Validation Report of Hoek-Brown

Model Implemented in Plaxis

Client:
Plaxis
P.O. Box 572
2600 AN Delft
The Netherlands

Ao. Univ.-Prof. Helmut F. Schweiger

M.Sc. Ali Nasekhian

Computational Geotechnics Group

Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology

June 2009 / CGG_IR011_2009

Project-Nr.: CGG_IR011_2009

Validation Report of Hoek-Brown Model

Implemented In Plaxis

Client:
Plaxis
P.O. Box 572
2600 AN Delft
The Netherland

Ao. Univ.-Prof. Helmut F. Schweiger

M.Sc. Ali Nasekhian

Computational Geotechnics Group

Institute for Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology

Graz, am 18.June 2009 Helmut F. Schweiger

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 1
CONTENTS

1 SCOPE OF THE REPORT ………………………………………………………….……. 3

2 VALIDATION SCHEME ……………………………………………………………........... 3

3 HOEK-BROWN MODEL (HB-MODEL) …………………………………………………. 4

4 TRIAXIAL TEST …………………………………………………………………………… . 6

4.1 Stress path and yield surface check ……………………………..………... . 6
4.2 Comparison with lab data……………………………………………….…….. 8
4.3 HB-model in compression and extension mode…....…………………….. 10
4.4 HB-Model and safety factor…………………………………………………… 13

5 EVALUATION HB-MODEL IN BOUNDARY VALUE PROBLEMS……….……..……. 14

5.1 Circular opening under hydrostatic pressure …………………..………… 14

5.2 Slope stability ………………………….……………………………..…….…… 19

6 REFERENCES …………………………………….…………………………..……….….... 23

7 APENDIX A: PLAXIS FILES …………………………………………………………….… 24

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 2
1 SCOPE OF THE REPORT

The objective of this report is to validate the Hoek-Brown model implemented in Plaxis using an
MMTFILE to assign input parameters instead of the normal Plaxis interface. To do this, first a
validation scheme was provided as given in section (2) to evaluate different aspects and features of
the Hoek-Brown model based on reliable references. This scheme incorporates both, element tests
and boundary value problems. In element tests several properties of an elastic perfectly plastic model
such as elastic part, limit strength of material, stress path, drained and undrained conditions have
been assessed. Afterwards, an analytical solution of a circular tunnel under hydrostatical stress has
been compared to the results of the numerical model using the Plaxis HB-model. Accordingly, both the
stress and displacement field of a boundary value problem have been checked.

2 VALIDATION SCHEME

The validation scheme is divided into 3 parts. First, a triaxial test is modelled numerically and
according to HB properties of the intact or jointed rock (mentioned in the references) a compression or
extension test is performed and the results are compared with theoretical Hoek-Brown curves or with
other user-defined HB models such as FLAC, as well as experimental data obtained from lab tests. In
the second and third part of this scheme two boundary value problems including a simple slope and a
circular deep tunnel under hydrostatic pressure have been considered. The validation scheme is
briefly explained in the following.

a. Triaxial Test

The following items have been taken into account:

ƒ Whether HB-model complies with the theoretical (σ1- σ3) curves or not?
ƒ Comparison with lab data Æ
ƒ Hard rock mass
ƒ (Madhavi, 2004) ƒ Fair quality
ƒ Poor quality

ƒ Comparison with other user-defined model implemented in FLAC (using FISH).

(Madhavi, 2004)
ƒ Modelling triaxial compression and extension test to check whether shear strength
reduction scheme works or not (c-φ reduction). (Benz et al., 2008)

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 3
 b. Boundary Value Problem – Simple Slope

Comparison between Bishop, MC and HB with two different slope angles (35.5° and 75°) under
drained and undrained conditions in terms of F.O.S. (Benz et al. 2008)

The following items will be checked:

ƒ Arclength control
ƒ Ignore undrained behaviour
ƒ c-φ reduction

c. Boundary Value Problem – Circular opening under hydrostatic pressure (2D)

ƒ Plastic radius around the opening

ƒ stress and displacement field (ur,σθ,σr)
(Carranza 2004, Carranza et al. 1999 & Sharan 2008)

3 HOEK-BROWN MODEL (HB-MODEL)

The Hoek-Brown model is an elastic perfectly plastic model with non-associated flow rule. Deformation
prior to yielding is assumed to be linear elastic governed by the elastic parameters E and n. The yield
function f for the Hoek-Brown model is given by:

~ ~ σ
f HB = σ 1 − σ 3 − f (σ 3 ) with f = σ ci (mb 3 + s ) a
σ ci

which is derived from the generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion.

Figure 1 Hoek-Brown failure criterion in principal stress space (left) and in the deviatoric plane (right)

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 4
The Hoek-Brown failure criterion was introduced in the early eighties to describe the shear strength of
intact rock as measured in triaxial tests (Hoek & Brown 1980). The failure criterion for intact rock
defines the combination of major and minor principal stresses (σ1 and σ3) at failure to be:

σ3
σ 1 = σ 3 + σ ci 1 + mi
σ ci
(1)

In the equation above, σci is the unconfined compressive strength of the rock and the coefficient mi is a
parameter that depends on the type of rock (normally 5 ≤ mi ≤ 40). Both parameters, σci and mi, can be
determined from regression analysis of triaxial test results). The Hoek-Brown failure criterion was later
extended to define the shear strength of jointed rock masses. This form of the failure criterion, that is
normally referred to as the generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion, is

σ3
σ 1 = σ 3 + σ ci (mi + s) a
σ ci (2)

The coefficients mb, s and a in equation (2) are semi empirical parameters that characterize the rock
mass. In practice, these parameters are computed based on an empirical index called the Geological
Strength Index or GSI. This index lies in range 0 to 100 and can be quantified from charts based on
the quality of the rock structure and the condition of the rock surfaces (Marinos & Hoek 2000). In the
latest update of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion, the relationship between the coefficients mb, s and a
in equation (2) and the GSI is as follows (Hoek, Carranza-Torres, & Corkum 2002)

⎛ GSI − 100 ⎞
mb = mi exp⎜ ⎟
⎝ 28 − 14 D ⎠ (3)

⎛ GSI − 100 ⎞
s = exp⎜ ⎟
⎝ 9 − 3D ⎠ (4)

a= + e
2 6
(
1 1 −GSI / 15
− e − 20 / 3 )
(5)

In equations (3) and (4) D is a factor that depends on the degree of disturbance to which the rock has
been subjected due to blast damage and stress relaxation. This factor varies between 0 and 1.
The model parameters are listed in Table (1).

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 5
Table 1 Parameters for the HB-Model
____________________________________________________________________
Nr. Name Unit Description
____________________________________________________________________
1 Gref [kN/m2] Elastic Shear Modulus
2 ν - Poisson`s Ratio
3 σci [kN/m2] Unconfined Compressive Strength
4 mi - Hoek-Brown Parameter
5 GSI - Geological Strength Index
6 m - Power Law Exponent
7 Pref - Reference Stress
8 D - Disturbance Factor
____________________________________________________________________

4 TRIAXIAL TEST

4.1 Stress path and yield surface check

Modelling a triaxial test numerically is a simple way to check whether the implemented material model
is able to model the strength of a rock sample according to the Hoek-Brown criterion and its input
parameters. To do so, properties of an average quality rock mass were chosen which are given below.

