Rock masses:

deformability, strength
a n d failure

8.1 The n a t u r e of rock masses

In Chapters 6 and 7, we have posed
and answered questions concerning Intact rock Fractures
the properties of the intact rock and ~, /
the fractures. In this chapter, we con- ~ L--
sider the deformation, strength and Rock Mass
failure of a fractured rock mass, i.e. a
discontinuum comprising intact rock
dissected by fractures.
A rock mass is a complex geometrical and mechanical assemblage
resulting from a long history of tectonic forces and other natural envir-
onmental effects. Additionally, the rock mass properties can be signific-
antly affected by engineering activities, especially blasting. The follow-
ing series of photographs in Fig. 8.1 illustrates different rock masses in
different conditions.
The deformation, strength and failure properties of a rock mass are
determined by the mechanical properties of the intact rock (Chapter 6),
the geometrical properties of the fractures (Chapter 7), and the mechan-
ical properties of the fractures (this chapter).
We can consider a fracture being stressed by a normal stress and two
shear stresses, as shown in Fig. 8.2.
The compression of the fracture due to the normal stress component
r~aa produces a normal displacement 8a. It is awkward to convert this
directly into strain because there is no clear gauge length over which the
displacement has taken place. Thus, assuming initially a linear relation
between ¢raa and 8a, we can define the fracture normal deformation mod-
ulus as ~zz/~z = Ed, where the units of E~ are stress/metre, or L-2MT -2
(cf. the units of Young's modulus which are stress units, or L-1MT-2).
From the shear displacements, we can define shear deformation moduli
in a similar way.
Within the local co-ordinate system illustrated in Fig. 8.2, the two
shear fracture stiffnesses and the normal stiffness can be denoted as
1 18 Rock masses: deformability, strength and failure

................. ...~:,,:........ ............... ~< " ~ ~: I~!D~ : ~: % . . ~i:.:.:~:c7~;~ • ~-:,:~':.~7~t'~:-:.~'<

~, :" .,. )i>, .:!~i~ ?.t. ,:+::..:., , ~:i~ ........ .~.;:.,,..
•~<., • ::,::'~:;. .:.~ ............. 1:,--<:.:..~: V~<7 • . ~!~z.:~

k: ,!
<;Hill....... [,! ......

. . . . • '. . . . . " ........ " ~" .......

" ....... ".... ~ ~i.;i."~ ¸~-''~',~>~~: .... ~ ~,~i ~ , ,<~.~ ~"~

~. ~.. + ~ ~ <~.~\ ~ ,.~. ~ • I,~ ~ ~...k:~.,l ~ ~ ~,..~ . . ~ , ~ ....i ~ •

"~ "+~ s ~ ~ . . ~.%~,'7 ~

i ).

--. +~. ~~ "~ " ,;~' ~ :4" .... .~/ ",~ ~ ' x ~ ~ ,~ ',+" ~ '~i!:~<;::.'~;~
.~' '. ~"~ ~

"~ +' ~ ~>"'~" ~ .~ ""~ " "'++ - "~' " " "~°~!.~'*~i? X ~ ~<~; ~,~ }-~"

i ~ ~ ; •~i:~\,.,~. -~k,~:~i ' "

 The nature of rock masses 119

Figure 8.1 (left and above) Examples of fractured rock masses. (a) Folded rock mass in
Crete illustrating that the mechanical behaviour will be a function of both the intact
rock and the fracture geometry. (b) Fractured limestone rock mass, relatively unaffected
during excavation by tunnel boring machine. (c) Jointed granitic rock mass with joints
dilated by bulk blasting. (d) Heavily jointed chalk rock mass, with joint dilation resulting
from weathering.

"zz Z

~X

"Czy Rock f r a c t u r e ~ - - - - ~
~__ Fracture
/ ............
~-~'zx ~ / - aperture

Figure8.2 Normal and shear stresses applied to a fracture.

kxx, kyy, a n d kzz. The reciprocals of these are the fracture compliances,
Sxx, Syy, a n d Szz. There will also be interactions b e t w e e n the axes; for
e x a m p l e a shear stress in the x-direction can cause a d i s p l a c e m e n t in the
z-direction, r e q u i r i n g a kxz or Sxz term. This leads to nine stiffnesses or
c o m p l i a n c e s a n d the relations

xsxxzx+syxzy+szx.z xlsxxsyxszxl,x 1
I / /
~z = ,~=~=x + , ~ z ~ . + ~zz~== ~= L,~z ~= ,=z L~,~zj
Usually, these nine stiffnesses (or compliances) are reduced to two: a
120 Rock masses: deformability, strength and failure

.~
.......................................
~ i ~ ] ~..:..~...,..~. i i~~ i .l . . .

~ . . ~ ! ~ ....
gNi~ .i~i~:" ~N •~ !~i~~

liD" "91----- 0 " 3

Figure 8.3 The presence of a fracture in a stressed rock specimen.

normal stiffness kn and a shear stiffness k~ (or a normal compliance, s~,

and a shear compliance, s~).
By studying the way in which the intact rock properties and the frac-
ture properties combine to determine the properties of the whole-rock
mass, an estimate of the importance of the various contributions can be
established. However, because of the geometrical and mechanical com-
plexity of the fractures, it is not possible to generate the exact rock mass
properties from such information. If the deformation modulus 1, Era, of a
rock mass has not been measured directly and is required for calculation
and design purposes, the value can either be estimated by combining the
intact rock and fracture components to provide a composite modulus, or
the modulus can be estimated empirically.
Although the empirical estimations of rock mass deformation mod-
ulus seem over-simplified, they can give reasonable predictions and are
often the only practical method of estimating the modulus. The relation,
Em = ( 2 R M R - 100) where Em has units of GPa and RMR > 50 (where
RMR is the Rock Mass Rating, see Chapter 12), can give surprisingly
accurate results (Bieniawski, 19892). Another empirical expression is
Em = 10 (RMR-IO)/40 GPa which covers the complete RMR range, i.e. from
low values to 100.
The effect of a single fracture on rock strength can be studied using the
single plane of weakness theory. Assume that a fracture is present in a
rock specimen as shown in Fig. 8.3. The strength of the specimen will
then depend on the orientation of the principal stresses relative to the
fracture orientation. Assuming that failure is induced when the normal
and shear stress components on the fracture satisfy the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion, we can develop an expression for the specimen strength
as a function of/~w, the angle between the major principal stress and the
normal to the fracture.
The normal stress on the fracture is given by

