Advertisement

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

, Volume 50, Issue 12, pp 3293–3305 | Cite as

Effect of Small Numbers of Test Results on Accuracy of Hoek–Brown Strength Parameter Estimations: A Statistical Simulation Study

  • Nezam Bozorgzadeh
  • Yoko Yanagimura
  • John P. Harrison
Original Paper

Abstract

The Hoek–Brown empirical strength criterion for intact rock is widely used as the basis for estimating the strength of rock masses. Estimations of the intact rock H–B parameters, namely the empirical constant m and the uniaxial compressive strength \(\sigma_{\text{c}}\), are commonly obtained by fitting the criterion to triaxial strength data sets of small sample size. This paper investigates how such small sample sizes affect the uncertainty associated with the H–B parameter estimations. We use Monte Carlo (MC) simulation to generate data sets of different sizes and different combinations of H–B parameters, and then investigate the uncertainty in H–B parameters estimated from these limited data sets. We show that the uncertainties depend not only on the level of variability but also on the particular combination of parameters being investigated. As particular combinations of H–B parameters can informally be considered to represent specific rock types, we discuss that as the minimum number of required samples depends on rock type it should correspond to some acceptable level of uncertainty in the estimations. Also, a comparison of the results from our analysis with actual rock strength data shows that the probability of obtaining reliable strength parameter estimations using small samples may be very low. We further discuss the impact of this on ongoing implementation of reliability-based design protocols and conclude with suggestions for improvements in this respect.

Keywords

Rock strength Uncertainty Statistical simulation Sample size Hoek–Brown strength criterion 

List of symbols

m

Hoek–Brown regression parameter

s

Sample standard deviation of axial strength

\(\varepsilon\)

Random error

\(\sigma_{1}\)

Axial strength

\(\sigma_{3}\)

Confining pressure

\(\sigma_{\text{c}}\)

Hoek–Brown regression parameter corresponding to mean unconfined compressive strength

\(\varsigma\)

Standard deviation (as a Hoek–Brown regression parameter)

References

  1. ASTM (2013) ASTM D7012–10 Standard test methods for compressive strength and elastic moduli of intact rock core specimens under varying states of stress and temperatures. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  2. Attewell PB, Farmer IW (1976) Principles of engineering geology. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bieniawski ZT, Bernede M (1979) Suggested methods for determining the uniaxial compressive strength and deformability of rock materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 16(2):137–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozorgzadeh N, Dolowy-Busch M, Harrison JP (2015). Obtaining robust estimates of rock strength. In: Proceedings of the 13th ISRM International Symposium, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter BJ, Scott D, Lajtai EZ (1991) Fitting strength criteria to intact rock. Geotech Geol Eng 9:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Douglas KJ (2002) The shear strength of rock mases. PhD thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South WalesGoogle Scholar
  7. Eberhardt E (2012) The Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:981–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellis P (2010) The essential guide to effect sizes: statistical power, meta-analysis and interpretation of research results. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. Geotech Eng ASCE 106(GT9):1013–1035Google Scholar
  10. Hoek E, Brown ET (1988) The Hoek–Brown failure criterion—a 1988 Update. In: Curran J (ed) Proceedings of the 15th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium. University of Toronto, Toronto, pp 31–38Google Scholar
  11. Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(8):1165–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Hoek Brown failure criterion—2002 Edition. In: Hamma R et al (eds) Proceedings of the Fifth North American Rock Mechanics Symposium (NARMS-TAC). University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 267–273Google Scholar
  13. Kahraman S, Bilgin N, Feridunoglu C (2003) Dominant rock properties affecting the penetration rates of percussive drills. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40(5):711–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kovári K, Tisa A, Einstein H, Franklin J (1983) Suggested methods for determining the strength of rock materials in triaxial compression—revised version. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abs 20(6):283–290Google Scholar
  15. Muralha J, Lamas L (2015) Variance of intact rock strength determined by triaxial tests. In: Proceedings of the 13th ISRM International Symposium, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  16. Ngerebara OD, Youdeowei P (2014) Correlation of mechanical properties of some rocks in South-Eastern Nigeria. Int J Sci Res Publ 4(2):1–6Google Scholar
  17. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  18. Sari M (2012) An improved method of fitting experimental data to the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Eng Geol 127:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sen A, Srivastava M (2012) Regression analysis: theory, methods, and applications. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Walpole R, Myers R, Mayers L, Ye K (2014) Probability and statistics for engineers and scientists. Pearson, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nezam Bozorgzadeh
    • 1
  • Yoko Yanagimura
    • 2
  • John P. Harrison
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.BGC Engineering Inc.VancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations