GEO3701 Unit 3

LEARNING UNIT 3: DISCONTINUITIES AND

“PROPERTIES OF ROCK”
Table of Contents Page no.

1 Introduction and General Overview ................................................................................... 1
2 Purpose and Expected Outcome of the Learning Unit ....................................................... 2
3 Definitions and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ 4
4 Importance of Scale on Strength of Rock ........................................................................... 4
5 Examples of Application of Discontinuity or Rock Mass Shear Strength ........................... 6
6 Physical and Mechanical Properties of Rock ...................................................................... 8
6.1 Porosity (Physical) ....................................................................................................... 9
6.2 Unit Weight (Physical) ................................................................................................. 9
6.3 Permeability (Physical) .............................................................................................. 10
6.4 Durability (Physical) ................................................................................................... 11
6.5 Uniaxial Compressive Strength (Mechanical) ........................................................... 11
6.5.1 Uniaxial Compression Test ................................................................................. 12
6.5.2 Point Load Test – Index Test for UCS ................................................................. 14
6.5.3 Schmidt Hammer Rebound Test – Index Test for UCS ...................................... 17
6.5.4 Field Indices ....................................................................................................... 19
6.6 Tensile strength (Mechanical) ................................................................................... 19
6.6.1 Direct Tensile Test .............................................................................................. 20
6.6.2 Indirect Tensile Test (Brazil Test) ....................................................................... 20
6.7 Elastic Wave Propagation (Mechanical) .................................................................... 21
6.8 Strength and Deformation Parameters (Mechanical)............................................... 22
7 Discontinuities .................................................................................................................. 22
7.1 Types of Discontinuities ............................................................................................ 23
7.2 Characteristics of Discontinuities .............................................................................. 23

7.3 Stiffness and Shear Strength of Discontinuity Planes ............................................... 25
7.3.1 Stiffness of a Discontinuity ................................................................................ 26
7.3.2 Clarification of Planar Smooth, Planar Rough and Dilation ............................... 26
7.3.3 Friction Angles of Rock (Basic, Peak and Residual) ............................................ 28
7.3.4 Shear Strength of Planar Smooth Discontinuity ................................................ 29
7.3.5 Shear Strength of Planar Rough Discontinuity .................................................. 30
7.3.6 Barton‐Choubey Failure Criterion ...................................................................... 31
7.3.7 Summary of Mohr‐Coulomb (Planar Smooth and Rough) and Barton‐Choubey
Failure Criteria .................................................................................................................. 33
8 Rock – As Intact Material .................................................................................................. 34
8.1 Differentiating between Isotropic and Anisotropic Rock .......................................... 34
8.2 Uniaxial Compression: σ‐ε Plot ................................................................................. 35
8.3 Four Stages of σ‐ε (Load‐Deformation) ..................................................................... 35
8.4 Factors Affecting UCS of Rock ................................................................................... 37
8.5 Isotropic Rock Strength Criteria ................................................................................ 37
8.5.1 Mohr‐Coulomb Shear Strength Criterion .......................................................... 37
8.5.2 Hoek‐Brown Failure Criterion ............................................................................ 39
8.6 Anisotropic Rock ........................................................................................................ 42
8.7 Time Dependant Behaviour ...................................................................................... 44
9 Rock – As a Mass ............................................................................................................... 44
9.1 Generalised Hoek‐Brown Peak Strength Criterion for Jointed Rock Mass ............... 47
9.1.1 Rock Mass Strength ........................................................................................... 47
Shear Strength Expressed in Terms of Principal Stresses ........................... 48
9.1.2 Shear Strength Expressed in Terms of Mohr‐Coulomb Failure Criterion .......... 51
9.1.3 Rock Mass Deformation ..................................................................................... 53
10 Worked Examples ............................................................................................................. 54
10.1 WORKED EXAMPLE 1: Point Load Index Test for UCS Determination ...................... 54
10.2 WORKED EXAMPLE 2: UCS from Schmidt Hammer Rebound Value ........................ 58
10.3 WORKED EXAMPLE 3: Determination of τp, τr, φp and φr of a Planar Discontinuity
from Direct Shear Test Results ............................................................................................. 60

10.4 WORKED EXAMPLE 4: Shear Strength of Clay Filled Discontinuity ........................... 63
10.5 WORKED EXAMPLE 5: Barton‐Choubey Shear Strength ........................................... 64
10.6 WORKED EXAMPLE 6: UCS (σci), Mohr‐Coulomb φ and c and from Triaxial Test Data
Conducted on Isotropic Rock Core ....................................................................................... 70
10.7 WORKED EXAMPLE 7: UCS (σci), mi, Tensile Strength (σti) and Hoek‐Brown &
Theoretical Failure Envelope ................................................................................................ 74
10.8 WORKED EXAMPLE 8: Hoek‐Brown Parameters s, a, mm, UCS and Uniaxial Tensile
Strength of Rock Mass .......................................................................................................... 78
10.9 WORKED EXAMPLE 9: Rock Mass Hoek‐Brown Equivalent Mohr‐Coulomb Friction
and Cohesion Parameters .................................................................................................... 80
10.10 WORKED EXAMPLE 10: Young’s Modulus of the Rock Mass for Deformation
Evaluation Purposes ............................................................................................................. 84
11 Self‐Assessment Activities ................................................................................................ 87
12 Further Reading ................................................................................................................ 87
13 Informative Website Links ................................................................................................ 87
14 References ........................................................................................................................ 88

List of Tables Page no.

Table 1: Properties of Intact Rock and How they are Determined (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 118) . 8
Table 2: UCS from Field Indices ‐ Hardness of Rocks (ISRM 1981) ....................................................... 19
Table 3: Estimates of the Constant mi for Intact Rock (If Triaxial Data not Available) ......................... 41
Table 4: Direct Shear Box Test Results Obtained from the Laboratory ................................................ 61
Table 5: Typical Properties of Compacted Soils (NAVFAC, 1986) ......................................................... 63
Table 6: Worked Example 6‐ Raw Laboratory UCS Test Data ............................................................... 70
Table 7: Triaxial Test Results Conducted on 6 Representative Isotropic Rock Samples ....................... 75
List of Figures Page no.

Figure 1: Outline of the Module (Focus on Learning Unit 3) .................................................................. 1
Figure 2: The Importance of Scale – Intact rock, Discontinuity and Rock Mass (Hoek, 2019) ............... 5
Figure 3: Scale‐Affect – Discontinuity or Rock Mass Strength ................................................................ 6
Figure 4: Common Conditions in Analysis of a Rock Slope (Mah & Wyllie, 2004, pp. 75‐77) ................ 7
Figure 5: Longitudinal Strain (εlon) ......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 6: Stress‐Strain Plot (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 140) ............................................................ 14
Figure 7: Point Load Index Test (Is) ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 8: Point Load Index Correlation with UCS after Beniawski (1973) Source (Franki, 2008, p. 57) 17
Figure 9: Schmidt Hammer Rebound UCS Correlation Chart (Hoek, 2019) .......................................... 18
Figure 10: Stress Conditions and Shear Stress ‐ Normal Stress Plot ..................................................... 20
Figure 11: a) Indirect Tensile Test (Brazil) and b) Point Load Test ........................................................ 21
Figure 12: Intact Rock to Rock Mass – Sample Size – Scale Discontinuities (Hoek, 2019) .................... 22
Figure 13: Parameters Describing the Rock Mass (Mah & Wyllie, 2004, p. 55) ................................... 25
Figure 14: Planar Discontinuity: a) Shear Stress and Displacement Plots and b) Peak and Residual
Strength (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011) ..................................................................................................... 26
Figure 15: Bi‐linear Failure Criterion for Rough Discontinuity Surfaces (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011) ... 28
Figure 16: Peak Friction vs Basic Friction Angle of Rock (Barton, 2017) ............................................... 29
Figure 17: Intact Rock to Rock Mass – Sample Size – Scale Intact Rock (Hoek, 2019) ......................... 34
Figure 18: Isotropic vs Anisotropic Rock Specimen .............................................................................. 35
Figure 19: Stages in Crack Formation for a Rock Specimen Under Uniaxial Compression ................... 36
Figure 20: Mohr‐Coulomb Failure Envelopes in Terms of b) τ‐σn and c) σ1‐σ3 ..................................... 38
Figure 21: Tension Cut‐off Concept for Linear Mohr‐Coulomb Failure Criterion ................................. 39
Figure 22: Variation in Rock Strength with Variation in Fabric Orientation ......................................... 43
Figure 23: Variation in Rock Stiffness (Young’s Modulus) with Variation in Fabric Orientation .......... 44
Figure 24: Intact Rock to Rock Mass – Sample Size – Scale Rock Mass (Hoek, 2019) .......................... 45
Figure 25: Flow Chart – Application of Hoek‐Brown Criterion and GSI to an Excavation Design (Hoek
& Brown, 2018) ..................................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 26: Data Entry Stream for Using the Hoek‐Brown System for Estimating Rock Mass Parameter
for Numerical Analysis (Hoek, et al., 2013) ........................................................................................... 47
Figure 27: Range of Application of Generalised Hoek‐Brown Criterion (Hoek, 2019) .......................... 48

Figure 28: Typical GSI Ranges for Jointed Rock (Marinos & Hoek, 2000) ............................................. 50
Figure 29: Point Load Index Size Correction Factor “F” (ASTM Standard D 5731, 1995) ..................... 56
Figure 30: Generalized Value of “C” (ASTM Standard D 5731, 1995) ................................................... 56
Figure 31: Schmidt Hammer Rebound Value to UCS (Deere & Miller, 1966) ...................................... 59
Figure 32: Shear Stress against Shear Displacement Plot (Worked Example) ...................................... 61
Figure 33: Shear Stress Shear against Normal Stress Plot (Worked Example) ..................................... 62
Figure 34: Discontinuity Plane Shear Strength – Barton‐Choubey Scenarios ....................................... 64
Figure 35: Variation in Shear Strength with Variation in Normal Stress .............................................. 66
Figure 36: Variation in Shear Strength with Variation in JRC ................................................................ 66
Figure 37: Variation in Shear Strength with Variation in JCS ................................................................ 67
Figure 38: Variation in Shear Strength with Variation in Residual Friction of the Rock ....................... 67
Figure 39: Plot of (σ1‐σ3)2 against σ3 with calculation of intercept and UCS ...................................... 71
Figure 40: Sigma 1 (Major Principal Stress σ1) vs Sigma 3 (Minor Principal Stress σ3) with Linear Fit . 72
Figure 41: hear Failure Occurs Along a Plane at Angle 𝜽 𝟒𝟓° 𝝋′𝟐 to the Major Principal Plane . 72
Figure 42: Mohr Circle and Cohesion (Shear Stress vs Normal Stress) (Franki, 2008, p. 53) ................ 73
Figure 43: Current Focus on Intact Rock Properties vs our Goal .......................................................... 74
Figure 44: Determination of mi and σci from Triaxial Data ................................................................... 75
Figure 45: Hoek‐Brown Failure Envelope ‐ Theoretical vs Lab Results ................................................. 77
Figure 46: Effect of GSI on UCS of the Rock Mass ................................................................................. 79
Figure 47: Current Focus on Intact Rock Properties vs our Goal .......................................................... 80
Figure 48: Brittle to Ductile Formation – Mogi’s σ1=3.4σ3 Limit (Hoek & Brown, 2018) ...................... 81
Figure 49: RockLab Software Package Analysis Export for Comparison Purposes ............................... 86
Figure 50: RockLab Software Package σ1‐σ3 and τ‐σn Plots for Illustrative Purposes .......................... 87

1 Introduction and General Overview

This is Learning Unit 3 of 11 units in this module (see Figure 1). The module consists of ten
structured learning units and one unit that will be one (or more) geological engineering
project(s). The focus of this learning unit is on “Discontinuities and Properties of Rock” for
the prospective engineer.
Basic Geology
(Learning Unit 1)
Basic Fundamentals
Geological and Introduction to
Engineering Projects
Structural Geology
(Learning Unit 11)
(Learning Unit 2)
Geological Factors Discontinuities

Affecting Construction and “Properties
Projects of Rock”
(Learning Unit 10) (Learning Unit 3)
Civil
Engineering
Design
Slopes Construction Geomorphology
Engineering Geological Hazards

Geophysics and Problem Soils
Soil and Rock

Geotechnical Site Parameters for
Investigations
Design Input
(Learning Unit 7)
(Learning Unit 6)
Figure 1: Outline of the Module (Focus on Learning Unit 3)
The study of the engineering properties of rock is termed “rock mechanics”. Rock mechanics
includes the study of the theoretical and applied science of the properties and mechanical
behaviour or rock and rock masses, in response to the forces acting on them.
The aim of studying the engineering properties of rock is to understand the behaviour of rocks
in different environments, and to predict how they will react or behave in response to stress
changes resulting from engineering works on or in the rock.
The properties of rock can be divided into two categories:
1

 Physical properties (also referred to as index properties: mineral composition,

density, structure and fabric, porosity, permeability, durability, hardness, etc.); and
 Mechanical properties: The physical properties dictate the mechanical properties,
which include Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio and rock strength.
The physical and mechanical properties of rock are related to its mineralogy, tectonic
processes, the structures affecting rock, stress states, the rate of strain, etc. Depending on
the scale of the project, the properties may be required for either the intact rock itself or the
rock mass (intact rock plus discontinuities). The stresses and strains in rock or the rock mass
then again dictate the strength and behavioural characteristics of the rock or rock mass.
Discontinuities or weak surfaces (fabric) in rock give the material a discontinuous and
anisotropic character, further complicating the topic.
“Properties of rock” is an interrelated subject: A holistic understanding of the mineralogy that
makes up the rock, the stress regime (historic and current) and the resulting fabric/structures
that formed under possible differential stress conditions needs to be incorporated into what
initially appeared to be a straightforward perception of the “properties of rock”.
Previous units introduced:
 Types of rock (igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary) and the variations within these
three main groups (fine-grained, massive, cleavage, schistosity, gneissic, etc.);
 The geological factors affecting the strength and deformational characteristics
of intact rock (mineral composition, density, structure and fabric, porosity,
permeability, durability, hardness, environmental, water, weathering, etc.)
 Mineralogy (different types, hardness, Bowen’s reaction series, fine- and coarse-
grained, etc.);
 Tectonics and structures (force, stress, deformation and strain as one of the
components of deformation);
 Strength, failure and stress-strain behaviour;
 Behavioural models (elastic, plastic and viscous);
 Brittle structures (joints, veins, faults); and
 Ductile structures (folds, fabric, ductile shear zones).
These concepts should be clear, as they form the basis of this unit.
2 Purpose and Expected Outcome of the Learning Unit

This unit offers an introduction to the discontinuities and properties of rock (intact rock and
rock mass) for the prospective engineer.
The purpose of this learning unit is to introduce the concepts of, or expose you to:
a) The importance of differentiating between intact rock and rock mass;
b) The importance of scale;
2

c) Concepts surrounding intact rock, discontinuities and rock masses;

d) Compressive strength vs. shear strength;
 Strength (uniaxial compressive strength – UCS) of intact rock;
 Strength (shear) of a discontinuity;
 Strength (shear) of a rock mass;
e) Physical and mechanical properties of rock;
f) Strength and deformation of rock as intact material;
g) Strength and deformation of rock as a mass.
At the end of this learning unit you should be able to:
Discuss the importance of scale in rock engineering problems;
Select the appropriate evaluation approach for intact rock, rock with limited
discontinuity sets and a rock mass;
Select field or laboratory techniques/methods to establish the physical and/or
mechanical properties of intact rock;
Determine the UCS of rock by means of different methods (laboratory techniques, field
tests and visual/descriptive assessments);
Determine the tensile strength of intact rock;
Differentiate between the common types of discontinuities;
List the discontinuity characteristics and parameters generally recorded or required to
assess the strength of a discontinuity;
Differentiate between the shear-stress and shear displacement of a smooth
discontinuity and a rough discontinuity (or discontinuity with “cohesion”) by means of
a diagram (schematic);
Differentiate between the peak and residual strength of a discontinuity;
Differentiate between planar smooth and planar rough discontinuities on shear stress
shear displacement (𝜏-µ) and shear stress normal stress (𝜏-σn) plots;
Discuss and present the concept of dilation;
Discuss changes in the strength and deformation of an anisotropic rock specimen
(orientation of test or consideration);
Discuss the four stages of crack formation;
List the factors that affect the UCS of rock; and
Differentiate between, and know when to apply, the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength
criterion and the Hoek-Brown failure criterion.
3

A number of worked examples are provided as part of this learning unit. You are not expected
to know the formulae by heart, but you should understand the concepts and be able to do
basic calculations, if formulae are provided.
3 Definitions and Abbreviations

Definitions and abbreviations are provided and clarified in the relevant sections in the learning
unit. Where there is uncertainty, refer to the original source, article or publication.
4 Importance of Scale on Strength of Rock

The scale of the problem is important. The scale will dictate whether the strength and
behaviour of the rock or rock mass should be assessed by means of:
1) Strength of the intact rock (intact rock strength is of interest);
2) Shear strength of one discontinuity set only (discontinuity shear strength is of interest);
3) Shear strength of two or three discontinuity sets (discontinuity shear strength is of
interest);
4) The overall strength of the rock mass with a system of joints/discontinuities (shear
strength of the rock mass is of importance).
4

Figure 2: The Importance of Scale – Intact Rock, Discontinuity and Rock Mass (Hoek,
2019)
The scale will determine the behaviour and the criteria we use to predict the strength and
behaviour of the rock or rock mass.
Examples:
1) Focus on the bench area (on a scale where jointing is limited) in Figure 2. If we want
to analyse the stability of this bench, that will most probably be a kinematical problem
(if the joints are spaced in such a manner that movement can occur). Thus, do we have
blocks or wedges, that are formed by discontinuities, that may slide into the pit? If so,
then the stability will depend on, and be dictated by, the shear strength of these
discontinuities.
2) If we look at the same rock, however, with the focus on the global (overall) stability of
the slope, the heavily jointed nature on this scale will result in a mass movement rather
than movement along a single joint set or even three joint sets. The strength and
behaviour of the rock mass will be different from that of the intact rock, or the
discontinuity-controlled scenario (discussed above). The material will undergo soil-like
(mass) behaviour in this scenario.
The different behaviours of the same rock at different scales (bench vs. overall slope) are
depicted in Figure 3. In the scenario depicted in Figure 3 a (scale of the bench with 1–3 joint
sets), the behaviour is dictated by the shear strength of the discontinuity. In the scenario
depicted in Figure 3 b, the behaviour is dictated by the shear strength of the rock mass
(different from that of the intact rock).
Different strength criteria are used to evaluate the different classes. That will become
apparent in this unit.
When dealing with a rock-related problem, consider the scale of the problem, as this will
dictate what you need to obtain regarding parameters/properties during your geotechnical
investigation, and which criteria will be used to analyse the problem.
5

Figure 3: Scale-effect – Discontinuity or Rock Mass Strength
5 Examples of Application of Discontinuity or Rock

Mass Shear Strength
To clarify the scale-effect and different strength criteria to be used in an analysis, a number of
practical slope scenarios are presented in Figure 4.
6

Figure 4: Common Conditions in Analysis of a Rock Slope (Mah & Wyllie, 2004, pp. 75-
77)
Example strengths to use (simplified from original source):

 Scenario a) Simple sliding: Shear strength of discontinuity surface
 Scenario b) Complex sliding: Shear strength of discontinuities and the rock mass
 Scenario c) Failure on soil-rock interface: Shear strength of soil
 Scenario d) Failure through massive intact very weak rock: Shear strength of intact
rock.
Remember that the scale of the problem and determination of the mode of failure (what will
control the failure?) are critical when evaluating rock engineering problems. This will dictate
the target parameters during the geotechnical investigation and the selection of strength
criteria that will be considered in analysing the problem.
7

6 Physical and Mechanical Properties of Rock

The physical and mechanical properties of rock were introduced in section 1. Physical
properties are self-explanatory, and they dictate the mechanical properties of the rock. The
properties (and how they are determined) are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Properties of Intact Rock and How they are Determined (de Vallejo & Ferrer,
2011, p. 118)
Property Class Properties Determination Methods

Physical Mineralogical composition Visual description
Properties Fabric and texture Optical and electron microscopy
(Identification, Grain size X-ray diffraction
Classification or Colour
Index Properties) Porosity (n) Laboratory techniques
Unit weight (γ) Laboratory techniques
Water content (%) Laboratory techniques
Permeability (permeability coefficient, k) Permeability test
Durability (alterability, alterability index) Slake durability – Durability Mill –
Los Angeles Abrasion
Mechanical Uniaxial compressive strength (σc or cu) Uniaxial compression test
Properties Point load test
Schmidt hammer
Tensile strength Direct tension test
Indirect tension test
Sonic wave velocity Elastic wave velocity measurement
Strength parameters (c and Φ) Triaxial compression test
Deformability (static or dynamic elastic Uniaxial compression test
deformation modules: E, ν) Sonic velocity test
In preliminary assessments, the physical (or index) properties are generally used as a first
estimation of the expected mechanical properties (strength and deformation parameters). The
strength parameters for intact rock are the uniaxial compression and tensile strength. The
strength parameters for discontinuities or rock masses are cohesion and friction. The
deformation parameters are the stiffness modulus (Young’s modulus or E-modulus) and
Poisson’s ratio.
Depending on the scale of the problem (intact rock vs. mass and stress conditions), some
parameters have little effect on the prediction of the expected behaviour, and it may be
estimated by means of visual assessment and basic field correlations and tests. This may be,
for example, the UCS of the intact rock in a shallow slope assessment, where the failure is
dictated by the shear strength of a discontinuity (or infill of that discontinuity).
Here, the strength of the intact rock is not significant and a good estimation of the UCS will be
acceptable for this specific scenario (strong rock in a low-stress regime). On the other side of
the spectrum, you may be faced with an underground excavation project in soft rock under
relatively high-stress conditions. Here, laboratory and in-situ testing and a determination of
strength and deformation will be critical for accurately predicting the behaviour of the rock or
rock mass (rock burst in hard rock or squeeze in relatively soft rock).
8

Your understanding of the project, the level of input for a specific evaluation phase and the
design philosophy are critical in a properly planned and executed geotechnical investigation,
analysis and design. This topic will be covered in the site investigation unit.
Some of the important physical properties used in determining the strength and deformation
characteristics of rock are discussed in the sections which follow.
6.1 Porosity (Physical)

The porosity of a rock is the main physical property that affects its strength and mechanical
characteristic. Porosity is inversely proportional to density and strength. It is directly
proportional to deformability.
Thus, the higher the porosity:
1) The lower the strength
2) The lower the density
3) The higher the deformability.
𝑉 Equation 6.1
𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑛
𝑉
Where:
n is the porosity of the rock
Vv is the volume of the voids
V is the total volume (solids + voids)
Can you relate the genesis of a rock and stress history to porosity? Shallow sedimentary vs.
deep burial and compressed sedimentary. Intrusive (massive) vs. volcanic ash (highly
porous). Rapid extrusion (expansion and gases with voids) vs. slow-cooling igneous rock.
Fracture or faults zones with formation of micro-crack or tension cracks introducing voids vs.
surrounding rock without micro cracks. The genesis of the rock provides valuable insight into
its expected porosity, and its resulting strength and deformation characteristics.
Porosity should not be confused with permeability. Do you know the difference?
6.2 Unit Weight (Physical)

The unit weight is the weight per unit volume, and it is expressed as kN/m3. The unit weight
should not be confused with density (kg/m3). Remember mass and weight (covered in previous
units)?
𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝛾 𝜌 ∙ 𝑔 Equation 6.2
Where:
γ is the unit weight of the rock (kN/m3)
ρ is the density (kg/m3)
9

g is the gravitational acceleration (~9.81 m/s2)

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑘𝑔 Equation 6.3
𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝜌
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑚
6.3 Permeability (Physical)

Permeability is the water-transmitting capacity of a rock or the ability to pass water or a fluid
through it. A highly porous rock may not be highly permeable. If the pores are interconnected,
the rock becomes permeable. Permeability is measured by the coefficient of permeability
(hydraulic conductivity), k, expressed in distance/time. Typical units used are m/s, cm/s or
m/day.
Darcy’s Law:
𝑄 𝑘 ∙ 𝑖 ∙ 𝐴 Equation 6.4
Where:
Q is the flow per unit area
k is the hydraulic conductivity (m/s, cm/s, m/day)
i is the gradient of the potential head
For the purposes of this unit, the flow in intact rock can be considered to follow Darcy’s Law:
∆ℎ Equation 6.5
𝑞 𝑘∙ ∙ 𝐴
∆𝑥
Where:
qx is the volume of flow in the x direction
k is the hydraulic conductivity (m/s, cm/s, m/day)
∆h is the difference in hydraulic head
∆x is the volume of flow over time (volume/time)
A is the section perpendicular to the x direction (flow direction)
The coefficient of permeability (k) also equals:
𝑘 𝐾∙ Equation 6.6
µ
Where:
K is the intrinsic permeability (only dependent on the characteristics of the material)
γw is the unit weight of the fluid (or water)
µ is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid (or water)
10

6.4 Durability (Physical)

Durability is the resistance of a rock to chemical and physical weathering. It is thus the ability
to withstand weakening and disintegration. Some rocks deteriorate rapidly after exposure to
the atmosphere.
Processes that affect the resistance of a rock to weathering include, but are not limited to:
 Hydration;
 Dissolution; and
 Oxidation.
There are numerous durability (soundness) and hardness (toughness) tests, of which the most
common are:
 Durability/soundness: Ethylene glycol soak test;
 Durability/soundness: Water absorption by mass;
 Durability/soundness: Soundness of mudrock and shale (Venter test);
 Hardness/toughness: DMI (Durability Mill Index);
 Hardness/toughness: Aggregate crushing value (ACV) and 10% FACT (Fine
Aggregate Crushing Value) (preferred method if aggregate crushing value (ACV) is >
30%, thus on softer materials);
 Hardness/toughness: Los Angeles Abrasion (LA Abrasion) test;
 Hardness/toughness: Aggregate Impact Value (AIV) test.
6.5 Uniaxial Compressive Strength (Mechanical)

The uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) is the maximum stress a rock can endure under
uniaxial compression (no confinement). Can you recall force and stress from a previous
learning unit? The UCS provides valuable input on the engineering properties of a rock, and
is an important parameter used in many applications. From previous learning units you will
recall that stress is defined by:
𝑚
𝐹 𝑁 𝑁 𝑘𝑔 ∙
𝜎 ∶ 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝑘𝑃𝑎 Equation 6.7
𝐴 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚
Where:
F is force (in kg ∙ or Newtons (N))
A is area (m2)
The UCS test is conducted in the laboratory on a cylindrical specimen of rock, generally
obtained from a rotary core sample. The UCS is simply the stress as determined by:
11

𝐹 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑

𝜎 Equation 6.8
𝐴 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
Subscripts “c” and “t” are generally used to differentiate between compression and tension. In
some instances “c” can refer to a core sample, to which correction factors may need to be
applied, depending on the ratio of the diameter and length of the core sample tested.
Where the area of application is calculated as:
𝐴 𝜋∙𝑟 Equation 6.9
The UCS can also be estimated or correlated from indirect tests. Referred to as index test
methods, these tests include:
 Point load tests;
 Schmidt hammer rebound test;
 Ultrasonic test (wave propagation); and
 Field indices by means of visual observation and professional judgement.
6.5.1 Uniaxial Compression Test

UCS boils down to stress (σ = Force / Area) and longitudinal strain (ε = dl / L), one of the
components of deformation. Remember from an earlier unit, the σ-ε plots and different stress-
strain behavioural models? Longitudinal strain was defined by:
∆𝑙 𝑙 𝑙
𝜀 Equation 6.10
𝑙 𝑙
Where:
εlon is longitudinal strain
∆l is the change in length
li is the initial length
lf is the final length
The concept of longitudinal strain is depicted in Figure 5.
12

Concept of Longitudinal Strain (εlon)
σ1
∆l
li lf
σ1
Figure 5: Longitudinal Strain (εlon)
Note that longitudinal strain is also referred to as axial strain.

The result is a σ-ε plot, as covered in a previous unit. Uniaxial compression, σ1 > 0, σ3 = σ2 =
0 with σpeak = UCS.
13

Figure 6: Stress-Strain Plot (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 140)
What will the stress-strain curve for a strong and brittle rock look like? Do you expect post-
peak stress strain?
6.5.2 Point Load Test – Index Test for UCS

The point load index test is a rapid field test that can be conducted on hundreds or thousands
of samples at very low cost. You obtain a rock sample (generally a cylindrical core, but it may
be conducted on blocks or lumps) and break the rock specimen by applying a point load. You
record the pressure applied to break the specimen. This applied load, in conjunction with the
core size, is used to calculate the point load index (Is).
14

The point load index is defined by:

𝑃
𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝐼 Equation 6.11
𝐷
Where:
P is the failure load (N – Newton)
De is the equivalent diameter (corrected to 50 mm)
Is is the point load index
The corrected point load index to an equivalent core of 50 mm is defined by:
𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝐼 𝐹∙𝐼 Equation 6.12
If the core diameter tested is approximately 50 mm-equivalent size, say 40–60 mm, F can be
determined by:
.
𝐷 Equation 6.13
𝐹
50
If there is a large correction to be made, say for example the core tested is PQ-size, thus
around 85 mm, F can be calculated by:
𝐷 Equation 6.14
𝐹
50
Generally, NWD4 and TNW-size core barrels are most often used in smaller civil projects in
this country, where the core diameter is in the region of 52.3 to ~53.0 mm.
The uniaxial compressive strength is then estimated by:
𝑈𝐶𝑆 𝜎 𝑜𝑟 𝑞 𝑜𝑟 𝑐 𝐶∙𝐼 Equation 6.15
“C” is a correlation factor calculated for your site.

Generalised values for C are recommended by ISRM (ASTM Standard D 5731, 1995):
 If core size is 20 mm, use value “C” of 17.5
The concept of the PLI test method is depicted in Figure 7. The PLI correlation, after
Beniawski (1973), is depicted in Figure 8. The correlation used in this figure is:
𝑈𝐶𝑆 𝜎 𝑜𝑟 𝑞 𝑜𝑟 𝑐 42 ∙ 𝐼 Equation 6.16
15

Thus a “C” value of 42. This correlation factor is commonly used in South Africa. Note,
however, that this “C” value should be determined for your site-specific conditions by means
of UCS tests, and correlation of the PLI with these UCS tests.
Numerous other correlations are published. For a more detailed description on the PLI test
and testing of non-cylindrical samples, refer to the ASTM Standard D 5731 (1995) test method,
which is freely available from the internet.

