Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full Length Article

Revisiting rock classification to estimate rock mass properties

Robert Bertuzzi
Pells Sullivan Meynink, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the results of ongoing research carried out by the author exploring methods to
Received 28 July 2018 provide a more robust estimate of rock mass properties specifically for use in tunnel design. Data from
Received in revised form various large-scale rock mass failures are introduced, including coal pillars. The damage-initiation,
16 August 2018
spalling-limit approach is compared to the coal pillar database. New comparisons of estimating the
Accepted 31 August 2018
Available online 13 December 2018
geological strength index (GSI) and relationships to estimate the HoekeBrown failure criterion param-
eters, mb, s and a, are presented.
Ó 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Keywords:
Rock mass properties
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
HoekeBrown strength criterion licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Geological strength index (GSI)
Tunnelling

1. Introduction geological strength index (GSI) and the disturbance factor (D)
(Hoek et al., 2002) as follows:
Estimating the strength and deformation characteristics of a 9
rock mass is generally based on empiricism as it is simply not >
>
1 1  >
>
practical to test the rock mass at a large enough scale. The gener- a ¼ þ eGSI=15  e20=3 >>
>
>
alised HoekeBrown criterion (see Eq. (1)) (Hoek, 1994; Hoek and 2 6 =
Brown, 1997) has proved to be a practical method to estimate GSI100 (2)
mb ¼ mi e 2814D >
>
intact rock and rock mass strengths (Eberhardt, 2012). >
>
>
>
>
GSI100
s ¼ e 93D
>
;

a
s03
s01 ¼ s03 þ sc mb þs (1)
sc where mi is a material parameter of the intact rock.
This paper presents the results of ongoing research carried out
where s01 and s03 are the major and minor principal effective by the author exploring methods to provide a more robust estimate
stresses, respectively; sc is the uniaxial compressive strength; and of rock mass properties specifically for use in tunnel design. The
mb, s and a are the parameters of the generalised HoekeBrown research carried out at University of New South Wales (UNSW),
criterion. Australia is the primary source of the material presented in this
Its popularity remains though many have suggested modifica- paper (Bertuzzi, 2017b). This paper starts with brief discussions on
tions (e.g. Pan and Hudson, 1988; Mostyn and Douglas, 2000; intact rock strength and classification systems before introducing
Sonmez and Ulusay, 2002; Serrano et al., 2007; Zhang and Zhu, an extensive database of large-scale rock mass cases, and then
2007; Benz et al., 2008; Saroglou and Tsiambaos, 2008; Dinc proposes new relationships to estimate the parameters, mb, s and a.
et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2012; Ismael et al., 2014). Zuo et al. (2015)
provided a theoretical basis for the criterion, yet its parameters, 2. Intact rock strength
mb, s and a, are typically subjectively estimated through the
Much of what is known about intact rock strength has come
from three types of laboratory tests: the uniaxial tensile strength
(UTS) test, which for practical purposes is almost always replaced
E-mail address: robert.bertuzzi@psm.com.au.
by the Brazilian indirect tensile strength test (Pells, 1993) though it
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, overestimates the UTS by 10%e30% (Perras and Diederichs, 2014;
Chinese Academy of Sciences. Read and Richards, 2015); the uniaxial or unconfined compressive

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.08.011
1674-7755 Ó 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510 495

strength (UCS) test; and the triaxial compressive strength test. True
three-dimensional (3D) triaxial or poly-axial tests are typically
limited to specialised research. The difficulty in defining “rock
strength” stems from the inherent variability of the rock itself and
the reliability of the testing methods (Pells, 1993), and also it is
unlikely that a general strength criterion is true for all rock types
under all stress regimes (Fairhurst, 1971; Hardy et al., 1973). Yet in
rock mechanics, there is a need to predict the rock strength under
different confining stresses.
Numerous intact rock strength criteria have been proposed, as
elaborated in Edelbro (2003) and You (2011) for example. The
question which strength criterion is the best has been the subject of
much research and many have compared various criteria with
laboratory test data (e.g. Yoshinaka and Yamabe, 1980; Pan and
Hudson, 1988; Colmenares and Zoback, 2002; Al-Ajmi and
Zimmerman, 2005; Costamagna and Bruhns, 2007; You, 2009; Lee
et al., 2012; Kwasniewski, 2013). Paraphrasing the study of
Christensen (1997), many empirical criteria with two or more pa-
rameters would likely fit some sets of test data very well.
Bertuzzi et al. (2016b) added to this group by comparing the
curve-fits of six strength criteria (the modified Weibols-Cook, Lade,
HoekeBrown and two of its modifications, and Christensen) against
a database comprising 128 data sets with over 7000 laboratory test
results. The data sets include data obtained from several recent
tunnelling projects in Sydney and Brisbane, Australia, e.g. Sydney’s
Hawkesbury sandstone (Fig. 1) and Brisbane Tuff (Fig. 2). It would be
easy to ignore this tunnelling-sourced database as offering ill-
conditioned data as it is limited in number and more importantly
in type, being mainly restricted to UCS tests. However, it was pur-
posefully included to assess the capability of each of the criteria to

Fig. 1. Hawkesbury sandstone - Principal stress plot showing the experimental data with the predicted strength envelopes.

Fig. 2. Brisbane tuff - Principal stress plot showing the experimental data with the predicted strength envelopes.
496 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510
Fig. 3. Approximate relationship between Jr/Ja and apparent ‘shear strength’ (expressed as a friction angle) (Barton and Grimstad, 2014b).
provide a failure envelope with the type of limited data often
available. Several conclusions were drawn (Bertuzzi et al., 2016b):
(1) Any of the assessed criteria can provide good fits to tight test
data. Conversely, correlations are poor across all the criteria
when the test data have considerable scatter (Figs. 1 and 2).
(2) The variation in test data swamps the differences between
criteria. This is in keeping with Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman
(2005).
(3) Of the criteria assessed, the curves that best reproduce the
tensile and low confinement region are those of the Hoeke
Brown criterion with parameters mi and a derived as rec-
ommended by Mostyn and Douglas (2000).
3. Classification
The rock mass quality (Q) (Barton et al., 1974; Grimstad and
Barton, 1993; Barton and Grimstad, 2014a) and the GSI (Hoek,
1994; Hoek and Brown, 1997; Marinos and Hoek, 2000) are dis-
cussed in this section specifically in relation to estimating rock
mass properties. The interested reader is referred elsewhere for
comparisons of the numerous rock mass classification systems that
exist (e.g. Edelbro, 2003; Palmström, 2005).
The innate characteristics of the classification systems, namely
the natural variability and subjectivity of a person who uses the
system, suggest that they must be used cautiously. Perhaps
counter-intuitively, it is argued that additional care is needed not to
mask the natural variability and complexity of geology when using
geological classification systems that facilitate use by inexperi-
enced professionals.
3.1. Q
Barton et al. (1974) in their seminal paper developed a corre-
lation between the permanent support installed in underground
excavations with rock mass quality, Q, which they defined as
RQD Jr Jw
Q ¼ (3)
Jn Ja SRF
“The RQD (rock quality designation) index, the number of joint sets
(Jn), the roughness of the weakest joints (Jr), the degree of alteration
 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510
or filling along the weakest joints (Ja), and two further parameters
which account for the rock load (SRF) and water inflow (Jw)."
While the terms “the weakest joints” and “least favourable joint
set” were both used in Barton et al. (1974), the latter term is
preferred (e.g. Grimstad and Barton, 1993; Barton and Grimstad,
2014a). Though Q does not directly provide estimates of rock
mass strength, its constituent parameters are linked to a joint
frictional strength (f) and to the Barton-Bandis shear strength
criterion as indicated in Figs. 3 and 4 as follows:


JCS
f ¼ JR log10 þ fr (4)
sn
where fr is the residual friction angle for the general case. For flat,
unweathered surfaces, Barton and Choubey (1977) claimed fr ¼ fb,
i.e. the basic friction angle.
3.2. GSI
Hoek (1994) introduced GSI to overcome limitations in the rock
mass rating (RMR) (Bieniawski, 1973, 1976, 1989) in determining
rock mass strengths. GSI was also a “system based more heavily on
fundamental geological observations and less on ‘numbers’” (Hoek,
2002). The GSI ranged from “about 10, for extremely poor rock
masses, to 100 for intact rock” (Hoek, 1994) and was originally
calculated on the basis of four of the RMR parameters: intact rock
strength, RQD, spacing of discontinuities, and the joint condition
parameter (JCond89).
Hoek (1994) paved the way to assess GSI directly from a chart
rather than quantifying it through RMR by publishing a chart
showing a link between GSI and the HoekeBrown strength
Fig. 4. Approximate relationship between Jr and JRC for 0.2 m and 1 m long defects
(Bandis, 1993).
497
criterion parameters (see Fig. 5). Several implications arise from
this chart.
First, strength is not explicitly included in the chart though it is
the first parameter required when calculating RMR. Intact rock
strength is however broadly implied by selecting a particular chart
as per Marinos and Hoek (2000) or in the matrix of Carter and
Marinos (2014). Second, the user needs to consider the scale of
the problem when selecting the vertical axis of the chart. The
introduction of this subjectivity addresses a major limitation of
RMR, in that its parameters, RQD and JCond89, are scale-dependent
(Priest and Hudson, 1976; Hudson and Harrison, 1997; Mostyn
and Douglas, 2000). Third, the descriptions used to define the
vertical axis of the chart also introduce the concept of interlocking
rock blocks.
A further implication is that the GSI chart’s axes are not inde-
pendent as the surface condition of geological structures (hori-
zontal axis) and rock mass blockiness and degree of interlocking
(vertical axis) are inter-related. This dependence is seen as a diag-
onal trend when overlaying various qualities of the same rock mass
type on one chart. Marinos and Hoek (2000) and Marinos et al.
(2006) ‘blocked off’ the top right and bottom left cells in their GSI
charts, noting that these combinations are not possible (Fig. 6).
Methods to re-quantify the GSI chart ‘to facilitate use of the
system especially by inexperienced engineers’ (Cai et al., 2004) have
been suggested. Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) linked the vertical axis
of the GSI chart to ‘volumetric joint count’ (Jv) and its horizontal
axis to components of the JCond89 parameter. Cai et al. (2004)
defined the vertical axis as ‘block volume’ (Vb) and the horizontal
axis as ‘joint condition’ (Jc) following the RMi (rock mass index)
classification system (Palmström, 1995). Russo (2009) did the same
but gave an explicit equation between GSI, Vb and Jc. Hoek et al.
(2013) set the chart’s vertical axis to RQD/2 (limited to RQD  80)
and its horizontal axis to 1.5JCond89 and provided the equation
GSI ¼ 1.5JCond89 þ RQD/2.
However, setting the vertical axis to a measure of blockiness re-
introduces the problem of scale. While Hoek et al. (2013) and
Cundall et al. (2008) recognised this and suggested subjectively
relating the vertical axis to the number of blocks at the required
scale, care is still needed as not all geological structures contribute
equally to the rock mass properties. Rock mass behaviour will be
increasingly controlled by persistent structures as the problem
scale increases.
Bertuzzi et al. (2016c) found that quantifying GSI following Hoek
et al. (2013) typically produces data points that are generally within
10 of those obtained directly from the GSI chart (Fig. 7), a similar
result to those of Russo (2009) and Pells et al. (2017). The excep-
tions are rock masses whose RQD does not capture the blockiness
or the degree to which rock blocks are interlocked as does the GSI
chart. For example, the very well interlocked yet blocky rock mass
in Fig. 8 has essentially a RQD ¼ 0 but plots between GSI ¼ 50
and 70.
To see whether block volume would offer a better indication of
blockiness, the method adopted by Cai et al. (2004) was followed to
calculate the GSI for the Hawkesbury sandstone and Ashfield shale
found in Sydney. The data used are those given in Bertuzzi
(2014a,b). The blocks in the Hawkesbury sandstone and Ashfield
shale are typically formed by the two pairs of sub-vertical joints
intersecting the sub-horizontal bedding partings. Cross-beds are
occasionally involved. Distributions of spacings for bedding plane
partings and joints are shown in Fig. 9. The typical values of the
calculated Jc and Vb are listed in Table 1 for Classes I to IV. There was
insufficient data for Class V materials.
The results suggest that the method of Cai et al. (2004) to
quantify GSI produces results consistent with those assessed using
the chart for Hawkesbury sandstone and Ashfield shale. It is
498 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510

