International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 474–482

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Technical Note

Numerical determination of elastic compliance tensor of fractured rock

masses by finite element modeling
Jian-Ping Yang a, Wei-Zhong Chen a,b,n, Yong-hao Dai a, Hong-Dan Yu a
a
State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 430071 Wuhan,
PR China
b
Research Center of Geotechnical and Structural Engineering, Shandong University, 250061 Jinan, PR China

art ic l e i nf o

Article history:
Received 18 March 2013
Received in revised form
5 December 2013
Accepted 22 June 2014
Available online 11 July 2014

1. Introduction parameters in any analysis of rock masses deformation behavior.

Discontinuities including joints, fissures and interface separa-
tion are pervasive in rock masses at or near the Earth’s surface.
In the analysis of engineering problems dealing with rock masses,
such as design of arch dams, bridge piers, tunnels and under-
ground caverns, the discontinuities are of great importance
because of their strong influence on the mechanical and hydrau-
lic properties. The treatment of discontinuities in numerical
analysis can be divided in two ways. First, the discontinuities
are described explicitly if amount of fractures is not large in the
analyzing domain. This approach is represented mostly by dis-
tinct element method (DEM) and discontinuous deformation
analysis (DDA) [1,2], which considers fractured rock masses as
an assemblage of intact rock blocks separated by fracture sys-
tems. Second, in areas the rock masses containing extremely
large number of fractures compare to engineering domain, it is
impractical and impossible to model every fracture, and further-
more, the mechanical behavior of rock masses seems to be
continuous or pseudo-continuous. So the equivalent continuum
method is often adopted, which assume the global behavior of
rock masses can be described by the principles of continuum
mechanics. Based on the fact that many engineering facilities are
constructed in heavily fractured rock masses, the equivalent
continuum method is widely used.
In the continuum approach, the equivalent elastic mech-
anical parameters of fractured rock masses are important input
n
Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotech-
nical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, 430071 Wuhan, PR China. Tel./fax: þ 86 27 87199212.
E-mail address: wzchen@whrsm.ac.cn (W.-Z. Chen).
Considerable efforts have been made in the past for determining
the equivalent elastic mechanical properties. The determination
methods can be divided into field tests [3], empirical relationships
[4–8], analytical methods [9–15] and numerical methods [16–18].
Min and Jing summarized the characteristics and shortcomings of
these methods, and a methodology determining elastic compli-
ance tensor for fractured rock masses using DEM was established
in that study [19]. The main advantage of the developed metho-
dology is that it can consider complex fracture system geometry
and various constitutive relations of fractures and rock matrix,
and their interactions. However, the DEM modeling model in the
study ignored the dead-end of fractures and their effects on
equivalent elastic behavior of fractured rock masses. The ignorance
would cause change of stress distribution and fracture network,
which may induce great deviation in determination of compliance
matrix.
Within the framework established by Min and Jing [19],
equivalent elastic mechanical parameters of fractured rock masses
were studied by FEM (Finite Element Method) modeling in this
paper. The advantage of the modeling is in developing a new mesh
generation program for the assembly of intact rock and fractures,
by which dead-end of fractures could be incorporated. Here, we
briefly describe the methodology to determine elastic compliance
matrix for fracture rock masse, and introduce the loading sets and
corresponding numerical data processing method, then develop
a new mesh generating technique which consider dead-end of
fractures. Finally, we conduct a series of numerical simulations
at different sizes and rotate angles to study scale effects and
anisotropic characteristics of elastic constants of the studied
fractured rock masses, and evaluate the applicability of continuum
mechanics.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.06.007
1365-1609/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.-P. Yang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 474–482 475

