6- Hoek-Brown and Generalized Hoek-Brown Material

Models

Hoek-Brom failure criterion is the most common failure criterion used for rock masses. Hoek and Brown
(1980a, b) introduced their failure criterion in an attempt to provide input data for the analyses required for
the design of underground excavations in hard rock. The criterion was derived from the results of research
into the brittle failure of intact rock by Hoek (1968) and on model studies of jointed rock mass behavior by
Brown (1970). The criterion starts from the properties of intact rock and then by applying reduction factors
on the basis of the characteristics of joints in a rock mass is modified to suit the rock mass behavior.
The failure criterion of the Hoek Brown model in terms of principal stresses is

0.5
 − 
Fs =  1 −  3 −  ci  m 1 + s  =0 (6.1)
  ci 

where  ci is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact material, m is the reduced value of the intact
rock parameter mi , and s is a material constant that can have the maximum value of 1.0 for intact rock.

The mechanical behavior of a material that is modelled with Hoek-Brown model includes features such as:
- Isotropic shear strength (peak and residual) that has cohesive-frictional characteristic, and increases
nonlinearly with the level of stress/confinement
- Tensile strength (by using a tension cutoff yield function or the tensile strength that is inherent in the
model)
- Dilation (increase in volume) or critical state (constant volume) at failure
- Dependency of shear strength on Lode’s angle (observed for most geomaterials)
The model is well suited for evaluation of stability of geotechnical/mining problems in rocks and rock-
masses. This includes problems that have wide ranges of stress/confinement, since the dependency of shear
strength on the level of stress in nonlinear and more realistic (compared to the Mohr-Coulomb model).
Using the Shear Strength Reduction (SSR) method this model can evaluate safety factors equivalent to
those calculated based on limit equilibrium approach (Slide), and in some provide better predictions of the
failure modes and the safety factors. It can be also used with great success for calculations of load-
displacement in simulations that include rocks and rock-masses.
The generalized Hoek-Brown yield surface has an additional parameter a that replaces the 0.5 power term.

a
 − 
Fs =  1 −  3 −  ci  m 1 + s  = 0 (6.2)
  ci 
To find the strength of the mass rock from intact rock properties, the Geological Strength Index (GSI) was
introduced by Hoek, Wood and Shah (1992), Hoek (1994) and Hoek, Kaiser and Bawden (1995).

 GSI −100 
 
m = mi e  28−14 D 
(6.3)

 GSI −100 
 
s=e  9 −3 D 
(6.4)

+ (e )
1 1 − GSI /15 −20 / 3
a= −e (6.5)
2 6

In above D is the disturbance factor due to blast or stress relaxation that varies from 0.0 for undisturbed in
situ rock mass to 1.0 for very disturbed rock mass.
In terms of stress invariants the Generalized Hoek-Brown yield surface is

a
 m  − I1  
Fs = 2 cos  J 2 −  ci 
  ci 
J
(
+ 2 sin  − 3 cos  )  + s  = 0 (6.6)
  3 3  

RS2 and RS3 accept peak values and residual values for the all the material properties of these two models.
This means that after the initial yielding the strength of the material instantly drops to a lower residual state.
The Hoek-Brown and the generalized Hoek-Brown models in RS2 and RS3 are elasto-brittle-plastic material
model in general. In the case where the residual values are the same as peak values the behavior is elasto-
perfect-plastic.
The plastic potential function has the same from as the yield surface

a
m  − I1 
Qs = 2 cos  J 2 −  ci  
  ci  +
J2
(
sin  − 3 cos  )   = const. (6.7)
  3 3 

where m is the dilation parameter. This parameter should be less than or equal to m which makes the
flow rule non-associated or associated respectively.
The dialog for defining this constitutive model is shown in Figure 6.1.
 Figure 6.1. Dialog for defining Generalized Hoek-Brown model

Figure 6.2. Stress paths of drained triaxial tests on materials with Generalized Hoek-Brown model
Figure 6.3. Stress paths of undrained triaxial tests on materials with Generalized Hoek-Brown model

Figure 6.4. Yield surface of Generalized Hoek-Brown model in 3D stress space

Sample stress paths of drained and undrained triaxial compression tests that could be simulated with this
model are presented in Figure 6.2 and 6.3. All the tests start form a hydrostatic confinement of
p = p ' = 100 kPa .
Stress paths of the drained tests include variations of axial stress and volumetric strain with increasing axial
strain, variation of deviatoric stress with deviatoric strain and the stress path in p-q plane. The yield surface
is also shown in the p-q plane. The simulated behavior is an elasto-perfect plastic behavior. The dilation
effect is illustrated in the variation of volumetric strain with axial strain.
Stress paths of the undrained tests include the variation of axial stress and pore water pressure with
increasing axial strain, variation of deviatoric stress with deviatoric strain and the stress path in p-q plane.
The yield surface is also shown in the p-q plane. The dilation effect is illustrated in the plot of the stress
path in p-q plane that also include the yield surface. The generation of negative pore water pressure in
material with dilation leads to the increase in the effective mean stress, as the stress path lays on the yield
surface and follows it to higher levels of deviatoric stress.
The yield surface of this model is a curved line in 2D stress space as shown in Figures 6.2 and 6.3 and has
an irregular hexagonal pyramid shape in 3D stress space as presented in Figures 5.4. The definition of yield
surface includes the Lode’s angle and thus the projection of this yield surface in Π plane, with normal
direction being the stress space diagonal, deviates from the circular shape of Drucker-Prager model and has
a shape similar to the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope.

The model also accept a tension cutoff. The yield surface of the tension cut off is

FT =  1 − T = 0 (6.8)

In above T is the tensile strength of the material. The flow rule for tensile failure is associated. There
couple of options for the tensile strength of Hoek-Brown model. The maximum value of the tensile strength
from can be calculated from the definition of the yield surface in equation 6.1 or 6.2.

s ci
Tmax = (6.9)
m

If the tensile strength is set to a higher value than Tmax the program will ignore that value and use Tmax
instead. Hoek and Martin (2014) has proposed this alternative relationship for the tensile resistance

 ci
T= (6.10)
8.62 + 0.7 mi

The user defined option for tensile strength is also available to the users.
References
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1980. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J. Geotech. Engng Div.,
ASCE 106 (GT9), 1013-1035.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock, London, Instn Min. Metall.
Hoek, E. 1968. Brittle failure of rock. In Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice. (eds K.G. Stagg and
O.C. Zienkiewicz), 99-124. London: Wiley.
Brown, E.T. 1970. Strength of models of rock with intermittent joints. J. Soil Mech. Foundn Div., ASCE
96, SM6, 1935-1949.
Hoek, E., Wood D. and Shah S. 1992. A modified Hoek-Brown criterion for jointed rock masses.
Proc. Rock Characterization, Symp. Int. Soc. Rock Mech.: Eurock ‘92, (ed. J.A. Hudson), 209-214.
London, Brit. Geotech. Soc.
Hoek, E. 1994. Strength of rock and rock masses, ISRM News Journal, 2 (2), 4-16.
Hoek, E., Kaiser P.K. and Bawden W.F. 1995. Support of underground excavations in hard rock.
Rotterdam, Balkema.
Hoek, Evert, Carlos Carranza-Torres, and Brent Corkum. "Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002 edition."
Proceedings of NARMS-Tac 1 (2002): 267-273.
Hoek, E., and C. D. Martin. "Fracture initiation and propagation in intact rock–a review." Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 6.4 (2014): 287-300.