Fig. 5. Chart published by Hoek (1994) linking GSI and the HoekeBrown criterion.

thought that this is largely a function of Vb being a better measure 4.1. Hawkesbury sandstone
of blockiness than RQD, in line with the conclusion reached by
Bertuzzi et al. (2016c), “the quantified GSI approach is used to sup- Finite element modelling (Fig. 10) was used to assess the likely
plement and check the visually assessed one”. magnitudes of the stresses presented at the time of documented
failures that occurred in nine tunnels excavated within Hawkes-
bury sandstone (Bertuzzi, 2015). The values of major and minor
4. Rock mass strength database
principal stresses were compared to the rock mass strength enve-
lopes of Hawkesbury sandstone derived using the HoekeBrown
Hoek and Brown (1980) started with the Griffith crack extension
criterion (Fig. 11).
theory and used trial-and-error method with an extensive intact rock
It should be highlighted that the inferred range of confining
data set and a modest collection of triaxial data of 6-inch (1
stress, s3, presented in the case studies is rather modest being only
inch ¼ 2.54 cm) diameter core and re-compacted samples of Panguna
up to 3 MPa. Yet the predicted HoekeBrown rock mass strength
andesite, and empirically derived a criterion that “adequately de-
criterion differentiates the ‘failed’ and ‘stable’ zones in the nine
scribes the response of an intact rock sample from uniaxial tensile stress
cases very well. The criterion did identify zones other than those
to triaxial compressive stress”. Bertuzzi et al. (2016d) added laboratory
mapped as failing but these tend to be in the floors of the tunnels,
test results and important data from large-scale underground exca-
i.e. zones which are not as readily picked up in mapping as having
vations, and thereby suggested improvements to the HoekeBrown
failed.
criterion parameters and GSI relationships given in Eq. (2).
 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510 499

Fig. 6. Rock mass qualities in ophiolitic complexes from Marinos et al. (2006), showing the typical diagonal trend from top left to bottom right for decreasing rock mass quality, from
Classes 1 to 4.

4.2. Coal
Estimates of coal pillar strength tend to be based on
geometrically-based empirical methods. The intact strength of the
coal, the in situ stress and the geological structures of the coal rock
mass may be implicit in the methods, but their relative impact is
largely unknown. A means of dealing with this was assessed in the
1990s by applying the HoekeBrown criterion to coal pillars,
particularly in the context of highwall mining (Medhurst and
Brown, 1996, 1998; Medhurst, 1999). However, the typical
method of estimating coal strength is at odds with the methods for
non-coal rocks.
A database comprising 162 collapsed and 507 un-collapsed coal
pillars from Australia, South Africa, USA and India covering depths
from 13 m to 594 m with width to height (w/h) ratios between 0.6
and 16.7 was therefore collated by Bertuzzi et al. (2016a). Fig. 12
shows that there is a general trend of increasing w/h with
increasing depth as evidenced by the arbitrary line, which can be
written as w/h ¼ 2 þ 0.0125depth. The database contains 15
collapsed cases with w/h > 5. All the collapsed cases have w/h  8.
This combined database may address a criticism of the UNSW coal
pillar design method (Galvin et al., 1999; Galvin, 2006), that its
database only contains one collapse case with w/h > 5 (Colwell,
2010; Seedsman, 2012).
Using 2D (two-dimensional) and 3D finite element modelling,
Bertuzzi et al. (2016a) plotted the stresses predicted in the
collapsed and un-collapsed pillars of the database against a
damage-initiation, spalling limit (DISL) envelope (Diederichs, 2000,
500 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510

Fig. 7. Comparison of the GSI quantified following Hoek et al. (2013) and that assessed from the chart.

mb ¼ 1:47; s ¼ 0:07; a ¼ 0:5 (5c)

(4) Maximum confined strength:

s1  s3
¼ 0:6 ðin the range of 0:5 and 0:7Þ (5d)
sc
The extended DISL envelope differentiates between the
collapsed and the un-collapsed coal pillars very well (Fig. 13),
separating approximately 80% of the collapsed and 90% of the un-
collapsed pillars. Most of the collapsed pillars that the envelope
did not differentiate have w/h  4, which can be defined as slender
pillars (Mark, 2006) and almost half have w/h  2. Half of the un-
collapsed pillars that plot above the envelope are identified as be-
ing highly rectangular.
It is clear that geological structures need to be considered, partic-
ularly for slender pillars (w/h  4), but if failure is expected to occur
through the rock mass then the extended DISL envelope can be used to
Fig. 8. Quartzite rock mass downstream of the Ord Diversion Dam, Western Australia.
estimate rock mass strength (Bertuzzi et al., 2016a) (see Fig. 14).

4.3. Others
2007) capped by the maximum confined strength, this latter
component is in keeping with Mogi (1966), Bieniawski (1968) and The following data were also added in addition to the Haw-
Barton (1976). This extended DISL envelope is defined in Eqs. (5a)e kesbury sandstone and coal pillar data: Ok Tedi hornfels and
(5d) and shown in Fig. 13. limestone core (Bertuzzi et al., 2016d), granite core (Alejano et al.,
2015), quartzite and phyllite core (Habimana et al., 2002), Luc du
(1) Damage-initiation threshold: Bonnet granite core (Martin, 1993), Stripa granite large-diameter
core (Thorpe et al., 1980), hard rock mines (Lunder, 1994), lime-
mb ¼ 0:1296; s ¼ 0:0081; a ¼ 0:25 (5a) stone mines (Esterhuizen et al., 2006), iron ore pillars (Hosni et al.,
2015), and Laisvall sandstone pillars (Soder and Krauland, 1989).
(2) Spalling limit:
4.4. Disturbance factor

mb ¼ 5:33; s ¼ 0; a ¼ 0:75 (5b) The preceding rock mass data sets were subjectively categorised
for the appropriate disturbance factor, D, following the guidelines
(3) Macro-scale shear failure: in Hoek et al. (2002). The resulting broad categories are shown in
 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510 501

Fig. 9. Distribution of logged spacing for bedding planes and joints for Hawkesbury sandstone (Classes I to IV) and Ashfield shale (Classes I to IV) (Bertuzzi, 2014a,b). Classes follow
those of Pells et al. (1998). Percentages are lengths of core.

Table 1
Comparison of the GSI quantified following the method of Cai et al. (2004) and that
estimated using the chart. that the relationships with GSI < 30 should be used cautiously as
recommended by Brown (2008).
Class Hawkesbury sandstone Ashfield shale
The relationships between mb/mi, s, GSI, and D, which are shown
Jc Vb GSI Jc Vb GSI
in Fig. 18, show a broad agreement between increasing D and lower
(m3) (m3)
Cai et al. (2004) Fig. 7 Cai et al. (2004) Fig. 7 mb and s. Fig. 18 also shows that the proposed relationships better
I 2.71 8.7 80 65 2.31 3.8 75 45 fits the data.
e85 e65
II 1.68 3 75 55 0.89 0.7 55 40
e75 e60 6. Modulus
III 1.02 1.4 60 45 0.56 0.2 45 30
e65 e50
IV 0.63 0.3 50 35 0.26 0.1 40 25
The modulus of a rock mass (Em) is at the core of almost any
e55 e35 form of analysis used for the design in rock (Brown, 2008). Para-
phrasing Brown (2008), there is now a 40-year history of attempts
to correlate rock mass modulus with rock mass classifications. The
empirical relationships between rock mass quality are that RQD
(Deere, 1968; Deere and Deere, 1988), RMR (Bieniawski, 1973,
Table 2 with the reasons for assigning the D values. It is stressed
1976,1989), Q (Barton et al., 1974; Grimstad and Barton, 1993;
that these categories are, by definition, imprecise.
Barton and Grimstad, 2014a), GSI (Hoek, 1994; Hoek and Brown,
1997; Marinos and Hoek, 2000; Hoek and Diederichs, 2006) or
5. GSI relationships other measures. However, the inherent scatter in measured Em
means that any curve fitting approach is expected to be a poor
The relationships between mb and GSI, s and GSI, and a and GSI, predictor.
proposed by Bertuzzi et al. (2016d), are shown in Figs. 15e17, Bertuzzi (2017a) plotted a rock mass moduli database that was
respectively, and in Table 3. While the first two relationships differ collated from published data of reliable rock mass moduli values
marginally from Eq. (2), the proposed relationship between the (Fig. 19). As can be seen in the figure, much of the data lies about the
parameter a and GSI allows a to vary between 0.5 for GSI ¼ 100 and value predicted by Hoek and Diederichs (2006) for D ¼ 0. The range
1 for GSI  10. The area GSI < 30 is shaded in Figs. 15e17 to indicate shown by the dashed lines in the figure is generated by replacing
502 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510

Fig. 10. Example of the results from the Phase2 (RocScience Version 8.01) finite element analyses. Contours of major principal stress are shown (top). Lines along which the major
and minor principal stresses (s1 and s3) were queried from the results are also shown. The s1 and s3 pairs are plotted in the graph (bottom) which also shows the strength envelope
predicted by the HoekeBrown criterion.
 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510
Fig. 11. Principal stress plots (differential vs. minor) showing the results of the numerical modelling compared with proposed strength envelopes. Solid symbols are used to identify
the inferred stresses in “failed zones” and open symbols for “stable zones”. The graphs show that the strength envelope predicted by the HoekeBrown criterion differentiates the
stable and failed zones quite well.
the constant in the numerator of the exponential with 70 and 80,
respectively, as follows:


1  D=2
Em ¼ 100 Bþ25DGSI
(6)
1þe 11
where Em is the modulus of a rock mass (GPa); B is a parameter with
values of 70, 75 or 80 for the upper bound, mean or lower bound,
respectively.
Fig. 20 plots the data from Palmström and Singh (2001) and
Nejati et al. (2014), which is likely to represent rock mass disturbed
by drill-and-blast and stress-relief methods. The curves are
generated from Eq. (6) with D ¼ 0.5 and suggest that the value of
D ¼ 0.5 is appropriate for rock masses disturbed by drill-and-blast
and stress-relief methods.
Most tunnel projects typically do not have the extensive and
intensive monitoring schemes that have been used to back-analyse in
situ stresses and rock mass modulus, such as that carried out at the
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s Underground Research Laboratory
(Read, 1994). Following Amadei and Savage (1991), Bertuzzi (2017a)
developed a relatively simple procedure to check the in situ stress
ratio and rock mass modulus from the type of displacement data
503
routinely recorded during tunnelling. The procedure requires highly
redundant data to counter its inherent high variability.
Back-analyses from convergence monitoring data obtained
during tunnelling in Sydney suggested isotropic conditions for
Hawkesbury sandstone, with Eh ¼ Ev ¼ 5500 MPa and K ¼ 3.0,
and slightly anisotropic conditions for Ashfield shale with
Eh ¼ 720 MPa, Ev ¼ 1000 MPa, and K ¼ 1.7 (Bertuzzi, 2017a),
where Eh, Ev and K are the rock mass modulus in the hori-
zontal and vertical directions and the in situ stress ratio,
respectively.
7. Conclusions
This paper presented the results of ongoing research exploring
methods to provide a more robust estimate of rock mass properties
specifically for use in tunnel design. Several issues are addressed:
(1) Many strength criteria can provide good fits to tight test data
as it is the variation in test data that swamp the curve-fitting.
The HoekeBrown criterion can reproduce the tensile and
low confinement region with due care in selecting parame-
ters mi and a.
504 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510

Fig. 12. (a) Collapsed and (b) un-collapsed databases plotted as depth (m) against pillar width (w) to pillar height (h) ratio. The circled cases are the yielding pillars from Jitpur, India
and the highly rectangular pillars from Utah, USA. The bottom plots (c) and (d) are subsets of the database. The line shown is w/h ¼ 2 þ 0.0125depth.

(2) The natural variability of rock masses means that classifica-
tion systems must be used cautiously. Perhaps counter-
intuitively, additional care is needed in using systems that
claim to be more accessible to inexperienced professionals,
so that the natural variability and the complexity of geology
are not masked.
(3) The GSI assessed from its chart and that quantified following
Cai et al. (2004) or Hoek et al. (2013) typically produce data
points that are generally within 10 of each other. The ex-
ceptions to this are rock masses whose blockiness may not
capture the degree to which rock blocks are interlocked. It
was observed for the major rock types found in Sydney that
the approach of Cai et al. (2004) matched the chart estimated
GSI very well.
(4) A database that comprises 162 collapsed and 507 un-
collapsed pillars was collated. The combined database con-
tains 15 collapsed cases with w/h > 5. All the collapsed cases
have w/h  8. A damage-initiation, spalling limit envelope
capped by the maximum confined strength, was shown to
separate the collapsed and un-collapsed pillars very well.
 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510 505

Fig. 13. Normalised average principal stress plots of the coal pillar database; solid symbols represent the collapsed pillars - (a) and (b) - and open symbols the un-collapsed pillars -
(c) and (d). Further, square symbols represent the average stresses, triangles represent the stresses at the edges of pillars, and circles are the stresses at the centre of the pillars. The
stresses are along a horizontal plane at the mid-height through the coal pillars. The yielding pillars from Jitpur, India are circled as well as the highly rectangular pillars and slender
pillars. The right-hand plots are a subset of the data, showing the cases with s3/sc  0.5. The extended DISL strength curve is also shown with three maximum confined strength
(MCS) values. It differentiates well the un-collapsed and collapsed pillars.
506 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510

Fig. 14. The extended DISL envelope for coal pillars.

Table 2
Broad categories of the disturbance factor, D (Bertuzzi et al., 2016d).

D Database

0 Sandstone pillar test e controlled blasting

Habimana sandstone and phyllite e drill core
Lac du Bonnet granite from URL (underground research laboratory) e controlled blasting
Sedimentary e TBM (tunnel boring machine)
Ok Tedi core samples
(0, 0.8) Hawkesbury sandstone e mainly mechanical excavation but some blasting
Coal pillars e mainly mechanical excavation or controlled blasting
Stripa granite e blasted tunnel but slot drilled core
Artificially jointed granite e man-made fractures
0.8 Hard rock pillars e production blasting
Limestone pillars e production blasting
Mines - metasediments, gneiss e production blasting
Iron ore pillars e production blasting

Fig. 15. Proposed relationship between mb/mi and GSI. The shading represents the values as the disturbance factor, D, varies from 0 to 1.
 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510 507

Fig. 16. Proposed relationship between s and GSI. The shading represents the values as the disturbance factor, D, varies from 0 to 1.

Fig. 17. Proposed relationship between a and GSI.

Table 3
Comparison of proposed and current equations between HoekeBrown parameters
and GSI.

Current equations (Hoek et al., 2002) Proposed equations (5) Data from laboratory testing and large-scale underground
GSI  100 GSI  100 cases were added to the Panguna andesite database that has
mb ¼ mi e 28  14D mb ¼ mi e 38  24D been the basis for the relationships between GSI and the
GSI  100 GSI  100 HoekeBrown criterion parameters mb, s and a. The larger
s ¼ e 9  3D s ¼ e 12  6D
  database has enabled improvements to the relationships.
1 1 1
a ¼ þ ðeGSI=15  e20=3 Þ a ¼ min 1; ð1 þ eðGSI10Þ=15 Þ (6) Upper and lower bounds are suggested for using GSI to
2 6 2
predict rock mass modulus.
508 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510

Fig. 18. Proposed relationship between mb/mi and GSI (top) and between s and GSI (bottom) for the three broad categories of disturbance factor, D. Refer to legend in Fig. 17.

Fig. 19. Range of in situ modulus versus GSI showing the typical bounds for undis-
turbed rock masses. The mean curve is that of Hoek and Diederichs (2006), while the Fig. 20. Range of in situ modulus versus GSI for rock masses disturbed by drill-and-
range is that proposed in Bertuzzi (2017a). blast and stress relief methods. The mean curve is that of Hoek and Diederichs
(2006), while the range is that proposed in Bertuzzi (2017a).