2. Modeling approach using FEM code

2.1. Methodology for the determination of the linear elastic

compliance tensor for fractured rock masses by FEM modeling

The problem considered here is to estimate the equivalent

compliance matrix for fractured rock masses whose long fractures
are parallel in the direction of out-of-plane, z-direction. The matrix
is assumed isotropic. Elastic properties of this kind of fractured
rock masses can be investigated by two dimensional plane strain
analysis. The linear elastic relation of anisotropic media can be
expressed as:
εmn ¼ Smnpq σ pq ð1Þ
For plane strain problems, Eq. (1) can be reduced to
2 3 2 3 2σ 3
εxx S11 S12 S13 S16 xx
6ε 7 6 6σ 7
6 yy 7 6 21 S S22 S23 S26 77 6 yy 7
6 7 7 6 7
6 εzz 7 ¼ 6 S32 S33 S36 5 6 7 ð2Þ
4 5 4 S31 4 σ zz 5
εxy S61 S62 S63 S66 σ xy
Methodologies for the determination of components of the
compliance matrix in Eq. (2) using numerical methods have been Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of four loading sets: (1) compression in x direction;
studied [19]. For completeness, these methods are briefly sum- (2) compression in y direction; (3) pure shear; (4) biaxial normal stress loading.
(The first three loading sets are employed to calculate the compliance matrix of the
marized here. The elastic modulus and the Poisson’s effects in the
studied model, while the fourth loading set is employed to calculate the shear
z-direction are kept as intact rock since that there is no effect of modulus in 451 direction based on the current model).
the out-of-plane fractures. Considering the symmetry conditions,
then S13 ¼S31 ¼S23 ¼S32 ¼  ν/E, and S33 ¼1/E. Since shear stress σxy
does not affect the z-direction deformation, S36 and S63 can be
assumed as zero. Therefore, three independent stress boundary ∆L 12
∆L 11
conditions are sufficient to determine all components in the
matrix shown in Eq. (2). ∆L 22
Three loading sets (set 1 to set 3 in Fig. 1) were applied to
determine the nine unknowns in Eq. (3), which are S11, S22, S12, S21, u22
S26, S61, S62 and S66. Theoretically, S12 ¼S21, S16 ¼2S61 and S26 ¼2S62 u11
because of the symmetry conditions, it is necessary to pointed out
y A 11 u12
here that because the tensor shear strain εxy , instead of the
engineering shear strain γ xy , is used in Eq. (2), then there exists x u21
a factor of 2 between S16, S26 and S61, S62. Components S61, S62 and ∆L 21
S16, S26 represent the influence of normal stresses on shear strains
L
and normal stresses on shear strains, respectively. Determination
of S16 and S26 requires the calculation of averaged normal strain in Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of (a) normal strain evaluation and (b) shear strain
x-and y-directions under pure shear stress (loading set 3 in Fig. 1), evaluation.

which is much more accurate and easier compared to the calcula-

tion of averaged shear strain under normal stress (loading set
1 and set 2 in Fig. 1). So, seven components-S11, S22, S12, S21, S16, S26
and S66 are determined by numerical experiments, and S61, S62 are
deduced from S16, S26.
Imposing εzz ¼ 0 and expressing σ zz in terms of σ xx and σ yy ,
Eq. (2) can be written as
εxx ¼ A11 σ xx þ A12 σ yy þ S16 τxy
εyy ¼ A21 σ xx þ A22 σ yy þ S26 τxy
εxy ¼ S61 σ xx þ S62 σ yy þ S66 τxy
where
Si3 Sj3
Aij ¼ Sij  ði; j ¼ 1; 2Þ
S33
Through imposing loading set 1, S11 and S21 can be obtained
by substituting stress and the calculated strain into Eq. (3). As
illustrated in Fig. 2(a), the normal strain εxx and εyy are calculated
by dividing sample length L with deformation in corresponding
directions, which are ΔL11 þ ΔL12 in the x-direction and
ΔL21 þ ΔL22 in y-direction. ΔL11 is the average displacement of
all nodes on left boundary. All the other deformations were
calculated in the same way. Similarly, S22 and S12 can be obtained
through imposing loading set 2. In theory, S21 equals S12 . However,
numerical simulation results would show a little difference
between them.
By imposing loading set 3, S16, S26 and S66 can be obtained. The
shear strain εxy is calculated from the change in angle of adjacent
perpendicular boundary as illustrated in Fig. 2(b). Angle change of
each boundary is calculated from the area formed by deformed
and original boundary. Numerical simulation results showed
that angle change of every adjacent boundary differs a little
ð3Þ from the others. Averaging method is adopted and εxy is evaluated
by ðθ11 þ θ12 þ θ21 þ θ22 Þ=4. To obtain S16 and S26 , the average
normal strains in x and y direction are calculated the way Fig. 2(a)
ð4Þ illustrated.
An additional biaxial loading set 4 (Fig. 1(d)) was applied to
calculate equivalent shear modulus in the 451 direction compared
to the current direction based on the current model. The biaxial
normal stress creates pure shear stress in 451 direction whose
value equals p. By calculating the average displacement of all
boundary nodes, engineering shear strain γ in the 451 direction is
easily obtained from Eq. (5).
π L  ðΔL11 þ ΔL12 Þ
γ ¼  2arctan ð5Þ
2 L þ ðΔL21 þ ΔL22 Þ
476 J.-P. Yang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 474–482

Force boundary conditions were applied in numerical simulation

rather than displacement boundary conditions which would induce
additional forces caused by discontinuous deformation along fractures.
Besides, the inertia relief technique in FEM program was used to avoid
rigid body displacement, and the central point of the sample was
chosen as reference fixed rotation point.

2.2. Procedure of directional deformation modulus analysis by FEM

modeling

While the equivalent continuum approach is employed for

mechanical analysis in fractured rock masses, the equivalent
elastic compliance tensor of the fractured rock masses is a basic
input parameter, and it can be determined by the following steps:

Step 1: investigate the distributions of fractures in site, eg. trace

lengths, dip directions, fracture spacing, etc.
Step 2: generate the fracture network models by Monte Carlo
simulation method based on fracture distribution parameters.
Step 3: generate the mesh of fractured rock masses based on
the fracture network generated in step 2.
Step 4: determine the elastic parameters of intact rock and
fractures separately by laboratory experiments.
Step 5: study the scale effect and anisotropic properties of
equivalent elastic constants of fractured rock masses using FEM
based on the mesh generated in step 3 and elastic parameters
obtained in step4. First, choose a point as the center of study
windows. Second, study the equivalent elastic constants at
different scales increased step-by-step. Third, rotate the study
windows incrementally for each scale and study the elastic
constants in different directions. Finally, determine the equiva-
lent elastic compliance matrix and corresponding REV if it
exists.
2.3. Techniques for finite element mesh generation of fractured rock
masses
The generated mesh in step 3 of Section 2.2 is critical for FEM
simulation results. In previous studies on elastic moduli and
permeability dependence on stress of fractured rock masses, only
hydraulic connected network are incorporated in the analysis
model, and the dead-end of fractures which have no contribution
to fluid transport are ignored [17,19]. The ignorance may alter
stress distribution and fracture network as discussed before.
In order to avoid these shortages, a new technique generating
finite element mesh for fractured rock masses is developed, the
detailed processes is described as follows:
1. Mesh the constructed fracture network model with triangular
elements. Fracture lines inside the model must be seeded
with nodes.
2. Suppose i and j are original nodes on fracture, and triangular
elements related to them are E1 : ijk, E2 : ilj. First, copy a pair of
nodes i1 , j1 compare to original nodes i, j. Positions of i1 , j1 are
calculated according to the positions of i, j and the fracture
width. Then, renumber the triangular elements as E1 : i1 j1 k,
E2 : ilj, and generate the corresponding fracture element
E3 : ijj1 i1 , as shown by Fig. 3(a).
3. On the position of two fracture intersection, another three
nodes are needed in addition to the existed node. Positions of
the three copied nodes are calculated according to the position
of original node and the fracture widths of the two intersecting
fractures. So the nodes of elements, which are connected to
the intersection node, should be renumbered. In addition, four
fractured elements are generated. Modifications of fracture
Fig. 3. Mesh technology of fractures and surrounding matrix.
intersection in Fig. 3(b) are:
E1 : ijk-E1 : i2 j1 k; E2 : ikl-E2 : i2 kl1 ; E3 : ilm-E3 : i3 lm1
E4 : imn-E4 : imn; E5 : ino-E5 : ino; E6 : ioj-E6 : i1 o1 j
E7 : li3 i2 l1 ; E8 : ioo1 i1 ; E9 : mii3 m1 ; E10 : i1 jj1 i2
4. The cross area of two intersecting fractures (area enclosed by
ii1 i2 i3 in Fig. 3(b)) is left blank. Because the mechanical proper-
ties are different between normal direction and shear direction
of fracture element, a fracture element generated on the cross
area would prevent one of the intersecting fractures from
sliding along it. However, along which fracture the rock masses
would slide is dependent on the stress state. So the sliding
direction can’t be preset and the “common region” of intersec-
tion fractures is left blank.
5. On the fracture end, one additional node is generated. Position
of the new node is calculated by the position of the end node
and the fracture width. Modification of the surrounding ele-
ments is shown in Fig. 3(c).
3. Verification of the proposed FEM modeling technique
In order to verify the proposed modeling technique, a model with
two orthogonal fractures sets is used for the comparison between the
deformation modulus produced by FEM experiments and the closed-
form expression proposed by Amadai and Goodman [10]. The basic
parameters used are listed as follows. For isotropic intact rock, the
elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio is 50 GPa and 0.25. For both
fracture sets, the normal stiffness and shear stiffness are 50 GPa/m and
10 GPa/m, and the fracture spacing is 1.5 m, coupling effects between
shear deformation and normal stress, and normal deformation and
shear stress are not considered.
Considering the geometric symmetry, the computational models
are rotated in intervals of 151 from 01 to 451. Three loading sets
described in Section 2.1 are applied to obtain the compliance matrix
 J.-P. Yang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 474–482 477

for 301 model. As shown in Fig. 4, both the numerical results
calculated from rotated models in 01, 151, 301 and 451, and the red
solid line produced by the compliance matrix derived from the 301
model, are agreed very well with the analytical results. To study the
effects of S61 , S62 , S16 and S26 on global elastic properties, a
comparison curve (the red dotted line in Fig. 4) is plotted where the
four components are assumed to be zero. It can be seen that large
deviation against analytical results exists except in the direction of 301.
Displacement vector maps (Fig. 5) also show obvious angel change of
boundary lines under normal stresses, and elongation in x direction
under shear stresses. Quantitative analysis shows that, under com-
pressive stress 1 MPa in x direction, εxx ¼  5.2  10  5, εxy ¼  9.5 
10  6, under shear stress 1 MPa, εxx ¼  εyy ¼ 2.3  10  5, εxy ¼4.7 
10  5. The magnitudes of normal strain and shear strain are almost in
the same order. The results prove strong coupling effects between
normal stresses and shear strains, and between shear stresses and
normal strains.
From discussion above, it is reasonable to conclude that the
proposed FEM modeling technique and compliance matrix com-
puting method are valid and can be used for more complex
random fracture models.

4. Results of scale dependency and tensor characteristics of

elastic parameters for fractured rock masses
Fig. 4. Verification of numerical modeling results against analytical solution. (The
black solid line corresponds to the analytical results. The red solid line is produced 4.1. Data of fractures and mechanical parameters for the analysis
from compliance matrix derived from 301 model, while the red dot line is produced
from the same matrix where components of S16, S26, S61 and S62 are ignored.
Points of symbols corresponds to numerical results of rotated FEM models). (For
From site investigation on central part of auxiliary tunnel B of
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred JinPing hydropower station II, two sets of fractures are identified
to the web version of this article.) and the distribution of mean fracture spacing (distance of adjacent

Fig. 5. Displacement vector maps illustrating coupling behavior between normal stresses and shear strains, and between shear stresses and normal strains (unit: m).
(a) Vector of total displacement under normal stress, (b) vector of displacement in x direction under normal stress, (c) vector of total displacement under shear stress and
(d) vector of displacement in x direction under shear stress.
478 J.-P. Yang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 474–482

Table 1
Input parameters for random network of fractures.