Figure 7: Point Load Index Test (Is)
16

Figure 8: Point Load Index Correlation with UCS after Beniawski (1973) Source
(Franki, 2008, p. 57)
Refer to Worked Example 1 for a practical application illustration.
6.5.3 Schmidt Hammer Rebound Test – Index Test for UCS

This test method was developed for concrete testing. The method is commonly applied in rock
strength and property estimations, both for intact rock and rock mass, to obtain information on
discontinuities. The apparatus is a cylindrical device with a spring behind a driving rod. The
spring is loaded by pushing the apparatus onto the rock. Upon release of the spring, the loaded
hammer is hammered onto the rock and a rebound value is measured. The stronger the rock,
the higher the rebound. The orientation of the hammer for each test should be recorded, as
this has an impact on the rebound. The rebound values, together with an estimation or
determination of the unit weight of the rock, are then used to deduce the UCS. Numerous tests
should be conducted for statistically significant evaluation, and the values should be calibrated
to UCS values obtained from laboratory specimens.
The correlation between the Schmidt hammer rebound value and UCS is depicted in Figure
9.
17

Figure 9: Schmidt Hammer Rebound UCS Correlation Chart (Hoek, 2019)
18

6.5.4 Field Indices

In many engineering applications, simple field indices are used to obtain realistic and
sometimes accurate estimates of the UCS of rock. The estimation of UCS (ISRM, 1981) of
rock by means of practical field identification methods is provided in Table 2.
Table 2: UCS from Field Indices – Hardness of Rock (ISRM 1981)
Approximate
Unconfined
Compressive
Grade Description Field Identification
Strength
UCS or σc
(MPa)
Extremely strong Specimen can only be chipped with geological
R6 >250
rock hammer
Specimen requires many blows of geological
R5 Very strong rock 100–250
hammer to fracture it
Specimen requires more than one blow with a
R4 Strong rock 50–100
geological hammer to fracture it
Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket knife;
R3 Medium weak rock specimen can be fractured with single firm blow of 25–50
geological hammer
Can be peeled with a pocket knife; shallow
R2 Weak rock indentations made by firm blow with point of 5–25
geological hammer
Crumbles under firm blows with point of geological
R1 Very weak rock 1–5
hammer; can be peeled by a pocket knife
Extremely weak
R0 Indented by thumbnail 0.25–1
rock
Note: Soil is not defined by UCS of less than 1 MPa or even 0.75 MPa, as stipulated in certain
codes and standards. Keep in mind the application of the description. Numerous engineers
may define a rock with a UCS of 300 kPa as soil. The failure mechanism may, however, be
that of a rock, and the Hoek-Brown or Barton-Choubey criterion may be the applicable
evaluation approach. More refined ISRM ranges are recommended. You can always simplify
and adapt a detailed description, but you cannot elaborate on a basic description with some
UCS limit trying to force a boundary between a rock and a soil.
6.6 Tensile strength (Mechanical)

The tensile strength of a rock is the maximum stress the rock can sustain under uniaxial
tension, before fracturing occurs. For initial indications, the tensile strength can be expected
to be between 5 and 10% of the UCS. Values will, however, be higher for soft rock materials
such as mudstone (with tensile strength ranges of 14–16% of UCS).
19

6.6.1 Direct Tensile Test

The direct tensile strength test is conducted by moulding the ends of a rock specimen in epoxy
or applying traction by means of metal clamps bonded to the rock by epoxy (resin) or cement.
The sample is simply pulled until it breaks. The maximum stress recorded is the tensile
strength of the rock.
Tensile strength is simply the maximum stress the rock can handle under tension, as
determined by:
𝐹 𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 Equation 6.17
𝜎
𝐴 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝜋 ∙ 𝑟
As with the UCS test, it is the maximum stress the material can take, under tension. The stress
state and shear stress vs. normal stress plot is presented in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Stress Conditions and Shear Stress – Normal Stress Plot
6.6.2 Indirect Tensile Test (Brazil Test)

Tensile strength can also be determined indirectly, through the indirect tensile (Brazil) test.
This test is conducted by placing a cylindrical or disc core sample between two plates and
compressing the sample until failure occurs. The plates may be flat, spherical or concave. The
indirect tensile test is illustrated in Figure 11 a. The point load test, as discussed under the
UCS section, is depicted in Figure 11 b. Any similarities?
20

Figure 11: a) Indirect Tensile Test (Brazil) and b) Point Load Test
Tensile strength is defined by:

2𝑃 Equation 6.18
𝜎
𝜋𝐷𝐿
Where:
σt is the tensile strength
P is the maximum applied load at failure
D is the diameter of the sample (specification in test diameter not less than 54 mm)
L is the length of the sample (a specification in the test is an L/D ratio of 2.5:3)
6.7 Elastic Wave Propagation (Mechanical)

The velocity of propagation of elastic waves through rock depends on the properties of the
rock, such as its density and elasticity. The compressional wave velocity has a linear
relationship with UCS, and is used in order to obtain an indication of the rock quality and UCS.
The higher the porosity, the lower the density and rock strength, the lower the wave
propagation through the material. Wave velocities may vary from <700 m/s to >6 500 m/s. The
fundamentals of, and correlations with, wave velocities will not be covered in this unit.
21

6.8 Strength and Deformation Parameters (Mechanical)

The strength and deformation characteristics of discontinuities, intact rock and rock masses
are discussed in the following sections.
7 Discontinuities
Depending on the scale and geological-structural conditions, the strength and deformation of
rock may be dictated by either the properties of the 1) intact rock itself, 2) shear properties
along discontinuities, or 3) shear strength and deformation characteristics of the rock mass.
This section focuses on discontinuities. Our scale of interest is depicted in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Intact Rock to Rock Mass – Sample Size – Scale Discontinuities (Hoek,
2019)
22

A discontinuity is simply an interruption in the normal physical structure or configuration of a

material. With reference to the previous units, can you think of anything that may result in
discontinuities in rock? Mineralogy, rock genesis, tectonics, differentials stress,
metamorphism?
7.1 Types of Discontinuity

Common types of planar discontinuity include:
 Faults or shear or shear zone: Tectonic origin.
 Bedding: Rock genesis. Sedimentary rock bedding surfaces, due to the nature of the
deposition.
 Foliation: Tectonic origin.
 Joints: This is probably the most common discontinuity. Joints may originate from 1)
tectonics, 2) contraction due to the cooling of magma, 3) the burial of formations, or 4)
unloading (relaxation) due to weathering and transportation of the overlying material,
etc. Any change in the stress conditions may lead to jointing.
 Cleavage: Mineralogy and tectonics.
 Schistosity: Tectonic origin.
 Lithological contact surfaces: An example is the contact between an intrusive
dolerite dyke and sandstone or mudrock.
7.2 Characteristics of Discontinuities

To determine the strength of a discontinuity, a number of characteristics and geometric
parameters are required. These generally include:
 Rock type and mineralogy: Different rock types, structures, mineralogical
composition, weathering and alteration products. The mineralogy and rock type will
provide a very good indication of the expected discontinuity characteristics and how
the rock, discontinuity and rock mass are likely to behave.
 Discontinuity type: Discontinuities range from cleavage on the micro-scale, to open,
clean joints such as tension cracks, up to low-strength highly sheared zones. The type
of discontinuity may provide valuable input on the expected joint discontinuity condition
and likely shear strength.
 Orientation: Orientation of the discontinuities in relation to the geometry of the geology
and project (slope or excavation as examples) is critical. The orientation of the
discontinuity or discontinuity sets may result in anisotropic behaviour, and the
orientation with reference to the excavation or slope will determine whether the rock or
rock mass is kinematically able to move/deform. This should become apparent if we
look at slope stability problems (planar, wedge, toppling failure modes).
 Spacing: This is the perpendicular distance between planes of weakness in the same
discontinuity set. The closer the spacing, the smaller the blocks of rock and generally
23

the weaker and more deformable the rock becomes. The wider the spacing, generally
the stronger the rock and the less deformable it becomes.
 Persistence (continuity): Persistence is the fraction of area that is discontinuous. Is
the discontinuity on the micro-scale, only a couple of millimetres, metres or does it
extend across and beyond the area of interest?
 Roughness and waviness: The rougher the discontinuity surfaces, the more
resistance against sliding and the stronger the discontinuity. The higher the amplitude
of the wave, the higher the resistance against sliding. It is obviously important to
determine whether movement will be along or across the waviness.
 Aperture: This is the perpendicular distance between the walls of an open
discontinuity (if not filled).
 Discontinuity fill: The open discontinuity may be filled with mineralisation, sand, clay
or other fill materials. The discontinuity fill will have a significant impact on the shear
strength of the discontinuity and overall rock mass behaviour. Clay fill may result in the
low shear strength of a joint surface, and mineralisation may result in the higher shear
strength of a joint surface.
 Discontinuity water: Water reduces shear strength and thus has an impact on the
shear strength of a discontinuity or the overall behaviour of the rock mass. Water has
an impact on the effective stress conditions and physical properties of infill. The impact
of water is covered at a later stage.
 Discontinuity wall compressive strength: A low wall strength indicates weathering
and alteration. The lower the discontinuity wall strength, the lower the shear strength
of the discontinuity and overall rock mass strength.
Typical parameters describing a rock mass are presented in Figure 13.
24

Figure 13: Parameters Describing the Rock Mass (Mah & Wyllie, 2004, p. 55)
7.3 Stiffness and Shear Strength of Discontinuity Planes

You should be familiar with the relationship between shear stress and shear displacement
(illustrated in Figure 14). From the previous unit, can you recall Hoek’s Law? Σ = E ꞏ ε (E is
Young’s modulus or the stiffness modulus, and ε is strain, where axial strain is ∆l / L). If
necessary, revisit the fundamentals. If you consider the figure below, what will the stiffness of
the discontinuity be?
25

Figure 14: Planar Discontinuity: a) Shear Stress and Displacement Plots and b) Peak
and Residual Strength (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011)
7.3.1 Stiffness of a Discontinuity

The stiffness of a discontinuity is the ratio between stress and displacement (or, more
specifically, the ratio of shear stress and displacement (change in length?)). The shear
strength of the discontinuity is defined by:
𝜏 𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 Equation 7.1
𝑆𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝛿 𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑏𝑜𝑙 µ 𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
Where:
τ is the shear stress before reaching peak strength
δ or (µ) is the shear displacement before reaching peak strength.
7.3.2 Clarification of Planar Smooth, Planar Rough and Dilation

The shear strength of a planar discontinuity is obtained from Mohr-Coulomb’s failure
criterion. Can you recall the Mohr circle basics from the previous unit (stress state at a given
point)? If not, revisit that unit. Can you plot the circle and failure envelope, and obtain τ and
cohesion? If not, revisit the unit.
The peak shear strength is where maximum shear stress is obtained on the stress-
displacement plot. When maximum shear stress is exceeded, the discontinuity will still have
26

strength, but it requires less stress (force) to move. The shear stress will taper down and reach
a “constant”. This strength is the residual shear strength.
Exercise – Actual (rough discontinuity surface): Put your phone flat on the table where
you are sitting (hopefully your phone has a rubber, silicon or leather cover). Start pushing
against the side, very slowly, at a low angle. Do not move it at first, but note the increase in
pressure (or rather stress) on your fingertip (before the phone starts to slide). Now note what
happens once it starts to slide. Did you note the sudden pressure (stress) release on your
finger, and that you can push it with less effort along the table once it is on the move? If you
plot the stress vs. shear displacement you did on your phone exercise, you will obtain the
same figure as presented in Figure 14 a, with reference to the upper plot with the peak shear
strength. Its shear stress – normal stress plot, before the phone moved – will be presented by
the upper plot (peak strength) in Figure 14 b. Once mobilised, the shear stress – normal stress
plot – will be presented by the lower plot (residual strength) in Figure 14 b.
Exercise – Visualisation (smooth discontinuity surface): Now, visualise two pieces of flat
glass with some water separating the glass. Visualise doing the same exercise. You will
probably not note the sudden release in pressure (stress) on your fingertip. You will merely
note a slight increase in pressure (stress) on your fingertip, up to a point where it starts to
slide, and that pressure (stress) sensation will be maintained as long as you slide the glass
along. The τ-δ plot of this scenario will result in the same plot as presented in Figure 14 a,
with reference to the lower plot. The entire τ-σn plot will be presented by the lower plot (residual
strength) in Figure 14 b.
Now, is the peak strength plot of the sliding phone scenario representative or “true”? Refer to
the peak strength in Figure 14 b. Slowly lift your phone from the table. Does it stick to the
table? Do you note a release in effort once it starts to lift, or not? Hopefully not! Thus, there is
no cohesion between the phone and table surface. Figure 14 b, however, indicates a cohesion
intercept that is significant on this plot. So, what better criteria can we come up with for rough
surfaces? We introduce a bi-linear failure criterion, combining the peak and residual plots
in Figure 14 b into one plot, as presented in Figure 15 b.
27

Figure 15: Bi-linear Failure Criterion for Rough Discontinuity Surfaces (de Vallejo &
Ferrer, 2011)
It should be clear at this stage that the peak shear strength (cell-phone-on-table exercise) is
not due to cohesion, but rather a frictional component that needs to be overcome (override)
due to the roughness of the surfaces. This overriding is, in simple terms, dilation. You have
to overcome the roughness to get the phone sliding.
Now, place your phone of a coarse brick or concrete slab and repeat the exercise. What do
you reckon will happen with the angle of the plots of the dilation and shearing phases? What
will happen with the peak on the τ-µ plot? Answer: The peak will increase, and both the angles
on plot b) will increase. Note that for this phone exercise, we have considered low applied
normal stresses. Thus, we need to dilate (override) the roughness component. If we increase
the normal stress (put a number of bricks on your phone), will it dilate? Or will the roughness
of the brick simply shear through the leather cover? Do you think you will see the initial
envelope (dilation phase) followed by the less steep slope (shearing phase)? We may get to
this one at a later stage. The importance of the stress regime in a project should be clear by
now. The same material in environments with different stress regimes will behave differently.
An example is shallow excavation with low induced stresses vs. a deep tunnel with high
induced stresses.
7.3.3 Friction Angles of Rock (Basic, Peak and Residual)

Before continuing, we need to differentiate between the different friction angles we will use in
the strength criterion:
a) Peak friction angle (φp)
b) Basic friction angle (φb)
c) Residual friction angle (φr).
The peak friction angle is the sliding angle on two natural rough joint surfaces measured in
a tilt test (illustrated in Figure 16 a). It can also be determined by means of the direct box
shear test (see worked example).
28

The basic friction angle is the free sliding angle measured on two smooth rock surfaces in a
tilt test, such as two smooth saw-cut samples or smooth core samples (illustrated in Figure
16 b).
The residual friction angle is the friction angle after significant shearing. It is thus the friction
angle calculated at the near constant applied shear stress on the τ-ε plot. It can also be
determined using the direct box shear test (see worked example).
Figure 16: Peak Friction vs. Basic Friction Angle of Rock (Barton, 2017)
7.3.4 Shear Strength of Planar Smooth Discontinuity

