & Grasso, P. 1998. A discussion
on the concepts of geomechanical classes, behavior cate-
gories, and technical classes for an underground project.
Gallerie e Grandi Opere Sotterranee 54.
Wawersik, W.R. & Fairhurst, C. 1970. A study of brittle rock
fracture in laboratory compression experiments. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 7: 561–575.