(7) A relatively simple procedure using highly redundant Conflicts of interest

displacement data routinely recorded during tunnelling to
check the assumed in situ stress ratio and rock mass modulus The author wishes to confirm that there are no known conflicts
is presented. of interest associated with this publication and there has been no
 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510
financial support for this work, from any source, that could have
influenced its outcome.
Acknowledgements
The author is indebted to Kurt Douglas and Garry Mostyn for
guiding his PhD thesis research program. Not having suffered
enough, Garry also reviewed the draft manuscript. Though they
greatly helped with the research, the errors and omissions are the
authors alone. Many thanks also to Professor Ted Brown for his
encouraging comments and his incredible commitment to our
profession. He continues to set too high a standard for mortals to
emulate.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.08.011.
References
Al-Ajmi AM, Zimmerman RW. Relation between the Mogi and the Coulomb failure
criteria. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2005;42(3):431e9.
Alejano L, Arzua J, Perez-Rey I. Effect of scale and structure on the strength and
deformability of rocks. In: Hassani F, Hadjigeorgiou J, Archibald J, editors. The
13th international symposium on rock mechanics. Montreal, Canada: ISRM
Congress; 2015. ISRM-13CONGRESS-2015-190.
Amadei B, Savage WZ. Analysis of borehole expansion and gallery tests in aniso-
tropic rock masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics Mining Sciences
and Geomechanics Abstracts 1991;28(5):383e96.
Bandis SC. Engineering properties and characterization of rock discontinuities. In:
Hudson JA, editor. Comprehensive rock engineering. Pergamon; 1993. p. 155e
83.
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of
tunnel support. Rock Mechanics 1974;6(4):189e236.
Barton N. The shear strength of rock and rock joints. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts 1976;13(9):225e
79.
Barton NR, Choubey VD. The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice.
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 1977;10(1e2):1e54.
Barton N, Grimstad E. Forty years with the Q-system in Norway and abroad. In:
Fjellsprengningsteknikk, Bergmekanikk/Geoteknikk. Tapir Trondheim; 2014a.
p. 4.1e25.
Barton NR, Grimstad E. An illustrated guide to the Q-system. Oslo, Norway: Nick
Barton & Associates; 2014b.
Benz T, Schwab R, Kauther RA, Vermeer PA. A HoekeBrown criterion with intrinsic
material strength factorization. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences 2008;45(2):210e22.
Bertuzzi R. Sydney sandstone and shale parameters for tunnel design. Australian
Geomechanics 2014a;49(1):1e40.
Bertuzzi R. Sydney sandstone and shale parameters for tunnel design - Corri-
gendum 1. Australian Geomechanics 2014b;49(2):95e104.
Bertuzzi R. Forming a view of the rock mass strength of Hawkesbury sandstone
from tunnelling case histories. In: Hassani FP, Hadjigeorgiou J, Archibald J, ed-
itors. The 13th international congress of rock mechanics. Montreal, Canada:
ISRM; 2015. Paper 421.
Bertuzzi R, Douglas K, Mostyn G. An approach to model the strength of coal pillars.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2016a;89:165e75.
Bertuzzi R, Douglas K, Mostyn G. Comparison of intact rock strength criteria for
pragmatic design. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
2016b;143(4):06016029.
Bertuzzi R, Douglas K, Mostyn G. Comparison of quantified and chart GSI for four
rock masses. Engineering Geology 2016c;202:24e35.
Bertuzzi R, Douglas K, Mostyn G. Improving the GSI Hoek-Brown criterion re-
lationships. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2016d;89:185e99.
Bertuzzi R. Back-analysing rock mass modulus from monitoring data of two tunnels
in Sydney, Australia. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
2017a;9(5):877e91.
Bertuzzi R. Rock mass properties for tunnelling. PhD Thesis. Sydney, Australia:
University of New South Wales (UNSW); 2017b.
Bieniawski ZT. In situ strength and deformation characteristics of coal. Engineering
Geology 1968;2(5):325e40.
Bieniawski ZT. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Transactions South
African Institution of Civil Engineers 1973;15(2):335e42.
509
Bieniawski ZT. Rock mass classifications in rock engineering. In: Bieniawski ZT,
editor. Proceedings of the symposium on exploration for rock engineeringvol. 1.
Johannesburg, South Africa: A.A. Balkema; 1976. p. 97e106.
Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classifications. New York: John Wiley & Sons;
1989. p. 1e125.
Brown ET. Estimating the mechanical properties of rock masses. In: Potvin Y,
Carter J, Dyskin A, Jeffrey R, editors. SHIRMS 2008. Perth: Australian Centre for
Geomechanics; 2008. p. 3e21.
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M. Estimation of rock mass defor-
mation modulus and strength of jointed hard rock masses using the GSI
system. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2004;41(1):3e19.
Carter TG, Marinos V. Use of GSI for rock engineering design. In: Proceedings the 1st
international conference on applied emprical design methods in mining. Lima,
Peru; 2014. p. 1e19.
Christensen RM. Yield functions/failure criteria for isotropic materials. Proceedings
of the Royal Society A: Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences
1997;453(1962):1473e91.
Colmenares LB, Zoback MD. A statistical evaluation of intact rock failure criteria
constrained by polyaxial test data for five different rocks. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2002;39(6):695e729.
Colwell MG. Pillar design procedures and research methodologies - can there or
should there be a unified approach?. In: The second Australian ground control
in mining conference. Sydney: AusIMM; 2010. p. 67e77.
Costamagna R, Bruhns OT. A four-parameter criterion for failure of geomaterials.
Engineering Structures 2007;29(3):461e8.
Cundall PA, Pierce ME, Mas Ivars D. Quantifying the size effect of rock mass