Now that the various friction angles have been clarified, we can continue with different strength
criteria.
29

The shear strength in a smooth discontinuity is defined by the Mohr-Coulomb failure

criterion:
𝜏 𝑐 𝜎 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 Equation 7.2
Where:
τ is shear strength on the failure plane
c is the cohesion
σ is the normal stress
φ is the friction angle
This equation has two components: cohesive and frictional.
Cohesive Frictional
component component
(c) (σ and φ)
𝜏 𝑐 𝜎 · 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑
Cohesion is “constant”, while friction is proportional to the normal stress (σ).
For a smooth discontinuity with no cohesion (thus no cementation or mineralisation with actual
cohesive bonds), the shear strength can be expressed as:
Where:
φr is the residual angle of friction (notation “r” for residual)
σn is the normal stress (notation “n” for normal)
With no cohesion, the cohesion component falls away. Cohesion c=0.
The superscripts, ′ , merely indicate effective cohesion, effective normal stress and effective
angle of friction.
7.3.5 Shear Strength of Planar Rough Discontinuity

The shear strength of a rough planar discontinuity at relatively low normal stress
conditions (analogy: dilation, with no bricks on your phone), the shear strength can be defined
by a bi-linear relationship (Patton, 1966) to simulate the roughness (dilation) to overcome
before the residual conditions are reached (see Figure 15 b). As shear stress is applied, so
the rough surfaces want to move relative to each other. To move, they need to dilate (move
apart) to override the irregularities. As the movement continues, the irregularities smooth down
and the residual strength is reached.
30

In this initial phase, before reaching peak shear strength, we make use of the peak friction
angle φp. The peak friction is the basic friction angle plus the angle of the irregularity in
relation to the discontinuity plane.
The peak friction angle is defined by:
𝜑 𝜑 𝑖 Equation 7.4
Where:
φp is the peak friction angle
φb is the basic friction angle (refer to the definition of a basic friction angle)
i is the angle of the irregularity (or average for irregularities) in relation to the discontinuity
plane.
The shear strength for a rough discontinuity thus becomes:
𝜏 𝑐 𝜎 ∙ tan 𝜑 𝑖 Equation 7.5
7.3.6 Barton-Choubey Failure Criterion

The Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown criteria are based on the criterion of cohesion
component + frictional component, as defined by c and φ:
Fundamentally, cohesion is broken at small strains (if you have any cohesion at all!), while
friction is mobilised and then remains. Due to dilation (remember the initial overriding of rough
discontinuity surfaces?), discontinuities have very high friction angles at low stress, from
where they decrease after a certain amount of movement (refer back to Figure 15). The
mechanism of shear failure and deformation is thus ignored by adopting this approach. Barton
advocates the application of a criterion which is fundamentally more acceptable where the
cohesion is first used, the cohesion is lost, and then the frictional component is utilised (as
opposed to the c + φ, he recommends c and then φ). This approach is compatible with the
actual mechanism of shear failure and deformation.
Barton performed numerous shear tests across a range of materials. He realised that the peak
shear strength of rough and clearly unweathered tension fractures could be described by a
relationship involving the uniaxial compression strength of the wall and that it is related to the
applied normal stress:
𝜎
𝜏 𝜎 ∙ tan 20𝑙𝑜𝑔 30° Equation 7.7
𝜎
The equation was derived from the link between and and the peak dilation angles, from
where the following relationship was developed:
31

𝐽𝐶𝑆 Equation 7.8

𝜏 𝜎 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝐽𝑅𝐶 ∙ 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝜑
𝜎
Where:
τ' and 𝜎 are the shear and normal effective stresses on the discontinuity plane
𝜑 is the residual friction angle
JRC is the joint roughness coefficient of the discontinuity
JCS is the joint wall compression strength of the discontinuity.
φr is calculated from φb (the basic friction angle, unpolished core-tilt test) and Schmidt hammer
rebounds conducted on rough and smooth surfaces.
JRC is calculated by a relationship between φr, JRC and tilt or push test results (depending
on the degree or roughness). It can also be determined by profiling and comparing roughness
profiles.
JCS is determined by Schmidt hammer rebounds r and R on rough and smooth sample
surfaces.
Again, scale plays an important role. JRC and JCS in the Barton-Choubey criterion are
influenced by scale effects. Barton and Bandis introduced a scale effect that adjusted the
importance of the roughness. We know, as the scale of a sample increases, the strength
decreases due to natural discontinuities. Thus, as the scale of the discontinuity increases, so
the JRC and JCS values decrease. Basically, small-scale roughness becomes less significant,
the larger the discontinuity. The scale effect is corrected for by the following two formulae:
.
𝐿 Equation 7.9
𝐽𝑅𝐶 𝐽𝑅𝐶
𝐿
.
𝐿 Equation 7.10
𝐽𝐶𝑆 𝐽𝐶𝑆
𝐿
Where:
Lo is the dimension of the surface used to measure (+/- 150–300 mm that is usually the length
of the wire comb)
Ln is the dimension of the sliding surface.
The Barton-Choubey criterion will be covered in detail in the modules which follow. For more
details, refer to the section on recommended reading.
Did you note any similarities or differences? Take note of cohesion and the incorporation of
roughness, wall strength and effect of the magnitude of normal stress in the formulation.
32

Do not consider cohesion. Joint roughness and wall compression strength incorporated in the formulation. This
Barton not in favour of “cohesion + friction” but approach incorporates stress condition and higher initial friction angles at low normal
rather “cohesion then friction” that is fundamentally loads (Dilation effect). See what happens if you increase σn or increase and decrease
correct. Very valid argument! roughness and/or “strength” of the wall (thus ability of roughness to restrict
movement).
High stress levels relative to rock wall strength (JCS), this term becomes zero. Thus
simulating asperities shearing off.
Low stress levels relative to rock wall strength (JCS), this term allows for roughness to
add to residual friction. Thus simulating overriding of asperities. Dilation effect.
7.3.7 Summary of Mohr-Coulomb (Planar Smooth and Rough) and Barton-

Choubey Failure Criteria
A summary of the Mohr-Coulomb and Barton-Choubey failure criteria is provided below.
Barton-Choubey Failure Criterion Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion

(Planar Smooth)
The “i” part in φp=φb+i Cohesive Frictional

It is a measure of roughness component component
Frictional Geometrical Asperity Frictional

component component component component
Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion

(Planar Rough)
Cohesive Frictional
component component
Note: As normal stress increase, the roughness component

becomes insignificant. This relationship incorporates dilation.
33

8 Rock – As Intact Material

rock may be dictated by either the properties of 1) intact rock itself, 2) shear properties along
discontinuities or 3) the shear strength and deformation characteristics of the rock mass. This
section focuses on “intact rock”. Our scale of interest is depicted in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Intact Rock to Rock Mass – Sample Size – Scale Intact Rock (Hoek, 2019)
8.1 Differentiating between Isotropic and Anisotropic Rock

Intact rock may be isotropic or anisotropic. Isotropic rock is homogeneous rock, such as
granite or basalt. Anisotropic rock may, for example, be the metamorphic derivative of basalt.
Can you recall the low- to high-grade metamorphic derivatives of basalt and shale? Can you
recall foliation with an increase in metamorphic grade? Typically, a rock that is
metamorphosed (differential stress conditions) can be considered anisotropic. The mode of
formation of a rock may also result in anisotropy, such as bedding planes in sedimentary rock
formations.
34

The strength and deformation of an isotropic rock will be similar in all directions, as the
material is homogeneous. The strength and deformation characteristics of an anisotropic
rock will be different in different directions. This concept is illustrated in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Isotropic vs. Anisotropic Rock Specimen
The focus will be on isotropic rock and its strength criteria (Figure 18 a and b). Only the
concepts of variation in strength and deformation in anisotropic rock will be introduced (Figure
18 c and d).
8.2 Uniaxial Compression: σ-ε Plot

You should by now be familiar with the uniaxial compression test and the different behavioural
models of materials (and rock) in general (see Figure 6 and refer to previous units if you are
not familiar with this concept).
8.3 Four Stages of σ-ε (Load-Deformation)

There are generally four stages in crack formation when a rock specimen is subjected to
uniaxial compression. These stages are visually illustrated in Figure 19.
35

Figure 19: Stages in Crack Formation for a Rock Specimen Under Uniaxial
Compression
Stages of crack propagation in a sample undergoing uniaxial compression:

 Stage 1 is the seating of the uniaxial compression apparatus load plates on the
prepared sample loading surfaces and the initial existing crack closure in the rock
specimen.
 Stage 2 is when the initial seating and closure are reached, and the sample deforms
in an elastic manner (thus still fully recoverable upon release of loading).
 Stage 3 is when initial cracks start to form. Stable crack growth. Deformation mode
has passed the elastic behaviour stage and will not fully recover upon release of
loading due to the formation of new cracks.
 Stage 4 is unstable crack growth, to the point of peak stress or rupture.
36

8.4 Factors Affecting the UCS of Rock

The UCS of intact rock is affected by:
 The size and geometry of the sample (volume and length/diameter ratio). There
are thus sample size specifications in the test standards to ensure the length/diameter
ratios are adequate to allow for sufficient stress distribution and failure planes to
develop. The length/diameter ratios depend on the standard used for the test. The
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM, 1979) recommendations specify a
length of 2.5–3.0 times the diameter of the sample. Thus, if you have a 50 mm core
diameter, you should test a sample with length of between 125 mm and 150 mm.
Required samples should thus be in the region of at least 150–170 mm for the
laboratory to prepare the loading surfaces. The larger the sample (if length/diameter
ratio is kept constant), the lower the UCS. The smaller the sample, the higher the UCS.
This is due to the same scale effect (increase in natural discontinuities) you will note
throughout this unit. The strength of intact rock is higher than that of a rock mass. In
the same way, a small sample (fewer imperfections) is stronger than a large sample
(more imperfections).
 The preparation of the plate load-bearing ends in which the loading will be applied.
Sample preparation is critical and there are test preparation specifications to deal with
the discrepancy between UCS values obtained from well-prepared and poorly
prepared test samples.
 The load direction with reference to planes of weaknesses (for anisotropic rock, in
isotropic rock it is not relevant) (see section 8.6 of this learning unit).
 The rate of loading. The faster the test (higher strain rate), the higher the UCS. There
are thus recommended strain rates in the test procedures.
 Moisture content of the sample at the time of testing. The higher the moisture content,
the lower the UCS.
Bear in mind that a UCS value, without knowing the sample size, shape and test specifications
such as strain rate, may provide results of absolutely no value. If you have the UCS value and
specifications on the sample and test procedures, you can correct the results to a fair degree,
to obtain a representative UCS of the rock.
8.5 Isotropic Rock Strength Criteria

Different criteria can be used to determine the strength of isotropic rock. The criteria that will
be introduced are 1) Mohr-Coulomb and 2) Hoek-Brown.
8.5.1 Mohr-Coulomb Shear Strength Criterion

You should be familiar with Mohr-Coulomb by now (if not, refer to the fundamentals and the
shear strength of discontinuities introduced earlier in this learning unit). The strength of intact
rock can be expressed by the Mohr-Coulomb envelope in terms of either shear and normal
stresses, or in terms of principal stresses (σ1 and σ3) (see Figure 20).
37

𝜏 𝑐 𝜎 · 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑
σ1 σ 𝑓 σ
τ
σ1
θ c 2θ
θ
σ3,2 σ3,2
σ3 σn σ1
ψ
θ σc
σ1
σ3
a) Applied Stress and Plane of Interest b) Mohr-Coulomb Envelope c) Mohr-Coulomb Envelope

(Shear and Normal Stresses) (In Terms of Principal Stresses)

Figure 20: Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelopes in Terms of b) τ-σn and c) σ1-σ3
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion:
Where:
τ is shear strength on an arbitrary or potential failure plane
c is the cohesion of the intact rock
σn is the normal stress
φ is the friction angle of the intact rock
You can also express this criterion as a function of the principal stresses σ1 and σ3:
2𝑐 𝜎 𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜃 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 1 𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜃 Equation 8.2
𝜎
𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜃 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 1 𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜃
Where:
σ1 is the major principal stress
σ3 is the minor principal stress
c is the cohesion of the intact rock
θ is the critical plane
𝜑 Equation 8.3
𝜃 45
2
σc can be expressed as:
𝜑 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜑 1 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑 Equation 8.4

𝜎 2𝑐 ∙ tan 45 2𝑐 2𝑐
2 1 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑 1 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
38

At failure, σ1 can be related to σ3 by:

𝜑 𝜑 𝜑 Equation 8.5
𝜎 2𝑐 ∙ tan 45 𝜎 𝑡𝑎𝑛 45 𝜎 𝜎 𝑡𝑎𝑛 45
2 2 2
If you plot σ1f (y-axis) and σ3f (x-axis) you can determine the slope of the line. By knowing the
slope, you can calculate the peak friction angle by:
𝜑 Equation 8.6
tan 45° 𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑚
2
Solve for φ and you can obtain the friction angle.
𝜑 2 45° 𝑡𝑎𝑛 √𝑚 Equation 8.7
This linear failure criterion generally overestimates the tensile strength of rock. A tension cut-
off is thus applied when using this criterion (illustrated in Figure 21).

