Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/257045681
CITATIONS READS
22 1,389
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Study on Behaviour of Cement Paste Backfill Using Different Binders under Static and Dynamic Loading View project
A new damage model for rock burst in hard rocks during deep mining View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jiayi Shen on 14 February 2014.
TECHNICAL NOTE
Received: 20 July 2011 / Accepted: 30 August 2011 / Published online: 14 September 2011
Ó Springer-Verlag 2011
Keywords Generalized Hoek–Brown Mohr–Coulomb Fu and Liao (2010), Yang and Yin (2010). Comprehensive
Shear strength Fractured rock mass Slope review of the literature of estimating shear strength of the
Hoek–Brown criterion can be found in the paper by Car-
ranza-Torres (2004). However, as Brown (2008) has noted,
1 Introduction deriving exact analytical solutions for estimating the shear
strength of a rock mass modeled using the GHB criterion
Rock slope stability is critical for many aspects of mining has proven to be a challenging task due to the complexities
and civil engineering projects, such as open pit mining and associated with mathematical derivation.
large dam construction. One of the most popular approa- In the special case of the Hoek–Brown parameter
ches for estimating the factor of safety (FOS) of a given a = 0.5, an analytical solution proposed by Bray and
slope is the limit equilibrium method (LEM) where rock reported by Hoek (1983) yields accurate results for intact
mass strength is usually expressed by the linear Mohr– rock with the geological strength index (GSI) equal to 100.
Coulomb (MC) criterion. Currently, a widely used criterion However in the more general case of a = 0.5, no accurate
to estimate rock mass strength is the non-linear General- analytical solution is available (Carranza-Torres 2004). In
ized Hoek–Brown (GHB) failure criterion since it is able to this paper, an approximate analytical solution for estimat-
estimate the shear strength of various types of intact rock ing the equivalent MC parameters for highly fractured rock
and rock masses (Priest 2005). If the GHB criterion is used masses governed by the GHB criterion is proposed. The
in conjunction with LEM for analyzing the rock slope, proposed approximate analytical solution yields fairly good
methods are required to determine the equivalent MC shear results when GSI \40 and provides great flexibility for the
strength parameters cohesion c and angle of friction / at application of the GHB criterion in conjunction with LEM
the specified normal stress rn from the GHB criterion. The for highly fractured rock mass slope stability analysis.
determination of reliable shear strength values is a critical
step in slope design as small changes in shear strength
parameters can result in significant changes in the value of 2 Equivalent MC Parameters for GHB Criterion
the FOS (Wyllie and Mah 2004). In past decades, methods
for the determination of shear strength from the Hoek– The non-linear Hoek–Brown (HB) criterion, originally
Brown criterion for slope stability analysis were proposed presented by Hoek and Brown (1980) has been successfully
by Hoek (1983), Priest and Brown (1983), Londe (1988), used in the field of rock engineering for the past three
Hoek (1990), Hoek and Brown (1997), Kumar (1998), decades to estimate rock mass strength. The latest version
Hoek et al. (2002), Carranza-Torres (2004), Priest (2005), is the GHB criterion presented by Hoek et al. (2002) is:
a
mb r3
r1 ¼ r3 þ rci þs ð1Þ
J. Shen (&) S. D. Priest M. Karakus rci
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering,
The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia mb, s and a are the Hoek–Brown input parameters which
e-mail: jshen@civeng.adelaide.edu.au can be estimated from the GSI for the rock mass, given by:
123
124 J. Shen et al.
mb ¼ mi eð 2814D Þ
GSI100
ð2Þ slope of the tangent to the HB failure envelope gives angle
of friction / and the intercept with the shear stress axis
s ¼ eð Þ
GSI100
93D ð3Þ gives cohesion c.
Kumar (1998) proposed the general numerical solution
eð Þ eð Þ
GSI 20
15 3
a ¼ 0:5 þ ð4Þ for estimating the equivalent MC shear strength parameters
6 from the GHB criterion. Equations are expressed as
where, r1 and r3 are the major and minor principal stresses, follows:
rci is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock ð1aÞ
2 rn ð1 sin /Þ sin / ð1aÞ
mass, mi is the Hoek–Brown constant for intact rock mass, mb þs ¼ 1þ
mb a rci sin / a
D is the disturbance factor.
The GHB criterion Eq. 1 can also be expressed in terms ð9Þ
a
of normal stress rn and shear stress s on the failure plane rci cos / r
s¼ a mb n þ s ð10Þ
by using Eqs. 5 and 6 which were proposed by Balmer sin / rci
2 1þ a
(1952).
ðr1 r3 Þ c ¼ s rn tan / ð11Þ
rn ¼ r3 þ ð5Þ
or1 =or3 þ 1 In the Eqs. 9–11, the values of input parameters mb, s, a
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s ¼ ðrn r3 Þ or1 =or3 ð6Þ and rci are known and normal stress rn can be estimated by
adopting an appropriate stress analysis approach (Hoek and
Taking the derivative of r1 with the respect of r3 of Eq. 1 and Brown 1997).In general case of a = 0.5, in order to
substituting the results into Eqs. 5 and 6, respectively, the calculate the shear strength parameters, firstly Eq. 9 is
GHB criterion can be expressed by the following equations solved iteratively to calculate an angle of friction / value.
a Having obtained /, shear stress s and cohesion c can be
rci mrbcir3 þ s
calculated from Eqs. 10 and 11, respectively. In special
rn ¼ r3 þ a1 ð7Þ
2 þ amb mrbcir3 þ s case a = 0.5, the analytical solution derived by Bray and
reported by Hoek (1983) can yield the accurate MC shear
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a1 strength parameters for the Hoek–Brown materials. The
mb
s ¼ ðrn r3 Þ 1 þ amb r3 þ s ð8Þ equations are expressed as follows:
rci
16ðmb rn þ srci Þ
h¼1þ ð12Þ
Figure 1 gives a graphical representation of the HB 3m2b rci
criterion expressed by (a) major and minor principal
1 1
stresses (b) normal and shear stresses. h¼ 90 þ arctan pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð13Þ
The equivalent MC shear strength parameters can be 3 h3 1
calculated by locating the tangent of the HB envelope with 1
/ ¼ arctan pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð14Þ
the specified normal stress rn, as illustrated in Fig. 1b. The 4h cos2 h 1
123
Determination of Mohr–Coulomb Shear Strength Parameters 125
mb rci
s ¼ ðcot / cos /Þ ð15Þ Table 1 Shear stresses obtained from Priest and Bray solutions over
8 a range of GSI
c ¼ s rn tan / ð16Þ Uniaxial compressive strength, 30,000
rci (kPa)
where h and h are intermediate parameters.
Hoek–Brown constant for intact rock, 20
This method provides great flexibility for the use of the mi
original HB criterion (a = 0.5) in rock slope stability Geological strength index, GSI 2–40
analysis. However, in the GHB criterion, if Eq. 4 is used to
Normal stress, rn (kPa) 3,000
calculate a, the value of a can vary from 0.51 when GSI is
Disturbance factor, D 0.8
40 to 0.5 when GSI is 100. Since the Bray method is based
on a = 0.5, when GSI = 100, the equation gives very good GSI Shear stress, s (kPa) Discrepancy of
Bray method (%)
results for rock masses where GSI [ 40. On the other hand, Bray method Priest method
when 0 \ GSI \ 40 the value of a can vary from 0.666 to
2 965.88 487.58 98.1
0.51. Clearly, this analytical solution cannot yield satis-
4 1,015.50 568.38 78.7
factory results for a geological condition where the value of
6 1,067.30 652.19 63.6
GSI for a fractured rock mass is relatively low (Priest
8 1,121.10 738.29 51.9
2005). Table 1 gives the comparison of shear stress values
10 1,177.20 826.08 42.5
between the Bray method and the numerical method pro-
posed by Priest (2005) for a rock mass: rci = 30,000 kPa, 12 1,235.40 915.13 35.0
mi = 20, rn = 3,000 kPa, D = 0.8, 0 \ GSI \ 40. The 14 1,296.00 1,005.10 28.9
results are also plotted in Fig. 2. It is shown that s values 16 1,358.80 1,095.80 24.0
from the Bray method are relatively overestimated com- 18 1,424.00 1,187.10 20.0
pared with the Priest method, and with the decrease of the 20 1,491.60 1,278.90 16.6
GSI values the discrepancy of s can vary from 2.8% when 22 1,561.70 1,371.20 13.9
GSI = 40 to 98.1% when GSI = 2. 24 1,634.20 1,464.20 11.6
26 1,709.20 1,557.90 9.7
28 1,786.80 1,652.50 8.1
3 Proposed Method 30 1,866.90 1,748.00 6.8
32 1,949.70 1,844.60 5.7
Based on the numerical method proposed by Kumar (1998) 34 2,035.20 1,942.50 4.8
the authors propose a new approximate analytical solution 36 2,123.40 2,041.90 4.0
for estimating the MC shear strength parameters from the 38 2,214.50 2,142.80 3.3
GHB criterion for a highly fractured rock mass where 40 2,308.40 2,245.60 2.8
0 \ GSI \ 40. The expressions related to the derivations
are: by mb, s, a and rn/rci Having obtained r3/rci, the angle of
1. After rewriting Eqs. 7 and 9, the angle of friction / friction /, shear stress s and cohesion c can be directly
can also be expressed by the following equations calculated from Eqs. 17, 10 and 11, respectively.
0 1 2. According to Eq. 3, the value of s \ 1.2E-3 when GSI
B 2 C \40. In order to simplify Eq. 18, s is assumed to equal
/ ¼ arcsin@1 a1 A ð17Þ zero and Eq. 18 becomes:
2 þ amb rrci3 mb þ s 0 1
a rn r3 B mab C
m b r3
þ s ¼ @1 þ 1a A ð19Þ
r3 rn rci rci rci r3
¼ a1 ð18Þ 2 rci þa
rci rci
2 þ amb mrbcir3 þ s
3. In order to calculate r3/rci in terms of mb, a and rn/rci,
As r3/rci exists on both sides of Eq. 18, in order to a linear function is used to replace the non-linear
identify an acceptable value for r3/rci, Eq. 18 must be function (r3/rci)1-a which is part of Eq. 19
solved iteratively. Therefore, with the purpose of pre- 1a
r3 r3
senting an approximate analytical solution for estimat- k þi ð20Þ
rci rci
ing the equivalent MC shear strength parameters, the
critical step is to present an approximate analytical Hoek and Brown (1997) recommended that a rock
solution for the intermediate parameter r3/rci expressed mass stress state of the value of r3/rci should be in the
123
126 J. Shen et al.
123
Determination of Mohr–Coulomb Shear Strength Parameters 127
123
128 J. Shen et al.
123
Determination of Mohr–Coulomb Shear Strength Parameters 129
would like to express their gratitude to the editor Prof. Giovanni Barla
and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the
draft paper. The authors are grateful to Mrs Barbara Brougham for
reviewing the manuscript.
References
123