Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Research Paper

Exploration into the causes of uncertainty in UDEC Grain Boundary

Models
J.M. Mayer a,, D. Stead b
a
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., Vancouver, BC V6E 3X2, Canada
b
Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Considerable research has recently been undertaken to investigate the simulation of brittle fracture
Received 11 April 2016 mechanisms using distinct element grain boundary models. However, to date, few studies have
Received in revised form 15 September addressed the limitations of these models when used for predictive analysis. Our research suggests that
2016
mesh geometry dependencies can impart irreducible uncertainties into the method despite apparent cal-
Accepted 7 October 2016
ibration. In addition, Voronoi meshing routines can limit the kinematic freedom, and increase the degree
of interlocking and localized tensile failure; whereas, more recently introduced triangular mesh geome-
tries can have an opposite effect, increasing kinematic freedom, and predisposing models towards shear
Keywords:
Distinct element method
failure mechanisms.
Brittle fracture 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Grain-based models
Tensile failure
Micromechanics
Synthetic rock mass

1. Introduction behaviour. Included in the latter approaches is the distinct element

The simulation of a rock mass is both an interesting and com-
plex problem within geotechnical engineering disciplines. Unlike
manufactured materials, rock masses pose a very different and
often difficult problem for engineers, due to their heterogeneous
nature. This leads to complex stress induced deformational
responses due to varied interactions between both intact rock
and discontinuities (e.g. micro-fractures, macro-fractures, faults,
etc.). Further complicating the problem, the low confining stresses
encountered in many engineering applications leads to deforma-
tion which is inherently brittle in its nature. The result is a tempo-
rally variable material which is in a constant state of flux as brittle
damage accumulates within intact rock material leading to the
development of new macro-scale discontinuities [1].
Research on brittle fracture and a need to understand such
behaviour has led to different approaches to simulate fracture
development, including: limit equilibrium, continuum, discontin-
uum and hybrid approaches [2,3]. While the former methods
attempt to represent rock mass behaviour using an averaging or
representative elementary volume (REV) technique, the latter
attempt to explicitly model both intact rock and discontinuity
Corresponding author. Tel.: +0016046018424.
E-mail address: jmayer@srk.com (J.M. Mayer).
method (DEM), first proposed by Cundall [4], which simulates the
finite displacement and rotation of discrete deformable and/or
rigid blocks, with defined block contact properties. While the expli-
cit breakage of blocks is not possible using conventional DEMs,
Lorig and Cundall [5] developed the Voronoi tessellation model
to approximate brittle failure through the progressive breakage
of block contacts within the Itasca code UDEC [6]. Using this
approach, a UDEC-Grain Boundary Model (UDEC-GBM) is con-
structed where intact rock is simulated, assuming discrete ele-
ments represent individual grains with the macro-scale
behaviour controlled by deformation along inter-grain boundaries.
The potential use of the UDEC-GBM method has been recog-
nized for a considerable time; however, only recently has the
method become extensively documented within the research liter-
ature. Christianson et al. [7] demonstrated application of the
approach in reproducing laboratory test data. Damjanac et al. [8]
examined the mechanical degradation of a rock mass around
emplacement drifts. Lorig et al. [9] employed the method to simu-
late the effect of brittle fracture in causing catastrophic collapse of
a slow moving landslide. Alzoubi [10,11] reproduced typical rock
slope failure mechanisms (i.e. toppling and buckling) using the
UDEC-GBM method. Kazerani and Zhao [12] presented a formal
methodology for calibration, which was later updated using central
composite design methods [1315]. Shin [16] simulated the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.10.003
0266-352X/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.M. Mayer, D. Stead / Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123 111

development of fracturing within the disturbance zone around in thickness from 50 to 1000 m, due to localized nappe-style
underground openings. Damjanac and Fairhurst [17] examined thrusting of sedimentary units [25]. Bedding is often difficult to
the effects of damage accumulation over time within crystalline identify at the outcrop scale, with pervasive jointing giving the unit
rocks. Lan et al. [18] and Nicksiar and Martin [19] explored the a rubble-like appearance. Although local spatial variability exists,
effects of grain-scale heterogeneities during compressional load- average intact rock and discontinuity strength estimates have been
ing. Gao [20] and Gao and Stead [21] extended the method to obtained from laboratory testing (Table 1).
include triangular block shapes through the UDEC trigon model, Joint orientation data obtained from tunnel exposure and bore-
and applied the approach to coal seam longwall caving applica- hole mapping suggest a complex joint hierarchy, with eight dis-
tions [22,23]. Gao et al. [24] extended the UDEC trigon approach crete discontinuity sets identified across the site; however, no
to explore intra-granular failure within sandstone under both com- more than four sets have been identified at any one location
pressional and direct-shear testing. [26]. Characterization of the joint orientations was conducted
Although the UDEC-GBM method shows promise in back- using data from the exposure and borehole mapping for use with
analysis applications, researchers are limited by their inability to later SRM modelling. Orientations were converted to 2D apparent
directly measure the micro-scale, block contact properties. Due dips for an east-west cross section (090) and summarized using
to this limitation, calibration must be conducted to match the a running average technique utilizing 20 spatial bins (Fig. 1). An
macro-scale behaviour observed in laboratory testing by varying idealized multi-Gaussian model was then fit to the data using least
the micro-scale properties of UDEC-GBMs [1215]. Such a calibra- squares analysis. The model assumed three discrete discontinuity
tion process has been demonstrated to realistically reproduce sets, each of which can be described by a single normal
macro-scale behaviour under back analysis conditions; however, distribution.
to date, very few studies have attempted to characterize the uncer- Two-dimensional, fracture density (P21) estimates were com-
tainty associated with using the calibrated attributes in forward piled for each of the discontinuity sets based on persistence and
analysis. We explore this potential issue for researchers as UDEC- spacing measurements from provided by Ok Tedi Mining Limited
GBMs are known to be highly dependent on the shape and arrange- (OTML) through SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd. (Table 2)
ment of model blocks [20]. As a result, variations in the stochastic [27]. Estimates assumed that only four discontinuity sets are pre-
block arrangements between calibrated back analysis and forward sent at any given time, based on recommendations by de Bruyn
analysis models may result in variations in the macro-scale model et al. [26]. Due to the extremely high fracture density at the Ok
response, leading to undesirable and/or unpredictable results [13 Tedi site, it was impossible to include all fractures into the
15]. geomechanical simulations [28]. As a result, P21 and persistence
In this paper, rock mass material from the Ok Tedi mine site in
Papua New Guinea is simulated within the Universal Distinct Ele-
ment Code (UDEC) [6]. A series of uniaxial, triaxial, and Brazilian
Table 1
tension tests are first simulated to calibrate the micro-scale prop- Geomechanical properties for Darai Limestone within the proposed Ok Tedi under-
erties of a UDEC-GBM to fit the macro-scale behaviour observed ground. Attributes are obtained from laboratory testing of drill core data.
from laboratory testing of the Darai Limestone at the Ok Tedi mine
Unit Property Value
site. Characterization of the uncertainty associated with forward
analysis, is then conducted through the simulation of multiple Intact rock Peak friction angle () 44.9
Peak cohesion (MPa) 8.3
UDEC-GBMs realizations utilizing constant element size but vary- Residual friction angle () 31.5
ing stochastic arrangement of the UDEC blocks. Uncertainty analy- Residual cohesion (MPa) 0.08
sis focuses on characterizing the macro-scale parameter variance Tensile strength (MPa) 5.1
given constant, calibrated micro-scale properties for the contact Youngs modulus (GPa) 55.0
Poissons ratio 0.26
stiffness, cohesion, friction angle and tensile strength. Propagation
Density (kN/m3) 28.9
of these uncertainties is then demonstrated when moving from
Discontinuities Friction angle () 31.5
simple intact-rock samples, to more complex Synthetic Rock Mass
Peak cohesion (MPa) 0.375
(SRM) models. In addition, mesh dependency issues associated Residual cohesion (MPa) 0.08
with micro-scale failure mechanics were explored through exam-
ining tensile vs. shear damage. Specifically, micromechanical vari-
ability between Voronoi and triangular block models is explored.
25%
Running Average Probability

2. Darai Limestone
20%

UDEC-GBMs were constrained using macro-scale properties

obtained from laboratory testing of the Darai Limestone at the 15%
Ok Tedi mine site. The site is a world class copper porphyry deposit
located in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea [25]. The
10%
mine has been in operation since the late 1980s and is nearing
the end of its current open pit design life. Detailed studies were
conducted to assess the feasibility of transitioning from open pit 5%
to underground mining methods. Underground designs called for
20o spatial averaging used
a decline to pass through approximately 650 m of the Darai Lime- for probability estimates
0%
stone formation. -90.0 -60.0 -30.0 0.0 30.0 60.0 90.0
The Darai Limestone is a Late Eocene to Middle Miocene, buff to o
2D Apparent Dip ( )
pale grey, massive, poorly-bedded limestone, composed of lime
Observation Data Bimodel Gaussian Model
packstone, mudstone and wackestone units [26]. Minor chert, cal-
careous siltstone and a dolomite lenses can be found interbedded Fig. 1. 2D apparent dip estimates from orientation data collected for the Darai
in the general limestone packages. Across the mine the unit varies Limestone near the proposed Ok Tedi underground.
112 J.M. Mayer, D. Stead / Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123

