ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 817824

Elasticbrittleplastic analysis of circular openings in

HoekBrown media
S.K. Sharan*
School of Engineering, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada ON P3E 2C6
Accepted 28 February 2003

Abstract
A closed-form solution is presented in this paper for the prediction of displacements around circular openings in a brittle rock
mass subject to a hydrostatic stress eld. The rock mass is assumed to be governed by HoekBrown yield criterion and a nonassociated ow rule is used. For the elasticbrittleplastic analysis of circular openings in an innite HoekBrown medium, the
existing analytical solutions were found to be incorrect. The present closed-form solution is based on a theoretically consistent
method and the solution does not require the use of any numerical method.
The present closed-form solution was validated by using the nite element method. In the nite element analysis, the innite
boundary was simulated exactly by using the newly developed elastic support method. Several cases were analyzed and the present
closed-form solutions for stresses and displacements were found to be in an excellent agreement with those obtained by using the
nite element method.
r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Brittle plastic rock; HoekBrown strength criterion; Closed-form solution; Underground excavation; Circular opening;
Finite element method; Nonlinear behaviour

1. Introduction
Analysis of stresses and displacements around circular
openings in rock mass is required in a wide variety of
geotechnical, petroleum and mining engineering problems such as in the design of tunnels, boreholes and
mine shafts. Elastoplastic analysis of circular openings
(Fig. 1) in an innite medium subject to a hydrostatic in
situ stress has been of special interest and numerous
contributions have been made to obtain closed-form
solutions for this problem. Reviews of those contributions may be found in [15]. In most of the analyses
reported in the past, the rock mass was conventionally
assumed to be governed by a linear MohrCoulomb
yield criterion. However, in many practical situations,
for instance in a jointed rock mass, such yield criteria
may not be justied and a non-linear yield criterion such
as that proposed by Hoek and Brown [6] would be more
appropriate.

*Tel.: +1-705-675-1151x2246; fax: +1-705-675-4862.

E-mail address: sharan@nickel.laurentian.ca (S.K. Sharan).
1365-1609/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S1365-1609(03)00040-6

Brown et al. [2] presented solutions for the elasticperfectly plastic and elasticbrittleplastic analyses
(Fig. 2) of circular openings in HoekBrown media.
However, Wang [4] pointed out that their solutions for
the radius of the yielded region and displacements
contained errors. The solution presented by Wang [4]
required the use of a numerical method based on an
iterative procedure. In order to circumvent this difculty, CarranzaTorres and Fairhurst [5] proposed a
closed-form solution using a dimensionless formulation
of the HoekBrown criterion. However, their solution is
not readily applicable to the elasticbrittleplastic
behavior of rock mass considered by Brown et al. [2]
and Wang [4]. For the elasticbrittleplastic analysis,
when there is a sudden loss of strength, neither Brown
et al. [2] nor Wang [4] presented any validation of the
closed-form solutions for displacements. The author has
found both solutions to be incorrect.
The objective of this paper is to develop a theoretically consistent closed-form solution for the analysis of
displacements around a circular opening in an elastic
brittleplastic rock mass obeying HoekBrown yield
criterion. The solution is validated by analyzing several

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.K. Sharan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 817824

818

Elastic region
Stress field at infinity
R

p0

Plastic region

Fig. 1. A circular opening in an innite medium.

1-3

Perfectly plastic

Brittle-plastic

1
Fig. 2. Material behavior models.

cases with the use of an axisymmetric nite element

analysis. In the nite element analysis, the innite
boundary is simulated by using a newly developed
method of elastic supports [7,8] in the commercial
software Phase2 [9].

2. Analytical solutions
Fig. 1 shows a circular opening of radius a in an
innite rock mass subject to a hydrostatic in situ stress
s0 : The opening surface is subject to a pressure p0 ; which
may be due to supports or uid containment. As
mentioned earlier, the rock mass is assumed to be
governed by the HoekBrown [6] yield criterion given by
q
1
s1 s3 msc s3 ss2c

