Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-019-01670-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Impact of intact rock properties on proneness to rockbursting

Bre-Anne Sainsbury 1 & Nurses Kurucuk 1

Received: 30 May 2019 / Accepted: 11 November 2019

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
The ability to assess the proneness of rocks to bursting prior to the development of an underground excavation is critical in order
to optimise the design in regards to safety and economics. Six key factors have previously been identified that are known to
contribute to rockbursting. They include stress, excavation geometry, excavation rate, mineralogical properties, contrasting
geomechanical properties and geological intensifiers. The first three factors relate to in situ and induced stresses, and the last
three to intrinsic rock properties. This paper focuses on evaluating the impact of those intrinsic properties on bursting behaviour
by using geomechanical test data from previously published 35 case studies and their observed failure modes. The results provide
quantitative criteria and a valuable guide to identify rock masses that may be prone to bursting, and thus would benefit from a
stress analysis.

Keywords Rockburst . Violent fracture . High stress slabbing . Elastic rock properties . UCS

Introduction associated with stresses that result from in situ conditions,

Rockbursts are commonly described as damage to under-
ground excavations that occurs in a violent and sudden man-
ner, typically associated with seismic events (Hedley 1992;
Ortlepp 1992; Kaiser et al. 1996). From observations,
rockbursts are more likely to occur in massive rock types than
in significantly jointed and fractured rock masses (Broch and
Sorheim 1984; Ortlepp and Stacey 1994), and although they
are not exclusively associated with brittle rock types, they are
likely to be more severe (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994; Cai and
Kaiser 2018).
The sudden and violent nature of rockbursts represent a
significant risk to safety of workers, damage to equipment,
and productivity of excavations (Diederichs et al. 2004). Yet,
to date, the conditions leading to rockbursts are not fully un-
derstood. Keneti and Sainsbury (2018), in their review of pub-
lished literature, summarised the underlying causes of docu-
mented rockburst cases under two categories, (1) loading- and
(2) property-associated factors. Loading factors are those
* Bre-Anne Sainsbury
breanne.sainsbury@deakin.edu.au
1
School of Engineering, Faculty of Science Engineering & Built
Environment, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000,
Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia
excavation geometry, rate, and direction of the excavation.
Property associated factors can be related to intrinsic rock
mass properties (e.g., mineralogical and geological condi-
tions). It can be stated that, in general, rockbursts occur in rock
masses that are intrinsically prone to sudden strength loss
when unfavourable stress conditions are created during the
excavation process. The focus of the current paper is those
property associated intrinsic factors that can be evaluated via
geomechanical laboratory testing.
The geomechanical properties of rock have long been used
to investigate and identify the behaviour of rock masses that
are prone to bursting (Cook and Hodgson 1965; Jaeger 1967;
Wawersik and Fairhurst 1970; Hucka and Das 1974; Hoek
and Brown 1980; Broch and Sorheim 1984; Salamon 1984;
Martin et al. 1995, 1999; Hoek et al. 1995; Linkov 1996;
Diederichs 2003, 2007; Cai 2010; Tarasov and Potvin 2013).
These studies have incorporated intact rock properties includ-
ing unconfined compressive strength (UCS), tensile strength
(σt) and elastic behaviour in their evaluation of rockbursting
phenomena.
Diederichs (2007) proposed a practical method to predict
rockbursting potential and its severity based on UCS and σt.
Cai (2010) described how under tensile stress conditions crack
propagation is unstable and under predominantly compressive
stress conditions crack growth is stable. These studies suggest
that the UCS and tensile strength of the rock has a significant
effect on its potential to burst.