Table 2 simulation of jointed rock masses by incorporating discrete frac-

Discontinuity orientation data used for 2D modelling of Darai Limestone. Data were ture networks (DFN) into geomechanical simulation models. Using
obtained from SRK (2013c). P21 estimates were decreased by a factor of 30, to produce
DFNs suitable for geomechanical simulation.
this approach, the design-scale fracture network can be explicitly
represented and used to simulate the larger-scale rock mass beha-
Discontinuity sets viour [20,3139].
1 2 3 A limitation of the SRM approach is its dependency on the DFN
Dip () Mean
74.1 4.3 46.0 method and the difficulty often encountered in integrating the
Std. Dev. 29.4 15.5 9.5 generated features using common numerical meshing routines.
Persistence (m) Mean 0.41 This is due to the development of adverse fracture geometries
Std. Dev. 0.05
including: sub-parallel fractures that intersect at acute angles,
P21 (m
1) 7.98 0.99 0.68
bounding of adversely small regions due to the intersection of
three or more fractures, or near terminating fractures. To solve
these issues, researchers often manually manipulate DFNs prior
attributes were reduced by a factor of 30 in order to produce DFNs to incorporation within numerical models; however, this is a sub-
suitable for numerical simulation. Due to this reduction, DFN sim- jective process which leads to alteration of the fracture attribute
ulations are not be considered a detailed reproduction of the actual statistics [28]. In order to solve these issues, and enhance the
site conditions. The DFNs are designed to simulate the general integration of DFNs with numerical meshing codes, an alternative
behaviour that can be expected from the inclusion of fractures into DFN algorithm was proposed by Mayer et al. [28]. This alternative
UDEC-GBMs, and the uncertainty associated with it, rather than of approach is a modification of the Baecher et al. [40] DFN algorithm,
actual in-situ behaviour. which takes into consideration numerical meshing routines during
the fracture generation process.
3. Methodology The DFN algorithm extends upon Baecher et al.s [40] work by
incorporating three constraints into the fracture generation pro-
3.1. UDEC block tessellation cess (Fig. 2). The process is based on the definition of a user spec-
ified critical minimum overlap/separation distance (a) and a
A fundamental issue within rock mechanics is the difficulty in critical minimum angle (ucrit). The methodology relies on the fol-
directly measuring the mechanical properties of a rock mass at lowing constraints:
scales suitable for engineering design [29,30]. Mechanical proper-
ties are typically obtained from laboratory tests which are not rep- 1. First, a buffer zone is created around pre-existing fractures
resentative of the design-scale rock mass behaviour due to the using a minimum overlap/separation distance (a; Fig. 2). Newly
absence of large-scale discontinuities. Recently, the Synthetic Rock generated fractures are then checked to ensure their tips do not
Mass (SRM) approach has been proposed to overcome this short- terminate within the buffer zones. This ensures that zones are
coming [31]. The approach attempts to quantitatively estimate not created which would require development of unsatisfacto-
the scale effects in rock mass behaviour, through the explicit rily small mesh elements.

Check DFN Constraints

Start
Simulation
Overlap/Separation Distance

fold f new i
Generate a
New Fracture
Buffer Zone
End ii
Simulation f new
Find New Fracture
Seed Location