Fractures Fracture spacing Trace length Dip direction

set
Distribution Mean/ Standard deviation/ Distribution Mean/ Standard deviation/ Distribution Mean/ Standard deviation/
pattern m m pattern m m pattern m m

1 Normal 2.5 0.1 Normal 4 1 Normal 150 10

distribution distribution distribution
2 Normal 2.0 0.1 Normal 3 0.7 Normal 50 7
distribution distribution distribution

fracture centroids), fracture strike and mean trace length are listed
in Table 1. 90°
The intact rock is considered isotropic linear elastic medium. 60°
Elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of intact rock are 50 GPa and 120°
0.25 by laboratory test results. The constitutive relation for a
fracture is expressed as: 30°
8 9 2 38 9
150°
< Δτn >
> = K nn K ns K nt > < Δδn >=
Δτs ¼ 6 7
4 K sn K ss K st 5 Δδs ð6Þ
>
: Δτ ; > > >
t K tn K ts K tt : Δδt ;
0°
where the subscript ‘n’ represents the normal direction (i.e.
2m
perpendicular) to the fracture plane; ‘s’ and ‘t’represent two 4m
orthogonal directions on the fracture plane. Thus, Δτn is the 6m
normal stress, Δτs and Δτt are the shear stresses; Δδn is the 8m
normal displacement of the fracture, Δδs and Δδt are the shear
10 m
displacements. K ij (i; j ¼ n; s; t) represents components of the frac-
ture stiffness matrix: K nn represents the traction behavior of a 16 m
fracture; K ss and K tt represent the shear behavior of a fracture; K ns
and K nt represent coupling effect of shear displacement caused by
normal stress; K sn and K tn represent coupling effect of normal
displacement caused by shear stress; K st and K ts represent
coupling effect between two shear stresses.
Fig. 6. Study cases of deformation modulus of fractured rock masses.
Experiments indicate that the normal behavior and shear
behavior of a fracture are often coupled [20], and the fracture
stiffness is influenced by many factors [21,22] (particularly at large
gradient can be observed for 10 m model due to the collective
increment of load). The fracture stiffness may be treated as
contributions of large number of fractures (Fig. 7(a)). And this is
constants in a small increment of load. For a large increment of
the physical basis in describing macroscopic mechanical behavior
load, constant fracture stiffness can only be used as approximate
of fractured rock masses by continuum mechanics. Fig. 7(b) shows
estimation. This study neglects the coupling effects between shear
the displacement contour of fracture network without con-
behavior and normal behavior, and treats normal stiffness and
sidering fracture dead-end. A large number of fracture dead-ends
shear stiffness of fractures as constants, which are 50 GPa/m and
are deleted compared with fracture network in Fig. 7(a), and the
10 GPa/m determined from small increment load tests. The cou-
displacement fields are also totally different. Quantitative evalua-
pling components and closure-variable stiffness could be incorpo-
tion shows that, for model considering dead-end, εxx ¼  4.15 
rated into the FEM modeling easily.
10  5 and εxx ¼23.4 GPa, while for models without dead-end,
Fig. 6 shows the numerical simulation cases in this study.
εxx ¼  2.77  10  5 and εxx ¼34.5 GPa. The model with dead-end
Model sizes range from 2 m to 16 m with 2 m interval, and angles
is much softer because of the existence of more fractures.
rotated from 01 to 901 with 301 interval. Elastic properties of
Fig. 8(a) and (b) show that stresses concentrate around fracture
01–901, 301–1201 and 601–1501 models are obtained from FEM
tips. Larger shear stresses along fractures in 901 model imply
modeling directly. In addition, the equivalent shear modulus of the
larger shear strains compared with that of 601 model. Conse-
fractured rock masses in 151, 451 and 751 directions are evaluated
quently, greater displacement will be induced for 901 model. That
by models of 601, 01 and 301 accordingly.
is the reason the equivalent deformation modulus is the lowest in
901 and highest in 601 (Fig. 9(a)).
4.2. Results and discussion

4.2.1. Deformation characteristics and stress distributions of FEM
modeling results
Fig. 7 shows the contours of directional displacements of
01–901 FEM model under 1 MPa compressive stresses (loading
set 2). The zero displacement point lies in the center of the model
since the balanced stresses were applied on the symmetrical two
sides. Displacement jump often exists across fractures in local
scale. However, a general trend of roughly uniform deformation
4.2.2. Scale effects and tensor characteristics of fractured rock
masses
It has been suggested that there are two prerequisites for the
appropriateness of continuum approach in mechanical analysis of
fractured rock masses [17,23].
1. A REV must exist, then equivalent parameters can be derived
from heterogeneous fractured rock masses. The values of
 J.-P. Yang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 474–482 479

Fig. 7. Contrast of displacement contours under compressive loading with and without fracture dead-ends (unit: m). (a) 10 m model including fracture dead-ends and
(b) 10 m model without fracture dead-ends.

