Laboratory Observation of Spalling Process Induced by

Tangential Stress Concentration in Hard Rock Tunnel

Peng-Zhi Pan 1; Shuting Miao 2; Zhenhua Wu 3; Xia-Ting Feng 4; and Changyue Shao 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A series of laboratory experiments were carried out to study the tangential stress concentration–induced spalling failure process of
rock in an arch-shaped tunnel model under plane-strain loading condition by considering different geological conditions, i.e., a tunnel with
and without a fracture nearby. Different fracture properties, i.e., open fracture and fracture with different infilling materials around the tunnel,
were designed to study their influence on the spalling behavior. Digital image correlation (DIC) and acoustic emission (AE) were combined to
track the spalling initiation and formation, which is characterized by the deformation field and energy release rate evolution. Spalling at two
sidewalls of the tunnel without a fracture under concentrated tangential stress, and formation of various thin slabs and detachment from the
free boundary due to the initiation and propagation of dilatant cracks were well reflected. Asymmetrical spalling failure was observed due to
the existence of the fracture around the tunnel. It was found that the open fracture makes the spalling more concentrated and leads to larger
failure extent and more intensity than the tunnel with a filled fracture. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001620. © 2020 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Rock spalling; Fracture; Digital image correlation; Acoustic emission; Deeply buried tunnel.

Introduction formation of a V-shaped notch was divided into four essential

Stress-induced spalling or splitting always occurs at the excavation
profile parallel to or at a small angle with the orientation of maxi-
mum tangential stresses, which is a typical and frequent brittle fail-
ure phenomenon and has been observed in many deep underground
openings or tunnels (Andersson and Martin 2009; Feng et al. 2018;
Martin and Christiansson 2009; Martin et al. 1997; Martino and
Chandler 2004). For example, the progressive failure process
was observed during the excavation of Mine-by tunnel, and the
1
Professor, State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, China; Professor, Key Laboratory of
Ministry of Education on Safe Mining of Deep Metal Mines, Northeastern
Univ., Shenyang, Liaoning 110819, China (corresponding author). ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2833-4964. Email: pzpan@whrsm.ac.cn
2
Ph.D. Candidate, State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotech-
nical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy
of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, China; Univ. of Chinese Academy
of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China. Email: miaoshuting16@mails.ucas
.ac.cn
3
Ph.D. Candidate, State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotech-
nical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy
of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, China; Univ. of Chinese Academy
of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China. Email: wuzhenhua16@mails.ucas
.ac.cn
4
Professor, Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education on Safe Mining
of Deep Metal Mines, Northeastern Univ., Shenyang, Liaoning 110819,
China. Email: xtfeng@whrsm.ac.cn
5
Ph.D. Candidate, State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geo-
technical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, China; Univ. of Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China. Email: shaochangyue18@
mails.ucas.ac.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 18, 2019; approved
on September 3, 2019; published online on January 9, 2020. Discussion
period open until June 9, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
steps, including fracture initiation, dilation, slabbing, and spalling
(Martino and Chandler 2004; Read 2004). The tensile cracking has
been proven to be the dominant fracture mechanism for brittle hard
rock mass near the excavation boundary by many researchers
through microseismic monitoring, appropriate numerical method-
ologies, and micro observations (Andersson et al. 2009; Cai et al.
1998; Haimson 2007; Lan et al. 2012). The spalling or slabbing
process can be violent or nonviolent, depending on the support con-
dition, in situ stress, and rock fabric (Diederichs 2007).
Although underground openings should be designed and con-
structed away from the unfavorable geological structure, some-
times encountering discontinuities is inevitable due to a complex
geological environment and special requirement of underground
engineering. Weak interlayers, joints, bedding planes, and frac-
tures, commonly existing in the rock mass, have a great effect on
the stability of surrounding rocks around a tunnel (Jeon et al. 2004;
Zhang et al. 2013; Zhou et al. 2015; Mazaira and Konicek 2015).
Many geological disasters occurring in surrounding rock in deep
underground engineering were reported to be closely related to geo-
logical structures nearby (Chen et al. 2013; Ortlepp and Stacey
1994; Shen and Barton 1997; Zhang et al. 2012). For example, typ-
ical structure-type rock bursts occurring at the Jinping II Hydro-
power Station were reported by some researchers (Zhang et al.
2012). In situ observations showed that severe brittle failure can
be triggered by natural structural planes under high crustal stress.
Structural stress–induced collapses in rock masses with weak inter-
layer zone during the excavation of large-scale underground power-
house caverns were observed (Duan et al. 2017). Thus, the failure
modes and damage intensities have a significant correlation with
the unfavorable geological structures. It has been recognized that
if a discontinuous geological structure is present near a tunnel, the
stress distribution of surrounding rocks and the local stiffness of
underground structures can be altered, and the failure intensity
may become more violent.
Mechanical tests and model experiments in the laboratory
have been common and effective methods to investigate the brittle
failure characteristics of rocks surrounding the tunnel. True triaxial