O"n - - ~1 (0" 1 -}-0"3) + ~1 (0" 1 --0"3)COS 2/~w

1The term 'deformation modulus', is used in rock mechanics to indicate the apparent
elastic modulus of an in situ rock mass.
2Bieniawski Z. T. (1989)Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. Wiley, Chichester, 251pp.
 The nature of rock masses 121

Failure of intact rock

¢
-ff
n

l-
Shearing failure F
c
\ L/ offracture /
L

t~
E
,,e

o
el-

1'0 dO 50
* '
70 '
90
Inclination of discontinuity normal to major principal
stress axis

Figure 8.4 Effect of a fracture on the strength of a rock specimen.

and the shear stress on the fracture by

1
Irl - g (a] - a3) sin 2flw.
Substituting these values in the Molar-Coulomb criterion,
Irl = Cw + ~rntan q)w, where Cw and 4)w are the cohesion and angle of
friction of the fracture, gives for the 2-D case
(Crl - a3) = 2 (Cw + or3 tan 4)w) / (1 - cos/3w tan 4)w) sin 2/3w.
This results in the type of locus illustrated in Fig. 8.4.
Thus, w h e n the rock mass initially reaches its peak strength due to the
application of stresses, either the intact rock or a fracture will begin to
fail3. Hence, the properties that govern the failure of rock masses are
the failure properties of the intact rock and the fractures. The orientation
of the applied stresses relative to the fractures governs how failure
occurs, bearing in mind that the failure of a rock mass is a complex
structural b r e a k d o w n process following a similar curve to that in Fig. 6.2
for the intact rock. The H o e k - B r o w n empirical failure criterion applies to
rock masses through the appropriate choice of the governing parameters
(Hoek and Brown, 1997 4).
Finally, the behaviour of the rock mass after initial failure will be a
function of the loading conditions. Where the load is constant, as in a
rock block sliding d o w n a slope, once failure initiates, it will usually
propagate. However, in u n d e r g r o u n d circumstances, the loading m a y
reduce as failure occurs, e.g. w h e n failure occurs in a weak, soft mine
pillar loaded by stronger, stiff roof and floor strata.
There are other factors influencing rock mass failure, notably rock de-
terioration due to exposure and other time-dependent effects, which will
not be included here. We will, however, discuss the general principles of
water flow through rock masses in the next chapter and note the effects
of excavation in Chapter 15.

3 We have used the word 'failure' here to mean that some kind of limit state has been
reached.
4 Hoek E. and Brown E. T. (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci, 34, 8, 1165-1186.
 122 Rock masses: deformability, strength and failure

8 . 2 Q u e s t i o n s a n d a n s w e r s : rock m a s s e s
Q8.1 For a simple sedimentary rock mass in which the only effective
fractures are the bedding planes, the elastic modulus of the rock
mass can be found from the addition of the displacements due to
both the intact rock and the fractures, noting that the rock mass can
comprise more than one stratum, each containing bedding plane
fractures with different frequencies.
Unfractured strata Consider firstly the case of n strata of intact
rock, each with a thickness ti and modulus of elasticity El. Derive
an expression for the composite elastic modulus, Em, of the rock
mass in a direction normal to the strata by considering the total
displacement (and hence strain) of the total thickness of the rock
mass due to the applied stress. Write the expression in terms of Ei
and ti, and assume that the interfaces between adjacent units have
no mechanical effect.
Strata with bedding plane fractures. Now consider the case where
each stratum of rock contains a set of bedding plane fractures par-
allel to the stratum boundaries. The fracture frequency of the set
within each stratum is unique m stratum i possesses a frequency ~Li;
similarly, the modulus of deformation (i.e. applied stress/displace-
ment) within each stratum is unique and for unit i is Edi. Extend the
expression for Em to include ti, Ei, ~i and Edi.

A S . 1 U n f r a c t u r e d strata
Sa The model comprises n strata of rock, each of thickness ti and elasti-
1 city modulus Ei. The total thickness of rock is L - - ~ i ti, where the
2 summation in this and succeeding equations is from I to n.
!ii ii 3 The strain in each unit is given by 6 i - - r~i/ti "- cr/Ei and hence the
4 displacement of each unit is ~ i - - tiei -- ti(r:r/Ei).
This expression for ~i then gives the total displacement as
/3 O"
~T-- Z ~ i -- Z t i - - .
~o i i Ei
The overall strain is e = 3T/L, and the results we have derived here for
8/then give the overall strain as
o

~T i

L
Zi ti
Thus, the expression for the rock mass modulus is
Zti
- - ~
o"
--
t7 (7 Zi ti i
Em
(~i ¢r / ) cr~-~i ti ti "
ti-Eii ~-~
i ti ~ Z--Ei
i i
Note that the t/cannot be cancelled in the numerator and denominator
of the right-hand side of this equation, as is evident when the expression
 Questions a n d answers: rock masses 123

is written out,
t l -k- t2 q- t3 -}- • • •
t__2__l - t2 t3
e l t-~2-[-g----~

Fractured strata
Although the total thickness of the rock mass is the sum of the thickness Sa
of each stratum, L - Z i ti, because the fractures are now present the " 1
equation should also include a term to account for the thickness (i.e. : : i ~ii:::i ~ 2
aperture) of each fracture. However, this is assumed to be negligible 3
compared to the thickness of the intact rock and has been ignored here. 4.
As before, the strain in the intact rock of each unit is ei = 6i/ti = cr/Ei,
and so the displacement of each unit due to straining of the intact rock is ........................................................ n
6i -- t i ( a / E i ) . For any fracture, its normal displacement is 6 4 - - cr/Ed, and Ta
so, for n fractures in unit i, the displacement is 6di - - rti6d : ~iti(rY/Edi).
The total normal displacement is the sum of the displacements due to
the intact rock and the fractures and is thus 6T = ~ i 6i + Y~i ~di which, on
substitution of the expressions for 6 i and 6di, becomes

