1 | Introduction

ESTIMATING ROCK
MASS PROPERTIES

Robert Bertuzzi i
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

First Published 2019

Copyright © Robert Bertuzzi

This book is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research,
criticism or review, no part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the publisher

Published in Australia in 2019 by Robert Bertuzzi

PSM, Unit G3 56 Delhi Rd North Ryde New South Wales Australia

ISBN 978-0-6484420-1-1

ii
 1 | Introduction

ESTIMATING ROCK
MASS PROPERTIES

Robert Bertuzzi

iii
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

Foreword

An undergound excavation designer works with This book is written from, and directed
limited resources: time and budget, and generally towards, a practitioner’s view. It is essentially
with very limited data. The designer needs robust the authors PhD thesis:
guidelines for selecting intact rock strength criteria, Bertuzzi R. Rock mass properties for tunnelling.
for assessing fracture stiffness, for classifying a rock PhD Thesis, School of Civil and Environmental
mass and for estimating rock mass parameters suitable Engineering, UNSW Australia, 2017.
for their design.
Throughout this book, the science of rock mechanics
is examined, critiqued, and distilled within the overall
aim of constructing guidelines with the specific aim
of improving the estimate of rock mass strength and
elastic parameters for underground design.

iv

Contents
Foreword iv
Contents v
List of Tables viii
List of Figures x
Appendices xv
Symbols xvi
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Format 1
2 INTACT ROCK STRENGTH 3
2.1 Outline 3
2.2 Two dimensional criteria 5
2.2.1 Mohr-Coulomb 5
2.2.2 Griffith and Modified
Griffith 5
2.2.3 Bieniawski 6
2.2.4 Barton 6
2.2.5 Hoek & Brown 6
2.2.6 You 8
2.3 Three dimensional criteria 8
2.3.1 Drucker-Prager 8
2.3.2 Modified Wiebols & Cook 8
2.3.3 Lade 9
2.3.4 Modified Lade 11
2.3.5 Extension strain 11
2.3.6 3D Hoek-Brown 11
2.3.7 Christensen 12
2.3.8 You 13
2.3.9 Other 13
2.4 Comparisons 14
2.4.1 Colmenares & Zoback 14
2.4.2 Kwasniewski 14
2.4.3 Curve fitting 16
2.5 Computer simulation 17
2.6 Conclusions 17
3 DEFECT PARAMETERS 19
3.1 Outline 19
3.2 Strength 19
3.2.1 Patton 19
3.2.2 Barton-Bandis 20
3.2.3 Summary 21
3.3 Stiffness 22
1 | Introduction
3.3.1 Tight defects 22
3.3.2 Defects with thick infill 22
3.3.3 General defects 22
3.3.4 Summary 24
3.4 Hawkesbury Sandstone and
Ashfield Shale 24
3.4.1 Shear strength 25
3.4.2 Stiffness 26
3.4.3 Sheared length 27
3.5 Conclusions 27
3.5.1 Strength 27
3.5.2 Stiffness 29
4 ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION 31
4.1 Outline 31
4.2 Q 31
4.3 GSI 35
4.3.1 Chart 36
4.3.2 Quantification 39
4.4 Limitations 41
4.5 Conclusions 43
5 ROCK MASS STRENGTH CRITERIA 45
5.1 Outline 45
5.2 Massive brittle rock 45
5.3 Coal 47
5.3.1 A brittle rock 47
5.3.2 Coal pillar strength 48
5.4 Plane of weakness 51
5.5 Barton shear strength 52
5.6 Hoek & Brown shear strength 52
5.6.1 Criterion 52
5.6.2 Limitations 54
5.7 CWFS 56
5.8 SRM 56
5.8.1 Calibration 57
5.8.2 Limitations 57
5.9 Conclusions 58
6 ROCK MASS MODULUS 59
6.1 Outline 59
6.2 Modulus Ratio 60
6.3 Data 62
6.3.1 Reliability 62
v
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
Contents
6.3.2 Sources 63
6.4 Classification systems 63
6.4.1 RQD 63
6.4.2 RMR 64
6.4.3 Q 69
6.4.4 GSI 69
6.4.5 Other 70
6.4.6 Collated data 73
6.4.7 Conclusion 74
9 GSI CHARTS 123
6.5 Equivalent continua 75
6.6 Compliant inclusions 76
6.6.1 Geophysics 76
6.6.2 Rock mechanics 76
6.6.3 Application 77
6.7 Illustrative cases 79
6.7.1 Ashfield Shale & Hawkesbury
Sandstone 79
6.7.2 Lac du Bonnet Granite 82
6.7.3 Classification systems 84
6.7.4 Equivalent continua 86
6.7.5 Compliant inclusions 87
6.8 Conclusions 89
7 BACK-ANALYSIS OF ROCK MASS
MODULUS 91
7.1 Outline 91
7.2 Theory 91
7.2.1 Isotropy 91
7.2.2 Anisotropy 92
7.2.3 Methodology 93
7.3 Case Studies 94
7.3.1 M2 Tunnel 95
7.3.2 Castle Hill Crossover Cavern 97
7.4 Conclusion 98
8 INTACT ROCK TEST DATA 99
8.1 Outline 99
8.2 Data 100
8.2.1 Mostyn & Douglas 100
8.2.2 Artificial 102
8.2.3 Tunnelling Projects 102
8.2.4 Colmenares & Zoback 110
8.2.5 Kwasniewski 113
8.2.6 Summary 113
vi
8.3 Results 113
8.3.1 Mostyn & Douglas 113
8.3.2 Artificial 119
8.3.3 Tunnelling Projects 119
8.3.4 Colmenares & Zoback 119
8.3.5 Kwasniewski 120
8.4 Discussion 120
8.5 Conclusions 121
9.1 Outline 123
9.2 Sydney 129
9.2.1 Hawkesbury Sandstone 129
9.2.2 Ashfield Shale 129
9.2.3 Sydney rock mass
classification 129
9.2.4 Field data validation 131
9.2.5 Classification 135
9.3 Reefton 137
9.3.1 Geology 137
9.3.2 Field data 137
9.3.3 Classification 138
9.4 Macraes 139
9.4.1 Geology 139
9.4.2 Field data 139
9.4.3 Classification 141
9.5 Quantification of GSI 141
9.6 Conclusions 145
10 TUNNELS IN HAWKESBURY
SANDSTONE CASE STUDIES 147
10.1 Outline 147
10.2 Upper Canal Tunnels 149
10.2.1 Geology 149
10.2.2 Cataract 149
10.2.3 Devines 155
10.2.4 Numerical modelling 156
10.3 Malabar 161
10.3.1 Description 161
10.3.2 Numerical modelling 162
10.4 Sydney LPG Storage Cavern 165
10.4.1 Description 165
10.4.2 Numerical modelling 166
10.5 Northside Storage Tunnel 169
 1 | Introduction

Contents

10.5.1 Description 169 12.2.2 Limestone 250

10.5.2 Numerical modelling 169 12.2.3 Iron ore 254
10.6 Cross City Tunnel 174 12.2.4 Sandstone 256
10.6.1 Description 174 12.3 Laboratory samples 256
10.6.2 Numerical modelling 175 12.3.1 Stripa granite 256
10.7 Lane Cove Tunnel 177 12.3.2 Lac du Bonnet granite 259
10.7.1 Description 177 12.3.3 Artificially jointed granite 260
10.7.2 Numerical modelling 177 12.3.4 Quartzite 262
10.8 Results 180 12.3.5 Phyllite 262
10.9 Discussion 187 12.3.6 Other 265
10.10 Conclusions 187 12.4 Ok Tedi core testing 266
12.4.1 GSI 266
11 COAL PILLAR CASE STUDIES 191 12.4.2 Intact rock properties 267
11.1 Outline 191
12.5 Disturbance Factor 269
11.2 Data 191
12.6 GSI relationships 270
11.2.1 Australia 191
12.6.1 Validation 274
11.2.2 South Africa 194
12.7 Conclusions 277
11.2.3 USA 206
11.2.4 India 211 13 DISL – COAL 279
11.2.5 Combined 213 13.1 Outline 279
11.2.6 Other 214 13.2 Background 280
11.3 UCS 216 13.3 Conclusions 290
11.3.1 Australia 216
11.3.2 South Africa 216
14 REFERENCES 291
11.3.3 USA 217 APPENDICES 300
11.3.4 India 217
11.3.5 UK 217
11.3.6 China 217
11.3.7 Conclusion 217
11.4 Numerical modelling 219
11.4.1 Parameters 219
11.4.2 Generic cases 219
11.4.3 Australia 226
11.4.4 South Africa 229
11.4.5 USA 233
11.4.6 India 237
11.5 Discussion 238
11.6 Conclusions 243

12 ROCK MASS STRENGTH 245

12.1 Outline 245
12.1.1 Variability 245
12.2 Mine pillars 246
12.2.1 Metamorphic 246

vii
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
List of tables
1.1 Rock mass types 2
2.1 Strength criteria for intact rock or
rock mass 4
2.2 Values of A and B 10
2.3 Poly-axial data used by various
researchers 15
2.4 Hoek-Brown parameters from
best fitting curves 16
3.1 Surface roughness contribution 20
3.2 Examples of joint stiffness values 24
4.1 Case records of rock types used to
develop the Q system 32
4.2 The ESR values 34
4.3 Parameters used in RMR 35
4.4 Components of JCond89 36
4.5 Terms to describe large-scale
waviness Jw 40
4.6 Terms to describe small-scale
roughness JS 40
4.7 Terms to describe joint alteration
factor JA 40
5.1 Massive, brittle rock failure criterion 45
5.2 Original ‘rock mass’ database 53
6.1 The tests carried out to assess the
rock mass modulus 64
6.2 Case histories 65
6.3 In situ results from plate bearing tests 66
6.4 Goodman borehole jack tests results 67
6.5 In situ modulus collated 72
6.6 Typical Parameters 83
6.7 Rock mass modulus predicted from
correlations UCS, RQD, RMR, Q
and GSI 86
6.8 Prediction of rock mass modulus using
Kulhawy and Zhang equations 87
6.9 Prediction of rock mass modulus using
Hudson and David & Zimmerman 88
viii
7.1 
Ea /E values for various E/E’ and G/G’
ratios at θ = 0 and 90° 94
8.1 The rock types that are contained
within the laboratory test results
database 100
8.2 The datasets with more than 20 test
results 101
8.3 Artificial intact rock data set 102
8.4 The r2 and SEE [MPa] values obtained
from curve-fitting 118
8.5 The r2 values obtained from
curve-fitting the artificial test data 119
8.6 The r2 values obtained from
curve-fitting the data from
tunnelling projects 119
8.7 The misfit values 120
8.8 The correlation obtained from
Kwasniewski (2013) 120
9.1 Sydney Classification System 129
9.2 Suggested conditions for tunnelling
projects 130
9.3 Variability in strength and spacing as
recorded in the drill hole database 133
9.4 Variability in the defect
characteristics as recorded in the
drill hole database 113
9.5 Typical and adverse conditions of
defects in Hawkesbury Sandstone 134
9.6 Typical and adverse conditions of
defects in Ashfield Shale 134
9.7 Reefton rock mass classes 138
9.8 Macraes rock mass classes 140
9.9 Comparison of quantified GSI and
that obtained from its chart 142
9.10 Comparison of the GSI quantified
following the method of Cai et al 145
11.1 Summary of the UNSW Coal Pillar
Database 192
11.2 Details of the UNSW Coal Pillar
Database 193
 1 | Introduction

List of tables

11.3 Summary of the South African coal
pillar database 194
11.4 Details of the South African Coal
Pillar Database – Collapsed cases 195
11.5 Details of the South African Coal Pillar
Database – Un-collapsed cases 198
11.6 Summary of the USA coal pillar
database 206
11.7 Details of the USA coal pillar
database – Collapsed cases 207
11.8 Details of the USA coal pillar
database – Un-collapsed cases 208
11.9 Summary of the Indian coal pillar
database 211
11.10 Details of the Indian coal pillar
database 212
11.11 Summary of the combined
coal pillar database 214
11.12 Summary of coal UCS data 218
11.13 Summary of compressive strength
of 1m3 coal samples 218
11.14 Summary of coal Hoek-Brown
parameters that have been
used by others 218
11.15 Summary of average FoS
from Abaqus modelling of
pillar geometries 221
11.16 FoS results from UNSW method 222
11.17 Recommended widths of 2 m high,
square pillars 222
11.18 Pillar widths recommended 223
11.19 Comparison of FoS 225
11.20 Subset of the South African coal pillar
database used in modelling 229
11.21 Subset of the USA coal pillar
database used in modelling 233
12.4 Summary of RMR of NIOSH limestone
mine database 251
12.5 Summary of iron ore pillar collapses 254
12.6 RMR for the large granite core 257
12.7 Laboratory testing of 52 mm core
of the Stripa granite 258
12.8 Summary of other laboratory testing
of 52 mm core of Stripa granite 258
12.9 Summary of the UCS for the
intact rock and for the rock mass 265
12.10 Hoek-Brown parameters for the
limestone and hornfels test results 267
12.11 Broad categories of the Disturbance
Factor, D, for the rock mass
databases 269
12.12 Summary of the data used 270
12.13 Comparison of proposed
relationships 271
12.14 Hoek-Brown criterion parameters
based on the GSI relationships 274
13.1 Details of the coal pillar cases
which do not conform to the
DISL envelope 288

12.1 Hard rock pillar database 246

12.2 Mining dimensions of NIOSH
limestone mine database 250
12.3  UCS testing of NIOSH limestone
mine database 250

ix
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
List of Figures
2.1  UCS test results of Sydney’s Hawkesbury
Sandstone 3
2.2 Shear strength relationships for intact
rock through to infilled defects 6
2.3 Comparison of direct tensile strength
tests with BTS 7
2.4 3D failure surface 9
2.5 Empirical relationship between m and η1 10
2.6 Variation of the parameters η1 and m
with the ratio σc/σt 10
2 7 Laboratory test results of
Blair Dolomite 13
2.8 Conceptual strength envelope for
intact rock 14
2.9 Sari (2012) data with curve generated
following Mostyn and Douglas (2000) 17
2.10 Poly-axial test data 17
3.1 Theoretical bi-linear peak shear
strength of a defect from Patton 19
3.2 Plot of JRCn versus JRC0 for joint
lengths varying from 1 m to 100 m 21
3.3 Relationship between peak dilation
angle 21
3.4 Theoretical behaviour of a defect under
compression, tension and shear loading 22
3.5 Influence factor, β, as a function of layer
thickness (h) and loading area (L, B) 23
3.6 Experimental evidence for scale effect
on defect shear stiffness 23
3.7 Direct shear tests results for bedding
and joints in Hawkesbury Sandstone 25
3.8 Direct shear tests results for bedding
and joints in Ashfield Shale 25
3.9 Inferred shear stiffness for bedding and
joints within Hawkesbury Sandstone 26
3.10 Inferred shear stiffness for bedding
and joints within Ashfield Shale 26
3.11 Normal stiffness kn as function of
bedding spacing 27
3.12 Shear stiffness versus defect length 28
3.13 The data from Figure 3.12 plotted
over Figure 3.6 28
3.14 The product ks•L 28
x
4.1 The original data set upon which
the Q system is based 31
4.2 The bolt spacing used in case histories 33
4.3 Q-chart 33
4.4 Approximate relationship between
Jr / Ja and apparent ‘shear strength’ 34
4.5 Approximate relationship between Jr
and JRC for 0.2 and 1 m long defects 35
4.6 Chart that linked a geological description,
GSI and the Hoek-Brown criterion 36
4.7 Original GSI chart 37
4.8 Various rock mass problem scales 38
4.9 The changing sketches depicting the
rock mass structure 38
4.10 Ranges of GSI for various qualities of
peridotite-serpentinite rock masses 39
4.11 Quartzite rock mass downstream of the
Ord Diversion Dam, Western Australia 41
4.12 Revised GSI chart 42
4.13 Comparison of the range covered
by RQD 43
5.1 Correlation between estimated minimum
in situ strengths and crack initiation 46
5.2 Curved strength envelope 46
5.3 Tensile crack initiation (CI) stress
versus UCS for various rock types 46
5.4 Coal triaxial test data 47
5.5 Plan view of coal pillar geometry 49
5.6 Measured pillar stress from various
pillar geometries 50
5.7 Variation of peak strength as a
function of defect dip 52
5 8 Shear strength relationships 52
5.9 Relationships between RMR and the
parameters mb & s 53
5.10 The influence of scale on the type of
rock mass behaviour model 54
5.11 Variation of Hoek-Brown parameters
for spall-prone rocks with mi = 20 55
5.12 The range over which GSI can be used
to predict the H-B strength parameters 55

List of Figures
5.13 Cohesion-weakening and
frictional-strengthening (CWFS) 56
5.14 UDEC model for UCS tests on Lac du
Bonnet granite and Aspo Diorite 57
5.15 Scaling of UCS values to block size 57
5.16  UCS tests on seven different
sedimentary rocks 57
6.1 Variation of intact Young’s Modulus
to intact UCS 59
6.2 Variation of modulus with shear strain 60
6.3 Intact modulus plotted against UCS 60
6.4 Intact modulus plotted against UCS for
Ashfield Shale, Hawkesbury Sandstone 61
6.5 Intact modulus plotted against UCS
data for Hawkesbury Sandstone 62
6.6 The intact modulus plotted against
UCS data for Ashfield Shale . 62
6.7 Correlation between RQD and Em/Er 63
6.8 Measured in situ rock mass modulus of
deformation against RMR76 64
6.9 Measured in situ rock mass modulus of
deformation against RMR76 65
6.10 Measured in situ rock mass modulus from
plate bearing tests against RMR76 66
6.11 Deformation modulus obtained from
Goodman borehole jacking tests 66
6.12 Deformation modulus obtained from
plate bearing tests 68
6.13 Rock mass modulus and ratio of
rock mass to intact rock modulus 68
6.14 In situ modulus against RMR for the
Gotvand dam site 69
6.15 Correlation between rock mass
modulus and Q 69
6.16 Measured rock mass modulus of
deformation against GSI 70
6.17 Comparison of Equation 6.4 with
the rock mass modulus data 70
6.18 In situ modulus versus GSI 71
6.19 Plate load test results of in situ
modulus against GSI 71
6.20 In situ modulus versus RMR76 71
6.21 Comparison of measured and
predicted in situ modulus 71
6.22 Collated in situ modulus versus GSI 73
1 | Introduction
6.23 Range of in situ modulus versus GSI 74
6.24 Range of in situ modulus versus GSI
for disturbed rock masses 74
6.25 Concept of equivalent elastic
continuum 75
6.26 Theoretical behaviour of a defect 75
6.27 Normalised effective bulk modulus of
a solid containing spheroids 77
6.28 Correlation between RQD and Jv 78
6.29 Comparison of the range covered
by RQD 78
6.30 Typical photos of Ashfield Shale
Class II borehole core 80
6.31 Typical Ashfield Shale Class II exposed
in the Castle Hill Crossover Cavern 80
6.32 Typical photos of Hawkesbury
Sandstone Class II borehole core 81
6.33 Photo of saw cut Hawkesbury
Sandstone Class III becoming Class II 81
6.34 Photo of the Lac du Bonnet granite 82
6.35 Correlation between RQD and Em/Er 84
6.36 Correlation between RMR and Em 84
6.38 Correlation between GSI and Em 85
6.39 Comparison of the various correlations 89
6.40 Comparison of the various correlations 90
7.1 Circular hole in an infinite medium 91
7.2 Polar variation of Ea/E with the
angle θ for various E/E’ ratios 93
7.3 Example of Ea v K plot 93
7.4 Example of an arbitrary excavation 93
7.5 Google map of Sydney 94
7.6 Monitoring locations shown in the
tunnel cross section 95
7.7 Results for Eh/Ev=1.0 96
7.8 Section overview of cavern monitoring) 97
7.9 Results for G/G’=1.0 with E/E’=
0.7, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 180
8.1 Data set from artificial laboratory
testing programme 189
8.2 Data set from the testing of
Hawkesbury Sandstone 190
8.3 Data set from the testing of
xi
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
List of Figures
Brisbane Tuff 98
8.4 Data set from the testing of Brisbane
phyllite 103
8.5 Data set from the testing of Brisbane
quartzite 104
8.6 Data set from the testing of Brisbane
basalt 105
8.7 Data set from the testing of Brisbane
greywacke 106
8.8 Data set for KTB amphibolite 107
8.9 Data set for Dunham dolomite and
Solenhofen limestone 108
8.10 Data set for Shirahama sandstone and
Yuubari shale 109
8.11 True 3D triaxial data sets 110
8.12 Examples of the data used to
estimate the Lade parameters 111
9.1 GSI chart for general rock mass and
schist 123
9.2 GSI chart for flysch 124
9.3 GSI chart for flysch 124
9.4 GSI chart for molasse at depth 125
9.5 GSI chart for molasse at surface 125
9.6 GSI chart for ophiolites 126
9.7 GSI chart for limestone 127
9.8 GSI chart for gneiss 127
9.9 GSI chart for the five rock masses 128
9.10 The wrong and right way to classify 130
9.11 Equal area projections for Hawkesbury
Sandstone and Ashfield Shale 131
9.12 Subset of the data in Figure 9.11 131
9.13 Distribution of logged spacing and
aperture for Hawkesbury Sandstone 132
9.14 Distribution of logged spacing and
aperture for Ashfield Shale 132
9.15 Major horizontal stress versus depth 135
9.16 GSI values for Hawkesbury Sandstone
rock mass 136
9.17 GSI values for Ashfield Shale rock mass 136
9.18 Map of Reefton Goldfield 137
9.19 GSI values for Reefton greywacke
and argillite rock mass 138
9.20 Map of Macraes 139
xii
9.21 Stereoplots showing typical
orientations at Macraes 140
9.22 GSI values for Otago Schist rock mass
at Macraes 141
9.23 Variation in JCond for Hawkesbury
Sandstone Class II 141
9.24 Comparison of quantified GSI and
the GSI assessed from the chart 143
9.25 Comparison of a quantified and
chart GSI from Russo (2009) 143
9.26 Comparison of quantified and
chart GSI 144
9.27 Distribution of logged spacing for
Hawkesbury Sandstone and
Ashfield Shale 144
10.1 Relationship of major horizontal stress
with depth and minor horizontal stress 148
10.2 Overall map of the Upper Canal 150
10.3 Lower hemisphere polar stereonet of
mapped joints in the Devines tunnels 151
10.4 Geological long section of
Cataract Tunnel 152
10.5 Overbreak in the roof of the
Cataract tunnel 153
10.6 Cataract tunnel 153
10.7 Cataract tunnel - Roof failure and
fallout 154
10.8 Inferred geological long section of
Devines Tunnel 155
10.9 Devines Tunnel No. 1 and No. 2
Southern Portal 156
10.10 Phase mesh for the Cataract tunnel 157
2
10.11 Phase2 mesh for the Devines tunnels 158
10.12 Principal stresses predicted around
the Cataract tunnel 159
10.13 Principal stresses predicted around
the Devines tunnel 159
10.14 Principal stress plot for the
Cataract tunnel 160
10.15 Location of case studies around
Sydney’s CBD 161
10.16 Malabar outfall tunnel 162
10.17 Phase mesh for the Malabar ocean
2
outfall tunnel 163

List of Figures
10.18 P
 rincipal stresses of the Malabar ocean
outfall tunnel 164
10.19 Isometric view of the LPG
storage cavern 165
10.20 Failure in Gallery A 166
10.21 Phase mesh for the LPG storage
2
caverns 167
10.22 Principal stresses of the first roof
collapse 168
10.23 Alignment of the NST 169
10.24 Phase2 mesh for the Tunk’s Park to
North Head tunnel 170
10.25 Principal stresses of the 6.5 m
diameter Tunks Park to
North Head drive 171
10.26 Principal stresses of the drive
under 95 m overburden 172
10.27 Principal stresses of the 3.8 m diameter
Tunks Park to Lane Cove drive 173
10.28 Alignment of the CCT 174
10.29 Schematic long section 174
10.30 Mapping of geology at the failure 175
10.31 Phase mesh for the CCT ventilation
2
tunnel 175
10.32 Principal stresses of the ventilation
tunnel 176
10.33 Alignment of the LCT 177
10.34 Principal stress in the plane of the
modelled 184
10.35 Phase mesh for the LCT tunnels
2
188
10.36 Principal stresses of the LCT
three-lane tunnel 189
10.37 Principal stress plot from the
‘stable’ zones 181
10.38 This is a subset of Figure 10.37 182
10.39 Principal stress plot from the
‘failed’ zones 183
10.40 Deviator stress (σ1-σ3) versus confining
stress (σ3) 184
10.41 This is a subset of Figure 10.40 185
10.42 Deviator stress (σ1-σ3) versus confining
stress (σ3) 186
10.43 Difference between the criterion
and the modelled principal stress 188
1 | Introduction
10.44 Principal and deviator stress versus 189
confining stress
11.1 The database of Australian coal pillars 192
11.2 The database of South African
coal pillars 194
11.3 The database of USA development
workings coal pillars 206
11.4 The database of Indian coal pillars 211
11.5 The combined collapsed and
un-collapsed database 213
11.6 Measured pillar stress from various
pillar geometries 214
11.7 The databases superimposed onto
the plot in Figure 11.6 215
11.8 Close-up of Figure 11.7 215
11.9 3D finite element model 220
11.10 Contours of major principal stress
and FoS 220
11.11 Definition of mining geometry 221
11.12 Comparison of the FoS result 223
11.13 Finite element model and
material properties 224
11.14 Major principal stress for the
case w =18.7 m and depth = 250 m 224
11.15 Pillar load and inferred strength (Cp) 225
11.16 Results of finite element modelling 225
11.17 Contours of pillar load and
confining stress 227
11.18 Predicted σ1 v σ3 for the Australian
database 228
11.19 Example of the 2D FEM and
material properties 230
11.20 Major principal stress for the
case w =15.9 m and depth = 193 m 231
11.21 Predicted σ1-σ3 for the South African data-
base 231
11.22 Predicted σ1-σ3 of the South African
collapsed pillar cases 232
11.23 Predicted σ1-σ3 of the South African
un-collapsed pillar cases 232
11.24 Major principal stress for the
case w =9.1 m and depth = 396 m 235
11.25 Predicted σ1-σ3 of the USA collapsed
pillar cases 236
xiii
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
List of Figures
11.26 Predicted σ1-σ3 of the USA un-collapsed
pillar cases 236
11.27 Predicted σ1-σ3 plotted of the Indian
pillar cases 237
11.28 Predicted normalised principal stresses 238
11.29 Predicted normalised principal stresses 239
11.30 Predicted normalised principal stresses
for the collapsed pillars 240
11.31 Predicted normalised principal stresses
for the un-collapsed pillars 241
11.32 Same data as shown in Figure 11.29
but as deviatoric stress 242
11.33 The combined database of 162
collapsed pillars 243
12.1 Ratio of σ1-σc versus w /h for the
hard rock pillar database 247
12.2 Ratio of σ1-σc versus average pillar
confinement 247
12.3 Relationship between Cpav and w/h 248
12.4 Non-dimensional principal stress
σ1-σc versus σ3-σc 248
12.5 Non-dimensional principal stress
σ1-σc versus σ3-σc 249
12.6 Distribution of RMR in the
NIOSH database 251
12.7 Summary of pillar layouts 252
12.8 Ratio of σ1-σc versus σ3-σc for the
limestone pillars 253
12.9 Ratio of σ1-σc versus σ3-σc for the
failed iron ore pillar database 254
12.10 Photos of Lorraine iron ore mines 255
12.11 Ratio of σ1-σc versus σ3-σc for the
Laisvall mine test pillars 256
12.12 Fracture traces mapped in the
large diameter Stripa granite core 257
12.13 Principal stress plot for the Stripa
granite core 258
12.14 Principal stress plot for the
Lac du Bonnet granite 259
12.15 Samples of artificially jointed granite 260
12.16 Results of laboratory testing of
artificially jointed granite 261
12.17 Principal stress plots for the quartzite 263
12.18 Digitised points of the phyllite 263
xiv
12.19 Principal stress plots for the phyllite 264
12.20 Example of the core description,
photographs and sketches 266
12.21 Summary of UCS test results for
hornfels and limestone 267
12.22 Summary of UCS and TXL test results
for hornfels and limestone 268
12.23 Guidelines for estimating disturbance
factor, D 269
12.24  Proposed relationship between
mb/mi and GSI 272
12.25 Proposed relationship between
s and GSI 272
12.26 Proposed relationship between
a and GSI 273
12.27 Proposed relationship between
mb/mi v GSI and s v GSI. 273
12.28  Normalised principal stress plots
for hornfels 275
12.29 Normalised principal stress plots
for limestone 276
13.1 Normalised principal stresses 279
13.2 Idealised strength envelope 280
13.3 Principal stress plots of the
collapsed coal pillar database 282
13.4 Principal stress plots of the
un-collapsed coal pillar database 283
13.5 Principal stress plots of the
coal pillar database 284
13.6 Principal stress plots of the
collapsed coal pillar database 285
13.7 Principal stress plots of the
un-collapsed coal pillar database 285
13.8 Principal deviatoric stress plots of
the collapsed coal pillar database 286
13.9 Principal deviatoric stress plots of the
un-collapsed coal pillar database 286
13.10 Principal stress plots of the
collapsed coal pillar database 289
13.11 Principal stress plots of the
un-collapsed coal pillar database 289
13.12 Recommended extended DISL
envelope for coal pillars 290
 1 | Introduction

Appendices

ROCK MASS PROPERTIES FOR TUNNELING

CONTENTS
A Development of Barton shear strength criterion 301

B Development of Hoek-Brown strength criterion 304

C Development of Lade criterion 307

D Development of Christensen criterion 320

xv
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

Symbols

The symbols used in this book are listed below. While the intention is to respect and follow the original
source for the definition of symbols, where this would lead to confusion, alternatives are used. Multiple
definitions for the one symbol are separated by a semi-colon.
Throughout compression is assumed to be positive.

a r adius; Hoek-Brown criterion JA , JC , JS , JW joint alteration, joint condition

parameter; Lade criterion factor (= JW x JS /JA), joint small-
parameter scale roughness and joint large-
scale waviness, respectively
A area; variable
JV volumetric joint count
b, B width; variable
JCond joint condition factor of RMR
BTS Brazilian tensile strength
JRC, JCS joint roughness coefficient and
c Mohr-Coulomb criterion cohesion
joint wall compressive strength of
C variable Barton criterion
Co  iebols-Cook criterion
W k variable
parameter, UCS
kn , k s joint normal and shear stiffness,
Cp coal pillar strength respectively
Cpav average pillar confinement K  ulk modulus; representative
b
strength of 1 ft3 or m3 coal; stress
Cr subgrade reaction ratio
D disturbance factor K0 Yu criterion parameter
E Young’s modulus of elasticity L block size or joint length
Ei intact rock modulus m, mi, mb Lade criterion parameter; Hoek-
Ej modulus of the defect infill Brown criterion parameters
material M rock mass deformation modulus
Em rock mass modulus MR modulus ratio
f, f ’, f ’’ functions n  umber-density of cracks =
n
FoS Factor of Safety number of cracks / volume;
variable
G shear modulus
p vertical stress
GSI geological strength index
pa atmospheric pressure
h height of coal pillar; thickness
p0 pore pressure
H depth
q tan (45°+φ/2)
i dilation angle
Q rock mass quality (= RQD/Jn x Jr /Ja
I1, I3 stress invariants x Jw /SRF)
I1, I2 , I3 , I4 shape or influence functions Q’ t runcated rock mass quality (=
RQD/Jn x Jr /Ja)
Is(50) point load index
Q 0 , Q∞, QD Yu criterion parameters
J2 second deviatoric stress invariant
r radial distance
Ja, Jn, Jr, Jw joint alteration, number of joint
sets, joint roughness and joint r2 correlation coefficient
water factor, respectively

xvi
 1 | Introduction

Symbols

R r atio of effective pillar width to γ unit weight of rock; Yu criterion

pillar height (= w/h or w1sinθ/h) parameter
RMi rock mass index Γ crack density
RMR rock mass rating: RMR’76 is the η1 Lade criterion parameter
1976 version; RMR’89 is the 1989
κ ‘mixed-mode’ fracture coefficient;
version
Christensen criterion parameter
RQD rock quality designation
friction coefficient of the micro-
μ
s average spacing of joints; Hoek- crack
Brown criterion parameter
ν Poisson’s ratio
su undrained shear strength
pi = 3.14159
π
Sp pillar load
Lode angle; variable angle
θ
SRF Stress Reduction Factor
Θ 2w2 / (w1+w2)
T0 unconfined tensile strength
σ1, σ2 , σ3 principal stresses (major,
TXL triaxial compressive strength intermediate and minor,
respectively)
ur, u Θ radial and tangential
displacement, respectively σc unconfined compressive strength
UCS uniaxial or unconfined σcrack normal stress required to close a
compressive strength crack
UCS* unconfined compressive strength σm mean principal stress
at which cracking initiates
σm,2 mean normal stress = average of
UTS uniaxial or unconfined tensile major and minor principal stress
strength
σn normal stress
Vb block volume
octahedral normal stress
σoct
Vp seismic compressive wave velocity
conventional triaxial strength
σs
Vs seismic shear wave velocity
unconfined tensile strength
σt
w width of coal pillar
σv, σH, σh vertical, major and minor
w1, w2 width and length of coal pillar, w1 horizontal in situ stress,
≤ w2 respectively
α aspect ratio of crack; Christensen σx, σy, σz triaxial stresses
criterion parameter
τ shear stress
β influence factor; angle which
τoct octahedral shear stress
the failure plane makes with the
major principal stress; (1–ν⁄2)κ ξ variable
δ displacement ψ equivalent friction angle
ε3 extension strain ´ superscript denotes effective
stress conditions
φ Mohr-Coulomb criterion angle of
friction i subscript denotes intact rock
parameter
φb, φc base friction angle
φr residual friction angle d subscript denotes defect
parameter

xvii
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

xviii

1 Introduction
Estimating strength and deformation parameters,
in particular the elastic modulus, of rock masses is
fundamental to rock mechanics. It is at the core of
analysis used for the design of slopes, foundations
and underground excavations in rock (Brown 2008).
However, the estimate of rock mass strength and
modulus remains the most debated issue between
practitioners of rock mechanics. Because of a rock
mass’ very nature, inherent in any set of parameters are
various assumptions regarding:
• rock type (lithology)
• strength of the rock substance (intact rock strength)
• fracturing of the rock mass by defects (bedding,
joints, shears, etc.)
„„ persistence and spacing of defects
„„ number of defect sets
„„ infill material
„„ roughness of defects
• groundwater pressures
• reactivity of the rock to environmental change
(shrink / swell and slake).
In addition, the strength and modulus of a rock
mass also depend on the type of problem being
assessed and its scale. As the following examples show,
paraphrasing Stacey (2000), it is important to “get the
failure mechanism right”.
• If the problem is a block driven by gravity, then
perhaps its strength is best described as defect shear
strength following the Mohr-Coulomb criterion.
• If the problem is the fracture of either an intact
sample of rock or a massive brittle rock mass, then
perhaps the unconfined compressive strength (UCS
or σc) or critical extension strain is a better measure.
• f the problem is failure of a large fractured, jointed
I
 practitioner.
rock mass body then a shear strength measure that
encompasses the geological structure of the rock
mass is appropriate.
Table 1.1 shows the range of rock mass problems
that were considered by Hoek (1994) (1).
To a great extent, the debate on rock mass
parameters stems from the fact that it is practically
(1)
It is important to note that Table 1.1 ignores sheared rock masses; an oversight corrected in later publications as will be discussed in subsequent chapters.
1 | Introduction
impossible to test rock masses at a scale large enough
and commensurate to most engineering applications.
Hence, estimates of the parameters are based mainly
on empiricism.
However, the database from which the empirical
methods are derived and against which the solutions
are tested is rather limited in terms of large rock
masses. There is a clear need to expand this database
and scope to refine the approach to estimate the
strengths and deformation parameters of rock masses
for underground excavation design.
The approach taken is to:
• First, collate strength and deformation data relating
to large scale rock masses.
• Second, to use this database to appraise the
performance of existing criteria and relationships
in predicting the performance of rock masses in
underground excavations.
• Third, to recommend robust methods to estimate
rock mass strength and modulus for the designer.
1.1 FORMAT
Jaeger in Paterson (1982) recounted the important
things to study in rock mechanics are “(i) the properties
of joints and (ii) the fundamental building blocks [are]
the irregular pieces of rock between the joints which
would be very irregularly loaded”. This book is therefore
arranged into two parts.
The first is a critique of the literature in the areas
that lead to estimates of rock mass properties, namely
intact rock and rock defects. The critique is extensive
as it is important to understand the science behind
the problem before offering recommendations to the
An extensive database of intact rock and large
scale rock mass failure is collated in the second part.
The database is then used to test, compare, critique
and suggest alternative methods to estimate rock
mass properties.
1
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 1.1 Rock mass types; from by Hoek (1994)

Description Strength Strength testing Theoretical

Characteristics considerations

Intact rock Brittle, elastic and Triaxial testing of Behaviour of

generally isotropic core specimenas elastic isotropic
behaviour relatively simple rock is adequately
and inexpensive understood for
and results are most practical
usually reliable applications

Intact rock with Highly anisotropic, Triaxial tests Behaviour of

a single inclined depending on difficult and defects adequately
defect shear strength and expensive. Direct understood for
defect inclination shear tests most practical
preferred. Careful applications
interpretation of
results required

Massive rock with Anisotropic, Laboratory testing Behaviour of

a few defect sets depending very difficult complex block
on number, because of sample interaction in
orientation and disturbance and sparsley jointed
shear strength of equipment size rock masses poorly
defects limitations understood

Heavily jointed Reasonbaly Triaxial testing Behaviour of

rock masses isotropic, highly of representative interlocking
dilatant at low samples extremely angular pieces
stress levels with difficult because poorly understood
particle breakage of sample
at high stress disturbance
levels

Compacted rock Reasonably Triaxial testing Behaviour

fill or weakly isotropic, less simple but reasonably well
cemented dilatant and lower expensive due to understood from
congolmerates strength than large equipment soil mechanics
insitu rock due required to studies on
to destruction of accommodate granular materials
fabric samples

Loose waste rock Poor compaction Triaxial or direct Behaviour of

or gravel and grading allow shear testing loosely compacted
particle movement simple but waste rock and
resulting in expensive due gravel adequately
mobility and low to large size of understood for
strength equipment most applications

2

2 Intact Rock
Strength
2.1 OUTLINE
Much of what we know about intact rock strength has
come from three relatively straightforward laboratory
index tests:
• the uniaxial tensile strength (UTS) test, which
for practical purposes is almost always replaced
by the Brazilian tensile strength (BTS) test (Pells
1993), though the BTS overestimates the UTS by
10 to 30% (Perras and Diederichs 2014, Read and
Richards, 2015)
• the uniaxial or unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) test
• the triaxial compressive strength (TXL) test.
Of these three, it is the UCS, which Jaeger (1966)
described as ‘the oldest, simplest and still the most
important test’, that remains the basic laboratory test
for rock mechanics studies. True 3D triaxial, or poly-
axial, tests are typically limited to specialised research.
Much has been written of the various testing methods,
the tests’ reliabilities, the source of errors in the test
results, correlations between the tests’ results, etc.
Pells (1993) provides a good summary of the testing
and gives practical guidelines in carrying out UCS and
BTS tests. He notes that errors in the testing come
from two sources “(i) bias in sample selection and (ii)
errors resulting from inappropriate sample preparation,
test apparatus or test procedure”. The variability in
test results, which is seen in all testing programmes
such as that shown in Figure 2.1, stem not only
from these errors but mainly from the inherent
variability of the intact rock itself. Further, the tests
themselves are not necessarily material properties but
vary due to specimen geometry, grain size, inherent
microscopic fractures, grain size etc. (Fairhurst 1971;
Hardy et al. 1973).
Superimposed onto this data variability is the fact
that there is unlikely to be a general failure mechanism
which is true for all rock types under all stress regimes.
For example, consider the different behaviour under
tensile and compressive stresses (Fairhurst 1971) and
the very different visco-plastic behaviour of rock salt to
the brittle behaviour of very high strength basalt. Yet
in rock mechanics in the general and in underground
design in the specific, there is a need for mathematical
1 | Introduction
UCS (MPa)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
10
20
30
Depth (m)
40
50
60
70
80
FIGURE 2.1 UCS test results of Sydney’s Hawkesbury
Sandstone show an example of the variability usually seen
in laboratory testing programmes. The data has come from
investigations from three underground rail projects – Epping
to Chatswood Rail Link, CBD Metro and the Northwest Rail
Link – and a road tunnel – Lane Cove Tunnel.
expressions (or criteria) to model the strength of rock
under different stresses.
No attempt is made to cover the numerous criteria
that have been proposed for intact rock strength. The
interested reader is directed to the works of Edelbro
(2003) and You (2011) for example, for appraisals
of the many criteria presented in Table 2.1. Of the
criteria listed, those most commonly adopted in rock
mechanics practice and several of the more recently
proposed are described in this chapter. These criteria
include Mohr-Coulomb, Griffith, Drucker-Prager,
Wiebols-Cook, Hoek-Brown, extension strain,
Bieniawski, Lade, Christensen and You. A brief
introduction to computer simulation of intact rock
testing is also presented.
The criteria are written as functions of either shear
and normal stress, τ=f(σn); or principal stresses, σ1=f(σ2,
σ3). Throughout this book compression is assumed to
be positive as is the convention in rock mechanics.
3
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 2.1 Strength criteria for intact rock or rock mass, after Edelbro (2003)

Strength Criterion Author

Coulomb (1776)
Mohr (1882)

Griffith (1924)

Balmer (1952)
Sheorey et al (1989)

Drucker-Prager (1952)

Hobbs (1964)

Fairhurst (1964)

Murrell (1965)

Franklin (1971)

Barton (1976)

Hoek & Brown (1980)

Stacey (1981)

Bieniawski (1974)
Yudhbir et al (1983)

Lade (1977)
Kim & Lade (1984)

Yoshida (1990)

Wiebols & Cook (1968)

Zhou (1994)

Zhang & Zhu (2007)

Christensen (2007)

You (2009)

4
 2 | Intact Rock Strength

2.2 TWO DIMENSIONAL 2.2.2 Griffith and Modified Griffith

The premise of these criteria is that fracture of brittle
CRITERIA materials starts as tensile stress concentrations at the
tips of minute, thin cracks. Griffith used total energy
2.2.1 Mohr-Coulomb considerations to calculate the conditions for a crack
The Mohr-Coulomb criterion remains the simplest to grow under plane stress (σ1 ≠ 0, σ2 ≠ 0, σ3 = 0) and
and probably the most widely used in rock mechanics, derived the following relationship (Griffith 1921):
based on the number of commercial computer programs
that implement it and the number of publications
that discuss it e.g. Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman (2005);
Mostyn and Douglas (2000). It assumes that failure
occurs on a plane due to the shear stress (τ) on that which can also be written as:
plane which at failure is a function of that plane’s
cohesion (c) and friction angle (φ) and the normal
stress that acts on that plane (σn), i.e.:

Here, the criterion is written with compression as

where c and φ are related to the unconfined compressive
and tensile strengths σc, σt as:
The criterion can also be expressed in terms of principal
stresses as:
positive and T0 = - σt. A detailed explanation of the
criterion can be found in Jaeger and Cook (1979). The
criterion ignores frictional forces between the cracks’
faces and always predicts σc = 8σt.
The Griffith crack theory was modified by several
researchers, in particular McClintock and Walsh
(1962) who included the effect of friction along
the crack faces and Murrell (1963) who extended
the criterion into true triaxial stress conditions
(σ1 ≥ σ2≥ σ3).
McClintock and Walsh (1962) included the
effect of friction along the crack faces to derive the
following equation.

The Mohr-Coulomb criterion is particularly suited

to analysing the shear strength of planar features such
as joints and other defects. However, it is limited in its
ability to analyse the peak rock strength as: When the crack closes, this becomes equivalent to
the Mohr-Coulomb criterion. That is, provided the
• actual peak strength envelopes are generally
normal stress required to close a crack (σcrack) is small
non-linear
enough to be neglected then the equation becomes:
• it implies failure occurs as shearing and in the
direction, π/4 + φ/2
• it implies c and φ are mobilised simultaneously,
i.e. it is fundamentally flawed for brittle materials
(Barton and Pandey 2011; Christensen 2007)
• it implies the intermediate principal stress (σ2) has This is the same as the Mohr-Coulomb criterion but
no effect on failure with σt = 0.5c.
• it predicts the ratio of unconfined compressive to Murrell (1963) extended the criterion into true
tensile strength, σc/σt, is always equal to (1+sinφ)/ triaxial stress conditions with the following Modified
(1-sinφ), which is much less than experimental Griffith equation:
evidence. For example, for the range of φ = 20
to 50°, σc = (2 to 7.5)σt, whereas typical ratios are
between 10 to 20 (Lade 1993). To counter this,
a tension cut-off is usually included as part of the
criterion for rock mass strength.

5
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

While some research provides compelling evidence The general form of the Barton shear strength
to show that general shear failure in rock may actually criterion, Equation 2.2, has been proposed for the
occur as tensile failure at the tips of developing cracks, strength of intact rock, jointed rock, rock fill and
e.g. Diederichs et al. (2004); Tarasov and Potvin infilled defects as shown in Figure 2.2, e.g. Barton
(2013), the Griffith and Modified Griffith crack (1999); (2014).
extension criteria oversimplify the process of rock
failure. The inherent assumption in their formulation is
that the extension of a single crack defines rock failure.
The criteria were found to give poor agreement with
EQUATION 2.2
experimental results from multi-axial compression tests
on rock samples which led subsequent researchers, e.g.
Hoek and Brown (1980); to develop alternative forms. where X represents roughness; Y, the effective
compressive strength and Z, the basic and residual
Hoek and Martin (2014) go so far as stating that friction. For intact rock, X = 50, Y = and Z = φc
while the Griffith crack theory “ is very important = 26.6°. Consideration of this criterion is presented in
background material for an understanding of the Appendix A.
mechanics of brittle failure initiation, it is of limited
practical value in the field of rock engineering.”

2.2.3 Bieniawski
Stacey and Page (1986) quote the Bieniawski (1974)
relationship, which is written below, stating that
adopting A = 3.5 and k = 0.75 should not result in
errors between predicted and measured intact strength
of much greater than 10%. However, they note that
the criterion is limited to shear failure in massive,
non-brittle rock. Further, the fact that it is undefined
in tension (σ3 < 0) may restrict its usefulness as a
general criterion.

EQUATION 2.1
2.2.4 Barton
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Barton researched
the strength and stiffness of rock joints e.g. Barton
(1973). A fuller discussion of that work is provided in
Chapter 3 which deals with defect shear strength and
Chapter 5 which deals with rock mass strength. In this
chapter, the focus is on Barton’s fitting of an empirical
relationship to the published triaxial strength data
of three intact rocks – Solenhofen limestone, Spruce
Pine dunite and Westerly granite. He did this by
adopting the Bieniawski criterion (Equation 2.1) to
fit the test data and developed an empirical method
to derive the shear (τ) and normal (σn) stresses from
it. The following relationship to estimate the shear
strength of the mobilised failure plane was proposed
(Barton 1976).
FIGURE 2.2 Shear strength relationships for intact rock
through to infilled defects (Barton 1999; 2014)
2.2.5 Hoek & Brown
Hoek and Brown started with the Griffith crack
extension theory to derive their empirical failure
criterion, which is written below, by trial and error
(Hoek and Brown 1980). Their aim was to provide a
simple, empirical rock failure criterion that adequately
describes the response of an intact rock sample from
uniaxial tensile stress to triaxial compressive stress.
Because of the criterion’s importance to rock
mechanics, it’s derivation from the Griffith crack
extension theory (Griffith 1921) is presented in
Appendix B and a full description of its development
is given below.
The criterion was based on an extensive intact
rock data set, which had a range of σc from 40 to

6

580 MPa (Brown 2008)(2). Their triaxial data meant
the intermediate principal stress, σ2, equalled the
minor principal stress, σ3, and hence the criterion is
independent of σ2 . The criterion was subsequently
extended to rock mass failure based on a modest
collection of triaxial data of 6 inch diameter by 12
inch long core and re-compacted samples of Panguna
andesite (Hoek and Brown 1980). This is discussed in
Chapter 5.
For intact rock, the constants m and s take their
maximum values of mi and 1.0, respectively. Hoek
and Brown (1997) make the point that to be consistent
with the original formulation, reliable values for σc and
mi need to be estimated from laboratory triaxial tests
over the range 0 < σ3 < 0.5σc.
There are contradictory statements about the
empirical constants, m and s.
In their original work, Hoek and Brown (1980)
state that mi can be approximated by σc/|σt|. However,
Hoek (1983) stated ‘there is no fundamental relationship
between the empirical constants included in the criterion
[m and s] and any physical characteristics of the rock’. The
view that the Hoek-Brown parameter mi is not rock
type dependent is furthered in research subsequent
to the equation’s derivation, e.g. Marinos and Hoek
(2000); Mostyn and Douglas (2000). However, tables
of mi relating to rock type are ubiquitous. They are
given in the original papers, Hoek and Brown (1980);
(1980), appear in subsequent publications and in the
widely used rock mechanics computer programs by
RocScience Inc (Canada).
Further adding to the debate, Zuo et al. (2008);
Zuo et al. (2015) derive a strength criterion in the same
format as the original Hoek-Brown by considering
the development of micro-cracks in intact rock. In so
doing, they state that the parameter m, given here as
equal to , can characterise the rock.
For the values typical of hard rock, the ratio (see
derivation in Appendix B) suggests that the Hoek-
Brown parameter, m, is:
Hoek and Martin (2014) offer what they term a
‘preliminary relationship’ between mi and σc/|σt|,
namely: σc/|σt|| = 8.62 + 0.7mi. However, Read and
Richards (2015) confirm Hoek and Brown (1980)
original’s opinion that mi can be approximated by
σc/|σt| and further note on the basis of a comparison
of the published results of 66 pairs of direct tensile
strength and BTS, that σt is approximately 0.9BTS (see
(2)
The weakest intact rock was a sandstone with UCS = 39.9 MPa
2 | Intact Rock Strength
Figure 2.3). Perras and Diederichs (2014) found that
the σt / BTS ratio varies from 0.7 for sedimentary, 0.8
for igneous and 0.9 for metamorphic rocks.
FIGURE 2.3 Comparison of direct tensile strength tests
with BTS, from Read and Richards (2015)
Several limitations of the Hoek-Brown failure
criterion were identified during its development
including that it is independent of σ2 and it was based
only from test data that was inferred to be related
to brittle failure as defined by σ1 > 3.4σ3 (Hoek and
Brown 1980). Note that this definition of the brittle-
ductile transition boundary used by Hoek & Brown
differs from that originally developed by Mogi (1966)
of (σ1- σ3) = 3.4σ3 and confirmed in Mogi (1972).
Later research identified further limitations with the
Hoek-Brown failure criterion.
• 
Mostyn and Douglas (2000) highlighted the
following concerns.
„„ The criterion is undefined for σ3 < - σc /mi, i.e. it
doesn’t predict the tensile strength of intact rock.
Hoek and Martin (2014) summarise research
confirming that the Hoek–Brown criterion does
not predict the tensile strength of intact rock and
suggest adopting a tensile cut-off.
„„ etter curve fitting is achieved if the parameter
B

a is variable instead of being a constant value of
0.5. A variable a also captures brittle and ductile
behaviour better. Others have noted this as well
(Carter et al. 2007; Carter et al. 2008; Diederichs
et al. 2007; You 2011).
„„ The method of fitting the criterion to test data
affects the estimates obtained of the constants.
They recommended a least squares procedure to
curve fit the criterion minimising the following
errors, i.e.
(measured σ1 – predicted σ1) for σ1 > -3σ3
(measured σ3 – predicted σ3) x mi for σ1 ≤ -3σ3
7
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
„„  ey too concluded that mi can be approximated
Th
by σc/|σt|
• K
 aiser et al. (2000) showed using back-analyses that
the criterion was not well suited to brittle failure.
This is an interesting observation as Hoek and
Brown (1980) only included data that related to
brittle failure in developing the criterion.
• Barton and Pandey (2011) state that the failure
mode involving rock breakage is highly unlikely
to be governed by either the Mohr–Coulomb or
Hoek–Brown style of strength criterion and offered
the “c then tanφ” approach e.g. Hajiabdolmajid et
al. (2002).
The generalised Hoek-Brown criterion introduced
by Hoek (1994) and then Hoek et al. (2002) made the
parameter a variable between 0.5 and 0.65 for rock
mass failure.
Further discussion of the Hoek and Brown criterion
and its applicability to rock mass failure is presented
in the subsequent Chapter 5 which deals with rock
mass strength.
2.2.6 You
You (2009) developed an empirical strength criterion by
curve-fitting an exponential function to conventional
triaxial stress test data (σ1 ≥ σ2 = σ3). The criterion
is written in terms of three independent material
parameters; Q 0 , Q∞ and K0 .
where
σs is the conventional triaxial strength at confining
pressure σ3
Q 0 is the UCS, σc
Q∞ is the maximum deviatoric strength. This is
the same parameter which Barton (1976) defines
as the rock’s confined strength (σ1-σ3)
K0 is the rate of increase of strength to confining
stress at σ3 =0
The arbitrary parameters γ and QD are found by
least squares curve-fitting to test data.
It can be readily seen that the criterion fits an
exponential curve between the points Q 0 and Q∞. For
σ3 = 0, the equation devolves to σs = Q0 = σc. As σ3
becomes large, σs approaches Q∞.
You (2009) assessed that his criterion better matches
test data than either the Mohr-Coulomb or the Hoek-
8
Brown criteria on the basis of the mean misfit. It is
worth noting that the You criterion quickly over-
predicts the tensile strength of rock. That is, for cases
where σ3 < 0, the exponential term in the criterion
becomes negative. In fact, You (2012) recommends
that a separate polynomial equation is derived for
the tensile strength criterion and You (2015) adopts a
tensile cut-off.
2.3 THREE DIMENSIONAL
CRITERIA
2.3.1 Drucker-Prager
There are several poly-axial or true three-dimensional
(3D) shear strength criteria which have been proposed
to explicitly consider the influence of the intermediate
principal stress, σ2 . Perhaps the first commonly used
3D criterion for intact rock was the Drucker-Prager
criterion (Drucker and Prager 1952) which extended
the earlier von Mises criterion. The criterion can be
written as:
where
and the octahedral stresses are defined in terms of the
principal stresses as:
However, it has been shown that this criterion does
not match experimental intact rock data very well e.g.
Colmenares and Zoback (2002); Yu (2006).
2.3.2 Modified Wiebols & Cook
Wiebols and Cook (1968) following the Griffith crack
extension theory (Griffith 1921) developed a criterion
considering strain energy within intact rock.
They noted that the Griffith crack theory implied
that compressive failure starts and continues from the
weakest crack. However, they observed detailed tests
which showed that compressive failure starts “first from
the most dangerous crack but increasing stress is required
to increase the length of this crack, in the course of which
failures start from other, less dangerous, cracks.” They
continue: “the most dangerous crack must lie in a plane
parallel to the direction of the intermediate principal
stress, but this is not necessarily the case for other cracks

which subsequently extend”. These other cracks which
subsequently extend can be in any direction.
They postulated an effective energy criterion for the
strength of rock. Wiebols and Cook (1968) presented
a numerical method to evaluate the effective shear
strain energy of intact rock subjected to 3D stresses.
Zhou (1994) presented the Wiebols-Cook criterion
in the following form, which has subsequently been
referred to as the Modified Wiebols & Cook criterion,
e.g. Colmenares and Zoback (2002).
where the variables A, B and C are given as:
2.3.3 Lade
Lade originally proposed a semi-theoretical, 3D failure
criterion to describe the results of laboratory strength
testing of cohesion-less soil (Lade and Duncan 1975).
Lade assumed that the cohesion-less soil, Monterey
No.0 Sand, behaved isotropically and hence wrote a
failure criterion in terms of the stress invariants I1 =
σ1 ≥ σ2 = σ3 and I3 = σ1 ≥ σ2 = σ3. Lade empirically
developed the criterion with further laboratory testing
on other cohesion-less soils: Sacramento River Sand,
Crushed Napa Basalt and Painted Rock Material
(Lade 1977).
where κ1 is a constant whose value depends on the
density of the sand.
A translation of the principal stresses along the
hydrostatic axis was later introduced to include the
effective cohesion and tension that can be sustained by
concrete and intact rock Kim and Lade (1984); Lade
and Kim (1995).
Lade’s observations of laboratory testing of intact
soil, rock and concrete under uniaxial, biaxial, triaxial
and torsional stresses, led him to conclude that a three-
dimensional failure surface should have four main
characteristics as shown in Figure 2.4.
2 | Intact Rock Strength
1 It is a smooth, triangular, monotonically curved
failure surface in the octahedral plane
2 The opening angle of the failure surface is described
by the material’s friction angle, as in the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion
3 The failure surface is curved in planes containing
the hydrostatic axis
4 It can have a tensile strength.
FIGURE 2.4 3D failure surface viewed (a) from the side to
show curved envelope in triaxial plane and biaxial planes
and (b) from the end to show smoothly rounded, triangular
shape in octahedral plane (Lade 1993)
The Lade criterion is usually written as:
EQUATION 2.3
where
• The value of I13 / I3 is 27 at the hydrostatic axis σ1
= σ2 = σ3
• The term apa reflects the tensile strength of the
material and is slightly greater than the UTS. Lade
(1993) uses values of a that are 0.1 to 2% higher
than σt/pa.
• The apex angle of the failure surface increases with
the value of η1. The curvature of the failure surface
increases with the value of m.
The relationship between the parameter used to
describe the opening angle of the failure surface, η1 and
that used to describe the curvature of the failure surface,
m, has been investigated by Lade (2013) who reported
good correlation using Equation 2.4 as listed in Table
2.2. The resulting plots are shown in Figure 2.5.
EQUATION 2.4
9
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 2.2 Values of A and B for Equation 2.4 from Lade (2013)
Rock Type A B r2 % that Predicted σt
apa > σt [MPa]

Igneous 0.249 55.1 0.9265 13 440

Metamorphic 0.257 22.7 0.8330 28 277

Sedimentary 0.210 2.15 0.9011 156 875

Organic (coal) 0.358 130.9 0.9765 6 29

All rocks (no coal) 0.229 9.62 0.8752 56 642

Lade’s equation is developed in Appendix C. That work 2.3.3.1 Typical ranges of parameters
shows that for the five values of A and B in Table 2.2: The following equations, which are developed in
• the inferred values of apa are approximately 6 to Appendix C, show Lade’s parameters are mathematical
156% greater than σt functions of the compressive strength and tensile
• the predicted tensile strengths are extremely high strength of the rock.
and artificial.
The surprising and unexpectedly high values
of apa and σt found by the above analysis questions
the usefulness of the proposal to estimate the Lade
Specifically,
parameters from a single laboratory test as suggested
by Lade (1993).

The variation of the parameters m and η1 with

respect to the ratio is shown in Figure 2.6. This
graph suggests that for intact rock, which typically has
values of between 8 and 15, m ≈ 0.1 – 1.25 and η1 ≈
500 to 50000, that is slightly tighter ranges than those
suggested by Lade (1993).

1.00E+06 2.00
UCS= 1MPa
UCS= 10MPa
UCS= 100MPa
1.00E+05 1.50
UCS= 250MPa
m

η1 1.00E+04 1.00 m

1.00E+03 0.50

1.00E+02 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
σc/σt

FIGURE 2.5 Empirical relationship between m and η1; after FIGURE 2.6 Variation of the parameters η1 and m with the
Lade (2013) ratio σc/σt. The typical range for the ratio σc/σt is between 8
and 15, which implies that η1 typically lies in the range 500
to 50000 and m typically lies in the range 0.10 to 1.25.

10
 2 | Intact Rock Strength

2.3.4 Modified Lade these levels of strain correspond to a stress level in

It is worth mentioning the Modified Lade criterion as
developed by Ewy (1999) as it too has been discussed
in literature as a 3D failure criterion.
Ewy (1999) modified the Lade criterion to solve his
particular problem of assessing mud weight to control
the wall stability of wellbores. Ewy chose to:
• set m to a constant value of 0, i.e. a straight-line
failure envelope
• replace η with η1 and made it a function of friction
angle of the rock φ
• replace apa with S1, and made it a function of
cohesion and friction angle of the rock c, φ
to effectively obtain a criterion that predicts linear
shear strength increase with increasing I1. Ewy
obtained a closed-form solution for critical mud weight
applicable to arbitrary wellbore orientations and in situ
stress states.
The Modified Lade criterion is:
the region of σ1 = 0.3σc. Diederichs (2007) observes
failures around underground excavations do not
necessarily match the predictions from the extension
strain criterion. The relationship σ1 = 0.3σc is in
keeping with later research in the onset of fracturing in
brittle rock. This is discussed in Chapter 5 in dealing
with rock mass strength.
2.3.6 3D Hoek-Brown
Several extensions to the Hoek-Brown equation to
explicitly consider 3D stresses have been proposed. One
of the earliest was that proposed by Pan and Hudson
(1988) who re-wrote the Hoek-Brown equation in
terms of stress invariants and explicitly included the
intermediate principal stress when they proposed the
following form.
EQUATION 2.5

where Where I1 is the first stress invariant and J2 is the

second deviatoric stress invariant:

Substituting and noting that the octahedral stresses

are:

p00

As the strength envelopes of intact rock are strongly

curved and not linear as predicted by the Modified Equation 2.5 can be re-written as:
Lade criterion, this criterion is not considered further.

2.3.5 Extension strain

Stacey (1981) provided an extension strain failure
criterion for brittle rocks stating that rock fracture
initiates when strains exceed some critical extension
value. The criterion is applicable to the initiation of
fractures and not of rock failure per se, so strictly it is
not a strength criterion.
For a material with ideal linear deformation
behaviour, the extension strain is:

and hence

Stacey (1981) and Stacey and Page (1986) provide

values of critical extension strain for a few rock types,
typically in the range 160 to 300 μm, and note that EQUATION 2.6

11
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
Zhang and Zhu (2007) noted that Equation 2.6
does not simplify to the Hoek-Brown criterion in
conventional triaxial tests, i.e. when σ2 = σ3. They
instead proposed that the mean normal stress be
restricted to consider only σ1 and σ3. By not including
σ2 into the calculation of the mean normal stress,
Zhang and Zhu (2007) followed the observation made
by Mogi (1967) that the initial failure in tested samples
occurred in the σ2 direction and hence the normal
stress acting on that failure path was a function of only
σ1 and σ3. The octahedral stress σoct in Equation 2.6
therefore could effectively be replaced by the mean
normal stress σm,2 = (σ1+σ3)/2, i.e.
EQUATION 2.7
Equation 2.7 differs from Equation 2.6 in the mean
stress term.
Adopting mb = mi, s=1 for intact rock and assuming
values for mi, Zhang and Zhu (2007) compared
Equation 2.7 with the 187 poly-axial test results
from five data sets collated by Colmenares and
Zoback (2002) and concluded that it gave reasonable
correlations.
The failure surface generated by Equation 2.7
however is not smooth and convex in all the stress
states, apparently a common problem for strength
criteria based on Mogi (1967) that has the mean
stress only considering σ1 and σ2 . To overcome this
limitation Zhang et al. (2013) suggest re-arranging the
criteria to be a function of the Lode angle, θ and then
limiting θ to ensure the failure surface remains smooth
and convex. Similar approaches have been used to
ensure smooth and convex failure envelopes of other
3D criteria, e.g. Sloan and Booker (1986).
In another approach, Melkoumian et al. (2009)
extended the work of Priest (2005) in developing an
explicit solution for a 3D Hoek-Brown criterion by
combining its 2D version with the 3D Drucker-Prager
criterion. They too compared their equation with the
data collated by Colmenares and Zoback (2002) and
similarly concluded that it gave reasonable correlations.
The Melkoumian et al effective yield stress, σ’zf, can
be found using the following equations at any major
principal effective stress point, σ’x and σ’y.
where
12
It is apparent that the limitations of the Hoek-Brown
criterion except for σ2 independence, will apply to the
Melkoumian et al and the Zhang & Zhu extensions.
Further, the limitations of Drucker-Prager are likely to
apply to the Melkoumian et al extension.
2.3.7 Christensen
Working with ceramics and metals, Christensen
developed a theoretical, two parameter, 3D strength
criterion for homogeneous, isotropic materials
(Christensen 1997; Christensen 2004; Christensen
2005; Christensen 2006; Christensen 2006;
Christensen 2007). The criterion is effectively a
non-linear form of the Drucker-Prager criterion
(Christensen 2006).
Christensen’s initial objective was to generalise
the von Mises criterion to include the effect of mean
normal stress. He wanted to (i) explicitly integrate a
fracture mechanism into the criterion and (ii) derive
a criterion that determines whether a failure mode in
any particular state of stress is expected to be ductile
or brittle.
Christensen started with a relationship between
the elastic energy and the dilatational and deviatoric
stresses within a body. Further, he assumed that
homogeneous, isotropic materials do not fail under
hydrostatic compression but could fail under
hydrostatic tension. The criterion is written as
follows, noting that here compression is positive as in
standard rock mechanics, i.e. opposite convention to
Christensen’s original criterion. The criterion applies
to materials that have a |UTS| ≤ |UCS|.
EQUATION 2.8
The restriction σ1 ≤ |σt| if |σt| < ½ σc is the explicit
fracture criterion, i.e. brittle failure.
Christensen defines two material parameters, κ and
a as functions of UCS (σc) and UTS (σt):

The parameter κ changes the scale of the strength
envelope; and the parameter α is non-dimensional and
controls the shape of the envelope. The special case of
α = 0, is the von Mises yield behaviour of very ductile
metals, i.e. those with |σt| = σc. The limiting case
of α→∞ is the brittle limit with the tensile strength
σt being negligible compared with the compressive
strength σc. Many rocks and certainly most rock
masses would fall into this category.
The ductile-brittle delineation is given by the
following relationship:
where the mean normal stress or octahedral stress is:
Christensen appreciated that with only two material
parameters, κ and α, the criterion would not match
all test data on the variety of natural and man-made
materials with high accuracy but suggested that the
criterion would allow reasonably accurate models. For
example, the criterion for Blair dolomite compared
to laboratory test data and Mohr-Coulomb is shown
in Figure 2.7. It can be seen that the Christensen
criterion matches the general trend of the data but does
not replicate it exactly.
FIGURE 2.7 Laboratory test results of Blair Dolomite
(reproduced from Christensen, 2004, which shows
compression as negative). C-M is the Mohr-Coulomb
criterion.
The criterion can be written in terms of the
octahedral normal and shear stresses as:
and hence in principal stress space as:
2 | Intact Rock Strength
This is effectively a non-linear form of the Drucker-
Prager criterion discussed in Section 2.4.1 (Christensen
2006). Its attraction is that it takes into consideration
3D stress (σ1≥σ2≥σ3) yet needs only two parameters; κ
and α or really σt and σc. The parameter σt is difficult
to measure (Hoek and Brown 1980) it is usually
approximated with the BTS.
A series of equations are developed in Appendix
D from the Christensen criterion showing that while
the form of the Christensen criterion is similar to the
Hoek-Brown criterion, it does not simplify to the
Hoek-Brown criterion under triaxial conditions (σ2
= σ3). This is a similar issue as the Pan and Hudson
(1988) 3D Hoek-Brown criterion (Equation 2.6).
2.3.8 You
You (2009) proposed an extension to his 2D criteria to
consider true 3D stress (σ1 ≥σ2≥σ3) with the following
five parameter criterion.
Where σs is given in the 2D version of the criterion
in Section 2.3.7 and the arbitrary parameters γ and QD
are found by least squares curve-fitting to test data.
The parameter γ could be a constant equal to about 1.7
(You 2009; You 2012).
It is clear that σ1 reaches the maximum value
(σs+QD) when:
You (2009) states that at least six sets of triaxial
compression, triaxial extension and biaxial test data
are required to determine the three parameters, Q0,
Q∞, K0 – which are required for conventional triaxial
stress conditions – plus the further two parameters,
QD and γ - which are required for true 3D stress states.
Interestingly, UCS data, which are often the main if
not only test carried out (see this chapter’s introductory
paragraphs), are not to be used to estimate QD and γ
(You 2009; You 2012).
2.3.9 Other
Singh et al. (2011) modified the Mohr–Coulomb
criterion to take into account non-linear triaxial and
poly-axial strength of intact rocks. Adopting the term
used by Barton (1976), they considered that beyond
the critical confining pressure (σcrit), which is based
on a statistical approach of published triaxial data
they estimated to be approximately the UCS, there is
no further increase in the deviatoric stress at failure.
This was extended to include anisotropic rock masses
by Singh et al. (2015); Singh et al. (2015) with the
13
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
following expression.
where σcβ is the UCS of the rock in a given direction
β; c β0 and φβ0 are the Mohr-Coulomb parameters
obtained from triaxial tests at low confining pressures;
σcrit is estimated to be approximately 1.25UCS and
Other poly-axial strength criteria, which have also
been statistically derived by curve-fitting the same 187
test results used by Colmenares and Zoback (2002)
have been recently proposed for intact rock, e.g. Jiang
et al. (2011); Mortara (2010); Rafiai (2011).
Rafiai et al. (2013) show that an artificial-neural-
network formulation can be trained with part of a
database of poly-axial laboratory tests on intact rocks
and then used to successfully predict the rest of the
database. Obviously at this stage, this approach is
limited to samples that can be extensively tested in
a laboratory but it may lead to estimating rock mass
strength in the future.
There are several issues with these recently proposed
criteria in addition to their increasing complexity.
They are still at research stage and are not yet suitable
for general practitioners.
2.4 COMPARISONS
Many researchers have compared various failure
criteria with laboratory test data. Al-Ajmi and
Zimmerman (2005); Colmenares and Zoback (2002);
Costamagna and Bruhns (2007); Kwasniewski (2013);
Lee et al. (2012); Pan and Hudson (1988); Yoshinaka
and Yamabe (1980); You (2009) are just a few that have
compared various failure criteria with true 3D, or poly-
axial, stress test data. The 3D data sets used in some
of these published comparisons are listed in Table 2.3.
2.4.1 Colmenares & Zoback
Colmenares and Zoback (2002) statistically evaluated
seven criteria against 3D test data (σ1≥σ2≥σ3) in
compressive failure comprising 187 results from five
different rock types. They concluded that using the
Modified Wiebols & Cook criterion (Zhou 1994) or
the Modified Lade criterion (Ewy 1999) gave the best
fit to laboratory test results for rocks with highly σ2 –
dependent behaviour. These were the three extremely
high strength rocks in their database, which had UCS
of 300, 375 and 450 MPa.
14
Perhaps not surprisingly they also found that the
Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown criteria fitted the
data at least equally well for those rocks which behaved
largely independent of σ2 . These were the two high
strength rocks in their database, which had a UCS of
95 and 120 MPa. These observations are in keeping
with the conclusion reached by Mogi (1967) who
stated that the effect of σ2 is “much more pronounced
for brittle than for ductile materials”. Two interesting
observations of Colmenares and Zoback’s work have
been made by others.
• A l-Ajmi (2006) found that the variance between
the equations and the data is due more to the
experimental scatter than to any inherent difficulty
in curve fitting the data.
• You (2009) argues that the seven criteria evaluated
by Colmenares and Zoback (2002) only correlated
with the experimental data because of the strong
influence of σ1 not because they capture the influence
of σ2 and σ3 particularly well. Not surprisingly, You
(2011) confirmed that three parameter criteria (of
which the Lade, the generalised Hoek-Brown and
the You criterion are some examples) can better fit
test data than two parameter criteria (which include
the Mohr-Coulomb, the original Hoek-Brown and
by inference the Christensen criterion).
• You (2011) ranked the Hoek-Brown criterion along
with his exponential criterion above the other 14
criteria he evaluated as better able to fit laboratory
test data.
2.4.2 Kwasniewski
The most comprehensive comparison to date is that
of Kwasniewski (2013). He reviewed published true
triaxial strength testing and collated 47 data sets from
a variety of rock types, which ranged in UCS values
from 7 to 310 MPa. His key observations include:
• failure of intact rock is a function of the effective
mean normal stress. A conceptual strength envelope
is shown in Figure 2.8 which
„„ for brittle fracture is (σ1 + σ3)⁄2,
and
„„ for ductile yielding is (σ1 + σ2 + σ3)⁄3
FIGURE 2.8 Conceptual strength envelope for intact rock,
after Sakurai and Serata (2013)
 2 | Intact Rock Strength

• the effect of σ2 on σ1 at failure is less than 20% for „„ Mogi power-law criterion
low intact strength rocks (defined by Kwasniewski
„„ 3 D Hoek-Brown criterion as proposed by Zhang
as σc < 30 MPa), but up to 50% for very high intact
and Zhu (2007)
strength rocks (σc > 100 MPa)
• the data could be well fitted, as defined by r2 and
standard error of estimate, by either
„„ Mogi linear criterion

TABLE 2.3 Poly-axial data used by various researchers

Source Rock Type Colmen. Al-Ajmi Costam. You Lee Kwasn.

(2002) (2005) (2007) (2009) (2012) (2013)

Haimson & Chang Westerly granite     

Chang & Haimson KTB amphibolite     

Dunham dolomite     

Solenhofen     
limestone

Mizuho trachyte    

Mogi Manazuru andesite  

Yamaguchi marble 

Inada granite 

Orikabe monzonite 

Chichibu schist 

Shirahama      
sandstone

Takahashi & Kiode Yuubari shale     

Horonai sandstone 

Taga limestone 

Michelis Dense marble 

Akai & Mori Izumi sandstone 

Locharbriggs sst 
Smart et al
SSC muddy siltstone 

Slask sandstone 
Kwasniewski
Rozbark sandstone 

Descamps et al Solgnies limestone 

Phra Wihan 
sandstone

Walsri Phu Phan sandstone 

Phu Kadung 
sandstone

Sriapai et al Maha Sarakham sst 

Lee & Haimson SAFOD granodiorite 

15
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

2.4.3 Curve fitting
In their respective comparative analyses, most
researchers have opted for the lowest mean absolute
misfit between the predicted failure stress and the
experimental data to determine the best fitting
criterion for their particular data set. However, it can
be seen from Table 2.4 that even following this general
method, the best fitting Hoek-Brown parameters, for
example, do vary slightly between researchers. This
shows that the calculated parameters are not only
dependent on the rock but are also dependent on the
curve-fitting technique used. This is in keeping with
a conclusion reached by Mostyn and Douglas (2000).
Further, the relevance of these comparisons and
the level of fit achieved are also dependent on the
confining stress range selected. Along with Mostyn
and Douglas (2000), Eberhardt (2012) considers that
the closeness of fit at low confinement and in tension
may be of more concern for rock engineering than at
high confinement.
When considering the need for an improved
criterion, a major consideration is the inherent
variability of test data. Sari (2012), for example,
conducted a comprehensive program which included
266 tests for one particular rock. The data is plotted
in two dimensional principal stress space in Figure 2.9
from Bertuzzi (2012). In another example, one of the
graphs presented in Colmenares and Zoback (2002)
is reproduced in Figure 2.10. By inspection of these
figures and of the UCS data shown in Figure 2.1, there
is a limit to the amount of “fine-tuning” one can do to
a criterion to fit test data.