© ASCE 04020011-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011

 experiments were carried out, using cubic specimens, to simulate
brittle fracture characteristics of hard rock (Gao et al. 2018;
Gong et al. 2012; He et al. 2010; Su et al. 2017). Some inno-
vations were also generated to simulate spalling failure in the labo-
ratory (Jacobsson et al. 2014; Kao et al. 2015). In these tests, a
representative rock element near the excavation boundary was
tested, and the failure process similar to in situ spalling or rock
burst was realized and simulated. In order to reflect the overall
structural response of tunnel surrounding rocks instead of local
behaviors of a rock element, tunnel model tests were conducted
to describe and investigate the structural responses of surrounding
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
rocks. Structural model tests have been carried out on rectangular
prismatic specimens with a central circular hole by many research-
ers, and the brittle failure process is simulated and reproduced
(Cheon et al. 2011; Haimson 2007; Hu et al. 2018). As mentioned,
discontinuities adjacent to tunnels may cause negligible effects on
the failure and damage of surrounding rocks. It was attempted to
establish relations between the induced damage zone and disconti-
nuities through model tests (Huang et al. 2013; Jeon et al. 2004;
Song et al. 2018) and numerical analyses (Barton and Shen 2017;
Manouchehrian and Cai 2018; Sagong et al. 2011). These results
indicate that the stability of the surrounding rocks is easily affected
by discontinuities by increasing the damage zones around the
tunnel and causing uniform stress distributions. Even though sub-
stantial works on brittle failure characteristics of surrounding rocks
have been carried out, the focus is mainly on the failure around a
homogenous tunnel or tunnel with fractures of single contact stiff-
ness. In fact, different geological conditions (e.g., with and without
fractures) have been proven to be important factors influencing
cracking behaviors (Miao et al. 2018; Shen et al. 1995). Further-
more, the whole spalling failure process of rocks, including crack
initiation, propagation, and coalescence, has been given little atten-
tion in previous studies.
After excavation, the radial stress around the tunnel will be re-
leased and the tangential stress will increase. The tangential stress
concentration is one of the main factors to induce spalling failure of
rock mass. Therefore, a series of laboratory experiments were de-
signed to study the spalling process induced by tangential stress
concentration in an arch-shaped tunnel model under plane-strain
loading condition by considering different geological conditions,
i.e., a tunnel with and without a fracture nearby. During testing,
digital image correlation (DIC) and acoustic emission (AE) were
used together to track the spalling failure process and cracking
behaviors of surrounding rocks around the tunnel. The rock spall-
ing failure extent and intensity as well as the mechanism caused by
different geological conditions were analyzed.
Experiment Procedure
Plane-Strain Loading Frame
In this paper, the tunnel is simplified as a plane-strain model. There-
fore, a loading instrument was designed and operated for tunnel
instability analysis under plane-strain conditions (Fig. 1). It was
achieved by using a stiff box to force all deformations occurring
around tunnels or openings, which is consistent with the stress con-
dition of deeply buried tunnels in the field. The design of this de-
vice was inspired by the surface instability apparatus (Kao et al.
2015) and plane-strain loading frame (Huang et al. 2013). The load-
ing instrument included bottom platen, the front wall, the rear wall,
left sidewall, right sidewall, and back wall, all made by annealed
steel plate (24 mm thick) and polished on the surface contacting the
specimen [Fig. 1(a)]. Highly transparent plexiglass (24 mm thick)
© ASCE 04020011-2
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011
for deformation and failure observation was set between the rock
specimen and the front wall. When conducting model tests, a pris-
matic specimen was placed in the loading instrument and fully con-
fined by fastening left bolts and front bolts. An observation window
with a size of 100 × 100 mm in the front wall provided space for
CCD camera observation. Highly transparent plexiglass with a size
of 150 × 150 × 25 mm made specimen contact well with the rear
wall and realized the plane-strain condition. The spalling process
and failure process can also be clearly observed through the obser-
vation window through transparent plexiglass. The loading instru-
ment was placed on the rock mechanic testing machine, and the
axial load was added to the specimen through a rigid loading platen
on the top of the specimen. The boundary condition of specimens in
the plane-strain frame is schematically illustrated in Fig. 1(b).
Specimen Preparation
Red sandstone with good homogeneity, which comes from Sichuan
province, was used in this study. It shows typical brittle failure
characteristics under uniaxial compression test. The uniaxial com-
pressive strength (UCS) of sandstone is about 95 MPa. The physi-
cal and mechanical parameters of the sandstone are presented
in Table 1, which shows that the sandstone belongs to hard rock.
Rectangular specimens with a length of 150 mm, a width of 30 mm,
and height of 150 mm were cut from massive intact rock and proc-
essed carefully to meet the dimension and orthogonality require-
ments. To investigate the influence of an adjacent fracture on the
failure modes of surrounding rock around the arch-shaped tunnel,
the tunnel models with and without fracture were prepared and
tested for comparison. Key dimensions of the tunnel models are
presented in Fig. 2. Fig. 2(a) is the arch-shaped tunnel model
without any adjacent fracture and the key dimensions are given.
Fig. 2(b) shows the dimensions for the tunnel model with a nearby
fracture. The fracture with a length of 60 mm, an aperture of 2 mm,
and inclination of 45° was located 5 mm from the tunnel boundary.
Then the cubic specimen was cut precisely according to predeter-
mined geometry by high-pressure water-jet cutting machine.
Tunnel models with a nearby open fracture and a filled fracture
were prepared to study the effect of fracture properties on the
failure of surrounding rocks. In this study, three types of fillers
with varied properties, i.e., cement, gypsum, and epoxy resin, were
chosen, and their mechanical parameters are given in Table 1. As
the common grouting materials, cement and gypsum were chosen
for infilling, and the mechanical parameters for them are close.
Resin was also chosen because of its high strength, stiffness,
and adhesion, which could fit seamlessly with the rock matrix.
Cement slurry and gypsum slurry were respectively prepared for
cement filler and gypsum filler. The water–gypsum ratio of the gyp-
sum filler and the water–cement ratio of the cement filler were both
equal to 1∶2. In addition, transparent epoxy resin was also prepared
for infilling. To ensure the quality of infilling, some steps were
performed. First, the bottom of the fracture was sealed to prevent
the slurry from leakage. Second, the filler was injected into the
fracture using a grouting device. After injecting for 10 minutes,
the filler in the fracture was crushed and replenished repeatedly
to increase the compactness of the filler. After infilling for 24 h,
suitable water (25°C) was poured onto the filled fracture to ob-
serve whether or not bubbles were generated. If bubbles occurred,
indicating that nonnegligible voids existed in the filler, refilling
was required to ensure the tightness and homogeneity of the infill-
ing materials. Before testing, a random gray intensity distribution
was made by spraying black paint and white paint onto the speci-
men surface for carrying out digital image correlation analysis.
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. (a) Plane-strain loading frame for tunnel model tests; and (b) boundary conditions applied to the specimen.

Table 1. Mechanical parameters for sandstone and infilling materials

Parameter Red sandstone Cement filler Gypsum filler Resin filler
Young’s modulus, E (GPa) 18.4 4.48 6.03 15.5
Passion’s ratio, v 0.12 0.22 0.16 0.13
P-wave velocity, c (m=s) 2,710 1,825 1,935 2,120
Density, ρ (kg=m3 ) 2,364 1,680 1,725 1,975
UCS, σc (MPa) 95.17 19.59 21.60 42
Tensile strength, σt (MPa) 4.36 1.25 1.42 1.91
Cohesion, c (MPa) 25 6.0 6.63 11.40
Friction angle, φ (degrees) 39 27 29 33

Testing Process
First, a transparent friction reducing agent was uniformly applied to
six faces of the specimen to reduce the friction between the speci-
men and loading device. The excess lubricant on the specimen ob-
servation surface was wiped to avoid blurring the highly transparent
plexiglass and affecting observation. Then a specimen was put into
the loading instrument. The left locking bolts were fastened by
hand, pressing the specimen against the right end of the loading
device. The 10 locking bolts on the front of the loading device were
tightened, squeezing the plexiglass and specimen against the rear
wall. A wrench was used to alternately tighten all the locking bolts
at the left wall and front wall to limit the specimen deformation in
the x-direction and y-direction on the boundary, respectively.
Fig. 3 shows the rock mechanic testing machine, loading device,
acoustic emission systems, and digital image acquisition system.

© ASCE 04020011-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Key dimensions of tunnel models: (a) arch-shaped tunnel without fracture; and (b) arch-shaped tunnel with a nearby fracture.

Fig. 3. Arrangement of the experimental system and monitoring systems: (a) loading system, AE monitoring system, and DIC acquisition system;
(b) optical observation region; and (c) locations of AE sensors.

© ASCE 04020011-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011

 Specimens in loading device were axially loaded (z-direction)
through a rock mechanics testing system RMT-150C (Institute
of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Wuhan, China) with a maximum loading capacity of 1,000 kN and
maximum vertical travel of 50 mm. The axial load was applied in-
crementally with an axial stroke loading rate of 0.002 mm=s. DIC
and AE were used for tracking the failure and fracture process of
surrounding rock. DIC, as a practical and effective tool for quanti-
tative surface deformation measurement, has been widely applied
to rock mechanical tests in recent years (Ji et al. 2016; Lin and
Labuz 2013). The optical image system contained a CCD camera
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
with a resolution of 3,376 × 2,704 pixels, two white light sources,
and a computer with image acquisition software. Details about
the system can be found in previous studies (Pan et al. 2009a). The
deformation and failure around the tunnel were recorded by the
CCD camera and image acquisition software through the observa-
tion window and plexiglass [Fig. 3(b)]. A sequence of high-
resolution images was recorded using image acquisition software
for determining displacement field and strain field at any given
moment by image correlation algorithm. These images can also
be used to track the visible failure range and location of surround-
ing rocks. The displacement and strain field can be calculated by
using GOM Correlate software version 2018. AE was also adapted
to detect damage to the specimens. The technique has been proven
to be powerful for tracking the rock damage and fracture by
detecting high-frequency elastic waves emitted from defects (Ishida
et al. 2017; Zheng and Tannant 2016; Mao et al. 2018; Xiao et al.
2019). The experimental setup included eight sensors, eight pream-
plifiers, and a digital AE data acquisition system. Sensors were
all fixed on the back of specimens to record AE activities. Pream-
plification of AE signals was provided by preamplifiers with a
gain set to 40 dB, and their locations are presented in Fig. 3(c).
The threshold level for signal recording was set to 45 dB to avoid
background noise.
Results
Characteristics of Rock Spalling Process in an
Arch-Shaped Tunnel
Fig. 4 presents the spalling failure process of intact rocks surround-
ing the arch-shaped tunnel without a fracture nearby. In Fig. 4(a),
the axial stress–time curve with the AE energy release rate evolu-
tion is presented. AE is a transient elastic wave generated from
the sudden release of strain energy caused by microcracks or other
irreversible changes in the material. From the AE energy release
rate, the failure intensity caused by spalling can be evaluated.
The axial stress–time curve shown in Fig. 4(a) is generally linear
except for the initial nonlinear segment caused by compression
deformation of the opening. The failure characteristics of the
arch-shaped tunnel at typical points (or loading level) marked in
Fig. 4(a) are shown in Fig. 4(b). At Point A, no spalling is observed
in surrounding rocks around the tunnel, and the AE energy release
rate is negligible. When the load increases from Point A to Point B,
some AE events with small energy are detected, which is related to
the microcracks’ initiation in the specimen. From DIC observation,
at Point B, thin slabs’ spalling occurs near the dome at the right
sidewall, and a tensile fracture initiated from the bottom of the left
sidewall is also observed. Larger AE energy release rate begins to
occur systematically due to the beginning of macrocracks forma-
tion. As axial load increases, the spalling or slabbing behavior
becomes more prominent due to the increase of tangential stress.
At Point C, macro tensile cracks, initiated from the bottom of
© ASCE 04020011-5
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011
two sidewalls, are propagating upward. Then the ends of these
tensile cracks tilt toward the tunnel, creating thin slabs subparallel
to the free boundary, and finally detach from the sidewalls. More
fragments detached from the sidewalls are observed on the floor
of the tunnel. The profile of AE energy release rate after spalling
initiation indicates that the progressive spalling process is develop-
ing with the increase of axial load. The failure develops from
the free surface to a deeper position, and more slabs will dislodge
from the sidewalls. At Points D and E, several new slabs are further
developed. For the arch-shaped tunnel without fracture, approxi-
mate symmetrical damage and failure occur at the two vertical
sidewalls of the tunnel. The final failure pattern can well reflect
that real brittle failure occurred in deep underground engineering
[Figs. 4(c and d)].
Influence of Nearby Fault on the Spalling Behavior
In the construction of underground openings, it is inevitable to
encounter various geological discontinuities, whose properties,
such as stiffness and contact state, may change the stress state of
the tunnel and in turn affect the spalling failure behavior. In this
study, four different fracture (or fault) properties, i.e., open fracture,
cement-filled fracture, gypsum-filled fracture, and resin-filled frac-
ture, are considered to simulate the geological structures that may
exist in the engineering.
Fig. 5 presents the failure process of rocks surrounding an
arch-shaped tunnel with an open fracture nearby. As shown in
Fig. 5(a), the axial stress–displacement curve is presented, and
the AE energy release rate during the test process is also obtained.
The failure characteristics of the arch-shaped tunnel with an open
fracture at typical stress levels are presented in Fig. 5(b). At Point
A, no spalling or slabbing is observed in surrounding rocks around
the tunnel, and there is no obvious AE energy released from the
specimen. With the increase of stress, thin slivers detach from side-
walls, indicating the spalling initiation. At this moment, systematic
AE signals are detected. At Point B, a macro tensile crack subpar-
allel to the free boundary occurs at the right sidewall. The corre-
sponding AE energy release rate achieves a larger peak. As axial
load increases, at Point C, more tensile cracks subparallel to the
free face are found at the right sidewall, and various thin slabs tend
to detach from the right sidewall. Meanwhile, small rock pieces
burst out from the free boundary beneath the fracture accompanied
by violent voice. The loud failure can also be demonstrated from
the AE energy release rate, where substantial energy is released at
this stress level. At Point D, an antiwing tensile crack initiates from
the upper tip of the fracture. The failure depth at the right sidewall
becomes much larger, and numerous macro tensile cracks form
and develop rapidly, characterized by an unstable cracking pro-
cess. After Point D, an antiwing shear crack initiates from the
lower tip of the fracture. Some flakes and slivers are completely
detached from each other and fall into the tunnel from the right
sidewall. Due to the existence of the open fracture, collapse occurs
at the arch roof of the tunnel (around Point E).
In real situations, the open fracture is seldom found. However,
a fracture or fault with weak infilling materials may be revealed
near underground openings after excavation (Duan et al. 2017).
Unlike the tunnel without a fracture, spalling occurs mainly at the
right sidewall under concentrated tangential stress, and various
thin slabs are formed and detached from each other. However, no
obvious damage and spalling is observed at the left sidewall. Fur-
thermore, compared with a tunnel without a fracture, the spalling
failure of a tunnel with an open fracture is more severe.
Fig. 6 presents the failure process of rocks surrounding an arch-
shaped tunnel with a cement-filled fracture nearby. As shown in
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Failure process of rocks surrounding the arch-shaped tunnel: (a) AE energy release rate together with the applied stress–displacement curve;
and (b) failure characteristics at typical points. Typical spalling occurring in underground engineering in China: (c) Jinping II Hydropower Station;
and (d) Baihetan underground powerhouse.