Fig. 8. Shear stress contours of 10 m FEM models (unit: Pa). (a) 1 MPa compressive stress in 601 direction (horizontal) and (b) 1 MPa compressive stress in 901 direction
(vertical).

equivalent parameters change insignificantly as the sizes of directions in an acceptable error. Predicting error is evaluated by
rock masses exceed REV. This problem is referred as size effect. comparison of compliance matrix components between results
2. The derived equivalent parameters can be expressed in tensor from FEM modeling and predicted by compliance matrix of other
form for the usage of constitutive equations for continuum directions.
method. The problem is related to the anisotropic characteristic The predicting error is defined as
of fractured rock masses. FEM CM
1 jSij  Sij j
CE ¼ ∑ ð8Þ
Problem 1 is studied by learning the variation trends between N i;j SCM
ij
equivalent elastic constants and model sizes. If all elastic constants
where SFEM
ij and SCM
ij are components of compliance matrix in the
are tending towards stability and the variations are within
same reference coordinate system, SFEM ij are the FEM modeling
predefined acceptable ranges, the REV is assumed existing. The
results, SCM
ij are the results transformed from compliance matrix of
minimum size beyond which elastic constants change within
other directions, and N denotes the number of components to be
predefined ranges is defined as REV. Variation of elastic constants
compared.
(deformation modulus, shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio) is
measured by
4.2.3. Results of the scale effects
jEC i  EC i j
VEC i ¼ ð7Þ Fig. 9 presents the variation of the equivalent elastic constants
EC i (deformation modulus, shear modulus, Poisson’s ration) with increas-
where EC i is elastic constants evaluated by FEM model with side ing side length of FEM model. Fig. 9(a) exhibits that the equivalent
length i, EC i is averaged elastic constants of FEM models having deformation modulus increase with increasing side length and
the same rotation angle and whose side length is large or equal become stable after a certain size. Variation of modulus in all six
than i. directions is less than 1 GPa when the side length reaches 8 m. For
For problem 2, it is expected that a compliance matrix derived modulus in all directions, the values of 2 m  2 m scale are the
from one FEM model can predict elastic constants of other smallest in all sizes, because the mean lengths of the two fracture
480 J.-P. Yang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 474–482
Fig. 9. Deformation modulus, shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio with increasing
side lengths of FEM models (a) deformation modulus (b) shear modulus
(c) Poisson’s ratio.
sets are larger than the computational model size, and the computa-
tional model is interpenetrated by several single fractures. Results
from Fig. 9(a) also show larger equivalent elastic modulus in direction
601 and 1501 than in direction 01 and 901 as the loading direction of
601 and 1501 is nearly parallel to one fracture set and perpendicular to
the other one. It is similar to the verification one with two orthogonal
fracture sets. So the fractured rock mass is relatively rigid in the
parallel direction and soft in angle bisector direction.
Results of equivalent shear modulus shown by Fig. 9(b) are
consistent with the results of deformation modulus. Shear mod-
ulus are the lowest in 451 and 601, which are almost parallel with