Cook (1963) showed that the initial response of a rock to
excavation disturbance is elastic in nature and results in the ac-
cumulation of elastic strain energy. Sometimes this stored energy
cannot be completely dissipated by crack initiation, rupture, and/
or shear sliding and may be released as kinetic energy (He et al.
2016). For this reason, rocks that are prone to bursting clearly
have the capacity to store large amounts of elastic energy prior to
release. Thus, the elastic deformation parameters of rocks could
be indicative in assessing their proneness to bursting.
Lee et al. (2018) provides a large dataset on the failure
modes of competent and overstressed rocks that have been
compiled over the course of 30 years. The dataset is based
on commonly available geomechanical test results obtained
from site investigations. This dataset has been used herein to
assess the proneness of rocks to bursting using UCS, tensile
strength, and elastic properties of intact rock. The properties
used and the methods by which they were obtained/derived
have been presented along with their failure mode correla-
tions. The results are compared with the existing methods
used to predict rockbursting potential, and conclusions are
derived based on those observations.
Dataset of intact rock properties
Intact rock properties of competent over stressed rock masses
and their performance in underground excavations has been
presented previously in Lee et al. (2018). Competent rock in
that study is described by Q’> 60 (Barton et al. 1974). Thirty
five (35) study sites from this publication were used in the
current research to investigate the relationship between intact
rock properties and their modes of failure when overstressed.
The database contains study sites with varying geological
characteristics and includes sites with 30 igneous, 4 sedimen-
tary and 1 metamorphic rock types. For each of the study sites,
the observed in situ failure mode was categorised as either
violent fracturing, high-stress slabbing or squeezing. The fail-
ure modes were assigned based on observations associated
with the rate of cracking, noise and the violence of the in situ
fracturing. The dataset used in the current study includes 17
sites that experienced violent fracturing, 15 high-stress slab-
bing and 3 squeezing modes of failure. A summary of the
description of the each failure mode, assigned for the purpose
of this paper, is provided below (after Lee et al. 2018):
& Violent fracturing or strain-bursting was assigned as the fail-
ure mode when the rock failed in suddenly in a violent man-
ner based on the definition of Ortlepp and Stacey (1994). The
failure mode was often associated with notable seismicity,
and the formation and ejection of thin slabs of rock;
& High stress slabbing was assigned when minor rock noise
was commonly observed immediately after firings. Over-
B.-A. Sainsbury, N. Kurucuk
break of unsupported material was common, but ejection
of the failed rock was not observed;
& Squeezing mode of failure was assigned when slow defor-
mation of the rock mass often with significant closure was
observed. This failure mode is usually aseismic (at least to
human ears and to standard seismic monitoring systems)
and non-violent in nature.
The intact rock properties for each study site and their ob-
served failure mode are presented in Table 1. A detailed discus-
sion on the derivation of each of these parameters is provided in
Lee et al. (2018). A summary is provided here. The tested rock
properties include density (ρ), unconfined compressive strength
(UCS), tensile strength, P and S wave velocities (Vp, Vs), static
Poisson’s ratio (νs) and elastic modulus (Es). νs and Es values
were standardised to mid-third values, and tangent modulus
values were calculated (Malkowski and Ostrowski 2017). A
minimum of five reliable tests were utilized for each study sites,
and the dataset is based on a minimum of 185 validated test
results. Sample strengths for UCS were normalised for size-
scale effects based on Hoek and Brown (1980). Tensile strength
was measured using the Brazilian test (BT) method and only on
50 mm (+/−5 mm) diameter samples.
Dynamic Poisson’s ratio (νd) and the dynamic elastic mod-
ulus (Ed) have been calculated based on Winkler et al. (1979),
Eqs. 1 and 2 respectively.
V 2p −2V 2s
vd ¼   ð1Þ
2 V 2p −V 2s
3V 2p −4V 2s
E d ¼ ρV 2s ð2Þ
V 2p −V 2s
The compressive strength and tensile strength ratio has also
been calculated and listed in Table 1 as UCS/BT. This ratio has
been shown to be rock-type dependent (Brook 1993; Brown
2008; Cai 2010; Sari 2010), and also previously used in
assessing the potential of rocks to strain-bursting (Diederichs
2007). Sari (2010) showed that this ratio is a good estimate of
the Hoek-Brown mi constant (Hoek and Brown 1980, 1988,
2018; Hoek 1994; Hoek et al. 1995, 2002). Others including
Brown (2008) and Cai (2010) have also used the UCS/σt ratio
to approximate mi. However, Cai (2010) has shown that the
approximation is generally lower bound, and only valid when
UCS/σt is greater than 8 and when σ3 is less than 5 MPa.
Assessment of intact rock properties
for proneness to rockbursts
This section presents an evaluation of intact rock properties
and the relationship with their observed failure modes of the
study sites.
Impact of intact rock properties on proneness to rockbursting

