International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 210222

A HoekBrown criterion with intrinsic material strength factorization

Thomas Benz
a,
, Radu Schwab
b
, Regina A. Kauther
b
, Pieter A. Vermeer
a
a
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Universita t Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 35, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
b
Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Institute, Kussmaulstr. 17, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany
Received 24 October 2006; received in revised form 24 March 2007; accepted 6 May 2007
Available online 21 June 2007
Abstract
Probably the most common failure criterion for rock masses is the HoekBrown (HB) failure criterion. The HB criterion is an
empirical relation that extrapolates the strength of intact rock to that of rock masses. For design purposes, the HB criterion is often tted
using equivalent Coulomb failure lines. However, equivalent MohrCoulomb (MC) shear strength parameters cannot yield the same
failure characteristics as the HB criterion. The curvilinear HB criterion automatically accommodates changing stress elds; the MC
criterion does not. The extended HB criterion proposed in this paper provides a solution to this problem by incorporating an intrinsic
material strength factorization scheme. The original HB criterion is additionally enhanced by adopting the spatial mobilized plane (SMP)
concept, rst introduced by Matsuoka and Nakai (MN). The SMP concept accounts for the experimentally proven, inuence of
intermediate principal stresses on failure, which is disregarded in the original HB criterion. A small set of examples provided at the end of
the article gives a good indication of the merits of using the extended HB criterion in practical applications.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: HoekBrown; MatsuokaNakai; Material strength factorization; Slope failure
1. Introduction
This paper is concerned with the numerical simulation of
rock masses using the empirical HoekBrown (HB) failure
criterion, which has been found very useful in engineering
practice. The HB criterion takes into account the proper-
ties of intact rock and introduces factors to reduce these
properties on the basis of joint characteristics within the
rock mass. Originally derived from studies on the behavior
of jointed rock masses [1], the original criterion was
subsequently changed in order to extend its use to the
behavior of weak rock masses. In the following, the
generalized HB criterion (2002-Edition) presented in Hoek
et al. [2] is adopted. Hoek et al. derived equivalent
parameters for the MohrCoulomb (MC) failure criterion
using a best-t procedure within a given stress domain.
Although often used in practice, these parameters cannot
reect the non-linear features of the failure criterion they
have been derived for. Examples in the literature prove that
the ultimate load in a boundary value problem employing
the HB criterion might signicantly differ from that found
in an equivalent MC analysis e.g. [3]. The incorporation of
a material strength reduction scheme in the HB criterion
directly is therefore of high value, particulary for its design
oriented use.
The brief description of the HB criterion and its basic
numerical implementation in the rst part of this paper are
followed by two sections which detail the new features
added to the constitutive model: First the original HB
criterion is extended by the Spatial Mobilized Plane (SMP)
concept proposed by Matsuoka and Nakai (MN) [4,5]. It is
shown here that the resulting criterion accounts reasonably
well for the intermediate principal stresss inuence on
failure. Second, an internal material strength reduction
scheme is introduced. Without the need to extract
equivalent MC parameters, the HB criterion with internal
strength reduction can be used in ultimate load design
directly.
Although rock masses typically show both inherent
anisotropy and stress induced anisotropy caused by the
evolution of crack systems in an inhomogeneous stress
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms
1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.05.003

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Thomas.Benz@igs.uni-stuttgart.de (T. Benz).
eld; the HB criterion was initially introduced to predict
failure in quasi-isotropic rock masses. The constitutive
model proposed here is likewise isotropic. In the following,
the sign convention of soil mechanics is used: Compressive
stress and strain is taken as positive. Tensile stress and
strain is taken as negative. All stresses are taken to be
effective values.
2. The constitutive model and implementationbasic form
2.1. Governing equations of the Generalized HB criterion
At failure, the Generalized HB criterion relates the
maximum effective stress s
1
to the minimum effective stress
s
3
through the equation:
s
1
s
3
s
ci
m
b
s
3
s
ci
s

a
, (1)
where m
b
extrapolates the intact rock constant m
i
to the
rock mass:
m
b
m
i
exp
GSI 100
28 14D

, (2)
s
ci
is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock,
and s and a are constants which depend upon the rock
masss characteristics:
s exp
GSI 100
9 3D

, 3
a
1
2

1
6
exp
GSI
15

exp
20
3

. 4
The Geological Strength Index (GSI), introduced by Hoek
[6] provides a system for estimating the reduction in rock
mass strength under different geological conditions. The
GSI takes into account the geometrical shape of intact rock
fragments as well as the condition of joint faces. Finally, D
is a factor that quanties the disturbance of rock masses. It
varies from 0 (undisturbed) to 1 (disturbed) depending on
the amount of stress relief, weathering and blast damage as
a result of nearby excavations. For the signicance of the
parameters and their values see [7].
The HB criterion can be more conveniently written as
f
HB
s
1
s
3

~
f s
3
with
~
f s
ci
m
b
s
3
s
ci
s

a
. (5)
2.2. Basic implementation
The HB failure surfaces in 3D principal stress space can
be written piecewise as
f
HB;13
s
1
s
3

~
f s
3
. (6)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 1. HoekBrown failure criterion in principal stress space (left) and in the deviatoric plane (right). (a) Basic HoekBrown criterion (HB). (b) Extended
HoekBrown criterion (HBMN).
T. Benz et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 210222 211
The resulting geometric representation is showm in Fig. 1.
Trial stresses outside the yield surface are returned to it
with a non-associated ow rule. The plastic potential
function is dened after [8] as
g
HB;13
S
1

1 sin c
mob
1 sin c
mob

S
3
, (7)
where S
i
are the so-called transformed stresses
S
i

s
i
m
b
s
ci

s
m
2
b
(8)
and c
mob
is the mobilized angle of dilatancy. With
increasing minor principal stress, the initial angle of
dilatancy c is reduced to 0 in a linear manner:
c
mob

s
c
s
3
s
t

s
c
; cX0, (9)
where s
c
is the minor principal stress at which zero
volumetric plastic ow is reached and s
t
s
ci
s=m
b
is the
maximum allowable tensile stress. The initial angle of
dilatancy c and the threshold stress s
c
are model
parameters. In the basic implementation, the model
behavior is assumed to be linear elasticperfectly plastic.
The elastic stiffness of the model is dened by two elastic
constants: the shear modulus G and Poisons ratio n.
However, a linear elastic law cannot accurately describe the
deformation characteristics of rock masses under low stress
levels. At low stress levels, the inuence of microcracks on
the stressstrain law should also be considered. The pre-
failure deformation characteristics of rock masses due to
reversible closure of microcracks are discussed briey in
Appendix A.
3. The inuence of the intermediate principal stress on
failure
The inuence of the intermediate principal stress on rock
failure has been experimentally investigated by numerous
researchers, e.g. [914]. From that, it is commonly
acknowledged, that such an inuence exists for most rocks.
As a consequence of the experimental ndings, a number of
failure criteria that account for the inuence of all three
principal stresses on failure have been proposed, e.g.
[12,13,15,16]. Yet, the somewhat simpler MC and HB
criteria are still the most often used failure criteria in
engineering practice.
Recently, Al-Ajmi and Zimmermann [17,18] pointed
out the relation between the linear form of the Mogi
criterion, which accounts for the intermediate principal
stress, and the MC criterion. With their MogiCoulomb
relation it is possible to overcome the cumbersome
process of parameter selection in the original Mogi
criterion, and hence, to obtain a criterion which is as
simple to use as the MC criterion and which at the same
time accounts for the intermediate principal stress
inuence on failure. In the following, the HB criterion is
similarly enhanced. However, rather then using Mogis
theory, the SMP concept by MN [4,5] is applied to the HB
criterion. The model simulations presented at the end of
this section reveal that the SMP concept is not only a
reasonable assumption for soils (for which it was originally
proposed) but also for rocks. In contrast to Mogis theory,
the SMP concept guarantees the convexity of the resulting
failure surface and therefore fullls Druckers stability
postulate [19].
3.1. The concept of SMPs by MN
MN [4,5] proposed the concept of a SMP, which denes
the plane of maximum spatial mobilization in principal
stress space. The SMP is geometrically constructed by
deriving the mobilized friction angles for each principal
stress pair separately (Fig. 2, left) and sketching the
respective mobilized planes in principal stress space
(Fig. 2, right). MN derived their failure criterion by
limiting the averaged ratio of spatial normal stress to
averaged spatial shear stress on this plane. The resulting
failure stress ratio can be expressed in stress invariants:
f
MN

I
1
I
2
I
3
a 0 with a
9 sin
2
j
1 sin
2
j
, (10)
where I
1
, I
2
, and I
3
are the rst second and third invariant
of the stress tensor respectively and a is dened such that
ARTICLE IN PRESS

mob23

mob13

mob12

2
Mobilized
Planes
45
+

mob12
2

II

III

I
45
45

mob23
2

mob13
2
+
+
SMP
Fig. 2. The SMP concept after Matsuoka and Nakai. Left: Three mobilized planes where the maximum shear stress to normal stress ratio is reached for
the respective principal stresses. Right: SMP in principal stress space.
T. Benz et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 210222 212
the MN failure criterion is identical to the MC criterion in
triaxial compression and extension.
3.2. A mixed formulation of HB and MN
For a mixed formulation of the HB and the MN criteria,
the HB criterion is rst expressed in triaxial p2q space. The
Roscoe invariants p and q are functions of the rst and
second invariant of the stress tensor respectively. In triaxial
conditions, they simplify to:
p
1
3
s
axial
2s
lateral
,
q s
axial
s
lateral
. 11
In triaxial compression and extension, the mean stress p is
given as
p
c

s
1
2s
3
3
,
p
e

2s
1
s
3
3
, 12
respectively. When substituting Eq. (12) in Eq. (6), the
following slopes are obtained:
M
s
c;HB

q
p
c

3s
1
s
3

s
1
2s
3

3
~
f
~
f 3s
3
, 13
M
s
e;HB

q
p
e

3s
1
s
3

2s
1
s
3

3
~
f
2
~
f 3s
3
, 14
where the superscript s indicates secant values, and the
subscripts c and e indicate triaxial compression and
extension, respectively. Tangents to the HB yield criterion
can be obtained by differentiation
dq
dp

dq
ds
3

dp
ds
3

1
, (15)
which leads to:
M
t
c;HB

3
~
f
0
~
f
0
3
, 16
M
t
e;HB

3
~
f
0
2
~
f
0
3
. 17
The slopes of the MC failure criterion on the other hand
are constant:
M
c;MC

