Manual 3DEC PDF

3DEC
3 Dimensional Distinct Element Code

User’s Guide
©2003
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Phone: (1) 612-371-4711
Mill Place Fax: (1) 612·371·4717
111 Third Avenue South, Suite 450 E-Mail: software@itascacg.com
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 USA Web: www.itascacg.com
First Edition December 1998
First Revision May 1999
Second Revision September 1999
Second Edition January 2003
Terms - 1
Terms and Conditions for Licensing 3DEC

YOU SHOULD READ THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY
BEFORE USING THE 3DEC PROGRAM. INSTALLATION OF THE 3DEC PROGRAM
INTO YOUR COMPUTER INDICATES YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM, YOU SHOULD RETURN THE
PACKAGE PROMPTLY AND YOUR MONEY WILL BE REFUNDED.
This program is provided by Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Title to the media on which the program
is recorded and to the documentation in support thereof is transferred to the customer, but title to the
program is retained by Itasca. You assume responsibility for the selection of the program to achieve
your intended results and for the installation of the program, the use of and the results obtained
from the program.
LICENSE
• You may use the program on only one machine at any one time.
• You may copy the program for back-up only in support of such use.
• You may not use, copy, modify, or transfer the program, or any copy, in whole or part,
except as expressly provided in this document.
• You may not sell, sub-license, rent, or lease this program.
TERMS
The license is effective until terminated. You may terminate it any time by destroying the program
together with any back-up copies and returning the hardware lock. It will also terminate if you
fail to comply with any term or condition of this agreement. You agree upon such termination to
destroy the program together with any back-up copies, modifications, and/or merged portions in
any form and return the hardware lock to Itasca.
WARRANTY
Itasca will correct any errors in the code at no charge for twelve (12) months after the purchase date
of the code. Notification of a suspected error must be made in writing, with a complete listing of
the input and output files and description of the error. If, in the judgment of Itasca, the code does
contain an error, Itasca will (at its option) correct or replace the copy at no cost to the user or refund
the initial purchase price of the code.
3DEC Version 3.0

Terms - 2 User’s Guide
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Itasca assumes no liability whatsoever with respect to any use of 3DEC or any portion thereof or
with respect to any damages or losses that may result from such use, including (without limitation)
loss of time, money or goodwill that may arise from the use of 3DEC (including any modifications or
updates that may follow). In no event shall Itasca be responsible for any indirect, special, incidental
or consequential damages arising from use of 3DEC.
CODE SUPPORT
Itasca will provide telephone support, at no charge, to assist the code owner in the installation of
the 3DEC code on his or her computer system. Additionally, general assistance may be provided
in aiding the owner in understanding the capabilities of the various features of the code. However,
no-cost assistance is not provided for help in applying 3DEC to specific user-defined problems.
Technical support can be purchased on an as-needed basis. For users who envisage the need for
substantial amounts of assistance, consulting support is available. In all instances, the user is
encouraged to send the problem description to Itasca by electronic mail in order to minimize the
amount of time spent trying to define the problem. See Section 6 in the User’s Guide for details.
3DEC Version 3.0

User’s Guide 1
PRECIS
This volume is the user’s guide to 3DEC. This guide contains general information on the operation
of 3DEC for engineering mechanics computation.
Section 1 gives an introduction to the capabilities and applications of 3DEC. An overview of the
new features in the latest version of 3DEC is also provided.
The first-time user should consult Section 2 for an introduction to the operation of 3DEC. The
installation and operation procedures are given along with a simple tutorial to guide the new user
through a 3DEC analysis.
Section 3 provides general guidance in the use of 3DEC in problem solving for static mechanical
analysis for geotechnical engineering.
An introduction to the built-in programming language, FISH, is given in Section 4. This includes
a tutorial on the use of the FISH language. Note that no programming experience is assumed.
3DEC contains a graphical interface to assist with model creation and presentation of results. The
graphical interface is described in Section 5.
Various items of interest to 3DEC users are contained in Section 6, including a 3DEC runtime
benchmark on several different types of computers, and procedures for reporting errors and re-
questing technical assistance. Section 7 contains a bibliography of published papers describing
some applications of 3DEC in different fields of engineering.
The 3DEC Manual consists of seven documents. The following volumes, which comprise the 3DEC
Manual, are available. (The titles in parentheses below are the names used to refer to the volumes
in the text.)
USER’S GUIDE — (User’s Guide) — an introduction to 3DEC and its capabilities
COMMAND REFERENCE — (Command Reference) — descriptions of all 3DEC commands
FISH in 3DEC — (FISH volume) — a complete guide to FISH as applied in 3DEC
THEORY AND BACKGROUND — (Theory and Background) — thorough discussions of the
built-in features in 3DEC
OPTIONAL FEATURES — (Optional Features) — detailed descriptions of the optional features:
thermal analysis, dynamic analysis, and the surface support (liner) model
VERIFICATION PROBLEMS (Verifications volume) and EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS (Ex-
amples volume) — a collection of verification problems and example applications
COMMAND AND FISH REFERENCE SUMMARY — (Command and FISH Reference Sum-
mary) — a quick summary of all 3DEC commands and FISH statements
3DEC Version 3.0

2 User’s Guide
3DEC Version 3.0

User’s Guide Contents - 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 Comparison with Other Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1.3 General Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
1.3.1 Basic Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
1.3.2 Optional Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
1.4 Summary of Updates from Version 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
1.4.1 Automatic Topographic Stress Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
1.4.2 User-Defined Models (UDM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
1.4.3 Additional Constitutive Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
1.4.4 Double Precision Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
1.4.5 Dynamic Free Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
1.4.6 Partial Density Scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 10
1.4.7 Higher Order Tetrahedral Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 10
1.4.8 Improved Bitmap and Printer Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 10
1.4.9 Poly Cube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 10
1.4.10 Structural Beam Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 10
1.4.11 Surface Stress Plotting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 10
1.4.12 Generalized Boundary Histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 11
1.4.13 Joint Fluid Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 11
1.4.14 New Mouse Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 11
1.4.15 User-Controlled Colors for Contours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 11
1.4.16 User-Defined Stress Plot Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 11
1.5 Fields of Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 12
1.6 Guide to the 3DEC Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 13
1.7 Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 17
1.8 User Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 18
1.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 19
3DEC Version 3.0

Contents - 2 User’s Guide
2 GETTING STARTED
2.1 Installation and Start-up Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.1.1 Installation of 3DEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.1.2 System Requirements for Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2.1.3 Windows-Console Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2.1.4 Utility Software and Graphics Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.1.5 Version Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2.1.6 Start-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.1.7 Program Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.1.8 Running 3DEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.1.9 Installation Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.2 A Simple Tutorial — Use of Common Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 10
2.3 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 18
2.4 The 3DEC Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 21
2.5 Command Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 24
2.6 Mechanics of Using 3DEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 26
2.6.1 Model Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 28
2.6.2 Assigning Material Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 31
2.6.2.1 Block Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 31
2.6.2.2 Joint Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 34
2.6.3 Applying Boundary and Initial Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 35
2.6.4 Stepping to Initial Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 37
2.6.5 Performing Alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 39
2.6.6 Saving/Restoring Problem State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 42
2.6.7 Summary of Commands for Simple Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 44
2.7 Sign Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 45
2.8 Systems of Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 47
2.9 Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 48
2.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 50
3 PROBLEM SOLVING WITH 3DEC

3.1 General Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.1.1 Step 1: Define the Objectives for the Model Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.1.2 Step 2: Create a Conceptual Picture of the Physical System . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.1.3 Step 3: Construct and Run Simple Idealized Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.1.4 Step 4: Assemble Problem-Specific Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.1.5 Step 5: Prepare a Series of Detailed Model Runs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.1.6 Step 6: Perform the Model Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.1.7 Step 7: Present Results for Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3DEC Version 3.0

3.2 Model Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.2.1 Fitting the 3DEC Model to a Problem Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
3.2.2 Joint Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 12
3.2.3 Creating Internal Boundary Shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 17
3.2.3.1 Tunnel Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 18
3.2.3.2 POLY cube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 19
3.2.4 Selecting the Coordinate System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 22
3.2.5 Orientation of Geologic Features to the Model Axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 22
3.2.6 Choice of Model Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 23
3.2.7 Incorporation of Discontinuities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 24
3.3 Selection of Deformable versus Rigid Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 26
3.3.1 Poisson’s Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 26
3.3.2 Zoning for Deformable Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 31
3.4 Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 32
3.4.1 Stress Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 32
3.4.1.1 Applied Stress Gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 33
3.4.1.2 Changing Boundary Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 34
3.4.1.3 Checking the Boundary Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 35
3.4.1.4 Cautions and Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 35
3.4.2 Displacement Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 38
3.4.3 Real Boundaries — Choosing the Right Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 38
3.4.4 Artificial Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 39
3.4.4.1 Symmetry Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 39
3.4.4.2 Boundary Truncation — Location of the Far-Field Boundary . 3 - 39
3.5 Initial Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 42
3.5.1 Uniform Stresses in an Unjointed Medium: No Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 42
3.5.2 Stresses with Gradients in an Unjointed Medium: Uniform Material . . 3 - 43
3.5.3 Stresses with Gradients in a Nonuniform Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 44
3.5.4 Compaction within a Model with Nonuniform Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 46
3.5.5 Initial Stresses following a Model Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 48
3.5.6 Stresses in a Jointed Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 49
3.5.7 Determination of the In-situ Stress State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 51
3.5.8 Transferring Field Stresses to Model Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 53
3.5.9 Topographical Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 54
3.6 Loading and Sequential Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 55
3.7 Choice of Constitutive Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 76
3.7.1 Deformable-Block Material Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 76
3.7.2 Joint Material Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 78
3.7.3 Selection of an Appropriate Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 79
3DEC Version 3.0

3.8 Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 86

3.8.1 Block Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 86
3.8.1.1 Mass Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 86
3.8.1.2 Intrinsic Deformability Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 86
3.8.1.3 Intrinsic Strength Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 87
3.8.1.4 Post-Failure Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 89
3.8.1.5 Extrapolation to Field-Scale Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 96
3.8.2 Joint Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 100
3.9 Tips and Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 102
3.10 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 108
3.10.1 Unbalanced Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 108
3.10.2 Block/Gridpoint Velocities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 108
3.10.3 Plastic Indicators for Block Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 109
3.10.4 Histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 110
3.11 Modeling Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 111
3.11.1 Modeling of Data-Limited Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 111
3.11.2 Modeling of Chaotic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 111
3.11.3 Localization, Physical Instability and Path-Dependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 113
3.12 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 115
4 FISH BEGINNER’S GUIDE

4.1 Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1
4.2 Tutorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2
5 GRAPHICAL INTERFACE
5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
5.2 Menus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5.2.1 Main Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5.2.2 Select Color Mode Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 10
5.2.3 Select Joint Mode Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 11
5.2.4 Target Active Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 12
5.2.5 Structure Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 17
5.2.6 Special Options Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 18
5.2.7 Stresses Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 20
5.2.8 Vectors (and Contours) Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 24
3DEC Version 3.0

6 MISCELLANEOUS
6.1 3DEC Runtime Benchmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.2 Error Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
6.2.1 Reporting via Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
6.2.2 Reporting via Fax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
6.3 Technical Support Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
3DEC Version 3.0

TABLES
Table 2.1 Maximum number of 3DEC blocks in available RAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
Table 2.2 Typographical conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 25
Table 2.3 Boundary condition command summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 35
Table 2.4 Basic commands for simple analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 44
Table 2.5 Systems of units — mechanical parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 47
Table 3.1 Recommended steps for numerical analysis in geomechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Table 3.2 3DEC block constitutive models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 77
Table 3.3 3DEC joint constitutive models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 79
Table 3.4 Selected elastic constants (laboratory-scale) for rocks (adapted from Goodman
1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 87
Table 3.5 Selected strength properties (laboratory-scale) for rocks (adapted from Good-
man 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 88
Table 3.6 Typical values for Hoek-Brown rock-mass strength parameters
(adapted from Hoek and Brown (1988)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 99
Table 4.1 Commands that directly refer to FISH names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
Table 6.1 3DEC runtime calculation rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
3DEC Version 3.0

FIGURES
Figure 2.1 PostScript plot from “TEST3.DAT” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
Figure 2.2 3DEC model of a rock slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 12
Figure 2.3 History of y-velocity for initial rock slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 15
Figure 2.4 Rock slope failure in progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 17
Figure 2.5 Vertical cross-section through wedge showing displacement vectors . . . . . . . 2 - 17
Figure 2.6 Example of a 3DEC model (not to scale) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 18
Figure 2.7 3DEC model block divided into two blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 22
Figure 2.8 General solution procedure for static analysis in geomechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 27
Figure 2.9 Block model with three intersecting joint planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 29
Figure 2.10 Tunnel in jointed rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 30
Figure 2.11 Tunnel in jointed rock — excavation and joint structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 31
Figure 2.12 Maximum unbalanced force history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 38
Figure 2.13 y-displacement history at (.3, .3, 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 39
Figure 2.14 Sliding wedge in tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 41
Figure 2.15 y-displacement history at (.3, .3, -0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 41
Figure 2.16 y-displacement history at (.3, .3, -0.1) — wedge is stable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 43
Figure 2.17 Sign convention for positive stress components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 45
Figure 3.1 Spectrum of modeling situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
Figure 3.2 Cubic model created with the POLY face command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
Figure 3.3 An octahedral-shaped prism generated with the POLY prism command . . . . . 3 - 10
Figure 3.4 Tunnel model created with the POLY tunnel command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 11
Figure 3.5 Terms describing the attitude of an inclined plane:
dip angle, α, is positive measured downward from the horizontal (xz) plane;
dip direction, β, is positive measured clockwise from north (z) . . . . . . . . . 3 - 12
Figure 3.6 Model created with the JSET and HIDE commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 14
Figure 3.7 Concave block created with the JOIN command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 15
Figure 3.8 Rock slope containing continuous and noncontinuous joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 16
Figure 3.9 Tunnel created with TUNNEL command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 19
Figure 3.10 Elements of the POLY cube command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 20
Figure 3.11 Resultant geometry from example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 21
Figure 3.12 Orientation of 3DEC model axes (x,y,z) relative to north-east-up reference
axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 23
Figure 3.13 Stereonet plot of fault relative to model axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 25
Figure 3.14 Stereonet plot of pole to fault and model reference axes relative to problem
north-east axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 25
Figure 3.15 Model for Poisson’s effect in rock with vertical and horizontal jointing . . . . 3 - 27
Figure 3.16 Poisson’s effect for vertically-jointed rock
(ν = 0.3 for intact rock) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 28
3DEC Version 3.0

Figure 3.17 Model for Poisson’s effect in rock with joints dipping at angle θ from the
horizontal and with spacing S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 29
Figure 3.18 Poisson’s effect for jointed rock at various joint angles (blocks are rigid) . . . 3 - 29
Figure 3.19 Poisson’s effect for rock with two equally spaced joint sets
with θ = 45◦ (blocks are deformable with ν = 0.2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 30
Figure 3.20 Uplift when material is removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 36
Figure 3.21 Mixing stress and velocity boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 37
Figure 3.22 Models used to transfer stress boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 40
Figure 3.23 Nonuniform stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 47
Figure 3.24 Uniform stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 48
Figure 3.25 Slip of a confined joint; plot shows shear stress contours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 51
Figure 3.26 3DEC model of tunnel region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 58
Figure 3.27 Displacement histories at top of model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 61
Figure 3.28 y-displacement history at tunnel roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 62
Figure 3.29 Close-up view of wedge in roof (surrounding blocks hidden) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 62
Figure 3.30 Cable bolts positioned around tunnel excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 63
Figure 3.31 y-displacement history at tunnel roof — reinforcement element support . . . . 3 - 66
Figure 3.32 y-displacement history at tunnel roof — cable support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 66
Figure 3.33 Axial forces in reinforcement elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 67
Figure 3.34 Axial forces in cable elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 67
Figure 3.35 Thick concrete liner support — liner blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 70
Figure 3.36 y-displacement history at tunnel roof — tunnel liner added after tractions
reduced by 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 70
Figure 3.37 Thick concrete liner support — prism-shaped liner blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 73
Figure 3.38 Thick concrete liner support — mixed-discretization zoning in liner blocks . 3 - 74
Figure 3.39 y-displacement history at tunnel roof — support by prism-shaped liner blocks 3 - 75
Figure 3.40 Principal stress distribution in top section of liner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 75
Figure 3.41 Direct shear test model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 80
Figure 3.42 Average shear stress versus shear displacement
— Coulomb slip model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 83
Figure 3.43 Average normal displacement versus shear displacement
— Coulomb slip model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 83
— Coulomb slip model with peak and residual strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 84
— Coulomb slip model with peak and residual strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 85
Figure 3.46 Idealized relation for dilation angle, ψ, from triaxial test results (Vermeer and
de Borst 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 89
Figure 3.47 σyy stress versus yy-strain for tension test with cons 2 model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 93
Figure 3.48 σyy stress versus yy-strain for tension test with cons 6 model and tensile-
softening table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 94
Figure 3.49 xx-strain versus yy-strain for tension test with cons 2 model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 95
3DEC Version 3.0

Figure 3.50 xx-strain versus yy-strain for tension test with cons 6 model and tensile-
softening table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 95
Figure 3.51 A small portion of a jointed rock mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 112
Figure 5.1 3DEC graphical interface (DOS version) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Figure 5.2 3DEC menu guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Figure 5.3 Location of viewing plane in terms of dip, dip direction and center distance
from model axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
Figure 5.4 Example interrogate block menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 13
Figure 5.5 Symbols identifying failure mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 22
3DEC Version 3.0

EXAMPLES
Example 2.1 3DEC output from “TEST1.DAT” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Example 2.2 3DEC model block divided into two blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 21
Example 2.3 Block model with three intersecting joint planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 28
Example 2.4 Tunnel in jointed rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 29
Example 2.5 Assigning material models and properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 34
Example 2.6 Applying boundary and initial conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 36
Example 2.7 Stepping to initial equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 38
Example 2.8 Reduce the strength of the joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 40
Example 2.9 Stabilize roof block with a cable bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 42
Example 3.1 A cube generated with the POLY face command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Example 3.2 A cube generated with the POLY brick command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
Example 3.3 An octahedral-shaped prism generated with the POLY prism command . . . 3 - 10
Example 3.4 A tunnel model generated with the POLY tunnel command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 11
Example 3.5 Creation of a noncontinuous vertical joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 13
Example 3.6 Rock slope containing continuous and noncontinuous joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 16
Example 3.7 Tunnel created with the TUNNEL command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 18
Example 3.8 Data file which generates a model using POLY cube command . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 21
Example 3.9 Uplift when material is removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 35
Example 3.10 Mixing stress and velocity boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 36
Example 3.11 Initial and boundary stresses in equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 43
Example 3.12 Initial stress state with gravitational gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 44
Example 3.13 Initial stress gradient in a nonuniform material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 45
Example 3.14 Nonuniform stress initialized in a model with nonuniform zoning . . . . . . . . 3 - 46
Example 3.15 Initial stresses following a model change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 49
Example 3.16 Slip of a confined joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 50
Example 3.17 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — initial model . . . . . . . . . 3 - 56
Example 3.18 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — initial equilibrium stress
state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 59
Example 3.19 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — unsupported tunnel . . . 3 - 61
Example 3.20 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — local reinforcement sup-
port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 63
Example 3.21 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — fully grouted cable sup-
port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 64
Example 3.22 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — reduce tunnel tractions
by 50% and install liner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 68
Example 3.23 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — liner with m-d zoning . 3 - 71
Example 3.24 Direct shear test with Coulomb slip model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 80
Example 3.25 Tension test on tensile-softening material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 91
Example 4.1 Defining a FISH function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
3DEC Version 3.0

Example 4.2 Using a variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

Example 4.3 SETting variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Example 4.4 Test your understanding of function and variable names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
Example 4.5 Capturing the history of a FISH variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
Example 4.6 FISH functions to calculate bulk and shear moduli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
Example 4.7 Using symbolic variables in 3DEC input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
Example 4.8 Controlled loop in FISH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
Example 4.9 Applying a nonlinear initial distribution of moduli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
Example 4.10 Splitting lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
Example 4.11 Variable types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
Example 4.12 Action of the IF ELSE ENDIF construct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 11
Example 6.1 Benchmark data file — “TIMING.DAT” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

INTRODUCTION 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
3DEC is a three-dimensional numerical program based on the distinct element method for dis-
continuum modeling. The basis for this program is the extensively tested numerical formulation
used by the two-dimensional version, UDEC (Itasca 1996). 3DEC simulates the response of dis-
continuous media (such as a jointed rock mass) subjected to either static or dynamic loading.
The discontinuous medium is represented as an assemblage of discrete blocks. The discontinu-
ities are treated as boundary conditions between blocks; large displacements along discontinuities
and rotations of blocks are allowed. Individual blocks behave as either rigid or deformable ma-
terial. Deformable blocks are subdivided into a mesh of finite difference elements, and each
element responds according to a prescribed linear or nonlinear stress-strain law. The relative mo-
tion of the discontinuities is also governed by linear or nonlinear force-displacement relations
for movement in both the normal and shear directions. 3DEC has several built-in material be-
havior models, for both the intact blocks and the discontinuities, that permit the simulation of
response representative of discontinuous geologic, or similar, materials. 3DEC is based on a
“Lagrangian” calculation scheme that is well-suited to model the large movements and deforma-
tions of a blocky system.
The distinguishing features of 3DEC are summarized below.
• The rock mass is modeled as a 3D assemblage of rigid or deformable blocks.
• Discontinuities are regarded as distinct boundary interactions between these
blocks; joint behavior is prescribed for these interactions.
• Continuous and discontinuous joint patterns can be generated on a statistical
basis. A joint structure can be built into the model directly from the geologic
mapping.
• 3DEC employs an explicit in-time solution algorithm that accommodates both
large displacement and rotation and permits time domain calculations.
• The graphics facility permits interactive manipulation of 3D objects. In the
graphics screen mode, the user can “move” into the model and make regions
invisible for better viewing purposes. This allows the user to build the model
for a geotechnical analysis and instantly view the 3D representation. This
greatly facilitates the generation of 3D models and interpretation of results.
3DEC also contains the powerful built-in programming language FISH (short for FLACish; FISH
was originally developed for our two-dimensional, finite-difference, continuum program FLAC).
With FISH, you can write your own functions to extend 3DEC ’s usefulness. FISH offers a unique
capability to 3DEC users who wish to tailor analyses to suit specific needs.
3DEC Version 3.0

1-2 User’s Guide
With the exception of the graphics mode, 3DEC is a command-driven (rather than menu-driven)
computer program. Although a menu-driven program is easier to learn for the first time, the
command-driven structure in 3DEC offers several advantages when applied in engineering studies.
1. The input “language” is based upon recognizable word commands that allow
you to identify the application of each command easily and in a logical fashion
(e.g., the BOUNDARY command applies boundary conditions to the model).
2. Engineering simulations usually consist of a lengthy sequence of operations
— e.g., establish in-situ stress, apply loads, excavate tunnel, install support
and so on. A series of input commands (from a file or from the keyboard)
corresponds closely with the physical sequence that it represents.
3. A 3DEC data file can easily be modified with a text editor. Several data files
can be linked to run a number of 3DEC analyses in sequence. This is ideal for
performing parameter sensitivity studies.
4. The word-oriented input files provide an excellent means to keep a documented
record of the analyses performed for an engineering study. Often, it is con-
venient to include these files as an appendix to the engineering report for the
purpose of quality assurance.
5. The command-driven structure allows you to develop pre- and post-processing
programs to manipulate 3DEC input/output as desired. For example, you may
wish to write a joint-generation function to create a special joint structure for a
series of 3DEC simulations. This can readily be accomplished with the FISH
programming language and incorporated directly in the input data file.
The formulation and development of the distinct element method embodied in 3DEC has progressed
for a period of over 25 years, beginning with the initial presentation by Cundall (1971). In 1988,
Dr. Cundall and Itasca staff adapted 3DEC specifically to perform engineering calculations on a
PC. The software is designed for high-speed computation of models containing several thousand
blocks. With the advancements in floating-point operation speed and the ability to install additional
RAM at low cost, increasingly larger problems can be solved with 3DEC.
For example, 3DEC can solve a model containing up to 7500 rigid blocks (or 3000 deformable
blocks with 24 degrees-of-freedom per block) on a microcomputer using 32 MB RAM. The solution
speed for a model of this size is roughly 125 calculation steps per minute (or 200 calculation steps
per minute for the 3000 deformable block model) on a 2.23 GHz Pentium 4 microcomputer.* The
calculation speed is essentially a linear function of the number of blocks in a model, and the number
of blocks is a linear function of the available RAM on the computer (see Table 2.1 in Section 2.1.3).
For typical models, consisting of roughly 2000 rigid blocks (or 1000 deformable blocks) or fewer,
the explicit solution scheme in 3DEC requires approximately 2000 to 4000 steps to reach a solved
* See Section 6 for a comparison of 3DEC runtimes on various computer systems.
3DEC Version 3.0

INTRODUCTION 1-3
state.* For example, a 1000 deformable block model run on the Pentium computer described
above would require roughly 6 minutes to perform 4000 calculation steps. Consequently, typical
engineering problems involving several hundred blocks and multiple solution stages can be solved
with 3DEC on a microcomputer in a matter of minutes or a few hours.
A comparison of 3DEC to other numerical methods, a description of general features and new
updates in 3DEC Version 3.0, and a discussion of fields of application are provided in the following
sections. If you wish to try 3DEC right away, the program installation instructions and a simple
tutorial are provided in Section 2.2.
* This will vary depending on the amount of relative motion that occurs between blocks. The explicit
solution scheme is explained in Section 1.2.2 in Theory and Background.
3DEC Version 3.0

1-4 User’s Guide
1.2 Comparison with Other Methods
Some common questions asked about 3DEC are: “Is 3DEC a distinct element or discrete element
program? What is the difference, and what is 3DEC ’s relation to other programs?” We provide a
definition here which we hope will clarify these matters.
Many finite element, boundary element and Lagrangian finite difference programs have interface
elements or “slide lines” that enable them to model a discontinuous material to some extent. How-
ever, their formulation is usually restricted in one or more of the following ways. First, the logic
may break down when many intersecting interfaces are used; second, there may not be an automatic
scheme for recognizing new contacts; and third, the formulation may be limited to small displace-
ments and/or rotation. Such programs are usually adapted from existing continuum programs.
The name discrete element method applies to a computer program only if it:
(a) allows finite displacements and rotations of discrete bodies, including complete
detachment; and
(b) recognizes new contacts automatically as the calculation progresses.
Without the first attribute, a program cannot reproduce some important mechanisms in a discontin-
uous medium; without the second, the program is limited to small numbers of bodies for which the
interactions are known in advance. The term distinct element method was coined by Cundall and
Strack (1979) to refer to the particular discrete element scheme that uses deformable contacts and
an explicit, time-domain solution of the original equations of motion (not the transformed, modal
equations).
There are four main classes of computer programs that conform to the proposed definition of
a discrete element method. (The classes and representative programs are discussed further in
Section 1.1.1 in Theory and Background.)
1. Distinct Element Programs — These programs use explicit time-marching to
solve the equations of motion directly. Bodies may be rigid or deformable
(by subdivision into elements); contacts are deformable. 3DEC falls in this
category.
2. Modal Methods — The method is similar to the distinct element method in the
case of rigid bodies but, for deformable bodies, modal superposition is used.
3. Discontinuous Deformation Analysis — Contacts are rigid, and bodies may
be rigid or deformable. The condition of no-interpenetration is achieved by an
iteration scheme; the body deformability comes from superposition of strain
modes.
4. Momentum-Exchange Methods — Both the contacts and the bodies are rigid:
momentum is exchanged between two contacting bodies during an instanta-
neous collision. Frictional sliding can be represented.
3DEC Version 3.0

INTRODUCTION 1-5
There are several published schemes that appear to resemble discrete element methods, but which
are different in character or are lacking one or more essential ingredients. For example, many
publications are concerned with the stability of one or more rigid bodies, using the limit equilibrium
method (Hoek (1973); Warburton (1981); Goodman and Shi (1985); Lin and Fairhurst (1988)). This
method computes the static force equilibrium of the bodies and does not address the changes in
force distribution that accompany displacements of the bodies.
3DEC Version 3.0

1-6 User’s Guide
1.3 General Features
1.3.1 Basic Features
3DEC is primarily intended for analysis in rock engineering projects, ranging from studies of the
progressive failure of rock slopes to evaluations of the influence of rock joints, faults, bedding
planes, etc. on underground excavations and rock foundations. 3DEC is ideally suited to study
potential modes of failure directly related to the presence of discontinuous features.
The program can best be used when the geologic structure is fairly well-defined — for example,
from observation or geologic mapping. Both a manual and automatic joint generator are built into
3DEC to create individual, and sets of, discontinuities which represent jointed structure in a rock
mass. A wide variety of joint patterns can be generated in the model. There are also two tunnel
generators to set up models with long regularly-shaped excavations.
A pre-processor program (PGEN) is provided for reading AutoCad DXF files of section views of
a body that can be manipulated to provide a 3DEC data file to generate polyhedra which define a
model’s block structure. This program is particularly useful for defining complex excavations or
geologic shapes.
Different representations of joint material behavior are available. The basic model is the Coulomb
slip criterion, which assigns elastic stiffness, frictional, cohesive and tensile strengths and dilation
characteristics to a joint. A modification to this model is the inclusion of displacement weakening
as a result of loss in cohesive and tensile strength at the onset of shear failure. A more complex
model, the continuously yielding joint model, is also available and simulates continuous weakening
behavior as a function of accumulated plastic shear displacement. Joint models and properties can
be assigned separately to individual or sets of discontinuities in a 3DEC model. It should be noted
that the geometric roughness of a joint is represented via the joint material model, even though the
plot of discontinuities shows the joint as a planar segment.
Blocks in 3DEC can be either rigid or deformable. There are five built-in (19 with the user-
defined/extended models option (UDM)) material models for deformable blocks, ranging from the
“null” block material, which represents holes (excavations), to the shear yielding models, which in-
clude strain-hardening/softening behavior and represent nonlinear, irreversible shear failure. Thus,
blocks can be used to simulate backfill and soil materials as well as intact rock. (Purchasers of
the UDM option may write their own models.) An effective-stress analysis can be performed by
assigning a pore-pressure distribution that acts on both the blocks and the contacts.
The automatic zone generator in 3DEC allows the user to divide deformable blocks into finite
difference tetrahedral zones. A single command allows the user to specify as fine a discretization
as needed, and to vary the discretization throughout the model. Thus, a fine tetrahedral mesh can
be prescribed for blocks in the region of interest, and a coarser mesh can be used for blocks farther
out. 3DEC also has “inner/outer region” coupling and automatic radially-graded mesh generation
within polyhedra for modeling “infinite domain” problems. For block plasticity analysis, a special
zone generator can be used to create “mixed-discretization” blocks for improved accuracy when
3DEC Version 3.0

INTRODUCTION 1-7
modeling plastic collapse. The user may also use high order tetrahedral elements for plasticity
problems.
The explicit solution algorithm in 3DEC permits either static or dynamic analysis. Static analysis
is the default solution mode. Dynamic analysis is provided as an optional feature and is discussed
below, in Section 1.3.2.
Both stress (force) and fixed displacement (zero velocity) boundary conditions are available for
static analysis. Boundary conditions may be different at different locations.
3DEC includes the ability to model steady state or transient fracture fluid flow. The flow logic
includes a system of flow planes, flow pipes and flow knots.
Structural element logic is implemented to simulate rock reinforcement. Reinforcement includes
point-anchored and fully-grouted cables and bolts. An optional surface support/liner model is also
available and is described in Section 1.3.2.
3DEC contains a powerful built-in programming language, FISH, that enables the user to define new
variables and functions. FISH is a compiler; programs entered via a 3DEC data file are translated
into a list of instructions stored in 3DEC ’s memory space; these are executed whenever a FISH
function is invoked. FISH permits:
• user-prescribed property variations in the block structure (e.g., non-
linear increase in modulus with depth);
• plotting and printing of user-defined variables (custom-designed
plots);
• implementation of special joint generators;
• servo-control of numerical tests;
• specification of unusual boundary conditions; variations in time and
space; and
• automation of parameter studies.
Interactive manipulation of screen images is built directly into 3DEC. This allows the user to
generate shaded perspective views, wire-frames, vectors, tensors, contours, time histories, etc. The
history plots are especially helpful to ascertain when an equilibrium state or failure state has been
reached. 3DEC also has the facility to create two-dimensional “windows” through the 3D model.
On these windows, output can be presented in the form of principal stress plots, stress contour plots,
relative shear plots, and vector plots. All plots can be created in screen mode by single keystrokes
that move and rotate the 3D model, orient the window, and produce the required output (vectors,
contours, etc.). The output can then be directed to a hardcopy device for incorporation into reports.
3DEC Version 3.0

1-8 User’s Guide
1.3.2 Optional Features
Four optional features (for dynamic analysis, thermal analysis, user-defined models (UDM) and
modeling surface support) are available as separate modules that can be included in 3DEC at an
additional cost per module.
Dynamic analysis can be performed with 3DEC, using the optional dynamic calculation module.
User-specified velocity or stress waves can be input directly to the model either as an exterior
boundary condition or an interior excitation to the model. A library of simple dynamic wave forms
is also available for input. 3DEC contains absorbing boundary conditions to simulate the effect
of an infinite elastic medium surrounding the model. The dynamic analysis option is described in
Section 2 in Optional Features.
There is a limited thermal analysis option available as a special module in 3DEC. This model
simulates the transient conduction of heat in materials and the subsequent development of thermally-
induced stresses. Heat sources can be added and can be made to decay exponentially with time.
The thermal option is described in Section 1 in Optional Features.
The user-defined model (UDM) option provides the capability for the user to write their own block
material models. The models are compiled as a DLL and are linked when requested by the user.
As part of the UDM option, an additional 14 block constitutive models are available. This includes
8 viscous models, two non-isotropic elastic models and 4 plasticity models.
A surface-support model is available to simulate structures such as concrete linings, shotcrete and
other forms of tunnel support, and stabilizing lining for open cuts or natural slopes. The optional
surface-support model is described in Section 3 in Optional Features.
3DEC Version 3.0

INTRODUCTION 1-9
1.4 Summary of Updates from Version 2.0
3DEC 3.00 contains several improvements. The new features are summarized in the following
sections. Please note that, due to these changes, existing data files created for 2.00 may not operate
correctly. Data files that contain memory addressees or indices must be modified. 3DEC 3.00 will
not restart save files from 3DEC 2.00
1.4.1 Automatic Topographic Stress Initialization
This feature is used to calculate gravity-induced stresses in models that have a large topological
variation on the free surface. Previously, the models had to be cycled to equilibrate the gravity
loads. In some cases, cycling to equilibrium induced unwanted shear displacements and stresses.
This is a new keyword under the INSITU command. Some cycling will still be required, but this will
be less than without the topographical stress initialization.
1.4.2 User-Defined Models (UDM)
Purchasers of the UDM option will have the ability to write their own block constitutive models.
The models are then compiled as a DLL file and are linked during runtime (see Section 4 in
Optional Features and the ZONE command in the Command Reference) as requested by the user.
Instructions and examples on how to write these models are included.
1.4.3 Additional Constitutive Models
Purchasers of the UDM option will also have access to several new block constitutive models. These
models include: anisotropic, cam-clay, double-yield, drucker, mohr, orthotropic, ss, subiquitous,
ubiquitous and creep models (burger, cpower, cvisc, cwipp, power, pwipp, viscous, wipp).
1.4.4 Double Precision Version
3DEC now includes a separate executable that is written entirely in double precision. The double
precision version requires three times the amount of memory required by the single precision
version. The double precision version is useful in models where critical information is lost because
of the dimension of the models. This can occur in fluid flow models and also in creep modes where
more than 1,000,000 cycles may be executed.
1.4.5 Dynamic Free Field
A dynamic free field logic has been added to 3DEC. The free field logic allows the lateral boundaries
of a model to be closer to the area of interest without causing unwanted side effects.
3DEC Version 3.0

1 - 10 User’s Guide
1.4.6 Partial Density Scaling
Normally, the timestep in 3DEC is controlled by the smallest gridpoint masses in the model. In
dynamic simulations, this can produce a timestep which results in unacceptable solution times.
Density scaling is not usually used in dynamic problems since the true gridpoint masses are important
to the solution. However, in many models the timestep is controlled by a few very tiny zones that do
not contribute significantly to the overall solution. Partial density scaling allows 3DEC to eliminate
the effect of these few small zones without affecting the rest of the model.
1.4.7 Higher Order Tetrahedral Elements
The normal tetrahedral zoning in 3DEC can be relatively inaccurate in models with a high degree
of plastic strain (depending on loading conditions). The mixed discretization zoning solves this
inaccuracy but is limited to six-sided blocks. The higher order elements are more accurate in
plasticity than the normal tetrahedral elements and do not have the shape restriction of the mixed
discretized zones.
1.4.8 Improved Bitmap and Printer Output
Several improvements have been made to make the legends, colors, backgrounds, fill shading, and
line typing better-suited for printing and output to bitmap files. This makes inclusion of 3DEC
graphics directly into report documents much easier.
1.4.9 Poly Cube
Poly cube is new model building tool which can be used to generate a complex geometry in 3DEC.
This is provided as an alternative to the PGEN pre-processor. Either user-defined outlines or
extractions from AutoCAD DXF files can be used to generate the geometry. The blocks generated
using poly cube are easier to zone than those generated by PGEN.
1.4.10 Structural Beam Elements
Structural beam elements have been added to allow the simulation of spaced support such as steel
ribs.
1.4.11 Surface Stress Plotting
Filled stress plots can now be generated on the surface of the 3D bodies (as opposed to cross
sections). These plots are currently limited to stresses and appear as block filled plots.
3DEC Version 3.0

INTRODUCTION 1 - 11
1.4.12 Generalized Boundary Histories
The boundary logic has been modified to allow the use of multiple boundary histories. Previously,
only one history could be defined in each of the 3 axes. Each gridpoint may now have its own
history terms in each of the 3 axes.
1.4.13 Joint Fluid Flow
3DEC now has the capability to calculate fluid flow in joints. The flow logic is set up to use flow
planes, flow pipes, and flow knots. These objects represent the joint surfaces, intersections of joints,
and meeting at block corners.
1.4.14 New Mouse Controls
In graphics mode, the left mouse button may be used in place of the arrow keys to translate or rotate
the model. The right mouse button can be used to center the model on the centroid of the selected
block. The model will then rotate about the center of that block.
1.4.15 User-Controlled Colors for Contours
By specifying colors in a contour plot command the user can select the color filling. For example,
plot xsec syy red green
will use a red to green variation for the contour colors.
1.4.16 User-Defined Stress Plot Planes
The user can define arbitrary planes in space to plot stresses. The planes are 3D objects and can
be rotated along with visible blocks or excavated blocks. This improves the visualization of the
stresses around an opening.
3DEC Version 3.0

1.5 Fields of Application
3DEC was originally developed to perform stability analysis of jointed rock slopes. The discon-
tinuum formulation for rigid blocks and the explicit time-marching solution of the full equations
of motion (including inertial terms) facilitate the analysis of progressive, large-scale movements of
slopes in blocky rock.
3DEC has been applied most often in studies related to mining engineering. Both static and dynamic
analyses for deep underground mine openings have been performed. Fault-slip induced failure
around excavations is one example of analyses conducted with 3DEC. Blasting effects have been
studied by applying dynamic stress or velocity waves at model boundaries. Research in the area
of fault-slip induced seismicity has also been conducted by use of the continuously-yielding joint
model. Structural elements have been employed to simulate various rock reinforcement systems
such as grouted rockbolting.
3DEC has also been applied in the fields of underground construction and deep underground storage
of high-level radioactive waste. Through the use of the optional thermal model, 3DEC has been
used to simulate effects of thermal loading in connection with buried nuclear waste.
3DEC has been used to a limited extent as a computational design tool. However, the program is
better-suited to investigate potential failure mechanisms associated with the response of a jointed
rock mass. The nature of a jointed rock mass is that it is a “data-limited” system — i.e., the internal
structure and stress state are, in large part, unknown and unknowable. Thus, it is impossible, in
principle, to make a complete model of a rock mass system. Nevertheless, an understanding of
the response of underground openings in jointed rock can be achieved at a phenomenological level
using 3DEC. This methodology seeks to improve the engineering understanding of the relative
impact of various phenomena on the rock mechanics design. In this way, the engineer can antic-
ipate potential problem areas by identifying mechanisms that may lead to unacceptable states of
deformation/loading (or failure) of the underground opening. The paper by Starfield and Cundall
(1988) is recommended as a guide for using 3DEC in rock engineering projects.
Section 7 presents a bibliography of published reports on the application of 3DEC in the fields of
mining and underground engineering. Additionally, 3DEC has potential for application in other
fields of engineering, as discussed below and listed in Section 7.
3DEC has the potential for application in studies related to earthquake engineering. For example,
the program may be used to provide explanations of phenomena related to fault movement.
3DEC is particularly well-suited to simulate blocky structures, such as stone masonry arches.
Example studies are the assessment of safety conditions of old masonry bridges (see Lemos 1997
in Section 7) and the seismic behavior of stone masonry arches (see Lemos 1995 in Section 7).
3DEC has also been used to simulate the behavior of a concrete arch dam constructed on a jointed
rock foundation (see Lemos 1996 in Section 7) and the stability condition of underground power
stations (see Dasgupta and Lorig 1995 and Dasgupta et al. 1995 in Section 7).
3DEC Version 3.0

INTRODUCTION 1 - 13
1.6 Guide to the 3DEC Manual
The 3DEC Version 3.0 manual consists of eight documents. This document, the User’s Guide,
is the main guide to using 3DEC and contains descriptions of the features and capabilities of
the program along with recommendations on the best use of 3DEC for problem solving. The
remaining documents cover various aspects of 3DEC, including theoretical background information,
verification testing and example applications. The complete manual is available in electronic format
on the Itasca software CD-ROM (viewed with Acrobat Reader), as well as in paper format.
The organization of the eight documents and brief summaries of the contents of each section follows.
Please note that if you are viewing the manual in the Acrobat Reader, double-clicking on a section
number given below will immediately open that section for viewing.
User’s Guide
Section 1 Introduction
This section introduces you to 3DEC and its capabilities and features. An overview
of the new features in the latest version of 3DEC is also provided.
Section 2 Getting Started
If you are just beginning to use 3DEC or are only an occasional user, we recom-
mend that you read Section 2. This section provides instructions on installation and
operation of the program as well as a simple tutorial to guide the new user through
a 3DEC analysis.
Section 3 Problem Solving
Section 3 is a guide to practical problem solving. Turn to this section once you are
familiar with the program operation. Each step in a 3DEC analysis is discussed in
detail, and advice is given on the most effective procedures to follow when creating,
solving and interpreting a 3DEC model simulation.
Section 4 FISH Beginner’s Guide
Section 4 provides the new user with an introduction to the FISH programming
language in 3DEC. This includes a tutorial on the use of the FISH language. FISH
is described in detail in Section 2 in the FISH volume.
Section 5 Graphical Interface
3DEC contains a graphical interface to facilitate both model creation and presentation
of results. Section 5 describes the features of this interface.
Section 6 Miscellaneous
Various information is contained in Section 6, including the 3DEC runtime bench-
mark and procedures for reporting errors and requesting technical support.
3DEC Version 3.0

Section 7 Bibliography
Section 7 contains a bibliography of published papers describing some uses of 3DEC.
Command Reference
Section 1 Command Reference
All the commands that can be entered in the command-driven mode in 3DEC are
described in Section 1 in the Command Reference.
Section 2 Error Messages
Section 2 in the Command Reference lists all the error messages and their meanings.
FISH in 3DEC
Section 1 FISH Beginner’s Guide
Section 1 in the FISH volume provides the new user with an introduction to the
FISH programming language in 3DEC. This includes a tutorial on the use of the
FISH language.
Section 2 FISH Reference
Section 2 in the FISH volume contains a detailed reference to the FISH language.
All FISH statements, variables and functions are explained and examples given.
Section 3 Library of FISH Functions
A library of common and general purpose FISH functions is given in Section 3 in
the FISH volume. These functions can assist with various aspects of 3DEC model
generation and solution.
Section 4 Program Guide
Section 4 in the FISH volume contains a program guide to 3DEC ’s linked-list data
structure. This is provided for advanced users to have more direct access to 3DEC
variables.
Section 5 FISH Error Messages
A complete list of FISH error messages is given in Section 5 in the FISH volume.
3DEC Version 3.0

INTRODUCTION 1 - 15
Theory and Background

Section 1 Background — The Distinct Element Method
The theoretical formulation for 3DEC is described in detail in Section 1 in Theory
and Background.
Section 2 Block Constitutive Models
The theoretical formulation and implementation of the various block constitutive
models are described in Section 2 in Theory and Background.
Section 3 Continuously-Yielding Joint Model
Section 3 in Theory and Background describes the formulation for the continuously
yielding joint model. A simulation of a direct shear test with the model is also given.
Section 4 Structural Elements
Section 4 in Theory and Background describes the structural element reinforcement
models available in 3DEC.
Section 5 Polygon Generator
The pre-processor program, PGEN, that assists with the creation of complex models
is described in Section 5 in Theory and Background.
Section 6 Joint Fluid Flow
Section 6 in Theory and Background describes the implementation of joint fluid
flow in 3DEC.
Optional Features
Section 1 Thermal Option
Section 1 in Optional Features describes the thermal model option and presents
several verification problems that illustrate its application both with and without
interaction with mechanical stress.
Section 2 Dynamic Analysis
The dynamic analysis option is described and considerations for running a dynamic
model are provided in Section 2 in Optional Features. Several verification examples
are also included in this section.
Section 3 Surface Support Model
A surface support model option is provided to simulate tunnel lining and slope
stabilizing lining. Section 3 in Optional Features describes the surface support
model.
3DEC Version 3.0

Section 4 User-Defined Models and Extended Constitutive Models

Section 4 in Optional Features contains theoretical descriptions of several material
constitutive models and instructions needed to write new models which can be used
by 3DEC.
Verification Problems and Example Applications
This volume is divided into two sections. The first section contains a collection of
3DEC verification problems. These are tests in which a 3DEC solution is compared
directly to an analytical (i.e., closed-form) solution. See Table 1 in the Verification
and Examples volume for a list of the verification problems.
The second section contains example applications of 3DEC that demonstrate the
various classes of problems to which 3DEC may be applied. See Table 2 in the
Verification and Examples volume for a list of the example applications.
Command and FISH Reference Summary

A quick summary of all 3DEC commands and FISH statements is contained in the
Command and FISH Reference Summary.
3DEC Version 3.0

INTRODUCTION 1 - 17
1.7 Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. is more than a developer and distributor of engineering software.
Itasca is a consulting and research firm comprised of a specialized team of civil, geotechnical and
mining engineers with an established record in solving problems in the areas of:
Civil Engineering
Mining Engineering and Energy Resource Recovery
Nuclear Waste Isolation and Underground Space
Defense Research
Software Engineering
Groundwater Analysis and Dewatering
Itasca was established in 1981 to provide advanced rock mechanics services to the mining industry.
Today, Itasca is a multidisciplinary geotechnical firm with 53 professionals and offices worldwide.
The corporate headquarters for Itasca is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Worldwide offices
of Itasca are operated as subsidiaries of HCItasca, Inc.: Hydrologic Consultants, Inc. (Denver,
Colorado); Itasca Geomekanik AB (Stockholm, Sweden); Itasca Consultants S.A. (Ecully, France);
Itasca Consultants GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany); Itasca Consultores S.L. (Llanera, Spain);
Itasca S.A. (Santiago, Chile); Itasca Africa (Johannesburg, South Africa); and Itasca Consultants
Canada Inc. (Sudbury, Canada).
Itasca’s staff members are internationally recognized for their accomplishments in geological, min-
ing and civil engineering projects. Itasca staff consists of geological, mining, hydrological and
civil engineers who provide a range of comprehensive services such as (1) computational anal-
ysis in support of geo-engineering designs, (2) design and performance of field experiments and
demonstrations, (3) laboratory characterization of rock properties, (4) data acquisition, analysis,
and system identification, (5) groundwater modeling, and (6) short courses and instruction in the
geomechanics application of computational methods. If you should need assistance in any of these
areas, we would be glad to offer our services.
Itasca Consulting Group is a subsidiary of HCItasca, Inc. HCItasca was formed in 1999 with
the merger of Hydrologic Consultants, Inc. (HCI) of Denver, Colorado with Itasca Consulting
Group, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota. HCI adds advanced groundwater modeling and dewatering
expertise to Itasca.
3DEC Version 3.0

1.8 User Support
We believe that the support that Itasca provides to code users is a major reason for the popularity
of our software. We encourage you to contact us when you have a modeling question. We provide
a timely response via telephone, electronic mail or fax. General assistance in the installation of
3DEC on your computer, plus answers to questions concerning capabilities of the various features
of the code, are provided free of charge. Technical assistance for specific user-defined problems
can be purchased on an as-needed basis.
If you have a question, or desire technical support, please contact us at:
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.

Mill Place
111 Third Avenue South, Suite 450
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 USA
Phone: (+1) 612-371-4711

Fax: (+1) 612·371·4717
Email: software@itascacg.com
Web: www.itascacg.com
We also have a worldwide network of code agents who provide local technical support. Details
may be obtained from Itasca.
3DEC Version 3.0

INTRODUCTION 1 - 19
1.9 References
Cundall, P. A. “A Computer Model for Simulating Progressive Large Scale Movements in Blocky
Rock Systems,” in Proceedings of the Symposium of the International Society for Rock Mechanics
(Nancy, France, 1971), Vol. 1, Paper No. II-8, 1971.
Cundall, P. A., and O. D. L. Strack. “A Discrete Numerical Model for Granular Assemblies,”
Geotechnique, 29, 47-65 (1979).
Goodman, R. E., and G.-H. Shi. Block Theory and Its Application to Rock Engineering. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1985.
Hoek, E. “Methods for the Rapid Assessment of the Stability of Three-Dimensional Rock Slopes,”
Quarterly J. Eng. Geol., 6, 3 (1973).
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. UDEC (Universal Distinct Element Code), Version 3.0. Minneapo-
lis: ICG, 1996.
Lin, D., and C. Fairhurst. “Static Analysis of the Stability of Three-Dimensional Blocky Systems
around Excavations in Rock,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 25(3), 138-147
(1988).
Starfield, A. M., and P. A. Cundall. “Towards a Methodology for Rock Mechanics Modelling,” Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 25, 99-106 (1988).
Warburton, P. M. “Vector Stability Analysis of an Arbitrary Polyhedral Rock Block with any
Number of Free Faces,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 18, 415-427 (1981).
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

GETTING STARTED 2-1
2 GETTING STARTED
This section provides the first-time user with an introduction to 3DEC. If you are familiar with the
program but only use it occasionally, you may find this section (in particular, Section 2.6) helpful in
refreshing your memory on the mechanics of running 3DEC. Getting Started provides instructions
for program installation and start-up on your computer. It also outlines the recommended procedure
for applying 3DEC to problems in geo-engineering and includes simple examples that demonstrate
each step of this procedure. More complete information on problem solving is provided in Section 3.
3DEC is a command-driven code. This is an important distinction, especially if you are used to
using menu-driven software. As explained previously in Section 1.1, the command-driven structure
allows 3DEC to be a very versatile tool for use in engineering analysis. However, this structure can
present difficulties for new, or occasional, users. Command lines must be entered as input to 3DEC,
either interactively via the keyboard or from a remote data file, in order for the code to operate.
There are over 40 main commands and nearly 400 command modifiers (called keywords) which are
recognized by 3DEC.
To the new user, it may seem an insurmountable task to wade through all the commands to select
those necessary for a desired analysis. This difficulty is not as formidable as it first appears if the
user recognizes that only a very few commands are actually needed to perform simple analyses. As
the user becomes more comfortable with 3DEC and uses the code regularly, more commands can
be applied and more complex analyses performed. In this section, we provide a primer on the few
basic commands the new (or occasional) user needs to perform simple 3DEC calculations.
This section contains the following information. A step-by-step procedure is given in Section 2.1 to
install, load and test the operation of 3DEC on your computer. This is followed by a tutorial example
(Section 2.2) which demonstrates the use of common input commands to execute a 3DEC model.
There are a few things that you will need to know before creating and running your own 3DEC
model — i.e., you need to know the 3DEC terminology. The nomenclature used for this program is
described in Section 2.3. The definition of a 3DEC finite difference grid is given in Section 2.4. You
should also know the syntax for the 3DEC input language when running in command-driven mode;
an overview is provided in Section 2.5. The mechanics of running a 3DEC model are described in
separate steps; in Section 2.6, each step is discussed separately and simple examples are provided.
The sign conventions and systems of units used in the program appear in Sections 2.7 and 2.8,
respectively. The different types of files used and created by 3DEC are described in Section 2.9.
3DEC Version 3.0

2-2 User’s Guide
2.1 Installation and Start-up Procedures
2.1.1 Installation of 3DEC
The 3DEC package, which includes a Windows95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP-console version (see Sec-

tion 2.1.3 for a description), is installed in Windows from a CD-ROM using standard Windows
procedures. The code installation, including the executables, utilities, data files and manual, re-
quires approximately 24 MB of disk space.
A default installation of 3DEC from the CD-ROM will install the program, its example files, and
the complete 3DEC manual. The Adobe Acrobat Reader is necessary for viewing the manual; an
installation for the Reader is also included on the CD-ROM for users who wish to install it.
To begin installation, insert the CD-ROM into the appropriate drive. If the autorun feature for the CD
drive is enabled, a menu providing options for using the CD will appear automatically. If this menu
does not appear, at the command line ( START –> RUN in Windows) type “[cd drive]:\start.exe”
to access the CD-ROM menu. The option to install 3DEC may be selected from this menu.
The installation program will guide you through installation. When the installation is finished, a
file named “INSTNOTE.PDF” will be found in the program sub-folder (“3DEC”) that resides in
the main installation folder. (This is the folder that is specified during the installation process as the
location to which files will be copied; by default, this is “\ITASCA.”) The “INSTNOTE.PDF” file
provides a listing of the directory structure that is created on installation and a description of the
actions that have been performed as part of the installation. This information may be used, in the
unlikely event it is necessary or desirable, to either manually install or manually uninstall 3DEC.
The recommended method for uninstalling 3DEC is to use the Windows “Add/Remove Programs”
applet ( START –> SETTINGS –> CONTROL PANEL –> ADD/REMOVE PROGRAMS ). Please note that references made in the
3DEC manual to files presume the default directory structure described in “INSTNOTE.PDF”; all
data files described in the manual are contained in these folders.
The first time you load 3DEC you will be asked to enter a customer title. This title will appear
on graphics screen plots and hardcopy plots. The title can be changed by using the SET cust1
command.
After installing the software, connect the 3DEC hardware key to the LPT1 port on the computer
before using the code.
The executable file for 3DEC is “3DEC.EXE,” which is stored in the “\ITASCA\3DEC” directory.
In addition to the executable code, two sets of dynamic linked libraries (DLLs) are provided. One
set of DLLs is used to access the various graphics formats in 3DEC. The other set corresponds to
the optional user-defined constitutive models available with 3DEC. All of these DLLs are located
in the “\ITASCA\3DEC” directory.
3DEC Version 3.0