Table 1 Intact rock properties of rocks and their observed in-situ failure modes (after Lee et al. 2018)

Rock type Density(t/m3) UCS (MPa) BT (MPa) UCS/ Vp (m/s) Vs (m/s) νs Es (GPa) νd Ed (GPa) Failure mode
BT

Massive sulphide 4.02 263 16.1 16.3 6987 4140 0.22 117.6 0.23 169.4 Violent fracturing
Massive sulphide 4.43 181 12.0 15.1 5011 2965 0.30 83.3 0.23 95.9 Violent fracturing
Massive sulphide 4.52 198 16.6 11.9 6408 3851 0.28 153.3 0.22 163.2 Violent fracturing
Massive sulphide 4.76 150 6.0 25.0 5140 2388 0.32 74.7 0.36 74.0 Violent fracturing
Gabbro 2.88 152 12.6 12.1 4366 2442 0.29 75.7 0.27 43.7 Violent fracturing
Dolerite 3.08 335 18.4 18.2 6926 3244 0.25 91.7 0.36 88.1 Violent fracturing
Dolerite 2.84 217 12.1 17.9 5234 3276 0.30 71.7 0.18 71.8 Violent fracturing
Buck quartz 2.65 135 8.5 15.79 6992 3154 0.13 74.0 0.37 72.4 Violent fracturing
Dolerite 3.01 214 13.7 15.6 6907 3380 0.24 82.0 0.34 92.3 Violent fracturing
Dolerite 2.90 179 11.4 15.7 4997 3074 0.20 78.4 0.20 65.5 Violent fracturing
Porphyry 2.69 216 15.2 14.2 5693 2899 0.19 56.8 0.32 59.9 Violent fracturing
Porphyry 2.66 284 27.6 10.3 5279 2839 0.19 63.7 0.30 55.6 Violent fracturing
Porphyry 2.72 258 12.2 21.1 6104 2913 0.27 65.7 0.35 62.4 Violent fracturing
Monzodiorite 2.77 137 8.2 16.7 5846 2826 0.27 55.7 0.35 59.6 Violent fracturing
Pegmatite 2.72 205 7.5 27.3 5855 2540 0.24 63.6 0.38 48.6 Violent fracturing
Volcanoclastics 2.73 136 17.2 7.9 6320 3116 0.28 60.1 0.34 70.9 Violent fracturing
Grit 2.72 181 16.2 11.2 6987 4291 0.27 68.4 0.20 120.0 Violent fracturing
Basalt 2.90 113 9.8 11.5 5447 3097 0.32 70.1 0.26 70.2 High stress slabbing
Basalt 2.85 169 20.5 8.2 5746 3426 0.40 62.4 0.22 81.9 High stress slabbing
Gabbro 2.91 139 15.5 9.0 6865 3748 0.31 77.4 0.29 105.3 High stress slabbing
Dolerite 2.93 176 14.2 12.4 6214 3583 0.25 65.9 0.25 94.1 High stress slabbing
Basalt 3.02 180 16.4 11.0 6884 3890 0.21 70.2 0.27 115.7 High stress slabbing
Basalt 2.92 169 15.6 10.8 7175 3983 0.24 82.2 0.28 118.3 High stress slabbing
Basalt 3.04 196 19.7 9.9 6155 3523 0.21 75.7 0.26 94.8 High stress slabbing
Basalt 2.89 218 19.0 11.5 6514 3161 0.25 89.2 0.35 77.7 High stress slabbing
Dolerite 2.93 245 13.2 18.6 6155 3407 0.29 75.4 0.28 87.0 High stress slabbing
Gabbro 2.93 216 11.7 18.5 6451 3321 0.26 72.5 0.32 85.3 High stress slabbing
Volcanoclastics 2.68 118 12.5 9.4 5340 2994 0.19 64.5 0.27 61.1 High stress slabbing
Andesite 2.74 129 11.3 11.4 6217 3432 0.32 70.8 0.28 82.7 High stress slabbing
Meta-sediments 2.78 234 18.0 13.0 6301 3670 0.25 53.0 0.24 93.1 High stress slabbing
Conglomerate 2.74 134 14.5 9.2 6351 3483 0.25 72.8 0.28 85.4 High stress slabbing
Granite breccia 3.05 140 13.3 10.5 5628 3269 0.28 59.1 0.25 81.2 High stress slabbing
Ultramafics 2.83 80 6.8 11.8 3534 2241 0.40 26.8 0.16 33.1 Squeezing
Ultramafics 2.86 53 6.7 7.9 4555 1623 0.26 34.9 0.43 21.5 Squeezing
Ultramafics 2.85 41 4.7 8.7 5785 3581 0.44 44.5 0.19 86.9 Squeezing

