ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1045–1052

Technical Note
Effect of transverse anisotropy on the Hoek–Brown strength
parameter ‘mi’ for intact rocks
K. Colak, T. Unlu*
Department of Mining Engineering, Zonguldak Karaelmas University, 67100 Zonguldak, Turkey

1. Introduction Most sedimentary rocks (e.g. sandstone, mudstone,

The original Hoek–Brown (H–B) empirical criterion
was first developed for intact rock exhibiting brittle
failure characteristics [1,2]. Since it is reasonably simple
and fits the experimental data quite well, it has become
popular and has been used successfully in many rock
mechanics studies. Furthermore, due to the extension of
the criterion to rock masses, it has become an
indispensable tool for the rock engineers.
The H–B criterion has been modified several times to
improve its applications to rock masses since its first
introduction in 1980. The latest version of the criterion
is as follows [3]:
0 0 0 0 a
s1 ¼ s3 þ sci ðmb s3 =sci þ sÞ ;
where s10 and s30 are the effective major and minor
principal stresses, respectively, at failure; sci is the
uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock; mb, s
and a are the strength parameters depending on the
quality of the rock mass, and can be estimated by
empirical expressions involving the geological strength
index (GSI) and disturbance factor (D) [3]. Yet, the
original form for intact rock material (i.e. s=1 and
a=0.5) has not been changed and is given by
0 0 0 elsewhere [6].
s1 ¼ s3 þ ðmi sci s3 þ s2ci Þ0:5 ;
where mi is the H–B parameter for intact rock material.
The parameter mi is dimensionless, and its value is
affected by inter-particle friction and the degree of
particle interlocking [2]. Although it has been noted that
Eq. (1b) is applicable to isotropic rocks, it may be
modified to predict the failure of anisotropic intact rocks
[1].
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-372-257-4010; fax: +90-372-257-
4023.
E-mail address: tugrulunlu@karaelmas.edu.tr (T. Unlu).
shale, etc.) exhibit anisotropic characteristics in terms of
strength and deformational properties and are generally
considered to be transversely isotropic materials. A
study has been undertaken to determine how mi values
are influenced by the strength anisotropy for truly intact
rock material. In the study, firstly, brief information is
given regarding the parameter mi; then, an experimental
study carried out on transversely isotropic rocks is
described and the results are presented. Finally, a
function defining the dependence of the parameter mi
on strength anisotropy is obtained.
2. Background
ð1aÞ
2.1. parameter ‘mi ’ for isotropic rock material
The parameter mi used in the H–B criterion for intact
rock can be determined by statistical evaluation of the
results of experimental studies (i.e. uniaxial and triaxial
compressive strength tests, direct or indirect tensile
strength tests, etc.). Procedures employing a simple
linear model [1,2,4] or a non-linear regression analysis
[5] for determining this parameter are available. The
typical values of mi for some rock types are given
ð1bÞ
There are other approaches to estimate the parameter
mi. For example, Vutukuri and Hossaini [7] suggested
some empirical relations between the parameters mi and
sci for various rock types. However, there are more
meaningful and theoretically sound expressions for this
purpose. These are summarized below.
When strength data are available from the uniaxial
compressive (sci) and direct tensile (sti) testing of intact
rock specimens, the following equation is applicable:
mi ¼ sti =sci  sci =sti : ð2aÞ

1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.04.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1046 K. Colak, T. Unlu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1045–1052

Today, the direct tensile test is seldom used due to the
difficulties involved; instead, the indirect (Brazilian)
tensile strength (stB) test is preferred. In this case, mi can
be estimated by the equation given by Gercek [8]:
mi ¼ 16stB =sci  sci =stB :
In addition, mi can be estimated by using the following
equation derived by utilizing the analytical solutions
[9,10] for the non-linear Mohr envelope for intact rock
material [8]:
4 sinf0i
mi ¼

0:5 ð2cÞ
1  sinf0i 1 þ 2sinf0i
where f0i is the value of instantaneous friction angle at
zero normal stress.
In the approaches given above, the rock material is
assumed to be isotropic. It has been noted that the mi
value for the same generic rock type varies within a
range. As an example, Table 1 gives the range of mi
values for sandstones.
Although it is quite acceptable that the mi value may
vary within a reasonable range for the same rock type,
the broad range of values may be due to the variation in
petrographic features of the rocks (mineral composition,
cement type, particle geometry, degree of particle
interlocking, etc.). Also, the existence of strength
anisotropy in the specimens may contribute to this
phenomenon. Hoek and Brown [13], recognizing the fact
that the value of mi will be significantly different for
rocks exhibiting strength anisotropy, recommend that
mi values be determined from rocks tested normal to
ð2bÞ bedding or foliation. Furthermore, probably, the most
likely explanation for an unreasonably broad range of
mi values is that all the rock specimens may not be truly
intact (i.e. the assumption s=1 is not justified) [14].
2.2. Parameter ‘mi ’ for anisotropic rock material
For anisotropic and truly intact rock material, the H-
B criterion can be written as follows:
s1ðbÞ ¼ s3 þ ðmiðbÞ sciðbÞ s3 þ s2ciðbÞ Þ0:5 ; ð3Þ
where b denotes the orientation angle. The definition of
the orientation angle is important: it is the angle
between the principal stress causing the failure and the
plane of strength anisotropy (Fig. 1). This form of the
criterion can be considered as an extension of the forms
used by Tien and Kuo [15]. In discussing a new failure
criterion for transversely isotropic rocks, they consid-
ered the following forms of the H–B criterion:
s1ð0Þ ¼ s3 þ ðmið0Þ scið0Þ s3 þ s2cið0Þ Þ0:5 ; ð4aÞ
s1ð90Þ ¼ s3 þ ðmið90Þ scið90Þ s3 þ s2cið90Þ Þ0:5 ; ð4bÞ

Table 1 where sci(0) and sci(90) are the uniaxial compressive

Applicable mi values for sandstones strengths of rock samples tested at b = 0 and 90 ,
respectively; mi(0) and mi(90) are the parameter mi in the
Reference Range of Suggested
reported values value H–B criterion for the rock samples tested at b=0 and
90 , respectively. Unlike Eqs. (4a) and (4b), Eq. (3)
Hoek and Brown [1] 6.4–27.3 14.3
covers the entire range of the orientation angle b. After
Bétournay et al. [11] 6.8–22.8 21.0
Gercek and Muftuoglu [12] 7.4–25.5 13.2 normalizing Eq. (3) by sci(b), the following expression,
independent of the uniaxial compressive strength, can be

σ1 σ3 σ1
β β
F
β
σ3

β
σ3

σ1 > σ3 > 0 σ 1 = 0 > σ3 σ1= −3 σ3 > 0 > σ3

Uniaxial and Triaxial Uniaxial Tension Indirect (Brazilian)
Compression Tension

Fig. 1. Definition of the orientation angle (b).

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Colak, T. Unlu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1045–1052 1047

obtained: Table 4
Classification of transversely isotropic materials on the basis of elastic
s1ðbÞ =sciðbÞ ¼ s3 =sciðbÞ þ ðmiðbÞ s3 =sciðbÞ þ 1Þ0:5 : ð5Þ anisotropy parameters [19]

Eq. (5) has been the starting point of an experimental Range Class
study carried out to determine mi(b). np2.1 Semi isotropy
2.1onp2.5 Low anisotropy
2.3. Determination of the degree of anisotropy 2.5onp3.0 Medium anisotropy
3.0on High anisotropy

Before starting the main work, anisotropic mechan-

ical properties were studied for the rock types con-
sidered. The degree of anisotropy for the rock types was
determined using the following indicators: anisotropy
ratio (Rc), point load strength anisotropy index (Ia(50)),
and elastic anisotropy parameters for transversely
isotropic materials.
The anisotropy ratio is defined as follows [16]:
Rc ¼ scið90Þ =sciðminÞ ;
where sci(min) is the minimum value of sci obtained from
oriented specimens. An anisotropy classification based
on Rc is given in Table 2.
The point load strength anisotropy index (Ia(50)) is
defined as
Iað50Þ ¼ Isð50Þ> =Isð50Þ== ;
where Isð50Þ> and Isð50Þ== are the standard point load
strength index values perpendicular and parallel to the
planes of bedding, respectively [17]. An anisotropy
classification based on Ia(50) was suggested by Tsidzi
[18] and is given in Table 3.
Lekhnitskii, who investigated deformation character-
istics of transversely isotropic materials, proposed the
following equations [19]:
The parameters ‘k’ and ‘m’ used in the above equation
can be calculated from
k ¼ ½ðE1 =E2  n22 Þ=ð1  n21 Þ 0:5 ð8bÞ
and
m ¼ ½E1 =G2  2n2 ð1 þ n1 Þ =ð1  n21 Þ; ð8cÞ
ð6Þ where the independent elastic constants of transverse
isotropy are defined as follows:
E1 is Young’s modulus parallel to the plane of
isotropy (bedding plane), E2 Young’s modulus perpen-
dicular to the plane of isotropy, n1 Poisson’s ratio
characterizing strains within the plane of isotropy with
the load acting parallel to this plane, n2 Poisson’s ratio
ð7Þ characterizing strains within the plane of isotropy with
the load acting perpendicular to this plane, and G2 the
modulus of rigidity corresponding to shearing in the
plane perpendicular to the plane of isotropy.
Using these equations, the classification given in
Table 4 for transversely isotropic rocks is suggested [19].
3. Experimental study

n ¼ ð2k þ mÞ0:5 : ð8aÞ The experimental study involved a number of

sedimentary rocks (sandstones, siltstones and claystone)
Table 2 obtained from the mines of the Turkish Hardcoal
Classification based on the anisotropy ratio [16] Enterprises at Zonguldak, Turkey. These rock types
Range Class characterize the coal bearing strata in the region. Rock
blocks taken from underground mines were marked
1.0oRcp1.1 Isotropic
1.1oRcp2.0 Low anisotropy indicating the bedding planes. Then, oriented samples
2.0oRcp4.0 Medium anisotropy were prepared using cores taken from the blocks. All
4.0oRcp6.0 High anisotropy samples were carefully examined to make sure that they
6.0oRc Very high anisotropy were truly intact. Finally, tests were conducted accord-
ing to the ISRM suggested standards [20]. The testing
program may be divided into two parts summarized
Table 3 below.
Classification of foliated rocks based on the point load strength
anisotropy index (Ia(50)) [18]
3.1. Degree of anisotropy
Nature of rock Range Class

Very weakly foliated Ia(50)o1.1 Quasi-isotropic The first part of the testing program involved the
or non foliated determination of the degree of anisotropy of the rock
Weakly foliated 1.1oI a(50)o1.5 Fairly anisotropic types considered. For this purpose, firstly, uniaxial
Moderately foliated 1.5oI a(50)o2.5 Moderately anisotropic compressive strength tests were conducted on samples
Strongly foliated 2.5oI a(50)o3.5 Highly anisotropic with various orientation angles (i.e. b=0 , 30 , 45 , 60 ,
Very strongly foliated 3.5oI Very highly anisotropic
a(50)
and 90 ). Secondly, in order to determine Ia(50) values,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1048 K. Colak, T. Unlu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1045–1052

Table 5
Anisotropy classification of the rock types studied [21]

Rock type (grain size) Anisotropy ratio Point load strength anisotropy index Elastic anisotropy parameter

Rc Class Ia(50) Class n Class

Sandstone-A (fine grained) 1.75 Low anisotropy 1.59 Medium anisotropy 2.69 Medium anisotropy
Sandstone-B (fine grained) 1.62 Low anisotropy 1.25 Low anisotropy 2.20 Low anisotropy
Sandstone-C (fine grained) 1.15 Low anisotropy 1.29 Low anisotropy 2.42 Low anisotropy
Sandstone-D (medium grained) 1.34 Low anisotropy 1.18 Low anisotropy 2.25 Low anisotropy
Sandstone-E (medium grained) 1.23 Low anisotropy 1.01 Quasi-isotropic 2.11 Low anisotropy
Siltstone-A 1.94 Medium anisotropy 2.51 High anisotropy 2.41 Low anisotropy
Siltstone-B 2.30 Medium anisotropy 3.15 High anisotropy 2.39 Low anisotropy
Claystone 3.04 Medium anisotropy 3.49 High anisotropy 2.86 Medium anisotropy

Table 6
Calculated values of mi(b) and sci(b) (MPa) for the rock types considered

Rock type (grain size) Orientation angle (b) (degree)

0 30 45 60 90

mi(b) sci(b) mi(b) sci(b) mi(b) sci(b) mi(b) sci(b) mi(b) sci(b)

Sandstone-A (fine grained) 13.93 167.9 — — 8.51 114.5 8.65 130.2 11.97 145.0
Sandstone-B (fine grained) 14.59 163.1 11.22 107.8 14.68 117.8 16.37 121.3 18.04 136.2
Sandstone-C (fine grained) 13.83 157.2 10.49 99.4 12.65 125.9 — — 16.67 140.5
Sandstone-D (medium grained) 14.07 99.7 15.57 83.4 12.17 88.8 14.01 99.8 15.09 91.9
Sandstone-E (medium grained) 13.78 139.5 14.06 124.1 10.81 116.7 13.28 128.3 14.34 133.8
Siltstone-A 6.74 76.2 3.65 41.8 — — 10.77 60.9 10.32 67.7
Siltstone-B 8.18 102.0 2.53 50.5 8.22 56.2 9.96 56.3 16.22 93.4
Claystone 5.82 53.6 3.76 25.8 5.60 29.3 7.41 33.0 8.94 47.5

point load strength tests were carried out parallel and Table 7
perpendicular to the bedding planes. Finally, deform- Results of statistical analyses involving non-linear least squares
estimation method
ability tests were performed on oriented rock
samples to obtain independent elastic constants for Rock type Statistical parameters Coefficient of
transversal isotropy. Details of these tests are given determination
(r2)
elsewhere [21]. A B C D
Table 5 gives the values of the three indicators of the
degree of anisotropy for the rock types. The results have Sandstones 0.38 17.0 14.8 0.47 0.653
Siltstones 0.77 17.4 19.8 0.31 0.840
shown that the claystone and siltstones are of medium to
Claystone 0.61 15.3 17.6 0.40 0.998
high anisotropy while sandstones, especially those of All sedimentary rock 0.63 13.4 13.3 0.49 0.606
medium grain size, exhibited low anisotropy. types considered

3.2. Anisotropic strength envelopes

In the second part, depending on the rock type,

indirect tensile (Brazilian) and triaxial compressive
strength tests were performed. In the triaxial tests,
confining pressures were varied between 3 and 30 MPa
for each orientation angle. Using the simple-linear
model, mi(b) and sci(b) values for each rock type and
orientation angle were determined by statistical regres-
sion analyses (Table 6). Using Eq. (5) and the values
given in Table 7, normalized strength envelopes were
drawn (Fig. 2).
The difference of strength envelopes obtained from
tests with different orientation angles is an indication of
strength anisotropy, i.e. the closer the curves to each
other, the less strength anisotropy exists. Fig. 2 shows
that, while fine-grained sandstones (Figs. 2a–c) exhibit
strength anisotropy to some degree, no clear indication
exists concerning the strength anisotropy of the med-
ium-grained sandstones (Figs. 2d–e). In fact, these rocks
can be characterized as isotropic, since their normalized
strength envelopes are almost identical. Therefore,
medium-grained sandstones (i.e. Sandstone-D and -E)
have been excluded from the following interpretations
involving the parameter mi.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Colak, T. Unlu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1045–1052 1049

7 7 σ = 90° 7 7
β = 90° 60°
β = 90°, 30°
45°, 0°
6 0° 6 6 0°, 60° 6
30° β = 60 °
60°, 45° 45° 90°
5 5 5 5 0°