one fracture set. The large shear modulus in 01 and 151 are also
related with directional properties of fracture sets.
Compared Fig. 9(c) to (a), an opposite relationship between
Poisson’s ratio and deformation modulus can be seen at both
model scale and directional aspects. Whether it is a special or
common relationship for fractured rock masses needs more study.
Calculation indicates that the value of νxy =Ex almost equals νyx =Ey .
This result proves the symmetry characteristics of compliance
matrix from numerical aspect.
Quantitative evaluation by Eq. (7) shows that variations of
deformation modulus, shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio are
below 5%, 10% and 5% in 8 m size. As the size increased to 10 m,
the variations of the three studied elastic constants are all
decreased below 5%.
4.2.4. Results of tensor characteristics
Figs. 10 and 11 present comparisons of equivalent deformation
modulus and shear modulus between FEM modeling and com-
pliance matrix. In the two figures, the black, blue and magenta
dash dot line represent directional deformation/shear modulus
expected by compliance matrix derived from 01, 301, 601 FEM
model respectively. The separate symbols are FEM modeling
results. Plotting lines show that the all compliance matrixes
express elastic anisotropy characteristics properly even at very
small scale (say 2 m). This may be due to the four fractures inside
2 m model, as shown in Fig. 6, have almost the same directions
with the global fractures. However, the values of both deformation
and shear modulus are not stable in small sizes. As model size
increases, the deviation between the three lines decrease, and all
the three lines predict FEM modeling results well.
Fig. 12 presents mean prediction error by Eq. (8) between
results of FEM modeling and matrixes. Because six independent
unknowns, S11 , S22 , S12 , S16 , S26 and S66 exist in compliance matrix,
and S11 , S22 , S66 are thought as dominating ones [17], tensor
predicting errors are evaluated by incorporating six and three
components separately for comparison. Fig. 12(a) shows that the
predicting error is under 10% in 6 m and 5% in 10 m when three
components are compared. However, the predicting error
increases greatly while six components are contained. The value
is under 20% in 10 m and 12% in 12 m as shown by Fig. 12(b).
Results exhibit that the compliance matrix derived from 601 model
can predicts FEM modeling results in other directions very well,
while the reverse is not. For example, the error between matrix of
601 model and 301 FEM results is 2.1% while the reverse is 12%.
Meanwhile, the error between matrix of 601 model and 01 FEM
results is 4.3%. This implies that the strategy of averaging com-
pliance matrix [17] may be not the best choice, as perhaps one
model could give better predicting results, as shown in the studied
case. In this sense, the compliance matrix of 601 model is thought
best representing the elastic behavior of the studied fracture rock
masses. After translating to the reference coordinate system, the
compliance matrix is:
0 1
42:92  17:84  5:00 5:04
B  17:82 46:72  5:00 8:68 C
B C  12
S¼B C  10 ðpa1 Þ ð9Þ
@  5:00 5:00 20:00 0:00 A
2:54 4:32 0:00 43:37
5. Conclusions
Scale effects and anisotropic characteristics of fractured
rock masses are studied by a proposed FEM modeling technique
 J.-P. Yang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 474–482 481