UCS and tensile strength (BT) Based on Fig. 1 the following conclusions are made:

Statistical plots (box and whiskers plots) of the measured & There is a notable decrease in UCS values associated with
UCS, BT, and their ratio (UCS/BT) for each of the observed the squeezing mode of failure compared with the violent
failure modes are presented in Fig. 1. fracturing and the high stress slabbing. Samples with

Fig. 1 Statistical plots of intact rock properties a UCS, b BT, and c UCS/BT for each of the observed failure modes. Minimum, 25th percentile, median,
75th percentile and maximum values are presented in each of the plots

Fig. 2 Observed in situ failure modes compared to strain-burst potential
as defined in Diederichs (2007). Study site failure modes are presented as
the coloured dots—red circle=violent fracturing (strain-bursting), blue
square=high stress slabbing, green triangle=squeezing
measured UCS values less than 80 MPa did not experi-
ence violent fracturing or high stress slabbing. All the
samples that experinced violent fracturing and high stress
slabbing had UCS values greater than 112 MPa;
& There is a decrease in measured BT values for the squeez-
ing failure mode. Only samples within the dataset with BT
values larger than 7 MPa experinced violent fracturing and
high stress slabbing;
& There is a notable change in average UCS/BT ratios be-
tween different failure modes; however, overlaps exist. In
general, study sites with UCS/BT values greater than 12
are more prone to high stress slabbing. Study sites with
UCS/BT values greater than 18 are certainly prone to vi-
olent fracturing modes of failure.
The potential for strain-bursting of intact rocks has previ-
ously been considered by Diederichs (2007). Through this
study, Diederichs-related strain-bursting potential to energy
(measured through UCS) and spall potential (measured
Fig. 3 Statistical plots of intact rock properties a Es, b Ed and c their ratio for each of the observed failure modes. Minimum, 25th percentile, median, 75th
percentile and maximum values are presented in each of the plots
B.-A. Sainsbury, N. Kurucuk
through the ratio of UCS and tensile strength, σt). The study
site data considered herein is compared with the strain-burst
potential chart presented by Diederichs (2007) in Fig. 2.
The results of Diederichs (2007) and the study sites pre-
sented herein are in reasonable agreement. The majority of
violent fracturing failure modes (14 of the 17 sites = 82%) fall
above or within the low strain-burst potential zone. Only four
of the study sites, all of which have UCS/BT ratios less than
12, fall below the ‘low’ strain-burst potential zone. Each of
these four data points still plot within the ‘medium’ to ‘high’
energy release area of the graph which suggests that the vio-
lent fracturing failure mode may be been interpreted incorrect-
ly, or, some overlap exists for low UCS/BT ratios and/or high
UCS (140 MPa+) values. The majority of the high stress slab-
bing data points (11 of 15 sites = 73%) fall below the low
strain-burst potential zone—however, they still plot within
the low to high energy release region of the graph. All three
squeezing data points plot below the low strain-burst potential
zone within the low spall potential and low energy release
area/s. This is consistent with the features of the failure mode.
Elastic moduli (Es, Ed)
Statistical plots for measured Es, calculated Ed and their ratio
Ed/Es for each of the study sites are presented in Fig. 3. The
data is again grouped for each of the observed failure modes.
Based on the results presented in Fig. 3, the following
conclusions are made:
& There is a significant decrease in Es values for the squeez-