in which s1 is the major principal stress at failure, s3 is

the minor principal stress, sc is the uniaxial compressive
strength of the intact rock, and m and s are Hoek
Brown constants that depend on the properties of rock
and the extent to which it was broken before being
subjected to the yield stresses. For an active loading
condition, s1 =sy and s3 sr ; where sr and sy are
stresses in the radial and circumferential directions,
respectively. Eq. (1) may thus be written as
q
sy sr msc sr ss2c :
2
For the plastic region aprpR (Fig. 1), r being the radial
distance from the center of the opening, the above
equation may be modied as
q
sy sr mr sc sr sr s2c
3
in which mr and sr are the residual values of Hoek
Brown constants for the yielded rock. Wang [4]
suggested changing sc to scr as the residual uniaxial
strength of the yielded rock. However, since sc is the
uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock, its
value should not be changed for the yielded rock.
The differential equation of equilibrium for the
axisymmetric problem may be written as
dsr sr
sy
0:
4

r
dr
By substituting Eq. (3) in Eq. (4) and using the
boundary condition sr p0 at r a; the above equation
was solved by Brown et al. [2] to obtain the expression
for the radial stress in the plastic region as
q
mr sc h  r i2 h  r i
mr sc p0 sr s2c p0 : 5
sr
ln
ln
a
a
4
The circumferential stress sy in the plastic region may
then be computed by using Eq. (3).
2.1. Extent of plastic region
Brown et al. [2] and Wang [4] obtained solutions for
the radius R of the elasticplastic interface. Wang [4]
pointed out that the solution obtained by Brown et al.
contained an error and derived a nonlinear equation to
solve for R: For an innitely large media and for scr
sc ; the nonlinear equation may be expressed as
  2   q
mr sc
R
R
mr sc p0 sr s2c
ln
s 0
p0


ln
a
a
4
sc

2
s


  2
  q
mr m
R
m
R
mp0
ln
s:
ln
mr sc p0 sr s2c
4
a
sc
a
sc

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.K. Sharan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 817824

Wang [4] suggested the use of a numerical method to

solve the above equation and reported that the
numerical solutions obtained for R were different from
those obtained by using the closed-form solution
presented by Brown et al. [2]. However, a closed-form
solution of Eq. (6) may be obtained as

819

By assuming that the elastic strains are relatively

small as compared to the plastic strains and that a
nonassociated ow rule is valid, the plastic parts of
radial and circumferential strains may be related as [4]
epr
Kd epy ;


p
R a exp
4 sc mr p0 sr sc :
pq
p 
2 sc 8sr sc mr sc m 8mr s0
mr sc m2 sc 16ms0 16ssc =2mr sc :

16

The above equation may be shown to be identical to

that obtained by Brown et al.

where the parameter Kd is a function of the dilation

angle c and is given by

2.2. Stresses and displacement in the elastic region

Kd

By substituting r R in Eq. (5), the radial stress sR at

the elasticplastic interface may be obtained as
 
 q
mr s c
R
R
sR
mr sc p0 sr s2c p0 :
ln
8
ln
a
a
4

Using Eqs. (12)(16) leads to the following differential

equation:

1 sin c
:
1
sin c

du
u
Kd f r;
dr
r

17

18

where
The radial and circumferential stresses and the radial
displacement u in the elastic region are then given by [10]
 2
R
sr s0

s0
sR ;
9
r
 2
R
s0
sR ;
sy s0
r

u


 2 
R
1n
s0
sR :
E
r

10

11

2.3. Strains and displacement in the plastic region

In the plastic region, the radial strain er and the
circumferential strain ey may be decomposed as

where E is Youngs modulus and n is Poissons ratio of

the rock mass. The resulting solution for the radial
displacement may be expressed as
 Kd
Z r
R
u r
Kd
rKd f r dr uR
:
21
r
R
In order to evaluate the integral in the above
equation, expressions for eer and eey are obtained as [10]


1n
D
e
1
2nC 2 ;
er
22
E
r


1n
D
1
2nC
2 ;

E
r

12

eey

ey eey epy ;

13

where

where the superscripts e and p represent the elastic and

plastic parts, respectively. By considering compressive
direct strains and radially outward displacements to be
positive, the relationship between strain and displacement at any point in the rock mass may be written as
du
14
er ;
dr
u
er
:
15
r

19

Eq. (18) may be solved by using the following boundary

condition for the radial displacement uR at the elastic
plastic interface [10]:


1n
uR
R
20
s0
sR ;
E

epr ;

er

eer



f r
eer Kd eey :

