HOME

Seismic Response Prior to

Spalling Failure in Highly
Stressed Underground Tunnels
A Kusui1 and E Villaescusa2

ABSTRACT
The depth of underground mines has been increasing due to several factors, such as material
demand growth and improving technology. It is a challenge to understand severe failure
mechanisms such as spalling, which is caused by induced high stress. To investigate this failure
mechanism under high stress conditions, intact rock blocks with small size tunnel were tested
at the Western Australian School of Mines (WASM). The range of rocks, such as sandstone and
granite, were drilled (200 mm hole) and tested using a servo-controlled 450 t capacity INSTRON
machine. The acoustic emission sensors were attached to the block mass during the experiment to
investigate the seismic response prior to spalling failure. The effect of the ground support system
towards the failure was also examined by comparing the seismic response of the various ground
support schemes.

INTRODUCTION
As underground mining proceeds to depths below surface arranged such that the subsequent loading was undertaken
approaching or exceeding 1000 m, the ratio of intact perpendicular to any bedding or obvious geological
rock strength to induced stresses around conventional weaknesses.
development excavations is such that failure of the rock
The size of the scaled-down tunnels was in most cases
mass adjacent to the excavations can occur very soon after
construction. Violent failures where the seismic source can be 200 mm in diameter, leaving 100 mm wide pillars adjacent to
located within the immediate vicinity of the excavation are both sides of the unsupported openings. Mechanical drilling of
often experienced. Failure occurs violently and perpendicular the miniature tunnels into the rock blocks minimised damage
to the main principal stress orientation creating hazards to to the rock to ensure that any failure was predominantly
personnel and equipment (Figure 1). stress-driven.
At the present time, such conditions have led to the
abandonment of mining operations that have reached these
depths, resulting in losses of hundreds of millions of dollars.
In addition, over the next two decades or so, when the
moderate depth resources are likely to be depleted, those
conditions are likely to be faced routinely and the ground
support technology needs to be adapted to dissipate the
energy demanded by the failures. Although ground support
cannot prevent rock mass failure, it can be used to achieve
excavation serviceability and related access safety. In order
to understand the fundamentals of stress-induced failure
and the ground support effectiveness, a number of scaled-
down tunnels were tested at the Western Australian School
of Mines (WASM) Rock Mechanics Laboratory.

TUNNEL MODELS
The tunnels were constructed by drilling into 400 W ×
400 H × 200 D mm blocks of sandstone having a UCS ranging
from 50 to 120 MPa. The sandstone materials consisted of
fine sand particles densely packed to form slightly coloured
layers. In all cases, the sandstone blocks were inspected and FIG 1 – Stress-driven failure near the boundary of an excavation.

1. PhD Candidate, Western Australian School of Mines, Curtin University, CRC Mining, Kalgoorlie WA 6430. Email: ayako.kusui@curtin.edu.au
2. Professor, Industry Chair in Rock Mechanics, Western Australian School of Mines, Curtin University, CRC Mining, Kalgoorlie WA 6430. Email: e.villaescusa@curtin.edu.au

SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016 689
A Kusui and E Villaescusa
The specimen was constrained by the two lateral steel plates
by tightening steel bars to ensure a post peak failure. The
block was loaded vertically at a constant loading rate.
GROUND SUPPORT
A specially designed ground support scheme was installed to
the scaled-down tunnels. The research team has developed a
unique technique to install reinforcement in boreholes drilled
radially into the rock blocks from within the scaled-down
tunnels. In addition, the team has developed the capability to
install miniature mesh and spray shotcrete for surface support
within the scaled-down tunnels. Figure 2 shows an example
of a ground support scheme used in one of the experiments.
Each element were selected to fit into the scaled-down tunnel
size and the material properties were established to ensure a
reasonable interaction between the rock mass and the ground
support components.
MONITORING
Vertical load and vertical displacement were monitored
during testing. Two acoustic emission (AE) sensors were
installed to monitor the seismic response from initial loading
to wall spalling and pillar crushing. Two AE sensors, Nano30s
(frequency range of 250–400 kHz and 8 mm in diameter)
were mounted on the front face of the specimen avoiding the
potential area of shear cracking (Figure 3). The signal was
amplified by 70 dB after recording.
FIG 2 – Example of a ground support scheme for a scaled-down tunnel.
690 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
A high speed Canon EOS 650D video camera was used to
monitor the tunnel walls during the progressive loading. This
digital single-lens reflex camera was set up in front of the
sample and the tunnel behaviour was recorded during testing.
The camera is capable of capturing up to 50 frames per second.
A set of special lights and a suitably placed background grid
were used to estimate the displacement versus time motion of
the failed particles that were ejected.
TESTING RESULTS
Unsupported tunnels
For an unsupported scaled-down tunnel (and adjacent
pillars) Figure 4a shows a typical seismic response in which
loading was gradually increased from zero until tunnel wall
spalling followed by pillar crushing were experienced. The
seismic activity starts with the creation of a vertical tension
crack in the floor and roof of the circular opening as predicted
by theory (Hoek and Brown, 1980). The rate of seismic activity
clearly increased prior to the violent ejection in both walls.
Significantly, a relatively quiet period was monitored prior to
final rupture and the start of the pillar crushing mode (shear
failure) of failure. Critical levels of strength to induced stress
related to the start of any visible instability such as spalling
on both walls and the start of pillar have also been identified
(Figure 4b). A significant decrease in load bearing capacity
occurs following the final shear failure of the pillar.
Stress-driven damage in brittle materials occurs as
progressive, often violent, slabbing of the excavation walls
and is localised within areas of maximum induced stress
concentrations (Christiansson et al, 2012). Ejection velocities
ranging from 3–6 m/s were determined from the experiments,
FIG 3 – Typical scaled-down tunnel test
set-up with an acoustic emissions sensor.
 Seismic Response Prior to Spalling Failure in Highly Stressed Underground Tunnels