6 sin j
3 sin j
, 18
M
e;MC

6 sin j
3 sin j
, 19
where again, the subscripts c and e indicate triaxial
compression and extension, respectively. A graphical
illustration of the different slopes calculated above is given
in Fig. 3. By equating the slopes derived for the HB
criterion with the MC slopes, the following locally tted
equivalent friction angles can be found:
sin j
s

~
f
~
f 2s
3
s
t

, 20
sin j
t

~
f
0
~
f
0
2
, 21
where the subscripts s and t again distinguish between the
different local tting procedures introduced above. For
both, the secant and the tangent tting approach, the
resulting equivalent friction angle is a function of the minor
principal stress s
3
.
For a given equivalent friction angle sin j, the SMP
concept of MN, can be expressed as function of the Lode
ARTICLE IN PRESS

1
[
k
P
a
]

3
[kPa]

t
300
200
100
50 100 150 200
Triaxial compression
q

=

3

[
k
P
a
]
200
100
1
1
50 100 150 200
p [kPa]
M
t
c,HB
M
s
c,HB
p
t
t
p
t
s
Evaluation point
p = f(
3
)+
3
/3
~
Fig. 3. The HB criterion in a s
1
2s
3
plane (a) and its representation in a triaxial p2q plane (b).
T. Benz et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 210222 213
angle y as follows [20]:
Ly

3
p
d
2

d
2
d 1

1
cos W
with
W
1
6
arc cos 1
27d
2
1 d
2
2d
2
d 1
sin
2
3y

for yp0;
W
p
3

1
6
arc cos 1
27d
2
1 d
2
2d
2
d 1
sin
2
3y

for y40;

and d
3 sin j
3 sin j
, 22
where the Lode angle y is dened as
y
1
3
arc sin
3

3
p
J
3
2J
3=2
2

(23)
and J
2
and J
3
are the second and third invariant of the
deviatoric stress tensor, respectively.
By way of Eq. (22), the deviatoric shape of the MN
criterion can now be assigned to the HB criterion by
writing
f
HB;MN
q LM
c;HB
p p

, (24)
where
p

p
s
t

s
ci
s
m
b
for M
c;HB
:M
s
c;HB
p
t
t

~
f
M
c;HB

~
f
3
s
3
for M
c;HB
:M
t
c;HB

(25)
and L is varying between 1 and
M
e;MC
M
c;MC
for triaxial
compression and extension respectively. For a graphical
interpretation of the mean stresses p
s
t
and p
t
t
see Fig. 3.
In Eq. (24) the inuence of the intermediate stress in the
new failure criterion can either be dened as equal to that
in a MN criterion with identical apex (M
c;HB
M
s
c;HB
), or
equal to that in a MN criterion that ts tangentially to the
HB criterion (M
c;HB
M
t
c;HB
) in triaxial compression and
extension. The tangential approach guarantees identical
instantaneous friction angles of both criteria being
combined. The secant approach does not. Therefore, the
tangential approach is employed in the remainder of this
paper. The tangential approach is from here on referred to
as the HBMN criterion.
In the numerical scheme, the previously applied potential
function (Eq. (7)) is not used in combination with the
HBMN model as it would introduce corner problems.
A DruckerPrager potential is employed instead:
g
HB;MN
q p
6 sin c
mob
3 sin c
mob

, (26)
where again, p and q represent the Roscoe invariants and
c
mob
is the mobilized angle of dilatancy as dened
previously in Eq. (9). The plastic potentials sole function
is to give the plastic strain increments after brittle failure. It
should be noted that the above choice of a radial deviatoric
ow direction is primarily a model assumption for
simplicity. The radial deviatoric ow may be replaced by
another ow direction if experimental evidence suggests to
do so.
3.3. Evaluation of the HBMN criterion
A comparison of true triaxial test data with failure
predictions of the HB and the HBMN criterion are given in
Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. All experimental data for brittle
rock failure used in this comparison are taken from [21].
In their own study, Colmenares and Zoback applied a
grid search for material parameters that minimize the
mean standard deviation mist of the criteria investigated.
Their ndings for the best t material parameters of the
HB criterion are summarized in Table 1. Fig. 4 illustrates
the resulting t of the HB criterion to the available
test data.
As a consequence of the applied best t procedure, the
unconned compressive strength is overestimated by
the HB criterion. This can for example be clearly obser-
ved in the KTB Amphibolite test. In this test, the
unconned compressive strength is explicitly tested to
158ps
ci
p176 MPa. The best t for the original HB
criterion yields an unconned compressive strength of
s
ci
250 MPa. The HBMN criterion however, gives
very reasonable results when using the actual tested
unconned compressive strength of s
ci
175 MPa as
input to the model. Similar observations can be made
for the four remaining rock types considered (Fig. 5).
Therefore, only the unconned compressive strength
input to the HBMN model is addressed in a rst
model evaluation step. All other material parameters
are taken to be equal to the best t parameters given in
Table 1.
Table 2 summarizes mean standard deviation mists of
the two failure criteria to the available test data. In
conclusion, the HBMN criterion performs better than the
HB criterion in all tests. The HBMN criterions minimum
mist can be further reduced when the input parameter m
i
is addressed, too: the minimum mists shown in Table 2
were obtained in a model parameter optimization process,
similar to the one described in [21].
4. Ultimate limit state design with the HB criterion
For slopes, the factor of safety is traditionally dened as
the ratio of the actual shear strength to the minimum shear
strength required to prevent failure [22]. As the HB
criterion makes no use of Coulomb shear strength
parameters, its application in ultimate limit state design is
not straight forward. Almost all approaches to apply the
HB criterion in ultimate limit state design found in
literature rely on tting procedures. Sometimes the HB
criterion is locally tted using a MC criterion (e.g. [23]). In
reducing the locally tted MC criteria, a reduced HB
criterion can be computed. Hammah et al. [24] propose a
procedure to t such a point-wise reduced HB criterion
using the generalized HB equation in combination
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Benz et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 210222 214
with a new set of HB parameters. Most often however, a
best MC t of the HB criterion within a specied stress
domain is strived for (e.g. [2,25]). Then the problem is
reduced to the determination of two equivalent MC
parameters.
An ingenious solution to the problem of nding
equivalent strength parameters is proposed by Hoek et al.
[2]. They calculate equivalent shear strength parameters
within the stress domain s
t
psigma
3
ps
3 max
by balancing
the areas above and below the straight MC failure line
enclosed by the curved HB criterion:
sin j
6am
b
s m
b
s
3n

a1
21 a2 a 6am
b
s m
b
s
3n

a1
, 27
c
s
ci
1 2as 1 am
b
s
3n
s m
b
s
3n

a1
1 a2 a

1 6am
b
s m
b
s
3n

a1
=1 a2 a
,
28
where s
3n

s
3 max
s
ci
.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Dunham Dolomite
1200 750
625
500
375
250
125
0
0 125 250 375 500 625 750
1000
800
1200 1000 800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
0
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 100
1500
1500
1250
1250
1000
1000
750
750
500
500
250
250
0
0
50 150 200 250 300

1

[
M
P
a
]

1

[
M
P
a
]

2
[MPa]
2
[MPa]

2
[MPa]
0

2
[MPa]
50 100 150 200 250 300

2
[MPa]

1

[
M
P
a
]

1

[
M
P
a
]

1

[
M
P
a
]

3
= 145

3
= 80

3
= 60

3
= 40

3
= 20

3
= 50

3
= 25

3
= 40

3
= 30

3
= 20

3
= 15

3
= 18

3
= 5

3
in [MPa]

3
in [MPa]

3
in [MPa]

3
= 150

3
= 100

3
= 60

3
= 30

3
= 0

3
= 0

3
= 30

3
= 60

3
= 100

3
= 150

3
in [MPa]

3
in [MPa]

3
= 25

3
= 45

3
= 65

3
= 85

3
= 105

3
= 125

3
= 145

3
= 20

3
= 40

3
= 60

3
= 80

3
= 25

3
= 50

3
= 8

3
= 15

3
= 20

3
= 30

3
= 40

3
= 5

3
= 105

3
= 125

3
= 85

3
= 65

3
= 45

3
= 25
Shirahama Sandstone Yuubari Shale
Solenhofen Limestone
KTB Amphibolite
Fig. 4. Best-tting solution after [21] when employing the HB criterion. Continuous lines give calculated results for the specied minor principal stress s
3
.
T. Benz et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 210222 215
Equivalent shear strength parameters, as for example
those by Hoek et al. can subsequently be used in
conventional limit-equilibrium analysis and in numerical
analysis employing the MC failure criterion. However,
it is clear that they generally will only approximate the
ultimate strength of the HB criterion, which they have been
derived for. Even for tangentially tted parameters it has to
be considered that the minor principal stress s
3
in
gravitational stress elds is not a constant. A real
equivalence of HB and MC parameters can only be given
when dening them as a function of the minor principal
stress. In conventional limit-equilibrium analysis (Bishop,
Janbu, Spencer,...) this poses a problem, but not in
automated numerical material strength reduction schemes
(e.g. j2c reduction). Dawson et al. [23] for example
explicitly calculate tangentially tted MC parameters for
each single nite element in their numerical calculation.
However, the load steps applied in calculations with such
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Dunham Dolomite
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

1

[
M
P
a
]

1

[
M
P
a
]

2
[MPa]

1

[
M
P
a
]

2
[MPa]

2
[MPa]

1

[
M
P
a
]

1

[
M
P
a
]

2
[MPa]

3
= 85

3
= 145

3
= 65

3
= 45

3
= 25

3
= 25

3
= 80

3
= 60

3
= 40

3
= 20

3
= 20

3
= 40

3
= 60

3
= 80

3
in [MPa]
3 in [MPa]

3
in [MPa]

3
in [MPa]

3
in [MPa]

2
[MPa]

3
= 45

3
= 85
3 = 40
3 = 5

3
= 50

3
= 25

3
= 25

3
= 50
3 = 8
3 = 15
3 = 20
3 = 30
3 = 40

3
= 150

3
= 100

3
= 60

3
= 30

3
= 0

3
= 0

3
= 30

3
= 60

3
= 100

3
= 150
3 = 30
3 = 20
3 = 15
3 = 8
3 = 5

3
= 125

3
= 145

3
= 105

3
= 65
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
750
625
500
375
250
125
0
0 125 250 375 500 625 750
Solenhonfen Limestone
Shirahama Sandstone
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Yuubari shale
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
KTB Amphibolite
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
Fig. 5. Results from the HBMN criterion. Continuous lines give calculated results for the specied minor principal stress s
3
.
T. Benz et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 210222 216
piecewise linear yield functions have to be small in order to
be accurate.
A more robust and reliable method to incorporate shear
strength reduction into the HB criterion is to include a
material strength reduction factor Z in its yield function:
f
HB
s
1
s
3

~
f
d
s
3
with
~
f
d

~
f
Z

s
ci
Z
m
b
s
3
s
ci
s

a
.
(29)
As yet, the magnitude of Z is hard to appraise as it is not
related to those factors commonly used in shear strength
reduction schemes. Therefore, in the following Z is related
to the shear strength reduction factors proposed in
Eurocode 7. These are:
tan j
d
tan j
c
=g
j
, 30
c
d
c
c
=g
c
, 31
where the subscript c and d indicate characteristic and
design values respectively. The strength reduction factors
for the friction angle and for cohesion are generally
assumed to be equal: g
j
g
c
g. Hence, for a quantitative
interpretation of Z, its relation to g is to be derived. It
should be noted that with the condition g
j
g
c
g, the
approach of Eurocode 7 is compatible with the idea by
Bishop, and hence g can be directly considered to be a
factor of safety in the traditional sense.
4.1. Material strength reduction in the HB criterion
In the previous section, the instantaneous friction angle
sin j
t
was introduced (Eq. (21)) by locally tting a
tangential MC criterion. This friction angle is now applied
to relate the strength reduction factor Z to g: In a p2q
representation, only the slope of a MC failure line
decreases with increasing g; its apex remains constant at
p

c cot j. Reducing the q over p ratio of a HB criterion

equally to that of a tangentially tted MC criterion yields
in triaxial compression:
M
c;HB
M
c;MC

M
c;HB

d
M
c;MC

d
(32)
and hence,
3
~
f
0
3 sin j

3Z
~
f
0
3g
sin
sin j
, (33)
where
g
sin
g

1 sin
2
j
1
g
2
1

(34)
expresses the material strength reduction factor g when
applied to sin j instead of tan j.
When substituting Eqs. (21) and (34) in (33), nally an
expression for the strength reduction factor Z can be
derived. Note that Z could likewise be evaluated in triaxial
extension with the same result:
Z
1
2
g2
~
f
0

1
1
g
2
1

~
f
02
2
~
f
0

~
f
0

. (35)
4.2. Evaluation of the material strength reduction scheme
Fig. 6 illustrates HB yield curves in triaxial p2q space
which vary due to different shear strength reduction
factors. The material parameters used in the example are
taken from a slope problem discussed in Hammah et al.
[25], which will be looked at in more detail in the next
section. As a reference, Fig. 6 also shows MC yield curves,
that are derived according to Eq. (27) for s
3 max
189 kPa.
The equivalent strength parameters are: j 20:89

and
c 20 kPa. The factorized shear strength parameters
applied to the MC criterion were calculated according to
Eq. (30).
From Fig. 6 it can be concluded that both, the unreduced
MC criterion, as well as the reduced MC criterion t the
respective HB criteria reasonably well within the desired
stress domain. However, in the apex region of the HB
criterion they do not. Here, cohesion is overestimated and
the angle of friction is underestimated. The crucial issue in
using a global MC tting procedure is clearly to specify a
suitable stress domain s
3 max
in which it can be applied. If
the s
3 max
value is chosen too big, the criteria will
increasingly deviate in the apex region. If it chosen value
is too small, the criteria will considerably deviate for higher
stresses. For example if s
3 max
47:5 kPa, is chosen instead
of s
3 max
189 kPa as shown in Fig. 6, the result will be as
shown in Fig. 7. Displayed as dashed lines in Fig. 6 are
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Material parameters
Rock type s
ci
(MPa) m
i
() GSI () D ()
Dunham Dolomite 290 (400) 8.0 100 0
Solenhofen Limestone 310 (370) 4.6 100 0
Shirahama Sandstone 45 (65) 18.2 100 0
Yuubari Shale 78 (100) 6.5 100 0
KTB Amphibolite 175 (250) 30.0 100 0
Values in brackets are used in the basic HB criterion only.
Table 2
Mean standard deviation mist to test data in MPa
Rock type HB HBMN
a
HBMN
b
Dunham Dolomite 56 24 21
Solenhofen Limestone 38 22 21
Shirahama Sandstone 9 8 7
Yuubari Shale 13 9 9
KTB Amphibolite 89 72 64
a
s
ci
, m
i
acc. Table 1.
b
s
ci
, m
i
optimized.
T. Benz et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 210222 217
factorized HB criteria that result from neglecting Eq. (35),
that is setting Z g. Obviously, the latter method should be
avoided if g is dened as a shear strength reduction factor.
Then, only the transformation between Z and g dened in
Eq. (35) yields consistent results.
Appreciating the fact that global MC tting procedures
will introduce errors, it is best to avoid them completely.
The intrinsic material strength factorization proposed here
gives the possibility to do so. A quantitative discussion of
the errors introduced by the global MC tting procedure is
given in the following section.
5. Slope failure examples
The merits of the proposed extensions to the HB failure
criterion can best be illustrated in slope failure examples.
Results from the HB and the HBMN criteria with intrinsic
material strength reduction are compared to results from
analyses that employ equivalent MC criteria. The examples
chosen are simple, excluding soil layering, ground water ow,
etc. First, a relatively at slope (35:5

) in a homogeneous
weathered rock layer is investigated. Second, a steeper slope
of 75:0

in likewise homogeneous rock is discussed.

The rst example including rock data is taken from
Hammah et al. [25]. The geometry of the slope and the
meshing used in the FE calculation is shown in Fig. 8.
Material data are given in Table 3. The equivalent MC
parameters are calculated from Eq. (27). The stress domain
for tting is set to s
3 max
237 kPa following the recom-
mendation by Hoek et al. [2].
All plane strain analyses were performed with the FE
code Plaxis V8 using six noded triangular elements. The
applied load stepping scheme relies on an arc-length
method. Specically, slope stability was determined for the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Triaxial compression Triaxial compression Triaxial compression
200 200 200
100
100
50 100 150 200
100
100
50 100 150 200
100
100
50 100 150 200

3

[
k
P
a
]
= 1
= 1 = 1
= 5
= 2
= 1.4
P [kPa] P [kPa] P [kPa]
Triaxial extension Triaxial extension Triaxial extension
Fig. 6. Shear strength reduction of the HB criterion for three different factors of safety s
3 max
189 kPa.
Triaxial compression Triaxial compression Triaxial compression
200
100
100 150 200
200
100
50 100 150 200
200
100
50 100 150 200 50
100 100 100

3

[
k
p
a
]
Triaxial extension Triaxial extension Triaxial extension
P [kPa] P [kPa] P [kPa]
=1
=1.4
=1
=2
= 1
= 5
Fig. 7. Shear strength reduction of the HB criterion for three different factors of safety s
3 max
47:5 kPa.
T. Benz et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 210222 218
HB, the mixed HBMN, and the MC failure criteria. For the
latter the commercially available phi-c reduction procedure
within Plaxis V8 was applied. The factors of safety for
the HB and the mixed HBMN were derived by varying the
material strength reduction factor g in steps of 0.01 and
subsequently applying gravity load to the slope. The highest
factor that leads to a convergent solution is considered the
ultimate strength reduction factor, or the factor of safety.
The equivalent MC parameters were additionally applied in
a Bishop slope stability calculation. The Bishop analysis
reproduced the results of the j-c reduction scheme reason-
ably well. Differences to results from the j-c reduction
scheme were found to be well below 2%.
Results of the FE slope analysis are shown in Fig. 9. The
geometrical shapes of localized shear strains are almost
identical in all analyses. At the same time they are also in
reasonably good agreement with the circular failure surface
assumed in the simplied Bishop analysis. The material
strength reduction factors at which failure occurs are
however not in close agreement (Table 4). A detailed
discussion of the results follows after the next example,
which is a steeper slope of 75:0

. Calculation procedures
are the same as outlined above. The geometry is given in
Fig. 10, material parameters are shown in Table 3. Both,
geometry and material parameters are selected in close
agreement to an example presented in Wyllie and Mah [26].
The results from the steeper slope calculation are illustrated
in Fig. 11 and quantied in Table 4.
5.1. Discussion of results
In both slope examples, the factorized HB calculation
gives least slope stability. When including the inuence of
the intermediate principal stress on failure (HBMN), the
factor of safety increases. In one example, the analysis with
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
Fig. 8. 35:5

slope geometry and mesh.