GETTING STARTED 2-3
2.1.2 System Requirements for Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP
3DEC for Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP is a 32-bit Windows-console application. Any com-

puter capable of running Win95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP is suitable for use with this version of 3DEC.
The minimum hardware specifications to operate Windows 95 are adequate for the Windows-console
version of 3DEC. This code will not run on 16-bit systems such as Win3.x. The executable file is
“3DEC.EXE.”
2.1.3 Windows-Console Version
The Windows-console version of 3DEC operates in text mode in Windows. Plots can be sent directly
to Windows native printers (using the SET plot windows command). Plots can also be directed to
the Windows clipboard (using the SET plot clipboard command), to an Enhanced Metafile format
(using the SET plot emf command), and to PCX, BMP, or JPEG bitmap files. See Section 2.1.4 for
details.
The Windows-console version of 3DEC is compiled with the Absoft Fortran compiler. The
Windows-console executable program will operate under Windows 95, 98, ME, Windows NT
4.0, Win2000 or XP.
Multitasking — You may find yourself switching constantly between your favorite text editor and
3DEC while developing a model. Task switching or multitasking software helps considerably in
this process. Multitasking with the Windows-console version of 3DEC operates in the same manner
as other native Windows applications. There is no difficulty with task switching even with a 3DEC
plot displayed. Please note that you cannot edit and save a data file while it is open in 3DEC. Type
<New> to close the data file in 3DEC.
Memory Allocation — Automatic memory allocation logic has been implemented in 3DEC. When
loaded, 3DEC will automatically attempt to allocate 16 MB of RAM.
You can change the memory allocation for 3DEC by typing the following when loading 3DEC from
a DOS shell or Windows shortcut; type
3dec m
m is the amount of RAM, in MB, that will be made available for a 3DEC model. For example, if
you wish to allocate 30 MB for a model, type
3dec 30
After loading 3DEC, type

print mem
for a listing of the total memory available and the amount of memory, and percentage, currently
used for the model.
If the amount of memory requested is more than that available, Windows will swap memory onto
the hard drive. This will slow execution considerably, and is not recommended. Note that 3DEC
3DEC Version 3.0

2-4 User’s Guide
requires approximately 3.0 MB to load. You must account for this memory in the total memory
requested. As a guide, Table 2.1 summarizes the approximate maximum numbers of rigid or
deformable blocks that can be created for different sizes of available RAM.
Table 2.1 Maximum number of 3DEC blocks in available RAM

Available RAM Maximum number of Maximum number of
(MB) rigid blocks deformable blocks∗
8 2,000 1,000
16 4,500 2,000
32 7,500 3,000
64 15,000 7,000
* Assumes 24 translational degrees-of-freedom per block.
Maximum number of blocks will be reduced for more degrees-of-freedom.
2.1.4 Utility Software and Graphics Devices
Several types of utility software and graphics devices are available that can be of great help while
operating 3DEC.
Editors — A text editor is used to create 3DEC input data files. Any text editor that produces
standard ASCII text files may be used. Care must be taken if more “advanced” word-processing
software (e.g., WordPerfect, Word) is used: this software typically encodes format descriptions into
the standard output format; these descriptions are not recognized by 3DEC and will cause an error.
3DEC input files must be in standard ASCII format.
Graphic Output — 3DEC supports all Windows-compatible printers. Also, black-and-white or color
output may be written to a file that can be read by some graphics programs, such as CorelDraw. In
addition, a PCX-format screen dump can be imported into other applications, such as Paintbrush
for Windows (see the SET pcx command in Section 1 in the Command Reference). NOTE: The
screen dump file generated by the <F2> key in graphics mode is in the resolution of the screen.
The PCX files generated by the SET plot PCX and PLOT pen commands may be in a user-specified
resolution. (default = 1024 × 768)
3DEC also supports EMF, BMP and JPEG file formats and can export graphics to the Windows
clipboard. 3DEC offers several options to access Windows output.
1. By specifying the SET plot windows command, plots generated with the PLOT
pen or COPY command will be directed to a Windows printer. Note that the
current printer is used when plots are generated from data files and must be
changed outside 3DEC using the Printers folder in the My Computer object.
3DEC Version 3.0

GETTING STARTED 2-5
2. The command SET plot clipboard directs all hardcopy output to the Windows
clipboard (no file is generated). The image is in Enhanced Metafile format
and subsequently may be pasted into any other Windows application that is
compatible with that format.
3. The SET plot emf command directs output to an Enhanced Metafile format file
on disk, where it may be saved for reference or later embedded in a Windows
document. It is the user’s responsibility to see that the SET output command
has been used to set the output filename to one with an “.EMF” extension.
4. The SET plot BMP, PCX, or JPG directs output to bitmap format files which are
saved on disk. Use the SET plot resolution command to specify the resolution
of the bitmap file (default = 1024 × 768). Use the SET out command to specify
the name of the file.
Screen Capture — Graphics software can assist in the production/presentation of 3DEC results.
3DEC ’s MOVIE option allows graphics images to be stored and later displayed in series. A movie
viewer is contained in the “\ITASCA\Utility” directory.
2.1.5 Version Identification
The version number of 3DEC follows a simple numbering system that identifies the level of updates
in the program. There are three numerical identifiers in the version number — that is,
Version I.JK
where
I is an integer starting with 1 that identifies a major release of the code;
J is an integer that is incremented whenever a modification is made that requires
a major change to the code structure for a supplemental upgrade release of
3DEC; and
K is an integer that is incremented when minor modifications are officially re-
leased as an update to the current version.
In addition to the version number, sub-version numbers are also used to identify minor changes
to 3DEC that have been made since the official version was released. Users may access the latest
sub-version of the current version of 3DEC on our website at http://www.itascacg.com. (Contact
Itasca for further information.) However, 3DEC with a sub-version number greater than that of
the officially-released version should be used with caution, because not all features have been fully
tested.
By typing the command
print version
the complete version number, including the sub-version number, can be obtained.
3DEC Version 3.0

2-6 User’s Guide
2.1.6 Start-up
The default installation procedure creates an “Itasca Codes” group with icons for 3DEC. An
environment variable pointing at the “\ITASCA\System” directory is created. The necessary
drivers for the hardware key are also installed — be sure that the 3DEC hardware key is attached
to the LPT1 port on your computer.
To load 3DEC, simply click the appropriate icon in the Itasca Codes group. Use the Properties
option in Win95 to identify a working directory — in fact, create as many icons as needed to identify
a number of individual project directories. Double-click the appropriate icon.
Alternatively, the 3DEC executable can be started in an existing DOS session in the standard DOS
manner, if so desired. For example, to load 3DEC type
3dec
at the DOS prompt while in the directory where the file “3DEC.EXE” resides.
In order to facilitate the running of the data files contained in the 3DEC manual, a batch file,
“3DEC.BAT,” is provided in every sub-directory described in “INSTNOTE.PDF.” By double-
clicking on “3DEC.BAT” in a specific directory from the Windows Explorer, the user can start
up 3DEC to execute the data files in that directory.
2.1.7 Program Initialization
On start-up, 3DEC will look for the file named “3DEC.INI” in the current directory and then, if
not found, in the directory pointed to by the ITASCA environment variable. (By default, this is the
“\ITASCA\System” directory.) The “3DEC.INI” file can contain any 3DEC commands that preset
attributes of the program that you may wish to apply every time 3DEC is used.
If the file “3DEC.INI” does not exist, 3DEC simply continues without error. Note that some
commands in a “3DEC.INI” file may result in an error message.
2.1.8 Running 3DEC
3DEC can be run interactively or from an input data file in command-driven mode. If you wish to
run the code interactively, just begin typing in commands. 3DEC will execute each command as
the <Enter> key is pressed. If an error arises, an error message will be written to the screen. (See
Section 2 in the Command Reference for explanations of error messages.)
As an alternative, an input data file may be created using a text editor (see Section 2.1.4). This file
contains a set of commands just as they would be entered in the interactive mode. Although the data
file may have any name, a common identifying extension (e.g., “.DAT”) will help to distinguish it
from other 3DEC files (see Section 2.9).
3DEC Version 3.0

GETTING STARTED 2-7
The data file can be read into 3DEC by typing the command
call file.dat
on the command line, in which “FILE.DAT” is the user-assigned name for the data file. You will
see the data entries scroll up the screen as 3DEC reads each line.
2.1.9 Installation Tests
Three simple data files, “TEST1.DAT,” “TEST2.DAT” and “TEST3.DAT,” are included in the
“\Tutorial\Beginner” directory so that you can test that 3DEC is installed properly on your com-
puter. These files test the calculation kernel, the graphics screen plotting, and the hardcopy plotting
facilities for your computer. In order to run the third test, a Windows-compatible printer must be
installed as your default printer.
To run these tests, double-click on “3DEC.BAT” in the “\Tutorial\Beginner” directory. The code
will load, and the 3DEC start-up heading will appear on your screen.
At the 3dec> prompt, type
call test1.dat
and press <Enter>. Several data entries should scroll up the screen, and a simple model will be
executed for 1000 calculation steps. Example 2.1 contains the results of a successful “TEST1.DAT”
run. The output in this figure summarizes information on the model.
Now enter the command
call test2.dat
A screen plot of this model should appear. The plot is a block plot of the model showing the top
block sliding down the fixed bottom block. Press the <Q> key to close the plot window and return
to the 3dec> prompt.
If a Windows-compatible printer is installed, type
call test3.dat
and the plot shown in Figure 2.1 should be sent to your printer. If you do not have a printer
connected, type
quit
to stop the installation testing.
3DEC Version 3.0

2-8 User’s Guide
Example 2.1 3DEC output from “TEST1.DAT”

>pri max
No. Cycles = 2000 MFREE = 27571 MTOP = 1250000 ISMAX = 249999

No. of blocks (total) 2
No. of blocks (visible) 2
No. of vertices 154
No. of zones 399
min max average total

block vol. 2.887E+02 7.113E+02 5.000E+02 1.000E+03
block mass 5.774E+05 1.423E+06 1.000E+06 2.000E+06
zone vol. 6.659E-01 6.841E+00 2.506E+00 1.000E+03
zone mass 1.332E+03 1.368E+04 5.013E+03 2.000E+06
min max average s.dev.
zone stress s11 -2.210E+04 2.365E+04 -1.479E+03 7.536E+03
s22 -1.273E+05 0.000E+00 -4.358E+04 3.975E+04
s33 -2.104E+04 1.896E+04 -5.028E+00 6.906E+03
s12 -4.905E+03 3.180E+04 8.059E+03 8.208E+03
s13 -1.111E+04 8.867E+03 1.665E+01 1.704E+03
s23 -4.386E+03 5.525E+03 1.671E+01 1.449E+03
grid-point x-vel 5.424E-01 3.478E-01
y-vel 3.139E-01 2.011E-01
z-vel 1.488E-03 3.512E-04
fx 1.613E+05 2.956E+04
fy 1.302E+06 1.299E+05
fz 2.333E+03 2.786E+02
x-dis 2.862E-01 1.833E-01
y-dis 1.753E-01 1.118E-01
z-dis 8.237E-04 1.929E-04
No. of contacts 1
No. of sub-contacts 58
If you are not able to reproduce the results of any or all of these three tests, you should review the
system requirements and installation steps in Sections 2.1 through 2.1.7. If you are still having
difficulty, we recommend that you contact Itasca and describe the problem you have encountered
and the type of computer you are using (see Section 6.2 for error-reporting procedures).
3DEC Version 3.0

GETTING STARTED 2-9
3DEC (Version 3.00)

12-Aug-02 16:01
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 200.00
center 5.000E+00
5.000E+00
5.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 2000
Figure 2.1 PostScript plot from “TEST3.DAT”
3DEC Version 3.0

2.2 A Simple Tutorial — Use of Common Commands
This section is provided for the new user who wishes to begin experimenting with 3DEC right away.
A simple example is presented to help you learn some of the basic aspects of solving problems with
3DEC.
The example is a three-dimensional model of a sedimentary rock slope. This is a cut slope in rock
with steeply dipping foliation planes and is based on an actual problem described by Starfield and
Cundall, 1988. A rotational failure was found to occur with simultaneous sliding along both the
foliation planes and shallow-dipping fracture planes. The rotational failure mode was identified by
two-dimensional distinct element analysis as the principal mechanism for the slope collapse.
The three-dimensional model contains two intersecting discontinuities in the slope, forming a
wedge. We will evaluate the stability of the slope for different values of joint friction. (The data
file, “TUT.DAT,” included in the “\Tutorial\Beginner” directory, contains all the commands we are
about to enter interactively.)
We run this problem interactively (i.e., by typing the commands from the keyboard, pressing
<Enter> at the end of each command line, and seeing the results directly). To begin, load 3DEC
by double-clicking on “3DEC.BAT” in the “\Tutorial\Beginner” directory. Your computer will
load the program and display the initial heading followed by the interactive prompt 3dec>.
We begin by specifying a single polyhedral block using the POLY brick command.* Type
poly brick (0,80) (0,50) (-30,80)
and press <Enter> to continue. This command creates a brick-shaped polyhedron which extends
from coordinates 0 to 80 units in the x-direction, from 0 to 50 units in the y-direction, and from -30
units to 80 units in the z-direction. To see the polyhedron, type
plot
A perspective view of the polyhedron will appear on the screen. The model is viewed from a viewing
plane which is defined as being oriented parallel to and coincident with the graphics screen. The
model view is defined in terms of the position of the viewing plane relative to the model reference
axes. The model axes are a left-handed set (x,y,z) oriented, by default, as x (east), y (vertically
up) and z (north). The default view of the model is from the viewing plane oriented parallel to the
xy-plane of the model, with the centroid of the model positioned at the center of the screen. The
model can be moved and rotated by pressing selected keys on the keyboard. For example, to rotate
the model about the x- or y-axes of the viewing plane, press the <3> key and then the arrow keys
on the numeric keypad (up/down arrow keys cause rotation about an axis pointing to the right in the
viewing plane, left/right arrow keys cause rotation about an axis pointing upward in the viewing
plane). The user should turn to Section 5 for a full description of the facilities available in the
graphical interface.
* See the command reference list in Section 1.2 in the Command Reference for further details. Note
that command words can be abbreviated (see Section 2.5).
3DEC Version 3.0

GETTING STARTED 2 - 11
To continue the problem and return to the 3dec> prompt, strike the <Q> key. The polyhedron is
now split into separate polyhedra by using the JSET command. First, we create boundary blocks
that will confine the slope blocks. Enter the commands
jset dip 90 dd 180 origin 0,0,0
jset dip 90 dd 180 origin 0,0,50
These commands create two joint planes through the model at locations defined by a dip angle
(dip), a dip direction (dd), and a location on the plane (origin). The dip angle and dip direction
are oriented relative to the model axes. (See Section 3.2.2 for further information on locating joint
planes in the model.) The bounding blocks are then hidden from view before we introduce joint
planes that represent the actual joint structure in the slope. (Note that blocks hidden from view will
not be cut by the JSET command.) To hide the bounding blocks, type
hide 0,80 0,50 -30,0
hide 0,80 0,50 50,80
mark region 1
Blocks located in the range 0<x<80, 0<y<50, -30<z<0 and in the range 0<x<80, 0<y<50, 50<z<80
will be hidden from view. The visible blocks are assigned a region number. Region numbers
facilitate the application of commands to a group of blocks within a specific region.
We now create the shallow-dipping fracture planes with the commands
jset dip 2.5 dd 235 or 30,12.5,0
jset dip 2.5 dd 315 or 35,30,0
and the high angle foliation planes with the command

jset dip 76 dd 270 spacing 4 num 5 or 38,12.5,0
The last command contains two additional keywords that allow us to generate a set of joints auto-
matically. The spacing keyword specifies an average spacing between joint planes, and the num
keyword defines the number of joints in the joint set.
We now hide the slope blocks and create a horizontal joint plane that is the base of the slope
excavation.
hide 30,80 0,50 0,50
jset dip 0 dd 0 or 0,10,0
hide 0,80 0,10 -30,80
mark region 2
We assign region number 2 to the blocks within the excavation region. Finally, we hide the blocks
surrounding the slope blocks and create the joint planes that define the wedge in the slope.
seek
hide region 0
hide 0,80 0,10 0,50
hide 55,80 0,50 0,50
hide 0,30 0,50 0,50
3DEC Version 3.0

jset dip 70 dd 200 or 0,0,35

jset dip 60 dd 330 or 50,50,15
We can view the slope and joint planes by hiding the boundary blocks and the blocks representing
the excavation.
seek
hide region 0 2
We view the slope oriented at a selected perspective view defined by a dip angle and dip direction
relative to the viewing plane. We also magnify the view by a factor of 2.
plot dip 70 dd 210 mag 2 axes color material
Figure 2.2 shows the model at this view.
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 9:25
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 210.00
center 4.000E+01
2.500E+01
2.500E+01
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 2.00
cycle 0
Y
z x
Figure 2.2 3DEC model of a rock slope
3DEC Version 3.0

If you wish to make a hardcopy of a plot, enter the command COPY after returning to the 3dec>
prompt, and the plot will be sent (by default) to a Windows printer.*
Alternatively, you can send the plot to a file for printing at some later time. For example, the
commands
set plot po bw
copy slope.ps
will create a monochrome PostScript file, “SLOPE.PS,” of the last-viewed plot. The file can be
sent to a PostScript printer. The default size and orientation of a 3DEC plot is 8.5 in. × 11 in.
landscape.†
You can print this file without exiting 3DEC, if you wish. Type
sys dos
to spawn a DOS command process. You can then send the “SLOPE.PS” file to your PostScript
printer by using the DOS COPY command:
copy slope.ps Lp 1
Type the DOS command

exit
to return to 3DEC and the 3dec> prompt.
* The printer type can be changed with the SET plot command, and the output port can be changed
or a filename can be specified with the SET output command — see Section 1 in the Command
Reference.
† The size and orientation can be changed via the SET command. For example, to fit two 3DEC
PostScript plots on the same page for an 8.5 in. × 11 in. portrait plot, use the following command
to orient the top figure.
set plot post 72 396 0.6 0.6
For the bottom figure, use:

set plot post 72 36 0.6 0.6
Each SET command should be given prior to issuing the COPY command.
3DEC Version 3.0

Next, the boundary blocks are immobilized and gravity is activated by typing
seek
fix 0 80 0 10 0 50
fix 55 80 0 50 0 50
fix region 0
hide region 0
delete region 2
gravity 0 -10 0
seek
The FIX commands fix the current velocity (i.e., zero) of all blocks within the specified ranges. The
GRAVITY command assigns a gravitational acceleration in the negative y-direction. In this case we
specify a value of 10 m/sec2 .
Material properties are assigned to a property number for the blocks and joints by typing
prop mat=1 dens=2000
prop jmat=1 kn=1e9 ks=1e9 f=89.
prop jmat=2 kn=1e9 ks=1e9 f=0.0
For this problem, the mass density of all blocks is specified to be 2,000 units (kg/m3 , in this case).
Note that the mass density is assigned, not the unit weight of the block material. For this exercise,
the blocks are assumed to be rigid; block deformability is neglected.
Two different material numbers are assigned to joints in the model. Both material numbers have the
same contact normal (kn) and shear (ks) stiffness equal to 1.0 × 109 (here, Pa/m). Joint material 1
has a friction angle equal to 89◦ and joint material 2 has a friction angle equal to 0◦ . Joint material
2 is assigned to the joint contacts between the slope blocks and the boundary blocks, with the
command
change dip 90 dd 180 jmat=2
This provides a frictionless boundary along the vertical joint planes of the boundary blocks.
At this point, the problem is ready to be executed. As will be seen later, it is often helpful to judge
behavior (i.e., equilibrium, stability, instability) by observing the motion of specified points in the
rock mass. In this problem, we monitor the y-velocity of a point at the location x = 30, y = 30, z =
30. The command used to record this motion is
hist yvel (30,30,30) type 1
Following execution of this command, the program returns information about the selected moni-
toring point (30,30,30). The keyword type instructs the program to print the value (in this case, the
y-velocity of point (30,30,30)) on the screen at specified intervals.
Five hundred calculation cycles are executed by typing
step 500
3DEC Version 3.0