ing mode of failure. Samples within the data set with mea-
sured Es values less than 45 GPa did not exhibit violent
fracturing and/or high stress slabbing;
& Samples that exhibited squeezing mode of failure show, in
average, noticeably lower Ed values: however, overlaps
exist;
& The average Ed/Es ratio decreases as the rock becomes
more prone to violent fracturing, with the majority of the
samples that exhibit violent fracturing mode having values
Impact of intact rock properties on proneness to rockbursting
Fig. 4 Observed failure modes for the relationship between Es and Ed
(study sites with Es values smaller than 45 GPa are presented reference
only)
close to unity. The majority of the study sites that experi-
enced violent fracturing have Ed/Es ratio ranging between
0.89 (25th percentile) and 1.11 (75th percentile) with an
average value of 1.07.
Rocks exhibit variations between static and dynamic mod-
uli with the later usually being larger (Olsen et al. 2008). The
differences in the dynamic and static moduli of rocks can be
attributed to the measured strain rate, heterogeneities, anisot-
ropy, strain amplitude and drainage conditions (Fjaer 2018).
Based on the current data, the majority of the study sites that
exhibit violent fracturing have a dynamic—static moduli ratio
close to unity. This result validates that rock masses that are
prone to violent fracturing are more homogeneous and
isotropic.
Figure 4 presents the relationship between static and dy-
namic moduli for each of the observed failure modes at the
Fig. 5 Statistical plots of intact rock properties a νs, b νd and c their ratio for each of the observed failure modes. Minimum, 25th percentile, median, 75th
percentile and maximum values are presented in each of the plots
study sites. This figure shows that the Ed/Es ratio increases as
the rock becomes more prone to slabbing. As previously stat-
ed, violent fracturing and high stress slabbing is not observed
in the sample set that have Es values less than 45 GPa within
this dataset.
Walsh (1965) attributed the difference between static and
dynamic elastic moduli of rocks to energy dissipation due to
non-elastic processes and the corresponding non-elastic strain
components. It is seen in Fig. 4 that the majority of rocks
prone to slabbing (and not violent fracturing) exhibit larger
differences between Ed and Es. This increase in difference
may suggest that during loading some of the accumulated
strain energy dissipates due to crack formation resulting in
less accumulated strain energy that can be converted to kinetic
energy during failure. It is also known that this difference
between Ed and Es is stress and strain history dependent
(Fjaer 2018) and thus must relate to the orogeny of the rock.
Poisson’s ratio (νs, νd)
Statistical plots for νs, νd and their ratio for each of the study
sites and failure modes are presented in Fig. 5.
The following conclusions are made from Fig. 5:
& There is an increase in νs values for rock that experinced
squeezing failure within this data set. This indicates that
stiff materials are more prone to violent failure. The ma-
jority of sites that experienced violent failure have νs
values ranging between 0.23 (25th percentile) and 0.28
(75th percentile) with an average value of 0.25. This value
coincides with perfectly isotropic elastic materials and
verifies the ratio of Ed/Es being close to unity for rocks
prone to violent failure mode. Additionally, the majority
of the sites that experienced high-stress slabbing within
this data set exhibit νs values between 0.25 (25th percen-
tile) and 0.30 (75th percentile) with an average value of
0.27. This value is higher that than the rocks that
underwent violent fracturing, although overlaps exist;