which validate the back analysis of actual failures in
underground mining (Ortlepp, 1993). A typical result for
a wall failure of unsupported tunnel is shown in Figure 5,
where an ejection velocity of 5.2 m/s can be determined
using the background grid. Similar ejection velocities
have been used at WASM during dynamic testing of rock
reinforcement systems (Villaescusa et al, 2010). Such velocities
are capable of damaging most commercially available ground
support schemes.
Reinforced and supported tunnels
The ground support scheme effectiveness was examined by
comparing with unsupported tunnel test results. Ground
support schemes including rock bolt, chain-link mesh
and shotcrete layer were installed within the sandstone
scaled-down tunnel before testing and the specimen were
loaded following the same method as the unsupported
test procedure. In this paper, two different ground support
schemes were examined: a combination of an initial shotcrete
layer, scaled-sized chain-link mesh and rock bolts called
single layer ground support scheme (Figure 6a); and a
double layer ground support scheme which consisted of an
additional second shotcrete layer and external chain-link
mesh (Figure 6b).
The test results for each ground support scheme are shown
in Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively. The results show that
both of the seismic responses were very similar to the result
of the unsupported tunnel tests. The seismic events started
after the tension crack propagated at the floor and roof of
the tunnels and increased suddenly at the spalling stages.
No clear indication of an increased seismicity was observed
prior spalling. When spalling occurred, the cracks propagated
within the shotcrete layers and the pillar faces failed violently
once the crack propagated along the entire tunnel axis.
However, the internal tunnel wall was constrained by the
ground support layer. In contrast to the violent failure of an
unsupported tunnel, the detached shotcrete layer was held
by external chain-link mesh. After spalling, the AE activities
increased towards the pillar crushing stage. The ratio of

FIG 4 – (A) Failure mode and seismic response of an unsupported tunnel in very strong rock; (B) rate of seismicity and decreasing ratios of strength/induced stress.

FIG 5 – Determination of ejection velocity using a high-speed video camera.

SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016 691
A Kusui and E Villaescusa

FIG 6 – Ground support schemes tested: (A) 5 mm shotcrete, chain-link mesh, 50 mm length rock bolt (single layer);
(B) 5 mm shotcrete, chain-link mesh, 3 mm shotcrete, chain-link mesh, 50 mm length rock bolt (double layer).

FIG 7 – (A) Failure mode and seismic response of a tunnel in very strong rock stabilised by a single
layer of ground support; (B) rate of seismicity and decreasing ratios of strength/induced stress.

692 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
 Seismic Response Prior to Spalling Failure in Highly Stressed Underground Tunnels

FIG 8 – (A) Failure mode and seismic response of a tunnel in very strong rock stabilised by a double layer of
ground support; (B) rate of seismicity and decreasing ratios of strength/induced stress.

FIG 9 – Scaled-down tunnel test after failure: (A) unsupported; (B) single-layer support scheme; (C) double-layer support scheme.

SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016 693
A Kusui and E Villaescusa
strength to stress at spalling was 1.6 to 1.8, which is similar to
an unsupported tunnel result.
The failure resulting for each test is shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9a shows the unsupported tunnel failure. The broken
tunnel wall slabs were ejected to the tunnel floor during the
spalling process. A notch was formed on the pillar at the
side of the circular excavation. With the single layer ground
support, the shotcrete slab was detached from the tunnel
surface during spalling but it was contained by the chain-link
mesh outside of shotcrete layer (Figure 9b). For the double
layer supported tunnel, the crack propagated horizontally
through shotcrete layer at spalling; however, the internal
chain-link mesh reinforced the shotcrete slab (Figure 9c). As
the load increased, the shotcrete slab locally detached from
the tunnel surface and the external chain-link mesh held and
little amount of shotcrete fell off to the tunnel floor.
CONCLUSIONS
Extraction by underground mining methods is increasing
to depths where failure by surface spalling is occurring
with an increased frequency. Scaled-down tunnel tests were
conducted at WASM to investigate the failure mechanisms,
key ratios of material strength to induced stress and ground
support effectiveness. Two different ground support schemes
were installed within the scaled-down tunnels to compare the
test results from unsupported tunnels.
In all cases, a similar level of strength to induced stress and
seismic activity was observed. No remarkable increase of
694 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
seismicity prior to tunnel spalling suggests that predictions
of excavation failure remain difficult. However, the ground
support schemes helped to ease ejection velocities at spalling.
Significantly an additional ground support layer reduced the
internal damage after failure. Such scheme offers potential
for energy dissipation when mining proceeds to increasing
depths in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable expertise
and assistance provided by Pat Hogan and Lance Fraser.
Their help during sample preparation, testing data analysis
and paper writing is greatly acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Christiansson, R, Hakala, M, Kemppainen, K, Siren, T and Martin, C
D, 2012. Findings from large scale in-situ experiments to establish
the initiation of spalling, in Proceedings Eurock 2012 Conference,
12 p.
Hoek, E and Brown, E T, 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock, 527 p
(Institution of Mining and Metallurgy: London).
Ortlepp, W D, 1993. High ground displacement velocities associated
with rockburst damage, Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines,
93:101–106.
Villaescusa, E, Thompson, A, Player, J and Morton, E, 2010. Dynamic
testing of ground control, report no 287, Minerals and Energy
Research Institute of Western Australia, 187 p.