~W-- Z t i ~ q - Z )i ~ i l i - -Edi [,i i i,i 1

y~i ~ -'~ • G "

The total strain is thus

ti t~'itit
(7~__.~ti -11-G
~T ° Z i+zi i
L
Z ti Z ti
i i
and the rock mass modulus is

o"
Zi ti
Em-- --:
E 1 )~i)
g+G
i

The influences of the fracture frequency and fracture deformation

moduli values on this composite rock mass modulus, Em, are illustrated
below.
Note that in the diagram below for the conditions assumed, the frac-
ture deformation modulus is more important than the fracture frequency.
The value of Em does not reduce much w h e n many fractures are present
providing the fracture deformation modulus is high (the Ed = 1000 GPa
curve in the diagram below). On the other hand, just one or two frac-
tures every few metres will have a significant effect on Em if Ed is, say
10 G P a / m or less. This diagram also shows that it is critical to make an
assessment of fracture normal stiffness in order to be able to understand
the rock mass modulus.
 124 Rock masses: deformability, strength and failure

m 20.0-
~ 18.0
16.0 ~ E d = 1000 GPa/m

14.0 Ed= 500 GPa/m

o 12.0
E
10.0 Ed= 200 GPa/m
t./'}
m 8.0
E E d = 100 GPa/m
_~ 6.0
0 " - ' =- 50 GPa/m
o 4.0
a/m
E 2.0
LLI
0.0 I I I I I I 1 I I I

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(fracture frequency), m -~

Q8.2 For the unfractured and fractured stratified rock mass geo-
metries described in Q8.1, develop expressions for the composite
shear modulus of a rock mass, Gin, using a shear stress • and the
parameters ti, Gi, li, and Gdi.

A8.2 Unfractured strata

We are investigating the case of simple shear. If w e consider the dis-
p l a c e m e n t of the rock u n d e r the action of a shear stress, w e can consider
11 ~, and 8 as in the sketch below.
i!~!ifi!~i~ii~i~i~i!i~!i~ii!i~i~i~i~i~i~i!~i~iiii~i~!i~i~i~i~!~i~iiz!i~iii!~i~i~ii~
~:i:/ii~i!ici/~i~i'~~II~!~I~/~L~ ~~,;~%!L,~i 2
3 L
i!!i!i!iiii!i!i!i!i/!!i!iiiii!!i!i!iii!iiiii!i!!i!ii
i!! if! 4

Using these definitions, for small ~, the engineering shear strain of

each unit can be w r i t t e n as y = r / G ~, 8/t, and so the shear d e f o r m a t i o n
of a single unit of intact rock is 8i = ti(r/Gi), w i t h the total shear
deformation being given by ~T = ~ i ~i = ~ i ti(r/Gi). Providing ~T is
sufficiently small to allow small angle approximations, then the total
shear strain is
l"

(~T
Zi ti Gi
L ~ ti
i
and as a result the rock mass shear m o d u l u s is given by

r Z ti ~-~ ti
"E T i i
G =-= r / = 1 = ti "

i i i i
 Questions and answers: rock masses 125

Note that this result is directly analogous to the result obtained in the
first part of A8.1.

Fractured strata
The total thickness of the rock m a s s is the s u m of the thickness of each __L~
stratum, L - ~ i ti. This e q u a t i o n s h o u l d include a t e r m to account for .................... 1
the thickness of each fracture but, as in Q8.1, w e a s s u m e that this is !:i:~i~'<~i~!=:~:ii!it!~=::::ii~~ 2
negligible c o m p a r e d to the intact rock thickness. ................................
... ~ 3
As for the first part of this question, the shear d e f o r m a t i o n of a single 4.
s t r a t u m of intact rock is ~i = t~(r/Gi) and the shear d e f o r m a t i o n of a n y
fracture is 8d - r~ Gd. For n~ fractures in s t r a t u m i, the shear d e f o r m a t i o n n
is ~di - - niSd -- k i l l ( r ~ Gdi). The total shear d e f o r m a t i o n is the s u m of the T" ~
shear d i s p l a c e m e n t s d u e to the intact rock and the fractures and is thus
given a s ~W - - E i ~i -]- E i ~di, which, u p o n substitution of the expressions
for 8i and 8di, b e c o m e s

~T = E t i K - } - E ~ , i t i - - = T n t-
, , .E
Consequently, the total strain is

I ti Xi li 1
~T
L
E tii

a n d so the rock m a s s shear m o d u l u s is

E tii
G m -" - ~

Y E',
i
+W
This e q u a t i o n is directly a n a l o g o u s to the result obtained in A8.1, a n d
Gm s h o w s a similar sensitivity to the fracture frequency a n d fracture
stiffness values as illustrated in A8.1 for Em. Once again, an a s s e s s m e n t
of the fracture stiffness is essential if the b e h a v i o u r of the rock m a s s is to
be p r o p e r l y u n d e r s t o o d .

Q8.3 When the application of stress is not perpendicular to the

fractures, as in Q8.1 and Q8.2, it is necessary to transform the
stress components in order to establish rock mass deformation
moduli using the fracture stiffnesses or compliances. This results
in equations for the rock mass modulus, Em, of the type (Wei and
Hudson, 1986 s)
1 1
- - = ~ + ~ l S ~ CO54~ -~" llSl2COS20csin20¢+ 12s22cos20¢sin2~ + 12s21sin40¢
Em 1

5 This equation is for two orthogonal sets of fractures in 2-D. The method by which
the equations for n sets in 3-D can be developed is given in Wei Z. Q. and Hudson J.
A. (1986) The influence of joints on rock modulus. Proc. Int. Syrup. Engineering in Complex
Rock Formations (T. K. Tan, ed.), Pergamon Press, Beijing, pp. 54-62.
126 Rock masses: deformability, strength and failure

for a 2-D analysis with uniaxial loading.

cy
The equation is for two o r t h o g o n a l frac-
ture sets, where E is the modulus of the
intact rock, ;tl and ;t2 are the fracture fre-
q u e n c i e s of the two sets, s~l, s~2, s~l, and
s~2 are the normal and shear compliances
for the fractures in each set, and c¢ is t h e
a n g l e between the a p p l i e d n o r m a l stress |
and the normal to the first set. m
mm
The equation reduces for one set (i.e.
~2 = 0) to
1 1
- + ;ts~lcos4c¢ +;ts~2cos2ccsin2(~
Em E
4
and if we put sll = s and s~2 = ks, and then / "
r e a r r a n g e , we obtain
1 1
- + ),s cos2c¢ (cos2e¢ + k sin2~)
Em E
from which we find

E--m-m= 1 - Em~.S cos20¢ (cos20¢ 4" k sin2ol).

E

Using E = 2.75 GPa, ;¢ - 2 m -1 and s = 0.05 m/GPa, the plots shown

to the right in D i a g r a m 1 result.
For two sets with ~1 = ;t2 = ;t, s]l = s~l = s and s~2 = s~2 = ks, the
basic equation reduces t o

Em = 1 - Em~.S (COS4~4- 2k cos2(~ sin2a + sin40¢).

E

Using E = 2.75 GPa, ;¢ = 2 m -1 and s = 0.05 m/GPa, t h e p l o t s in

D i a g r a m 2 result.
Explain why terms such as cos4c~ a p p e a r in the f o r m u l a and
comment on any general principles that are a p p a r e n t from these
illustrative plots.

A8.3 In Section 3.1, we saw that a c o $ 2 term is required for resolving

s t r e s s e s - both the force and the area have to be r e s o l v e d - and
this leads to Mohr's circle representation of a 2-D stress state. Terms
such as cos4~ appear in the formula above because four resolutions
are now required: two to account for the stress transformation; one to
resolve the fracture frequency (see A7.6); and one to resolve the fracture
displacements.
Although the plots in Diagrams 1 and 2 have been calculated for
specific circumstances, we can note the following general principles.
• The rock mass modulus will always be less than the intact rock
modulus (the outer circle in the plots), except when the loading is
parallel to the fractures in a rock mass containing only one set.
 Questions and answers: rock masses 127

One set
)x .,

I .............!.................. ...............l

k=lO ~

, , \ \

..................! ...................i...................i...................!:::;:::!:..;~ ~!:::::;! ....................!...................!....................i.................

....',<,....... . ":~: i i ...... ', "\. ""/ i ........

,~-..
/ <", I : I \ ". ./'"'-
....x? / i \ 3/ '..

h" ....>..,,"
.. . .......
. ....... i
........
7 ....",, ,/: "-d

k=l ~ i
i;;I"...........4 .......... k{" x
Diagram 1 - one fracture set.

• There will be a variation in the modulus of fractured rock masses

as a function of the loading direction (except for the case of a rock
mass with two orthogonal sets with equal normal and shear fracture
stiffnesses, which has the same modulus regardless of the loading
direction, the k = 1 plot in Diagram 2 overleaf).
• The directions associated with maximal and minimal rock mass mod-
ulus are unlikely to be perpendicular, especially w h e n there is more
than one fracture set.
These principles should be remembered when estimating the deform-
ation modulus by any method, or attempting to understand the likely
deformation behaviour of a fractured rock mass

Q8.4 A rock mass has the following characteristics: the compressive

strength of the intact rock is 80 MPa, the RMR (Rock Mass Rating) is
62%, and the GSI (Geological Strength Index) is 50. Estimate the in
situ deformation modulus, Em.

A 8 . 4 Empirical formulae for estimating Er, are required to answer this

question (as found in the references in Footnotes 2 and 4 in this chapter).
128 Rock masses: deformability, strength and failure

Two
x .,t"
-0 6- """"ix./~
""
,?\ y,,
,,/ .y ,,

",,7,..., / .....--.....i.
.......

/
x/ / / "-.#
....~ . . . . ,,.
~<.. /
",,, / \'.-.,,, ,,/
k.......
:'S,//"-.-,

k -- .2

Diagram 2 - - two orthogonal fracture sets.

The formula Em -- 2 R M R - 100 gives Em ---- 124 - 100 = 24 GPa.

_ R M R - I O 52
The formula Em- l0 4o gives Em-- l06~o~----A°-- 1 0 ~ - - 2 0 G P a .
/
/ O'ci
The formula Em -- V 1001°~';'" gives Em -- / 180
oo 1 0 ~ --9 GPa.

In the last formula, the square root factor has been incorporated by Hoek
and Brown (see the reference in Footnote 4) to reflect the increasing role
of the intact rock as it becomes weaker.
These empirical methods can provide surprisingly good estimates and
they are often the only practical way of estimating the in situ deformation
modulus, but they should be used with caution. An understanding of
the roles of the intact rock modulus and fracture stiffness contributions
assists in evaluating the reliability of empirical estimates for given
circumstances. We include further aspects of rock mass classification
systems in Chapter 12.

Q8.5 To study the effect of a fracture on the rock strength, plot a

graph of ((~1 -(~3) vs. ¢/w using the single plane of weakness formula
included in Section 8.1. Assume (~3 = 10 MPa, c - 0 and ~w - 35 °,
 Questions and answers: rock masses 129

and that the intact rock strength is given by ~ = 75 + 5.29o3. Also,

explain the form of the resulting graph.

A 8 . 5 The plot is shown below. Initially, as/Jw is increased from 0°, i.e.
from when the fracture is perpendicular to the major principal stress
and parallel to the minor principal stress, the fracture does not induce
failure and the rock strength is constant, as the strength of the intact
rock: 129.7 MPa.
Failure of intact rock

~ 120 , '

E
v
40
¢j I

fro 20 ,I (90 + 0 " )/2 = 62.5"

0 i i 0 i I it I
i i i
0 30 601 90
Inclination of discontinuity normal to major principal
stress axis

However, as/Jw is increased further, and when the normal and shear
stresses on the fracture satisfy the Mohr-Coulomb criterion for a value
of the major principal stress lower than 129.7 MPa, the fracture causes a
reduction in the rock strength; the 'U' shaped curve in the strength locus.
Note that this curve has asymptotes at ~w = 35° and 90°. The minimal
strength is for/Jw = (90 + Ow)/2 = 62.5 °. Both horizontal portions of the
curve occur when the intact rock fails before the fracture induces shear
failure.

Q8.6 If a rock mass contains more than one fracture set, we can
apply the single plane of weakness theory to each set, and superim-
pose the results to find a lowest-bound envelope of strength.
(a) Plot the 2-D variation in strength for a rock mass containing
two orthogonal sets of fractures, A and B, the strengths of which
are CA = 100 kPa, ~A = 20 ° and CB -- 0 °, ~B = 35% when the minor
principal stress has the value 10 MPa. The intact rock strength is
again given by ~1 - 75 + 5.29o3.
(b) How would this strength variation change if the minor principal
stress were reduced to zero?

A8.6 (a) For fracture set A only, the locus of rock strengths (see next
page) has been generated using the single plane of weakness formula in
Section 8.1.
The strength locus for fracture set B only, is similar, although the
minimal strength is higher than that for fracture set A.
To obtain the strength locus for a rock mass containing both sets of
fractures, we superimpose the strength loci for the two fracture sets
and take the minimal strength at each /Jw angle, i.e. the envelope of
130 Rock masses: deformability, strength and failure

140
IX
120

""
D'I 100
t-
I11
'.- 80
t~
60
E
.~ 40
0
~ 20

0 I I I I I I I I I
0 30 60 90
Inclination of discontinuity normal to major principal Strength locus of
stress axis fracture set A

140
IX,
120
t,.,.
100
t"
L
.,-, 80

60
E
"
o
40
O
~ 20

I I I I I I I I I

0 30 60 90

Inclination of discontinuity normal to major principal Strength locus of

stress axis fracture set B

minimal strengths. However, in the rock mass, the two fracture sets are
orthogonal, and so, w h e n we superimpose the two curves to determine
the lowest strengths of the rock mass, we must apply an offset of + 90 °
to the values of flw for fracture set B, as indicated in the sketch below.

..........................................
I ......................................... ::....................................................
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.....
J !iiili~J,'i~',~',i'iJi~:~:~':ilM'~i
:" !:i! ii~i!i~'~i!i~,i~{,i!!i}:!i!i~,~i!ili',i!'~i~'~i',: ili~i;~ii~ii~ili}'~:i'~'~:~':i'~i i~i'i~:i :i i~ili|i~ii iiiii ~i i i i',i~i!~i ili!iiil!i
~
Sli~I:S ..:,ii i ~!~ii ::::iill!i! ~|i i!il !~ %~,,~,'~i!iiliiiii!iiiii!i#ii!iii
~::~::~::::~!::~::::~::~
....... .~i::::~::~i~::~:::::::-~::
....... i~i~ii~i~iii:::~::~i
:::::~: ~~:::::~~:
! li i i i i i i i i i i~i i ~i i~i i !i ~i i
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.... .v.'::.. :~".... ~Iiii:: !~!i:ii!iiii~j
.i ii ~ii
~:~s~:~:}~s~:s~:~:~:........ ,-~: 0 "3 ,~Oi',!iiii
. . . . . ~~!]i!i~,~il~,~i~i~i~,i;~i~,'~i~;~ %
set A !ii}~!!!ii~!i~i!~i..i.~.......i.!.@i
...i.!i.i.!.i {i
Fract

Superimposing the two strength loci in this manner, the strength

variation for the rock mass containing the two fracture sets over the full
range of/3w, 0° to 360 °, is shown below. The lower strength envelope is
 Q u e s t i o n s a n d answers: r o c k masses 131

the heavier line in the 0° to 180° range in the plot below.

F r a c t u r e set A F r a c t u r e set B
140
=E
¢- 120 , I i 7 - I i [ ' ' ~
100
C
•- 80
lli/ II ! !/i! / i
m 60
T\t i I
,i
! il! i / i
x, i / x t l i t ',. i i
m 40
E
20
0
o I~ Locus of rock mass strength '" ....................."
n.. 0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

Inclination of d i s c o n t i n u i t y to m a j o r principal stress axis

(b) To assess the effect of the minor principal stress, which can be
considered as a confining pressure, we repeat the procedure in (a) but
with the minor principal stress reduced from 10 MPa to 0 MPa.
For fracture set A, the strength locus (see below) is obtained. Note the
dramatic reduction in strength in the region of/Tw = (90 + 4bw)/2 - 55°.
This is because the rock mass, acting as two blocks and without any
confining stress, is much more susceptible to the effect of the major
principal stress.
80
A

Dm
. 70

,,E 60

c 50
L
(. 40

m 30
E
20
tO
0
Iz: 10
I ~-~ " I I I I J ,

0 30 60 90
Inclination of discontinuity normal to major principal Strength locus of
stress axis fracture set A
Forfracture set B, the strength locus is shown on the next page. The lack
of the confining stress and the zero cohesion cause the strength locus to
manifest a sudden change as/Tw passes the 4bwvalue of 35 °.
The superimposition of the two strength loci for fracture sets A and
B, together with the lower strength envelope is shown in the plot below.
Comparison with the equivalent curves for part (a) of the answer shows
that the confining stress has had a significant effect in strengthening the
rock mass to being always above 20 MPa strength.
Note that, with the exception of/Tw angles close to 0°, 90°, 180° and 270 °,
the rock mass strength (the heavier line) is virtually zero. Since the peaks
at these orientations are too narrow to have any engineering significance,
the rock mass strength has been reduced to almost zero by the presence of
the two sets of fractures. This example demonstrates the significant loss
of strength that occurs when fractures dissect the rock mass.
132 Rock masses: deformability, strength and failure

A
80

a. 70

.c 60

"
G}
50

40
U}
30
E
20
O

10
! I L , ,

0 10 30 50 70 90
Inclination of discontinuity normal to major principal Strength locus of
stress axis fracture set B

Fracture set A Fracture set B

80 /
~" 7 0
~_.
,-- 6 0
w,
l/
1, 'r1
0'1
,-- 5 0
L

= 40
30 i
E 20
o 10
0
~_J k..__ i1aS
......

180
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ji
~...........

270
',

a lS
..... J

a60
clination of discontinuity to major principal stress axis
Locus of rock mass strength

Q8.7 When a rock mass contains a large number of fracture sets

and each set has similar strength properties, the rock mass strength
can tend to become isotropic, with the multiple plane of weakness
theory generating an approximately isotropic strength criterion.
Develop such a criterion for the 2-D case of a rock mass that
contains four sets of fractures mutually inclined at 45 °, the shear
strengths of which are given by a linear Mohr-Coulomb criterion
with c - 100 kPa and ~w = 30 °. The intact rock strength is given
by ~1 = 75 + 5.29~3. Assume that the minor principal stress, ~3, is
10 MPa.

A8.7 Each fracture set has strength p a r a m e t e r s of c = 100 kPa and

q)w -- 30 °. The rock mass strength variation as a function of m a x i m u m
principal stress orientation for one such fracture set is s h o w n below.
To investigate the strength of the rock mass, we n e e d to examine
the case for the four fracture sets w i t h relative orientations of 0 °, +45 °
and 90 ° . S u p e r i m p o s i n g four of the curves while a p p l y i n g the necessary
offsets, and examining the range of/~w for 0-360 °, we obtain the follow-
 Questions and answers: rock masses 133
A
m 140
120
~ 100
= 80
i
w ~ (90 + ~w)/2 = 60 °
~ 60
~ 40
E 20
~
0
0
0 10 30 50 70 90
Inclination of discontinuity normal to
major principal s t r e s s a x i s

ing diagram, with the heavier line indicating the composite rock mass
strength.
140.0

120.0

l~. 100.0

80.0
i /l I r ' i /j
60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0 i L J i i I i i i i i i

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

orientation, degrees

The increasing influence of 1, 2, 3 or 4 such fracture sets being present

in the rock mass can be studied by introducing the sets one by one,
i.e. as in the polar diagrams on the next page, with fracture sets being
introduced progressively with offsets of 0 °, 45 °, 90 ° and 135 °.
Note that the rock mass strength tends to become more isotropic and
that the m e a n rock mass strength decreases with an increasing n u m b e r
of fracture sets. Here we have assumed that the four fracture sets all have
the same values of cohesion and friction angle, but the same tendencies
occur for the composite effect of fracture sets with different geometrical
and mechanical properties.

Q8.8 How does the significant effect of fractures on the rock mass
strength indicate some of the differences between rock mechanics
and soil mechanics?

A 8 . 8 Rock is a strong solid material containing fractures which are often

of a similar size to the engineering structure. Soil is a w e a k particulate
material with grain sizes m u c h smaller than the engineering structure.
Rock failure is often initiated by weaknesses in the rock mass and, as
has been seen by the answers to previous questions in this section, the
134 Rock masses: deformability, strength and failure
0 0
14o.oT

27t3 90 270: '. , ~ :90

180 180

One fracture set Two fracture sets

0 0
140.ol 140"0l
12ool 120.0
100.0l lOOOl
80.0l 80.0 ]
60.0 l 60.0 l

270, 90 270: : ',,. : : ' 90

180 180

Three fracture sets Four fracture sets

presence of fractures has a significant effect on the rock mass strength.

Moreover, the fractures determine the location and orientation of the
failure surfaces. In a particulate soil, there are effectively weaknesses at
all locations and at all orientations, so the failure location and orientation
are often governed not by the soil structure, but by the geometry of the
stress field.
Rock mechanics - i n t a c t rock plus
~" 140 fractures, anisotropic, failure
120 ~ ~ - ~ location and orientation governed by
" 100 pre-existing weakness in the rock
mass
"m 80
~w 60 Soil m e c h a n i c s - more isotropic and
= 40 weaker material, failure location and
w
E 20 orientation governed by stress field
I I I I I I I I I
30 60 90
I n c l i n a t i o n of d i s c o n t i n u i t y n o r m a l to
major principal stress axis

It is useful to bear these ideas in mind when dealing with a weak

rock or strong soil, such as shale and chalk, or severely weathered rocks.
 Questions and answers: rock masses 135

These materials m a y not be a m e n a b l e to either s t a n d a r d rock mechanics

or s t a n d a r d soil mechanics approaches because they exhibit transitional
b e h a v i o u r b e t w e e n the two m o d e s described above.

Q8.9 The p e a k strength of a poor-quality, closely jointed and

weathered granite may be represented by the H o e k - B r o w n cri-
terion, a l - a3 + ~/maca3 + Sac2, with m = 1.3 and s - 0.00001.
The uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock material is
estimated as ac - 40 MPa, and the residual strength of the fractures
is given by Cr = 0, ~r = 1 5 °.
(a) Plot, in T - a space, the expected p e a k shear strength envelopes
for the intact rock material, a fracture at residual strength, and the
jointed rock mass for normal stresses up to 10 MPa.
(b) The H o e k - B r o w n criterion is to be used for the analysis of
potential circular slopes cut in the rock mass. Determine values of
instantaneous cohesion and friction angle for normal stresses up to
10 MPa.

A8.9 In order to d e t e r m i n e the instantaneous values of friction angle

and cohesion w e m u s t convert the principal stress form of the H o e k -
Brown criterion into a shear s t r e s s - n o r m a l stress space form. D u r i n g the
d e v e l o p m e n t of the H o e k - B r o w n criterion m a n y techniques have been
p r o p o s e d for doing this (Hoek and Brown, 1980, 1988; Hoek, 19906),
b u t for the basic H o e k - B r o w n criterion of al - a3 + a c ~ / m ( a 3 / ¢ c ) + s,
the simplest m e t h o d is to use the following relations (Hoek a n d Brown,
1988 6)
16(ma+sac) (8.1)
h - 1 q- -~- m2ac

0 - ~ Q + arctan ~/h3-------~l

4)i - arctan ~/4h cos 2 0 1

m a c (1 - sin 4)i)
r = (8.4)
8 tan ~bi
In Eq. (8.2), if the angles are e v a l u a t e d in degrees then Q = 90 °, and if
the angles are e v a l u a t e d in radians then Q = Jr/2.
Finally, substitution of @ and r from Eqs. (8.3) and (8.4) into the linear
M o h r - C o u l o m b criterion gives the instantaneous cohesion as
Ci -- r -- (7 tan ~i. (8.5)

6 Hoek E. and Brown E. T. (1980) Underground Excavations in Rock. Institution of Mining

and Metallurgy, London, 527pp. See also Hoek E. (1990) Estimating Mohr-Coulomb
friction and cohesion values from the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci., 27, 3, 227-229, and Hoek E. and Brown E. T. (1988) Hoek-Brown failure
criterion- a 1988 update. Proc. 15th Canadian Rock Mech. Symp. University of Toronto,
ON, pp. 31-38.
136 Rock masses: deformability, strength and failure

Evaluating these equations for a range of values of normal stress, with

values of ~c - 40 MPa, m - 1.3 and s = 0.00001, gives the following
results.

(MPa) 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0

h 1.000 1.051 1.103 1.256 1.513 1.769 2.026
0 (rad) 1.04 0.92 0.87 0.79 0.71 0.67 0.64
~i (rad) 1.43 0.93 0.83 0.68 0.57 0.50 0.45
~i (deg) 82.1 53.6 47.7 39.2 32.5 28.7 26.0
r (MPa) 0.009 0.938 1.542 2.938 4.721 6.191 7.479
ci (MPa) 0.00 0.26 0.44 0.90 1.54 2.09 2.60

In addition to the weathered granite, we can use values of m = 25 and

s = 1 to plot the criterion for the intact granite. The results of this are
shown in the following table.

(MPa) 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0

h 1.009 1 . 0 1 1 1.014 1.022 1.035 1.049 1.062
0 (rad) 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.91
~i (rad) 1.15 1.12 1.10 1.05 0.99 0.94 0.91
~i (deg) 65.9 64.3 63.0 60.0 56.5 54.0 52.0
r (MPa) 4.852 5.929 6.938 9.692 13.719 17.319 20.637
ci (MPa) 4.85 4.89 4.98 5.37 6.16 6.99 7.82

Finally, to plot the criterion for the fractures, we use the Mohr-Coulomb
strength parameters given. The results of these calculations are shown in
the plots below.
25.0

Intact granite
20.0

Q.
15.0

o~ 10.0
¢..
09

5.0
.. -.- ~ " "" Fractures

0,0 -f"

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

Normal stress, MPa

For the more general form of the Hoek-Brown criterion, i.e.

¢1 = ¢3 + r~c[m(¢3/~¢) + s] a, a more sophisticated analysis is required
than that presented here. This makes use of linear regression through
pairs of (o3, ¢1) data that satisfy the Hoek-Brown criterion to generate
equivalent values of (m r) for the Mohr-Coulomb criterion. Further
details of this technique are given in Hoek (1990).
 Questions and answers: rock masses 137

90 9.00
Weathered granite: dashed lines
m 80 8.00
Intact granite: solid lines t~
O.
m 70
"0 I
7.00 ~
c"
0
~
c-
60 6.00 "~
t-
O
c0 50 5.00 o
0
& 40 4.00
C

0
m
c-
30 friction angle . . . . . . . . . 3.00 ""
t~
o~
c-
c 20 2.00 --

c 10 1.00

I I I I 0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Normal stress, MPa

Q8.10 To study the influence of fracture persistence, consider a rock

mass containing two fracture sets, A and B, mutually inclined at
45 °, as shown to the right. Fracture set A is continuous and contains B -~0"1
clay infilling, while fracture set B is rough, clean and intermittent
with a "two-dimensional proportional extent of fracturing" of 0.5. A
Plot the expected p e a k strength of this rock mass as a function of ~ 4"~G3
the orientation of the principal stresses to the fracture directions,
for a minor principal stress of 5 MPa and given the following p e a k B A
strength characteristics: 1~0-1
Intact rock: (x ~ = 75 -t- 5.29a 3
Fracture set A: c = 100 kPa, ~ = 20 °,
Fracture set B: c = 0, ~ - 35 °

A 8 . 1 0 The key to answering this question is replacing the shear strength

of fracture set B with an effective shear strength that is a w e i g h t e d
average of the intact rock and joint parameters

-- ~ + an (tanq~)
= [XCBq-(1 -- X) Ci] q-On [X tanq~B 4- (1 -- X) tant~/]
where X is a fracture" intact rock proportionality constant. In this case,
w e have X - 0.5.
We require the shear strength parameters of the intact rock in a - r
space. The strength criterion has been given in principal stress space in
the question, but is easily converted using the equation
O"1 - - (2c cos ~) / (1 - sin ~b) + (1 + sin 4~)/ (1 - sin ~ ) 3 3 .