σci=80 MPa
mi=12
GSI=50
Gref=3600000 kN/m2
n=0.25 ; D=0

Figure 2 Triaxial test modelled in Plaxis with prescribed displacement

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 6
 Hoek-Brown Element Test Results

60
Drained-Plaxis Results
Failure Envelope
Undrained-Plaxis results
50

40
q' (MPa)

30

3
20
1

10
Undrained

0
σ3=1.7 MPa
σ3=1.1 MPa

σ3=5.2MPa

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
p' (MPa)

Figure 3 Hoek-Brown failure criterion and HB-model results in (p´-q) space

Comparison between FEM model and Hoek_Brown failure envelope

90
HB Failure Envelope Plaxis Results

80

70
Major principal stress (MPa)

60

50
σ3=17.1

40

30
σ3=10.1
σ3=1.1
σ3=0.050 MPa

20
σ3=5.2

10

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Minor principal stress (MPa)

Figure 4 Hoek-Brown failure criterion and HB-model results in terms of principal stress

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 7
A prescribed displacement method was applied to simulate the vertical loading in the triaxial test.
Incremental multipliers and additional steps of the loading phase are chosen such that in the sample
roughly 10% strain occurs. This procedure was repeated for five different confining stresses to ensure
that in different stress levels correct failure is predicted. The results of the simulation have been
illustrated in Figures (2) to (4). The stress path of the sample under different confining stress in (p’-q)
space is 3 vertical to 1 horizontal while in terms of principal stress it goes up straight to reach to yield
surface.
One run was carried out under undrained condition at σ3=10.1 MPa. As depicted in Figure (3) the
respective stress path moves up vertically and finally touches the failure surface.

4.2 Comparison with lab data

In the next phase, the HB-model is employed to simulate real laboratory triaxial test results to evaluate
the model for a real intact and jointed rock specimen.
Intact Kota sandstone with linear stress-strain response and Gypsum Plaster (block jointed sample
with two sets of joints inclined at 30°/60° with a joint frequency of 20 per metre depth) exhibiting highly
nonlinear stress-strain response were selected and their stress-strain responses at different confining
pressures were calculated from numerical analysis. The lab data were adopted from papers presented
by Madhavi(2004) and Brown(1970). First, according to the lab results of the ultimate strength of
jointed Plaster samples an attempt has been made to fit the best failure envelope over lab results in
principal stress space. Figure (5) shows these fitted curves and the respective Hoek-Brown properties
as well as rock properties presented by Madhavi(2004). HB properties corresponding to the two-point
fitted curve (which is the best fitted-curve for the range 0<σ3<4 MPa) were adopted for further
analyses. The stress-strain curve is depicted in Figure (6) which indicates reasonable agreement with
experimental data.

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 8
 HB Properties of jointed Sample 30°/60° Plaster Gypsum

70
Balanced fitting
Lab Data
60 Madhavi Fitting
Two-Point Fitting
BH_Model σ3=1379 kPa
Major principal stress (MPa)

50
BH_Model σ3=3447 kPa

40
Madhavi Fitting:
σci=21 Mpa
30 GSI=20
mi=0.402
s=0.0001
a=0.544
20
Balanced Fitting: Two-Point Fitting:
σci=20 Mpa σci=20 Mpa
GSI=50 GSI=35
10 mi=15 mi=15
s=0.0039 s=0.0007
a=0.505 a=0.516
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Minor principal stress (MPa)

Figure 5 Hoek-Brown failure envelopes and HB-model results in terms of principal stress for jointed
sample Plaster

HB-Model vs Lab Data

Sample 30°/60° Plaster Gypsum

12000

σ3=3447kPa
10000
Principal Stress Difference kPa |σ1-σ3|

8000

σ3=1379kPa
6000

4000

2000
Lab Data
Lab Data
HB_Model
HB_Model
0
0,0% 0,5% 1,0% 1,5% 2,0% 2,5% 3,0% 3,5% 4,0% 4,5% 5,0%

Axial Strain

Figure 6 Numerical and experimental stress-strain results for jointed sample Plaster

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 9
Hoek-Brown Properties of jointed Plaster sample:
σci=20 MPa
GSI=35; mi=15
s=0.0007; a=0.516

Hoek-Brown Properties of intact Kota sandstone:

σci=70 MPa
GSI=100; mi=22

Besides jointed Plaster sample, an intact rock namely Kota sandstone was selected. This type of rock
sample behaves roughly linearly elastic during the test. As depicted in Figure (7) triaxial test has been
carried out with two different confining stresses σ3=1 & σ3=5 MPa with the elastic modulus equal to
2.34 and 2.81 GPa respectively. Therefore this is just a check on the linear range of the model.

