Comparative analysis of the nonlinear unified strength criterion for rocks and other three-dimensional Hoek–Brown strength criteria

Original Article
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

The Hoek–Brown strength criterion, which has been widely used in rock engineering, is one of the most influential rock strength criteria. Because this criterion does not take into account the effect of intermediate principal stress and because there are deficiencies in the theory and its practical application, for nearly 30 years many scholars have carried out research related to this topic. Yu and Zan took the advantages of the unified strength theory and integrated this theory with the Hoek–Brown strength criterion, thereby proposing the nonlinear unified strength criterion for rocks. This criterion takes into account the difference between the tensile strength and the compressive strength of rock, i.e. the intermediate principal stress effect, and the researchers determined that the limit loci in the meridian plane are nonlinear. The parameters of the nonlinear unified strength criterion are the same as those of the Hoek–Brown strength criterion obtained from conventional triaxial tests for rock blocks. The current study compared and analyzed the relationship between the nonlinear unified strength criterion and other three-dimensional Hoek–Brown strength criteria proposed by Pan and Hudson, Zhang and Zhu, and Jiang. Using the comparison of failure limit lines of the various strength criteria in the π-plane, the nonlinear unified strength criterion is superior to other strength criteria. Using the 1stOpt software of the general global optimization algorithm to fit the strength criterion parameters, the comparison of the results of the nonlinear unified strength criterion with the true triaxial test data from six types of rocks shows good agreement, and the true triaxial test of rock strength can be evaluated with high accuracy.

Keywords

Rock strength criterion Hoek–Brown strength criterion Nonlinear unified strength criterion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge our gratitude toward the sponsors of the work presented in this paper: the MOE’s Program for Changjiang Scholars and the Innovative Research Team (IRT13092).

References

  1. Benz T, Schwab R, Kauther RA, Vermeer PA (2008) A Hoek–Brown criterion with intrinsic material strength factorization. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45:210–222. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chang C, Haimson B (2000) True triaxial strength and deformability of the German Continental Deep Drilling Program (KTB) deep hole amphibolite. J Geophys Res 105:18999–19013. doi: 10.1029/2000JB900184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Haimson BC, Chang C (2000) Anew true triaxial cell for testing mechanical properties of rock, and its use to determine rock strength and deformability of Westerly granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:285–296. doi: 10.1016/S1365-1609(99)00106-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J Geotech Eng ASCE 106:1013–1035Google Scholar
  5. Hoek E, Wood D, Shah S (1992) A modified Hoek–Brown criterion for jointed rock masses. In: Hudson JA (ed) Proceedings of the rock characterization, symposium of ISRM. British Geotechnical Society, London, pp 209–214Google Scholar
  6. Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B (2002) Hoek–Brown failure criterion—2002 edition. In: Hammah R, Bawden W, Curran J, Telesnicki M (eds) Proceedings of the Fifth North American rock mechanics symposium (NARMS-TAC). University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 267–273Google Scholar
  7. Jiang H (2015) A simple convenient three-dimensional Hoek–Brown criterion for rocks. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 34(Suppl1):2996–3004 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  8. Jiang H, Wang XW, Xie YL (2011) New strength criteria for rocks under polyaxial compression. Can Geotech J 48:1233–1245. doi: 10.1139/t11-034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lu XY, Zhu HL, Lu XL, Liu JM, Zhou Y, Li XG (2015) A study on the inner surface pressure distribution of fluid in ninety degree elbow pipe. AMM 713–715:34–38. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.713-715.34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mehranpour MH, Kulatilake PHSW (2016) Comparison of six major intact rock failure criteria using a particle flow approach under true-triaxial stress condition. Geomech Geophys Geo Energy Geo Res 2(4):203–229. doi: 10.1007/s40948-016-0030-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mogi K (1971) Fracture and flow of rocks under high triaxial compression. J Geophys Res 76:1255–1269. doi: 10.1029/JB076i005p01255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mogi K (2007) Experimental rock mechanics. Taylor and Francis, London, p 64Google Scholar
  13. Pan X, Hudson JA (1988) A simplified three dimensional Hoek–Brown yield criterion. In: Romana M (ed) Rock mechanics and power plants. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 95–103Google Scholar
  14. Shi XC, Meng YF, Li G (2011) Comparative analyses of several rock strength criteria. Rock Soil Mech 32(Suppl 1):209–216 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  15. Shi XC, Yang X, Meng YF, Li G (2016) Modified Hoek–Brown failure criterion for anisotropic rocks. Environ Earth Sci 75:995. doi: 10.1007/s12665-016-5810-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Single B, Goel RK, Mehrotra VK, Garg SK, Allu MR (1998) Effect of intermediate principal stress on strength of anisotropic rock mass. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 13:71–79. doi: 10.1016/S0886-7798(98)00023-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vásárhelyi B, Kovács L, Török Á (2016) Analysing the modified Hoek–Brown failure criteria using Hungarian granitic rocks. Geomech Geophys Geo Energy Geo Res 2(2):131–136. doi: 10.1007/s40948-016-0021-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang R, Kemeny JM (1995) A new empirical criterion for rock under polyaxial compressive stresses. In: Daemen S (ed) Rock mechanics. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 453–458Google Scholar
  19. You M (2011) Comparison of the accuracy of some conventional triaxial strength criteria for intact rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48:852–863. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yu MH (2011) New system of strength theory: theory, development and application, 2nd edn. Xi an Jiao Tong University Press, Xi an, pp 75–95 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  21. Yu MH, Zan YW, Zhao J, Yoshimine M (2002) A unified strength criterion for rock material. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:975–989. doi: 10.1016/S1365-1609(02)00097-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zan YW, Yu MH, Wang SJ (2002) Nonlinear unified strength criterion of rock. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 21:1435–1441 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  23. Zhang LY, Zhu HH (2007) Three-dimensional Hoek–Brown strength criterion for rocks. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133:1128–1135. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:9(1128) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhang YP, Cao P, Dong LJ (2010) A robust regression model and its application in calculating shear strength of rock. Sci Technol Rev 28:91–95 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  25. Zhang H, Liu J, Cao Y, Wang Y (2013) Effects of particle size on lignite reverse flotation kinetics in the presence of sodium chloride. Powder Technol 246:658–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geosciences and Environmental EngineeringSouthwest Jiaotong UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.College of Physics and Engineering TechnologyChengdu Normal UniversityChengduChina
  3. 3.Sichuan Vocational and Technical College of CommunicationsChengduChina

Personalised recommendations