The Hoek–Brown Failure Criterion

Erik Eberhardt

2 Background and Formulation

List of Symbols

r1 Major principal stress The Hoek–Brown criterion was developed as a means to

r3 Minor principal stress estimate rock mass strength by scaling the relationship
Co Uniaxial compressive strength derived according to the geological conditions present. The
mi Hoek–Brown material constant (intact rock) criterion was conceived based on Hoek’s (1968) experi-
mb Hoek–Brown material constant (rock mass) ences with brittle rock failure and his use of a parabolic
s Hoek–Brown material constant Mohr envelope derived from Griffith’s crack theory (Griffith
a Hoek–Brown material constant 1920, 1924) to define the relationship between shear and
GSI Geological Strength Index normal stress at fracture initiation. By associating fracture
D Disturbance factor initiation with fracture propagation and rock failure, Hoek
To Uniaxial tensile strength and Brown (1980) proceeded through trial and error to fit a
r0 3max Upper limit of confining stress variety of parabolic curves to triaxial test data to derive
r2 Coefficient of determination their criterion. Accordingly, the Hoek–Brown criterion is
empirical with no fundamental relationship between the
constants included in the criterion and any physical char-
acteristics of the rock (Hoek 1983).
1 Description The original non-linear Hoek–Brown failure criterion for
intact rock (Hoek and Brown 1980) was introduced as:
The Hoek–Brown failure criterion is an empirically derived qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
relationship used to describe a non-linear increase in peak r1 ¼ r3 þ m Co r3 þ s Co2 ð1Þ
strength of isotropic rock with increasing confining stress.
Hoek–Brown follow a non-linear, parabolic form that dis- where r1 and r3 are the major and minor principal stresses
tinguishes it from the linear Mohr–Coulomb failure crite- at failure, Co is the uniaxial compressive strength of the
rion. The criterion includes companion procedures intact rock, and m and s are dimensionless empirical con-
developed to provide a practical means to estimate rock stants. The criterion is non-linear in the meridian plane
mass strength from laboratory test values and field obser- (defined as the plane which passes through the hydrostatic
vations. Hoek–Brown assumes independence of the inter- axis and cuts the failure envelope) and linear in appearance
mediate principal stress. in the p-plane (defined as the plane perpendicular to
hydrostatic axis and cuts the failure envelope; see Fig. 1).
The criterion is also linear in the biaxial (r1-r2) plane (e.g.,
see Fig. 6).
Originally published as an article in the journal Rock Mechanics and The non-linear form of the Hoek–Brown criterion dis-
Rock Engineering, 45, E. Eberhardt, The Hoek–Brown Failure
Criterion, 981–988, 2012. tinguishes it from the linear Mohr–Coulomb failure crite-
rion (Fig. 1a). In terms of equivalencies, the parameter m is
E. Eberhardt (&)
Geological Engineering, EOAS, University of British Columbia,
analogous to the frictional strength of the rock and s, which
Vancouver, Canada is a measure of how fractured the rock is, is related to the
e-mail: erik@eos.ubc.ca rock mass cohesion. Large values of m give steeply inclined

R. Ulusay (ed.), The ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization, 233
Testing and Monitoring: 2007–2014, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-07713-0,
 Springer-Verlag 2012
234 E. Eberhardt

Fig. 1 a Comparison of the

linear Mohr–Coulomb and non-
linear Hoek–Brown failure
envelopes plotted against triaxial
test data for intact rock and
b similar comparison but
projected onto the p-plane. Inset
shows definition of p-plane (i.e.,
plane perpendicular to
hydrostatic stress axis)

Mohr envelopes and high instantaneous friction angles at r2 = r3 (i.e., conventional triaxial compression test) or
low effective normal stresses, as is generally found for r2 = r1. This assumption is later discussed in more detail in
strong brittle rocks; lower m values give lower instanta- the treatment of the advantages and limitations of the
neous friction angles as observed for more ductile rocks criterion.
(Hoek 1983). This is demonstrated in Fig. 2. The constant
s varies as a function of how fractured the rock is from a
maximum value of 1 for intact rock to zero for heavily 3 Rock Mass Properties
fractured rock where the tensile strength has been reduced
to zero. As the primary focus of this Working Group report is failure
As can be seen in Eq. (1), the Hoek–Brown criterion criterion for intact rock, the application of Hoek–Brown to
assumes that rock failure is controlled by the major and rock mass strength is only briefly discussed here. By
minor principal stress, r1 and r3; the intermediate principal adjusting the m and s parameters according to the rock mass
stress, r2, does not appear in the equations except insofar as conditions, the criterion can be applied to the estimation of
The Hoek–Brown Failure Criterion 235

In 2002, Hoek et al. (2002) re-examined the relationships

between the GSI and mb, s and a, and introduced a new
factor D to account for near surface blast damage and stress
relaxation. This edition of the criterion represents the last
major revision of the Hoek–Brown system. The rock mass
scaling relationships for mb, s and a were reported as:
 
GSI  100
mb ¼ mi exp ð3Þ
28  14D

 
GSI  100
s ¼ exp ð4Þ
9  3D

Fig. 2 Change in Hoek–Brown failure envelope as a function of

m plotted in shear versus normal stress space. Note how larger values 1 1  GSI 20

of m give more steeply inclined Mohr envelopes and higher equivalent a ¼ þ e 15 þ e 3 : ð5Þ
friction angles than lower m values 2 6

From above, mi is a curve fitting parameter derived from

triaxial testing of intact rock. The parameter mb is a reduced
rock mass strength properties. This requires the assumption value of mi, which accounts for the strength reducing effects
that any fractures present are numerous enough that the of the rock mass conditions defined by GSI (Fig. 3).
overall strength behavior has no preferred failure direction; Adjustments of s and a are also done according to the GSI
i.e., the rock mass responds as an isotropic, equivalent value. GSI is estimated from the chart of Marinos et al.
continuum. (2005); Sönmez and Ulusay (2002) discuss the sensitivity of
As an empirical criterion, the Hoek–Brown criterion has the Hoek–Brown strength envelope to GSI. Although rela-
been updated several times in response to experience gained tionships exist to convert RMR89 and Q to GSI (see Hoek
with its use and to address certain practical limitations et al. 1995), Hoek (2007) recommends that GSI be esti-
(Hoek and Brown 1988; Hoek et al. 1992, 1995, 2002). mated directly by means of the charts published on its use.
These primarily involve adjustments to improve the esti- For practicing engineers, the Hoek–Brown and GSI
mate of rock mass strength. One key update was the procedures (see Hoek et al. 2002) provide a straight forward
reporting of the ‘generalised’ form of the criterion (Hoek means to scale laboratory test values to obtain isotropic rock
et al. 1995): mass properties. However, it must first be decided whether
the representation of the engineered rock mass as an
 a
r0 equivalent continuum is appropriate or not. The criterion
r01 ¼ r03 þ Co mb 3 þ s : ð2Þ
Co should not be used where discontinuities have a significant
influence on the mobilization of failure and failure kine-
The term mb was introduced for broken rock. The ori- matics, for example where the discontinuity spacing is large
ginal mi value had been reassessed and found to depend compared with the dimensions of the underground opening
upon the mineralogy, composition and grain size of the or when a rock slope is being analyzed and stability is more
intact rock (Hoek et al. 1992). The exponential term a was governed by the shear strength of individual discontinuities.
added to address the system’s bias towards hard rock and to Where the rock mass is more moderately to heavily jointed
better account for poorer quality rock masses by enabling and the rock mass strength is approximately isotropic, then
the curvature of the failure envelope to be adjusted, par- the GSI and Hoek–Brown treatment of the rock mass as an
ticularly under very low normal stresses (Hoek et al. 1992). equivalent continuum are applicable.
The Geological Strength Index (GSI) was subsequently Hoek (2007) recommends, where possible, the Hoek–
introduced together with several relationships relating mb, Brown criterion be applied directly. However, given that
s and a, with the overall structure of the rock mass (or many geotechnical design calculations are written for the
blockiness) and surface conditions of the discontinuities Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion, it is often necessary to
(Hoek et al. 1995). The principal stress terms in the original calculate equivalent rock mass cohesion, c, and friction
equation had been replaced earlier with effective principal angle, /, values from the Hoek–Brown parameters. More-
stress terms as it was assumed that criterion was valid for over, most practitioners have an intuitive feel for the
effective stress conditions (Hoek 1983). physical meanings of cohesion and friction, which is not the
236 E. Eberhardt

Fig. 3 Scaling of Hoek–Brown Intact rock strength:

failure envelope for intact rock to
that for rock mass strength. See
σ1 mi = lab - determined
Marinos et al. (2005) for full s=1
details on use of the GSI chart
GSI

Co
Rock mass strength:
m b = rock mass adjusted
s = <1 (rock mass varied)

σ3

parameters too automatically without thinking clearly about

the range of effective normal stress that applies to the case
being considered. If high values of r0 3max are used, then the
equivalent effective cohesion value may be too high and the
equivalent effective friction angle too low.

4 Experimental Data on Intact Rock

There are several laboratory testing procedures from which

the peak strength of intact rock can be measured. These
include uniaxial compression, conventional triaxial com-
pression (r2 = r3) and true triaxial compression. Empirical
strength criteria have been developed based on fitting the best
line or curve to these data. The accuracy of a criterion’s fit to
the data is generally evaluated based on the biaxial plane-
Fig. 4 Fitting of linear Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes (blue solid stress condition (r1-r2 plane) and any meridian cross sec-
and dashed lines) along two different stress ranges of a non-linear pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffi 
Hoek–Brown failure envelope (red curve). Note the change in tion 2J2  I1 = 3 plane for 0  h  60 ; including the
equivalent cohesion and friction angle values for the two different
pffiffiffi
r1  2r3 plane (conventional triaxial test condition, where
stress ranges specified. Failure envelopes plotted using Rocscience’s
(2007) RocLab (color figure online) r2 = r3 or h = 0).
In developing the Hoek–Brown criterion, Hoek and
Brown (1980) analyzed published conventional triaxial test
data for more than 14 intact rock types covering a range of
case for mb, s and a. The quantitative conversion of Hoek– igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, with peak
Brown to Mohr–Coulomb parameters is done by fitting an strengths ranging from 40 MPa for a sandstone to 580 MPa
average linear relationship to the non-linear Hoek–Brown for a chert. This analysis included multiple tests for the
envelope for a range of minor principal stress values defined same rock type carried out in different laboratories and only
by To \ r3 \ r0 3max (Hoek et al. 2002). Note that the value considered data sets containing a minimum of five tests
of r0 3max, the upper limit of confining stress over which the covering a range of confining stresses. The choice of a non-
relationship between the Hoek–Brown and Mohr–Coulomb linear criterion was based on this review and the mi
criteria is considered, has to be determined for each indi- parameter was derived from best-fit linear regression to
vidual case (Fig. 4). Brown (2008) warns against applying these data. The coefficient of determination, r2, for these fits
programs that calculate equivalent Mohr–Coulomb ranged from 0.68 to 0.99, with most being [0.9.
The Hoek–Brown Failure Criterion 237

Zhao (2000) compared Mohr–Coulomb and Hoek– excavations in rock; the closeness of fit in this region may
Brown fits to experimental data from a series of dynamic thus be of more concern than that at high confining
uniaxial and triaxial compression, uniaxial tension and pressures.
unconfined shear tests performed on Bukit Timah granite
from Singapore (average UCS approximately 190 MPa).
This comparison showed that the intact rock strength under 5 Advantages and Limitations
dynamic loads, at both low and high confining pressures,
was better represented by the non-linear Hoek–Brown cri- The main advantages of the Hoek–Brown criterion are:
terion. Similarly, Ghazvinian et al. (2008) found that the (a) It is non-linear in form (in the meridian plane), which
non-linear form of the Hoek–Brown criterion gave a better agrees with experimental data over a range of confining
fit to their experimental data than the linear Mohr–Cou- stresses;
lomb, in this case for weak marlstones (average UCS (b) It was developed through an extensive evaluation of
approximately 12 MPa). laboratory test data covering a wide range of intact rock
Pariseau (2007) compared Mohr–Coulomb, Hoek– types;
Brown and Drucker–Prager fits to triaxial experimental data (c) It provides a straight forward empirical means to esti-
of several intact rock types using the unconfined compres- mate rock mass properties;
sive and tensile strength intercepts as common reference (d) There is almost three decades worth of experience with
points between the different criteria (it was assumed that the its use by practitioners on a variety of rock engineering
criteria are independent of the intermediate principal stress). projects.
Based on data from a sandstone, a high-strength norite, an Considerable progress has also been made in applying
Indiana limestone and a Dunham dolomite, the non-linear the Hoek–Brown criterion to the assessment and prediction
Hoek–Brown envelope provided a significantly better fit of brittle fracture damage in overstressed massive rock.
over the entire data range (i.e., low to high confining Martin et al. (1999) provide an empirical depth of spalling
pressures) than Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager. Pari- failure relationship using the Hoek–Brown criterion, setting
seau (2007) concluded, based on added comparisons m = 0 and s = 0.11. The fundamental assumption made by
involving other non-linear criteria, that a non-linear failure the authors is that the stress-controlled failure process
criterion is required to address the short comings of linear around the tunnel is dominated by cohesion loss. Hence the
failure criteria. mb parameter, which can be equated to frictional strength, is
A similar comparison was reported by Benz and Schwab set to zero. It should be emphasized that this treatment (i.e.,
(2008), assessing six different criteria: Mohr–Coulomb, m = 0) differs from that which would be used for an elasto-
Lade–Duncan, an approximation to Wiebols–Cook, Mogi, plastic yielding failure mechanism where the frictional
Hoek–Brown and a combined Hoek–Brown Matsuoka– strength component mobilizes and dominates the behavior
Nakai criterion proposed by Benz et al. (2008), which of the rock mass, requiring the m value to be set to a typical
accounts for the influence of the intermediate principal value for the rock type in question. These findings and the
stress, r2. These criteria were fitted to true triaxial test data empirical relationship suggested by Martin et al. (1999)
for eight different intact rocks taken from previously pub- have since been repeated and confirmed in other studies on
lished studies: Dunham dolomite, Solnhofen limestone, tunnel stability in highly stressed rock (e.g., Kaiser et al.
Shirahama sandstone, Yuubari shale, KTB amphibolite, 2000; Diederichs et al. 2004). Diederichs (2007) also uses
Mizuho trachyte, a dense marble and Westerly granite. the Hoek–Brown relationship to develop a reliable proce-
Again, in each case, the non-linear Hoek–Brown envelope dure for modelling the depth and extent of brittle spalling
gave either an equal or better fit than the linear Mohr– for deep tunnels in blocky to massive rock (GSI [ 65). His
Coulomb criterion. Comparisons between Hoek–Brown and procedure introduces a bi-linear failure criterion that
the other criteria were variable, though in six out of the accounts for different stress thresholds under which
eight cases, a clear reduction in the misfit between criteria brittle fractures initiate and propagate during spalling.
and data was found when the intermediate principal stress Considering the influence of confinement on self-stabiliza-
was considered in the failure criterion. tion of the spalling process at some distance into the rock
It should be emphasized that the relevance of these mass, this criterion captures the dependence of fracture
comparisons and the level of fit achieved are dependent, in propagation on confinement and can be incorporated into a
part, on the confining stress range (i.e., regression range) non-elastic numerical model using modified Hoek–Brown
and the coordinate system in which the data and criterion parameters.
are compared (e.g., r1–r3 plane). Fitting of criteria near the Limitations in the Hoek–Brown criterion have been
origin of a normal stress–shear stress plot, including tensile documented through detailed discussions on the simplifying
strength, is typically more important for engineering assumptions made in deriving the criterion (Hoek and
238 E. Eberhardt

Fig. 5 p-Plane plot comparing

Priest’s (2005) comprehensive
and simplified 3-D Hoek–Brown
criteria relative to other
commonly used criteria. See
Fig. 1b inset for definition of the
p-plane projection (modified
after Priest 2005)