Table 3
Material parameters used in the slope failure analyses
Parameter Weight MN=m
3
s
ci
(MPa) m
i
() GSI () D () j (1) c (kPa)
35:5

slope 0.025 30 2.0 5 0.0 21 20

75:0

slope 0.026 40 10.0 45 0.9 38 180

Fig. 9. 35:5

slope at failure. (a) Bishop slip circle. Incremental displacements: (b) MC, (c) HB, (d) HBMN. Shear strain: (e) HB, (f) HBMN.
T. Benz et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 210222 219
equivalent MC parameters that were determined by the
procedure outlined in [7] gives higher slope stabilities than
the HB analysis. Especially, in the steep slope example, the
differences are signicant.
The geometrical shapes of localized shear strains are
almost identical in the different analyses of the at slope. In
the analysis of the steep slope, the localized shear strains
in the HB and HBMN differ notably from those observed in
the equivalent MC calculation. As the friction angle in the
latter is generally underestimated in the apex region, it is
reasonable to obtain somewhat steeper bands of localized
shear strains in the factorized HB and HBMN calculations.
Finally, the following conclusions can be drawn from the
examples presented: (a) An equivalent MC calculation can
suggest higher slope stabilities than the HB criterion it is
derived for. Ambiguities in deriving equivalent MC
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 4
Slope failure analyses results
Calculation Bishop MC HB HBMN
35:5

slope 1.37 1.37 1.51 1.72

75:0

slope 1.55 1.54 1.00 1.02

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
30.0
7.0
2.0
2.0
6
0

s
l
o
p
e
7
5

s
l
o
p
e
Excavation
Fig. 10. 75:0

slope geometry and mesh.

Fig. 11. 75:0

slope at failure. Incremental displacements: (a) MC, (b) HB, (c) HBMN. Shear strain: (d) MC, (e) HB, (f) HBMN.
T. Benz et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 210222 220
parameters can be avoided when the HB criterion is
factorized directly. (b) The intermediate principal stresss
inuence on material strength indicates higher slope
stabilities. The use of the mixed HBMN criterion may
therefore result in a more economic but yet save design.
6. Summary
For its use in numerical limit state design, the Generalized
HB criterion (2002-Edition) presented in Hoek et al. [2] has been
extended twofold. First, the inuence of the intermediate
principal stress on failure was considered in a combined
formulation of the HB and the MN failure criteria. Second, an
intrinsic material strength reduction scheme for the HB criterion
was developed. In a small set of slope stability examples, the
merits of the extended HB criterion were illustrated.
The material strength reduction scheme developed is
compatible with design approaches that employ factorized
shear strength (e.g. Eurocode 7). Error prone tting procedures
that relate HB to equivalent MC parameters are no longer
needed. Instead, the HB criterions non-linear failure char-
acteristics can be fully considered in ultimate limit state design.
Particularly for steep slopes, this may lead to notably steeper
failure mechanisms and notably smaller factors of safety.
Appendix A. Pre-failure deformation characteristics of rock
masses
Rock mass properties, e.g. rock mass stiffness and
permeability are highly inuenced by cracks. In the past,
the deformation characteristics of rock masses has been
studied by numerous researchers [27]. Based on the
stressstrain behavior shown in Fig. 12, Bienawski [28]
denes ve stages in the stressstrain behavior of rock
masses: (a) Crack closure gradually occurs until the normal
stress reaches a threshold value s
cc
. During crack closure,
stiffness increases as pre-existing cracks successively close.
Crack closure is particularly important in near-surface
structures; (b) Almost linear elastic behavior is encountered
once the majority of existing cracks are closed; (c) Stable
micro-fracturing is found after the crack initiation stress s
ci
is reached; (d) Crack growth then becomes unstable for
stresses exceeding the threshold value s
cd
; (e) Rock masses
may show either ductile or brittle failure depending on
geology, conning pressure and temperature.
A.1. A simple hypo-elastic law for crack closure
Within the crack closure domain the stiffness of rock
masses is a function of the normal stress acting on partially
opened cracks. With increasing stress and decreasing crack
separation, the stiffness of the entire rock mass increases.
The effect of crack closure on rock mass properties is
extensively studied in Geophysical literature, e.g. [29].
Anisotropy of mechanical rock mass properties induced by
the crack closure process is for example discussed in [30].
The linear elastic law introduced above cannot capture
these effects. A simple non-linear elastic law could be used
instead. However, for the sake of simplicity and compat-
ibility to the isotropic HB model we propose here to use a
non-linear isotropic elastic law. Assuming that either the
mean stress p or the major principal stress s
1
drive the
crack closure process, a hypo-elastic law which incorpo-
rates the effect of crack closure could be formulated as
E E
i
E
m
E
i

s
cc
p
s
cc
pE
m
or A:1
E E
i
E
m
E
i

s
cc
s
1
s
cc
pE
m
, A:2
respectively. Here E
i
denotes the initial Youngs modulus
for p s
1
0, and E
m
is the maximum Youngs modulus
that is reached upon closure of all cracks in the rock mass,
i.e. pXs
cc
or s
1
Xs
cc
.
A.2. Evaluation of the crack closure law
Fig. 13 gives the result of nine unconned compression
tests on weak siltstone samples. All test results could be
ARTICLE IN PRESS

ci

cd

peak

cc
peak strength
crack damage threshold
crack initiation
threshold
crack closure
threshold

1
Fig. 12. Behavior of fractured rock in uniaxial compression (after [27]).
A
x
i
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

