Capturing Failure Planes in a Numerical Model
Capturing fracture planes around a borehole in a numerical model

Capturing Failure Planes in a Numerical Model

Two conditions must be met to capture failure planes in a numerical model; the first condition is implementing a constitutive model (material behavior) that can simulate loss of strength as a function of strain. The second one is having fine-enough computational units, i.e. grid size. The first allows the localization of deformation to be captured and the second provides a grid size in the range of the localization phenomenon.

Here is an example of the formation of shear bands in a triaxial experiment at confining pressure of 25 MPa. The proper pre and post-peak stress-strain behavior is captured. 

No alt text provided for this image
Simulation of a triaxial test

The same material properties are then used to simulate breakouts observed in images around a 7.5 cm diameter borehole at depth. This allows a back analysis to narrow down the ranges of estimated in-situ stresses. Such model has been done here with a grid size as small as 0.4 mm. 

No alt text provided for this image
Formation of fractures around a borehole

Similar study can be conducted on a rock slope. With a numerical model, that has such capabilities, slope instability can be modeled and failure plane can be captured. In addition, material properties can be back-calculated if a failure has already occurred. Such material properties can then be used to forecast any potential slope failure in the future. The mesh size in this case does not have to be as small as what is required for the simulation of a triaxial experiment or a borehole breakout. 

No alt text provided for this image

Below is the last example showing the development of (shear and tensile) fractures around a larger excavation at depth, like shaft sinking. Such simulation can be used for making timely and cost-effective decision on the selection of temporary ground support and permanent liner.

No alt text provided for this image
Behnam F.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Ph.D, P.Eng

2y

Maybe using the IMASS constitutive model can address better this problem.

Daniel Mousakhani

Principal Engineer & Data scientist (BSc, MSc) MIEAust | CPEng | NER | MAusIMM

2y
Like
Reply
Hossein Renani, PhD

Human | Geotechnical Specialist

2y

Siavash, Note that failure planes can develop even when the material is perfectly-plastic and element/grid size is not super fine. Mesh resolution controls the thickness of shear bands. Stress drop in the first stress-strain figure does need a strain softening model, and overall stress-strain response will depend on mesh resolution unless regularization methods are used. Care should be exercised when calibrating a strain softening model at lab scale and applying it to a larger scale field problem. Cheers.

To view or add a comment, sign in

More articles by Siavash Taghipoor

  • Mini-Frac Test Interpretation

    Here is another mini-frac test that I would like to see your feedback on the interpretation here. The test (1 meter…

    2 Comments
  • Mini-Frac Test Interpretation

    In my previous post, I had shared the results of a mini-frac test for discussion on closure time and pressure, fracture…

    29 Comments

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics