Module 5: Failure Criteria of Rock and Rock masses

LECTURE 18
5.4.6 Hyperbolic model

The behavior of the jointed rocks can be modeled with equal accuracy by assuming that the
bulk modulus of rock mass varies with confining pressure and is independent of strength
mobilized. The two important parameters that represent the non-linear and stress dependent
behavior of jointed rock mass are 1) Tangent values of Young’s modulus (E t ) which vary
with confining pressure and percentage of strength mobilized. 2) Values of bulk modulus (B)
which vary with confining pressure and which are independent of percentage of strength
mobilized. Kondner (1963) and his co-workers have shown that the stress-strain curve for a
number of geomaterials could be approximated reasonably by hyperbolic equations:,

ε
σ1 − σ 3 = (5.29)
1 ε
+
E i (σ1 − σ 3 )ult

where, Ei is the initial tangent modulus, (σ 1 − σ 3 )ult is the asymptotic value of stress

difference which is related closely to strength of the soils. (σ 1 − σ 3 )ult is always greater than
the compressive strength. Increase in confining pressure usually result in a steeper stress-
strain curve and a higher strength and the values of Ei and (σ 1 − σ 3 )ult therefore increases with
increasing pressure. This stress dependency is taken into account by using empirical
equations to represent the variations of Ei and (σ 1 − σ 3 )ult with confining pressure. The

variation of Ei with σ 3 are represented by equations of the following form (Janbu 1963):

n
σ 
E i = KPa  3  (5.30)
 Pa 

where, K= Modulus number (dimensionless number)

n = modulus exponent (dimensionless number)
Pa = atmospheric pressure introduced into the equation to make conversion from one
system of units to another more convenient.

149
 Module 5: Failure Criteria of Rock and Rock masses

The value of ‘K’ and ‘n’ are same for any system of units and units of ‘ Ei ’is same as the unit
of Pascal. The ultimate failure stress is related with the asymptotic value of the failure stress
by this relation:

(σ1 − σ 3 )f
Rf = (5.31)
(σ1 − σ 3 )ult

where, R f = failure ratio, and is always less than one and varies between 0.2 to 0.9 for most
of the cases.

The expression for instantaneous slope of the stress strain curve is the tangent modulus ‘ Et ’
and the same is obtained by differentiating equation (5.29) with respect to ‘ ε ’ and
substituting the equations 5.30, 5.31 and Mohr-Coulomb failure equation, into the equation,
the following expression can be derived:

 R (1 − sin f)(s1 − s 3 )
2 n
 s3 
E t = 1 − f  KPa   (5.32)
 2c cos f + 2s 3 sin f   Pa 

This equation has been used to calculate the approximate value of tangent modulus of intact
rock for any stress condtion ‘ σ 3 ‘ and (σ 1 − σ 3 ) if the values of the parameters K, n, c, φ and
Rf are known. Where, c and φ are the cohesion and angle of internal friction of the intact
rock respectively.

150
 Module 5: Failure Criteria of Rock and Rock masses

250
Rf=0

200
Rf=0.2
Deviatoric stress (MPa)

150 Rf=0.4

Rf=0.6
100 Rf=0.8

Rf=0.9
50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Axial strain (%)

Figure 5.22: Dependency of non-linearity of stress-strain behaviour with failure

ratio (R f )

5.4.7 Bieniawski- Yudhbir criterion

Among the strength criteria evolved, the criterion suggested by Bieniawski (1974) is very
popular

α
σ1 σ 
= 1 + B 3  (5.33)
σ3 σ 
 c 

where, α is slope of plot between (σ 1 /σ c -1) versus (σ 3 /σ c ) on log-log scale and B is a

numerical constant. Based on the study, Bieniawski (1974) gave values for α and B based on
the lithology of rock and they are as follows:

α = 0.75 for all rock types

B = 3.0 for siltstone and mudstone
= 4.0 for quartzite, and
= 5.0 for norite.

151
 Module 5: Failure Criteria of Rock and Rock masses

Yudhbir et al.(1983) gave a general form to Bieniawski’s expressions, which is as follows:

α
σ1 σ 
= A + B 3  (5.34)
σ3  σc 

where, α is slope of plot between (σ 1 /σ 3 – A) versus (σ 3 /σ c ) on log-log scale and B is a

material constant. A is a dimensionless parameter depending upon rock quality and for intact
rocks the value of A is 1. The value of B based on some limited data is as follows:
B = 2 for tuff, shale and limestone
= 3 for siltstone and mudstone
= 4 for sandstone and quartzite
= 5 for norite and granite

The applicability of this criterion for jointed rocks is questionable, because two out of three
constants are not dependent on the degree of jointing and the relationship does not give much
insight in to the strength of rock mass and failure mechanism associated with it.

5.4.8 Ramamurthy’s Criterion

Ramamurthy (1993) and Ramamurthy and Arora (1994) presented the non-linear shear
strength response of intact rocks in the form of modified Mohr-Coulomb theory.