Intersection Distance
fi
Greater than
Desired Value 2

3
Less than
1
fne
w
Desired Value
fii

Failed

Check P21 Intersection Angle

fnew ii
f new i
fold
i
ii

Passed

Fig. 2. Flow chart for the modified Baecher et al.s [40] DFN generation algorithm. Methodology is used to generate fracture networks which adhere to later geomechanical
meshing routines.
 J.M. Mayer, D. Stead / Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123
2. Next, the enclosed area between three or more intersecting
fractures is checked to ensure that it does not bound a region
smaller than the minimum desired element size. Bound regions
are checked by ensuring that the separation distance between
all intersection points (bn) is greater than the overlapping/sep-
aration distance (a; Fig. 2).
3. Finally, intersection angles between newly generated and pre-
existing fractures are checked to ensure that they are larger
than the critical minimum angle (ucrit; Fig. 2). This procedure
ensures that regions are not created which would result in a
mesh with internal angles less than the desired minimum size.
This modified approach has been shown to offer seamless inte-
gration between DFN generation and numerical meshing, improve
model construction efficiency, preserve fracture attribute statistics,
and improve reproducibility between researchers. For a more
detailed description of the methodology see Mayer et al. [28].
In order to further facilitate DFN integration, a triangular mesh
generation routine was incorporated into the DFN algorithm to
generate a mesh that conforms to the fracture arrangement. This
is an improvement over conventional meshing routines which
often do not take into consideration the location of discrete fea-
tures during the meshing process (Fig. 3). Ignoring fracture loca-
tions has a tendency to generate adversely small elements, which
must be removed prior to numerical simulation in order to prevent
excessively slow computational times. In addition, fractures often
terminate within Voronoi blocks and must be artificially truncated,
causing alteration of the fracture attribute statistics. In compar-
ison, the proposed tessellation process generates GBMs which con-
form to the DFN geometries.
The proposed tessellation process was designed to produce a
triangular mesh similar to the newly implemented Trigon mesh
within UDEC [20]. This process follows a three step procedure.
First, a set of principal triangles is constructed which fully defines
the extent of the model. Next, grid points are inserted along the
fractures, and the mesh is progressively updated until the grid
Generation of Poor Quality,
Small Elements
Fig. 3. Generation of poor quality elements during embedment of DFNs into UDEC
Voronoi models.
113
point spacing is less than the minimum overlap/separation dis-
tance (a). Finally, the generated triangles are progressively split,
producing successively smaller elements until all triangles have a
maximum height less than 1.5 times the overlap/separation dis-
tance (a). Details on these steps are provided in subsequent sec-
tions. Adaptive re-meshing, which occurs progressively as new
grid points are inserted into the mesh, is conducted according to
the algorithm described in Fig. 4. The algorithm is a modification
of the open source tessellation routine of Priester [41].
3.1.1. Principal triangles
The first stage in the triangulation process is the development
of a series of principal triangles which fully encapsulates the sim-
ulation area. In subsequent steps these triangles are then progres-
sively split using the adaptive re-meshing routine outlined in
Fig. 4.
3.1.2. Discretization of fractures
Re-meshing of the triangulation to incorporate the DFN involves
a three-step procedure. First, grid points are inserted at the end
points of each fracture (Fig. 4). This ensures that fractures are fully
inserted into the mesh, allowing for wing crack development at
fracture terminations during geomechanical simulation. Next, grid
points are inserted at all fracture intersection points. Finally, the
fractures are progressively split into segments by inserting grid
points at the half width distance between established grid nodes
along fracture surfaces. This procedure is continued until all seg-
ments are less than the minimum overlap/separation distance (a).
3.1.3. Splitting of large triangles
The final stage of the adaptive meshing process involves the
progressive splitting of large triangles into smaller elements. This
is done by progressively splitting triangles with the largest internal
height dimension, until the height of all triangles is less than 1.5
times the minimum overlap/separation distance (a). A factor of
1.5 times is used to induce a slightly larger mesh density along
fracture surfaces, which helps to constrain the location of triangle
edges along fracture surfaces (Fig. 4).
3.2. UDEC-Grain Boundary Model
Rock mass failure has been shown to be a progressive process
characterized by several distinct deformation stages [1]. This
includes the initiation of micro-seismic events at low confinement
as new micro-scale cracks are formed when the stress level
exceeds approximately 0.30.5 times the peak uniaxial load [42
44]. Propagation of microcracks then occurs predominantly paral-
lel to the maximum principal stress orientation, with the eventual
onset of microcrack coalescence when the stress level exceeds
approximately 0.70.8 times the peak strength [45,46]. Finally,
progressive damage results in the formation of macro-scale cracks
and/or shear bands slightly following or at the peak strength.
To simulate this failure behaviour using DEM methods, a 2D
UDEC-GBM is utilized where the rock is represented as an assem-
blage of discrete blocks [5,12]. The randomly distributed block con-
tacts are analogous to grain boundaries and/or micro-fracture
contacts found within intact rock samples [11]. Brittle failure is
designated to initiate along these contacts when the applied stress
exceeds either the tensile or shear strength of the boundary [21].
Using this approach, brittle failure begins as small micro-
fractures formed along block contacts, which gradually coales-
cence into macro-scale tensile cracks and/or shear bands [10].
Material properties are designated through assignment of normal
and shear stiffness, cohesion, friction angle, and tensile strengths
to block contacts, which represent inter-granular rock mass
strength or the micro-scale properties [13]. Based on these
114 J.M. Mayer, D. Stead / Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123
(a) (b)
(d) (e)
Fig. 4. Demonstration of triangulation algorithm used for mesh generation. (a) A new grid point is inserted at the centroid of the designated triangle. (b) All triangles whose
circumcircle intersects the new point are flagged. (c) Flagged triangles are removed from the mesh and shared edges flagged. (d) Shared edges are removed from the flagged
triangles. (e) New triangles are generated by connecting the new grid point and remaining edges. (f) Newly generated triangles are reinserted into the mesh. The method is a
modified version of the procedure described by Priester [41].
micro-properties and the shape, size and arrangement of blocks,
the material will exhibit a large-scale behaviour that can be
described by equivalent macro-scale properties [12,21]. Since dif-
ferences exist between the micro- and macro-scale properties, a
calibration must be conducted prior to forward analysis, so that
the sample exhibits the correct macro-scale behaviour [20].
3.3. Model construction
A rock mass scale 2D triaxial test sample was created within
UDEC to simulate both intact rock and rock mass behaviour
(Fig. 5). The model was 2 m high by 1 m wide, with a 0.1 m platen
at either end. Block shapes were constrained using the mesh gen-
eration routine mentioned in Section 3.1 producing triangular
block geometries similar to those utilized by Gao [20] with the
UDEC trigon method. An average block area of 6.4  10
3 m2 was
used throughout the models. Block geometries were generated
within an independent user developed C++ software package and
imported into UDEC using an integrated FISH function.
Each block was overlain with a finite difference grid to facilitate
intra-block deformation, and replicate small-scale grain distortions
which occur in response to an induced stress. The overall effect on
the simulation is an increase in kinematic freedom, as inter-locked
grains are allowed to deform reducing inter-block lock-up and
macro-scale roughness. Grain properties are assigned based on
an assumed perfect elasto-plastic behaviour defined by the
Mohr-Coulomb constitutive criterion, with input properties as pro-
vided in Table 1.
Brittle fracture was simulated along block contacts with mate-
rial properties assigned using a Coulomb slip model with residual
strength. The residual strength model allowed for strength degra-
dation using a post-peak brittle response. Peak strengths were
assigned through a calibration process to match the micro-scale
properties to the macro-scale behaviour observed from laboratory
triaxial and Brazilian indirect tensile testing of the Darai Lime-
stone. Residual values were assigned based on laboratory joint
shear test results.
In subsequent, SRM models, DFNs were generated prior to block
tessellation, using the methodology described in Fig. 2. Triangular
tessellation was then conducted with prior knowledge of the DFN
(c)
(f)
arrangement, allowing the mesh to conform to the fracture geom-
etry (Fig. 5). Fracture surface contact properties were constrained
using laboratory joint shear test results on the Darai Limestone.
As a simplification of the system all joints were assumed to have
the same properties regardless of orientation.
The stress-strain response curves of compressive test simula-
tions, were obtained by locating 100 evenly spaced, history points
along the top of the samples (Fig. 5). Vertical stress and displace-
ment results were collected at each point based on a nearest grid
point analysis every 2000 model steps. Axial stress and displace-
ment measurements were then averaged across all history points
to give an indication of the overall model response.
In order to achieve realistic model results the loading rate of
UDEC-GBMs must be sufficiently slow and the applied damping
high enough to ensure the simulation remains at quasi-static equi-
librium. To satisfy this requirement, a constant loading rate of
1  10
3 m per model second was set for all models, which is
equivalent to 5  10
9 percent model compression per step. This
is 125 times slower than the rate Kazerani and Zhao [12] utilized
for similar models. Model run times at this loading rate were
approximately 1424 h, depending on the degree of confinement,
for a 3.4 GHz PC with 22 GB of RAM.
Peak strength contact behaviour was monitored using a FISH
routine based on a modification of the damage algorithm proposed
by Gao et al. [22]. The routine works by constructing an array of all
block contacts present within the model, and monitoring the shear
and tensile stresses at these contacts during each model step. Con-
tacts were flagged as either failing under shear or tension based on
the mode of failure at the peak contact strength. Once a contacts
failure mode was flagged, it was removed from the fracture array.
The failure type was then recorded in a table, along with average
axial stress and displacement measured across all history point
locations (Fig. 5).
4. Calibration
Calibration of the intact rock UDEC-GBMs required a multi-
stage approach to calibrate the micro-scale discontinuity stiffness,
cohesion, friction angle and tensile strength, such that the appro-
priate macro-scale properties were reproduced. Calibration was
 J.M. Mayer, D. Stead / Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123
Intact Rock
2.0 m
1.0 m
Fracture Block Contact
Fig. 5. UDEC-GBM model configuration for intact rock and synthetic rock mass simulations.
undertaken against the macro-scale Youngs modulus, Poissons
ratio, tensile strength, internal friction angle and intact rock cohe-
sion, obtained from laboratory testing. Such a calibration process is
required due to the variability in the arrangement, size and shape
of discrete blocks influencing how the micro-scale properties are
represented at the macro-scale.
The calibration process used in this study is based on work by
Kazerani and Zhao [12] and involved a five step procedure:
1. Block size distributions should be chosen based on a trade-off
analysis between the run time and model refinement require-
ments [20]. In practice, sizes should be generated based on
the grain size distribution within intact rock samples. However,
in large-scale problems this is often impractical due to compu-
tational limitations. As a result, block size is chosen such that it
is sufficiently small to prevent mesh dependencies in macro-
scale fracture coalescence [21].
2. Next, an appropriate value for Poissons ratio is assumed.
Within UDEC-GBMs Poissons ratio is based on the contact stiff-
ness ratio (ks/kn) and the elastic properties of the deformable
blocks. Kazerani and Zhao [12] found that in rigid block sys-
tems, the contact stiffness ratio is equivalent to the shear mod-
ulus to Youngs modulus (G/E) ratio. These authors
recommended that the G/E ratio should be between 0.35 and
0.50, reflecting a Poissons ratio between 0.2 and 0.5.
3. Once the contact stiffness ratio has been selected, both the nor-
mal (kn) and shear (ks) stiffness are calibrated to fit the Youngs
modulus. Initial normal stiffness estimates were calculated
from [6]:
 
K 43 G
kn n where 1 6 n 6 10
DZ min
where K is the bulk modulus, G is the shear modulus, DZmin is
the minimum element length, and n is a user-defined constant
which varies between 1 and 10.
115
Synthetic Rock Mass
1.0 m
Finite-Difference Grid History Point
4. A preliminary calibration of the contact properties (i.e. friction
angle, cohesion, etc.) is conducted such that the desired
macro-scale behaviour is represented in the material stress-
strain response. This involves three sub steps: first the contact
cohesion, then the friction angle, followed by the tensile
strength.
5. The final step requires a refinement of the contact strength
properties, due to the co-dependent nature of the properties,
which results in a slight change in one parameter as another
is changed [20].
Intra-block strength characteristics were selected according to
Table 1, and kept constant throughout the calibration process.
The procedure described above was followed to calibrate an
UDEC-GBM to the macro-scale properties described in Table 1 for
the Darai Limestone. An average block size of 6  10
3 m2 was cho-
sen, as it represented the best compromise between computational
efficiency and model refinement. This mesh density reflects a dis-
tribution of approximately 3100 discrete blocks within the sample,
which is a near fourfold increase from previous UDEC-GBM mod-
elling [12]. Calibration was conducted through a series of confined
compression tests with varying confinement, and Brazilian tests to
match the micro-scale properties to the macro-scale Darai lime-
stone behaviour (Fig. 5). The final calibrated micro-scale input
properties are summarized in Table 3. The calibrated grain to con-
tact stiffness corresponds to a normal stiffness factor of 0.04 and a
shear stiffness factor of 0.10.
The calibrated grain to contact stiffness corresponds to a normal
stiffness factor of 0.04 and a shear stiffness factor of 0.10. This stiff-
ness ratio has been shown to control the macro-scale Youngs
1 Modulus in PFC-GBM models, and is an important calibration com-
ponent in such models [47,48]. While our study relied on the pre-
established calibration methodology of Kazerani and Zhao [12], to
be consistent with prior UDEC-GBM studies, future research could
be carried out to investigate the use of a stiffness factor calibration.
116 J.M. Mayer, D. Stead / Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123
Table 3
Calibrated micro-scale properties required to match the
macro-scale behaviour of the Darai Limestone (Table 1).
Material property Value
Normal stiffness 3.5  1013 Pa/m
Shear stiffness 1.4  1013 Pa/m
Cohesion 14.8 MPa
Friction angle 48.2
Tensile strength 11.3 MPa
One potential issue was encountered during the calibration pro-
cess as a micro-scale tensile strength of 11.8 MPa was required to
replicate the macro-scale tensile strength of 5.1 MPa. However, the
maximum micro-scale value which agrees with the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criteria with a cohesion of 14.8 MPa, and a friction angle of
48.2 was 11.3 MPa. As a result, a limit was selected for the tensile
strength of 11.3 MPa, representing a macro-scale strength of
4.9 MPa, which is slightly less than the measured lab macro-
value of 5.1 MPa. Similar issues were observed in the calibration
results in Kazerani [14], and may be the result of the difficulty in
reproducing laboratory tensile tests within DEM models. Kemeny
and Cook [49] observed that within tensile tests, sample failure
coincides with the crack initiation stress due to the near instanta-
neous crack propagation associated with stress concentrations at
fracture tips. Diederichs et al. [50] noted the difficulty in reproduc-
ing this behaviour within DEM models, due to the inability to
directly simulate crack propagation. In comparison, compressional
tests are easier to simulate as their failure mechanisms are con-
trolled by the accumulation of micro-scale damage, as opposed
to propagation of a single crack [51]. The difficulty in directly sim-
ulating the underlying tensile failure mechanism is an inherent
limitation of all DEM modelling, and imparts a degree of uncer-
tainty into the micro-scale calibration procedure; this uncertainty
needs to be clearly understood as a potential limitation requiring
future study.
5. Results
5.1. Calibration uncertainty
A series of UDEC-GBM simulations was conducted in order to
estimate the calibration uncertainty associated with the method.
This involved the generation of thirty UDEC-GBMs with a constant
element size and shape, but with a different stochastic arrange-
ment of triangular blocks. Block arrangements were generated
stochastically using the C++ software described in Section 3.1. All
other properties were kept constant throughout. Simulations were
conducted using the same model geometry as that used in the cal-
ibration (2.0  1.0 m compression test, with an average block size
of 6  10
3 m2; Fig. 5). To derive the macro-scale cohesive and fric-
tion properties simulations were carried out for a series of different
confinements for each of the thirty UDEC-GBMs. Confining pres-
sures of 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 MPa were chosen to ensure good
compliance with the model calibration, which was conducted at
low confinement. In total of 150 simulations were conducted and
strength envelopes derived through linear regression using the
equations [52]:
m
1
u arcsin
m1
1
sinu
cb
2cosu
where u is the friction angle, c is the cohesion, and m and b are the
slope and intercept obtained from linear regression of a peak
strength vs. confining stress plot (Fig. 6).
80
60
1 (MPa)
1 = 4.9 3 + 41.8
40 R2 = 1.0
20
0
0 1 2 3 4
3 (MPa)
Fig. 6. Strength envelope (r1 vs r3) plot showing linearity of failure response.
Mean peak strength values are displayed for each simulated confining stress, with
error bars showing one standard deviation in peak behaviour.
Simulation results indicate that a moderate degree of uncer-
tainty exists in the calibrated macro-properties when subjected
to forward analysis conditions, as evident by a coefficient of varia-
tion (CoV) of 6.0 and 4.7% for the macro-scale cohesion and friction
angle, respectively (Fig. 7). Discrepancies were also observed
between the calibrated, macro-scale shear strength properties
(u = 45.0 and c = 8.3 MPa) and mean forward analysis results
(u = 41.3 and c = 9.5 MPa). In comparison to shear strength
parameters, simulated peak load results show a reduced calibra-
tion error, with an average CoV of 3.2%. This reduction is attributed
to the underlying dependency between the macro-scale cohesion
and frictional properties of UDEC-GBMs. Examination of correla-
tion coefficients between the macro-scale properties suggest a
strong, negative relationship exists (r =
0.90; Fig. 8a).
Exploration into possible correlations between the degree of
uncertainty and confining stress conditions indicates very little
variation in the peak strength uncertainty within the range of
modelled confinements (Fig. 8b). Comparisons between the crack
initiation and peak strength thresholds indicate a higher degree
of variability in the initiation threshold (CoV = 5.1%). In addition,
the crack initiation stress was found to be extremely high in com-
parison to the peak UCS results, with an average initiation ratio
(rci =UCS) of 0.82. This can be attributed to the low degree of tensile
failure within UDEC-GBMs with triangular mesh, as discussed later
in the paper.
Discrepancies between the micro- and macro-scale behaviour
of the UDEC-GBMs can be attributed to the stochastic nature of tri-
angular block generation. More specifically, the behaviour is con-
trolled by contacts oriented at or near the idealized inclination of
shear and/or tensile failure. Tensile cracking is theorized to con-
centrate sub-parallel to the major principal stress direction (90).
Simulation results suggest an average pre-peak tensile crack orien-
tation of 86.4, with a CoV of 27.8%, within UCS simulations. The
large CoV is the result of the limited number of tensile failures
within the UDEC-GBM simulations (average number of tensile frac-
tures = 1.7). In comparison, shear damage is thought to coincide
2 with the idealized inclination of the shear (h), given by [30]:
h 45 u=2 4
3 where u is equal to the micro-scale friction angle (48.2) and h is
the angle between idealized plane and minimum principal stress
(r3 ). In the case of the Darai Limestone the idealized inclination
of shear (h) is 69.1, which coincides with the simulation results,
which indicate an average pre-peak shear failure angle of 72.2,
 J.M. Mayer, D. Stead / Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123 117

0.80 0.24
(a) (b)

Relative Frequency

Relative Frequency
0.60 0.18

0.40 0.12

0.20 0.06

0.00 0.00
7.1 8.3 9.5 10.7 11.9 33.7 37.4 41.1 44.8 48.5
Macro-Scale Cohesion (MPa) Macro-Scale Friction Angle (o)
Simulation Results Gaussian Model Simulation Results Gaussian Model

Fig. 7. Calibration uncertainty in macro-scale shear strength parameters from the Darai Limestone sample. Results suggest a coefficient of variation of 6.0 and 4.7% for the
cohesion (a) and friction angle (b), respectively.

Peak Strength Coeff. of Variation

10.5
(a) 3.50%
(b)

10.0
Cohesion (MPa)

3.25%
9.5

9.0
3.00%
8.5
Correl Coefcient = -0.90
8.0 2.75%
38.0 40.0 42.0 44.0 46.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Friction Angle (o) Conning Stress (MPa)

Fig. 8. (a) Co-dependencies are observed between the macro-scale cohesion and friction angle, explaining the reduction in peak strength vs. macro-scale attribute variation.
(b) The coefficient of variation is demonstrated to be relatively insensitive to the confining stress, with an average value of 3.0%.

with a CoV of 2.6%. A comparison of the percentage of tensile vs.

shear cracking indicates that the model is preferentially failing
through shear, with 98.6% of pre-peak damage due to this mecha-
nism. These results are consistent with Gao [20] who observed that
UDEC-GBMs fail predominantly through shear when utilizing trian-
gular elements. Similar preferential shear behaviour is also New
observed with the newly implemented trigon tessellation routine Fracture
in UDEC 6.0 [6], confirming the conclusions of this and Gaos [20]
work. An average pre-peak shear micro-crack percentage of 95.5%
was observed using the latter tessellation routine. 150
To further demonstrate the preferential shear mechanisms
within UDEC-GBMs with triangular mesh elements, a second set 130
Vertical Stress (MPa)

of simulations was conducted with the peak, micro-scale tensile 110

strength reduced by 50% (rt 5:65 MPa). This resulted in an
increase in the percentage of tensile micro-cracking from 1.4% to 90
10.5%; however, the failure mechanism was still dominated by 70
shear behaviour. The increased amount of tensile fracturing was
50
also found to improve the measured and theoretical pre-peak crack
orientation discrepancy, with the average angle found to be 89.3. 30
Uncertainty in the macro-scale elastic properties of the UDEC-
10
GBMs was found to be greatly reduced compared to the shear
and peak strength attributes (CoV = 0.08%). The reduction is attrib- -10
uted to the increased spatial averaging in the elastic attributes. For
example, whereas the macro-scale elastic behaviour is the result of
the combined deformable properties of all elements and contacts,
the macro-scale plastic behaviour is the results of a limited num-
ber of pre-peak failed contacts1 which concentrate the strain
(Fig. 9).
Fig. 9. Brittle fracture development within UDEC-GBM UCS simulation with
1
The average number of pre-peak contact failures was found to be 110, but this triangular mesh geometry. Fractures are found to concentrate along high angle
value varied greatly with a CoV of 58.8%. contacts.
118 J.M. Mayer, D. Stead / Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123

5.2. Synthetic rock mass models 2.0

Correl Coefcient = -0.27
Uncertainties that arise from the stochastic nature of DFN gen-
eration have been noted by a number of authors to be a primary
1.8
source of error within geomechanical models [5355]. However,

to date few studies have explored how much uncertainty this
imparts in comparison to other sources, such as mesh dependency.
To characterize this relationship, a number of DFNs were con-
structed and integrated into the UDEC-GBMs, as UDEC-Synthetic
Rock Mass (UDEC-SRM) models (Fig. 5). Uncertainties in the peak
and shear strength attributes were then compared with the trian-
gular, intact rock UDEC-GBM simulations. This process employed
the same Monte Carlo generation technique, with thirty UDEC-
GBMs constructed using constant DFN attribute statistics but inde-
pendent stochastic fracture and block realizations. All other prop-
erties were kept the same as the triangular, intact rock UDEC-
GBMs described in the previous section. Shear strength attributes
were estimated by subjecting the thirty UDEC-SRM models to a
series of different confining conditions. This included simulation
at 0.0, 2.0, and 4.0 MPa, to ensure good compliance with the low
confinement used for model calibration. In total of ninety UDEC-
SRM simulations were conducted.
Inclusion of DFNs within UDEC-GBMs resulted in an overall
increase in the level of uncertainty, with the average CoV in the
peak strength increasing to 10.7%. This represents a near threefold
increase in the uncertainty, suggesting that variation in the DFN
realizations plays an important role in the overall uncertainty
within UDEC-SRM models. A similar uncertainty increase was also
observed in the macro-scale cohesion with a CoV of 12.8%;
whereas, the friction angle did not display a noticeable increase
in the CoV (4.7%; Fig. 10). Such behaviour also coincides with a
reduction in co-dependency structure between the friction and
cohesion (r =
0.27; Fig. 11).
The inclusion of discrete fractures was found to change the
overall failure mechanism of the UDEC-GBMs. An examination of
the average crack initiation strength to UCS ratio (rci =UCS) showed
a decrease from 0.82 in the intact rock simulations to 0.48 in the
DFN simulations. A similar change was observed in the type of
micro-damage with the percentage of tensile micro-cracking
increasing from 1.4% to 13.1%. This suggests that the degree of ten-
sile damage is sensitive to pre-existing fracture heterogeneities,
with tensile micro-cracking concentrating near fracture tips
(Fig. 12). The observed micro-mechanical behaviour is consistent
with fracture mechanics research, which suggests that fracture
propagation is controlled by the fracture toughness and stress
intensity factor at pre-existing crack tips [56,57].
5.3. Triangular vs. Voronoi mesh geometries
Recent interest in alternative mesh geometries has led to the
introduction of triangular DEM blocks, which have been incorpo-
Cohesion (MPa)
1.6
1.4
1.2
42.0 44.0 46.0 48.0 50.0
Friction Angle (o)
Fig. 11. Inclusion of discrete fractures into the UDEC-GBMs results in a reduction in
the correlation coefficient between the macro-scale cohesion and friction angle.
rated into the recently released UDEC 6.0 [6,1315,2023]. In order
to compare the effects of these triangular mesh geometries with
traditional Voronoi blocks, a series of thirty Voronoi UDEC-GBMs
was simulated. Models utilized calibrated micro-properties from
the triangular mesh calibration to ensure similar micro-scale con-
tact behaviour. Random block arrangements were generated for
each of the simulations using the integrated Voronoi mesh gener-
ator within UDEC. Simulation geometry was the same as the trian-
gular models, and utilized a uniaxial compressive test
methodology, with no confinement (Figs. 5 and 13).
The change from triangular to Voronoi block geometries
resulted in a 45.3% increase in the UCS (41.8 vs. 60.7 MPa). Gao
[20] observed a similar change when comparing Voronoi and trian-
gular mesh, which he attributed to a larger macro-scale friction
within the former. The larger macro-scale frictional behaviour of
Voronoi models was thought to result in an increase in the block
interlocking as the Voronoi blocks are forced to rotate past one
another. In contrast to the peak strength, no statistically significant
variations in the UCS CoV were observed between the Voronoi and
triangular mesh models (3.2 vs. 3.6%; Fig. 14). This suggests that
underlying calibration uncertainties are relatively independent of
mesh shapes and an inherent aspect of the system, associated with
the stochastic mesh generation process.
Micromechanical observations indicate an increase in percent-
age of tensile micro-cracking from 1.4% to 16.6% in the Voronoi
block simulations compared to the triangular mesh models. Such
behaviour suggests that the micro-scale failure mechanics are
highly dependent on the mesh geometry. A similar change was
observed in the crack initiation strength to UCS ratio (rci =UCS),

2.5 0.24
(a) (b)
Relative Frequency

Relative Frequency

2.0
0.16
1.5

1.0
0.08
0.5

0.0 0.00
0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 38.1 41.4 44.7 48.0 51.3 54.6
Macro-Scale Cohesion (MPa) Macro-Scale Friction Angle (o)
Simulation Results Gaussian Model Simulation Results Gaussian Model

Fig. 10. Simulations suggest an increased degree of uncertainty in the UDEC-GBMs when DFNs are incorporated (Fig. 5). CoV values vary greatly between the cohesion (12.8%)
and friction angle (4.7%).
 J.M. Mayer, D. Stead / Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123 119

0.20

Relative Frequency
0.15
Existing
Fracture
0.10
New
Fracture 0.05

150 0.00
54.2 58.3 62.5 66.6
130
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa)

Vertical Stress (MPa)

110
Simulation Results Gaussian Model
90
Fig. 14. Calibration in uncertainty in peak UCS strength for Voronoi mesh
70 simulations.

50

30
6. Discussion
10
6.1. Calibration potential of UDEC-GBMs
-10

Discrepancies between the micro- and macro-scale properties

of UDEC-GBMs have led researchers to develop calibration proce-
dures to match the micro-scale attributes to macro-scale beha-
viour during back-analysis [12,20,21]. However, irreducible
Fig. 12. Brittle fracture development within DFN UDEC-GBM simulations under uncertainties exist in calibrated UDEC-GBMs, which utilize current
UCS conditions. Fracture development is concentrated at fracture tips within UDEC-
methodologies, as a result of the inherent randomness of the ele-
GBM SRM simulations as wing cracks.
ment generation process. While preliminary estimates of the
degree of this uncertainty have been made by previous researchers,
the estimates exhibit large standard errors due to limited sample
sizes [1315]. Simulations conducted within this study aimed to
refine these estimates, with the CoV of the macro-scale cohesion
and friction angle found to be 6.0 and 4.7%, respectively. This is
within the range of previous research which suggests estimates
between 1.5 and 15.0% [1315]. Comparisons between Voronoi
and triangular mesh geometries, suggest that these uncertainties
are an inherent property of the stochastic mesh generation process,
and originate regardless of the underlying mesh shape.
Block Contact Previous researchers have noted that these discrepancies are
not an inherent disadvantage of the method, and can be equated
2.0 m

Finite-Difference to the spatial heterogeneity found within intact rock samples

Grid [1315,18]. To facilitate this connection, studies have attempted
to correlate the average grain and element size [11,12,20,21]. How-
ever, UDEC-GBM element generation typically does not take into
History Point
consideration the underlying spatial structure of the grains, nor
their shape, despite thin-section analysis suggesting that grain dis-
tributions display spatially heterogeneous behaviour [5862]. The
incorporation of such heterogeneities has been shown to cause
increased asymmetry in the strain distribution, resulting in alter-
ation of the macro-scale output behaviour [8,18,21,6366]. This
strain accumulation results in a fundamental change in the output
uncertainty due to spatial data aggregation issues [6770].
Namely, macro-scale behaviour becomes preferentially controlled
1.0 m by the weakest areas of the simulation, as opposed to the model
area as a whole [71,72]. Such asymmetrical behaviour presents
Fig. 13. UDEC-GBM model configuration for Voronoi mesh simulations.
an underlying issue, as without accurate simulation of the spatial
structure, the macro-scale output uncertainty may simply be a
reflection of the underlying mesh dependency, and not the grain-
which decreased from 0.82 to 0.23. These results are consistent scale uncertainty as previous researchers have tried to argue.
with the work of Nicksiar and Martin [19] who found that failure Future studies should aim to limit this dependency through the
within Voronoi UDEC-GBMs is controlled by tensile failure accurate simulation of the grain shape and spatial structure, in
mechanics. addition to the grain size.
120 J.M. Mayer, D. Stead / Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123
6.2. Contact failure mechanisms
Despite the wide-spread use of linear-elastic theory in rock
mechanics, intact rock samples typically display a distinct non-
linear, pre-peak stress-strain response curve [30]. Acoustic emis-
sion monitoring of unconfined compression tests has shown that
this behaviour is the result of two major damage thresholds, which
are encountered prior to the peak strength [51,73,74]. This
includes the initiation of tensile failure at 3060% of the UCS,
and a crack damage threshold, characterized by the onset of
micro-damage coalescence [42,7580]. Diederichs and Kaiser [81]
and Diederichs et al. [50] were able to demonstrate this behaviour
using the DEM code PFC2D [82]. Crack initiation was found to coin-
cide with the onset of tensile, micro-crack development; whereas,
crack damage coincided with acceleration in micro-crack
coalescence.
Gao and Stead [21] and Nicksiar and Martin [19] were able to
replicate the crack initiation and damage thresholds using UDEC-
GBMs; however, pre-peak, micro-scale failure mechanics were
found to differ between the studies. Nicksiar and Martin [19] uti-
lized Voronoi mesh geometry and found that results were similar
to PFC, with the damage initiation threshold dominated by tensile
failure [50,83]. Shear induced micro-cracking was found to
increase near the damage accumulation threshold, with the final
peak failure behaviour controlled by a combination of shear and
tensile failure. Back analysis of Nicksiar and Martins [19] results
suggest a percentage of pre-peak tensile micro-cracking of approx-
imately 4865%, despite a relatively high tensile strength (tensile
cut-off percentage = 73.5%2).
Gao and Stead [21] noted when using a triangular mesh geom-
etry that the failure mechanism was dominated by shear induced
failure, despite adopting a relatively low tensile strength (tensile
cut-off percentage = 28.6%2). Estimation of the pre-peak tensile
micro-crack percentage suggests a value of only 14%. This beha-
viour was attributed to two possible mechanisms. First, models
were composed of an assortment of bonded blocks with no inher-
ent porosity, which limits the kinematic freedom of elements with
UDEC-GBMs. In contrast, PFC models exhibit an inherent porosity
due to the packing arrangement of circular elements, which can
lead to the development of tensile stresses, causing tensile failure
of the rock mass [51,83]. Gao [20] demonstrated that a similar
behaviour could be achieved within UDEC-GBMs through the
inclusion of porosity within the geomechanical models. A second
possible mechanism suggested is the potential for reduced kine-
matic freedom of elements within 2D UDEC-GBM models, due to
restrictions in the out-of-plane strain. It was shown using 3DEC
that the inclusion of a third dimension, and hence increased kine-
matic freedom, results in an increase in the pre-peak tensile micro-
crack percentage.
Although the two proposed mechanisms by Gao [20] could con-
tribute to a dominance of shear micro-cracking within UDEC-
GBMs, results from this paper suggest that differences between
the amount of tensile vs. shear micro-cracking are predominantly
a result of the assumed internal mesh geometry. This is clearly
demonstrated by the increase in the percentage of tensile micro-
cracking from 1.4% to 16.6% between the triangular and Voronoi
block geometries. The importance of mesh dependency is sug-
gested to be the result of variations in the kinematic freedom of tri-
angular vs. Voronoi mesh. In the case of Voronoi block models, the
increased sphericity and additional block roughness is likely to
lead to increased locking-up of blocks. As a result, an increased
degree of internal rotation and displacement is required to move
2
The tensile cut-off percentage is calculated as the assigned tensile strength over
the maximum theoretical Mohr-Coulomb value, based on the assigned friction and
cohesion attributes.
blocks past one another. Such behaviour was observed by Gao
[20] and confirmed in this study by the 45.3% increase in the UCS
between Voronoi and triangular mesh models. An effect of this
behaviour is the development of internal mesh wedging, which
increases the degree of tensile failure. A conceptual example of this
behaviour is shown in Fig. 16; while, the increased degree of ten-
sile failure in the model results is evident in Figs. 9 and 15.
In the conceptual Voronoi example, tensile stresses develop
between the central Voronoi blocks as they are displaced outward
by the upper and lower blocks moving inward due to the major
principal compressional stress (Fig. 16). In comparison, the trian-
gular mesh example displays an increased degree of kinematic
freedom resulting in a reduction in the locking-up of blocks. The
overall effect of this behaviour is a reduction in the internal mesh
wedging, decreasing the amount of tensile failure. As a result, tri-
angular mesh models are predisposed towards shear failure mech-
anisms and more relevant to shear failure dominated
environments.
As discussed in the preceding section, previous research has
attempted to equate the mesh dependencies with inherent spatial
heterogeneities found within intact rock samples [1115,18,20,21].
However, conventional research only considers the grain size and
not the underlying spatial structure. In addition, the simulation
of realistic grain shapes is often lacking, with DEM mesh genera-
tion typically utilizing one of four options [18]: spherical grains
[84], square-shaped elements [85], polygonal or Voronoi grains
[5], and triangular grains [21]. The lack of mesh variability presents
a fundamental issue for DEM modelling, as the micro-scale failure
behaviour of UDEC-GBMs has been shown to be strongly depen-
dent on the mesh shape. Similar behaviour is observed within
PFC models which displays shape dependency issues when unreal-
istic grain shapes are utilized [83,84,86,63,8790]. Failure to
New
Fracture
150
130
Vertical Stress (MPa)
110
90
70
50
30
10
-10
Fig. 15. Brittle fracture development within UDEC-GBM UCS simulation with
Voronoi mesh geometry. An increased degree of dispersed, high angle fractures is
observed compared to triangular mesh models (Fig. 9).
 J.M. Mayer, D. Stead / Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123 121

Voronoi Mesh
Conceptual Behaviour UDEC Simulation Results
1
1

3 3 3 3

1
1

Triangular Mesh

Conceptual Behaviour UDEC Simulation Results

1
1

3 3 3 3

1
1
Direction of Block Movement
Shear Contact Failure
Tensile Contact Failure

Fig. 16. Wedging potential in UDEC models with Voronoi vs. triangular mesh geometries. Triangular mesh was shown to have a predisposition towards shear failure
mechanisms, due to increased kinematic freedom. This was in contrast to the Voronoi mesh simulations which displayed increased tensile failure due to heightened inter-
block roughness.

