CIEM 5760 Engineering Geology

and Rock Mechanics

Lecture 10: Strength of Intact Rock,

Rock Mass and Joint

Prof. Gang Wang

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

1. Intact Rock Strength

Brazillian test (tensile strength)

2P
 tB 
 dt
where P = compression load
d = sample diameter
t = sample length

Brazilian tensile strength > tensile strength by direct

 tB tension test T0

(short fissures weaken a direct tension specimen

more severely than they weaken a splitting tension
specimen).

2
1. Intact Rock Strength
Point Load Strength Test P
The (uncorrected) point load strength is Is 
D2
where P is the load at rupture, and D is the sample
diameter. Tests are done on pieces of drill core at
least 1.4 times as long as the diameter.

[Size Effect] The point load index is reported as the

point load strength of a 50-mm core. The size-
corrected Point Load Strength Index is
6

0.45 5
D
I s (50)  I s   4

Is / Is(50)
50  3

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
D (mm)

Correlation with unconfined compression

strength
qu  24I s (50) 3

1. Intact Rock Strength Stress-strain in unconfined compression

Axial strain:

Unconfined compression test l d

axial  lateral 
l d

τ
Poisson’s ratio (v) v lateral

axial

qu For elastic and isotropic rocks,

0 qu=P/A σ v = 0 to 0.5, typically 0.25

Volume change per unit of volume

(volumetric strain)

σa V
P  axial 2 lateral  axial (1  2v)
V
Δl
l
qu
Δd/2
εa
d

4
 Intact Rock Strength  Influence of height to diameter ratio (H/D
> 2.0 in lab test)

Unconfined compression test

Influence of end restraint on stresses

and displacements induced in a
uniaxial compression test: (a) desired
uniform deformation of the specimen; Uniaxial compression tests on Wombeyan
(b) deformation with complete radial Marble using (a) brush platens, and (b)
restraint at the specimen– platen solid steel platens. Note: brush platen is
contact; (c) non-uniform normal stress made from an assembly of 3.2 mm
and shear stress induced at the square high-tensile steel pins, lateral
specimen end as a result of end deformation of the specimens was not
restraint inhibited. 5

Intact Rock Strength

 Sample Size Effect

Uniaxial compressive strength of a rock specimen
with a diameter of d mm is related to the uniaxial
compressive strength of a 50 mm diameter sample

0.18
50 
qu ,d  qu ,50  
d 

Influence of specimen size on the strength of intact

rock. After Hoek and Brown (1980). 6
Intact Rock Strength O →A: fissures and some
pores begin to close
A →B: linear relationships
between axial and  1
1
Elastic modulus E 
axial

B →C: new cracks form

(crack initiation) , old ones
extend (crack propagation)
parallel to the direction of  1
Cracks considered to be
“stable”: grow in finite length
and stops growing when stress
removed.
C: yield point (deviate from
elastic behavior)
C →D: cracks intersect to
form a semicontinuous rupture
surface termed as “fault”
D: peak strength of rock
(failure criteria).
D →E: forming of
macrocracking by joining of
microcracks (crack
coalescence). Strength-
softening.
E: sliding on macrocracks
(residual strength of rock).
7

Intact Rock Strength

Shear-induced Dilatancy

Dilatancy

8
 Intact Rock Strength

Influence of confining stresses

 1   3 ( MPa)

Ductile

 3 ( MPa)
Brittle

Dilation

Contraction

 3  0MPa  3  3.5MPa  3  35MPa  3  100MPa Medium-grained sandstone under various

confining stresses (Hassani, White, Branch, 1984).
Pattern of failure of marble samples with various lateral pressures 9

Intact Rock Strength

Empirical Failure Criteria


3 qu 1

T0 0 3T0

An empirical criterion of failure defined by the envelope to a series of Mohr’s circles:

A: direction tension; B: Brazilian test; C: unconfined compression; D: triaxial
compression
10
 Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion
  p  S i   tan  (1)

 = angle of internal friction
Si = shear strength intercept

Si  1, p  qu   3 tan 2 (45   / 2)
(2)
qu  2S i tan(45   / 2)
 (3)

