1082

The 2003 Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium:

Mechanistic interpretation and practical
application of damage and spalling prediction
criteria for deep tunnelling
Mark S. Diederichs

Abstract: Spalling and strain bursting has long been recognized as a mechanism of failure in deep underground mines in
hard rock and in deep infrastructure tunnels. The latter is a significant growth industry, particularly in Europe where subal-
pine base tunnels in excess of 10 m wide and dozens of kilometres long are being driven by tunnel boring machine (TBM)
through alpine terrain at depths greater than 2 km. In more massive granitoid or gneissic ground, these tunnels have experi-
enced significant spalling damage. En route to a practical predictive technique for this condition, the author utilizes a num-
ber of analytical and micromechanical tools to validate a simple empirical predictive model for tunnel spall initiation. The
true nature of damage and of yield, as the result of extensile damage accumulation, in hard rocks is examined using these
tools. Based on the resultant conceptual model, the author expands on the empirical damage threshold, using a spalling limit
to differentiate stress paths that lead to crack propagation and spalling from those that incur stable microdamage prior to
conventional shear failure at higher relative confinements. Finally, the composite and robust in situ yield model is applied to
nonlinear modelling for support design.
Key words: tunnelling, spalling, rock fracture, crack initiation, yield, modelling.
Résumé : L’effritement et l’éclatement par déformation ont longtemps été reconnus comme mécanismes de rupture dans les
mines souterraines profondes dans le roche dure et dans les tunnels profonds d’infrastructure. Ces derniers représentent une
industrie en croissance significative, particulièrement en Europe où des tunnels subalpins avec des bases excédant 10 m de
largeur et des longueurs de plusieurs kilomètres sont creusés par des appareils de forage de tunnels, ou tunneliers (TBM), à
travers les terrains alpins à des profondeurs supérieures à 2 km. Dans les terrains plus massifs granitiques et gneissiques, ces
tunnels ont subi des dommages appréciables d’effritement. Dans la recherche d’une technique pratique de prédiction de cette
condition, l’auteur utilise un certain nombre d’outils analytiques et micromécaniques pour valider un modèle empirique sim-
ple de prédiction pour le déclenchement de l’effritement. Au moyen de ces outils, on examine dans les roches dures la vraie
nature du dommage et de la déformation résultant de l’accumulation de dommages étendus. Sur la base du modèle concep-
tuel résultant, l’auteur développe un seuil empirique de dommage en utilisant une limite d’effritement pour différencier les
cheminements de contraintes qui mènent à la propagation de fissures et à l’effritement, de ceux qui subissent un micro-
dommage avant la rupture conventionnelle en cisaillement à des confinements relativement plus élevés. Finalement, le mo-
dèle de limite élastique composite et robuste in situ est appliqué à la modélisation non linéaire pour appuyer la conception.
Mots-clés : creusage de tunnels, effritement, fracture de roche, initiation de fissure, limite élastique, modélisation.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction
The problem of spalling damage and associated strain
bursting in deep mining excavations has been well docu-
mented around the world (e.g., Read 2004; Martin 1997;
Martin et al. 1997; Ortlepp 1997; Kaiser et al. 1995; Wagner
1987; Hoek and Brown 1980; Hoek 1968; and Fairhurst and
Cook 1966). Spalling and strain bursting are also significant
issues in deep tunneling (Lee et al. 2004; Diederichs et al.
Received 6 October 2005. Accepted 31 January 2007. Published
on the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca on
8 November 2007.
M.S. Diederichs.1 GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s University
and RMC, Department of Geological Sciences and Geological
Engineering, Miller Hall, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON
K7L 3N6, Canada (e-mail: mdiederi@geol.queensu.ca).
Can. Geotech. J. 44: 1082–1116 (2007)
2004; Kaiser and McCreath 1993) and shaft boring. The lat-
ter has largely replaced other methods for the creation of ore
passes and secondary shafts in hard rock mines. While struc-
tural integrity is improved by such methods, the potential for
spalling and strain bursting is often enhanced. Spalling can
occur in drill and blast excavations when blast damage is
minimized, but is particularly problematic in bored tunnels
and shafts. Large (8–12 m) tunnel boring machine (TBM)
driven tunnels in hard rock at depths exceeding 1500 m are
becoming commonplace in Europe and elsewhere. Mecha-
nized excavation techniques, such as those utilizing TBMs
or raise-bore equipment, often result in openings where the
creation of surface spall damage and breakouts is a signifi-
cant problem (Stacey and De Jongh 1977). Spalling damage
in shafts and orepasses can propagate in an uncontrolled
fashion during operation, drastically shortening the service
life of the structure. This damage and failure mode is the
doi:10.1139/T07-033 # 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs
same as that which is prevalent in the larger scale mining
environments previously discussed.
Deep base tunnels through major mountain ranges require
large machine driven sections through hard polycrystalline
rocks including granite, gneiss, and more foliated metamor-
phic rocks. A number of these tunnels, including the Got-
thard and Loetchberg base tunnels in Switzerland and the
proposed Torino-Lyon base tunnel, have lengthy sections
(up to 10 km) with greater than 1500 m of overburden and
in the latter case up to 2500 m of cover. Support require-
ments to maintain the wall stability required for efficient
TBM operation and advancement rates are controlled by the
degree of spalling damage induced by the excavation proc-
ess. Figures 1a–1d illustrate varying degrees of spalling dam-
age in a 10 m TBM tunnel at 1500 m depth in hard rock.
While none of the illustrated conditions is severe by mining
standards, the damage in the bottom figures does mandate
more cautious safety protocols during construction, increased
support costs, and is likely to slow the overall advance of the
machine. Hard rock TBMs advance through the use of hy-
draulic side grippers. Significant gripper problems and ma-
chine operation delays can result when vertically dominant
stress leads to substantial wall spalling in front of the grip-
pers (Fig. 1e) as occurred in the Loetchberg tunnel (Vuil-
leumier and Aeschbach 2004). Figure 1f shows an example
of more severe conditions resulting in a phenomenon known
as strain bursting, as defined by Kaiser et al. (1995).
The challenge here is to develop a suite of predictive tools,
based partly on empiricism but backed by mechanistic ration-
ale, to analyze spalling damage and failure for engineering
design in these two very different environments. This paper
presents a summary of a number of such tools and describes
the process of validation through theoretical fracture and mi-
cromechanical studies, as well as by case analysis.
Background
Spalling and strain bursting
For the purposes of this paper the following definitions
are observed:
(1) Spalling is the development of visible extension fractures
under compressive loading. It is important to know that
spalling associated with hard rock excavations, while
brittle in nature, need not be violent. This process domi-
nates rock damage and failure processes in crystalline
rocks near excavation boundaries under high stress. Spal-
ling can be violent or nonviolent and in some cases can
be time dependent. In unsupported conditions and under
an anisotropic in situ stress field, the process of spalling
can form notch geometries often confused with wedge
fallout.
(2) Strain bursting is the violent rupture of a volume of wall
rock under high stress. It is important to note that in
spalling rocks, the spalling damage (extension fractures)
can happen before the actual rockburst or strain burst. It
is the instability created (e.g., buckling) by the formation
of parallel and thin spall slabs that provides for the sud-
den energy release, with possible results as shown in
Fig. 1f. In this example and in most cases of moderately
extensive brittle spalling failure, the ground beyond the
spalling zone is reasonably competent and the excava-
1083
tion is typically self-stable after the failure occurs, pro-
vided the local stress state remains unchanged.
In general, for in situ stress ratios less than or greater than
unity (ko ⬆ 1), the failure geometry is often notch shaped
and the surrounding ground is self-stable after failure as in
the case of Figs. 1e and 1f. Normally spalling is a process
involving the creation of fractures parallel to the maximum
compressive stress and to the excavation boundary. Unstable
propagation of these fractures beyond the grain scale of the
rock, as observed by Martin (1994), Fonseka et al. (1985),
Tapponier and Brace (1976), and Brace et al. (1966), results
in the typical spalling process observed in mining excava-
tions, rock pillars, and deep tunnels. For strain bursting to
develop, the failure process must be brittle and dilational,
and the rock system surrounding the failing rock must be
comparatively soft (i.e., subject to large instantaneous con-
vergence into the zone occupied by the failing rock). The
mechanics of spalling are inherently brittle (strength loss
across the fracture) but the macroprocess of failure may not
be. Parallel slabs can develop to significant depth while re-
taining load capacity parallel to the slabs. Likewise the proc-
ess of spall development need not incur large dilation until a
secondary yield process begins. Kinematic instability (buck-
ling), shear-through slab failure, bulging due to dilatant
shear behind the spall zone, or release along intersecting
structure can subsequently and instantaneously release the
energy stored in the slabs and the surrounding system (strain
burst) and create significant apparent bulking. Finally signif-
icant reduction in tangential stress (common around drifts or
tunnels near actively changing mine geometries or during in-
tersection development) can release large volumes of pre-
spalled rock in an aseismic groundfall.
It has long been recognized that extensile crack initiation
as the result of various internal heterogeneities and strain
discontinuities within polycrystalline or clastic material is
the primary form of damage, even under compression, (e.g.,
Lee and Haimson 1993; Myer et al. 1992; Stacey 1981;
Tapponier and Brace 1976; and Griffith 1921) for hard rock
materials. This process is controlled by the internal tensile
strength of the material. Under low confinement, this exten-
sion (Mode I) of cracks leads to the familiar spalling proc-
esses observed in low confinement compressive samples
and around hard rock openings at depth.
Following on from this, it is possible to develop a criterion
for susceptibility to brittle spalling (as opposed to plastic
shear) based on the ratio between compressive and tensile
strength as used by Lee et al. (2004). A lower ratio indicates
the potential dominance of extension cracking in the damage
process (spall potential). In addition, generally stronger rocks
result from a resistance to shear failure reflected in the un-
confined compressive test. Stronger rocks also allow for a
larger buildup of strain energy in the wall rock and in the
surrounding rock system (strain burst potential). These two
criteria together can be expressed as in Fig. 2.
Violent or nonviolent spalling can occur at any stage of a
tunnel life-cycle when geometry or stress changes occur
(i.e., due to adjacent mining or excavation). In environments
with static strain boundary conditions, the process of spal-
ling, while essentially brittle in nature, can be markedly
time dependant. This is the result of subcritical crack growth
driven by the effects of humidity changes and fatigue
# 2007 NRC Canada
1084 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 1. (a–d) Increasing levels of spall damage to a 10 m diameter tunnel in gneiss and granite. Tunnel excavated by hard rock gripper TBM.
(e) Release of approximately 50 cm of spalled ground in a TBM tunnel. Support installed after spalling (in this case, significant damage zone
extends up to one additional half metre beyond failed zone). (f) A strain-burst of a notch shaped spalling zone in a deep mine drift.

(Parker 1970; Wiid 1970). The photo array in Fig. 3 shows
various examples of spalling from the Bedretto adit off the
Furka train tunnel in Switzerland. This adit is an abandoned
5.5 km access way at right angles to the main tunnel
(15.5 km long). As the train passes in the main tunnel, the
pressure wave creates an instantaneous fog (100% humid-
ity), which then subsides. This continuous pressure and hu-
midity cycling leads to fatigue and hydrolitic weakening of
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs
Fig. 2. Potential for spalling failure processes in intact rock based on compressive strength and tensile strength. Where spalling failure po-
tential is low, it is likely that shear processes will dominate, resulting in squeezing behaviour rather than bursting at depth. Spalling can
occur in lower strength rocks without strain bursting (low potential energy).
the crack tips contributing to so-called ‘‘stress corrosion’’ (as
defined by Wiederhorn and Bolz 1982 and Lajtai et al.
1987) and causing the ongoing propagation of fractures and
spalling. In this case the spalling is progressive and nonvio-
lent, developing to this extent over several decades. While
the depth of spalling is extensive, the dilation or volume
change after the development of spall fractures is limited,
and the surrounding system (rockmass and geometry) is rel-
atively stiff. Additional closure (due to stress changes, for
example) could lead to significant bulking in this case. The
transition to bulking behaviour is evident in Fig. 3a.
Volume change associated with bulking or strain bursting
occurs through buckling and discontinuous interleaving of
fracture slabs (similar to a professional poker card shuffle).
This is not the mechanism assumed in conventional plasticity
when dilation (angle) is considered. This phenomenon
presents a problem when applying conventional concepts of
dilation, as implemented in numerical plasticity codes to post
peak behaviour of spalled ground. In fact, the process of spall
damage itself is incompatible with the mechanics underpin-
ning most commonly used constitutive models for continuum
geomaterials. While conventional models for rock mechanics,
such as the Mohr–Coulomb criteria (as summarized in Civi-
dini 1993) and the Hoek–Brown criteria (Hoek et al. 2002;
Hoek and Brown 1988), are based on yield via ubiquitous
continuum shearing, spalling failure is the result of parallel
slab formation driven by extension cracking. Failure of this
1085
system after the slabs have formed is a complex discontinuum
process that includes buckling, as analyzed by Aglawe
(1999), and interactions with other structures.
Of most importance here is the lack of a role for friction
in its mechanical sense. Indeed, friction cannot play a role in
the failure of slabs that are the result of extension cracking
and that remain parted after formation. The lower bound for
damage initiation is related to the internal mechanics of the
constituent crystals. The role of friction in crack initiation is
limited to the relatively low coefficients related to internal
cleavage planes and grain boundary structures (McClintock
and Walsh 1963). Friction plays very little role in subse-
quent crack propagation. Confinement dependency, how-
ever, in the form of an extension strain relationship (Stacey
1981), does play a role in the interaction of accumulating
and propagating cracks to form failure surfaces (Diederichs
2003). The phenomenological result with respect to the
upper bound strength of rock is similar to the conventional
frictional relationship, allowing the use of conventional
models and constitutive relationships for spalling applica-
tions, even though the physical processes represented by the
familiar input parameters differ in this case. For example, in
the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, cohesion is a function of inter-
nal tensile strength and friction angle is used to represent
critical accumulation and interaction of extension cracks
and the associated critical extension strain as demonstrated
in Diederichs (2000) and summarized later in this paper.
# 2007 NRC Canada
1086 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 3. Examples of nonviolent spalling resulting from subcritical crack growth and hydrolitic weakening and fatigue due to humidity cy-
cling in the Bedretto adit, Furka tunnel, Switzerland. Scale bar in each figure is 20 cm.