During execution, the current cycle count, the calculation time, the maximum out-of-balance force,
the y-velocity of the block vertex closest to point (30,30,30) and the clock time are printed on the
screen every 10 cycles. Inspection of these values indicates that equilibrium has been obtained.
(The velocity and out-of-balance force approach zero.) A graphical representation of this behavior
is obtained by typing
plot hist 1
To give hardcopy plots a heading, type

title
new title>ROCK SLOPE STABILITY
Next, type
plot pen hist 1
to create a hardcopy plot of the y-velocity history (see Figure 2.3).
Rock Slope Stability
(E-002) 3DEC (Version 3.00)

1.0
HISTORY PLOT
27-Aug-02 9:26
cycle 500
0.5
Hist. no. 1
-2.775E-02 to 1.248E-09
VS
0.0 Time
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
(E-001) Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.
Figure 2.3 History of y-velocity for initial rock slope
It is often helpful to save this initial state so that it can be restarted at any time — for example, to
perform parameter studies. To save the current state (in a file called “SLOPE.SAV”), type
save slope.sav
3DEC Version 3.0

The behavior of the slope can be studied by reducing the friction of the joints. We reduce the friction
angle to 6◦ with the following command.
prop jmat=1 f=6.0
Next, the calculation process continues; the problem state after 2000 additional cycles (2500 cycles
total) is shown in Figure 2.4. This figure was obtained following execution of the following
commands.
cycle 2000
hide reg 0
title
new title> ROCK SLOPE STABILITY -- WEDGE FAILURE
plot dip 70 dd 210 mag 2
The figure shows the failure mode that develops in the slope. The failure mode combines rotational
failure along the foliation planes and rotational failure of the wedge. The wedge failure dominates
the failure, as shown by the block plot in Figure 2.4. The rotational mechanism contributes to
the collapse. This can be seen in a vertical cross-section plot taken through the model. Enter the
command
plot xsec dip 90 dd 180 mag 4 wire disp blue
to view a vertical section through the wedge (see Figure 2.5). Note that cross-sectional plots can be
oriented at any angle through the model, and various parameters can be presented on these sections.
From this point, you may wish to play with the various features of 3DEC in an attempt to stabilize
the slope. Try restarting the previous file you created by entering
rest slope.sav
Try using the structural element logic described in Section 4 in Theory and Background to model
rock anchors or tiebacks to support the slope. (An example illustrating support for this slope is
given in Section 4.2.1.7 in Theory and Background.)
To exit 3DEC, type
quit
This ends the initial tutorial. In the following sections, we will present other features of 3DEC.
We recommend that you read the rest of Getting Started for a beginner’s guide to the mechanics of
using 3DEC. As you become more familiar with the code, turn to Section 3 for additional details
on problem solving with 3DEC.
3DEC Version 3.0

ROCK SLOPE STABILTY -- WEDGE FAILURE
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 9:26
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 210.00
center 4.000E+01
2.500E+01
2.500E+01
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 2.00
cycle 2500
z x
Figure 2.4 Rock slope failure in progress
ROCK SLOPE STABILTY -- WEDGE FAILURE
3DEC (Version 3.00)

Cross section plot:
27-Aug-02 9:26
geometric scale
0 2E+01
vector scale
0 2E+01
dip= 90.00 above

dd = 190.00
center 4.000E+01
2.500E+01
2.500E+01
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 4.00
cycle 2500
Max disp in plane =

3.648E+00
Figure 2.5 Vertical cross-section through wedge showing displacement vec-

tors
3DEC Version 3.0

2.3 Nomenclature
The nomenclature used in 3DEC is similar, for the most part, to that used in continuum stress
analysis programs. In addition though, special terminology is used to describe the discontinuum
features in a 3DEC model. The basic definitions are given here for clarification. Figure 2.6 is
provided to illustrate 3DEC terminology.
fault discontinuity
joint discontinuity
cable
block
in-situ
horizontal
boundary
stress
zone
gridpoint
interior boundary
(excavation)
roller bottom boundary
Figure 2.6 Example of a 3DEC model (not to scale)
3DEC MODEL — The 3DEC model is created by the user to simulate a physical problem. When re-
ferring to a 3DEC model, we imply a sequence of 3DEC commands (see Section 1 in the Command
Reference) which define the problem conditions for numerical solution.
BLOCK — The block is the fundamental geometric entity for the distinct element calculation. The
3DEC model is created by either “cutting” a single block into many smaller blocks, or creating
separate blocks and joining them together. Each block is an independent entity that may be detached
from other blocks or may interact with other blocks via surface forces. Another term for block is
polyhedron.
3DEC Version 3.0

CONTACT — Each block is connected to adjacent blocks via point contacts. A contact may be
considered a boundary condition that applies external forces to each block.
SUB-CONTACT — Each contact is divided into sub-contacts for both rigid and deformable blocks.
Interaction forces between blocks are applied at sub-contacts.
DISCONTINUITY — A discontinuity is a geologic feature that separates a physical mass into dis-
tinct parts. Discontinuities, for example, include joints, faults and fractures and other discontinuous
features in a rock mass.
To be represented in 3DEC, a discontinuity must have a trace length scale that is approximately of
the same order as the engineering structure being analyzed. A discontinuity in 3DEC is defined by
at least one contact between blocks.
ZONE — Deformable blocks are composed of tetrahedral finite-difference zones. Mechanical

changes (e.g., stress/strain) are calculated within each zone. Mixed-discretization (m-d) zones are
special zones that are composed of two overlays of five tetrahedral sub-zones. m-d zones provide
accurate solutions for block plasticity analysis.
GRIDPOINT — Gridpoints are associated with the corners of the tetrahedral finite-difference zones
(or sub-zones of m-d zones). There are always four gridpoints associated with each zone. A set
of x-, y-, z-coordinates is assigned to each gridpoint, thus specifying the exact location of the
finite-difference zones. Other terms for gridpoint are nodal point and node.
MODEL BOUNDARY — The model boundary is the periphery of the 3DEC model. Internal
boundaries (i.e., holes within the model) are also model boundaries.
BOUNDARY CONDITION — A boundary condition is the prescription of a constraint or controlled

condition along a model boundary (e.g., a fixed displacement or force for mechanical problems).
INITIAL CONDITIONS — This is the state of all variables in the model (e.g., stresses) prior to
any loading change or disturbance (e.g., excavation).
NULL BLOCK — Null blocks are blocks that represent voids (i.e., no material present) within the
model. Null blocks can be made “real” later in an analysis — for example, to simulate backfilling.
(Once a block is deleted from a model it cannot be restored.)
BLOCK CONSTITUTIVE MODEL — The block constitutive (or material) model represents the
deformation and strength behavior prescribed to the zones of deformable blocks in a 3DEC model.
Several constitutive models are available in 3DEC to simulate different types of behavior commonly
associated with geologic materials.
JOINT CONSTITUTIVE MODEL — The joint constitutive model represents the normal and shear
interaction between blocks at their contact (sub-contact) points. The joint model includes a normal
3DEC Version 3.0

and shear elastic stiffness component and a limiting shear and tensile strength component. The
basic joint model is the Coulomb-slip model.
STRUCTURAL ELEMENT — Structural elements are one-dimensional elements that represent the
interaction of structures (such as rock bolts or cable bolts) with a rock mass. Material nonlinearity
is possible with structural elements. Geometric nonlinearity occurs as a result of the large-strain
formulation.
STEP — Because 3DEC is an explicit code, the solution to a problem requires a number of com-
putational steps. During computational stepping, the information associated with the phenomenon
under investigation is propagated across the blocks in the model. A certain number of steps is
required to arrive at an equilibrium (or steady-flow) state for a static solution. Typical problems are
solved within 2000 to 4000 steps, although large complex problems can require tens of thousands
of steps to reach a steady state. When using the dynamic analysis option, STEP or CYCLE refers to
the actual timestep for the dynamic problem. Other terms for step are timestep and cycle.
STATIC SOLUTION — A static or quasi-static solution is reached in 3DEC when the rate of change
of kinetic energy in a model approaches a negligible value. This is accomplished by damping the
equations of motion. At the static solution stage, the model will be either at a state of force
equilibrium or at a state of steady flow of material if a portion (or all) of the model is unstable (i.e.,
fails) under the applied loading conditions. This is the default calculation mode in 3DEC and can
also be invoked with the DAMP auto or DAMP local command.
UNBALANCED FORCE — The unbalanced force indicates when a mechanical equilibrium state
(or the onset of joint slip or plastic flow) is reached for a static analysis. A model is in exact
equilibrium if the net nodal force vector at each block centroid or gridpoint is zero. The maximum
nodal force vector is monitored in 3DEC and printed to the screen when the STEP or CYCLE
command is invoked. The maximum nodal force vector is also called the “unbalanced” or “out-
of-balance” force. The maximum unbalanced force will never exactly reach zero for a numerical
analysis. The model is considered to be in equilibrium when the maximum unbalanced force is
small compared to the representative forces in the problem. If the unbalanced force approaches a
constant nonzero value, this probably indicates that joint slip or block failure and plastic flow are
occurring within the model.
DYNAMIC SOLUTION — For a dynamic solution, the full dynamic equations of motion (including
inertial terms) are solved; the generation and dissipation of kinetic energy directly affect the solution.
Dynamic solutions are required for problems involving high frequency and short duration loads —
e.g., seismic or explosive loading. The dynamic calculation is an optional module to 3DEC (see
Section 2 in Optional Features).
3DEC Version 3.0

2.4 The 3DEC Model
For most geomechanics analyses, the creation of a 3DEC model begins with a single block of a
size that spans the physical region being analyzed.* The model features are then introduced by
cutting this block into smaller blocks whose boundaries represent both the geologic structure (e.g.,
faults, bedding planes, joint structure) and engineered structures such as underground excavations
and tunnels.
All blocks in the model are defined by the x-, y-, z-coordinates of their vertices and centroid.
Contacts between blocks, as well as gridpoints within deformable blocks, are also defined by
their coordinate position. Model generation involves cutting the model block along planes whose
positions are defined by an orientation (dip and dip direction) and one location on the plane.
All entities of the 3DEC model (blocks, vertices, contacts, gridpoints and zones) are identified
uniquely by an address number in the main data array, allocated automatically by 3DEC. These
numbers may also be used to refer to a particular entity. The numbering system is not sequential
for each entity, so the user must identify the number via a plot or printout.†
For example, Figure 2.7 illustrates a 3DEC model block of the following dimensions: 10 units (say,
meters) in the x-direction, 10 units in the y-direction and 10 units in the z-direction. The model
block is divided into two blocks separated by a horizontal discontinuity located through the center
of the block.
The model shown in Figure 2.7 was created with the commands listed in Example 2.2, shown below.
Example 2.2 3DEC model block divided into two blocks

poly brick 0,10 0,10 0,10
jset origin 5 5 5
prop jmat 1 kn 1.33e7 ks 1.33e7 fric 20.0
prop mat 1 dens 2000
plot hold dip 70 dd 210 color mat
cyc 1
ret
* The 3DEC model can also be generated by creating separate blocks and joining them together. This
can be useful for building multiple blocky structures such as a masonry wall or arch bridge — e.g.,
see Section 3 in the Examples volume.
† In general, address numbers should be avoided if possible when referring to particular entities
in limiting the range of application of a command. Address numbers will likely change with
different versions of 3DEC. Other optional range phases, as listed in Section 1.1.3 in the Command
Reference, should be used whenever possible.
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 9:42
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 210.00
center 5.000E+00
5.000E+00
5.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 0
Figure 2.7 3DEC model block divided into two blocks
The two blocks have block numbers 218 and 1078. The blocks are connected by one contact located
at the center of the adjacent faces of the two blocks. The contact number is 1739. This information
can be obtained with the following commands.
print block
print contact
Upon cycling, contacts are automatically decomposed into sub-contacts at which mechanical inter-
actions between blocks are calculated. Sub-contacts are created by triangulating interacting block
faces. For rigid blocks, each triangular section of the face is associated with a vertex on the face.
In this example, we issue the command
cycle 1
to create the sub-contacts. Eight sub-contacts are created; associated with each of the four vertices
defining the two contacting faces. The sub-contact numbers can be viewed with the command
print contact location
The two blocks may be made deformable by creating finite-difference zones in each block. The
blocks in Example 2.2 are made deformable by adding the command
gen edge 20
The two blocks are each subdivided into six zones with each zone defined by four gridpoints. The
zone and gridpoint numbers and the gridpoint coordinates are printed with the command
3DEC Version 3.0

print zone location
Note that if we take one cycle, eight sub-contacts are created as before for the rigid blocks, but the
sub-contact numbers are different because their addresses are created after those for the zones and
gridpoints.
The address numbers also act as pointers to storage locations of all state variables in the model.
Data associated with each entity in the model are stored with that entity number. For example,
block forces, velocities and displacements for rigid blocks are stored with each block number.
For deformable blocks, vector quantities (e.g., forces, velocities, displacements) for a block are
stored with gridpoint numbers, while scalar and tensor quantities (e.g., stresses, material property
numbers) are stored with zone numbers. Contact data such as contact force, velocity and flow rates
are stored at sub-contact numbers. FISH can be used to access 3DEC data via the address numbers.
See Section 4 in the FISH volume for lists of the variables that can be accessed.
3DEC Version 3.0

2.5 Command Syntax
All input commands* to 3DEC are word-oriented and consist of a primary command word followed
by one or more keywords and values, as required. Some commands accept switches — that is,
keywords that modify the action of the command. Each command has the following format:
COMMAND keyword value . . . <keyword value . . . > . . .
Here, optional parameters are denoted by < >, while the ellipses ( . . . ) indicate that an arbitrary
number of such parameters may be given. The commands are typed literally on the command line.
You will note that only the first few letters are in bold type. The program requires these letters, at a
minimum, to be typed to recognize the command; command input is not case-sensitive. The entire
word for commands and keywords may be entered if the user so desires.
Many of the keywords are followed by a series of values which provide the numeric input required
by the keyword. The decimal point may be omitted from a real value, but may not appear in an
integer value.
Commands, keywords and numeric values may be separated by any number of spaces or by any of
the following delimiters:
( ) , =
A semicolon ( ; ) may be used to precede comments; anything that follows a semicolon in an input
line is ignored. It is useful, and strongly recommended, to include comments in data files. Not only
is the input documented in this way, the comments are echoed to the output as well, providing the
opportunity for quality assurance in your analysis.
A single input line, including comments, may contain up to 80 characters.
If more than 80 characters are required to describe a particular command sequence, then an amper-
sand (&) can be given at the end of an input line to denote that the next line will be a continuation
of that line. A total of 1024 characters per command sequence are allowed.
Please note that the typographical conventions listed in Table 2.2 are used throughout this manual.
* The commands and their meanings are presented in Section 1 in the Command Reference; a
summary is given in Section 1 in the Command and FISH Reference Summary.
3DEC Version 3.0

Table 2.2 Typographical conventions

Type style Used for
BOLD 3DEC commands and FISH statements
bold 3DEC keywords and FISH internal variables and functions
bold user-defined FISH variables and functions
Initial Caps menu items and buttons with the hot-keys underlined
var place-holders for variables
Press Me
button with the hot-key underlined
<A > type the key between < > (here, <A>) on the keyboard
<Shift-A> hold down the first key while pressing the second
(here, <Shift> and the <A> key)
3DEC Version 3.0

2.6 Mechanics of Using 3DEC
3DEC is based upon a command-driven format. Word commands control the operation of the
program. This section provides an introduction to the basic commands a new user needs to perform
simple 3DEC calculations. If you have not done so already, run the tutorial problem in Section 2.2
for an example of command-driven analysis with 3DEC.
In order to set up a model to run a simulation with 3DEC, three fundamental components of a
problem must be specified:
(1) a distinct-element model that matches the problem geometry;
(2) constitutive behavior and material properties; and
(3) boundary and initial conditions.
The model block defines the geometry of the problem. The constitutive behavior and associated
material properties dictate the type of response the model will display upon disturbance (e.g.,
deformational response due to excavation). Boundary and initial conditions define the in-situ state
(i.e., the condition before a change or disturbance in problem state is introduced).
After these conditions are defined in 3DEC, an alteration is made (e.g., excavate material or change
boundary conditions), and the resulting response of the model is calculated. The actual solution
of the problem is different for an explicit-solution program like 3DEC than it is for conventional
implicit-solution programs. (See the background discussion in Section 1.2.2 in Theory and Back-
ground.) 3DEC uses an explicit time-marching method to solve the algebraic equations. The
solution is reached after a series of computational steps. In 3DEC, the number of steps required
to reach a solution is controlled manually by the user. The user ultimately must determine if the
number of steps is sufficient to reach the solved state. See Section 2.6.4 for ways in which this is
done.
The general solution procedure for an explicit static* analysis with 3DEC is illustrated in Figure 2.8.
This procedure is convenient because it represents the sequence of processes that occur in the
physical environment. The basic 3DEC commands needed to perform simple analyses with this
solution procedure are described below.
* Dynamic analysis with 3DEC is discussed in Section 2 in Optional Features.
3DEC Version 3.0

MODEL SETUP
(1) Generate model block, cut block to create problem
geometry
(2) Define constitutive behavior and material properties
(3) Specify boundary and initial conditions
Step to equilibrium state
Examine the Model Response
PERFORM ALTERATIONS
For Example:
Excavate material
Change boundary conditions
Step to solution
Examine the Model Response
REPEAT FOR ADDITIONAL ALTERATIONS
Figure 2.8 General solution procedure for static analysis in geomechanics
3DEC Version 3.0

2.6.1 Model Generation
The 3DEC model is usually created by cutting the original 3DEC block into smaller blocks that
represent boundaries of physical features in the problem. The simplest block to create is brick-
shaped and is generated with the command
poly brick xl, xu yl, yu zl, zu
where (xl, xu), (yl, yu) and (zl, zu) are the lower- and upper-coordinate limits of the brick in the x-,
y- and z-directions.
The primary command used to create geologic structure (e.g., joints) is
jset
The JSET command can either create individual joints or invoke an automatic joint set generator to
create a set of joints defined by characteristic parameters — i.e., dip angle, dip direction, spacing,
spatial location and persistence.
The following example illustrates block cutting with the JSET command. The complete description
for this command is given in Section 1 in the Command Reference. Joint generation is explained
in more detail in Section 3.2.2.
Example 2.3 Block model with three intersecting joint planes

poly brick -1 1 -1 1 -1 1
jset dd 270 dip 65 origin 0.3,0,0
jset dd 230 dip 40 origin 0,0,-0.3
jset dd 320 dip 50 origin 0,0,0.3
ret
The three JSET commands define three joint planes through the model. The joints are located by
their dip direction, dd, dip angle, dip, and a single point on the plane, origin. See Figure 3.5 in
Section 3.2.2 for the definition of the orientations for dip direction and dip angle relative to the
3DEC model axes.
By typing the command
plot dip 70 dd 200
a plot of the model blocks oriented relative to the model reference axes is shown in the graphics
mode (see Figure 2.9).
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 9:43
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 200.00
center -2.980E-08
-2.980E-08
-2.980E-08
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 0
Figure 2.9 Block model with three intersecting joint planes
Shapes of engineered structures must also be cut in the 3DEC block, and these must be created
before model execution begins. The JSET command can also be used to create shapes in a model.
Boundaries of excavations are created as joint planes.
An additional command, TUNNEL, is provided specifically to create tunnel shapes. The TUNNEL
command creates a tunnel whose boundary is formed by planar segments that connect the two end
faces of the tunnel, designated face A and face B. For example, a square-shaped tunnel can be
created in the Example 2.3 model by adding the commands in Example 2.4.
Example 2.4 Tunnel in jointed rock

tunnel a (-.3,-.3,-1.5) (-.3,.3,-1.5) (.3,.3,-1.5) (.3,-.3,-1.5) &
b (-.3,-.3,1.5) (-.3,.3,1.5) (.3,.3,1.5) (.3,-.3,1.5)
remove -0.3,0.3 -0.3,0.3 -1.5,1.5
; plot excavation and joint structure only
plot hold exc joint
ret
Four vertices define each tunnel face; the vertices for each face must be entered in the same order
to form connecting planes between the faces. The REMOVE command is used to delete the blocks
3DEC Version 3.0

within the tunnel region. The resulting model is shown in Figure 2.10. The excavation blocks and
the joint structure can also be plotted separately with the command (see Figure 2.11):
plot exc joint
Note that only the joints created by the JSET command are plotted in Figure 2.11. The “fictitious”
joints created when the tunnel excavation was made with the TUNNEL command are not shown.
These joints lock the adjoining blocks together so that they behave as one block. Joining blocks via
fictitious joints can also be accomplished with the JOIN command. See Section 3.2.2 for details.
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 9:43
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 200.00
center -2.980E-08
-2.980E-08
-2.980E-08
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 0
Figure 2.10 Tunnel in jointed rock
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 9:43
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 200.00
center -2.980E-08
-2.980E-08
-2.980E-08
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 0
Figure 2.11 Tunnel in jointed rock — excavation and joint structure
2.6.2 Assigning Material Models
2.6.2.1 Block Models
Once all block cutting is complete, material behavior models must be assigned for all the blocks and
discontinuities in the model. By default, all blocks are rigid. In most analyses, blocks should be
made deformable. Only for cases in which stress levels are very low or the intact material possesses
high strength and low deformability can the rigid block assumption be applied (for example, see
the slope failure tutorial in Section 2.2).
Blocks are made deformable via the command
gen edge v
or
gen quad ndiv i1 i2 i3
The GEN (or GENERATE) command invokes an automatic mesh generator that fills each block with
tetrahedral-shaped finite difference zones. The command GEN edge v will work for blocks of any
arbitrary shape. The value v defines the average edge length of the tetrahedral zones — i.e., the
smaller the value for v, the higher the density of zones in a block. Care should be taken, though, to
not create zones that have a high aspect ratio; a practical limit on aspect ratio is approximately 1:5
for reasonable solution accuracy. Type
3DEC Version 3.0

plot zol
to check the zoning in a model.

The command GEN quad ndiv i1 i2 i3 should be used if blocks are prescribed a plastic material model.
This type of zoning provides a more accurate solution for plasticity problems (see Section 1.2.2.5
in Theory and Background for a description of this type of zoning). The GEN quad command,
however, may not work for all block shapes; if not, the GEN edge command should be used for the
remaining blocks.
There are five built-in material models for deformable blocks in 3DEC; these are described in
Section 2 in Theory and Background. Three models are sufficient for most analyses the new user
will make. These are assigned by the following commands
excavate ; null model
change cons=1; elastic model
change cons=2; Mohr-Coulomb model
The EXCAVATE command simulates the excavation or removal of material that will be replaced at
a later stage in the analysis. Blocks within the region that is excavated can be changed back into
elastic or elastic-plastic material with the FILL command. For example, if the excavation for the
tunnel model of Example 2.4 is to be filled at a later stage, the EXCAVATE command should be used
in place of the REMOVE command. If a block is deleted via the REMOVE or DELETE command, it
cannot be restored at a later stage.
The CHANGE command changes the material model assigned to a deformable block. Blocks changed
to cons=1 are assigned isotropic elastic material behavior, while blocks changed to cons=2 are
assigned Mohr-Coulomb plasticity behavior. By default, all deformable blocks are assigned cons=1.
The models are described briefly in Table 3.2 in Section 3.7.1.
The blocks changed to cons=1 and cons=2 must have material properties assigned via the PROPERTY
mat command. Note that properties are not assigned to specific blocks, but rather to a material
number. Properties may be assigned to as many as 50 material numbers. The material numbers are
then assigned to blocks with the CHANGE mat command.
For the elastic model, the required properties are
(1) density;
(2) bulk modulus; and
(3) shear modulus.
3DEC Version 3.0

NOTE: Bulk modulus, K, and shear modulus, G, are related to Young’s modulus, E, and Poisson’s
ratio, ν, by:
E
K = (2.1)
3(1 − 2ν)
E
G = (2.2)
2(1 + ν)
or
9KG
E = (2.3)
3K + G
3K − 2G
ν = (2.4)
2(3K + G)
For the Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model, the required properties are:

(1) density;
(2) bulk modulus;
(3) shear modulus;
(4) friction angle;
(5) cohesion;
(6) dilation angle; and
(7) tensile strength.
If any of these properties are not assigned, their values are set to zero by default.
For both the elastic and Mohr-Coulomb models, density, bulk modulus and shear modulus must be
assigned positive values for 3DEC to execute.
3DEC Version 3.0

2.6.2.2 Joint Models
In addition to block material models, a material model must also be assigned to all discontinuities
(i.e., contacts) in the model. There are two built-in constitutive models for discontinuities (summa-
rized in Table 3.3 in Section 3.7.2). The model sufficient for most analyses is the (elastic-perfectly
plastic) Coulomb slip model, which is assigned to discontinuities with the command
change jcons=1
By default, all discontinuities are assigned jcons=1.

The material models for discontinuities also have material properties assigned with the PROPERTY
jmat command. As with blocks, properties are not assigned directly to the discontinuities but to
material numbers. The material numbers are then assigned to the discontinuities with the CHANGE
jmat command.
For the Coulomb slip model, the required properties are:
(1) normal stiffness;
(2) shear stiffness;
(3) friction angle;
(4) cohesion;
(5) dilation angle; and
(6) tensile strength.
If any of these properties are not assigned, their values are set to zero by default. Normal and shear
stiffnesses must be assigned positive values for 3DEC to execute. Example 2.5 demonstrates the
application of block and joint material models to the tunnel example.
Example 2.5 Assigning material models and properties

gen edge 1.0
prop mat=1 dens 2000 bulk 1.5e9 g .6e9
prop jmat=1 kn 1e9 ks 1e9 coh 1e9 ten 1e9
ret
The commands in Example 2.5 are entered to assign a mass density of 2000 kg/m3 , bulk and shear
moduli of 1.5 GPa and 0.6 GPa to the deformable blocks, normal and shear stiffnesses of 1.0 GPa/m,
and cohesion and tensile strength of 1.0 GPa to the joints. Note that we assign a high cohesion and
tensile strength to the joints to prevent any slip or separation from occurring when we bring the
model to an initial force-equilibrium state.
3DEC Version 3.0

2.6.3 Applying Boundary and Initial Conditions
Boundary and initial conditions must not be applied until after all block cutting is complete and
the mesh for deformable blocks is generated. Mechanical boundary conditions are generally ap-
plied with the BOUNDARY command. This command is used to specify force, stress and velocity
(displacement) boundary conditions. Boundary forces and stresses can be applied to both rigid and
deformable blocks, but boundary velocities can only be applied to deformable blocks. (See the
commands FIX, FREE and APPLY to apply boundary conditions to rigid blocks.) Table 2.3 pro-
vides a summary of the boundary condition commands and their effect. Refer to Section 1.3 in the
Command Reference for a complete listing of keywords to these commands.
Table 2.3 Boundary condition command summary

Command Effect
BOUNDARY stress total stress applied to rigid or deformable blocks
xload load applied in x-direction to rigid or deformable blocks
yload load applied in y-direction to rigid or deformable blocks
zload load applied in z-direction to rigid or deformable blocks
xvel x-velocity applied to deformable blocks
yvel y-velocity applied to deformable blocks
zvel z-velocity applied to deformable blocks
FIX velocities fixed for rigid or deformable blocks
FREE velocities freed for rigid or deformable blocks
APPLY xvel x-velocity applied to rigid blocks
yvel y-velocity applied to rigid blocks
zvel z-velocity applied to rigid blocks
The commands BOUNDARY xload, yload and zload apply x-, y- and z-components of force at
boundary vertices. The command BOUNDARY stress specifies components of the total stress tensor
applied at the boundary. The commands BOUNDARY xvel, yvel and zvel fix the x-, y- and z-
components of velocity at selected boundary gridpoints.
Note that by using the BOUNDARY command, a condition or constraint is imposed that will not
change (unless specifically changed by the user).
Initial stress conditions can be specified for all zone stresses in deformable blocks and all normal
and shear stresses along joints between rigid blocks or deformable blocks. The INSITU command
is used to initialize stresses. By using this command, initial values are assigned to stresses; these
can change while the computation proceeds.
The initial stress state can also include the effect of gravity. This is invoked with the following
command.
3DEC Version 3.0

gravity gx gy gz
The first value is the gravitational acceleration component in the x-direction, the second value is
that in the y-direction and the third is that in the z-direction. Gravity can be omitted from a model if
the stress variation due to gravity is small across the model compared to the in-situ stresses. Gravity
is often applied to help identify loose blocks around an opening. This is demonstrated below. If
stresses due to gravity are the same magnitude as the in-situ stresses, then a stress gradient should
be applied with the INSITU command to speed convergence to the initial equilibrium.
Boundary and initial conditions can be applied to the tunnel model, for example, with the commands
listed in Example 2.6, below.
Example 2.6 Applying boundary and initial conditions

bound -1,1 0.9,1.1 -1,1 stress 0.0,-1.0e6,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0
bound -1.1,-0.9 -1,1 -1,1 xvel 0.0
bound 0.9,1.1 -1,1 -1,1 xvel 0.0
bound -1,1 -1,1 -1.1,-0.9 zvel 0.0
bound -1,1 -1,1 0.9,1.1 zvel 0.0
bound -1,1 -1.1,-0.9 -1,1 yvel 0.0
grav 0,-10,0
insitu stress -0.5e6 -1.0e6 -0.5e6 0.0 0.0 0.0
ret
A stress boundary of 1.0 MPa is applied in the vertical direction to the top boundary. Roller boundary
conditions are assigned to the lateral boundaries, and the bottom boundary is fixed from movement
in the y-direction. A gravitational acceleration of 10 m/sec2 acts in the negative y-direction. A
zero-velocity boundary along the bottom boundary is particularly important when gravity is acting;
this prevents the model from moving. Note that stress boundaries affect all degrees-of-freedom.
Thus, stress boundary conditions should always be applied before velocity boundary conditions at
the same boundary corners; otherwise, the prescribed velocity constraint will be lost. Also, note that
x-, y- and z-coordinate ranges are specified for each of the four BOUND commands. Care should
be taken to ensure that the boundary affected by the BOUND command falls completely within the
range.
3DEC Version 3.0

Type
print bound
to check boundary conditions.

The INSITU command initializes all stresses in the y-direction to -1.0 MPa and in the x- and z-
directions to -0.5 MPa.
2.6.4 Stepping to Initial Equilibrium
The 3DEC model must be at an initial force-equilibrium state before alterations can be performed.
The boundary conditions and initial conditions may be assigned such that the model is exactly at
equilibrium initially. However, often it is necessary to calculate the initial equilibrium state under
the given boundary and initial conditions, particularly for problems with complex geometries or
multiple materials. This is done by using either the STEP (or CYCLE) command. With the STEP
command, the user specifies a number of calculation steps to perform in order to bring the model to
equilibrium. The model is in equilibrium when the net nodal force vector at each centroid of rigid
blocks or gridpoint of deformable blocks is zero (see Section 1.2.2.5 in Theory and Background).
The maximum nodal force vector (called the maximum “out-of-balance” or “unbalanced” force) is
monitored in 3DEC and printed to the screen when the STEP command is invoked. In this way, the
user can assess when equilibrium has been reached.
For a numerical analysis, the out-of-balance force will never reach exactly zero. It is sufficient,
though, to say that the model is in equilibrium when the maximum unbalanced force is small
compared to the total applied forces in the problem. For example, if the maximum unbalanced
force is initially 1 MN and drops to approximately 100 N, then the model can be considered at
equilibrium, within 0.01% of the initial maximum unbalanced force.
This is an important aspect of numerical problem-solving with 3DEC. The user must decide when
the model has reached equilibrium. There are several features built into 3DEC to assist with this
decision. The history of the maximum unbalanced force may be recorded with the following
command:
hist unbal
Additionally, the history of selected variables (e.g., velocity or displacement at a gridpoint) may be
recorded. The following commands are examples:
hist xvel 5,5,5
hist ydisp 0,11,0
The first history records x-velocity at a gridpoint location closest to (x = 5, y = 5, z = 5), while the
second records y-displacement at a location closest to (x = 0, y = 11, z = 0) in the model. After
running several hundred (or thousand) calculation steps, a history of these records may be plotted
to indicate the equilibrium condition.
By default, 3DEC performs a static analysis by applying a mechanical damping algorithm known
as adaptive global (or auto) damping. This algorithm is described in Section 1.2.2.7 in Theory and
3DEC Version 3.0

Background. The data file in Example 2.7 illustrates the process to reach an initial equilibrium
state.
Example 2.7 Stepping to initial equilibrium

hist unbal
hist ydis 0.3,0.3,0
hist ty 1
step 500
save tun0.sav
ret
The initial unbalanced force is approximately 0.2 MN. After 500 steps, this force has dropped to
around 5 N. By plotting the two histories, it can be seen that the maximum unbalanced force has
approached zero, while the displacement has approached a constant magnitude of approximately
4.3 × 10−4 m. Type
plot hist 1
plot hist 2
to view these plots. The number following PLOT hist corresponds to the order in which the histories
are entered in the data file. Figures 2.12 and 2.13 show the unbalanced force and displacement
history plots, respectively.
(E+005) 3DEC (Version 3.00)

1.4
HISTORY PLOT
27-Aug-02 9:58
cycle 500
1.2 Hist. no. 1

5.457E+00 to 1.155E+05
VS
Time
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
-0.2
Figure 2.12 Maximum unbalanced force history
3DEC Version 3.0


0.0
HISTORY PLOT
27-Aug-02 9:58
cycle 500
-0.5
Hist. no. 2
-4.313E-04 to -1.742E-05
-1.0 VS
Time
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
-4.0
-4.5
-5.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Figure 2.13 y-displacement history at (.3, .3, 0)
It is very important in an analysis that the model be at equilibrium before alterations are made.
Several histories should be recorded throughout a model to ensure that a large force imbalance does
not exist. It does not affect the analysis adversely if more steps are taken than are needed to reach
equilibrium. However, it will affect the analysis if an insufficient number of steps is taken.
A 3DEC calculation can be interrupted at any time during stepping by pressing <Esc>. It often
is convenient to use the STEP command with a high step number and periodically interrupt the
stepping, check the histories, and resume stepping until the equilibrium condition is reached.
2.6.5 Performing Alterations
3DEC allows model conditions to be changed at any point in the solution process. These changes
may be of the following forms:
• excavation of material;
• addition or deletion of boundary loads or stresses;
• fix or free velocities of boundary corners; or
• change of material model or properties for blocks or discontinuities.
3DEC Version 3.0

Excavation is performed with either the DELETE (or REMOVE) command or EXCAVATE command.
Loads and stresses are applied with the BOUNDARY xload, yload, zload or stress command. Bound-
ary vertices are fixed via the BOUNDARY xvel, yvel or zvel command. The constraint at boundaries
is removed with BOUNDARY xfree, yfree and zfree. Material models for deformable blocks and
discontinuities are changed with the CHANGE command, while properties are changed with the
PROPERTY command.
It should be evident that several commands can be repeated to perform various model alterations.
For example, continue Example 2.7 from the initial equilibrium stage using the commands in
Example 2.8.
Example 2.8 Reduce the strength of the joints

rest tun0.sav
; reduce friction along joints
prop jmat 1 fric 6.0 coh 0.0 ten 0.0
;
reset time hist disp
hist unbal
hist ydisp 0.3,0.3,-0.1
hist ty 2
cycle 5000
save tun1.sav
hide -.4 .5 .3 .8 -1 -.5
pl hold dip 90 dd 190
ret
The three joints and the excavation in this model form an isolated wedge in the roof of the excavation.
The wedge is potentially unstable and can slide along the joint plane dipping at 65◦ . In Example 2.8
we reduce the strength of the joint structure in the model by setting the cohesion and tensile strength
to zero and the friction angle to 6◦ .*
The failure after an additional 5000 cycles is shown by the block plot in Figure 2.14. The wedge
in the roof of the excavation has become detached from the surrounding blocks and is falling into
the excavation. Blocks in front of the unstable wedge are hidden for better viewing of the wedge.
(Hidden blocks are still present for mechanical calculations.) The instability is also indicated by
the y-displacement history plot in Figure 2.15. The history at location (0.3,0.3,-0.1) corresponds
to one vertex on the wedge. Note that we reset the time, history records and displacement in the
model in Example 2.8, so that only the change in displacement due to the drop in joint strength is
monitored.
* Alternatively, we could start the analysis with the tunnel blocks still in place and the joint strength
set to a low value, and solve for an initial equilibrium state. Then, we could excavate the tunnel
and monitor the response.
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 10:08
dip= 90.00 above

dd = 190.00
center -2.980E-08
-2.980E-08
-2.980E-08
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 5500
z x
Figure 2.14 Sliding wedge in tunnel

0.0
HISTORY PLOT
27-Aug-02 10:08
cycle 5500
-1.0
Hist. no. 2
-7.410E-02 to -2.787E-05
VS
-2.0 Time
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
-6.0
-7.0
-8.0
-9.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Figure 2.15 y-displacement history at (.3, .3, -0.1)
3DEC Version 3.0

2.6.6 Saving/Restoring Problem State
Two other commands, SAVE and RESTORE, are helpful when performing analyses in stages. At the
end of one stage (e.g., initial equilibrium), the model state can be saved by typing
save file.sav
where file.sav is a user-specified filename. The extension “.SAV” identifies this file as a saved file
(see Section 2.9). This file can be restored at a later time by typing
rest file.sav
and the model state at the point at which the model was saved will be restored. It is not necessary
to build the model from the beginning every time a change is made; merely save the model before
the change and restore it whenever a new change is to be analyzed. For example, in the previous
example, the state should be saved after the initial equilibrium stage. Then, different methods can
be evaluated to stabilize the falling block.
For example, we inserted the following
save tun0.sav
after the STEP 500 command at the end of the data file for Example 2.7. Now we try stabilizing
the block with cable reinforcement using the commands in Example 2.9. A single cable is installed
through the wedge and into the surrounding rock. See Section 4 in Theory and Background and
Section 1 in the Command Reference for descriptions of the STRUCT cable command and cable
parameters assigned with the PROPERTY command.
Example 2.9 Stabilize roof block with a cable bolt

rest tun0.sav
; reduce friction along joints
prop jmat 1 fric 6.0 coh 0.0 ten 0.0
;
; add cable support
struct cable 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 prop 1 seg 4
struct prop 1 area 5e-4 e 1e9 yield 1e6 kbond 15e8 sbond 1e9
;
reset time hist disp
hist unbal
hist ydisp 0.3,0.3,-0.1
hist ty 2
cycle 5000
save tun2.sav
ret
3DEC Version 3.0

After the run is completed, the saved file, “TUN2.SAV,” can be restored and evaluated to study
the effect of cable reinforcement. A history of y-displacement shows that the wedge has stopped
moving after 4.3 × 10−3 m of vertical displacement.
The file “TUN0.SAV” can be restored again and different cable locations, orientations and properties
investigated. Several files can be linked together, with RESTORE tun0.sav beginning each section
and a different filename saved after execution. Each save file can then be evaluated separately after
the entire run is completed.