© ASCE 04020011-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Failure process of rocks surrounding the arch-shaped tunnel with an open fracture: (a) AE energy release rate together with the applied stress–
displacement curve; and (b) failure characteristics at typical points.

Fig. 6(a), the axial stress–displacement curve is presented, and the than that of the tunnel model with an open fracture shown in
AE energy release response during the test process is also shown. Fig. 5(a). The failure characteristics of the arch-shaped tunnel with
The variation of AE energy release rate with axial stress shows a a nearby cement-filled fracture at these typical points are shown in
rising trend in general. However, its magnitude is much smaller Fig. 6(b). No spalling or slabbing is observed in surrounding rocks

© ASCE 04020011-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

Thin slabs
Spalling

Thin slabs

V-shaped
notch
Detached
slabs

Detached
slabs
New cracks Tensile
initiation cracks

(b)

Fig. 6. Failure process of rocks surrounding the arch-shaped tunnel with a cement-filled fracture: (a) AE energy release rate together with the applied
stress–displacement curve; and (b) failure characteristic at typical points.

around the tunnel at Point A. With the increase of the loading, thin under the concentration of the tangential stress, and a thin slab at
slabs’ spalling begin to occur at the right sidewall, and there are still the free boundary is found, which indicates the beginning of the
no macro dilation cracks appearing at the left sidewall (Point B). At spalling failure at the left sidewall. With the increase of the axial
Point C, obvious spalling and slabbing occurs at the right sidewall load, the spalling failure is developing and advancing toward