Tension cut-off
applied in order not
to overestimate the
τ Actual failure envelope
tension due to linear

extension of M-C
failure envelope
σn
Linear Mohr-Coulomb
Failure Envelope

Figure 21: Tension Cut-off Concept for Linear Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion
8.5.2 Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion

Expected outcome of this section: In this section, the Hoek-Brown failure criterion for intact
rock will be introduced and the necessary information will be provided to determine mi and σci
from triaxial data, as well as how to plot the Hoek-Brown failure envelope in terms of principal
stresses and how to calculate the tensile strength.
39

Hoek and Brown proposed a non-linear empirical failure criterion, which was introduced in
1980 and is for isotropic intact rock strength under triaxial conditions (thus strength at different
stress states can be evaluated). Hoek and Brown mainly used the crack propagation criterion
proposed by Griffith in 1921 and 1924, which was derived from brittle materials subjected to
tensile stresses (i.e., concrete and glass). Hoek and Brown modified this criterion by fitting
parameters (thus observational manipulation – fitting of curves) and extending them across
the compressional stress range. These fitting parameters thus have no fundamental
relationship to the physical characteristics of the rock.
In geotechnical engineering, failure generally occurs in shear, so we present the failure
criterion in terms of shear and normal stresses on the failure plane (as per the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion presented in Equation 8.1). In rock mechanics it is common to present failure
criteria in terms of the principal stresses (thus σ1 and σ3). The Hoek-Brown criterion is
expressed in terms of the major principal stresses (σ1 and σ3). Later in the unit we will convert
the principal stresses to shear and normal stresses, and derive equivalent cohesion and
frictional parameters in order to evaluate rock mass behaviour with the Mohr-Coulomb
criterion.
The Hoek-Brown criterion for intact rock can be defined by:
.
𝜎 Equation 8.8
𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝑚 ∙ 𝑠
𝜎
Where:
σ'1f is the major effective principal stress
σ3 is the minor effective principal stress

mi is a material constant for intact rock
s is a material constant (s = 1 for intact rock)
a = 0.5 is a shape parameter (for intact rock a = 0.5)
σci is the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of the “i” – intact rock.
The constants mi, s and a define the shape of the curvilinear failure plot. These are curve-
fitting parameters derived from visual fitting. It is important to note, upon closer inspection of
the “mi”, “s” and “a” curve-fitting parameters, that:
 The constant “mi” is analogous to the frictional strength of the rock (rock type, angle of
inter-particle or inter-block friction and degree of particle interlock with the rock mass).
 Parameter “s” is associated with the degree of fracturing, thus analogous with the
cohesive strength of the rock mass. Isotropic rock s = 1 thus simulating cohesion;
highly fractured rock s = 0, thus simulating no cohesion.
We will not go into detail on these curve-fitting parameters. It is important to note that although
these curve-fitting parameters are based on pure observational fitment to force a workable
criterion (bending the failure envelope), the cohesion, friction and dilatancy effects are actually
hidden in these parameters.
40

The value of mi can be determined from triaxial test data. If such data are not available,
preliminary estimates can be obtained from Table 3.
Table 3: Estimates of the Constant mi for Intact Rock (If Triaxial Data not Available)
Note 1 (Conglomerates and Breccias): Conglomerates and breccias may present a wide range of mi values
depending on the nature of the cementing material and the degree of cementation, so they may range from
values similar to sandstone to values used for fine‐grained sediments.
41

Note 2 (Foliated): The values indicated are for intact rock specimens tested normal to bedding or foliation. The
value of mi will be significantly different if failure occurs along a weakness plane.
For intact rock, Equation 8.8 can be written as:
𝜎 𝜎 𝑚𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 Equation 8.9
The tensile strength can be obtained by substituting 𝜎 𝜎 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜎 0 in Equation 8.8,

giving:
𝜎 𝑚 4𝑠 𝑚 Equation 8.10
𝜎 2
𝑚 4𝑠 𝑚
𝜎 𝜎 ⎛ ⎞ Equation 8.11
2
⎝ ⎠
As with the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, a tension cut-off was introduced (see Figure 21), and the
relationship between the compressive and tensile strength ratio and the Hoek-Brown
parameter mi was proposed as:
𝜎
0.81𝑚 7 Equation 8.12
|𝜎 |
Where:
|𝜎 | is the absolute value of the uniaxial tensile strength (determined by direct tensile test).
8.6 Anisotropic Rock

The strength and deformation characteristics of anisotropic rock (e.g., schist, foliated
metamorphic rock or sedimentary rock with prominent bedding or laminations) vary with the
direction of interest. The strength and deformation characteristics will be different in different
directions for anisotropic material. The strength and deformation characteristics of anisotropic
rock are not covered in detail in this learning unit. The concepts of variation in the strength
and deformation (stiffness) characteristics are visually illustrated in Figure 22 andFigure 23,
respectively.
42

Isotropic Rock Anisotropic Rock

Specimen σ1 Specimen
a) c)
Strength and deformation Strength and deformation

characteristics will be σ1 characteristics will be
similar in all directions. different in different
directions.
Weakest at 45° + φ/2

Strength
Strength
Sample Orientation Sample Orientation
b) d)
Homogeneous 90° 45° + φ/2 0°
Figure 22: Variation in Rock Strength with Variation in Fabric Orientation
43

Isotropic Rock Anisotropic Rock

Specimen σ1 Specimen
a) c)
Strength and deformation Strength and deformation

characteristics will be σ1 characteristics will be
similar in all directions. different in different
directions.
Apparent Axial Stiffness

More Stiff
Stiffness
Less Stiff
Sample Orientation Sample Orientation
b) d)
Homogeneous 90° 45° + φ/2 0°

Figure 23: Variation in Rock Stiffness (Young’s Modulus) with Variation in Fabric
Orientation
Note the anisotropic behaviour and the impact it will have on the strength and deformation
characteristics of the rock or rock mass. Strength anisotropy can be evaluated through
systematic laboratory testing of specimens drilled in different directions from orientated block
samples. There are behavioural criteria for anisotropic rock, but those will not be covered in
this learning unit. For the present purposes, only take note of anisotropy and the effect on
strength and stiffness.
8.7 Time-Dependent Behaviour

Note that the behaviour of rock is time-dependent. Properties such as stress relaxation or
creep fall outside the scope of this learning unit.
9 Rock, As a Mass
rock may be dictated by 1) the properties of intact rock itself, 2) shear properties along
44

discontinuities or 3) the shear strength and deformation characteristics of the rock mass. This
section focuses on the “rock mass”. Our scale of interest is depicted in Figure 24.
The processes followed in the Hoek-Brown criterion are presented in Figure 25 and Figure
26.

Figure 24: Intact Rock to Rock Mass – Sample Size – Scale Rock Mass (Hoek, 2019)
45

Figure 25: Flow Chart – Application of Hoek-Brown Criterion and GSI to an Excavation
Design (Hoek & Brown, 2018)
46

Figure 26: Data Entry Stream for Using the Hoek-Brown System for Estimating Rock
Mass Parameter for Numerical Analysis (Hoek, et al., 2013)
9.1 Generalised Hoek-Brown Peak Strength Criterion for Jointed

Rock Mass
9.1.1 Rock Mass Strength
The Hoek-Brown failure criterion was modified to the Generalised Hoek-Brown failure
criterion. This criterion can be applied to intact rock and rock masses. You will note the
similarities with the criterion presented in section 8. Importantly, the criterion cannot be used
for failure types controlled by discontinuities or discontinuity sets. The range of application of
this criterion is depicted in Figure 27.
47

Figure 27: Range of Application of Generalised Hoek-Brown Criterion (Hoek, 2019)
Shear Strength Expressed in Terms of Principal Stresses

Equation 8.8 was modified to:
𝒂
𝜎 Equation 9.1
𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝑚𝒎 ∙ 𝒔
𝜎
Rather than s = 1 and a = 0.5, a range of values for “s” and “a” is provided, with mm as a
reduced parameter of mi (notation “i” for intact rock). The notation “m” refers to rock “mass”.
Sometimes the notation “b” is used to refer to “broken” rock.)
For this rock mass scenario, the material constants, “mm”, “s” and “a” are given by equations
9.2, 9.3 and 9.4 (as opposed to the s = 1, a = 0.5 considered for intact rock):
𝐺𝑆𝐼 100 Equation 9.2
𝑚 𝑚 𝑒𝑥𝑝
28 14𝐷
48

𝐺𝑆𝐼 100 Equation 9.3

𝑠 exp
9 3𝐷
1 1 Equation 9.4
𝑎 𝑒 𝑒
2 6
Where:
mm is a reduced value of the material constant mi (determined from triaxial test results,
covered in intact rock section), but can also be estimated from Table 3. The rock mass is
weaker than the intact rock.
D is a disturbance factor which depends on the degree of disturbance to which the rock mass
has been subjected by blast damage/excavation and stress relaxation (0 for undisturbed; to
1 for highly disturbed).
GSI is the Geological Strength Index (qualitative classification system). Typical ranges can
be obtained from Figure 28.
49

Figure 28: Typical GSI Ranges for Jointed Rock (Marinos & Hoek, 2000)
50

The uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass “m” (or broken rock “b”) can be
determined in terms of σci and parameter “s” and “a” as:
𝜎 𝜎 ∙𝑠 Equation 9.5
Where:
σcm is the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass
σci is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock
s and a are the material parameters.
Set s = 1 and a = 0.5, as for intact rock, and see whether the relationship holds: 1 exp0.5 = 1,
thus σc = σci, so yes.
Marinos and Hoek (2001) also propose an empirical equation for σcm in terms of mi, σci and
GSI as:
𝜎 𝜎 ∙ 0.0034 ∙ 𝑚 .
∙ 1.029 0.025𝑒 . Equation 9.6
The uniaxial tensile strength can be expressed as:
𝜎 𝑚 4𝑠 𝑚 Equation 9.7
𝜎 2
Hoek (1983) notes that for brittle materials, the uniaxial tensile strength is equal to the biaxial
tensile strength. Thus, substituting 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 in Equation 9.1 you obtain the tensile
strength of the rock mass by:
𝑠𝜎
𝜎 Equation 9.8
𝑚
9.1.2 Shear Strength Expressed in Terms of Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion

You should by now be very familiar with the Mohr-Coulomb criterion from previous soil
mechanics modules and the review done earlier in this learning unit. Most software packages
evaluate shear strength in terms of Mohr-Coulomb criterion, where shear strength is
expressed in terms of cohesion and friction.
To determine the shear strength by means of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, we need to
determine the equivalent c’ and φ’ (Hoek-Brown equivalent Mohr-Coulomb parameters):
𝜏 𝑐 𝜎𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 Equation 9.9
51

The Hoek-Brown equivalent Mohr-Coulomb effective cohesion is defined as:
⎛ ⎞
𝜎 , 𝜎 ,
⎜ 1 2∙𝑎 ∙𝑠 1 𝑎 ∙𝑚 ∙ 𝑠 𝑚 ∙ ⎟
𝜎 𝜎
𝑐 𝜎 ⎜ ⎟ Equation 9.10
⎜ 𝜎 ⎟
,
⎜ 6∙𝑎∙𝑚 𝑠 𝑚 ∙ ⎟
𝜎
1 𝑎 2 𝑎 ∙ 1
⎝ 𝑎 𝑎 2 𝑎 ⎠
The Hoek-Brown equivalent Mohr-Coulomb effective friction angle is defined as:
⎡ 𝜎 , ⎤
⎢ 6∙𝑎∙𝑚 ∙ 𝑠 𝑚 ∙ ⎥
𝜎 Equation 9.11
𝜑 sin ⎢ ⎥
⎢2 ∙ 1 𝜎 , ⎥
𝑎 ∙ 2 𝑎 6∙𝑎∙𝑚 𝑠 𝑚 ∙
⎣ 𝜎 ⎦
To determine φ’ and c’, we require the following parameters:

a (need GSI and determined by Equation 9.4)
mb (need mi, GSI and expected disturbance factor D, determined by Equation 9.2)
s (need GSI and determine s by Equation 9.3)
σci (need field observation or UCS test)
We thus need the GSI, mi, D and σci.
The c’ and φ’ parameters are determined by means of a fitted parabolic-shaped failure
envelope in σ1-σ3 space. The parameters will vary in different stress regimes or stress ranges.
An upper limit for 𝜎 , should be selected, depending on the stress regime for the project.
The Hoek-Brown failure criterion (Hoek, et al., 2002) provides the following guide for typical
stress regimes encountered in projects:
For deep tunnels and underground excavations, the following can be considered (Hoek, et
al., 2002):
.
𝜎 𝜎 Equation 9.12
𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑇𝑢𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 → 0.47
𝜎 𝑦∙𝐻
For slopes, the following can be considered (Hoek, et al., 2002):
.
𝜎 𝜎 Equation 9.13
𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑠 → 0.72
𝜎 𝑦∙𝐻
52

Mogi’s (1966) brittle to ductile transition zone is:

𝜎
3.4 → 𝜎 3.4 ∙ 𝜎 Equation 9.14
𝜎
Where:
σcm is the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass (MPa)
y is the unit weight of the rock mass (in rock engineering, we generally work with MPa, so
check units  2 700 kg/m3 = 26,487 kN/m2 (kPa) per meter depth = 0.026478 MN/m2 (MPa)
per meter depth)
H is the depth below the surface or the height of the slope (m).

In the general case provided in the worked example, we used
4.0 → 𝜎 4.0 ⨯ 𝜎 to compare the results from the worked examples with those
obtained in the RocScience software package “RocLab” (Copyright © 2002-2007 RocScience
Inc.). This package is used for analysing rock strength (intact rock and rock mass).
9.1.3 Rock Mass Deformation

So, what do we need to calculate deformation? By now, you should know that σ = E ⨯ ε. Thus
ε = σ / E (strain is the change in length / volume, thus the deformation). We should have some
idea of the applied stress (foundation load, for example) and we need the stiffness (Young’s
modulus) or the rock mass. The load (applied stress) is project specific. We will thus focus on
determining the stiffness of the rock mass Erm (or Young’s modulus of the rock mass).
Hoek and Diederichs (2006) propose the following equation for estimating rock mass modulus:
𝐷
1
𝐸 𝐸 0.02 2 Equation 9.15
60 15𝐷 𝐺𝑆𝐼
1 exp
11
Where:
Ei is the intact rock deformation modulus (Young’s modulus). This can be determined by
laboratory testing, or estimated (reduction values as proposed by Deere, 1968) depending
on the level of accuracy required.
D is a disturbance factor which depends on the degree of disturbance to which the rock mass
has been subjected by blast damage/excavation and stress relaxation (0 for undisturbed, 1
for highly disturbed).
GSI is the Geological Strength Index (qualitative classification system).
53

Hoek and Diederichs (2006) also propose an alternative equation for estimating rock mass
modulus when Ei is not available:
𝐷
1
𝐸 10 2 Equation 9.16
1 exp
11
Thus, you can now estimate the stiffness of the rock mass by Equation 9.15 or Equation
9.16, for use in deformation calculations.
10 Worked Examples
These worked examples illustrate the practical application of some of the aspects/concepts
covered in this learning unit. They serve as general guidance. Before applying any criteria,
ensure that you have done extensive research on the topic and know the
limitations/restrictions and intended range of conditions for each criterion. The worked
examples provide a sound foundation on which to build. If you are unsure, seek independent
input.
10.1 WORKED EXAMPLE 1: Point Load Index Test for UCS

Determination
Note that a minimum of ten PLI tests are recommended to obtain a fair estimation of UCS.
Other symbols commonly used for the UCS include σc or qa. In this learning unit we generally
refer to UCS or σc. You have 12 PLI tests conducted on isotropic rock. The core size and
failure loads were recorded at the recommended slow range, as per the test specifications.
The failure loads are indicated in the sheet below.
54

Worksheet 1: PLI Worked Example to Calculate UCS (Sheet 1 of 2)
Calculation steps:
1. Convert failure load, recorded as kN, to MN.
2. Convert core diameter, mm, to m.
3. Calculate uncorrected P (point load to break sample) as 𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝐼 , thus

MN/m2 to give you MN/m2 or MPa.
4. Apply factor for small correction, as core size 47.60 mm is close to the equivalent target
.
diameter of 50 mm, by: 𝐹 0.9757. Alternatively, calculate from
Figure 29 (ASTM Standard D 5731, 1995).
5. Apply correction factor “F” of 0.9757 * IS(uncorrected), for test no. 1 = 8.964 MPa * 0.9757
= 8.746 MPa.
6. Note: We should ignore the two upper and two lower values of the PLI, as per the
ASTM recommendation. If you have a large dataset, this will not have a significant
impact on the calculation.
7. For this site, as we do not have site-specific correlations, we will consider the
recommended generalised value of “C” as per ASTM D5731 of 23 (see Figure 30).
8. By applying C=23, we obtain the correlated UCS of the rock in MPa.
9. The results are provided in Worksheet 2. The USCPLI is estimated at ~194 MPa with
a standard deviation of ~7 MPa.
55

F Size Correction Factor (50 mm = 1 ‐‐> No Correction)
1.8
1.6
F Size Correction Factor
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
y = 2E‐07x 3 ‐ 9E‐05x 2 + 0.0182x + 0.2905
0.6
R² = 0.9999
0.4
0.2
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
De (Equivalent) Core Diameter (mm)
Figure 29: Point Load Index Size Correction Factor “F” (ASTM Standard D 5731, 1995)
Value of "C" (Generalized)
25
24
Correlation Factor "C"
23
22
21
20
19
y = 0.1848x + 13.676
18
R² = 0.9934
17
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Diameter of the Core (mm)
Figure 30: Generalised Value of “C” (ASTM Standard D 5731, 1995)
56

Worksheet 2: PLI Worked Example to Calculate UCS (Sheet 2 of 2)
8 9 10 11 12
Applied
Is(50) Is (50)
Test No. Test No Correlation UCS (σci)
Corrected Corrected
Factor
2 7.605 2
3 7.911 3
8 7.945 8 7.945 23 182.74
11 8.074 11 8.074 23 185.71
4 8.397 4 8.397 23 193.14
7 8.453 7 8.453 23 194.43
12 8.466 12 8.466 23 194.72
9 8.608 9 8.608 23 197.99
1 8.746 1 8.746 23 201.16
10 8.746 10 8.746 23 201.16
6 9.276 6
5 9.948 5
Min Is(50): 7.95 182.74 MPa
Max Is(50): 8.75 201.16 MPa
Average Is(50): 8.43 193.88 MPa
Stdev Is (50): 0.29 6.71 MPa
CoV: 3.46% 3.46%
For guidance on UCS correlations on non-cylindrical samples and tests conducted on rock
with an anisotropic nature, refer to ASTM designation: D 5731-95 test method. It is freely
available from the internet.
57

10.2 WORKED EXAMPLE 2: UCS from Schmidt Hammer Rebound

Value
You conducted a fair number of Schmidt hammer rebound tests on a vertical cut face. The
values provided a mean rebound value of 30. The unit weight of the rock is known to be around
27 kN/m3. Estimate the UCS (σc) of the rock.
Steps:
1. Refer to hammer direction on your Schmidt hardness to UCS correlation chart (see
Figure 31).
2. Locate the 27 kN/m3 unit weight reference line.
3. Move from your average 30 rebound value upwards until you encounter the 27 kN/m3
reference line and read off the UCS on the left-hand scale in MPa. Note: You can
estimate the expected range of UCS as well.
4. UCS is estimated at 60 MPa ± 15 MPa.
5. Conduct numerous tests and correlate with site-specific UCS tests to obtain realistic
values. This method, as per the PLI test, is no replacement for the UCS test.
58

Figure 31: Schmidt Hammer Rebound Value to UCS (Deere & Miller, 1966)
59

10.3 WORKED EXAMPLE 3: Determination of τp, τr, φp and φr of a

Planar Discontinuity from Direct Shear Test Results
You have a planar discontinuity that is daylighting in a road cut. You need to determine the
peak and residual shear strength, as well as the peak and residual friction angles. You have
submitted a block or core sample with representative discontinuity properties to the laboratory.
You specified that a normal stress be applied during shearing of 200 kN/m2, as it will be a fair
simulation of the stress conditions to be encountered in this cut.
The laboratory provides you with the shear stress and shear displacement raw data as
summarised in Table 4.
How do you calculate the required parameters?
Steps:
1. Plot the shear stress – displacement (τ-δ), with shear stress (on the vertical, thus y-
axis) and shear displacement (on the horizontal, thus x-axis). You can read off the
maximum shear stress (τp) (see Figure 32) or obtain it from the maximum shear stress
value in Table 4 and read off the residual shear stress where the applied shear stress
tapers down with increasing displacement (see Figure 32). You just obtained the peak
and residual shear strength of the discontinuity, τp and τr.
2. To obtain the peak and residual friction angles, you plot the shear stress (on the vertical
axis) against the normal stress (on the horizontal axis). The peak angle of friction (φp)
and residual angle of friction (φr) are obtained by plotting the maximum shear stress
(kN/m2) (for peak and residual cases) and the normal stress (thus the 200 kN/m2)
applied during the shear test, and measuring the angles of the slopes with reference
to the horizontal (see Figure 33). You can also make use of trigonometry and calculate
the angles without making use of a plot.
Formulation guidance:
“Excel formulation: = Degrees(ATAN(τ/σ))”.
For peak: =Degrees(ATAN(241 kN/m2 / 200 kN/m2)) = ~50.3°
For residual: =Degrees(ATAN(~180 kN/m2 / 200 kN/m2)) = ~42.0°
Note: The “degree” function converts radians to degrees. The default setting in excel is
radians, so remember the conversion from radians to degrees.
60

Table 4: Direct Shear Box Test Results Obtained from the Laboratory
Shear Stress (kN/m^2) Shear Displacement (mm)
0 0
159 0.05
200 1.19
241 3.61
228 4.5
214 8.51
207 9.4
200 11.61
193 12.6
179 17.09
179 19.81
Direct Shear Tests
260
Peak τp
240
Shear Stress (kN/m^2)
220
200
Residual τr
180
160
140
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Shear Displacement (mm)
Figure 32: Shear Stress against Shear Displacement Plot (Worked Example)
61

Direct Shear Tests
300
Peak Shear Stress
Residual Shear Stress
250
200; 241
Shear Stress (kN/m^2)
200
200; 180
150
100
50 Peak φp
Residual φr
0 0; 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Normal Stress (σn, kN/m^2)
Figure 33: Shear Stress Shear against Normal Stress Plot (Worked Example)
62

10.4 WORKED EXAMPLE 4: Shear Strength of Clay-Filled

Discontinuity
You need to determine the shear strength of a planar clay-filled discontinuity. No water is
present. The clay is inorganic, with a low to medium plasticity. The clay classifies as “CL”
according to the Unified Soil Classification System, and for this preliminary assessment we
can consider a cohesion of 10 kPa (kN/m2) and a friction angle of 26° for the clay (for the
typical range of parameters for “CL” soil, see Table 5). For this worked example, you can
assume a normal stress on the discontinuity of 13 kN/m2.
Table 5: Typical Properties of Compacted Soils (NAVFAC, 1986)
Range of Typical
Range of Typical
Optimum Typical Effective
Group Maximum Cohesion
Soil Type Moisture Cohesion Stress
Symbol Dry Density (Compacted
Content (Saturated) Envelope
(kg/m3) State)
(%) (°)
Inorganic silts
ML 1522 – 1922 12 – 24 67 9 32
and clayey silts
Mixture of
ML‐CL inorganic silt and 1602 – 1922 12 – 22 65 22 32
clay
Inorganic clays of
CL low to medium 1522 – 1922 12 – 24 86 13 [13] 28 [26]
plasticity

Notes:
1. Typical strength characteristics are for effective strength envelopes and are obtained from USBR data.
2. “….” Indicates insufficient data available for an estimate.
The shear strength along a smooth discontinuity can be defined by the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion:
𝜏 𝑐 𝜎 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 ∙ tan 26 16 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
Where:
τ is shear strength on the failure plane
c is the cohesion
𝜑 is the angle of internal friction of the soil
You now have the shear strength of the discontinuity, with no pore water pressure. You need
to determine the shear stress caused by the block of rock on this discontinuity, and ensure
that the shear strength exceeds the shear stress with some safety factor.
You will have the opportunity to go into more detail in the relevant learning units still to come.
63

10.5 WORKED EXAMPLE 5: Barton-Choubey Shear Strength

The shear strength of the discontinuity is calculated in the same manner as illustrated in
Worked Example 4. In this example, we consider the shear strength of a planar rough
discontinuity, as indicated in Figure 34.
𝜎 𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠
Rock
Planar Discontinuity
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠
Rock
Figure 34: Discontinuity Plane Shear Strength – Barton-Choubey Scenarios
The purpose of this worked example is to illustrate the Barton-Choubey criterion in terms of
variation of shear strength, with a variation of:
1. Normal stress σn
2. Joint roughness coefficient (JRC)
3. Joint wall compression strength of the discontinuity JCS
4. Residual friction angle of the rock φr
The shear strength may later be used in a practical slope stability problem.
The shear strength criterion (Barton-Choubey):
𝐽𝐶𝑆
𝜏 𝜎 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝐽𝑅𝐶 ∙ 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝜑
𝜎
Take note of the ranges of the different parameters.
1. JRC ranges between 0 (for smooth discontinuities) and 20 (for rough and stepped
discontinuities).
2. JCS is the UCS for unweathered walls (JCS = UCS). For altered walls the JCS may
be less than 25% of the UCS (JCS is determined via testing, but let’s just consider
percentages for the purposes of this worked example).
3. Residual friction for unaltered walls is generally 25–35° and as low as 15–12°, if
altered.
64

Now, consider four scenarios:

1. Scenario 1: Variation in τ (shear strength of joint) with variation in normal stress
We consider JRC, JCS and φr to be constant for the calculation, but we start with
a normal load of σn = 1 kN/m2 and increase σn to 100 kN/m2. We calculate 𝜏 and
plot the shear strength against normal stress on a chart (see Figure 35). With this,
we illustrate the frictional component i (friction due to roughness). Calculations are
provided later on in this worked example (see Worksheet 3).
2. Scenario 2: Variation in τ (shear strength of joint) with variation in JRC
We consider constant σn (20 kN/m2), JCS (1 000 kN/m2) and φr (30°) for the
calculation, but start with a JRC of 0 and increase it to 20. We do the calculations
and plot the shear strength against JRC on a chart (see Figure 36). Also plotted
is the frictional component i (friction due to roughness), to illustrate the effect of
JRC on the shear strength of the discontinuity and the change in the frictional
component “i” with an increase in JRC. Calculations are provided later on in this
worked example (see Worksheet 4).
3. Scenario 3: Variation in τ (shear strength of joint) with variation in JCS
We consider constant σn (20 kN/m2), JRC (5) and φr (30°) for the calculation, but
start with a JCS of 5 MPa (5 000 kN/m2 – very weak to weak rock with a UCS of 5
MPa in unweathered state) and decrease the JCS to 25%, to simulate joint
alteration. We do the calculations and plot the shear strength against JCS on a
chart (see Figure 37). The frictional component i (friction due to roughness) has
been plotted to illustrate the impact on JCS (wall hardness), on the shear strength
of the discontinuity, and the change in the frictional component “i” with a decrease
in JCS. Note: Read the chart from right (unweathered fresh rock) to left (altered
rock with JCS 25% of original 5 MPa strength). Calculations are provided later on
in this worked example (see Worksheet 5).
4. Scenario 4: Variation in τ (shear strength of joint) with variation in φr
We consider constant σn (20 kN/m2), JRC (5) and φr (30°) for the calculation,
however we start with a JCS of 5 MPa (5 000 kN/m2 – very weak to weak rock with
a UCS of 5 MPa in the unweathered/unaltered state) and we decrease the JCS to
around 25% to simulate joint alteration. We do the calculations and plot the shear
strength against φr (residual friction angle of the rock) on a chart (see Figure 38).
With this, we illustrate the impact on JCS (wall hardness) on the shear strength of
the discontinuity. Calculations are provided later on in this worked example (see
Worksheet 6).
65

Variation in τ and Frictional Component i with Change in σn
90.00 35
Roughness (Frictional Component i) degrees
σn (kN/m^2)
80.00 Friction Component (i) 30
70.00
25
Shear Strength (τ)
60.00
50.00 20
40.00 15
30.00
10
20.00
5
10.00
0.00 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (σn) (kN/m^2)
Figure 35: Variation in Shear Strength with Variation in Normal Stress
Note the increase in shear strength of the discontinuity with an increase in normal stress, as
expected. Importantly, note the decrease in the friction component “i” with an increase in
normal stress. Barton thus incorporates the dilation effect (sharing of asperities with an
increase in normal stress). Thus, if normal stress increases, the asperities start to shear off.
Variation in τ and Frictional Component i with Change in JRC
45.00 40
JRC
40.00 Friction Component (i) 35
30
35.00
Shear Strength (τ)
25
30.00
20
25.00
15
20.00
10
15.00 5
10.00 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
JRC

Figure 36: Variation in Shear Strength with Variation in JRC
Note that the frictional component increases with an increase in JRC, as expected. Thus, also
an increase in the shear strength of the joint. This is at constant normal stress.
66

Variation in τ and Frictional Component i with Change in JCS
18.20 13
JCS (kN/m^2
18.00
Friction Component (i) 12
17.80
17.60 11
Shear Strength (τ)
17.40 10
17.20
9
17.00
16.80 8
16.60 7
16.40
6
16.20
16.00 5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
JCS (kN/m^2)
Figure 37: Variation in Shear Strength with Variation in JCS
Note the increase in the frictional component “i” with an increase in the wall strength JCS
component. Thus, there is also an increase in shear strength of the joint/discontinuity.
Variation in τ and Total Friction with Change in φr
45.00
Friction Component (φr)
40.00 Frictional Total (φr + i)
35.00
Shear Strength (τ)
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Friction Angle (degrees)
Figure 38: Variation in Shear Strength with Variation in Residual Friction of the Rock
Note the increase in shear strength and the overall frictional component, with an increase in
the residual friction angle of the rock φr.
67

Worksheet 3: Calculation of Barton-Choubey Shear Strength Illustration Scenario 1
Variation of Normal Stress (σn): SCENARIO 1
Calculation No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
σn (kN/m^2) 1 2 4 6 10 20 40 60 80 100
JRC 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
JCS (kN/m^2 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
φr 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
JCS/σn 1000.00 500.00 250.00 166.67 100.00 50.00 25.00 16.67 12.50 10.00
Friction Component (i) 30.0 27.0 24.0 22.2 20.0 17.0 14.0 12.2 11.0 10.0
Radians (i) 0.52 0.47 0.42 0.39 0.35 0.30 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.17
Friction Component (φr) 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Radians (φ) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Frictional Total (φr + i) 60.00 56.99 53.98 52.22 50.00 46.99 43.98 42.22 40.97 40.00
Frictional Total (radians) 1.05 0.99 0.94 0.91 0.87 0.82 0.77 0.74 0.72 0.70
Shear Strengh of Discontinuity (τ) kN/m^2 1.73 3.08 5.50 7.74 11.92 21.44 38.60 54.44 69.47 83.91
Variation of JRC: SCENARIO 2
Calculation No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
σn (kN/m^2) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
JRC 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 17 20
JCS (kN/m^2 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
φr 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
JCS/σn 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Radians (i) 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.50 0.59
Radians (φ) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

68

Variation of JCS (% of UCS): SCENARIO 3 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 35% 30% 25%
Calculation No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
σn (kN/m^2) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
JRC 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
JCS (kN/m^2 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1750 1500 1250
φr 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
JCS/σn 250.00 225.00 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 87.50 75.00 62.50
Radians (i) 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16
Radians (φ) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Variation of φr: SCENARIO 4
Calculation No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
σn (kN/m^2) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
JRC 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
JCS (kN/m^2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
φr 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 15
JCS/σn 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Radians (i) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Radians (φ) 0.63 0.59 0.56 0.52 0.49 0.45 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.26
69

10.6 WORKED EXAMPLE 6: UCS (σci), Mohr-Coulomb φ and c from

Triaxial Test Data Conducted on Isotropic Rock Core
Triaxial testing was conducted in the laboratory on core sizes of 50 mm (no corrections
required). You need to obtain the UCS of the rock and evaluate its shear strength in terms of
the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. The laboratory provided you with the raw triaxial data in
terms of principal stresses (thus σ1 and σ3). How do you procced?
The data are provided in Table 6.
Table 6: Worked Example 6 – Raw Laboratory UCS Test Data
σ1f (MPa) σ3 (MPa)
1 78.00 0.0
2 124.50 5.0
3 145.50 10.0
4 196.00 20.0
5 230.50 30.0
6 262.50 40.0
We want 1) the UCS and 2) to evaluate τf (shear strength at failure, thus ultimate shear
strength). From Equation 10.1 we know we require cohesion “c” and the friction angle “φ” to
calculate τf. The normal load σn is specific to the project.
To obtain the UCS:

We know the UCS is unconfined compressive strength, thus when rock breaks under uniaxial
compression (no σ3, no confining stress). From the lab data (table above), we can see there
is one test (Test no. 1) conducted with no confinement (where σ3 = 0). We can thus say that
UCS = 78 MPa from the tabulated data provided above.
To calculate the UCS (σci), considering all six test results, you can plot (σ1-σ3)2 (y-axis) against
σ3 (x-axis) and determine the intercept of the line with the y-axis (see Figure 39). The UCS is
the square root of the intercept “=sqrt(intercept)”. If you do this, you will note that the intercept
is 7834.968 and the square root of that is the UCS = σci = 88.515 MPa.
70

Determination of UCS (σc) and Friction Angle (φ) from Triaxial Test Data
60000
𝑈𝐶𝑆 𝜎 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡
50000
(σ1‐σ3)^2 (Units in MPa)
40000
Slope Intercept
30000
20000
y = 1070.4x + 7835
R² = 0.9937
10000
Intercept where σ3=0, thus on y-axis
0
‐10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
σ3 (Minor Principal Stress) ‐ Units in MPa
Figure 39: Plot of (σ1-σ3)2 Against σ3 With Calculation of Intercept and UCS
To obtain the friction angle (φ):

Let’s consider the linear scenario (linear Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope). You can simply
calculate the slope m=∆Y/∆X or read off the slope from the linear expression in Figure 40.
The slope of the line is 4.4337.
To obtain the friction angle, we set tan(θ)=slope (refer to soil mechanics Mohr circle for a
definition of “θ”) (see Figure 41). Shear failure occurs along a plane at an angle of 45°+φ’/2
to the major principal plane. Where θ=(45°+φ’/2), thus:
𝜑
2
𝜑
tan 45° 4.4337 𝜑 2 ∙ 45° 𝑡𝑎𝑛 √𝑚 2 ∙ 45° arctan √4.4337 𝟑𝟗. 𝟐°
2
Tip: Excel works in radians by default. You just need to convert degrees to radians in the
calculations. To convert 45° to radians, use the function “=radians(45)”. To convert radians
back to degrees, apply the function “=degrees(…)”.
71

Determination of UCS (σc) and Friction Angle (φ) from Triaxial Test Data
300
𝜑
2
250 𝜑 2 ∙ 45° 𝑡𝑎𝑛 1 √𝑚
(σ1f (Units in MPa)
200
Slope Intercept
150
100
y = 4.4337x + 95.244
Intercept where σ3=0,
R² = 0.9735
thus on y-axis
50
0
‐25.0 ‐15.0 ‐5.0 5.0 15.0 25.0 35.0 45.0
σ3f (Minor Principal Stress) ‐ Units in MPa
Figure 40: Sigma 1 (Major Principal Stress σ1) vs Sigma 3 (Minor Principal Stress σ3)
with Linear Fit
𝝋
Figure 41: Shear Failure Occurs Along a Plane at Angle 𝜽 𝟒𝟓° to the Major
𝟐
Principal Plane
72

Problem 3: To obtain the cohesion (c):

The cohesion is defined by the equation below (see Figure 42):
1 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
𝑐 𝑈𝐶𝑆 𝑜𝑟 𝜎 ∙
2 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜑
Considering a calculated UCS ~88.515 MPa and a friction angle of 39.19°, we can calculate
cohesion as:
1 sin 39.19
𝑐 ~88.515 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ∙ 21.02 𝑀𝑃𝑎
2 ∙ cos 39.19
Figure 42: Mohr Circle and Cohesion (Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress) (Franki, 2008,
p. 53)
73

10.7 WORKED EXAMPLE 7: UCS (σci), mi, Tensile Strength (σti) and
Hoek-Brown & Theoretical Failure Envelope
You need to apply the Hoek-Brown criterion in a geotechnical evaluation. You have a set of
triaxial data and need to define the material constant mi, the UCS (σci) and the tensile strength
(σti) of the intact rock. The laboratory test results are presented in terms of principal stresses
σ1f and σ3f.
You need these parameters to evaluate a slope stability problem in a highly jointed rock mass
section. The software package you have in your office can only conduct evaluations making
use of Mohr-Coulomb input parameters, namely cohesion and friction. Your objective is to
determine the Hoek-Brown equivalent Mohr-Coulomb cohesion and friction parameters, in
order to ultimately evaluate the highly jointed rock mass.
It will become clear over the next working example or two that you will require the mi and σci
(UCS) of the intact rock. These values are then reduced to provide parameters for the rock
mass, with some changes to the shape/fitment parameters, s and a, from where we can obtain
our Hoek-Brown equivalent Mohr-Coulomb cohesion and friction angles. The concept is
clarified in Figure 43.
We have already calculated UCS (σci) in the previous worked example. In this working
example we will determine mi, σci and use this information to generate a theoretical Hoek-
Brown failure envelope. We will then calculate σti (the tensile strength of the intact rock).
Figure 43: Current Focus on Intact Rock Properties vs. Our Goal
Solution:
74

By knowing mi and σci (UCS) and setting s = 1 (for intact rock) and a = 0.5 (for intact rock) you
can determine σ1f for any value of σ3f or, alternatively, any value of σ3f for any value of σ1f.
The material constant mi and 𝜎 is determined from a plot of 𝜎 𝜎 (on the y-axis)
against 𝜎 (on the x-axis) (see Figure 44). You determine the linear relationship to obtain the
y-intercept and the slope of the line (m). To recap from the previous working example, σci (UCS
of the intact rock) is the square root of the intercept; mi is the slope (m) divided by the UCS
(σci). The plot and calculations are illustrated in Figure 44 and Worksheet 7.
The lab provided σ1f and σ3f from the six triaxial tests conducted under different confining
stresses (pressures in this case, as confinement was by means of oil pressure) (see Table 7).
You calculate (σ1f - σ3f)2 and plot this on the y-axis against σ1f on the x-axis (see Figure 44).
Table 7: Triaxial Test Results Conducted on Six Representative Isotropic Rock Samples
Determination of σci and mi from Triaxial Test Data
50000
45000
40000
(σ1f‐σ3f)^2 (Units in MPa)
35000
30000
Slope Intercept
25000
20000
y = 1070.4x + 7835
15000 R² = 0.9937
10000
5000 But do not forget me, you have done an actual UCS test in
the triaxial cell (where σ3=0 thus no confinement thus UCS).
0
‐10 0 10 20 30 40 50
σ3f (Minor Principal Stress) ‐ Units in MPa
Figure 44: Determination of mi and σci from Triaxial Data
75

Worksheet 7: Calculation Illustration of UCS (σci) and mi
You have now determined the UCS (σci) of 88.5 MPa and the mi of 12.1.
So why bother calculating the UCS, if you can just take the UCS of 78 MPa directly from the
triaxial test where σ3 = 0 (uniaxial compression, thus UCS test)?
It will become clear when you work with larger datasets that include hundreds or even
thousands of test results. We also need to calculate the slope to determine mi, and in excel it
requires the click of a button, so set yourself up to be able to interpret large datasets from the
start.
These tests were conducted on middle- to upper-bound strong rock crystalline limestone. Now,
compare the calculated results with the UCS ranges based on the rock strength description
(refer to Table 2 in the learning unit). Compare the calculated mi with the expected range of
mi values for a medium- to coarse-grained limestone (refer to Table 3 in the learning unit).
How do they compare?
For preliminary assessments, good observations by a suitably qualified and experienced
professional (generally your geologist, engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer) are of
great value.
By having mi and σci for the intact rock, and we have s = 1 and a = 0.5 for intact rock, we can
use the mi and σci (UCS) to derive the theoretical Hoek-Brown failure envelope for various
stress ranges. This enables us to simulate failure envelopes in ranges not generally practical
to test. The actual application comes in the rock mass scenario, where we use this same
approach to simulate rock mass failure envelopes.
With regard to the tensile strength of the intact rock: The tensile strength is expected to be the
intercept of the failure envelope on the x-axis. From the linear fit presented (see Figure 44) it
should be σti = 7.319 MPa. This seems a bit high, at 8.27% of the UCS. The linear relationship
overestimates the tensional strength. A tension cut-off should be applied by the relationship
σti = σci / (0.81 ⨯ mi + 7) (Hoek & Brown, 2018) (refer to Figure 21). This will give you σti of
5.27 MPa at ~5.95% of the UCS. We will consider a tensile strength of 5.27 MPa.
76

Theoretical Hoek‐Brown Failure Envelope (Actual Triaxial Data Included)
350.00
300.00
250.00
σ1f (MPa)
200.00
150.00
Theoretical Hoek‐Brown Failure Envelope from mi and σci
100.00
Actual Laboratory Test Data
Log. (Theoretical Hoek‐Brown Failure Envelope from mi and σci)
Poly. (Theoretical Hoek‐Brown Failure Envelope from mi and σci)
50.00
y = ‐0.0403x2 + 6.4943x + 78.444

R² = 0.9956
0.00
‐15.00 ‐5.00 5.00 15.00 25.00 35.00 45.00 55.00 65.00
σ3f (MPa)
Figure 45: Hoek-Brown Failure Envelope – Theoretical vs. Lab Results
77

10.8 WORKED EXAMPLE 8: Hoek-Brown Parameters s, a, mm, UCS

and Uniaxial Tensile Strength of Rock Mass
Let’s say you have a very blocky, interlocked, partially disturbed rock mass with multifaceted
angular blocks formed by four or more joint sets. You are thus dealing with a highly jointed
rock mass, and can therefore apply the Hoek-Brown criterion. The surface quality of the
discontinuities is good, very rough and unweathered. We use the UCS (σci) of the intact rock
(determined in the previous working example) of say ~88.5 MPa.
You want to determine the UCS of the rock mass. Remember: The larger the scale, the more
the discontinuities, and the lower the strength and the higher the deformation of the material.
So, you need to incorporate this in some way.
Let’s calculate the UCS of the rock mass based on the Hoek-Brown criterion. From the
learning unit we know the UCS (σcm) of the rock mass is defined by:
𝜎 𝜎 ∙𝑠
You thus require:
 The UCS of the intact rock (σci) – you determined that in the previous worked example
(~88.5 MPa)
 Hoek-Brown parameters “s” and “a”.
Remember: For intact rock, s = 1 and a = 0.5.
From the learning unit we know:
𝐺𝑆𝐼 100
𝑠 exp
9 3𝐷
1 1
𝑎 𝑒 𝑒
2 6
The two unknowns are the GSI and the damage factor, D. Assume no disturbance due to
blasting or excavation operations, thus D = 0. Consider the rock description provided: “very
blocky, interlocked, partially disturbed rock mass with multifaceted angular blocks
formed by four or more joint sets”. Refer to Figure 28 in the learning unit. You can assign
a GSI of approximately 60, based on this description. You now have D = 0 and GSI = 60 and
you can calculate parameters “s” and “a” by means of the above relationships.
𝑠 exp exp 0.0117436 0.012

∗
1 1 1 1
𝑎 𝑒 𝑒 𝑒 𝑒 ~0.5028405 0.503
2 6 2 6
You have s and a, so you can plug them into the formula to calculate UCSmass (σcm):
.
𝜎 𝜎 ∙𝑠 𝜎 ∙ 0.012 9.472 𝑀𝑃𝑎
The UCS of the rock mass is ~9 MPa vs. the UCS of the intact rock of ~88 MPa – a significant
difference!
Consider the calculation and impact of GSI. Consider intact rock, GSI = 100, calculate 𝜎 =
88.5 MPa. Can you recall this value? This was the σci (USC of the intact rock) that you have
78

already calculated. Refer to the GSI chart (see Figure 28). You will note a GSI of 100 is intact
rock. Before you apply, know the limits of this relationship!
Consider the influence of GSI on the σcm (UCS of the rock mass). You do the same calculation
and vary GSI from 0 to 100. The decrease in UCSmass with a decrease in rock mass quality
(decrease in GSI) is illustrated in Figure 46.
UCS of Rock Mass variation with GSI (UCS of Intact Rock = 88.5 MPa)
90
80
70
UCS of the Rock Mass MPa
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Geological Strength Index (GSI)
Figure 46: Effect of GSI on UCS of the Rock Mass
Note: There are restrictions! Ensure that you understand the restrictions and recommended
ranges for applying any formulation, before doing so in practice!
To determine the uniaxial tensile strength of the rock mass, apply the following relationship:
𝑠𝜎
𝜎
𝑚
You have already determined the parameter “s” and the UCS of the intact rock (σci). You have
already calculated the mi for the intact rock (previous worked example) and need to decrease
the mi to represent the rock mass. We call this reduced mi, “mm” or “mb” (notations “m” and “b”
for mass or blocks). From the learning unit, you will know:
𝐺𝑆𝐼 100 60 100
𝑚 𝑚 𝑒𝑥𝑝 12.093 𝑒𝑥𝑝 2.898
28 14𝐷 28 14 0
𝑀𝑁
𝑠𝜎 0.0117 ∗ 88.5 𝑜𝑟 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝜎 𝑚 0.359 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ~359 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
𝑚 2.898
Rock mass σcm = 7.479 MPa vs σtm = -0.359 MPa.
79

10.9 WORKED EXAMPLE 9: Rock Mass Hoek-Brown Equivalent

Mohr-Coulomb Friction and Cohesion Parameters
Let us consider the same rock mass used in the previous working examples. Remember the
bigger picture? Refer to Figure 47. We make use of data obtained from triaxial testing
conducted on intact rock together with a detailed description of the rock mass (GSI) and a
consideration of the problem at hand (slope, excavation or general), to determine equivalent
“cohesion” and “friction” parameters for the rock mass, so we can evaluate the rock mass with
the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion indicated at the bottom of Figure 47. At the end of this
worked example you should be able to evaluate the strength of a rock mass. In the next
working example, we will determine the Young’s modulus (stiffness modulus) of the rock mass.
Figure 47: Current Focus on Intact Rock Properties vs. our Goal
We need to derive equivalent “c” and “φ” for the rock mass. From the learning unit you will
recall that the cohesion and friction of the rock mass can be calculated by:
⎛ ⎞
𝜎 , 𝜎 ,
⎜ 1 2∙𝑎 ∙𝑠 1 𝑎 ∙𝑚 ∙ 𝑠 𝑚 ∙ ⎟
𝜎 𝜎
𝑐 𝜎 ⎜ ⎟
⎜ 𝜎 ⎟
,
⎜ 6∙𝑎∙𝑚 𝑠 𝑚 ∙ ⎟
𝜎
1 𝑎 2 𝑎 ∙ 1
⎝ 𝑎 𝑎 2 𝑎 ⎠
80

⎡ 𝜎 , ⎤
⎢ 6∙𝑎∙𝑚 ∙ 𝑠 𝑚 ∙ ⎥
𝜎
𝜑 sin ⎢ ⎥
⎢2 ∙ 1 𝜎 , ⎥
𝑎 ∙ 2 𝑎 6∙𝑎∙𝑚 𝑠 𝑚 ∙
⎣ 𝜎 ⎦
The relationships may look intimidating at first. It is, however, very easy to formulate in excel.
All you need to calculate cohesion, are: a, s, mm, σ3 and σci (UCS).
These were all covered in the previous worked example. The only possible new concept may
be that there is a value of 𝜎 , , the upper limit of confining stress over which the relationship
between the Hoek-Brown and the Mohr-Coulomb criteria can be applied. This simply means
that there is a limit of applicability of the Hoek-Brown criterion. This concept may be familiar
to you. Mogi’s (1966) transition from brittle to ductile failure is defined as σ1=3.4*σ3. You can
thus consider any stress ratio inside the failure envelope, but only up to a maximum ration of
3.4. From here onwards the behaviour change from brittle to ductile and the Hoek-Brown
criterion no longer apply. Thus, if you formulate in excel, consider using the function
“min(σ3,σ3max)” to ensure that you only formulate up the maximum allowable ratio.
Figure 48: Brittle to Ductile Formation – Mogi’s σ1=3.4σ3 Limit (Hoek & Brown, 2018)
We have established the following in the worked examples:

 a = 0.503
 s = 0.0117
 mm = 2.898
 σ3 = (range, based on your problem to assess)

 σci (UCS of intact rock) = 88.515 MPa
81

 σcm (UCS of rock mass) = 7.479 MPa

 D = 0 (no drill damage)
We thus have all the required input to determine the “c” and “φ” of the rock mass, except the
σ3max. For σ3max we can consider:
1) Mogi’s transition from brittle to ductile of 3.4;
2) Hoek-Brown proposed for “deep tunnels and excavations”; or

3) Hoek-Brown proposed for “slopes”.
We will consider the above three scenarios (formulation provided below) and observe the
impact each has on the equivalent “cohesion” and “frictional” components:
Scenario 1: General case
Scenario 2: Deep tunnels and excavations
Scenario 3: Slopes.
𝜎
3.4 → 𝜎 3.4 ∙ 𝜎
𝜎
.
𝜎 𝜎
𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑇𝑢𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 → 0.47
𝜎 𝑦∙𝐻
.
𝜎 𝜎
𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑠 → 0.72
𝜎 𝑦∙𝐻
82

Worksheet 8: Illustration Calculation – σ3max and Hoek-Brown Equivalent Mohr-

Coulomb C and φ for a Rock Mass of Interest
Illustration of Hoek‐Brown Calculation
Unit Weight: 0.027 MN/m^3

Height/Depth: 50 m
General Deep Tun&Exc Slopes
GSI = 60 60 60 Geological Strength Index
D = 0 0 0 Damage factor applied
σci = 88.515 88.515 88.515 MPa
a = 0.503 0.503 0.503 HB Shape parameter
s = 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 HB Shape parameter
mi = 12.0934 12.0934 12.0934
mm = 2.898 2.898 2.898 HB Parameter property of rock mass
σ3' = 0.000 1.350 1.350 MPa (y*H for scenario)
σcm = n/a 9.472 9.472
y = 0.027 0.027 0.027 Unit weight of rock (MN/m^3)
H = 50 50 50 Height or Depth (m)
Ductile transition = 4.00 σ3'max calc. σ3'max calc. Stress range applicable
σ3'max = 22.1288 0.7132 1.1583 Max minor principal stress
c' = 5.462 1.200 1.318 MPa <‐‐ Formulation error
φ' = 35.11 59.32 56.92 °
You now have cohesion and friction parameters which you can consider in the Mohr-Coulomb
shear strength criterion of 𝜏 𝑐 𝜎 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 for rock mass strength calculations. It is critical to
know the limitations of the application. You may apply the Hoek-Brown failure criterion to intact
rock and highly fractured rock mass, as indicated in Figure 47. Where the strength and
behaviour are controlled by individual or limited discontinuity planes, you should not apply the
Hoek-Brown criterion. In those cases, use shear strength of discontinuities (Mohr-Coulomb
and Barton-Choubey criteria) and kinematic analysis to determine whether
failure/sliding/movement is kinematically possible.
Note: You can now define cohesion and friction at different stress ratios (i.e., the non-linear
failure envelope).
83

10.10 WORKED EXAMPLE 10: Young’s Modulus of the Rock Mass

for Deformation Evaluation Purposes
We have covered the strength of rock and rock masses. To address the deformation modulus
of a rock mass, we will continue with rock and rock mass that are fairly well defined. We
established the parameters (in the previous worked examples) for evaluating the strength of
the rock and rock mass of interest. This may, for example, be applied in the wall stability of a
deep cut.
You need to determine the deformation of the rock mass. You will recall from the fundamental
units that stiffness (Young’s modulus or stiffness modulus) and stress are defined by:
𝐸 and 𝜎
If you are interested in deformation (thus strain “ε” as one of the components of deformation),
you need to have some idea of the applied load or stress (σ) and the stiffness “E” of the
material. The stress will depend on your problem, the depth of excavation, the height of slope
or the applied loading of a mega-structure on your rock mass. The rock mass property you
need is Erockmass or Em. Remember: Ei is for intact rock (established by means of triaxial testing).
We will consider two approaches (as discussed in the relevant section of the learning unit).
For the first equation we need Ei (the rest, D and GSI, we already have). You can establish
the Ei of the intact rock from the triaxial test results and apply the first formula, you can estimate
Ei from available information on the site (or from published data) or you can calculate Ei based
on the modulus ratio of the rock by the relationship Ei = MR*σci (not covered in the current
learning unit).
If you do not want to consider Ei in the calculation, consider formula 2. You should ideally
determine Ei from the triaxial results and consider more than one approach to increase your
level of confidence in the determined stiffness.
Let’s say we have determined or estimated Ei for the rock as 60 000 MPa. Now, for the highly
jointed rock mass, you should obtain an Em that is significantly less than 60 000 MPa.
The inputs into formulae 1 and 2 will thus be:
Ei = 60 000 MPa
D = 0 (no damage factor applied)
GSI = 60 (as provided by the experienced engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer)
𝐷
1
𝐸 𝐸 0.02 2
1 exp
11
𝐷
1
𝐸 10 2
1 exp
11
84

Worksheet 9: Illustration Calculation – Young’s Modulus for the Rock Mass (Rock
Mass Stiffness as Em) from Ei and GSI
Young’s Modulus for the rock mass is thus:

 Formula 1 (considering Ei) = 31 200 MPa
 Formula 2 (GSI and D only) = 20 365 MPa
 The average Erm is ≈ 25 000 MPa.
We have a starting point. Consider refining the calculation. Generally, the Erm (or any
parameter, for that matter) is refined by means of back-calculation from deformation
measurements taken during the initial construction/excavation phases. From the back-
calculations, the expected rock mass behaviour can further be refined, and design
modifications can be implemented, if required.
In the example calculation, formulas were provided to determine the global strength of the
rock mass, which is typically used in applications such as underground pillar design.
85

If you follow the worked examples provided, you should be able to calculate the strength and
deformation parameters for intact rock and rock as a mass, to apply in a rock-engineering
problem. This should serve as a strong foundation on which to build and apply your
knowledge.
A snippet from RocLab (Version V1.031 - RocScience software) is provided in Figure 49.
Compare our calculated parameters with the parameters obtained by this software package.
Also see exports from the software package in Figure 50 that define the full failure envelope
in terms of principal stresses (σ1-σ3) and shear strength vs. normal stress (τ-σn). You should
now be equipped to construct them yourself. Just be aware of the ductile transition limit and
the tension cut-off! This was covered in the learning unit and in the calculation illustration in
this worked example.
Figure 49: RockLab Software Package Analysis Export for Comparison Purposes
86

Principal Stresses Normal Stress vs. Shear Stress
12000000 4000000
3500000
Major principal stress (MPa)
10000000
3000000
Shear stress (MPa)
8000000
2500000
6000000 2000000
1500000
4000000
1000000
2000000
500000
0 0
‐500000 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 ‐1000000 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000
Minor principal stress (MPa) Normal stress (MPa)
Figure 50: RockLab Software Package σ1-σ3 and τ-σn Plots for Illustrative Purposes
11 Self-Assessment Activities
Refer to SAPEM Chapter 3 and familiarise yourself with the following:
 Page 52: Non-destructive tests on hardened concrete
 Page 56: UCS apparatus
 Page 43: Indirect tensile test (ITS)
 Page 44: Triaxial test setup
 Page 13: Durability tests
 Page 16: ACV and 10% FACT test
 Page 16: Ethylene Glycol soak test.
12 Further Reading
Further reading will be beneficial to you. Address the aspects introduced in this learning unit.
You can refer to the sources listed under the references. The listed sources are not
compulsory reading, and you may refer to alternative sources.
13 Informative Website Links

Numerous informative links are available on the web. Some useful links are provided below.
If the links are not available, google the topic and find alternative sources, where necessary.
List of informative website links:
1) Engineering Properties of Rock: https://slideplayer.com/slide/4637828/
2) Nick Barton Website: http://www.nickbarton.com/
3) Roscience Website (Evert Hoek – Hoek’s Corner):
https://www.rocscience.com/learning/hoeks-corner
87

References
ASTM Standard D 5731, 1995. Standard Test Method for Determination of the Point Load
Strength Index of Rock, ASTM Designation: D 5731 ‐95. <<where can this be located,
author?>>
Barton, N., 2017. Barton‐Bandis Synopsis. [Online]
Available at: http://www.nickbarton.com/

de Vallejo, L., & Ferrer, M., 2011. Geological Engineering. Oxford: CRC Press; Taylor &
Francis. <<is my insert correct, author?>>
Deere, D. U., & Miller, R. P., 1966. Engineering Classification and Index Properties for Intact
Rock, s.l.: Air Force Weapons Laboratory Technical Report (AFWL‐TR). <<more details?>>
Franki, 2008. A Guide to Practical Geotechnical Engineering in Southern Africa (4th ed.). s.l.:
Franki. <<location?>>
Hoek, E., 2019. Practical Rock Engineering ‐ Chapter 11 ‐ Rock Mass Properties. [Online]
Available at: https://www.rocscience.com/learning/hoeks‐corner
Hoek, E., 2019. Practical Rock Engineering ‐ Chapter 4 ‐ Shear Strength of Discontinuities.
[Online]
Available at: https://www.rocscience.com/learning/hoeks‐corner
Hoek, E. & Brown, E. T., 2018. The Hoek‐Brown Failure Criterion and GSI 2018 Edition.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 1‐19. <<volume and issue
number?>>
Hoek, E., Carranza‐Torres, C., & Corkum, B., 2002. Hoek‐Brown Failure Criterion ‐ 2002
Edition. << Place: Publisher?>>
Hoek, E., Carter, T. G., & Diederichs, M. S., 2013. Quantification of the Geological Strength
Index Chart. San Francisco: ARMA (Americal Rock Mechanics Association).
ISRM, 1979. Suggested Methods for Determining the Uniaxial Compressive Strength and
Deformability of Rock Materials. s.l.:International Society for Rock Mechanics. <<
location?>>
Mah, C. W., & Wyllie, D. C., 2004. Rock Slope Engineering ‐ Civil and Mining. (4th ed.).
London and New York: Spon Press; Taylor & Francis Group.
Marinos, P., & Hoek, E., 2000. GSI: Geologically Friendly Tool for Rock Mass Strength
Estimation. Melbourne, s.n., pp. 1422‐1442. <<publisher?>>
88

Sivakugan, N., Shukla, S. & Das, B., 2013. Rock Mechanics ‐ An Introduction. Oxford: CRC
Press; Taylor & Francis.
89

GEO3701 Unit 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEO3701 Unit 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEO3701 Unit 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEARNING UNIT 3: DISCONTINUITIES AND

Table of Contents Page no.

List of Tables Page no.

List of Figures Page no.

1 Introduction and General Overview

Geological Factors Discontinuities

Engineering Geological Hazards

Soil and Rock

Figure 1: Outline of the Module (Focus on Learning Unit 3)

 Physical properties (also referred to as index properties: mineral composition,

2 Purpose and Expected Outcome of the Learning Unit

c) Concepts surrounding intact rock, discontinuities and rock masses;

3 Definitions and Abbreviations

4 Importance of Scale on Strength of Rock

5 Examples of Application of Discontinuity or Rock

Example strengths to use (simplified from original source):

6 Physical and Mechanical Properties of Rock

Property Class Properties Determination Methods

6.1 Porosity (Physical)

6.2 Unit Weight (Physical)

𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝛾 𝜌 ∙ 𝑔 Equation 6.2

g is the gravitational acceleration (~9.81 m/s2)

6.3 Permeability (Physical)

The coefficient of permeability (k) also equals:

6.4 Durability (Physical)

6.5 Uniaxial Compressive Strength (Mechanical)

F is force (in kg ∙ or Newtons (N))

𝐹 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑

𝐴 𝜋∙𝑟 Equation 6.9

6.5.1 Uniaxial Compression Test

Concept of Longitudinal Strain (εlon)

Figure 5: Longitudinal Strain (εlon)

Note that longitudinal strain is also referred to as axial strain.

Figure 6: Stress-Strain Plot (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 140)

6.5.2 Point Load Test – Index Test for UCS

The point load index is defined by:

𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝐼 𝐹∙𝐼 Equation 6.12

𝑈𝐶𝑆 𝜎 𝑜𝑟 𝑞 𝑜𝑟 𝑐 𝐶∙𝐼 Equation 6.15

“C” is a correlation factor calculated for your site.

𝑈𝐶𝑆 𝜎 𝑜𝑟 𝑞 𝑜𝑟 𝑐 42 ∙ 𝐼 Equation 6.16

Refer to Worked Example 1 for a practical application illustration.

6.5.3 Schmidt Hammer Rebound Test – Index Test for UCS

Refer to Worked Example 2 for a practical application illustration.

6.5.4 Field Indices

6.6 Tensile strength (Mechanical)

6.6.1 Direct Tensile Test

6.6.2 Indirect Tensile Test (Brazil Test)

Tensile strength is defined by:

6.7 Elastic Wave Propagation (Mechanical)

6.8 Strength and Deformation Parameters (Mechanical)

A discontinuity is simply an interruption in the normal physical structure or configuration of a

7.1 Types of Discontinuity

7.2 Characteristics of Discontinuities

7.3 Stiffness and Shear Strength of Discontinuity Planes

7.3.1 Stiffness of a Discontinuity

7.3.2 Clarification of Planar Smooth, Planar Rough and Dilation

7.3.3 Friction Angles of Rock (Basic, Peak and Residual)

Refer to Worked Example 3 for a practical application illustration.

7.3.4 Shear Strength of Planar Smooth Discontinuity

The shear strength in a smooth discontinuity is defined by the Mohr-Coulomb failure