TABLE 2.4 Hoek-Brown parameters from best fitting curves

Hoek-Brown parameters σc [MPa], mi

UCS 2D 3D
Rock Type
[MPa]
Colmenares & Lee et al (2012) Kwasniewski (2013)
Zoback (2002)

KTB amphibolite 165 250, 30.0 168, 46.50 164.7, 31.079

Dunham dolomite 257, 262 400, 8.0 321, 11.58 261.5, 9.653

Solenhofen limestone 310 370, 4.6 299, 8.51 310, 4.442

Mizuho trachyte 100 - 124, 11.11 100, 10.317

Manazuru andesite 140 - 150, 46.49 140, 31.425

Shirahama sandstone 60 65, 18.2 58, 19.10 60, 11.456

Yuubari shale ? 100, 6.5 72, 10.53 68.4, 7.845

Westerly granite 201 - 260, 36.77 201, 32.118

16

FIGURE 2.9 Sari (2012) figure 5 with the curve generated
following Mostyn and Douglas (2000). This has Hoek-
Brown parameters of σc = 70.56 MPa, mi = 7.56 and a =
0.590
FIGURE 2.10 Poly-axial test data from Colmenares and
Zoback (2002) showing the variability of the test data
compared with seven intact rock failure criteria
2 | Intact Rock Strength
2.5 COMPUTER SIMULATION
It is possible with some constraints to simulate the
laboratory testing of intact rock using particle-based
numerical methods such as a Particle Flow Code
(PFC) model (Potyondy and Cundall 2004). PFC
uses an assembly of spherical particles bonded together
at their contacts to simulate intact core of rock under
various conditions such as UTS, BTS, UCS and TXL.
A number of such laboratory test results are needed
to calibrate the PFC model so that it can be used to
generate a failure envelope (Pye 2009).
The idea is that the PFC model can be used as the
basic block in synthetic rock mass (SRM) modelling.
An SRM is a numerical technique to represent a
jointed rock mass. It does this by combining an
assembly of spherical particles bonded together at their
contacts – a PFC model – with an embedded discrete
fracture network (DFN) (Cundall et al. 2008). The
behaviour of an SRM depends on both the creation
of new fractures through intact material and the slip/
opening of pre-existing joints.
The main advantages of PFC and similar codes is
the relatively simple mathematical formulation and the
codes’ ability to consider material heterogeneity. The
disadvantage is the extensive experimental validation
and calibration required to verify that models are
capturing the observed macroscopic behavior of rock
(Lisjak and Grasselli 2014).
For example, Bahaaddini et al. (2013) investigate
the effect of joint geometry on the strength and
modulus of a laboratory-scale rock mass specimen
using SRM modelling. One of their conclusions is
that SRM modelling can be calibrated to reasonably
reproduce 2D laboratory UCS and biaxial tests at
low σ2 but the correlation progressively worsens as
σ2 increases. Further, it is understood that PFC does
not yet reproduce the σc / σt ratios observed in hard
rocks, though methodologies of employing ‘clumped
particles’ and ‘actual grain shapes’ to improve this are
being researched (Mas Ivars 2010).
There are further questions as to the application of
PFC to simulate rock mass, in particular the scaling
of the spherical particles to large blocks of intact rock.
This is discussed in Chapter 5.
2.6 CONCLUSIONS
From the discussion presented, it is apparent that
research into intact rock strength is quite mature.
There are many criteria that consider intact rock failure
but despite their limitations, the Mohr-Coulomb and
Hoek-Brown shear strength criteria remain the most
widely used to assess intact rock failure.
The generalised Hoek-Brown criterion has proved
to be a practical method to estimate intact and rock
mass strength (Eberhardt 2012). Though many have
17
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
suggested modifications and improvements to the
criterion since its publication in 1980, e.g. (Benz et al.
2008; Dinc et al. 2011; Ismael et al. 2014; Lee et al.
2012; Mostyn and Douglas 2000; Pan and Hudson
1988; Saroglou and Tsiambaos 2008; Serrano et al.
2007; Sonmez and Ulusay 2002; Zhang and Zhu
2007), its popularity has remained. Zuo et al. (2015)
provide a theoretical basis for the criterion’s parameters.
It is likely that there is a need to have more than one
criterion to describe all rocks in all stress conditions, as
suggested by Descamps and Tshibangu (2007).
Returning to the principal objective of providing
robust guidelines for the practicing designer, it is
worthwhile comparing the Hoek-Brown criterion with
the following four criteria as they too appear to offer
good means of representing intact rock strength.
• The Lade criterion (Lade 1977). This 3D criterion
was developed from theoretical soil mechanics and
laboratory tests. It is a three-parameter criterion
which has extended into materials which can sustain
small tensile stresses such as concrete and rock.
• The Christensen criterion (Christensen 1997). This
two-parameter, theoretical criterion was developed for
true 3D stresses to cater for a wide variety of materials.
18
• The Hoek-Brown criterion as modified by Mostyn
and Douglas (2000).
• The Hoek-Brown criterion as extended to 3D by
Zhang and Zhu (2007).
These criteria have the following characteristics.
• A theoretical basis. It is noted here that while the
Hoek-Brown criterion and hence its derivatives
are empirical, the original work did start with the
Griffith crack theory. Similarly, the Lade criterion is
an empirical development from a theoretical basis.
• A maximum of three parameters. While more
parameters may offer better curve-fitting, such as
the You criterion (You 2009), they are more difficult
to define particularly with limited test data.
• A smooth, curved failure surface in the octahedral
plane and a curved failure surface in planes
containing the hydrostatic axis.
• Are capable of having a tensile strength.
In Chapter 8 these criteria are compared with
the Hoek-Brown criterion as well as the Modified
Wiebols-Cook criterion, which was recommended
in Colmenares and Zoback (2002) as the
criterion that generally best fitted the test data in
compressive failure.

3 Defect
Parameters
3.1 OUTLINE
The preceding chapter looked in detail at intact
rock strength. In working towards the goal of
estimating rock mass properties, this chapter reviews
properties of defects (also variously called geological
structures, discontinuities, weakness planes, fractures or
simply ‘ joints’).
‘The biggest single difficulty in rock mechanics will
probably always be the measurement and understanding
of relevant input concerning joint characteristics’
(Barton 1972).
The main aspects to know about a defect are its
type (joint, fault, bedding plane, etc.), geometry
(orientation, length, spacing, persistence, shape,
thickness, and termination), infill material, hydrology
and strength. Each influences a rock mass’ properties.
These aspects can be observed or measured to varying
degrees in the field and in the laboratory.
While there are good, systematic methods for
collecting, analysing and presenting defect type and
to various degrees, defect strength and geometric data,
many defect properties in fact need to be inferred. For
example, a defect’s boundary and shape can be inferred
using “geo-logic” and if lucky, multiple measurements
of field samples. For instance Zhang and Einstein
(2009) demonstrate planar joints can typically be
assumed to be elliptical and of a size that can be
assessed from trace length data.
Though the following discussion focuses on defect
strength and stiffness, it is worth noting that defect
continuity dominates rock mass properties: “the most
important single factor affecting the strength along a
potential failure plane is the continuity of the joints on
that plane” (Robertson 1970). For example, Diederichs
(2003) shows that less than 1% of intact area in the
plane of a defect can provide a distributed load
capacity equal to heavy support systems used in hard
rock mining.
3.2 STRENGTH
The strength of a defect mainly depends on the
roughness of its contact surfaces and the material that
1 | Introduction
comprises those surfaces; both of which are probably
dependent on scale.
Direct shear tests can be carried out on laboratory
scale samples of defects to measure shear strength. The
results are often corrected for dilation, which is caused
by the defect’s roughness, and surface area following
the recommendations made by Hencher and Richards
(1989); (2014). The laboratory test results then need
to be adjusted in some manner to be suitable for
larger scales, such as those needed for underground
excavations.
It is worth stating that cohesion for a clean joint can
be assumed to be zero as any cohesion will be lost at
the onset of movement (Robertson 1970). Hence, the
strength of a defect is largely a function of its friction
angle (φ).
3.2.1 Patton
Patton (1966) introduced the bi-linear shear strength
concept where a defect’s strength is the sum of its
surface’s basic friction angle (φb) and its roughness (i).
At high normal loads the defect’s asperities are sheared,
i tends to zero and the defect’s strength becomes φb
(see Figure 3.1). The so-called ‘basic friction’ is the
frictional component of shear strength for a planar
defect, i.e. independent of any roughness component
causing dilation during shear (Hencher and
Richards 2014).
Stacey and Page (1986) suggest values of φb and i.
They quote values of φb between 25 and 35° for various
rocks and observe that assuming φb = 30° is often
FIGURE 3.1 Theoretical bi-linear peak shear strength of a
defect from Patton; after Brady and Brown (2005)
19
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

adequate for design. These values were also given by
Barton (1973). Hencher and Richards (2014) provide
values of φb from various work and note typical values
of 38 – 40° for natural joints through silicate rocks.
Mineral coatings and infill influence strength.
Table 3.1 provides the typical values for i stated
by Stacey and Page (1986). The particular roughness
description is scale dependent, and it is inferred from
Robertson (1970) that the descriptions given in Table
3.1 are relative to a scale of 50 mm (core size) to
approximately 300 mm (12” joint blocks).
TABLE 3.1 Surface roughness contribution;
modified from Stacey and Page
(1986)
however, were researched by Johnston et al. (1993)
and Seidel and Haberfield (2002). On the basis of
theoretical analysis and laboratory testing of clean rock
joints, they concluded that under constant normal
stiffness, the average shear strength of a defect can in
fact be approximated by σntan(φb +i). That is, Patton’s
bi-linear equation is applicable to joints under constant
normal force or stiffness.
3.2.2 Barton-Bandis
Barton (1973), Barton and Choubey (1977) and
Barton and Bandis (1980) studied the strength and
stiffness of defects and found that a defect’s φ can be
estimated using:

Description i
[50 to 300 mm Addition
scale] EQUATION 3.1
to φb

Slickenside or Very smooth, 0 where

Polished reflects light
• JRC is the joint roughness coefficient, which ranges
between 0 and 20 depending on specific roughness
Smooth Roughness +2° profiles
not detected
with finger • JCS is the joint wall compressive strength, which is
equal to σc for unweathered joints but may reduce to
Defined ridges Fine to +6° ≈ σc /4 if the joint walls are weathered (Barton 1976)
(slightly rough) medium
sandpaper
• φr is the residual friction angle for the general case.
For flat, unweathered surfaces Barton and Choubey
feel
(1977) claim φr = φb, i.e. the basic friction angle.
Small steps Medium +10° In their research, Barton & Bandis discovered that
(rough) to coarse increasing block size (L) reduces the values of JRC
sandpaper and JCS (Bandis et al. 1981; Barton and Bandis 1980;
feel Barton and Bandis 1982). They provided the following
relationships where the subscripts 0 refers to laboratory
Very rough Very well +14° and n to in situ scales.
defined
ridges, steps

An evaluation of eight large slope failures by

McMahon (1983) led him to conclude that the defect’s
friction angle (φ) for slope design can be estimated as
the sum of the laboratory basic friction angle φb and the
“relatively large scale” roughness angle: the “relatively
large scale” meaning at least 2% of the potential failure
path (McMahon 1985). So for a 5 m to 15 m long
failure, such that might occur around an underground
excavation, the term “relatively large scale” as defined
by McMahon may mean 100 to 300 mm. This is
in keeping with Patton’s bi-linear approach and the
descriptions of roughness given by Stacey and Page
(1986) in Table 3 1.
McMahon (1983) noted that his conclusion was for
defects under constant normal force and may not be
applicable to defects sheared under constant normal
stiffness. Joints under constant normal stiffness
The estimate of JRC and JCS at a scale relevant to
the problem is important. Barton and Bandis (1980)
advocate adopting tilt tests and carrying out Schmidt
rebound hammer tests on ‘natural’ blocks to calculate
φr , JRC and JCS at the scale of interest for the problem.
Of course, there are questions as to what is and how
to sample a ‘natural’ block at the ‘scale of interest’
for testing.
The scale dependency of JRC and JCS has also been
shown by others. For example, Kveldsvik et al. (2007),
who went on to show that the assumed value of JRC has

20

FIGURE 3.2 Plot of JRCn versus JRC0 for joint lengths
varying from 1 m to 100 m (Mostyn et al. 1997). The two
example points are for a 100 m long joint. If JRC0 = 6 the
Barton & Bandis equation implies JRCn = 2.5. A JRC0 = 20
however, implies a JRCn = 1.5. That is two joints identical
except small scale roughness, would have reversed larger
scale roughness. Clearly this is wrong. Mostyn et al. (1997)
suggests that the equation may only be appropriate for joint
lengths in the region of 1 m.
the greatest effect on the calculated strength. Mostyn
et al. (1997) show that the relationships linking JCS,
JRC and L are not suitable for defect lengths greater
than about 1 m (Figure 3.2). While this is obviously
important for rock slopes it is noted that a scale of
“about 1 m” is probably appropriate for underground
excavation design.
Researchers have noted other limitations to the
method.
Krahn and Morgenstern (1979) and Reeves
(1985) are of the opinion that φr and φb are not
material parameters and can be reduced to very
low values by surface preparation, for example
grinding and polishing, taking into consideration the
dilation induced by the roughness, i. Reeves (1985)
further highlighted the following deficiencies of
Barton’s equation.
• The reliability of push or tilt tests which usually
involve very low normal stresses in estimating JRC
and JCS
• A lthough φb for a diamond saw cut may be a
reproducible “index” for a particular rock type
and particular saw blade, it is not a fundamental
physical property of the material. That is, φb is scale
and test dependent.
• Both JRC and JCS are found to be strongly scale
dependent parameters.
• Since JCS and φb tend to be estimated rather than
measured, JRC values are therefore inevitably
somewhat subjective.
Hencher et al. (1993) also showed φb to be variable
but questioned the scale effects, suggesting that
the differences could be reduced if the results are
corrected for dilatancy as recommended by Hencher
and Richards (1989). They went further, considering
3 | Defect Parameters
FIGURE 3.3 Relationship between peak dilation angle
and Barton & Choubey empirical equation. Reproduced
from Hencher and Richards (2014) who re-drew the data
presented in Barton and Choubey (1977).
the methodology employed by Bandis et al. (1981)
had ‘severe limitations for accurately and consistently
simulating shear behaviour of most rocks’.
Prediction of friction angle from JRC using
Equation 3.1 is prone to considerable scatter as evident
from Figure 3.3 (Hencher and Richards 2014).
Jang and Jang (2014) found that it is better to use φr
and that it is not the same, and does not necessarily
correlate with φb.
The French tunnelling association (AFTES 2003)
notes that Equation 3.1 is limited to defects with thin
or no infill. The association also notes that at very low
normal stresses it gives unrealistic values of peak shear
strength. This latter aspect is surprising as Barton
and Bandis (1980) suggested method of estimating
JRC and JCS is using a tilt test which has very low
normal stresses.
3.2.3 Summary
Estimating a defect’s strength requires some estimate
of the basic friction angle (φb) which based on the
critique of literature presented, is ideally obtained
from corrected direct shear tests as recommended by
Hencher and Richards (1989); (2014). The defect’s
shape or roughness at a scale commensurate with the
particular engineering problem in question is needed
so that φb can be factored to a design shear strength,
φ. A typical scale of 1 to 10 m is suggested to be
suitable for most underground excavation design.
The suggestions made in Table 3.1 regarding surface
roughness contribution (i) are recommended.
An alternative way is to use Barton’s method
shown in Equation 3.1 to estimate φ, appreciating the
method’s limitations and that the solution will give
a range.
21
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
3.3 STIFFNESS
The stiffness of a defect, in both the normal and shear
directions, is a very difficult parameter to measure.
Hudson and Harrison (1997) discussed the behaviour
of defects under load and commented that defect
stiffness is unlikely to be constant as it varies with
load, as can be seen in Figure 3.4 .
FIGURE 3.4 Theoretical behaviour of a defect under
compression, tension and shear loading (Hudson and
Harrison 1997)
A theoretical approach can be adopted to estimate
normal stiffness, kn, for two trivial but instructive
problems - tight defects and defects with thick infill.
3.3.1 Tight defects
Consider a perfectly tight, perfectly smooth defect
such that normal compressive loads would behave as if
the defect was not there. Such a defect effectively does
not have a normal stiffness. This has been confirmed
by researchers, e.g. Bandis et al. (1983); Barton (1972);
Goodman (1974), who carried out tests on joints and
found that when joints are nearly or fully closed under
normal loads, further increases in normal load is
transferred to the solid rock above and below the joint.
However, many numerical modelling codes require
defect stiffness values. It is suggested that the idealised
concept of equivalent subgrade reaction (Cr ) can be
employed to estimate a numerical model minimum kn
for clean, tight defects. Deriving Cr in terms of modulus
from standard elastic solutions for foundations also
requires the dimensions of the foundation, B. The
following equation, for example, is from Vesic (1961)
for an infinitely long and B wide beam as reported in
Chapter 5 of Kulhawy and Mayne (1990).
22
Where Ef If is the foundation stiffness. The value of
the term in square brackets is approximately 1.0 (from
chapter 7.5 in Ou (2006)); certainly for a clean, tight
defect, i.e. where there is one material and one modulus
to consider. This equation therefore simplifies to:
Noting that the normal stiffness can be thought of
as the product of subgrade reaction and an area, i.e.
kn = Cr A and A = B over unit length, then combining
these equations gives:
which suggests kn (MPa/m) ≥ Ei (MPa) per m.
3.3.2 Defects with thick infill
For infilled defects the relationship developed by
Sovinc (1969) for rectangular loading on a finite
layer as published in Poulos and Davis (1974) and
reproduced herein as Figure 3.5 can be used. Noting
that the thickness of the defect (dimensioned as h in
Figure 3.5) is typically small compared to the loaded
area (L•B), the influence factor (β) can be approximated
as the slope of the initial part of the curve in Figure
3.5, which corresponds to a value of h / L → 0. This
gives β ≈ 0.625h/L. Substituting this into the equation
shown in Figure 3.5 for displacement ρz = βpL/E,
gives ρz= 0.625hp/E, which re-arranged leads to the
approximation of stiffness, kn = p/ρz = 1.6Ej /h where Ej
is the defect infill modulus.
For example, the normal stiffness of a defect with
25 mm soft clay infill (say su = 25 kPa, Ej = 5 MPa)
is kn = 1.6 x 5 MPa / 0.025 = 320 MPa/m. This value
appears to be in keeping with the results published by
Kulhawy (1978).
Further, the elastic isotropic relationship between
shear (ks) and normal (kn) stiffness is ks = kn / [2(1+v)],
cf. G = E / [2(1+v)] and Goodman (1968), which
suggests that ks should be 0.33 to 0.5 times kn.
3.3.3 General defects
Unfortunately estimating the stiffness of defects that
are between the perfectly tight, perfectly smooth defect
and the thick infilled defect is not as straightforward.
The following are examples of what practitioners have
published, often with little substantiating data, as
values for normal and shear stiffness values.
 3 | Defect Parameters

FIGURE 3.5 Influence factor, β, as a function of layer

thickness (h) and loading area (L, B) (from Poulos and Davis
(1974), section 7.8)

• Goodman (1968); (1974) found that defect stiffness FIGURE 3.6 Experimental evidence for scale effect on
varies with load. He suggested a simple method of defect shear stiffness; from Bandis et al. (1983). The data
suggests shear stiffness x length sheared (ks•L) in the range
estimating the initial shear stiffness as ks= σn tan(30
10 to 10,000 MPa, with the majority within 100 to 1000
to 40°) ⁄ δpeak where the peak shear displacement, MPa, for joints in rock.
δpeak is typically in the range 0.3 to 5 mm, average of
2 mm.
• Barton (1972) too found that defect stiffness varies • Bandis (1993) presented an equation for estimating
with load and is scale dependent; the larger the ks from the Barton shear strength equation:
specimen the smaller the shear stiffness.
• Kulhawy (1975) based on a literature search gave
the typical range of ks / kn = 0.04 to 1.2.
• Kulhawy (1978) reported results from various site
tests and showed typical values of kn = 1,000 to EQUATION 3.2
35,000 MPa/m and ks = 100 to 10,000 MPa/m for
joints; and kn = 250 to 7,000 MPa/m and ks = 20 to
2,000 MPa/m for joints with clay. He noted that • Flores and Karzulovic (2002) collated the then
the intact rock modulus to defect normal stiffness available published information regarding joint
ratio, Ei/kn, varied between 0.2 - 4.2 m. stiffness, which is summarised in Table 3.2.
They also provided the equation from Barton (1972)
• Bandis et al. (1983) carried out extensive tests on to estimate the normal stiffness for a simple rock mass
real joints and found for unweathered, high to
very high strength sandstone, siltstone, limestone, containing one defect set, if the intact modulus (Ei),
dolerite and slate that kn = 30,000-270,000 MPa/m rock mass modulus (E m) and defect spacing (s) are
and ks = 10,000-30,000 MPa/m. The laboratory tests known, viz:
showed that a ratio of ks / kn = 0.05 - 0.10 could be
used for normal stresses (σn) greater than about 0.3
MPa and a ratio of 0.10 for σn > 1MPa. They found
stiffness not only varies with load but also with the EQUATION 3.3
defect’s contact surface strength and roughness; and
was inversely proportional to the length of defect
that is sheared (L). Figure 3.6 suggests:
„„ k s•L ≈ a constant. For a given defect, increasing
L proportionately decreases ks. The product k s•L
effectively is in the range of 10 to 10,000 MPa,
and typically between 100 to 1,000 MPa, for
clean rock joints.
„„ ks ∝ normal stress. For a given defect of sheared
length L, increasing σn proportionately increases
ks . Because of the relationship between ks and kn ,
k s•L also increases, presumably to the limit of Ei.

23
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 3.2 Examples of joint stiffness values joints in weak limestone and marl, which they
from Flores and Karzulovic (2002) believed addressed the variability of the rock mass.
Defect Characteristic kn ks Bandis was one of the authors of the Sharp et al.
[MPa/m] [MPa/m] (2008) paper.
• Mas Ivars (2010) adopts values of kn = 150,000-
250,000 MPa/m and ks = 20,000-30,000 MPa/m, in
Soft infill < 10,000 < 1000
FLAC modelling of joints in volcanic rock masses at
Fault with 300 to 1500 5 5 the Palabora and Northparkes underground mines.
mm thick clay gouge
The values were based on the observed roughness
Defect with rock flour 800 800 and hardness of joints.
infill
Moderately strong 10,000 - < 10,000
• Oliveira (2014) summarises a limited number of
normal loading tests on Hawkesbury Sandstone
rock walls 50,000
and Ashfield Shale that indicate a kn = 4000 MPa/m
Sandstone 7000 - 500 - 4500 for both rock masses under low normal stresses of
25,000
σn ≤ 0.4 MPa.
Limestone - 300 - 5000
Strong rock walls 50,000 - < 50,000 3.3.4 Summary
200,000
The stiffness of three types of defects is considered.
Quartzite 10,000 - 1400 -
30,000 9000 • For perfectly tight, perfectly smooth defects such
that normal compressive loads would behave as
Granite 50,000 - 1000 - if the defect was not there, the minimum normal
635,000 1600
stiffness kn (MPa/m) can be approximated by the
Granite shear 2000 - - rock’s intact modulus Ei (MPa) per m.
266,000
• For infilled defects the relationship shown in Figure
3.5 can be used to estimate normal stiffness as kn =
1.6Ej/h where Ej is the defect infill modulus and h is
• The mass modulus of a Hawkesbury Sandstone
the defect thickness
foundation was measured by Clarke and Pells
(2004) to be between 800 and 1000 MPa with • t is suggested that these bounds loosely define the
I

the corresponding intact rock modulus inferred range of kn for other defects:
to be 3200 to 4800 MPa. Six bedding planes at
an average spacing of 1.25 m, were encountered in
the 9 m deep foundation zone that was tested. The
bedding planes were rock and clay infilled. It is • The published range of defect stiffness is large; kn=
estimated that the normal stiffness of these bedding 10,000 to 250,000 MPa/m. However, for clean
planes to be approximately 1000 MPa/m based on defects, the appreciation that k s•L ≈ a constant
Equation 3.3. (Figure 3.6) suggests that values for k s•L of between
• Badelow et al. (2005) adopt kn = 10,000 MPa/m 100 to 1000 MPa can be typically used.
and ks = 5,000 MPa/m for bedding and joints in • ratio of ks / kn = 0.10 can be assumed for normal
A

sandstone, and kn = 2,000 MPa/m and ks = 1,000 stresses greater than 1 MPa.
MPa/m for bedding and joints in shale. Perhaps
more importantly though, they found in their
numerical modelling using the then current version 3.4 HAWKESBURY
of the software Phase2, that values of kn and ks had SANDSTONE AND
little influence on the end results. Low values of ks
however did increase computational time. Hence, ASHFIELD SHALE
it is important to check if stiffness is materially The results of laboratory direct shear test results which
important in the software used. were undertaken for three recent tunnelling projects
• “Values for normal and shear stiffnesses for rock in Sydney – the Lane Cove Tunnel, the CBD Metro
joints typically can range from 10 to 100 MPa/m (which was not built), and the Northwest Rail Link,
for joints with soft clay in-filling, to over 100 000 comprise 76 tests of Hawkesbury Sandstone defects
MPa/m for tight joints in granite and basalt”, (Itasca and 97 tests of Ashfield Shale defects. The defects are
2008). These values are based on published data either bedding planes or partings, joints or shears.
from Kulhawy (1975), Bandis et al. (1983) and The results largely represent planar defects. In the
Rosso (1976). case of one dataset, the shear and normal stress values
• Sharp et al. (2008) adopt ks = 500-700 MPa/m were also corrected for dilatancy as recommended by
and φ = 40-55° and φr = 30-32°. for bedding and Hencher and Richards (1989). Hence, the data can

24

be used to estimate the basic friction (φb), i.e. ”the
frictional component of shear strength for a planar or
effectively planar discontinuity i.e. independent of any
roughness component causing dilation during shear”
(Hencher and Richards 2014).
The results are interpreted for shear strength and
stiffness.
• The peak shear stress (τ) recorded for the normal
stress (σn) applied during each of the direct shear
tests was selected.
• e shear stiffness (ks) was estimated as the gradient
Th

of the secant line plotted on the elastic portion of
the shear stress versus shear displacement graph.
3.4.1 Shear strength
3.4.1.1 Basic friction angle
Figure 3.7 is a plot of shear stress against normal stress
for the defects in Hawkesbury Sandstone. The similar
plot for Ashfield Shale is shown in Figure 3.8.
Straight-line conservative estimates of the mean
peak basic friction angle (φb) are shown in these figures,
which indicate that within:
• The Hawkesbury Sandstone, φb = 30° for bedding
planes, φb = 40° for joints and φb = 18° for shears /
clay seams
• The Ashfield Shale, φb = 25° for bedding planes, φb
= 28° for joints and φb = 15° for shears / clay seams.
FIGURE 3.7 Laboratory direct shear tests results for bedding
and joints in Hawkesbury Sandstone.
3 | Defect Parameters
FIGURE 3.8 Laboratory direct shear tests results for
bedding and joints in Ashfield Shale.
3.4.1.2 Design friction angle
The defect’s shape or roughness at a scale of 1 to 10
m is suggested to be suitable for most underground
excavation design so that φb can be factored to a design
shear strength, φ.
Using the examples of bedding planes within the
Hawkesbury Sandstone, most are logged as “planar,
rough” at the drill core scale (see data which is presented
in Chapter 9.2). This can be extended to “smooth
to slightly rough” at the 1 to 10 m scale. Using the
suggestions made in Table 3.1, the surface roughness
contribution (i) is expected to be in the range of 2 to
6°. This implies a design defect friction angle of 30° +
2 to 6°, i.e. φ = 32 to 36°.
An alternative way to estimate φ is to follow Barton’s
method of Equation 3.1, though as stated previously
the basic friction angle estimated from the direct shear
tests does not necessarily equate to φr in this empirical
correlation (Hencher and Richards 2014; Jang and Jang
2014). For bedding planes in Hawkesbury Sandstone:
•  JRC 0 = 6 to 8 (roughness profile 5 from Barton
and Choubey (1977) and therefore at the 1 m
scale JRCn ≈ 5. [The author is unaware of any tilt
tests carried out on Hawkesbury Sandstone that
according to Barton and Bandis (1980) would
remove any scale dependency.]
•  JCS ≈ UCS ≈ 30 MPa (see Figure 2.1). Any error
caused by incorrectly estimating JCS will be
small due to the log formulation (Barton and
Bandis 1980).
Therefore, the friction angle of a joint at 50 m depth,
say equivalent to σn = (0.5 to 4) x σv (the multiple of
the vertical stress is to take into consideration the
concentration around a tunnel opening) is: (0.5 to 4) x
50 x 0.025 ≈ 0.6 to 5 MPa, typically 1.25 MPa. That
is, approximately
φ =5log10 + 30=34 to 38°,
typically 37°.
25
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
Similarly, for bedding planes within the Ashfield
Shale, which are typically logged as “planar, smooth to
rough” at the drill core scale (Tables 8.4 to 8.6). They
can be taken as “smooth” at the 1 to 10 m scale, which
implies an i of approximately 2° (Table 3.1), and hence
a φ = 25 + 2 = 27°.
3.4.2 Stiffness
The shear stiffness inferred from the direct shear tests
is shown in Figure 3.9 for Hawkesbury Sandstone and
in Figure 3.10 for Ashfield Shale. The shear stiffness
was taken as the gradient of the secant line plotted
on the elastic portion of the shear stress versus shear
displacement graphs. This is in keeping with the
approach taken by Bandis et al. (1981).
FIGURE 3.9 Inferred shear stiffness from the direct shear tests results for bedding and joints within Hawkesbury Sandstone.
The shaded region highlights the typical values obtained.
FIGURE 3.10 Inferred shear stiffness from the direct shear tests results for bedding and joints within Ashfield Shale.
The shaded region highlights the typical values obtained.
26
Figure 3.9 and Figure 3.10 indicate:
• The shear stiffness is dependent on the applied
normal stress: shear stiffness increases with
increasing normal stress in the range tested.
• The shear stiffness of clean bedding planes and
joints within either the Hawkesbury Sandstone or
Ashfield Shale for normal stresses up to 1 MPa, is
generally in the range 300 to 1000 MPa/m.
• There is an indication that the shear stiffness of
joints is greater than that of bedding planes.
• The shear stiffness of shears and clay infilled

defects either in the Hawkesbury Sandstone or
Ashfield Shale for normal stresses up to 1 MPa, is
generally in the range 100 to 400 MPa/m.

Adopting the approximate ratio of ks / kn = 0.10, then
as ks ≈ 300 to 1000 MPa/m for clean bedding planes
and joints within either the Hawkesbury Sandstone or
Ashfield Shale, the implied normal stiffness kn ≈ 3000
to 10,000 MPa/m. This is lower than that predicted
using the Bandis equation (Equation 3.2) for a
bedding plane within Hawkesbury Sandstone at 50 m
depth, viz:
That is ks = 2700 MPa/m with the corresponding
kn ≈ 27,000 MPa/m.
However, it is in keeping with the value obtained
using the simple method suggested by Goodman
(1968) with φ = 35° for a bedding plane within the
Hawkesbury Sandstone (the range was found to be
32 to 36° in the previous section) gives a value for
the initial stiffness of ks=1.25 tan 35° ⁄ 0.001, i.e. ks
= 875 MPa/m and by inference, kn = 8750 MPa/m
(ks / kn = 0.10).
It is noted from the observed behaviour of test
samples, that the peak stiffness may be greater than
this range (see Figure 3.4).
Theoretically, Equation 3.3 could be used as an
alternative means to estimate the stiffness of bedding
planes. For example, the Hawkesbury Sandstone could
be argued to approximate a rock mass with one defect
set, i.e. sub-horizontal bedding.
Noting the typical values of Ei = 10,000 – 20,000
MPa and E m = 1,500 – 3,000 MPa for Hawkesbury
Sandstone and that bedding is typically 2 – 5 m thick,
the calculations using Equation 3.3 result in a broad
range for kn from 300 to 10,000 MPa/m. The most
likely combinations of Ei, E m and s result in typical
values for kn of between 750 to 2500 MPa/m (Figure
3.11). Interestingly, this is about an order of magnitude
lower than the test data suggests.
FIGURE 3.11 Normal stiffness kn as function of bedding spacing for various intact and rock mass modulus using Equation
3.3. The most likely combinations are shown as solid lines.
3 | Defect Parameters
3.4.3 Sheared length
The maximum shear strength in the direct shear tests
was obtained with small shear displacements, all less
than 2 mm and typically 0.2 to 0.5 mm. This is typical
for laboratory direct shear tests, see Bandis et al. (1981);
Hencher and Richards (2014) for examples.
The length of defect varied between 40 and 80 mm
depending on drill core size and the relative angle of
the defect to the core axis. The relationship between
shear stiffness and defect length is presented in Figure
3.12, which is in keeping with the laboratory data of
Bandis et al. (1981), see Figure 3.13.
The product of shear stiffness and the initial length
of the defect being sheared (k s•L) is shown Figure 3.14
for clean bedding and joints, irregular bedding and
joints and shears / clay infill, respectively. The figures
show k s•L increases from shears / clay infill (typically
less than 30 MPa) to clean defects (typically 10 to 60
MPa) and to irregular defects (typically 30 to 70 MPa,
with some greater than 100 MPa).
Limited correlation between shear stiffness and
defect length is observable over the scale tested. This
is generally in keeping with the typical range inferred
from Figure 3.6.
3.5 CONCLUSIONS
This chapter focused on defect strength and stiffness,
though it is worth repeating that it is defect continuity
and termination that dominate the large-scale behaviour
of rock masses. These latter two defect properties can
be inferred from ‘geo-logic’ and measured to varying
degrees in the field.
3.5.1 Strength
The following approach for estimating a defect’s
strength is recommended.
1 Estimate residual or basic friction angle (φr or φb)
from corrected direct shear tests as recommended by
(Hencher and Richards 1989).
2 Add the defect’s shape or roughness at a scale
commensurate with the particular engineering
27
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 3.12 Shear stiffness versus defect length FIGURE 3.13 The data from Figure 3.12 plotted over
Figure 3.6.

FIGURE 3.14 The product ks•L for clean bedding and clean joints (top); irregular bedding and irregular joints (middle); and
shear / clay infill (bottom).

28

problem in question. The defect’s shape or
roughness at a scale of 1 to 10 m is suggested to be
suitable for most underground excavation design.
The suggestions made in Table 3.1 regarding surface
roughness contribution (i) are recommended.
An alternative approach is to use Barton’s Equation
3.1 to estimate φ, appreciating the method’s limitations
and that a range of solutions is possible.
3.5.2 Stiffness
It seems that the knowledge of defect stiffness is at
a level that practitioners can readily include it into
numerical analyses for underground excavation. The
data supporting defect stiffness however appears to
be trailing this analytical ability. Nevertheless, the
stiffness of three types of defects has been considered.
The following approach is recommended.
• The stiffness of perfectly tight, perfectly smooth
defects. While a trivial case, this may be required
for analyses such as numerical modelling. For these
defects, the normal stiffness assigned to the defect is
the equivalent modulus of the rock, i.e. kn (MPa/m)
≈ Ei (MPa) per m.
3 | Defect Parameters
• For infilled defects, kn = 1.6Ej/h where Ej is the
defect infill modulus and h is the defect thickness
• It is suggested that these bounds define the range of
kn for other defects, i.e.:
Defect stiffness can be further estimated noting
the following.
• The published range of defect stiffness covers just
over an order of magnitude; kn = 10,000 to 250,000
MPa/m. However, for clean defects, the fact that
ks•L ≈ a constant (Figure 3.6) suggests that the
range of between 100 to 1000 MPa can be typically
used for values for ks•L .
• A ratio of ks / kn = 0.05 - 0.10 can be assumed for
normal stresses greater than 0.3 MPa with that ratio
becoming 0.10 for normal stresses greater than 1
MPa (Bandis et al. 1983).
29
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

30

4 Rock Mass
Classification
4.1 OUTLINE
There are experienced rock engineering practitioners
who, cognisant of the fact that most failures occur
due to particular features and not average conditions,
consider that geology cannot be averaged and
quantified into a classification system. However, given
that the strength of a rock mass is some combination
of intact rock and defects and that a representative
volume of a rock mass cannot realistically be tested,
some form of empiricism is required. Classification is
often the approach.
It is not the intention to compare the numerous rock
mass classification systems, which include those in the
following list. The interested reader is referred to Palmström
(1995) and Edelbro (2003) for such comparisons.
• Terzaghi rock load
• Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
• Rock Structure Rating
• Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
• Mining RMR
• Slope RMR
• Rock Mass Index, Q
• Geological Strength Index (GSI)
• Rock Mass Index (RMi).
FIGURE 4.1 The original data set of some 200 case records upon which the Q system is based (Barton et al. 1974). Palmström
and Broch (2006) identify the Q system as working well for Very Poor to Good quality rock masses in excavations of less than
30m spans, i.e. the shaded portion.
1 | Introduction
Rather, in this chapter the two most widely used
classification systems for tunnel design – Q, (Barton
et al. 1974; Barton and Grimstad 2014; Grimstad
and Barton 1993) and GSI (Hoek 1994; Hoek and
Brown 1997; Marinos and Hoek 2000) – are discussed
specifically in relation to estimating rock mass
properties. RMR (Bieniawski 1989) is also used for
tunnel design, though it is not explicitly discussed as it
is included in the origins of GSI.
4.2 Q
Barton et al. (1974) in their seminal paper developed
a correlation between the permanent support installed
in underground excavations with a parameter they
termed rock mass quality, Q, which comprises:
“the RQD index, the number of joint sets (Jn), the
roughness of the weakest joints (Jr), the degree of alteration
or filling along the weakest joints (Ja), and two further
parameters which account for the rock load (SRF) and
water inflow (Jw).”
While the terms “the weakest joints” and “ least
favourable joint set” were both used in the 1974 paper,
the latter term is now solely used, e.g. Barton and
Grimstad (2014); Grimstad and Barton (1993).
31
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

The original work was based on 212 cases. Ninety
seven of the cases came from mapping by Cecil of 18
projects – 15 in Sweden and three in Norway – mainly
in granites and metamorphic rocks with high horizontal
stress (Cecil 1970), see Table 4.1. Figure 4.1 presents
the original Q log-log chart and the main cluster of case
records as defined by Palmström and Broch (2006).
In 1993, a further 1050 cases were included in the
Q-system (Grimstad and Barton 1993). Although
there is no detail in relation to the types of rock masses
of these 1050 cases, Barton and Grimstad (2004)
state that ‘they were mainly from main road tunnels in
Norway’. Barton and Grimstad (2014) also report that
an update in 2002-2003 added a further 800 cases but
no details are provided. Graphs showing the scatter in
the case data are presented in some publications (e.g.
Figure 4.2).
The relationship between the Q, excavation span
and the support required is shown in Figure 4.3.
The Excavation Support Ratio (ESR) for various
underground excavations is listed in Table 4.2.

TABLE 4.1 Case records of rock types used to develop the Q system (Barton et al. (1974), from Cecil (1970))

Igneous 66 Metamorphic 97 Sedimentary 19

Basalt 1 Amphibolite 8 Chalk 1

Diabase 4 Anorthosite (meta-) 1 Limestone 3

Diorite 2 Arkose 1 Marly Limestone 1

Granodiorite 1 Arkose (meta-) 3 Mudstone 1

Quartzdiorite 1 Claystone (meta-) 2 Calcareous Mudstone 1

Dolerite 1 Dolomite 1 Sandstone 4

Gabbro 2 Gneiss 14 Shale 2

Granite 46 Biotite Gneiss 1 Clay Shale 2

Aplitic Granite 1 Granitic Gneiss 4 Siltstone 2

Monzonitic Granite 1 Schistose Gneiss 2 Marl 1

Quartz Monzonite 2 Greywacke 1 Opalinus Clay 1

Quartz Porphyry 2 Greenstone 1

Tuff 2 Schistose meta Greywacke 1

Quartz Hornblende 1

Leptite 11

Marble 1

Mylonite 4

Pegmatite 2

Syenite 1

Phyllite 1

Quartzite 13

Schist 17

Biotite Schist 1

Mica Schist 2

Limestone Schist 1

Sparagmite 2

32
 4 | Rock Mass Classification

FIGURE 4.2 The bolt spacing used in case histories (Grimstad and Barton 1993) varies more than what the Q system charts
imply. Graph reproduced from Palmström and Broch (2006).

FIGURE 4.3 Q-chart which shows the relationship between rock mass quality Q, excavation span and recommended support
(Grimstad 2007)

33
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 4.2 The ESR values recommended in Barton and Grimstad (2014)
Type of Excavation ESR

A Temporary mine openings, etc. ca 2 to 5

B Permanent mine openings, water tunnels for hydropower (exclude high pressure 1.6 to 2.0
penstocks), pilot tunnels, drifts and headings for large openings, surge chambers

C Storage caverns 1.2 to 1.3

Water treatment plants, minor road and railway tunnels, access tunnels 0.9 to 1.1

D Power stations, major road and railway tunnels, civil defence chambers, portals, 0.5 to 0.8
intersections

E Underground nuclear power stations, railway stations, sports and public facilities, factories,
major gas pipeline tunnels

The Q-system does not directly provide estimates of rock mass strength. However, the ratio Jr / Ja is linked to a
frictional strength as indicated in Figure 4.4.

FIGURE 4.4 Approximate relationship between Jr / Ja and apparent ‘shear strength’ (expressed as a friction angle) (Barton
and Grimstad 2014)

34

Further, the constituent parameters of Q have been
correlated to the Barton-Bandis shear strength criterion
for particular conditions. To recap from Chapter 3, the
Barton-Bandis shear strength criterion is:
For the particular case of clay-filled defects, the
Q-system parameters Jr and Ja, specifically their ratio
Jr / Ja, can be used in place of JCSn / σn (Barton 1999).
More generally, Figure 4.5 shows the approximate
relationship proposed by Bandis (1993) between the
Q-system parameter Jr and JRC for 20 cm and 100 cm
long defects. So, the Q-system can be used to estimate
a friction angle for some specific cases.
FIGURE 4.5 Approximate relationship between Jr and JRC
for 0.2 and 1 m long defects (Bandis 1993)
4.3 GSI
Hoek (1994) introduced GSI, essentially as an
alternative to RMR, and correlative with Q, as a means
to determine rock mass strengths primarily:
• to overcome the limitation that RMR does not work
for very poor rock masses
• to avoid double counting the influence of the
groundwater in RMR or the joint water reduction
factor ( Jw) and the stress reduction factor (SRF)
in Q
• o have a “system based more heavily on fundamental
t

geological observations and less on ‘numbers’ ”
(Hoek 2002).
4 | Rock Mass Classification
In its original formulation GSI ranged from “about
10, for extremely poor rock masses, to 100 for intact rock”
(Hoek 1994) and was calculated on the basis of the
1976 formulation of RMR (Bieniawski 1976) as:
• GSI = RMR76 for RMR76 > 18 or
• 
GSI = 9Log eQ´+44 for RMR76 <18 where
Q´=RQD/Jn x Jr /Ja
If the 1989 version of RMR is used as recommended
by Bieniawski (1989) then the calculations are:
• GSI = RMR89 – 5 for RMR89 > 23 or
• GSI = 9Log eQ´+44 for RMR89 < 23
The parameters that make up RMR are listed in
Table 4.3. The range of three parameters changed
between RMR76 and RMR89. The parameter JCond89
is calculated according to its components as given in
Table 4.4.
GSI is therefore a trimmed version of RMR in that
it used only the first four parameters from Table 4.3
assigning the dry score of 10 or 15 to ‘Groundwater’
for RMR76 and RMR89, respectively, and the ‘very
favourable’ score of 0 for ‘Orientation’, to avoid ‘double
counting’ (Hoek 1994). So, the original GSI was a
number based on four parameters; intact rock strength,
RQD, spacing of discontinuities and JCond89 .
Hoek (2007) found the correlation between GSI
and RMR to be problematic for poor quality rock
masses and recommended that the GSI be estimated
directly by means of its charts, as discussed in the
next section.
TABLE 4.3 P
 arameters used in RMR from
Bieniawski (1976) and Bieniawski
(1989)
Parameter Rating
RMR76 RMR89
1 Strength of the intact rock 0 – 15 0 – 15
material
2 Drill core quality (RQD) 3 – 20 3 – 20
3 Spacing of discontinuities 5 – 30 5 – 20
4 Condition of discontinuities 0 – 35 0 – 30
(JCond)
5 Groundwater 0 – 10 0 – 15
6 Adjustment for -60 – 0 -60 – 0
discontinuity orientation
35
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 4.4 Components of JCond89 after Bieniawski (1989)

Length <1m 1–3m 3 – 10 m 10 – 20 m > 20 m
Rating 6 4 2 1 0

Separation None < 0.1 mm 0.1 – 1 mm 1 – 5 mm > 5 mm

Rating 6 5 4 1 0

Roughness Very rough Rough Slightly rough Smooth Slickensided

Rating 6 6 6 1 0

Infilling None Hard < 5mm Hard > 5mm Soft < 5mm Soft > 5mm
Rating 6 4 2 2 0

Weathering Unweathered Slightly Moderately Highly Decomposed

Rating 6 5 3 1 0

4.3.1 Chart
Following on from the seminal work of Hoek and
Brown (1980), in which a table was published that
linked a geological description to an RMR value and to
the Hoek-Brown strength criterion parameters, Hoek
(1994) published a chart showing that linkage with
GSI (Figure 4.6). This paved the way for assessing GSI
directly from a chart rather than quantifying through
RMR. An early chart was published in Hoek and
Brown (1997) and is reproduced here as Figure 4.7.

FIGURE 4.6 Chart published in Hoek (1994) that linked a geological description, GSI and the Hoek-Brown criterion

36

FIGURE 4.7 Original GSI chart from Hoek and Brown (1997)
Significantly, Marinos and Hoek (2000) largely
through work done in Greece on tectonically disturbed
and/or weathered rock masses, extended the range
covered by the chart and suggested GSI be estimated
directly from it. Estimating GSI directly from the
chart was also the recommendation independently
reached by Mostyn and Douglas (2000).
Several implications arise from estimating the GSI
value directly from the chart instead of calculating
it through RMR. The first is that though intact rock
strength is broadly implied by selecting a particular
chart e.g. sandstone or granite (Marinos and Hoek,
2000), strength is not explicitly included. In contrast,
intact rock strength is the first parameter required
when estimating RMR. The second is that problem
scale needs to be considered by the experienced
practitioner when selecting the vertical axis of the
chart. By so doing, one of the RMR / GSI limitations is
addressed. This follows on from the notion expounded
4 | Rock Mass Classification
in the original work of Hoek and Brown (1980) as
reproduced here in Figure 4.8.
It is worth noting that as the problem scale increases
further from those shown in Figure 4.8, the rock mass
may again be dominated by one or multiple large
geological structures such as regional faults. That is
the ‘intact rock’ is replaced by ‘rock mass’ separated by
regional faults or persistent defect sets.
A third implication is that the interlocking of rock
blocks was introduced.
There is actually another more pressing issue with
estimating GSI directly from the chart, and that is
selecting which chart to use.
An important development of GSI in the past
decade, again largely through work done in Greece
on tectonically disturbed and/or weathered rock
masses, is the recognition that general categorisation
of rock masses is complex. The first development was a
37
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
FIGURE 4.8 Various rock mass problem scales from Hoek
and Brown (1980)
separate GSI chart for schist around Athens (Hoek et
al. 1998), followed by a chart for flysch (Marinos and
Hoek 2000). Separate charts were then introduced for
molasse (Hoek et al. 2005) and ophiolites (Marinos et
al. 2006). There are nine GSI charts to cover general
jointed rock, flysch (two charts), molasse (fissile and
confined), limestone, ophiolites and gneiss (Marinos
2010) and metamorphic rock masses (Habimana et
al. 2002). Each of the individual GSI charts describes
the particular rock mass type in greater detail than the
generic description originally provided. However, some
of the charts seem to slightly extend the applicability of
the original GSI.
The sketches on the left-hand side of the GSI chart(s)
that are drawn to assist allocating the rock mass into
the appropriate row have also slightly changed over
time. As can be seen in Figure 4.9, the sketch for a
‘BLOCKY’ rock mass is subtly different in the various
publications. It can be seen though that the closer joint
spacing is kept in Hoek et al. (2013). It is also kept in
the program RocLab (3).
FIGURE 4.9 The changing sketches depicting the rock mass structure. From left to right the sketches are from: Hoek (1994),
Hoek et al. (1998), Marinos and Hoek (2000), Marinos et al. (2006), Marinos (2010) and Hoek et al. (2013).
(3)
Version 1.033 build date 8 July 2013 RocScience Inc
38
Carter and Marinos (2014) prepared a matrix
showing the relationships between the nine GSI charts
and the Hoek-Brown strength criterion parameters
of σc and mi for different lithologies. This highlights
the importance of developing the geological model to
estimate GSI.
One of the main issues with the GSI chart(s) is
that details of the calibration carried out to derive
it is lacking. Marinos (2010) states that the GSI was
compared with the temporary support installed.
However, this is at best an indirect comparison given
that GSI is not used to estimate support but rather
to estimate rock mass properties, which in turn are
presumably used in analyses to estimate the rock
mass behaviour, which in turn is used to estimate
rock support.
In addition to the need for different sets of material
properties and by extension GSI values, to cater for
different problem scales, it is suggested that different
numerical methods also require different values. For
example, it is logical that the GSI value for the same
rock mass increases as the analysis method and scale of
the problem reduces:
• It may only be possible to include a few specific
geological structures in a large numerical model
of an open pit. Hence, properties to be used in
continuum analyses e.g. FLAC, Phase2, PLAXIS, are
likely to be appropriate.
• or a smaller problem, such as tunnel scale or
F

multiple bench scale in an open pit, it may be
practicable to include several specific geological
structures in the continuum analyses models.
Hence, different material properties to those used
in the first problem are likely.
• If that problem was analysed using discontinuum
techniques e.g. UDEC, or ‘jointed’ continuum
analyses with numerous geological structures explicitly
modelled e.g. jointed Phase2, it may be appropriate
that material properties reflecting the behaviour of a
smaller representative rock mass are used.
 4 | Rock Mass Classification

The GSI chart’s axes are not necessarily independent.
Often the blockiness of the rock mass (vertical axis) is
linked to the surface quality of a rock mass (horizontal
axis). This is commonly seen as a diagonal trend from
top left to bottom right when different classes of the
same rock mass type are overlain on one chart. For
example, the charts published by Marinos and Hoek
(2000), Habimana et al. (2002) and Marinos et al.
(2006), who also noted that not all combinations are
possible and excluded the top right and bottom left
cells in the GSI chart (Figure 4.10).
4.3.2 Quantification
Several authors have suggested methods to quantify
the GSI chart ’to facilitate use of the system especially by
inexperienced engineers’ (Cai et al. 2004). The issue of
inexperience is perennial; one shared by many leading
rock engineering practitioners, for example Terzaghi
(1946), Bieniawski (1976), Hoek (1994), Fookes
(1997), Stacey (2000), Edelbro et al. (2007), Pells
(2008). Yet industry relies on young geologists and
engineers for routine field work. Quantifying the GSI
may provide a means of reducing inadvertent errors and

FIGURE 4.10 Ranges of GSI for various qualities of peridotite-serpentinite rock masses in ophiolitic complexes from Marinos
et al. (2006). The chart shows the typical diagonal trend from top-right to bottom-left for decreasing rock mass quality.

39
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

inconsistencies by these inexperienced professionals in
classifying a rock mass.
Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) suggested linking the
vertical axis of the GSI chart to ‘volumetric joint
count’ ( Jv) and the horizontal axis to three of the five
components of the RMR’s JCond parameter.
Cai et al. (2004) noted that by adding measurable
data, the system becomes less dependent on the
practitioner’s experience. They proposed quantifying
the GSI chart by making the vertical axis ‘block
TABLE 4.5 Terms to describe large-scale
waviness Jw from Cai et al. (2004)
Waviness term
Interlocking
Stepped
Large (>3%) undulation
Small to moderate (0.3 to 3%) undulation
Planar (<0.3%)
volume’ ( Vb) and the horizontal axis ‘joint condition’
( Jc ) following the RMi classification system (Palmström
1995). The joint condition factor is defined by the large
scale ( JW) and small scale ( Js) roughness and alteration
( JA), i.e. Jc = JW x Js/JA (see Table 4.5 to Table 4.7). A
similar approach was taken by Russo (2009) but gave
an explicit equation between GSI, Vb and Jc.
Hoek et al. (2013) waded into the argument of
quantifying GSI and, seemingly counter to one of
the system’s original purposes vis a vis “a system based
more heavily on fundamental geological observations
and less on ‘numbers’” (Hoek and Marinos 2007), and
proposed to quantify the GSI. The reason given by
Hoek et al. (2013) for quantifying GSI is the same as
JW others in that the GSI chart is being used by
3 inexperienced engineers ‘who are less comfortable with
these qualitative descriptions’.
2.5
Hoek et al. (2013) quantify GSI as equal to 1.5 x
2 JCond 89 + RQD/2 (Equation 1) and as shown in Figure
1.5 4.12, correlate the chart’s vertical axis to RQD/2 and
its horizontal axis to 1.5 x JCond 89. It can be seen that
1
the top and bottom rows are removed compared with

TABLE 4.6 Terms to describe small-scale roughness JS from Cai et al. (2004)
Roughness Description Js
Very rough Near vertical steps and ridges occur with interlocking effect on the defect surface 3
Rough Some ridge and side angle are evident; asperities are clearly visible; defect surface feels 2
very abrasive (rougher than sandpaper Grade 30)
Slightly rough Asperities on defects are distinguishable and can be felt (like sandpaper Grade 30-300) 1.5
Smooth Surface appears and feels smooth (smoother than sandpaper Grade 300) 1
Polished Visual evidence of polishing exists. This is often seen in coating of chlorite and talc 0.75
Slickensided Polished and striated surface that results from sliding along a fault surface 0.6-1.5

TABLE 4.7 Terms to describe joint alteration factor JA from Cai et al. (2004)

Term Description JA

Healed or welded joints (UW) Non-softening, impermeable filling (quartz, epidote, etc.) 0.75
Rock wall contact

Fresh rock walls No coating or filling on joint surface, except for staining 1

Alteration of joint wall The joint surface exhibits one class higher alteration than 2
(SW-MW) the rock

Alteration of joint wall (HW) The joint surface exhibits two classes higher alteration than 4
the rock

Sand, silt, calcite etc. Coating of frictional material without clay 3

partial or no contact

rock wall surfaces

Clay, chlorite, talc, etc. Coating of softening and cohesive material 4

Filled joints with

between the

Sand, silt, calcite etc. Filling of frictional material without clay 4

Compacted clay materials Hard filling of softening and cohesive materials 6

Soft clay materials Medium to low over-consolidation of filling 8

Swelling clay materials Filling materials exhibits swelling properties 8-12

40

FIGURE 4.11 Quartzite rock mass downstream of the Ord Diversion Dam, Western Australia (photo courtesy of Kurt Douglas)
the GSI chart of Figure 4.10, reverting to the original
rock mass structure range in Hoek (1994) and Hoek
and Brown (1997) but with slightly lower GSI values.
It is important to note that the applicable range for a
reliable quantified GSI is limited to RQD ≤ 80.
It is not unexpected that there is correlation between
GSI and the two RMR parameters JCond89 and RQD.
‘Groundwater’ and ‘Discontinuity Orientation’ are not
part of GSI, and there is clearly an overlap between
RQD and ‘Spacing of discontinuities’. Hence, the six
parameters that make up RMR (see Table 4.3) are
really reduced to the two in GSI.
Defining the vertical axis as equivalent to Jv , Vb or
RQD/2 implicitly re-introduces problem scale though.
The same rock mass generates the same GSI irrespective
of scale. Hoek et al. (2013) caution that using RQD,
Jv or Vb ‘ limits the defintion of rock structure to the
dimension of the blocks’. Cundall et al. (2008) suggested
addressing this shortcoming by expressing the vertical
axis “as the number of blocks across the scale of interest.”
Also, RQD, Jv or Vb essentially assume that all
defects contribute equally to the rock mass properties.
However, as the scale of the problem increases, the
4 | Rock Mass Classification
rock mass behaviour will be increasingly controlled by
the large, persistent defects. Further, neither of these
‘blockiness’ measures capture the degree to which rock
blocks are interlocked, which is an important part of
the descriptions in the GSI chart. For example, the
photograph of the rock mass in Figure 4.11 shows a
very well interlocked blocky rock mass, which plots
between GSI = 50 to 70. However, the rock mass has
essentially RQD = 0.
It is important therefore to re-iterate the
recommendation of Cai et al. (2004) and Russo (2009)
and implied in Hoek et al. (2013) that the quantified
GSI approach is supplementary to and not necessarily
a replacement of the visually assessed GSI.
4.4 LIMITATIONS
Both Q and GSI use geological and geometric
parameters to arrive at a quantitative value to represent
the quality of the rock mass. By the very nature of rock
masses, it is to be expected that a large scatter exists in
the data that lies behind the empirical classifications
(see Figure 4.2 for example). This inherent difficulty
with all classification systems means that correlations
and the ensuing results must be used cautiously.
41
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 4.12 Revised GSI chart from Hoek et al. (2013)

42

FIGURE 4.13 Comparison of the range covered by RQD with those of joint spacing, block volume and volumetric joint count;
from Palmström (2005)
Q and GSI use scale-dependent RQD and joint
condition as direct ratings. Hence neither may
adequately consider the scale of the rock mass problem,
e.g. Hudson and Harrison (1997), Douglas and Mostyn
(1999). Palmström (2005) considers that Q and RMR
(and by extension GSI) would be improved if ways of
capturing block size measurements other than RQD
had been used, and recommends volumetric joint
count see Figure 4.13.
In addition to the inherent variability of the
underlying data, the subjectivity of the person using
the classification method also controls to a large part
the results obtained from any classification method
(Edelbro et al. 2007).
4.5 CONCLUSIONS
Accepting that a representative volume of a rock mass
cannot realistically be tested, a rock mass classification
4 | Rock Mass Classification
approach, such as Q or GSI, is required to estimate
rock mass properties.
It appears that GSI continues to offer good
opportunity to estimate rock mass properties,
despite its inherent limitations. Particularly for most
underground excavations the scale-dependency of
RQD may not be too significant. Perhaps the GSI
chart-based classification system should be modified to
become more objective as recommended by Cai et al.
(2004) and Hoek et al. (2013). This could be achieved
by quantifying:
• The horizontal axis with defect conditions, as say
per Cai et al. (2004) or by Hoek et al. (2013)
• The vertical axis by problem scale, say by inclusion
of direct block size measurements, as suggested by
Palmström (1995) or by a means that relates the
block size to the problem scale and analysis method
as supported by Cundall et al. (2008).
43
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

44

5 ROCK MASS
STRENGTH CRITERIA
5.1 OUTLINE
The preceding chapters critically reviewed intact
rock strength, strength of defects and rock mass
classification. In this chapter, the approach and bases
of the strength criteria most commonly adopted for
rock masses are assessed. These include:
• Massive brittle rock, of which coal is a particular
example
• Plane of weakness
• Barton-Bandis
• Hoek-Brown
• Cohesion weakening – Friction strengthening
(CWFS)
• Synthetic Rock Mass (SRM).
5.2 MASSIVE BRITTLE ROCK
Research by Wilson (1971) which is quoted in Hoek
and Brown (1980) and in Stacey and Page (1986) led
to an empirical failure criterion based on the ratio of
vertical stress to UCS (σv/σc ) as listed in Table 5.1.
The criterion is applicable to massive, brittle rock at a
problem scale of 3 to 4 m square tunnels.
TABLE 5.1 Massive, brittle rock failure criterion;
from Stacey and Page (1986) quoting
Wilson (1971)
σv /σv Description of Condition
< 0.2 No particular problems
0.2 – 0.4 Spalling from surface parallel to σ1;
Heavier support required
0.4 – 0.5 Major spalling; Heavier support
required
0.5 – 0.67 Very dangerous and difficult to keep
open; Support heavy and costly
> 0.67 Impractical or extremely difficult to
maintain open
5 | Rock Mass Strength Criteria
This empirical criterion is broadly consistent with the
extension strain criterion for intact rock discussed
in Chapter 2 and with the research outlined below,
which suggests spalling initiates at stress levels of
approximately σ1/σc = 0.3 – 0.5.
• Stacey (1981) developed an extension strain failure
criterion for brittle rocks stating that rock fracture
initiates when strains exceed some critical value
which appears to correspond to a stress level of σ1
≈ 0.3σc.
• artin et al. (1999) and Kaiser et al. (2000) found
M

that brittle failure initiates when σ1 ≈ 0.4σc. They
also stated that the depth of stress-induced brittle
fracturing can be found by considering only the
cohesive strength of the rock mass, i.e. constant
deviatoric stress (σ1 - σ3) equal to approximately
0.3σc to 0.5σc.
• Kaiser et al. (2000) also suggested the idea of a
spalling limit. Values of σ1/σ3 ≥ 10 to 20 coincide
with localised zones of tension that promote
spalling and failure. Kaiser et al. (2000) elaborated
on previous work that the depth of failure (df )
surrounding a tunnel of diameter a driven in brittle
rock is proportional to the stress ratio σ1/σc, viz:
When df reaches half the pillar width, Martin et
al. (1999) suggest that the pillar must be rated as
unstable with a high potential for complete failure.
• Diederichs et al. (2004) summarised the findings

of several co-researchers and found that failure in
hard rock initiates at stress levels approximated by
σ1 = (0.3 to 0.5)σc + (1 to 1.5)σ3 (Figure 5.1).
45
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

or empiricism to identify the threshold of UCS*: the

UCS at which cracks initiate and accumulate.
The empirical relationships are given in Equation
5.2, where a = 0.2 for ‘damage initiation’ and 0.25
for ‘systematic cracking’ and T is the intact tensile
strength. In a follow-up paper, Diederichs et al. (2007)
recommends the ‘systematic cracking’ envelope (i.e. a
= 0.25) to model spalling.

EQUATION 5.2
FIGURE 5.1 Correlation between estimated minimum in
situ strengths and crack initiation; figure from Diederichs et
al. (2004)

• This was later modified slightly to (Diederichs 2007):

EQUATION 5.1

Equation 5.1 is in a similar format to the Mohr-

Coulomb shear strength criterion (Chapter 2.2.1),
which can be written as σ1=σc+kσ1.
Diederichs (2000) working with computer models
and test results of the Lac Du Bonnet granite of
AECL’s URL in Manitoba, Canada, noted that brittle
rock under low confinement near excavations, fails by FIGURE 5.2 Curved strength envelope suggested by
fracturing, spalling and in the extreme, slabbing. He Diederichs (2007)
found that conventional rock mechanics models, such
as Mohr–Coulomb and Hoek–Brown, do not consider Brittleness is not solely a material property as it
this failure process properly. depends on the stress path the rock mass follows before
Diederichs (2000) proposed the damage initiation and after failure (Mas Ivars 2010). For example, a high
spalling limit (DISL) approach to model the strength confining stress makes a rock mass’ post-peak response
of spall-prone rock masses. The DISL strength envelope more ductile. Therefore, the post-peak deformation
is schematically shown in Figure 5.2. It comprises four properties are also key aspects for understanding
zones of rock mass failure.
• Below the ‘‘damage threshold’’ the rock is not
damaged and remains undisturbed.
• Depending upon the confinement when this
threshold is exceeded, micro-crack damage
accumulates, leading either to
„„ Spalling or
„„ Macro-scale shear failure
• Under tensile stresses, the rock mass can unravel.
In a series of papers, Carter et al. (2007); Carter et
al. (2008); Carvalho et al. (2007); Diederichs (2003);
Diederichs (2007); Diederichs et al. (2007); Diederichs
et al. (2004) suggested an empirically-based method
to derive equivalent Hoek-Brown fracture envelopes
for the first part of the DISL, which he and his co-
researchers variously refers to as ‘damage initiation’
and ‘systematic damage’ or ‘systematic cracking’. The FIGURE 5.3 Tensile crack initiation (CI) stress versus UCS
method uses acoustic emission data, radial strain data for various rock types; figure from Hoek and Martin (2014)

46

the behaviour of rock masses. However, post-peak
properties are beyond the scope of this book.
Hoek and Martin (2014) noted the consistency of
tensile crack initiation observed in laboratory tests as
evidenced by the graph in Figure 5.3 which suggests
that the crack initiation stress is approximately equal
to 0.45 times the UCS, i.e. σ1 ≈ 0.45σc.
Using the findings of the above quoted research,
that the value of UCS* is between 0.3 to 0.5, but
commonly 0.45, times UCS, Equation 5.2 for
‘systematic cracking’ then yields s ≈ 0.45(1/0.25) = 0.041
and m = 0.041*(UCS/|T|).
Barton and Shen (2016) provide an argument that
the crack initiation stress ≈ 0.4 UCS is not surprising.
They start with the extension strain criterion (Stacey
1981) which from Chapter 2.3.5 is:
In two-dimensional plane stress, the strain is related
to stress as:
Tensile failure at the wall of an underground
excavation (σradial = 0) will occur when the critical
strain is reached (σradial=- σ1/E) i.e.
FIGURE 5.4 Left - Coal triaxial test data from Medhurst and Brown (1998). Right - Load versus displacement curves from
laboratory testing of 54 mm diameter cylindrical coal samples. The curves show strain-softening becoming strain-hardening
post-yield behaviour depending on w/h ratio, i.e. confinement; from Das (1986).
5 | Rock Mass Strength Criteria
Barton and Shen (2016) suggest that UCS/σt = 10
and v = 0.25 for most rocks, so
Using typical ratios for UCS/σt of between 10 to 20
(Lade 1993) and for v of between 0.2 to 0.3 (Gercek
2007), the equation suggests a range of: σtangential =
0.2UCS to 0.5UCS.
5.3 COAL
5.3.1 A brittle rock
In terms of rock failure, coal can be thought of as a
brittle rock even at moderate confining pressures.
The triaxial data of coal samples from Medhurst
and Brown (1998) is plotted on a principal stress plot
as an example in Figure 5.4 with Mogi’s line depicting
the approximate transition between ductile flow and
brittle fracture. It is noted that Mogi’s line is often
presented as σ1/σ3 = 3.4 (e.g. the software program
RocLab by RocScience) rather than (σ1- σ3 )/σ3 = 3.4
as shown in Mogi (1966); (1971) and discussed in
Douglas (2002). Both lines are shown in Figure 5.4,
which indicates that at a laboratory scale, intact coal
plots well within the brittle fracture zone even up to 10
MPa confinements.
The results of compressive testing of various lengths
of 54 mm diameter cylindrical samples of coal showed
a range of behaviours from brittle to ductile strain-
47
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

softening and ductile strain-hardening with increasing

confinement Figure 5.4 (Das 1986),
The behaviour of coal pillars under compression
also varies from brittle to ductile dependent upon the EQUATION 5.4
degree of confinement as demonstrated with the in situ
tests carried out by Wagner (1974) and by numerical
van Heerden (1975) describes the in situ compressive
modelling (Esterhuizen et al. 2010; Zipf 1999).
testing of 10 large coal samples. Combining his results
with previous testing, he confirmed Bieniawski’s
5.3.2 Coal pillar strength conclusion that beyond a certain critical size, pillar
The process for estimating the rock mass strength strength does not increase for fixed h. van Heerden
of coal pillars has developed along a different path (1975) proposed the relationship shown in Equation
to that for other rock types. This different approach 5.5 where the Constant is the compressive strength of a
and the seminal papers of this research area are briefly 1.5 m3 cube sample of coal.
presented in this section.
5.3.2.1 Development
In 1960 at the Coalbrook Colliery in South Africa,
more than 7000 pillars collapsed, over 4400 coal EQUATION 5.5
pillars failed in a 5-minute period; 437 men were
killed in the collapse. The Coalbrook disaster was the
impetus for research into coal pillar design. Salamon The Constant in Equation 5.4 ≈ 4.2 MPa.
and Munro (1967) sent out a questionnaire to collieries Sheorey et al. (1987) assessed the details of 23
in the Transvaal and Orange Free State of South failed and 20 stable pillars from Indian coal mines
Africa requesting detailed dimensions of workings and concluded that the in situ strength of coal pillars
(stable areas) and areas of pillar collapse. They collated was more affected by the depth of cover (H) than the
125 case studies of which 98 were stable and 27 were results of laboratory tests. They proposed the following
collapsed where the coal seam was the weakest element. equation.
Starting with the work of previous researchers, they
empirically derived Equation 5.3; where the value K
is the strength of a unit 1 ft3 cube of coal which they
found could be taken as 1322 psi. In SI units, the
value of K for a unit 1 m3 cube of coal is 7.17 MPa, e.g.
van Heerden (1975), Galvin et al. (1999) and York et
al. (2000). σcube is the strength of a 25 mm sized cube

EQUATION 5.6

EQUATION 5.3 A slightly truncated database of 14 failed and 14

stable coal pillars from India was back-analysed using a
Hoek-Brown strain-softening criterion by Jaiswal and
Bieniawski (1968) reported the results of insitu tests
Shrivastva (2009). They derived the following equation
on 25 square coal specimens measuring 2 to 5 ft and
for pillar strength by curve-fitting the analysis results.
up to 5 ft in height. He concluded that the “strength
of pillars cannot be expressed by a power function of their
width and height as there exists a critical pillar [cube]
size above which the strength of coal does not change with
an increase in pillar dimensions”. For example, if the Their paper also included average UCS results from
critical size is 5 ft, then a 20 ft cube pillar will have the Sheorey et al. (1987) which ranged between 19 and
same strength as a 5 ft cube pillar. 50 MPa with a mean of 34 MPa. Using the mean, the
The problem with a power function is the equation simplifies to Equation 5.7.
unreasonable implication that pillar strength continues
to increase indefinitely as the size of cubic pillars (w
= h) increases. Hence, Bieniawski offered a linear
relationship in terms of width / height ratio for w/h ≥ 1
and w ≥ 5 ft (1.5 m) (Equation 5.4): EQUATION 5.7

48

A large study of UCS tests and coal pillars in the US
by Mark and Barton (1997) led them to the thought-
provoking conclusion that “ laboratory testing should
not be used to determine coal strength”. Their tabulated
data of the averages of nearly two thousand UCS tests
from 54 coal seams ranges between 4 and 47 MPa with
an overall average UCS of 23.4 MPa.
They correctly point out the strong influence that
geological structure has on the rock mass strength of
a coal pillar. Laboratory tests, particularly those of
blocky coals, require a significant amount of fracturing
of intact coal. Pillars contain so many cleats and other
discontinuities that their failure can occur almost
entirely along pre-existing fractures. The laboratory
tests measure a parameter – the intact coal strength –
that is apparently irrelevant to the insitu strength.
Mark and Barton (1997) found a linear relationship
similar to Equation 5.5 between Cp and w/h – the
Mark-Bieniawski formula, Equation 5.8. They
recommended adopting a uniform 6.2 MPa for “coal
strength” for more reliable pillar designs (4).
EQUATION 5.8
This was extended to rectangular coal pillars of
length L by Mark and Chase (1997) as:
EQUATION 5.9
Mark and Barton (1997) did not prove that all coal
seams actually are the same strength, their work only
showed that laboratory testing was no help in identifying
the differences that surely exist (Mark 2006).
Galvin et al. (1999) adding to the work of Salamon
and Munro (1967), developed a similar empirical
relationship for the strength of coal pillars in Australia
based on the following data.
• An Australian database of 19 collapsed and 16
un-collapsed pillars
• A South African database of 42 collapsed and 98
un-collapsed pillars.
They also recognised the influence of rectangular
pillars and recommended calculating effective pillar
width as the harmonic mean according to Equation
5.10 and pillar geometry as shown in Figure 5.5 where
w1 ≤ w2 .
EQUATION 5.10
(4)
The pillar design recommended by Mark and Barton (1997) is the Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability (ARMPS) method
5 | Rock Mass Strength Criteria
Their linear form for pillar strength applicable in the
range w/h ≤ 8 relationship is given in Equation 5.11.
EQUATION 5.11
FIGURE 5.5 Plan view of coal pillar geometry, after Galvin
et al. (1999)
Though the relationship is said to be applicable
for w/h ≤ 8, only one of the collapsed pillars in the
database has a ratio w/h = 8; the others having w/h
< 5 (Galvin et al. 1999). Further, there is debate as to
whether the one case with w/h = 8 is valid; see Colwell
(2010) and Seedsman (2012). However, Galvin (2006)
discusses the lack of failure data for pillars where
w/h > 5 and provides the following two reasons.
• The loading regime necessary to cause failure of
squat pillars is not generated in bord and pillar
mining layouts. The one collapsed case with w/h
> 5 was deliberately generated by progressively
trimming the sides off pillars.
• Failure of squat pillars is characterised by strain
softening rather than total collapse. The strain
softening may go unnoticed. The one collapsed case
with w/h > 5 was detected by an extensive array
of monitoring.
The influence of discontinuities, surrounding strata
characteristics and deterioration with time on coal
pillar strength was observed by York et al. (2000).
They attempted to introduce a classification system
to consider joint frequency, condition and orientation
into coal pillar strength.
The South African coal pillar database was expanded
to 54 cases of collapsed pillars by van der Merwe
(2003) who recommended separating ‘weak’ and
‘normal’ coal in using the linear relationship between
Cp and w/h (Equation 5.12). van der Merwe (2003)
argued that the linear relationship is appropriate for
coal pillars larger than 1.5 to 2 m. The constant for
49
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
‘normal’ coal is the range 2.8 to 3.5 MPa, with a mean
of 3.15 MPa.
EQUATION 5.12
The concept of separating different strength coals
was extended by Salamon et al. (2006) who further
expanded the South African database to 77 collapsed
and 245 un-collapsed pillars. The data led them to
conclude that “coal is not homogeneous and using a single
formula for the design of coal pillars in all coalfields in
South Africa is not ideal”.
The South African database now comprises 86
collapsed and 337 un-collapsed pillars (van der Merwe
and Mathey 2013). The w/h for the expanded collapsed
cases in South African database ranges between 0.9
and 4.45, i.e. all with w/h ≤ 5. Importantly, no pillar
failure has been recorded in South African collieries
with a w/h ratio greater than 4.45.
Salamon et al. (2006) proposed three empirical
relationships; a power, a linear and a non-linear form
where the parameters - Constant, α, β, ω and r - are
dependent on the particular coalfield and coal seam.
EQUATION 5.13
The Constant for the linear form is 2.7 or 3.2 MPa
for ‘weak coal’ and varies from 4.65 to 4.93 MPa
(average 4.7 MPa) for ‘normal coal’ Salamon et al.
(2006). Similarly, the r term for the linear form is
0.5176 or 0.6106 for ‘weak coal’ and varies from
0.2591 to 0.5396 (average 0.3670) for ‘normal coal’.
Interestingly, recent work by Mathey and van der
Merwe (2015) found no significant differences in the
strength of laboratory samples of coal from the various
coal seams in South Africa.
Jawed et al. (2013) discusses a dozen equations for
assessing Cp which were published between 1991 and
1992, each of which relates Cp as a function of the ratio
w/h, where the Constant is a parameter for the strength
of a coal specimen with side dimensions of between
30 cm to 1m. They found that the empirical power
relationship proposed by Salamon and Munro (1967),
Equation 5.3, best fits their data for slender pillars from
Indian coal fields. They also repeated the conclusion
from a series of numerical models by Gale (1998) that
the degree of confinement provided to the coal seam is a
major factor in determining pillar strength.
50
A point that should be appreciated is that the
formulae given above in Equation 5.3 to Equation 5.13
recommend slightly different Factors of Safety (FoS) to
be used. For instance,
• Mark and Barton (1997) suggest FoS = 1.5
• Galvin et al. (1999) suggest FoS = 1.85 or 2.68 to be
equivalent to 1 pillar failure in 1,000 or 1,000,000,
respectively
• van der Merwe (2003) suggests FoS = 1.6
• Salamon et al. (2006) recommend a ‘probability of
survival’ rather than a FoS.
These differing FoS can be thought of as modifying
the calculated value of Cp.
Another point worth noting is that Seedsman
(2012) concludes that the equation of Galvin et
al. (1999) (Equation 5.11), and hence presumably
the other empirical pillar formulae, should not be
extrapolated beyond the empirical database, i.e. w/h
≤ 4.8. Seedsman (2012) further opines that if the
equation is used for w/h > 5 then it probably results in
unnecessary sterilisation of coal.
5.3.2.2 Other
Figure 5.6 plots the 34 cases of measured pillar stress
against the ratio w/h collated by Gale (1998) from
Australia, UK and the USA. Gale (1998) recognised
that the strength of a coal pillar is strongly influenced
by its confinement which in turn is influenced by the
strength properties of the strata surrounding the coal.
Hence, in Figure 5.6 three bands are drawn to show
the expected relationship between Cp and w/h for
strong strata, weak strata and for coal seams with clay
filled bedding planes / contacts.
The relationships shown in in Figure 5.6 were observed
by Seedsman et al. (2005) to bound the empirical
methods, such as those of Equation 5.11, which suggests
that recognition of confinement offers a means to predict
pillar strength beyond ratios of w/h > 5.
FIGURE 5.6 Measured pillar stress from various pillar
geometries as presented by Gale (1998)

Three broad categories of pillar behaviour and failure
mode are identified, each defined by an approximate
range of width-to-height ratios Mark (1999);
Mark (2006).
• Slender pillars, whose w/h < 4, which are subject to
sudden collapse.
• Squat pillars, w/h > 10. These pillars can carry very
large loads, and may even be strain-hardening. The
pillar design may still fail because excessive stress is
applied to surrounding strata.
• Intermediate pillars. These pillars deform until
flexure of the overburden transfers some weight
away from them. The result is typically a non-
violent pillar “squeeze”.
5.3.2.3 Discussion
The current approach to estimate coal pillar strength
is an empirical method based on slender coal pillar
geometry (w/h ≤ 5 or possibly 8) and a characteristic
“strength value” of the particular coal seam.
There is a question however, as to the applicability of
these empirical methods to wide pillars, i.e. (w/h > 5)
as they are developed from relatively shallow, extensive
bord and pillar operations for which the pillar was
designed to hold the weight of overburden.
The appreciation that coal under low confinement,
such as in slender pillars or at the edges of pillars in
general, displays brittle behaviour suggests that a DISL
type approach may offer some insight. Equating Cp
with σ1 and then comparing the formulae in Equation
5.4 to Equation 5.13 with that in Equation 5.1 it
follows that:
• The constant term in the equations is an approximate
function of intact rock strength. That is (0.3 to 0.5)
σc is equivalent to 1.4 to 4.0 MPa, viz:
„„ 6.2 x 0.64 = 4.0 MPa (USA)
„„ 5.12 x 0.56 = 2.9 MPa (Australia)
„„ 2.7 x 0.52 = 1.4 MPa (South Africa – ‘weak coal’)
„„ 
4.8 x 0.37 = 1.8 MPa (South Africa – ‘normal
coal’)
„„ 10.25 x 0.2664 = 2.7 MPa (India)
• The geometric term in the equations is an approximate
function of confining stress. That is (1.0 to 2.6)σ3 is
equivalent to 1.19 w/h to 3.35 w/h, viz:
„„ 6.2 x 0.54 = 3.35 (USA)
„„ 5.12 x 0.44 = 2.25 (Australia)
„„ 2.7 x 0.44 = 1.19 (South Africa – ‘weak coal’)
„„ 4 .8 x 0.63 = 3.02 (South Africa – ‘normal
coal’)
„„ 10.25 x 0.1514 = 1.55 (India)
5 | Rock Mass Strength Criteria
This comparative observation suggests that the
empirical equations for estimating coal pillar strength,
at least for failure initiation, implicitly:
• Include the intact strength of the coal (σc) in their
constant terms
• apture the coal pillar’s confinement (σ3) within
C

the geometric w/h relationship.
This is largely in keeping with what Bieniawski
(1968) found that:
“the stress distribution in pillars, by the nature of
their geometry, is very much affected by the width/
height ratio which by producing different stress
concentrations for different pillar geometries, affects
directly the strength of pillars. Consequently, pillar
strength must depend on its width/height ratio”.
5.4 PLANE OF WEAKNESS
There are several criteria that explicitly recognise rock
mass strength is governed partially by the strength
of the intact rock and partially by the strength of
the defects within the rock mass. For example, Call
et al. (2000) provide the following relationships for
estimating the Mohr-Coulomb parameters of the
rock mass, cm and φm, based on RQD and intact rock
strength.
where the subscript m denotes rock mass; i intact rock;
and j defect parameters and
The equation suffers from the seemingly arbitrary
changes at UCS = 15 and 60 MPa and RQD = 50%
and the inherently scale-dependent RQD.
A semi-theoretical approach is provided by
Halakatevakis and Sofianos (2010), (2010) which
extends the plane of weakness theory of Jaeger and
Cook (1979) (Figure 5.7) to consider the strength
of rock masses crossed by multiple sets of defects of
varying persistence. They proportion the strength of
intact rock (ci, φi) and the strength of the defect (in
this method, the instantaneous cd, φd derived from the
Barton-Bandis strength model for defects) according
to the persistence of the defects. If the persistence is
small, the rock mass strength approaches the intact
rock strength. Conversely if the persistence is large,
the rock mass strength approaches the defect strength.
51
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
Apart from estimating the Mohr-Coulomb
parameters for intact rock and for the ‘critical’ defect,
the major difficulty with these methods is the very real
problem of estimating the persistence of the defects
within the rock mass.
FIGURE 5.7 Variation of peak strength as a function of
defect dip as defined by Jaeger and Cook (1979); from Brady
and Brown (2005).
5.5 BARTON SHEAR
STRENGTH
The Barton shear strength criterion, e.g. Barton (1976),
Barton and Bandis (1980), Barton (1999) and Barton
(2014) has previously been discussed in relation to
intact rock strength in Chapter 2 and in relation to
defect shear strength in Chapter 3. The criterion was
empirically derived to originally fit test data on jointed
rock samples and then extended to intact rock and
rock masses. It is given as:
where X represents roughness; Y represents the
effective compressive strength and Z the basic or
residual friction (see Figure 5.8).
For rock mass strength, the criterion is one or the
other of jointed rock or fractured rock. Implicit is
the most-likely accurate assumption that rock mass
strength is usually governed by defect shear strength.
Barton (1976), as did Mogi (1966) before him,
discussed the concept that the mechanism of rock
mass failure changes as confining stresses increase. At
low confining stresses, rock mass failure is brittle and
governed by defect shear strength, as the confinement
increases, rock mass failure becomes ductile. At still
higher confinement, the rock mass strength reaches a
limiting value. Singh et al. (2011) working with 154
data sets from Sheorey (1997) suggest the confinement
at which this limiting value occurs is approximately
equal to the intact rock’s UCS.
52
FIGURE 5.8 Shear strength relationships for intact rock
through to jointed rock, rock fill and infilled defects as
proposed by Barton, e.g. (Barton 1999; 2014)
The Barton criterion has the same limitations for
predicting rock mass strength as it does for intact
rock strength. Namely that while it can be fitted to
experimental data to find the shear strength of a rock
mass given the principal stresses at failure, it does not
find a unique value of σ1 for a given σ3 as its ‘friction
angle’ (ψ) is itself a variable function of σ1 and σ3.
Multiple solutions are therefore possible.
5.6 HOEK & BROWN SHEAR
STRENGTH
5.6.1 Criterion
Hoek et al. (2002) and Brown (2008) state the Hoek-
Brown failure criterion for rock mass as:
As stated in Chapter 2, for intact rock mb = mi, s
=1.0 and a = 0.5, although others note that a should
be variable, e.g. (Carter et al. 2007; Carter et al. 2008;
Diederichs et al. 2007; Mostyn and Douglas 2000;
You 2011).
Hoek (1994) stated that the equation is of no
practical value unless the values of the constants m and
s can be estimated. In their original work, Hoek and
Brown (1980); (1980), used very limited test work from
Panguna andesite to derive the constants. The modest
database is reproduced in Table 5.2. Note that the
‘rock mass’ testing comprised re-compacted 6” (150
mm) and 22.5” (572 mm) diameter samples – that is,
still small scale.
While relationships between RMR and the
parameters m and s were presented in Hoek and Brown
(1980); (1980), and are reproduced in Figure 5.9, the
equations appear to have been first published in Priest
 5 | Rock Mass Strength Criteria

TABLE 5.2 Original ‘rock mass’ database from Hoek and Brown (1980); (1980)
Description RMR Number Specimen m mb/mi s
of data diameter
points (inches)
Intact fresh 100 5 2.0 & 4.0 18.9 1.0000 1.00
Undisturbed closely jointed core samples 46 7 6.0 0.278 0.0147 0.0002
Re-compacted samples from a mine bench 28 72 6.0 0.116 0.0061 0
Re-compacted, fresh to slightly weathered, 26 15 22.5 0.040 0.0021 0
rock
Re-compacted, moderately weathered, rock 18 5 22.5 0.030 0.0016 0
Re-compacted, highly weathered, rock 8 3 22.5 0.012 0.0006 0

and Brown (1983) as:

The equations were re-assessed to be applicable to

‘ disturbed rock masses, such as those loosened by poor
blasting practice, and those in embankments or waste
dumps’ and simplified in a subsequent publication by
Brown and Hoek (1988), to:

FIGURE 5.9 Original plot showing the data on which

That same publication also introduced the following
equations for peak strengths of undisturbed rock
masses, though no details of the cases that this was
based on were provided:
the relationships between RMR and the parameters mb
& s are based, from Hoek and Brown (1980); (1980). The
relationship between RMR and s, were based on 2 points –
s=0.002 and s=1. Superimposed on the original plot are the
equations proffered by Priest and Brown (1983) and Brown
and Hoek (1988). Blue lines are for mb /mi relationship; red
lines are for the s relationship.

Hoek (2007) found the correlation between GSI and

All three sets of equations are superimposed onto the
original plot reproduced in Figure 5.9. The differences
between the ‘undisturbed equations’ of Brown and
Hoek (1988) and the original plot, the equations of
Priest and Brown (1983), the ‘disturbed equations’ of
Brown and Hoek (1988), can clearly be seen.
RMR was replaced with GSI in Hoek (1994), who
also separated undisturbed rock masses into two
groups at the value of GSI = 25.
RMR to be problematic for poor quality rock masses
and recommended that the GSI be estimated directly by
means of its charts, which are described in Chapter 4.
Following the work of Sonmez and Ulusay (1999)
who suggested including a factor to explicitly account
for the disturbance caused by the excavation method,
and other case studies, Hoek et al. (2002) introduced
a Disturbance Factor, D. They gave general guidelines
to assess D between 0 for undisturbed rock masses to
1 for very disturbed rock masses. This enabled them
to combine the ‘undisturbed’ and ‘disturbed’ sets of
equations. They also removed the step at GSI = 25
and introduced the relationship between GSI and the
parameter a to give the relationships in Equation 5.14.

Here the GSI is equal to the 1976 version of RMR

(Hoek 1994). Hence, these equations for mb /mi and s
are the same as those given above by Brown and Hoek
(1988). Hoek (1994) also allows GSI to be calculated
using the 1989 version of RMR as GSI = RMR89 – 5. EQUATION 5.14

53
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
From the above presentation, it is clear these
relationships in Equation 5.14 are a development
from the original work by Hoek and Brown (1980).
It can be readily seen that as D varies from 0 to 1 the
equations vary between the ‘undisturbed rock mass’
and ‘disturbed rock mass’ cases of Brown and Hoek
(1988).
In relation to D, Hoek et al. (2002) noted that
“a large number of factors can influence the degree
of disturbance in the rock mass surrounding an
excavation and that it may never be possible to quantify
these factors precisely”. Hoek and Diederichs (2006)
elaborated further by stating that D “will vary for each
application, depending upon the excavation and loading
sequence for the particular structure being designed.”
It is also worth noting that because of this history
the relationships in Equation 5.14 have their basis as
the very limited test work from Panguna andesite ‘rock
masses’, shown in Figure 5.9.
5.6.2 Limitations
Several limitations of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion
were identified during the criterion’s development,
e.g. Hoek (1994); Hoek and Brown (1980); Hoek and
Brown (1997).
• The criterion is only applicable to intact rock or to
heavily jointed rock masses which can be considered
homogenous and isotropic, as summarised in Figure
5.10. It should not be used in cases in which the
strength of the rock or the rock mass is likely to be
dominated by one or two sets of discontinuities, or
by a major through-going structure such as a fault
or shear zone.
• In highly schistose rocks the criterion applies to the
intact rock components only; the strength of the
discontinuities need to be explicitly considered.
FIGURE 5.10 The influence of scale on the type of rock
mass behaviour model (Hoek and Brown 1997)
54
In keeping with those limitations, Marinos and
Hoek (2000) state that GSI “should not be applied
to those rock masses in which there is a clearly defined
dominant structural orientation”. Many sedimentary
rock masses could fit this description. However,
Marinos and Hoek (2000) in discussing anisotropic
rock masses go on to state that “ it is sometimes
appropriate to apply the Hoek-Brown criterion to the
overall rock mass and to superimpose the discontinuity as a
significantly weaker element.” Further, they specifically
published GSI charts for flysch, molasse, limestone,
ophiolites and gneiss. The implication is that rock
mass strength parameters for anisotropic rock masses
can be established based on the GSI approach provided
defects are explicitly modelled.
Diederichs (2007) suggests that the GSI / Hoek-
Brown approach is of limited reliability when used for
spall-prone rock masses which he defines as mi > 15
and GSI > 75 and may be of mixed success when GSI
is equal to 65-75.
Brown (2008) opines that there is a limit to the
range of GSI values over which the Hoek-Brown
criterion may be applied: ‘special care must be exercised
at low values of GSI of below about 30’ or ‘ σc < 15 MPa’.
The UCS limit of 15 MPa is also agreed with by others
(Carter et al. 2007; Carter et al. 2008; Carvalho et
al. 2007; Dinc et al. 2011). This is interesting given
that one of the primary reasons for Hoek (1994)
introducing the GSI was the inability of RMR to deal
with poor quality rock masses.
Further, Carter et al. (2007); (2008); Carvalho et
al. (2007) state difficulties are experienced with the
Hoek-Brown criterion at the two ends of the rock
competency scale largely because the behaviour of
these rock masses becomes less controlled by defects.
Carter et al. (2007) summarise their research, which
is also published elsewhere (Carvalho et al. 2007;
Diederichs 2007), and suggest that the Hoek-Brown
material parameters, mb, s and a for very low strength
rocks and spall-prone rocks are functions of σc :
• For very low strength rocks (UCS < 10 MPa) where
rock mass behaviour is matrix controlled, the rock
mass can be considered to be homogeneous soil-like
 5 | Rock Mass Strength Criteria

• For spall-prone rock masses (mi > 15 and GSI >>

65), where rock mass failure demands creation of
new fractures; essentially unjointed, hard, brittle
rock masses

FIGURE 5.11 Variation of Hoek-Brown parameters for

where UCS* is where stress-induced fracturing
initiates, i.e. 0.3 to 0.5 σc . The residual values are
included, as the peak strengths by themselves result
in parameters that ‘will significantly over-predict
failure if used in non-linear plasticity codes’ (Diederichs
et al. 2007).
The variation of the Hoek-Brown peak parameters for
spall-prone rocks with respect to GSI as recommended
by Diederichs et al. (2007) is shown in Figure 5.11 for
the particular case of mi = 20.
spall-prone rocks with mi = 20 (Diederichs et al. 2007)
While these developments are moving away from
Hoek & Brown’s stated objective of a simple criterion,
they highlight concerns with the criterion’s application.
If one accepts the observations of Diederichs (2007),
Carter et al. (2007), (2008) Carvalho et al. (2007) and
Brown (2008) then the range over which the ‘standard
GSI approach’ should be used to predict the Hoek-

FIGURE 5.12 The range suggested by researchers mentioned in the text, over which GSI can be used to predict the Hoek-
Brown strength parameters of a rock mass.

55
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
Brown strength parameters is limited to approximately
30 – 65 (Figure 5.12).
Perhaps the major issue with the GSI / Hoek-Brown
criterion approach, and perversely perhaps its major
attraction, stems from the user-friendliness of the once
freeware program RocLab. A strength envelope can be
generated in RocLab knowing nothing about the rock
mass except a loose geological description.
The following guidelines should be considered
for numerical modelling rock masses defined by
GSI (Brown 2008) assuming that the Hoek-Brown
criterion is applicable.
• Rock masses with GSI < 30 should be modelled as
perfectly plastic materials with zero dilation angle
• Rock masses with GSI > 65 should be modelled
as elastic, brittle materials with a dilation angle
approximately equal to φ/4
• Other rock masses should be modelled as
strain softening material with a dilation angle
approximately equal to φ/8.
5.7 CWFS
Hajiabdolmajid et al. (2002) found that continuum
models with traditional failure criteria (e.g. Hoek–
Brown or Mohr-Coulomb) which implicitly assume the
simultaneous mobilisation of cohesive and frictional
strength components were not successful in predicting
the extent and depth of brittle failure in massive Lac
du Bonnet granite at the Atomic Energy of Canada’s
(AECL’s) Mine-By Experiment at the Underground
Research Laboratory (URL) in Manitoba, Canada.
They also note that Schmermann and Osterberg (1960)
showed that even in cohesive soils, c and φ might not
necessarily be mobilised simultaneously.
They adopted a continuum model with strain-
dependent cohesion weakening – frictional
strengthening (CWFS) criterion. The characteristics of
which are that at the early stage of failure, the mobilised
strength is mainly due to the cohesive strength
component and as inelastic strains accumulate,
FIGURE 5.13 Cohesion-weakening and frictional-strengthening (CWFS) as functions of plastic strain for Lac du Bonnet
granite (Hajiabdolmajid et al. 2002)
56
the frictional strength progressively mobilises and
replaces the cohesive strength component. Martin and
Chandler (1994), You (2011) and Barton and Pandey
(2011) also argue the independence of cohesion and
frictional strength.
While Hajiabdolmajid et al. (2002) were able to
match the shape of the failure zone of the Mine-By
Experiment with the CWFS model, the model predicts
an ‘upward-bent failure envelope’ in shear versus normal
stress plot rather than the typical downward-bent or
linear failure envelope (see Figure 5.13). It may be
that the failure envelope for intact rock is S-shaped as
suggested by Diederichs (2007), see Figure 5.2.
5.8 SRM
Brown (2008) suggests the development of “practically-
useful numerical methods” may provide a means of
estimating the mechanical properties of rock masses.
Numerical modelling of Synthetic Rock Mass
(SRM) is being researched to quantify rock mass
behaviour at large scales in order to address the
limitations of the classification systems used to factor
intact rock strength into rock mass strength, e.g. Mas
Ivars (2010). In addition to those described previously,
the limitations of classification systems include
the limited ability to consider strength anisotropy
(resulting from a preferred joint fabric orientation) and
strain softening/weakening.
An SRM is a numerical technique to represent a
jointed rock mass. It does this by combining an assembly
of particles bonded together at their contacts with an
embedded discrete fracture network (DFN). Assembly
of particles can be modelled as bonded particles, e.g.
Cundall et al. (2008) or as discrete elements as in Lan
et al. (2010) who modelled individual mineral grains
(Figure 5.14).
The behaviour of an SRM depends on both the creation
of new fractures through intact material and the slip/
opening of pre-existing joints.

FIGURE 5.14 Grain-sized UDEC model for UCS tests on Lac
du Bonnet granite and Aspo Diorite; from Lan et al. (2010)
5.8.1 Calibration
The properties obtained from standard UCS tests on
core samples are scaled to a size that will be modelled
in the SRM as an intact rock block (the SRM block).
The scaling makes use of the empirical relations
proposed by Hoek and Brown (1980) or by Yoshinaka
et al. (2008). The properties of the SRM block are then
calibrated to these scaled values (UCS, average Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio).
Yoshinaka et al. (2008) however, concluded that
the strength reduction is dependent on rock type,
strength, texture, etc., i.e. it is not constant (Figure
5.15). Ongoing research at the University of New
South Wales, e.g. Masoumi et al. (2012) is confirming
the work by Hawkins (1998) that suggests for some
rocks, notably sedimentary rocks, UCS decreases, not
increases, as core size becomes smaller than 50 mm
diameter (Figure 5.16). This implies that part of the
current SRM approach relies on imprecise empirical
FIGURE 5.15 Scaling of UCS values to block size (Mas Ivars
2010)
5 | Rock Mass Strength Criteria
correlations; the major impetus for developing the
SRM method.
5.8.2 Limitations
Hoek and Martin (2014) list the followng requirements
of a numerical rock mass model as noted by Potyondy
and Cundall (2004).
• Continuously nonlinear stress-strain response, with
ultimate yield, followed by softening or hardening
• Behaviour that changes in character, according to
stress state
• Memory of previous stress or strain excursions, in
both magnitude and direction
• Dilatancy that depends on history, mean stress and
initial state
• Hysteresis at all levels of cyclic loading/unloading
• Transition from brittle to ductile shear response as
the mean stress is increased
• Dependence of incremental stiffness on mean stress
and history
• Induced anisotropy of stiffness and strength with
stress and strain path
• Nonlinear envelope of strength
• Spontaneous appearance of microcracks and
localized macro fractures
• Spontaneous emission of acoustic energy.
Limitations of the SRM technique as identified by
Mas Ivars (2010) include the following.
• The method does not reproduce the σc / σct ratios
observed in hard rocks
• e intersection between joint planes in the DFN
Th

follows a hierarchical model, which significantly
affects the rock mass properties of the SRM
• The predictions of rock mass behaviour obtained
using the SRM approach are only as good as the
representation of the insitu joint network by
the DFN
FIGURE 5.16 UCS tests on seven different sedimentary
rocks conducted by Hawkins (1998)
57
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
Further, a major disadvantage is the extensive
experimental validation and calibration required to verify
that models are capturing the observed macroscopic
behavior of rock (Lisjak and Grasselli 2014).
5.9 CONCLUSIONS
The ideal rock mass failure criterion would satisfy the
following main requirements, paraphrasing Hoek and
Brown (1980):
• Be simple criterion developed on a sound theoretical
basis
• Describe the response of an intact rock sample from
uniaxial tensile stress to true triaxial, compressive
stress in ductile or brittle failure
• Predict the influence of one or more defect sets
upon the rock behaviour
• Project the behaviour of a full-scale rock mass
containing several sets of defects
58
Despite its limitations, the Hoek-Brown shear
strength criterion remains the most widely used to
assess rock mass failure. On balance of published
material, it may predict the overall size of failure
but it is not particularly accurate in replicating
observed failure.
Further, the Hoek-Brown shear strength criterion
for rock masses should be assessed using the GSI
methodology, noting it is better suited for the range
GSI = 30 – 65.
Based on the discussions presented in this chapter,
the following criteria are assessed to provide the best
ways for designers to estimate rock mass strength.
These criteria are looked at in subsequent chapters.
• Brittle rock failure (or ‘damage initiation’)
• Hoek-Brown shear strength.
 6 | Rock Mass Modulus

6 ROCK MASS
MODULUS

6.1 OUTLINE • 
Measurements of tunnel convergence engage
There appear to be five broad approaches to estimating 1000 m or more of rock mass in varying states of
3

rock modulus (5). stress and strain.

1 Correlations with index tests such as those • The dynamic modulus (small strain, small load)
presented by Tziallas et al. (2009). Chief of these, derived from seismic velocity needs to be calibrated
is the correlation of intact rock modulus, Ei , with to a static modulus.
intact unconfined compressive strength, σc , via the
modulus ratio, MR = Ei /σc . The MR, which was
introduced by Deere (1968), is considered to vary
with rock type and texture (Figure 6.1). The original
range of MR was updated by Hoek and Diederichs
(2006) to extend from 150 to 1000, with typical
values of 300 to 500.
2 Correlations with rock mass classification systems.
3 Analytical or numerical techniques which require
values for Ei , and for joint stiffness (kn, ks) to estimate
the equivalent modulus of the rock mass, Em.
4 Analytical equations that calculate modulus for an
equivalent continuum.
5 Back-analysis using displacement data measured
during excavation.
The state-of-practice in predicting the modulus
of rock masses relies on correlations developed from FIGURE 6.1 Graph showing the variation of intact Young’s
Modulus to intact Uniaxial or Unconfined Compressive
field case studies where the in situ modulus has been Strength, after Deere (1968). Accessed on 7 October
measured (Hoek and Diederichs 2006). 2014 http://lmrwww.epfl.ch/en/ensei/Rock_Mechanics/
In situ testing for rock masses includes plate- ENS_080312_EN_JZ_Notes_Chapter_4.pdf
bearing testing, flat-jack tests, borehole dilatometer,
back-analysis of tunnel convergence, seismic velocity, The scale effect of reducing modulus with increasing
etc. However, each test measures a slightly different rock volume is well documented, for example Galera
modulus, that being for a different volume of rock, et al. (2005). The ideal is to select appropriate design
in different directions and at different strains. values of modulus that correspond to the expected
For example: range of deformation for the expected volume of rock
• A borehole dilatometer or pressuremeter engages mass. Figure 6.2 schematically shows the variation of
approximately 0.1 m3 of rock. shear modulus, G [=E/2(1+v)] with respect to shear
• Because most boreholes tend to be vertical or near strain and various in situ tests.
vertical, pressuremeter tests typically measure This chapter presents published in situ rock mass
horizontal modulus, which in sedimentary rocks modulus data before describing and appraising several
may be higher than vertical modulus. classification systems, analytical and numerical
• The vertical modulus is typically measured in techniques to estimate rock mass modulus. The back-
laboratory testing of borehole core samples (i.e. analysis method for estimating in situ rock mass
UCS testing). modulus is developed in Chapter 7.

The terms Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio apply to linear elastic materials. In rock, they are often given as a tangent modulus at a stress level close to
(5) 

50% of the UCS or as a secant modulus up to the UCS. However, the term rock modulus is also used for the deformation modulus of a rock mass.

59
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 6.2 Variation of modulus with shear strain (Geotechnical Engineering Circular #5, 2002). Though this curve was
prepared for use with soils, the same concept applies to rock masses.

6.2 MODULUS RATIO The results comprise 262 tests of Hawkesbury

The UCS with modulus laboratory test results which
were undertaken for six recent tunnelling projects in
Sydney – the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link, Lane
Cove Tunnel, the CBD Metro (which was not built),
the Northwest Rail Link, the M4East and the Sydney
Metro is used. In addition, the testing carried out by
Masoumi (2013) on Gosford Sandstone is also used.
Sandstone, 34 of Gosford Sandstone, 29 of Ashfield
Shale and 4 of dolerite. The results are plotted on
Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4 and show that most fall with
the medium modulus ratio band as defined in Figure
6.1, i.e. a MR between 200 and 500, although there are
some results that are have a low ratio and are between
approximately 100 and 200.

100

PRL
PRL - oven dry
LCT
E [GPa]

10 CBD Metro
NWRL
Sydney Metro
M4E
Gosford Sandstone
Dolerite

1
10 100
UCS [MPa]

FIGURE 6.3 Intact modulus plotted against UCS. Open symbols (most of the data) represent sandstone; solid symbols
represent shale. There are four data points of dolerite, sampled from dykes.

60
 6 | Rock Mass Modulus

FIGURE 6.4 Intact modulus plotted against UCS for Ashfield Shale (top) and Hawkesbury Sandstone (bottom). These graphs
show the same data as Figure 6.3.

61
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
This is in keeping with the Hawkesbury Sandstone
data presented by Robson (1978) in Figure 6.5 and
with the Ashfield Shale data presented by Won (1985)
in Figure 6.6.
FIGURE 6.5 Intact modulus plotted against UCS data for
Hawkesbury Sandstone from Robson (1978) as reproduced
in Pells (2004).
FIGURE 6.6 The intact modulus plotted against UCS data
for Ashfield Shale from Won (1985).
62
6.3 DATA
6.3.1 Reliability
It is important to understand some of the difficulties
of in situ testing before reviewing published rock mass
moduli data.
1 The test methodology strongly influences the test
result.
„„ 
Bieniawski (1978) noted that the modulus as
interpreted from the best understood test –
the plate-bearing test, which simply involves
applying a load to the rock surface and measuring
the deformations – can still differ by a factor of
two to three.
2 Bieniawski (1978) then went on to make several
recommendations for in situ investigations; the
foremost two of which are paraphrased here.
„„ 
The first is that the in situ rock mass modulus
should be estimated by a sufficient number
of at least two different direct types of tests.
Bieniawski preferred the plate-bearing and
Goodman borehole jack tests.
What is meant by ‘a sufficient number’ depends
on the geological assessment of the rock mass. A
straightforward rock mass will have fewer tests
than a complex rock mass.
„„ 
The second recommendation is that the in situ
stress field needs to be estimated, as it was found
to affect plate-bearing test results.
Though Bieniawski recommended using the
Goodman borehole jack, 28 years later Hoek and
Diederichs (2006) found that the least reliable in situ
measurements are those from various down-hole jacks
and borehole pressure-meters. They concluded that the
measurements obtained from such devices are difficult
to interpret, particularly in hard, jointed rock masses
in which the stressed rock volume is obviously small.
It is also supported by the data presented in Chun et
al. (2009), which comprises 61 points where the mass
modulus of very poor quality (RQD ≤ 20%) but high
strength rock (UCS ranged between 12 to 250 MPa)
was obtained from borehole pressuremeter tests (see
Figure 6.7).
The difficulty interpreting in situ rock mass modulus
testing was also expressed by Vibert and Ianos (2015)
who assessed the results from 199 borehole dilatometer,
33 flat jacks, 149 plate loads and seismic refraction tests
(called the Scarabee method) at six large dam projects
in France in a variety of rock types. They concluded: ‘As
a common feature of these tests [the borehole dilatometer,
flat jacks and plate load tests], it can be said that they
are relatively difficult to implement, and interpretation
and calculation of moduli necessitate assumptions which
cannot be directly verified. Due to the natural dispersion
of results, they are obviously to be performed in large
number for allowing assessing an average behaviour.’
 6 | Rock Mass Modulus

An additional complexity is that many of the
methods to predict rock mass modulus assume
isotropic conditions. In sedimentary rocks and schists,
the modulus is evidently dependent on the direction
of loading. For example, Tziallas et al. (2009) quote
an MR range of 250 to 1100 for schist, dependent on
relative orientation of testing to foliation, compared
to the typical range from most rocks of between 300
and 500.
The reasonable conclusion from this discussion is
that the in situ test methodology – multiple direct tests,
the influence of test methods, in situ stress – needs to
be considered when assessing the reliability of in situ
rock mass modulus. If the methodology used to report
in situ data in the literature is not known or explicitly
included in the interpretation, then how reliable is the
modulus? More fundamentally, this also questions
the logic in choosing one predictive technique over
another based on statistical correlations of published
data of unknown reliability.
A further conclusion is that the more reliable
estimates of in situ rock modulus are those derived from
tests that engage larger volumes of rock; stepping from
flat jack and plate load testing to seismic refraction
tests and back-analysis of convergence data.
6.3.2 Sources
There are five main publications that report in situ
rock mass modulus data – Bieniawski (1978); Hoek
and Diederichs (2006); Palmström and Singh (2001);
Serafim and Pereira (1983); Stephens and Banks
(1989). Of course, there are other publications which
present particular site data, such as Ajalloeian and
Mohammadi (2014); Chun et al. (2009); Kallu et al.
(2015); Kayabasi et al. (2003); Nejati et al. (2014);
Vibert and Ianos (2015) to name a few, but most of the
classification-based correlations appear to use the five
main publications listed above.
However, the inherent scatter in measured Em as
discussed in the preceding Section 6.3, means that any
curve fitting approach is expected to be a poor predictor.
As discussed in Chapter 4, the most widely used
classification systems for underground excavation
design are Q (Barton et al. 1974; Grimstad and Barton
1993) and GSI (Hoek 1994; Hoek and Brown 1997;
Marinos and Hoek 2000) and by antecedence RMR
(Bieniawski 1973; Bieniawski 1976; Bieniawski 1989).
The correlations between E m and these systems and
between E m & RQD (Deere 1968) are discussed in the
following sections.
6.4.1 RQD
Zhang and Einstein (2004) suggested the following
correlations between RQD and modulus, which they
claimed provide useful bounding values (Figure 6.7).
• Lower bound E m ⁄ Ei=0.2×100.0186RQD-1.91
• Mean E m ⁄ Ei=1.0×100.0186RQD-1.91
• Upper bound E m ⁄ Ei=1.8×100.0186RQD-1.91
Figure 6.7 however shows the large scatter in the ratio
E m ⁄ Ei compared to RQD and the three correlations.
The figure suggests that the correlations are probably
not sufficiently accurate for meaningful engineering
design. The ellipse in Figure 6.7 highlights data that
shows the unreliability of borehole pressuremeter tests
obtained in very poor quality (RQD ≤ 20%) but high
strength rock (UCS ranged between 12 to 250 MPa)
(Chun et al. 2009).

6.4 CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEMS
According to Palmström and Singh (2001) reasonable
estimates of E m can be made using classification
systems for moduli in the following ranges, where E m
is in GPa.
• R MR For 55 < RMR < 90
E m = 2RMR 100 (Bieniawski 1978)
 For 30 < RMR < 55
E m = 10(RMR -10)/40 (Serafim and Pereira
1983)
• Q For 1 < Q0.4< 30
E m = 8Q
• In
addition, for massive or slightly jointed rock FIGURE 6.7 Correlation between RQD and Em/Er, after Zhang
mass, E m [GPa] ≈ 0.2σc [MPa]. (2010); Zhang and Einstein (2004).

63
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 6.1 The tests carried out to assess the rock mass modulus reported in Bieniawski (1978)
TEST ORANGE RIVER DRAKENSBERG ELANDSBERG

Small flat jack - - 19

Large flat jack - - 3

Goodman borehole jack - - 45

Plate-bearing tests 53 14 12

Pressure chamber / 5 27
Tunnel relaxation measurements

Geophysics profiles 40 32 68

In situ stress measurements 38 30 23

6.4.2 RMR Though Bieniawski (1978) does not explicitly state it,
the data presented in Figure 6.8 appears to come from
6.4.2.1 Bieniawski
the more reliable in situ test methods, viz: Elandsberg
Bieniawski (1978) presented the rock mass modulus
– plate bearing, flat jacks, tunnel relaxation, seismic;
data derived from plate-bearing tests, flat jack tests,
Drakensberg – plate bearing, seismic; Orange River
borehole dilatometer tests and geophysical tests at
– plate bearing, pressure chamber, tunnel relaxation;
three engineering projects in South Africa: the Orange
Witbank – in situ coal pillar compression tests; Le
River Water Project, the Drakensberg Pumped Storage
Roux Dam – plate bearing; Dinorwic – flat jacks; and
Scheme and the Elandsberg Pumped Storage Scheme.
Gordon Scheme – flat jacks. Bieniawski (1978) does
The extensive in situ testing is summarised in Table
state that Equation 6.1, which is shown in the graph in
6.1. The important rock mass features of the three sites
Figure 6.8, has an accuracy to predict in situ rock mass
taken from Bieniawski (1978) are summarised in Table
modulus of better than 20%.
6.2. Bieniawski (1978) presented the data on a graph
correlating the interpreted rock mass modulus with
the inferred RMR as reproduced in Figure 6.8 which
also has the in situ modulus from the South African
Witbank coal field. EQUATION 6.1

FIGURE 6.8 Measured in situ rock mass modulus of deformation against RMR76 (Bieniawski 1978)

64
 6 | Rock Mass Modulus

TABLE 6.2 Case histories reported in Bieniawski (1978)

DESCRIPTION RQD DEFECTS RMR76 Ei [GPa] Em [GPa]
[%]

Dolerite 80 – 100 Excellent condition 75 – 85 63.4 – 77.2 23.5 – 31.8

Orange River Project

Highly Unweathered, horizontal

homogeneous foliation
spaced 1-1.7 m
Some vertical jointing
spaced 8-10 m
Very slight water inflow

Mudstone, ? Closely spaced, horizontally 41 – 70 13.3 ± 6.5 (v)

Siltstone, bedded 17.8 ± 8.3 (h)
Sandstone

Mudstone, 80 – 100 Unweathered, closely spaced 46 – 55 19.4 (v) 18.3 (v)

Drakensberg

Siltstone, near horizontal bedding & 28.5 (h) 25.0 (h)

Sandstone Some minor jointing 62 – 67
No groundwater

Greywacke 75 – 85 Sub-vertical foliation 66 – 80 73.4 ± 3.8 40.1 ± 14.1

Elandsberg

Two joint sets plus minor

faulting

Phyllite 65 – 70 Sub-vertical foliation 43 – 60 56.0 ± 11.9 18.7 ± 6.5

Two joint sets plus minor
faulting

6.4.2.2 Serafim and Pereira
Serafim and Pereira (1983) brought attention to the
evident issue with Equation 6.1 and Figure 6.8 that
a negative in situ modulus is predicted for RMR76 ≤
50. They added data from 15 test sites at seven dams
to Bieniawski’s graph and proposed the exponential
relationship of Equation 3 to predict in situ modulus
for poor quality rock masses. The relationship is shown
in Figure 6.9.
Serafim and Pereira (1983) do not discuss the
test methods used to collect their data from the
15 test sites. There are also no details, e.g. defect
characteristics, intact strength, etc., of the rock masses
to independently derive RMR76.
EQUATION 6.2

FIGURE 6.9 Measured in situ rock mass modulus of deformation against RMR76 as published in Serafim and Pereira (1983).
The points shown as ‘+’ were taken from Bieniawski’s database.

65
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

6.4.2.3 Stephen and Banks
The in situ deformation modulus of sandstone and
conglomerate as measured from eight in situ plate-
bearing tests at the Portugues dam site in Puerto Rico
are presented in Stephens and Banks (1989). The plate-
bearing tests generally followed the standard ASTM D
4395-84 (6). The modulus values were presented along
with the corresponding estimated RMR76 (Table 6.3).
The results are summarised in Figure 6.10. The two
points that lie well below the Serafim and Pereira (1983)
RMR relationship shown in the figure are the tests from
the shear zone and the damaged rock surface.
Stephens and Banks (1989) also reported the
measured modulus from 32 borehole jacking tests(7).
They presented the results in the graph shown in
Figure 6.11. The values labelled as Ecal (calculated
modulus from the linear portion of the deformation
versus hydraulic pressure curve) have been digitised to
produce the 23 data points in Table 6.4. No in situ
stress measurements were carried out at the dam site.
There are also no details, e.g. defect characteristics,
intact strength, etc., of the rock mass to independently
derive RMR.

TABLE 6.3 In situ results from plate bearing tests reported in Stephens and Banks (1989)
DESCRIPTION RMR76 Em [GPa]

Conglomerate (CG) / sandstone (SS) 66 29.6

Conglomerate / sandstone 62 17.9

Sandstone (damaged rock surface) 43 2.8

Sandstone 63 17.2

Sandstone 62 34.5

Sandstone / dyke 38 4.8

Sandstone / dyke 49 8.3

Shear 44 2.1

FIGURE 6.10 Measured in situ rock mass modulus from FIGURE 6.11 Deformation modulus obtained from
plate bearing tests against RMR76 from Stephens and Banks Goodman borehole jacking tests (EGJ) against that derived
(1989). The Serafim and Pereira (1983) relationship in with the Serafim and Pereira (1983) RMR76 relationship
Equation 6.2 is shown. (ERMR) (Stephens and Banks 1989).

(6)
ASTM D 4395-84 recommends using 0.5 to 1 m diameter plates
(7)
The tests used a Goodman jack modified to fit in a 96 mm diameter hole instead of 76 mm

66
 6 | Rock Mass Modulus

TABLE 6.4 Goodman borehole jack tests results digitised from Figure 6.11 Stephens and Banks (1989)
EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIP IN SITU MODULUS
Em Em

[psi x106] [GPa] RMR76 [psi x106] [GPa]

1.4 9.65 49 3.3 22.8

1.77 12.20 53 4.43 30.5

2.05 14.13 56 1.1 7.6

2.15 14.82 57 1.7 11.7

2.55 17.58 60 2.55 17.6

2.55 17.58 60 4.4 30.3

2.62 18.06 60 2.83 19.5

2.65 18.27 60 3.34 23.0

3.2 22.06 64 2.18 15.0

3.2 22.06 64 6.12 42.2

3.24 22.34 64 3.68 25.4

3.7 25.51 66 2.9 20.0

4.3 29.65 69 2.75 19.0

4.3 29.65 69 3 20.7

4.92 33.92 71 2.98 20.5

5.7 39.30 74 2.9 20.0

5.8 39.99 74 2.3 15.9

5.81 40.06 74 4.1 28.3

5.82 40.13 74 3.9 26.9

5.9 40.68 74 1.4 9.7

9.18 63.29 82 4.12 28.4

9.2 63.43 82 5.22 36.0

9.35 64.47 82 1 6.9

6.4.2.4 Palmström and Singh
A comparison between the in situ modulus derived
from plate bearing tests carried out within a carefully
excavated adit and within a drill & blast adit was made
by Palmström and Singh (2001). They concluded that
the modulus of the drill & blast affected rock mass
could typically be a third of that obtained from the
undisturbed rock mass in the carefully excavated adit.
Palmström and Singh (2001) presented the data,
which comprised 42 test sites at eight hydropower
projects in India, Nepal and Bhutan in gneiss,
granite, mica schist, sandstone, mudstone, siltstone,
and dolerite/hornblende rhyolite, in Figure 6.12. The
UCS varied from 30 to 230 MPa. To address the issue
of blast damage reducing the rock mass modulus,
Palmström and Singh (2001) multiplied the modulus
data obtained from the drill & blast adit by three
to plot it in Figure 6.12. Given the 2001 date of the
publication, it is assumed that the modulus data is
plotted against RMR89.
6.4.2.5 Other
Various correlations with RMR were derived and
modified by subsequent researchers. For example,
Figure 6.13 presents the approximate relationship
between Em and the ratio Em /Ei with RMR 76 as given by
Galera et al. (2005). The database is largely the same as
that used for the correlation with RQD in Figure 6.7.
Mohammadi and Rahmannejad (2010) compared
five separate, published correlations between RMR and
rock mass modulus with a dataset of 171 case studies
and concluded that the best estimate was in fact a

67
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 6.12 Deformation modulus obtained from plate bearing tests from Palmström and Singh (2001). The data
comprises undisturbed rock mass (2 points plus that from Stripa mine) plus disturbed rock mass (40 points from drill & blast
adits). It is assumed that RMR here is RMR89.

cubic equation Em = 0.0003RMR 3 – 0.0193RMR 2 +

0.3157RMR + 3.4064. Even this arbitrary and rather
awkward relationship was reported to have only a
modest correlation of r2=0.84. Further, there is no data
in Mohammadi and Rahmannejad (2010) to indicate
whether the RMR and Em were reliably measured in
any or all of the 171 case studies.
Nejati et al. (2014) provides in situ modulus as
obtained from eight plate load tests and 44 borehole
dilatometer tests from the mudstones, siltstones,
sandstone and conglomerates of the abutments of the
Gotvand dam site in Iran.
They provide estimates of RMR for each test site
(see Figure 6.14) but unfortunately do not distinguish
between data from the plate load tests and those from
the borehole dilatometer tests. Hence, the reliability of
the data could not be assessed, though it is probable
that the rock mass in the abutments was disturbed due
to blasting and stress relief.

FIGURE 6.13 Rock mass modulus (top) and ratio of rock

mass to intact rock modulus (bottom) as a function of RMR
(Galera et al. 2005)

68

FIGURE 6.14 In situ modulus against RMR for the Gotvand
dam site from Nejati et al. (2014)
6.4.3 Q
A correlation between Rock Mass Quality, Q, and
modulus was provided by Grimstad and Barton (1993)
as Em = xlog10Q. They gave the typical value for x as
25 but noted that it could range between 10 and 40.
These three correlations are shown in Figure 6.15.
FIGURE 6.15 Correlation between rock mass modulus and
Q (Barton 1995)
6 | Rock Mass Modulus
Grimstad and Barton (1993) imply the data assigned
to “Q case records“ in Figure 6.15 come from numerical
back-analysis of measured deformations though
they do not state it. There are no details, e.g. defect
characteristics, intact strength, etc., of the various rock
masses to independently derive Q. The degree to which
the rock mass is disturbed is not known.
Barton (1995) updated the correlation as:
EQUATION 6.3
where M is the rock mass deformation modulus. This
is also shown in Figure 6.15.
The UCS normalised Q-value, Qc, was introduced in
Barton (1995) to improve the correlation of rock mass
quality and seismic velocity. The Qc value is obtained
by normalising to nominal hard rock compression
strength value of 100 MPa (Equation 6.4).
EQUATION 6.4
Publications subsequent to Barton (1995), such
as Barton (2002) and Barton and Grimstad (2014),
further clarified the use of Qc to improve correlation
between rock mass deformation modulus and seismic
velocity. Hence, the relationship is Equation 6.5:
EQUATION 6.5
A similar relationship was derived by Palmström
and Singh (2001), i.e. E m = 8Q 0.4.
6.4.4 GSI
Hoek and Diederichs (2006) collated a large database
of what they claim to be reliable in situ measurements,
carried out between 1960 and 2005, of rock mass
modulus of sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic
rocks from China (457 data points) and Taiwan (37
data points).
• 18 cases where the in situ modulus was estimated
using back analysis of convergence data
• 53 cases where flat jacks were used
• 423 cases which used plate tests.
There will be some inherent variability in the
measured rock mass modulus values in this eclectic
database, which suggests that the difference between
predicted and actual rock mass modulus is probably
larger than the 10% error claimed by Hoek and
Diederichs (2006) for their correlation.
69
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

Figure 6.16 presents the Hoek and Diederichs

(2006) data against their estimated GSI for those
rock masses. The GSI was estimated directly from
RMR, which is problematic for poor quality rock as
found by Hoek (2007) who recommended that the
GSI be estimated directly by means of its charts (see
Chapter 4). It is apparent from Figure 6.16 that rock
mass modulus increases with increasing GSI but so
does its variability as judged by the scatter in the data.
Hoek and Diederichs (2006) attribute the scatter in
the data to “ inherent scatter in the values of GSI, intact
rock properties, rock mass modulus Em, and the effects of
disturbance due to blasting and/or stress relief.”
The last item is underlined to highlight the fact
that the degree to which the Chinese and Taiwanese
data represents disturbed rock mass is not known. The FIGURE 6.16 Measured rock mass modulus of deformation
number of data points in the various GSI ranges was against GSI for the Chinese and Taiwanese data from Hoek
counted as shown in Figure 6.16. As can be seen, the and Diederichs (2006). The number of data points in the
bulk of the data falls within the GSI range of 40 to 80. various ranges is shown.
Hoek and Diederichs (2006) note that linear or
exponential relationships such as Equation 6.1,
Equation 6.2 or Equation 6.3 cannot adequately
predict modulus of high quality rock masses. They
therefore derived the sigmoidal relationship given in
Equation 6.4 as an upper bound to their data.

EQUATION 6.4

They also showed Equation 6.4 fits the reliable data

from Bieniawski (1978); Serafim and Pereira (1983);
Stephens and Banks (1989) quite well (see Figure 6.17).
The complete version of Equation 6.4 as given
by Hoek and Diederichs (2006) and reproduced
as Equation 6.5, includes a subjective term called
the disturbance factor, D, which ranges from 0 FIGURE 6.17 Comparison of Equation 6.4 with the rock
mass modulus data from various sources as shown as
(undisturbed) to 1 (fully disturbed). The data shown published in Hoek and Diederichs (2006).
in Figure 6.17 corresponds to a D = 0 (undisturbed).

Douglas (2002) collated published data on

measured rock mass modulus, E m, as listed in Table
6.5. Figure 6.18 shows the large scatter in measured
Em and recorded GSI as well as the poor correlation
EQUATION 6.5
between the two.
Superimposed onto Figure 6.18 is the curve suggested
It is important to note that Equation 6.5 was derived
by Hoek and Diederichs (2006), i.e. Equation 6.5,
by curve fitting data. Some of that data that was used
for D = 0 and D = 0.5. It is apparent that the data is
to fit the second form of the equation, the one with
largely bounded by these two curves though neither is
the ratio E m/Ei ,was obtained by Hoek and Diederichs
particularly well-conditioned to the data.
(2006) by assuming the intact modulus Ei is related
to the σc by the typical modulus ratio MR for the
particular rock type. In other words, the relationship
6.4.5 Other
Kayabasi et al. (2003) evaluated 57 datasets comprising
in Equation 6.5 defining the ratio E m/Ei is partly based
in situ modulus derived from plate load tests and GSI
on inferred not measured data.

70
 6 | Rock Mass Modulus

FIGURE 6.18 In situ modulus versus GSI from by Douglas (2002). The error bars acknowledge the variation of Em in the test
results. The uncertainty in GSI was due both to the variability of the rock masses and the conversion from published RMR
values to GSI.

values that were reported by others from the Deriner

and Ermenel dam sites in Turkey. The data relates to
very strong quartz-diorite and strong limestone and is
shown in Figure 6.19. The degree to which the rock
mass was disturbed is not known.
Kallu et al. (2015) compared published correlations
with plate load tests from 13 measurements from
mines in Nevada, USA, eight measurements from the
Bakhtiary dam site in Iran and five measurements
from the Portugues dam site in Puerto Rico (Stephens
and Banks 1989) (see Section 6.5.2). Figure 6.20 plots
their data with respect to RMR 76. They curve-fitted the
following awkward exponential and log relationship
between in situ rock mass modulus (E m ) and four FIGURE 6.20 In situ modulus versus RMR76.from Kallu et al.
variables: average block size or joint spacing (BS), field (2015)
estimated rock strength (SF), fracture roughness (RF)
and infill hardness (IF). The reasonable fit achieved is
shown in Figure 6.21.

E m=e-0.731+0.0846SF+0.382lnBS+0.134RF+0.1571F

FIGURE 6.19 Plate load test results of in situ modulus FIGURE 6.21 Comparison of measured and predicted in situ
against GSI from (Kayabasi et al. 2003) modulus from Kallu et al. (2015)

71
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 6.5 In situ modulus collated by Douglas (2002)

Rock GSI Em [GPa] Testing Source
mean/range mean/range
Claystone 34 30-63 1.6 Pile Loading Santiago (1986)
Mudstone 49 40-49 1.8 Dilatometer Georgiadis (1986)
Claystone 53 44-62 4.4 0.51-8.28 Plate Bearing Gifford (1986)
Siltstone 39 23-60 0.11 0.05-0.17 Pressuremeter Pavlakis (1986)
Sandstone 67 54-79 0.3 0.25-0.36 Plate Loading Poulton (1986)
Basalt 60 51-79 25 10-40 Jointed Block Schultz (1995)
Sandstone 75 55-87 3.9 2.2-5.6 Flat jack Cheng (1993)
Sandstone 75 55-87 3.7 2.3-5.1 Plate Loading Cheng (1993)
Limestone 79 63-91 37.5 32.5-42.5 Plate Loading Giovanni (1993)
Basalt 39 30-74 1.39 0.2-4.6 Pressuremeter Mcdonald (1993)
Granodiorite 52 3.8 Goodman Jack Littlechild (2000)
Granite 55 2.5 Goodman Jack Littlechild (2000)
Siltstone 60 14 Goodman Jack Littlechild (2000)
Tuff 75 11 Goodman Jack Littlechild (2000)
Marble 76 18 Goodman Jack Littlechild (2000)
Sandstone 46 35-57 7.5 5-10 Crosshole Littlechild (2000)
geophysics
Granite 48 41-55 17.5 15-20 Crosshole Littlechild (2000)
geophysics
Siltstone 68 64-71 25 20-30 Crosshole Littlechild (2000)
geophysics
Marble 78 71-84 15 10-20 Crosshole Littlechild (2000)
geophysics
Sandstone 60 55-65 6.6 MPBX Bieniawski (1990)
Shale 63 58-68 13.8 MPBX Bieniawski (1990)
Shale 72 67-77 13.8 MPBX Bieniawski (1990)
Mudstone 75 70-80 5 MPBX Bieniawski (1990)
Shale 75 70-80 12.4 MPBX Bieniawski (1990)
Granite 35 30-40 4 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 42 37-47 8 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 43 38-48 10 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 45 40-50 7 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 62 58-68 9 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 64 59-69 8 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 50 45-55 13 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 55 50-60 13 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 57 52-62 18 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 67 62-72 24 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 70 65-75 20 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 75 70-80 13 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 75 70-80 15 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 80 75-85 33 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)
Granite 80 75-85 35 Plate Loading Ribacchi (1984)

72

6.4.6 Collated data
Figure 6.22 plots the rock mass moduli database
collated from the published data presented in
the preceding sections. The base figure shows the
Chinese and Taiwanese in situ moduli from Hoek
and Diederichs (2006). Borehole test data were
excluded from the Stephens and Banks (1989) and
Douglas (2002) datasets where known so as to select
the most reliable rock mass moduli values (refer to
the Introduction of Section 6.3). The data includes
disturbed and undisturbed rock masses. As the
published sources did not always include raw data,
there may be some duplication in the data presented
in Figure 6.22. Superimposed are the curves generated
from Equation 6.5 for D = 0, 0.5 and 1 (Hoek and
Diederichs 2006).
FIGURE 6.22 Collated in situ modulus versus GSI. The base data (grey circles) are from Hoek and Diederichs (2006).
6 | Rock Mass Modulus
Two things are apparent in Figure 6.22.
• The data is generally in keeping with the range and
distribution given in Hoek and Diederichs (2006)
• The curves generated with Equation 6.5 for D = 0,
0.5 and 1 do cover most of the data.
Figure 6.23 re-plots the data but excludes that
which is likely to represent disturbed rock mass.
Much of the undisturbed rock mass data falls within
a range about the value predicted by Equation 6.5 for
D = 0. The range shown in Figure 6.23 by the dashed
lines is generated by replacing the constant 75 in the
numerator of the exponential in Equation 6.5 with 70
and 80, respectively, viz
EQUATION 6.6
73
 ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

100

Bieniawski (1978)
D = 0

80 Serafim & Pereira (1983)

Stephen & Banks (1989)

Palmstrom & Singh (2001), D=0

60 Kallu (2015)
Em [GPa]

Stripa

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

GSI

FIGURE 6.23 Range of in situ modulus versus GSI showing the typical bounds for undisturbed rock masses

Also the data from Palmström and Singh (2001) 6.4.7 Conclusion
and Nejati et al. (2014) suggests a value of D = 0.5 The empirical relationships between rock mass quality,
may be appropriate for rock masses disturbed by drill be that RQD, RMR, Q, GSI or other measure, is an
and blast and stress relief. Figure 6.24 presents the exercise in curve fitting data that has been appropriately
data from these two sources together with the curves selected to be representative of that rock mass.
generated from Equation 6.6 with D = 0.5. Data from From the data and discussion presented, it is
other sources is not shown as the extent to which the apparent that a sigmoidal curve, such as that proposed
rock mass from these sources is disturbed is not known. by Hoek and Diederichs (2006) is better suited to the

20
100

18

16
80

14

60 12
Palmstrom & Singh (2001)
Palmstrom & Singh (2001)
Em [GPa]
Em [GPa]

D = 0.5 Nejati et al (2014)

10
Nejati et al (2014)

40 8

20 4

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
GSI GSI

FIGURE 6.24 Left - range of in situ modulus versus GSI for drill & blast and stress relief disturbed rock masses. The right
graph is just a close-up of the data.

74

data than a straight line or exponential curve.
Further, the data collated suggests that while the
equation proposed by Hoek and Diederichs (2006) is
a good fit to the mean, it is better to acknowledge the
uncertainty in the prediction by quoting the range, i.e.
mean
with the range, from
to
EQUATION 6.7
Furthermore, a value of D = 0.5 appears to be
appropriate for rock masses disturbed by drill and blast
and stress relief.
6.5 EQUIVALENT CONTINUA
There are several analytical models which seek to
relate a jointed mass to an equivalent continuum by
following the same basic principle: the deformation of
the equivalent continuum is the sum of the deformation
of the intact rock and the deformation of the joints.
The model shown in Figure 6.25 is an example of a
relatively simple, theoretical model for a sedimentary
rock mass. The rock mass can be thought of as blocks of
intact rock separated by evenly spaced, parallel bedding
planes and orthogonal joints. For the particular model
shown in Figure 6.25, Kulhawy (1978) quotes earlier
work by Goodman et al. (1968) and Duncan and
Goodman (1968) to calculate the rock mass modulus
(Em) as a function of defect spacing for loading
perpendicular to the defects as in Equation 6.8.
EQUATION 6.8
Complexity can be built into this type of model
to include orthorhombic layers (Gerrard 1982); joint
slip (Adhikary and Dyskin 1997; 1998); and/or defect
shear stiffness (Zhang 2010):
6 | Rock Mass Modulus
FIGURE 6.25 Concept of equivalent elastic continuum
(after Kulhawy 1978)
EQUATION 6.9
Amadei (1996) considers these analytical models
can achieve acceptable predictions of rock behaviour
from an engineering point of view despite their
limitations. This is particularly so if the selected rock
properties are determined in a stress range comparable
to what is expected in situ. Hence, the analytical
models are appealing though there are several implicit
assumptions in these models.
• The normal and shear stiffness are constant and
independent of stress
• The joints have negligible thickness and hence
undergo equal strains in their plane
• The intact rock and the joints undergo equal strains.
These assumptions may over-simplify the case.
Consider the rock mass in Figure 6.25 subject to a
vertical load. The horizontal joints, which are spaced at
sz, will compress before the intact blocks of rock. The
implication is that the modulus of the rock mass changes
FIGURE 6.26 Theoretical behaviour of a defect under
compression, tension and shear loading (Hudson and
Harrison 1997)
75
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
under load: it is governed by the stiffness of the joints at
low stress levels and that of the intact rock modulus at
high stress. This was observed by Bandis et al. (1981)
and Hudson and Harrison (1997), see Figure 6.26.
6.6 COMPLIANT INCLUSIONS
Another way that researchers have looked at analytical
models to estimate mass modulus has been to describe
fractures, cracks and pores as compliant inclusions in
a stiff, un-fractured solid. This research can be loosely
divided as coming from two streams; geophysics and
‘traditional’ rock mechanics.
6.6.1 Geophysics
Appreciation that low-frequency, long-wavelength,
seismic waves cannot “see” individual cracks in a rock
mass but are governed by overall characteristics of the
fractured rock mass, suggested that a seismic response
of a fractured rock could be simulated in a properly
selected homogeneous solid. Two important papers
whose aim was just that – to replace a cracked medium
with an homogeneous one that has the same overall
elastic properties – are Bristow (1960) and Hudson
(1980).
Bristow (1960) derived equations for the effective
elasticity of solids that contain a few dry, randomly
oriented, circular, thin cracks. He assumed interactions
between cracks could be ignored and that random crack
orientations result in overall isotropy. His equation for
fractional change in elastic and shear modulus is:
EQUATION 6.10
where
Gi is the isotropic shear modulus of the uncracked
solid = Ei/[2(1+vi)]
vi is Poisson’s ratio of the uncracked solid
and
EQUATION 6.11
a is the radius of the average crack
n is the number-density of cracks (= number of
cracks / volume)
76
Hudson (1980) extended the work of Bristow to
account for crack to crack interactions and gave an
expression for the shear modulus of a fluid-filled,
cracked solid, G:
EQUATION 6.12
where K i is the bulk modulus of the uncracked solid =
Ei/[3(1−2vi)].
As Walsh (1965) mathematically showed that
though Poisson’s Ratio (v) varied with the crack
density and with stress, its variation is within relatively
tight bounds, e.g. 0.15 to 0.30, it is possible to write the
approximation v ≈ v I and hence E/Ei ≈ G/Gi.
Though Hudson’s equation (Equation 6.12) is
actually for the motion of waves through solids and
hence dynamic modulus is implied, the values can be
taken as static modulus when the wavelength (λ=2π/k)
is long compared with the scale-length of the crack (ka
<<1) (Hudson 1980). This is the case for seismic waves
through rock masses, as the typical wavelengths for
P- and S-waves are 50 to 500 km and those of surface
waves 30 to 1000 km (Mooney 2017), compared to
cracks of tens of metres and hence, the constraint for ka
<<1 as stated by Hudson (1980) is met, i.e. ka ≈10-4 /m.
Grechka and Kachanov (2006) critique various
analytical expressions for deriving the elastic
properties of cracked solids. They conclude that
expressions such as Equation 6.10 of Bristow (1960)
and Equation 6.12 of Hudson (1980) were “sufficiently
accurate” to estimate elastic properties for solids with
“ irregular and intersecting, approximately flat cracks.”
Grechka and Kachanov (2006) further conclude that
these expressions give acceptable elastic properties
of fractured rocks for seismic needs, even when the
fractures intersect and form interconnected networks.
6.6.2 Rock mechanics
Measurement of the deformation of rocks under
hydrostatic pressure shows that compressibility often
is not a constant, as would be expected for an elastic
material, but varies with pressure and with the type of
test (Walsh 1965). The graphs of stress versus strain
produced by Hudson and Harrison (1997) show that
theoretical behaviour (Figure 3.4).
The applicability of theories that describe that
observation by relating the elastic modulus of micro-
cracked materials to the number and size of cracks was
explored by Zimmerman (1985). This also included the
theory from Walsh (1965) as given in Equation 6.13,
which is the same equation as given by Bristow (1960)
(Equation 6.10).

EQUATION 6.13
The starting point is the compressibility of a pore,
which is found by calculating the fractional volume
change of a single cavity subjected to a hydrostatic
pressure over its surface. Zimmerman (1985) concluded
the theories adequately predict the change in elastic
modulus with increased micro-cracking.
Zimmerman (1991) further developed equations
for the compressibility of three-dimensional spheroids
from the compressibility of two-dimensional, circular
and elliptical pores (Walsh et al. 1965) and of thin
cracks (Berry 1960). With each of these approaches
the total pore volume change is implicitly assumed to
be the sum of the volume changes calculated for the
individual isolated pores or spheroids. However, in an
actual porous rock, the stress field to which a given
pore is subjected will be influenced by the presence
of nearby pores. Hence, its volumetric strain will be
different to that calculated by ignoring the presence of
other pores [Chapter 11 in Zimmerman (1991)].
Hu and McMechan (2009) showed that these
theories can predict elastic properties of laboratory test
data quite well at small crack densities, i.e. small values
of Γ. Saenger et al. (2004) show that the crack density
threshold is approximately Γ ≤ 0.2, although Grechka
and Kachanov (2006) use a limit of Γ ≤ 0.1.
David and Zimmerman (2011) developed the
approach further and derived approximate analytical
FIGURE 6.27 Normalised effective bulk modulus of a solid
containing spheroids after David and Zimmerman (2011)
6 | Rock Mass Modulus
expressions for the effective modulus of isotropic
solids containing randomly oriented spheroids. They
also present equations for Poisson’s ratio (v) and
bulk modulus (K) for infinitely thin cracks based
on crack density, Γ (Equation 6.14). See Figure 6.27
for example.
David and Zimmerman (2011) define infinitely thin
cracks as having aspect ratios, α ≤ 0.01 though note
that the error is less than 2% compared with the result
of more rigorous theoretical calculations when using
Equation 6.14 with α up to 0.1.
and noting that E = 3K(1-2v), then
EQUATION 6.14
Vernik and Kachanov (2012) also confirm the
limit of α ≤ 0.01 to be appropriate to assess the elastic
properties of dry or fully-drained saturated rocks.
6.6.3 Application
The equations of David and Zimmerman (2011) may
be useful to estimate rock mass modulus if bedding
planes, shears, joints, etc. could be considered as
infinitely thin cracks.
Adopting the limiting aspect ratio which defines
infinitely thin cracks as α ≤ 0.01, in accordance with
David and Zimmerman (2011), implies a 1 m long
defect would have a maximum thickness of 10 mm
(10/1000 = 0.01). Similarly, a 50 m long defect would
have a maximum thickness of 500 mm (500/50000
= 0.01). These limits are not unreasonable for most
rock masses. Further, if we accept the work of David
and Zimmerman (2011) and of Vernik and Kachanov
(2012) that the methodology is still valid and with
small error for the higher limit of α ≤ 0.10, the
maximum thickness increases by a factor of 10.
However, a link between the degree to which a
rock mass is jointed and crack density (Γ) is needed
before the compliant inclusion models can be used to
estimate rock mass modulus. At the scale of interest
to tunnelling, the volumetric joint count ( Jv), and by
extension, block volume (Vb) and RQD may be suitable.
Volumetric joint count ( Jv) is defined as the number
of joints intersecting a cubic metre (Palmström 2005).
This is the same definition as that used for the term n
(number of cracks / volume) in Equation 6.11 which is
used to estimate Γ = na3.
77
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

If the jointing occurs mainly in sets, then:

where s1, s2, s3 … sn are the average spacings of the

joint sets.
Palmström (2005) discusses the poor ability of RQD
to characterise the degree of jointing but does give the
following correlation between RQD and Jv (Figure
6.28) which in terms of the scale for most tunnels in
blocky rock, i.e. joint spacing in the order of 0.1 to 1 m
(Figure 4.13), is probably suitable.

Substituting this equation for Jv into Equation 6.11

gives the following approximation.

FIGURE 6.28 Correlation between RQD and Jv given by

EQUATION 6.15 Palmström (2005)

FIGURE 6.29 Comparison of the range covered by RQD with those of joint spacing, block volume and volumetric joint count;
from Palmström (2005)

78

6.7 ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
Distinct rock masses – anisotropic sedimentary
rock masses and an isotropic igneous rock mass –
which have substantial testing databases are used in
this section as case studies to illustrate the various
approaches discussed in this chapter to estimate rock
mass modulus. The Ashfield Shale and Hawkesbury
Sandstone are found in Sydney, Australia. The Lac du
Bonnet Granite is found in the AECL’s Underground
Research Laboratory in Manitoba, Canada. Typical
parameters for the rock masses are given in Table 6.6.
6.7.1 Ashfield Shale & Hawkesbury
Sandstone
The Ashfield Shale has a maximum thickness of
approximately 60 m and grades from a claystone,
siltstone to a siltstone / fine grained sandstone laminate
(MacGregor 1985). It has been extensively worked
throughout Sydney as a source of brick-making clay
(Branagan and Packham 2000). The Ashfield Shale
comprises well developed, thinly laminated rock
with wider spaced bedding from about 0.1 - 0.5 m to
2m. The bedding planes are typically sub-horizontal,
undulating and slightly rough with occasional silty
clay infill. Two sub-vertical and orthogonal joint sets
occur but so too do other joints of variable orientation.
Joints are typically planar, tight and slightly rough
(Bertuzzi 2014; Bertuzzi 2014). A small percentage
of swelling clays is present in Ashfield Shale though
generally does not pose an issue in the rock mass.
Soils derived from Ashfield Shale are slightly to
moderately expansive with measured swells of 2% to 7%
(Won 1985).
The Hawkesbury Sandstone is a medium to coarse
grained, quartzose sandstone which was deposited in 1
to 5 m thick beds, typically 2 m, that are either massive
or cross-bedded (Figure 6.32 and Figure 6.33). Shale
breccia is common at the contacts between individual
beds, with siltstone interbeds forming a minor part
of the overall Hawkesbury Sandstone unit. Cross-
bedded beds make up approximately 70% of the
6 | Rock Mass Modulus
Hawkesbury Sandstone. Two sub-vertical joint sets
occur and are typically planar, rough & tight. One set
spaced at approximately 3 m, the other at 5 to 10 m.
This spacing of defects implies typical block volumes
of between 15 to 30 m3, ranging up to 150 m3.
A five-group classification system for foundation
design on the sandstones and shales in Sydney was
developed by Pells et al. (1978) and updated 20 years
later in Pells et al. (1998). The classification system
is based on intact rock strength, defect spacing and
allowable seams (clay, fragmented, highly weathered
or similar zones). For example, Class II Hawkesbury
Sandstone has an unconfined compressive strength,
σc > 12 MPa; defect spacing > 600mm and <3%
allowable seams.
There is substantial published data regarding the
properties of Hawkesbury Sandstone and Ashfield
Shale; e.g. Bertuzzi (2014); Bertuzzi (2014); Bertuzzi
and Pells (2002); Clarke and Pells (2004); Pells (2004);
Pells et al. (1998); Won (1985). The typical rock mass’
Young’s modulus for vertical loading is provided in
Pells et al. (1998). For Hawkesbury Sandstone for
example, the values are: Class I > 2000 MPa; Class II
900 to 2000 MPa; Class III 350 to 1200 MPa; Class
IV 100 to 700 MPa; and Class V 50 to 100 MPa. The
Young’s modulus in the horizontal direction for Class
II sandstone is given as 1500 MPa in Pells et al. (1994).
The normal stiffness of the typical bedding planes
can be estimated using the conclusions of Chapter 3.3.
For example, bedding planes in either Ashfield Shale
or Hawkesbury Sandstone occasionally have clayey /
silty / sandy infill. This infill can be assumed to have
an undrained shear strength su = 50 kPa and modulus
E = 20 MPa, which suggests an equivalent normal
stiffness of k n = 1.6 x 20 MPa / [0.005 to 0.010] =
3200 to 6400 MPa/m for typical bedding planes.
This is in the range obtained in the laboratory testing
(see Chapter 3.3) and measured by Clarke and Pells
(2004). Assuming σn > 1 MPa, the shear stiffness of
the bedding plane (k s) can be estimated using the ratio
k s / k n = 0.10 which implies k s ≈ 320 to 640 MPa/m.
79
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 6.30 Typical photos of Ashfield Shale Class II borehole core (Bertuzzi 2014)

FIGURE 6.31 Photo of typical Ashfield Shale Class II exposed in the Castle Hill Crossover Cavern.

80
 6 | Rock Mass Modulus

FIGURE 6.32 Typical photos of Hawkesbury Sandstone Class II borehole core (Bertuzzi 2014)

FIGURE 6.33 Photo of saw cut Hawkesbury Sandstone Class III becoming Class II beneath an existing house

81
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
6.7.2 Lac du Bonnet Granite
The Lac du Bonnet granite is a very high strength
(σc = 170 to 220 MPa), relatively undifferentiated
and homogeneous, pink and grey, medium to coarse-
grained, massive, un-jointed, porphyritic granite-
granodiorite (Martin et al. 1997), see Figure 6.34. The
data regarding its properties is provided in Diederichs
(2007); Diederichs et al. (2004); Martin (1990);
Martin (1993); Martin et al. (1999); Martin et al.
(1997). Martin et al. (1999) quote RMR ≈ 100 and
Diederichs (2007) gives mi= 30, s = 1 and a = 0.5 for
intact and GSI = 85, mb= 17.6, s = 0.19 and a = 0.5 for
Lac du Bonnet granite rock mass.
The Lac du Bonnet granite is a massive rock mass
with very few joints. Martin et al. (1997) record that
approximately 500 m length of tunnel through Lac
du Bonnet Granite at the Atomic Energy of Canada
FIGURE 6.34 Photo of the Lac du Bonnet granite in the Mine-By Experiment, Underground Research Laboratory, AECL,
Manitoba, Canada http://www.civil.engineering.utoronto.ca/Page611.aspx accessed 13 September 2014
82
Limited (AECL) Underground Research Laboratory
in Manitoba, Canada encountered six fractures, each
with a trace length less than 1.5 m. The implied block
volume is therefore in the order of thousands of cubic
metres, say greater than 1000 m3.
Also, it is reasonable to assume that the average
sheared joint length will be less than a metre to a
maximum of a few metres. Using the conclusions
of Chapter 3.3 this implies stiffness of k s ≈ 1000 to
10,000 MPa/m and k n ≈ 10,000 to 100,000 MPa/m.
In terms of rock mass modulus, Martin (1990)
concluded that while anisotropy is evident in core
samples of Lac du Bonnet granite, there is no evidence
which suggests the in situ granite is an anisotropic rock
mass. The small scale anisotropy is considered to be
a function of stress-relief micro-cracking related to
drilling and sampling (Martin 1990).
 6 | Rock Mass Modulus

TABLE 6.6 Typical Parameters

TYPICAL PROPERTIES HAWKESBURY SST ASHFIELD SHALE LAC du BONNET

CLASS II CLASS II GRANITE

12 – 50 MPa 7 – 40 MPa 155 – 248 MPa

Intact rock UCS
average ≈ 25 MPa average ≈ 15 MPa average ≈ 200 MPa

5 – 20 GPa 5 – 20 GPa 50 – 80 GPa

Intact modulus, Ei
average ≈ 10 GPa average ≈ 10 GPa average ≈ 65 GPa

Poisson ratio, v 0.25 0.25 0.26 – 0.3

1.1 (saturated)
Anisotropy ratio (saturated) ≈1
1.3 (oven dried)

Rock mass modulus, Vertical 0.9 – 2.0 GPa

Em Vertical 0.7 – 2.0 GPa Typically, 60 GPa
Horizontal 1.5 GPa

Em / Ei. ≈ 0.1 – 0.3 ≈ 0.1 – 0.3 ≈ 0.9 – 0.95

RQD 90 – 100% 80 – 100% 100%

Classification

RMR’89 70 – 85 60 – 75 90 – 100

GSI 55 – 75 45 – 55 80 – 95, 85

Q 5 – 75 1.5 – 50 ≥ 200

Spacing: 0.5 to 2 m,
Spacing: 1 to 5 m, 2 m Length: > 10 m
Length: > 10 m Shape: Planar to NA
Bedding Shape: Undulating, rough undulating, smooth Massive
with occasional ≤ 10 mm to slightly rough with
clayey silty sand occasional clay seams up to
10 mm thick

Spacing: 1 to 2 m Spacing: > 10 m

Spacing: 3 m; 5 to 10 m
Length: within beds Length: < 1.5 m
Jointing Length: within beds
Shape: planar, smooth to Shape: undulating, very
Shape: planar, rough, tight
slightly rough, tight rough, tight

Block volume 15 to 30 m3 0.5 to 5 m3 > 1000 m3

Parameter Bedding Bedding Massive

In situ In situ In situ

Scale Lab Lab Lab
(20 m) (20 m) (5 m)
Main defects

JRC 4 to 6 2.5 4 to 6 2.5 8 to 12 3

JCS
25 10 20 7 200 100
MPa

φr 30° 25° 30°

83
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

6.7.3 Classification systems

6.7.3.1 RQD
The mean correlation between RQD and Em / Ei as
presented in Section 6.5.1 and shown in Figure 6.35
suggests for our two illustrative cases:
• Em / Ei = 0.38 to 0.89 for Ashfield Shale with RQD
= 80 to 100%
• m / Ei = 0.58 to 0.89 for Hawkesbury Sandstone
E

with RQD = 90 to 100%
• Em / Ei = 0.89 for the Lac du Bonnet Granite with
RQD = 100%.
This seems to be a good predictor for the Lac du
Bonnet Granite (Em / Ei ≈ 0.9 to 0.95) but a poor
predictor for the Ashfield Shale and Hawkesbury
Sandstone (Em / Ei ≈ 0.1 to 0.3).
6.7.3.2 RMR
Using Figure 6.36 and Bieniawski’s Equation 6.1,
which is Em = 2RMR – 100 and Serafim & Pereira’s
Equation 3 , which is Em = 10 ^[(RMR-10)/40]
• Ashfield Shale with an RMR76 ≈ 55 – 70 suggests FIGURE 6.35 Correlation between RQD and Em/Er, after
Zhang (2010); Zhang and Einstein (2004). Lines are drawn
values of Em = 15 – 40 GPa
(dot-dashed, orange) at RQD=90% and 100% which gives
• awkesbury Sandstone with an RMR76 ≈ 65 – 80,
H
 mean Em/Ei = 0.58 and 0.89, respectively.
Em = 25 – 60 GPa
• Lac du Bonnet granite with an RMR76 = 90 – 100,
Em = 80 to > 100 GPa.
None are particularly good matches with the
actual data.

FIGURE 6.36 Correlation between RMR and Em. Lines are drawn for Hawkesbury Sandstone (dot-dashed, orange) and Luc du
Bonnet Granite Sandstone (dot-dashed, blue).

84
 6 | Rock Mass Modulus

The Mohammadi and Rahmannejad (2010) 100

equation [E m = 0.0003RMR 3 – 0.0193RMR 2 +

0.3157RMR + 3.4064] suggests: D = 0

• Em = 12 – 34 GPa for Ashfield Shale with an RMR76 ≈ 80

55 – 70 71

• Em = 25 – 59 GPa for Hawkesbury Sandstone with

an RMR76 ≈ 65 – 80 60

• Em = 94 – 142 GPa for Lac du Bonnet granite with

Em [GPa]
50

RMR76 = 90 – 100.
This correlation between RMR and modulus also 40

tends to overestimate the mass modulus.

6.7.3.3 Q
20
The relationship between Em and Q given Equation 14

6.3, which is M = 10Qc1/3, suggests:

• Em=5 to 37 GPa for Ashfield Shale where Q = 1.5 0
– 50 0 20 40 60 80 100

• Em=8 to 33 GPa for Hawkesbury Sandstone, Q = 5 GSI

– 75
• m 68 GPa for Lac du Bonnet Granite, Q 200.
E FIGURE 6.37 Correlation between GSI and Em. Lines are
The correlation overestimates the rock mass modulus
for Ashfield Shale and Hawkesbury Sandstone but
predicts it well for Lac du Bonnet granite.
6.7.3.4 GSI
Using a disturbance factor, D = 0 for ‘undisturbed rock
mass’, the correlation between Em and GSI (Equation
6.7) becomes:
with the range, from
which for:
• Ashfield Shale Class II with GSI = 45 to 55, gives a
mean Em = 6 to 14 GPa with ranges of 4 – 9 GPa
and 9 – 20 GPa, respectively
• Hawkesbury Sandstone Class II with GSI = 55 to
75, gives an Em = 14 to 50 GPa with ranges of 9 – 39
GPa and 20 – 61 GPa, respectively
• ac du Bonnet Granite with GSI = 85, gives Em = 71
L

with a range of 61 – 80 GPa.
drawn for Hawkesbury Sandstone (dot, orange) and Luc du
Bonnet Granite Sandstone (dot, blue).
The GSI correlation overestimates the rock
mass modulus for Ashfield Shale and Hawkesbury
Sandstone II but provides a good estimate for Lac du
Bonnet Granite.
6.7.3.5 Summary
A comparison between measured Em and that predicted
using the various correlations with classification
systems discussed in the preceding sections is
summarised in Table 6.7. The rock mass modulus
obtained using these correlations with RQD, RMR, Q
and GSI is:
• Typically, an order of magnitude larger than that
measured in the field for the medium strength,
sedimentary Ashfield Shale and Hawkesbury
Sandstone.
• The correlation between the predicted and measured
Em for the very high strength, massive Lac du Bonnet
Granite is however better.

85
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 6.7 Rock mass modulus predicted from the correlations with UCS, RQD, RMR, Q and GSI

CORRELATION HAWKESBURY ASHFIELD SHALE LAC du BONNET

SANDSTONE CLASS II GRANITE
CLASS II

Em [GPa] Em [GPa] Em [GPa]

Measured Vert 0.9 – 2.0 0.7 – 2.0 65

Horz 1.5

UCS 2.5 – 10 1.4 – 8 31 – 50

RQD 3 – 18 2 – 18 45 – 71

2RMR-100 30 – 60 10 – 40 70 – 90

Figure 6.13 24 – 56 13 – 32 75 – 133

RMR

exp(RMR-100)/36

Mohammadi and 25 – 59 12 – 34 94 -142

Rahmannejad (2010)

10Qc1/3 8 – 33 5 – 27 68 – 107
Q

8Q0.4 15 – 45 9 – 38 67 – 96
(max Q) (max Q)

GSI (mean) 14 – 50 6 – 14 61 – 86

6.7.4 Equivalent continua which gives E m ≈ 3.9 GPa with a range between 1.9
The models presented in Section 6.5 are used to and 14.3 GPa. Alternatively, Equation 6.9 gives typical
estimate the modulus of the equivalent continua as E m of 3.1 GPa again with a range of 1.6 and 12.9 GPa:
given in Equation 6.8, Equation 6.9 and Table 6.8.
For Ashfield Shale Class II, Equation 6.8 suggests that
the rock mass modulus in the vertical direction is:

For Lac du Bonnet Granite, Equation 6.8

which gives E m ≈ 2.4 GPa with a range between 1.2

and 10.0 GPa. Alternatively, Equation 6.9 gives typical
E m of 3.1 GPa again with a range of 0.9 and 8.5 GPa:
gives E m ≈ 58 GPa with a range between 33 and 74
GPa. Equation 6.9 gives typical E m ≈ 56 GPa with a
range of 29 and 72 GPa:

For Hawkesbury Sandstone Class II, Equation 6.8

suggest that the rock mass modulus in the vertical
direction is:
These values are summarised in Table 6.8 along
with the rock mass data. The estimates of rock mass
modulus derived using the equations for an equivalent
continuum are slightly greater than the measured

86
 6 | Rock Mass Modulus

TABLE 6.8 Prediction of rock mass modulus using Kulhawy and Zhang equations
CORRELATION HAWKESBURY ASHFIELD SHALE LAC du BONNET
SANDSTONE CLASS II GRANITE
CLASS II

Intact modulus, Ei [GPa] 5 to 20 5 to 20 50 to 80

(Table 6.6) typical 10 typical 10 typical 65

Spacing [m] 1 to 5 0.5 to 2 NA

typical 2 typical 1
Bedding

Normal stiffness, kn 3200 3200 NA

[MPa/m]

Shear stiffness, ks 320 320 NA

[MPa/m]

Spacing 5 to 10 1 to 2 >10
Jointing

typical 3

Normal stiffness, kn 10,000 10,000 10,000 to

[MPa/m] 100,000

Shear stiffness, ks 1000 1000 1000 to

[MPa/m] 10,000

Duncan and Goodman 1.9 to 14.3 1.2 to 10.0 33 to 74

Modules Em [GPA]

(1968) typical 3.9 typical 2.4 typical 58

Rocke Mass

Equation 6.8

Zhang (2010) 1.6 to 12.9 0.9 to 8.5 29 to 72

Equation 6.9 typical 3.1 typical 3.1 typical 56

In situ 0.9 – 2.0 0.7 – 2.0 60

(Table 6.6)

values for Ashfield Shale and Hawkesbury Sandstone Hudson (1980):

but compare well with that for Lac du Bonnet Granite.
It is considered this is a direct result of the lack of
defects in the Lac du Bonnet Granite.