HB-Model vs Lab Data

intact Kota sandstone

120000
Lab Data
Lab Data
HB_Model
HB_Model
100000
σ3=5MPa & E=2.81 GPa
Principal Stress Difference kPa|σ1-σ3|

σ3=1MPa & E=2.34 GPa

80000

60000

40000

20000 HB Properties:
σci=70 Mpa
GSI=100
mi=22
0
0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 1.8% 2.0%

Axial Strain

Figure 7 Numerical and experimental stress-strain results for intact Kota sandstone

4.3 HB-Model in compression and extension mode

In general, stress paths can be classified according to the type of loading and its direction. Two main
types of stress path are axial compression and axial extension. In this section, the performance of the
HB-model is checked for compression and extension paths in a triaxial test. Two different confining

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 10
stresses σ3=71 & σ3=188 kPa have been used. The following properties for the rock element are
considered.

σci=30 MPa
mi=2
GSI=5
Eref= 5000 MPa
n=0.3 ; D=0

The objective of this test is to follow a simple stress path of a rock element from initial state to the yield
surface. In compression test, upon applying hydrostatic pressure to develop the initial stress, a
prescribed displacement is applied until the failure is reached. In the extension test, after producing
the initial stress the vertical pressure is decreased until failure. The developed stresses in the
specimen by this method coincides with yield surface obtained from Hoek-Brown criterion.

The respective stress paths of both compression and extension tests have been illustrated in Figures
8 and 9 in principal stress and (p’-q) space respectively.

The stress path with respect to the extension and compression test are distinguished by acronyms
“TXE” and “TXC”, respectively.

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 11
 Compression and Extension Triaxial Test

500.000
Hoek-Brown Criterion
HB-Model in Plaxis

400.000
Major principal stress kPa

300.000
TXC

200.000
TXE

TXC

E (Mpa)=5000
100.000 ν=0,3
σci(Mpa)=30
TXE
GSI=5
mi=2
D=0
0.000
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Minor principal stress kPa

Figure 8 Compression and Extension stress path in a triaxial test _ in terms of principal stress

Compression and Extension Triaxial Test

300
TXC: Triaxial Compression
Compression Extension HB_Model TXE: Triaxial Extension

250
Yield Surface for
Compression Test

200
q' kPa

Yield Surface for

150 extension Test
TXC

100
TXE
TXC

E (Mpa)=5000
TXE ν=0,3
50
σci(Mpa)=30
GSI=5
mi=2
D=0
0
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
p' kPa

Figure 9 Compression and Extension stress path in a triaxial test _ in (p´-q) space

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 12
4.4 HB-Model and safety factor

The safety factor can be defined as the ratio of available strength to mobilised strength in terms of the
deviatoric stress q. In order to reduce the shear strength of HB material the Hoek-Brown criteria in the
(p´-q) space can be considered by dividing q by the required safety factor.

To investigate the validity of the phi-c reduction scheme for the HB-model the following procedure was
considered.
A triaxial compression test is modelled using HB material properties as in the previous section. The
yield surface of the material along with its reduced one, by factor of 1.31, is depicted in Figure (10). On
the dashed line three points were selected which their respective principal stresses are given in the
following table:

Table 2 Specifications of the selected points_ units in kPa

____________________________________________________________________
Point p’ q σ1 σ3 FOS(Plaxis)
____________________________________________________________________
1 142.8 125.6 227 101 1.31
2 203.4 158.9 309 150 1.30
3 247 180.9 368 187 1.29
____________________________________________________________________

Compression Triaxial Test

300
Compression yield surface
HB_Model
FS=1.31
250 Yield Surface for
Compression Test

200
3
2
q' kPa

150
1

100

E (Mpa)=5000
ν=0,3
50
σci(Mpa)=30
GSI=5
mi=2
D=0
0
-50.000 0.000 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000
p' kPa

Figure 10 Shear strength reduced by factor of safety and stress path of three different stress states

Three different triaxial tests are simulated separately and a phi-c reduction phase is followed after
each test. The safety factors given by Plaxis for each test are presented in Table (2) which indicate

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 13
very reasonable agreement with the assumed safety factor equal to 1.31. Also, Figure (10) shows that
at the end of each test the stress path touches the reduced yield surface (green dashed line).

5 EVALUATING HB-MODEL IN BOUNDARY VALUE PROBLEMS

5.1 Circular opening under hydrostatic pressure

In this section, the HB-model is validated against an analytical solution of a boundary value problem.
Exact closed form solution for the elastio plastic behaviour of rock mass with the generalized form of
the Hoek-Brown failure criterion for a circular opening subjected to a hydrostatic in situ stress has
been presented by Carranza-Torres (2004). In order to simulate the aforementioned boundary value
problem a 4-meter circular deep tunnel under 15 MPa hydrostatic pressure was considered. The
model consists of 850 15-noded triangular elements with a total dimension of 50×25 m and
homogeneous HB material with following material parameters.

Intact rock parameters:

HB constant, mi [-] 10
Uniaxial compression strength, σci [MPa] 30
Geological strength index, GSI [-] 50
Hydrostatic pressure, p0 [MPa] 15
Young's modulus, E [MPa] 5700
Poisson's ratio,ν [-] 0.3

Rock mass parameters:

HB constant mb 1.6767
Parameter s 0.0038
Parameter a 0.5057
Parameter D 0

First, initial stresses are generated in the mass and then the tunnel is excavated in the next stage. The
stress field and the measure of plastic radius developed around the tunnel are investigated assuming
two different support pressures inside the opening, namely 0 and 2.5 MPa.

Plastic points and relative shear stresses for both support pressures (0 and 2.5 MPa) are illustrated in
Figures (11) and (12) respectively. It follows that the extent of the plastic points in both cases are in
reasonable agreement with the analytical plastic radius which are 2.58 m and 3.79 m in the case of
Pi=2.5 and Pi=0 respectively.

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 14
Figure (13) and (14) compare radial and tangential stresses obtained from FE-analysis with the
analytical solution along a horizontal cross section for both support pressures. It can be seen that the
agreement is almost perfect.

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 15
 Rpl=3.79 m

Rpl=3.79 m

a) Relative shear stress b) Plastic points

Figure 11 Plot of plastic points and relative shear stress for support pressure equal to 0

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 16
 50 m
Rpl= 2.58 m

25 m

Figure 12 Plot of plastic points for support pressure equal to 2.5 MPa

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 17
 Elasto-Plastic Stress Distribution (after Carranza-Torres)

25.0

20.0

15.0
Stress [MPa]

10.0

Radial Stress (Exact)

Tangential Stress (Exact)

5.0
Plaxis HB-Model Radial Stress

Plaxis HB-Model Tangential Stress

0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Distance from Tunnel Center [m]

Figure 13 Radial and tangential stresses in numerical model and analytical solution
Pi=0 MPa

Elasto-Plastic Stress Distribution (after Carranza-Torres)

30.0

25.0

20.0
Stress [MPa]

15.0

10.0
Radial Stress (Exact)
Tangential Stress (Exact)
5.0
Plaxis HB-Model Radial Stress
Plaxis HB-Model Tangential Stress
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Distance from Tunnel Center [m]

Figure 14 Radial and tangential stresses in numerical model and analytical solution
Pi=2.5 MPa

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 18
5.2 Slope stability

A simple slope with homogeneous rock mass material has been considered to evaluate correctness of
safety factor obtained from phi-c reduction procedure in Plaxis. To evaluate the HB-model, the safety
factor obtained from the same boundary value problem using a Mohr-coulomb material was adopted
as a comparative reference value. Corresponding MC strength parameters c, φ are derived according
to Hoek et al. (2002) suggestions which is based on general stress level of the problem. To consider a
wide range of stress levels different kind of slopes were selected including different inclinations and
heights.
The physical properties of the FE-models as well as strength material parameters of the MC and HB
model have been tabulated in the following and the safety factors of the corresponding analyses are
presented in table (4).
In Figure(15) safety factor versus number of steps for several analyses have been shown.

Table 3 Physical and mechanical properties of the considered slope models

MC equivalent
HB properties Model properties
Analysis No.

properties
Tension Element Num. of Additional
σci mi GSI D C φ H* α**
cut-off type elements Steps
[MPa] [-] [-] [-] [kPa] [-] [kPa] [m] [°] [-] [-] [-]
1 30 2 5 0.0 - - - 10 35.5 15-node 2573 200
2 - - - - 20 21 0.0 10 35.5 15-node 2573 150
3 40 10 45 0.9 - - - 32 75 6-node 3238 150
4 - - - - 180 38 0.0 32 75 6-node 3238 150
5 40 10 45 0.9 - - - 32 75 15-node 1024 300
6 Same as analysis No. 5 but the width of the model is wider 15-node 922 220
7 - - - - 180 40 Full Tension 32 75 15-node 1024 200
8 40 10 45 0.9 - - - 12 75 15-node 918 300
9 - - - - 180 38 0.0 12 75 15-node 918 200
* Height of slope
** Angle of slope

Table 4 Table of results

Analysis No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Factor HB-model 1.34 - 2.5 - 2.48 2.62 - 5.32 -
of
MC-model - 1.33 - 1.56 - - 1.75 - 5.16
safety

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 19
From this example the following can be concluded:
1) In the case of α=35.5°, H=10 m both HB and MC model give the same safety factor.
2) In the case of α=75°, H=32 m there is a large discrepancy between HB and MC model.
Analyses No. 3 & 4 give safety factor values for the HB and MC model of 2.50 and 1.56
respectively. To describe this significant difference some comparative results in both models
such as plastic points failure mode, yield surface of respective models as well as stress level
of 3 points chosen on the failure line of the slope (E,F,G) have been depicted in Figures (16) &
(17).
Figure (17) implies that in the MC model tension failure mode affects the stability and the
angle of failure line is lower than the corresponding HB model. It should be noted that these
plots are associated with the end of phi-c reduction phase.
3) To ensure that modelling attributes such as element type and number of additional steps don’t
play a significant role in aforementioned difference analyses No. 5 & 6 were carried out with
15-noded element and larger additional steps. It is shown that these setting parameters do not
make a considerable difference.
4) In analysis No.7, MC strength parameters were selected in a way that MC-failure criterion lies
above the HB failure line at any stress range as illustrated in Figure (16). Even with this set of
MC parameters (φ=40°, c=180 kPa) the safety factor (1.75) is much less than the HB one
which is not expected. In addition, Arc-length option was switched off, nevertheless minor
changes were observed.
5) In a couple of analyses (No. 8 & 9) keeping the angle of slope 75° the height of the slope was
reduced to 12m checking that whether the high stress level of the toe has caused this
difference. Similar to the case (α=35.5°, H=10 m) there is no considerable difference between
the MC and HB safety factor which are 5.16 and 5.32 respectively. Figure (18) shows the plot
of plastic points and incremental strain after the phi-c reduction phase. In contrast to analyses
No. 3 & 4, in both HB and MC models shear failure mode causes instability.
6) Figure (15) shows that regarding safety factor there is some fluctuation in analysis No. 5 which
indicates a large number of steps are required to gain a stable safety factor.

In summary, the strength reduction scheme (phi-c reduction procedure) within the HB model were
examined with element tests and two reference boundary value problem and in most cases the results
of the obtained factor of safety are satisfactory. However, for the special case (α=75°, H=32 m) further
investigations are required.