Brown 1980; Hoek 1983; Brown 2008). One of the most the strength of the rock is higher than what the criterion
important of these is the independency of the criterion from predicts. Figure 6 compares the fit of the Hoek–Brown
the intermediate principal stress, r2. Hoek and Brown criterion to true triaxial test data for five different intact rock
(1980) justified this by pointing to triaxial extension and types as reported by Colmenares and Zoback (2002).
compression tests by Brace (1964) that showed no signifi- Another limitation of the Hoek–Brown criterion, as
cant variation between results when r2 = r3 and r2 = r1. discussed by Pariseau (2007), is with respect to its mathe-
Brace concluded that r2 had a negligible influence on matical characteristics. He noted that the parabola form of
failure. True triaxial testing by others (for e.g., Mogi 1971) the criterion is not centered on the hydrostatic stress axis.
shows that a more pronounced influence of r2 was dis- However, this does not have any influence on the practical
counted as involving brittle/ductile transitions in the failure application of Hoek–Brown. The underlying assumption in
process. the development of the Hoek–Brown criterion is
Subsequent experimental studies have since suggested r1 C r2 C r3 (or 0 B h B 60 in the p-plane), which
that the intermediate principal stress has a substantial implies a positive mean shear stress sm C 0. Therefore,
influence on rock strength (e.g., Takahashi and Koide 1989; Hoek–Brown is actually a segment of the parabola in the
Colmenares and Zoback 2002; Haimson 2006). This has led meridian plane which starts from the hydrostatic stress axis,
to the development of several 3-D versions of the Hoek– I1 (Fig. 7).
Brown failure criterion (Pan and Hudson 1988; Priest 2005;
Zhang and Zhu 2007; Zhang 2008; Melkoumian et al.
2009). Figure 5 compares the comprehensive and simplified 6 Recommendations
3-D Hoek–Brown envelopes developed by Priest (2005) to
other commonly used criteria for a given hydrostatic stress. As a peak strength criterion for intact rock, the Hoek–
Melkoumian et al. (2009) explain that despite the capacity Brown criterion has the advantage of describing a non-lin-
of the Hoek–Brown criterion for modelling a wide range of ear increase in strength with increasing confinement that
intact and fractured rock types, its use has not been widely agrees with extensive laboratory triaxial test data covering a
adopted in the petroleum industry, partly because it does not wide range of intact rock types. Its use can be recommended
take into account the intermediate principal stress. A stress for most rock types (igneous, sedimentary, metamorphic)
state where the intermediate principal stress is substantially under both low and high confining pressures. Similarly, its
larger than the minor principal stress can occur adjacent to use can be recommended for problems involving a varying
boreholes drilled for petroleum and gas extraction and thus range of confining stress magnitudes (from low to very high
The Hoek–Brown Failure Criterion 239

Fig. 6 Best-fit comparison of the Hoek–Brown criterion to true e KTB amphibolite. The Hoek–Brown criterion is represented by
triaxial (r1 [ r2 [ r3) tests of intact rock for: a Dunham dolomite, straight lines in r1 versus r2 space, extending laterally from each r3
b Solnhofen limestone, c Shirahama sandstone, d Yuubari shale, and value (after Colmenares and Zoback 2002)
240 E. Eberhardt

Griffith AA (1924) The theory of rupture. In: Biezeno CB, Burgers JM

(eds) Proceedings of the First International Congress for Applied
Mechanics. Delft. J. Waltman Jr, Delft, pp 55–63
Haimson B (2006) True triaxial stresses and the brittle fracture of rock.
Pure Appl Geophys 163(5–6):1101–1130
Hoek E (1968) Brittle failure of rock. In: Stagg KG, Zienkiewicz OC
(eds) Rock mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New York,
pp 99–124
Hoek E (1983) Strength of jointed rock masses, 23rd Rankine Lecture.
Géotechnique 33(3):187–223
Hoek E (2007) Practical Rock Engineering. e-book
Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock. The
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London
Fig. 7 Illustration of underlying assumption in the development of Hoek E, Brown ET (1988) The Hoek–Brown failure criterion—a 1988
the Hoek–Brown criterion in which r1 C r2 C r3 (or 0 B h B 60 in update. In: Curran J (ed) Proceedings of the 15th Canadian Rock
the p-plane). This forces a positive mean shear stress. The Hoek– Mechanics Symposium. University of Toronto, Toronto, pp 31–38
Brown criterion is a segment of the parabola which starts from the Hoek E, Wood D, Shah S (1992) A modified Hoek–Brown criterion
hydrostatic stress axis for jointed rock masses. In: Hudson JA (ed) Rock characterization:
ISRM Symposium, Eurock ‘92, Chester, UK. Thomas Telford,
London, pp 209–213
confinement). Where rock mass strength is more appropri- Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground
excavations in hard rock, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam
ate, empirical procedures, which provide an important and Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B (2002) Hoek–Brown failure
straight forward means to estimate rock mass properties, are criterion—2002 edition. In: Hammah R, Bawden W, Curran J,
also available. These are not discussed in detail here as the Telesnicki M (eds) Proceedings of the Fifth North American Rock
scope of the Working Group’s report is dedicated to Mechanics Symposium (NARMS-TAC), University of Toronto
Press, Toronto, pp 267–273
reporting on failure criteria for isotropic intact rock (see
Kaiser PK, Diederichs MS, Martin D, Sharpe J, Steiner W (2000)
WG Introduction). Underground works in hard rock tunnelling and mining. In:
GeoEng2000, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Dr. Evert Hoek, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Melbourne, Technomic
Masoud Rahjoo and Prof. Bill Pariseau, together with the reviewers of Publishing Company, Lancaster, pp 841–926
the Working Group’s report for their constructive review comments Marinos V, Marinos P, Hoek E (2005) The geological strength index:
and suggestions. applications and limitations. Bull Eng Geol Environ 64(1):55–65
Martin CD, Kaiser PK, McCreath DR (1999) Hoek–Brown parameters
for predicting the depth of brittle failure around tunnels. Can
Geotech J 36(1):136–151
References
Melkoumian N, Priest SD, Hunt SP (2009) Further development of the
three-dimensional Hoek–Brown yield criterion. Rock Mech Rock
Benz T, Schwab R (2008) A quantitative comparison of six rock Eng 42(6):835–847
failure criteria. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45(7):1176–1186 Mogi K (1971) Fracture and flow of rocks under high triaxial
Benz T, Schwab R, Kauther RA, Vermeer PA (2008) A Hoek–Brown compression. J Geophys Res 76(5):1255–1269
criterion with intrinsic material strength factorization. Int J Rock Pan XD, Hudson JA (1988) A simplified three-dimensional Hoek–
Mech Min Sci 45(2):210–222 Brown yield criterion. In: Romana M (ed) Rock mechanics and
Brace WF (1964) Brittle fracture of rocks. In: Judd WR (ed) State of stress power plants, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 95–103
in the Earth’s crust: Proceedings of the International Conference. Pariseau WG (2007) Fitting failure criteria to laboratory strength tests.
American Elsevier Publishing Co., New York, pp 110–178 Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44(4):637–646
Brown ET (2008) Estimating the mechanical properties of rock masses. Priest SD (2005) Determination of shear strength and three-dimen-
In: Potvin Y, Carter J, Dyskin A, Jeffrey R (eds) Proceedings of the sional yield strength for the Hoek–Brown criterion. Rock Mech
1st Southern Hemisphere International Rock Mechanics Sympo- Rock Eng 38(4):299–327
sium, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp 3–22 Rocscience (2007) RocLab. 1.031 edn. Rocscience Inc., Toronto
Colmenares LB, Zoback MD (2002) A statistical evaluation of intact Sönmez H, Ulusay R (2002) A discussion on the Hoek–Brown failure
rock failure criteria constrained by polyaxial test data for five criterion and suggested modifications to the criterion verified by
different rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39(6):695–729 slope stability case studies. Yerbilimleri 26:77–99
Diederichs MS (2007) Mechanistic interpretation and practical appli- Takahashi M, Koide H (1989) Effect of the intermediate principal
cation of damage and spalling prediction criteria for deep stress on strength and deformation behavior of sedimentary rocks
tunnelling. Can Geotech J 44(9):1082–1116 at the depth shallower than 2000 m. In: Maury V, Fourmaintraux D
Diederichs MS, Kaiser PK, Eberhardt E (2004) Damage initiation and (eds) Rock at great depth, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 19–26
propagation in hard rock tunnelling and the influence of near-face Zhang L (2008) A generalized three-dimensional Hoek–Brown
stress rotation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41(5):785–812 strength criterion. Rock Mech Rock Eng 41(6):893–915
Ghazvinian AH, Fathi A, Moradian ZA (2008) Failure behavior of Zhang L, Zhu H (2007) Three-dimensional Hoek–Brown strength criterion
marlstone under triaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci for rocks. J Geotech Geoenviron Engi ASCE 133(9):1128–1135
45(5):807–814 Zhao J (2000) Applicability of Mohr–Coulomb and Hoek–Brown
Griffith AA (1920) The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. strength criteria to the dynamic strength of brittle rock. Int J Rock
Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A Math Phys Sci 221(587):163–198 Mech Min Sci 37(7):1115–1121