© ASCE 04020011-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Failure modes of (a) the tunnel with a cement-filled fracture; (b) the tunnel with a gypsum-filled fracture; and (c) the tunnel with a resin-filled
fracture.
deeper areas. At Points D and E, the failure depth becomes greater
at the two sidewalls and a V-shaped notch forms at the right side-
wall of the tunnel. During loading, no antiwing cracks initiate from
two fracture tips, which is different from the tunnel with an open
fracture shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 7 shows the failure mode of rocks surrounding the arch-
shaped tunnel with a filled fracture. In Fig. 7(a), some subparallel
tensile cracks and incompletely detached thin slabs presented at
the right sidewall. Various thin rock slabs and flakes that detached
from the free boundary fell into the floor of the tunnel. Unlike
failure occurring in the arch-shaped tunnel with an open fracture,
obvious failure occurs beneath the cement-filled fracture at the left
sidewall.
The failure process and characteristics for a tunnel model with a
gypsum-filled fracture are similar to that for a tunnel model with
a cement-filled fracture [Fig. 7(b)]. The failure characteristics for
the tunnel with a resin-filled fracture are a bit different. As shown in
Fig. 7(c), the failure that occurs beneath the fracture is insignificant
compared with that occurring in the tunnel with a cement-filled
fracture and a gypsum-filled fracture. The thin slabs are also ob-
served, and the failure depths at the two sidewalls are comparable.
Moreover, the failure process and AE characteristics for the tunnel
with a resin-filled fracture are similar to that for a tunnel without
fracture, indicating that the resin-filled fracture has little influence
on the failure of surrounding rocks.
© ASCE 04020011-9
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011
Spalling Extent and Intensity
From deformation by DIC and energy release rate by AE, the fail-
ure extent (or scope) and intensity can be roughly estimated.
As presented, the spalling or slabbing occurs at two sidewalls
of a tunnel. The horizontal deformation can directly reflect the
failure behavior and extent. The failure zone in this study is con-
sidered as the macroscopic failure area formed by macro tensile
cracks.
The maximum depth of the failure zone is defined as the failure
depth in this study. Horizontal sampling lines are set on the two
sidewalls crossing the section with maximum failure depth. The
horizontal displacement on the sampling line is also obtained at
different moments to present the deformation evolution of sur-
rounding rocks. The relative horizontal displacement ΔX is defined
by removing the assumed homogeneous deformation of the interior
(i.e., X ¼ 28 mm).
Fig. 8 presents the deformation evolution of surrounding rocks
for the tunnel model without a fracture nearby. The location of
maximum failure depth is determined by moving the vertical line
tangent to the macrofailure profile, and the horizontal sampling
lines at the two sidewalls are shown in Fig. 8(a). The relative hori-
zontal displacement on sampling lines at different moments are
presented in Figs. 8(b and c). On the abscissa axis, X ¼ 0 mm
refers to the free surface, and X ¼ −28 mm corresponds to the
deepest surrounding rock in the observation range. The evolution
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Relative horizontal displacement evolution of rocks surrounding the arch-shaped tunnel: (a) the location of horizontal sampling lines;
(b) the left sidewall; and (c) the right sidewall.

of surrounding rocks from continuous to discontinuous deforma-

tion is clearly characterized. From Fig. 8(c), when the applied
stress reaches 40 MPa, the relative horizontal displacement is
pretty small and nearly consistent, and there are no apparent dis-
placement differences and deformation gradient near the free
boundary, which indicates that the surrounding rock near the free
surface is still elastic. At the 60-MPa stress level, the relative hori-
zontal displacement near the free surface increases and a signifi-
cant increase in the deformation gradient can be observed clearly.
At the 75-MPa stress level, the deformation of the surrounding
rock adjacent to the free surface is further increased and significant
displacement discontinuities occur near X ¼ −4.5 mm, which in-
dicates that macrocracks have developed. When the axial load in-
creases to 80 MPa, horizontal displacement gradient increases
sharply near X ¼ −4.5 mm, which indicates that the crack open-
ing value increases significantly and the slab has the potential of
detachment from the sidewall. It is shown that the displacement
gradient at X ¼ −4.5 mm is much larger than that on its right
side. Therefore, the failure depth is about 4.5 mm at the right
sidewall for the arch-shaped tunnel as the load reaches 80 MPa
(about 83% of peak load). At the left sidewall, the failure depth
is about 3.5 mm.
Fig. 9 presents the relative horizontal displacement evolution of
surrounding rocks for the arch-shaped tunnel model with an open
fracture. Because there is no obvious damage and fracture occur-
ring at the left sidewall, only the deformation evolution at the right
sidewall is analyzed. The determined horizontal sampling line is
shown in Fig. 9(a), and the relative horizontal displacement evolu-
tion is presented in Fig. 9(b), which shows that the failure depth
Fig. 9. Relative horizontal displacement evolution of rocks surround-
increases significantly with the increase of the axial load. When
ing the arch-shaped tunnel with an open fracture: (a) the location of
the applied stress reaches 60 MPa, the displacement discontinuities
horizontal sampling lines; and (b) the right sidewall.
near the free surfaces are obvious and the failure develops to