6.7.5 Compliant inclusions

The equations to estimate modulus assuming that
fractures, cracks and pores are compliant inclusions in noting that v ≈ v I and hence E/Ei ≈ G/Gi
a stiff, un-fractured solid are presented in Section 6.6
(Equation 6.10 to Equation 6.14). That is, EQUATION 6.12

Bristow (1960); Walsh (1965): David and Zimmerman (2011):

EQUATION 6.10

EQUATION 6.14

The input data and estimates are developed in

EQUATION 6.13 Table 6.9.

87
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

As can be seen in Table 6.9, the crack models of
Bristow, Walsh and Hudson slightly overestimate
the rock mass modulus of the Ashfield Shale and
Hawkesbury Sandstone but correlate very well
with the in situ modulus of Lac du Bonnet Granite.
The prediction using the pore model (David and
Zimmerman 2011) is a better match for the Ashfield
Shale and Hawkesbury Sandstone and slightly under-
predicts that for the Lac du Bonnet Granite.

TABLE 6.9 Prediction of rock mass modulus using Hudson and David & Zimmerman equations

PROPERTIES HAWKESBURY ASHFIELD SHALE LAC du BONNET

SANDSTONE CLASS II GRANITE
CLASS II

Ei 5 to 20 5 to 20 50 to 80
(Table 6.6) typical 10 typical 10 typical 65
Intact modulus, [GPa]

Poisson’s ratio, v 0.25 0.25 0.25

(Table 6.6)

Ki = Ei /[3(1-2vi)] 3.3 to 13.3 3.3 to 13.3 3.3 to 53.3

typical 6.7 typical 6.7 typical 43.3

Gi = Ei /[2(1+vi)] 2 to 8 2 to 8 20 to 32
typical 4 typical 4 typical 26

RQD 90 – 100% 80 – 100% 100%

(Table 6.6)
Block size

≤ 4 – 8 joints/m3 ≤ 4 – 12 joints/m3 0.1 – 0.3

Jv
joints/m3

Vb 15 – 30 m3 0.5 – 5 m3 > 1000 m3

(Table 6.6)

Defect length > 10 m Bedding > 10 m Bedding > 1.5 m Jointing

(Table 6.6) (∴ 1 m in 1 m3 (∴ 1 m in 1 m3 (0.3 - 1 m in 1 m3
block) block) block)

Defect thickness ≈ 10 mm ≈ 10 mm Tight (joint)

Crack

(Table 6.6) Bedding Bedding Assume ≤ 1 mm

〈a〉 [m] within 1 m3 0.5 0.5 0.15 – 0.5

Γ =Jv 〈a〉3 0.50 – 1.00 0.50 – 1.50 0.0003 – 0.038

Bristow and Walsh 1.8 - 11 1.4 – 11 50 - 78

Predicted rock mass
modulus, Em [GPa]

(Equation 6.13)

Hudson 1.1 – 11 0.4 – 11 50 – 79

(Equation 6.2)

David & Zimmerman 0.5 – 4.8 0.2 – 4.8 30 – 52

(Equation 6.14)

Rock mass modulus, Em [GPa] 0.9 – 2.0 0.7 – 2.0 60

(Table 6.6)

88

6.8 CONCLUSIONS
Several approaches to estimate the in situ rock mass
modulus, Em, were assessed. In so doing, the inherent
problems with curve-fitting correlations to published
data are highlighted.
• The in situ test methodology influences test results,
e.g. the unreliability of borehole pressuremeter tests
obtained in very poor quality but high strength rock
• Different in situ test methodologies measure the
modulus of different volumes of rock
• The inherent scatter in measured Em means that
any curve fitting approach will be expected to be a
poor predictor
• The empirical relationship between GSI and Em
proposed by Hoek and Diederichs (2006) provides
a good fit to the mean. A better approach is to
recognise the uncertainity in the prediction by
quoting a range as given in Equation 6.7.
• A value of D = 0.5 for use in Equation 6.7 appears
to be appropriate for rock masses disturbed by drill
and blast and stress relief.
FIGURE 6.38 Comparison of the various correlations (patterned columns) and of the analytical and compliance models (solid
columns) with measured rock mass modulus for Ashfield Shale (top) and Hawkesbury Sandstone (bottom).
6 | Rock Mass Modulus
Well-known rock masses – the Ashfield Shale,
the Hawkesbury Sandstone and the Lac du Bonnet
Granite – were used as illustrative cases. This chapter
showed that the classification systems commonly
used for tunnel design – Q, GSI (and RMR)– could
provide reasonable estimates of modulus for very high
strength, massive rock masses such as the Lac du
Bonnet Granite.
However, the classification systems typically over-
estimate by an order of magnitude the modulus of the
medium to high strength, sedimentary Ashfield Shale
and Hawkesbury Sandstone, refer to Table 6.7 and
Figure 6.38.
Analytical models, such as those of Kulhawy (1978)
and Zhang (2010), did provide acceptable predictions
of rock mass modulus for the rock masses: Table 6.8
and Figure 6.38. So too did the compliance models,
of Hudson (1980) and David and Zimmerman (2011):
Table 6.9 and Figure 6.38. The tunnel designer should
make use of the analytical and compliance models to
estimate rock mass modulus.
89
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 6.39 Comparison of the various correlations (patterned columns) and of the analytical and compliance models (solid
columns) with measured rock mass modulus for Luc du Bonnet Granite.

90
 7 | Back-Analysis of Rock Mass Modulus

7 BACK-ANALYSIS OF
ROCK MASS MODULUS

7.1 OUTLINE
Chapter 6 presented and discussed published data
pertaining to rock mass moduli. Most that data stems
from relatively small scale testing – laboratory, borehole
and plate load testing – with some measurements of
convergence of underground excavations. This chapter
presents case studies where the rock mass modulus is
estimated from routine monitoring data obtained
during the construction of underground excavations.
The case studies comprise:
• The widening of the existing twin tunnels of the
M2 motorway in Sydney. These tunnels are within
Hawkesbury Sandstone.
• The excavation of the Northwest Rail Link’s
crossover cavern at Castle Hill, Sydney. The cavern FIGURE 7.1 Circular hole in an infinite medium
is within Ashfield Shale.
The aim of the work presented in this chapter is
twofold: (2005) for the problem shown in Figure 7.1. The
solutions for displacements are given in Equation 7.1
• To develop a relatively simple procedure following in the form quoted in Brady and Brown (2005).
the methodology of Amadei and Savage (1991)
to derive rock mass modulus from the type of Radial
displacement data routinely recorded during typical
tunnelling excavations. While in situ stresses
can and have been back-analysed from detailed
monitoring, such as that carried out at the Atomic
Energy of Canada Limited’s Underground Research
Laboratory (Read 1994), most tunnel projects Tangential
typically do not have such extensive and intensive
monitoring.
• o compare these back-analysed values of rock
T

mass modulus with those values obtained from
the various empirical and theoretical techniques
discussed in Chapter 6.
EQUATION 7.1

7.2 THEORY The displacements of the wall of a circular tunnel

7.2.1 Isotropy
Solutions for the stresses and displacements around
a circular opening in an isotropic, linearly elastic,
homogeneous medium under plane strain were first
published by Kirsch in 1898. They appear in numerous
soil and rock mechanics texts such as Poulos and Davis
(1974), Jaeger and Cook (1979) and Brady and Brown
of radius a can be found in terms of Young’s modulus
(E) rather than shear modulus (G) by noting that G
= E/ 2(1+v) in isotropic, linearly elastic, homogeneous
media, and that at the tunnel wall r = a. Further, if p
represents the in situ vertical stress and if v = 0.25, as
it is reasonably assumed for most rock masses and as
suggested by the data presented in Gercek (2007), then
Equation 7.1 becomes:

91
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
EQUATION 7.2
The choice here to use the apparent modulus (Ea ) in
Equation 7.2 will become evident in the next section.
Equation 7.2 is specific to the displacement of the
wall of a circular tunnel. However, it can be generalised
to cater for the displacement around a tunnel of any
shape by introducing functions to represent the shape
of the excavation (Pells et al. 1980). Re-arranging
Equation 7.2 and substituting for influence functions,
I1, I2 , I3 , and I4 the following can be derived.
Let
92
And hence we can write
EQUATION 7.3
In the general case, numerical analyses can be used
to determine the values of the influence functions,
I1, I2 , I3 , and I4 as functions of locations around the
perimeter.
7.2.2 Anisotropy
Equation 7.3 assumes isotropic, linearly elastic
and homogeneous conditions. If the rock mass is
not isotropic and homogeneous, then the modulus
from Equation 7.3 is an apparent modulus, Ea,
in the direction of the measured displacement.
The magnitude of Ea potentially varies along the
tunnel’s circumference.
Amadei and Savage (1991) provide a methodology
using closed-form solutions to determine the elastic
properties of anisotropic rock masses from expansion
tests in circular boreholes and tunnels. For transversely
isotropic conditions, they show that the ratio of
apparent modulus (Ea) to Young’s modulus in the
plane of isotropy (E) (which is perpendicular to the
direction of the tunnel) is:
EQUATION 7.4
 7 | Back-Analysis of Rock Mass Modulus

Where E and E’ are the Young’s moduli (G and G’ 5  e region on the graph that encloses the intersection
Th
are the shear moduli) in the plane of transverse isotropy points of the various K versus Ea lines, gives the rock
and in the direction normal to it, respectively. mass modulus and in situ stress ratio (see example
The typical range for the ratio E/E’ is between 1 and in Figure 7.3.
4 and that for G/G’ is between 1 and 3 (Amadei 1996).
In other words, the stiffness of most rocks is lower in
the direction normal to the major rock planar defects
(Amadei et al. 1987). This is an expected result.
The relationship between Ea /E and E/E’ for the case
when G/G’ = 1 as an example, is shown in Figure 7.2.

FIGURE 7.2 Polar variation of Ea /E with the angle θ for FIGURE 7.3 Example of Ea v K plot
various E/E’ ratios in accordance with Equation 7.4 for the
case G/G’ = 1 and assuming that the Poisson’s ratios, v
and v‘, for rock can both be assumed to be equal to 0.25.
Rounding error is causing the lines to not plot exactly at Ea /E
= 1 at θ = 0°.

7.2.3 Methodology
The methodology used to back-analyse the rock mass
modulus from routine displacement data recorded
during underground excavation is detailed in the
following steps.
7.2.3.1 Isotropic rock mass
The first steps consider the excavation is carried out
within an isotropic rock mass.
1 The influence functions, I1, I2 , I3 , and I4 are defined by
carrying out numerical analyses of the underground
excavation within an isotropic, linearly elastic and
homogeneous medium
2 The linear relationship between Ea, K and u given
in Equation 7.3 is derived for each measured
displacement recorded during underground
excavation
3 The linear relationships are plotted on a graph as K
versus Ea
4 Steps 2 and 3 are repeated for the measured
displacement data from all the monitored points FIGURE 7.4 Example of an arbitrary excavation

93
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

7.2.3.2 Anisotropic rock mass The methodology described in the preceding

The next steps consider the excavation is carried out
within an anisotropic rock mass.
6 The value of θ appropriate for the position of the
monitoring point as shown in Figure 7.4 is selected.
For example, if the monitoring point is the wall at
mid-height, θ =0°; if the monitoring point is the
centre of the crown then θ =90° (Figure 7.4)
7 The Ea/E ratios at the relevant θ from Step 6 are
calculated using Equation 7.4 for the typical range
of anisotropy (Amadei 1996), i.e. E/E’ = 0.7, 1.0,
1.5, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 and G/G’ = 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0.
For convenience, the ratios are summarised in Table
7.1 for θ = 0 and 90°
8 The relationships between Ea, K and u derived in
Step 2 are used for the appropriate monitoring
point position and Ea/E ratio
9 The results from Step 8 are plotted on a graph as K
versus Ea
10  Steps 8 and 9 are repeated for all the measured
displacement data
11 The combination of E/E’ and G/G’ that yields the
tightest concentration of points on the K versus Ea
graph is selected
12 The region on the graph that encloses the intersection
points gives the rock mass modulus and in situ stress
ratio (Figure 7.3).
TABLE 7.1 Ea/E values for various E/E’ and G/G’
ratios at θ = 0 and 90°.
paragraphs requires knowledge of the total displacement
induced by the excavation. However, often the routine
displacement data measured during tunnelling start
from within the tunnel; that is after the tunnel face
has been excavated.
These measurements miss the elastic response of the
rock mass that occurs before the monitoring points are
installed. Even if the monitoring points were installed
at the face, which is usually practically impossible
from a physical construction and a personal safety
perspective, up to 30% of the elastic response of the
rock mass has occurred ahead of the tunnel face and is
not recorded, e.g. Read (1994).
7.3 CASE STUDIES
The field data collected and collated during
underground excavation works from two recent
projects in Sydney is used to assess the applicability
of the technique developed in the preceding section to
back-analysing the in situ stress ratio and the moduli of
anisotropic rock masses. The case studies, the locations
of which are shown in Figure 7.5, comprise:
• The widening of the existing twin tunnels of the
M2 motorway in Sydney. These tunnels are within
Hawkesbury Sandstone.
• The excavation of the Northwest Rail Link’s
crossover cavern at Castle Hill, Sydney. The cavern
is within Ashfield Shale.

Ea/E values

θ=0° θ =90°

G/G’= 1 2 3 1 2 3

E/E’

0.7 0.98 0.68 0.55 1.26 0.86 0.68

1 1.00 0.70 0.56 1.00 0.70 0.56

1.5 1.01 0.70 0.56 0.77 0.55 0.45

2 1.01 0.70 0.56 0.65 0.47 0.38

3 0.98 0.68 0.55 0.52 0.38 0.31

4 0.93 0.65 0.53 0.46 0.33 0.27 FIGURE 7.5 Google map of Sydney showing the location
of the M2 Tunnel and Castle Hill Crossover Cavern

94
 7 | Back-Analysis of Rock Mass Modulus

7.3.1 M2 Tunnel Each pair of floor-crown and sidewall convergence

An upgrade of the M2 Motorway in Sydney was data from the 16 locations in the eastbound tunnel
carried out between 2010 and 2013 which included and 14 locations in the westbound tunnel were used
widening the 460 m long twin Norfolk Tunnels in to solve the simultaneous equations derived from the
North Epping from 11.7 m to 15.4 m. The original influence functions in Equation 7.3, i.e.:
tunnels had been excavated wholly within the
Hawkesbury Sandstone between August 1995 and Eastbound
July 1996.
A comprehensive suite of instrumentation was
maintained to provide reliable and robust monitoring
data. This included survey prisms, simple wire
extensometers and tape convergence sections, and
multipoint rod extensometers within each tunnel
(Clarke et al. 2014). The tape convergence sections
included both diagonal and vertical components Westbound
(Figure 7.6). The monitoring programme was more
comprehensive than typical in Sydney because the
tunnels were used by the public motorists each day.
The monitoring data provides 16 locations in the
eastbound tunnel and 14 locations in the westbound
tunnel where both floor-crown and sidewall convergence
was measured. The recorded displacements range:
• Crown sag up to 7 mm
The methodology described in Section 7.3.3 was
• Floor-crown convergence up to 8 mm followed. Interestingly, the introduction of anisotropy
• Wall deflection up to 6 mm did not improve the back-analysed solutions for the rock
Measured crown sag was typically less than mass modulus and in situ stress ratio. The introduction
2 mm. Around Ch 12700 m (the western end of the of anisotropy did not improve the solutions probably
tunnels) the measured crown sag was around 5 mm. due to the variability in actual rock mass modulus and
A comparison of measured crown sag and design the Hawkesbury Sandstone being a low anisotropic
predictions indicate reasonable agreement, with the intact rock following the classification of Singh et al.
design values generally over-predicting displacements. (1989), refer to Table 6.6.

FIGURE 7.6 Monitoring locations shown in the tunnel cross section

95
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

Hence, the results obtained assuming an isotropic
rock mass are summarised in Figure 7.7. The size of
the points used in the figure represents the subjective
classification of data reliability based on magnitude
and trend with respect to time
• Stable readings with respect to time and
displacements greater than 1 mm were classified as
‘most reliable’
• Stable readings with displacements less than 1 mm
were classified as ‘reliable’
• Unstable trends were classified as ‘unreliable’
• ‘Incomplete’ data was also noted.
Figure 7.7 shows the modulus and in situ stress ratios
inferred from all the data varies between 1100 and
25,000 MPa and between 0.1 and 9.8, respectively.
Ignoring the ‘unreliable’ data, these ranges reduce to
1100 and 16,000 MPa and between 0.1 and 6.7.
The values of E and K suggested by the back-analysis
are those of the most concentrated grouping of reliable
points, which are:
• Eh = Ev = 4500 to 6750 MPa, with an average of say
5500 MPa
• K = 2.7 to 3.1, say 3.0
This compares to the design values of E = 2500 to
10,000 MPa (mean of 6000 MPa) and K = 7.5. While
the back-analysed modulus is within the range adopted
in design the back-analysed K is much less. However,
this is not surprising as it was found that the measured
displacements were less than the design predicted. The
presence of the existing twin tunnels, and hence any
stress relief or concentration induced by those tunnels,
was included in the design analysis.
Highly redundant data is needed given the spread
shown in this example.

FIGURE 7.7 Results for Eh/Ev=1.0, i.e. assuming isotropic, linear elastic, homogeneous rock mass. Large symbols represent
the ‘most reliable’ data, medium symbols ‘reliable’ data; and the dots the ‘unreliable’ data. Open circles are points from the
Eastbound tunnel; filled circles from the Westbound tunnel. The most concentrated collection of data points is centred about
E = 4500 - 6750 MPa and K = 2.7 - 3.1. The plot on the right is a close-up of the concentrated data.

96

7.3.2 Castle Hill Crossover Cavern
The Castle Hill crossover cavern, which is excavated in
Ashfield Shale, is 160 m long, 23 m wide and 14 to 18
m high. Ground cover over the crown ranges from 14
to 17 m. The cover / span ratio is approximately 0.65.
The Castle Hill crossover cavern is one of the largest
underground excavations in Sydney, and the largest
underground excavation in Ashfield Shale.
The cavern is part of Sydney’s North West Metro
and allows trains to change tracks.
The monitoring network included surface
settlement, inclinometers, extensometers and 16 in-
tunnel convergence arrays which were established as
the cavern excavation progressed (Figure 7.8).
FIGURE 7.8 Section overview of cavern monitoring (Shen et al. 2015)
7 | Back-Analysis of Rock Mass Modulus
The large span heading was excavated as a split
heading. The most reliable data came from prisms
installed within 3.5 to 5 m from the advancing face
of the second heading. This meant that some of the
elastic displacement of the rock mass induced by the
excavation would not be seen by the prisms. Correction
factors to account for this missed elastic displacement
were assessed and applied to the measured data. A
suite of three-dimensional numerical analyses had
been undertaken as part of the cavern’s design to assess
the proportion of elastic displacement that occurred
ahead of the second heading. The design indicated
that approximately 60% of the elastic displacement
would occur before the prisms are installed in the
second heading.
97
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
Again, the methodology described in Section 7.3.3
was followed. In this case, introducing anisotropy
did improve the back-analysed solutions for the rock
mass modulus and in situ stress ratio. The tightest
concentration of reliable data points was obtained
when Gh /Gv = 1.0 and Eh /Ev = 0.7 (Figure 7.9). The
values of E and K suggested by the back-analysis of the
crossover cavern excavated within Ashfield Shale are:
• Eh = 720 MPa, Ev = 1000 MPa
• K = 1.7
This compares well with the design values of E =
300 to 2000 MPa (typically 1000 MPa) and K = 1 to
3.5. The back-analysed anisotropy also compares well
with that from laboratory testing, i.e. 1.4 in Table 6.6
from Won (1985).
7.4 CONCLUSIONS
While in situ stresses can and have been back-analysed
from detailed monitoring, such as that carried out at
the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s Underground
Research Laboratory (Read 1994), most tunnel
projects typically do not have extensive and intensive
monitoring. This chapter developed a relatively simple
procedure that can be followed to derive the in situ
stress ratio and rock mass modulus from the type of
displacement data routinely recorded during typical
FIGURE 7.9 Results for G/G’=1.0 with E/E’=0.7, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0
98
tunnelling excavations. The procedure is simple and
fast enough to be done during tunnel advance as an
onsite check of design parameters though highly
redundant data is needed.
Two case studies were used:
• The widening of existing twin tunnels of the M2
motorway in Sydney within Hawkesbury Sandstone
• The excavation of the Northwest Rail Link’s
crossover cavern at Castle Hill, Sydney within
Ashfield Shale.
The results of the back-analyses, reproduced below,
are in keeping with the ranges typically adopted
in design in Sydney. The results suggest isotropic
conditions for Hawkesbury Sandstone and slightly
anisotropic conditions for Ashfield Shale.
• Hawkesbury Sandstone
„„ Eh = E v = 4500 to 6750 MPa, say 5500 MPa
„„ K = 2.7 to 3.1, say 3.0
• Ashfield Shale
„„ Eh = 720 MPa, Ev = 1000 MPa
„„ K = 1.7.
The case studies show that it is possible to back-
analyse the rock mass modulus and in situ stress but
highly redundant data is needed given the inherent
highly variable spread of the monitoring data.

8 INTACT ROCK
TEST DATA
8.1 OUTLINE
In this chapter the data used to compare four intact
strength criteria is presented. The four criteria, which
were identified in Chapter 2 as offering good means of
representing intact rock strength, are:
• The Lade criterion
• The Christensen
• The Hoek-Brown criterion as modified by Mostyn
& Douglas
• The Hoek-Brown criterion as extended to 3D by
Zhang & Zhu.
The data comprises:
• Published test data collated by Mostyn and Douglas
(2000). This database is perhaps the most extensive
collated to date comprising over 500 data sets
covering 45 rock types.
• Published true 3D testing data collated by
Colmenares and Zoback (2002) and Kwasniewski
(2013). These two databases are referenced as they
report results with the influence of the intermediate
principal stress, σ2 . They are also repeatedly
referenced by other researchers.
• e artificial laboratory ‘data’ set in Mostyn and
Th
 • A theoretical basis. It is noted here that while the
Douglas (2000), which comprises 58 data points of
UTS, UCS and TXL. This ‘data’ set is extremely
useful as it was generated from the assumption that
the artificial intact rock complies with the Hoek-
Brown strength criterion.
• Laboratory test data of intact rock taken from several
recent tunnelling projects in Sydney and Brisbane,
Australia. The purpose of this database is to look at
the ability of the criteria to deal with what is available
in the “real world”. The database comprises:
„„ 
643 test results of Sydney’s Hawkesbury
Sandstone – comprising 185 BTS, 404 UCS and
54 TXL
„„ 
Brisbane Tuff, 456 test results - 37 BTS,
258 UCS and 161 TXL
„„ 
Phyllite (Brisbane) 166 test results - 8 BTS, 1
58 UCS
„„ 
Quartzite (Brisbane) 79 test results - 4 BTS,
75 UCS
8 | Intact Rock Test Data
„„ Basalt (Brisbane) 23 test results - 23 UCS
„„ 
Greywacke (Brisbane) 12 test results - 1 BTS,
11 UCS
These datasets are used to compare the following
four intact strength criteria against that which is most
commonly used by tunnel designers – the Hoek-Brown
criterion (H-B).
• The Lade criterion (L) (Lade 1977). This criterion
was developed from theoretical soil mechanics and
laboratory tests. It is a three-parameter criterion
which has been extended into materials that can
sustain small tensile stresses such as rock.
• The Christensen criterion (C) (Christensen 1997).
This two-parameter theoretical criterion was
developed for true 3D stresses to cater for a variety
of materials.
• The Hoek-Brown criterion as modified by Mostyn
and Douglas (2000) (H-B MD).
• The Hoek-Brown criterion as extended to 3D by
Zhang and Zhu (2007) (H-B 3D).
These criteria were selected as they have the following
characteristics.
Hoek-Brown criterion and its derivatives are empirical,
the original work did start with the Griffith crack
theory. Similarly, the Lade criterion was an empirical
development from a theoretical basis.
• A maximum of three parameters. While more
parameters may offer better curve-fitting, such as
the You criterion (You 2009), they are more difficult
to define particularly with often limited laboratory
test data.
• A smooth, curved failure surface in the octahedral
plane.
• A curved failure surface in planes containing the
hydrostatic axis.
• Capable of having a tensile strength.
The criteria are also compared with the Modified
Wiebols-Cook criterion (W-C), which was
recommended in Colmenares and Zoback (2002) as
the criterion that generally best fitted the compressive
failure test data.
99
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

8.2 DATA there is “no maximum definable σ1 or where there is

8.2.1 Mostyn & Douglas
Douglas (2002) compiled a database of over 4500
published laboratory test results of intact rock strength
as part of his doctoral thesis. The tests include direct
tensile, BTS, UCS and TXL and are collated into 510
sets of results comprising 283 sets of sedimentary
rocks, 101 of igneous rocks and 126 of metamorphic
rocks. The individual rock types contained in the
database are listed in Table 8.1. The work was more
broadly published in Mostyn and Douglas (2000).
Mostyn and Douglas (2000) argued against
excluding results thought to exhibit ductile behaviour
citing work by others that showed that the transition
between ductile and brittle “ failure is not well defined
for all rocks, is often curved and certainly occurs over a
wide range of stresses.” Hence, the database listed in
Table 8.1 only excludes published results for which
significant doubt as to their accuracy”.
There are 20 data sets which contain 20 or more
laboratory tests results. These are indicated in Table 8.1
in bold type and comprise 12 sedimentary, 7 igneous
and 1 metamorphic rock types encompassing a UCS
range of 2 to 290 MPa.
Out of interest, Table 8.2 shows the best estimate
of the Hoek-Brown strength criterion constants
(σc and mi) with those calculated following the Mostyn-
Douglas approach (σc , mi and a), which allows the ‘a’
term to be variable instead of fixed at 0.5. The largest
improvement in the correlation coefficient made by
following the Mostyn-Douglas approach for these 20
datasets is Δr2 = 0.035, with an average of 0.007. This
relatively small improvement in r2 is a function of linear
regression and masks the improvement in the curve-fit
in the tensile and low confinement zone (Mostyn and
Douglas 2000).

TABLE 8.1 The rock types that are contained within the laboratory test results database compiled by
Douglas (2002). The values in brackets are the numbers of results for each rock type. The 20
datasets which have 20 or more test results are also shown in bold. For example, Sandstone
(1170) – 6 has 1170 test results and 6 datasets of 20 or more tests.
SEDIMENTARY (2387) IGNEOUS (1350) METAMORPHIC (819)
Anhydrite (9) Andesite (29) Amphibolite (22)
Biocalcarenite (8) Aplite (8) Chloritite (8)
Chalk (14) Basalt (16) Dolomite (50)
Claystone (38) Diabase (15) Eclogite (14)
Coal (328) - 1 Diorite (17) Gneiss (92)
Fireclay (4) Dolerite (35) – 1 Greenstone (10)
Limestone (381) – 2 Dunite (47) – 1 Greywacke (12)
Mudstone (145) – 2 Gabbro (33) Marble (190)
Salt (38) Granite (789) – 2 Schist (227)
Sandstone (1170) – 6 Granodiorite (57) – 1 Serpentinite (52) – 1
Shale (157) Lamprophyre (6) Slate (141)
Siltstone (94) – 1 Norite (60)
Peridotite (10)
Pyroclastic (10)
Quartzdiorite (27)
Quartzdolerite (38) – 1
Quartzite (90) – 1
Rhyolite (10)
Syenite (7)
Trachite (5)
Tuff (35)
Whinstone (5)

100
 8 | Intact Rock Test Data

TABLE 8.2 The datasets with more than 20 test results, from Douglas (2002).

Hoek-Brown Mostyn & Douglas

(a = 0.5)
UCS
Dataset No. Δr2
[MPa]
σc mi r
2
σc mi α r2

[MPa] [MPa]

Dolerite 26 160.0 194.7 22.6 0.981 230.4 14.3 0.543 0.981 0.001

Dunite 20 70.0 81.3 40.0 0.969 85.4 6.7 0.755 0.997 0.028

Blackingstone 48 179.6 194.5 23.9 0.941 185.2 50.0 0.373 0.951 0.009
Quarry
Granite
Igneous

Westerly 21 225.3 212.7 29.2 0.991 212.5 29.3 0.500 0.991 0.000

Granodiorite Micro 27 193.5 17.6 0.983 239.0 10.1 0.554 0.984 0.001

Quartz- Northumber- 38 286.6 290.5 13.9 0.918 288.4 23.6 0.365 0.919 0.002
dolerite land

Quartzite 48 188.4 204.6 16.4 0.874 188.0 28.8 0.410 0.876 0.002

Serpentinite Oulx 22 193.0 8.1 0.972 151.4 17.6 0.434 0.973 0.001
M

Coal Moura 40 32.7 23.3 20.4 0.817 21.5 41.0 0.396 0.820 0.003

Portland 30 50.6 7.2 0.789 30.5 50.0 0.339 0.794 0.004

medium strong
Limestone
Portland strong 30 59.3 83.1 8.9 0.870 68.2 50.0 0.294 0.886 0.016

48 50.0 59.3 6.3 0.939 57.7 8.9 0.423 0.939 0.000

Mudstone
Sedimentary

Melbourne 20 1.6 1.1 40.0 0.963 1.9 4.2 0.792 0.998 0.035

Keuper 113 7.5 8.2 9.0 0.940 6.8 37.7 0.364 0.950 0.010

South African 55 64.5 60.7 15.7 0.955 71.0 4.0 1.000 0.963 0.009

Derbyshire 33 52.7 54.3 18.7 0.976 52.2 38.0 0.402 0.980 0.004
Sandstone
Pennant 31 196.8 204.0 12.6 0.985 194.4 28.2 0.348 0.990 0.005

Darley Dale 27 80.1 77.5 16.5 0.985 78.7 13.9 0.533 0.985 0.000

Darley Dale 20 79.3 81.0 14.6 0.968 86.9 32.5 0.398 0.979 0.011

Siltstone 64 50.0 53.2 7.8 0.938 54.2 6.2 0.562 0.938 0.000

101
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

8.2.2 Artificial to Chatswood Rail Link, Lane Cove Tunnel, CBD

Mostyn and Douglas (2000) simulated a very
comprehensive test program with results generated
for a material fully compliant with the Hoek-Brown
failure criterion:
The material’s σc and mi were assumed to be normally
distributed with mean ± standard deviation of σc = 10
± 2 MPa and mi = 12 ± 2 respectively. Hence, the mean
strength of the artificial rock is given by:
Fifty-eight results generated were: 10 UTS, 20
UCS and 4 TXL tests at each confining pressure of
1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 MPa. The data set, which
has been digitised off the graph presented in Mostyn
and Douglas (2000) is reproduced in Table 8.3 and
plotted on a principal stress graph in Figure 8.1. Not
surprisingly, the correlation is very high, r2 = 0.99.
8.2.3 Tunnelling Projects
The laboratory test data from several recent or
proposed tunnelling projects in Sydney, Australia have
been collated. The tunnelling projects are: Epping
Metro project and the Northwest Rail Link. The test
data comprises 643 results on Hawkesbury Sandstone
- 185 BTS, 404 UCS and 54 TXL. The data is plotted
on a principal stress graph in Figure 8.2.
The laboratory test data from several recent
tunnelling projects in Brisbane, Australia – Inner City
Bypass, Clem7, Airport Link and Legacy Way – have
also been collated. The testing comprises 736 results:
• Brisbane Tuff, 456 test results - 37 BTS, 258 UCS
and 161 TXL
• Phyllite, 166 test results - 8 BTS, 158 UCS
• Quartzite, 79 test results - 4 BTS, 75 UCS
• Basalt, 23 test results - 23 UCS
• Greywacke, 12 test results - 1 BTS, 11 UCS
The results are plotted on principal stress graphs
in the following figures at the same scale for ease of
comparison (Figure 8.3 to Figure 8.7).
It is obvious that the laboratory test results for these
rocks are limited in number and more importantly in
type, being mainly restricted to UCS tests. It would be
easy to ignore this database as offering ill-conditioned
data to curve-fit the empirical criteria. However, it
is purposefully included in this study to assess the
capability of each of the selected key criteria to provide
a failure envelope with the type of limited data often
available in tunnelling projects.

TABLE 8.3 Artificial intact rock data set – σ3, σ1 pairs – after Mostyn and Douglas (2000)
-1.9, 0 -1.5, 0 -1, 0 -0.9, 0 -0.85, 0 -0.78, 0
UTS

-0.54, 0 -0.51. 0 -0.47, 0 -0.44, 0

0, 5.7 0, 6.0 0, 6.7 0, 7.8 0, 8.0 0, 8.2

0, 8.8 0, 9.1 0, 9.5 0, 10.1 0, 10.2 0, 10.2

UCS

0, 10.3 0, 10.6 0, 10.8 0, 11.5 0, 11.8 0, 13.5

0, 15.0 0, 15.2

1, 14.2 1, 14.3 1, 16.8 1, 20.5

2, 17.0 2, 17.5 2, 18.0 2, 21.6

5, 27.5 5, 29.4 5, 31.5 5, 33.1

TXL

10, 40 10, 45 10, 47 10, 51

20, 60 20, 68 20, 70 20, 75

40, 92 40, 112 40, 115 40, 118

80, 175 80, 185 80, 187 80, 200

102
 8 | Intact Rock Test Data

FIGURE 8.1 Data set from artificial laboratory testing programme, after Mostyn and Douglas (2000)

103
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

300

280

260

240

220

200
Major Principal Stress, σ1 [MPa]

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Minor Principal Stress, σ3 [MPa]

FIGURE 8.2 Data set from the testing of Hawkesbury Sandstone comprises 643 test results programme

104
 8 | Intact Rock Test Data

300

280

260

240

220

200

180
Major Principal Stress, σ1 [MPa]

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Minor Principal Stress, σ3 [MPa]

FIGURE 8.3 Data set from the testing of Brisbane Tuff comprises 456 test results

105
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

300

280

260

240

220

200
σ1 [MPa]

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

σ3 [MPa]
FIGURE 8.4 Data set from the testing of Brisbane phyllite - 166 test results

106
 8 | Intact Rock Test Data

300

280

260

240

220

200

180

160
σ1 [MPa]

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

σ3 [MPa]

FIGURE 8.5 Data set from the testing of Brisbane quartzite - 79 test results

107
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

300

280

260

240

220

200

180
σ1[MPa]

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

σ3 [MPa]

FIGURE 8.6 Data set from the testing of Brisbane basalt - 23 test results

108
 8 | Intact Rock Test Data

300

280

260

240

220

200

180
σ1[MPa]

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

σ3 [MPa]

FIGURE 8.7 Data set from the testing of Brisbane greywacke - 12 test results

109
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
8.2.4 Colmenares & Zoback
Colmenares and Zoback (2002) collated and then
investigated the 3D laboratory data of five rock types:
• amphibolite from the KTB site (Figure 8.8); data
provided to Colmenares and Zoback by Chang
and Haimson
• Dunham dolomite and Solenhofen limestone
(Figure 8.9); digitised by Colmenares and Zoback
from Mogi (1971)
• Shirahama sandstone and Yuubari shale (Figure
8.10); digitised by Colmenares and Zoback from
Takahashi and Kiode (1989).
They statistically evaluated the Mohr-Coulomb,
Drucker-Prager, Modified Wiebols & Cook, Modified
Lade, Hoek-Brown and Mogi criteria and concluded:
FIGURE 8.8 Data set for KTB amphibolite, from Colmenares and Zoback (2002)
110
• the
Modified Wiebols & Cook criterion (Zhou
1994) or the Modified Lade criterion (Ewy 1999)
gave the best fit to laboratory test results for rocks
with highly σ2 –dependent behaviour. These were
the three extremely high strength rocks in their
database; KTB amphibolite, Dunham dolomite
and Solenhofen limestone which had UCS of 300,
375 and 450 MPa, respectively.
• perhaps not surprisingly, the Mohr-Coulomb

and Hoek-Brown criteria fitted the data at least
equally well for those rocks which behaved
largely independent of σ2 . These were the two
high strength rocks in their database; Shirahama
sandstone and Yuubari shale, which had a UCS of
95 and 120 MPa, respectively.
 8 | Intact Rock Test Data

FIGURE 8.9 Data set for Dunham dolomite (top) and Solenhofen limestone (bottom), from Colmenares and Zoback (2002)

111
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 8.10 Data set for Shirahama sandstone (top) and Yuubari shale (bottom), from Colmenares and Zoback (2002)

112
 8 | Intact Rock Test Data

8.2.5 Kwasniewski 8.3 RESULTS

The laboratory test results from true triaxial strength of A MS Excel ® spreadsheet with Visual Basic macros
47 data sets of intact rock was collated by Kwasniewski was written to curve-fit the criteria. The spreadsheet
(2013). Twenty nine of these data sets were considered utilised MS Excel® Solver(8) running its Generalised
by Kwasniewski to be reliable which included the five Reduced Gradient algorithm. This algorithm is an
data sets published by Colmenares and Zoback (2002). iterative, non-linear, least squares fitting method that
Hence, there are 24 ‘new’ data sets in Kwasniewski finds variables to minimise the sum of the square of
(2013) (Figure 8.11). These are: errors (Equation 8.1) of smooth nonlinear functions.
• Izumi sandstone (two sets)
• Yamaguchi marble (two sets)
• Mizuho trachyte
• Manazuru andesite EQUATION 8.1
• Inada granite
• Orikabe monzonite
• Chichibu crystalline schist
• Horonai sandstone 8.3.1 Mostyn & Douglas
• Westerly granite (two sets) The data sets which contained at least 20 laboratory
tests results were selected for the comparison. This
• Taga limestone filtered database comprises 12 sedimentary, 7 igneous
• Locharbriggs sandstone and 1 metamorphic rock types. The coefficient of
• SSC muddy siltstone correlation, r2, and the standard error of estimate
• Slask sandstone (SEE) values of the individual curve-fits are listed in
• Rozbark sandstone Table 8.4. The best fitting criteria as assessed by the
• Soignies limestone smallest SEE, and often but not always the highest r2,
• Phra Wihan sandstone (two sets) is shown in bold and the worst fitting is faded.
• Phu Phan sandstone The modified Hoek-Brown criterion following
• Phu Kadung sandstone Mostyn and Douglas (2000) had the smallest SEE
• Maha Sarakham rock salt in all of the 19 data sets. The Christensen criterion
• SAFOD granodiorite. had the poorest fit in 12 of the 19 data sets; the Lade
criterion fitted the data worse in the other seven.
8.2.6 Summary
The database used to compare the key strength criteria
comprises 128 data sets with over 7000 laboratory
test results. It includes sedimentary, igneous and
metamorphic rocks with UCS values ranging from less
than 10 MPa to over 300 MPa.

(8)
Frontline Systems (www.solver.com)

113
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 8.11 True 3D triaxial data sets from Kwasniewski (2013)

114
 8 | Intact Rock Test Data

FIGURE 8.11 CONTINUED

115
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 8.11 CONTINUED

116
 8 | Intact Rock Test Data

FIGURE 8.11 CONTINUED

117
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 8.4 The r2 and SEE [MPa] values obtained from curve-fitting the filtered database from Douglas
(2002)
Rock HB-MD HB HB-3D L W-C C
0.981 0.981 0.981 0.978 0.954 0.594
Dolerite
86.98 88.75 88.75 94.48 136.04 405.43
0.997 0.696 0.696 0.996 0.990 0.321
Dunite
38.21 122.25 123.40 43.60 68.60 575.15
0.193 0.135 0.135 0.151 0.126 0.144
Blackingstone Quarry Granite
116.58 120.66 120.66 194.06 157.42 120.01
0.991 0.991 0.991 0.988 0.952 0.684
Westerly Granite
87.16 87.16 87.16 100.79 199.04 508.94
0.984 0.983 0.983 0.981 0.973 0.882
Granodiorite
74.10 75.73 75.73 78.89 94.88 198.28
0.280 0.231 0.231 0.253 0.220 0.241
Northumberland Quartzdolerite
84.57 87.38 87.38 126.49 110.14 86.79
0.905 0.902 0.902 0.838 0.881 0.707
Quartzite
33.41 34.03 34.03 43.70 37.55 58.85
0.973 0.972 0.972 0.966 0.955 0.954
Serpentinite
64.37 65.61 65.31 73.35 83.51 84.62
0.479 0.456 0.456 0.375 0.361 0.406
Moura Coal
14.85 15.18 15.18 21.04 16.45 15.86

Portland Limestone 1 medium 0.151 0.149 0.149 0.166 0.149 0.051

strong 51.44 51.44 51.44 51.44 51.44 76.38
0.005 0.005 0.005 0.028 0.005 0.006
Portland Limestone 2 strong
33.81 44.00 38.06 64.49 42.10 44.28
0.953 0.952 0.952 0.943 0.947 0.936
Mudstone
5.80 5.82 5.82 6.35 6.10 6.75
0.996 6.75 6.75 0.942 0.994 0.814
Melbourne Mudstone
0.84 2.55 2.56 3.21 0.99 5.75
0.952 0.940 0.940 0.896 0.896 0.908
Kueper Sandstone
3.90 4.38 4.38 5.78 5.77 5.42
0.973 0.963 0.963 0.967 0.973 0.795
South African Sandstone
7.10 8.29 8.29 7.85 7.12 19.54
0.393 0.307 0.307 0.307 0.011 0.321
Derbyshire Sandstone
66.33 70.82 70.82 97.26 84.62 70.09
0.990 0.985 0.985 0.923 0.969 0.833
Pennant Sandstone
9.30 11.22 11.22 25.37 16.09 37.34
0.985 0.985 0.985 0.978 0.968 0.814
1
10.45 10.55 10.55 12.83 15.35 37.22

Darley Dale 0.979 0.968 0.969 0.788 0.920 0.901

2
Sandstone 43.10 53.28 52.40 136.82 84.00 93.47
0.983 0.979 0.979 0.907 0.926 0.909
combined
42.04 47.87 46.80 98.31 87.84 97.31
0.954 0.953 0.953 0.944 0.952 0.909
Siltstone
5.31 5.34 5.34 5.83 5.42 7.44

118
 8 | Intact Rock Test Data

TABLE 8.5 The r2 values obtained from curve-fitting the artificial test data from Douglas (2002)
Rock HB-MD HB HB-3D L W-C C
0.991 0.991 0.991 0.989 0.975 0.989
Artificial
4.98 5.06 4.94 9.69 8.37 19.35

8.3.2 Artificial 8.3.4 Colmenares & Zoback

The r2 and SEE from curve-fitting the artificial set of
58 laboratory tests in Mostyn and Douglas (2000)
is shown in Table 8.5. The three versions of the
Hoek-Brown criterion gave the same r2 value but the
modifications of Mostyn and Douglas (2000) and
Zhang and Zhu (2007) produced smaller SEE. The
Christensen criterion had the poorest fit to the data.
8.3.3 Tunnelling Projects
The r2 and SEE from curve-fitting the laboratory test
data from recent tunnelling projects in Sydney and
Brisbane is shown in Table 8.6. The modified Hoek-
Brown criterion following Mostyn and Douglas (2000)
had the smallest SEE, and the Christensen criterion
the largest, for the Hawkesbury Sandstone data set. No
one criterion stood out for the Brisbane datasets, which
essentially comprised UCS and BTS data.
Colmenares and Zoback (2002) assessed the 3D
laboratory data of five rock types – KTB amphibolite,
Dunham dolomite and Solenhofen limestone,
Shirahama sandstone and Yuubari shale. They
chose the best-fitting combination of parameters
for several strength criteria by minimising the mean
standard deviation misfit to the test data; presumably
minimising the following equation.
The results are summarised in Table 8.7 for the
three criteria that best represented the laboratory data
- modified Wiebols-Cook, modified Lade and Hoek-
Brown criteria. The criterion with the lowest misfit
(best correlation) is shown in bold digits. The criterion
with the highest misfit (worst correlation) is shown
faded. As reported by Colmenares and Zoback (2002)
the modified Wiebols-Cook criterion had the best
correlation in three of the five data sets.

TABLE 8.6 The r2 values obtained from curve-fitting the test data from recent tunnelling projects
Rock HB-MD HB HB-3D L W-C C

Hawkesbury 0.776 0.720 0.752 0.780 0.670 0.726

Sandstone 5.63 17.44 15.77 16.39 18.91 21.34

0.101 0.077 0 0.213 0.074 0.08

Brisbane Tuff
36.80 36.55 39.70 37.04 39.90 36.47

Brisbane 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.011 0.352 0.005

Phyllite 18.42 17.33 17.27 17.95 21.87 18.66

Brisbane 0.017 0.011 0.012 0.098 0.350 0.012

Quartzite 35.99 33.57 33.45 38.91 27.14 33.45

Brisbane 0 0 0.105 0 0.454 0

Basalt 28.01 28.01 28.01 29.31 20.69 28.01

Brisbane 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.204 0.013 0.018

Greywacke 41.30 42.95 42.26 51.78 46.97 42.04

No. of times
with smallest
2 0 1 0 2 1
SEE [often
highest r2]

No. of time
with largest
0 0 0 3 2 1
SEE [often
lowest r2]

119
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 8.7 The misfit values from Colmenares TABLE 8.8 The correlation obtained from
and Zoback (2002) Kwasniewski (2013)
Misfit [MPa] Dataset HB-3D
Dataset
H-B Modified L W-C r2 SEE [MPa]

KTB amphibolite 89.9 91.3 77.8 1 Izumi sandstone 0.9789 6.341

Meta

Dunham dolomite 56.2 27.8 27.4 7 Dunham dolomite 0.9868 5.976

Solenhofen 37.4 23.3 25.5 8 Solenhofen 0.9573 5.422

Sediment

Limestone limestone

Yuubari Shale 13.0 13.7 12.8 9 Yamaguchi marble 0.9900 3.509

Shirahama 8.7 11.9 10.3 10 Mizuho trachyte 0.9773 3.815

Sandstone
11 Manazuru andesite 0.9891 7.532
Number with lowest 1 1 3
misfit 12 Inada granite 0.9961 8.316

Number with highest 2 3 0 13 Orikabe monzonite 0.9880 10.533

misfit
25 Chichibu schist 0.9917 4.145

26 Shirahama 0.9762 3.027

8.3.5 Kwasniewski sandstone
Kwasniewski (2013) collated a comprehensive database 27 Izumi sandstone 0.9498 8.008
of 3D laboratory testing and found that the Hoek-
28 Horonai sandstone 0.9255 2.752
Brown criterion as extended to 3D by Zhang and
Zhu (2007), (HB-3D) was the best fit to 14 of the 31 Yuubari shale 0.9432 2.554
29 datasets. The Mogi linear criterion was the best fit
32 Yamaguchi marble 0.9743 2.580
to six cases and the Mogi power criterion the best fit
to nine cases. The r2 and the SEE for the HB-3D for 33 Westerly granite 0.9622 8.396
each data set is summarised in Table 8.8. Excellent 34 Taga limestone 0.9417 4.145
correlation was found with r2 values ranging from
0.9255 to 0.9976. 35 Locharbriggs 0.9679 1.814
sandstone

8.4 DISCUSSION 36 SSC muddy

siltstone
0.9796 0.636

Several interpretations can be drawn from this

comparison of strength criteria curve-fits to laboratory 37 Westerly granite 0.9906 10.853
test data. 38 KTB amphibolite 0.9900 13.039
• Any of the assessed criteria can provide good fits to 39 Slask sandstone 0.9976 1.328
tight test data, that is test data that does not show
much scatter. 40 Rozbark sandstone 0.9959 1.678
• W hen there is considerable scatter in the test data, 41 Soignies limestone 0.9374 7.949
the correlations were poor across all the criteria.
42 Phra Wihan 0.9948 1.271
• Outlier test data, particularly UTS or BTS values, sandstone
can significantly affect each of the criteria’s
parameters. 43 Phu Phan 0.9963 0.953
sandstone
• W hen tight test data exists for a wide range of
confining stresses, the Hoek-Brown (and its 44 Phu Kadung 0.9952 0.948
variations), the Lade and Wiebols-Cook all provide sandstone
excellent correlations.
45 Phra Wihan 0.9935 0.737
• It is worth noting that curve-fitting a unique set of sandstone
the Lade parameters a, η1 and m was difficult. This
can be appreciated by considering Figure 8.12. Lade 46 Maha Sarakham 0.9712 1.451
rock salt
(1993) showed that small changes in the parameters
give rise to large changes in the strength envelope. 47 SAFOD 0.9775 12.609
granodiorite

120
 8 | Intact Rock Test Data

• The Christensen criterion generally gave the poorest
fit to the data. It can readily be seen that the
Christensen criterion does not particularly represent
test data at high confinements.
• The variation in test data swamps the differences
in criteria.
• The above observations are not surprising as the
criteria share a reasonably similar structure and all
have elements that are likely to fail at the extremes.
This is in keeping with Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman
(2005) who also found that the variance is due more
to the experimental scatter than to any inherent
difficulty in curve fitting.
• The difference between the envelopes in the tensile
region is most pronounced in datasets without
tensile strength test results and where the triaxial
data is over a limited range of confining stresses,
is highly variable or is non-existent. These datasets
illustrate the limitations of the Hoek-Brown and
Wiebols-Cook criteria. The Hoek-Brown criterion
over-predicts the tensile strength and the Wiebols-
Cook criterion tends to quickly over-predict the
triaxial strength.
• The sharp curvature shown in some datasets is
a result of curve-fitting following the Mostyn-
Douglas method which allows for a variable ‘a’. In
this particular case, the curve-fitting results in high
‘mi ’ and low ‘a’ values.
• Curve fitting can be performed when the test data
comprises only UCS and BTS, though in practical
terms any number of alternate envelopes could
be justified. The Hoek-Brown criterion (and its
variations) appears to produce the more reasonably
shaped envelopes.
• UCS test data alone cannot be used to define any of
the strength envelopes.
• The scatter is generally far too great and the range of
confining stresses far too limited in the ‘real world’
laboratory test data from the Sydney and Brisbane
tunnelling projects to provide conclusive solutions
to any of the criteria.
• Even when all the criteria provide very good fits to
the data based on the r2 and SEE values and on the
overall shape of the envelopes, many of the criteria are
poor estimators of strength in the low stress region
where many civil structures, such as tunnels, operate.
8.5 CONCLUSIONS
The question of what is the best fitting strength
criterion has been the subject of much research and
many publications. It will probably continue to be so.
To paraphrase Christensen (1997) many empirical
criteria with two or more parameters, such as those
considered in this paper, would likely fit some sets of
test data very well.
The work carried out confirms this and suggests
that any of the criteria considered herein could
provide reasonable estimates for the intact strength
of the rocks assessed. However, curve-fitting to derive
values of parameters for strength criteria becomes
problematic when there is variability in the test data.
Unfortunately, test data variability is a universal fact.
On balance, the Hoek-Brown criterion with
parameters mi and a derived as recommended by Mostyn
and Douglas (2000) and extended to 3D where required
by following Zhang and Zhu (2007) produces the better
fit to the majority of the rock types considered.

1.E+06
Mostyn & Douglas (2000) 1.E+06
Artificial Data Hawkesbury Sandstone
1.E+05
η1 = 1.396E+04 1.E+05
η1 = 1.10E+04
1.E+04
m= 0.94 1.E+04 m= 0.500
I13 / I3 - 27

I13 / I3 - 27

1.E+03
1.E+03

1.E+02
1.E+02
UTS BTS
1.E+01 UCS UCS
1.E+01
Triaxial Triaxial
1.E+00
1.E+00
1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
pa / I1
pa / I1

FIGURE 8.12 Examples of the data used to estimate the Lade parameters, m and η1, for the (left) artificial data set (mean
values only used) and for the (right) full laboratory test results for Hawkesbury Sandstone.

121
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

122

9 GSI CHARTS
9.1 OUTLINE
This chapter continues from Chapter 4 by looking
in detail at the Geological Strength Index (GSI)
classification charts.
The GSI is intended to cover a wide range of geological
conditions, including weak, foliated and sheared rock
masses (Hoek et al. 1998) and heterogeneous rock
masses, such as flysch (Marinos and Hoek 2001). These
two charts are shown in Figure 9.1 and Figure 9.2.
FIGURE 9.1 GSI chart for general rock mass (left) and extended to cover schist (right) (Hoek et al. 1998)
9 | GSI Charts
Marinos (2010) presents six GSI charts for flysch,
molasse, limestone, ophiolite and disturbed / weathered
gneiss based on data collected during the construction
of 62 tunnels along the Egnatia Highway in Northern
Greece. For completeness, these charts are reproduced
here in Figure 9.3 to Figure 9.8.
The latest chart is that published by Hoek et al.
(2013) for jointed, blocky rock mass for tunnels of
about 10 m span and slopes < 20 m high.
123
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 9.2 GSI chart for flysch from Marinos and Hoek (2001)

FIGURE 9.3 GSI chart for flysch; from Marinos (2014)

124
 9 | GSI Charts

FIGURE 9.4 GSI chart for molasse at depth; from Hoek et al. (2005)

FIGURE 9.5 GSI chart for molasse at surface; from Marinos (2010)

125
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 9.6 GSI chart for ophiolites; from Marinos (2010)

126
 9 | GSI Charts

FIGURE 9.7 GSI chart for limestone; from Marinos (2010)

FIGURE 9.8 GSI chart for gneiss; from Marinos (2010)

127
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
Apart from the curved contours for gneiss (Figure
9.8), the charts are essentially the same. They effectively
describe specific geological conditions as they apply
to each of the rock masses in more detail than the
descriptions given in the generic GSI chart.
Carter and Marinos (2014) prepared a matrix
showing the relationships between the GSI charts and
the Hoek-Brown strength criterion parameters of σc
and mi for different lithology. The matrix highlights
the importance of first developing the geological model
before estimating the GSI.
An attempt to collate the data back into the generic
GSI chart is shown in Figure 9.9. The trend in GSI
is obvious: it trends down the diagonal from top-left
FIGURE 9.9 GSI chart for the five rock masses presented in Marinos (2010).
128
to bottom-right as the rock mass deteriorates. Marinos
et al. (2006) and Marinos (2010) show the same
diagonal trend.
Upon reflection, the diagonal trend should not
be surprising. Often the blockiness of the rock mass
(vertical axis) is related to the surface quality of a rock
mass (horizontal axis). Hence, the GSI chart’s axes are
not necessarily independent. Marinos and Hoek (2000)
also observed that not all combinations are possible and
exclude the top right and bottom left cells in the GSI
chart as can be seen in Figure 9.3 to Figure 9.9.
It is also interesting to observe the restricted range of
GSI when the limitations suggested by Brown (2008);
Carter et al. (2007); (2008); Carvalho et al. (2007);
 9 | GSI Charts

Diederichs (2007) are superimposed. That is, the GSI
used to predict the Hoek-Brown strength parameters
should be limited to approximately the range 30 – 65
(see Section 5.6.2). This is overlaid onto the diagonal
trend in Figure 9.9 as the pale purple shaded region.
To further explore if this trend in GSI is generally
applicable, four very different rock masses are assessed.
• The Hawkesbury Sandstone and Ashfield Shale of
Sydney, Australia
• The Greenland Group greywacke and argillite of
Reefton, South Island, New Zealand
• Otago Schist of Macraes, South Island,
New Zealand
The quantification of GSI using the RMR joint
condition, JCond89 , and RQD as proposed by Hoek et
al. (2013) is also explored.
9.2 SYDNEY
Borehole data collected for several tunnelling projects
in Sydney has been used to characterise Sydney’s
Hawkesbury Sandstone and Ashfield Shale based on
the Sydney classification system (Pells et al. 1998). The
database includes information from the Ocean Outfalls,
Sydney Harbour Tunnel, M2, Eastern Distributor, M5
East, Cross City, cable tunnels, Epping to Chatswood
rail link, Lane Cove, CBD Metro (project was not
built), Wynyard Walk and the Northwest Rail link
projects. Detailed borehole logging from the last three
projects has been especially used.
9.2.1 Hawkesbury Sandstone
Central Sydney is founded on the Hawkesbury
Sandstone, which varies in thickness from 30 m in the
lower Blue Mountains to 240 m in the Hawkesbury
River district (Branagan 2000). The Hawkesbury
Sandstone is often described as a medium to coarse
grained, quartzose sandstone which had been deposited
in 0.5 to 5 m thick beds, typically 1 to 2 m, that exhibit
either massive or cross-bedded facies. Paraphrasing the
words of McNally (2000), Hawkesbury Sandstone
is singularly well-suited to excavations because of a
number of geological characteristics:
• It is weak enough to be easily (machine) excavated
yet strong enough to require minimal support
• It is horizontal and thickly bedded and relatively
undeformed
• Jointing is wider spaced than bedding planes, sub-
vertical and orthogonal.
9.2.2 Ashfield Shale
The Ashfield Shale has a maximum thickness of
approximately 60 m and grades from a claystone,
siltstone to a siltstone / fine grained sandstone laminate
(MacGregor 1985). It has been extensively worked
throughout Sydney as a source of brick-making clay
(Branagan and Packham 2000).
The Ashfield Shale comprises well developed thinly
laminated rock with wider spaced bedding from about
0.1 - 0.5 m to 2 m vertical spacing. The bedding
planes are sub-horizontal dipping typically 0 to 5° and
persistent over tens to hundreds of metres.
9.2.3 Sydney rock mass classification
The classification system for Sydney sandstone and
shale, Pells et al. (1998) which updated Pells et al. (1978),
was intended to assist in the design of foundations on
rock in the Sydney area. The classification system is
based on rock strength, defect spacing and allowable
seams as shown in Table 9.1. All three factors must
be satisfied. Seams include clay, fragmented or highly
weathered zones.
Pells et al. (1998) recommended that the zone of
rock being classified be “over a length of core of similar

TABLE 9.1 Sydney Classification System (Pells et al. 1998)

CLASS UCS DEFECT SPACING (a)
ALLOWABLE SEAMS
[MPa] %
[mm] Description
I > 24 > 600 Widely spaced < 1.5
Sandstone

II > 12 > 600 Widely spaced <3

III >7 > 200 Moderately spaced <5
IV >2 > 60 Closely spaced < 10
V >1 NA NA
I > 16 > 600 Widely spaced <2
II >7 > 200 Moderately spaced <4
Shale

III >2 > 60 Closely spaced <8

IV >1 > 20 Very closely spaced < 25
V >1 NA NA
Defect spacing based on ISO/DIS 14689 & ISRM suggested methods replaced the degree of fracturing terms in the Pells et al.
(a) 

(1978) paper

129
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

characteristics”. That is, “the classification system be

applied to portions or units of rock mass having similar
UCS, defect spacing and seam characteristics” (Bertuzzi
and Pells 2002). An example profile of a mapped face
was provided in that paper to clarify the intended
method of applying the classification system. This is
reproduced in Figure 9.10.

FIGURE 9.10 The wrong and right way to classify (Bertuzzi and Pells 2002)

While the Sydney Classification System was not
originally intended for tunnelling, it does represent a
good method for communicating rock mass quality
in Sydney sandstone and siltstone. It is also useful for
linking values put forward for designs with measured
and back-figured parameters from existing excavations,
e.g. Bertuzzi and Pells (2002); Clarke and Pells (2004).
Hence, it is often used as the basis for tunnelling
projects in Sydney and was being so used when the
classification was updated in 1998. However, the defect
spacings appropriate for foundation problems have
been found to cover a too narrow range for tunnelling,
which needs to consider spacing in three dimensions.
Typical minimum spacing for defects, bedding and
jointing is therefore suggested in Table 9.2. It is not
intended that this replaces the Sydney Classification
System but rather used as a guide as to what to expect
in the tunnelling environment.

TABLE 9.2 Suggested conditions for tunnelling projects

CLASS UCS DEFECT SPACING (m) ALLOWABLE SEAMS
[MPa] DEFECTS TYPICAL %
Bedding Joints

I > 24 > 0.6 > 1.5 >2 < 1.5

Sandstone

II > 12 > 0.6 >1 >1 <3

III >7 > 0.2 > 0.5 > 0.5 <5
IV >2 > 0.06 > 0.2 > 0.2 < 10
V >1 NA NA
I > 16 > 0.6 >1 >1 <2
II >7 > 0.2 > 0.5 > 0.5 <4
Shale

III >2 > 0.06 > 0.1 > 0.2 <8

IV >1 > 0.02 > 0.1 > 0.1 < 25
V >1 NA NA

130

9.2.4 Field data validation
Recent tunnelling projects in Sydney have provided a
large database of drill core logs, comprising 6 km of logs
containing over 7200 records of defect characteristics
as well as field estimated strengths, point load index
tests and laboratory UCS tests. The data has been
collected by several different geotechnical organisations
and various geotechnical engineers and engineering
geologists. Hence, any bias of particular geotechnical
organisations or individuals is likely to be balanced out
in the collated data.
The database has been accessed to assess the
variability in intact strength and the spacing,
characteristics and orientation of defects for each
particular class of sandstone and shale. The variability
is presented in Figure 9.13 and Figure 9.14 and in
Table 9.3 and Table 9.4. The terms used in these tables
are from the following standards and guidelines.
FIGURE 9.11 Equal area projections for Hawkesbury Sandstone on the left (4675 defects) and Ashfield Shale on the right
(1338 defects).
FIGURE 9.12 Subset of the data in Figure 9.11 just showing joints for Hawkesbury Sandstone on the left and Ashfield Shale
on the right.
9 | GSI Charts
• Field estimated strength terms are those of AS 1729-
1993 Geotechnical site investigations
• Defect spacing based on ISO/DIS 14689 & ISRM
suggested methods
• Defect characteristics follow AS 1729-1993
Geotechnical site investigations
This data validates the bedding and joint spacing for
tunnelling projects suggested in Table 9.2.
In terms of orientation, the recorded data shows
bedding is obviously sub-horizontal (to 10°) in both
the sandstone and shale whereas joint patterns differ
(Figure 9.11). In the sandstone, two sub-vertical
joint sets are apparent - striking north-northeast and
east-southeast. While these two orientations are also
apparent in the shale, other joint sets do occur dipping
between 30 to 50° in various directions.
131
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 9.13 Distribution of logged spacing and aperture for bedding planes and joints for Hawkesbury Sandstone

FIGURE 9.14 Distribution of logged spacing and aperture for bedding planes and joints for Ashfield Shale

132
 9 | GSI Charts

TABLE 9.3 Variability in strength and spacing as recorded in the drill hole database
STRENGTH TYPICAL SPACING TOTAL CORE
RANGE [m] SAMPLE
CLASS AXIAL Is(50) [MPa] LENGTH [m]
Field estimate Tests Range Ave Bedding Joint
I High 1575 1.0 – 3.0 1.7 0.6 - > 6.0 0.6 - > 6.0 2478
Sandstone

II High 827 0.3 – 3.0 1.5 0.6 - 6.0 0.2 - 6.0 890
III Medium to High 625 0.3 – 3.0 1.4 0.2 - 2.0 0.2 - 2.0 590
IV Low to High 260 0.1 – 3.0 1.0 0.06 - 2.0 0.06 - 2.0 241
V Very low to High 41 <0.03 – 3.0 0.9 0.06 - 2.0 0.06 - 2.0 42
I Medium to High 69 0.3 – 3.0 1.5 0.2 - 6.0 0.2 - 6.0 471
II Low to High 130 0.1 – 3.0 1.3 0.2 - 6.0 0.2 - 6.0 499
Shale

III Low to High 100 0.03 – 3.0 1.0 0.06 - 2.0 0.06 - 2.0 271
IV Very low to High 31 <0.03 – 3.0 0.5 0.06 - 2.0 0.06 - 2.0 130
V Very low to High 10 <0.03 – 3.0 0.08 0.06 - 2.0 0.06 - 2.0 96

TABLE 9.4 Variability in the defect characteristics as recorded in the drill hole database
CLASS DEFECT DEFECT CHARACTERISTICS DEFECTS
TYPE Rough Shape Aperture (mm) Infill RECORDED

I BG Rough Planar – Undulating Clean to 1 - 5 Clay 1066

JN Rough Planar – Undulating Clean - 315
II BG Rough Planar - Undulating Clean to 1 - 10 Clay 952
JN Rough Planar Clean to Veneer Clay - Fe 230
Sandstone

III BG Rough Planar Clean to 1 - 50 Clay - Fe 1369

JN Rough Planar Clean to Veneer Clay - Fe 511
IV BG Rough Planar 1 – 50 Clay - Fe 897
JN Smooth - Planar Clean to 1 - 5 Clay - Fe 376
Rough
V BG Rough Planar - Undulating 1 – 100 Clay - Fe 117
JN Smooth - Planar - Undulating 1–5 Clay – Fe 73
Rough
I BG Smooth - Planar Clean to Veneer Clay 106
Rough
JN Smooth - Planar Clean - 217
Rough
II BG Smooth - Planar Clean to 1 - 5 Clay - Fe 314
Rough
JN Smooth - Planar Clean to Veneer Clay - Fe 467
Rough
Shale

III BG Smooth Planar Clean to 1 - 50 Clay - Fe 420

JN Smooth - Planar - Undulating Clean to Veneer Clay - Fe 411
Rough
IV BG Smooth Planar 1 – 50 Clay - Fe 205
JN Smooth - Planar - Undulating Clean to 1 – 5 Clay - Fe 108
Rough
V BG Smooth Planar 1 – 100 Clay - Fe 124
JN Smooth - Planar - Undulating Clean to 1 – 5 Clay - Fe 18
Rough

133
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

The typically observed defect characteristics Persistence of cross-bedding is controlled by

and those which can occur but represent adverse sandstone bed thickness. Geotechnical models should
conditions are summarised in Table 9.5 and Table consider and include adverse conditions, particularly
9.6 for Hawkesbury Sandstone and Ashfield Shale, that of defect persistence.
respectively. Spacings are given in Table 9.2.

TABLE 9.5 Typical and adverse conditions of defects in Hawkesbury Sandstone

PARAMETER TYPICAL ADVERSE
Persistence [m] 1. > 20 2. > 20
Roughness Rough Slightly rough
Bedding Shape Undulating Planar
Aperture [mm] <1 > 10
Infill None / limonite Sandy clay
Persistence [m] 3. > 10 4. > 10
Class I to V

Roughness Rough Slightly rough

Cross-bedding Shape Undulating Planar
Aperture [mm] <1 <1
Infill None / limonite None
Persistence [m] 5.5 6. >10
Roughness Rough Slightly rough
Jointing Shape Planar Planar
Aperture [mm] <1 > 10
Infill None / limonite Sandy clay

TABLE 9.6 Typical and adverse conditions of defects in Ashfield Shale

PARAMETER TYPICAL ADVERSE
Persistence [m] 7. > 20 8. > 20
Roughness Slightly rough Smooth
Bedding Shape Undulating Planar
Class I, II & III

Aperture [mm] <1 > 10

Infill None / limonite Silty clay
Persistence [m] 9. 3 10. > 5
Roughness Slightly rough Smooth
Jointing Shape Planar Planar
Aperture [mm] <1 > 10
Infill None / limonite Silty clay
Persistence [m] 11. >20 12. >20
Roughness Slightly rough Smooth
Bedding Shape Undulating Planar
Class IV & V

Aperture [mm] <1 50

Infill Clay coating Silty clay
Persistence [m] 13. 3 14. >5
Roughness Slightly rough Smooth
Jointing Shape Planar Planar
Aperture [mm] <1 50
Infill Clay coating Silty clay

134

9.2.5 Classification
In order to calculate the Q value an estimate of the in
situ stress is required, or more correctly, the ratio of
intact rock strength to stress. Enever (1999) collated
in situ stress data that suggested the following stepped
profile for the upper bound major horizontal stress (σH):
• Approximately 2.5 MPa above vertical stress (σV)
for depths less than 20 m
• Approximately 6.5 MPa above σV for 20 – 200 m
depths
• Approximately 15 MPa above σV for 200 – 1200 m
depths
Rather than adopting this profile with seemingly
arbitrary steps, Pells (2004) suggested σH can be related
to σV to simplify the design process as: σH = 1.5 + (1.2
to 2.0)σV. Adopting this same approach to the data
FIGURE 9.15 Major horizontal stress versus depth with the design line σH = 1.5 + 2.0σV and an upper bound σH = 2.5 + 2.3σV
shown; after McQueen (2004)
9 | GSI Charts
presented in McQueen (2004), the relationship, σH =
(1.5 to 2.5) + 2.0σV, is proposed as shown in Figure 9.15.
This means that the typical in situ principal stresses for
depths less than 50 m (stresses at specific locations may
be different) can be assumed to be:
• σV up to 1.2 MPa
• σH ≈ (1.5 to 2.5) + 2.0σV MPa, i.e. up to 5 MPa.
It should be noted that while the high horizontal
stress ratio can be sustained in the better quality rock
masses of say Sandstone Classes I, II & III and Shale
Classes I and II, they cannot be sustained in the poorer
quality rock masses.
Values of GSI and Q for the five classes of
Hawkesbury Sandstone and Ashfield Shale are
summarised in Figure 9.16 and Figure 9.17, respectively.
135
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 9.16 GSI values for Hawkesbury Sandstone rock mass; the arrow shows the progression from Class I to Class V

FIGURE 9.17 GSI values for Ashfield Shale rock mass; the arrow shows the progression from Class I to Class V

136

9.3 REEFTON
9.3.1 Geology
The Reefton gold deposit is in the northwest of the
South Island of New Zealand, approximately 7
km southeast of the township of Reefton (Figure
9.18). The area is a highly active seismic zone, being
approximately 35 km from the Alpine Fault. The
Reefton gold deposit has been mined intermittently
since the late 1870s. OceanaGold open pit mined the
Reefton deposit between 2002 and 2016.
The Reefton mine area comprises Ordovician-aged
interbedded high strength greywacke and argillite (9) of
the Greenland Group. This sequence is folded into a
series of tight, north-south trending, gently plunging
folds. The shape of the folds results in the overall
bedding generally dipping between 20 and 70° towards
the west, although the local orientation is dependent
upon the folding. The folds are offset by several faults.
The following summary of the defect characteristics is
based on mapping.
FIGURE 9.18 Map of Reefton Goldfield showing location of Globe-Progress Open Pit Gold Mine and other historically
important mining centres (modified from OceanaGold Ltd, 2008)
(9)
 verage uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of greywacke is 80 MPa (varying between 20 and 318 MPa) and for argillite, 50 MPa measured
A
perpendicular to bedding and 15 MPa measured parallel to bedding.
9 | GSI Charts
• Bedding is typically planar, smooth and clean;
Bedding in greywacke φ’ = 30° and c’= zero; Bedding
in argillite φ’ = 24° and c’= zero.
• Crush zones, shears and faults are typically planar
to undulating, smooth to rough and infilled with
clay and/or rock fragments with widths of typically
5 to 200mm; φ’ = 20-25° and c’= zero.
• Joints are typically planar, smooth to rough,
typically clean although some surfaces display
limonite veneers; φ’ = 33° and c’= zero.
9.3.2 Field data
The rock mass conditions at Reefton have been
assessed using available core photographs and logging
data from 31 geotechnically logged boreholes.
Each borehole was assessed using the core
photographs and logs. Borehole intervals assessed to
have similar geotechnical characteristics were then
interrogated to provide histograms of lithology, RQD,
weathering, alteration, field estimated strength and
defect characteristics.
137
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

Following this process, five classes of rock mass

were defined (A to E) with each class showing similar
geotechnical characteristics (Table 9.7).

TABLE 9.7 Reefton rock mass classes

CLASS GENERAL DESCRIPTION INTACT ROCK STRENGTH RQD

A Lithified rock with widely spaced Medium to high 90 – 100%

defects and rare shearing

B Fractured rock with frequent defects Low to medium 60 – 70%

and rare shearing

C Highly fractured rock with frequent Low to medium 40 – 60%, with zones of 0 –
defects and some shearing 10%

D Fractured to fragmented rock with Extremely low to medium 30 – 40% with frequent zones
frequent shearing of low quality 0 – 10%

E Fragmented and sheared low grade Extremely low – low rock <15%
rock – soil

9.3.3 Classification
Values of GSI for the five classes of rock types found at
Reefton, which comprise greywacke and argillite, are
summarised in Figure 9.19.

FIGURE 9.19 GSI values for Reefton greywacke and argillite rock mass; the arrow shows the progression from Class A to Class E

138

9.4 MACRAES
9.4.1 Geology
The Macraes Flat goldfield is located approximately
60km north of Dunedin in the Otago region of
the South Island of New Zealand (Figure 9.20).
OceanaGold has been open pit mining at Macraes Flat,
Otago, New Zealand since October 1990 in a series
of pits along strike of the Hyde-Macraes Shear Zone.
The Shear Zone is part of the extensively deformed
Otago-Haast Schist Belt. The structural geology of
the area is dominated by two main orthogonal fault
sets, striking to the north and east (10). The Shear Zone
dips at about 15 to 20° to the east and is approximately
100m thick. It is formed within deformed pelitic schist
so that its continuous surface-boundary faults also
approximate lithological boundaries.
Tectonic displacement of the Shear Zone has been
inferred to be hundreds of metres. The strain associated
with this displacement was probably concentrated
within the intra-shear pelite which could absorb strain
more readily than the coarsely grained psammite.
FIGURE 9.20 Map of Macraes showing location of Hyde-Macraes Shear Zone
(10)
The directions quoted are relative to Macraes’ mine grid, which is 45° west of true north and approximately 67½° west of magnetic north.
9 | GSI Charts
The schist comprises a sequence of interlayered and
gradational psammitic and pelitic lithologies that have
been derived by metamorphism of Mesozoic sandstone
and mudstone respectively. The rocks are strongly
foliated and depending on origin are either light grey,
quartz rich and laminated (psammite) or dark grey to
green, micaceous and finely laminated (pelite).
The intact rock strength does vary across the rock
types but it is not distinctive and is very dependent
upon the degree of weathering and whether it is
tested parallel or perpendicular to foliation. Typically,
the schist is of high strength (UCS = 25 to 50 MPa)
perpendicular to foliation but is of medium strength
parallel to foliation (UCS = 10 to 25 MPa).
9.4.2 Field data
The geotechnical model of the Macraes area is
summarised below.
• Foliation, foliation shears and faults showing a
broad range of dips from flat to moderately dipping
towards the east (average 15 to 45°/100°) – see the
left stereoplot in Diagram 2. The set parallels the
Hyde Macraes Shear Zone.
139
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

• Mine and regional scale faults that moderately to
steeply dip towards the east (≈60°/090°) – Set 1 on
the right stereoplot in Figure 9.21. These faults are
often infilled with clay or breccia to 100 mm thick.
• Batter and mine scale faults and shears showing a
broad range of dips from flat to moderately dipping
towards the west (average ≈ 50°) – Set 3 on the right
stereoplot in Figure 9.21. This fault set is typically
truncated by the easterly dipping faults, described
in the second dot point above.
• Jointsand faults that are moderately to steeply
dipping towards the north and south (≈ 55-75°/025°)
– Set 2 on the right stereoplot in Figure 9.21.
The same process as that for Reefton (Section 9.3.2)
was followed to define four classes of schist rock mass
(A to D) with each class showing similar geotechnical
characteristics (Table 9.8).

FIGURE 9.21 Stereoplots showing typical orientations of foliation (left) and faults / shears and joints (right) at Macraes

TABLE 9.8 Macraes rock mass classes

CLASS GENERAL DESCRIPTION INTACT ROCK STRENGTH RQD

A Lithified rock with frequent defects and High 75 – 100%

rare shearing

B Fractured rock with frequent defects Low to high 60 – 80%

and some hearing

C Fractured to fragmented rock with Low to high 40 – 60%, with zones of

frequent shearing 0 – 10%

D Fractured / sheared rock Extremely low to very low 10 – 20%

140
 9 | GSI Charts

9.4.3 Classification
Values of GSI for the four classes of Otago Schist at
Macraes are summarised in Figure 9.22.

FIGURE 9.22 GSI values for Otago Schist rock mass at Macraes; the arrow shows the progression from Class A to Class D

9.5 QUANTIFICATION OF GSI A quantified GSI was calculated following the

Hoek et al. (2013) propose quantifying GSI with RQD methodology of Hoek et al. (2013) for the four rock
and JCond89. A similar quantification was proposed masses described in the preceding sections. The data
by Cai et al. (2004). This was explored in Chapter 4. was used to calculate the JCond89 rating which was
Here, the proposed quantification method is tested found to vary for each rock mass class as shown in
against the four rock masses. Figure 9.23, for example.
The GSI values based on:
Defect Condition • the chart assessed by visual interpretation of the
50
Sandstone II
100%
rock mass at a scale suitable for a tunnel or multiple
45 90%
40 80%
benches in an open pit mine using the sketches on
35 70%
the left-hand side of the GSI charts shown in Figure
30 60% 9.16 to Figure 9.22
25 50%
• the quantification approach of Hoek et al. (2013)
%

20 40%
15 30%
are listed in Table 9.9 and graphed in Figure 9.24.
10 20% The overall correlation between the two sets of values
5 10% is fair as measured by r2 = 0.68. As can be seen, the
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
0% greater the GSI the poorer the correlation. By way
of comparison, the example provided in Hoek et al.
Rating
(2013) yielded r2 =0.95.
FIGURE 9.23 Variation in JCond as calculated for Most of the data from the two methods plots within
Hawkesbury Sandstone Class II a band defined around GSI ± 10. This is in keeping

141
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

the data plotted by Russo (2009) as shown in Figure
9.25. A variation of GSI ± 10 is reasonable considering
the natural variability of rock masses.
The noticeable exception is the poorer correlation
for the Ashfield Shale and for the top class of both the
Greenland Group greywacke and Otago Schist. The
Ashfield Shale is a laminated to thinly bedded siltstone
/ laminite but its RQD from borehole core of Class I and
II is excellent. Both the Greenland Group greywacke
and Otago Schist are foliated metamorphic rocks with
the better quality rocks having high RQD. High RQD
tends to give the poorer correlation as seen in Figure
9.26 which presents the same data as in Figure 9.25 but
grouped according to RQD and JCond89. The figure
suggests that the correlation between the two methods
to estimate GSI becomes poorer as RQD increases.
There does not appear to be a clear trend with JCond89.
Priest and Hudson (1976) showed that RQD is
insensitive when the mean discontinuity spacing is
more than 0.3 m. This is in keeping with the findings
reported by Palmström (2005) that RQD is insensitive
to changes in joints per cubic metre (Jv) greater than
5/m. The RQD is therefore insensitive to the range of
lamination and bedding spacing of these three rock
masses. An experienced practitioner using the GSI
chart would be able to identify this issue and choose
an appropriate value.