23

sR
s0 R2
p0
s0 a2
;
R 2
a2

24

a2 R2 p0
sR
:
R 2
a2

25

By substituting Eqs. (22) and (23) in Eq. (19) and then

substituting the resulting expression for f r in Eq. (21),
the integration in Eq. (21) may be carried out analytically. The expression for the radial displacement in the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
820

S.K. Sharan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 817824

plastic region is thus obtained as



1 n
Kd

r
u
C1
2n RKd 1
rKd 1
E
 Kd


R

D RKd
1
rKd
1 uR
:
r

analytical technique described in [8] and are given by

Et
;
28
kxc
61 n
26

The radial displacement u0 at the opening surface r

a is given by


1 n
Kd

a
C1
2n RKd 1
aKd 1
u0
E
 Kd


R

D RKd
1
aKd
1 uR
:
27
a
Due to errors involved in the derivation of expressions for radial displacements in [2,4], the results
obtained by using the above equation were found to
be different from those obtained by using solutions
given in [2,4] for elasticbrittleplastic rock. The present
analytical solutions were then validated by using the
nite element analysis.

kxm

2Et
;
31 n

29

kyc kym 0

30

in which, superscripts c and m correspond to corner and

mid-side nodes, respectively.
Convergence tests were performed by varying the
number of elements, the number of load steps and
convergence tolerance [9]. Since the innite extent of
rock mass was simulated by using an exact method,
no convergence test was required for the location of the
truncation boundary. For the examples to be presented
in the following section, results for the radius of the
truncation boundary rt 2a were found to be almost
identical to those for rt 3a and rt 4a: Results
presented in this paper correspond to rt 2a:

4. Numerical validation

3. Finite element analysis

As mentioned earlier, the nite element analysis was
conducted by using the commercially available software
Phase2 [9]. In order to achieve accurate results, the
innitely large extent of rock mass was simulated by
using elastic springs at nodes along the truncation
surface of the nite element model. A detailed description of the technique may be found in [7,8]. The nite
element model consisted of a nite circular disc of radius
rt and thickness t with a central hole. An axisymmetric
analysis was done and the plane strain state was
simulated by using roller supports as shown in Fig. 3
for a typical example to be described in the next section.
Eight-node quadrilateral elements were used and a
single element was used in the longitudinal direction of
the opening. In general, the thickness t of the disc was
chosen such that the geometry of each nite element was
square.
The innite rock mass was simulated by using only
three springs at the nodes on the truncation boundary as
shown in Fig. 4 for a typical example to be described in
the next section. Expressions for the stiffnesses kx and ky
of these springs along the radial and longitudinal
directions, respectively, were obtained by using an

In order to validate the analytical solutions, two

example problems were analyzed by using the nite
element method. Finite element results were compared
with those obtained by using analytical solutions
presented in this paper and in Refs. [2,4]. Data for
Example 1 were taken from [5] as follows: a 5 m,
p0 5 MPa, s0 30 MPa, E 5:5 GPa, n 0:25;
sc 30 MPa, c 0 ; m 1:7 and s 3:9  10
3 :
Residual values of HoekBrown constants were taken

Fig. 4. Elastic supports used at the truncation boundary of the nite

element model (Example 1, rt 2a; Ne 40).

Excavation surface (r = 5 m)
x

30

Truncation surface (r = 10 m)
Fig. 3. A typical nite element model (Example 1, rt 2a; Ne 40).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.K. Sharan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 817824

as mr 1:0 and sr 0 [11]. Similarly, data for Example

2 were taken from [2] as follows: a 4 m,
s0 108 MPa, E 40 GPa, n 0:20; sc 300 MPa,
c 0 , m 7:5 and s 0:1: For this example, the
values of residual parameters were taken as mr 1:0
and sr 0:01 and three different values of support
pressures were considered as follows: p0 0:0; 6.0 and
12.286 MPa. The value of p0 12:286 MPa corresponds
to the critical support pressure resulting in no yielding of
the rock mass. This value of p0 was selected to consider a
case of an elastic analysis. The elastic-perfectly plastic
analysis was conducted by using mr m and sr s: The
values of stiffnesses of springs used at the truncation
boundary were kx 91:67 and 555.56 MN/m at corner
nodes and kx 366:67 and 2222.22 MN/m at mid-side
nodes for Examples 1 and 2, respectively.
Table 1 shows a typical set of convergence test results
performed for the nite element analysis. The results for
normalized radial displacements u0 =a presented in this
table are for Example 2 with p0 6 MPa, mr 1:0 and
sr 0:01: Finite element results obtained by using
number of elements Ne 20 and 40, number of load
steps Ns 8 and 16, and convergence tolerance=10
6
and 10
9 are compared with the solution obtained by