σ1 / σ ci

σ1 / σ ci
σ1 / σ ci

σ1 / σ ci
4 4 4 4 30°

3 3
3 3

2 2
2 2
1 Sandstone-A 1 Sandstone-B
1 Sandstone-E 1 Siltstone-A

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
(a) σ 3 / σ ci (b) σ 3 / σ ci
(e) σ3 / σ ci (f ) σ3 / σ ci
7 7
β = 90° σ = 30°
0° 90°
6 45° 6 7 7
45°
30° 60°, 0° β = 90 °
5 5 6 6
60° β = 90°
σ1 / σ ci

σ1 / σ ci

4 4 5 45°, 0° 5 60°
0°, 45°

σ1 / σ ci

σ1 / σ ci
3 3 4 4 30°
30°
2 2 3 3

1 Sandstone-C 1 Sandstone-D
2 2

1 Siltstone-B 1 Claystone
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
(c) σ 3 / σ ci (d) σ 3 / σ ci
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Fig. 2. Normalized H–B strength envelopes for various orientation
(g) σ3 / σ ci (h) σ3 / σ ci
angles.
Fig. 2 (continued).

4. Variation of ‘mi ’ for anisotropic rocks
It has been noted that values of mi(b) vary with the
orientation angle (Table 7), and this is considered an
indication of the strength anisotropy. A suitable
function that may be used to define the normalized
value of mi(b) has been derived from a similar expression
given by Hoek and Brown [1], who attributed it to Mr. I.
Miller of Golder Associates, Vancouver. Utilizing this
equation, the following expression is obtained:
miðbÞ =mið90Þ ¼ 1  A expf-½b  BÞ=ðC þ DbÞ 4 g;
where mi(90) is the reference value of mi, B is the value of
b (in degrees) at which mi(b) is minimum, and A, C and D
are statistical parameters [1]. Although B seems to be
30 for the b values considered in the tests, B is not
taken as a constant in Eq. (9); rather, it has been treated
as another statistical parameter. The data given in Table
7 were analyzed for each generic rock type utilizing a
non-linear least squares estimation method; then, the
data were analyzed for all the sedimentary rocks
considered (Table 7). Using Eq. (9) and the parameters
given in Table 7, variations of the normalized mi
parameter with the orientation angle are shown for the
sandstones, siltstones, and claystone in Figs. 3a–c,
respectively. It should be noted that these curves were
obtained using only a limited number of test data.
Increasing the number of tests may affect the values of
parameters, particularly of B; however, no dramatic
change is expected in terms of the shape of the curve.
Finally, a generalized curve is obtained for all the
sedimentary rocks considered (Fig. 4).
It has been found that, the addition of Brazilian test
results in the compressive strength data to calculate the
parameters for intact rock affects the values of mi(b) and
sci(b) [11]. In this study, since the Brazilian tests were
carried out on oriented specimens (i.e. their anisotropy
ð9Þ
was taken into account), the inclusion of indirect tensile
strength data into the study involving an anisotropic
strength criterion was necessary. Therefore, in the
statistical analyses for determining mi(b) and sci(b), the
data from compressive (uniaxial and triaxial) and
indirect tensile (Brazilian) strength tests were used. In
addition, to find out how this consideration affects the
prediction of tensile strength of intact rock, the
variation of the normalized Brazilian strength (stB /
sci) with orientation angle is shown in Fig. 5. It should
be noted that the shape of the stB(b) /sci(b) vs. b
curve is closely related to the curve defining mi(b) (Fig. 4)
since
stBðbÞ =sciðbÞ ¼ ½miðbÞ  ðm2iðbÞ þ 64Þ0:5 =32: ð10Þ
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1050 K. Colak, T. Unlu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1045–1052

1.4 1.2

Normalized mi Parameter, mi(β) / mi (90)

Normalized mi Parameter, mi(β) / mi (90)
1.2 1

1 0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
Sandstone-A 0.4 Siltstone-A
0.4 Sandstone-B Siltstone-B
0.2 Sandstone-C 0.2 Eq. (9)
Eq. (9)
0 0
0o 15o 30o 45o 60o 75o 90o 0o 15o 30o 45o 60o 75o 90o
(a) Orientation Angle, β (b) Orientation Angle, β

1.2
Normalized mi Parameter, mi(β) / mi (90)

0.8

0.6

0.4
Claystone
Eq. (9)
0.2

0
0o 15o 30o 45o 60o 75o 90o
(c) Orientation Angle, β

Fig. 3. Variation of the normalized mi parameter with the orientation angle for various rocks.