Lower bound strength: damage initiation
In situ strength corresponds to an extension crack damage
initiation threshold that is a function of the nature and den-
sity of internal flaws and heterogeneity (as a mechanism of
crack initiation under compression). This threshold, ex-
pressed relative to laboratory unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) values, can be as low as one third for igne-
ous rocks (Lajtai and Dzik 1996) and as high as one half for
dense clastics (Pestman and Van Munster 1996).
The author will build on a recognized empirical observa-
tion (Pelli et al. 1991; Martin et al. 1999; Brace et al. 1966;
Stacey and Page 1986; Wagner 1987; Castro et al. 1995;
Grimstad and Bhasin 1997; Diederichs 2002; Diederichs et
al. 2002) that failure, in massive to moderately jointed hard
rock excavations, does in fact begin when the tangential stress
at the excavation boundary exceeds 33%–50% of the rock’s
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS as obtained from labora-
tory samples). This threshold for rock damage initiation also
has a minor sensitivity to increasing confining stress as first
empirically described by Pelli et al. (1991), Martin (1994),
and many others, who relate damage initiation to a constant
deviatoric stress limit (equivalent to a zero friction envelope):
½1

1crit ¼ AðUCSÞ þ B
3
where A is equal to 0.3–0.5 for most nonporous and nonfo-
liated rocks. Many researchers have proposed a constant de-
viatoric stress criterion (B = 1) for this limit, based on
evidence from in situ acoustic emission monitoring of a test
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs 1087

Fig. 4. Test data obtained by Brace et al. (1966) showing the range of damage initiation thresholds and peak strength in short and long-term
loading for Westerly Granite. The slopes and intercepts of the damage initiation thresholds are shown. The slope of the long-term (slow
loading) yield threshold is approximately 3.5–4.

tunnel in granite (Martin 1997). However, examination of by Stacey (1981) in which the linear yield envelope (constant
work by Pestman and Van Munster (1996) and Hobbs et al. maximum strain limit) is defined as only a function of elastic
(1977), and examination of possible fracture initiation me- modulus and Poisson’s ratio
chanisms (inter- or intra-grain slip driving extension crack
formation) within typical minerals (Diederichs 2000), sug- 1
½2
"crit ¼ ½
3  vð
1 þ
2 Þ

gests a higher but still modest confinement dependency for E
damage initiation in rock and concrete in which B is equal which for axisymmetric confinement converts to
to 1.5–2.5. Brace et al. (1966), in fact, show that a range of

crack initiation thresholds exists, depending on the loading E"crit 1v
½3

1crit ¼  þ
3
rate (Fig. 4). The range of crack initiation stress levels un- v v
der uniaxial conditions for Westerly granite (Brace et al.
1966) was found to be 0.3–0.5 of the UCS over a wide This linear relationship can be directly related to the Mohr–
range of loading rates. The range of slope, B equal to 1.4– Coulomb yield function
2.6, for the damage initiation threshold can be explained

2ccos 1 þ sin
using the frictional sliding crack model for tension crack in- ½4

1crit ¼ þ
3
itiation proposed by McClintock and Walsh (1963) if the 1  sin 1  sin
base friction angles (Horn and Deere 1962) of smooth frac- where for a phenomenological linear envelope of the form
ture or cleavage surfaces in quartz or feldspar ( = 88) and of eq. [1],
clean biotite mica ( = 148) are used to calculate B.
2ccos E"crit 1 þ sin 1  v
Upper bound strength: crack interaction ½5
A¼ ¼ ¼ UCS; B¼ ¼
1  sin v 1  sin v
The upper bound in situ strength is defined by the thresh-
old of the onset of nonlinearity in axial stress–strain measure- For a Poisson’s ratio of 0.2, typical of many hard rocks,
ments in the laboratory, which corresponds to the long-term this criterion produces a linear envelope with a slope B = 4,
yield strength. It will be demonstrated using micromechani- equivalent to a Mohr–Coulomb limit with a friction angle of
cal and statistical methods that this threshold marks the onset 378, which is a reasonable value for bulk geomaterials. Long-
of interaction of previously independent cracks accumulating term deviatoric strength of granite is defined by a slope
in the sample. This threshold of interaction is, in turn, re- (against confinement) in this range as shown by Diederichs
flected in a level of average extension strain in the sample (2003) and by Brace et al. (1966) in Fig. 4. This is an inter-
and has a slope (in principal stress space) corresponding to esting coincidence as the slope of the strength–confinement
typical minimum values of friction angle as often applied to relationship for typical rocks can be phenomenologically ex-
rock. This is a coincidental relationship only and matches the plained by critical extension strain related to the formation of
well recognized critical extension strain criterion proposed compression-parallel, open, and nonsliding microcracks or by
# 2007 NRC Canada
1088
Fig. 5. The composite strength envelope illustrated in principal stress space (2D) to highlight the zones of behaviour as bounded by the
damage initiation threshold, the upper bound shear threshold (damage interaction), and the transitional spalling limit (after Diederichs 2003).
citing conventionally accepted frictional processes. The dis-
cussion that follows demonstrates the validity of the former
theory for controlled and confined loading of ideal lab sam-
ples. In essence, friction at the mineral grain scale plays a
minor role in determining the crack initiation threshold but
has a very limited role in determining the stress threshold for
yield, a process that will be shown to be the result of critical
crack accumulation and associated crack interaction. Friction
only becomes active well into the yield and failure process,
as macroscopic failure surfaces are formed.
After testing his theoretical criterion in the lab, Stacey
(1981) put forward the extension strain criterion as an in situ
yield limit. While laboratory yield and long-term strengths
correlate reasonably well, in situ observations did not match
this prediction. Instead, in situ strength in the near field
around excavations is defined by damage initiation. As one
moves from the very specific loading and geometrical condi-
tions of a typical laboratory test to a comparable sized sam-
ple adjacent to an excavation, a number of factors compound
to reduce the in situ upper bound strength from the laboratory
yield envelope to the lower bound defined by crack initiation
(Diederichs 2003). These factors include pre-existing dam-
age, as well as the result of enhanced crack propagation in-
fluenced by low confinement and surface interaction effects,
stress rotations, and loss of effective confinement into the
tunnel wall due to progressive slabbing.
A transitional curve for in situ rock strength extends be-
tween the lower and upper bound strength limits and is re-
ferred to as the spalling limit. The complete envelope,
schematically illustrated in two-dimensional (2D) stress
space in Fig. 5 can be incorporated into conventional analy-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
sis tools and conventional constitutive models for nonelastic
modelling of damage and spalling failure for support design.
Components of this composite curve can be expressed using
conventional formulae such as the Hoek–Brown criterion. In
this schematic model any stress path that remains below the
initiation threshold will be elastic and incur no damage his-
tory. A stress path that moves above the initiation threshold
at high confinements (to the right of the solid curve) will in-
cur grain scale damage and microseismicity. This zone may
even include more significant seismicity as grain scale inter-
locking asperities on potential discontinuities are damaged
and give way. At high confinements, the shear strength re-
flects the values obtained through laboratory testing. At low
confinement and in situ, however, cracks that initiate can
easily propagate beyond grain boundaries and for macrofrac-
tures. This behaviour results in the familiar spall damage ad-
jacent to excavation boundaries developing at boundary
stresses significantly less than the uniaxial yield strength for
standard cylindrical lab samples.
Rockmass strength and limitations of Hoek–
Brown empirical criteria
One of the most widely used empirical criteria for scaling
the unconfined strength of a rockmass and estimating the
confinement–strength relationship is the Hoek–Brown crite-
rion (Hoek and Brown 1980). Since its first introduction,
the criterion has been modified several times, most recently
by Hoek and Brown (1988, 1998) and by Hoek et al. (2002).
The generalized nonlinear form of the limiting stress crite-
rion for jointed rock masses is defined by
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs 1089

a

0 detail in Hoek and Diederichs (2006). The GSI can also be
½6

10 ¼
30 þ
c mb 3 þ s related to commonly used rock mass classification systems,

c
for example, the rockmass quality index Q (Barton et al.
where mb is the value of the Hoek–Brown ‘‘slope’’ constant 1974) or the rockmass rating RMR (Bieniawski 1989,
for the rock mass, s and a are constants that depend upon the 1993). This yield criterion, along with its plastic flow coun-
characteristics of the rock mass, and
c is the standard uniax- terpart (Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst 1999), can be used to
ial compressive strength of the intact rock pieces. For intact estimate the yield potential and the depth of disturbance
rock testing, mi is used instead of mb, and s = 1 and a = 0.5. around a tunnel. The flow rule for Hoek–Brown is obtained
In three dimensions and in stress invariant space the criterion by substituting mdil for mb in eq. [7]. For most rock applica-
becomes (Shah 1992) tions, a nonassociated flow rule is appropriate (Ryder and
pffiffiffiffiffi Jager 2002) and mdil < 0.25mb(residual). Elastic modulus for
I1
½7
f ¼ mb
c½ð1=aÞ1
þ s
c  ð2 J2 cosÞ1=a the rockmass can be determined from GSI as per Hoek and
3
 Diederichs (2006).
pffiffiffiffiffi sin  It has already been suggested here, however, that this ap-
 mb J2
c½ð1=aÞ1
cos  pffiffiffi ¼ 0
3 proach is of limited reliability when used for rockmasses
1
pffiffiffi with GSI > 75 and may be of mixed success when GSI is
where I1 = skk; J2 = 0.5sijsji;  ¼ 3 cos ½ð 3sij sjk ski Þ=ð2J23=2 Þ

1

where 0 £ y £ p/3; and sij = sij – 13I1dij.
The constants mb, s, and a are determined for the rock-
mass using the geological strength index (GSI) for the rock-
mass (Hoek and Brown 1998; Marinos et al. 2005) as
summarized in Fig. 6. This figure also illustrates the limits
of spall-prone rockmasses, including massive and moderately
jointed rockmasses. The applicability of the work described
in this paper to moderately jointed rockmasses (GSI >> 65)
is clearly demonstrated in Diederichs (2002, 2003) and
Diederichs et al. (2002) with supporting case evidence from
Castro (1996), Castro et al. (1995), Kaiser et al. (1995,
2000), and Martin et al. (1999). Figure 6 combined with
Fig. 2 constrain the applicability of the discussions and rec-
ommendations in this paper.
In the original formulation and for representation of intact
peak strength data, a is set at 0.5. In the generalized formu-
lation (Hoek et al. 2002), a = 0.5 for good quality rock-
masses and it approaches 0.6 for disturbed rockmasses. For
tests on intact lab samples, the parameter s is equal to unity
for intact rock and mi is specified (rather than mb). These pa-
rameters are all functions of GSI for the rockmass


GSI  100
½8
mb ¼ mi exp
28  14D


GSI  100
½9
s ¼ exp
9  3D
1 1
½10
a ¼ þ ðeGSI=15  e20=3 Þ
2 6
equal to 65–75. At higher values of GSI in hard brittle
rock, the Hoek–Brown criterion, which is formulated with
an emphasis on the confinement-dependant strength compo-
nent of rockmasses, does not adequately account for brittle
damage, crack propagation, and the inhibition of frictional
strength development in near-excavation environments. The
origin of the Hoek–Brown criterion is based on the failure
of intact laboratory samples, and the reduction of the labora-
tory strength is based on the notion that a jointed rock mass
is fundamentally weaker in shear than intact rock. While the
concept is sound, the application of this criterion to brittle
failure has met with limited success (Nickson et al. 1997;
Martin et al. 1999). Pelli et al. (1991) showed that to fit
analyses using the Hoek–Brown criterion to observed depths
of failure, the value of mb had to be reduced to unconven-
tionally low values reflective of the damage initiation enve-
lopes for hard rock.
Theoretical study: damage accumulation and
crack interaction
Empirical observations have been used to predict damage
and depth of failure in deep openings (e.g., Kaiser et al.
1995; Hoek and Brown 1980). To make these predictors
more robust, a theoretical (mechanistic) framework is neces-
sary to justify the empirical conclusions. This section summa-
rizes research aimed at justifying the empirical observations,
leading to validation of an approach for simulation of brittle
spalling failure using conventional continuum codes. A num-
ber of engineering applications that build on this theoretical
work are discussed.

The uniaxial compressive strength of the rockmass is then Micromechanical model

estimated as To further investigate the relationship between extensile
damage and macroscopic spalling and shear failure, the na-

 1 1  GSI=15  e20=3 Þ

GSI  100 ½2 þ 6 ðe ture of damage initiation, accumulation, and interaction us-
½11

crm ¼ exp ing a lattice or bonded disc analogue will be explored in
9  3D
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

 this section. In this work, the model is not used as a tool
GSI  100 for large-scale excavation modelling, although excavation
 exp scale simulations have been performed by others (Potyondi
9
and Cundall 1998; Potyondi and Cundall 2004) using the
where the rightmost simplification is for undamaged, mas- particle flow code (PFC) (Itasca 1995) utilized here. While
sive to moderately jointed hard rockmasses. The damage this model does not represent a constitutive analogue for
factor, D, (0 to 1) for excavation disturbance is described in post yield behaviour of rock, it does, however, represent an
# 2007 NRC Canada
1090 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 6. A simplified schematic of the empirical GSI system based on rockmass structural character and the condition of discontinuity sur-
faces, developed and described in detail by Hoek et al. (1995). GSI is used to factor the parameters in the Hoek–Brown strength criterion as
per eqs. [8]–[11]. The shaded zone represents the applicability range for the spall prediction approach outlined in this paper.

intriguing analogue for exploration of damage accumulation
prior to peak strength, and key related issues.
In this model, the extension forces resulting in ‘‘crack initia-
tion’’ are the result of compressive stress–force flow tortuou-
sity, resulting in effective local tension within a trellis-like
internal geometry (Fig. 7). Interparticle slip can only occur
via normal particle separation (bond extension and tensile
rupture) and by cohesional bond rupture (and subsequent
frictional slip). The relative dominance of tensile and shear
bond rupture can be controlled by the specification of bond
tensile and cohesive strength. Contact friction is active only
after bond rupture. The individual bond or contact normal
and shear stiffnesses and the respective tensile strength and
cohesion are the only pre-yield constitutive parameters of
importance in this model and are the only user-defined con-
tact properties (specified as means and standard deviations
for the whole assembly). Large-scale sample behaviour is a
stochastic result of heterogeneity within the assembly. For
visualization, a broken contact is represented as a ‘‘crack’’
perpendicular to the broken contact with a length equal to
the average diameter of the associated discs (Fig. 7).
The PFC code used in this work is essentially a computa-
tional engine that maintains a linked network between par-
ticles and contacts and applies Newtonian physics of
motion. The code also incorporates a scripting and linked
list management language giving the user the ability to de-
velop sophisticated assembly, control, data tracking, and
output routines for specific research simulations, as was the
case for this work.
The basic computational structure of PFC is the same as
for any distinct element method (Cundall 1971; Cundall and
Strack 1979). The PFC code is a subclass of the distinct
element method, known as a discrete element code since it
allows finite displacements and rotations of discrete bodies,
including complete detachment. It also recognizes new con-
tacts automatically as the calculation progresses (Cundall
and Hart 1992). A simplification of the general method is
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs
Fig. 7. Bonded particle model, based on PFC. (Left) Bonded discs under vertical loading showing compressive force pathways (solid lines)
and tensile bond forces (dashed). (Right) Failed bonds represented as normal cracks.
made in PFC through the use of fixed geometry (disc) and
rigid (nondeformable) particles. As mentioned, all stress–
strain behaviour is the result of linear contact stiffnesses
(force versus overlap distance) and contact bond rupture
(crack generation).
A simple contact bond model was used: tensile bonds in-
tegrated with shear bonds, and cohesion only, with residual
contact friction only after rupture. This model creates a het-
erogeneous medium in which cracks can easily form at the
dimension of the constituent grains but cannot easily propa-
gate from grain to grain (contact to contact) due to the lack
of a near-singular stress concentration present in real Mode I
cracks. Other contact models, such as those described by Po-
tyondi and Cundall (2004), can induce more unstable propa-
gation of cracks through a composite medium. It was
decided here, however, to take advantage of the lack of
spontaneous propagation to investigate, by its absence, the
importance of this secondary, post-initiation process.
This model was calibrated to give reasonably acceptable
correspondence to the behaviour of Lac du Bonnet granite.
The elastic bond parameters were calibrated following the
methodology of Bathurst and Rothenburg (1988). The mod-
els in Fig. 8 and those used for the simulations discussed
subsequently were created with a finite contact shear
strength equal to four times the tensile strength (as per find-
ings of Laqueche et al. 1986 and Okubo and Fukui 1996).
The model results in Fig. 8 demonstrate the importance of
tensile damage in brittle rocks. The tensile cracks outnumber
the shear cracks by as much as 50 to 1 even when the ultimate
failure mode is a shear band. In fact, a close examination of
the lower inset images (incremental crack accumulation)
shows that the position of the shear cracks in the sample do
not correlate with the final shear band location, and that the
latter must be composed of a series of interacting tensile
cracks and rotating intercrack ‘‘pillars’’.
The sample test begins with a number of tensile cracks al-
ready distributed throughout the sample as a result of the
sample formation process. The samples are prepared by ran-
1091
domly generating a distribution of discs with variable radii
and expanding the (frictionless) discs into a confined space
(until a specified isostatic ‘‘lithification’’ pressure results
throughout the sample, confined by straight but movable
walls). Once this process is complete, the bonding conditions
are applied (stiffness and strength variations). The sample
confining pressure is then released and the sample is allowed
to relax. The variable stiffness of the bonds within the sam-
ple leads to differential relaxation and moderate sample
damage – similar to actual core recovery. Lateral confine-
ment is subsequently applied through a flexible membrane
wall while the upper and lower loading platens are straight
and nonrotating.
Damage initiation and yield
One of the main objectives of this modelling was to con-
firm the empirical relationship between damage initiation
and sample yield strength for a heterogeneous crystalline
rock. Figure 9 illustrates the ‘‘monitoring’’ of crack accumu-
lation and the associated lateral strain response. Tangent
Poisson’s ratio is the instantaneous ratio between incremen-
tal lateral strain and incremental vertical strain. This is a pa-
rameter that can be measured easily in standard laboratory
testing. Alternatively, the crack accumulation curve can be
reproduced from cumulative acoustic emission readings
such as those described and utilized, for damage initiation
detection in real samples of Lac du Bonnet granite, by
Diederichs et al. (2004), Eberhardt (1998), and Eberhardt et
al. (1998). Of particular interest here is that both indicators
provide a good indication of the onset of systematic damage
initiation, a threshold taken to be the onset of significant
damage. The ‘‘acoustically’’ identified ‘‘first crack’’ thresh-
old indicates the onset of more random and less coherent
damage accumulation. This early damage is not reflected in
strain measurements. As demonstrated by Eberhardt (1998),
a considerable amount of variation in both thresholds should
be expected when testing different core samples from the
same rock mass, particularly for larger grained rocks. In ad-
# 2007 NRC Canada
1092 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 8. Simulated compression test with 7200 discs at 20 MPa confining stress. Nominal bond shear strength is four times the bond tensile
strength. Bulk parameters calibrated to Lac du Bonnet granite. Note that ultimate failure is through shear band formation, although the
primary damage mechanism is tensile, with 50 times as many tensile cracks as shear cracks at failure (after Diederichs 2003).

dition, the so-called Kaiser Effect (Villaescusa et al. 2002;
Holcomb 1993) may obscure the ‘‘first crack’’ threshold.
The systematic damage threshold is the most robust indica-
tor and, as this paper will demonstrate, is the more reason-
able indicator of in situ spall strength.
Another primary objective of this modelling is to identify
and mechanistically justify a robust indicator of true sample
yield. Many researchers have identified ‘‘volumetric strain re-
versal’’ (as defined by Martin 1994), or the stress at which the
incremental volumetric strain rate changes sign as an indica-
tor of yield in rocks. It is felt by this author that this indicator
is highly dependant on nonmaterial factors involved in the
test. It is therefore hypothesized that a better indicator is the
stress threshold at which the first significant nonlinearity ap-
pears in the axial stress – axial strain plot. This is the defini-
tion of ‘‘yield’’ used in Steel’s testing (Illston et al. 1979) and
is in fact coincident with volumetric strain reversal for uniax-
ial samples. As shown by Diederichs et al. (2004), the two
thresholds diverge for higher confining stresses and the volu-
metric strain reversal limit overpredicts the yield strength.
Lateral strain begins to accelerate at about the same time as
the vertical strain rate (opposite sign) increases. As volumet-
ric strain is the sum of these components, the apparent rever-
sal is delayed until the rate of lateral strain increases
substantially. The axial stress–strain nonlinearity is able to
capture the onset of yield with more accuracy. This conclu-
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs
Fig. 9. Relationship between tangential strain ratio (instantaneous Poisson’s ratio) and crack initiation and accumulation in numerical simu-
lations. Plotting log (stress) against log (crack total) allows the systematic crack initiation threshold to be distinguished from first (and ran-
dom) crack initiation.
sion, drawn from examination of laboratory testing results
based on data from Martin (1994) and Eberhardt (1998), is
validated by numerical experimentation as shown in Fig. 10.
The onset of axial stress–strain nonlinearity (as also reflected
in the recorded ‘‘instantaneous tangent modulus’’) is directly
related in the model to the first occurrence of interacting
cracks. As the extension cracks (average orientation parallel
to maximum compression) accumulate through the sample,
they do not impact the axial behaviour until two cracks ini-
tiate in close mutual proximity, and begin to interact (two
neighbouring cracks have increased kinematic freedom as
compared to isolated cracks). All stress thresholds from the
PFC modelling are shown in Fig. 11.
While the initiation and yield thresholds are compatible
with actual test results (Diederichs et al. 2004), the peak
strength in the PFC models is not representative of actual
granite behaviour. The 2D PFC models provide a valid ana-
logue up to the point of yield. Likewise, a cylindrical labora-
tory test is only representative of general material behaviour
up to the point of yield. Beyond this point, behaviour in the
lab sample and in the 2D analogue is dominated by testing
system properties and constraints imposed by the testing con-
figuration. In fact, long-term and scale-independent strength
of lab samples converge on an asymptotic limit approxi-
mately coincident with the yield strength in short term testing
(Hoek and Brown 1980; Schmidtke and Lajtai 1985; Martin
1994). It is therefore concluded that the yield strength, as de-
fined here, is the upper bound for in situ strength. The lower
bound is defined by the crack initiation strength threshold (in
the limit by the ‘‘first crack’’ stress, but more realistically by
the ‘‘systematic damage’’ threshold).
The systematic damage initiation threshold, as an indica-
tor of lower bound in situ strength, can be detected by close
examination of lateral (radial) strain measurements and axial
stress. Log–log plotting is most appropriate here as the ac-
celeration (rate increase) in strain is reflected as an identifi-
1093
able slope change, as shown in Fig. 12. Alternatively, the
damage initiation and damage interaction (yield) thresholds
can be detected from acoustic emission monitoring as de-
scribed by Eberhardt et al. (1998) and summarized in Die-
derichs et al. (2004).
A secondary goal of the simulation program involving
PFC was to provide a mechanistic justification for Stacey’s
(Stacey 1981) extension strain criteria (eqs. [2] and [3]). Us-
ing the target Poisson’s ratio of 0.25, this criterion corre-
sponds phenomenologically to the observed onset of axial
stress–strain nonlinearity in the simulations. The slope of the
yield or interaction threshold in Fig. 11 corresponds to the
predicted slope range of 3–4 using 2D and 3D conditions, re-
spectively. While Stacey’s criterion was unsuccessful as an
indicator of in situ strength, it is a reliable indicator of yield
strength in laboratory tests (Stacey and Page 1986).
Figure 13 compares the crack interaction (yield) threshold
defined by first crack interaction to measured lateral strain
in 50 stochastic simulations (each sample shares target pa-
rameters from Table 1 but differs in specific internal struc-
ture). For confining stresses below 50 MPa, the yield
threshold (dashed line labeled ‘‘interaction’’ in Fig. 13) cor-
responds to the lateral strain isocontours (solid lines) of
0.70–0.75 microstrain, a range that compares directly to an
average measured lateral strain of 0.00071 for unconfined
and undamaged samples of Lac du Bonnet granite. As dis-
cussed in Diederichs et al. (2004), this threshold also corre-
sponds to a critical crack density ((1/A)
d2 equal to 0.027 to
0.33, where A is the simulation sample area and d is the
crack length). This is significant because it follows that the
probability of crack interaction is a function of the crack
density within a sample. At a critical crack density, interac-
tion becomes statistically guaranteed with any additional
damage. This concept is utilized later in this section to ex-
plain strength reduction due to increased crack length.
# 2007 NRC Canada
1094
Fig. 10. Simulated axial compression test (lateral confining stress equal to 20 MPa), illustrating the relationship between instantaneous tan-
gent modulus (deviation from axial stress–strain linearity) and the number of interacting crack pairs in the sample (cracks within one mean
particle diameter of each other).
For the simple contact bond model used here, the samples
must accumulate sufficient crack density to ensure crack in-
teraction, yield, and subsequent failure. In other words, fail-
ure can only result from crack accumulation and not from
crack propagation. This provides for realistic behaviour in
compression but, as Fig. 14 illustrates, less realistic behav-
iour in direct, indirect Brazilian, or confined tension testing
conditions. In this figure, PFC simulations are performed
(symbols represent thresholds in individual tests) using
stress paths ranging from uniaxial compression, to confined
tension (including the specific stress path corresponding to a
Brazilian test) and uniaxial tension. Lateral tension is ap-
plied to samples with increasing vertical compression corre-
sponding to the uniaxial stress history in the upper left inset.
While the crack initiation threshold bends down to a real-
istic tensile strength for the target granite, the interaction
and localization (volumetric strain reversal) envelopes con-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
tinue in a linear fashion, corresponding in the former case
to a critical crack density and a critical extension strain. In
reality, however, any random crack initiation in a tensile
field will result in nearly instantaneous failure of the sample
due to the instability of a sharp crack tip with crack-normal
tension (Kemeny and Cook 1986). As a result, the complete
strength envelope for real rocks such as granite is transi-
tional from a compressive strength envelope controlled by
damage accumulation, crack interaction, and critical exten-
sion strain, to a uniaxial tensile strength controlled by crack
initiation, as illustrated in Fig. 15. In other words, crack
damage causing failure is a group effort in compression,
while in tension, the first crack ‘‘wins’’. The next section
will demonstrate mechanisms that extend this transition into
the compression regime and reduce in situ compressive
strength to the damage initiation threshold near rock excava-
tions in massive to moderately jointed rock.
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs 1095

Fig. 11. Results of numerical simulations of confined axial loading. The thresholds of first crack, systematic damage (cracking), first inter-
action, and peak strength are defined in Figs. 9 and 10. Slopes of key relationships are shown.