using Eq. (27). As shown in the table, there was

practically no change in the result as the number of
load steps was increased from 8 to 16 and as the
convergence tolerance was decreased from 10
6 to 10
9.
The difference between the nite element results and the
closed-form solution was reduced from 6% to 1% as the
number of elements was increased from 20 to 40. This
showed that an accurate analysis required a highly
rened nite element mesh. This was feasible by using
the exact elastic support method to simulate the
unbounded rock mass. For accuracy, the subsequent
nite element computations were done by using Ne
40; Ns 16 and convergence tolerance=10
6.
Comparison of results for the radius of the elastic
plastic interface is presented in Table 2 for all the cases
analyzed. Closed-form solutions were obtained by using
Eq. (7). The maximum difference between the nite
element results and the proposed closed-form solutions
was 1%. As expected, when the support pressure is
equal to the critical pressure, there is no yielded region
in the nite element analysis as well. In general, the
difference between the nite element result and the
closed-form solution increased with the increase in
the difference between the strength parameters of the
rock before and after yielding. This was anticipated
because of the inability of the nite element model to
simulate a large abrupt change in the material behavior
with high accuracy. For the perfectly plastic behavior,
the difference was not more than 0.2%.
Table 3 shows a comparison of results for the radial
displacement of the opening surface. Results obtained
by using closed-form solutions derived in this paper and
by Brown et al. [2] and Wang [4] are compared with the
nite element results. For the elastic analysis corresponding to the critical loading case, all the results were
identical. For a perfectly plastic analysis, results
obtained by using the present solution and those
proposed by Wang agreed very well with the nite
element results. However, results obtained by using the
closed-form solution of Brown et al. differed from the

Table 1
Finite element results for the radial displacement of the opening
surface (Example 2, p0 6 MPa, mr 1:0; sr 0:01)
Number of
nite
elements (Ne )

Number of
load steps
(Ns )

20

8
16

40

8
16

Convergence
tolerance

u0 =a
(%)

Difference
(%)a

10
6
10
9
10
6
10
9

0.363
0.363
0.363
0.363

6
6
6
6

10
6
10
9
10
6
10
9

0.380
0.380
0.380
0.380

1
1
1
1

821

Compared with the present closed-form solution=0.383.

Table 2
Comparison of results for the radius of elasticplastic interface
Example number

s0 (MPa)

p0 (MPa)

30

5.0

108

0.0
6.0
12.286

(Closed form
FEM)  100/FEM.

Perfectly plastic.
c
Brittle-plastic.
b

R=a

Post-peak strength
Behavior

mr

sr

Closed form

FEM

Difference (%)a

PPb
BPc
PP
BP
PP
BP
PP
BP

1.7
1.0
7.5
1.0
7.5
1.0
7.5
1.0

0.0039
0.0
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.01

1.623
1.885
1.090
1.286
1.038
1.111
1.000
1.000

1.625
1.888
1.088
1.275
1.038
1.100
1.000
1.000

0.1

0.1
0.2
0.9
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.K. Sharan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 817824

822

Table 3
Comparison of results for the radial displacement of the opening surface
Example number

Behavior

30

5.0

108

0.0

6.0
12.286

PP
BPc
PP
BP
PP
BP
PP
BP

mr

1.7
1.0
7.5
1.0
7.5
1.0
7.5
1.0

Difference (%)a

u0 =a (%)

s0 (MPa) p0 (MPa) Post-peak strength

sr

Closed form

0.0039
0.0
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.01

Brown et al.[2]

Wang [4]

Present

0.852
1.149
0.341
0.475
0.309
0.354
0.287
0.287

0.993
1.670
0.351
1.305
0.311
0.611
0.287
0.287

0.993
1.439
0.351
0.565
0.311
0.383
0.287
0.287

FEM

Brown et al.

Wang

Present

1.009
1.474
0.352
0.571
0.311
0.380
0.287
0.287

16

22

3

17

1

7
0
0

2
13
0
129
0
61
0
0

2

2
0

1
0
1
0
0

(Closed form
FEM)  100/FEM.

Perfectly plastic.
c
Brittle-plastic.
b

1.6
1.4

Closed form (brittle-plastic)

Closed form (perfectly plastic)
FEM

1.2

-u/a (%)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

(a)

1.5
r/a

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

0.6

Closed form (brittle-plastic)

Closed form (perfectly plastic)
FEM

0.5

-u/a (%)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
(b)

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

r/a

Fig. 5. Distribution of radial displacements around openings: (a) Example 1, (b) Example 2.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.K. Sharan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 817824

823

25
Closed form (brittle-plastic)
Closed form (perfectly plastic)
FEM

Radial stress (MPa)

20

15

10

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

(a)

1.5
r/a

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

90
80

Closed form (brittle-plastic)

Closed form (perfectly plastic)
FEM

Radial stress (MPa)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

(b)

1.5
r/a

Fig. 6. Distribution of radial stresses around openings: (a) Example 1, (b) Example 2.

nite element results by 16%. For an elasticbrittle

plastic rock, Brown et al. and Wang solutions differed
from the nite element solution by a maximum of 22%
and 129%, respectively. This was reduced to 2% when
the present solution given by Eq. (27) was used.
For both examples, the distribution of displacements
(Figs. 5(a) and (b)), radial stresses (Figs. 6(a) and (b))
and circumferential stresses (Figs. 7(a) and (b)) obtained
by using the present closed-form solutions were compared with the nite element results. For Example 2,
these results are presented for a typical case corresponding to p0 0: These comparisons are made for both
elastic-perfectly plastic and elasticbrittleplastic analyses. In general, the sampling points used for the
presentation of nite element results correspond to the
nodal points. However, for the sake of accuracy, Gauss
points were used as sampling points for stresses near the

opening surface, truncation boundary and the elastic

plastic interface. These comparisons too indicate an
excellent agreement between the closed-form solutions
derived in this paper and the nite element results.

5. Conclusions
Existing analytical solutions were found to be
incorrect for the elasticbrittleplastic analysis of
circular openings in rock mass governed by Hoek
Brown failure criterion and subject to a hydrostatic in
situ stress. A theoretically consistent simple closed-form
solution was derived. The solution does not require the
use of a numerical method. It was validated by
conducting a nite element analysis. The agreement
between the nite element results and the proposed

ARTICLE IN PRESS
824

S.K. Sharan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 817824

50
45

Circumferential stress (MPa)

40
35
30
25
20

Closed form (brittle-plastic)

Closed form (perfectly plasic)
FEM

15
10
5
0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

(a)

1.5
r/a

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

250
Closed form (brittle-plastic)
Closed form (perfectly plasic)
FEM

Circumferential stress (MPa)

200

150

100

50

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

(b)

1.5
r/a

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Fig. 7. Distribution of circumferential stresses around openings: (a) Example 1, (b) Example 2.

closed-form solution was found to be excellent. For

elastic-perfectly plastic analysis, results for displacements disagree with Brown et al. solution and for
elasticbrittleplastic analysis, results disagree with both
Brown et al. and Wang solutions.
Acknowledgements
The nancial support provided by the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Jaeger JC, Cook NGW. Fundamentals of rock mechanics.
London: Chapman & Hall, 1979.
[2] Brown ET, Bray JW, Ladanyi B, Hoek E. Ground response
curves for rock tunnels. ASCE J Geotech Eng 1983;109:1539.

[3] Guenot A. Investigation of tunnel stability by model tests. M.Sc.

thesis. Edmonton: University of Alberta, 1979.
[4] Wang Y. Ground response of circular tunnel in poorly
consolidated rock. ASCE J Geotech Eng 1996;122:7038.
[5] Carranza-Torres C, Fairhurst C. The elasto-plastic response of
underground excavations in rock masses that satisfy the
HoekBrown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;
36:777809.
[6] Hoek E, Brown ET. Underground excavations in rock. London:
The Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 1980.
[7] Sharan SK. Finite element analysis of underground openings. Int
J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 1989;13:56570.
[8] Sharan SK. Elasto-plastic nite element analysis of underground
openings using elastic supports. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 1993;30:12914.
[9] Rocscience Inc. Phase2: nite element analysis and support design
for excavations. Toronto, 1999.
[10] Brady BHG, Brown ET. Rock mechanics for underground
mining. London: Chapman & Hall, 1993.
[11] Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF. Support of underground
excavations in hard rock. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1998.