TABLE 9.9 Comparison of quantified GSI and that obtained from its chart

CLASS TYPICAL RQD JCond89 CHART GSI QUANTIFIED GSI

(Mean, Range) (Mean, Range) (Mean, Range)

I 90 – 100 20 (11 – 33) 75 (65 – 85) 70 (57 – 75)

II 90 – 100 15 (9 – 22) 65 (55 – 75) 63 (55 – 73)

Hawkesbury
Sandstone

III 75 – 100 12 (8 – 19) 55 (45 – 65) 58 (55 - 68)

IV 50 – 75 7 (4 – 16) 45 (35 – 55) 42 (34 – 56)

V < 50 6 (3 – 12) 35 (25 – 45) 20 (10 – 38)

I 90 – 100 22 (12 – 26) 55 (45 – 65) 73 (60 - 80)

Ashfield Shale

II 80 – 100 22 (7 – 26) 50 (40 – 60) 73 (55 - 78)

III 40 – 70 18 (7 – 23) 40 (30 – 50) 55 (36 – 65)

IV < 40 10 (2 – 21) 30 (25 – 40) 25 (12 – 45)

V < 40 6 (1 – 19) 25 (15 – 30) 16 (8 – 35)

A 60 – 100 17 (13 – 20) 80 (75 – 85) 57 (47 – 67)

Greenland Group

B 30 – 70 17 (9 – 20) 55 (45 – 65) 43 (34 – 55)

Greywacke /
argillite

C 20 – 60 15 (9 – 19) 40 (35 – 45) 42 (30 – 55)

D 10 – 40 11 (7 – 19) 30 (25 – 35) 23 (16 – 35)

E < 15 13 (1 – 21) 20 (15 – 25) 16 (5 – 24)

A 60 – 100 18 (7 – 25) 75 (70 – 80) 66 (50 – 80)

Otago Schist

B 30 – 70 18 (6 – 22) 60 (45 – 70) 53 (32 – 62)

C < 40 11 (2 – 22) 30 (25 – 35) 27 (11 – 46)

D < 20 12 (4 – 19) 15 (12 – 20) 23 (10 – 35)

142
 9 | GSI Charts

100

Quantified GSI = Chart GSI ± 10

80 r2=0.679
r2

60
Quantified GSI

40

Greenland Group Greywacke / argillite

20 Otago Schist
Ashfield Shale
Hawkesbury Sandstone

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Chart GSI

FIGURE 9.24 Comparison of quantified GSI and the GSI assessed from the chart. The highlighted region shows a band
Quantified GSI = Chart GSI ± 10.

FIGURE 9.25 Comparison of a quantified and chart GSI from Russo (2009). According to Russo (2009), the red triangles
are data taken by him from papers by Hoek; and the black circles are data from his mapping. Most points fall within a band
defined by GSI ± 10.

143
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 9.26 Comparison of quantified and chart GSI. This is the same data as Figure 9.25 except grouped according to
RQD (left) and JCond89 (right).

To see whether block volume would offer a better
indication of blockiness, the method adopted by Cai
et al. (2004) was followed to calculate the GSI for the
Hawkesbury Sandstone and Ashfield Shale found in
Sydney. The blocks in the Hawkesbury Sandstone and
Ashfield Shale are typically formed by the two pairs
of sub-vertical joints intersecting the sub-horizontal
bedding partings. Cross-beds are occasionally involved.
Distributions of spacings for bedding plane partings
and joints are shown in Figure 9.27. The typical
values of the calculated Jc and Vb are listed in Table
9.10 for Classes I to IV. There was insufficient data for
Class V materials.
The results suggest that the method of Cai et al.
(2004) to quantify GSI produces results consistent
with those assessed using the chart for Hawkesbury
Sandstone and Ashfield Shale. It is thought that this
is largely a function of Vb being a better measure of
blockiness than RQD.

FIGURE 9.27 Distribution of logged spacing for bedding planes and joints for Hawkesbury Sandstone and Ashfield Shale.

144
 9 | GSI Charts

TABLE 9.10 Comparison of the GSI quantified following the method of Cai et al. (2004) and that
estimated using the chart.
CLASS HAWKESBURY SANDSTONE ASHFIELD SHALE

Jc Vb GSI Jc Vb GSI
[m3] [m3]
Cai et. al Chart Cai et. al Chart

I 2.71 8.7 80 65 – 85 2.31 3.8 75 45 – 65

II 1.68 3.0 75 55 – 75 0.89 0.7 55 40 – 60

III 1.02 1.4 60 45 – 65 0.56 0.2 45 30 – 50

IV 0.63 0.3 50 35 - 55 0.26 0.1 40 25 - 35

9.6 CONCLUSIONS
The GSI classification of different rock masses exhibits
the same trend. Namely, the GSI value follows a
diagonal line from top-left to bottom-right as the rock
mass deteriorates. Further, it is evident that the range
of typical GSI values is quite restricted.
The correlation between the GSI assessed from
its chart and the quantified GSI following the
methodology of Cai et al. (2004) and that of Hoek et al.
(2013) was found to be fair for the combined datasets
from four rock masses detailed in this chapter. Most of
the data plots within ± 10 from the two methods.
The rock mass that has poorer correlation between
the quantified and chart GSI, also has a mismatch
between RQD and the problem scale. The ability of
the quantified approach to estimate GSI reduces as
RQD, or for that matter Jv or Vb as noted by Hoek et
al. (2013), becomes less able to measure the blockiness
of a rock mass.
It might be possible to address this shortcoming
of the quantified GSI approach by adopting the
suggestion of Cundall et al. (2008) and express the
vertical axis “as the number of blocks across the scale
of interest” rather than RQD/2. This means that the
problem scale becomes an explicit input parameter
to GSI. However, this does not address the issue that
block size alone does not capture the degree to which
the rock blocks are interlocked, which is an important
part of the descriptions in the GSI chart.
It is therefore recommended that the quantified
GSI approach of Hoek et al. (2013) be used to
supplement and check the visually assessed chart GSI.
A difference between the two approaches of GSI ± 10 is
probably likely.
The two approaches are needed because of the
complexity of geology and the natural variation of
rock masses. Consider whether using a quantified
GSI approach directly from borehole data without
developing a geotechnical model is valid. Statistical
analysis could be performed on the quantified GSI
values which will give an unfounded impression of
accuracy. Yet the purely visual GSI chart approach
is subjective and dependent on the practitioner’s
experience. It is very difficult to visualise a rock mass
solely from borehole logs.
As Hoek in the Second Glossop Lecture
elegantly wrote: “A good engineering geologist and a
good geotechnical engineer, working as a team, can
usually make realistic educated guesses for each of the
parameters required for a particular engineering analysis”
(Hoek 1999).
It is also suggested that different GSI values may
be needed to cater for different analysis, particularly
numerical methods.

145
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

146
 TUNNELS IN
10 HAWKESBURY
SANDSTONE
CASE STUDIES
10.1 OUTLINE
This chapter presents nine case studies where stress
induced failure has been inferred from observations of
tunnels excavated within Hawkesbury Sandstone. The
case studies, which are listed below, cover a range of
conditions:
• Construction dates from the 1880s to 2006
• Spans from 3.2 to 12.5 m
• Depths from 17 to 124 m
• Drill & blast, roadheader and TBM excavation.
The aim of the work presented in this chapter is to
use numerical modelling to assess the likely magnitudes
of the principal stresses that were present at the time
of the failures and to compare these to the rock mass
strength criteria.
As each of the case studies can be effectively viewed
as a plane cross-section that remains constant over
a substantial length, two-dimensional, plane strain
analysis is suitable. Further, as the intention is to
assess the applicability of rock mass strength criteria,
there is no requirement to explicitly include many
geological structures into the models. Hence, the two-
dimensional finite element analysis program Phase2 (11)
is used.
Each of the linear elastic, finite element models
comprised:
• Hawkesbury Sandstone as an elastic, isotropic
material with E mass = 2000 MPa and ν = 0.2. These
are typical values for this rock mass as presented in
Chapter 6.
• The influence of localised bedding planes was
assessed by running models that included them as
and where mapped. The bedding plane stiffness is
modelled as k n = 100 GPa/m and k s = 10 GPa/m.
These are typical values of stiffness as presented in
Chapter 3.
• The boundaries of the finite element mesh extend a
distance of at least three times the excavated tunnel
(11)
RocScience Version 8.01
(12) 
As Hawkesbury Sandstone is not a particularly high strength rock (σc is typically 20 to 40 MPa), based on the discussion presented in Chapter 2, Section
2.4.2 the rock mass strength is considered to be independent of σ2.
10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies
size. Mesh elements were graded so that immediately
surrounding the excavation they are less than 0.25 m
and typically less than 0.1 m in size.
• In situ stress was not specifically measured at any
of the specific locations where failure occurred.
Sensitivity analyses testing in situ stress values
could be undertaken to assess the variability in
model predictions of the principal stresses that were
present at the time of the failures. However, in these
elastic models changes in the assumed in situ stress
would simply be reflected in the predicted principal
stresses: the points on a principal stress graph (σ1 v
σ3) would move depending on the assumed in situ
stresses. While this may result in a better- looking
result, without specific in situ stress measurements,
it would largely be a matching exercise. Hence, the
base case in situ stress was modelled as that typical
of Sydney to be consistent with the adopted mass
modulus and the testing database as shown in
Figure 10.1 and in Bertuzzi (2014); Bertuzzi (2014);
Pells (2004).
„„ σv = γ multiplied by depth, where γ = 24 kN/m
3
„„ σH = σNS = 1.5 + 2σv (as per Chapter 9.2.5)
„„ σh = σEW = 0.7σH (as shown in Figure 10.1)
• urther, in keeping with the typical direction of
F

principal in situ stresses in and around Sydney, the
major horizontal stress, σH, is modelled to act in
the northeast to southwest orientation unless noted
otherwise (McQueen 2004; Pells 2004).
The finite element models are interrogated for the
values of major and minor principal stresses (σ1 and σ3)
in and around the failure zone(s) (12). The values of σ1
and σ3 within the failure zone are noted as failed points
while the values outside the failure zone are noted as
stable points. These failed and stable points are then
compared to proposed rock mass strength envelopes of
Hawkesbury Sandstone.
147
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 10.1 Relationship of major horizontal stress with depth and minor horizontal stress (McQueen 2004). The
relationships σH = 1.5 + 2σv and σH = 2.5 + 2.3σv are shown in the top graph. The relationship σh = 0.7σH is shown in the
bottom graph.

148

The nine case studies are:
• Upper Canal Tunnels
„„  ataract (1) – excavated in the 1880s by drill
C
& blast, 3.2 m wide x 2.6 m high, horseshoe
shaped, maximum depth of 70 m
Devines (2) – excavated in 1880s by drill & blast,
„„
2.85 m wide x 2.5m high, horseshoe shaped,
maximum depth of 17 m
• Malabar Outfall Tunnel (3)
„„ Excavated between 1986 - 1990 by roadheader
„„ 644 m long 1:4 decline, 5.3 m wide x 5.0 m high,
arched roof, up to 175m depth, although the roof
failure occurred at 100 m depth
• Sydney LPG Storage Cavern (4)
„„ Excavated between 1996 – 2000 by drill & blast
„„ Four parallel galleries each 230 m long, 11 m
wide x 14 m high, arched roofs, 124 m depth
• Northside Storage Tunnel
„„  ree TBM drives excavated between 1998 –
Th
2000
ww 7 km of 3.8 m diameter, depth 80 m (5)
ww 9 km of 6.5 m diameter, depth 60 m (6)
ww 4 km of 6.0 m diameter, depth 80 m (7)
• Cross City Tunnel (8)
„„ Excavated between 2003 – 2005 by roadheader
„„ 2 km long ventilation tunnel, 5.1 m wide x 5.5 m
high, very slightly curved roof, 58 m depth
• Lane Cove Tunnel (9)
„„ Excavated between 2004 – 2006 by roadheader
„„ 2.1 km long road tunnel of 9 m and 12.5 m
width x 6 m high, very slightly curved roof, 20
- 40 m depth.
10.2 UPPER CANAL TUNNELS
The Upper Canal is part of the Upper Nepean Scheme
which was completed in 1888 to bring water 64 km
from the Cataract, Avon, Cordeaux and Nepean
Dams to the Prospect Reservoir, Sydney. It is critical
to Sydney providing approximately 20%, but at
times up to 40%, of its water supply (SCA 2012).
The Upper Canal comprises approximately 44 km of
open channels, 784 m of pipe aqueducts and 19 km of
tunnels (Figure 10.2). There are four unlined tunnels
along the Upper Canal; the Nepean (7190 m long), the
Cataract (2970 m long) and the two Devines tunnels
(183 and 817 m long).
The Cataract and Devines tunnels have been
intensely scrutinised since 1996 as they are being
10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies
undermined by longwall coal mining. Good quality
geological and rock mass behaviour mapping exists
for them.
10.2.1 Geology
The topography of the Cataract and Devines tunnels’
area shows steep gradients, up to 45°, between the
tunnels and the nearby Nepean River. The tunnels are
located 200 m from the Nepean River at the closest
point and lie approximately 80 m above the base of
the valley.
The tunnels are aligned north-south and are within
the upper levels of the Hawkesbury Sandstone. In this
area, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is approximately 190 m
thick comprising sub-horizontal beds 0.5 to 4 m thick.
Joints are typically 2 to 10 m spaced and are near
vertical. The orientations of the joint sets are shown in
the stereoplot in Figure 10.3 and are consistent with
stress relief associated with the Nepean River valley.
The major joint set is oriented parallel to the tunnel
alignment and the minor joint set perpendicular to the
tunnel alignment (Figure 10.3).
10.2.2 Cataract
The unlined Cataract Tunnel carries water for
approximately 3 km from Broughton’s Pass Weir
pondage to the start of the open section of the Upper
Canal at Brooks Point, approximately 4 km west of
Appin (Figure 10.2). The tunnel has a maximum
capacity of 700 Ml/day however it normally
operates at a flow rate of approximately 250 Ml/day
(McQueen 2000).
The tunnel was excavated by drill & blast in a
traditional horseshoe shape with an average height of
2.6 m and width of 3.2 m. The tunnel was excavated
through Hawkesbury Sandstone with a maximum
overburden depth of approximately 70 m and was
totally unsupported.
Regular inspections by the government agency
Sydney Water and its predecessors and advisors had
been carried out in 1961, 1971, 1978, 1985, 1987,
1990 and 1996. More frequent inspections have been
undertaken since 1996 as longwall coal mining is
carried out underneath the tunnel. The mapping and
observations from the 1996 inspection are reported
in McQueen (2000). Figure 10.4 reproduces the
geological long section that was prepared from the
1996 inspection.
Though the intended tunnel profile was an arched
roof as seen in the photographs in Figure 10.9, rock
fall during and post construction has resulted in a
roughly square profile with curved shoulders over a
large part of the tunnel (see Figure 10.5 to Figure 10.7
for examples). Much of this rock fall is inferred to be
the result of stress-induced failures.
The major rock falls in the tunnel have been
experienced in two areas: at around Ch 1350 and 1430 m
149
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 10.2 Overall map of the Upper Canal showing the relative locations of the Cataract and Devines tunnels (SCA 2012).

150

FIGURE 10.3 Lower hemisphere polar stereonet of mapped joints in the Devines tunnels (Swarbrick 2013)
(Figure 10.4). In these two areas, the overburden is 50
to 70 m deep. Less developed stress fractures were also
observed in sections of the tunnel beneath shallower
overburden (McQueen 2000). In all cases the stress-
induced failures and fractures have occurred within
massive sandstone beds which are immediately below
low strength bedding planes or low stiffness siltstone
layers in the roof (e.g. Figure 10.5 to Figure 10.7).
Stress measurements by over-coring in 1998
indicated that the major principal stress σ1 is horizontal
10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies
with values of σ1 = 5.2 MPa oriented at 050° at 48 m
depth in interbedded siltstone and 8.1 MPa oriented
at 120° at 60 m depth in stiffer, massive sandstone
(McQueen 2000). The magnitude of the horizontal
stress is higher than the typical stress values in Sydney
(Bertuzzi 2014; Bertuzzi 2014; Pells 2004) and
probably reflects the stiffer sandstone particularly at 60
m depth. The stress measurements were not necessarily
carried out in the failure areas.
151
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 10.4 Geological long section of Cataract Tunnel (McQueen 2000)

152
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

FIGURE 10.5 Overbreak in the roof of the Cataract tunnel. Sandstone blocks have fallen back to micaceous laminations
due to stress fracturing (SWC-Transwater 1996)

FIGURE 10.6 Cataract tunnel. Inverted V-shaped roof failure in massive sandstone below siltstone. Rock bolts were
installed when the tunnel was undermined by longwall coal extraction (McQueen 2000)

153
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 10.7 Cataract tunnel. Roof failure and fallout due to lateral compressive stress in massive sandstone below
interbedded siltstone (McQueen 2000)

154

10.2.3 Devines
Two tunnels are collectively known as Devines Tunnel:
Devines Tunnel No. 1 (183 m long) and Devines Tunnel
No. 2 (817 m long). The two tunnels are separated by
a short length of open channel (Figure 10.8). The
tunnel sections have a horizontal floor, vertical sides
and an arched crown. The tunnels are typically 2.85
m wide and 2.5 m high. The longitudinal slope of the
tunnel invert is approximately 0.4% and both tunnels
are unsupported and unlined. Both tunnels are very
shallow, with the depth of cover over the tunnels
ranging from approximately 7.5 to 12.5 m in Devines
Tunnel No. 1, and approximately 6 to 17 m in Devines
Tunnel No. 2 (Figure 10.9).
FIGURE 10.8 Inferred geological long section (top) and topographical cross section (bottom) of Devines Tunnel
(Swarbrick 2013)
10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies
An inspection in April 1996 (AWT 1998) found:
• e exposed surfaces in the tunnels were in good

Th
condition and only slightly weathered in most places
• A continuous shale lens 0.5 to 1 m thick lies
approximately 3 to 4 m above the tunnels’ roofs.
The location of this lens appeared to be higher closer
to the southern portal
• There are zones of weathered silty seams and blast
induced fractures in the roofs of the tunnels
• Fine grained beds (siltstone, shale and laminite)
within the tunnels have deteriorated
• Drummy rock is present in the roof and walls
• The presence of flaky rock fragments in the roofs
(often in micaceous sandstone beds)
• There are minor sections of the roofs and shoulders
of the tunnels where blocks have the potential to
dislodge at some unknown time in the future.
155
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
FIGURE 10.9 Devines Tunnel No. 1 Southern Portal (left) and Devines Tunnel No. 2 Southern Portal (right) (Swarbrick 2013)
10.2.4 Numerical modelling
The geometry of the Cataract and Devines tunnels
and the mapped geotechnical conditions where the
observed stress induced failures and fractures occurred
were modelled in the two-dimensional finite element
program Phase2 (11). The objective of the modelling
was to assess the likely magnitudes of the major and
minor principal stresses (σ1 and σ3) in the plane of
the tunnels’ cross-sections, i.e. perpendicular to the
tunnels’ alignments, which were present at the time
the failures occurred in the tunnels.
Eight sections in the Cataract tunnel where failure
was recorded were analysed: chainages (Ch) 460, 500,
680, 850, 1200, 1408, 2008 and 2490 m. An example
of the geometry of the finite element mesh used for
156
Cataract tunnel is shown in Figure 10.10. Three
sections were analysed for the Devines tunnels, Ch
140, 150 and 595 m. The model at Ch 150 m is shown
in Figure 10.11.
The finite element modelling was carried out with
σh = σEW = 1.5 + 2σv acting in the cross-section of the
tunnels which is consistent with the over-coring results
obtained at 48 m depth within the Cataract tunnel.
The effect of including bedding planes in the finite
element models was assessed by comparing the results
of models of the Cataract tunnel at Ch 460 m with
and without bedding planes.
Figure 10.12 for Cataract tunnel and Figure 10.13
for Devines tunnels are examples.
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

FIGURE 10.10 Geometry of mesh used in Phase2 finite element analysis for the Cataract tunnel (this example is for Ch 460 m)

157
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 10.11 Geometry of mesh used in Phase2 finite element analysis for the Devines tunnels (No 1 tunnel Ch 150 m)

158
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

FIGURE 10.12 Major (left) and minor (right) principal stresses predicted around the Cataract tunnel (this example is for
Ch 460 m)

FIGURE 10.13 Major (left) and minor (right) principal stresses predicted around the Devines tunnel (No 1 tunnel Ch 150 m)

The inclusion of bedding planes into the finite

element model does affect the predicted stresses as
shown in Figure 10.14. Hence, in cases where the
bedding planes have been mapped, these will be
included in the numerical models.

159
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

10

6
σ1 (MPa)

2 Rock mass: sc=30MPa, m=4.11, s=0.0357, a=0.501

Failed

Stable - Close
1
Failed - No bedding

Stable - close, no bedding

0
-1 0 1 2

σ3 (MPa)

FIGURE 10.14 Principal stress plot for the Cataract tunnel Ch 460 m for two models; one without bedding included (green
triangles) and one with bedding included (blue diamonds). Points within the failed area are represented by solid symbols and
those in adjacent stable areas by open symbols.

160

10.3 MALABAR
10.3.1 Description
The Malabar ocean sewerage outfall tunnel is situated
on the coast to the southeast of Sydney’s CBD (Figure
10.15). The outfall tunnel comprises:
• A 1:4 decline, 5.3 m wide by 5.0 m high and 644
m long, excavated by roadheader and drill & blast
within the Hawkesbury Sandstone and underlying
sandstones of the Newport Formation
• A bottom station, 6.7m wide by 5.7 m high and
150 m long, excavated in the Newport Formation
at -155 mRL (below about 175 m of overburden) by
drill & blast
• A 4 m diameter, 3.9 km long TBM excavated
tunnel in the Newport Formation and underlying
Bald Hill claystone and Bulgo Sandstone.
The outfall tunnel was constructed between 1986
and 1990.
FIGURE 10.15 Location of case studies around Sydney’s CBD – Northside Storage Tunnel, Lane Cove Tunnel in the north, Cross City
Tunnel in the centre, and Malabar outfall tunnel and LPG Storage Cavern in the south. Base map sourced on 3rd January 2014.
10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies
McQueen (2000) describes stress induced failure
occurring in the outfall tunnel within:
• The Newport Formation at the bottom station
• The TBM drive (but more commonly experienced
as stress relief movement along bedding planes)
• The Hawkesbury Sandstone in the road header
decline.
The stress failure in the decline within the
Hawkesbury Sandstone occurred more than a year
after excavation. The sandstone fractured up to a
siltstone bed approximately 0.3m above the roof at an
overburden depth of 100 m (see Figure 10.16).
The in situ stress was measured in the Malabar
tunnel within the Newport Formation sandstone
which underlies the Hawkesbury Sandstone. It
confirms the typical in situ stresses found in Sydney as
shown in Figure 10.1.
161
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

10.3.2 Numerical modelling
The geometry of the outfall tunnel decline and
the mapped geotechnical conditions where the
rock fall occurred were modelled in the two-
dimensional finite element program Phase2 .
The objective of the modelling is to assess the likely
magnitudes of σ1 and σ3, which were present at the
time of the rock fall.
The geometry of the finite element mesh used is
shown in Figure 10.17.

FIGURE 10.16 Malabar outfall tunnel, decline roof failure in Hawkesbury Sandstone up to a laminated siltstone bed. The
rock bolts were installed after the fallout which occurred a year after excavation (McQueen 2000)

162
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

FIGURE 10.17 Geometry of mesh used in Phase2 finite element analysis for the decline section of the Malabar ocean outfall
tunnel

The in situ stress was modelled as that typical of

Sydney, such that the horizontal stress acting in the
cross section of the modelled east-west oriented tunnel
is σH = σNS = 1.5 + 2σv . At a depth of 100 m, this gives
σH = 6.5 MPa, which is consistent with the measured
σH as shown in Figure 10.1.
The results of this modelling are presented in the
contour plots in Figure 10.18.

163
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 10.18 Contours of major (top) and minor (bottom) principal stresses from finite element analysis of the decline
section of the Malabar ocean outfall tunnel. The extent of the mapped spalling is shown.

164

10.4 SYDNEY LPG STORAGE
CAVERN
10.4.1 Description
An underground facility to store 65,000 tonnes of
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) was constructed at
Molineux Point, Port Botany, Sydney between 1996
and 2000 (see Figure 10.15). The storage facility
comprises four parallel galleries, each approximately
230 m long and rectangular 14 m high and 11 m
wide, with arched roofs. The galleries are at a depth
of 124 m below ground surface and are totally within
the Hawkesbury Sandstone. They are approximately
aligned with their long axis running north-south.
The LPG is contained by the pressure of the
surrounding groundwater. A water curtain tunnel and
a network of radiating water filled injection drill holes
is located 15 m above the storage galleries to ensure
saturation of the rock (see Figure 10.19).
FIGURE 10.19 Isometric view of the LPG storage cavern; from de Ambrosis and Kotze (2004). Gallery A is the closest to the
access shaft (leftmost in this view), then sequentially labelled Gallery B, C and D.
10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies
Two large roof falls occurred during the excavation
of the galleries, which was carried out by drill and
blast methods. The failures occurred in Galleries A
and C. de Ambrosis and Kotze (2004) provide a good
description of the failures.
Figure 10.20 shows the mapped details on a cross-
section of the first roof failure which occurred in the
Gallery A heading which was driven as a 6 m wide
central pilot heading followed by the removal of 2.5 m
wide side strips.
The failure occurred during or immediately after
the perimeter blast of the western strip at Ch 096 m
when the pilot heading was at Ch 104 m. The collapse
was over a 13 m length between Ch 089 to 102 m,
across 7 m wide roof span and extended 1 to 1.5m into
the roof (Figure 10.20). It is understood that at the
time of failure, roof support was provided only by end-
anchored, 4 m long, hollow rock bolts on a 2 x 2 m
grid pattern (de Ambrosis and Kotze 2004).
165
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
FIGURE 10.20 Failure in Gallery A; from de Ambrosis and Kotze (2004)
The second failure occurred in Gallery C which was
supported by 5 m long, fully cement grouted, hollow
rock bolts on a 1.5 x 2 m grid pattern. The failure
occurred approximately 7.5 hours after blasting over a
7 m length between Ch 031 to 038m and extended 0.8
to 1.2 m into the Hawkesbury Sandstone roof.
Figure 10.20 shows the characteristics of the
Hawkesbury Sandstone at the failures which
comprised:
• Fresh, strong, medium to coarse grained, sheet
facies sandstone
• The concave-shaped cross beds within the sandstone
dipped at 12 to 22° to the horizontal
• Beds from 0.3 to 2.5 m thick with sub-horizontal,
planar to undulating bedding planes some thinly
coated with carbonaceous silt and clayey sand.
de Ambrosis and Kotze (2004) inferred that the roof
strata were initially fractured by compression induced
movement along the bedding planes towards the centre
of the heading. Collapse of the roof then occurred as
a result of bending induced tension in the sandstone.
The weight of the fractured rock being too great for the
installed rock bolts.
In situ stress measurements from over-coring
have not been published but were reported to be
less than the typical base case shown in Figure 10.1
(McQueen 2004).
166
10.4.2 Numerical modelling
The geometry of the cavern and the mapped
geotechnical conditions where these failures occurred
were modelled in the 2D finite element program
Phase2 . The objective of the modelling is again to assess
the likely magnitudes of σ1 and σ3, which were present
at the time of failure.
The geometry of the finite element mesh used is
shown in Figure 10.21.
Three cases of in situ stress were modelled.
First, that which is typical of Sydney, such that
the horizontal stress acting in the cross section of the
modelled east-west oriented tunnel is σh = σEW = 0.7 x
(1.5 + 2σv). At 124 m depth, that is σh = 5.4 MPa.
The second case was modelled as the inferred failures
were initiated by ‘compression induced movement’ (de
Ambrosis and Kotze 2004), which may imply high
horizontal stress. To test this case, models were run
with the in-plane horizontal stress = 1.5 + 2σv.
The third case analysed was hydrostatic stress, in
keeping with the unpublished reports in McQueen (2004).
In this case at 124 m depth, σh = 3.1 MPa. It is noted that
the data point used to represent the major principal stress
(Figure 10.1) lies between the modelled cases.
The results of this modelling are presented as
contour plots of major and minor principal stresses in
Figure 10.22.
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

FIGURE 10.21 Geometry of mesh used in Phase2 finite element analysis for the LPG storage caverns

167
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 10.22 Contours of major (top) and minor (bottom) principal stresses from finite element analysis of the first roof
collapse with the base case in situ stress. The extent of the collpase as observed is shown.

168

10.5 NORTHSIDE STORAGE
TUNNEL
10.5.1 Description
The Northside Storage Tunnel (NST) was designed
and constructed between 1998 and 2000 to capture
and detain the major storm overflows from an existing
sewer to reduce the raw sewage entering and polluting
Sydney Harbour. It comprises 20 km of TBM driven
tunnels, 3 km of declines and caverns (Asche and
Quigley 1999).
The 20 km of TBM drives comprised the following
which were all excavated within the Hawkesbury
Sandstone (Figure 10.15 and Figure 10.23):
• 7 km of 3.8 m diameter (Tunks Park to Lane Cove)
• 9 km of 6.5 m diameter (Tunks Park to North Head)
• 4 km of 6.0 m diameter (Tunks Park to Scott’s Creek)
Several failures occurred in the TBM drives during
construction (Gee et al. 2002).
• A roof fall occurred several months after the TBM
tunnel was excavated in the Manly area (Tunks Park
to North Head). The tunnel passed underneath a
palaeochannel and it was considered by Gee et al.
(2002) that the fall was caused by groundwater
penetrating the bedding plane of a shale unit just
above the tunnel crown.
• Spalling caused significant problems in the main
east-west drives from Tunks Park. Breakage in
the invert caused problems with the supply trains’
tracks and in the crown which necessitated more
bolting and mesh.
„„ 
The first TBM drive to encounter spalling was
the 6.5 m diameter Tunks Park to North Head
tunnel when the tunnel was at approximately 60
m depth. Spalling occurred within 60 minutes of
excavation (Wallis 2000).
FIGURE 10.23 Alignment of the NST; from Gee et al. (2002)
10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies
„„  owever, the impact of spalling in the 6.0 m
H
diameter Tunks Park to Scott’s Creek drive was
more serious as its TBM was a shielded machine
compared to the open TBM used in the Tunks
Park to North Head tunnel. The shielded machine
meant the first opportunity to install rock bolts
was about 15 m from the face (i.e. > 2 x tunnel
diameter), compared with approximately 6 m in
the open machine (i.e. ≈ 1 x tunnel diameter).
The overburden depth in Tunks Park to Scott’s
Creek drive was approximately 80 m.
„„ 
Some spalling also occurred at the start of the
3.8 m diameter Tunks Park to Lane Cove TBM,
also at a depth of approximately 80 m.
The typical in situ stress shown in Figure 10.1 is also
the line of best fit of the numerous hydrofracture data
available from this project, ignoring those specific data
affected by topography (McQueen 2004).
10.5.2 Numerical modelling
The geometry of the tunnels and the inferred
geotechnical conditions where the spalling failures
occurred in the main east-west drives from Tunks
Park were modelled in Phase2 . The objective of the
modelling was again to assess the likely magnitudes
of σ1 and σ3 which had occurred in the spalling zone.
The geometry of the finite element mesh used is
shown in Figure 10.24.
The in situ stress was modelled as that typical of
Sydney, i.e. σH = σNS = 1.5 + 2σv and σh = 0.7σH. This
is consistent with the project data (Figure 10.1).
The results of this modelling are presented as a series
of contour plots in Figure 10.25 to Figure 10.27.
169
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 10.24 Geometry of mesh used in Phase2 finite element analysis for the 6.5 m diameter Tunk’s Park to North Head
tunnel

170
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

FIGURE 10.25 Contours of major (top) and minor (bottom) principal stresses from finite element analysis of the 6.5 m
diameter Tunks Park to North Head drive under 60 m overburden. The extent of the inferred spalling may be seen.

171
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 10.26 Contours of major (top) and minor (bottom) principal stresses from finite element analysis of the 6.5 m
diameter Tunks Park to North Head drive under 95 m overburden. The extent of the inferred spalling may be seen.

172
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

FIGURE 10.27 Contours of major (top) and minor (bottom) principal stresses from finite element analysis of the Lane Cove,
3.8m diameter Tunks Park to Lane Cove drive under 80 m overburden. The extent of the inferred spalling may be seen.

173
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
10.6 CROSS CITY TUNNEL
10.6.1 Description
The Cross City Tunnel (CCT) provides a 2.1 km long
east-west connection through Sydney’s CBD between
Darling Harbour in the west and Rushcutters Bay in
the east (Figure 10.28 and Figure 10.29). The CCT
comprises twin 2-lane road tunnels, associated ramp
tunnels and a ventilation tunnel. The road tunnels
follow separate alignments over the western half. The
CCT was constructed between January 2003 and
August 2005.
A rock fall occurred during the construction of the
ventilation tunnel on the 29 July 2004 killing one of
FIGURE 10.28 Alignment of the CCT; from Battaglia et al. (2006)
FIGURE 10.29 Schematic long section showing the relative position of the main road tunnels and the deeper ventilation
tunnel; from Battaglia et al. (2006)
(13)
The author and his colleagues from PSM were brought in to assist the investigation
174
the tunnellers, Ronald Shores. The rock fall occurred
close to the tunnel’s advancing face at a point where
the tunnel was just rising out of its low point. Along
this section, the ventilation tunnel is 5.1 m wide x 5.5
m high at a depth of 58 m, with a very slightly curved
crown (PSM 2005) (13).
Mapping at the time identified the following
features (Figure 10.30):
• Ellipsoidal shaped fallout slightly to the north (left)
of tunnel centre
• Failure was in a relatively thin layer of light grey
massive sandstone
• The perimeter of the failure area appeared to have
the characteristics of tensile failure.
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

FIGURE 10.30 Mapping of geology at the failure by GHD taken from PSM (2005)

10.6.2 Numerical modelling

The geometry of the ventilation tunnel and the mapped
geotechnical conditions where the rock fall occurred
were modelled in the two-dimensional finite element
program Phase2 . The objective of the modelling is to
assess the likely magnitudes of the major and minor
principal stresses, σ1 and σ3, which were present at the
time of the rock fall.
The geometry of the finite element mesh used is
shown in Figure 10.31.
The in situ stress was modelled as that typical of
Sydney, i.e. σH = σNS = 1.5 + 2σv acting in the plane of
the tunnel cross-section, and σh = 0.7σH.
The results of this modelling are presented in the
contour plots in Figure 10.32.

FIGURE 10.31 Geometry of mesh used in Phase2 finite element analysis for the CCT ventilation tunnel

175
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 10.32 Contours of major (top) and minor (bottom) principal stresses from finite element analysis of the
ventilation tunnel

176

10.7 LANE COVE TUNNEL
10.7.1 Description
The Lane Cove Tunnel (LCT) is a 3.6 km long
underground road link between the Gore Hill Freeway
at Artarmon and the M2 motorway at Lane Cove
River (Figure 10.33). The LCT comprises twin two
and three-lane road tunnels, associated ramp tunnels
and ventilation tunnels (Badelow et al. 2005). The
LCT was constructed between January March 2004
and December 2006.
The intersection of a ventilation tunnel and ramp
tunnel, which was designed by others collapsed at
1:40am on Wednesday 2nd November 2005. This
event has been reported elsewhere, e.g. Wallis (2007).
It is not a stress induced failure and is not part of
this work.
The 54 m2 two-lane tunnel has a typical span of 9
m, expanding to 13.5 m in the break-down bays. The
75 m2 three-lane tunnel has a 12.5 m span and 17.5 m
in its breakdown bays.
Drummy and spalling shotcrete and minor spalling
of Hawkesbury Sandstone in the roofs of the two- and
three-lane tunnels occurred when the underlying 9
m span ventilation tunnel and a deep services trench
within the road tunnels were excavated (Clark 2005).
The main road tunnels of the LCT were excavated
within the Hawkesbury Sandstone which is composed
predominantly of fine to medium grained quartzose
sandstone deposited in 1 to 3 m thick beds which are
FIGURE 10.33 Alignment of the LCT; from www.whereis.com accessed 16th October 2013
10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies
either massive or cross bedded at dips of 20 to 30°. Parts
of the associated ramp tunnels, ventilation tunnels also
encountered the overlying Mittagong Formation and
Ashfield Shale. Bedding was sub-horizontal, typically
dipping at 0-5° towards the south. Joint sets are sub-
vertical and trend approximately north-south and east-
west (Badelow et al. 2005).
10.7.2 Numerical modelling
The geometry of the LCT tunnels and the mapped
geotechnical conditions where the rock fall occurred
were modelled in the two-dimensional finite element
program Phase2 . Again, the objective of the modelling
was to assess the likely magnitudes of σ1 and σ3, which
were present at the time of the rock fall.
The specific location where the spalling occurred
was beneath a minor valley associated with the Stringy
Bark Creek. The geometry of the finite element mesh
used is shown in Figure 10.35.
The erosional development of the creek valley was
simulated in the model with a single initialisation step
as indicated in Figure 10.35. The in situ stress was
modelled as that typical of Sydney, i.e. σH = σNS = 1.5
+ 2σv acting in the plane of the modelled tunnel cross-
section and σh = 0.7σH.
The resultant major horizontal stress in the crown
of the LCT tunnels is in the order of 3MPa (Figure
10.34 which is in keeping with the high horizontal
stresses associated with topographic relief as suggested
in Figure 101.
177
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 10.34 Predicted major principal stress acting in the horizontal direction in the plane of the modelled cross section
(σH) after the valley is modelled and shows σH of approximately 3.0 MPa in the crown of the main tunnel.

FIGURE 10.35 Geometry of mesh used in Phase2 finite element analysis for the LCT tunnels. In the model the Stringy Bark
Creek valley is first created.

178
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

The results of this modelling are presented in the

contour plots in Figure 10.36.

FIGURE 10.36 Contours of major (top) and minor (bottom) principal stresses from finite element analysis of the LCT three-
lane tunnel (Ch 1510 m). The extent of the mapped spalling is shown. 

179
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

The second is the Hoek-Brown strength criterion for

10.8 RESULTS the Hawkesbury Sandstone Class I /II rock mass. This
The results of the numerical modelling of the nine case has been derived using the GSI approach with GSI =
studies described in the preceding sections are presented 70 (range 65 – 80) (Figure 9.15) which yields mb = 4.11,
in the principal stress plots shown in Figure 10.37 to s = 0.0357 and a = 0.501.
Figure 10.42. In these figures, solid symbols are used
to identify the inferred stresses in “failed zones” and The third strength criterion shown in the figures
open symbols for “stable zones”. The envelopes of four has been suggested to define the onset of spalling
strength criteria are also shown in the plots. as discussed in Chapter 5.2 (Diederichs et al. 2007;
Diederichs et al. 2004). This can be written for
The first is the Hoek-Brown strength criterion for Hawkesbury Sandstone Class I /I as Equation 10.1.
intact Hawkesbury Sandstone Class I /II rock with
parameters mi = 12 ≈ (σc / |σt |) and s = 1. A typical
value of σc is 30 MPa, from Figure 2.1.
However, as discrete blocks of sandstone were not
included in the finite element analyses of the tunnels,
there is an argument that a compressive strength
appropriate for a volume of rock larger than a UCS test EQUATION 10.1
should be used. A nominal volume of a 1 m3 cube of
Hawkesbury Sandstone is adopted. This is in keeping The fourth envelope shown depicts the ‘systematic
with studies for coal pillars as will be further discussed cracking’ or ‘damage initiation’ criteria of Diederichs
in the next chapter. According to Masoumi (2013), the (2007) (Equation 5.2)
reduction in unconfined compressive strength beyond
a diameter of 50 to 65 mm is:

EQUATION 10.2

For Hawkesbury Sandstone Class I /II Equation 10.2 is:

This relationship was based on samples of up to
200 mm. Assuming this relationship continues for
larger sample sizes, then for a 1 m3 cube, σc =30 *
(65/1000)0.11, that is σc = 22.2 MPa. and

180
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

18

16

14

12

10
σ1 (MPa)

6
1m3: sc=22.2MPa, mi=12

Rock mass: sc=22.2MPa,

m=4.11, s=0.0357, a=0.501
4 Initial spalling: 6.66MPa + 2s3

Damage initiation: sc=22.2MPa,

m=0.0972, s=0.0081, a=0.25
Cataract - stable

2 Devines - stable

CCT - stable

Elgas - stable

0 LCT - stable

-1 0 1 2 3 4
Malabar - stable

NST - stable
σ3 (MPa)

FIGURE 10.37 Principal stress plot showing only the modelling predicted stresses from the ‘stable’ zones compared with
proposed strength envelopes

181
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

18

16

14

12

10
σ1 (MPa)

6
1m3: sc=22.2MPa, mi=12

Rock mass: sc=22.2MPa,

m=4.11, s=0.0357, a=0.501
4 Initial spalling: 6.66MPa + 2s3

Damage initiation: sc=22.2MPa,

m=0.0972, s=0.0081, a=0.25
Cataract - stable (close)

Devines - stable (close)

2
CCT - stable (close)

Elgas - stable (close)

LCT - stable (close)

0
-1 0 1 2 3 4
Malabar - stable (close)

NST - stable (close)

σ3 (MPa)

FIGURE 10.38 This is a subset of Figure 10.37 and shows the predicted stresses from the ‘stable’ zones immediately
adjacent to the tunnel boundary compared with proposed strength envelopes

182
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

18

16

14

12

10
σ1 (MPa)

1m3: sc=22.2MPa, mi=12

8
Rock mass: sc=22.2MPa,
m=4.11, s=0.0357, a=0.501
Initial spalling: 6.66MPa + 2s3

6 Damage initiation: sc=22.2MPa,

m=0.0972, s=0.0081, a=0.25
Cataract - failed

Devines - failed

4 CCT - failed

Elgas - failed

LCT - failed
2
Malabar - failed

NST - failed

0
-1 0 1 2 3 4

σ3 (MPa)

FIGURE 10.39 Principal stress plot showing only the modelling predicted stresses from the ‘failed’ zones compared with
proposed strength envelopes.

183
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

18

16

14

12

10
σ1 - σ3 (MPa)

6
1m3: sc=22.2MPa, mi=12

Rock mass: sc=22.2MPa, m=4.11,

s=0.0357, a=0.501
Initial spalling: 6.66MPa + 2s3
4 Damage initiation: sc=22.2MPa,
m=0.0972, s=0.0081, a=0.25
Cataract - stable

Devines - stable

2 CCT - stable

Elgas - stable

LCT - stable

Malabar - stable
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4
NST - stable

σ3 (MPa)

FIGURE 10.40 Deviator stress (σ1-σ3) versus confining stress (σ3) plot showing only the modelling predicted stresses from the
‘stable’ zones compared with proposed strength envelopes.

184
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

18

16

14

12

10
σ1 - σ3 (MPa)

8 1m3: sc=22.2MPa, mi=12

Rock mass: sc=22.2MPa,

m=4.11, s=0.0357, a=0.501
Initial spalling: 6.66MPa + 2s3
6
Damage initiation: sc=22.2MPa,
m=0.0972, s=0.0081, a=0.25
Cataract - stable (close)

Devines - stable (close)

4
CCT - stable (close)

Elgas - stable (close)

2 LCT - stable (close)

Malabar - stable (close)

NST - stable (close)

0
-1 0 1 2 3 4

σ3 (MPa)

FIGURE 10.41 This is a subset of Figure 10.40 and shows the predicted deviator stresses from the ‘stable’ zones immediately
adjacent to the tunnel boundary compared with proposed strength envelopes

185
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

18

16

14

12

10
σ1 - σ3 (MPa)

8 1m3: sc=22.2MPa, mi=12

Rock mass: sc=22.2MPa,

m=4.11, s=0.0357, a=0.501
Initial spalling: 6.66MPa + 2s3
6
Damage initiation: sc=22.2MPa,
m=0.0972, s=0.0081, a=0.25
Cataract - failed

Devines - failed
4
CCT - failed

Elgas - failed

LCT - failed
2
Malabar - failed

NST - failed

0
-1 0 1 2 3 4

σ3 (MPa)

FIGURE 10.42 Deviator stress (σ1-σ3) versus confining stress (σ3) plot showing only the modelling predicted stresses from the
‘failed’ zones compared with proposed strength envelopes.

186
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

10.9 DISCUSSION 10.10 CONCLUSIONS

In many of the cases, bedding planes were mapped as Nine case studies where stress induced failure occurred
either intersecting or close to the tunnel excavation. in tunnels excavated within Hawkesbury Sandstone
Not surprisingly, one of the results of the analyses is were presented in this chapter. The case studies are from
that the proximity of bedding planes influences the a variety of sources and cover a range of conditions:
induced stresses surrounding the tunnel. • Construction dates from the 1880s to 2006
The inferred confining stress, σ3, of the nine case • Spans from 3.2 to 12.5 m
studies is rather modest ranging only up to 3 MPa. • Depths from 17 to 124 m
Further, at the locations where failures were mapped, • Drill & blast, roadheader and TBM excavation.
the confinement is usually less than 1 MPa. Yet even
Using two-dimensional finite element modelling,
though the failures are essentially within low or zero
the likely principal stresses that were present at the time
confinement, the Hoek-Brown rock mass strength
of the failures were assessed and then compared with
criterion does differentiate between the ‘failed’ and
the Hoek-Brown and DISL criteria. The parameters for
‘stable’ zones relatively well (Figure 10.37 to Figure
these criteria were assessed from the typical range of
10.39). The same data is plotted as deviator stress
values for Hawkesbury Sandstone.
(σ1- σ3) versus confining stress (σ3) in Figure 10.40 to
Figure 10 .42. Not every ‘failed’ stress point plotted above the
criterion and not every ‘stable’ stress point plotted
Figure 10.43 plots the data as the difference between
below the criterion. However, the work presented
the criterion predicted strength and the major principal
in this chapter showed the remarkable ability of
stress from the models (σ1- σ1^) versus confining stress
the criteria with seemingly generic parameters, to
(σ3). This figure may make it easier to see that the
differentiate between most ‘failed’ and ‘stable’ zones.
Hoek-Brown criterion does identify the failed and
stable zones well, but perhaps the criterion suggests The Hoek-Brown criterion parameters for typical
zones should have failed in places where failure was Hawkesbury Sandstone Class I /II are:
not observed. The Hoek-Brown criterion does identify
zones other than those mapped as failing but these tend • σc = 22 MPa (1 m3 cube), mb= 4.11, s = 0.0357 and
to be in the floors of the tunnels, i.e. zones which are a = 0.501
not as readily picked up in mapping as having failed.
While the damage initiation and initial spalling The damage initiation criterion parameters for
criteria do capture the ‘stable’ zones well, many ‘failed’ typical Hawkesbury Sandstone Class I /II are:
zones plot beneath the rock mass strength inferred
from these criteria.
• σc = 22 MPa (1 m3 cube), mb= 0.0972, s = 0.0081
The damage initiation and Hoek-Brown criteria and a = 0.25
are combined into the Damage Initiation Spalling
Limit (DISL) as recommended by Diederichs (2007)
in Figure 10.44 as principal stress and deviator stress
plots. The DISL differentiates between the ‘failed’
from the ‘stable’ zones very well.

187
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 10.43 The difference between the criterion predicted strength and the major principal stress from the models
versus confining stress plots. The top series shows the difference from the Hoek-Brown criterion; the bottom shows the
difference from the Damage Inititaion criterion. The ‘failed’ zones are on the left; ‘stable’ zones in the middle and ‘stable –
close’ zones on the right.

188
 10 | Tunnels in Hawkesbury Sandstone Case Studies

FIGURE 10.44 Principal stress (top) and deviator stress (bottom) versus confining stress plots showing the ‘failed’ zones
(left) and ‘stable’ zones (right).

189
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

190

11 COAL PILLAR
CASE STUDIES
11.1 OUTLINE
Underground coal mining constructs hundreds of
thousands of coal pillars annually. The industry is
dependent upon the stability of these variously sized
hexahedrons so knowledge of the coal’s rock mass
strength is imperative. Yet the approach for estimating
the rock mass strength of coal has developed along a
different path to that for other rock masses.
The typical method for estimating rock mass
strength, which we have discussed in preceding
chapters, is to basically reduce the intact rock strength
by an empirical factor that accounts for the geological
structures in the rock mass (bedding planes, joints,
shears, etc.). The empirical Hoek-Brown / GSI process
is one such method. While the most used methods
for estimating the strength of coal pillars are also
empirical they are geometrically based. They do not
explicitly include either the intact strength of the coal,
the in situ stress, or the geological structures of the
coal rock mass. These geometrically based methods
are seemingly at odds with the common methods of
estimating rock mass strength.
The approach to estimate coal pillar strength is
examined in this chapter. The case studies of collapsed
and ‘un-collapsed’ coal pillars from Australia, South
Africa, USA, India and elsewhere is first presented.
Numerical analyses are then carried out with a view
to assess the compatibility between the analyses and
the empirical methods. The combined database is then
assessed in relation to the brittle (damage initiation) and
Hoek-Brown rock mass strength criteria. Appropriate
strength parameters for modelling coal pillars are
then proposed.
11.2 DATA
Although coal is known in most geological periods,
the bulk of the world’s coal deposits were formed
during two main periods of geological history: the
Carboniferous in the northern hemisphere about 300
million years ago, and the Permian in the southern
hemisphere about 50 million years later (Cook 1994).
11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies
Northern hemisphere coals were formed in
conditions conducive to the formation of coals rich in
vitrinite and low in mineral matter content. In contrast,
the Permian swamps of the southern hemisphere
existed in cold conditions related to the ending of a
massive ice age. Slow growth allowed the intrusion of
fine inorganic material, present today as the high-ash
component of the coal. So, there is a broad difference
in coals from the northern and southern hemispheres,
the latter being typically of higher ash content.
There are also differences between coals from the
same geological age. South Africa is noted for its high
ash, generally lower sulphur, and lower-energy thermal
coals. The dominant product from underground coal
mining in New South Wales, Australia is a soft-coking,
high-volatile coal (Tinsley 1982). Indian coal has high
ash content, medium to high volatile matter and low
calorific value (Mishra 2009). At the outset therefore,
it would be reasonable to expect each region to exhibit
different coal properties based on the genesis of
the deposits.
The published data relating to coal pillars comes
largely from Australia, South Africa, the USA and
India.
11.2.1 Australia
A series of mine design accidents in the late 1980s
resulted in a research program at the University of
NSW Australia (UNSW Australia or UNSW) aimed
at developing pillar design guidelines (Galvin et al.
1999). A database from Australian underground coal
mining was compiled, as reproduced in Table 11.2 and
summarised in Table 11.1 and in Figure 11.1.
The database comprises 18 failed (also termed
‘collapsed’) and 15 stable (also termed ‘un-collapsed’
or ‘intact’) coal pillars (Galvin 1995).
Based on this database and the earlier work of
Salamon and Munro (1967) in South Africa, Galvin
et al. (1999) developed empirical relationships to
estimate coal pillar strength, Cp, as a function of pillar
geometry, w/h. The linear version of those relationships
for the combined Australian and South African
191
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

database is presented in Equation 11.1 (see also Though the relationships are said to be applicable
Equation 5.11). for w/h ≤ 8, only one of the collapsed pillars in the
Australian database has a ratio w/h = 8; the others
having w/h < 5 (see Figure 11.1). Galvin (2006) argues
the validity of the w/h = 8 case, though others have
EQUATION 11.1 questioned it; see Colwell (2010); Seedsman (2012).

TABLE 11.1 Summary of the UNSW Coal Pillar Database

Case Number of Depth [m] w/h
cases

Uncontrolled 1.1 – 3.0

Collapsed 18 58 – 336
Controlled 4.5 – 8.0

Un-collapsed 15 22.5 – 510 2 – 11.2

w/h = R
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
0

50

100

150

200

250
Depth [m]

300

350

400

450

500
Uncollapsed
550
Collapsed
600

FIGURE 11.1 The database of Australian coal pillars presented by (Galvin et al. 1999)

192
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

TABLE 11.2 Details of the UNSW Coal Pillar Database: the one collapsed case (SC3) of w/h > 5 is
highlighted
Case Depth Pillar Dimensions Pillar w/h Bord Age at
[m] [m] Height Width collapse
(minimum width) [m] [m] [years]

FC1 140 15 x 15 15.0 5.0 3.0 7.0 2.0

FC2 80 7.5 x 18 7.5 7.0 1.07 7.0 0.5

FC3 80 6 x 7.5 6.0 3.0 2.0 7.0 0.5

FC4 135 7 x 20 7.0 5.0 1.4 6.0 0.5

FC5 100 10 x 10 10.0 6.0 1.66 5.5 1.0

FC6 120 10 x 20 10.0 4.5 2.22 7.0 18.0

FC7 95 3.5 x 12 3.5 1.75 2.0 6.2 -

Collapsed

FC8 70 9x9 9.0 6.0 1.5 8.0 0.3

FC9 250 15 x 27 15.0 3.0 5.0 15.0 0.5

FC10 115 10.5 x 22 10.5 5.0 2.1 8.0 0.3

FC11 145 11.25 x 22.5 11.25 7.0 1.6 6.25 4.0

FC12 336 13.5 x 28.5 13.5 3.0 4.5 6.3 0.5

FC13 185 21 x 21 21.0 4.9 4.28 6.1 -

FC14 240 22 x 22 22.0 4.9 4.48 5.1 -

FC15 152 25 x 30 20.0 9.2 2.17 5.5 10.0

SC1 75 8x8 8.0 4.5 1.77 6.5 1.0

SC2 58 3.65 x 54 3.65 2.7 1.35 7.3 1.0

SC3 170 20 x 20 20.0 2.5 8.0 5.5 0.3

FS1 80 23.5 x 23.5 23.5 2.1 11.19 7 33

FS2 122 7.6 x 30.5 7.6 1.5 5.07 6 85

FS3 40 10 x 10 10.0 3.2 3.13 6 1.5

FS4 22.5 2x4 2.0 1.0 2 5 170

FS5 58 5 x 30 5.0 1.7 2.94 6 85

Un-collapsed

FS6 70 14 x 14 14.0 2.5 5.6 6.5 43

FS7 510 23.5 x 44.5 23.5 2.9 8.23 7 5

FS8 500 23.5 x 44.5 23.5 2.8 8.56 7 5

FS9 470 23.5 x 44.5 23.5 2.7 8.87 7 5

FS10 450 23.5 x 44.5 23.5 2.6 3.22 7 5

FS11 150 16 x 18 16.0 3.5 4.6 7 30

FS12 75 4 x 11 4.0 1.0 4 5 40

FS13 50 10 x 10 10.0 6.0 1.67 5.5 4

FS14 430 32 x 36 32.0 3.0 10.66 6 -

FS15 75 15 x 15 15.0 3.0 5 15 6

193
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

11.2.2 South Africa It is important to appreciate that no pillar failure

The most recent database of South African coal pillar
experience is that collated by van der Merwe and
Mathey (2013), which is summarised in Table 11.3
and in Figure 11.2 as a plot of depth against the ratio
w/h. The individual cases are reproduced in Table 11.4
for the 86 collapsed cases and Table 11.5 for the 337
un-collapsed cases.
has been recorded in South African collieries with a
w/h ratio greater than 4.45 (Salamon et al. 2006). That
is, the maximum w/h for collapsed pillars is 4.45. Also,
the maximum depth in the South African database
is 255 m.
The empirical relationship to estimate coal pillar
strength, Cp, given by van der Merwe (2003) for

TABLE 11.3 Summary of the South African coal pillar database

Case Number of Depth [m] w/h
cases

Normal coal 65 19 – 205 0.9 – 3.1

Collapsed
Weak coal 21 58 – 152 1.0 – 4.4

Un-collapsed 337 13 – 255 1.0 – 16.2

w/h
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
0

50

100

150

200

250
Depth [m]

300

350

400

450

500
Intact

550 Collapsed
Weak coal Collapsed
600

FIGURE 11.2 The database of South African coal pillars presented by van der Merwe and Mathey (2013)

194
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

‘normal coal’ is reproduced in Equation 11.2 (from No relationship for ‘weak coal’ was provided by
Equation 5.12). van der Merwe (2003) though in earlier work, van der
Merwe (1993) did suggest the constant in the Salamon
and Munro (1967) equation (Equation 5.3) should
be 4.5 MPa for ‘weak’ coal, compared to 7.2 MPa
for ‘normal’ coal. Interestingly, Mathey and van der
Merwe (2015) from their analysis of 1800 laboratory
tests found no significant differences in strength
EQUATION 11.2
properties between South African coal seams.

TABLE 11.4 Details of the South African Coal Pillar Database – Collapsed cases
Pillar Bord Mining Tributary
Depth
Case Coalfield width width height w/h Load
[m]
[m] [m] [m] [MPa]

n201 Free State 29 5.4 6.3 2.9 2.2 3.4

n202 Free State 60 7 6 1.82 3.3 5.2

n203 Free State 53 5.6 6.1 1.8 3.4 5.8

n204 Free State 21 6.75 5.25 3.2 1.6 1.7

n205 Free State 19 6 6 3 2.0 1.9

n206 Free State 23 6 6 2.9 2.1 2.3

n207 Free State 40 7 5 2.8 1.8 2.9

n208 Free State 42 4.5 5.5 2 2.8 5.2

n209 Free State 50 7 5 2.3 2.2 3.7

n210 Free State 55 7 5 2.2 2.3 4.0

s126 Free State 87.8 6.1 6.1 1.98 3.1 8.8

n211 Highveld 55.5 7.43 6.62 3.8 1.7 5.0

Collapsed – ‘normal’ coal

n212 Highveld 78.2 10.53 6.47 5.16 1.3 5.1

n213 Highveld 73.5 8.4 6.6 3.65 1.8 5.9

n214 KwaZulu - Natal 57.66 5.3 5.66 2.89 2.0 6.2

m168 South Rand 165.7 15 5 5.94 0.8 7.4

m169 South Rand 195 17 6 4.88 1.2 8.9

m170 South Rand 205 17 6 5.88 1.0 9.4

s122 South Rand 167.6 15.85 5.49 5.49 1.0 7.6

s66 South Rand 193.2 15.85 5.49 5.49 1.0 8.8

s67 South Rand 184.7 15.85 5.49 5.49 1.0 8.4

s19 Springs-Witbank 36.6 6.1 7.62 4.88 1.6 4.6

s54 Springs-Witbank 62.5 6.1 7.62 2.44 3.1 7.9

n185 Utrecht 101 9 6 3.8 1.6 7.0

n186 Utrecht 100 8.5 6.5 3.3 2.0 7.8

n187 Utrecht 97 9 6.6 3.7 1.8 7.3

n188 Utrecht 51.5 6 6 3.9 1.5 5.2

m148 Witbank 28.5 3.8 5.8 2.7 2.1 4.5

m148a Witbank 34 3.5 6.7 2.7 2.5 7.2

195
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 11.4 Details of the South African Coal Pillar Database – Collapsed cases continued
Pillar Bord Mining Tributary
Depth
Case Coalfield width width height w/h Load
[m]
[m] [m] [m] [MPa]

m148b Witbank 34 3.5 6.7 2.7 2.5 7.2

m149 Witbank 90 7.5 6 4.8 1.3 7.3

m150 Witbank 57 3.6 5.4 1.35 4.0 8.9

m151 Witbank 62 7.5 6.4 4 1.6 5.3

m162 Witbank 62 7.3 6.2 4 1.6 5.3

m163 Witbank 56 5.1 6.5 3.3 2.0 7.2

m164 Witbank 33 6.4 6.4 4.88 1.3 3.3

m165 Witbank 22 3.5 6.5 1.6 4.1 4.5

m166 Witbank 62 6.1 6.1 4 1.5 6.2

m167 Witbank 62 6.1 6.1 4 1.5 6.2

n171 Witbank 41 6.4 6.4 6.2 1.0 4.1

n172 Witbank 41 6.4 6.4 6.2 1.0 4.1

n173 Witbank 41 6.4 6.4 6.2 1.0 4.1

n174 Witbank 35.5 5.5 5.5 2.2 2.5 3.6

n198 Witbank 32 3.3 6.4 2.3 2.8 6.9

Collapsed – ‘normal’ coal

n199 Witbank 32.5 3.2 6.5 2.1 3.1 7.5

n200 Witbank 43 4.8 6.2 2.8 2.2 5.6

n216 Witbank 86.4 7.5 6.5 4.6 1.4 7.5

n217 Witbank 102 7.6 6.2 4.5 1.4 8.4

s116 Witbank 61 6.1 6.1 4.57 1.3 6.1

s117 Witbank 61 6.1 7.62 3.05 2.5 7.7

s118 Witbank 57.9 6.1 7.62 3.96 1.9 7.3

s119 Witbank 41.1 4.27 6.4 3.05 2.1 6.4

s12 Witbank 25.9 3.66 8.53 3.05 2.8 7.2

s16 Witbank 21.3 3.96 8.23 4.57 1.8 5.0

s17 Witbank 29.6 5.18 7.01 5.49 1.3 4.1

s18 Witbank 27.4 3.66 7.92 2.13 3.7 6.9

s39 Witbank 36.6 4.57 7.62 2.44 3.1 6.5

s40 Witbank 33.5 6.1 6.71 5.49 1.2 3.7

s41 Witbank 30.5 4.57 7.62 3.66 2.1 5.4

s42 Witbank 53.3 5.18 6.4 3.66 1.7 6.7

s55 Witbank 68.6 3.35 5.79 1.52 3.8 12.8

s57 Witbank 88.4 7.16 6.55 4.88 1.3 8.1

s58 Witbank 57.9 5.18 6.4 5.49 1.2 7.2

s64 Witbank 61 4.72 6.86 3.51 2.0 9.2

s9 Witbank 30.5 3.35 6.4 2.59 2.5 6.5

196
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

TABLE 11.4 Details of the South African Coal Pillar Database – Collapsed cases continued
Pillar Bord Mining Tributary
Depth
Case Coalfield width width height w/h Load
[m]
[m] [m] [m] [MPa]

s115 Eastern Transvaal 76.2 4.88 6.1 1.37 4.5 9.6

n175 Klip River 70 7.5 5 1.8 2.8 4.9

n176 Klip River 63.5 7.5 5 2.1 2.4 4.4

n177 Klip River 61 6 5 1.9 2.6 5.1

n178 Klip River 61 7.5 5 1.9 2.6 4.2

n179 Klip River 74 10 5 4 1.3 4.2

n197 Klip River 74 7.7 4.8 2 2.4 4.9

m157 Vaal Basin 112 10.55 6.45 2.82 2.3 7.3

m159 Vaal Basin 108 10.55 6.48 3.18 2.0 7.0

n180 Vaal Basin 82 10 5 2.8 1.8 4.6

Collapsed – ‘weak’ coal

n181 Vaal Basin 96 12 6 2.9 2.1 5.4

n182 Vaal Basin 70 12.5 5.5 2.9 1.9 3.6

n183 Vaal Basin 88 11 6 2.9 2.1 5.3

n184 Vaal Basin 112 11.5 5.5 2.9 1.9 6.1

n194 Vaal Basin 96 12 6 6 1.0 5.4

n195 Vaal Basin 82 12 6 3 2.0 4.6

n196 Vaal Basin 104 12 6 3 2.0 5.9

n215 Vaal Basin 128 12.8 5.5 5.5 1.0 6.5

s120 Vaal Basin 128 9.75 5.49 3.66 1.5 7.8

s59 Vaal Basin 57.9 5.18 6.4 3.66 1.7 7.2

s60 Vaal Basin 152.4 12.19 6.1 4.88 1.3 8.6

197
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 11.5 Details of the South African Coal Pillar Database – Un-collapsed cases
Coalfield Depth [m] Pillar width Bord width Mining w/h Tributary
[m] [m] height [m] Load [MPa]
Highveld 36.2 5.7 6.27 3.8 1.5 4.0
Highveld 39.95 6.89 6.08 3.7 1.9 3.5
Highveld 55.2 8.98 6.96 3.95 2.3 4.3
Highveld 30.35 8.96 6.06 3.85 2.3 2.1
Highveld 41.35 8 5.98 3.6 2.2 3.2
Highveld 57.34 9.07 5.99 3.84 2.4 4.0
KwaZulu-Natal 63.15 8.02 6.11 1.65 4.9 4.9
Witbank 40.86 7.55 7.63 2.92 2.6 4.1
Witbank 30.55 8.07 7.11 3.2 2.5 2.7
Witbank 49.82 7.63 7.67 3.05 2.5 5.0
Witbank 47.07 8.29 6.89 3.37 2.5 3.9
Witbank 66.95 7.77 7.5 3 2.6 6.5
Witbank 25.98 3.11 5.53 1.34 2.3 5.0
Witbank 26.83 2.91 5.09 1.33 2.2 5.1
Witbank 42.61 4.38 5.07 1.61 2.7 5.0
Witbank 23 4 5.68 1.58 2.5 3.4
Witbank 23.76 4.3 5.21 1.5 2.9 2.9
Witbank 23.54 4.24 5.38 1.54 2.8 3.0
Witbank 26.75 4.54 4.97 1.65 2.8 2.9
Witbank 19.4 4.26 5.22 1.4 3.0 2.4
Witbank 20.8 4.24 5.18 1.38 3.1 2.6
Witbank 23.33 4.37 5.08 1.33 3.3 2.7
KwaZulu-Natal 58.89 8.06 5.7 3 2.7 4.3
KwaZulu-Natal 96.2 8.06 5.77 3.1 2.6 7.1
KwaZulu-Natal 33.94 8.17 5.52 2.38 3.4 2.4
Witbank 39.1 6.63 6.36 2.6 2.6 3.8
Witbank 36.5 7.25 6.3 2.68 2.7 3.2
Witbank 24.15 6.1 6.25 2.65 2.3 2.5
Witbank 25.7 6.15 6.17 2.6 2.4 2.6
Witbank 18.58 4.86 6.16 2.78 1.7 2.4
Witbank 21.5 5.09 5.96 2.75 1.9 2.5
Witbank 44.95 5.03 6.01 2.68 1.9 5.4
Witbank 26.51 4.32 6.68 2.65 1.6 4.3
KwaZulu-Natal 97.27 8.63 6.04 1.37 6.3 7.0
KwaZulu-Natal 165.45 11.66 6.32 1.45 8.0 9.8
KwaZulu-Natal 167.68 12.98 6.43 1.45 9.0 9.4
KwaZulu-Natal 183.83 12.99 6.93 1.23 10.6 10.8
KwaZulu-Natal 54 6 6.54 1.2 5.0 5.9
KwaZulu-Natal 112 17 5.5 1.05 16.2 4.9
Witbank 98.15 12.56 5.23 2.65 4.7 4.9
Witbank 64.79 13.03 5.37 3.08 4.2 3.2
Ermelo 80.5 6.58 6.39 1.65 4.0 7.8
Ermelo 54.6 5.67 6.37 1.6 3.5 6.2
Ermelo 25.15 4.39 6.54 1.65 2.7 3.9
Ermelo 35.73 5 6.12 1.73 2.9 4.4

198
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

TABLE 11.5 Details of the South African Coal Pillar Database – Un-collapsed cases continued
Coalfield Depth [m] Pillar width Bord width Mining w/h Tributary
[m] [m] height [m] Load [MPa]
Ermelo 55.7 6.85 6.13 1.7 4.0 5.0
Ermelo 52.5 5.66 6.38 1.7 3.3 5.9
Ermelo 35.5 4.6 6.81 2 2.3 5.5
Ermelo 40.33 4.53 6.52 1.83 2.5 6.0
Ermelo 22.62 4.8 6.2 1.65 2.9 3.0
Ermelo 28.75 5 6.08 2 2.5 3.5
KwaZulu-Natal 22.3 6.24 5.74 3.5 1.8 2.1
KwaZulu-Natal 37.7 7.05 5.94 3.06 2.3 3.2
KwaZulu-Natal 36.26 6.23 6.82 2.63 2.4 4.0
KwaZulu-Natal 50.17 5.85 7.04 2.6 2.3 6.1
KwaZulu-Natal 37.08 6.29 6.65 2.78 2.3 3.9
KwaZulu-Natal 61.1 7.08 6.61 4.49 1.6 5.7
KwaZulu-Natal 42 5.38 6.78 3.96 1.4 5.4
KwaZulu-Natal 39.33 8.05 6 2.68 3.0 3.0
KwaZulu-Natal 59.16 7.17 6.57 3.51 2.0 5.4
Free State 64.24 5.59 5.05 1 5.6 5.8
Free State 59.98 6.19 5.86 1.52 4.1 5.7
Free State 17.91 4.31 5.62 1.71 2.5 2.4
Free State 29.56 6.2 6 2.1 3.0 2.9
N.R. 45.72 5.49 5.18 1.83 3.0 4.3
Witbank 76.2 6.71 5.49 2.74 2.4 6.3
N.R. 85.34 8.23 5.49 3.2 2.6 5.9
Witbank 121.92 12.8 5.49 2.29 5.6 6.2
Witbank 97.54 9.75 5.49 3.2 3.0 6.0
Vryheid 108 9 6 1.14 7.9 7.5
Vryheid 108 9 6 1.1 8.2 7.5
Vryheid 150 9 6 1.15 7.8 10.4
Vryheid 208 17 6 1.2 14.2 9.5
Vryheid 208 17 6 1.1 15.5 9.5
Vryheid 166 17 6 1.48 11.5 7.6
Vryheid 174 17 6 1.17 14.5 8.0
Witbank 64.47 9 6 1.89 4.8 4.5
Witbank 50 10 6 3.8 2.6 3.2
Witbank 34.6 12.21 5.6 3.4 3.6 1.8
Witbank 77.65 12 5.84 3.8 3.2 4.3
Witbank 55.75 10.28 6 2.8 3.7 3.5
Witbank 55.75 11 6 3 3.7 3.3
Witbank 79.92 9 6 2.9 3.1 5.6
Witbank 34.15 8 6 3 2.7 2.6
Witbank 36.53 7 6 3 2.3 3.1
Witbank 45.72 4.27 5.49 1.19 3.6 6.0
Witbank 68.58 5.18 5.49 1.19 4.4 7.3
Witbank 91.44 6.1 5.49 1.19 5.1 8.3
Witbank 76.2 7.62 6.1 1.37 5.6 6.2
Witbank 30.48 5.49 6.71 2.59 2.1 3.8

199
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 11.5 Details of the South African Coal Pillar Database – Un-collapsed cases continued
Coalfield Depth [m] Pillar width Bord width Mining w/h Tributary
[m] [m] height [m] Load [MPa]
Witbank 63.64 14 6 3 4.7 3.2
Witbank 70.79 12 6 2.2 5.5 4.0
Witbank 118.62 15 6 3.5 4.3 5.8
Witbank 108.75 14 6 3 4.7 5.5
Witbank 53.86 7 6 5 1.4 4.6
Witbank 98.72 13 6 4 3.3 5.3
Highveld 170 22 6 2.6 8.5 6.9
Highveld 154 21.37 6.26 2.72 7.9 6.4
Highveld 171.7 21.19 6.81 2.9 7.3 7.5
Highveld 151 23.85 6.15 3.34 7.1 6.0
Highveld 137 21.82 5.84 2.84 7.7 5.5
Highveld 106 15.84 6.35 3.16 5.0 5.2
Vereeniging 91.44 6.1 6.1 1.52 4.0 9.1
Vereeniging 60.96 9.75 5.49 2.29 4.3 3.7
Vereeniging 114 12.8 5.49 1.98 6.5 5.8
Vereeniging 146.3 17.37 5.49 2.13 8.2 6.3
Vereeniging 91.44 12.8 5.49 2.07 6.2 4.7
Vereeniging 114 17.37 5.49 1.98 8.8 4.9
Vereeniging 106.68 9.14 6.1 1.68 5.4 7.4
Vereeniging 140.21 12.8 5.49 2.44 5.2 7.2
Vereeniging 93.88 9.75 5.49 1.98 4.9 5.7
Witbank 39.62 6.1 6.1 2.59 2.4 4.0
Witbank 91.44 6.1 6.1 1.55 3.9 9.1
Klip River 223.38 28 5 3.5 8.0 7.8
Klip River 173.22 25 5 4.2 6.0 6.2
Klip River 215.05 35 5 3 11.7 7.0
Klip River 254.45 35 5 4 8.8 8.3
Klip River 215.05 25 5 3 8.3 7.7
Witbank 62.48 10 6 2.2 4.5 4.0
Witbank 62.48 15 6 2.1 7.1 3.1
Witbank 62.48 9 6 2.25 4.0 4.3
Witbank 70 15 6 3 5.0 3.4
Witbank 122.17 12 6 2.8 4.3 6.9
Witbank 122 15.4 6.6 2.5 6.2 6.2
Witbank 122 15.4 6.6 2.5 6.2 6.2
Highveld 94 10.22 6.78 3 3.4 6.5
Highveld 94 10.2 6.8 2.8 3.6 6.5
Witbank 45.72 6.1 6.1 2.9 2.1 4.6
Witbank 60.96 7.62 6.1 2.9 2.6 4.9
Witbank 76.2 9.14 6.1 2.9 3.2 5.3
Witbank 91.44 10.67 6.1 2.9 3.7 5.6
Witbank 40.07 8 6 3.2 2.5 3.1
Witbank 40.07 7.5 6 3.2 2.3 3.2
Witbank 56.11 7.5 6 3.5 2.1 4.5
Witbank 111.91 13.4 6 3 4.5 5.9

200
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

TABLE 11.5 Details of the South African Coal Pillar Database – Un-collapsed cases continued
Coalfield Depth [m] Pillar width Bord width Mining w/h Tributary
[m] [m] height [m] Load [MPa]
Witbank 121.02 13 6 3.5 3.7 6.5
Witbank 143.26 12.8 5.49 1.68 7.6 7.3
Eastern Tvl 140.72 15 6 2.7 5.6 6.9
Eastern Tvl 83.43 12 6 2.8 4.3 4.7
Eastern Tvl 101.21 12 6 2.3 5.2 5.7
Eastern Tvl 114.35 12 6 2.3 5.2 6.4
Eastern Tvl 119.41 15 6 2.3 6.5 5.9
Eastern Tvl 114.3 12 6 2.6 4.6 6.4
Eastern Tvl 104.76 12 6 4.8 2.5 5.9
Eastern Tvl 130.75 15 6 2 7.5 6.4
Witbank 44.55 12 6 2.5 4.8 2.5
Witbank 44.55 12 6 3 4.0 2.5
Witbank 40.3 8 6 2.1 3.8 3.1
Witbank 37.36 10 6 2.8 3.6 2.4
Witbank 70.76 14 6 2.6 5.4 3.6
Witbank 44.55 6 6 3.3 1.8 4.5
Witbank 87.53 12 6 3.6 3.3 4.9
Witbank 90.22 8.53 6.71 2.9 2.9 7.2
Witbank 115.82 7.62 6.1 1.83 4.2 9.4
Witbank 84.84 7 6 2.26 3.1 7.3
Witbank 84.84 7 6 2.26 3.1 7.3
Witbank 84.84 7 6 2.26 3.1 7.3
Witbank 61.5 9.47 6 1.98 4.8 4.1
Witbank 61.5 9.26 6 1.98 4.7 4.2
Witbank 58.71 11 6 2.3 4.8 3.5
Witbank 58.71 7 6 2 3.5 5.1
Witbank 108.63 12.5 6 3.38 3.7 5.9
Witbank 108.63 18.5 6 3.65 5.1 4.8
Vryheid 94.28 10 5 1.4 7.1 5.3
Vryheid 94.28 10 5 1.7 5.9 5.3
Witbank 51.82 9.14 6.1 1.68 5.4 3.6
Witbank 64.01 7.62 7.62 3.05 2.5 6.4
Witbank 48.77 9.14 6.1 4.27 2.1 3.4
Witbank 108.51 8.53 6.71 2.29 3.7 8.7
Highveld 46.1 7.1 6.9 3.8 1.9 4.5
Highveld 50 9.3 5.7 3.65 2.5 3.3
Highveld 58.3 8.47 6 3.8 2.2 4.3
Highveld 59.3 11 6 3.7 3.0 3.5
Utrecht 196 15 6 2.6 5.8 9.6
Highveld 64.92 20.57 6 3.5 5.9 2.7
Highveld 55 11.8 6.2 3.41 3.5 3.2
Highveld 65 10.98 6.02 3.2 3.4 3.9
Highveld 51 8.89 6.11 3.27 2.7 3.6
Highveld 68 11.66 6.34 3.4 3.4 4.1
Highveld 46 8.6 6.4 3.55 2.4 3.5