account for this can lead to poor reproducibility of grain-scale
deformation mechanisms as models become dependent on artifi-
cial mesh geometries as opposed to realistic grain shape and size
distributions. Examples of this behaviour include:
 The over homogenization of grain size distributions and failure
to include micro-scale matrix grains, which can reduce the
overall kinematic freedom of DEMs. The inability to realistically
model these small scale grains can result in an inaccurate repro-
duction of micro-scale failure mechanisms, as asymmetrical
strain accumulation within smaller scale grains is suppressed.
As a result, models are predisposed towards heightened stress
capacity and micro-crack deformation to overcome the
increased inter-block roughness exhibited between larger
grains.
 OR, the use of triangular mesh geometries, which may not be
representative of natural grain shapes and may artificially
increase kinematic freedom within DEMs. This can lead to a pre-
disposition towards grain boundary sliding mechanisms, under-
representing block contact tensile failure. While, triangular
mesh may be representative in shear susceptible materials such
as laminated metamorphic (schist, phyllites, etc.) or sedimen-
tary rocks (mudstone, siltstone, etc.), the under-representation
of tensile micro-cracking likely precludes use of the method in
coarse grain intrusives such as granite.
Our current inability to simulate these phenomena using con-
ventional mesh generation techniques, presents a fundamental
challenge for future research and development of realistic mesh
geometries. Voronoi/Trigon geometry can lead to significantly dif-
ferent failure mechanisms than those observed in practice, as cur-
rent mesh generation techniques may not be representative of the
true grain shapes and/or spatial structure. Promise has been shown
recently in the reproduction of realistic grain shapes through Four-
ier descriptors [9193], which may improve simulation grain-scale
deformation mechanisms in SRM models.
7. Conclusions
The realistic simulation of brittle fracture is currently one of the
most important issues in geomechanical simulation. The desire to
simulate such behaviour has led to the development of a variety of
numerical simulation codes including the UDEC-GBM method,
122 J.M. Mayer, D. Stead / Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123
which simulates the finite displacement and rotation of discrete
deformable and/or rigid blocks using block-contact constitutive
models [35]. The method has shown promise under back-
analysis conditions where micro-properties can be calibrated for
specific mesh realizations [1215,18,19,2024]. However, to date,
few studies have characterized the uncertainty associated with
using these back-calibrated models under forward-analysis
conditions, this presents a fundamental issue as results from this
study show that important mesh dependency issues exist within
UDEC-GBMs.
Stochastic analysis suggests an average peak strength uncer-
tainty, measured as a coefficient of variation, near 3.2% exists in
calibrated UDEC-GBMs. Uncertainties are further pronounced in
the macro-scale cohesion and friction angle (6.0% and 4.7%), due
to internal co-dependencies between the attributes. Variability in
the forward-analysis response originates from the underlying
stochastic mesh generation processes. The reliance of the UDEC-
GBM method on stochastic mesh generation processes results in
forward-analysis uncertainties being an irreducible aspect of the
method. As a result, uncertainties cannot be eliminated provided
stochastic mesh generation is used. This is a major impediment
for future UDEC-GBM modelling, as it means that it is not possible
to fully calibrate the system for forward-analysis.
In addition to forward-analysis uncertainties, important mesh
dependencies were also observed between the mesh shape and
micro-scale fracture mechanisms. Voronoi block models were
found to have an increased predisposition towards tensile failure
due to decreased kinematic block freedom. In comparison, the
increased kinematic freedom associated with triangular mesh
geometries was found to limit tensile fractures and predispose a
model to shear failure. We suggest the realistic simulation of intact
rock samples requires the accurate reproduction of natural grain
shapes and textures, which is not currently well preserved in
UDEC-GBMs.
Despite underlying mesh dependencies, the UDEC-GBM method
remains an important area for future rigorous research. While the
method suffers from a number of issues, irreducible or aleatoric
uncertainties are an inherent aspect of all numerical analysis,
and can originate from numerous sources, including: data input
uncertainties, numerical instabilities, etc. As a result, the outlined
uncertainties should not preclude use of the method; however,
caution needs to be taken when interpreting the results, as addi-
tional research is required to further outline the advantages, limi-
tations, and inherent uncertainties of the method.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by SRK Consulting (Canada) Ltd.
and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC) through an NSERC Industrial Postgraduate
Scholarship awarded to John Mayer. The authors would like to
thank Diana Allen, Dan Gibson, Norbert Baczynski, Jarek Jakubec
and Scott Dunbar for their reviews of earlier drafts of this manu-
script. In addition we thank our colleagues for their support and
guidance, specifically: Pooya Hamdi, Fuqiang Gao, Kenneth Lupogo,
and Mohsen Havaej. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the
generous assistance of Ok Tedi Mining Ltd. for providing the data
to conduct this study. The authors also thank the associate editor
and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
References
[1] Cai M, Kaiser PK, Tasaka Y, Maejima T, Morioka H, Minami M. Generalized
crack initiation and crack damage stress thresholds of brittle rock masses near
underground excavations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
2004;41:83347.
[2] Jing L. A review of techniques, advances and outstanding issues in numerical
modelling for rock mechanics and rock engineering. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 2003;40:283353.
[3] Stead D, Eberhardt E, Coggan JS. Developments in the characterization of
complex rock slope deformation and failure using numerical modelling
techniques. Eng Geol 2006;83:21735.
[4] Cundall PA. A computer model for simulating progressive large scale
movements in blocky rock systems. In: Proc symp int soc rock mech, Nancy,
France. p. 12936.
[5] Lorig LJ, Cundall PA. Modeling of reinforced concrete using the distinct element
method. In: Shah SB, Swartz SE, editors. Fracture of concrete and rock, SEM-
RILEM international conference. Houston, USA: Springer; 1987. p. 27687.
[6] Itasca Consulting Group Inc. UDEC (Universal Distinct Element Code). Version
6.00.282. Software. Minneapolis, USA; 2014.
[7] Christianson M, Board M, Rigby D. UDEC simulation of triaxial testing of
lithophysal tuff. In: Proc 41st US symp rock mech, Golden, USA. p. 8.
[8] Damjanac B, Board M, Lin M, Kicker D, Leem L. Mechanical degradation of
emplacement drifts at Yucca Mountain a modeling case study part II:
lithophysal rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 2007;44:36899.
[9] Lorig LJ, Watson A, Martin CD, Cruden D. Rockslide run-out prediction from
distinct element analysis. Geomech Geoeng 2009;4:1725.
[10] Alzoubi AK. The effect of tensile strength on the stability of rock slopes PhD
Thesis. Edmonton: University of Alberta; 2009. p. 205.
[11] Alzoubi AK. Modeling of rocks under direct shear loading by using discrete
element method. J Eng Appl Sci 2012;4:520.
[12] Kazerani T, Zhao J. Micromechanical parameters in bonded particle method for
modelling of brittle material failure. Int J Numer Anal Method Geomech
2010;34:187795.
[13] Kazerani T, Yang ZY, Zhao J. A discrete element model for predicting shear
strength and degradation of rock joint by using compressive and tensile test
data. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2012;45:695709.
[14] Kazerani T. A discontinuum-based model to simulate compressive and tensile
failure in sedimentary rock. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 2013;5:37888.
[15] Kazerani T, Zhao J. A microstructure-based model to characterize
micromechanical parameters controlling compressive and tensile failure in
crystallized rock. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2014;45:695709.
[16] Shin WS. Excavation disturbed zone in Lac du Bonnet granite PhD Thesis PhD
Thesis. Edmonton: University of Alberta; 2010. p. 247.
[17] Damjanac B, Fairhurst C. Evidence for a long-term strength threshold in
crystalline rock. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2010;43:51331.
[18] Lan H, Martin CD, Hu B. Effect of heterogeneity of brittle rock on
micromechanical extensile behavior during compression loading. J Geophys
Res 2010;115:B01202. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1026/2009JB006496.
[19] Nicksiar M, Martin CD. Factors affecting crack initiation in low porosity
crystalline rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2013. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00603-013-0451.
[20] Gao F. Simulation of failure mechanics around underground coal mine
openings using discrete element modelling PhD Thesis. Burnaby: Simon
Fraser University; 2013. p. 288.
[21] Gao F, Stead D. The application of a modified Voronoi logic to brittle fracture
modelling at the laboratory and field scale. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 2014;68:114.
[22] Gao F, Stead D, Coggan J. Evaluation of coal longwall caving characteristics
using an innovative UDEC Trigon approach. Comput Geotech 2014;55:44860.
[23] Gao F, Stead D, Coggan J. Simulation of roof shear failure in coal mine roadways
using an innovative UDEC trigon approach. Comput Geotech 2014;61:3341.
[24] Gao F, Stead D, Elmo D. Numerical simulation of microstructure of brittle rock
using a grain-breakable distinct element grain-based model. Comput Geotech
2016;78:20317.
[25] Baczynski NRP, de Bruyn I, Mylvaganam J, Walker D. High rock slope cutback
geotechnics: a case study at Ok Tedi mine. In: Proc int symp rock slope stab
open pit min civ eng, Vancouver, Canada. p. 14.
[26] de Bruyn I, Coulthard MA, Baczynski NRP, Mylvaganam J. Two-dimensional
and three-dimensional distinct element numerical stability analysis for
assessment of the west wall cutback design at Ok Tedi Mine, Papua New
Guinea. In: Proc int symp rock slope stab open pit min civ eng, Brisbane,
Australia; 2013. p. 65368.
[27] Dershowitz WS, Herda HH. Interpretation of fracture spacing and intensity. In:
Proc 33th U.S. symp rock mech, Sante Fe, USA; 1992. p. 75766.
[28] Mayer JM, Hamdi P, Stead D. A modified discrete fracture network approach
for geomechanical simulation. In: Proc 1st int conf discrete fracture network
eng; 2014. p. 9.
[29] Wyllie DC, Mah CW. Rock slope engineering: civil and mining. 4th ed. New
York: Taylor & Francis; 2004.
[30] Jaeger JC, Cook NGW, Zimmerman RW. Fundamentals of rock mechanics. 4th
ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2007. p. 488.
[31] Pierce M, Mas Ivars D, Cundall PA, Potyondy DO. A synthetic rock mass model
for jointed rock. In: Eberhardt E, Stead D, Morrison T, editors. Rock Mechanics,
Meeting Societys Challenges and Demands, Vancouver, Canada, vol. 1; 2007,
p. 34149.
[32] Cundall P, Pierce M, Mas Ivars D. Quantifying the size effect of rock mass
strength. In: Proc 1st south hemisphere int rock mech symp, Perth, Australia;
2008. p. 315.
[33] Esmaieli K, Hadjigeorgiou J, Grenon M. Estimating geometrical and mechanical
REV based on synthetic rock mass models at Brunswick Mine. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 2010;47:91526.
 J.M. Mayer, D. Stead / Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017) 110123
[34] Mas Ivars D, Pierce M, DeGagn D, Darcel C. Anisotropy and scale dependency
in jointed rock-mass strength a synthetic rock mass study. In: Proc 1st Int
FLAC/DEM symp numer model. Minneapolis, USA; 2007. p. 23139.
[35] Deisman N, Mas Ivars D, Darcel C, Chalaturnyk RJ. Empirical and numerical
approaches for geomechanical characterization of coal seam reservoirs. Int J
Coal Geol 2010;82:20412.
[36] Mas Ivars D, Pierce ME, Darcel C, Reyes-Montes J, Potyondy DO, Paul Young R,
et al. The synthetic rock mass approach for jointed rock mass modelling. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 2011;48:21944.
[37] Pettitt W, Pierce M, Damjanac D, Hazzard J, Lorig L, Fairhurst C, et al. Fracture
network engineering for hydraulic fracturing. Lead Edge 2011;30:84453.
[38] Zhang Q, Zhu H, Zhang L, Ding X. Study of scale effect on intact rock strength
using particle flow modeling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
2011;48:13208.
[39] Zhang Y. Modelling hard rock pillars using a Synthetic Rock Mass approach
PhD Thesis. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University; 2014. p. 247.
[40] Baecher GB, Lanney NA, Einstein HH. Statistical description of rock properties
and sampling. In: Proc 18th US symp rock mech, am rock mech ass, Golden,
USA; 1978. p. 5C1.18.
[41] Priester S. Delaunay triangles. Website: <www.codeguru.com/cpp/cpp/
algorithms/general/article.php/c8901/Delaunay-Triangles.htm> [Updated
December 28th 2004].
[42] Brace WF, Paulding B, Scholz C. Dilatancy in the fracture of crystalline rocks. J
Geophys Res 1966;71:393953.
[43] Bieniawski ZT. Mechanism of brittle fracture of rock: Parts I theory of the
fracture process. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1967;4:395430.
[44] Holcomb DJ, Costin LS. Damage in brittle materials: experimental methods. In:
Lamb JP, editor. Proc 10th US natl congr annl mech. New York: American
Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1987. p. 10713.
[45] Lockner DA, Byerlee JB, Kuksenko V, Ponomarev A, Sidorin A. Observations of
quasi-static fault growth from acoustic emissions. In: Evens B, Wong T, editors.
Fault mechanics and transport properties of rocks. New York: Academic Press;
1992. p. 331.
[46] Martin CD, Chandler NA. The progressive fracture of Lac du Bonnet granite. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1994;31:6439.
[47] Bahrani N, Kaiser PK, Valley B. Distinct element method simulation of an
analogue for a highly interlocked, non-persistently jointed rockmass. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 2014;71:11730.
[48] Bahrani N, Kaiser PK. Numerical investigation of the influence of specimen size
on the unconfined strength of defected rocks. Comput Geotech 2016;77:567.
[49] Kemeny JM, Cook NGW. Effective moduli, non-linear deformation and strength
of a cracked elastic solid. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1986;23:10718.
[50] Diederichs MS, Lato M, Hammah R, Quinn P. Shear strength reduction
approach for slope stability analysis. In: Proc 1st Can USA rock mech symp,
Vancouver Canada; 2007. p. 8.
[51] Diederichs MS, Kaiser PK, Eberhardt E. Damage initiation and propagation in
hard rock tunnelling and the influence of near-face stress rotation. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 2004;41:785812.
[52] Kovari K, Tisa A, Einstein E, Franklin K. Suggested methods for determining the
strength of rock materials in triaxial compression: revised version. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1983;1983(20):28590.
[53] Olofsson I, Fredriksson A. Strategy for a numerical rock mechanics site
descriptive model: further development of the theoretical/numerical
approach; 2005; SKB Report R-05-43, ISSN 1402-3091.
[54] Bagheri M. Model uncertainty of design tools to analyze block stability
Licentiate Thesis. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology; 2009. p. 163.
[55] Elmouttie MK, Poropat GV. Uncertainty propagation in structural modeling. In:
Proc int symp rock slope stab open pit min civ eng, Vancouver, Canada; 2011.
p. 13.
[56] Lajtai EZ. Shear strength of weakness planes in rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 1968;6:499515.
[57] Singh R, Sun G. A fracture mechanics approach to rock slope stability. In: Proc
14th world min congr, Peking, China; 1990. p. 54348.
[58] Oren H, Bakke S. Reconstruction of Berea sandstone and pore-scale modeling
of wettability effects. J Pet Sci Eng 2003;39:17799.
[59] Okabe H, Blunt MJ. Pore space reconstruction using multiple-point statistics. J
Pet Sci Eng 2005;46:12137.
[60] Okabe H, Blunt MJ. Pore space reconstruction of vuggy carbonates using
microtomography and multiple-point statistics. Water Resour Res 2007;43:
W12S02. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006WR00568.
[61] Politis M, Kikkinides E, Kainourgiakis M, Stubos A. Hybrid process-based and
stochastic reconstruction method of porous media. Microporous Mesoporous
Mater 2008;100:929.
[62] Mndez-Venegas J, Daz-Viera MA. Stochastic modeling of spatial grain
distribution in rock samples from terrigenous formations using the
plurigaussian simulation method. In: Diaz-Viera M, Sahay P, Coronado M,
Ortiz-Tapia A, editors. Mathematical and numerical modeling in porous
media: applications in geosciences. Boca Raton: Boca Raton: CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis Group; 2014. p. 17.
123
[63] Cho N, Martin CD, Sego DS. A clumped particle model for rock. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 2007;44:9971010.
[64] Lorig LJ. Challenges in current slope stability analysis methods. In: Proc int
symp rock slope stab open pit min civ eng, Santiago, Chile; 2009. p. 8.
[65] Jefferies M, Lorig L, Alvarez C. Influence of rock-strength spatial variability on
slope stability. In: Hart R, Detournay C, Cundall P, editors. Continuum and
distinct element numerical modeling in geo-engineering. Minneapolis: Itasca
Consulting Group; 2008. p. 9 [Paper 01-05].
[66] Srivastava A. Spatial variability modelling of geotechnical parameters and
stability of highly weathered rock slope. Indian Geotech J 2012;42:17985.
[67] Gehlke CE, Biehl K. Certain effects of grouping upon the size of correlation
coefficient in census tract material. J Am Stat Assoc Suppl 1934;29:16970.
[68] Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM. An introduction to applied geostatistics. 1st ed. New
York: Oxford University Press; 1989. p. 592.
[69] Deutsch CV. Geostatistical reservoir modeling. Oxford: Oxford University
Press; 2002. p. 400.
[70] Haining RP. Spatial data analysis: theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 2003. p. 454.
[71] Snchez-Vila X, Carrera J, Girardi JP. Scale effects in transmissivity. J Hyrogeol
1996;183:122.
[72] Mayer JM, Stead D, de Bruyn I, Nowak M. A sequential Gaussian simulation
approach to modelling rock mass heterogeneity. In: Proc 8th US symp rock
mech geomech symp, Minneapolis, USA; 2014. p. 11.
[73] Eberhardt E. Brittle rock fracture and progressive damage in uniaxial
compression PhD Thesis. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan; 1998. p. 334.
[74] Eberhardt E, Stead D, Stimpson B, Read RS. Identifying crack initiation and
propagation thresholds in brittle rock. Can Geotech J 1998;35:22233.
[75] Fonseka GM, Murrell SAF, Barnes P. Scanning electron microscope and acoustic
emission studies of crack development in rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 1985;22:27689.
[76] Pelli F, Kaiser PK, Morgenstern NR. An interpretation of ground movements
recorded during construction of the Donkin-Morien tunnel. Can Geotech J
1988;28:23954.
[77] Martin CD, Chandler NA. The progressive fracture of Lac du Bonnet granite. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1994;31:64359.
[78] Castro L, McCreath D, Kaiser PK. Rock mass strength determination from
breakouts in tunnels and boreholes. In: Fujii R, editor. Proc 8th int cong rock
mech, Tokyo, Japan. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1995, vol. 2. p. 53136.
[79] Martin CD, Kaiser PK, McCreath DR. Hoek-Brown parameters for predicting the
depth of brittle failure around tunnels. Can Geotech J 1999;36:13651.
[80] Diederichs MS. Manuel Rocha medal recipient: rock fracture and collapse
under low confinement conditions. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2003;36:33981.
[81] Diederichs MS, Kaiser PK. Tensile strength and abutment relaxation as failure
control mechanics in underground excavations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 1999;36:6996.
[82] Itasca Consulting Group Inc. PFC2D. Version 4.0. Software. Minneapolis, USA;
2008.
[83] Diederichs MS. Instability of hard rock masses: the role of tensile damage and
relaxation. Ph.D. Thesis. Waterloo: University of Waterloo; 2000. p. 597.
[84] Potyondy DO, Cundall PA. A bonded-particle model for rock. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 2007;41:132964.
[85] Tang B. Orthogonal array-based Latin hypercubes. J Am Stat Assoc
1993;88:13927.
[86] Yoon J. Application of experimental design and optimization to PFC model
calibration in uniaxial compression simulation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 2007;44:87189.
[87] Herbst M, Konietzky H, Walter K. 3D microstructural modeling. In: Hart R,
Detournay C, Cundall P, editors. Continuum and distinct element numerical
modeling in geo-engineering. Minneapolis: Itasca Consulting Group; 2008. p. 7
[Paper 08-05].
[88] Li L, Larsen I, Holt RM. A grain scale PFC3D model. In: Hart R, Detournay C,
Cundall P, editors. Continuum and distinct element numerical modeling in
geo-engineering. Minneapolis: Itasca Consulting Group; 2008. p. 7 [Paper 08-
02].
[89] Akram MS, Sharrock G, Mitra R. The role of interstitial cement in synthetic
conglomeratic rocks. In: Sainsbury D, Hart R, Detournay C, Nelson M, editors.
Continuum and distinct element numerical modeling in geomechanics.
Minneapolis: Itasca Consulting Group; 2011. p. 10 [Paper 08-03].
[90] Sakakibara T, Shibuya S, Kato S. Effects of grain shape on mechanical behaviors
of granular material under plane strain conditions in 3D DEM analyses. In:
Sainsbury D, Hart R, Detournay C, Nelson M, editors. Continuum and distinct
element numerical modeling in geomechanics, Minneapolis: Itasca Consulting
Group; 2011. p. 6 [Paper 08-02].
[91] Mollon G, Zhao JD. Fourier-Voronoi-based generation of realistic samples for
discrete modeling of granular materials. Granular Matter 2012;14:62138.
[92] Mollon G, Zhao JD. Generating realistic 3D sand particles using Fourier
descriptors. Granular Matter 2013;15:95108.
[93] Mollon G, Zhao JD. 3D generation of realistic granular samples based on
random fields theory and fourier shape descriptors. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 2014;279:4665.