Fig. 6 Observed failure modes for the relationship beween νs and νd
& There is no observed apparent correlation between νd and
failure modes;
& There is no apparent correlation between νd/νs ratio and
failure modes, although there is a slight decrease in values
for rocks that are less prone to violent failure within this
data set.
For completeness, the relationship between static and dy-
namic Poisson’s ratio is provided in Fig. 6 for each of the
observed failure modes at the study sites. The results in this
figure are very scattered, and no evident correlation between
the νs and νd parameters could be made. Similar conclusions
were also observed by Fei et al. (2016) in their investigation of
Fig. 7 Proposed charts to evaluate the proneness of intact rock to rockbursting. Study site failure modes are presented as the coloured dots—red
circle=violent fracturing (strain-bursting), blue square=high stress slabbing, green triangle=squeezing
B.-A. Sainsbury, N. Kurucuk
tight gas filled rock masses. There is no identified publsihed
literature that examines the reasons between the differences of
static and dynamic Poisson’s ratio.
Discussion and results
It is shown that UCS, Es, νs and UCS/BT have the most notable
impact on the proneness of rocks to bursting within this data set.
UCS, Es and UCS/BT values decrease for rock that experience
squeezing, whereas νs values increase. Based on the results of
the current study and the initial approach developed by
Diederichs (2007), two charts are proposed and are provided
in Fig. 7. The first one is between UCS/BT ratio and UCS(1-
νs), and the second one between UCS/BT ratio and Es(1- νs).
It should be noted that these empirical charts are limited by
the 35 case studies provided in this paper. The case study sites
include 30 igneous, 4 sedimentary and 1 metamorphic rock
types. Based on these limitations, the charts are recommended
to be used as a preliminary assessment of the proneness of a
rock to bursting. They do not predict whether a rock will burst
or not, but rather if it is prone to bursting or not, and whether
there is a need for more comprehensive stress analysis.
Conclusion
Thirty-five (35) previously published case studies have been
used in the current paper to assess whether proneness of rock
to bursting could be evaluated using intact rock properties.
The study shows that the UCS, Es, νs and UCS/BT may indi-
cate the proneness of a rocks to bursting. As a result of this,
two new charts based on those parameters are proposed that
Impact of intact rock properties on proneness to rockbursting
may be used as a preliminary tool to assess the proneness of a
rock to bursting.
Additionally, it is shown that the proneness of a rock to
bursting can be identified; however, the severity cannot be
predicted using intact rock properties. The results indicate that
the severity of a rockburst (its seismic magnitude) is likely to
be caused by stress conditions and/or the post peak behaviour
of rock which were not considered in the current study. For
burst prone rocks, identified through the techniques defined
herein, further stress analysis are recommended to be
undertaken.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest
References
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6:189–236
Broch E, Sorheim S (1984) Experiences from the planning, construction
and supporting of a road tunnel subjected to heavy rockbursting.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 17:15–35
Brook N (1993) The measurement and estimation of basic rock strength
In Hudson, J (Ed. –in- chief): Comprehensive Rock Engineering,
Principle Practice, and Projects, vol. 3: Rock Testing and Site
Characterization, Oxford Pergamon, pp 41-81
Brown ET (2008) Estimating the mechanical properties of rock masses.
Proc. SHIRMS 2008, pp.3-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-
9062(74)91558-7
Cai M (2010) Practical estimates of tensile strength and Hoek–Brown
strength parameter mi of brittle rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:
167–184
Cai M, Kaiser PK (2018) Rockburst support reference book. Vol. 1:
Rockburst phenomena and support characteristics: MIRARCO,
Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, 2018. ISBN: 978-0-
88667-096-2
Cook NGW (1963) The basic mechanics of rockbursts. Journal of the
Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 64(3), pp.71-
81.
Cook NGW, Hodgson K (1965) Some detailed stress-strain curves for
rock. J Geophys Res 70:2883–2888
Diederichs MS (2003) Manuel Rocha Medal Recipient Rock fracture and
collapse under low confinement conditions. Rock Mech Rock Eng
36:339–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-003-0015-y
Diederichs MS (2007) The 2003 Canadian geotechnical colloquium:
mechanistic interpretation and practical application of damage and
spalling prediction criteria for deep tunnelling. Can Geotech J 44:
1082–1116. https://doi.org/10.1139/T07-033
Diederichs MS, Kaiser PK, Eberhardt E (2004) Damage initiation and
propagation in hard rock during tunnelling and the influence of near-
face stress rotation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:785–812. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.02.003
Fei W, Huiyuan B, Jun Y, Yonghao Z (2016) Correlation of dynamic and
static elastic parameters of rock. Electron J Geotech Eng 21:1551–
1560
Fjaer E (2018) Relations between static and dynamic moduli of sedimen-
tary rocks. Geophys Prospect 67:128–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1365-2478.12711
He BG, Zelig R, Hatzor YH, Feng XT (2016) Rockburst generation in
discontinuous rock masses. Rock Mech Rock Eng. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00603-015-0906-8
Hedley, D. G. F., Ontario Mining Association., & Canada Centre for
Mineral and Energy Technology. (1992). Rockburst handbook for
Ontario hardrock mines. Ottawa, Ont: Energy, Mines and Resources
Canada, Canada Center for Mineral and Energy Technology.
Hoek E (1994) Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News Journal,
2(2), pp. 4- 16.
Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock.
Underground Excavations in Rock, London, Institute Mining and
Metallurgy. CRC Press.
Hoek E and Brown ET (1988). The Hoek-Brown failure criterion - a 1988
update. Proc. 15th Canadian Rock Mech. Symp. (ed. J.C. Curran),
31-38. Toronto, Dept. Civil Engineering, University of Toronto.
Hoek E, Brown ET (2018) The Hoek–Brown failure criterion and GSI–
2018 edition. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, 11(3),pp.445-463.
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden W (1995) Support of underground
excavatıons in hard rock. AA Balkema, Rotterdam
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Hoek-Brown Failure
Criterion— 2002 Edition. Proceedings of the 5th North American
Rock Mechanics Symposium, Toronto, 7-10 July 2002, pp. 267-
273.
Hucka V, Das B (1974) Brittleness determination of rocks by different
methods. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts. 11, pp.389-392.
Jaeger JC (1967) Failure of rocks under tensile conditions. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 4:219–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0148-9062(67)90046-0
Kaiser PK, MacCreath DR, Tannant DD (1996) Canadian rockburst sup-
port handbook: prepared for sponsors of the Canadian rockburst
research program 1990-1995. Geomechanics Research Centre
Keneti A, Sainsbury BL (2018) Review of published rockburst events
and their contributing factors. Eng Geol 246:361–373. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.10.005
Lee M, Penney A, Sainsbury BL (2018) Proneness of competent over-
stressed intact rock to violent fracturing, in AusRock 2018 : Fourth
Australasian Ground Control In Mining Conference, Australian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, Vic., pp. 170-184.
Linkov AM (1996) Rockbursts and the instability of rock
masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts, 33, 7, pp. 727-732.
Malkowski P, Ostrowski L (2017) The Methodology for the Young
Modulus Derivation for Rocks and Its Value. Procedia
Engineering, 191, pp.134-141.
Martin CD, Young RP, Collins DS (1995) Monitoring progressive failure
around a tunnel in massive granite. In: 8th ISRM Congress.
International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
Martin CD, Tannant DD, Yazici S, and Kaiser PK. (1999). Stress
path and instability around mine openings. 9th ISRM Congress on
Rock Mechanics, Paris, Balkema, pp. 311-315.
Olsen C, Christensen HF, Fabricius IL (2008) Static and dynamic
Young’s moduli of chalk from the North Sea. Geophysics 73:E41–
E50. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2821819
Ortlepp WD (1992) The design of support for the containment of
rockburst damage in tunnels-an engineering approach. In: Rock
support in mining and underground construction. pp 593–609
Ortlepp WD, Stacey TR (1994) Rockburst mechanisms in tunnels and
shafts. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 9(1), pp.59-
65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-7798(94)90010-8
Salamon MDG (1984) Energy considerations in rock mechanics: funda-
mental results. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, vol. 84 (8), pp. 233–246.

Sari M (2010) A simple approximation to estimate the Hoek-Brown pa-
rameter ‘mi’ for intact rocks. Rock Mechanics in Civil and
Environmental Engineering, pp. 169–172.
Tarasov B, Potvin Y (2013) Universal criteria for rock brittleness estima-
tion under triaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 59:57–69
Walsh JB (1965) The effect of cracks on the uniaxial elastic compression
of rocks. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 70:399–411. https://doi.org/10.
1055/s-2004-815600
B.-A. Sainsbury, N. Kurucuk
Wawersik WR, Fairhurst CH (1970) A study of brittle rock fracture in
laboratory compression experiments. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 7, 5,
pp.561-575.
Winkler K, Nur A, Gladwin M (1979) Friction and seismic attenuation in
rocks. Nature 277:528–531. https://doi.org/10.1038/277528a0