201
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 11.5 Details of the South African Coal Pillar Database – Un-collapsed cases continued
Coalfield Depth [m] Pillar width Bord width Mining w/h Tributary
[m] [m] height [m] Load [MPa]
Highveld 74 11.31 5.69 3.41 3.3 4.2
Highveld 68 10.87 6.13 3.37 3.2 4.2
Highveld 68 12.9 7.1 4.06 3.2 4.1
Highveld 54 8.92 6.08 3.58 2.5 3.8
Highveld 70 10.68 6.32 3.25 3.3 4.4
Highveld 49 8.57 6.43 3.69 2.3 3.8
Highveld 51 8.65 6.35 3.64 2.4 3.8
Highveld 72 12.89 7.11 4.15 3.1 4.3
Highveld 77 10.04 5.96 2.94 3.4 4.9
Highveld 57 9.35 6.65 3.65 2.6 4.2
Highveld 75 10.7 6.3 3.41 3.1 4.7
Highveld 78 10.7 6.3 3.35 3.2 4.9
Highveld 54 8.52 6.48 3.69 2.3 4.2
Highveld 56 8.59 6.41 3.63 2.4 4.3
Highveld 64.92 9 6 3.6 2.5 4.5
Highveld 73 10.63 6.37 3.85 2.8 4.7
Highveld 81 13.01 6.99 4.31 3.0 4.8
Highveld 64.92 9 6 3.72 2.4 4.5
Highveld 75 10.03 6.97 3.07 3.3 5.4
Highveld 84 12.97 7.03 4.31 3.0 5.0
Highveld 79 13.58 6.42 5.89 2.3 4.3
Highveld 74 9.9 7.1 3.33 3.0 5.5
Highveld 71 12.32 6.68 5.84 2.1 4.2
Highveld 73 10.21 6.79 3.93 2.6 5.1
Highveld 83 13.66 6.34 6.13 2.2 4.4
Highveld 75 11.03 5.97 5.5 2.0 4.5
Highveld 77 10.22 6.78 4.05 2.5 5.3
Highveld 71 10.7 6.3 5.5 1.9 4.5
Highveld 76 10.8 6.2 5.5 2.0 4.7
Highveld 66 10.92 7.08 6.45 1.7 4.5
Highveld 76 8.85 7.15 3.48 2.5 6.2
Highveld 77 9.81 7.19 4.86 2.0 5.8
Highveld 93.8 14 6 3.6 3.9 4.8
Highveld 93.8 14.92 6 3 5.0 4.6
Highveld 93.8 14.7 6 3.2 4.6 4.6
Highveld 109 17.5 6.48 3.67 4.8 5.1
Highveld 106 16.47 7.5 3.5 4.7 5.6
Highveld 92.28 17.07 6.93 3.87 4.4 4.6
Highveld 122 21 6.71 3.29 6.4 5.3
Highveld 122 21.2 6.71 3.29 6.4 5.3
N.R. 97.54 9.14 6.1 3.2 2.9 6.8
N.R. 106.68 15.24 6.1 4.88 3.1 5.2
N.R. 45.72 4.88 6.1 1.65 3.0 5.8
N.R. 60.96 4.88 6.1 1.55 3.1 7.7
N.R. 60.96 7.01 6.71 2.59 2.7 5.8

202
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

TABLE 11.5 Details of the South African Coal Pillar Database – Un-collapsed cases continued
Coalfield Depth [m] Pillar width Bord width Mining w/h Tributary
[m] [m] height [m] Load [MPa]
N.R. 30.48 2.74 5.49 1.55 1.8 6.9
N.R. 85.34 7.62 6.1 3.2 2.4 6.9
N.R. 167.64 14.33 3.69 1.98 7.2 6.6
N.R. 108.51 7.62 6.71 2.29 3.3 9.6
N.R. 42.67 4.27 5.49 2.59 1.6 5.6
N.R. 140.21 17.37 5.49 2.44 7.1 6.1
N.R. 160.93 14.94 6.31 2.96 5.0 8.1
N.R. 180.44 15.24 5.97 2.99 5.1 8.7
N.R. 163.98 15 6.22 2.8 5.4 8.2
N.R. 146 16.46 5.49 2.41 6.8 6.5
N.R. 198.12 17.16 5.7 2.83 6.1 8.8
N.R. 182.88 15.85 5.49 4.88 3.2 8.3
N.R. 36.58 7.32 4.88 1.83 4.0 2.5
N.R. 91.44 7.62 6.1 1.68 4.5 7.4
N.R. 60.96 9.14 6.1 4.88 1.9 4.2
N.R. 76.2 10.67 6.1 4.88 2.2 4.7
N.R. 91.44 12.19 6.1 4.88 2.5 5.1
Witbank 45.72 6.1 6.1 3.05 2.0 4.6
Highveld 178.49 19 6 2.3 8.3 7.7
Highveld 195.15 20 6 2.1 9.5 8.2
Highveld 203.42 19 6 1.7 11.2 8.8
Highveld 203.42 19 6 1.7 11.2 8.8
Witbank 42.67 5.49 5.49 2.59 2.1 4.3
N.R. 91.44 6.1 6.1 1.68 3.6 9.1
Witbank 48.77 7.32 6.4 2.44 3.0 4.3
Witbank 83.92 11.47 6 3 3.8 4.9
Witbank 87.6 12 6 2.8 4.3 4.9
Witbank 45.72 6.1 6.1 3.96 1.5 4.6
Witbank 60.96 7.62 6.1 3.96 1.9 4.9
Witbank 45.72 6.1 6.1 1.68 3.6 4.6
Witbank 60.96 7.62 6.1 1.68 4.5 4.9
Witbank 76.2 9.14 6.1 3.96 2.3 5.3
Witbank 91.44 12.19 6.1 3.96 3.1 5.1
Witbank 76.2 9.14 6.1 1.68 5.4 5.3
Witbank 33.53 6.71 5.49 3.96 1.7 2.8
Witbank 115.82 9.14 6.1 1.83 5.0 8.1
Highveld 169 21.81 6.19 2.58 8.5 7.0
Vereeniging 70 12 6 2.6 4.6 3.9
Vereeniging 104 11 6 3 3.7 6.2
Vereeniging 110.5 12 5 2.8 4.3 5.5
Vereeniging 110.5 12 5 3 4.0 5.5
Vereeniging 70 20.57 5 2.6 7.9 2.7
Vereeniging 70 15.44 5 2.6 5.9 3.1
Vereeniging 93 10 6 2.9 3.4 6.0
Vereeniging 84 11 5.89 2.77 4.0 5.0

203
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 11.5 Details of the South African Coal Pillar Database – Un-collapsed cases continued
Coalfield Depth [m] Pillar width Bord width Mining w/h Tributary
[m] [m] height [m] Load [MPa]
Vereeniging 84 11.5 5.89 2.77 4.2 4.8
Witbank 47.24 6.1 7.62 5.18 1.2 6.0
Witbank 64.01 6.1 6.25 3.44 1.8 6.6
Witbank 91.44 10.67 6.1 4.27 2.5 5.6
Witbank 38.1 4.27 5.49 1.52 2.8 5.0
Witbank 106.68 12.19 6.1 4.27 2.9 6.0
Witbank 88.39 9.14 6.1 3.05 3.0 6.1
Klip River 84.65 6 6 1.75 3.4 8.5
Witbank 85.34 7.62 6.1 3.05 2.5 6.9
Witbank 108.51 8.84 6.4 2.29 3.9 8.1
Soutpansberg 79.4 24 6 3 8.0 3.1
Soutpansberg 138.89 17.78 6 3 5.9 6.2
Soutpansberg 138.89 31.06 6 3 10.4 4.9
Soutpansberg 79.4 19.47 6 3 6.5 3.4
Witbank 60.96 7.01 6.71 3.35 2.1 5.8
Witbank 30.48 6.1 6.1 3.2 1.9 3.0
Witbank 44.2 6.1 6.1 4.27 1.4 4.4
Witbank 42.8 7 6 2.2 3.2 3.7
Witbank 67.8 11 6 4 2.8 4.0
Witbank 67.8 11.73 6 4 2.9 3.9
Witbank 36.3 8 6 3.7 2.2 2.8
Highveld 51.8 10.98 6.02 2.88 3.8 3.1
Highveld 124.9 18.27 5.73 2.67 6.8 5.4
Highveld 110 17.82 6.18 3.46 5.2 5.0
Highveld 146.2 19.89 6.29 2.91 6.8 6.3
Witbank 68.9 12.9 6 3 4.3 3.7
Witbank 34.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 1.0 4.1
Witbank 33.8 8 6 2.4 3.3 2.6
Witbank 52.8 8 6 3 2.7 4.0
Witbank 38.37 8.1 6.4 5.9 1.4 3.1
Witbank 52.8 11.3 6 3 3.8 3.1
Witbank 45.72 6.1 6.1 4.57 1.3 4.6
Witbank 219.46 21.73 5.58 3.17 6.9 8.7
Witbank 76.2 7.62 6.1 4.57 1.7 6.2
Witbank 106.68 6.71 5.49 1.19 5.6 8.8
Free State 182.88 16.92 5.94 2.44 6.9 8.3
Free State 91.44 12.19 6.1 1.52 8.0 5.1
Free State 35.05 9.75 5.49 2.44 4.0 2.1
Free State 50.6 6.1 6.1 1.37 4.5 5.1
Free State 76.2 9.14 6.1 1.37 6.7 5.3
Free State 35.05 7.32 4.88 2.59 2.8 2.4
Free State 42 5 10 1.8 2.8 9.5
Free State 36 5 7 2.4 2.1 5.2
Free State 38 5 7 1.8 2.8 5.5
Free State 22 6 6 1.5 4.0 2.2

204
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

TABLE 11.5 Details of the South African Coal Pillar Database – Un-collapsed cases continued
Coalfield Depth [m] Pillar width Bord width Mining w/h Tributary
[m] [m] height [m] Load [MPa]
Witbank 36.58 6.1 6.1 3.66 1.7 3.7
Witbank 51.82 7.62 6.1 3.66 2.1 4.2
Witbank 137.16 12.8 5.49 3.66 3.5 7.0
Witbank 91.44 9.14 6.1 4.57 2.0 6.4
Witbank 45.72 7.62 6.1 4.88 1.6 3.7
Witbank 19.81 7.62 6.1 3.2 2.4 1.6
Utrecht 29.77 14 5 3 4.7 1.4
Utrecht 58.53 11.42 6 3.5 3.3 3.4
Utrecht 58.53 14 6 3.5 4.0 3.0
Utrecht 42.59 15 6 3.7 4.1 2.1
Utrecht 13.22 8 6 2.6 3.1 1.0
Utrecht 65.78 10 5 2.2 4.5 3.7
Utrecht 54.65 10 5 2.2 4.5 3.1
Utrecht 54.99 9.47 5 3 3.2 3.2
Witbank 45.72 6.55 6.4 3.51 1.9 4.5
Witbank 82 12 6 3 4.0 4.6
Witbank 70.1 12 6 3.35 3.6 3.9
Witbank 21.34 6.1 6.71 2.74 2.2 2.4
Witbank 30.48 6.4 6.4 3.66 1.7 3.0
Witbank 41.15 6.4 6.4 1.98 3.2 4.1
Zululand 78.54 14 6 2.7 5.2 4.0
Zululand 78.54 14 6 2.4 5.8

205
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

11.2.3 USA (1999); Mark (2006) summarised three modes of coal

The USA National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) collated 645 case histories of
retreat mining workings. It makes the data available as
part of its Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability
(ARMPS) software (14). That data has been filtered to
include only those 170 cases of development workings,
to equate the USA database to the bord & pillar
workings of the Australian and South African cases.
The data is summarised in Table 11.6 and Figure
11.3. It is detailed in Table 11.7 for the 35 collapsed
cases and in Table 11.8 for the 135 un-collapsed cases.
NIOSH defines ‘massive collapses’ as pillar failures
that take place rapidly and involve large areas. It is
worth noting that all the massive collapses involved
geometries with w/h < 3. This ratio was used to define
‘slender pillars’ by Mark (1999) but the ratio was
subsequently revised to w/h < 4 (Mark 2006). Mark
pillar behaviour noting that predicting pillar strength
becomes more difficult as the ratio of pillar width to
height (w/h) increases.
• Sudden, massive collapse for slender pillars; w/h < 4
• Squeezing, non-violent failure; 4 < w/h <10
• Squat ‘indestructible’ pillars which have w/h > 10.
There are six definite outliers in the USA database
of un-collapsed pillars. These pillars can be seen
within the annotated ellipse in Figure 11.3 with w/h
≈ 3 and at between 425 and 600 m depth. The six
cases come from two mines in Utah which work
highly rectangular pillars, the dimensions of which
are 9 x 34 m and 11 x 31 m (as highlighted in Table
11.8). In fact, the ratios between the pillar dimensions
(3.77 and 2.70, respectively) are the largest of the
un-collapsed database.
Galvin et al. (1999) recognised the influence of

TABLE 11.6 Summary of the USA coal pillar database

Case Number of Depth [m] w/h
cases

Squeeze 23 76 – 488 1.0 – 8.0

Collapsed Massive collapse 11 53 – 168 1.5 – 2.5

Local burst 1 472 5.9

Un-collapsed 135 64– 594 3.0 – 16.7

w/h
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
0

50

100

150

200

250
Depth [m]

300

350

400

450

500
Uncollapsed
Collapsed - squeeze
550
Collapsed - massive
Collapsed - Local burst
600

FIGURE 11.3 The database of USA development workings coal pillars collated by NIOSH

(14)
ARMPS(2010) v.6.2.02 August 2013 downloaded from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1813.html on 6th November 2014

206
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

rectangular pillars and recommended calculating an If this approach was adopted for the six outlier cases,
effective pillar width as the harmonic mean according then their w/h would increase to 4.6 to 6.0. 
to Equation 5.10 where w1 ≤ w2 .

EQUATION 11.3

TABLE 11.7 Details of the USA coal pillar database – Collapsed cases (the last 12 cases are those defined
as massive collapses or rock burst and are shown in italics)
Case Depth Pillar Width Pillar w/h Bord
[m] m] Height Width
State Mine (minimum width) [m] [m]
KY 20 442 15.2 x 9.1 9.1 1.8 5.0 6.1
KY 20 396 15.2 x 9.1 9.1 1.7 5.5 6.1
KY 42 320 15.5 x 11 11.0 1.8 6.0 5.8
KY 60 396 18.6 x 11 11.0 1.8 6.2 5.8
KY 74 326 22.6 x 16.5 16.5 3.7 4.5 5.5
KY 75 122 9.1 x 9.1 9.1 2.0 4.6 6.1
KY 91 244 15.2 x 12.2 12.2 2.3 5.3 6.1
KY 128 396 22.9 x 22.9 22.9 3.4 6.8 6.1
KY 128 488 29 x 24.4 24.4 3.2 7.6 6.1
KY 137 244 15.2 x 15.2 15.2 4.0 3.8 6.1
OH 92 158 9.8 x 7.7 7.7 1.8 4.2 5.5
OH 92 198 9.8 x 7.7 7.7 1.8 4.2 5.5
UT 59 305 18.3 x 12.2 12.2 2.0 6.2 6.1
VA 16 488 24.4 x 16.8 16.8 4.0 4.2 6.1
WV 2 91 3 x 12.2 3.0 2.4 1.3 6.1
WV 67 351 18.3 x 15.2 15.2 1.9 8.0 6.1
WV 79 130 12.2 x 3 3.0 2.4 1.3 6.1
Collapsed

WV 79 122 12.2 x 3 3.0 2.5 1.2 6.1

WV 81 76 12.2 x 3 3.0 2.1 1.5 6.1
WV 82 122 12.2 x 3 3.0 3.0 1.0 6.1
WV 133 122 12.2 x 3 3.0 1.5 2.0 6.1
WV 133 114 12.2 x 3 3.0 1.4 2.2 6.1
WV 134 76 13.7 x 3.8 3.8 2.1 1.8 6.1
CO 111 91 4.1 x 19.4 4.1 2.1 1.9 11.1
UT 11 168 12.2 x 12.2 12.2 5.3 2.3 6.1
WV 23 73 12.2 x 3 3.0 3.0 1.0 6.1
WV 23 73 18.3 x 3 3.0 3.0 1.0 6.1
WV 23 85 6.1 x 12.2 6.1 3.0 2.0 6.1
WV 23 75 3 x 12.2 3.0 3.0 1.0 6.1
WV 36 69 6.1 x 6.1 6.1 3.4 1.8 6.1
WV 57 53 12.2 x 3 3.0 3.0 1.0 6.1
WV 76 91 6.1 x 6.1 6.1 2.4 2.5 6.1
WV 82 84 12.2 x 3 3.0 2.9 1.1 6.1
WV 82 84 12.2 x 3 3.0 2.9 1.1 6.1
CO 116 472 18.3 x 15.2 15.2 2.6 5.9 6.1

207
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 11.8 Details of the USA coal pillar database – Un-collapsed cases
Case Depth Pillar Width Pillar w/h Bord
[m] m] Height Width
State Mine (minimum width) [m] [m]
KY 21 269 18.3 x 12.2 12.2 1.8 6.7 6.1
KY 21 329 18.3 x 12.2 12.2 1.7 7.1 6.1
KY 21 271 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.4 12.8 6.1
KY 21 361 18.3 x 21.3 18.3 1.5 12.5 6.1
KY 21 354 18.3 x 21.3 18.3 1.6 11.1 6.1
KY 21 344 18.3 x 15.2 15.2 1.8 8.5 6.1
KY 21 341 12.2 x 15.2 12.2 1.5 8.3 6.1
KY 21 305 18.3 x 12.2 12.2 1.5 8.3 6.1
KY 22 224 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.1 16.7 6.1
KY 22 225 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.2 15.8 6.1
KY 22 293 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 13.6 6.1
KY 22 193 14.9 x 19.8 14.9 1.2 12.7 6.1
KY 25 234 19.8 x 15.2 15.2 2.0 7.7 6.1
KY 25 156 15.2 x 15.2 15.2 2.0 7.8 6.1
KY 25 88 14.9 x 15.2 14.9 1.9 7.8 6.1
KY 25 117 18.3 x 19.8 18.3 1.9 9.5 6.1
KY 25 234 18.3 x 21.3 18.3 2.0 9.2 6.1
KY 25 156 18.3 x 36.6 18.3 2.0 9.4 6.1
KY 25 187 19.2 x 27.4 19.2 2.7 7.1 6.1
KY 28 305 21.3 x 21.6 21.3 1.6 13.3 6.1
KY 30 238 14.9 x 15.2 14.9 1.6 9.2 6.1
KY 30 184 19.2 x 18.3 18.3 1.5 12.5 6.1
Un-collapsed

KY 32 546 18.3 x 16.8 16.8 1.5 11.0 6.1

KY 32 424 18.3 x 15.2 15.2 1.6 9.6 6.1
KY 58 427 24.4 x 27.4 24.4 1.6 15.1 6.1
KY 61 189 12.5 x 15.2 12.5 2.2 5.6 6.1
KY 61 436 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 2.2 8.2 6.1
KY 61 433 18.3 x 24.4 18.3 2.2 8.2 6.1
KY 61 490 18.3 x 24.4 18.3 2.2 8.2 6.1
KY 77 537 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.7 10.9 6.1
KY 85 274 12.2 x 9.1 9.1 1.6 5.8 6.1
KY 100 274 12.2 x 9.1 9.1 1.3 6.9 6.1
KY 100 274 12.2 x 10.7 10.7 1.3 8.3 6.1
KY 100 236 9.1 x 9.1 9.1 1.3 7.0 6.1
KY 100 290 9.1 x 6.1 6.1 1.3 4.6 6.1
KY 100 274 9.1 x 9.1 9.1 1.6 5.8 6.1
KY 100 290 9.1 x 9.1 9.1 1.6 5.7 6.1
KY 100 274 12.2 x 10.7 10.7 1.4 7.8 6.1
KY 100 320 12.2 x 12.2 12.2 1.4 8.4 6.1
KY 100 274 12.2 x 12.2 12.2 1.6 7.6 6.1
KY 100 297 12.2 x 9.1 9.1 1.4 6.3 6.1
KY 100 305 9.1 x 9.1 9.1 1.4 6.3 6.1
KY 114 152 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.4 13.3 6.1
KY 114 217 27.4 x 16.8 16.8 1.4 12.2 6.1
KY 114 217 19.2 x 27.4 19.2 1.4 14.0 6.1
KY 131 335 18.6 x 9.4 9.4 1.7 5.6 5.8

208
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

TABLE 11.8 Details of the USA coal pillar database – Un-collapsed cases continued
Case Depth Pillar Width Pillar w/h Bord
[m] m] Height Width
State Mine (minimum width) [m] [m]
KY 131 366 12.5 x 12.5 12.5 1.7 7.5 5.8
OH 92 181 9.8 x 7.7 7.7 1.8 4.2 5.5
OH 92 164 9.8 x 7.7 7.7 1.8 4.2 5.5
OH 92 204 11.3 x 9 9.0 1.8 4.9 5.5
OH 92 161 9.8 x 7.7 7.7 1.8 4.2 5.5
OH 92 196 11.3 x 11.3 11.3 1.8 6.2 5.5
OH 92 158 9.8 x 7.7 7.7 1.8 4.2 5.5
OH 92 154 9.8 x 7.7 7.7 1.8 4.2 5.5
OH 92 153 9.8 x 7.7 7.7 1.8 4.2 5.5
OH 92 157 9.8 x 7.7 7.7 1.8 4.2 5.5
OH 92 179 15.8 x 12.8 12.8 1.8 7.0 5.5
OH 92 162 15.8 x 12.8 12.8 2.4 5.3 5.5
OH 92 183 15.8 x 12.8 12.8 1.8 7.0 5.5
PA 99 64 5.2 x 5.2 5.2 1.3 4.0 5.5
PA 113 76 12.5 x 12.5 12.5 1.5 8.2 5.8
PA 120 260 24.4 x 21.3 21.3 2.1 10.0 5.2
UT 3 585 11.3 x 30.5 11.3 2.9 3.9 6.1
UT 4 207 20.4 x 18.3 18.3 2.1 8.6 6.1
UT 4 259 20.4 x 18.3 18.3 2.1 8.6 6.1
UT 5 137 12.5 x 12.2 12.2 1.4 8.9 6.1
UT 5 244 18.3 x 21.3 18.3 1.4 13.3 6.1
UT 5 244 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.4 13.3 6.1
Un-collapsed

UT 5 114 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.4 13.3 6.1

UT 5 183 20.4 x 18.3 18.3 1.4 13.3 6.1
UT 5 259 20.4 x 18.3 18.3 1.4 13.3 6.1
UT 35 579 34.4 x 9.1 9.1 3.0 3.0 6.1
UT 35 594 34.4 x 9.1 9.1 3.0 3.0 6.1
UT 35 503 34.4 x 9.1 9.1 3.0 3.0 6.1
UT 35 427 34.4 x 9.1 9.1 3.0 3.0 6.1
UT 35 549 34.4 x 9.1 9.1 3.0 3.0 6.1
UT 121 305 9.1 x 24.4 9.1 2.7 3.3 6.1
VA 8 518 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.7 10.9 6.1
VA 52 213 14.3 x 13.7 13.7 1.1 12.9 6.1
VA 52 168 16.8 x 24.4 16.8 1.1 15.7 6.1
VA 52 305 14.3 x 13.7 13.7 1.1 12.9 6.1
VA 52 183 14.3 x 30.5 14.3 1.1 13.4 6.1
VA 52 244 14.3 x 13.7 13.7 1.1 12.9 6.1
VA 64 282 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1
VA 64 244 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1
VA 64 314 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1
VA 64 314 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1
VA 64 274 18.3 x 15.2 15.2 1.3 11.8 6.1
VA 64 335 24.4 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1
VA 64 335 24.4 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1
VA 64 282 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1
VA 64 174 24.4 x 15.2 15.2 1.3 11.8 6.1

209
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 11.8 Details of the USA coal pillar database – Un-collapsed cases continued
Case Depth Pillar Width Pillar w/h Bord
[m] m] Height Width
State Mine (minimum width) [m] [m]
VA 64 296 19.2 x 15.2 15.2 1.3 11.8 6.1
VA 64 280 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1
VA 64 238 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1
VA 64 305 14.3 x 18.3 14.3 1.3 11.1 6.1
VA 64 305 24.4 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1
VA 64 244 24.4 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1
VA 88 396 24.4 x 21.3 21.3 1.5 14.0 6.1
VA 88 411 17.4 x 15.2 15.2 1.5 10.0 6.1
VA 112 198 14.9 x 12.2 12.2 1.4 8.4 6.1
VA 112 209 14.9 x 12.2 12.2 1.4 8.4 6.1
VA 112 233 19.2 x 12.2 12.2 1.4 8.4 6.1
VA 112 197 19.2 x 12.2 12.2 1.4 8.4 6.1
VA 112 122 19.2 x 12.2 12.2 1.4 8.4 6.1
VA 141 145 21.6 x 15.2 15.2 1.1 14.3 6.1
VA 141 152 21.6 x 15.2 15.2 1.1 14.3 6.1
VA 141 163 12.5 x 9.1 9.1 1.1 8.6 6.1
VA 141 158 21.6 x 9.1 9.1 1.1 8.6 6.1
VA 141 183 19.2 x 9.1 9.1 1.1 8.6 6.1
VA 141 160 19.2 x 9.1 9.1 1.1 8.6 6.1
WV 6 210 21.6 x 21.3 21.3 1.6 13.2 6.1
WV 6 164 24.4 x 15.2 15.2 1.6 9.4 6.1
WV 33 198 18.3 x 21.3 18.3 3.5 5.2 6.1
WV 33 175 21.6 x 21.3 21.3 3.9 5.4 6.1
WV 33 171 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 3.6 5.1 6.1
WV 40 333 18.3 x 27.4 18.3 2.0 9.0 6.1
WV 40 335 21.6 x 18.3 18.3 1.9 9.7 6.1
WV 40 335 24.4 x 24.4 24.4 1.9 12.7 6.1
WV 40 326 18.3 x 24.4 18.3 2.0 9.2 6.1
WV 66 305 18.3 x 15.2 15.2 1.8 8.3 6.1
WV 70 283 16.5 x 18.3 16.5 2.0 8.2 6.1
WV 70 240 14.9 x 24.4 14.9 2.0 7.4 6.1
WV 83 219 14.9 x 15.2 14.9 1.6 9.2 6.1
WV 118 122 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 2.0 9.0 6.1
WV 118 114 18.3 x 12.2 12.2 1.6 7.4 6.1
WV 118 114 18.3 x 12.2 12.2 1.6 7.4 6.1
WV 144 186 12.5 x 18.3 12.5 1.0 12.6 6.1
WV 144 219 12.5 x 18.3 12.5 1.0 12.6 6.1
WV 144 226 12.5 x 18.3 12.5 1.0 12.6 6.1
WV 144 146 12.5 x 18.3 12.5 1.0 12.6 6.1
WV 144 215 12.5 x 18.3 12.5 1.0 12.6 6.1
WV 144 223 12.5 x 18.3 12.5 1.0 12.6 6.1
WV 144 192 12.5 x 18.3 12.5 1.0 12.6 6.1
WV 144 143 12.5 x 18.3 12.5 1.0 12.6 6.1

210
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

11.2.4 India
Sheorey et al. (1987) collated the details of 23
collapsed and 20 un-collapsed cases from Indian coal
mines ranging from 23 to 450 m depth. The data is
summarised in Table 11.9 and Figure 11.4. It is detailed
in Table 11.10.
The cases at 450 m depth all come from the Jitpur
shaft XIV seam which has weaker coal (Sheorey et al.
1987). Further, numerical analyses reported in Sheorey
and Singh (1982) show that in this seam ‘virtually
the whole shaft pillar area has been in a state of post-
failure squeezing’. It is inferred from this that the ‘un-
collapsed’ pillars from the Jitpur mine are yielding.

TABLE 11.9 Summary of the Indian coal pillar database

Case Number of Depth [m] w/h
cases

Collapsed Stable 23 23 – 450 0.6 – 6.7

Stable 15 30 – 270 1.4 – 8.3

Un-collapsed
Yielding 5 450 6.4 – 7.6

w/h
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
0

50

100

150

200

250
Depth [m]

300

350

400

450

500 Un-collapsed
Collapsed
550
Yielding

600

FIGURE 11.4 The database of Indian coal pillars

211
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 11.10 Details of the Indian coal pillar database

Case Depth Pillar Width Pillar w/h Bord
[m] m] Height Width
Mine Seam (minimum width) [m] [m]
Amritnagar Nega Jamehari 30 3.6 3.6 4.5 0.80 4.7
Amritnagar Nega Jamehari 30 3.6 3.6 6 0.60 5.4
Begonia Begonia 36 3.9 3.9 3 1.30 6
Amlai Burhar 30 4.5 4.5 5.4 0.83 4.5
Sendra Bansjora X 23 4.65 4.65 8.1 0.57 5.55
W. Chrimiri Main 90 5.4 5.4 3.75 1.44 6
Birsingpur Johilla top 129 7.5 7.5 3.6 2.08 6
Pure Kajora Lower Kajora 54 5.4 5.4 3.6 1.50 6
Pure Kajora Pure Kajora 56 4.95 4.95 3.6 1.38 6.45
Shankapur Jambad bottom 42 4.5 4.5 4.8 0.94 4.5
Collapsed

Ramnagar Begunia 70 2.85 2.85 1.8 1.58 3.15

Ramnagar Begunia 51 3 3 1.8 1.67 3.6
Kankanee XIII 160 19.8 19.8 6.6 3.00 4.2
Kankanee XIV 140 18.6 18.6 8.4 2.21 5.4
Jitpur XIV 450 18 34.5 3.6 6.50 6
Jitpur XIV 450 10.5 12 3.6 3.08 6
Jitpur XIV 450 12 21 3.6 4.13 6
Jitpur XIV 450 18 21 3.6 5.33 6
Jitpur XIV 450 18 25.5 3.6 5.83 6
Jitpur XIV 450 15 63 3.6 6.67 6
Jitpur XIV 450 18 30 3.6 6.25 6
Jitpur XIV 450 18 30 3.6 6.25 6
Jitpur XIV 450 30 43.5 3.6 5.67 6
Belampalli Ross 36 5.4 8.4 3 1.80 6
Nimcha Nega 48 9.9 9.9 6 1.65 6
Morganpit Salarjung 270 8.1 8.1 3 2.70 3.6
Ramnagar Ramnagar 75 9.9 9.9 2.7 3.67 6.6
Lacchipur Lower Kajora 38 7.2 7.2 5.1 1.41 3.9
N Salanpur X 30 9 9 5.1 1.76 6
Bankola Jambad top 102 10.1 10.1 4.8 2.10 2.4
Bankola Jambad top 75 6.3 6.3 3 2.10 4.2
Un-collapsed

Surakacchar G-I 106 16 16 3.5 4.57 4

Lacchipur Lower Kajora 38 18.3 18.3 5.1 3.59 4.2
Sripur Koithee 266 40 40 4.8 8.33 5
E Angarpathra XIII 30 6 6 2.1 2.86 6
Kargali incline Kathara 36 9.3 9.3 3.6 2.58 5.8
Jamadoba 6 & 7 XVI 80 5.8 5.8 2 2.90 5.5
Topsi Singharan 85 7 7 1.8 3.89 3.9
Jitpur XIV 450 21 39 3.6 7.60 6
Jitpur XIV 450 18 48 3.6 7.30 6
Jitpur XIV 450 19.5 30 3.6 6.50 6
Jitpur XIV 450 18 31.5 3.6 6.40 6
Jitpur XIV 450 18 42 3.6 7.00 6

212
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

11.2.5 Combined
The aforementioned cases from Australia, South Africa,
the USA and India are shown combined in Figure
11.5 for the collapsed and the un-collapsed pillars. A
general trend of increasing pillar width to height ratio
with increasing depth can be seen, notwithstanding
the outlier cases previously discussed. The arbitrary
line shown is w/h = 2.0 + 0.0125 x depth. This does a
reasonable job in differentiating the collapsed pillars
over the complete range of depths and of the un-
collapsed pillars below about 100 m depth.
The ranges covered by the combined coal pillar
database are summarised in Table 11.11. As can be
seen in Figure 11.5, the combined data includes 15
collapsed cases with w/h > 5 and three cases with w/h
approximately equal to 8. All the collapsed cases have
w/h ≤ 8.

FIGURE 11.5 The combined collapsed and un-collapsed database. The circled cases are the yielding pillars from Jitpur, India
and the highly rectangular pillars from Utah, USA. The bottom plots are subsets of the database focussing on the cases
above 200 m depth. The line shown is w/h = 2.0 + 0.0125 x depth.

213
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
TABLE 11.11 Summary of the combined coal pillar database
Case Number of cases
Collapsed
Un-collapsed
11.2.6 Other
Gale (1998) demonstrated that the mechanical
response of coal and surrounding strata defines pillar
strength and argued that pillar strength formulae, such
as Equation 11.1 and Equation 11.2, over-simplify the
problem. He plotted the results of numerical modelling
as a graph of pillar strength and w/h to estimate the
range of possible pillar strengths (Figure 11.6). In his
work, Gale (1998) assumed a coal rock mass strength
of 6.5 MPa as indicated by the horizontal line labelled
‘No Confinement Generated’ in Figure 11.6.
Gale (1998) plotted onto this figure, field data from
34 cases from collieries in Australia, UK and the
USA that had measured pillar stress values. All but
FIGURE 11.6 Measured pillar stress from various pillar geometries as presented by Gale (1998). The shaded area shows the
range of possible pillar strengths
214
Depth [m] w/h
162 19 – 488 0.6 – 8.0
507 13 – 594 1.0 – 16.7
one case, plotted within the bounds predicted by his
numerical modelling.
To further this research, the aforementioned
Australia, South Africa, USA and India databases are
superimposed onto this figure. Most the cases plot
with low vertical stress (Figure 11.7). However, in
superimposing the cases it was necessary to assume
that the vertical stress as calculated using the Tributary
Area approximates the average pillar strength. While
that assumption may be reasonable for collapsed
pillars, it should under-estimate the strength of
un-collapsed pillars.
For that reason, the un-collapsed cases are removed
and only the collapsed cases are shown in Figure 11.8.
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

FIGURE 11.7 The Australian (blue), South African (green), USA (orange) and Indian (red) databases superimposed onto the
plot in Figure 11.6

The bulk of the 162 collapsed pillars plot within the

bounds suggested by Gale (1998). However, there are
42 South African, 13 USA and 5 Indian cases which lie
below 6.5MPa. Interrogating the combined database
the data indicates that, with the exception of the Jitpur
shaft pillars, these pillars are slender (w/h ≤ 4), which
according to Mark (2006) run the risk of ‘sudden,
massive collapse’. Specifically, the cases that plot below
the ‘No Confinement Generated’ line comprise:
• South Africa
„„ 29 pillars with w/h ≤ 3 in ‘normal’ coal
„„ 13 ‘weak’ coal pillars and with w/h ≤ 4
• USA
„„ 11 very slender pillars (w/h ≤ 2)
„„ 2 slender pillars (w/h ≤ 4)

FIGURE 11.8 Close-up of Figure 11.7 showing only • India

collapsed cases from Australia (blue), South Africa (green „„ 5 shaft pillars from Jitpur which is a weaker coal
triangles are ‘normal coal; green circles are ‘weak coal’), (Sheorey et al. 1987)
USA (orange) and Indian (red). The grey dashed line is
drawn at 3.15 MPa.
A value of 3.15 MPa for the ‘No Confinement
Generated’ line instead of the 6.5 MPa assumed by
Gale (1998) appears to be appropriate for the ‘weak’
coal pillars and the Jitpur cases (Figure 11.8). This is

215
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
in keeping with the average strength recommended by
van der Merwe (2003) for ‘weak’ coal. This still leaves
the very slender pillars (w/h ≤ 2) outside the envelope.
However, as described by York et al. (2000) thin pillars
are highly subject to geological structures – faults,
shears, joints.
The fact that very slender pillars and pillars from
‘weak’ coal seams plot below the minimum strength
assessed by Gale (1998) suggests that the coal rock
mass strength does play a role in pillar strength.
11.3 UCS
Coal is one of the few rocks that has been extensively
tested at various scales. The results of the testing
confirm that coal’s strength reduces as the sample size
increases, e.g. Bieniawski (1968); Esterhuizen et al.
(2010). But if the applicability of the typical methods
for estimating rock mass strength is to be assessed, e.g.
Hoek-Brown / GSI, then knowledge of the UCS of
coal is required.
As an aside, the UCS is simply a repeatable index of
strength. In the case of coal, an organic rock giving it
unique constituents and properties which tend to result
in greater scatter in laboratory tests than other rocks
(Hoek and Brown 1997), that repeatable index cannot
be reliably obtained by uniaxial strength testing.
Instead, Medhurst and Brown (1998) recommend
estimating the UCS of coal from triaxial testing.
11.3.1 Australia
Medhurst and Brown (1998) found a trend of decreasing
strength with increase in coal ‘brightness’. The ‘brighter’
the coal, the higher its fixed carbon content and the
more cleating it has. They estimated the UCS for coal
from the Moura mine in Queensland to be 32.7 MPa
for dull coal; 22.5 MPa for mid-bright coal; and 9.9
MPa for high-bright coal. They postulated that the
laboratory samples of dull coal were essentially ‘intact’;
i.e. dull coal has negligible cleating; and that brighter
coals are ‘broken’ on cleating to various degrees. On
that basis, they derived Hoek-Brown parameters from
regression analysis of triaxial laboratory testing of 61 to
300 mm diameter core samples.
For dull coal core samples, they proposed ‘intact
rock’ parameters of σc = 35 MPa, mi = 16.7, s = 1.0 and
a = 0.5. For mid-bright coal mass, they proposed the
parameters of σc = 22.5 MPa, mb = 2.6, s = 0.052 and a
= 0.65. The Moura coal is a medium rank high-volatile
coal; a classification that places it in the middle of the
coalification series, i.e. anthracite – bituminous coal
– sub-bituminous coal – lignite. Hence, the strength
parameters of Moura coal might be reasonable ‘average’
or ‘typical’ values.
Increasing the sample scale to a nominal 1 m3 cube
of coal, the design compressive strength values adopted
in Australia are in the order of 5.4 to 8.6 MPa, (Gale
216
1998; Galvin et al. 1999). The adopted value is mainly
dependent on the form of the empirical strength
equation used, i.e. linear or power (see Equation 11.1
and Chapter 5.3).
11.3.2 South Africa
Bieniawski (1968) collated the compressive strength
results of 579 tests on 1 inch cubes of coal from 10
South African coal seams. The average results from
the 10 sets of data ranged between 5000 to 8200 lb/
in2 (i.e. 34.5 to 56.5 MPa), with the overall average of
6054 lb/in2 (41.7 MPa).
The cubes are not directly equivalent to UCS or
triaxial core samples. Because of their shape and smaller
size, the cubes are expected to give higher compressive
strengths than standard UCS samples. Townsend et
al. (1977) tested over 200 cubes and cylinders with
areas of 3 to 16 in2 and found that small cylindrical
samples (1.7” or 43 mm diameter) were typically 20 to
30% weaker than cubical samples of the same cross-
section. The difference between the cube and cylinder
strength diminishes with increasing sample size. They
postulated that sample preparation caused the bulk
of the difference. Masoumi (2013) also attributed the
decrease in strength he experimentally found with
core diameter smaller than about 50 to 65 mm, to the
relative proportion of surface damage during specimen
preparation. Hence, the expected compressive strength
of a standard UCS sample based on the 1-inch cube
tests could be approximately 20 to 30% weaker, i.e. in
the range of 24 to 40 MPa with an average of 30 MPa.
Mathey and van der Merwe (2015) analysed 186
BTS, 403 UCS, 198 triaxial tests from numerous seams
from the South African coal fields. Their analysis did
not show significant differences between coals from
different seams. They found that:
• a lognormal distribution with overall mean of 1.6
MPa and individual means for the coal seams of
between 1.05 – 1.89 MPa fits the BTS data
• a normal distribution with overall mean of 23 MPa
and individual means for the coal seams of between
19 – 26 MPa fits the UCS data.
The ratio between UCS and BTS implies mi = 23
/ 1.6 = 14.4 with a range of 13.7 – 18.1. This is in
keeping with mi = 16.7 found by Medhurst and Brown
(1998). As too is the mean UCS of 23 MPa compared
with 22.5 MPa for mid-bright Moura coal.
The range of estimated strengths for a 1 ft3 to
1 m3 cube of South African coal suggested by various
researchers is between 4.0 and 9.1 MPa (Taylor and
Fowell 2003). This range includes the ‘weaker’ coals
from the Vaal Basin and Klip River, which van der
Merwe (1993) distinguishes as having a nominal
strength for 1 m3 cube of 4.5 MPa instead of the
typical 7.2 MPa of Salamon and Munro (1967).
Salamon et al. (2006) quote slightly different values

of between 1.0 and 6.8 MPa, with overall averages
of 4.6 to 5.4 MPa, again depending on the form of
empirical equation used to estimate coal pillar strength.
11.3.3 USA
Holland (1964) summarised the compressive strength
tests on 3-inch cube samples of coal as varying
between 1000 to 7000 psi (6.9 to 48.3 MPa) when
tested perpendicular to bedding and between 800 to
5000 psi (5.5 to 34.5 MPa) when tested parallel to
bedding. Assuming that the equivalent cylindrical
samples (i.e. 75 mm diameter) would be typically 20
to 30% weaker (Townsend et al. 1977), the implied
compressive strength perpendicular to bedding is in
the range of 5 to 34 MPa.
The individual tests of nearly two thousand UCS
tests from 54 coal seams in the USA, range between
4 and 47 MPa (Mark and Barton 1997). Interestingly,
the overall average was found by to be 23.4 MPa,
which is a similar value to that of mid-bright coal from
Moura mine (22.5 MPa).
Published compressive strength test data of USA
coal was collated in Du et al. (2008) for mainly cube
samples ranging between 1.5 to 54 inches. Their
regression analysis of the different data sets implied the
strength of a 1-inch cube to be between 3238 to 9837
psi (22.3 to 67.8 MPa) depending on the coal seam.
Again assuming equivalent cylindrical samples (i.e. 25
mm diameter) (Townsend et al. 1977) this suggests a
range of 15 to 47 MPa.
Esterhuizen et al. (2010) found the UCS of coal
varied between 16 and 40 MPa. They adopted the
following Hoek-Brown parameters for modelling coal
pillars; σc = 20 MPa, mi = 9.8, mb =1.47, s = 0.07 and
a = 0.5.
Mark and Barton (1997) concluded “ laboratory
testing should not be used to determine coal strength”
pointing out the strong influence that geological
structure (i.e. cleating) has on coal strength. They
recommended adopting a uniform value of 6.2 MPa
for the “coal strength” for US pillar designs (15).
Of interest, Unal (1983) gave RMR76 (= GSI) values of
between 40 to 70, typically 60, for 58 roof-fall cases
from underground coal mines in the USA.
11.3.4 India
As part of their assessment of failed and stable coal
pillars, Sheorey et al. (1987) determined the strength
of 25 mm cubes of coal and found it ranged from 19 to
50 MPa. The lower values coming from the Jitpur XIV
seam. Again assuming equivalent cylindrical samples
(i.e. 25 mm diameter) (Townsend et al. 1977) this
suggests a range of 13 to 35 MPa. Sheorey et al. (1989)
(15)
Pillar design using the Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability (ARMPS) method
11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies
reported UCS and triaxial testing of a further eight
Indian coal samples that had σc ranging from 14.3 to
43.7 MPa.
The results of in situ compressive testing of 0.3 m
cubes of coal were presented in a plot in Sheorey et
al. (1987) and showed a range of approximately 4 to
13 MPa. Jawed et al. (2013) found that the empirical
power relationship proposed by Salamon and Munro
(1967), best fits their data for slender pillars from
Indian coal fields using a compressive strength of
7.6 MPa.
11.3.5 UK
In developing numerical models to study yielding
pillars Yavuz and Fowell (2001) derived the following
Hoek-Brown criterion parameters for the Parkgate coal
seam: σc = 20 MPa, mi= 8.06, GSI = 46, mb = 1.17,
s = 0.055 and a = 0.5. Yavuz and Fowell (2001) state
mi = 8.06 is the average for British coal.
11.3.6 China
Coal samples comprising 50 mm diameter cylinders
from the Dongsheng coal field, of the Yongli colliery
in Inner Mongolia, China were tested for strength in a
laboratory programme comprising five UCS, four BTS
and 4 triaxial tests by He et al. (2016). The results were
(mean ± standard deviation): UCS = 21.7 MPa ± 5.5
MPa, BTS = 1.2 ± 0.2 MPa, and modulus, E = 2.9 GPa
± 1.2 GPa.
11.3.7 Conclusions
The UCS of coal is a difficult index to measure. It
is variable, broadly ranging from 5 to 45 MPa, which
classifies coal as ‘weak’ to ‘medium strong’ according
to ISRM (1978). However, the UCS ranges experienced
in Australia, South Africa, the USA, India, the UK
and China are remarkably similar as shown in Table
11.12 with an overall ‘average’ of about 20 MPa. This
is an interesting conclusion given the different geneses
of the coal deposits (see Section 11.3).
The design values adopted for the nominal 1 m3
cube of coal in South Africa, India, Australia and the
USA are also relatively similar, typically in the order of
4 to 7 MPa with an overall ‘average’ of about 6.5 MPa
(Table 11.13).
Others have noted the coal strength paradox: “why
a wide variation is commonly observed of the laboratory
compressive strength of coal yet the mass strength is
remarkably uniform between coal producing basins and
even between continents” (Poulsen and Adhikary 2013),
Hoek-Brown criterion parameters that have been
used in various locations as noted in the preceding
sections are listed in Table 11.14.
217
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 11.12 Summary of coal UCS data

Equivalent core Country UCS [MPa] Reference
diameter [mm] range, mean

25 (a) South Africa 24 to 40, 30 Bieniawski (1968)

USA 15 to 47 Du et al. (2008)

India 13 to 35, 20 Sheorey et al. (1987)

50 USA 4 to 47, 23.4 (Mark and Barton 1997)

USA 16 to 40, 20 Esterhuizen et al. (2010)

Australia 10 to 33, 22.5 Medhurst and Brown (1998)

South Africa 19 to 26, 23 Mathey and van der Merwe (2015)

India 14.3 to 43.7, 29.7 Sheorey et al. (1989)

UK 20 Yavuz and Fowell (2001)

China 21.7 ± 5.5 He et al. (2016)

75 USA 5 to 34 Holland (1964)

(a)
assessed equivalent strengths of 25 mm diameter core from testing of 25 mm cubes

TABLE 11.13 Summary of compressive strength of 1m3 coal samples

Country Compressive strength [MPa] Reference

Australia 5.4 to 8.6 Gale (1998), (Galvin et al. 1999)

South Africa 7.2 (b) Salamon and Munro (1967)

4.0 to 9.1 Taylor and Fowell (2003)

4.6 to 5.4 Salamon et al. (2006)

USA 6.2 Mark and Barton (1997)

India 7.6 (b) Jawed et al. (2013)

(b)
strengths of 0.3 m cubes

TABLE 11.14 Summary of coal Hoek-Brown parameters that have been used by others
Country mi mb s a Reference

Australia 16.7 2.6 0.052 0.65 Medhurst and Brown (1998)

South Africa 13.7 – 18.1 - - - Mathey and van der Merwe (2015)

USA 9.8 1.47 0.07 0.5 Esterhuizen et al. (2010)

UK 8.06 1.17 0.055 0.5 Yavuz and Fowell (2001)

218

11.4 NUMERICAL MODELLING
A series of numerical analyses have been carried out
using the three dimensional, finite element program
Abaqus(16) and the two dimensional, finite element
program Phase2 (17).
The first series models a generic layout of bord and
pillar workings in 3D and 2D (Section 11.5.2). The
intention is to confirm the ability of the numerical
modelling to match empiricism. Specific comparison
with the results obtained using the empirical method
of Galvin et al. (1999) is made.
The next three series model the coal pillar cases
contained within the databases:
• The Australian database in 3D (Section 11.5.3)
• The South African database in 2D (Section 11.5.4)
• The USA database in 2D (Section 11.5.5).
The overall objective of these analyses is to compare
the modelling results with proposed coal (rock mass)
strength criteria.
11.4.1 Parameters
11.4.1.1 Young’s modulus
The coal and rock mass are modelled as homogenous,
isotropic, linearly elastic materials. This simplification
is apt for these studies as the intent is to assess the
major and minor principal stresses acting in the
un-collapsed coal pillars and at the point of failure of
the collapsed coal pillars.
The equivalent mass modulus for the modelled coal
seam is assumed to be Em= 1000 MPa, based on the
following studies on core samples and cube samples
from 50 mm to 2 m.
• In situ testing of coal pillars showed decreasing
modulus with increasing pillar size, varying from
approximately 5000 MPa (0.72x106 psi) for 50 mm
(2’) cubes to 2900 MPa (0.42x106 psi) for 127 mm
(5’) cubes (Bieniawski 1968)
• an Heerden (1975) found an average modulus of
v
 A grid of coal pillars was modelled in Abaqus as shown in
4000 MPa for in situ testing of cubes up to 2 m in size
• A value of 2500 MPa was back-analysed by Duncan
Fama et al. (1995) in their numerical modelling
• Esterhuizen et al. (2010) used numerical analysis to
back-analyse a modulus for USA coal of 3000 MPa
• The range of modulus values obtained by Poulsen
et al. (2014) from testing coal seam core and back-
analysing the empirical approach of Galvin et al.
(1999) ranged from 990 to 3000 MPa
• Mathey and van der Merwe (2015) collate the laboratory
testing of South African coal samples and quote an
average modulus of 4450 MPa for core samples.
The exact value of the modelled modulus is not
important for these studies if the relative stiffness of
the coal and the surrounding rock mass is such that
(16)
Dassault Systems, version 2.0
(17)
RocScience, version 8.0
11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies
there are no issues with floor / roof failure and that
coal modulus can be assumed to be independent of
confinement. This is a similar approach to that taken
by other researchers, e.g. Duncan Fama et al. (1995).
For this reason, the rock mass modulus for the roof
and floor is assumed to be Em= 5000 MPa.
11.4.1.2 In situ stress
The in situ stresses are modelled as hydrostatic and are
considered to cover a broader range of stress conditions
within coal seams. This is based on several reasons.
Mark and Gadde (2010) analysed a database of more
than 350 stress measurements from underground coal
mines and found that:
• horizontal stress within coal measure rocks, i.e.
non-coal, comprises two components: one that is
between 0.8 and 2.0 times the vertical stress and
one that is an excess stress of approximately 3.5 to
10.5 MPa, which is independent of depth
• there is variability in the stress ratio across the
various coal fields throughout the world
• modulus was almost as powerful a predictor of the
stress as the depth.
Nemcik et al. (2006) also concluded that in layered,
sedimentary coal measure strata there is a strong
tendency for the stiffer rocks, i.e. non-coal, to carry
more stress. High horizontal stresses where present
would therefore be carried by the non-coal rocks.
Further, this study is focused on the stresses induced
within the coal pillars, which are predominantly
vertical. The horizontal stresses within the coal pillars
are the confining stresses which at the edges of the
pillars are zero. The same approach was followed
by Duncan Fama et al. (1995) in their numerical
modelling of coal pillars.
11.4.2 Generic cases
11.4.2.1 3D
Figure 11.9 with a 10 x 10 grid of 2 m high and variable
width square pillars to simulate bord and pillar workings.
The results of the modelling are presented as a series
of contour plots showing stresses, pillar strength and
Factor of Safety (FoS). The predicted stresses within
the pillars are taken as those acting along a horizontal
plane at mid-height through the coal pillars as shown
in Figure 11.10.
The ratio of Cp / Sp is adopted as the FoS where the
coal pillar strength is estimated using Equation 11.4
as proposed in Chapter 5.3 noting that coal under
low confinement, such as in slender pillars or at the
edges of pillars in general, displays brittle behaviour
suggestive of a damage initiation spalling limit (DISL)
type approach.
219
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 11.9 3D finite element model. In this example, a 2m thick coal seam is shown as the green coloured layer with 20
m x 20 m pillars (the overburden is not shown for clarity)

FIGURE 11.10 Contours of major principal stress, σ1 - top and FoS – bottom; on a horizontal plane through the mid-height of
the coal pillar. This example is for the case with 20 m square pillars at a depth of 500 m and UCS = 25 MPa. The bulk of the
coal pillar has a FoS ≈ 1.20, although a 1 m thick annulus has a FoS ≤ 0.5 and a further 2 m thick annulus has a FoS ≈ 1.0.

220
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

relationship proposed by Galvin et al. (1999) was used

to estimate Cp (Equation 11.1). i.e.
EQUATION 11.4

Two values of σc have been assumed; 10 and 25 MPa.

These approximately represent the bounds of “average” The Tributary Area Theory as defined by Equation
strengths of the UCS data presented in Section 11.4.4. 11.5 and Figure 11.11 is used to estimate Sp and hence
The FoS results are summarised in Table 11.15. FoS = Cp / Sp. The results are given in Table 11.16.
To compare the numerical modelling results, the
same 10 x 10 grid of 2 m high square coal pillars at 50,
100, 250 and 500 m depths was assessed following the
UNSW pillar design method. In this case, the linear EQUATION 11.5

TABLE 11.15 Summary of average FoS from Abaqus modelling of pillar geometries
PILLAR WIDTH 4 8 12 16 20
[m]
R=w/h 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
DEPTH [m] Average FoS for σc = 10 MPa & 25 MPa
50 0.90 & 1.50 1.90 & 3.30 2.40 & 4.20 3.00 & 5.10 3.30 & 5.70
250 0.45 & 0.60 0.80 & 1.20 1.10 & 1.40 1.20 & 1.60 1.20 & 1.65
500 0.40 & 0.45 0.70 & 0.80 0.85 & 1.05 0.95 & 1.15 0.95 & 1.20
1000 0.40 & 0.40 0.65 & 0.70 0.75 & 0.85 0.85 & 0.95 0.90 & 1.00

FIGURE 11.11 Definition of mining geometry following Galvin et al. (1999)

221
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 11.16 FoS results from UNSW method

PILLAR WIDTH [m] 4 8 12 16 20
R = w/h 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Pillar Strength
Cp [MPa] 7.37 11.88 16.38 20.89 25.40
Tributary Area [m2] 6.25 3.06 2.25 1.89 1.69
DEPTH [m] ESTIMATED PILLAR LOAD, Sp [MPa]
50 7.81 3.83 2.81 2.36 2.11
250 39.06 19.14 14.06 11.82 10.56
500 78.13 38.28 28.13 23.63 21.13
1000 156.25 76.56 56.25 47.27 42.25
DEPTH [m] FoS
50 0.94 3.10 5.83 8.85 12.04
250 0.19 0.62 1.17 1.77 2.40
500 0.09 0.31 0.58 0.88 1.20
1000 0.05 0.16 0.29 0.44 0.60

Equation 11.5 can be re-written to make pillar width
a function of FoS. The equation becomes the following
cubic, noting that for a regular grid of square pillars,
w1 = w2, b1 = b2 and θ =90°.
EQUATION 11.6
The pillar widths and corresponding ratio R = w/h
according to Equation 11.6 are tabulated in Table
11.17 for:
• FoS = 1.0 (i.e. pillar strength = pillar load)
• FoS = 1.62 and 2.09 which is equivalent to 1 pillar
failure in 100 and in 10,000 respectively according
to (Galvin 2006) when using the linear form of the
UNSW method, i.e. Equation 11.1.
The FoS predicted by the Abaqus modelling and by
the UNSW method are plotted against each other in
Figure 11.12. A good correlation does exist between the
two approaches but it is not a one-to-one relationship.
Generally, the Abaqus model predicts:
• lower FoS than the UNSW method at 50 m depth
• about the same FoS at depths of 250 and 500 m
• a higher FoS at 1000 m depth.
The Abaqus modelling predictions seem to be more
in keeping with the pillar dimensions using the UNSW
pillar design method for FoS = 1.62. This ability of
numerical analysis to match the empirical method is
explored a little further in the following section which
uses two-dimensional modelling.

TABLE 11.17 Recommended widths of 2 m high, square pillars following Galvin et al. (1999)
OVERBURDEN DEPTH SQUARE PILLAR WIDTH [m] & (R = w/h)
[m] FoS = 1.00 FoS = 1.62 FoS = 2.09
50 3.9 (1.95) 5.1 (2.57) 6.0 (2.99)
250 10.4 (5.21) 14.5 (7.27) 17.5 (8.75)
500 16.9 (8.47) 24.4 (12.22) 29.9 (14.97)
1000 28.9 (14.45) 43.2 (21.58) 53.8 (26.90)

222
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

10

6
Abaqus FoS

3
50 m
250 m
2 500 m
1000 m
1:1
1
1:1.62

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
UNSW FoS

FIGURE 11.12 Comparison of the FoS result from 3D finite element modelling assuming σc = 25 MPa, and the UNSW
equation for a 2 m high pillars at depths of 50, 250, 500 and 1000 m. The small dashed line offset from the FoS = 1.62 line is
drawn to better visually fit the data.

11.4.2.2 2D
Two dimensional, plane strain, elastic numerical
analyses were run using the finite element program
Phase2 to model a regular grid of square, 2 m high,
variable width, coal pillars at overburden depths of 50,
100, 200, 250 and 500 m.
The pillar widths were chosen to reflect those
calculated to give a FoS = 1.62 following the UNSW
method as per Table 11.18. For example, 5.2 m for 50
m; 15.4 m for 250 m; and 26.3 m for 500 m depth.
The geometry is shown in Figure 11.13.
• The bord widths are consistently 6 m.
• The coal is modelled as an elastic material with
modulus Em= 1000 MPa. The roof and floor were
modelled as five times stiffer to remove the issues
with floor / roof failure.
• In situ stress as hydrostatic.

TABLE 11.18 Pillar widths recommended following Galvin et al. (1999) for FoS = 1.62
OVERBURDEN DEPTH [m] SQUARE PILLAR WIDTH [m]
UNSW
for FoS = 1.62
50 5.1
250 14.5
500 24.4
1000 43.2

223
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 11.13 Finite element model and material properties

11.4.2.3 Results
Although the two-dimensional nature of the analyses
models infinitely long pillars, the relatively wide pillars
mean that vertical sections taken through their centres
are broadly representative of the square pillars. The
stresses are taken as the values along a line at mid-
height through the coal pillar as shown in Figure 11.14
and Figure 11.15. The results are summarised in Table
11.19 and Figure 11.16.
It is concluded that the numerical model predictions
are broadly consistent with the UNSW method.
This result is in keeping with Maybee (2000) who
found that the stresses predicted from two-dimensional
finite element analyses agree with those from Tributary
Area Theory when the w/h ≥ 1.0.

FIGURE 11.14 Results showing major principal stress for the case w =18.7 m and depth = 250 m

224
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

18

16

14

12

Stress [MPa]
10

4
Pillar Load
2
Cp
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance [m]

FIGURE 11.15 Pillar load and inferred strength (Cp) at mid height through the pillar for the case w = 18.7 m, overburden
depth of 250 m and σc = 10 MPa

TABLE 11.19 Comparison of FoS from Galvin et al. (1999) and the finite element modelling
OVERBURDEN SQUARE PILLAR FoS FoS Phase2
DEPTH [m] WIDTH [m] (w/h) UNSW σc = 10 MPa σc = 25 MPa
50 5.1 (2.6) 1.62 1.28 2.99
100 7.9 (3.9) 1.62 1.65 2.79
14.5 (7.3) 1.62 1.91 2.46
250
17.75 (8.75) 2.09 2.00 2.57
24.4 (12.2) 1.62 1.89 2.19
500
29.9 (15.0) 2.09 1.94 2.25

40

35

30

25
Cp (MPa)

20

15

10

5 sc 10MPa
sc 25MPa

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Pillar Load (MPa)

FIGURE 11.16 Results of finite element modelling. The inferred pillar strength, Cp, is plotted against the predicted pillar load.
The modelling with UCS = 10 MPa is in keeping with the FoS predicted using the UNSW method with FoS = 1.62.

225
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

11.4.3 Australia
Based on the previous section which looked at generic
bord and pillar geometries and concluded that
numerical modelling is broadly consistent with the
UNSW pillar design method, this section models the
specific cases contained in the UNSW database.
Three dimensional Abaqus models were created of
the UNSW database of collapsed and un-collapsed
pillars which are presented in Table 11.2. The predicted
major and minor principal stresses (σ1 and σ3) were
obtained at the edge, at the centre and as an average
across the pillar along two horizontal planes within
the pillar:
• 0.5 m below the top of the pillar
• at mid-height of the pillar.
An example of the results is presented in Figure 11.17.
The results are also summarised in Figure 11.18 in
a plot of major versus minor principal stress. Because
the analyses are elastic, distinction is made between
the centre and the edge of the pillars, i.e. stress re-
distribution is not modelled.
Strength envelopes representing the following
criteria are also shown:
• Hoek-Brown criterion with parameters derived for
mid-bright Moura coal, that is, σc = 22.5 MPa, mb =
2.6, s = 0.052 and a = 0.65 (see Section 11.4.1)
• 
The damage threshold or systematic cracking
(Equation 5.2), also with UCS*/UCS = 0.30 and σc
= 7.5 MPa, and mi = 16 (as per Table 11.14) and
hence mb = 0.1296, s = 0.0081 and a = 0.25
EQUATION 11.8
• The fracture initiation criterion3 with σc = 6.5 MPa,
being the average value for 1m samples as given in
Section 11.4.6 is also shown
EQUATION 11.9
It appears that the damage threshold and fracture
initiation criteria can differentiate between collapsed
and un-collapsed coal pillars at low confining stresses.
At higher confinement, the two criteria appear to
under-predict pillar strength.
The Hoek-Brown parameters for mid-bright Moura
coal do reasonably differentiate between collapsed and
un-collapsed coal pillars.
 

• The fracture initiation criterion (Equation 11.4)

with UCS*/UCS = 0.30 and σc = 7.5 MPa which
was found by trial and error to give a better visual
fit to the data

EQUATION 11.7

226
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

FIGURE 11.17 Contours of pillar load, Sp or σ1 (top) and confining stress, σ3 (bottom). This example is for case FC13: 21 x 21
m, 4.9 m high pillars at a depth of 185 m with 6.1 m bord width

227
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 11.18 Predicted σ1 v σ3 for the Australian database plotted with fracture initiation envelopes for 6.5 and 7.5 MPa
compressive strength. The bottom plots show only the stresses from the middle height of the pillar. The left-hand plot does
not show the stresses for the centre of the pillars; the right does not show the stresses at the edge of the pillars. 

228
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

11.4.4 South Africa

A subset of approximately a quarter of the South
African database was created by selecting cases to
represent collapsed pillars from ‘normal’ and ‘weak’
coal and un-collapsed pillars at approximately 10 m
depth intervals. The ensuing subset of cases (Table
11.20) was modelled with the two dimensional, elastic
finite element program Phase2 .

TABLE 11.20 Subset of the South African coal pillar database used in modelling
Case Depth [m] Pillar Width Pillar Height w/h Bord Width Comment
[m] [m] [m]
n204 21 6.8 3.2 2.1 5.3 ‘Normal’
s41 30.5 4.6 3.7 1.2 7.6 ‘Normal’
n173 41 6.4 6.2 1 6.4 ‘Normal’
n188 51.5 6 3.9 1.5 6 ‘Normal’
n202 60 7 1.8 3.9 6 ‘Normal’
m149 90 7.5 4.8 1.6 6 ‘Normal’
n186 100 8.5 3.3 2.6 6.5 ‘Normal’
m168 165.5 15 5.9 5.2 5 ‘Normal’
s122 167.5 15.9 5.5 2.9 5.5 ‘Normal’
s67 184.5 15.9 5.5 2.9 5.5 ‘Normal’
s66 193 15.9 5.5 2.9 5.5 ‘Normal’
m170 205 17 4.9 3.5 6 ‘Normal’
s59 58 5.2 3.7 1.4 6.4 ‘Weak’
n182 70 12.5 2.9 4.3 5.5 ‘Weak’
n180 82 10 2.8 3.6 5 ‘Weak’
n194 96 12 6 2 6 ‘Weak’
n196 104 12 3 4 6 ‘Weak’
m159 108 10.6 3.2 3.3 6.5 ‘Weak’
m157 112 10.6 2.8 3.8 6.5 ‘Weak’
s60 152.5 12.2 4.9 2.5 6.1 ‘Weak’
2 21.5 6.1 2.7 2.2 6.7 Un-collapsed
23 30.5 6.4 3.6 1.7 6.4 Un-collapsed
83 41 6.4 2.0 3.2 6.4 Un-collapsed
146 46 7.6 4.9 1.6 6.1 Un-collapsed
142 50.5 6.1 1.4 4.5 6.1 Un-collapsed
32 61 7.6 4.0 1.9 6.1 Un-collapsed
89 76 7.6 4.6 1.7 6.1 Un-collapsed
38a 85 7.6 3.2 2.4 6.1 Un-collapsed
51 90 8.5 2.9 2.9 6.71 Un-collapsed
92 91 12.2 1.5 8 6.1 Un-collapsed
87 106.5 12.2 4.3 2.9 6.1 Un-collapsed
137 116 9.1 1.8 5 6.1 Un-collapsed
135 143.5 12.8 1.7 7.6 5.5 Un-collapsed
77a 161 14.9 3.0 5 6.3 Un-collapsed
77c 180.5 15.2 3.0 5.1 6.0 Un-collapsed
88 198 17.2 2.8 6.1 5.7 Un-collapsed
84 219.5 21.7 3.2 6.9 5.6 Un-collapsed

229
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
An example of the mesh geometry used is shown in
Figure 11.19.
• The coal is modelled as an elastic material with
modulus Em= 1000 MPa. The roof and floor were
modelled as five times stiffer to remove the issues
with floor / roof failure.
• In situ stress as hydrostatic.
The stresses are taken as the values along a line
taken at mid-height through the coal pillar as shown
in Figure 11.20. The results are summarised in Figure
11.21 in a plot of major versus minor principal stress
with the following strengths envelopes.
• The fracture initiation criterion (Equation 11.7)
with σc = 4.5 MPa which was found by trial and
error to give a better visual fit to the data
FIGURE 11.19 Example of the 2D FEM and material properties (w =15.9 m and depth = 193 m)
230
• The damage threshold as per Equation 11.8 but
with σc = 4.5 MPa
• The fracture initiation criterion with the ‘average’ of
6.5 MPa (Equation 11.9).
To make it easier to compare the results, they are
also plotted separately for the collapsed cases in Figure
11.22 and for the un-collapsed cases in Figure 11.23.
Figure 11.22 shows most points that represent
either average stresses or the stress acting at the edge
of collapsed pillars lie above the proposed criteria.
Further, Figure 11.23 shows most points that represent
either average stresses or the stress acting at the centres
of un-collapsed pillars lie below the proposed criteria.
It therefore appears that the damage threshold and
fracture initiation criteria can differentiate between
collapsed and un-collapsed coal pillars reasonably well.
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

FIGURE 11.20 Results showing major principal stress for the case w =15.9 m and depth = 193 m

FIGURE 11.21 Predicted σ1 v σ3 for the South African database subset plotted with fracture initiation envelopes for 4.5 and
6.5 MPa compressive strength.

231
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 11.22 Predicted σ1 v σ3 of the South African collapsed pillar cases plotted with fracture initiation envelopes for 4.5
and 6.5 MPa compressive strength. The right-hand plot does not show the stresses for the centre of the pillars.

FIGURE 11.23 Predicted σ1 v σ3 of the South African un-collapsed pillar cases plotted with fracture initiation envelopes for
4.5 and 6.5 MPa compressive strength. The right-hand plot does not show the stresses at the edge of the pillars.

232
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

11.4.5 USA
A subset of approximately a quarter of the un-collapsed
cases (37 from 135 cases) and all the 35 collapsed cases
from the USA database was created. The ensuing
subset of cases (Table 11.21) was modelled with the
two dimensional, elastic finite element program Phase2 .

TABLE 11.21 Subset of the USA coal pillar database used in modelling (the last 12 collapsed cases are
those defined as massive collapses or rock burst and are shown in italics)
Case Depth Pillar Width [m] Pillar w/h Bord
[m] (minimum width) Height Width
State Mine [m] [m]
KY 20 442 15.2 x 9.1 9.1 1.8 5.0 6.1
KY 20 396 15.2 x 9.1 9.1 1.7 5.5 6.1
KY 42 320 15.5 x 11 11.0 1.8 6.0 5.8
KY 60 396 18.6 x 11 11.0 1.8 6.2 5.8
KY 74 326 22.6 x 16.5 16.5 3.7 4.5 5.5
KY 75 122 9.1 x 9.1 9.1 2.0 4.6 6.1
KY 91 244 15.2 x 12.2 12.2 2.3 5.3 6.1
KY 128 396 22.9 x 22.9 22.9 3.4 6.8 6.1
KY 128 488 29 x 24.4 24.4 3.2 7.6 6.1
KY 137 244 15.2 x 15.2 15.2 4.0 3.8 6.1
OH 92 158 9.8 x 7.7 7.7 1.8 4.2 5.5
OH 92 198 9.8 x 7.7 7.7 1.8 4.2 5.5
UT 59 305 18.3 x 12.2 12.2 2.0 6.2 6.1
VA 16 488 24.4 x 16.8 16.8 4.0 4.2 6.1
WV 2 91 3 x 12.2 3.0 2.4 1.3 6.1
Collapsed

WV 67 351 18.3 x 15.2 15.2 1.9 8.0 6.1

WV 79 130 12.2 x 3 3.0 2.4 1.3 6.1
WV 79 122 12.2 x 3 3.0 2.5 1.2 6.1
WV 81 76 12.2 x 3 3.0 2.1 1.5 6.1
WV 82 122 12.2 x 3 3.0 3.0 1.0 6.1
WV 133 122 12.2 x 3 3.0 1.5 2.0 6.1
WV 133 114 12.2 x 3 3.0 1.4 2.2 6.1
WV 134 76 13.7 x 3.8 3.8 2.1 1.8 6.1
CO 111 91 4.1 x 19.4 4.1 2.1 1.9 11.1
UT 11 168 12.2 x 12.2 12.2 5.3 2.3 6.1
WV 23 73 12.2 x 3 3.0 3.0 1.0 6.1
WV 23 73 18.3 x 3 3.0 3.0 1.0 6.1
WV 23 85 6.1 x 12.2 6.1 3.0 2.0 6.1
WV 23 75 3 x 12.2 3.0 3.0 1.0 6.1
WV 36 69 6.1 x 6.1 6.1 3.4 1.8 6.1
WV 57 53 12.2 x 3 3.0 3.0 1.0 6.1
WV 76 91 6.1 x 6.1 6.1 2.4 2.5 6.1
WV 82 84 12.2 x 3 3.0 2.9 1.1 6.1
WV 82 84 12.2 x 3 3.0 2.9 1.1 6.1
CO 116 472 18.3 x 15.2 15.2 2.6 5.9 6.1

233
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 11.21 Subset of the USA coal pillar database used in modelling (the last 12 collapsed cases are
those defined as massive collapses or rock burst and are shown in italics) continued
Case Depth [m] Pillar Width [m] Pillar w/h Bord
(minimum width) Height Width
State Mine [m] [m]
PA 99 64.0 5.2 x 5.2 5.2 1.3 4.0 5.5
PA 113 76.2 12.5 x 12.5 12.5 1.5 8.2 5.8
KY 25 88.4 14.9 x 15.2 14.9 1.9 7.8 6.1
WV 118 114.3 18.3 x 12.2 12.2 1.6 7.4 6.1
VA 112 121.9 19.2 x 12.2 12.2 1.4 8.4 6.1
UT 5 137.2 12.5 x 12.2 12.2 1.4 8.9 6.1
KY 114 152.4 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.4 13.3 6.1
OH 92 161.2 9.8 x 7.7 7.7 1.8 4.2 5.5
WV 33 170.7 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 3.6 5.1 6.1
OH 92 181.4 9.8 x 7.7 7.7 1.8 4.2 5.5
KY 61 189.0 12.5 x 15.2 12.5 2.2 5.6 6.1
OH 92 204.4 11.3 x 9 9.0 1.8 4.9 5.5
WV 6 210.3 21.6 x 21.3 21.3 1.6 13.2 6.1
WV 83 219.5 14.9 x 15.2 14.9 1.6 9.2 6.1
VA 112 233.2 19.2 x 12.2 12.2 1.4 8.4 6.1
Un-collapsed

VA 64 243.8 24.4 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1

UT 4 259.1 20.4 x 18.3 18.3 2.1 8.6 6.1
KY 100 274.3 9.1 x 9.1 9.1 1.6 5.8 6.1
VA 64 280.4 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1
KY 100 289.6 9.1 x 6.1 6.1 1.3 4.6 6.1
KY 100 304.8 9.1 x 9.1 9.1 1.4 6.3 6.1
VA 64 313.9 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.3 14.1 6.1
KY 100 320.0 12.2 x 12.2 12.2 1.4 8.4 6.1
WV 40 333.5 18.3 x 27.4 18.3 2.0 9.0 6.1
KY 21 341.1 12.2 x 15.2 12.2 1.5 8.3 6.1
KY 21 353.6 18.3 x 21.3 18.3 1.6 11.1 6.1
KY 131 365.8 12.5 x 12.5 12.5 1.7 7.5 5.8
VA 88 396.2 24.4 x 21.3 21.3 1.5 14.0 6.1
VA 88 411.5 17.4 x 15.2 15.2 1.5 10.0 6.1
KY 32 423.7 18.3 x 15.2 15.2 1.6 9.6 6.1
KY 61 432.5 18.3 x 24.4 18.3 2.2 8.2 6.1
KY 61 489.5 18.3 x 24.4 18.3 2.2 8.2 6.1
UT 35 502.9 34.4 x 9.1 9.1 3.0 3.0 6.1
VA 8 518.2 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.7 10.9 6.1
KY 77 536.8 18.3 x 18.3 18.3 1.7 10.9 6.1
UT 3 585.2 11.3 x 30.5 11.3 2.9 3.9 6.1
UT 35 594.4 34.4 x 9.1 9.1 3.0 3.0 6.1

234

The same mesh geometry as in the UNSW and
South African cases is used.
The stresses are taken as the values along a line
taken at mid-height through the coal pillar as shown
in Figure 11.24.
The results are summarised in Figure 11.25 and in
Figure 11.26 as plots of major versus minor principal
stress with following strength envelopes.
• The fracture initiation criterion (Equation 11.7)
with σc = 6.0 MPa which was found by trial and
error to give a better visual fit to the data
• e damage threshold as per Equation 11.8 but
Th
 that were recorded as either massive collapse or rock
with σc = 6.0 MPa
• The fracture initiation criterion with the ‘average’ of
6.5 MPa (Equation 11.9)
FIGURE 11.24 Results showing major principal stress for the case w =9.1 m and depth = 396 m
11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies
• Hoek-Brown criterion with parameters derived for
USA coal, that is, mb = 1.47, s = 0.07 and a = 0.5 (see
Section 11.4.1) and σc = 6.0 MPa
Again, it appears that the damage threshold and
fracture initiation criteria can differentiate between
collapsed and un-collapsed coal pillars reasonably
well; see the right-hand plots of Figure 11.25 and
Figure 11.26. That the criteria capture the coal pillars
burst lends support to the view that coal can be
thought of as a brittle rock under low confinement
(see Chapter 5.3.1).
235
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 11.25 Predicted σ1 v σ3 of the USA collapsed pillar cases plotted with fracture initiation envelopes with 6 and 6.5
MPa compressive strength. he right- hand plot does not show the stresses for the centre of the pillars. The pillars defined as
‘massive collapse and rock burst’ are in the lighter shade.

FIGURE 11.26 Predicted σ1 v σ3 of the USA un-collapsed pillar cases plotted with fracture initiation envelopes with 6 and
6.5 MPa compressive strength. The right-hand plot does not show the stresses for the centre of the pillars.

236
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

11.4.6 India
In the same fashion as the other databases, the Indian Again, it appears that the damage threshold and
database (Table 11.10) was modelled with the two fracture initiation criteria can differentiate between
dimensional, elastic finite element program Phase2. The collapsed and un-collapsed coal pillars reasonably well
stresses along a line taken at mid-height through the coal (right hand plots of Figure 11.27).
pillar are summarised in Figure 11.27 in a plot of major
versus minor principal stress with the strength envelopes:
• The fracture initiation criterion (Equation 11.7)
with σc = 5.0 MPa which was found by trial and
error to give a better visual fit to the data
• The damage threshold as per Equation 11.8 but
with σc = 5.0 MPa
• The fracture initiation criterion with the ‘average’ of
6.5 MPa (Equation 11.9)

FIGURE 11.27 Predicted σ1 v σ3 plotted of the Indian collapsed (top) and un-collapsed (bottom) pillar cases with failure
envelopes. The right-hand plots do not show the stresses for the centre of the collapsed pillars and the edge of the un-
collapsed pillars. The yielding pillars from Jitpur, India are circled.

