EOSC 547:

Tunnelling &
Underground Design

Topic 7:
Brittle Fracture &
Stress-Controlled Failure

1 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Brittle –vs- Plastic Failure Mechanisms

2 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

1
Spalling and Rockburst in Tunnelling

Kaiser et al. (2000)

3 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Orientation of 1 & Induced Stresses

Potential Ground Control Issues:
Destressing = wedge failures
1 1 Concentration = spalling

destressing stress
concentration

stress
destressing
concentration

Stresses can be visualized as flowing around the excavation periphery in the

direction of the major principle stress (1). Where they diverge, relaxation
occurs; where they converge, stress increases occur.

4 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

2
Stress Driven Spalling

5 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Stress Driven Spalling in Tunnelling - Issues

Falling slabs of rock a hazard

to workers.

Problem for TBM as gripper pads cannot

be seated on the side wall.

6 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

3
Stress Driven Spalling and Popping

7 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Rockbursting

8 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

4
Rockbursting – Strainbursts
Rockburst: A sudden and violent failure of rock where rock
fragments are ejected into the excavation. Energy is released as
seismic energy radiated in the form of strain waves.
Usually occurs after blasting, as
face is unable to adjust to the
immediately stress increase
Immediate unloading of confinement
from a triaxial to uniaxial stress
condition, stored energy released as
seismic energy
Commonly occurs when drifting
through contact between a brittle
and relative soft rock (i.e. highly
dependent on local mine rock
stiffness)
Strainburst: A self-initiated rockburst that develops due to a disequilibrium
between high stresses and rock strength (i.e. dynamic unstable fracturing).

9 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Rockbursting – Slip Bursts

Slip burst: Slip bursts are characterized as a stick-slip shear movement
on a discontinuity. These bursts are less likely to be triggered by a
particular blast, and more likely to occur afterwards. Slip occurs when
the ratio of shear to normal (effective) stress along the fault plane
reaches a critical value (its shear strength).

Whyatt et al. (1997) Similar to mechanics of an earthquake

Slip bursts at the Lucky Friday Mine.
Fault slip typically intersects the mine
openings
In most cases, mining activity causes
slip by removing normal stress,
although some local intensification of
shear stress may also occur
Changes in stress along a fault are
often linked to mine activities by
time-dependent deformation
processes. These time-dependent
processes can act over long periods of
time, regardless of continued mining

10 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

5
Rockbursting & Worker Safety

11 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Rockbursting & Worker Safety

12 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

6
Rockbursting & Worker Safety

13 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

AECL’s Underground Research Laboratory

240 m Level

3 1
Martin (1997)

420 m Level

14 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

7
AECL’s URL – Brittle Failure

1.2m diameter
Martin (1997)
300mm diameter

15 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Failure Criterion in Solid Mechanics

To understand the mechanisms at work leading to stress-induced
ground control problems (spalling & bursting), we need to
understand the basic principals of rock strength and brittle
fracture processes.
Traditionally, there have been two approaches to analyzing rock
strength:

stress based
experimental approach
(i.e. phenomenological) strain based
energy based

mechanistic approach

16 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

8
Analysis of Rock Strength

Phenomenological Approach Mechanistic Approach

Relies on generalization of Derives its theories from
large scale observations. elements of fracture at the
microscopic scale.
Theories include:
Theories include:
• Maximum Stress theory
• Griffith Crack theory
• Tresca theory
• Linear Elastic Fracture
• Coulomb theory Mechanics (LEFM)
• Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
• Hoek-Brown failure criterion

17 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Failure in Shear
Lab testing and field observations suggest that a shear failure
criterion may be more applicable than a maximum stress criterion.
In 2-D, the maximum shear stress is related to the difference in
the major and minor principal stresses (i.e. deviatoric stress).