Fig. 12. Compression test (load cycle – not taken to failure) on a sample of Lac du Bonnet granite. Lateral strain (on axially loaded cylind-
rical sample) gives an indicator of first damage initiation at approximately 80 MPa of axial stress and systematic damage (dilation) at just
over 100 MPa.

Mechanisms of in situ strength reduction
The empirical damage thresholds discussed in the intro-
duction reflect a reduction in in situ strength from an upper
bound defined, according to this author, by the damage in-
teraction and yield strength threshold for laboratory test
samples, to a lower bound defined by damage initiation.
This section presents and explains a number of mechanisms
that operate together to create this reduction in low confine-
ment conditions adjacent to an excavation.
Pre-existing crack damage
The effect of pre-existing crack damage was demonstrated
by Martin (1997) and Martin and Stimpson (1994). The ef-
fect of pre-existing crack damage is simulated in Fig. 16 us-
ing PFC. While the yield strength drops in a fashion
# 2007 NRC Canada
1096 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 13. Composite plot of axial (vertical) stress, confining (lateral) stress, and ‘‘measured’’ lateral extension strain from 50 stochastic si-
mulations at various fixed confining stress levels. Initiation and peak strength thresholds are shown to be independent of lateral extension
strain while the threshold for crack interaction is shown to be associated with a consistent extension strain value (equal to –0.00070
to –0.00075 in this case). Model calibrated to Lac du Bonnet granite.

Table 1. Selection of constitutive model based on rock strength ratio (compressive–

tensile strength) and rockmass quality.

Strength ratio GSI < 55 GSI = 55–65 GSI = 65–80 GSI > 80
UCS/T < 9 GSI GSI GSI GSI
UCS/T = 9–15 GSI GSI GSI GSI / DISL*
UCS/T = 15–20 GSI GSI / DISL* DISL / GSI* DISL
UCS/T > 20 GSI GSI /DISL* DISL DISL
Note: DISL, damage initiation – spalling limit (approach for brittle rock); GSI, rock strength
calculation based on GSI and Hoek–Brown strength reduction.
*Ordering of methods indicates most appropriate.

consistent with Martin (1997), the stress threshold for new
systematic damage initiation is essentially unaffected by
moderate amounts of damage.
Stress rotation and damage
Damage associated with the pre-face and immediately post-
face stress field can also be exacerbated by significant stress
rotations as the tunnel face passes the section of interest. In
Fig. 17, the rotation of the principal stresses is shown in a 3D
elastic simulation. This rotation occurs within the zone of ele-
vated deviatoric stress as damage is being created. The left
side of Fig. 17 shows crack extension during stress rotation
modeled by Diederichs et al. (2004). Additional crack length
and additional numbers of cracks have a profound impact on
ultimate yield strength as will be demonstrated presently.
Figure 17 also reveals a significant, although short-lived,
increase in the intermediate principal stress near the tunnel
face. Crack damage that occurs while
2 approaches
1 will
become more consistently aligned (as compared to the case
of
2 =
3 in laboratory testing). The result is a greater den-
sity of cracks aligned subparallel to the orientation of the
tunnel face before the tunnel passes the point in question.
More of these oriented cracks are then available for exploi-
tation by the slabbing process, resulting in an effective
strength decrease (Diederichs et al. 2004).
Crack propagation and crack interaction
In addition to an increase in crack accumulation as a re-
sult of progressive tunnel excavation and the effects of crack
alignment due to elevated
2 (in near tunnel conditions as
compared to lab test conditions), crack length is important
to yield strength degradation. By combining the findings of
Dyskin and Germanovich (1993) with the formal derivations
of Ashby and Hallam (1986), it is possible to determine the
effect of confinement on crack tip extension
pffiffiffiffiffi

1 c
½12
KIconf ¼ ½1    ð1 þ Þ  4:3L

ð1 þ LÞ3=2
 
1
 0:23L þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3ð1 þ LÞ
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs 1097

Fig. 14. PFC simulations of confined tensile tests and mean results of numerous stochastic simulations of Brazilian indirect tensile tests. In
all cases first crack and systematic crack envelopes are realistic, while interaction and peak thresholds do not reflect reality due to the effect
of restricted crack propagation in contact bond models.

Further, the effect of free surface interactions can be de- free surface. The orientation, y (angle of crack normal with
scribed as respect to horizontal), of the critical flaw  is incorporated
2  2 3 into this derivation and is equal to 12 tan1 1 , and E is the
1  p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4 ffic
ffiffi L þ p1ffiffi
 Young’s modulus of the solid. Setting KIC ¼ KIconf þ KIsurf it
1 c1=2 pffiffiffiffiffi6 p
ð3 2Þ t 2 7 is possible to solve for L with respect to variables
1 and
½13
KIsurf ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 c4  2 5
2 2 t 12 c2
1 þ 2 t2 L þ pffiffi E1
1

3 as determined around a circular excavation
2


 
p a2 a4
where  ¼
3 =
1 , L is the crack propagation length, defined ½14

yy ¼ ð1 þ kÞ 1 þ 2 þ ð1  kÞ 1 þ 3 4 cos2
as L ¼ a=c, where the length of the extending wing crack is 2 r r
a and the initial flaw length is c, and t is the distance to the
# 2007 NRC Canada
1098 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 15. Comparison between PFC simulations (simple contact bond model) and actual laboratory testing. Interaction and peak under com-
pressive confining stress in both cases is the result of crack accumulation and interaction at a critical crack density and critical extension
strain (crack interaction = yield). In the simulations, the same mechanisms are involved in failure, while in actual rock, however, individual
crack initiation in tension can result in sample failure (crack initiation = yield and failure).

Fig. 16. PFC simulations of damage initiation (new damage) and crack interaction thresholds for samples with pre-existing isotropic da-
mage. Crack intensity is given as (1/A)
d2 where A is the sample area and d is the crack length.

# 2007 NRC Canada

Diederichs 1099

Fig. 17. Simulated fracture extension (left) as a result of stress rotation (major compression direction shown by arrowheads). Calculated
stress magnitudes and stress rotation (3D elastic model) in the vicinity of the underground research laboratory (URL) test tunnel operated by
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) during advancement of the tunnel (after Diederichs et al. 2004).

Fig. 18. Fracture mechanics calculation of spontaneous (normalized) crack propagation length, L, (after initiation) in the stress field adjacent
to a circular excavation. a, crack propagation length; c, initial flaw length.



p a2 Figure 18 clearly illustrates the high sensitivity of crack
½15

rr ¼ ð1 þ kÞ 1  2
2 r propagation to the near-boundary confinement reduction

  and surface effects. Longer cracks lead to premature interac-
a2 a4
 ð1  kÞ 1  4 2 þ 3 4 cos2 tion and yield as demonstrated in Fig. 19. This figure is the
r r result of a statistical simulation building on basic concepts
of system reliability described by Jardine (1973). The statis-
The result of this calculation, with and without inclusion of tical probability of system failure by crack interaction (as a
the free surface effects (eq. [13]), is summarized in Fig. 18. function of crack density,  and the relative crack propaga-
# 2007 NRC Canada
1100
Fig. 19. Reduction in yield strength due to increased propagation length of new and pre-existing cracks. Based on results of statistical in-
teraction model (see text).
tion length L* = L/c) within a 2D network of uniformly dis-
tributed cracks (Diederichs 2000) is
 m1
fV0 =½2VðL Þ2
g
½16

¼
0 lnð1  f1  ½1  PV ð
Þ

where
0,
I, and m are Weibull strength parameters (Weibull
1939, 1951); V and Vo are the sample and grain volume, re-
spectively; and PV is the interaction probability (50%).
Rearranging eq. [16] to solve for PV and incorporate the
effect of pre-existing damage gives the probability that the
next crack will interact with a newly induced crack or a
pre-existing crack (derivation detailed in Diederichs 2000)





I m 4f ðL Þ0 V
½17
PV ð
Þ ¼ 1  exp 

0 Vo
 
m  k !VVo ½2ðL Þ2 4f ðL Þo



I
 1  1  exp 

0
In this model it is assumed that cracks grow to relative
length L* immediately upon initiation (stable crack propaga-
tion length is a function of increasing stress after initiation).
The potential for expansion of pre-existing damage upon
loading must also be considered. In one extreme, the pre-
existing damage spontaneously extends to length L* upon
loading, such that f ðL Þ ¼ ðL Þ2 in eq. [17]. In the second
extreme, pre-existing cracks do not extend (but can still in-
teract with extending new cracks) and have a constant
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
length equal to the elemental dimension, such that
f ðL Þ ¼ ½ð1 þ L Þ=2
2 . The result for the first condition is
shown in Fig. 19. The parameters for the interaction model
1
2 are based on a P = 50% calibration for an associated ini-
gÞ þ
I tiation model (systematic damage).
Internal stress heterogeneity and crack propagation
The effects of pre-existing damage, stress rotation, and
crack extension have been demonstrated using theoretical,
micromechanical, and statistical models. Finally, the influ-
ence of material heterogeneity on internal stress distribution
(and crack propagation) can be demonstrated with PFC. The
simulation in Fig. 20 confirms the proposals by Trollope
(1968), Gramberg (1989), and Cook (1995) that internal
stress heterogeneity plays a large part in fracture initiation
and propagation in polycrystalline rock. As demonstrated by
Hoek (1968) extending cracks are hypersensitive to very low
confinement and to even small tensile stresses normal to the
extending tip. The tensile domains in Fig. 20 are assumed to
be where significant crack propagation occurs, contributing
to the weakening of the sample.
Summary of in situ strength conclusions
The composite result of this theoretical study is summar-
ized in Fig. 21. In situ strength can be predicted by assum-
ing a damage initiation threshold at low confinements.
Strength drops to the initiation limit from an upper bound at
higher confinements, defined by critical crack accumulation
and interaction (yield). This drop in strength follows the
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs
Fig. 20. PFC simulation of spatial distribution of mean local tensile stress regions (calculated statistically from contact forces within a sam-
ple area of 1% of total) within a heterogeneous sample under all-round applied compression.
spalling limit based on the experimental findings of Hoek
(1968) and the numerical findings summarized in Fig. 20.
Figure 21 also answers one additional question. Why do
these strength reduction mechanisms not act within a lab
test sample? The answer is in the geometry. In addition to
induced internal confinement generated by the test platens,
the cylindrical geometry of the sample gives rise to hoop
tension (circumferential) that, in turn, induces radial con-
straint on dilating extension cracks, suppressing unstable
propagation. The lab test, therefore, must fail by an accumu-
lation and ultimate interaction of nonextending microcracks.
In situ, and in particular near an excavation wall, cracks are
free to propagate. Longer cracks lead to premature interac-
tion (fewer total cracks are required for yield, if initiating
cracks extend in length).
Damage limit specification
The foregoing discussions provide a theoretical basis for a
now widely utilized empirical observation that damage in
hard rocks such as granite (Martin 1994), quartzite (Ortlepp
and Gay 1984), andesite (Kaiser et al. 1995), and dense
sandstone (Pestman and Van Munster 1996) initiates at a
uniaxial stress level (UCS*) of between one third and one
half of the strength (UCS) obtained from standard laboratory
testing (ISRM 1979). This observation has worked its way
into a number of related empirical guidelines using this
range of ratios for in situ strength UCS*/UCS to predict the
onset of failure around deep circular or square openings, in-
cluding Ortlepp et al. (1972), Wiseman (1978, 1979), Hoek
and Brown (1980), and more recently to an empirical thresh-
old for elastic modelling incrementally refined by Pelli et al.
(1991), Martin (1994, 1997), Kaiser et al. (1995), Vasak and
Diederichs (1995), Castro (1996), Diederichs et al. (2002),
and Diederichs (2003). The primary thrust of this current re-
search was to validate these empirical findings and to extend
1101
the fundamental concepts to more complex investigation of
damage and spalling failure and apply these concepts to
nonlinear modelling.
Damage initiation strength and depth of failure
prediction
The damage initiation envelope in the compressive do-
main is similar in concept to the m = 0 or  = 0 approaches
to elastic analysis described and applied by Kaiser et al.
(1995) and Martin et al. (1999). While there are conceptual
difficulties with these approaches, either empirical envelope
can be used for scoping estimation of the maximum extent
of damage and possible failure around excavations using
elastic 2D or 3D analysis. Alternatively, a number of empir-
ical observations for failure radius (circumscribed radius
plus additional damage depth) are summarized in Fig. 22.
Martin et al. (1999) compared the best fit trend of this data-
base to elastic modelling predictions and found a reasonable
correlation, although the elastic predictions showed a shal-
lower slope, indicating less damage at high stress than the
database correlation. In Fig. 22, the original linear fit (as a
function of
max/UCS) has been re-expressed as a function
of
max/UCS* where
max is the maximum tangential boun-
dary stress and UCS* is the damage initiation stress or rock-
mass lower bound strength.
The value of UCS* is obtained from acoustic emission
measurements, radial strain data, or alternatively from the
application of empirical tools, such as that developed and
calibrated by Diederichs et al. (2004), considering the im-
pact of mineralogical (as in Suorineni and Kaiser 2002) and
microfabric components and based on theoretical considera-
tions arising from the numerical experimentation detailed in
the sections entitled ‘‘Theoretical study: damage accumula-
tion and crack interaction’’ and ‘‘Mechanisms of in situ
strength reduction.’’
# 2007 NRC Canada
1102 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 21. Synthesis of theoretical and experimental investigations. Composite in situ yield envelope (in 2D stress space) represented by solid
line. Transition from yield threshold (onset of shear failure due to interaction of accumulating extension cracks) at high confinement to
crack initiation threshold (spalling failure due to propagation of individual cracks) is defined as a critical confinement ratio or spalling limit.
Graphics illustrate the difference between laboratory testing (cylindrical sample and platen effects inhibit crack propagation) and in situ wall
conditions (initiating cracks propagate more freely).