237
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
11.5 DISCUSSION
The preceding analyses show the predictions from finite
element modelling are consistent with the empirical
relationships for sizing coal pillars. The results of the
analyses also show that the damage threshold criterion
(Equation 5.2) and a fracture initiation criterion (such
as Equation 11.4) can differentiate between collapsed
and un-collapsed coal pillars, particularly at low
confining stresses. At higher confinement, the criteria
may under-predict the coal pillar strength.
One of the issues in using these criteria is determining
the UCS of coal, which as discussed in Section 11.4, is
not a straightforward value. Though an average value
of 6.5 MPa for the compressive strength of 1m3 cubes
was used, the following slightly different values were
found by trial and error to give visually better fits to
the data.
• 7.5 MPa for the 18 collapsed and 15 un-collapsed
Australian cases
• 5.0 MPa for the 86 collapsed and 337 un-collapsed
South African cases
• 6.0 MPa for the 35 collapsed and 135 un-collapsed
USA cases
• 5.0 MPa for the 23 collapsed and 20 un-collapsed
Indian cases.
The above values were used to normalise the
principal stresses predicted by the numerical modelling
of the coal pillar databases. The normalised principal
stresses along a line through the mid-height of the coal
pillars are plotted in Figure 11.28.
Figure 11.29 plots the same data but only the average
stresses. Also shown in Figure 11.29 are:
• The damage threshold criterion
FIGURE 11.28 Predicted principal stresses normalised with the various assumed compressive strengths. The left graph shows
collapsed pillars (closed symbols) and the right un-collapsed (open symbols) pillars. The symbols are also used to represent
average stress along the mid-height plane of the pillar (square symbols); stresses at the pillar edge (triangles) and stresses in
the centre of the pillar (circles). The light blue diamonds are “massive collapse or rock burst” USA coal pillars. The dashed line
represents hydrostatic stress.
238
• The fracture initiation criterion
• 
The Hoek-Brown criterion with parameters
recommended by:
„„ Medhurst and Brown (1998) for mid-bright
Moura coal, i.e. mb = 2.6, s = 0.0052 and
a = 0.65. Recall that Moura coal classifies in
the middle of the coalification series and hence
these parameters might be reasonable ‘average’ or
‘typical’ values
„„ E sterhuizen et al. (2010) for USA coal, i.e. mb =
1.47, s = 0.07 and a = 0.5 which are similar to
those for UK coal used by Yavuz and Fowell
(2001), i.e. mb = 1.17, s = 0.055 and a = 0.5.
• A maximum confined strength, e.g. Barton
(1976); Bieniawski (1968); van Heerden (1975),
which is taken to correspond to 1 as per
Singh et al. (2011). The maximum confined
strength is 0.6 based on the normalised
deviatoric plot shown in Figure 11.32.
It is remarkable that so many cases are differentiated
by the criteria. This is particularly so considering the
rather generalised approach adopted in assigning UCS
and estimating the various parameters for the criteria.
The ability of the criteria to differentiate is perhaps
better shown in Figure 11.30 and Figure 11.31, which
show collapsed and un-collapsed coal pillars separately.
Further, as the criteria capture the USA coal pillars that
were recorded as either massive collapse or rock burst
lends support to the view that coal can be thought of
as a brittle rock under low confinement.
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

FIGURE 11.29 Predicted principal stresses normalised with the various assumed compressive strengths. The criteria –
damage threshold, crack initiation, Hoek-Brown, and a constant deviatoric stress – are shown. The bottom graph is a close-up
of the stresses under low confinement. Closed symbols are collapsed pillars, open symbols are un-collapsed pillars. The light
blue diamonds are “massive collapse or rock burst” USA coal pillars.

239
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 11.30 Predicted principal stresses normalised with the various assumed compressive strengths for the collapsed
pillars. The criteria – damage threshold, crack initiation, Hoek-Brown, and a constant deviatoric stress – are shown. The
bottom graph is a close-up of the stresses under low confinement. The light blue diamonds are “massive collapse or rock
burst” USA coal pillars.

240
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

FIGURE 11.31 Predicted principal stresses normalised with the various assumed compressive strengths for the un-collapsed
pillars. The criteria – damage threshold, crack initiation, Hoek-Brown, and a constant deviatoric stress – are shown. The
bottom graph is a close-up of the stresses under low confinement.

241
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 11.32 Predicted principal stresses normalised with the assumed UCS values. This is the same data as shown in
Figure 11.29 but as deviatoric stress. The light blue diamonds are “massive collapse or rock burst” USA coal pillars.

242
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

11.6 CONCLUSIONS The combined database of 162 collapsed pillars.

Tributary load against w/h ratio. The line corresponding
The different approach used for estimating coal pillar
to the pillar strength as calculated using the UNSW
strength to the typical method for other rock masses
linear equation is also shown with a FoS = 1.85.
has been examined.
A large subset of the combined database – 96
The coal pillar databases from Australia, South
collapsed and 89 un-collapsed – was analysed with
Africa, the USA and India were collated to generate
2D and 3D finite element analyses to assess the likely
a combined database comprising 162 collapsed and
principal stresses within the coal pillars. These stresses
507 un-collapsed pillars covering depths from 13 to
were initially plotted on principal stress plots along
594 m with w/h ratios between 0.6 and 16.7. One of
with a fracture initiation criterion of the form:
criticisms of the UNSW coal pillar design method is
that its database only contains one collapse case with
w/h > 5, e.g. Colwell (2010). The combined database
now contains 15 collapsed cases with w/h > 5. This is
shown in Figure 11.33.

Collapsed Pillars
25

20

FoS = 1.85

15
Pillar Load [MPa]
Tributary Area

Australia
10 South Africa
South Africa - weak
USA - squeeze
USA - massive
5
USA - local bursting
India
Cp UNSW linear

0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
w/h = R

FIGURE 11.33 The combined database of 162 collapsed pillars. Tributary load against w/h ratio. The line corresponding to
the pillar strength as calculated using the UNSW linear equation is also shown with a FoS = 1.85.

243
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

The results showed that this form of criterion could

differentiate between collapsed and un-collapsed coal
pillars at least at low confining stresses. At higher
confinement, the criterion appears to under-predict
the coal pillar strength. The difficulty in using this
criterion was assigning an appropriate UCS value to
the coal.
The principal stresses predicted in the finite element
modelling were then normalised with the following
slightly different values which were found by trial and
error to give visually better fits to the data.
• 7.5 MPa for the 18 collapsed and 15 un-collapsed
Australian cases
• 5.0 MPa for the 86 collapsed and 337 un-collapsed
South African cases
• 6.0 MPa for the 35 collapsed and 135 un-collapsed
USA cases
• 5.0 MPa for the 23 collapsed and 20 un-collapsed
Indian cases.
The combined database was represented on the same
plot together with the following strength criteria:
• The damage threshold criterion

• The fracture initiation criterion

• The Hoek-Brown criterion with

&
mb s a

• A maximum confined strength

It is remarkable that these criteria could differentiate

so many cases, especially considering the rather
generalised approach taken here in assigning UCS
and estimating the various parameters for the criteria.
That the criteria capture the USA coal pillars that were
recorded as either massive collapse or rock burst lends
support to the view that coal can be thought of as a
brittle rock under low confinement (see Chapter 5.3.1).

244

12 ROCK MASS
STRENGTH
12.1 OUTLINE
As discussed in Chapter 5.6, the Hoek-Brown rock
mass criterion was initially based on very limited test
work from Panguna andesite, the largest samples of
which had 22.5” (572 mm) diameters.
In this chapter, an extensive database of large
scale hard rock failures is assembled from literature.
The database comprises mine pillars in igneous,
metamorphic and sedimentary rocks and both small
and large diameter core testing. In each case the rock
mass quality, or data that could use to assess rock mass
quality, had been recorded.
This chapter collates published accounts of:
• in situ stress failures of hard rock from underground
mining in metamorphic rocks, limestone, iron ore
and sandstone
• laboratory UCS and TXL testing where rock mass
quality has been interpreted.
A database of UCS and TXL from testing carried
out in the 1990s of rock core from the Ok Tedi mine
in Papua New Guinea is also studied to assess the
variation in measured strengths with rock quality as
gauged by GSI.
The objective of this collation of rock mass strength
is to supplement the stress failure data from the
Hawkesbury Sandstone tunnels in Chapter 10 and
from the coal pillar database in Chapter 11. This
chapter then uses this combined data to empirically
derive relationships between GSI and the parameters
mb, s and a of the Mostyn-Douglas modified Hoek-
Brown criterion. The criterion is curve-fitted to
the data to ensure that the derived relationships are
independent of the standard Hoek-Brown/GSI (Hoek
et al. 2002).
It is assumed that a = 0.5 for intact rock to keep
consistent with the Hoek-Brown equation. It is noted
though that better fits for intact rock can be found
by modifying a, e.g. (Carter et al. 2007; Carter et
al. 2008; Carvalho et al. 2007; Mostyn and Douglas
2000; You 2011) however this becomes problematic
when extending into rock mass behaviour.
12 | Rock Mass Strength
12.1.1 Variability
Such is the nature of geology that there are several steps
in the empirical process followed in this work that can
lead to uncertainty in the derived relationships. Minor
sources of potential error include testing conditions
(Pells 1993) and the choice of regression method used
to curve-fit the data (Mostyn and Douglas 2000). The
major sources of potential error though stem from the
values assigned to GSI and to the Disturbance Factor, D.
12.1.1.1 GSI
GSI can be calculated from a trimmed version of RMR
(Hoek 1994; Hoek and Brown 1997), though Hoek
(2007) found the correlation to be problematic for
poor quality rock masses and recommended that the
GSI be estimated directly by means of its charts. The
GSI can also be estimated from a quantified chart as
suggested by several authors, e.g. (Cai et al. 2004; Hoek
et al. 2013; Russo 2009; Sonmez and Ulusay 1999).
The importance of estimating GSI by more than one
method is re-stated (Bertuzzi et al. 2016; Cai et al.
2004; Hoek et al. 2013; Russo 2009). It is particularly
important that a geological model that includes the
problem scale is developed in order to estimate GSI
(Bertuzzi et al. 2016; Carter and Marinos 2014). The
GSI values of the data used in this work, which cover
a broad range of scales from laboratory to mine pillar,
reflect the scale of the individual data sets, i.e. the size
effect has been accounted for by appropriate selection
of GSI. Hence, it is possible to combine these data.
Several researchers consider there is a limit to the
range of GSI values over which the Hoek-Brown
criterion may be applied (Brown 2008; Carter et al.
2007; Carvalho et al. 2007; Diederichs 2007; Goricki
et al. 2006). Brown (2008) opines ‘special care must
be exercised at low values of GSI of below about 30’ or
‘ σc < 15 MPa’. The approach adopted is to plot the
data as assessed but cautiously interpret the results as
recommended by Brown (2008).
12.1.1.2 D
In relation to D, Hoek et al. (2002) noted that “a large
number of factors can influence the degree of disturbance
245
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

in the rock mass surrounding an excavation and that it
may never be possible to quantify these factors precisely”.
Hoek and Diederichs (2006) elaborated further by
stating that D “will vary for each application, depending
upon the excavation and loading sequence for the
particular structure being designed.” The approach is to
follow the guidelines provided in Hoek et al. (2002) to
assign values of D to the individual datasets.
12.2 MINE PILLARS
12.2.1 Metamorphic
A database comprising 178 hard rock pillars from
underground mining of strong to extremely strong,
mainly massive sulphide deposits of Canada was
compiled by Lunder (1994). The UCS for the
massive sulphide rock ranges from 70 to 315 MPa;
for the quartzite between 85 to 168 MPa and for the
metasediments is 240 MPa. The database excluded
pillars affected by major geological structures and
covered a wide range of pillar sizes:
• Pillar width: 1.9 to 45 m
• Pillar height: 2.4 to 53 m
• Average pillar stress: 25 to 128 MPa.
Lunder (1994) reported the rock masses had typical
RMR values of between 60 and 85; which classifies as
Good to Very Good rock. This is consistent with the
typical GSI values quoted by Martin and Maybee
(2000) for Canadian Shield rocks of 40, 60 & 80.
A summary of the database is presented in Table
12.1. Lunder (1994) presented the pillar database in
two ways.
Firstly, he plotted the normalised principal stress σ1/
σc as a function of the pillar width to pillar height ratio
w/h as shown in Figure 12.1. This is the traditional
way of plotting pillar load performance data. Lunder
(1994) estimated σ1 either with numerical modelling
or Tributary Area Theory.
Secondly, he plotted σ1/σc versus a term he defined
as ‘the average pillar confinement’ (Cpav) which is
approximately equal to the average principal stress
ratio (σ3/σ1) across the mid-height centreline of the
pillar. Lunder’s plot is shown in Figure 12.2. Also,
recall that the same plane was used, i.e. the mid-height
centreline of the pillar, to assess the stresses in the coal
pillars in Chapter 11.

TABLE 12.1 Hard rock pillar database collated by Lunder (1994)

Source Number of pillars Rock mass
Failed Marginal Stable
Massive sulphide
Lunder, 1994 18 11 2
Canada
Massive sulphide
Hudyma, 1988 12 9 26
Canada
Quartzites
Hedley & Grant, 1972 3 2 23 Elliot Lake, Ontario
Canada
Subtotal
33 22 51
(Canada cases)
Massive sulphide
Metasediments
Von Kimmelman et al, 1984 29 11 7
Selbi-Phikwe mine
South Africa
Metasediments
Sjoberg, 1992 5 4
Sweden
Massive sulphide
Krauland & Soder, 1987 13 Black Angel mine
Greenland
Massive sulphide
Brady, 1977 1 2 Mt Isa, Qld,
Australia
TOTAL 68 50 60

246
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

1.2
Lunder
Hudyma
Von Kimmelman
1.0 Hedley & Grant
Sjoberg
Krauland & Soder
0.8 Brady
σ1 / σc

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
w / h

FIGURE 12.1 Ratio of σ1 v σc versus w/h for the hard rock pillar database collated by Lunder (1994). Stable pillars are shown
as open symbols; marginal pillars by lightly shaded symbols; failed pillars by solid symbols.

1.2
Lunder
Hudyma
Von Kimmelman
1.0
Hedley & Grant
Sjoberg
Krauland & Soder
0.8 Brady
σ1 / σc

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Average pillar confinement (approx. σ3/σ1)

FIGURE 12.2 Ratio of σ1 v σc versus average pillar confinement for the hard rock pillar database collated by Lunder (1994).
Stable pillars are shown as open symbols; marginal pillars by lightly shaded symbols; failed pillars by solid symbols.

247
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

Lunder calculated Cpav with an empirical formula That is, a plot of σ1/σc against σ3/σc . The ratio σ3/σc
he derived from numerical modelling to be valid for can be calculated by multiplying the ‘average pillar
w/h < 4.5 (Equation 12.1)(18). Figure 12.3 plots this confinement’, Cpav, by σ1/σc, viz:
relationship.

EQUATION 12.1
The resultant principal stress plot is shown in Figure
It would be very useful to represent Lunder’s 12.4 for massive sulphide and Figure 12.5 for quartzite
database on a non-dimensional principal stress plot. and metasediment.

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
Cpav

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
w/h

FIGURE 12.3 Relationship between Cpav and w/h following Equation 12.1 from Lunder (1994). The relationship is only valid
for w/h < 4.5.

FIGURE 12.4 Non-dimensional principal stress σ1 v σc versus σ3 v σc for the hard rock pillars in the database collated by
Lunder (1994). The plots are of the 141 massive sulphide pillars: the 60 failed pillars are shown as solid symbols (left); 44
marginal pillars as lightly shaded symbols (middle); and 37 stable pillars as open symbols (right). A visually fitted Hoek-Brown
criterion is also shown.

(18)
 under (1994) also proffered an equation to estimate the Factor of Safety (FoS) for hard rock pillar design based on this concept of ‘the average pillar
L
confinement’.

248
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

FIGURE 12.5
Non-dimensional principal stress σ1 v σc versus σ3 v σc for the hard rock pillars in the database collated by Lunder (1994).
The top plots are of the 28 quartzite pillars: the 3 failed pillars are shown as solid symbols (left); 2 marginal pillars as lightly
shaded symbols (middle); and 23 stable pillars as open symbols (right). The bottom plots are of the 9 metasediments pillars:
the 5 failed pillars are shown as solid symbols (left); 4 marginal pillars as lightly shaded symbols (middle); there are no stable
pillars in the database (right). A visually fitted Hoek-Brown criterion is also shown.

249
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

The failed hard rock pillar data collated by Lunder
(1994) spans ranges of:
• 70 ≤ σc ≤ 315 MPa
• 55 ≤ GSI ≤ 75
• 0 ≤ σ3 /σc ≤ 0.2 and 0.18 ≤ σ1 /σc ≤ 1.04.
The Hoek-Brown criterion shown in Figure 12.4
and Figure 12.5 was visually fitted to the data with
parameters:
• mb = 3, s = 0.04, a = 0.5 for the massive sulphide
pillars
• b = 7, s = 0.07, a = 0.5 for the quartzite pillars
m (Esterhuizen et al. 2008).
• mb = 1.5, s = 0.015, a = 0.5 for the metasediments
pillars.
The resulting curves do not differentiate all the data
but they do a reasonable job.
The Hoek-Brown parameter mi for intact massive
sulphide ore is estimated as 172 / 12 ≈ 14 based on the
values UCS = 172 MPa ± 4 MPa and tensile strength
= 12 ± 12 MPa given in Lunder (1994). Recall that mi
can be estimated as σc/|σt| (see Chapter 2).
Lunder (1994) does not provide tensile strength
data for the metasediment or quartzite. Hence, the mi
for the metasediments (σc = 240 MPa) and quartzite
(σc = 85 to 168 MPa) was estimated at 12 – 22 (17)
and 17 – 23 (20), respectively, to be consistent with
the published ranges of mi for these rock types
(Hoek 2001).
12.2.2 Limestone
The USA’s National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) collated pillar geometry,
stability conditions and RMR’89(19) data at 92 sites from
34 underground mines. The mines use room and pillar
methods to excavate the Palaeozoic-aged (Ordovician
to Carboniferous) limestone deposits of the Interior
Plains and the Appalachian Highlands of the USA
The limestone deposits in the Interior Plains are
generally sub-horizontal and those in the Appalachian
Highlands are folded and faulted. Only mines
where the strata dip 10° or less are included in the
NIOSH database. Table 12.2 summarises the mining
geometries. The limestone is a very strong to extremely
strong rock as indicated by the UCS testing summarised
in Table 12.3. The RMR’89 values are in a relatively tight
range of between 65 and 85, with the overall mean and
standard deviation as shown in Table 12.4 and Figure
12.6. This classifies the limestone as Good to Very
Good Rock which is in keeping with the fact that only
half of the mines install regular roof reinforcement in
10 to 15 m wide openings (Esterhuizen et al. 2011).

TABLE 12.2 Mining dimensions of NIOSH limestone mine database (Esterhuizen et al. 2008)
Depth [m] Pillar width Pillar height w/h
(w) [m] (h) [m]

Average 117 13.1 11.1 1.41

Minimum - 23 – 671 4.6 - 21 4.8 – 38 0.29 – 3.52

Maximum

TABLE 12.3 UCS testing of NIOSH limestone mine database (Esterhuizen et al. 2008)
Number of Average Range
Representative Formations
tests [MPa] [MPa]

Burlington, Salem, Galena-

Very Strong 50 88 44 – 143
Platteville

Camp Nelson, Monteagle,

Very to Extremely Strong Plattin, Vanport, Upper Newman, 100 135 82 – 207
Chickamauga

Extremely Strong Loyalhanna, Tyrone 32 219 151 – 301

(19)
1989 version of RMR

250
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

Several thousand stable pillars and 18 cases of

 ummary of RMR of NIOSH limestone
Table 12.4 S
mine database (Esterhuizen et al. 2011) failed individual pillars in otherwise stable layouts are
included in the NIOSH database. The UCS of limestone
Parameter Ratings forming these 18 failed pillars varied between 150
Mean (standard
deviation) and 215 MPa, i.e. extremely strong rock. Many of the
instabilities were related to pillars that were initially
Strength of intact rock stable during development but became unstable during
UCS [MPa] or after benching, i.e. as w/h decreased (Esterhuizen et
11.6 (1.79)
al. 2006).
RQD and spacing of defects
[Defect frequency]
Excluding the six cases where large defects
23.0 (3.91) intersected the pillars as reported by Esterhuizen et al.
(2008), the 12 pillars failed at (see Figure 12.7):
Defect length 4.0 (1.23)
• stresses between 0.11 and 0.17 times the UCS, with
Condition of

Separation 5.5 (1.14) one exception at 0.08 UCS

defects

Roughness 4.7 (1.27) • w/h between 0.4 to 0.9 with one exception at w/h
= 1.7. The pillar for this one exception failed by
Infill (gouge) 5.7 (0.82)
progressively spalling.
Weathering 6.0 (0.10)

Groundwater 14.4 (2.1)

RMR’89 75 (range 65 – 80)

GSI = RMR’89- 5 70 (range 60 – 75)

FIGURE 12.6 Distribution of RMR in the NIOSH database; the minimum and maximum values are shaded (Esterhuizen et al.
2011)

251
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 12.7 Summary of pillar layouts and the 18 single failed pillars from Esterhuizen et al. (2008)

The data in Figure 12.7 that represent the 12 failed Essentially the limestone pillars failed in unconfined
pillars and several of the stable pillars adjacent to the compression at stresses approximately 11% to 17% of
line labelled the ‘boundary of current experience’ the UCS. That is when σ3 = 0, σ1 ≈ 0.11σc to 0.17σc.
was digitised. The ‘average pillar confinement’ was Substituting this into the Hoek-Brown criterion
then calculated for these pillars using the empirical
equation of Lunder (1994) in Equation 12.1. In
this way, principal stress pairs (σ3/σc , σ1/σc ) were
found. The resultant principal stress plot is shown in it simplifies to:
Figure 12.8.

252
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

0.6

0.5

0.4
σ1 / σc

0.3

0.2

pillar failed by
progressive spalling

0.1
Failed

stable
0.0
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
σ3 / σc

FIGURE 12.8 Ratio of σ1 v σc versus σ3 v σc for the failed limestone pillars (solid symbols) and a selection of the stable
limestone pillars (open symbols) collated by Esterhuizen et al. (2008).

253
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

12.2.3 Iron ore
Hosni et al. (2015) assessed the conditions of nine
pillar collapses of the underground iron ore mines in
the Lorraine area of France between 1997 and 2009.
The oolitic-type iron ore occurs in 3 to 7 m thick
layers separated by limestone and sandstone – ‘marls’
(argillite, siltite and carbonates) (Grgic et al. 2003).
The mines were closed in 1997.
Hosni et al. (2015) estimated the total stress acting
on the pillars at the times of their collapse using the
Tributary Area Theory, to range between 8 and 12
MPa as listed in Table 12.5. Chemical degradation
of the iron ore with time led to the pillar collapses
(Grgic et al. 2001). It is interpreted that the chemical
degradation reduces the strength of the iron ore.
The following is calculated.
• The σ1/σc ratio shown in Table 12.5 based on a UCS
value of 19 MPa, which Grgic et al. (2003) quotes
as being the representative short-term UCS of the
iron ore core samples. Note that it is likely that
this is the maximum UCS value at the time of pillar
failure.
• The Cpav for these pillars using Equation 12.1
• The σ3/σc ratio by multiplying Cpav by σ1/σc.
The resultant principal stress pairs are plotted in
Figure 12.9.

TABLE 12.5 Summary of iron ore pillar collapses (Hosni et al. 2015)
Event Pillar dimension [m] Bord Pillar
Depth
w/h width Stress, σ1 σ1 / σc
Height Width Length [m]
[m] [MPa]
Mou_1997 3.5 12 12 3.4 6 120 8 0.42
Aub_96_02 5 12 14 2.4 6 170 10.9 0.57
Affl_01 7 24 24 3.4 6 255 12 0.63
Doma_01 5 27 27 5.4 6 245 11 0.58
Cru_1977 3.8 11 25 2.9 / 6.6 6 148 10.9 0.57
Rue Dante 5 12 49 2.4 / 9.8 8 170 9.9 0.52
Roc_2008 3 10 37 3.3 / 12.3 3 190 8 0.42
Ron_1999 2.5 6 85 2.4 / 34.0 6 140 9 0.47
Ang_2009 5 11 40 2.2 / 8.0 6 175 9.4 0.49

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
σ1/σc

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 Failed
mb = 0.7, s = 0.01, a = 0.55
0.0
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
σ3/σc

FIGURE 12.9 Ratio of σ1 v σc versus σ3 v σc for the failed iron ore pillar database collated by Hosni et al. (2015). The Hoek-
Brown envelopes were curve-fitted.

254
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

The Hoek-Brown envelopes were curve-fitted.
The failed iron ore pillar data spans ranges of:
• σc ≈ 19 MPa
• GSI ≈ 40 – 60 as estimated from published photos
for a blocky to very blocky rock mass with fair to
good surface conditions of fractures (Figure 12.10)
• 0.1 ≤ σ3/σc ≤ 0.2 and 0.42 ≤ σ1/σc ≤ 0.63.
The inferred failure envelope mb = 0.7, s = 0.01, a =
0.55 (Figure 12.9) implies an unconfined compressive
strength of the iron ore pillars of approximately 10% of
the UCS. That is when σ3 = 0, σ1 ≈ 0.10σc and
sa=0.10

FIGURE 12.10 Photos of Lorraine iron ore mines. Top from Geoderis (2008); bottom from website accessed on 15/06/15:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4121/4777055460_bc878f0850_z.jpg

255
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

12.2.4 Sandstone 0.40

Krauland et al. (1989) described a full-scale pillar
test, conducted between 1983 and 1988, in the Stable
Laisvall lead-zinc-silver mine, northern Sweden. The
orebody, hosted in flat-lying, Cambrian to Devonian Failed
aged, quartzitic sandstone interlayered with clayey
sandstones, was mined using the room and pillar 0.30
mining method until 2001.
The sandstone is interbedded with thin shale
partings and overlayed by Cambrian-aged schist. The
sandstone’s UCS varies between 130 and 290 MPa,
with a typical value of 210 ± 40 MPa (Soder and

Krauland 1989).
The full-scale test was conducted on nine pillars in
one area of the mine. The objective was to determine
the stress level in the pillar at failure to serve as input
to pillar design (Idris et al. 2015). The pillars were
subjected to increasing stresses by decreasing the
cross-sectional area of the pillars through blasting six
approximately 0.4 m thick slices, thereby reducing the
widths and lengths of the pillars in each of the mining
steps (Soder and Krauland 1989).
The pillars were initially 4.6 m high, 7.4 m wide
and 8.1 m long which gives a minimum w/h ratio
of 1.6. Pillar failure was defined to have occurred
when fractures were visually assessed to extend to the
central parts of the pillar. Failure generally occurred
after six slices were blasted, i.e. when the pillars
were approximately 4.5 – 6.1 m wide and 5.3 – 6.9m
long. These dimensions give a minimum w/h of
1.0 – 1.2.
Soder and Krauland (1989) report the stress in the
pillars before the test had been 18.6 ± 3.0 MPa and
at failure the stress had increased to 24.2 ± 1.4 MPa.
Based on these measurements, the calculated rock
mass UCS as reported by Soder and Krauland (1989)
and in Edelbro et al. (2007) is 19.8 ± 1.4 MPa.
The following is then calculated:
• σ1/σc ratio based on a UCS value of 210 MPa
• Cpav for these pillars using Equation 12.1
• σ3/σc ratio by multiplying Cpav by σ1/σc.
The resultant principal stress pairs are plotted in
Figure 12.11.
It is clear from this figure that the pillars failed
essentially in unconfined compression at stresses
approximately 11% of the UCS. That is, when σ3 = 0,
σ1 ≈ 0.11σc and hence:
sa=0.11
Idris et al. (2015) calculated a mean GSI of 59 and
range of 51 to 64, for the sandstone pillars by adopting
the relationship between block volume, Vb , and joint
condition, Jc , suggested by Cai and Kaiser (2007).
σ1 / σc
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2
σ31 /σc
FIGURE 12.11 Ratio of σ1 v σc versus σ3 v σc for the the
Laisvall mine test pillars after Krauland et al. (1989)
12.3 LABORATORY SAMPLES
12.3.1 Stripa granite
A large core sample of granite (quartz monzonite)
1 m diameter by 2 m long was recovered by slot drilling
from the Stripa mine in Sweden for laboratory testing
(Thorpe et al. 1980). The uniaxial compressive strength
test result of this large core sample gave a UCS of 7.55
MPa and a corresponding modulus of 52.3 GPa.
The granite core was mapped as shown in Figure
12.12. Two main joint sets were identified along with
other random, short fractures. The RMR’89 of the
granite core as listed in Table 12.6 is estimated from
the information in the appendix of Thorpe et al. (1980).
A GSI of 53 – 65 is estimated using the equation GSI =
RMR89 – 5 (Hoek 1994; Hoek and Brown 1997) which
is in keeping with the visual interpretation of the
mapping Figure 12.12; that is a very blocky rock mass
with good surface conditions of fractures. It is noted
that estimates of GSI should also be made independent
of RMR, e.g. (Bertuzzi et al. 2016; Hoek 2007; Hoek
et al. 2013).

256
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

TABLE 12.6 RMR for the large granite core estimated from the data in Thorpe et al. (1980)
Parameter Maximum Description Rating
Rating
Intact rock strength 15 80 to 200 MPa 8 – 14
RQD 20 1.45 m Length of core and 22 fractures 11
Cumulative length of core ≥ 100mm = 0.83 m
Estimated RQD = 57
Joint spacing 20 Two main continuous joint sets with random 6–9
discontinuous fractures
Average spacing = 70 mm to 300 mm
Joint roughness 6 Smooth to slightly rough 1–3
Joint infill thickness 6 Less than 1 mm thick 4
Joint fill strength 6 Calcite and chlorite coatings 4
Joint weathering 6 Joint walls are generally unweathered, hard rock 5–6
Joint length 6 Continuity less than 1 – 3 m 4
Groundwater 15 Dry 15
RMR’89 100 58 – 70
GSI RMR’89 - 5 53 – 65

FIGURE 12.12 Fracture traces mapped in the large diameter Stripa granite core (Thorpe et al. 1980). The top figure shows
all the fractures mapped. The bottom figure shows the principal fractures and the locations of instrumentation. This bottom
figure suggests a GSI = 50 – 60.

257
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

Table 12.7 and Table 12.8 reproduce the results The unconfined compressive strength for the 1 m
of laboratory testing that was carried out on 52 mm diameter Stripa granite core, which is estimated to have
diameter core of the Stripa granite (Thorpe et al. a GSI = 50 - 65, is 7.55 MPa. This is approximately 7.5
1980). This data is presented in the principal stress plot / 175 = 4% of the intact UCS. That is, when σ3 = 0,
in Figure 12.13. The average UCS from this data is σ1≈ 0.04σc and hence we can write:
approximately 175 MPa. s a=0.04
The Hoek-Brown criterion parameters calculated
using the program RocLab(20) for the intact Stripa
granite data shown in Figure 12.13 are: σc = 175
MPa, mi = 25, s = 1.0 and a= 0.5. Intact granite has
GSI = 100.

TABLE 12.7 Laboratory testing of 52 mm core of 600

the Stripa granite from Thorpe et al.
(1980)
Specimen σ3 [MPa] σ1 [MPa] E [GPa]
A natural, healed fracture
was observed in sample

S1 6.90 247.8 58.81

S2 3.45 210.5 56.48

500
S3 0 82.2 53.16

S4 0 156.6 74.61

S5 6.90 151.2 46.06

400
T1 2.6 0 -

T2 4.1 0 -

S6 9.7 0 -
σ1 [MPa]

S7 7.1 0 - 300
S8 6.90 329.4 48.04
Intact

S9 3.45 264.2 52.86

S10 0 208.2 52.81

S11 0 178.3 54.54

200

Intact
TABLE 12.8 Summary of other laboratory testing previous
of conventional 52 mm core of Stripa 100
granite from Thorpe et al. (1980) naturally fractured
σ3 [MPa] σ1 [MPa] E [GPa]
1m diameter core
13.3 ± 1.4 0 -
HB: sc=175 mi=25
15.0 ± 1.8 0 -
0
0 214 ± 24 52.3 ± 6.5 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100120140160
0 208 ± 31 69.4 ± 6.6
σ3 [MPa]
5 309 ± 10 75.4 ± 1.8

10 372 ± 26 77.2 ± 0.9 FIGURE 12.13 Principal stress plot for the Stripa granite
core after Thorpe et al. (1980). The Hoek-Brown envelopes
20 470 ± 6 82.2 ± 2.2 were curve-fitted.

30 530 ± 14 83.2 ± 0.6

(20)
RocScience, version 1.033

258

12.3.2 Lac du Bonnet granite
Martin (1993) reported results of various testing carried
out on samples of Lac du Bonnet Granite, including
direct tensile tests, as part of the AECL’s URL. Of
interest in relation to the work in this chapter is the
strength testing of core samples ranging from 33 to
300 mm diameter. Martin (1993) concluded that the
Hoek-Brown criterion parameters for the intact Lac du
Bonnet granite core samples are: σc = 210 MPa, mi =
28.9, s =1.0, a = 0.5 (Figure 12.14).
Martin (1993) also concluded that:
• Beyond approximately 140 mm diameter, the
unconfined compressive strength is relatively
constant at about 0.8 of the UCS
• The effect of scale on the compressive strength of
Lac du Bonnet granite is not very significant.
FIGURE 12.14 Principal stress plot (left) and UCS versus core diameter (right) for the Lac du Bonnet granite from Martin
(1993)
12 | Rock Mass Strength
That is, for the Lac du Bonnet granite rock mass,
the unconfined compressive strength, or as Martin
(1993) called the crack damage stress, is approximately
0.8σc . Recall that crack initiation typically starts at
approximately 0.3σc to 0.5σc (Chapter 5.2).
Martin et al. (1999) quotes RMR ≈ 100 for the Lac
du Bonnet granite rock mass. Diederichs (2007) gives
similar values:
• mi = 30, s = 1 and a = 0.5 for intact
• GSI = 85, mb= 17.6, s = 0.19 and a = 0.5 for rock
mass (Table 6.6)
259
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
12.3.3 Artificially jointed granite
Alejano et al. (2015) carried out triaxial testing of
intact and artificially jointed granite cylinders of 54
mm diameter. They assessed the GSI for these cylinders
as 100, 82 and 65 for the intact, three and five joint
samples, respectively (Figure 12.15).
For intact granite, they assessed GSI = 100,
σc = 118 MPa and mi = 41.4. This value of mi may
be questionable though, as they did not include tensile
testing and limited confining stress to between 0.5 and
12 MPa, which corresponds to a maximum σ3 /σc ratio
of 0.1. The curve-fit mi value may therefore not be the
best estimate based on the recommendations of:
• Hoek and Brown (1980), who recommended a
confining stress range between σt and 0.5σc
• the recent review of Read and Richards (2015) who
recommend a confining stress range between σt and
0.3σc.
FIGURE 12.15 Samples of artificially jointed granite tested by Alejano et al. (2015) who assessed the GSI values of 100, 82
and 65 (left to right).
260
For the artificially jointed granite samples, Alejano
et al. (2015) assessed GSI = 82 and 65 as being
appropriate for the three and five joint samples,
respectively (Figure 12.15). These GSI values together
with σc = 118 MPa and mi = 41.4, correspond to the
following Hoek-Brown parameters as calculated using
the program RocLab (20).
• For GSI = 82, mb = 21.8, s = 0.1353 and a = 0.500
• For GSI = 65, mb = 11.9, s = 0.0205 and a = 0.502.
However, the Mostyn-Douglas method, which
allows the parameter a to vary, to curve-fit the Hoek-
Brown envelope to the data is also used (Mostyn and
Douglas 2000). The resulting envelopes provide a
better fit to the data (Figure 12.16):
• For GSI = 65, mb = 9.53, s = 0.222 and a = 0.712
• For GSI = 82, mb = 25.63, s = 0.105 and a = 0.5.
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

FIGURE 12.16 Results of laboratory testing and inferred strength envelopes for the samples of artificially jointed granite
tested by Alejano et al. (2015). The Hoek-Brown envelopes were curve-fitted.

261
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
12.3.4 Quartzite
Douglas (2002) reported the results of four sets of
triaxial testing on drill-core sized samples of quartzitic
sandstone carried out by Habimana et al. (2002).
The four sets of quartzite classified as GSI = 15,
25, 50 and 80 and with intact Hoek-Brown criterion
parameters, σc = 90 MPa, mi = 9. The Habimana et
al. (2002) data is presented as principal stress plots in
Figure 12.17.
The the Hoek-Brown strength criterion was curve-
fitted to the data using RocLab (20) to predict mb, s and
a from GSI. A curve-fit for the Hoek-Brown strength
criterion as modified by Mostyn & Douglas (Mostyn
and Douglas 2000) was also made.
FIGURE 12.17 Principal stress plots for the quartzite after Habimana et al. (2002) as given in Douglas (2002). The Hoek-
Brown envelopes were curve-fitted.
262
The GSI predicted mb, s and a fits the data very well
except for the data corresponding to GSI = 50. The
Mostyn & Douglas modified criterion fits all the data
very well with the following parameters.
• For GSI = 15, mb = 2.07, s = 0.0242 and a = 0.999
• For GSI = 25, mb = 1.56, s = 0.0011 and a = 0.653
• For GSI = 50, mb = 4.83, s = 0.006 and a = 0.617
• For GSI = 80, mb = 4.82, s = 0.0277 and a = 0.5.
The triaxial testing of quartzite data spans ranges of:
• σc = 90 MPa
• 15 ≤ GSI ≤ 80
• 0 ≤ σ3 /σc ≤ 0.25 and 0.006 ≤ σ1 /σc ≤ 1.1.
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

12.3.5 Phyllite
Habimana et al. (2002) also presented strength curves • For GSI = 5, mb = 0.8, s = 0.0031 and a = 0.854
for drill-core sized samples of phyllite, which has been • For GSI = 15, mb = 0.804, s = 0.0021 and a = 0.689
digitised to obtain a few data points, see Figure 12.18. • For GSI = 25, mb = 1.16, s = 0.0043 and a = 0.780
These points are then presented in Figure 12.19 with
the GSI derived Hoek-Brown criterion parameters
• For GSI = 35, mb = 0.996, s = 0.0011 and a = 0.626.
The triaxial testing of phyllite data spans ranges of:
using the values for intact phyllite given in Habimana
et al. (2002) of σc = 70 MPa, mi = 8. • σc = 70 MPa
Again, the the Hoek-Brown strength criterion as • 5 ≤ GSI ≤ 35
modified by Mostyn & Douglas (Mostyn and Douglas • 0 ≤ σ3/σc ≤ 0.21 and 0.01 ≤ σ1/σc ≤ 0.57.
2000) was curve-fitted. The Mostyn & Douglas
modified criterion perfectly fits the data with the
following parameters.

FIGURE 12.18 Digitised points of the phyllite failure envelopes presented in Habimana et al. (2002)

263
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 12.19 Principal stress plots for the phyllite, after Habimana et al. (2002). The Hoek-Brown envelopes were curve-
fitted.

264
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

12.3.6 Other This therefore implies that the back-analysed

Martin et al. (1999) back-analysed published accounts unconfined compressive strength (i.e. when σ3 = 0)
of stress-induced failures surrounding drives in various of the various rock masses assessed by Martin et al.
rock types and showed that the depths of failure could (1999) is:
be reasonably matched by adopting Hoek-Brown
criterion parameters for the rock mass of mb = 0 and
s = 0.11.
Recalling that the Hoek-Brown criterion is:
The cases are summarised in Table 12.9.

When m = 0 and s = 0.11, this equation simplifies to:

TABLE 12.9 Summary of the UCS for the intact rock and for the rock mass of the cases back-analysed by
Martin et al. (1999).
Back-analysed
UCS
Source, Rock type RMR’89 GSI UCS of rock mass
[MPa]
[MPa]

AECL’s URL, Canada Granite 224 ≈100 80 – 95 75

(85)

Donkin-Morien coal Sedimentary 36 85 80 12

mine, Canada

Metasediments 100 66 61 33

Canadian mine Granite gneiss 240 70 65 80

265
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

12.4 OK TEDI CORE TESTING 12.4.1 GSI

A rock testing programme was undertaken in the early The description, photographs and sketches were used
1990s by Ok Tedi Mining Limited on core from 10 to classify the hornfels and limestone cores with the
boreholes from its mine in Papua New Guinea. The GSI system chart. The data was then grouped into
testing, which was carried out by the Snowy Mountains GSI values of 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 89-90 and 90-100.
Engineering Corporation (SMEC), included detailed This process is in keeping with that used by Hoek and
descriptions, sketches and photographs of samples Brown (1980) to link their strength criteria with the
prepared for UCS and TXL testing. Figure 12.20 RMR for the Panguna andesite samples.
shows an example of the testing reports. The results of triaxial testing for the monzonite
The rock types tested comprised: and monzodiorite were too few and too erratic to be
reliably used.
• Hornfels (metamorphosed sandstones and siltstones)
– 66 TXL and 44 UCS tests
• Limestone (including limestone breccia) – 39 TXL
and 19 UCS
• Monzonite – 9 TXL and 26 UCS (13 of which were
dry)
• Monzodiorite – 8 TXL and 6 UCS.
The diameter of the tested core was generally 61 mm
though some tests were conducted on 50 and 83 mm
diameter core. Confining pressures up to 15 MPa were
used for the TXL testing.

FIGURE 12.20 Example of the core description, photographs and sketches provided by SMEC with the test results.

266
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

12.4.2 Intact rock properties
Samples which classified with a GSI ≥ 90 are considered
to represent intact rock for the purposes of estimating
the UCS. The results are presented as frequency curves
in Figure 12.21 with the following averages.
• Hornfels, average UCS = 137 MPa
• Limestone, average UCS = 75 MPa.
The average UCS values quoted above and the UCS
and TXL test data were used to calculate the Hoek-
Brown envelope parameters mi, s and a following the
methodology of Mostyn and Douglas (2000). The
curve-fitted envelopes are shown in Figure 12.22 and
with the parameters summarised in Table 12.10.

TABLE 12.10 Hoek-Brown parameters for the limestone and hornfels test results
Rock Number of
tests mb s a r2
GSI

50 - 59 3 4.00 0.2711 0.820 0.6829

60 – 69 11 6.28 0.2714 0.522 0.5862

Limestone

70 – 79 14 9.56 0.6415 0.626 0.9090

80 – 89 0 - - - -

90 – 100 24 14.98 1.0000 0.500 0.8510

50 - 59 8 5.06 0.0160 0.500 0.7148

60 – 69 4 7.53 0.1230 0.831 0

Hornfels

70 – 79 35 8.51 0.2181 0.654 0.7360

80 – 89 45 14.4 0.3687 0.500 0.2380

90 – 100 21 39.1 1.0000 0.500 0.4110

100% 100%

90% 90%
Ok Tedi Hornfels Ok Tedi Limestone
80% 80%

70% 70%

60% 60%

50% 50%
All All
40% 40%
GSI>90 GSI>90
30% 30%
Average Average
(GSI>90) (GSI>90)
20% 20%

10% 10%

0% 0%
0 50 100 137 150 200 0 20 40 60 75 80 100 120
UCS [MPa] UCS [MPa]

FIGURE 12.21 Summary of UCS test results for hornfels and limestone core. The averaged values of those cores assessed to
have a GSI ≥ 90 to be the UCS of the rock type.

267
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 12.22 Summary of UCS and TXL test results for hornfels and limestone core with Hoek-Brown envelopes fitted to
the data following the methodology of Mostyn and Douglas (2000). The test data was plotted for GSI ranges of 50-59, 60-
69, 70-79, 80-89 and 90-100. There was no data for limestone in the GSI = 80-89 class and only four UCS data for hornfels
GSI = 60-69 to plot a reliable graph.

268
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

12.5 DISTURBANCE FACTOR TABLE 12.11 Broad subjective categories of the

As discussed in Chapter 5.6, the introduction of a
Disturbance Factor, D, enabled Hoek et al. (2002)
to combine the then relationships between the Hoek- D Database
Brown criterion parameters m and s and the RMR of
0 Sandstone pillar test – controlled blasting
‘undisturbed’ and ‘disturbed’ rock mass (Brown and
Hoek 1988). “D is a factor which depends upon the
degree of disturbance to which the rock mass has been
subjected by blast damage and stress relaxation. It varies
from 0 for undisturbed in situ rock masses to 1 for very
disturbed rock masses” (Hoek et al. 2002). 0–
Hoek et al. (2002) report that experience in the design 0.8
of open pit slopes and the back-analysis of monitoring
data from an underground cavern in Taiwan, led them
to the guidelines for estimating the factor D which are
reproduced in Figure 12.23. They noted that “ it is clear
that a large number of factors can influence the degree of
disturbance in the rock mass surrounding an excavation 0.8
and that it may never be possible to quantify these factors
precisely.” Hoek and Diederichs (2006) elaborated
further by stating that D “will vary for each application,
depending upon the excavation and loading sequence for
the particular structure being designed.”
Each of the preceding rock mass data sets was
subjectively catergorised for the appropriate D
following the guidelines in Figure 12.23. The resulting
broad categories are shown in Table 12.11 with the
reasons for assigning the D values. It is stressed that
these categories are, by definition, imprecise.
Disturbance Factor, D, for the rock
mass databases
Habimana sandstone and phyllite – drill core
Lac du Bonnet granite from URL – controlled
blasting
Sedimentary – TBM
Ok Tedi core samples
Hawkesbury Sandstone – mainly mechanical
excavation but some blasting
Coal pillars – mainly mechanical excavation
or controlled blasting
Stripa granite – blasted tunnel but slot
drilled core
Artificially jointed granite – man-made
fractures
Hard rock pillars – production blasting
Limestone pillars – production blasting
Mines - metasediments, gneiss – production
blasting
Iron ore pillars – production blasting

FIGURE 12.23 Guidelines for estimating disturbance factor, D, for tunnels from Hoek et al. (2002) and repeated in Hoek
(2012)

269
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

12.6 GSI RELATIONSHIPS
The data sets of rock mass in situ stress failures presented
in this chapter are summarised in Table 12.12 together
with those from the Hawkesbury Sandstone tunnels
in Chapter 10 and from the coal pillars in Chapter 11.
This combined database is then used to empirically
derive relationships between GSI and the parameters
mb, s and a of the Mostyn-Douglas modified Hoek-
Brown criterion.
The relationships between mb and GSI, s and GSI and
a and GSI, are shown in Figure 12.24 to Figure 12.26,
respectively. The relationships between mb , a, GSI and D
are shown in Figure 12.27. As stated in Section 12.2.1,

TABLE 12.12 Summary of the data used

No. of Intact rock Rock mass
data
Rock Mass sets of Hoek- σc GSI Maximum stress Hoek-Brown parameters
‘failures’ Brown [MPa]
mi σ3/σc σ1/σc mb mb/mi s a

Hawkesbury 9 12 30 – 35 65 – 0.1 0.45 4.11 0.343 0.0357 0.501

Sandstone 80
Chapter 10 (70)

Coal 162 8.1 – 18 4–4 40 – 2.5 3.9 1.47 0.08 0.07 0.5
Chapter 11 (16.7) 20 70 -0.18
(60) (0.088)

Massive 60 failed 14 70 – 55 – 0.2 0.68 3 0.214 0.04 0.5

sulphide 44 315 75
Lunder (1994) marginal (65)

Quartzite 3 failed 17 – 23 85 – 55 – 0.2 1.04 7 0.30 0.07 0.5

Lunder (1994) 2 marginal (20) 168 75 –0.41
(65)

Metasediments 5 failed 12 – 22 240 55 – 0.04 0.41 1.5 0.07 0.015 0.5

Lunder (1994) 4 marginal (17) 75 –0.13
(65) 0.088

USA limestone 12 - 44 – 60 – ≈0 0.17 - sa = 0.11 to 0.17

Esterhuizen et 300 75
al. (2008) (67)

Laisvall 9 - 130 – 51 – ≈0 0.11 - sa = 0.11

sandstone 290 64
Krauland et al. 210 (59)
(1989)

Lorraine iron 9 - 19 55 – 0.2 0.63 0.7 - 0.01 0.55

ore 70
Hosni et al. (62)
(2015)

Stripa Granite 1 25 175 53 – 0 0.04 - sa = 0.04

Thorpe et al. 1 m3 core 68 (55)
(1980)

Lac du Bonnet 1 28.9 210 80 – ≈0 0.8 17.6 0.609 0.19 0.5

Granite 95
Martin (1993) (85)

Sedimentary 1 - 36 80 ≈0 0.11 0 0 0.11 0.5

Martin (1993)

Metasediments 1 - 100 61 ≈0 0.11 0 0 0.11 0.5

Martin (1993)

Gneiss 1 - 240 65 ≈0 0.11 0 0 0.11 0.5

Martin (1993)

Granite core 19 41.4 118 82 0.1 2.38 28.53 0.689 0.105 0.5
Alejano et al.
(2015) 12 41.4 118 65 0.1 2.38 9.53 0.230 0.222 0.712

270
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

there is a limit to the range of GSI values over which

the Hoek-Brown criterion may be applied. The figures
plot the data as assessed with the area GSI < 30 shaded
to indicate that in this area the relationships should be
used cautiously as recommended (Brown 2008).
The equations derived from this data are presented in
Table 12.13.

TABLE 12.12 Summary of the data used continued

No. of Intact rock Rock mass
data
Rock Mass sets of Hoek- σc GSI Maximum stress Hoek-Brown parameters
‘failures’ Brown [MPa]
mi σ3/σc σ1/σc mb mb/mi s a

15 9 90 15 0.17 0.60 2.07 0.230 0.0242 0.999

Quartzite core 8 9 90 25 0.22 0.72 1.56 0.173 0.0011 0.653
Habimana et al.
(2002) 4 9 90 50 0.17 1.04 4.83 0.537 0.006 0.617

7 9 90 80 0.17 1.08 4.82 0.536 0.0277 0.5

3 points 8 70 5 0.14 0.31 0.823 0.103 0.0031 0.854

digitised

4 points 8 70 15 0.21 0.51 0.804 0.101 0.0021 0.689

Phyllite core digitised
Habimana et al.
(2002) 4 points 8 70 25 0.21 0.56 1.160 0.145 0.0043 0.780
digitised

4 points 8 70 35 0.20 0.57 0.996 0.125 0.0011 0.626

digitised

Limestone core 3 14.9 75 50-59 0.03 0.50 - - - -

Ok Tedi
11 14.9 75 60-69 0.20 1.60 6.28 0.421 0.2714 0.522

14 14.9 75 70-79 0.20 2.00 9.56 0.640 0.6415 0.626

0 - - 80-89 - - - - - -

24 14.9 75 90-100 0.20 2.25 14.93 1.000 1.0000 0.500

Hornfels core 8 39.1 137 50-59 0.09 0.79 5.06 0.129 0.0160 0.500
Ok Tedi
4 39.1 137 60-69 0.00 0.27 - - - -

35 39.1 137 70-79 0.12 1.61 8.51 0.218 0.2181 0.654

45 39.1 137 80-89 0.11 2.87 14.4 0.368 0.3687 0.500

21 39.1 137 90-100 0.12 2.52 39.1 1.000 1.000 0.500

TABLE 12.13 Comparison of proposed relationships between Hoek-Brown criterion parameters and the
GSI with the current recommendations from Hoek et al. (2002).
Current Equations
Proposed Equations
(Hoek et al. 2002)

Equation 12.2

Equation 12.3

Equation 12.4

271
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 12.24 Proposed relationship between mb/mi and GSI. The shading represents the values as D varies from 0 to 1.
For D = 1, the proposed and existing relationships are the same.

FIGURE 12.25 Proposed relationship between s and GSI. The shading represents the values as D varies from 0 to 1.
For D = 1, the proposed and existing relationships are the same.

272
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

FIGURE 12.26 Proposed relationship between α and GSI.

FIGURE 12.27 Proposed relationship between mb/mi and GSI. and s v GSI for the three broad categories of disturbance
factor, D.

273
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

The proposed equations are kept in the same format
as those commonly used and as recommended by
Hoek et al. (2002).
• The proposed denominators of the exponents in
Equation 12.2 for mb and in Equation 12.3 for s,
differ slightly
• The more substantial change is the proposed
relationship between the parameter a and GSI.
Equation 12.4 allows the parameter a to vary
between 0.5 for GSI = 100 and 1.0 for GSI ≤ 10.
Others have also suggested that the parameter a
should vary (Carter et al. 2007; Carter et al. 2008;
Diederichs et al. 2007; Mostyn and Douglas 2000;
You 2011)
• ere is a broad agreement between increasing
Th

disturbance and increasing D and lower mb and s.
12.6.1 Validation
Two checks of the proposed equations listed in Table
12.13 are made.
The data for the limestone (Esterhuizen et al. 2008),
sandstone (Krauland et al. 1989), and iron ore (Hosni
et al. 2015) mine pillars, and the large diameter granite
core Thorpe et al. (1980) were not able to be directly
used in the correlations as the rock masses largely
failed in unconfined compression and hence could not
be used to curve-fit unique Hoek-Brown envelopes.
Instead the data were used to check the veracity of
the proposed equations listed in Table 12.13, which
suggest the following.
• For the limestone pillars, GSI = 60 – 75 which gives
the parameter a to be approximately 0.5. As s a = 0.11
to 0.17, s can be calculated as equal to 0.012 – 0.029,
with an average of 0.021
• or the sandstone pillars,
F
 GSI = 51 – 64 which gives
a ≈ 0.5. Again, as s a = 0.11, s = 0.012
• For the iron ore pillars, GSI = 40 – 60, s = 0.01 and
a = 0.55 (Table 12.12)
• For the large diameter granite core, GSI = 50 – 65,
hence a ≈ 0.5. As s a = 0.04, s = 0.0016.
These values lie within the range shown in Figure
12.25 for the relationship between GSI and s.
12.6.1.1 Ok Tedi Core
The Ok Tedi core data presented in Section 12.5 are
shown as dimensionless principal stress plots in Figure
12.28 and Figure 12.29. These plots also show the
Hoek-Brown strength envelopes predicted using the
existing GSI relationships and those predicted using
the proposed relationships as shown in Table 12.14.
It can be seen in Figure 12.28 and Figure 12.29 that
the predicted Hoek-Brown strength envelopes curve-fit
the data well. Further, the envelopes predicted using
the proposed relationships (Equation 12.2 to Equation
12.4) fit the data better.

TABLE 12.14 Hoek-Brown criterion parameters based on the GSI relationships.

GSI Current Equations Proposed Equations
(Hoek et al. 2002) (Equation 5 14 to Equation 12 4)

mb/mi s a mb/mi s a
55 0.200 0.0067 0.504 0.306 0.0235 0.52

65 0.287 0.0205 0.502 0.398 0.0541 0.51

75 0.409 0.0622 0.501 0.518 0.1245 0.51

85 0.585 0.1889 0.50 0.674 0.2865 0.50

95 0.836 0.5738 0.50 0.877 0.6592 0.50

274
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

FIGURE 12.28 Normalised principal stress plots for hornfels (as there is only four UCS data for 60 ≤ GSI ≤ 69, this curve
is not shown.) The curves are the predicted Hoek-Brown envelope using the current GSI relationships (dashed) and those
proposed (solid), for GSI = 55 and 75, respectively.

275
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 12.29 Normalised principal stress plots for limestone. The curves are the predicted Hoek-Brown envelope using the
current GSI relationships (dashed) and those proposed (solid), for GSI = 75 and 95, respectively. Note that there was no data
for 80 ≤ GSI ≤ 89. Open symbols are data from limestone breccia.

276
 12 | Rock Mass Strength

12.7 CONCLUSIONS
An extensive database of large scale hard rock failures
was assembled from literature. The database comprises
mine pillars in igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary
rocks and both small and large diameter core testing.
In each case the rock mass quality, or data that could
be used to assess rock mass quality, had been recorded.
A distinct contribution is the collation of this extensive
database of large scale rock mass strength and rock
mass quality.
The confining stress range of all but one of the
databases is quite low, typically being between 0 and
0.2σc. In fact, very many of the cases were effectively
unconfined compressive stress failures.
This in itself is a very interesting statistic. Most
large-scale failures experienced in rock masses occur at
either tensile, zero or low confinement. It is clear then
that failure criteria which work in the low confining
stress range are therefore more useful in predicting the
rock mass strength in most experienced cases. 

277
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

278
 13 | DISL – Coal

13 DISL – COAL

13.1 OUTLINE
Chapter 12 proposed a new set of relationships between
the Hoek-Brown criterion parameters mb, s and a, and
GSI based on the collation of several databases of rock
mass stress failures. The confining stress range of all
but one of the databases is however quite low, typically
being between 0 and 0.2σc.
As stated in Chapter 12, this is a very interesting
statistic. Most of the large-scale failures experienced
in rock masses occur at either tensile, zero or low
confinement. Failure criteria that work in the low
confining stress range are therefore more useful
in predicting the rock mass strength in most
experienced cases.
The one exception is the coal pillar database. The
coal pillar database comprises 162 cases of collapsed
pillars ranging up to a confining stress of 2.5σc. This
database is shown as a normalised principal stress plot
in Figure 13.1. This chapter looks at whether a multi-
curve envelope – the damage initiation spalling limit
(DISL) approach – as initially proposed by Diederichs
(2000) and as shown in Figure 13.2 – can be fitted to
the coal pillar database.

FIGURE 13.1 Predicted principal stresses normalised with the assumed UCS. Closed symbols are collapsed pillars, open
symbols are un-collapsed pillars. The yielding pillars from Jitpur, India are circled.

279
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

13.2 BACKGROUND
As discussed in Chapter 5.2 and Chapter 5.6.2,
Diederichs (2000), Carter et al. (2007) and Diederichs
et al. (2007) working with computer models and test
results of the Lac Du Bonnet granite of AECL’s URL in
Manitoba, Canada, identified an issue with estimating
the Hoek-Brown material parameters for spall-prone
rock masses, which they defined as having mi >> 15
and GSI >> 65. They proposed the relationships in EQUATION 13.1
Equation 13.1 for estimating rock mass strength under
low confining stresses. Diederichs and his co-workers proposed the DISL
Diederichs et al. (2007) noted that the resulting approach to model the strength of spall-prone rock
peak strength parameters ‘will significantly over- masses. The DISL strength envelope is schematically
predict failure if used in non-linear plasticity codes’ shown in Figure 13.2. It comprises four zones as
and hence included the residual values as a second described below in order of increasing confinement.
limit. The change from peak to residual occurring at 1 Under tensile stresses, the rock mass can unravel
approximately a confinement based on the σ1/σ3 ratio 2 Under compressive stresses but below the ‘‘damage
of 7 to 10. threshold’’ the rock is not damaged and remains

FIGURE 13.2 Idealised strength envelope in normalised principal stress, modified from Diederichs et al. (2007)

280

undisturbed. Depending upon the confinement
when the damage threshold is exceeded, micro-
crack damage accumulates, leading either to spalling
or macro-scale shear failure.
3 Spalling
Diederichs et al. (2007) proposed an empirically-
based Hoek-Brown envelope to model this
damage initiation threshold as given in Equation
13.2. As discussed in Chapter 5.2, systematic
cracking starts at compressive stresses between
0.3σc to 0.5σc, that is UCS*/UCS = 0.3 to 0.5.
Recalling from Chapter 11.3.7 that for coal mi
typically ranges between 14 and 18, with an
average value of 16 gives the peak strength values:
EQUATION 13.2
The residual strength values which are empirically
defined as s = 0, a = 0.75 and m = mi / 3 give m = 16/3
= 5.333 and therefore:
EQUATION 13.3
4 Macro-scale shear failure
Increasing the confinement changes the controlling
mechanism to one of macro-scale shear failure.
The generalised Hoek-Brown criterion (Hoek et al.
2002) with parameters provided in in Chapter 11
as reasonable ‘average’ or ‘typical’ values as used by:
ww Medhurst and Brown (1998) for mid-bright
Moura coal (Equation 13.4)
ww Esterhuizen et al. (2010) for USA coal
(Equation 13.5)
EQUATION 13.4
13 | DISL – Coal
EQUATION 13.5
5 It is suggested that as confinement continues to
increase, the DISL needs to be extended to include
the ‘maximum confined strength’ as advocated by:
„„ Mogi (1966) who made two key observations
regarding intact rock failure:
ww the failure mechanism changes from brittle to
ductile as the confining stress increases
ww the yield strength (σ1/σ3) becomes constant at
high confining stresses
„„ The idea that the strength of a rock mass is limited
is in keeping with the observations of Bieniawski
(1968) that “there exists a critical pillar size above
which the strength of coal does not change with an
increase in pillar dimensions”
„„ Barton (1976) who coined the term critical
effective confining pressure to be that confining
pressure above which shear strength cannot be
made to increase
„„ Singh et al. (2011) and Singh and Singh (2012)
who suggest that the critical confining pressure
can be assumed to be approximately the UCS
„„ Singh et al. (2015) and Singh et al. (2015) who
suggest that for anisotropic rock masses, the
critical confining pressure is approximately 1.25
x UCS.
One of the conclusions reached in Chapter 11, is
that the maximum confined strength applicable to
the coal pillar database is approximately 0.6,
with a range between 0.5 and 0.7.
EQUATION 13.6
Equation 13.2 to Equation 13.5 are overlaid onto the
coal pillar database in Figure 13.3 for collapsed pillars
and Figure 13.4 for un-collapsed pillars as principal
stress plots. The range for each of the equations is
shaded in the figures with different colours. The best
fitting set of envelopes for the coal pillar database were
visually assessed to comprise:
„„  amage initiation threshold with UCS*/UCS =
D
0.3, i.e.
„„ Spalling limit
281
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

The damage initiation threshold and spalling
limit capture the USA coal pillars that were recorded
as either “massive collapse or rock burst”, which are
shown as the light blue solid diamonds in Figure 13.3).
This supports the view that coal can be thought of as
a brittle rock under low confinement and hence the
application of a DISL approach.
„„ Macro-scale shear failure
These three best-fitting envelopes are shown
superimposed onto the data in Figure 13.5.
These three envelopes have then been combined to
form the extended DISL envelope with the
„„ Maximum confined strength, given by
The extended DISL envelope is then plotted in
Figure 13.6 and Figure 13.7 in principal stress space.
Figure 13.8 and Figure 13.9 show the data in the
deviatoric stress space.

FIGURE 13.3 Normalised average principal stress plots of the collapsed coal pillar database. The light blue diamonds are
“massive collapse or rock burst” USA coal pillars. The right-hand plots are a subset of the data, showing the cases with σ3/σc
≤ 0.5. The ranges for the ‘damage threshold’, ‘spalling limit’ and ‘shear failure’ envelopes are shown.

282
 13 | DISL – Coal

FIGURE 13.4 Normalised average principal stress plots of the un-collapsed coal pillar database. The right-hand plots are
a subset of the data, showing the cases with σ3/σc ≤ 0.5. The ranges for the ‘damage threshold’, ‘spalling limit’ and ‘shear
failure’ envelopes are shown.

283
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 13.5 Normalised average principal stress plots of the coal pillar database with σ3/σc ≤ 0.5; solid symbols represent
the collapsed pillars (top plots) and open symbols the un-collapsed pillars (bottom plots). The light blue diamonds are
“massive collapse or rock burst” USA coal pillars. The best fitting curves for the ‘damage threshold’, ‘spalling limit’ and ‘shear
failure’ envelopes are shown.shown.

284
 13 | DISL – Coal

FIGURE 13.6 Normalised average principal stress plots of the collapsed coal pillar database. The various slender pillars are
encircled. The right-hand plots are a subset of the data, showing the cases with σ3/σc ≤ 0.5. The extended DISL strength
curve is also shown with the MCS equal to 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7.

FIGURE 13.7 Normalised average principal stress plots of the un-collapsed coal pillar database. The yielding pillars from
Jitpur, India are circled as are the highly rectangular pillars from Utah, USA and Australia. The right-hand plots are a subset of
the data, showing the cases with σ3/σc ≤ 0.5. The extended DISL strength curve is also shown with the MCS equal to 0.5, 0.6
and 0.7.

285
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE 13.8 Normalised average principal deviatoric stress plots of the collapsed coal pillar database. The various slender
pillars. The right-hand plots are a subset of the data, showing the cases with σ3/σc ≤ 0.5. The extended DISL strength curve is
also shown with the MCS equal to 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7.

FIGURE 13.9 Normalised average principal deviatoric stress plots of the un-collapsed coal pillar database. The yielding pillars
from Jitpur, India are circled as are the highly rectangular pillars from Utah, USA and Australia. The right-hand plots are a
subset of the data, showing the cases with σ3/σc ≤ 0.5. The extended DISL strength curve is also shown with the MCS equal
to 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7.

286

The extended DISL envelope (Figure 13.7 to Figure
13.9) differentiates between the collapsed and the un-
collapsed coal pillars very well. This is particularly so
considering the rather generalised approach taken
here in assigning UCS and estimating the various
parameters. It is interesting to note that the data seems
to fit a maximum confined strength that is reached at
ratios of σ3/σc between 0.13 and 0.3. This is much lower
than the value of one suggested by Singh et al. (2011).
The extended DISL envelope separates approximately
80% of the collapsed and 90% of the un-collapsed
pillars modelled.
• Twenty of the 96 collapsed pillars modelled (20.8%)
plot below the envelope: nine from South Africa, six
from the USA, five from India.
Of these 20, 16 are slender pillars, defined as having
w/h ≤ 4 (Mark 2006) and of those, nine have a w/h ≤
2, which can be considered to be very slender pillars.
Accepting that slender pillars need to be specifically
assessed, only four of the 96 collapsed pillars lie
beneath the envelope, i.e. 4.2%.
13 | DISL – Coal
• Excluding the Jitpur yielding pillars, ten of the 89
un-collapsed pillars modelled (11.2%) plot above the
envelope: four from the USA, five from Australia,
one from India.
Three of the four USA pillars come from the Utah
mines which are identified in Chapter 11.3.3,
Figure 11.3 as being highly rectangular. Two of the
five Australian pillars are also highly rectangular.
The details of the cases that do not conform
to the envelope are listed in Table 13.1. The
highly rectangular pillars and the slender pillars
are highlighted.
Figure 13.10 and Figure 13.11 combine just the
damage initiation threshold with the maximum
confined strength. This simpler envelope also does
a very good job, separating the same 80% of the
collapsed and 90% of the un-collapsed pillars as the
extended DISL envelope. However, the extended DISL
envelope (Figure 13.7 to Figure 13.9) visually fits the
data better.
287
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE 13.1 Details of the coal pillar cases which do not conform to the DISL envelope. Highly
rectangular pillars and the slender pillars are highlighted.
State Mine Seam Depth w/h Pillar σ3/σc σ1/σc
[m] widths
[m]

Collapsed pillars that lie below the DISL envelope

KY 74 326 4.5 22.6 x 16.5 1.27 1.68

KY 75 122 4.6 9.1 x 9.1 0.46 0.80

WV 2 91 1.3 3 x 12.2 0.34 0.54

USA

WV 76 91 2.5 6.1 x 6.1 0.28 0.71

WV 36 69 1.8 6.1 x 6.1 0.14 0.55

WV 23 85 2.0 6.1 x 12.2 0.20 0.66

Begonia Begonia 36 1.3 3.9 x 3.9 0.11 0.44

Amlai Burhar 30 0.8 4.5 x 4.5 0.04 0.30

India Ramnagar Begunia 51 1.7 3x3 0.12 0.52

Kankanee XIII 160 3.0 19.8 x 19.8 0.47 0.90

Pure Kajora Lower 54 1.5 5.4 x 5.4 0.12 0.55

Kajora

Vaal Basin Sigma OFS2b 70 4.3 12.5 0.36 0.52

weak coal

Vaal Basin Sigma OFS3 82 3.6 10.0 0.37 0.65

weak coal

Vaal Basin Sigma OFS2a 104 4 12.0 0.49 0.82

weak coal
South Africa

Vaal Basin Sigma OFS2 108 3.3 10.6 0.47 0.90

weak coal

Vaal Basin Sigma OFS2 112 3.8 10.6 0.52 0.94

Free State Vierfontein Main 60 3.9 7 0.33 0.58

Utrecht Umgala Alfred 51.5 1.5 6 0.18 0.52

Free State Vierfontein Main 21 2.1 7.0 0.09 0.20

Witbank Wolvekrans W2 41 1.0 6.4 0.07 0.42

Un-collapsed pillars that lie above the DISL envelope

KY 100 290 4.6 9.1 x 6.1 1.22 2.26

UT 35 503 3.0 34.4 x 9.1 1.50 3.23

USA

UT 35 594 3.0 34.4 x 9.1 1.76 3.82

UT 3 585 3.9 11.3 x 30.5 1.93 3.48

India Morganpit Salarjung 270 2.7 8.1 x 8.1 0.82 1.80

FS7 510 8.2 23.5 x 44.5 0.56 2.67

FS10 450 9.2 23.5 x 44.5 0.55 2.44

AUSTRALIA FS11 150 4.6 16 x 18 0.23 1.00

FS14 430 10.7 32 x 36 0.40 2.00

FS15 75 5.0 15 x15 0.21 1.03

288
 13 | DISL – Coal

FIGURE 13.10 Normalised average principal stress plots of the collapsed coal pillar database. The various slender pillars are
circled. The right-hand plots are a subset of the data, showing the cases with σ3/σc ≤ 0.5. The simplified strength curve is also
shown with MCS equal to 0.6.

FIGURE 13.11 Normalised average principal stress plots of the un-collapsed coal pillar database. The yielding pillars from
Jitpur, India are circled as are the highly rectangular pillars from Utah, USA and Australia. The right-hand plots are a subset of
the data, showing the cases with σ3/σc ≤ 0.5. The simplified strength curve is also shown with MCS equal to 0.6.

289
 11 | Coal Pillar Case Studies

13.3 CONCLUSIONS • Damage initiation threshold

The work presented uses the extensive coal pillar
database compiled in Chapter 11 to demonstrate the
applicability of the DISL approach. • Spalling limit
The DISL approach was extended by incorporating
the maximum confined strength. A simplified
envelope was also developed. However, by inspection, • Macro-scale shear failure
the extended DISL envelope provided the better visual
fit to the coal pillar database.
The extended DISL multi-curve envelope provides a
very good predictor for the rock mass strength of coal • Maximum confined strength
pillars. Geological structures need to be considered,
particularly for slender pillars (w/h ≤ 4), but if failure
is expected to occur through the rock mass then the
envelope can be used for the rock mass strength. • In
the absence of better data, a value of σc = 6.5
The Hoek-Brown parameters for the extended MPa can be used to represent the unconfined
multi-curve DISL envelope applicable to coal are compressive strength of a 1 m3 cube of coal
(Figure 13.12):

FIGURE 13.12 Recommended extended DISL envelope for coal pillars (curves defining the shaded area)

290

14 REFERENCES
Adhikary, D. P., and Dyskin, A. V. (1997). “A Cosserat continuum
model for layered materials.” Computers and Geotechnics, 20(1),
15-45.
Adhikary, D. P., and Dyskin, A. V. (1998). “A continuum model
of layered rock masses with non-associative joint plasticity.”
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 22, 245-261.
AFTES (2003). “Guidelines for characterisation of rock masses
useful for the design and the construction of underground
structures.”
Ajalloeian, R., and Mohammadi, M. (2014). “Estimation of
limestone rock mass deformation modulus using empirical
equations.” Bulletin Engineering Geology and the Environment,
73(2), 541-550.
Al-Ajmi, A. M. (2006). “Wellbore stability analysis based on a
new true-triaxial failure criterion.”PhD, KTH.
Al-Ajmi, A. M., and Zimmerman, R. W. (2005). “Relation
between the Mogi and the Coulomb failure criteria.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
42(3), 431-439.
Alejano, L., Arzua, J., and Perez-Rey, I. (2015). “Effect of scale
and structure on the strength and deformability of rocks.”
Proc., 13th International Symposium on Rock Mechanics - ISRM
Congress 2015.
Amadei, B. (1996). “Importance of anisotropy when estimating
and measuring insitu stresses in rock.” International Journal
of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,
33(3), 293-325.
Amadei, B., and Savage, W. Z. (1991). “Analysis of borehole
expansion and gallery tests in anisotropic rock masses.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts, 28(5), 383-396.
Amadei, B., Savage, W. Z., and Swolfs, H. S. (1987).
“Gravitational stresses in anisotropic rock masses.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts, 24(1), 5-14.
Asche, H. R., and Quigley, A. (1999). “Tunnelling Design on
the Northside Storage Tunnel Project.” Proc., 10th Australian
Tunnelling Conference, AusIMM, 143-154.
AWT (1998). “Upper Canal Inspection.” Unpublished report:,
Australian Water Technologies, 67.
Badelow, F., Best, R., Bertuzzi, R., and Maconochie, D. (2005).
“Modelling of defect and rock bolt behaviour in geotechnical
numerical analysis for the Lane Cove Tunnel.” Proc.,
Geotechnical Aspects of Tunnelling for Infrastructure Projects,
AGS-AUCTA Mini Symposium, 1-9.
Bahaaddini, M., Sharrock, G., and Hebblewhite, B. K. (2013).
“Numerical investigations of the effect of joint geometrical
parameters on the mechanical properties of a non-persistent
jointed rock mass under uniaxial compression.” Computers and
Geosciences, 49, 206-225.
Bandis, S. C. (1993). “Engineering Properties and
Characterization of Rock Discontinuities”,6, Comprehensive
14 | References
Rock Engineering, J. A. Hudson, ed., Pergamon, 155-183.
Bandis, S. C., Lumsden, A. C., and Barton, N. R. (1981).
“Experimental studies of scale effects on the shear behaviour
of rock joints.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining
Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 18, 1-21.
Bandis, S. C., Lumsden, A. C., and Barton, N. R. (1983).
“Fundamentals of Rock Joint Deformation.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts, 20(6), 249-268.
Barton, N. (1973). “Review of a new shear strength criterion for
rock joints.” Engineering Geology, 7, 287-332.
Barton, N. (1976). “The shear strength of rock and rock joints.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts, 13, 225-279.
Barton, N. (1995). “The influence of joint properties in modelling
jointed rock masses.” Proc., 8th ISRM Congress, 1023-1032.
Barton, N. (1999). “General report concerning some 20th
century lessons and the 21st century challenges in applied rock
mechanics, safety and control of the environment.” Proc., 9th
International Congress on Rock Mechanics.
Barton, N. (2002). “Some new Q-value correlations to assist in
site characterisation and tunnel design.” International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39, 185-216.
Barton, N., and Bandis, S. C. (1980). “Some effects of scale on
the shear strength of joints.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics, Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 17, 69-
73.
Barton, N., and Bandis, S. C. (1982). “Effects of block size on the
shear behaviour of jointed rock”,76, Issues in Rock Mechanics,
739-760.
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J. (1974). “Engineering
classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support.”
Rock Mechanics, 6(4), 189-236.
Barton, N., and Pandey, S. K. (2011). “Numerical modelling of
two stoping methods in two Indian mines using degradation
of c and mobilization of ϕ based on Q-parameters.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
48(7), 1095-1112.
Barton, N. R. (1972). “A model study of rock joint deformation.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 9,
579-602.
Barton, N. R. (2014). “Shear strength of rock, rock joints and
rock masses - Problems and some solutions.” Proc., Rock
engineering and rock mechanics - Structures in and on rock
masses, Taylor & Francis Group, 3-16.
Barton, N. R., and Choubey, V. D. (1977). “The shear strength of
rock joints in theory and practice.” Rock Mechanics, 10, 1-54.
Barton, N. R., and Grimstad, E. (2004). “The Q-system
following 30 years of development and application in
tunneling projects.” Proc., Eurock 2004 & 53rd Geomechanics
Colloquium.
Barton, N. R., and Grimstad, E. (2014). “Forty years with the
Q-system in Norway and abroad.” Fjellsprengningsteknikk,
Bergmekanikk / Geoteknikk, 4.1-4.25.
291
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
Barton, N. R., and Grimstad, E. (2014). “An illustrated guide to
the Q-system ebook (7 May 2015).
Barton, N. R., and Shen, B. (2016). “Risk of shear failure and
extensional failure around overstressed excavations in brittle
rock.” Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
Battaglia, J., Dixon, S., and Hudson, A. (2006). “Cross city
tunnel, Sydney, NSW.” Proc., ACAA Technical Conference, 14.
Benz, T., Schwab, R., Kauther, R. A., and Vermeer, P. A. (2008).
“A Hoek–Brown criterion with intrinsic material strength
factorization.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 45(2), 210-222.
Berry, D. S. (1960). “An elastic treatment of ground movement
due to mining in Isotropic ground.” Journal of the Mechanics
and Physics of Solids, 8(4), 280-292.
Bertuzzi, R. (2012). “Discussion on ‘Sari, M., An improved
method of fitting experimental data to the Hoek–Brown
failure criterion, Engineering Geology (2012)’.” Engineering
Geology, 152, 213-214.
Bertuzzi, R. (2014). “Sydney sandstone and shale parameters for
tunnel design.” Australian Geomechanics, 49(1), 1-40.
Bertuzzi, R. (2014). “Sydney sandstone and shale parameters for
tunnel design - corrigendum 1.” Australian Geomechanics,
49(2), 95-104.
Bertuzzi, R., Douglas, K., and Mostyn, G. (2016). “Comparison
of quantified and chart GSI for four rock masses.” Engineering
Geology, 202, 24-35.
Bertuzzi, R., Douglas, K., and Mostyn, G. (2016). “Updating the
GSI and Hoek-Brown parameters relationships.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, submitted.
Bertuzzi, R., and Pells, P. J. N. (2002). “Geotechnical parameters
of Sydney sandstone and shale.” Australian Geomechanics,
37(5), 41-54.
Bieniawski, Z. T. (1968). “The effect of specimen size on
compressive strength of coal.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 5, 325-335.
Bieniawski, Z. T. (1968). “In situ strength and deformation
characteristics of coal.” Engineering Geology, 2(5), 325-340.
Bieniawski, Z. T. (1973). “Engineering classification of jointed
rock masses.” Transactions South African Institution of Civil
Engineers, 15(2), 335-342.
Bieniawski, Z. T. (1974). “Estimating the strength of rock
materials.” Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 74(8), 312-320.
Bieniawski, Z. T. (1976). “Rock mass classifications in rock
engineering.” Proc., Proceedings of the Symposium on Exploration
for Rock Engineering, A.A. Balkema.
Bieniawski, Z. T. (1978). “Determining rock mass deformability:
experience from case histories.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics, Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 15, 237-
247.
Bieniawski, Z. T. (1989). Engineering Rock Mass Classifications,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Brady, B. H. G., and Brown, E. T. (2005). Rock Mechanics for
underground mining, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Branagan, D. F. (2000). “The Hawkesbury Sandstone: its orgins
and later life.” Proc., Sandstone City - Sydney’s dimension
stone and other sandstone geomaterials, Geological Society of
Australia, 23-38.
Branagan, D. F., and Packham, G. H. (2000). Field Geology of
New South Wales, NSW Department of Mineral Resources,
Sydney.
Bristow, J. R. (1960). “Microcracks and the static and dynamic
constants of annealed and heavily cold worked metals.” British
Journal Applied Physics, 11, 81-85.
Brown, E. T. (2008). “Estimating the mechanical properties of
rock masses.” Proc., SHIRMS 2008, Australian Centre for
Geomechanics, 3-21.
Brown, E. T., and Hoek, E. (1988). “Discussion on paper by Ucar
“Determination of shear failure envelope in rock masses”.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 114, 371-373.
292
Cai, M., and Kaiser, P. K. (2007). “Obtaining modeling
parameters for engineering design by rock mass
characterisation.” Proc., 11th Congress of the International
Society for Rock Mechanics, Taylor & Francis Group.
Cai, M., Kaiser, P. K., 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.
Call, R. D., Cicchini, P. F., Ryan, T. M., and Barkley, R. C.
(2000). “Managing and analysing overall pit slopes”,Chapter
4, Slope Stability Surface Mining, W. A. Hustrulid, M. K.
McCarter, and D. J. A. van Zyl, eds.
Carter, T. G., Diederichs, M. S., and Carvallho, J. L. (2007). “A
unified procedure for Hoek-Brown prediction of strength and
post yield behaviour for rockmasses at the extreme ends of the
rock competency scale.” Proc., 11th Congress of the ISRM 2007,
Taylor & Francis Group, 161-164.
Carter, T. G., Diederichs, M. S., and Carvallho, J. L. (2008).
“Application of modified Hoek-Brown transition relationships
for assessing strength and post yield behaviour at both ends
of the rock competence scale.” Journal of the South African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 108(6), 325-338.
Carter, T. G., and Marinos, V. (2014). “Use of GSI for rock
engineering design.” Proc., Proceedings 1st International
Conference on Applied Empirical Design Methods in Mining,
1-19.
Carvalho, J. L., Carter, T. G., and Diederichs, M. S. (2007). “An
approach for prediction of strength and post yield behaviour
for rock masses of low intact strength.” Proc., 1st Canada-US
Rock Mechanics Symposium, Taylor & Francis, 277-285.
Cecil, O. S. (1970). “Correlations of rock bolt-shotcrete support
and rock quality parameters in Scandinavian tunnels.” PhD,
University of Illinois, Urbana, USA.
Christensen, R. M. (1997). “Yield functions/failure criteria
for isotropic materials.” Proceedings of the Royal Society A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 453(1962),
1473-1491.
Christensen, R. M. (2004). “A two property yield, failure
(fracture) criterion for homogenous, isotropic materials.”
Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, 126, 45-52.
Christensen, R. M. (2005). “Exploration of ductile, brittle
failure characteristics through a two parameter yield/ failure
criterion.” Material Science and Engineering, A394, 417-424.
Christensen, R. M. (2006). “A comparative evaluation of three
isotropic, two property failure theories.” Journal of Applied
Mechanics, 73, 852-859.
Christensen, R. M. (2006). “Yield functions and plastic potentials
for BCC Metals and possibly other materials.” Journal of
Mechanics of Materials and Structures, 1, 195-212.
Christensen, R. M. (2007). “A Comprehensive theory of yielding
and failure for isotropic materials.” Journal of Engineering
Materials and Technology, 129(2), 173.
Chun, B.-S., Ryu, W. R., Sagong, M., and Do, J.-N. (2009).
“Indirect estimation of the rock deformation modulus based
on polynomial and multiple regression analyses of the RMR
system.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 46(3), 649-658.
Clark, P. (2005). “Monitoring in MC1A and MC2A between
chainages 1300 and 1600 and a possible reason for the
shotcrete cracking.” Unpublished report:, TJH Joint Venture,
Lane Cove Tunnel Project.
Clarke, S., and Pells, P. J. N. (2004). “A large scale cable jacking
test for rock mass modulus measurement, Lucas Heights,
Sydney.” Proc., Proceedings of the 9th Australia New Zealand
Conference on Geomechanics, AGS, 152-158.
Clarke, S. J., de Ambrosis, A., Bertuzzi, R., and Redelinghuys,
J. (2014). “Design and construction for the widening of the
M2 Norfolk twin tunnels.” Proc., 15th Australasian Tunnelling
Conference, Australian Tunnelling Society.

Colmenares, L. B., and Zoback, M. D. (2002). “A statistical
evaluation of intact rock failure criteria constrained by
polyaxial test data for five different rocks.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39, 695-729.
Colwell, M. G. (2010). “Pillar design procedures and research
methodologies - can there or should there be a unified
approach?” Proc., Second Australian Ground Control in Mining
Conference, AusIMM, 67-77.
Cook, A. B. (1994). “Coal and progress: the South African
story.” The Journal of The South African lnstitute of Mining and
Metallurgy, November / December 1994, 329-335.
Costamagna, R., and Bruhns, O. T. (2007). “A four-parameter
criterion for failure of geomaterials.” Engineering Structures,
29(3), 461-468.
Cundall, P. A., Pierce, M. E., and Mas Ivars, D. (2008).
“Quantifying the size effect of rock mass strength.” Proc., 1st
Southern Hemisphere International Rock Mechanics Symposium,
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 3-15.
Das, M. N. (1986). “Influence of width/height ratio on post-
failure behaviour of coal.” International Journal of Mining and
Geological Engineering, 4(1), 79-87.
David, E. C., and Zimmerman, R. W. (2011). “Elastic moduli
of solids containing spheroidal pores.” International Journal of
Engineering Science, 49(7), 544-560.
de Ambrosis, L. P., and Kotze, G. P. (2004). “Stress induced roof
collapses during construction of the Sydney LPG storage
cavern.” Proc., 9th Australian New Zealand Conference on
Geomechanics, 159-165.
Deere, D. U. (1968). “Geological considerations”,1, Rock
Mechanics in Engineering Practice, K. C. Stagg, and O. C.
Zienkiewicz, eds., John Wiley & Sons, 1-20.
Descamps, F., and Tshibangu, J. P. (2007). “Modelling the
Limiting Envelopes of Rocks in the Octahedral Plane.” Oil &
Gas Science and Technology - Revue de l’IFP.
Diederichs, M. S. (2000). “Instability of hard rockmasses: The
role of tensile damage and relaxation.” PhD, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Diederichs, M. S. (2003). “Rock fracture and collapse under
low confinement conditions.” Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, 36(5), 339-381.
Diederichs, M. S. (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. S., Carvalho, J. L., and Carter, T. G. (2007).
“A modified approach for prediction of strength and post
yield behaviour for high GSI rock masses in strong, brittle
ground.” Proc., Rock Mechanics: Meeting Society’s Challenges and
Demands, Taylor & Francis Group, 249-257.
Diederichs, M. S., Kaiser, P. K., 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.
Dinc, O. S., Sonmez, H., Tunusluoglu, C., and Kasapoglu,
K. E. (2011). “A new general empirical approach for the
prediction of rock mass strengths of soft to hard rock masses.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
48(4), 650-665.
Douglas, K. J. (2002). “The shear strength of rock masses.” PhD,
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Douglas, K. J., and Mostyn, G. (1999). “Strength of large rock
masses – field verification.” Proc., Proceedings of the American
Rock Mechanics Association, Balkema, 271-276.
Drucker, D. C. and Prager, W. (1952). Soil mechanics and plastic
analysis for limit design. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, vol.
10, no. 2, pp. 157–165.
Du, X., Lu, J., Morsy, K., and Peng, S. (2008). “Coal pillar
design formulae review and analysis.” Proc., 27th International
Conference on Ground Control in Mining, West Virginia
14 | References
University.
Duncan Fama, M. E., Trueman, R., and Craig, M. S. (1995).
“Two- and three- dimensional elasto-plastic analysis for
coal pillar design and its application to highwall mining.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts, 32(3), 215-225.
Duncan, J. M., and Goodman, R. E. (1968). Finite Element
Analyses of Slopes in Jointed Rock: A Report of an Investigation,
Defense Technical Information Center, University of
California, Berkeley. College of Engineering. Office of
Research Services.
Eberhardt, E. (2012). “The Hoek–Brown Failure Criterion.” Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 45(6), 981-988.
Edelbro, C. (2003). “Rock mass strength: a review.” Lulea
University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden, 160.
Edelbro, C., Sjöberg, J., and Nordlund, E. (2007). “A quantitative
comparison of strength criteria for hard rock masses.”
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 22(1), 57-68.
Enever, J. R. (1999). “Near surface in-situ stress and its
counterpart at depth in the Sydney metropolitan area.”
Australian Geomechanics (June 1999), 65-76.
Esterhuizen, G. S., Dolinar, D. R., and Ellenberger, J. L. (2008).
“Pillar strength and design methodology for stone mines.”
Proc., 27th International Conference on Ground Control in
Mining, West Virginia University, 241-253.
Esterhuizen, G. S., Dolinar, D. R., and Ellenberger, J. L. (2011).
“Pillar strength in underground stone mines in the United
States.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 48(1), 42-50.
Esterhuizen, G. S., Iannacchione, A. T., Ellenberger, J. L., and
Dolinar, D. R. (2006). “Pillar stability issues based on a survey
of pillar performance in underground limestone mines.” Proc.,
25th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining,
West Virginia University.
Esterhuizen, G. S., Mark, C., and Murphy, M. M. (2010). “The
ground response curve, pillar loading and pillar faiulure in coal
mines.” Proc., 29th International Conference on Ground Control
in Mining, 19-27.
Esterhuizen, G. S., Mark, C., and Murphy, M. M. (2010).
“Numerical model calibration for simulating coal pillars, gob
and overburden response.” Proc., 29th International Conference
on Ground Control in Mining, 46-57.
Ewy, R. T. (1999). “Wellbore stability predictions by use of a
modified Lade criterion.” SPE Drill & Completion, 14(2), 85-
91.
Fairhurst, C. (1971). “Fundamental considerations relating to
the strength of rock.” Colloquium on Rock Fracture, Revised
from original published in Veröff. Inst. Bodenmechanik und
Felsmechanik (Karlsruhe), 55, 1-56, 1971.
Flores, G., and Karzulovic, A. (2002). “Geotechnical guidelines
for a transition from open pit to underground mining.”
Prepared for international caving study, Stage II, JKMRC,
Brisbane.
Fookes, P. G. (1997). “Geology for engineers: the geological
model, prediction and performance.” Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology, 30, 293-424.
Gale, W. (1998). “Coal pillar design issues in longwall mining.”
Proc., Coal Operators’ Conference, University of Wollongong &
the AusIMM, 133-146.
Galera, J. M., Alvarez, M., and Bieniawski, Z. T. (2005).
“Evaluation of the deformation modulus of rock masses:
comparison of pressuremeter and dilatometer tests with RMR
prediction.” Proc., ISP5 - Pressio International Symposium.
Galvin, J. M. (1995). “Roadway and pillar mechanics workshop.”
Strata Control for Coal Mine Design, Key Centre for Mines,
University of New South Waes.
Galvin, J. M. (2006). “Considerations associated with the
293
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
application of the UNSW and other pillar design formulae.”
Proc., 41st US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, ARMA / USRMS.
Galvin, J. M., Hebblewhite, B. K., and Salamon, M. D. G.
(1999). “UNSW pillar strength determinations for Australian
and South African conditions.” Proc., 37th US Rock Mechanics
Symposium, NIOSH, 63-71.
Gee, R. A., Parker, C. J., and Cuttler, R. J. (2002). “Northside
Storage Tunnel, Sydney: investigation, design & construction.”
Proc., ITA General Congress 2002, IEAust, 149-157.
Geoderis (2008). “Field trip in the Lorraine iron ore basin.” Proc.,
International Symposium Post-Mining Université J. Fourier.
Gercek, H. (2007). “Poisson’s ratio values for rocks.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 44, 1-13.
Gerrard, C. M. (1982). “Elastic models of rock masses having
one, two and three sets of joints.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics, Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 19, 15-
23.
Goodman, R. E. (1968). “Effect of joints on the strength of
tunnels.” Omaha District, Corps of Engineers.
Goodman, R. E. (1974). “The mechanical properties of joints.”
Proc., 3rd Congress of the International Society of Rock Mechancs,
127-140.
Goodman, R. E., Taylor, R. L., and Brekke, T. L. (1968). “A
model for the mechanics of jointed rock.” Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 94(No. SM3,
Proc. Paper 5937), 637-659.
Goricki, A., Rachaniotis, N., Hoek, E., Marinos, P., Tsotsos,
S., and Schubert, W. (2006). “Support decision criteria for
tunnels in fault zones.” Felsbau, 51-57.
Grechka, V., and Kachanov, M. (2006). “Effective elasticity of
fractured rocks: a snapshot of the work in progress.” Geophysics,
71(6), W45-W58.
Grechka, V., and Kachanov, M. (2006). “Effective elasticity of
rocks with closely spaced and intersecting cracks.” Geophysics,
71(3), D85-D91.
Grgic, D., Homand, F., and Dagallier, G. (2001). “Ageing
of Lorraine (France) abandoned iron mines.” Proc., Rock
Mechanics - a Challenge for Society: Proceedings of the ISRM
Regional Symposium Eurock 2001, A A Balkema, 825-830.
Grgic, D., Homand, F., and Hoxha, D. (2003). “A short- and
long-term rheological model to understand the collapses of
iron ore mines in Lorraine, France.” Computers and Geosciences,
30, 557-570.
Griffith, A. 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, 221, 163-198.
Grimstad, E. (2007). “The Norwegian method of tunnelling – a
challenge for support design.” Proc., XIV European Conference
on Soil Machanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
Grimstad, E., and Barton, N. (1993). “Updating of the Q-System
for NMT.” Proc., Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Sprayed Concrete - Modern use of wet mix sprayed concrete for
underground support, Norwegian Concrete Association, 46-66.
Habimana, J., Labiouse, V., and Descoeudres, F. (2002).
“Geomechanical characterisation of cataclastic rocks:
experience from the Cleuson-Dixence project.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39, 677-693.
Hajiabdolmajid, V., Kaiser, P. K., and Martin, C. D. (2002).
“Modelling brittle failure of rock.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39, 731-741.
Halakatevakis, N., and Sofianos, A. I. (2010). “Correlation of
the Hoek–Brown failure criterion for a sparsely jointed rock
mass with an extended plane of weakness theory.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 47(7), 1166-
1179.
Halakatevakis, N., and Sofianos, A. I. (2010). “Strength of a
blocky rock mass based on an extended plane of weakness
294
theory.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 47(4), 568-582.
Hardy, M. P., Hudson, J. A., and Fairhurst, C. (1973). “The
failure of rock beams: Part I - theoretical studies.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 10, 53-67.
Hawkins, A. B. (1998). “Aspects of rock strength.” Bulletin
Engineering Geology and the Environment, 57, 17-30.
He, P.-f., Kulatilake, P. H. S. W., Liu, D.-q., and He, M.-c.
(2016). “Development of new three-dimensional coal mass
strength criterion.” International Journal of Geomechanics.
Hencher, S. R., and Richards, L. R. (1989). “Laboratory direct
shear testing of rock discontinuities.” Ground Engineering, 24-
31.
Hencher, S. R., and Richards, L. R. (2014). “Assessing the Shear
Strength of Rock Discontinuities at Laboratory and Field
Scales.” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering.
Hencher, S. R., Toy, J. P., and Lumsden, A. C. (1993). “Scale
dependent shear strength of rock joints.” Proc., Second
International workshop on scale effects in rock masses, Balkema,
233-240.
Hoek, E. (1965). “Rock fracture under static stress conditions.”
PhD, University of Cape Town.
Hoek, E. (1983). “The strength of jointed rock masses.”
Geotechnique, 23(3), 187-223.
Hoek, E. (1994). “Strength of rock and rock masses.” ISRM News
Journal 2(2), 4-16.
Hoek, E. (1999). “Putting numbers to geology - an engineer’s
viewpoint.” Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 32, 1-19.
Hoek, E. (2001). “Rock mass properties for underground mines”,
Underground Mining Methods: Engineering Fundamentals and
International Case Studies, W. A. Hustrulid, and R. L. Bullock,
eds., Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration,
Litleton, Colorado.
Hoek, E. (2002). “A brief history of the development of the
Hoek-Brown failure criterion.”RocScience website.
Hoek, E. (2007). “Rock mass properties”,12, Practical Rock
Engineering, https://www.rocscience.com/learning/hoek-s-
corner/books.
Hoek, E. (2012). “Blast damage factor D.” RocNews.
Hoek, E., and Bieniawski, Z. T. (1965). “Brittle rock fracture
propagation in rock under compression.” International Journal
of Fracture Mechanics, 1(3), 137-155.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E. T. (1980). “Empirical strength and
criterion for rock masses.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
106(GT9), 1013-1035.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E. T. (1980). Underground excavations in
rock, The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E. T. (1997). “Practical estimates of rock
mass strength.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 34(8), 1165-1186.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., and Corkum, B. (2002). “Hoek-
Brown failure criterion - 2002 edition.” Proc., 5th North
American Rock Mechanics Symposium, University of Toronto
Press, 267-273.
Hoek, E., Carter, T. G., and Diederichs, M. S. (2013).
“Quantification of the Geological Strength Index chart.” Proc.,
47th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium, ARMA
13-672.
Hoek, E., and Diederichs, M. S. (2006). “Empirical estimation of
rock mass modulus.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, 43(2), 203-215.
Hoek, E., and Marinos, P. (2007). “A brief history of the
development of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion.” Soils and
Rocks, 2.
Hoek, E., Marinos, P., and Benissi, M. (1998). “Applicability
of the geological strength index (GSI) classification for very
weak and sheared rock masses. The case of the Athens Schist
Formation.” Bulletin Engineering Geology and the Environment,
57, 151-160.

Hoek, E., Marinos, P. G., and Marinos, V. P. (2005).
“Characterisation and engineering properties of tectonically
undisturbed but lithologically varied sedimentary rock
masses.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 42, 277-285.
Hoek, E., and Martin, C. D. (2014). “Fracture initiation and
propagation in intact rock – A review.” Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 6(4), 287-300.
Holland, C. T. (1964). “The strength of coal in mine pillars.”
Proc., 6th U.S Symposium on Rock Mechanics, American Rock
Mechanics Association.
Hosni, A., Hadadou, R., Josien, J. P., Piguet, J. P., and Baroudi,
H. (2015). “Subsidence kinetics above room and pillar mines
& development of kinetic criterion based on retro-analysis of
subsidence cases.” Proc., 13th International Symposium on Rock
Mechanics - ISRM Congress 2015.
Hu, Y., and McMechan, G. A. (2009). “Comparison of effective
stiffness and compliance for characterising cracked rocks.”
Geophysics, 74(2), D49-D55.
Hudson, J. A. (1980). “Overall properties of a cracked solid.”
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical
Society, 88(02), 371-384.
Hudson, J. A., and Harrison, J. P. (1997). “An introduction to
the principles”,Chapter 1.1, Engineering Rock Mechanics,
Pergamon, Oxford, England.
Idris, M. A., Saiang, D., and Nordlund, E. (2015). “Stochastic
assessment of pillar stability at Laisvall mine using Artificial
Neural Network.” Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 49, 307-319.
Ismael, M. A., Imam, H. F., and El-Shayeb, Y. (2014). “A
simplified approach to directly consider intact rock anisotropy
in Hoek-Brown failure criterion.” Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering, 6(5), 486-492.
ISRM (1978). “Suggested methods for the quantitative
description of discontinuities in rock masses.” International
Society for Rock Mechanics, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics, Mining Sciences and Geomechanical Abstracts, 319-
368.
Itasca (2008). “FLAC 6.0 Manual.” Itasca International.
Jaeger, J. C. (1966). “Brittle fracture of rocks”,1, Failure and
Breakage of Rocks, 3-57.
Jaeger, J. C., and Cook, N. G. (1979). Fundamentals of Rock
Mechanics, 3rd Edition, Chapman & Hall, London.
Jaiswal, A., and Shrivastva, B. K. (2009). “Numerical simulation
of coal pillar strength.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, 46, 779-788.
Jang, H.-S., and Jang, B.-A. (2014). “New Method for Shear
Strength Determination of Unfilled, Unweathered Rock Joint.”
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 48(4), 1515-1534.
Jawed, M., Sinha, R. K., and Sengupta, S. (2013). “Chronological
development in coal pillar design for bord and pillar workings:
A critical appraisal.” Journal of Geology and Mining Research,
5(1), 1-11.
Jiang, H., Wang, X., and Xie, Y. (2011). “New strength criteria
for rocks under polyaxial compression.” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 48(8), 1233-1245.
Johnston, I. W., Siedel, J. P., and Haberfield, C. M. (1993).
“Cyclic constant normal stiffness direct shear testing device for
soft rock.” Proc., International Symposium on Hard Soils - Soft
Rocks, 997-984.
Kaiser, P. K., Diederichs, M. S., Martin, C. D., Sharp, J., and
Steiner, W. (2000). “Underground works in hard rock
tunnelling and mining.” Proc., GeoEng 2000, AGS, 19-24.
Kallu, R. R., Keffeler, E. R., Watters, R. J., and Agharazi, A.
(2015). “Development of a multivariate empirical model for
predicting weak rock mass modulus.” International Journal of
Mining Science and Technology.
14 | References
Kayabasi, A., Gokceoglu, C., and Ercanoglu, M. (2003).
“Estimating the deformation modulus of rock masses: a
comparative study.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, 40, 55-63.
Kim, M. K., and Lade, P. V. (1984). “Modelling rock strength in
three dimensions.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics,
Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 21(1), 21-33.
Krahn, J., and Morgenstern, N. R. (1979). “The ultimate
frictional resistance of rock discontinuities.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts, 16, 127-133.
Krauland, N., Soder, P., and Agmalm, G. (1989). “Determination
of rock mass strength by rock mass classification - some
experiences and questions from Boliden Mines.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences and Geomechanical
Abstracts, 26(1), 115-123.
Kulhawy, F. H. (1975). “Stress deformation properties of rock and
rock discontinuities.” Engineering Geology, 9, 327-350.
Kulhawy, F. H. (1978). “Geomechanical model for rock
foundation settlement.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
GT2, 211-227.
Kulhawy, F. H., and Mayne, F. H. (1990). “Manual on estimating
soil properties for foundation design, EL-6800, Research
Project 1493-6.” Cornell University.
Kveldsvik, V., Nilsen, B., Einstein, H. H., and Nadim, F. (2007).
3
“Alternative approaches for analyses of a 100,000 m rock slide
based on Barton–Bandis shear strength criterion.” Landslides,
5(2), 161-176.
Kwasniewski, M. (2013). “Mechanical behaviour of rocks under
true triaxial compression conditions - A review.” Proc., True
Triaxial Testing of Rocks, CRC Press, Leiden, Germany, 99-138.
Lade, P. V. (1977). “Elasto-plastic stress-strain theory for
cohesionless soil with curved yield surfaces.” International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 13, 1019-1035.
Lade, P. V. (1982). “Three-parameter failure criterion for
concrete.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 108(EM5), 850-
863.
Lade, P. V. (1984). “Failure criterion for frictional materials”,20,
Mechanics of Engineering Materials, C. S. Desai, and R. H.
Gallagher, eds., John Wiley & Sons, 385-402.
Lade, P. V. (1993). “Rock strength criteria: The theories and the
evidence”,11, Comprehensive Rock Engineering, J. A. Hudson,
ed., Pergamon, 255-284.
Lade, P. V. (1997). “Modelling the strengths of engineering
materials in three dimensions.” Mechanics of Cohesive-Frictional
Materials, 2, 339-356.
Lade, P. V. (2013). “Estimating the parameters for 3D failure
criterion.” Proc., True Triaxial Testing of Rocks, CRC Press.
Lade, P. V., and Duncan, J. M. (1973). “Cubical triaxial tests on
cohesionless soils.” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, SM10, 793-812.
Lade, P. V., and Duncan, J. M. (1975). “Elastoplastic stress-
strain theory for cohesionless soils.” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, GT10(107), 1037-1053.
Lade, P. V., and Kim, M. K. (1995). “Single hardening
constitutive model for soil, rock and concrete.” International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 32(14), 1963-1978.
Lan, H., Martin, C. D., and Hu, B. (2010). “Effect of
heterogeneity of brittle rock on micromechanical extensile
behavior during compression loading.” Journal of Geophysical
Research, 115(B1).
Lee, Y.-K., Pietruszczak, S., and Choi, B.-H. (2012). “Failure
criteria for rocks based on smooth approximations to Mohr–
Coulomb and Hoek–Brown failure functions.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 56, 146-160.
Lisjak, A., and Grasselli, G. (2014). “A review of discrete
modeling techniques for fracturing processes in discontinuous
rock masses.” Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering.
295
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
Lunder, P. J. (1994). “Hard rock pillar strength estimation: An
applied empirical approach.” Master of Applied Science MASc,
British Columbia.
MacGregor, J. P. (1985). “Wianamatta Group - distribution,
stratigraphy and structure”, Engineering Geology of the Sydney
Region, P. J. N. Pells, ed., AA Balkema, Rotterdam, 139-155.
Marinos, P., and Hoek, E. (2000). “GSI: a geologically friendly
tool for rock mass strength estimation.” Proc., ISRM
International Symposium, International Society for Rock
Mechanics.
Marinos, P., and Hoek, E. (2001). “Estimating the geotechnical
properties of heterogeneous rock masses such as Flysch.”
Bulletin Engineering Geology and the Environment, 60, 85-92.
Marinos, P., Hoek, E., and Marinos, V. (2006). “Variability of
the engineering properties of rock masses quantified by the
geological strength index: the case of ophiolites with special
emphasis on tunnelling.” Bulletin of Engineering Geology and
the Environment, 65(2), 129-142.
Marinos, P. V. (2010). “New proposed GSI classification charts
for weak or for complex rock masses.” Proc., 12th International
Congress, Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, 1248-1258.
Marinos, V. (2014). “Tunnel behaviour and support associated
with the weak rock masses of flysch.” Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering.
Mark, C. (1999). “The start of the art in coal pillar design.” Society
of Mining Metallurgy and Exploration, 308, 1-8.
Mark, C. (2006). “The evolution of intelligent coal pillar design:
1981-2006.” Proc., 25th International Conference on Ground
Control in Mining, 325-334.
Mark, C., and Barton, T. M. (1997). “Pillar design and coal
strength.” Proc., Proceedings: New technology for ground control
in retreat mining, NIOSH, 49-59.
Mark, C. and Chase, F.E. (1997). “Analysis of Retreat Mining
Pillar Stability.” Proceedings of the New Technology for Ground
Control in Retreat Mining, NIOSH Publication No. 97-122,
IC9446, pp. 17-34.
Mark, C., and Gadde, M. (2010). “Global trends in coal mine
horizontal stress measurements.” Proc., Coal 2010: Coal
Operators’ Conference, University of Wollongong & AusIMM,
21-39.
Martin, C. D. (1990). “Characterizing in situ stress domains at
the AECL URL.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27, 631-646.
Martin, C. D. (1993). “The strength of massive Lac du Bonnet
granite around underground opening.” Doctor of Philosophy
PhD, Manitoba.
Martin, C. D., and Chandler, N. A. (1994). “The progressive
failure of Lac du Bonnet granite.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics, Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 31(6),
643-659.
Martin, C. D., Kaiser, P. K., and McCreath, D. R. (1999). “Hoek-
Brown parameters for predicting the depth of brittle failure
around tunnels.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36, 136-151.
Martin, C. D., and Maybee, W. G. (2000). “The strength of
hard-rock pillars.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 37, 1239-1246.
Martin, C. D., Read, R. S., and Martino, J. B. (1997).
“Observations of brittle failure around a circular test tunnel.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
34(7), 1065-1073.
Mas Ivars, D. (2010). “Bonded particle model for jointed rock
mass.” Doctoral Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).
Masoumi, H. (2013). “Investigation into the mechanical
behaviour of intact rock at different sizes.” PhD, The
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Masoumi, H., Douglas, K. J., and Russell, A. R. (2012).
“Experimental investigation of the size effect of Gosford
Sandstone.” Proc., ANZ 2012 Conference Proceedings, 644-649.
Mathey, M., and van der Merwe, J. N. (2015). “The mechanical
296
properties of South African coals.” Proc., 13th International
Symposium on Rock Mechanics - ISRM Congress 2015.
Maybee, W. G. (2000). “Pillar design in hard brittle rocks.”
MAppSc, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.
McClintock, F. A., and Walsh, J. B. (1962). “Friction on Griffith
cracks in rocks under pressure.” Proc., 4th US National
Congress of Applied Rock Mechanics Proceedings, 1015-1021.
McMahon, B. K. (1983). “Some practical considerations for
estimating shear strength of joints.” Proc., International
Symposium on Fundamentals of Rock Joints, 475-485.
McMahon, B. K. (1985). “Geotechnical design in the face of
uncertainty.” Australian Geomechanics Society (E H Davis
Memorial Lecture).
McNally, G. (2000). “Introduction - sandstone and the Sydney
environment.” Proc., Sandstone City - Sydney’s dimension
stone and other sandstone geomaterials, Geological Society of
Australia, ix-xiv.
McQueen, L. B. (2000). “Stress relief effects in sandstones in
Sydney undergound and deep excavations.” Proc., Sandstone
City - Sydney’s dimension stone and other sandstone geomaterials,
Geological Society of Australia, 309-329.
McQueen, L. B. (2004). “In situ rock stress and its effect
in tunnels and deep excavations in Sydney.” Australian
Geomechanics, 39(3), 43-58.
Medhurst, T. P., and E. T. Brown. ‘A Study of the Mechanical
Behaviour of Coal for Pillar Design’. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 35, no. 8 (1998): 1087–
1105.
Melkoumian, N., Priest, S. D., and Hunt, S. P. (2009). “Further
Development of the Three-Dimensional Hoek–Brown Yield
Criterion.” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 42(6), 835-
847.
Mishra, A. (2009). “Assessment of coal quality of some Indian
coals.” Bachelor, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela.
Mogi, K. (1966). “Pressure dependence of rock strength and
transition from brittle fracture to ductile flow.” Bulletin of the
Earthquake Research Institute, 44, 215-232.
Mogi, K. (1967). “Effect of the intermediate principal stress on
rock failure.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 72(20), 5117-
5131.
Mogi, K. (1971). “Fracture and flow of rocks under high triaxial
compression.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 76, 1255-1269.
Mogi, K. (1972). “Fracture and flow of rocks.” Tectonophysics,
541-568.
Mohammadi, H., and Rahmannejad, R. (2010). “The estimation
of rock mass deformation modulus using regression and
artificial neural networks analysis.” The Arabian Journal for
Science and Engineering, 35(1A), 205-217.
Mooney, D. W. (2017). “Seismic Waves. An introduction.”
<https://escweb.wr.usgs.gov/share/mooney/Caribbean3.ppt>.
(18 January 2017).
Mortara, G. (2010). “A yield criterion for isotropic and cross-
anisotropic cohesive-frictional materials.” International Journal
for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 34,
953-977.
Mostyn, G. R., and Douglas, K. J. (2000). “Strength of intact
rock and rock masses.” Proc., GeoEng2000, Technomic,
Lancaster, 1389-1421.
Mostyn, G. R., Helgstedt, M. D., and Douglas, K. J. (1997).
“Towards field bounds on rock mass failure criteria.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
34(3-4).
Murrell, S. A. F. (1963). “A criterion for brittle fracture of
rocks and concrete under triaxial stress and the effect of
pore pressure on the criterion.” Proc., Proceedings 5th Rock
Mechanics Symposium, Pergamon, 563-577.
Nayak, G. C., and Zienkiewicz, O. C. (1972). “Convenient
form of stress invariants for plasticity.” Journal of Structural

Engineering, 98(ST4), 949-954.
Nejati, H. R., Ghazvinian, A., Moosavi, S. A., and Sarfarazi, V.
(2014). “On the use of the RMR system for estimation of rock
mass deformation modulus.” Bulletin Engineering Geology and
the Environment, 73(2), 531-540.
Nemcik, J., Gale, W., and Fabjanczyk, M. W. (2006). “Methods
of Interpreting Ground Stress Based on Underground Stress.”
Proc., Coal 2006: Coal Operator’s Conference, University of
Wollongong & AusIMM, 104-112.
Oliveira, D. A. F. (2014). “An alternative view on geotechnical
parameters for tunnel design in Sydney.” Australian
Geomechanics, 49(3).
Ou, C.-Y. (2006). Deep Excavation: theory and practice, Taylor &
Francis, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Palmström, A. (2005). “Measurements of and correlations
between block size and Rock Quality Designation (RQD).”
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 20, 362-377.
Palmström, A. (1995). “RMi – A rock mass characterisation
system for rock engineering purposes.” PhD, University of
Oslo, Norway.
Palmström, A., and Broch, E. (2006). “Use and misuse of rock
mass classification systems with particular reference to the
Q-system.” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 21,
575-593.
Palmström, A., and Singh, R. (2001). “The deformation modulus
of rock masses.” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
16(3), 115-131.
Pan, X. D., and Hudson, J. A. (1988). “A simplified three
dimensional Hoek-Brown yield criterion.” Proc., Rock
Mechanics and Power Plants, Balkema, Rotterdam, 95-103.
Paterson, M. S. (1982). “Biographical memoirs: John Conrad
Jaeger 1907-1979.” Historical Records of Australian Science,
5(3), 1-12.
Paterson, M. S., and Wong, T. F. (2005). Experimental rock
deformation; the brittle field., Springer-Verlag Berlin.
Patton, F. D. (1966). “Multiple modes of shear failure in rock.”
Proc., Proceedings 1st Congress International Society of Rock
Mechanics, 509-513.
Pells, P. J. N. (1993). “Uniaxial strength testing”,3, Comprehensive
Rock Engineering, J. A. Hudson, ed., Pergamon, Oxford, 67-
85.
Pells, P. J. N. (2004). “Substance and mass properties for
the design of engineering structures in the Hawkesbury
Sandstone.” Australian Geomechanics, 39(3), 1-21.
Pells, P. J. N. (2008). “What happened to the mechanics in rock
mechanics and the geology in engineering geology?” Proc., 6th
International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and
Civil Engineering Construction.
Pells, P. J. N., Best, R. J., and Poulos, H. G. (1994). “Design of
roof support of the Sydney Opera House parking station.”
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 9(2), 201-207.
Pells, P. J. N., Douglas, D. J., Rodway, B., Thorne, C., and
McMahon, B. K. (1978). “Design loadings for foundations
on shale and sandstone in the Sydney region.” Australian
Geomechanics Journal, G8, 31-39.
Pells, P. J. N., McMahon, B. K., and Redman, P. G. (1980).
“Interpretation of field stresses and deformation moduli
from extensometer measurements in rock tunnels.” Proc., 4th
Australian Tunnelling Conference, 171-176.
Pells, P. J. N., Mostyn, G. R., and Walker, B. F. (1998).
“Foundations on sandstone and shale in the Sydney region.”
Australian Geomechanics, 33(2), 17-29.
Perras, M. A., and Diederichs, M. (2014). “A review of the
tensile strength of rock: concepts and testing.” Geotechnical &
Geological Engineering, 32(1), 525-546.
Potyondy, D., and Cundall, P. A. (2004). “A bonded-particle
model for rock.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
14 | References
Mining Sciences.
Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H. (1974). Elastic solutions for soil
and rock mechanics, John Wiley & Sons.
Poulsen, B. A., and Adhikary, D. P. (2013). “A numerical study of
the scale effect in coal strength.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 63, 62-71.
Poulsen, B. A., Shen, B., Williams, D. J., Huddlestone-Holmes,
C., Erarslan, N., and Qin, J. (2014). “Strength reduction on
saturation of coal and coal measures rocks with implications
for coal pillar strength.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, 71, 41-52.
Priest, S. D. (2005). “Determination of Shear Strength and Three-
dimensional Yield Strength for the Hoek-Brown Criterion.”
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 38(4), 299-327.
Priest, S. D., and Brown, E. T. (1983). “Probabilistic stability
analysis of variable rock slopes.” Transactions of the Institution
of Mining and Metallurgy, Section A: Mining industry, 92, A1-
A12.
Priest, S. D., and Hudson, J. A. (1976). “Discontinuity spacings
in rock.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining
Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 13, 135-148.
PSM (2005). “Fatality in Cross City Tunnel.” Unpublished report,
Carroll & O’Dea.
Pye, W. (2009). “Rock mass modelling.” Masters of Engineering
Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Rafiai, H. (2011). “New empirical polyaxial criterion for rock
strength.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 48(6), 922-931.
Rafiai, H., Jafari, A., and Mahmoudi, A. (2013). “Application
of ANN-based failure criteria to rocks under polyaxial stress
conditions.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 59, 42-49.
Read, R. S. (1994). “Interpreting excavation-induced
displacements around a tunnel in highly stressed granite.”
PhD, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Read, S. A. L., and Richards, L. R. (2015). “Guidelines for use of
tensile data in the calculation of the Hoek-Brown constant,
mi.” Proc., 13th International Symposium on Rock Mechanics -
ISRM Congress 2015.
Reeves, M. J. (1985). “Rock surface roughness and frictional
strength.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining
Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 22(6), 429-442.
Robertson, A. M. (1970). “The interpretation of geological factors
for use in slope theory.” Proc., Planning Open Pit Mines, South
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 55-71.
Robson, R. (1978). “Aspects of testing and sedimentary rock
classification for engineering purposes in the Sydney Basin.”
MSc University of Sydney.
Rosso, R. S. (1976). “A comparison of joint stiffness
measurements in direct shear, triaxial compression and insitu.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts, 13, 167-172.
Russo, G. (2009). “A new rational method for calculating the
GSI.” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 24, 103-
111.
Saenger, E. H., Kruger, O. S., and Shapiro, S. A. (2004).
“Effective elastic properties of randomly fractured soils: 3D
numerical experiments.” Geophysical Prospecting, 52, 183-195.
Sakurai, S., and Serata, S. (2013). “Mechanical characteristics of
rock salt (3D triaxial).” Proc., True Triaxial Testing of Rocks,
CRC Press, 181-192.
Salamon, M. D. G., Canbulat, I., and Ryder, J. A. (2006). “Seam-
specific pillar strength formulae for South African collieries.”
Proc., 41st US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, ARMA/ USRMS.
Salamon, M. D. G., and Munro, A. H. (1967). “A study of the
strength of coal pillars.” Journal of the South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy (September).
297
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
Sari, M. (2012). “An improved method of fitting experimental
data to the Hoek–Brown failure criterion.” Engineering
Geology, 127, 27-35.
Saroglou, H., and Tsiambaos, G. (2008). “A modified Hoek–
Brown failure criterion for anisotropic intact rock.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
45(2), 223-234.
SCA (2012). “Guidelines for development adjacent to the Upper
Canal and Warragamba Pipelines.” Sydney Catchment
Authority, 24.
Schmermann, J. H., and Osterberg, J. H. (1960). “An
experimental study of the development of cohesion and
friction with axial strain in saturated cohesive soils.” Proc.,
Research Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils,
Univerisity of Colorado, 643-694.
Seedsman, R. W. (2012). “The strength of the pillar-floor
system.” Proc., 12th Coal Operators’ Conference, University
of Wollongong and the Australian Institute of Mining &
Metallurgy, 23-30.
Seedsman, R. W., Jalalifar, H., and Aziz, N. (2005). “Chain
Pillar Design - Can We?” Proc., Coal Operators’ Conference,
University of Wollongong & the Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, 59-62.
Seidel, J. P., and Haberfield, C. M. (2002). “A theoretical model
for rock joints subjected to constant normal stiffness direct
shear.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 39, 539-553.
Serafim, J. L., and Pereira, J. P. (1983). “Considerations on the
geomechanical classification of Bieniawski.” Proc., International
Symposium on Engineering Geology and Underground
Construction, International Association of Engineering
Geology, 33-42.
Serrano, A., Estaire, J., and Olalla, C. (2007). “Extension of the
Hoek-Brown failure criterion to three dimensions.” Proc., 11th
Congress of the ISRM, Taylor & Francis, Leiden, 289-292.
Sharp, J. C., Bandis, S. C., Schinas, C. A., MacKean, R. N.,
and Watson, S. P. (2008). “Engineering evaluation of design
concepts for a large span urban underground cavern in weak
rock based on design analysis.” Proc., Continuum and Distinct
Element Numerical Modelling in Geo-Engineering, Itasca.
Shen, B., Nash, T. R., Bertuzzi, R., and Clarke, S. J. (2015).
“Use of monitoring data during construction to refine
cavern design.” Proc., 9th International Symposium on
Field Measurements in Geomechanics, Australian Centre for
Geomechanics.
Sheorey, P. R. (1997). Empirical rock failure criteria, Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Sheorey, P. R., Biswas, A. K., and Choubey, V. D. (1989). “An
empirical failure criterion for rocks and jointed rock masses.”
Engineering Geology, 26, 141-159.
Sheorey, P. R., Das, M. N., Barat, D., Prasad, R. K., and Singh, B.
(1987). “Coal pillar strength estimation from failed and stable
cases.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences
and Geomechanical Abstracts, 24(6), 347-355.
Sheorey, P. R., and Singh, B. (1982). “Application of a rock mass
classification to mining stability problems - some case studies.”
Proc., Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Stability in Underground Mining, AIME, 383-395.
Singh, J., Ramamurthy, T., and Venkatappa Rao, G. (1989).
“Strength anisotropies in rocks.” Indian Geotechnical Journal,
19(2), 147-166.
Singh, M., Raj, A., and Singh, B. (2011). “Modified Mohr–
Coulomb criterion for non-linear triaxial and polyaxial
strength of intact rocks.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 48(4), 546-555.
Singh, M., Samadhiya, N. K., Kumar, A., Kumar, V., and
Singh, B. (2015). “A nonlinear criterion for triaxial strength
of inherently anisotropic rocks.” Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, 48(4), 1387-1405.
Singh, M., Samadhiya, N. K., and Singh, B. (2015). “Critical
298
state mechanics based strength criterion for inherently
anisotropic rocks.” Proc., 13th International Symposium on Rock
Mechanics - ISRM Congress 2015.
Singh, M., and Singh, B. (2012). “Modified Mohr–Coulomb
criterion for non-linear triaxial and polyaxial strength of
jointed rocks.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 51, 43-52.
Sloan, S. W., and Booker, J. R. (1986). “Removal of
singularities in Tresca and Mohr-Coulomb yield functions.”
Communications in Applied Numerical Methods, 2, 171-179.
Soder, P., and Krauland, N. (1989). “Determination of pillar
strength by full scale pillar tests in the Laisvall Mine.”
Proc., Proceedings of the 11th Plenary Scientific Session of the
International Bureau of Strata Mechanics, Strata Control in Deep
Mines, Balkema, 39-59.
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, 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,
26, 77-99.
Stacey, T. R. (1981). “A simple extension strain criterion for
fracture of brittle rock.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics,
Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 18, 469-474.
Stacey, T. R. (2000). “Reservations regarding the use of rock
mass classifications in rock engineering.” Proc., Proceedings
Bergmekanikdag 2000, SveBeFo, Swedish Rock Engineering
Research and National Group ISRM, 1-18.
Stacey, T. R., and Page, C. H. (1986). Practical handbook
for underground rock mechanics, Trans Tech Publications,
Germany.
Stephens, R. E., and Banks, D. C. (1989). “Moduli of
deformation studies of the foundation and abutments of the
Portugues Dam - Puerto Rico.” Proc., Rock mechanics as a guide
for efficient utilization of natural resources, Balkema, 31 - 39.
Swarbrick, G. ‘Devines Tunnel Mapping’. PSM, 2013.
SWC-Transwater (1996). “Cataract Tunnel - geological inspection
- 10/4/1996.” 12.
Takahashi, M., and Kiode, H. (1989). “Effect of intemediate
principal stress on strength and deformation behaviour of
sedimentary rocks at the depth shallower than 2000m.” Proc.,
Rock at Great Depth, Balkema, 19-26.
Tarasov, B., and Potvin, Y. (2013). “Universal criteria for
rock brittleness estimation under triaxial compression.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
59, 57-69.
Taylor, J. A., and Fowell, R. J. (2003). “Estimating the in-situ
mass strength and time to failure of coal pillarsin bord-and-
pillar workings.” Proc., ISRM 2003 - Technology roadmap
for rock mechanics, South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 1203-1208.
Terzaghi, K. (1946). “Load on tunnel supports”,4, Rock tunneling
with steel supports, R. V. Proctor, and T. L. White, eds., The
Commercial Shearing and Stamping Company, Youngstown,
Ohio, 47-86.
Thorpe, R., Watkins, D. J., Ralph, W. E., Hsu, R., and Flexser, S.
(1980). “Strength and permeability tests on ultra-large Stripa
granite core.” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, 233.
Tinsley, C. R. (1982). “Supply and Demand for Coal”,15,
Economics of Pacific Rim coal, 113-122.
Townsend, J. M., Jennings, W. C., Haycocks, C., Neall, G.
M., and Johnson, L. P. (1977). “A relationship between the
ultimate compressive strength of cubes and cylinders for coal
specimens.” Proc., 18th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
Colorado School of Mines Press, 4A6-1 - 4A6-6.
Tziallas, G. P., Tsiambaos, G., and Saroglou, H. (2009).

“Determination of rock strength and deformability of
intact rocks.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
14(Bundle G), 1-12.
Unal, E. (1983). “Development of design guidelines and roof-
control standards for coal-mine roofs.”PhD, Pennsylvania State
University.
van der Merwe, J. N. (1993). “Revised strength factor for coal in
the Vaal basin.” Journal of the South African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, 93(3), 71-77.
van der Merwe, J. N. (2003). “New pillar strength formula for
South African coal.” The Journal of The Southern African
lnstitute of Mining and Metallurgy, June 2003, 281-292.
van der Merwe, J. N., and Mathey, M. (2013). “Update of coal
pillar database for South African coal mining.” The Journal of
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 113,
825-840.
van Heerden, W. L. (1975). “In situ complete stress-strain
characteristics of large coal specimens.” Journal of the South
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy(March 1975), 207-
217.
Vernik, L., and Kachanov, M. (2012). “On some controversial
issues in rock physics.” The Leading Edge, 636-642.
Vesic, A. S. (1961). “Beams on elastic subgrade and the Winkler
hypothesis.” Proc., 5th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 845-850.
Vibert, C., and Ianos, S. (2015). “Moving towards a reliable
assessment of deformability of rock masses: examples from
large dams foundations.” Proc., 13th International Symposium
on Rock Mechanics - ISRM Congress 2015.
Wagner, H. (1974). “Determination of the complete load-
deformation characteristics of coal pillars.” Proc., Advances in
rock mechanics, Proceedings of the 3rd Congress International
Society for Rock Mechanics, 1076-1081.
Wallis, S. (2000). “Sydney’s Northside Storage Tunnel
alliance holding up under pressure.” Tunnels & Tunnelling
International, 37-40.
Wallis, S. (2007). “Australia examines toll road collapses.” Tunnels
& Tunnelling International, 26-29.
Walsh, J. B. (1965). “The effect of cracks in rocks on Poisson’s
Ratio.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 70(20), 5249-5257.
Walsh, J. B. (1965). “The effect of cracks on the compressibility of
rock.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 70(2), 381-389.
Walsh, J. B., Brace, W. F., and W, E. A. (1965). “Effect of porosity
on compressibility of glass.” Journal of the American Ceramic
Society, 48(12), 605-608.
Wiebols, G. A., and Cook, N. G. W. (1968). “An energy
criterion for the strength of rock in polyaxial compression.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 5,
529-549.
Wilson, J. W. (1971). “The design and support of underground
excavations in deep-level hard rock mines.” PhD, University of
the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Won, G. W. (1985). “Engineering properties of Wianamatta
Group rocks from laboratory and in-situ tests”, Engineering
Geology of the Sydney Region, P. J. N. Pells, ed., AA Balkema,
Rotterdam, 143-155.
Yavuz, H., and Fowell, R. J. (2001). “FDM prediction of a yield
pillar performance in conjunction with a field trial.” Proc.,
20th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining,
University of West Virginia, 78-85.
York, G., Canbulat, I., and Jack, B. W. (2000). “Coal pillar design
procedures.” S. i. M. R. A. Committee, ed., CSIR Mining
Technology, 216.
Yoshinaka, R., Osada, M., Park, H., Sasaki, T., and Sasaki,
K. (2008). “Practical determination of mechanical design
parameters of intact rock considering scale effect.” Engineering
Geology, 96(3-4), 173-186.
14 | References
Yoshinaka, R., and Yamabe, T. (1980). “Strength criterion of
rocks.” Soils and Foundations, 20(4), 113-126.
You, M. (2009). “True-triaxial strength criteria for rock.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
46(1), 115-127.
You, M. (2011). “Comparison of the accuracy of some
conventional triaxial strength criteria for intact rock.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
48(5), 852-863.
You, M. (2012). “Comparison of two true-triaxial strength
criteria.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 54, 114-124.
You, M. (2015). “Strength criterion for rocks under compressive-
tensile stresses and its application.” Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering.
Yu, H. (2006). “Plasticity and geotechnics”, Advances in mechanics
and mathematics, D. Y. Gao, and R. W. Ogden, eds., Springer,
New York.
Zhang, L. (2010). “Method for estimating the deformability
of heavily jointed rock masses.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(9), 1242-1250.
Zhang, L., and Einstein, H. H. (2004). “Using RQD to estimate
the deformation modulus of rock masses.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41, 337-341.
Zhang, L., and Einstein, H. H. (2009). “The Planar Shape of
Rock Joints.” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 43(1),
55-68.
Zhang, L., and Zhu, H. (2007). “Three-dimensional Hoek-Brown
strength criterion for rocks.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(9), 1128-1135.
Zhang, Q., Zhu, H., and Zhang, L. (2013). “Modification of a
generalised three-dimensional Hoek-Brown strength criterion.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
59, 80-96.
Zhou, S. (1994). “A program to model the initial shape and extent
of borehole breakout.” Computers and Geosciences, 20(7/8),
1143-1160.
Zimmerman, R. W. (1985). “The effect of microcracks on the
elastic moduli of brittle materials.” Journal of Materials Science
Letters, 4, 1457-1460.
Zimmerman, R. W. (1991). Compressibility of sandstones, Elsevier
Science Publishers.
Zipf, R. K. (1999). “Using a post-failure stability criterion in pillar
design.” Proc., Proceedings of the Second International Workshop
on coal pillar mechanics and design, 181-192.
Zuo, J.-p., Li, H.-t., Xie, H.-p., Ju, Y., and Peng, S.-p. (2008). “A
nonlinear strength criterion for rock-like materials based on
fracture mechanics.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, 45, 594-599.
Zuo, J., Liu, H., and Li, H. (2015). “A theoretical derivation of
the Hoek-Brown failure criterion for rock materials.” Journal of
299
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

Appendices

ROCK MASS PROPERTIES FOR TUNNELING

CONTENTS
A Development of Barton shear strength criterion

B Development of Hoek-Brown strength criterion

C Development of Lade criterion

D Development of Christensen criterion

300
 14 | References

A: Development of Barton Criterion

CRITERION At lower stresses, the normal stress could be

calculated from considerations of Mohr circles. That
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Barton researched
is, the theoretical relationships between σn, τ and the
the strength and stiffness of rock joints and developed
principal stresses are:
an empirical relationship for joint strength e.g. Barton
(1973). Barton fitted that empirical relationship to the
published triaxial strength data of three intact rocks –
Solenhofen limestone, Spruce Pine dunite and Westerly
granite – and proposed the following relationship to
estimate the shear strength of the mobilised failure
plane of the triaxial samples (Barton 1976).

EQUATION A1

As an aside, Barton refers to the differential stress at

failure (σ1-σ3) as the intact rock’s “confined strength”.
Equation A1 is in the form of the Mohr-Coulomb
criterion without the cohesive intercept and with a
variable friction angle. That is, it is in the form τ =
σn tanψ. The equation is invalid for stress conditions
where the log10 term, (σ1 – σ3) / σn, is negative. It also
becomes invalid when angle ψ approaches 90°. Re-
phrasing, Equation A1 is valid therefore when:

and

In developing the empirical relationship in Equation

A1, Barton (1976) assumed σn = 2σ3 was realistic for
‘medium stress levels’. Further, Barton proposed that
the maximum shear strength is reached at the ‘critical
state’, which corresponds to σn = 2σ3, τ = σ3 and ‘a
satisfactory approximation’ of σ1 = 3σ3.

301
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
The angle β is that which the failure plane makes
with the major principal stress, σ1 – see margin sketch
adapted from Brady and Brown (2005). Barton (1976)
notes that a value of β = 30° is a reasonable mean,
with experimental values typically between 20 to 39°.
Though as the shear strength envelope is curved as
shown in Figure A1, β increases with confinement,
σ3, and hence is really a variable. Barton (1976) also
assumed the shear strength envelope is a straight line
in the low compressive stress environment and in
the tensile stress environment, i.e. between the UCS
and UTS.
The general form of the Barton shear strength
criterion, Equation A2, has been proposed for the
strength of intact rock, jointed rock, rock fill and
infilled defects as shown in Figure A1, e.g. Barton
(1999); (2014).
EQUATION A2
Where:
X represents roughness
Y represents the effective compressive strength
Z represents the basic and residual friction.
For intact rock, X = 50, Y = and Z = ϕc = 26.6°,
i.e. Equation A1.
FIGURE A1 Shear strength relationships for intact rock through to jointed rock, rock fill and infilled defects as proposed by
Barton, e.g. (Barton 1999; 2014)
302
Equation A1 can be fitted to experimental intact
rock data to determine the shear strength, τ, given
the principal stresses, σ1 and σ3. However, unlike the
Mohr-Coulomb criterion, the ‘friction angle’ (ψ) and its
‘conjugate angle’ (β) are variable; themselves functions
of σ1 and σ3. Hence, Equation A1 and Equation A2
do not predict a unique maximum principal stress at
failure for a particular confinement.
In order to fit Equation A1 to laboratory data of
intact rock, Barton (1976) used the strength criterion
of Bieniawski (1974) given in Equation A3 and adopted
k = 0.75 and A between 3 and 5.
EQUATION A3
Barton (1976) then developed an empirical method
to derive the shear (τ) and normal (σn) stresses from the
Bieniawski criterion and showed that Equation A2 fits.
The empirical method to derive τ and σn from the
Bieniawski criterion (Equation A3) is detailed in the
following steps and summarised in Equation A4.
• Equation A3 is used to calculate (σ1 - σ3) for
various σ3. The normal stress is assumed equal to
σn = 2σ3 and hence the shear stress at failure (τ) is
estimated with Equation A1 (Barton 1976).
• For low stresses, the shear strength envelope
is assumed to be linear from the ‘cohesive
intercept’, (Barton 1976).
 Appendices – Rock Mass Properties for Tunnelling • Appendix A: Development of Barton Criterion

• Further, the principal stresses can be inferred by re-

arranging the Mohr circle relationship as follows

EQUATION A4

The author suggests the following alternative. It is a

multi-step, trial and error approach to initially fit the
criterion to experimental data. The fitted criterion can
then be used to predict the strength of intact rock.
• Using the laboratory data (σ3, σ1), values of normal
stress (σn) are found assuming the Mohr circle
relationships given previously and β = 30°. This is
consistent with Barton (1976).
• The ‘friction angle’ (ψ) can be calculated by noting
from Equation A1 that:
hence

EQUATION A5

The relationship between ψ and σn is plotted and

a smooth, continuous line of best fit is found. This
allows values of ψ to be calculated for any σn and by
extension any σ3. The author has found that the line
of best fit generally follows a power equation of the
form: ψ = Cσ3-D.
• Fit Equation A3 to the laboratory data (σ3, σ1) by
selecting the parameter A to minimise the error
between σ3 predicted by and that measured, i.e.
 
minimise Σ(σ1predicted - σ1measured)2.
• The differential stress (σ1predicted - σ3) is calculated.
• The normal stress (σn) is calculated by re-arranging
Equation A5 as:

EQUATION A6

• The shear stress (τ) is calculated using Equation A1

• For interest, the Mohr circle relationship can now
be used to find the values of β that apply along the
curved criterion.

303
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

B: Development of Hoek-Brown
Criterion

CRITERION Squaring both sides and simplifying

It is worth re-visiting the original work of Hoek
(1965) and Hoek and Bieniawski (1965) to show the
development of the Hoek-Brown criterion from the
Griffith crack extension theory. The Griffith’s crack
theory was written in terms of σ1, σ3 and σc as follows.

EQUATION B1
which by making the prefixes to σc the variables m and
Re-arranging Equation B1 to suit a quadratic solution: s (notionally)

became the original Hoek-Brown criterion (Hoek and

Brown 1980):

which gives solutions of:

EQUATION B2

The parameters m and s were defined initially by

Substituting σ1/8= – σ1, which is a fixed relationship
for Griffith’s criterion
Hoek and Brown (1980) for intact rock as m = mi
≈ σc / |σt| and s = 1.0. The generalised Hoek-Brown
criterion introduced by Hoek (1994) and then Hoek et
al. (2002) made the parameter a variable between 0.5
and 0.65 (Equation B3).

EQUATION B3

304
 Appendices – Rock Mass Properties for Tunnelling • Appendix B: Development of Hoek-Brown Criterion

In considering the development of micro-cracks in
intact rock, Zuo et al. (2008) and later extended by
Zuo et al. (2015) derive a strength criterion which can
be written in the same format as the original Hoek-
Brown criterion:
where
 is defined as the friction coefficient of the
μ octahedral stress σoct could effectively be replaced by
micro-crack
However, Zhang and Zhu (2007) noted that
Equation B4 does not simplify to the Hoek-Brown
criterion in conventional triaxial tests, i.e. when σ2=
σ3. Hence, they instead proposed that the mean
normal stress (or octahedral stress σoct) be restricted to
consider only σ1 and σ3.
By not including σ2 into the calculation of the mean
normal stress, Zhang and Zhu (2007) followed the
observation initially made by Mogi (1967) that the
initial failure path in tested samples occurred in the
σ2 direction and hence the normal stress acting on
that failure path was a function of only σ1 and σ3. The
the mean normal stress σm,2 =(σ1+σ3)/2.

 is the ‘mixed-mode’ fracture coefficient and

κ
ranges from √3/2 to 1 to
depending if a stress, energy or strain criteria is EQUATION B5
assumed.
The Zhang and Zhu (2007) modification does simplify
Zuo et al. (2008) state that the parameter m can to the Hoek-Brown equation in the triaxial (σ2 = σ3)
characterise the rock. and biaxial (σ1 = σ2) states. In triaxial state where σ2 =
σ3, Equation B5 simplifies to
Assuming the typical value of Poisson’s Ratio for
intact rock is v = 0.25, κ is implied to vary between
0.866 – 1.240 and hence β between 0.758 – 1.085.
Zuo et al. (2015) quoting Paterson and Wong
(2005) state μ varies between 0.2 – 0.8. This range for
μ implies a wide range for the friction angle of clean
micro-cracks in rock of between 11 – 39°.
For these ranges of β and μ, the ratio μ/β varies
between 0.184 – 1.056. That is,
This in turn suggests that the Hoek-Brown
parameter, m≈(0.2 to 1.0)× .

3D EXTENSIONS
Several extensions to the Hoek-Brown criterion to
explicitly consider three dimensional stresses have
been proposed. One of the earliest was that of Pan and
Hudson (1988) who following the work of Nayak and
Zienkiewicz (1972) wrote the criterion in terms of the
stress invariants and derived the following equation.
EQUATION B4
where
EQUATION B6
Equation B6 is the 2D Hoek-Brown criterion shown
in Equation B2.
Zhang et al. (2013) note that the 3D failure surface
generated by Equation B5 is not smooth and convex
in all the stress states. To overcome this limitation,
they introduce a Lode angle function that is iteratively
solved. Similar approaches have been used to ensure
smooth and convex failure envelopes of other 3D
criteria, e.g. Sloan and Booker (1986).
A similar 3D development of the Hoek-Brown
criterion was followed by Jiang et al. (2011) who made
the following substitutions, noting that σm =I1.

305
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

Substituting these into the Hoek-Brown criterion

given in Equation B2 we get:

Collecting like terms and simplifying

Noting that

Squaring both sides

Noting that

EQUATION B7

Equation B7 is the Hoek-Brown criterion in the

format given in Jiang et al. (2011).

306
 Appendices – Rock Mass Properties for Tunnelling • Appendix C: Development of Lade Criterion

C: Development of Lade Criterion

This appendix develops equations to calculate the Lade Lade’s criterion can be written as (Lade 1993):
parameters a, m, η1, from the standard laboratory tests
– UCS and the Brazilian Tensile Strength (BTS).

CRITERION EQUATION C8

Lade tested the strength of soil under uniaxial, biaxial,

triaxial and torsional stresses in a laboratory (Lade and
Duncan 1973) and developed an elasto-plastic stress-
strain theory for cohesionless soils (Lade 1977; Lade
and Duncan 1975). He later extended this to concrete
and rock (Kim and Lade 1984; Lade 1982; Lade 1984).
His observations led him to conclude that a
three-dimensional failure surface has four main
characteristics as shown in Figure C1.
• It is a smooth, triangular, monotonically curved
failure surface in the octahedral plane
• The opening angle of the failure surface is described
by the material’s friction angle, as in the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion
• The failure surface is curved in planes containing
the hydrostatic axis
• It can have a tensile strength.
where
• The value of I13 / I3 is 27 at the hydrostatic axis, i.e.
σ1 = σ2 = σ3
• The term apa reflects the tensile strength of the
material. It is slightly greater than the UTS (Figure
C1). Lade (1993) uses values of a that are 0.1 to 2%
higher than σt /pa.
• The apex angle of the failure surface increases with
the value of η1. The curvature of the failure surface
increases with the value of m. See Figure C2.
• The criterion assumes the material behaves
isotropically.

FIGURE C1 3D failure surface viewed (a) from the side to show curved envelope in triaxial plane and biaxial planes and (b)
from the end to show smoothly rounded, triangular shape in octahedral plane (Lade 1993)

307
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE C1 Translation of principal stress space along the hydrostatic axis to include the effect of tensile strength in the
failure criterion (Lade 1993)

FIGURE C2 Influence of parameters m, η1 and a (Lade 1993)

308
 Appendices – Rock Mass Properties for Tunnelling • Appendix C: Development of Lade Criterion

Estimates of the three parameters a, η1 and m are • Sedimentary

required to use the criterion and can be obtained  a = 3.0 to 230; m = 0.502 to 1.93;
following the two straightforward steps (Lade 1993): η1 = 4.5 x103 to 1.5x109
• An estimate of a is made first then apa is added to the • Coal
normal stresses before substitution into Equation B1.  a = 3.6 to 32; m = 0.520 to 1.28;
• 3 e parameters η1 and m can be obtained by plotting
Th
 η1 = 3.9 x103 to 4.7x105
I1 / I3 – 27 versus pa/ I1 on a log-log diagram and
locating the best fitting straight line.
The ranges of the parameters are very large. The
• The intercept of this straight line with pa/ I1 =1 is the range for η1 spans seven orders of magnitude from 540
value of η1 and its slope is m.
to 150,000,000. The value of a varies by two orders of
However, an infinite number of combinations of a, magnitude; from 3 to over 400. The values for m are
η1 and m can result in the same value of the unconfined more constrained; varying between 0.3 and 2.5.
compressive strength, σc. Lade (1993) studied 87 sets
of laboratory data for igneous (19 sets), metamorphic Lade (1993) concluded that typical values for rock are:
(12), sedimentary (33) and coal (23) rocks and found • m = 0.7 to 1.9 and η1 = 104 to 108 (Figure C3)
the following range of values of the parameters. • a = 20 to 300 except for coal which has a = 3 to 30
(Figure C4)
• I gneous
 a = 2.9 to 410; m = 0.296 to 2.50;
η1 = 5.4 x102 to 3.6x108
• Metamorphic
 a= 9.1 to 303; m = 0.667 to 1.93;
η1 = 4.3 x104 to 2.8x108

FIGURE C3 Variation and range of η1 and m for various frictional materials (Lade 1993)

309
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE C4 Variation and range of η1 and a relative to σt for various frictional materials (Lade 1993)

Critically looking at the intact rock test data published
by Lade, for example Lade (1993), it appears that
generally one or only a few test values of (σt , σc) and
(σ1, σ3) pairs were used to estimate the parameters a, η1
and m, see the following Figure C5 to Figure C11 for
example. The typical scatter of laboratory test results
does not appear in these figures. Hence, the published
test data may give a false sense that the criterion is very
well-conditioned.

FIGURE C5 Results of triaxial, biaxial and cubical triaxial compression tests on sandstone projected onto an octahedral plane
(Lade 1993)

310
 Appendices – Rock Mass Properties for Tunnelling • Appendix C: Development of Lade Criterion

FIGURE C6 Results of biaxial tests on Indiana limestone showing shape of failure surface in biaxial plane (Lade 1993)

FIGURE C7 Results of tests on Mizuho trachyte in (a) triaxial plane and (b) octahedral plane (Lade 1993)

311
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

FIGURE C8 Results of tests on dolomite in (a) triaxial plane and (b) octahedral plane (Lade 1993)

FIGURE C9 Results of tests on Wombeyan marble in (a) triaxial plane and (b) octahedral plane ((Lade 1993)

312
 Appendices – Rock Mass Properties for Tunnelling • Appendix C: Development of Lade Criterion

FIGURE C10 Results of tests on sandstone in (a) triaxial plane, (b) biaxial plane and (c) octahedral plane (Lade 1993)

FIGURE C11 Results of tests on Darney sandstone in (a) biaxial plane and (b) octahedral plane (Lade 1993)

313
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

PARAMETER DEFINITION It can be seen from Equation C9, which is in the

According to Lade (1984) for a given set of strength
data, an estimate of the tensile strength parameter a
is made first such that the term apa is slightly greater
than the uniaxial tensile strength, σt. Lade (1984);
Lade (1993) suggests that apa is within 2% of σt
(Figure C12).
The parameter a can be considered to be a function
of σt. : a=f( σt )
The value of apa is then added to the normal stresses
before substitution into Equation B1 and estimates for
η1 and m found. Re-arranging Equation B1 and taking
logs on both sides gives:
standard form of a straight line, y=mx+b, that the
parameters η1 and m can be obtained by plotting I13 /
I3 – 27 versus pa / I1 on a log-log diagram and locating
the best fitting straight line. The intercept of this line
with pa / I1 =1 is the value of η1 and its slope is m (see
Figure C13). A line connecting a pair of test results
can therefore theoretically be used to define the Lade
parameters, η1 and m.
The parameters can also be seen in Figure C13 to be
relatively ill-conditioned. An insignificant change in a
from 23.30 to 23.15 as shown in the straight-line fits
to the data needs a 12-fold increase in η1, from 33,821
to 419,812.

EQUATION C9

FIGURE C12 Magnitude of the parameter a relative to σt plotted against η1 from Lade (1984). The red line shows the
majority of the data indicates apa is within 2% of σt .

314
 Appendices – Rock Mass Properties for Tunnelling • Appendix C: Development of Lade Criterion

As the slope on a log-log plot gives m and its intercept

gives η1, Lade (2013) suggested that the parameters
are related by Equation C10 and could be estimated
from the results of one laboratory test. He found the
variables A and B given in Equation C10 for the main
groups of rocks to be as listed in Table C1.

EQUATION C10

FIGURE C13 The parameters m and η1 can be obtained from log-log plots, such as this from Lade (1997) showing results
from laboratory tests.

315
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

TABLE C1 Values of A and B from Lade (2013)

Rock Type No. of data sets A B r2

Igneous 18 0.249 55.1 0.9265

Metamorphic 12 0.257 22.7 0.8330

Sedimentary 34 0.210 2.15 0.9011

Organic (coal) 22 0.358 130.9 0.9765

All rocks (no coal) 64 0.229 9.62 0.8752

LABORATORY TESTING
Consider the laboratory tests; UCS and UTS and
assume that the UCS and UTS values are very good
estimates of the unconfined compressive and tensile
rock strengths. That is, the scatter in test results
is negligible.
The UCS and UTS are chosen by the author as they
straddle the low confinement environment which is
typically the stress state of most interest in tunnelling.
The UCS is also the most common laboratory strength
test carried out for rock. Further, Lade (1993) considers
that it is advantageous to include the tensile strength
in determining the parameters.
Let (x,y) be the point that represents the UCS test and
(x1,y1) the UTS test on the log [I13 / I3 – 27] versus log
[pa / I1] graph. The slope of the straight line connecting
these two points is then the Lade parameter m and the
intersection of this line with the axis defined by log
(pa / I1) = 0 gives log η1.

FIGURE C14 Translation of principal stress space along the hydrostatic axis to include the effect of tensile strength in the
failure criterion; after Lade (1982)

316
 Appendices – Rock Mass Properties for Tunnelling • Appendix C: Development of Lade Criterion
For the UCS test
EQUATION C11
Hence the point representing the UCS test on the
log [I13 / I3 – 27] versus log [pa / I1] graph is given by
(x, y):
Similarly, for the UTS test and to be consistent with
the terminology used by Lade (Figure C14) it can be
written as:
EQUATION C12
Hence the point representing the UTS test on the log
[I13 / I3 – 27] versus log [pa / I1] graph is given by (x1, y1):
Substituting the values for the points UCS (x,y) and
UTS (x1,y1) into the equation for a straight line, i.e.
y1=y+m(x1-x), the following rather messy equation
is obtained.
This can be somewhat simplified as:
i.e.
EQUATION C13
Therefore it can be seen that the parameter m can be
written as a function of σc and σt:
The intercept between the straight line through
points UCS (x,y) and UTS (x1,y1) and the vertical axis
defined by log (pa / I1) = 0, i.e. pa / I1 = 1, is the value of
log η1. Let this point on the log – log graph be given
by (x2,y2).
Substituting (x2,y2) into the equation for a line,
y2=y1+m(x2-x1) gives:
EQUATION C14
So the parameter η1 can also be written as a function
of σc and σt:
317
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

Equation C14 could have been written with any Combining Equation C15 with the values in Table
point that lies on the straight line. However, it was C1, pairs of equations for the five rock groups with
purposefully written with the point UTS (x1,y1) as basically the one unknown, σt , can be obtained. First,
we will now take advantage of the fact that apa is an the equation for B gives j as follow.
estimate of σt.
Equation C14 can be re-arranged to be in the same
form as suggested by Lade (2013), i.e.:

Defining variables A and B as: EQUATION C17

Solving this cubic equation for j, then σt can be solved

using the equation for A as follows.

EQUATION C15

Gives:

EQUATION C16

which is the same equation given in Lade (2013), see

Equation C10.
Using the fact that apa must be slightly greater than
the uniaxial tensile strength as noted by Lade (1984)
and shown in Figure C12, then apa = j|σt| where j is
slightly greater than 1.0.

EQUATION C18

TABLE C2 Values of A and B from Lade (2013) with the corresponding predicted tensile strength
Rock Type B j % that A σt
apa > σt [MPa]
Igneous 55.1 1.130 13 0.249 440
Metamorphic 22.7 1.282 28 0.257 277
Sedimentary 2.15 2.563 156 0.210 875
Organic (coal) 130.9 1.058 6 0.358 29
All rocks (no coal) 9.62 1.558 56 0.229 642

318
 Appendices – Rock Mass Properties for Tunnelling • Appendix C: Development of Lade Criterion

The solutions to the cubic Equation C17 in j are These approximations flow through such that the
given in Table C2 for the five values of B and range equation for m (Equation C13) becomes:
from 1.058 to 2.563. This means that for the data
considered by Lade (2013) the inferred values of apa
are approximately 6 to 156% greater than σt . This is
a surprising and unexpected result considering Lade
(1993) suggested apa was within 2% of σt (see Figure
C12).
Substituting these values of j into Equation C18
using the corresponding values of A from Table C1
unfortunately predicts tensile strengths which are
extremely high and in the author’s opinion artificially
so, as shown in Table C2.
The surprising and unexpectedly high values of
apa and σt found by the above analysis questions the
usefulness of estimating the Lade parameters from a
single laboratory test as suggested by Lade (1993). EQUATION C19

SUGGESTED METHOD TO
and the equation for η1 (Equation C14) becomes:
ESTIMATE PARAMETERS
The Lade parameter a is considered to be an estimate
of the material’s uniaxial tensile strength. Its value is
chosen such that the term apa is slightly greater than
σt , typically within 2% of σt for rock e.g. Lade (1984);
Lade (1993) as shown in Figure C12. It is possible
therefore to make the approximations apa σt and apa
≈1.02σt .
The points representing the UCS (x,y) and the UTS
(x1,y1) which were found earlier can therefore be
written as:

UCS

EQUATION C20

1.00E+06 2.00
UCS= 1MPa
UCS= 10MPa
UCS= 100MPa
1.00E+05 1.50
UTS UCS= 250MPa
m

η1 1.00E+04 1.00 m

1.00E+03 0.50

1.00E+02 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
σc/σt

FIGURE C15 relationship between Lade parameters and

The log term for y1 is equal to B (see Equation C15). the ratio σc / σt for typical rocks. The parameter η1 is also
Therefore interestingly, when apa = 1.02σt , B ≈ 393. dependent on UCS. Implicit in this graph is that apa = 1.02σt.

319
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

D: Development of Christensen
Criterion

This appendix develops the Christensen failure

criterion in much the same way as Hoek and Brown
developed their original criterion from the Griffith
crack extension theory (Hoek and Brown 1980). The
intention is to see whether the Christensen criterion
can be transformed to resemble the style of the Hoek-
Brown criterion.

CRITERION
In a series of papers Christensen (2007) advanced
a failure criterion by considering the stress state
to characterise the elastic energy of a homogenous
material. In this, he started with fracture mechanics
introduced by Griffith’s crack extension. Christensen
assumed that a homogenous material does not fail under
hydrostatic pressure but could fail under hydrostatic
tension. The criterion was developed principally for
use with man-made isotropic materials. It is initially
written here in the form given by Christensen (2007)
with tension assumed to be positive but in terms of
principal stresses.

EQUATION D1

For brittle materials, such as rock, which are defined

by Christensen as having 0 ≤ σt ≤ 0.5|σc|, the maximum
principal tensile stress is limited to a maximum of σt.
The criterion is valid for materials where the ratio
0 ≤ σt /|σc| ≤1. At the limit of σt =|σc|, that is very
ductile behaviour, the Christensen criterion becomes
the von Mises criterion. The criterion can differentiate
between ductile and brittle failure.
Adopting the standard rock mechanics convention,
which has compression stresses being positive,
Equation B1 is re-written as:

EQUATION D2

320
 Appendices – Rock Mass Properties for Tunnelling • Appendix D: Development of Christensen Criterion

Equation B1 can be re-arranged as follows.

Hence, the criterion can be written as:

EQUATION D3

The solution to Equation D3 can be found by first

expanding and then simplifying as follows.

Substituting variables b and c as:

EQUATION D4

321
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

The following quadratic equation is obtained.

From which solutions for the major principal stress in

Equation D3 can be found as:

VALIDATION
The solutions to the Christensen criterion for
conventional triaxial tests, σ2 = σ3 and |σt| < 1/2σc, can
be found by substituting for the constants b and c as:

Hence the solutions for σ1 for conventional triaxial

tests are given by:

For a UCS test, σ2 = σ3 = 0, the solutions further

simplify to:

Squaring both sides

322
 Appendices – Rock Mass Properties for Tunnelling • Appendix D: Development of Christensen Criterion

Simplifying

which has roots

and the expected result of

HOEK-BROWN STYLE
DEVELOPMENT
Equation D3, which is repeated here,

is of a similar form to the Griffith crack extension

theory as extended by Murrell (1963):

The similarity of form between the equations is not

surprising given Christensen used fracture mechanics
of Griffith (Christensen 2007), but it suggested to the
author that perhaps the criterion could be developed
into something akin to the Hoek-Brown criterion.

323
ESTIMATING ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

Re-writing the Christensen criterion (Equation D3) in

terms of the octahedral stresses, which are:

or

The following equation is obtained.

EQUATION D5

Replacing the two terms in parentheses in Equation

D5 with parameters say, m1 and s1:

EQUATION D6

Where

and

324
 14 | References

At the ductile limit, |σt| = σc, then m1 =0 and s1 =

2/9. At the brittle end of the spectrum and with |σt| →
0, then m1 → 2/3 and s1 → 0.
The similarity in form between Equation D6 and
the original Hoek-Brown criterion (Equation B2) can
clearly be seen.

EQUATION D7

So the constants b and c from Equation D4 can be

written in terms of m1 and s1 as follows.

In the same fashion as Hoek and Brown (1980) m1 and

s1 variables can be selected to best curve-fit test data.
The similarity between Equation D6 and the Hoek-
Brown criterion as extended to 3D by Pan and Hudson
(1988) (Equation D8) is also evident.

which can be re-arranged as

EQUATION D8

However, similar to the Pan and Hudson (1988)

equation as discussed in Zhang and Zhu (2007) and in
Appendix B, Equation D6 does not simplify to the 2D
Hoek-Brown criterion under triaxial stress state (σ2 = σ3).

Substituting σ2 = σ3 into Equation D6:

The term [3/2m1σ2σ1] on the right-hand side does

not appear in the Hoek-Brown criterion.

325