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 20
 Factor of safety vs. calculation steps

6.0
Slope 35.5 °_HB m odel

Slope 35.5 °_MC m odel

5.0 Slope75 °_HB m odel_H=32m

Slope75 °_MC m odel_H=32m

Slope75 °_HB m odel_H=12m

4.0
Slope75 °_MC m odel_H=12m
Msf

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Step

Figure 15 Safety factor versus number of steps

2500
HB-Model

MC-Model, c=180
& ϕ =38
2000
MC-Model, c=180
& ϕ =40

HB-reduced by
S.F.=2.5
1500
MC-reduced by
q (kPa)

S.F.=2.5

MC-reduced by
S.F.=1.57
1000
HB-reduced by
S.F.=1.57

E Point E

500
F Point F

Point G
G
0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

p´(kPa)

Figure 16 Failure line of both MC and HB model in (p´-q) space

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 21
 Contour of incremental strains Plastic Points
Slope 75°_MC model_H=32m Slope 75°_MC model_H=32m

Point G

Point F

Point E

Contour of incremental strains Plastic Points

Slope 75°_HB model Slope 75°_HB model

Figure 17 Plot of plastic points and incremental strain contours, H=32 m

Slope 75°_MC model_H=12m Slope 75°_MC model_H=12m

Slope 75°_HBmodel_H=12m Slope 75°_HBmodel_H=12m

Figure 18 Plot of plastic points and incremental strain contours, H=12 m

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 22
6 REFERENCES

Benz T., Schwab R., Kauther RA., Vermeer PA., 2008. A Hoek–Brown criterion with intrinsic
material strength factorization. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci; 45(2), 210–22.

Brown E.T., Trollope D.H., 1970. Strength of model of jointed rock. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE;
96 (2), 685-704.

Carranza-Torres C., 2004. Elasto-plastic solution of tunnel problem using the generalized form of the
Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci; 41(3), 480–1.

Hoek E., Carranza-Torres C., Corkum B., 2002. Hoek–Brown failure criterion—2002 edition. In:
Proceedings of the North American rock mechanics Symposium, Toronto.

Madhavi Latha G., Sitharam T.G., 2004. Comparison of failure criteria for jointed rock masses, In:
Proceedings of SINOROCK 2004 Symposium, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci; 41( 3).

Sharan S.K., 2008. Analytical solutions for stresses and displacements around a circular opening in a
generalized Hoek-Brown rock, Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sciences, Vol. 45, 78-85.

Carranza-Torres C., Fairhurst C., 1999. The elasto-plastic response of underground excavations in
rock masses that satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci; 36, 777–809.

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 23
7 APPENDIX A: PLAXIS FILES

The Plaxis project files of all mentioned analyses have been enclosed to the present report and the file
names are presented in this appendix corresponding to report sections.

Section 4.1

Project name Description

ElementTest-Triaxial(mmt).PLX Drained analysis

Triaxial(mmt)undrained.PLX Undrained analysis

Section 4.2

Project name Description

TCT(mmt)Plaster-Sigma-1379 jointed Plaster, σ3=1379

TCT(mmt)Plaster-sigma-3447 jointed Plaster, σ3=3447

TCT(mmt)Kota-sigma-1000 Kota Sandstone, σ3=1000

TCT(mmt)Kota-sigma-5000 Kota Sandstone, σ3=5000

Section 4.3

All calculations have been carried out in one Plaxis file namely “TET(mmt)Extension.PLX”

Section 4.4

All calculations have been carried out in one Plaxis file namely “TET(mmt)Extension_FOS.PLX”

Section 5.1

Project name Description

Opening-Pi_0.PLX Circular deep tunnel with no internal support

Opening-Pi_2500.PLX Circular deep tunnel with 2500 kPa internal pressure

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 24
Section 5.2

Project name Description

Slope35.5.PLX Analysis No. 1

Slope35.5-MC.PLX Analysis No. 2

Slope75.PLX Analysis No. 3

Slope75-MC.PLX Analysis No. 4

Slope75(15-noded).PLX Analysis No. 5

Slope75(15-noded)wide.PLX Analysis No. 6

Slope75-MC(15-nod)T23phi40.PLX Analysis No. 7

Sloope75(15n-12h).PLX Analysis No. 8

Slope75-MC(15n-12h).PLX Analysis No. 9

COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP 25