Specification of Hoek–Brown parameters for damage
initiation
Previous authors (Pelli et al. 1991; Kaiser et al. 1995;
Martin et al. 1999) have proposed the use of a Hoek–
Brown envelope with m = 0 and an unconfined intercept
corresponding to one third of the UCS such that s0.5 = 0.33
or s = 0.11 and
pffiffi
½18

1damage ¼
3 þ sUCS
This criterion is useful as a phenomenological threshold
for evaluation of the effect of compressive stresses, but is
fundamentally invalid, as it significantly overpredicts the re-
sistance to tensile stresses and underpredicts the slope of the
envelope with respect to confining stress,
3. While this
simplification is not a serious restriction for interpretation
of elastic modelling (which permits subjective interpreta-
tion) it renders the criterion unusable for nonlinear model-
ling of progressive damage and failure. This oversight was
due in large part to the original specification (Hoek and
Brown 1980) of the fixed exponent a = 0.5 in eq. [6]. The
new generalized form (Hoek et al. 2002) is only now mak-
ing its way into commercial modelling software such as
Phase2 (RocScience 2005). In this latest formulation, the ex-
ponent, a, is allowed to vary. According to the updated GSI
system (Hoek and Brown 1998; Hoek et al. 2002; Marinos
et al. 2005) this exponent is still specified as 0.5 for most
good and fair rockmasses, with an increase to 0.6 for poor
rockmasses.
The parameter, a, controls the curvature of the envelope.
The square root specification (a = 0.5) was defined origi-
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs
Fig. 22. Empirical observations (collected and summarized by Kaiser et al. 1995; Martin et al. 1999) for normalized radius of failure. Stan-
dard excavation radius, R, is calculated from a circle circumscribing square or horseshoe shaped excavations. The best fit equation is mod-
ified here to reflect normalized stress state with respect to damage initiation strength UCS*.
nally by Hoek and Brown (1980). It is proposed by this au-
thor that this exponent be reduced to 0.2 to define the limit
for lower bound crack initiation and 0.25 for systematic
crack accumulation. This modification permits a relatively
flat slope for the compression portion of the envelope and
allows a tight curvature in tension to capture the correct ten-
sile strength (recall from the last section that the compres-
sive strength is reduced in situ but the tensile strength from
lab samples can be counted on in situ for sparsely jointed
rock). The modification produces an envelope compatible
with the fracture based criterion of Griffith (1924) and the
associated work on fracture described by Hoek (1968). The
following general methodology is suggested:
(1) For the lower bound threshold for ‘‘damage initiation’’,
determine UCSdi from acoustic emission data and set
ainit to 0.2. This is recommended to determine the maxi-
mum depth of damage (worst possible case).
(2) For ‘‘systematic damage’’, determine UCSsd from acous-
tic emission or radial strain data, and set asyst to 0.25.
This value will result in a more realistic prediction of ac-
tual visible spalling (worst probable case).
(3) Obtain a reliable estimate or measurement of tensile
strength, T.
(4) For both ‘‘damage initiation’’ and ‘‘systematic damage’’,
calculate the appropriate s and m from
½19
s ¼ ðUCS =UCSÞ1=a
½20
m ¼ sðUCS=jTjÞ
The choices of the a parameter in each case ensure that
the damage threshold will have a slope of 0–1.5 for lower
bound initiation and 1–2.5 for systematic damage consistent
with the evidence presented in the ‘‘Introduction.’’
1103
The complete envelope: damage initiation and spalling
limit (DISL)
As discussed in the previous section, the damage initiation
or systematic damage thresholds will, on their own, overpre-
dict the depth of damage in elastic models (although the re-
sult is usually acceptable as a design limit). It is desirable to
consider the spalling limit in elastic modelling and essential
in inelastic simulations to achieve acceptable results. A
composite envelope can be applied directly to the analysis
of elastic stress data (Diederichs et al. 2002), while it is pos-
sible in strain softening – hardening models to specify the
damage threshold as the ‘‘peak’’ envelope, while specifying
the spalling limit as the ‘‘residual’’ envelope as shown in
Fig. 23. While the procedure is applicable to most rocks
within the range of mi >> 15, the specific parameters in this
figure are based on Lac du Bonnet granite and the damage
initiation and systematic damage thresholds from Fig. 14.
The recommended range of spalling limits is based on

1/
3 ratios of 7–10 at the point of intersection with the ini-
tiation threshold (in accordance with Hoek (1968). The cur-
vature (a = 0.75) is selected to ensure reasonable
intersection with the long-term lab-tested yield surface
(upper bound strength) at higher confinements. This upper
bound is not discretely included in the composite envelope
although it is implied as in Fig. 21 and in Fig. 24. The
range of damage initiation threshold thus derived corre-
sponds to the range of behaviour predicted by the Griffith
model in 2D (Griffith 1924; Hoek 1968) and 3D (Murrell
1963). The spalling (confinement) limit follows the logic of
Hoek (1968) and the findings of Diederichs (2000, 2003).
Figure 24 also includes a number of conventional Hoek–
Brown envelopes from GSI = 50, 60, and 70. In Figs. 2 and
6 the practical limits of applicability of spalling failure me-
# 2007 NRC Canada
1104 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 23. Generalized Hoek–Brown composite strength envelopes for Lac du Bonnet granite. Range of thresholds derived from damage in-
itiation (first crack threshold in Fig. 17) and systematic damage (onset of systematic cracking and radial dilation). Envelope parameters are
determined by assuming a = 0.2 and 0.25, respectively, and by assuming that the laboratory-measured tensile strength anchors the damage
initiation envelope as in Fig. 21. Comparison to Griffth 2D (Griffith 1924; Hoek 1968) and 3D (Murrell 1963) fracture criterion.

chanics were identified to be in the vicinity of GSI = 65
(moderately jointed to massive as per evidentiary case stud-
ies presented in Diederichs 2003 and Kaiser et al. 1995) for
appropriate lithologies (UCS/T > 15 from Fig. 2 and Lee et
al. 2004). The comparison between the envelopes in Fig. 24
suggests an appropriate transition between the conventional
GSI approach (shearing and squeezing) and the DISL ap-
proach for spalling. A practical transition between the two
methods and the two physical behaviours is summarized in
the usage guidelines presented in Table 1.
Nonlinear analysis of progressive spalling
Although spall damage can occur as soon as a face is ex-
posed (Vuilleumier and Aeschbach 2004), spalling is nor-
mally a progressive process, particularly where the depth of
damage is significant. Previous techniques (Kaiser et al.
1995; Vasak and Diederichs 1995; Castro et al. 1995) as-
sume a direct correlation between elastic stress distribution
and ultimate failure extent, and the results are often conser-
vative. While this may be an adequate assumption for many
engineering problems, a full staged inelastic simulation of
the process is desirable whenever possible. This section dem-
onstrates such a simulation process and confirms the transi-
tion (in applicability) between the DISL approach and the
conventional GSI rockmass approach summarized in Table 1.
Inelastic simulation of AECL-URL test tunnel
A standard finite element analysis code is tested here to
demonstrate the practical simplicity of this approach. Phase2
(RocScience 2005) is based on the finite element formula-
tion and the strain softening – hardening formulations de-
scribed in Owen and Hinton (1980) and Chen (1982),
respectively. The load stepping and iterative plastic solution
described by these authors is used here. The specific Hoek–
Brown yield function is based on Shah (1992) and Hoek et
al. (2002). The yield function was presented in eq. [7].
The flow rule is formulated identically to eq. [7] substitut-
ing mdil for mb. This dilation parameter (corresponding to a
constant dilation angle in the conventional Mohr–Coulomb
plasticity formulation described by Vermeer and de Borst
1984) is constant with respect to strain, although the effec-
tive dilation varies with confining stress according the nor-
mal to the Hoek–Brown surface. According to Ryder and
Jager (2002) and Vermeer and de Borst (1984), the recom-
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs
Fig. 24. Composite envelope (systematic damage initiation + spalling limit) for Lac du Bonnet granite used in subsequent analysis in this
paper. Rockmass strength envelopes derived from conventional Hoek–Brown approach (Hoek et al. 2002), and GSI = 50, 60, and 70, are
shown for comparison indicating overlap of applicability ranges for the GSI approach and the damage initiation – spalling limit (DISL)
approach for rock strength.
mended dilation for rock is = /2 or approximately m/8.
The maximum dilation in the Hoek–Brown formulation is
mdil = mres/4 where mres is the value specified in the yield
function for residual strength.
Cundall et al. (2003) propose a flow rule with a dilation
parameter dependant on plastic strain and more directly de-
pendant on confinement. This is an encouraging step for-
ward. The constant flow rule presents some difficulties with
convergence in brittle modelling as the material continues to
experience volume change with additional yielding. In real-
ity, the bulking of a spalling rockmass is a finite process,
typically resulting in 5%–15% expansion of contained but
unrestrained spalling zones (Kaiser et al. 1995). Displace-
ments will not be considered as wholly reliable in this anal-
ysis, but the depth and extent of yield will be shown to be
accurate. In addition, the dilation parameter can be used to
model the influence of moderate support (material remains
in place after yield) versus no support or loose retention.
The selected input parameters for Phase2 are summarized
in Fig. 25. ‘‘Peak’’ and ‘‘residual’’ yield functions are de-
fined by the systematic damage parameters and the spalling
limit, respectively. Strain softening (or strain weakening)
takes place at low confinements where the spalling limit
falls below the damage threshold. Strain hardening takes
1105
place at higher confinements as damage is accumulated but
not exploited by the spalling process. This is consistent with
the conceptual model shown in Fig. 4.
While the spalling limit and the damage initiation thresh-
old have little to do with the conventional interpretation of
friction (or even cohesional shear resistance), the damage
and spalling response can be phenomenologically modeled
using cohesion reduction and friction mobilization as sug-
gested by Fig. 25. This approach has a history of precedence
including work in rock mechanics by Vermeer and de Borst
(1984), Cundall and Board (1988), Vasak and Kaiser (1995),
Hajiabdolmajid et al. (2002, 2003), and others. Perhaps the
most elegant justification for this approach was detailed by
Schmertman and Osterberg (1968) in experiments on two
types of unsaturated clay, clearly demonstrating the validity
of frictional mobilization and cohesion weakening with in-
creasing plastic strain.
In the brittle model of Phase2, the respective increase in
friction and decrease in cohesion is instantaneous. As with
all brittle problems, unrealistic localization becomes a nu-
merical issue for fine grids. A fine grid is desirable to capture
the high stress gradients involved in high stress excavations,
but a compromise must be made. Higher order elements (e.g.,
linear strain) can be used and do improve results while sup-
# 2007 NRC Canada
1106 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 25. ‘‘Peak’’ and ‘‘residual’’ parameters used in finite element (Phase2) analysis of a tunnel in Lac du Bonnet granite. Arrows show the
confinement ‘‘strain-softening’’ and ‘‘strain-hardening’’ that occurs after the nominal peak envelope (damage initiation threshold) is reached.
The generalized Hoek–Brown and equivalent Mohr–Coulomb parameters are shown. The Hoek–Brown criterion is used in subsequent ana-
lyses of the test tunnel. The yield function was summarized in eq. [6].