strength. In: Potvin Y, Carter J, Dyskin A, Jeffrey R, editors. The 1st southern
hemisphere international rock mechanics symposium. Perth: Australian Centre
for Geomechanics; 2008. p. 3e15.
Deere DU. Geological considerations. In: Stagg KC, Zienkiewicz OC, editors. Rock
mechanics in engineering practice. John wiley & Sons; 1968. p. 1e20.
Deere DU, Deere DW. The rock quality designation (RQD) index in practice. In:
Kirkdalie L, editor. Rock classification systems for engineering purposes. Cin-
cinnati: American Society for Testing Materials; 1988. p. 91e101.
Diederichs MS. Instability of hard rockmasses: the role of tensile damage and
relaxation. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo; 2000. p. 566.
Diederichs MS. The 2003 Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: mechanistic inter-
pretation and practical application of damage and spalling prediction criteria
for deep tunnelling. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2007;44(9):1082e116.
Dinc OS, Sonmez H, Tunusluoglu C, Kasapoglu KE. A new general empirical
approach for the prediction of rock mass strengths of soft to hard rock masses.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2011;48(4):650e
65.
Eberhardt E. The HoekeBrown failure criterion. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engi-
neering 2012;45(6):981e8.
Edelbro C. Rock mass strength: A review. Lulea, Sweden: Lulea University of
Technology; 2003.
Esterhuizen GS, Iannacchione AT, Ellenberger JL, Dolinar DR. Pillar stability issues
based on a survey of pillar performance in underground limestone mines. In:
The 25th international conference on ground control in mining. Morgantown.
West Virginia: West Virginia University; 2006. p. 354e61.
Fairhurst C. Fundamental considerations relating to the strength of rock. In: Col-
loquium on rock fracture 1971. Instisution Bodenmechanik und Felsmechanik
(Karlsruhe); 1971. p. 1e56.
Galvin JM, Hebblewhite BK, Salamon MDG. UNSW pillar strength determinations
for Australian and South African conditions. In: The 37th US rock mechanics
symposium. Vail: NIOSH; 1999. p. 63e71.
Galvin JM. Considerations associated with the application of the UNSW and other
pillar design formulae. In: The 41st US symposium on rock mechanics. Golden,
Colorado: ARMA/USRMS; 2006. p391e9.
Grimstad E, Barton N. Updating of the Q-system for NMT. In: Kompen C,
Opsahl SL, Berg SL, editors. Proceedings of the international symposium on
sprayed concrete - modern use of wet mix sprayed concrete for underground
support. Fagernes. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Concrete Association; 1993.
p. 46e66.
Habimana J, Labiouse V, Descoeudres F. Geomechanical characterisation of cata-
clastic rocks: experience from the Cleuson-Dixence project. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2002;39(6):677e93.
Hardy MP, Hudson JA, Fairhurst C. The failure of rock beams: Part I - theoretical
studies. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
1973;10(1):53e67.
Hoek E, Brown ET. Empirical strength and criterion for rock masses. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 1980;106(GT9):1013e35.
Hoek E. Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News Journal 1994;2(2):4e16.
Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 1997;34(8):1165e86.
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B. Hoek-Brown failure criterion - 2002 edition.
In: 5th North American rock mechanics symposium. Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
University of Toronto Press; 2002. p. 267e73.
Hoek E. A brief history of the development of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. 2002.
https://www.rocscience.com/assets/resources/learning/hoek/The-Development-
of-the-Hoek-Brown-Failure-Criterion.pdf.
Hoek E, Diederichs MS. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2006;43(2):203e15.
510 R. Bertuzzi / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 494e510
Hoek E, Carter TG, Diederichs MS. Quantification of the geological strength index
chart. In: 47th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium. San Francisco, CA,
USA: ARMA; 2013. ARMA 13-672.
Hosni A, Hadadou R, Josien JP, Piguet JP, Baroudi H. Subsidence kinetics above room
and pillar mines & development of kinetic criterion based on retro-analysis of
subsidence cases. In: The 13th international symposium on rock mechanics.
Montreal, Canada: ISRM Congress; 2015. ISRM-13CONGRESS-2015-126.
Hudson JA, Harrison JP. Engineering rock mechanics: an introduction to the prin-
ciples. Oxford, England: Pergamon; 1997.
Ismael MA, Imam HF, El-Shayeb Y. A simplified approach to directly consider intact
rock anisotropy in Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering 2014;6(5):486e92.
Kwasniewski M. Mechanical behaviour of rocks under true triaxial compression
conditions - A review. In: Kwasniewski M, Li X, Takahashi M, editors. True
triaxial testing of rocks. CRC Press; 2013. p. 99e138.
Lee YK, Pietruszczak S, Choi BH. Failure criteria for rocks based on smooth ap-
proximations to MohreCoulomb and HoekeBrown failure functions. Interna-
tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2012;56:146e60.
Lunder PJ. Hard rock pillar strength estimation: an applied empirical approach. MS
Thesis. British Columbia, Canada: The University of British Columbia; 1994.
Marinos P, Hoek EGSI. A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation.
In: ISRM international symposium. International Society for Rock Mechanics;
2000. http://www.geoplanning.it/test/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/GSI.pdf.
Marinos P, Hoek E, Marinos V. Variability of the engineering properties of rock
masses quantified by the geological strength index: the case of ophiolites with
special emphasis on tunnelling. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment 2006;65(2):129e42.
Mark C. The evolution of intelligent coal pillar design: 1981-2006. In: 25th inter-
national conference on ground control in mining. Morgantown, West Virginia,
USA;; 2006. p. 325e34.
Martin CD. The strength of massive Lac du Bonnet granite around underground
opening. PhD Thesis. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University of Manitoba;
1993.
Medhurst TP, Brown ET. Large scale laboratory testing of coal. In: Jaksa MB,
Kaggwa WS, Cameron DS, editors. Geomechanics in a changing world, pro-
ceedings, 7th Australia e New Zealand conference on geomechanics. Adelaide,
Australia: Institution of Engineers, Australia; 1996. p. 201e8.
Medhurst TP, Brown ET. A study of the mechanical behaviour of coal for pillar
design. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
1998;35(8):1087e105.
Medhurst TP. Highwall mining: practical estimates of coal-seam strength and
design of slender pillars. Mining Technology IMM Transactions Section A
1999;108:A161e71.
Mogi K. Pressure dependence of rock strength and transition from brittle fracture to
ductile flow. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute 1966;44:215e32.
Mostyn GR, Douglas KJ. Strength of intact rock and rock masses. In: ISRM Geo-
Eng2000. Melbourne, Australia: Technomic, Lancaster; 2000. p. 1389e421.
Nejati HR, Ghazvinian A, Moosavi SA, Sarfarazi V. On the use of the RMR system for
estimation of rock mass deformation modulus. Bulletin Engineering Geology
and the Environment 2014;73(2):531e40.
Palmström A. RMi e a rock mass characterisation system for rock engineering
purposes (PhD Thesis). Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo; 1995.
Palmström A, Singh R. The deformation modulus of rock masses. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 2001;16(3):115e31.
Palmström A. Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock
quality designation (RQD). Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
2005;20(4):362e77.
Pan XD, Hudson JA. A simplified three-dimensional Hoek-Brown yield criterion. In:
Romana MR, editor. Rock mechanics and power plants. Rotterdam: A.A. Bal-
kema; 1988. p. 95e103.
Pells PJN. Uniaxial strength testing. In: Hudson JA, editor. Comprehensive rock
engineering. Oxford, England: Pergamon; 1993. p. 67e85.
Pells PJN, Mostyn GR, Walker BF. Foundations on sandstone and shale in the Sydney
region. Australian Geomechanics 1998;33(2):17e29.
Pells PJN, Bieniawski ZT, Hencher SR, Pells S. Rock quality designation (RQD): time
to rest in peace. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2017;54(6):825e34.
Perras MA, Diederichs M. A review of the tensile strength of rock: Concepts and
testing. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 2014;32(1):525e46.
Priest SD, Hudson JA. Discontinuity spacings in rock. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts 1976;13(5):135e
48.
Read RS. Interpreting excavation-induced displacements around a tunnel in highly
stressed granite. PhD Thesis. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University of Man-
itoba; 1994.
Read SAL, Richards LR. Guidelines for use of tensile data in the calculation of the
Hoek-Brown constant, mi. In: The 13th international symposium on rock me-
chanics. Montreal, Canada: ISRM Congress; 2015. ISRM-13CONGRESS-2015-149.
Russo G. A new rational method for calculating the GSI. Tunnelling and Under-
ground Space Technology 2009;24(1):103e11.
Saroglou H, Tsiambaos G. A modified HoekeBrown failure criterion for anisotropic
intact rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2008;45(2):223e34.
Seedsman RW. The strength of the pillar-floor system. In: The 12th coal operators’
conference. Univeristy of Wollongong and the Australian Institute of Mining &
Metallurgy; 2012. p. 23e30.
Serrano A, Estaire J, Olalla C. Extension of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion to three
dimensions. In: The 11th congress of the ISRM. Leiden Taylor & Francis; 2007.
p. 289e92.
Soder P, Krauland N. Determination of pillar strength by full scale pillar tests in the
Laisvall Mine. In: Kidybinski A, Dubinski J, editors. Proceedings of the 11th
plenary scientific session of the international Bureau of strata mechanics, strata
control in deep mines. Novosibirsk: Balkema; 1989. p. 39e59.
Sonmez H, Ulusay R. Modifications to the geological strength index (GSI) and their
applicability to stability of slopes. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences 1999;36(6):743e60.
Sonmez H, Ulusay R. A discussion on the Hoek-Brown failure criterion and sug-
gested modifications to the criterion verified by slope stability case studies.
Yerbilimleri Bulletin of Earth Sciences 2002;26(1):77e99.
Thorpe R, Watkins DJ, Ralph WE, Hsu R, Flexser S. Strength and permeability tests
on ultra-large Stripa granite core. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
University of California; 1980.
Yoshinaka R, Yamabe T. Strength criterion of rocks. Soils and Foundations
1980;20(4):113e26.
You M. True-triaxial strength criteria for rock. International Journal of Rock Me-
chanics and Mining Sciences 2009;46(1):115e27.
You M. Comparison of the accuracy of some conventional triaxial strength criteria
for intact rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2011;48(5):852e63.
Zhang L, Zhu H. Three-dimensional Hoek-Brown strength criterion for rocks. Jour-
nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2007;133(9):1128e35.
Zuo J, Liu H, Li H. A theoretical derivation of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion for
rock materials. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
2015;7(4):361e6.
Robert Bertuzzi graduated from the University of Sydney
in 1985 with a bachelor degree in mining engineering and
the University Medal. He completed a master degree at the
University of Sydney in 1989 while working in under-
ground and open cut coal mining. His first tunnelling job
was on the English Channel Tunnel with Halcrow in the
early 1990s. Robert was a senior geotechnical engineer
with Coffey Partners before joining PSM in January 1994.
He has been there ever since. He is fortunate in having
worked on many tunnelling projects in Australia and is
currently involved with several rail and road tunnels in
Sydney. Robert completed his PhD in 2017 at University of
New South Wales where he also teaches subjects for the
Master of Engineering Science course.