1
1

[
k
P
a
]
3000
2000
1000
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
0
Axial strain
11
[%]
Experimental results
Simulation
cc
= 1000 kPa
Simulation
cc
= 400 kPa
Fig. 13. Simulation of nine unconned compression tests with two
different crack closure stresses.
T. Benz et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 210222 221
reasonably well reproduced in the pre-failure domain by
specifying the lower and upper crack closure stress to s
cc

400 kPa and to s
cc
1000 kPa, respectively. All remaining
material parameters were assumed to be constant. To what
extent the two different crack closure stresses found in the
back-analysis are related to the anisotropic rock-mass
features observed in eld tests on the same site, is to be
determined in future work.
References
[1] Hoek E, Brown ET. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses.
J Geotech Eng Div, ASCE 1980;106(GT9):101335.
[2] Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B. Hoek-Brown failure
criterion2002 edition. In: Proceedings of the 5th North American
symposiumNARMS-TAC, Toronto, 2002.
[3] Merield RS, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Limit analysis solutions for the
bearing capacity of rock masses using the generalised HoekBrown
yield criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2006;43:92037.
[4] Matsuoka H. Stressstrain relationships of sands based on the
mobilized plane. Soils and Foundations 1974;14(2):4761.
[5] Matsuoka H, Nakai T. A new failure criterion for soils in three
dimensional stresses. In: IUTAM conference on deformation and
failure of granular materials, Delft, 1982. p. 253263.
[6] Hoek E. Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News 1994;2(2):
416.
[7] Hoek E. Practical rock engineeringan ongoing set of notes. Available
on the Rocscience website; hhttp://www.rocscience.comi; 2004.
[8] Carranza-Torres C, Fairhurst C. The elasto-plastic response of
underground excavations in rock masses that satisfy the Hoek
Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:777809.
[9] Chang C, Haimson BC. True triaxial strength and deformability of
the German Continental deep drilling program (KTB) deep hole
amphibolite. J Geophys Res 2000;105:189999013.
[10] Dehler W, Labuz JF. Stress path testing of an anisotropic sandstone.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;133(1):1169.
[11] Haimson BC, Chang C. A new true triaxial cell for testing mechanical
properties of rocks, and its use to determine strength and deform-
ability of Westerly granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:28597.
[12] Mogi K. Effect of the intermediate principal stress on rock failure.
J Geophys Res 1967;72(20):511731.
[13] Mogi K. Fracture and ow of rocks under high triaxial compression.
J Geophys Res 1971;76(5):125569.
[14] Smart BGD, Somerville JM, Crawford BR. A rock test cell with true
triaxial capability. Geotech Geol Eng 1999;17:15776.
[15] Ewy R. Wellbore-stability predictions by use of a modied Lade
criterion. SPE Drill Completion 1999;14(2):8591.
[16] Wiebols GA, Cook NGW. An energy criterion for the strength of
rock in polyaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1968;5:
52949.
[17] Al-Ajmi AM, Zimmerman RW. Relation between the Mogi and
the Coulomb failure criteria. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2005;42:
4319.
[18] Al-Ajmi AM, Zimmerman RW. Stability analysis of vertical bore-
holes using the MogiCoulomb failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 2006;43:120011.
[19] Drucker DC. On uniqueness in the theory of plasticity. Q Appl Math
1956;14:3542.
[20] Bardet JP. Lode dependences for isotropic pressure-sensitive elasto-
plastic materials. Trans ASME 1990;57(9):498506.
[21] Colmenares LB, Zoback MD. A statistical evaluation of intact rock
failure criteria constrained by polyaxial test data for ve different
rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:695729.
[22] Bishop AW. The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of
slopes. Ge otechnique 1955;5(1):717.
[23] Dawson E, You K, Park Y. Strength-reduction stability analysis of
rock slopes using the HoekBrown failure criterion. In: Labuz JF,
Glaser SD, Dawson E. editors, Trends in rock mechanics. New York;
ASCE; 2000. p. 695729.
[24] Hammah RE, Yacoub TE, Corkum B. The shear strength reduction
method for the generalized HoekBrown criterion. In: Alaska rocks
2005, Anchorage; 2005.
[25] Hammah RE, Curran JH, Yacoub TE, Corkum B. Stability
analysis of rock slopes using the nite element method. In: Schubert,
editors. Eurock 2004 and Geomechanics Colloquium, Salzburg;
2004.
[26] Wyllie DC, Mah CC. Rock slope engineering. London: Spon Press;
2004.
[27] Eberhardt E, Stead D, Stimpson B, Read RS. Identifying crack
initiation and propagation thresholds in brittle rock. Can Geotech J
1998;35:22233.
[28] Bienawski ZT. Mechanics of brittle rock fracture. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1967;4:395423.
[29] Gibson RL, Toksoz MN. Permeability estimation from velocity
anisotropy in fractured rocks. J Geophys Res 1990;95:1564365.
[30] Schwartz LM, Murphy III WF, Berryman JG. Stress-induced
transverse isotropy in rocks. In: Stanford exploration project,
SEP80, 1994.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Benz et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 210222 222