18 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

9
Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion

1
failure occurs if :
2
 max > c + tan 

45° + /2
3 

tension
cutoff c
90° + 

t 3 2 1
n

19 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Mohr-Coulomb: Mechanistic Perspective

The Mohr-Coulomb criterion is widely applied for describing shear
failure of rock. However, mechanistically speaking:

- Friction develops only on differential movement. Such movement can

take place freely in a cohesionless material, but hardly in a cohesive one
like rock prior to the development of a failure plane. In other words,
mobilization of friction only becomes a factor once a failure plane is in
the latter stages of development;

- Many brittle failures observed in the lab and underground appear to be

largely controlled by the development of microfractures. Since these
fractures initiate on a microscopic scale at stresses below the peak
strength, the dismissal of all processes undetectable to the naked eye
and prior to peak strength leaves the phenomenological approach lacking.

This is not to say that phenomenological approaches like Mohr-

Coulomb are not useful. Remember: Mohr-Coulomb is the most widely
used failure criterion, but its limitations need to be recognized.

20 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

10
Analysis of Brittle Rock Strength

Phenomenological Approach Mechanistic Approach

Relies on generalization of Derives its theories from
large scale observations. elements of fracture at the
microscopic scale.
Theories include:
Theories include:
• Maximum Stress theory
• Griffith Crack theory
• Tresca theory
• Linear Elastic Fracture
• Coulomb theory Mechanics (LEFM)
• Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
• Hoek-Brown failure criterion

21 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Mechanistic Brittle Fracture Theories

F Fmax
At the atomic level, the
F development of interatomic
ro
rmax forces is controlled by the
ro
atomic spacing which can be
altered by means of
external loading …
F
Fmax … on extension, the
tension

structure fractures where

the interatomic force is
ro
exhausted (i.e. the
r theoretical tensile strength)
bonds become
unstable

22 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

11
Mechanistic Brittle Fracture Theories

F
F F
ro
ro C≈∞

In compression …

F … displacement is countered
Fmax by an inexhaustible repulsive
attraction

tension

force

ro
r Thus, interatomic bonds will
only break when pulled apart
compression
repulsion

(i.e. in tension).

23 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Theoretical Strength
Strength is therefore a function of the
cohesive forces between atoms, where
F Fmax if F > Fmax, then the interatomic bonds
F will break. As such, we can derive the
ro following:
ro rmax

F
Fmax
attraction

tension

Now for most rocks, the Young’s

modulus, E, is of the order 10-100
ro
GPa. If so, then the theoretical tensile
r strength of these rocks should be 1-10
compression
repulsion

GPa.

However, this is at least 1000 times

greater than the true tensile strength
of rock!!!

24 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

12
Griffith Theory
To explain this discrepancy, Griffith (1920) postulated that in the case of
a linear elastic material, brittle fracture is initiated through tensile stress
concentrations at the tips of small, thin cracks randomly distributed within
an otherwise isotropic material.

25 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Crack Propagation in Compression

Under uniaxial compressive loading conditions, the highest tangential
stress concentration on an elliptical crack boundary was inclined 30°
to the major principal stress. As these cracks develop, they will
rotate to align themselves with the major principal stress, 1.

Lajtai (1971)

26 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

13
Crack Propagation in Compression
Experimentally, it has been shown that brittle
1 fractures propagate in the direction of 1. Cracks
develop in this way to allow the newly forming crack
faces to open/dilate in the direction of least
resistance (i.e. normal to 1 in the direction of 3).

This is most easily accommodated in uniaxial

compression since 3 = 0. For example, along a free
surface!!
3

27 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

Griffith’s energy instability
concept forms the basis for
the study of fracture
mechanics, in which the
loading applied to a crack
tip is analyzed to determine
whether or not the crack tensile in-plane out of plane
will propagate. shear tearing

1) Associated with a crack tip in a loaded material is a stress intensity factor,

KI, corresponding to the induced stress state surrounding the crack (and
likewise KII and KIII depending on the crack displacement mode).
2) For a given crack, the boundary material will have a critical stress intensity
factor, KIc, corresponding to the material strength at the crack tip.
3) The criterion for crack propagation can then be written as KI ≥ KIc. Laboratory
testing for the KIc parameter is referred to as fracture toughness testing.
4) The crack will continue to propagate as long as the above expression is met,
and won’t stop until: KI < KIc.
Ingraffea (1987)

28 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

14
Crack Interaction & Coalescence

crack yielding of
interaction bridging
material

crack tip cracks cracks localization

stresses propagate coalesce; & development
increase & interact energy of rupture
released surface

Eberhardt et al. (1998a)

29 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Damage Around an Underground Excavation

3 = 14 MPa final shape 3

1
stages in notch
development

1 = 55 MPa

420 m Level
microseismic
events
Martin (1997)

30 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

15
 Failure Around Underground Excavations
Martin et al. (1999)
Observations from underground
mining in massive brittle rocks
suggest that failure initiates
when the maximum tangential
boundary stress reaches
approximately 40% of the
unconfined compressive strength.

max = 0.4 UCS

ci = 0.4 UCS
Eberhardt et al. (1998b)

This correlates with experimental

studies of brittle rock failure that
show that stress-induced damage
initiates at approximately 40%.

31 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Damage Around an Underground Excavation

In other words, stress-induced failure
process begins at stress levels well below
the rock’s unconfined compressive strength.

32 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

16
 Example: Tunnel Spalling & Depth of Failure
Problem: A 14-m diameter, 100-m deep tunnel is to
be excavated in a weak but massive
sedimentary rock unit with an average
compressive strength of 25 MPa. The
tunnel will be excavated by a tunnel boring
machine. In-situ stress tests revealed that
the major principal stress is horizontal and
three times higher than the vertical stress.
This has raised concerns of potential ground
control problems related to stress-induced
fracturing and slabbing of the rock.

As such, the designers need

to estimate the potential
depth of stress-induced
slabbing in order to select
the proper rock support
measures.

33 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Example: Tunnel Spalling & Depth of Failure

Assuming a vertical
stress of 2.5 MPa
(calculated from the
overburden), and
adopting a horizontal
to vertical stress ratio
of 3, a maximum
tangential stress of 20
MPa in the tunnel roof
is calculated.

Df
 1.5
 max 20 a
 MPa  0.8 D f  1.5  8 m  12 m
c 25
D f  a  4m
Using Martin et al.
(1999)’s empirical
relationship This means that,
potentially, the
slabbing may extend
4 m into the roof.

34 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

17
 Tunnel Spalling & Depth of Failure

Using Martin et al.

(1999)’s empirical
relationship

35 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Unstable Crack Propagation

As crack-induced damage accumulates, the stress level associated with crack
initiation remains essentially unchanged; however, the stress level required
for rupture reduces dramatically.
Stable propagation: controlling the applied load can stop crack growth.
Unstable propagation: relationship between the applied stress and the
crack length ceases to exist and other parameters, such as the crack
growth velocity, take control of the propagation process.

Under such conditions, crack propagation would

be expected to continue even if loading was
stopped and held constant.

Bieniawski (1967) correlated the threshold

Bieniawski (1967)

for unstable crack growth, also referred

to as the point of critical energy release
and the crack damage threshold, with the
point of reversal in the volumetric stress-
strain curve.

36 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

18
Stiffness, Energy & Failure
The violence and completeness of failure once unstable crack propagation is
reached will depend on the relationship between the stiffness of the loaded
component and that of the surrounding rock.
Capacity of the pillar
to sustain load = Pmax

Pillar still has

capacity to
support load post- B
peak along AB

However, the post peak

behaviour is also influenced
by the surrounding rock
stiffness (through which
the pillar is being loaded).

37 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Unstable Crack Propagation – Pillar Loading

s Thus, if we have an increase of convergence s

beyond Pmax, to accommodate this displacement,
the load on the pillar must reduce from PA to PB.

1 The amount of energy, Wpillar,

PA A absorbed in the process is given by
the area ABED.
F
PF 2 However, in displacing by s from
point A, the mine rock only unloads
to F and releases stored strain
energy, Wmine, given by the area
B AFED.
PB
C 3 In this case, Wmine > Wpillar, and
s catastophic failure occurs at, or
D E shortly after, peak strength because
the energy released by the mine rock
during unloading is greater than that
Hoek & Brown (1980)
which can be absorbed by the pillar.

38 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

19
 Brittle Failure in Tunnelling

Diederichs (2007)
Cai et al. (2004)

39 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Grain Size – Spalling or Rockburst

SPALLING

Tonalite Hornfel
(intrusive) (fine-grain
metamorphic)

40 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

20
Grain Size – Spalling or Rockburst

BURST

Tonalite Hornfel
(intrusive) (fine-grain
metamorphic)

41 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Influence of Confining Stress

Under low confinement, propagating cracks can more easily open (in the 3
direction), leading to the accumulation of brittle fracture damage and
crack coalescence. In contrast, the addition of confinement works to
suppress crack propagation limiting fracture coalescence and preventing
unstable crack growth. Confining stress therefore plays an important role
as the brittle failure process will self-stabilize at some distance into the
rock mass due to confinement.

Eberhardt (1998a)
Martin (1997)

42 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

21
Ground Control through Confinement

43 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

Lecture References
Bieniawski, ZT (1967). Mechanism of brittle rock fracture: Part I - Theory of the fracture process.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanical Abstracts 4(4): 395-
406.
Brace, WF & Bombolakis, EG (1963). A note on brittle crack growth in compression. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 68(12): 3709-3713.
Cai, M, Kaiser, PK, Uno, H, Tasaka, Y & Minami, M (2004). Estimation of rock mass deformation
modulus and strength of jointed hard rock masses using the GSI system. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41(1): 3-19.
Diederichs, MS (2007). Mechanistic interpretation and practical application of damage and spalling
prediction criteria for deep tunnelling. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44(9): 1082-1116.
Eberhardt, E (2001). Numerical modeling of three-dimensional stress rotation ahead of an advancing
tunnel face. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences: 38(4), 499-518.
Eberhardt, E, Stead, D, Stimpson, B & Lajtai, EZ (1998a). The effect of neighbouring cracks on
elliptical crack initiation and propagation in uniaxial and triaxial stress fields. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics 59(2): 103-115.
Eberhardt, E, Stead, D, Stimpson, B & Read, RS (1998b). Identifying crack initiation and
propagation thresholds in brittle rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 35(2): 222-233.
Griffith, AA (1920). The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 221(587): 163-198.

44 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

22
Lecture References
Griffith, AA (1924). The theory of rupture. In Proceedings of the First International Congress for
Applied Mechanics, Delft, pp. 55-63.
Harrison, JP & Hudson, JA (2000). Engineering Rock Mechanics – Part 2: Illustrative Worked
Examples. Elsevier Science: Oxford.
Hoek, E & Brown, ET (1980). Underground Excavations in Rock. Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy: London.
Ingraffea, AR (1987). Theory of crack initiation and propagation in rock. In Fracture Mechanics of
Rock. Academic Press Inc. Ltd.: London, pp. 71-110.
Lajtai, EZ (1971). A theoretical and experimental evaluation of the Griffith theory of brittle
fracture. Tectonophysics, 11: 129-156.
Kaiser, PK, Diederichs, MS, Martin, D, Sharpe, J & Steiner, W (2000). Underground works in
hard rock tunnelling and mining. In GeoEng2000, Melbourne. Technomic Publishing Company:
Lancaster, pp. 841-926.
Martin, CD (1997). The effect of cohesion loss and stress path on brittle rock strength. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 34(5): 698-725.
Martin, CD, Kaiser, PK & McCreath, DR (1999). Hoek-Brown parameters for predicting the depth
of brittle failure around tunnels. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 36(1): 136-151.
Whyatt, JK, Blake, W & Williams, TJ (1997). Classification of large seismic events at the Lucky
Friday Mine. Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Section A: Mining Industry,
106: A148–A162.

45 of 45 Tunnelling Grad Class (2015) Dr. Erik Eberhardt

23