The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with a tension cutoff

 1, p = major principal stress corresponding
to the peak of the stress strain curve.
 qu = unconfined compressive strength.
The Mohr-Coulomb
criterion with a tension
cutoff overestimates the
 1, p 3
strength in the ruled region
 1  N (4)
qu qu

N  tan 2 (45   / 2)
 11

Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion  1, p   3  qu

Derivation 2

  p  S i   tan   3   1, p  qu
 2

 1, p   3  qu
 sin 
 1, p   3  1, p   3  qu
2  1, p   3  qu  sin  ( 1, p   3  qu )

Si  (1  sin  ) 1, p
0 3 qu  1, p  (1  sin  ) qu  (1  sin  ) 3

1  sin  
 1, p  qu   3
qu 1  sin  
2
 3   1, p  1, p  qu  tan 2 (45   / 2) 3
2
Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion
Derivation  1, p  qu  tan 2 (45   / 2) 3

  p  S i   tan 

qu  2 Si tan(45   / 2)

Si 45   / 2 90  

 
45   / 2
0 qu

qu / 2
 tan(45   / 2)
Si
qu
2

Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion

For intact rock
 1 /  ci
1/2
 1  3  
   mi 3  s  (5)
 ci  ci  ci 

 : uniaxial compressive strength of

the intact rock pieces ( )
 1 = the major effective principal stress
 3 = the minor effective principal stress
s : degree of fracturing, represents
cohesion of the rock. Note that s=1
for intact rock.
m: degree of “particle interlocking”,
varies with rock type and texture,
 3 /  ci use the table.

Implied tensile strength from H-B criterion Cf. Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion
 1, p 3
t 
2

 ci
m  m2  4s  qu
 1  N
qu 14
Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion
Typical  values

15

2. Strength of Jointed Rock Mass

Isotropic
Use Eq. (5)

Failure governed by a
single or a small number
of discontinuities

Eq. (6) with caution

Isotropic
16
Use Eq. (6)
3. Shear Strength of Joint
Shearing on smooth surface
(basic friction angle)
S
 tan  (7)
N
Shearing on inclined surface
(roughness)

S
 tan   i  (8)
N

N
S* 
 tan  
N*  S N* S*
where    tan(  i )
N S
S  S cos i  N sin i 
* i
 17
N *  N cos i  S sin i 

Bilinear Roughness Model (Patton, 1966)

Shearing on smooth surface

18
 Bilinear Roughness Model (Patton, 1966)
With increasing normal stress and displacement, the
asperities will be sheared off, and the friction angle will
progressively diminish to a minimum value of the basic,
or residual, friction angle of the rock.

(9)

19

Barton’s Model (1973)

3 ~100

JCS  
 p   n tan  r  JRC log10  
 n  
where (10)
 n is effective normal stress,
JRC = joint roughness coefficient, on a
scale of 1 for the smoothest to 20 for the
roughest surface.
JCS = Joint Wall Compressive Strength.
r = drained, residual friction angle.

Note that JRC, JCS depends on scale

0.02 JRC0
L 
JRCn  JRC0  n  (11)
L0 
where JRCo, and Lo (length) refer to 100 mm
lab scale samples and JRCn, and Ln refers to
in situ block sizes.
0.03 JCS0
Ln  (12)
JCSn  JCS0  
L0  Roughness profiles and corresponding JRC values (After Barton and
where JCSo and Lo (length) refer to 100 mm lab scale Choubey 1977). Note the reduced scale in the print.
20
samples and JCSn and Ln refer to in situ block sizes.
Scale Effect

(a) shear strength of displaced block

controlled by first-order asperities (i1);

(b) tensioned rock bolts prevent dilation

along potential sliding surface and produce
interlock along second-order asperities (i2).
21

Scale Effect
Consider a discontinuity dipping (ψp) at 35 and the dimension of this surface
is 10m (Ln). If the average depth (H) of the discontinuity is 20m below the
crest of the slope, and the rock unit weight (γr) is 26 kN/m3, then the effective
normal stress (  n ) for a dry slope is

 n = γr H cos(ψp) = 26 h 20 h cos(35) = 426 kPa.

If the JRC0 value measured in lab (L0 = 0.2m) is 15, and the rock is strong
with a JCS0 value of 50,000 kPa, then the scaled values are
0.02 JRC0 0.02 15
L  10 
JRCn  JRC0  n   15   5
L0  0.2 

0.03 JCS0 0.03 15

L  10 
JCSn  JCS0  n   50,000    8600 kPa
L0  0.2 

JCS  8600  o
JRC log10    5 log10  7
 n  426 
22
 Summary of Joint Models

23

4. Shear Strength of Rock with Plane of Weakness

Normal and shear stress

state on the joint
1
n 
1 1
1   3   1   3  cos 2 Failure criterion
2 2
1
  cw   n tan w
3  1   3  sin 2
 2


2(cw   3 tan w )
τ  1   3 slip  (13)
(1  tan w / tan  ) sin 2 

   45o   / 2
2

3 1 σ

24
 Shear Strength of Rock with Plane of Weakness
2(cw   3 tan w )
 1   3 slip  (13)
(1  tan w / tan  ) sin 2 
1

3



w   45o  w / 2
3 1 σ

25

Shear Strength of Rock with Plane of Weakness

2(cw   3 tan w )
 1   3 slip  (13)
The minimum strength (1  tan w / tan  ) sin 2 

1   3 slip,min  2(cw   3w )  1  w2  w 

where w  tan w at   45o  w / 2
Strength of
intact rock
τ   c   n tan 

Strength of joint
  cw   n tan w

A
A
  45o  w / 2
σ
Pole  3 1

Orientation of joint

26
Shear Strength of Rock with Plane of Weakness

Strength of
intact rock
  c   n tan 
τ
Strength of joint C C
  cw   n tan w
B B
C
B

 
σ
Pole  3 1 1

Orientation of joint

27

Shear Strength of Rock with Plane of Weakness

2(cw   3 tan w )
Effect of Confining Pressure  1   3 slip  (13)
(1  tan w / tan  ) sin 2 

• Strength is anisotropic
• Pressure dependent

  90o   28
Shear Strength of Rock with Plane of Weakness

Superposition for Multiple Joints

Intact Rock

Rock Mass

29

Generalized Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion

For jointed rock mass
 GSI: Geological strength index.
 1  3  
   mb 3  s  (6)
 ci  ci  ci  D is a factor which depends on the degree
of disturbance due to blast damage or
s : degree of fracturing, represents stress relaxation.
cohesion of the rock. Note that s=1 D =0 (undisturbed) to 1.0 (very disturbed).
for intact rock. For good quality blasting, D ≈ 0.7.
m: degree of “particle interlocking”,
varies with rock type and texture, Note that D applies only to the blast
use the table. damaged zone and it should not be applied
to the entire rock mass. For example, in
GSI  100  tunnels, the blast damage is generally
mb  mi exp  
28  14 D  limited to a 1 to 2 m thick zone around the
tunnel.
GSI  100 
s  exp  
9  3D  For GSI>50,  ≈ 0.5 (the original value);
.
For very low GSI,  ≈ 0.65
   e 
1 1 GSI /15 20 / 3
e
2 6
30
 Generalized Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion
Geological Strength Index (GSI) for jointed rock masses (after Hoek, 2003).

31

Generalized Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion

Table 1. Guidelines for estimating disturbance factor D.
Suggested value of D
Appearance of rock mass Description of rock mass

Excellent quality controlled blasting or excavation by Tunnel

Boring Machine results in minimal disturbance to the confined D=0
rock mass surrounding a tunnel.

Mechanical or hand excavation in poor quality rock masses (no

blasting) results in minimal disturbance to the surrounding rock D=0
mass.
Where squeezing problems result in significant floor heave, D = 0.5
disturbance can be severe unless a temporary invert, as shown No invert
in the photograph, is placed.

Very poor quality blasting in a hard rock tunnel results in severe

D = 0.8
local damage, extending 2 or 3 m, in the surrounding rock mass.

D = 0.7
Small scale blasting in civil engineering slopes results in
Good blasting
modest rock mass damage, particularly if controlled blasting is
used as shown on the left hand side of the photograph.
D = 1.0
However, stress relief results in some disturbance.
Poor blasting
Very large open pit mine slopes suffer significant disturbance
D = 1.0
due to heavy production blasting and also due to stress relief
Production blasting
from overburden removal.
D = 0.7
In some softer rocks excavation can be carried out by ripping
Mechanical excavation
32
and dozing and the degree of damage to the slopes is less.