1.4 in Eq. (5). It is also worth mentioning that, theoretically,

the s1(b)/s3=3 condition applies to isotropic rocks
Normalized mi Parameter, mi(β) / mi (90)

1.2 diametrically loaded with concentrated line loads. If the

rock specimens exhibit strong deformational anisotropy
1.0 and/or the diametrical loading is over an angular width
rather than along a line, the above relation between the
0.8
principal stresses at failure will not be valid [22]. Since
the rocks considered in this study exhibited low to
Sandstone-A medium anisotropy in terms of deformational proper-
0.6 Sandstone-B ties, it can be assumed that s1(b)/s3 values in Brazilian
Sandstone-C tests do not deviate from 3 very much.
0.4 Claystone In summary, when transversely isotropic intact rock
Siltstone-A
specimens exhibit strength anisotropy, the H–B strength
0.2 Siltstone-B
envelope is variable, and it is influenced by the
Eq. (9)
orientation angle. Using the results of basic strength
0 tests on oriented samples, the values of the H–B strength
0o 15o 30o 45o 60o 75o 90o parameter mi are calculated for different orientation
Orientation Angle, β angles by conventional statistical analysis. Then, em-
ploying the expression given by Eq. (9) as a model for
Fig. 4. Variation of the normalized mi parameter with the orientation
angle for all sedimentary rock types considered. non-linear statistical regression, the parameter mi(b) can
be obtained as a function of the orientation angle (b).
Eq. (10) is obtained by using s3 =stB(b) and Finally, normalized H–B strength envelopes are ob-
s1(b)=3stB(b) (i.e. the principal stresses occurring at tained according to Eq. (5), and they also depend on the
the center of the disk sample in Brazilian tests at failure) orientation angle. In addition, it should be emphasized
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Colak, T. Unlu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1045–1052 1051

0.12 0.12 0.12

0.10 0.10 0.10

0.08
|σtB(β)/σci(β)|

|σtB(β)/σci(β)|
0.08 0.08

|σtB(β)/σci(β)|
0.06 0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04 0.04

0.02 Eq. (10) 0.02 Eq. (10) 0.02 Eq. (10)

Sandstone-A Sandstone-B Sandstone-C
0 0 0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
(a) Orientation angle, β (b) Orientation angle, β (c) Orientation angle, β

0.25 0.25 0.25

0.20 0.20 0.20

|σtB(β)/σci(β)|

|σtB(β)/σci(β)|

|σtB(β)/σci(β)|
0.15 0.15 0.15

0.10 0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05 0.05 Eq. (10)

Eq. (10) Eq. (10)
Siltstone-A Siltstone-B Claystone
0 0 0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
(d) Orientation angle, β (e) Orientation angle, β (f ) Orientation angle, β

Fig. 5. Variation of the normalized Brazilian strength with the orientation angle.

that this approach is applicable to two-dimensional Karaelmas University for his help regarding the
transverse isotropy problems involving intact rocks. statistical aspects of the study.
Considering the fact that the rock mass strength
parameter mb of the H–B criterion depends on mi for
isotropic rocks [3], one may argue that the strength
parameter mb(b) for transversely isotropic rock masses References
probably depends on mi(b). Then, this approach may
also be extended to include anisotropic rock masses. [1] Hoek E, Brown ET. Underground excavations in rock. London:
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy; 1980.
[2] Hoek E, Brown ET. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses.
ASCE J Geotech Eng Div 1980;106(GT9):1013–35.
5. Conclusions [3] Hoek E, Carranza-Torres, CT, Corkum B. Hoek–Brown failure
criterion-2002 edition. Proceedings ARMS-TAC Joint Confer-
ence, Toronto; 2002; http://www.rocscience.com.
It has been known that the intact rock parameter mi
[4] Hoek E. Strength of jointed rock masses. Géotechnique
of the H–B criterion is affected by strength anisotropy. 1983;33:187–223.
This work should be considered as an attempt to [5] Shah S, Hoek E. Simplex reflection analysis of laboratory rock
quantify the effect. The study has shown that if, the strength data to obtain Hoek–Brown parameters. Can Geotech J
effect of strength anisotropy for the parameter mi is 1992;29:278–87.
incorporated into the H–B criterion, it may be used for [6] Marinos P, Hoek E. Estimating the geotechnical properties of
heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch. Bull Eng Geol Env
the prediction of strength for anisotropic rock material. 2001;60:85–92.
Although this approach is applicable only to plane [7] Vutukuri VS, Hossaini SMF. Modification to the Hoek-Brown
anisotropy problems related to intact rocks, it is strength criterion. Proceedings of the International Workshop on
anticipated that it will be possible to extend it to include Rock Foundations, Rotterdam: Balkema; 1995. p. 133–7.
rock masses. [8] Gercek, H. Properties of failure envelopes and surfaces defined by
the Hoek–Brown failure criterion (in Turkish). Proceedings of the
6th Regional Rock Mechanics Symposium. Konya: Turkish
National Society For Rock Mechanics and Selcuk University;
Acknowledgements 2002. p. 3–11.
[9] Ucar R. Determination of shear failure envelope in rock masses.
ASCE J Geotech Eng Div 1986;112(3):303–15.
The authors wish to thank Professor Hasan Gercek of
[10] Kumar P. Shear failure envelope of Hoek–Brown criterion for
Zonguldak Karaelmas University for his valuable rock masses. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 1998;13(4):453–8.
comments and suggestions in preparing the manuscript [11] Betournay et al. New considerations in the determination of Hoek
and Assist. Prof. Dr. Hamit Aydin of Zonguldak and Brown material constants. Proceedings of the 7th Interna-
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1052 K. Colak, T. Unlu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1045–1052
tional Congress on Rock Mechanics, vol. 1. Rotterdam: Balkema;
1991. p. 195–200.
[12] Gercek H, Muftuoglu YV. Failure characteristics of coal measure
rocks. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Assess-
ment and Prevention of Failure Phenomena in Rock Engineering.
Rotterdam: Balkema; 1993. p. 329-34.
[13] Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34(8):1165–86.
[14] Hoek E, Brown ET. Closure to the discussion. ASCE J Geotech
Eng Div 1982;108(GT4):672–3.
[15] Tien YM, Kuo MC. A failure criterion for transversely isotropic
rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2001;38:399–412.
[16] Ramamurthy T. Strength and modulus responses of anisotropic
rocks. In: Hudson JA, editor. Comprehensive rock engineering,
vol.1. Fundamentals. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1993. p. 313–29.
[17] ISRM. Suggested method for determining point load strength. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1985;22(2):51–60.
[18] Tsidzi KEN. The influence of foliation on point load strength
anisotropy of foliated rocks. Eng Geol 1990;29:49–58.
[19] Kwasniewski M. Anisotropy of elasticity of rocks and its effect on
the magnitude and distribution of stress around underground
openings. Proceedings of the 8th Plenary Scientific Session,
International Bureau of Strata Mechanics, Essen; 1984.
p. 5–37.
[20] Brown ET (editor). Rock characterization, testing and monitor-
ing-ISRM suggested methods. Oxford: Pergamon; 1981.
[21] Colak K. A study on the strength and deformation anisotropy of
coal measure rocks at Zonguldak basin (in Turkish), PhD thesis,
Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Department of Mining En-
gineering. Zonguldak, Turkey; 1998.
[22] Chen C, Pan E, Amadei B. Evaluation of properties of anisotropic
rocks using Brazilian tests. Proceedings of the 2nd North
American Rock Mechanics Symposium — NARMS ‘96. Rotter-
dam: Balkema; 1996. p. 1651–8.