pressing localization somewhat. A nonzero residual cohesion
and a nonzero residual dilation (very small but finite and pos-
itive) are also effective. All localization need not be dis-
missed as numerical artifacts, however. Brittle failure of
rock is by its nature a localization phenomenon, particularly
in tension. Engineering judgement must be exercised and as a
rule of thumb, any localization that follows the grid geome-
tries should be discounted or treated with suspicion.
The Hoek–Brown parameters, summarized in Fig. 25, are
used to simulate the breakout in the URL test tunnel (tunnel
case history described by Martin 1997, Martin et al. 1997,
and others). The tunnel, the breakout, and the surveyed pro-
file of one typical round is shown in Fig. 26. The tunnel has
been exhaustively studied by the aforementioned authors
and many others. It is reprised here as a validation study for
the application of this technique in massive ground. Dieder-
ichs (2002, 2003) describe a number of case studies demon-
strating that spalling behaviour is observed and can be
predicted in a similar fashion for other hard rocks (high mi
values) with GSI values as low as 65 although 75–100 is a
more suitable range for general application.
The progressive simulation of the tunnel excavation is
achieved in 2D (albeit without the stress rotations described
in Fig. 17) by using a core replacement technique. In Phase2,
the tunnel core (shown in Fig. 27) is incrementally replaced
with a new material (with identical or reduced stiffness)
without any initial internal element loading. The model anal-
ysis is continued after the replacement and run until equili-
brium is reached. The replacement cycle is repeated. In the
final stage the core material is removed altogether to com-
plete the excavation. This procedure simulates a typical
ground reaction response as shown in Fig. 27 (inset). This
incremental procedure is particularly important for brittle
simulations to control the ‘‘shock’’ loading and overbreak
that would occur with simultaneous excavation.
The results of the analysis for the roof breakout are shown
in Fig. 28. The progressive development of the breakout can
be visualized in Fig. 29. The acceptability of the model in
reproducing the observed breakout is obvious. In addition
the constrained tensile zones in the walls (detected with
acoustic emissions) are also reproduced. No dilation is used
in this simulation to avoid confinement feedback as the fail-
ing rock expands in a constrained space. In axisymmetric
problems the dilation parameter affects only the calculated
(radial) strains and displacements. In a complex geometry
such as the notch breakout, dilation creates back pressures
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs
Fig. 26. Photograph of AECL-URL test tunnel (modified from Martin 1997). As-built damage profile from Martin (1997) is superimposed.
Tunnel radius, R, is 1.75 m.
in the notch and increased tangential pressures at the periph-
ery within a well developed notch geometry (as major com-
pression is no longer perfectly circumferential). While it
may seem counterintuitive, simulations of a freely dilating
rockmass (unsupported or only loosely retained) should in-
clude a near zero dilation (mdil = mres/100). While the failure
geometry will be accurately reproduced for the unsupported
rockmass, the displacements in this simulation will not be
reliable. It is the feeling of this author that attempts to accu-
rately reproduce bulking displacements in spalling rock with
continuum models are fraught with uncertainty at best, as
this is a discontinuum process after yield. A better approxi-
mation of displacements is obtained from the depth of fail-
ure and the empirical relationship for support-dependent
bulking factor, BF, or relative volume increase during spal-
ling, simplified from Kaiser et al. (1995)
½21
BF ¼ 0:3eðP=70Þ
½22
Inelastic radical displacement ¼ DOF  BF
where P is the support pressure in kPa, and DOF is the
depth of failure. It is important to look at plastic shear strain
gradients within the ‘‘yielded’’ rockmass to determine if the
rock is failing or merely damaged. The region enclosed by
significantly elevated plastic strain contours should be con-
sidered as spalling while apparently yielded regions with
very low relative strain values would correspond to stress
paths above the damage threshold but below the spalling
limit. Only the rock volume with significantly elevated
shear strain should be considered in eq. [22].
1107
One of the questions arising from the breakout experiment
concerns the observed difference between the geometry of
the breakout in the roof and in the floor of the test tunnel.
According to Martin et al. (1997), the failure depth in the
floor (detectable only after the gravel surcharge was re-
moved) was about 60% of the depth in the roof. Simulations
with gravity effects, 3D stresses, and support pressure appli-
cation (Hajiabdolmajid and Kaiser 2003) have not been able
to reproduce this difference in behaviour. This author pro-
poses the use of a positive and near maximum dilation to
simulate the restraining effect of even modest support pres-
sure. If the spalling rock is subject to a small but consistent
support pressure or physical restraint, significant normal re-
sistance will be generated at the periphery of the noncircular
notch as the inward buckling of the slabs is prevented. This
is demonstrated in simulations by Aglawe (1999). The effect
is increased confinement and reduced propagation of failure
in the direction of the notch and increased damage around
the periphery of the failure zone expanding the angular ex-
tent of damage. The validity of this approach is demon-
strated in Fig. 28b. Here the only difference compared to
the simulation in Figs. 28a and 29 is the inclusion of dila-
tion. This result matches observations by the author in min-
ing stopes that have been heavily supported. In these cases,
if failure does occur due to support corrosion or dynamic
shaking, the failure profile is laterally more extensive and
flatter in profile than the familiar notch geometry generated
in unsupported stope backs. Again, it is doubtful that the
displacement values obtained in this way are reasonable,
although they can be calibrated using simple geometries
and eqs. [21] and [22] or site specific field observations.
# 2007 NRC Canada
1108
Fig. 27. Finite element mesh before and after excavation (first stage and last stage). Eight intervening stages are modeled between these two
end members. At the beginning of each stage, the tunnel core material is replaced with a softer material, and the stress state is reset to zero
in the centre of the tunnel. The composite result is a simulation of progressive excavation and staged convergence (inset).
The equivalent Mohr–Coulomb parameters in Fig. 25 can
also be used. Figure 30 shows the results of a FLAC 3D
(Itasca 2003) analysis using a strain-softening model with co-
hesion, friction, and tensile strength dependent on plastic
strain. The decay functions are deliberately defined as simply
as possible to demonstrate the robustness of the approach.
The minimum strain at full cohesion loss is specified to avoid
backward falloff of strength with respect to strain (Ryder and
Jager 2002). This is the ‘‘unsupported’’ analysis as described
for Phase2 and Hoek–Brown. For ‘‘supported’’ analysis a var-
iable dilation angle can also be specified as a function of
plastic strain. In this case the dilation should increase with
frictional strength and then decay rapidly after total cohesion
loss (Ryder and Jager 2002). This will achieve reliable and
stable numerical results that can be calibrated with measured
displacements and used for support design.
Comparison with empirical results
For many applications, such as circular TBM-driven tun-
nels, the depth of failure predictions from Fig. 22 present
real design difficulties, particularly if bulking considerations
are critical. It should be noted that the two data points in the
upper right corner of Fig. 22 are for noncircular tunnels. A
10 m tunnel at 2500 m with a k0 of 0.5 will yield calculated
maximum elastic wall stresses – nearly twice the UCS*, or
0.75UCS for typical strong granites. The predicted depth
of failure will be as high as 3 m. This begins to present sig-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
nificant challenges for dimensioning of temporary support
for load and displacement (from eqs. [21] and [22]: 75 cm
for an unsupported rock as might occur for a long shield
hard rock TBM, 30 cm for a reasonably dense pattern of
yielding Swellex1 bolts providing 75 kPa of constant sup-
port pressure or 10 cm for a tight 1 m  1 m pattern of
yielding Super Swellex1 bolts at 150 kPa).
In all cases these predicted displacements exceed the speci-
fied limits for the support systems. In addition, bolts longer
than 3 m become a logistical challenge for automated bolters
on TBM gantries. Given the critical nature of such predictions
in terms of operational logistics, it is prudent then, to utilize
the nonlinear approach, applied in the previous analysis to
the URL tunnel, for depth of failure calculations in general
applications. As demonstrated in the previous example, the
depth of failure is sensitive to the confinement feedback gen-
erated by dilational yielding. This feedback is only active if
the yielding rockmass is held in place by an effective support
system. The actual influence of the support pressure itself on
progression of the failure zone needs to be examined.
Figure 31a presents the results of a series of analyses
starting with a number of runs (10 m tunnel with ko = 0.5)
at increasing in situ stresses. These analyses provide a con-
ceptual illustration of the effect of support in spalling rock.
In the first set of analyses, the worst case damage initiation
threshold (‘‘first crack’’) is used as the ‘‘peak’’ strength in
Phase2. In the second analyses, the systematic damage
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs 1109

Fig. 28. Finite element method simulation using Hoek–Brown parameters from Fig. 25. The in situ principal stress state is described by:

1 = 60 MPa and
3 = 11 MPa in-plane, with
1 inclined at 118 up from right horizontal. The out-of-plane stress,
2, is 43 MPa. (a) Dilation
parameter set to zero to simulate free fallout (see text). The ultimate observed failure profile in the roof is shown for comparison. (b) Dila-
tion parameter set to mres/6, producing radial confinement at the notch apex and additional tangent driving stress at the periphery of the
failure zone, widening the affected profile. Observed breakout after the removal of floor gravel is shown.

threshold is used, as was done in the case of the URL test
tunnel simulations in the previous section. Thirdly, a reason-
able dilation rate was applied to yielding ground (mres/6). Fi-
nally, a constant support pressure (applied through discretely
modeled yielding bolts) was included.
It can be seen from this figure that even the worst case
inelastic predictions for damage initiation, while comparable
at lower stress levels, deviate away from the empirical linear
prediction line at higher stresses. This finding is specific to
Type II yield profiles defined by Detournay and St. John
# 2007 NRC Canada
1110 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 29. Progressive breakout profile for simulation in Fig. 28a and normalized deformation history with respect to average core pressure
after each stage.

Fig. 30. Application of equivalent Mohr–Coulomb parameters (in Fig. 25) in FLAC 3D analysis of URL test tunnel. Relationships between
key parameters and plastic strain are shown at left, for use in the strain-softening model.

(1988). Using the more reasonable (and recommended) sys-
tematic damage threshold as input, the predicted damage
zone is even less severe. If dilation is included in the simu-
lation, the depth of failure is further reduced. Interestingly,
the magnitude of the support pressure, in the range of prac-
tical bolting systems (0–250 kPa), has only limited impact
on further reductions in DOF (higher support pressures do
reduce the actual displacement significantly, however). The
important function of the support is merely to keep the fail-
ing rock in place and allow the progressive damage to choke
itself off. With support pressure as simulated, the analyses in
Fig. 31a predict up to a 60% reduction in the depth of fail-
ure, a significant finding for rational tunnel support design.
Of equal interest is the angular expansion of the yield zone
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs 1111

Fig. 31. Composite plot of Phase2 simulations using the DISL approach. Note that here stresses are normalized with respect to intact UCS.
(a) Results are superimposed on empirical best fit mean and limits from Fig. 22. Depth of failure calculations using the conventional GSI
rockmass approach for GSI = 50, 60, and 70 confirm the recommendations of Table 1. ‘‘Lightly supported’’ simulations include a nonzero
dilation (mres/6) and yielding support simulations include a discretely simulated bolt pattern providing constant support pressure (150 kPa)
after yield. (b) Influence of retention (dilational feedback) and support pressure on angular failure extent.

resulting from the application of support or active support
pressure as shown in Fig. 31b. Again this is consistent with
observed spalling behaviour.
The overprediction of depth of failure by the empirical
chart in Fig. 22 is, in part, due to the inclusion of square
and horseshoe shaped tunnels in the database and also to a
variety of in situ stress ratios. To demonstrate the difference
in behaviour and in the potential depth of failure, another
series of analyses were performed on square openings (mine
openings) with a ko of 2 (maximum horizontal stress). The
Mohr–Coulomb approach is used here. The empirical chart
(set as background to the model data in Fig. 32) does not
include the formation of a ‘‘baggage zone’’ arc (as rational-
ized by Kaiser et al. 1995, 2000). For the square opening the
excavation radius is taken as the diagonal distance from the
centre to a corner. Nevertheless, the baggage formation is
# 2007 NRC Canada
1112 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 32. Summary of results of simulations of square openings (ko = 2). Mohr–Coulomb parameters from Fig. 25 are used here. This figure
shows rapid creation of nondilational ‘‘baggage’’ zone and some additional damage (‘‘baggage +’’) after initial yield. Subsequent failure is
consistent with circular tunnel of larger radius. The dashed line is the mean empirical fit from Fig. 22. General support recommendations as
functions of normalized stresses are shown.