αi
σ1 − σ 3 σ 
= B i  c  (5.35)
σ3 σ3 

where, α i is the slope of the plot between (σ 1 -σ 3 )/σ 3 and σ c /σ 3 and for most intact rocks it is
found to be between 0.75 and 0.85.and an average value of 0.8 was suggested for all rock
types. B i is a material constant and the values are as follows.
1.8 for siltstone, clay , tuff and loess
2.2 for shale slate mudstone claystone and sandstone.
2.4 for limestone anhydrite and rocksalt.
2.6 for quartzite , andesite , diorite , norite , liprite and basalt.
2.8 for marble and dolomite
3.0 for granite and charnockite.

152
 Module 5: Failure Criteria of Rock and Rock masses

The above values are estimated by conducting a minimum of two-triaxial tests at confining
stress greater than 5% of σ c for the rock. For jointed rock mass the criterion can be written as

α
σ1 − σ 3 σ 
= B cm  (5.36)
σ3  σ3 

where, B is the material constant for rock mass and σ cm is the uni-axial compressive strength
of rock mass. The expressions for σ cm , B and α in terms of joint factor J f are given by

σ cm = σ c exp(− 0.008 J f ) (5.37)

Bi
B= (5.38)
 0.5 
σ 
0.13 exp 2.037 cm  
  σc  

0.5
σ 
α = α i  cm  (5.39)
 σc 
Joint factor model

As highlighted in the previous chapter, the rock mass properties can be represented by a set
of empirical relations, which express the elastic modulus of the jointed rock mass as a
function of a joint factor and the elastic modulus of the intact rock. The important factors
which have maximum influence on the strength and modulus values of rock masses are:

i) Joint frequency i.e. the number of joints per meter, ii) Joint orientation ‘β’ with respect to
major principal stress direction and iii) the joint strength parameter depending on the joint
condition.

Considering these parameters, the Joint factor (Ramamurthy, 1993, Ramamurthy and Arora,
1994) given by the following equation.
Jn
Jf = (5.40)
n. r
The values of ‘n’ for various orientation angles and the joint strength parameter ‘r’ for
unfilled joints various uniaxial compressive strengths of intact rock are given in table 4.1 and
4.2.

153
 Module 5: Failure Criteria of Rock and Rock masses

Based on experimental investigation as discussed in Chapter 3, exponential correlations were

developed to find out the uniaxial compressive strength and elastic modulus of rock mass as a
function of joint factor and the uniaxial compressive strength/ elastic modulus of intact rock
respectively. The expressions presented by our work are inline with earlier given correlations
by Ramamurthy (1993) and Ramamurthy and Arora (1994) based on the numerous uniaxial
and triaxial test data on jointed rocks, covering soft rocks like plaster of Paris to very hard
rock like granite. These correlations are more generalized and were implemented in
numerical modelling for practical reasons, and are presented here.

Table 5.2 Joint inclination parameter ‘n’ for different β

Orientation of joint β in degrees Joint inclination parameter ‘n’

0 0.82
10 0.46
20 0.11
30 0.05
40 0.07
50 0.31
60 0.46
70 0.63
80 0.82
90 1.00

Table 5.3 Values of ‘r’ for different values of σ ci

Uniaxial compression strength of

Joint strength parameter ‘r’
intact rock, σ ci (MPa)
2.5 0.30
5.0 0.45
15.0 0.60
25.0 0.70
45.0 0.80
65.0 0.90
100.0 1.00

154
 Module 5: Failure Criteria of Rock and Rock masses

The ratio of the elastic modulus E r for the rock mass, which is the ratio of elastic modulus of
the jointed rock (E j ) to the elastic modulus of the intact rock (E i ), at zero confining pressure,
can be calculated using the following equation:

E j (σ 3 = 0)
Er = = exp (- 1.15 × 10 -2 J f )
E i (σ 3 = 0) (5.42)

The elastic modulus of the jointed rock at zero confining pressure E j (σ 3 =0) is then obtained
by multiplying E r with the elastic modulus of the intact rock (E i ).

The compressive strength ratio σ cr , which is the ratio of uniaxial compressive strength of the
jointed rock (σ cj ) to the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock (σ ci ), is taken as:

σ cj
σ cr = = exp(− 0.008 J f )
σ ci (5.43)

The confining pressure (σ 3 ) for the field problem, which is equal to the minor principal
stress, is calculated from the in-situ stresses measured around the excavation. The rock mass
modulus in the unconfined state is related to the modulus in the confined state by the
following expression:

E j (σ 3 = 0 )
E j (σ 3 ) =
  σ 
1 − exp − 0.1 cj 
  σ 3  (5.44)

155
 Module 5: Failure Criteria of Rock and Rock masses

5.4.9 Plasticity Models

Various plasticity models with relevant yield criteria swhave been incorporated in the
program. The details of these criteria can be found in Desai and Siriwardane (1984), Desai
(1994), Desai, et al. (1986), Desai (1995, 2001). Here, the expressions for the yield criteria
are presented with description of parameters. Compressive stresses are assumed positive,
von Mises yield criterion

where J2D is the second invariant of deviatoric stress tensor, Sij, and σy is the yield stress in
simple tension or compression.
Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion

where J1 is the first invariant of the stress tensor, σij, φ is the angle of internal friction, c is
cohesion, and θ is Lode angle given by

in which J3D is the third invariant of deviatoric stress tensor, Sij.

Drucker-Prager yield criterion

where α* and k are material constants, e.g., for plane strain conditions

156