Comparing this relation with the given strength criterion, w e see that
5.29 - (1 4- sinai)/(1 - sinqh) =, sin ~bi = 4.29/6.29 =, 4~i = 43 ° and hence
2ci COS43 75 (1 -- sin 43)
75 = =~ ci -- = 16.3 MPa
1 - sin 43 2 cos 43
To find the strength parameters for the intermittent fracture set, w e
combine the values obtained for c / a n d q)/together with the given values
138 Rock masses: deformability, strength and failure

for the strength parameters of fracture set B to find

= [0.5 x 0.0 + (1 - 0 . 5 ) x 16.3] = 8.15 MPa
and
tan q~ = [0.5 x tan 35 + (1 - 0 . 5 ) x tan 43] = 0.8164 =, q~ -- 39.2 °
Having n o w found the appropriate strength parameters for the inter-
mittent fracture set, the analysis proceeds as in A8.6 and A8.7 with the
results shown below.
120
O,.
lOO
,JE
o~ 80

*" 60

~ 40
E
~U 20
0
m
0
0 3o c;o 9'0
Inclination of discontinuity normal to major Fracture set A:
principal axis cA - 100 kPa and ~A = 20
~ , 120

m.. ~oo
80
C
L
•W" 60

m 40
E
-~ 20
0
n-
O

0 30 60 90
Inclination of discontinuity normal to major F r a c t u r e set B:
principal axis ~" -- 8.15 MPa and ~ - 39.2 °
These diagrams are for each set in isolation. In the rock mass we have
fib = 45 ° w h e n /~a = 0 °, and so, using set A as the reference, a - 4 5 °
shift must be applied to fi to bring the two sets to a c o m m o n co-ordinate
system. The resulting plot is as shown on the next page with the heavier
line indicating the composite rock mass strength.
Note that in the second and fourth quadrants, i.e. 90-180 ° and 270-
360 °, the strength of the rock mass is only controlled by set A.

8.3 Additional points

We have emphasized that the fractures are the dominant feature gov-
erning rock mass behaviour. These fractures dominate the rock mass
geometry, deformation modulus, strength, failure behaviour, permeabil-
ity, and even the local magnitudes and directions of the in situ stress field.
There is, however, considerable complexity inherent in the geometrical
and mechanical properties of rock mass fracture systems, which should
be taken into account in direct modelling of the specific fractures. For
 Additional points 139

Fracture set A
~ Fracture set B
120

" 100 1
,,¢
•,-'
e-
80 !II i
" 60
~ 40 I ~1 ~Envel°l~e°f i ]!
| I~ .lowest~;trength. I ]i /
0 /1
o 20 \..... ................... .jl k
,. .......................... .,,/

I I I I I I I I I I I I

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Inclination of discontinuity normal to major principal stress axis

e x a m p l e , t h e i n f l u e n c e of t h e f r a c t u r e s o n r o c k m a s s s t r e n g t h w h i c h w e
h a v e h i g h l i g h t e d in this c h a p t e r h a s b e e n e x t e n d e d v b y A m a d e i (1988)
to 3-D a n d to i n c l u d e t h e effect of t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e p r i n c i p a l stress.
W h e n a r o c k m a s s is l o a d e d , as in Fig. 8.5, w e are i n t e r e s t e d in t h e
m a n n e r in w h i c h it w i l l d e f o r m , h o w m u c h it w i l l d e f o r m , w h e n f a i l u r e
w i l l occur, a n d w h a t w i l l h a p p e n after failure. Similarly, if a n e x c a v a t i o n ,
s u c h as a t u n n e l , is c r e a t e d in t h e r o c k m a s s , w e are i n t e r e s t e d in t h e
s a m e factors. But, b e c a u s e of t h e c o m p l e x i t y of t h e r o c k m a s s a n d t h e

• ....... ~i~i; i~:::..... . .......~ • ~'i ..... ~ ~'~;~,...........

~ ~•..:~......
i' •. . . . . . . . . . . .
I. ~{.~ !!~¢. ..~i~i~;~!.................. ~I
.....ii:'.i~!i~:, IL...~ ~!

• ~ ........... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . •

~i~i~ ~ ':!~...... ~:~i~i~:~, ~...:..~.~,~.~

....
, ,. . . . . . . . . . . . .

~i~.. ~.... ~~!~:. i!i!:~'~ ~....... :' ~..i~'.,~ ~~,~v;~' .~,.C!'iiiii

i~......
:.i ./!i ....... ~"~ .~.~'~:".......s~;?~%:~:~,~i~:,
.:~" ..::..:~

I I
Figure 8.5 Load applied to a rock mass.
' I
v Amadei B. (1988) Strength of a regularly jointed rock mass under biaxial and
axisymmetric loading. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 25, 1, 3-13.
140 Rock masses: deformability, strength and failure

difficulty of obtaining detailed information, simplified approaches have

been adopted.
The use of rock mass classification methods for evaluating rock mass
modulus (Q and A8.4), and the rock mass strength (Q and A8.9) can
provide good estimates. However, it is important to understand the
factors that govern rock mass deformability and strength in order to be
able to assess the validity of these simplified approaches in a given prac-
tical situation. We have highlighted this understanding in the questions
and answers in this chapter.
A further point is what happens to the rock mass after its strength has
been reached? The principles outlined in Section 6.1, A6.1 and A6.6 for
intact rock also apply to rock masses. Whether the rock mass failure will
be abrupt or progressive depends critically on whether it is being loaded
by a'soft' or'stiff' system.