© ASCE 04020011-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Relative horizontal displacement evolution of rocks surrounding the arch-shaped tunnel with a cement-filled fracture: (a) the location of the
horizontal cross sections; (b) the left sidewall; and (c) the right sidewall.
X ¼ −2.5 mm, characterized by the displacement jump. When the
applied stress reaches 65 MPa, the displacement jump extends to
the depth at X ¼ −4.5 mm. The failure depth reaches 8.5 mm at the
right sidewall of the arch-shaped tunnel with an open fracture as
the load increases to 68 MPa, which is about 83% of peak load.
After that, the increase of the load will lead to the collapse of
the specimen.
As depicted in Fig. 10, the horizontal displacement evolution at
two sampling lines are shown for the arch-shaped tunnel with a
cement-filled fracture. The failure evolution is similar to that pre-
viously mentioned. As the load increases to 80 MPa (about 83% of
peak load), the failure depth is about 6.5 mm at the right sidewall
and 2.5 mm at the left sidewall, which is related to the existence of
the nearby cement-filled fracture.
The failure area is calculated through obtaining the failure depth
at various sections covering the entire failure zone. Schematic il-
lustrations of the failure profile, depth, areas, and accumulated en-
ergy release for the four tunnel models at about 83% peak stress
are shown in Fig. 11. In Fig. 11(a), for the arch-shaped tunnel with
an open fracture, due to the existence of open fracture around the
tunnel, violent spalling or slabbing occurs at the right side wall. It is
found that the total energy release at 83% peak stress is much larger
than the other three cases. In Fig. 11(b), spalling or slabbing ap-
pears at two sidewalls for the arch-shaped tunnel with a cement-
filled fracture. Even though the cement filler in the fracture can
transfer a certain amount of stress and release the stress concentra-
tion at the right sidewall, the failure extent at the right sidewall is
much larger than the left sidewall. Because the mechanical proper-
ties of resin are closer to sandstone, the stress can be transferred by
the filled fault well. As a result, the failure depth, area, and AE
energy release are close to the case without a fault around the
© ASCE 04020011-11
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011
tunnel. As shown in Figs. 11(c and d), the failure depth and failure
areas are nearly consistent at the two sidewalls.
Discussion
The spalling process of the rock mass in deeply buried rock engi-
neering may involve crack initiation, propagation, and interaction,
which were reproduced and simulated in this study. To understand
the brittle failure characteristics of surrounding rocks in deeply
buried tunnels induced by different geological conditions, an arch-
shaped tunnel, tunnels with an open fracture, and fracture with
different infilling materials were tested in the laboratory under
plane-strain loading conditions. Even though open fracture occurs
rarely in deep buried underground engineering, it can be regarded
as the extreme case for weak structures that the normal stiffness and
shear stiffness are very small. Due to the existence of open fracture,
stress was concentrated on the right sidewall of the tunnel. As a
result, violent spalling at the right sidewall and then a large volume
of collapse at the top of the tunnel occurred. Its failure extent and
intensity were greater than the other cases. The cement filler in the
fracture can provide some resistance for fracture normal deforma-
tion and tangential deformation, so the cement-filled fracture can
somewhat coordinate deformation of rock nearby and transfer some
normal and tangential stress. The cement-filled fracture can also be
regarded as a structural plane with medium fracture stiffness. Its
normal stiffness and shear stiffness depend on the strength ratio
and stiffness ratio of cement filler and sandstone. Due to the exist-
ence of cement filler in the fracture, spalling failure also developed
at the left sidewall. However, the spalling failure extent was smaller
than that at the right sidewall. With further increase of fracture
Int. J. Geomech.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Failure profile, depth, area, and energy release of the arch-
shaped tunnel at about 83% of peak stress: (a) with an open fracture;
(b) with a cement-filled fracture; (c) with a resin-filled fracture; and
(d) without fracture.
stiffness, e.g., fracture filled by resin, the failure at two sidewalls
tends to be consistent, which is close to the case of the tunnel with-
out fracture. The fracture property is directly related to the spalling
characteristics of surrounding rocks around the tunnel.
In order to show the influence of fault on the stress distribution,
numerical analysis within the elastic region was conducted by us-
ing an elastoplastic cellular automaton (EPCA) code (Feng et al.
2006; Pan et al. 2009b, 2012). For the sake of simplicity, a two-
dimensional plane-strain model was used. The mechanical param-
eters and loading condition were from the experiment. The stress
distributions in the y-direction for the four tunnel models are given
in Figs. 12(a–d) (stress level 40 MPa). Compared with the tunnel
model without a fracture, the asymmetrical stress distribution was
found around the tunnel with a nearby fracture. Moreover, differ-
ences were also observed from contours due to varied mechanical
properties of the filled fracture. Fig. 12(e) shows the detailed in-
spection of the stress for the four models along the sampling lines.
It is shown that the difference in the stress distribution along the
left sidewall among the four models was less than that along the
right sidewall. For the tunnel with an open fracture, the tangential
stress near the free boundary was much less than that away from
the free boundary at the left sidewall, while contrary phenomena
© ASCE 04020011-12
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011
occur at the right sidewall. The result agrees with the failure in the
physical tunnel model with an open fracture, in which the violent
failure only occurred at the right sidewall. For the tunnel with a
cement-filled fracture, even though the concentrated tangential
stress near the free boundary was observed at both sidewalls,
the stress near the free boundary at the right sidewall was larger
than that at the left sidewall. With the increase of the strength and
Young’s modulus of the filler, the stress distributions at the two
sidewalls tended to symmetry. The tangential stress along the sam-
pling lines for the tunnel with a resin-filled fracture was close to
that for the tunnel model without a fracture. It is shown that the
tangential stress concentration induced by the existence of fracture
and property of fracture was the main cause of the asymmetrical
failure around the tunnel.
The asymmetric brittle failure around the tunnel can be some-
what eased with the increase of the fracture stiffness. In deeply
buried rock engineering, approaches to improve the fracture stiff-
ness, such as grouting or rock bolting, may significantly improve
the stability of the tunnel and reduce the failure extent and intensity,
and prevent excessive local stress concentration from causing
asymmetrical failure.
Conclusions
In this study, a series of tests was carried out under plane-strain
loading condition to investigate the influence of tangential stress
concentration on progressive spalling failure of hard rock around
a tunnel by considering different geological conditions. The spall-
ing process and brittle failure characteristics were traced by high-
resolution camera, digital image correlation, and acoustic emission
technique. Spalling at two sidewalls of the tunnel without a fracture
under concentrated tangential stress and formation of various thin
slabs and detachment from the free boundary due to the initiation
and propagation of dilatant cracks were well reflected. The spalling
failure extent and intensity with different geological conditions
were characterized.
The axial stresses corresponding to spalling initiation for the
arch-shaped tunnel with an open fracture, with a cement-filled frac-
ture, and without fracture were 53.2, 65.4, and 69.5 MPa, respec-
tively. Obviously, the spalling failure for the tunnel model with
an open fracture occurred first. This can be explained by the fact
that the tangential stress concentration was most pronounced when
an adjacent open fracture existed near the tunnel. As expected, the
spalling initiation stress increased for the tunnel model with a
cement-filled fracture compared with the tunnel model with an
open fracture, indicating that the cement filler in the fracture can
reduce the tangential stress concentration to some extent.
For the arch-shaped tunnel model without fracture, approximate
symmetrical spalling occurred at the two vertical sidewalls of the
tunnel. However, tunnels with fracture nearby presented different
failure modes. For the arch-shaped tunnel model with an open frac-
ture, several spalling and slabbing occurred at the right sidewall
under concentrated tangential stress, but almost no damage was ob-
served at the left sidewall. The structural stress–induced collapse
was perceived at the top of the tunnel. Unlike failure in the tunnel
model with an open fracture, obvious spalling was also found be-
neath the cement-filled fracture at the left sidewall. Different failure
characteristics among tunnel models can be ascribed to different
fracture stiffnesses. The asymmetric brittle failure around a tunnel
can be somewhat eased with the increase of the fracture stiffness,
e.g., fracture filled by resin.
The AE energy release rate was chosen as a parameter to evalu-
ate the intensity of the spalling process for the four tunnel models.
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Stress distribution in the y-direction for the four tunnel modes (σ ¼ 40 MPa): (a) the tunnel with an open fracture; (b) the tunnel with
a cement-filled fracture; (c) the tunnel with a resin-filled fracture; (d) the tunnel without fracture; and (e) the tangential stress along the sampling
lines for the four tunnel models.

For the tunnel model without fracture or with fracture filled by
stronger materials (e.g., resin), the energy release rate was approx-
imately at a relatively fixed value after spalling initiation, indicating
that the spalling process developed in a steady manner with the
increase of axial load. However, AE activities for the tunnel model
with an open fracture were much more active, and the magnitude of
the AE energy release rate was much larger than that of the other
two cases. The spalling failure developed in an unstable and violent
manner.
As mentioned, after excavation, the radial stress was released
and the tangential stress was concentrated. Although the loading
condition of the study cannot simulate the actual stress path in

© ASCE 04020011-13 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011

 engineering practice, it provides the information on how the geo-
logical discontinuities affect the tangential stress and how the tan-
gential stress concentration affects the spalling process in a hard
rock tunnel.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are available from the corresponding author by request.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the State Key Research Development
Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFC0804203), National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51621006), and Key
Research Program of Frontier Sciences, Chinese Academy of
Sciences (Grant No. QYZDB-SSW-DQC029).
References
Andersson, J. C., and C. D. Martin. 2009. “The Äspö pillar stability experi-
ment: Part I—Experiment design.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 46 (5):
865–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.02.010.
Andersson, J. C., C. D. Martin, and H. Stille. 2009. “The Äspö pillar
stability experiment: Part II—Rock mass response to coupled
excavation-induced and thermal-induced stresses.” Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 46 (5): 879–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.03
.002.
Barton, N., and B. Shen. 2017. “Risk of shear failure and extensional failure
around over-stressed excavations in brittle rock.” J. Rock Mech. Geo-
tech. Eng. 9 (2): 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.11.004.
Cai, M., P. K. Kaiser, and C. D. Martin. 1998. “A tensile model for
the interpretation of microseismic events near underground openings.”
Pure Appl. Geophys. 153 (1): 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s000240050185.
Chen, B. R., X. T. Feng, Q. P. Li, R. Z. Luo, and S. J. Li. 2013. “Rock burst
intensity classification based on the radiated energy with damage inten-
sity at Jinping II hydropower station.” China Rock Mech. Rock Eng.
48 (1): 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-013-0524-2.
Cheon, D. S., S. Jeon, C. Park, W. K. Song, and E. S. Park. 2011.
“Characterization of brittle failure using physical model experiments
under polyaxial stress conditions.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
48 (1): 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.10.001.
Diederichs, M. S. 2007. “The 2003 Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium:
Mechanistic interpretation and practical application of damage and
spalling prediction criteria for deep tunneling.” Can. Geotech. J. 44 (9):
1082–1116. https://doi.org/10.1139/T07-033.
Duan, S. Q., X. T. Feng, Q. Jiang, G. F. Liu, S. F. Pei, and Y. L. Fan. 2017.
“In situ observation of failure mechanisms controlled by rock masses
with weak interlayer zones in large underground cavern excavations
under high geostress.” Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 50 (9): 2465–2493.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-017-1249-4.
Feng, X. T., P. Z. Pan, and H. Zhou. 2006. “Simulation of the rock micro-
fracturing process under uniaxial compression using an elasto-plastic
cellular automaton.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43 (7): 1091–1108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.02.006.
Feng, X. T., H. Xu, S. Qiu, S. J. Li, C. X. Yang, H. S. Guo, Y. Cheng, and
Y. H. Gao. 2018. “In situ observation of rock spalling in the deep tun-
nels of the China Jinping underground laboratory (2400 m depth).”
Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 51 (4): 1193–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s00603-017-1387-8.
Gao, Y. H., X. T. Feng, X. W. Zhang, G. L. Feng, Q. Jiang, and S. L. Qiu.
2018. “Characteristic stress levels and brittle fracturing of hard rocks
subjected to true triaxial compression with low minimum principal
stress.” Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 51 (12): 3681–3697. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s00603-018-1548-4.
© ASCE 04020011-14
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011
Gong, Q. M., L. J. Yin, S. Y. Wu, J. Zhao, and Y. Ting. 2012. “Rock
burst and slabbing failure and its influence on TBM excavation at head-
race tunnels in Jinping II hydropower station.” Eng. Geol. 124 (Jan):
98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.10.007.
Haimson, B. 2007. “Micromechanisms of borehole instability leading to
breakouts in rocks.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 44 (2): 157–173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.06.002.
He, M. C., J. L. Miao, and J. L. Feng. 2010. “Rock burst process of
limestone and its acoustic emission characteristics under true-triaxial
unloading conditions.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 47 (2): 286–298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.09.003.
Hu, X., G. Su, G. Chen, S. Mei, X. Feng, G. Mei, and X. Huang. 2018.
“Experiment on rockburst process of borehole and its acoustic emission
characteristics.” Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 52 (3): 783–802. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s00603-018-1613-z.
Huang, F., H. Zhu, Q. Xu, Y. Cai, and X. Zhuang. 2013. “The effect of
weak interlayer on the failure pattern of rock mass around tunnel—
Scaled model tests and numerical analysis.” Tunnelling Underground
Space Technol. 35 (Apr): 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust
.2012.06.014.
Ishida, T., J. F. Labuz, G. Manthei, P. G. Meredith, M. H. B. Nasseriet,
K. Shin, T. Yokoyama, and A. Zang. 2017. “ISRM suggested method
for laboratory acoustic emission monitoring.” Rock Mech. Rock Eng.
50 (3): 665–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-1165-z.
Jacobsson, L., K. Appelquist, and J. E. Lindkvist. 2014. “Spalling experi-
ments on large hard rock specimens.” Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 48 (4):
1485–1503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-014-0655-0.
Jeon, S., J. Kim, Y. Seo, and C. Hong. 2004. “Effect of a fault and weak
plane on the stability of a tunnel in rock—A scaled model test and