not cleanly circumscribed from corner to corner and a sig-
nificant ‘‘overshoot’’ is evident as soon as the equivalent
stress for a circular tunnel approaches or exceeds UCS*.
This is termed ‘‘baggage +’’ in Fig. 32. As stresses are in-
creased, the depth of failure eventually begins to increase
again, although for the range of stresses considered, the
depth of failure remains slightly above the empirical fit
line. Simplified support recommendations are included in
Fig. 32, based on the predicted depth of failure and the ex-
pected displacement behaviour for the failing rock (no dila-
tion for baggage, more bulking for additional yielding).
Figures 31 and 32 suggest that the empirical range of
depth of failure prediction range first presented in Fig. 22
is acceptable and likely conservative for very preliminary
estimates, especially with regard to circular tunnels. The
elastic analysis proposed by Kaiser et al. (1995) can be ex-
pected to yield only slightly more reliable results than
Fig. 22. While elastic analysis is still more practical for 3D
analyses of complex geometries (as in mining), the nonlin-
ear analysis presented here is likely to be a more robust pre-
dictive tool for tunnels. It is certainly preferable to the
empirical methods for more complex tunnel geometries and
stress paths.
Finally, Fig. 31 includes depth of failure predictions for
the conventional GSI rockmass approach. It can be seen
that for GSI values less than 70, the onset of yield occurs at
significantly lower stresses than predicted by the DISL ap-
proach. The depth of failure at higher stresses in supported
rock will be underpredicted for GSI < 65. This further sup-
ports the limits of applicability summarized in Table 1 for
the two methods of analysis.
Conclusions
An empirical threshold for damage initiation in hard rock
excavations has been further tested here through a number
of case studies. The association of a laboratory damage ini-
tiation stress to actual in situ field strength has been vali-
dated through micromechanical investigations, fracture
mechanics, and statistical theory, thereby increasing the con-
fidence with which the approach can be applied to a variety
of situations. The threshold has been adapted here for use
with the Hoek–Brown constitutive model.
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs
The important concept that underpins this work is that
joints and fractures in a sparsely or moderately jointed hard
rock mass, if undisturbed, have limited impact on the small
strain strength and yield behaviour of the rockmass. The
rockmass behaviour is controlled by the properties of the in-
tact rock component. This intact component, however, can
never have the strength of the laboratory sample. The stand-
ard UCS test common in geotechnical specifications pro-
motes shear damage and shear failure and greatly
suppresses the propagation of extension cracks. These cracks
are free to propagate in the field and, beyond a stress thresh-
old defined by crack initiation, lead to spalling failure at a
deviatoric stress level between one third and one half of the
UCS for a variety of rock types. This ratio is petrologically
dependant, and a number of techniques are presented here to
determine the actual in situ strength (damage initiation)
limit. The slope of this damage threshold in principal stress
space, while not unity as suggested by some authors, is rela-
tively low and can be represented in the generalized Hoek–
Brown yield model by using a reduced ‘‘a’’ parameter and
relating the other necessary inputs to damage initiation and
tensile strength.
Recognizing that the in situ strength drop to this initiation
limit is restricted to low confinement regions around an ex-
cavation, the damage initiation threshold is coupled with a
spalling limit to better delineate the region of actual spalling
failure in underground openings. This spalling limit is the
transition between the damage initiation lower bound and
an upper bound for field strength, controlled by crack dam-
age interaction (related to a critical extension strain) and
macroshear failure.
The combined damage initiation and spalling limit (DISL)
approach is applied in hazard analysis for complex mining
geometries and depth of damage predictions using elastic
models. The composite criterion is also adapted for nonlinear
modelling with conventional plasticity codes, using a modi-
fied Hoek–Brown approach correctly accounting for tensile
strength as well as compressive damage. An equivalent
Mohr–Coulomb approach is also suggested. The model is
tested successfully on a well investigated test tunnel and ap-
plied to other noncircular geometries such as pillars and rec-
tangular excavations. A methodology for dealing with
volume increase (bulking) as a function of spalling depth is
presented. More work is required to properly model dilation
explicitly within the plastic model for brittle spalling ground.
Guidelines are presented for the appropriate range of appli-
cation for the DISL approach, the conventional GSI rock-
mass approach, and a transitional range of co-application.
Acknowledgements
The work presented here spans a number of research proj-
ects collectively or individually funded or otherwise sup-
ported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada, the Provincial Research Excellence
Awards Program (Ontario), the Canadian Mining Innovation
Research Organization (CAMIRO), and Noranda Ltd. The
author owes a debt of gratitude to Drs. Evert Hoek, Peter
Kaiser, Derek Martin, Dougal McCreath, Dwayne Tannant,
Veronique Falmagne, Jay Aglawe, Luis Castro, Brent Cor-
kum, Eric Eberhardt, Carlos Carranza Torres, Leo Rothen-
burg, and Maurice Dusseault for their collaboration over the
1113
years and more recently. Recent discussions with Marlene
Villeneuve, Giordano Russo, Matt Lato, and Steve McKin-
non have also greatly helped the preparation of this paper.
A huge thanks to Dr. Jean Hutchinson for her support and
for her assistance in finalizing this manuscript.
References
Aglawe, J.P. 1999. Unstable and violent failure around under-
ground openings in highly stressed ground. Ph.D. thesis, Mining
Department, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
Ashby, M.F., and Hallam, S.D. 1986. The failure of brittle solids
containing small cracks under compressive stress states. Acta
Metallurgica, 34: 497–510. doi:10.1016/0001-6160(86)90086-6.
Barton, N.R., Lien, R., and Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering classifica-
tion of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Me-
chanics, 6: 189–239. doi:10.1007/BF01239496.
Bathurst, R.J., and Rothenburg, L. 1988. Micromechanical aspects
of isotropic granular assemblies with linear contact interactions.
Journal of Applied Mechanics, 55: 17–23.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering rock mass classification. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1993. Classification of rockmasses for engineer-
ing: the RMR system and future trends. In Comprehensive rock
engineering, 2(22). Edited by J. Hudson, Pergamon, Oxford.
pp. 553–573.
Brace, W.F., Paulding, B.W., and Scholz, C. 1966. Dilatancy in the
fracture of crystalline rocks. Journal of Geophysical Research,
71: 3939–3953.
Carranza-Torres, C., and Fairhurst, C. 1999. The elasto-plastic re-
sponse of underground excavations in rockmasses that satisfy
the Hoek-Brown criterion. International Journal of Rock Me-
chanics and Mining Sciences, 36: 777–810. doi:10.1016/S0148-
9062(99)00047-9.
Castro, L. 1996. Analysis of stress-induced damage initiation
around deep openings excavated in a moderately jointed brittle
rockmass. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Uni-
versity of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
Castro, L., McCreath, D., and Kaiser, P.K. 1995. Rockmass
strength determination from breakouts in tunnels and boreholes.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Rock Me-
chanics, Tokyo, 25–29 September 1995. Edited by T. Fujii.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Vol. 2, pp. 531–536.
Chen, W.F. 1982. Plasticity in reinforced concrete. McGraw Hill,
New York. p. 465.
Cividini, A. 1993. Constitutive behaviour and numerical modelling.
In Comprehensive rock engineering: Principles, practice and
projects. Vol. 1. Edited by J. Hudson. Pergamon, Oxford.
pp. 395–426.
Cook, N.G.W. 1995. Müller Lecture: Why rock mechanics? In Pro-
ceedings of the 8th International Congress on Rock Mechanics,
Tokyo, 25–29 September 1995. Edited by T. Fujii. A.A. Balk-
ema, Rotterdam. Vol. 3, pp. 975–994.
Cundall, P.A. 1971. A computer model for simulating progressive
large scale movements in blocky rock systems. In Proceedings
of the Symposium of the International Society of Rock Me-
chanics, Nancy, France, October 1971. Vol. 1, Paper II-8.
Cundall, P., and Board, M. 1988. A microcomputer program for
modeling large-strain plasticity problems. In Numerical Methods
in Geomechanics, Proceedings of the 6th International Confer-
ence, Innsbruck, Austria. A.A. Balkama, Rotterdam. pp. 2101–
2108.
Cundall, P.A., and Hart, R.D. 1992. Numerical modelling of dis-
continua. Journal of Engineering Computation, 9: 101–103.
# 2007 NRC Canada
1114
Cundall, P.A., and Strack, O.D.L. 1979. A discrete numerical
model for granular assemblies. Géotechnique, 29: 47–65.
Cundall, P., Carranza-Torres, C., and Hart, R. 2003. A new consti-
tutive model based on the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. In
FLAC and numerical modeling in geomechanics. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam. pp. 17–25.
Detournay, E., and St. John, C.M. 1988. Design charts for deep cir-
cular tunnel under non-uniform loading. Rock Mechanics and
Rock Engineering, 21: 119–137. doi:10.1007/BF01043117.
Diederichs, M. 2000. Instability of hard rockmasses: the role of ten-
sile damage and relaxation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo.
p. 566. (Available from http://www.collectionscanada.ca/
thesescanada/s4-230-e.html/.)
Diederichs, M.S. 2002. Rock damage under low confinement con-
ditions: Implications for design of underground openings in both
relaxed and high stress conditions. Invited Keynote Paper. In
Proceedings of the North American Rock Mechanics Confer-
ence. UTPress, Toronto, Ont. pp. 3–14.
Diederichs, M.S. 2003. Rock fracture and collapse under low con-
finement conditions. Vol. 36(5). Rock Mechanics and Rock En-
gineering, 36: 339–381. doi:10.1007/s00603-003-0015-y.
Diederichs, M.S., Coulson, A., Falmagne, V.F., Rizkala, M., and
Simser, B. 2002. Application of rock damage limits to pillar analy-
sis at Brunswick Mine. In Proceedings of the North American
Rock Mechanics Conference. UTPress, Toronto, Ont. pp. 1325–
1332.
Diederichs, M.S., Kaiser, P.K., and Eberhardt, E. 2004. Damage in-
itiation and propagation in hard rock tunnelling and the influ-
ence of near-face stress rotation. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41: 785–812. doi:10.1016/
j.ijrmms.2004.02.003.
Dyskin, A.V., and Germanovich, L.N. 1993. Model of rockburst
caused by cracks growing near free surface. In Rockbursts and
seismicity in mines. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. pp. 169–174.
Eberhardt, E.D. 1998. Brittle rock fracture and progressive damage
in uniaxial compression. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engi-
neering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask.
Eberhardt, E., Stead, D., Stimpson, B., and Read, R.S. 1998. Iden-
tifying crack initiation and propagation thresholds in brittle rock.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35: 222–233. doi:10.1139/cgj-
35-2-222.
Fairhurst, C., and Cook, N.G.W. 1966. The phenomenon of rock
splitting parallel to the direction of maximum compression in
the neighbourhood of a surface. In Proceedings of the 1st Con-
gress of the International Society of Rock Mechanics, Lisbon,
September 1966. Edited by J.G. Zeitlen. pp. 687–692.
Fonseka, G.M., Murrell, S.A.F., and Barnes, P. 1985. Scanning
electron microscope and acoustic emission studies of crack de-
velopment in rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 22: 273–289.
doi:10.1016/0148-9062(85)92060-1.
Gramberg, J. 1989. A non-conventional view on rock mechanics
and fracture mechanics. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Griffith, A.A. 1921. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
221A: 163–198.
Griffith, A.A. 1924. Theory of rupture. In Proceedings of the 1st
International Congress on Applied Mechanics, Delft. pp. 55–63.
Grimstad, E., and Bhasin, R. 1997. Rock support in hard rock tun-
nels under high stress. In Proceedings International Symposium
on Rock Support – Applied Solutions for Underground Struc-
tures. Edited by E. Broch, A. Myrvang, and G. Stjern. NSCE,
Lillehammer, Norway. Norwegian Group for Rock Mechanics,
Oslo. pp. 504–513.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
Hajiabdolmajid, V., and Kaiser, P.K. 2003. Brittleness of rock and
stability assessment in hard rock tunneling. Tunnelling and Un-
derground Space Technology, 18: 35–48. doi:10.1016/S0886-
7798(02)00100-1.
Hajiabdolmajid, V., Kaiser, P.K., and Martin, C.D. 2002. Model-
ling brittle failure of rock. International Journal of Rock Me-
chanics and Mining Sciences, 39: 731–741. doi:10.1016/
S1365-1609(02)00051-5.
Hajiabdolmajid, V., Kaiser, P.K., and Martin, C.D. 2003. Mobilised
strength components in brittle failure of rock. Géotechnique, 53:
327–336.
Hobbs, B.E., Muhlhaus, H.B., and Ord, A. 1977. Instability, soften-
ing and localization of deformation. In Deformation mechan-
isms, rheology and tectonics. Edited by R.J. Knipe and
E.H. Rutter. Geological Society Special Publication No. 54.
pp. 143–165.
Hoek, E. 1968. Brittle failure of rock. In Rock mechanics in engi-
neering practice. Edited by K.G. Stagg and O.C. Zienkewicz.
John Wiley & Sons, London. pp. 99–124.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E.T. 1980. Underground excavations in rock.
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E.T. 1988. The Hoek–Brown failure criterion –
a 1988 update. In Rock Engineering for Underground Excavations,
Proceeding of the 15th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium.
Edited by J.H. Curran. University of Toronto, Department of Ci-
vil Engineering, Toronto, Ont. pp. 31–38.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E.T. 1998. Practical estimates of rock mass
strength. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 34: 1165–1186.
Hoek, E., and Diederichs, M.S. 2006. Empirical estimation of rock
mass modulus. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 43: 203–215. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.06.005.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., and Bawden, W.F. 1995. Support of under-
ground excavations in hard rock. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the
Netherlands. 232 pp.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., and Corkum, B. 2002. Hoek-Brown
failure criterion. 2002 ed. In Proceedings of the 5th North
American Rock Mechanics Symposium (NARMS) Edited by
R. Hammah, W. Bawden, J. Curran, and M. Telesnicki. Uni-
versity of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ont. Vol. 1, pp. 267–273.
Holcomb, D.J. 1993. General theory of the Kaiser effect. Interna-
tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geo-
mechanics Abstracts, 30: 929–935. doi:10.1016/0148-9062(93)
90047-H.
Horn, H.M., and Deere, D.H. 1962. Frictional characteristics of
minerals. Géotechnique, 12: 319–335.
Illston, J.M., Dinwoodie, J.M., and Smith, A.A. 1979. Concrete,
timber and metals. Van Nostrand Reinhold, N.Y.
ISRM (International Society for Rock Mechanics, Commission on
Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests). 1979. Suggested
methods for determining the uniaxial compressive strength and
deformation of rock materials. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 15: 319–368.
Itasca. 2003. FLAC 3D: Fast Lagrangian analysis code. Version
3.0. Itasca Ltd. Minniapolis, Minn.
Itasca. 1995. PFC-Particle flow code. Modelling software, Version
1.0. Itasca Ltd.
Jardine, A.K.S. 1973. Maintenance, replacement and reliability.
Pitman, London.
Jiayou, L., Lihui, D., Chengjie, Z., and Zebin, W. 1991. The brittle
failure of rock around underground openings. In Proceedings
Conference Rock Mechanics and Rock Physics at Great Depth,
Pau, France. Edited by V. Maury and D. Fourmaintraux. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam. Vol. 2, pp. 567–574.
# 2007 NRC Canada
Diederichs
Kaiser, P.K., and McCreath, D.R. 1993. Rock mechanics considera-
tions for drilled or bored excavations in hard rock. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology, 9: 425–437.
Kaiser, P.K., McCreath, D., and Tannant, D. 1995. Canadian rock-
burst support handbook. Geomechanics Research Centre and
CAMIRO, Sudbury, Ont.
Kaiser, P.K., Diederichs, M.S., Martin, D., Sharpe, J., and Steiner,
W. 2000. Invited keynote lecture: Underground works in hard
rock tunnelling and mining. In Proceedings of GeoEng2000,
Melbourne, Australia, 19–24 November 2000. [CDROM]. Tech-
nomic Publishing Co., Vol. 1, pp. 841–926.
Kemeny, J.M., and Cook, N.G.W. 1986. Effective moduli, non-linear
deformation and strength of a cracked elastic solid. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 23: 107–118.
Kirsten, H.A.D., and Klokow, J. 1979. Control of fracturing in
mine rock passes. In Proceedings of the 4th International Con-
gress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics, Mon-
treux, Switzerland. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Vol. 1, pp. 203–
210.
Lajtai, E.Z., and Dzik, E.J. 1996. Searching for the damage threshold
in intact rock. In Proceedings of Rock Mechanics – NARMS ’96.
Edited by M. Aubertin, F. Hassani, and H. Mitri. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam. Vol. 1. pp. 701–708.
Lajtai, E.Z., Schmidtke, R.H., and Bielus, L.P. 1987. The effect of
water on the time dependent deformation and fracture of a gran-
ite. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 24: 247–256.
Laqueche, H., Rousseau, A., and Valentin, G. 1986. Crack propa-
gation under Mode I and II loading in slate schist. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 23: 347–354.
Lee, M.Y., and Haimson, B.C. 1993. Laboratory study of borehole
breakouts in Lac du Bonnet Granite: A case of extensile failure
mechanism. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 30: 1039–1045.
Lee, S.M., Park, B.S., and Lee S.W. 2004. Analysis of rockbursts
that have occurred in a waterway tunnel in Korea. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(3), Paper
3B–24 on CD-ROM.
Marinos, V., Marinos, P., and Hoek, E. 2005. The geological
strength index: Applications and limitations. Bulletin of Engi-
neering Geology and the Environment, 64: 55–65. doi:10.1007/
s10064-004-0270-5.
Martin, C.D. 1989. Failure observations and in situ stress domains
at the underground research laboratory. In Proceedings of the
Conference on Rock Mechanics and Rock Physics at Great
Depth, Pau, France. Edited by V. Maury and D. Fourmaintraux.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Vol. 2, pp. 719–726.
Martin, C.D. 1994. The strength of massive Lac du Bonnet granite
around underground openings. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man.
Martin, C.D. 1997. The 17th Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium:
The effect of cohesion loss and stress path on brittle rock
strength. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34: 698–725. doi:10.
1139/cgj-34-5-698.
Martin, C.D., and Stimpson, B. 1994. The effect of sample distur-
bance on laboratory properties of Lac du Bonnet granite. Cana-
dian Geotechincal Journal, 31: 692–702.
Martin, C.D., Read, R.S., and Martino, J.B. 1997. Observation of
brittle failure around a circular test tunnel. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 34: 1065–1073.
Martin, C.D., Kaiser, P.K., and McCreath, D.R. 1999. Hoek-Brown
parameters for predicting the depth of brittle failure around tun-
nels. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36: 136–151. doi:10.1139/
cgj-36-1-136.
1115
McClintock, F.A., and Walsh, J.B. 1963. Friction on Griffith cracks
in rocks under pressure. In Proceedings of the 4th U.S. National
Congress on Applied Mechanics, AIME. Vol. 2, pp. 1015–1021.
Murrell, S. 1963. A criterion for brittle fracture of rocks and con-
crete under triaxial stress and the effect of pore pressure on the
criterion. In Proceedings of the 5th Rock Mechanics Sympo-
sium, University of Minnesota. Edited by C. Fairhurst. Perga-
mon, Oxford. pp. 563–577.
Myer, L.R., Kemeny, J.M., Zheng, Z., Suarez, R., Ewy, R.T., and
Cook, N.G.W. 1992. Extensile cracking in porous rock under
differential compressive stress. In Micromechanical modelling
of quasi-brittle materials behaviour. Edited by L.Y. Li. Applied
Mechanics Reviews. Vol. 45, No. 8, pp. 263–280.
Nickson, S., Sprott, D., Bawden, W.F., and Coulson, A. 1997. A
geomechanical study for a shaft wall rehabilitation program. In
Proceedings of 99th CIM Annual General Meeting, Vancouver,
Canadian Institute of Mining. p. 20.
Okubo, S., and Fukui, K. 1996. Complete stress-strain curves for
various rock types in uniaxial tension. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 33: 549–556.
Ortlepp, W.D. 1997. Rock fracture and rockbursts – An illustrative
study. Monograph Series M9. South African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy. Johannesburg.
Ortlepp, W.D., and Gay, N.C. 1984. Performance of an experimen-
tal tunnel subjected to stresses ranging from 50 MPa to
230 MPa. In Proceedings ISRM. Symposium on Design and Per-
formance of Underground Excavations. Edited by E. Brown and
J. Hudson. British Geotechnical Society, London. pp. 337–346.
Ortlepp, W.D., O’Ferral, R.C., and Wilson, J.W. 1972. Support
methods in tunnels. Association of Mine Managers of South
Africa: Papers and Discussions. pp. 167–195.
Owen, D.R.J., and Hinton, E. 1980. Finite elements in plasticity.
Pineridge Press, Swansea. p. 589.
Parker, J. 1970. Temperature and humidity affect strength of rock
structures at White Pine. Transactions of the Society of Mining
Engineers of AIME, 247: 142–144.
Pelli, F., Kaiser, P.K., and Morgenstern, N.R. 1991. An interpreta-
tion of ground movements recorded during construction of the
Donkin-Morien tunnel. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 28:
239–254.
Pestman, B.J., and Van Munster, J.G. 1996. An acoustic emission
study of damage development and stress-memory effects in
sandstone. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 33: 585–593.
Potyondi, D., and Cundall, P.A. 1998. Modelling notch-formation
mechanisms in the URL mine-by test tunnel using bonded as-
semblies of circular particles. International Journal of Rock Me-
chanics and Mining Sciences, 35(4–5), Paper No. 67. 6 pp.
Potyondi, D., and Cundall, P.A. 2004. A bonded-particle model for
rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 41: 1329–1364.
Read, R.S. 2004. 20 years of excavation response studies at
AECL’s Underground Research Laboratory. International Jour-
nal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41: 1251–1275.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.09.012.
RocScience. 2005. Phase2. Version 6.001. 2-dimensional elasto-plastic
finite element program. Available from www.rocscience.com.
Ryder, J.A., and Jager, A.J. 2002. Rock mechanics for tabular hard
rock mines. SIMRAC, Braamfontein, South Africa.
Schmertman, J.H., and Osterberg, J.O. 1968. An experimental
study of the development of cohesion and friction with axial
strain in saturated cohesive soils. In Proceedings of the ASCE
Research Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils.
pp. 643–666.
# 2007 NRC Canada
1116 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Schmidtke, R.H., and Lajtai, E.Z. 1985. The long term strength of List of symbols
Lac du Bonnet granite. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, 22: 461–465. a curvature exponent (Hoek–Brown)
A uniaxial intercept for linear rock strength envelope
Shah, S. 1992. A study of the behaviour of jointed rock masses.
B slope constant for linear rock strength envelope
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
BF bulking factor
Toronto, Toronto, Ont. c cohesion (Mohr–Coulomb); pre-existing crack
Stacey, T.R. 1981. A simple extension strain criterion for fracture length
of brittle rock. International Journal of Fracture, 18: 469–474. d crack length
Stacey, T.R., and De Jongh, C.L. 1977. Stress fracturing around a D damage parameter (Hoek–Brown)
deep level bored tunnel. Journal South African Institute of DISL damage initiation – spalling limit (approach)
Mining and Metallurgy, 78: 124–133. DOF depth of failure
Stacey, T.R., and Page, C.H. 1986. Practical handbook for under- E Young’s modulus
ground rock mechanics. TransTech Publishers, Zurich, Switzer- f yield function
land. GSI geological strength index
Suorineni, F.T., and Kaiser, P.K. 2002. Characteristic acoustic prop- I1 1st stress invariant
erties of sulphide ores and host rocks. In Proceedings of NARMS J2 2nd stress invariant
2002. Edited by R. Hammah, W. Bawden, J. Curran, and M. Tel- k stress ratio
snicki. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ont. pp. 403–410. ko ratio of horizontal to vertical stress
Tapponier, P., and Brace, W.F. 1976. Development of stress in- KI mode 1 crack intensity
duced microcracks in Westerly granite. International Journal of L crack length
L* relative crack length
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 13: 103–112.
m Hoek–Brown slope constant
Trollope, D.H. 1968. The mechanics of discontinua or clastic me- mb rockmass m (Hoek–Brown)
chanics in rock problems. In Rock mechanics in engineering mdil dilation parameter (Hoek–Brown)
practice. Edited by K.G. Stagg and O.C. Zienkewicz. John mi slope parameter in Hoek–Brown equation
Wiley & Sons, London. pp. 275–320. mres residual m (Hoek–Brown)
Vasak, P., and Diederichs, M.S. 1995. Mine map overlays for exca- p applied stress
vation performance assessment in burst prone mines. Chapter 9. P support pressure
In The Canadian rockburst support handbook. Vol. 2. Edited by PV interaction probability within a volume V
P.K. Kaiser, D. McCreath, and D. Tannant. Geomechanics Re- Q rockmass quality index
search Centre and CAMIRO, Sudbury, Ont. 43 pp. R tunnel radius
Vasak, P., and Kaiser, P.K. 1995. Tunnel stability assessment dur- RMR rockmass rating
ing rockbursts. In Proceedings 3rd Canadian Conference in s intercept constant (Hoek–Brown)
Computer Applications in the Mineral Industry, Montréal, Que. sij deviatoric stress tensor
pp. 238–247. S spacing between cracks
Vermeer, P.A., and de Borst, R. 1984. Non-associated plasticity for t distance to the free surface
soils, concrete and rock. Heron, 29: 1–64. T tensile strength
Villaescusa, E., Seto, M., and Baird, G. 2002. Stress measurements UCS unconfined compressive strength (
c of lab samples
as per ISRM 1979)
from oriented core. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
UCS* compressive strength of wall rock limited by da-
Mining Sciences, 39: 603–615. doi:10.1016/S1365-1609(02)
mage initiation
00059-X. V, Vo sample and grain volume, respectively
Vuilleumier, F., and Aeschbach, M. 2004. The Lötschberg base x, y curve fit parameters
tunnel – lessons learned from the construction of the tunnel. Pre- b angular distance from notch centre
sentation at 18 Congresso Brasileiro de Túneis e Estruturas Sub- dij Kroneker delta
terrâneas, Seminário Internacional South American Tunnelling. ecrit critical extension strain
Wagner, H. 1987. Design and support of underground excavations in y lode angle (yield function)
highly stressed rock. In Proceedings of the 6th ISRM Congress, l equal to s3/s1
Montreal. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Vol. 3, pp. 1443–1457.  friction coefficient
Weibull, W. 1939. A statistical theory of the strength of materials.  Poisson’s ratio
Proceedings of the Royal Swedish Institute of Engineering Re- s stress
search, Stockholm, 151: 115–145. so, sI, m Weibull strength parameters
Weibull, W. 1951. A statistical distribution function of wide applic-
1 major principal stress
ability. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 18: 293–297.
1crit critical major principal stress
Wiederhorn, S.M., and Bolz, L.H. 1982. Stress corrosion and static s1damage major principal stress at damage initiation
fatigue of glass. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 53:
2 intermediate principal stress

3 minor principal stress
543–548.

c uniaxial compressive strength (same as UCS)
Wiid, B.L. 1970. The influence of moisture on the pre-rupture frac- scrm compressive strength of the rockmass
turing of two rock types. In Proceedings of the 2nd Congress of sij stress tensor
the I.S.R.M., Belgrade. Vol. 2, No. 3–4, pp. 239–245. smax maximum induced stress
Wiseman, N. 1978. A study of the factors affecting the design and sff, srr tangential and radial stress
support of gold mine tunnels. Chamber of Mines South Africa.  friction angle (Mohr–Coulomb)
COM Research Report No.50/78.  crack intensity
Wiseman, N. 1979. Factors affecting the design and condition of o initial crack density
mine tunnels. Chamber of Mines South Africa. COM Research dilation angle
Report No.45/79.
# 2007 NRC Canada