Fig. 10. Comparison of deformation modulus between rotated FEM models and compliance matrixes. (a) 2 m, (b) 6 m, (c) 10 m and (d) 14 m. (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 11. Comparison of shear modulus between rotated FEM models and compliance matrixes. (a) 2 m, (b) 6 m, (c) 10 m and (d) 14 m. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

which consideres dead-end fractures. The main conclusions are
summarized below.
A mesh generating technique is developed for fractured rock
masses by which the dead-end of fractures can be incorporated
into FEM modeling. In cases where the fracture spacing is close to
or larger than the fracture length, plenty of fractures and fracture
sections would become dead-end and ignoring of them may leads
to wrong results. In the studied case, the FEM modeling result of
10 m model without dead-end almost overestimate the deforma-
tion modulus as much as 50% compared to the model incorporat-
ing fracture dead-end.
The influence coefficients of normal stresses on shear strains,
and shear stresses on normal strains, corresponding to S61 , S62 and
S16 , S26 in compliance matrix, plays an important role in describing
elastic mechanical behavior of fractured rock masses properly.
They can influence both the deformation modulus and anisotropic
characteristic greatly. This implies that carefully measurements
and analysis are required in laboratory and field tests of elastic
constants of fractured rock masses.
Both the variation of elastic constants on scale and tensor
prediction error should be evaluated in determining the proper
compliance matrix for fractured rock masses. For the studied case,
variations of deformation modulus, shear modulus and Poisson’s
ratio are below 5% as model size reaches to 10 m, and tensor
prediction error is also below 5% when S11 , S22 , S66 are contained
in prediction. However, after all the six independent components-
S11 , S22 , S12 , S16 , S26 and S66 in compliance matrix are incorporated
to evaluate discrepancies between matrix and FEM modeling
482 J.-P. Yang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 474–482
Fig. 12. Mean prediction error of compliance matrix components between FEM
results and predicted results from matrixes in other directions (a) mean prediction
error of 3 components, S11 , S22 and S66 (b) mean prediction error of 6 components,
S11 , S22 , S12 , S16 , S26 and S66 .
results, the predicting errors are 20% in 10 m and 12% after
reaching 12 m. Considering the importance of S12 , S16 and S26 ,
the REV is determined as 12 m, which is about three times as
much as mean trace length in the studied case (mean fracture
spacing is smaller than mean trace length).
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Chinese
Fundamental Research (973) Program through the Grant
No. 2013CB036006 and the support of the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51225902, 51274189 and 51109207).
We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to the editor and
the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, which have
greatly improved this paper.
References
[1] Hart RD. An introduction to distinct element modeling for rock engineering.
In: Hudson JA, editor. Comprehensive rock engineering. Oxford: Pergamon
Press; 1993. p. 245–61.
[2] SHI GH. Discontinuous deformation analysis: a new numerical model for the
statics and dynamics of block system. Ph.D. thesis. Univ of California, Berkeley;
1988.
[3] Bieniawski ZT. Determining rock mass deformability-experience from case
histories. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1978;15:237–47.
[4] Palmstrom A, Singh R. The deformation modulus of rock masses: comparisons
between in situ tests and indirect estimates. Tunnelling Underground Space
Technol 2001;16:115–31.
[5] Barton N. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterisation and
tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:185–216.
[6] Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R. Indirect determination of the modulus of
deformation of rock masses based on the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2004;41:849–57.
[7] Zhang L, Einstein HH. Using RQD to estimate the deformation modulus of rock
masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41:337–41.
[8] Hoek E, Diederichs MS. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 2006;43:203–15.
[9] Singh B. Continuum characterization of jointed rock masses: Part I–The
constitutive equations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1973;10:311–35.
[10] Amadei B, Goodman RE. A 3-D constitutive relation for fractured rock masses.
In: Proceedings of the international symposium on the mechanical behavior of
structured media. Ottawa; 18–21 May 1981. p. 249–68.
[11] Gerrard CM. Elastic models of rock masses having one, two and three sets of
joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1982;19:15–23.
[12] Oda M. Fabric tensor for discontinuous geological materials. Soils Found
1982;22:96–108.
[13] Oda M, Suzuki K, et al. Elastic compliance for rock-like materials with random
cracks. Soils Found 1984;24:27–40.
[14] Hu KX, Huang Y. Estimation of the elastic properties of fractured rock masses.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1993;30:381–94.
[15] Huang TH, Chang CS, Yang ZY. Elastic moduli for fractured rock mass. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 1995;28:135–44.
[16] Kulatilake PHSW, Wang S, et al. Effect of finite size joints on the deformability
of jointed rock in three dimensions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1993;30:479–501.
[17] Min KB, Jing L. Numerical determination of the equivalent elastic compliance
tensor for fractured rock masses using the distinct element method. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 2003;40:795–816.
[18] Chen SH, He J, Shahrour I. Estimation of elastic compliance matrix for
fractured rock masses by composite element method. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 2012;49:156–64.
[19] Min KB, Rutqvist J, et al. Stress-dependent permeability of fractured rock
masses: a numerical study. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41:1191–210.
[20] Jing L, Nordlund E, Stephansson O. An experimental study on the anisotropy
and stress-dependency of the strength and deformability of rock joints. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1992;29:535–42.
[21] Barton N. The shear-strength of rock and rock joints 1976;13:255–79Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 1976;13:255–79.
[22] Bandis SC, Lumsden AC, et al. Fundamentals of rock joint deformation. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1983;20:249–68.
[23] Long JC, Remer JS, Wilson CR. Porous-media equivalents for networks of
discontinuous fractures. Water Resour Res 1982;18:645–58.