numerical analysis.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (3): 658–663.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.03.115.
Ji, W. W., P. Z. Pan, Q. Lin, X. T. Feng, and M. P. Du. 2016. “Do disk-type
specimens generate a mode II fracture without confinement?” Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 100 (87): 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijrmms.2016.05.010.
Kao, C. S., A. Tarokh, L. Biolzi, and J. F. Labuz. 2015. “Inelastic strain
and damage in surface instability tests.” Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 49 (2):
401–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-015-0771-5.
Lan, H., C. D. Martin, and J. C. Andersson. 2012. “Evolution of in situ
rock mass damage induced by mechanical–thermal loading.” Rock
Mech. Rock Eng. 46 (1): 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603
-012-0248-8.
Lin, Q., and J. F. Labuz. 2013. “Fracture of sandstone characterized
by digital image correlation.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 60 (Jun):
235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.12.043.
Manouchehrian, A., and M. Cai. 2018. “Numerical modeling of rockburst
near fault zones in deep tunnels.” Tunnelling Underground Space Tech-
nol. 80 (Oct): 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.06.015.
Mao, W., Y. Yang, W. Lin, S. Aoyama, and I. Towhata. 2018. “High fre-
quency acoustic emissions observed during model pile penetration in
sand and implications for particle breakage behavior.” Int. J. Geomech.
18 (11): 04018143. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622
.0001287.
Martin, C. D., and R. Christiansson. 2009. “Estimating the potential for
spalling around a deep nuclear waste repository in crystalline rock.”
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 46 (2): 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijrmms.2008.03.001.
Martin, C. D., R. S. Read, and J. B. Martino. 1997. “Observations of brittle
failure around a circular test tunnel.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (7):
1065–1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(97)90200-8.
Martino, J. B., and N. A. Chandler. 2004. “Excavation-induced damage
studies at the underground research laboratory.” Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 41 (8): 1413–1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004
.09.010.
Mazaira, A., and P. Konicek. 2015. “Intense rockburst impacts in deep
underground construction and their prevention.” Can. Geotech. J.
52 (10): 1426–1439. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0359.
Miao, S., P. Z. Pan, Z. Wu, S. Li, and S. Zhao. 2018. “Fracture analysis
of sandstone with a single filled flaw under uniaxial compression.”
Int. J. Geomech.
 Eng. Fract. Mech. 204 (Dec): 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engfracmech.2018.10.009.
Ortlepp, W. D., and T. R. Stacey. 1994. “Rockburst mechanisms in tunnels
and shafts.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 9 (1): 59–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-7798(94)90010-8.
Pan, B., K. Qian, H. Xie, and A. Asundi. 2009a. “Two-dimensional digital
image correlation for in-plane displacement and strain measurement:
A review.” Meas. Sci. Technol. 20 (6): 062001. https://doi.org/10
.1088/0957-0233/20/6/062001.
Pan, P., X. Feng, and H. Zhou. 2012. “Development and applications of
the elasto-plastic cellular automaton.” Acta Mech. Solida Sin. 25 (2):
126–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-9166(12)60014-7.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pan, P.-Z., X.-T. Feng, and J. A. Hudson. 2009b. “Study of failure and scale
effects in rocks under uniaxial compression using 3D cellular
automata.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 46 (4): 674–685. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.11.001.
Read, R. S. 2004. “20 years of excavation response studies at AECL’s
Underground Research Laboratory.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
41: 1251–1275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.09.012.
Sagong, M., D. Park, J. Yoo, and J. S. Lee. 2011. “Experimental and
numerical analyses of an opening in a jointed rock mass under biaxial
compression.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 48 (7): 1055–1067. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.09.001.
Shen, B., and N. Barton. 1997. “The disturbed zone around tunnels in
jointed rock Masses.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (1): 117–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(97)80037-8.
Shen, B., O. Stephansson, H. H. Einstein, and B. Ghahreman. 1995.
“Coalescence of fractures under shear stresses in experiments.” J. Geo-
phys. Res. Solid Earth 100 (B4): 5975–5990. https://doi.org/10.1029
/95JB00040.
© ASCE 04020011-15
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04020011
Song, L., Q. Jiang, Y.-E. Shi, X.-T. Feng, Y. Li, F. Su, and C. Liu. 2018.
“Feasibility investigation of 3D printing technology for geotechnical
physical models: Study of tunnels.” Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 51 (8):
2617–2637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-018-1504-3.
Su, G., S. Zhai, J. Jiang, G. Zhang, and L. Yan. 2017. “Influence of radial
stress gradient on strainbursts: An experimental study.” Rock Mech.
Rock Eng. 50 (10): 2659–2676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-017
-1266-3.
Xiao, Y., L. Wang, X. Jiang, T. M. Evans, A. W. Stuedlein, and H. Liu.
2019. “Acoustic emission and force drop in grain crushing of carbonate
sands.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 145 (9): 04019057. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002141.
Zhang, C., X. T. Feng, H. Zhou, S. Qiu, and W. Wu. 2012. “Case
histories of four extremely intense rockbursts in deep tunnels.” Rock
Mech. Rock Eng. 45 (3): 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603
-011-0218-6.
Zhang, C., X. T. Feng, H. Zhou, S. Qiu, and W. Wu. 2013. “Rockmass
damage development following two extremely intense rockbursts in
deep tunnels at Jinping II hydropower station, southwestern China.”
Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 72 (2): 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10064-013-0470-y.
Zheng, W., and D. Tannant. 2016. “Frac sand crushing characteristics and
morphology changes under high compressive stress and implications
for sand pack permeability.” Can. Geotech. J. 53 (9): 1412–1423.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0045.
Zhou, H., F. Meng, C. Zhang, D. Hu, F. Yang, and J. Lu. 2015. “Analysis of
rockburst mechanisms induced by structural planes in deep tunnels.”
Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 74 (4): 1435–1451. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10064-014-0696-3.
Int. J. Geomech.