0.0
HISTORY PLOT
27-Aug-02 10:12
cycle 5500
-0.5
Hist. no. 2
-4.318E-03 to -2.692E-05
-1.0 VS
Time
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
-4.0
-4.5
-5.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Figure 2.16 y-displacement history at (.3, .3, -0.1) — wedge is stable
3DEC Version 3.0

2.6.7 Summary of Commands for Simple Analyses
The major command words described in this section are summarized in Table 2.4. These are all
that are needed to begin performing simple analyses with 3DEC. Start by running simple tests with
these commands (e.g., direct shear tests on single joints or simple excavation stability analyses).
It may be helpful to review the detailed description of these commands in Section 1.3 in Theory
and Background. Then try adding more complexity to the model. Before running very detailed
simulations though, we recommend that you read Section 3, which provides guidance on problem
solving in general.
Table 2.4 Basic commands for simple analyses

Function Command
Block Model Creation POLY
Block Cutting JSET
TUNNEL
Material Model & Properties for GEN
Blocks and Joints CHANGE
PROPERTY
Boundary/Initial Conditions BOUNDARY
INSITU
Initial Equilibrium (with gravity) GRAVITY
STEP
Perform Alterations DELETE
CHANGE
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
STRUCTURE cable
Monitor Model Response HISTORY
PLOT
Save/Restore Problem State SAVE
RESTORE
3DEC Version 3.0

2.7 Sign Conventions
The following sign conventions are used in 3DEC and must be kept in mind when entering input
or evaluating results.
BLOCK MOTION — Positive motion is in the positive coordinate axes directions.
DIRECT STRESS — Positive stresses indicate tension; negative stresses indicate compression.
SHEAR STRESS — With reference to Figure 2.17, a positive shear stress points in the positive
direction of the coordinate axis of the second subscript if it acts on a surface with an outward
normal in the positive direction. Conversely, if the outward normal of the surface is in the negative
direction, then the positive shear stress points in the negative direction of the coordinate axis of the
second subscript. The shear stresses shown in Figure 2.17 are all positive.
σzz
σzx σzy
σxy σxx σyz

σyx
σyy σyx σxz σyy
σxz
σxy
σyz
y
σxx
σzx
σzy
σzz
Figure 2.17 Sign convention for positive stress components
DIRECT STRAIN — Positive strain indicates extension; negative strain indicates compression.
SHEAR STRAIN — Shear strain follows the convention of shear stress (see above).
PORE PRESSURE — Fluid pore pressure is positive in compression.
3DEC Version 3.0

DIP, DIP DIRECTION — Dip and dip direction assume that the x-direction corresponds to “East,”
z-direction to “North” and y-direction to “Up.” The dip angle is measured in the negative y-
direction from the global xz-plane. The dip direction angle is measured in the global xz-plane,
clockwise from the positive z-axis. The x-, y- and z-components of vector quantities, such as
forces, displacements and velocities, are positive when pointing in the directions of the positive x-,
y- and z-coordinate space.
3DEC Version 3.0

2.8 Systems of Units
3DEC accepts any consistent set of engineering units. Examples of consistent sets of units for basic
parameters are shown in Table 2.5. The user should apply great care when converting from one
system of units to another. An excellent reference on the subject of units and conversion between
the Imperial and SI systems can be found in the Journal of Petroleum Technology (December 1977).
No conversions are performed in 3DEC except for friction and dilation angles, which are entered
in degrees.
Table 2.5 Systems of units — mechanical parameters
SI Imperial
Length m m m cm ft in
Density kg / m3 103 kg / m3 106 kg / m3 106 g / cm3 slugs / ft3 snails / in3
Force N kN MN Mdynes lbf lbf
Stress Pa kPa MPa bar lbf / ft2 psi
Gravity m / sec2 m / sec2 m / sec2 cm / s2 ft / sec2 in / sec2
where 1 bar = 106 dynes / cm2 = 105 N / m2 = 105 Pa;

1 atm = 1.013 bars = 14.7 psi = 2116 lbf / ft2 = 1.01325 × 105 Pa;
1 slug = 1 lbf - s2 / ft = 14.59 kg;
1 snail = 1 lbf -s2 / in; and
1 gravity = 9.81 m / s2 = 981 cm / s2 = 32.17 ft / s2 .
When selecting a system of units, care should be taken to avoid calculations that approach the pre-
cision limits of the computer hardware. For Pentium-based computers, the range is approximately
10−35 to 1035 in single precision. If numbers exceed these limits, it is likely that the program will
crash or, at least, produce artifacts in the model that may be difficult to identify or detect.
3DEC Version 3.0

2.9 Files
There are several types of files that are either used or created by 3DEC. The files are distinguished
by their extensions and are described below.
INITIALIZATION FILE
“3DEC.INI” — This is a formatted ASCII file, created by the user, that 3DEC will automatically
access upon start-up or when a NEW command is issued. 3DEC searches for the file “3DEC.INI”
in the directory in which the code is executed and, if not found, in the “\ITASCA\System” folder.
The file may contain any valid 3DEC command(s) (see Section 1 in the Command Reference).
Although this file does not need to exist (i.e., no errors will result if it is absent), it is normally
used to change default options in 3DEC to those preferred by the individual user each time a new
analysis is run (see Section 2.1.7).
DATA FILES
The user has a choice of running 3DEC interactively (i.e., entering 3DEC commands while in the
3DEC environment) or via a data file (also called a “batch file”). The data file is a formatted ASCII
text file created by the user which contains the set of 3DEC commands that represents the problem
being analyzed. In general, creating data files is the most efficient way to use 3DEC. To use data
files with 3DEC, see the CALL command in Section 1 in the Command Reference. Data files can
have any filename and any extension. It is recommended that a common extension (e.g., “.DAT”)
for 3DEC input commands, and “.FIS” for FISH function statements) be used to distinguish these
files from other types of files. Important note: The end of each line in a text file must be terminated
by a carriage return. If not, the line will not be processed. It is a good idea to put in a “ret” line or
comment as the last line of a data file in order to avoid this.
SAVE FILES
“3DEC.SAV” — This file is created by 3DEC at the user’s request when issuing the command
SAVE. The default file name is “3DEC.SAV,” which will appear in the default directory when
quitting 3DEC. The user may specify a different filename by issuing the command SAVE filename,
where filename is a user-specified filename. “3DEC.SAV” is a binary file containing the values of
all state variables and user-defined conditions. The primary reason for creating Save files is to allow
one to investigate the effect of parameter variations without having to rerun a problem completely.
A Save file can be restored and the analysis continued at a subsequent time (see the RESTORE
command in Section 1 in the Command Reference). Normally, it is good practice to create several
Save files during a 3DEC run.
LOG FILES
“3DEC.LOG” — This file is created by 3DEC at the user’s request when issuing the command
SET log on. It is a formatted ASCII file. The default name of the file is “3DEC.LOG,” which will
appear in the default directory after quitting 3DEC. The user may specify a different filename by
issuing the command SET log filename, where filename is a user-supplied filename. The command
3DEC Version 3.0

may be issued interactively or be part of a data file. Subsequent to the SET log on command, all text
appearing on the screen will be copied to the log file. The log file is useful in providing a record of
the 3DEC work session; it also provides a document for quality-assurance purposes.
HISTORY FILES
“3DEC.HIS” — This file is created by 3DEC at the user’s request when issuing the command
HISTORY write n, where n is a history number (see the HISTORY command, Section 1 in the Com-
mand Reference). It is a formatted ASCII file. The default name of the file is “3DEC.HIS,”
which will appear in the default directory after quitting 3DEC. The user may specify a different
filename by issuing the command SET hisfile filename. The user-supplied filename takes the place
of “3DEC.HIS.” The command may be issued interactively or be part of a data file. A record of
the history values is written to the file, which can be examined using any text editor that can access
formatted ASCII files. Alternatively, the file may be processed by a commercial graph-plotting or
spreadsheet package.
TABLE FILES
“3DEC.TAB” — This file is created by 3DEC at the user’s request when issuing the command
TABLE n write dx, where n is the table number and dx specifies the abscissa spacing for the data
points (see the TABLE command in Section 1.3 in the Command Reference). It is a formatted
ASCII file. The default name of the file is “3DEC.TAB,” which will appear in the default directory
after quitting 3DEC. The user may specify a different filename by adding the filename to the end
of the TABLE n write dx command. The file will consist of a single column of y-data at an even
spacing of dx. If dx = 0, the data will be the actual x,y pairs in table n.
PLOT FILES
Plot files are created at the user’s request by issuing the command COPY filename in the command
mode, after first creating the plot. By default, a PostScript file will be created with the user-specified
filename when COPY filename is issued. The output type can be changed with the SET plot command.
PCX output can also be created by either setting this output mode on with the SET pcx on command
before creating the plot, or by pressing the <F2> key while in the graphics-screen mode. When
PCX mode is turned on, or the <F2> key is pressed in the graphics-screen mode, a PCX screen
dump will be written to a file named “3DEC.PCX.” Only one screen image can be written to a
file. The user may specify a different title name with the command SET pcxfile filename where the
user-specified filename takes the place of “3DEC.PCX.” PCX files consist of bitmaps of screen
images; they are accepted by many image display and manipulation programs.
MOVIE FILES
“3DEC.DCX” — This file is created by 3DEC at the user’s request when issuing the command
MOVIE on. Its purpose is to capture graphics images for playback on the computer monitor as a
movie at a later time. Note that this feature will only work with VGA graphics. The default file
name is “3DEC.DCX,” which will appear in the default directory when quitting 3DEC. The user
3DEC Version 3.0

may specify a different filename by issuing the command MOVIE file filename, where filename takes
the place of “3DEC.DCX.” A DCX file format is used for the movie file. See the MOVIE command
in Section 1.3 in the Command Reference. Note that the DCX format is limited to 1024 frames.
2.10 References
Journal of Petroleum Technology. “The SI Metric System of Units and SPE’s Tentative Metric
Standard,” 1575-1616 (December, 1977).
3DEC Version 3.0

PROBLEM SOLVING WITH 3DEC 3-1
3 PROBLEM SOLVING WITH 3DEC
This section provides guidance in the use of 3DEC in problem solving for rock mechanics engi-
neering.* In Section 3.1, an outline of the steps recommended for performing a geomechanics
analysis is given, followed in Sections 3.2 through 3.10 by an examination of specific aspects that
must be considered in any model creation and solution. These include:
• model generation (Section 3.2);
• choice of rigid or deformable block analysis (Section 3.3);
• boundary and initial conditions (Sections 3.4 and 3.5);
• loading and sequential modeling (Section 3.6);
• choice of block and joint constitutive models and material properties
(Sections 3.7 and 3.8);
• ways to improve modeling efficiency (Section 3.9); and
• interpretation of results (Section 3.10).
Finally, the philosophy of modeling in the field of geomechanics is examined in Section 3.11; the
novice modeler in this field may wish to consult this section first. The methodology of modeling in
geomechanics can be significantly different from that in other engineering fields, such as structural
engineering. It is important to keep this in mind when performing any geomechanics analysis.
* Problem solving for coupled mechanical-thermal analysis is described in Section 1 in Optional

Features, and problem solving for dynamic analysis is discussed in Section 2 in Optional Features.
3DEC Version 3.0

3-2 User’s Guide
3.1 General Approach
The modeling of geo-engineering processes involves special considerations and a design philosophy
different from that followed for design with fabricated materials. Analyses and designs for structures
and excavations in or on rocks and soils must be achieved with relatively little site-specific data and
an awareness that deformability and strength properties may vary considerably. It is impossible to
obtain complete field data at a rock or soil site. For example, information on stresses, properties
and discontinuities can only be partially known, at best.
Since the input data necessary for design predictions are limited, a numerical model in geomechanics
should be used primarily to understand the dominant mechanisms affecting the behavior of the
system. Once the behavior of the system is understood, it is then appropriate to develop simple
calculations for a design process.
This approach is oriented toward geotechnical engineering, in which there is invariably a lack of
good data; but in other applications, it may be possible to use 3DEC directly in design if sufficient
data, as well as an understanding of material behavior, are available. The results produced in a
3DEC analysis will be accurate when the program is supplied with appropriate data. Modelers
should recognize that there is a continuous spectrum of situations, as illustrated in Figure 3.1,
below.
Typical Complicated geology; Simple geology;

inaccessible; $$$ spent on site
situation no testing budget investigation
Data NONE COMPLETE
Investigation of Bracket field behavior Predictive

Approach mechanisms by parameter studies (direct use in design)
Figure 3.1 Spectrum of modeling situations
3DEC may be used either in a fully predictive mode (right-hand side of Figure 3.1) or as a “numerical
laboratory” to test ideas (left-hand side). It is the field situation (and budget), rather than the program,
that determine the types of use. If enough data of a high quality are available, 3DEC can give good
predictions.
Since most 3DEC applications will be for situations in which little data are available, this section
discusses the recommended approach for treating a numerical model as if it were a laboratory test.
The model should never be considered as a “black box” that accepts data input at one end and
produces a prediction of behavior at the other. The numerical “sample” must be prepared carefully,
and several samples tested, to gain an understanding of the problem. Table 3.1 lists the steps
recommended to perform a successful numerical experiment; each step is discussed separately.
3DEC Version 3.0

Table 3.1 Recommended steps for numerical analysis in geomechanics
Step 1 Define the objectives for the model analysis

Step 2 Create a conceptual picture of the physical system
Step 3 Construct and run simple idealized models
Step 4 Assemble problem-specific data
Step 5 Prepare a series of detailed model runs
Step 6 Perform the model calculations
Step 7 Present results for interpretation
3.1.1 Step 1: Define the Objectives for the Model Analysis
The level of detail to be included in a model often depends on the purpose of the analysis. For
example, if the objective is to decide between two conflicting mechanisms that are proposed to
explain the behavior of a system, then a crude model may be constructed, provided that it allows
the mechanisms to occur. It is tempting to include complexity in a model just because it exists in
reality. However, complicating features should be omitted if they are likely to have little influence
on the response of the model, or if they are irrelevant to the model’s purpose. Start with a global
view and add refinement as (and if) necessary.
3.1.2 Step 2: Create a Conceptual Picture of the Physical System
It is important to have a conceptual picture of the problem to provide an initial estimate of the ex-
pected behavior under the imposed conditions. Several questions should be asked when preparing
this picture. For example, is it anticipated that the system could become unstable? Is the pre-
dominant mechanical response linear or nonlinear? Are there well-defined discontinuities that may
affect the behavior, or does the material behave essentially as a continuum? Is there an influence
from groundwater interaction? Is the system bounded by physical structures, or do its boundaries
extend to infinity? Is there any geometric symmetry in the physical structure of the system?
These considerations will dictate the gross characteristics of the numerical model, such as the
design of the model geometry, the types of material models, the boundary conditions, and the
initial equilibrium state for the analysis. They will determine whether a three-dimensional model
is required or if a two-dimensional model can be used to take advantage of geometric conditions in
the physical system.
3DEC Version 3.0

3-4 User’s Guide
3.1.3 Step 3: Construct and Run Simple Idealized Models
When idealizing a physical system for numerical analysis, it is more efficient to construct and run
simple test models first, before building the detailed model. Simple models should be created at
the earliest possible stage in a project to generate both data and understanding. The results can
provide further insight into the conceptual picture of the system; Step 2 may need to be repeated
after simple models are run.
Simple models can reveal shortcomings that can be remedied before any significant effort is invested
in the analysis. For example, do the selected material models sufficiently represent the expected
behavior? Are the boundary conditions influencing the model response? The results from the
simple models can also help guide the plan for data collection by identifying which parameters
have the most influence on the analysis.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.1.4 Step 4: Assemble Problem-Specific Data
The types of data required for a model analysis include:

• details of the geometry (e.g., profile of underground openings, surface topography, dam
profile, rock/soil structure);
• locations of geologic structure (e.g., faults, bedding planes, joint sets);
• material behavior (e.g., elastic/plastic properties, post-failure behavior);
• initial conditions (e.g., in-situ state of stress, pore pressures, saturation); and
• external loading (e.g., explosive loading, pressurized cavern).
Since, typically, there are large uncertainties associated with specific conditions (in particular, state
of stress, deformability and strength properties), a reasonable range of parameters must be selected
for the investigation. The results from the simple model runs (in Step 3) can often prove helpful in
determining this range and in providing insight for the design of laboratory and field experiments
to collect the needed data.
3.1.5 Step 5: Prepare a Series of Detailed Model Runs
Most often, the numerical analysis will involve a series of computer simulations that include the
different mechanisms under investigation and span the range of parameters derived from the assem-
bled database. When preparing a set of model runs for calculation, several aspects, such as those
listed below, should be considered.
1. How much time is required to perform each model calculation? It can be difficult to obtain
sufficient information to arrive at a useful conclusion if model runtimes are excessive.
Consideration should be given to performing parameter variations on multiple computers
to shorten the total computation time.
2. The state of the model should be saved at several intermediate stages so that the entire run
does not have to be repeated for each parameter variation. For example, if the analysis
involves several loading/unloading stages, the user should be able to return to any stage,
change a parameter and continue the analysis from that stage. Consideration should be
given to the amount of disk space required for Save files.
3. Are there a sufficient number of monitoring locations in the model to provide for a clear
interpretation of model results and for comparison with physical data? It is helpful
to locate several points in the model at which a record of the change of a parameter
(such as displacement, velocity or stress) can be monitored during the calculation. Also,
the maximum unbalanced force in the model should always be monitored to check the
equilibrium or failure state at each stage of an analysis.
3DEC Version 3.0

3-6 User’s Guide
3.1.6 Step 6: Perform the Model Calculations
It is best to first make one or two model runs split into separate sections before launching a series of
complete runs. The runs should be checked at each stage to ensure that the response is as expected.
Once there is assurance that the model is performing correctly, several data files can be linked
together to run a complete calculation sequence. At any time during a sequence of runs, it should
be possible to interrupt the calculation, view the results, and then continue or modify the model as
appropriate.
3.1.7 Step 7: Present Results for Interpretation
The final stage of problem solving is the presentation of the results for a clear interpretation of
the analysis. This is best accomplished by displaying the results graphically, either directly on
the computer screen or as output to a hardcopy plotting device. The graphical output should be
presented in a format that can be directly compared to field measurements and observations. Plots
should clearly identify regions of interest from the analysis, such as locations of calculated stress
concentrations, or areas of stable movement versus unstable movement in the model. The numeric
values of any variable in the model should also be readily available for more-detailed interpretation
by the modeler.
We recommend that these seven steps be followed to solve geo-engineering problems efficiently.
The following sections describe the application of 3DEC to meet the specific aspects of each of
these steps in this modeling approach.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.2 Model Generation
One of the main tasks when performing a 3DEC analysis is building a numerical representation
of the real world situation. All 3DEC models will have an outer boundary to which boundary
conditions will be applied. In addition, most models will have features such as joints, faults,
cracks, excavations, or material property interfaces. Quite often the features to be modeled are not
continuous through the entire model. The complex shapes which result from the intersections of
noncontinuous planes in space are difficult to create and visualize. The purpose of this section is
to give some guidance in using a systematic approach to model building.
The first rule is: keep the model simple. Usually, a numerical model is being developed because
the real life situation is too complex to understand. There is a tendency to attempt to include every
possible feature in a numerical model. This results in a 3DEC model that is also too complex
to understand. The goal of the modeler should be to understand the mechanisms, properties, and
parameters that determine the model’s behavior. The time required to calculate a solution also
increases with increasing complexity. Therefore, it is to the modeler’s advantage to start with
a model that only includes the minimum of features. The complexity of the model can then be
increased by adding features one at a time and noting the effect. By using this approach, the
modeler has the best chance of gaining understanding of the parameters that are critical to the real
life situation.
3DEC is different from conventional numerical programs in the way that the model geometry is
created. A 3DEC model can be created in two ways: (1) by splitting a polyhedron into separate
polyhedra; and (2) by creating separate polyhedra and joining them together. For most geomechan-
ics analyses, a single block is created first, with a size that encompasses the physical region being
analyzed. Then, this block is cut into smaller blocks whose boundaries represent both geologic
features and engineered structures in the model. This cutting process is termed collectively as joint
generation; however, “joints” represent both physically real geologic structures and boundaries of
man-made structures or materials that will be removed or changed during the subsequent stages of
the 3DEC analysis. In this latter case, the joints are fictitious entities and their presence should not
influence model results. The representation of fictitious joints is discussed in Section 3.2.3.
3.2.1 Fitting the 3DEC Model to a Problem Region
The 3DEC model geometry must represent the physical problem to a sufficient extent to capture
the dominant mechanisms related to the geologic structure in the region of interest. The following
aspects must be considered.
1. In what detail should the geologic structure (e.g., faults, joints, bedding planes,
etc.) be represented?
2. How will the location of the model boundaries influence model results?
3. If deformable blocks are used, what density of zoning is required for accurate
solution in the region of interest?
All three aspects determine the size of the 3DEC model that is practical for analysis.
3DEC Version 3.0

3-8 User’s Guide
As mentioned above, there are two different starting points in building 3DEC models. The first
method is to describe a simple starting shape and slice it up to create the desired geometrical
features. The second involves defining complex polyhedral shapes and putting them together to
form the continuous mass. Both of these approaches make use of the POLY command.
There are five forms of the POLY command available in 3DEC.
POLY face
POLY brick
POLY cube
POLY prism
POLY tunnel
By using the POLY face command, virtually any shape polyhedra can be defined. Each face is
defined by a list of vertex coordinates. The list must be entered in counterclockwise order, looking
at the face from outside the polyhedra. All points on a face must be coplanar, and the resulting
polyhedra created by the face commands must be convex. Continuation lines are allowed, but the
coordinates for each vertex may not be split between lines. All faces required to close the polyhedra
must be specified. A simple example of using the POLY face command to generate a cube (1 unit
on each side) is as follows:
Example 3.1 A cube generated with the POLY face command

new
poly &
face 0,0,0 1,0,0 1,1,0 0,1,0 &
face 0,0,0 0,0,1 1,0,1 1,0,0 &
face 0,0,0 0,1,0 0,1,1 0,0,1 &
face 1,1,1 1,1,0 1,0,0 1,0,1 &
face 1,1,1 1,0,1 0,0,1 0,1,1 &
face 1,1,1 0,1,1 0,1,0 1,1,0
ret
The model created with the example is shown in Figure 3.2. In this case, a simple regular right-
angled solid is produced. The command can also be used to create complex shapes. Because of the
large amount of input required, the POLY face command is often best used in conjunction with the
external pre-processor program PGEN — see Section 5 in Theory and Background for examples.
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 10:35
dip= 60.00 above

dd = 210.00
center 5.000E-01
5.000E-01
5.000E-01
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 0
Y
z
x
Figure 3.2 Cubic model created with the POLY face command
The POLY brick command provides a simpler alternative to the POLY face command when the
problem region is a regular six-sided “brick-shaped” region. The parameters for the brick keyword
are the x-, y-, and z-limits of the solid (i.e., the region extends from coordinates xl to xu in the
x-direction, from coordinates yl to yu in the y-direction, and from coordinates zl to zu in the
z-direction). For example, to create the same model generated in Figure 3.2, the command is:
Example 3.2 A cube generated with the POLY brick command

new
poly brick 0,1 0,1 0,1
ret
POLY cube is a tool for generating irregularly-shaped boundaries. These boundaries may represent
geologic contacts or the borders of excavations. This is intended as an alternative to the PGEN
program. The advantage of POLY cube over the PGEN program is that the resulting shapes are
easier to zone and can be zoned as mixed discretization zones for plasticity. The disadvantage is
that the shapes can be complex in only two dimensions. Using PGEN, they can be zoned in three
dimensions. See Section 3.2.3.2 for an example of the complex use of this tool.
The POLY prism command is an extension of the POLY brick command to create prism-shaped
polyhedra. The two parallel faces of the prism are defined by an arbitrary number of vertices. The
opposing vertices on each face are then automatically connected to form the prism. The first face
3DEC Version 3.0

(face a) is defined by vertices entered in either a clockwise or counterclockwise order. The opposite
face (face b) must have its vertices entered in the same order as the corresponding vertices for face
a. Faces a and b must be planar and convex. The prism shown in Figure 3.3 is created by the
commands listed in Example 3.3.
Example 3.3 An octahedral-shaped prism generated with the POLY prism command
new
poly prism a (0,0,0) (-.5,.87,0) (-.5,1.87,0) (0,2.74,0) &
(1,2.74,0) (1.5,1.87,0) (1.5,.87,0) (1,0,0) &
b (0,0,4) (-.5,.87,4) (-.5,1.87,4) (0,2.74,4) &
(1,2.74,4) (1.5,1.87,4) (1.5,.87,4) (1,0,4)
ret
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 10:39
dip= 60.00 above

dd = 200.00
center 5.000E-01
1.370E+00
2.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 0
Y
z
x
Figure 3.3 An octahedral-shaped prism generated with the POLY prism com-
mand
The POLY tunnel command is specifically designed to generate a circular-shaped tunnel model.
This command works by constructing the model with individual blocks. This is in contrast to the
TUNNEL command, discussed in Section 3.2.3, which cuts an arbitrarily-shaped tunnel out of an
existing block. The blocks created by the POLY tunnel command are all six-sided with low aspect
ratios and are intended for use with the GEN quad command. (This command is recommended
for deformable-block plasticity analysis — see Section 3.3.) The user needs only to specify the
orientation, dimensions, and the number of blocks to be used for the tunnel. Additional jointing
3DEC Version 3.0

PROBLEM SOLVING WITH 3DEC 3 - 11
can be added with the JSET command, if desired. For example, to create a tunnel model with the
following dimensions:
radius 2.0 m
length 20.0 m
outside boundary 3.0 r
dip horizontal
heading south
blocks in each octant 1
annular blocks 2
blocks along the axis 3
use the POLY tunnel command as given in Example 3.4.
Example 3.4 A tunnel model generated with the POLY tunnel command
new
poly tunnel rad=2 leng=-10,10 ratr=3.0 dip=0 dd=0 nr=2 nt=1 nx=3
delete -2 2, -2 2 -10 10
ret
The model with the tunnel deleted is shown in Figure 3.4.
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 10:41
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 210.00
center -1.192E-06
-4.768E-07
0.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 0
Y
z x
Figure 3.4 Tunnel model created with the POLY tunnel command
3DEC Version 3.0

3.2.2 Joint Generation
The JSET command is used to make additional cuts in the solids, created with the POLY command,
to define joints, faults, and holes or excavations. The JSET command can be used to make single
cuts or multiple parallel cuts. Statistical parameters may be used to vary orientation, spacing and
persistence to match logged jointing data.
The JSET command is first demonstrated in this section for making single cuts. Some planning
should be made to optimize the sequence in which joints are created. Joints which define the
geometry of excavations are usually cut first (see Section 3.2.3), followed by the minor joints or
joint sets. Through-going faults are usually defined last.
The primary keywords for the JSET command are dip, dd (dip direction), and origin (origin). Unless
other keywords are used, the JSET command will create a single plane cutting through the model
in the orientation specified. The origin point may be any point on the plane. Figure 3.5 shows how
the orientations for dip and dip direction relate to the coordinate axes in 3DEC. The dip range is
from 0 to 90◦ . The dip direction range is from 0 to 360◦ .
Up (y)
North (z)
= Dip direction
= Dip
e
lin
e
ik
tr
S
East (x)
Joint plane
Figure 3.5 Terms describing the attitude of an inclined plane:

dip angle, α, is positive measured downward from the horizontal
(xz) plane; dip direction, β, is positive measured clockwise from
north (z)
Control of the continuity of cuts made using the JSET command is accomplished with the HIDE and
SEEK commands. The JSET command will only cut blocks that are currently visible.
3DEC Version 3.0

Example 3.5 illustrates the creation of a noncontinuous joint.
Example 3.5 Creation of a noncontinuous vertical joint

new
poly brick 0,1 0,1 0,1 ; create a block
jset dip 0 dd 0 or 0,.5,0 ; make a horizontal cut
hide dip 0 dd 0 or 0,.5,0 below ; hide the bottom block
jset dip 90 dd 90 or .5,0,0 ; vertical cut through top block only
seek ; make all blocks visible
ret
Figure 3.6 shows the full model and the joint structure plot for this example. Note that the vertical
joint does not penetrate the bottom block. 3DEC automatically assigns a joint ID number = 2 to
the horizontal joint and a joint ID number = 3 to the vertical joint. If desired, the joint ID number
can be controlled with the JSET command. For example,
jset dip 0 dd 0 or 0,.5,0 id = 1000
will create a horizontal joint with an ID number of 1000.

The ID numbers for joint faces and contacts are given sequentially as they are created. Therefore,
if two faults are defined that intersect, the edge to edge contacts at the line of intersection will have
the joint IDs of the second fault defined. This order becomes important if different properties are
to be assigned to the different faults. Property numbers of the face-to-face contacts that comprise
most of the area of joints can be assigned using the CHANGE command, in which the particular
joint to be changed is identified using either its joint ID number or orientation. The difficulty
comes in assigning property numbers to the edge-to-edge contacts that are created at joint and fault
intersections. It is easy to assign property numbers to edge-to-edge contacts by use of the joint ID
number. It is difficult to assign property numbers to edge-to-edge contacts by orientation because
they have a different orientation than either of the two intersecting planes that created them. There
is a PLOT option that allows plotting of joint material properties (the joint material item in the
options menu). This plot is useful in checking that the edge-to-edge contacts are assigned the
correct properties.
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 10:45
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 210.00
center 5.000E-01
5.000E-01
5.000E-01
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 0
z x
(a) full-solid view
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 10:45
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 210.00
center 5.000E-01
5.000E-01
5.000E-01
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 0
z x
(b) joint-structure view

Figure 3.6 Model created with the JSET and HIDE commands
3DEC Version 3.0

Concave blocks can be made by use of the JOIN command. The blocks that have been joined are
still convex, but the join logic locks the interface between them. For example, add the following
commands at the end of Example 3.5.
hide (0.5,1.0) (0.5,1.0) (0,1)
join on
Figure 3.7 shows the concave block that is created. Note that only visible blocks can be joined.
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 10:47
dip= 79.00 above

dd = 160.00
center 5.000E-01
5.000E-01
5.000E-01
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 0
z
X
Figure 3.7 Concave block created with the JOIN command
Joined blocks are plotted in the same color on the graphics screen. Also, contacts between joined
blocks are identified as master-slave (m-s) contacts. Type PRINT contact to check the contact type.
Note that “slaved” blocks will be automatically joined if they are connected to the same “master”
block. For example, if block A and block B are joined, and block A and block C are joined, then
block B will be joined automatically to block C.
The JSET command can also be used to generate a set of joints automatically based upon physically
measured parameters (i.e., joint dip, dip direction, spacing and persistence). By hiding selected
blocks, a set of noncontinuous joints can be generated. In Example 3.6, a jointed rock slope is
created containing both shallow and deeply dipping joint sets. Two noncontinuous fractures are
also created to define a rock wedge in the slope; see Figure 3.8.
3DEC Version 3.0

Example 3.6 Rock slope containing continuous and noncontinuous joints

new
poly brick 0 80 0 50 -30 80
; shallow-dipping fracture planes (continuous)
jset dip 2.45 dd 235 org 30 12.5 0
jset dip 2.45 dd 315 org 35 30 0
; high angle foliation planes (continuous)
jset dip 76 dd 270 spac 16 num 3 org 30,12.5,0
; intersecting discontinuities (non-continuous)
hide 0 80 0 10 0 50
hide 55 80 0 50 0 50
jset dip 70 dd 200 org 0 0 35
jset dip 60 dd 330 org 50 50 15
seek
hide 0,30 13,50 -30,80
ret
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 10:49
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 210.00
center 4.000E+01
2.500E+01
2.500E+01
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 0
z x
Figure 3.8 Rock slope containing continuous and noncontinuous joints
Bear in mind that joints are displayed as straight-line segments in the 3DEC model; many segments
may be required to fit an irregular joint structure. The modeler must decide the level at which the
3DEC joint geometry will match the physical jointing pattern. The effect of geometric irregularity
3DEC Version 3.0

on the response of a joint can also be taken into account via the joint material model — e.g., by
varying properties along the joint.
One final point is made concerning joint generation. When using continuum programs, it is usually
appropriate to take advantage of symmetry conditions with excavation shapes in order to reduce the
size of the model. Symmetry conditions cannot be imposed as easily with discontinuum programs
because the presence of discontinuous features precludes symmetry except for special cases. For
example, it is not possible to impose a vertical plane of symmetry through the model shown in
Figure 3.8 because the joints in the model are not aligned with the vertical axis.
3.2.3 Creating Internal Boundary Shapes
When fitting the 3DEC model to the problem region, polyhedral boundaries must also be defined
to coincide with boundary shapes of the physical problem. These may be internal boundaries
representing excavations or holes or external boundaries representing, for example, man-made
structures such as earth dams or natural features such as mountain slopes. If the physical problem
has a complicated boundary, it is important to assess whether simplification will have any effect
on the questions that need to be answered (i.e., whether a simpler geometry will be sufficient to
reproduce the important mechanisms).
All physical boundaries to be represented in the model simulation (including regions that will be
added or excavations created at a later stage in the simulation) must be defined before the solution
process begins. Shapes of structures that will be added later in a sequential analysis must be
defined and then “removed” (via the EXCAVATE command). Excavated blocks are added with the
FILL command. Note that only deformable blocks can be excavated and filled.
The creation of boundary shapes is performed with the following commands:
JSET
TUNNEL
POLY cube
Each command cuts the polyhedra into one or more segments that are fitted together in the desired
shape. The JSET commands create planar joint segments as discussed above in Section 3.2.2. The
TUNNEL command cuts a shape into the blocks. The POLY cube command creates a volume of
cubed blocks and cuts a boundary.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.2.3.1 Tunnel Command
The TUNNEL command creates a tunnel whose boundary is formed by planar segments that connect
two faces designated as face A and face B. The shape of the tunnel face is prescribed by an arbitrary
number of vertices with coordinates (x1,y1,z1), (x2,y2,z2) (x3,y3,z3), etc. The same number of
vertices must exist on both faces; the faces may be positioned either inside or outside the model.
Example 3.7 presents a simple example for the creation of a horseshoe-shaped tunnel. The command
REMOVE is used to delete the tunnel region (defined as region 1). The DELETE command may also
be used; with the REMOVE command, the deleted region can still be viewed in plot mode, if desired.
The resulting tunnel is shown in Figure 3.9.
Example 3.7 Tunnel created with the TUNNEL command

new
poly brick -1.5,1.5 -1.5,1.5 -1.5,1.5
tunnel region 1 &
a (-.3,0,-1.5) (-.3,.4,-1.5) (-.25,.47,-1.5) &
(-.15,.52,-1.5) (0,.55,-1.5) (.15,.52,-1.5) &
(.25,.47,-1.5) (.3,.4,-1.5) (.3,0,-1.5) &
b (-.3,0,1.5) (-.3,.4,1.5) (-.25,.47,1.5) &
(-.15,.52,1.5) (0,.55,1.5) (.15,.52,1.5) &
(.25,.47,1.5) (.3,.4,1.5) (.3,0,1.5)
remove region 1
ret
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 10:51
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 200.00
center 1.192E-07
1.192E-07
1.192E-07
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 0
Y
z
x
Figure 3.9 Tunnel created with TUNNEL command
Usually, the model will be brought to an equilibrium state before the tunnel is excavated. The
user must be careful that the fictitious joints along the tunnel boundary do not influence model
response during the initial equilibrium calculation. If the TUNNEL command is used, the blocks are
automatically joined at the fictitious joints. If JSET commands are used to create fictitious joints,
then the JOIN command is recommended to join the blocks separated by the fictitious joint. Use the
PRINT contact command to identify if the contact is a master-slave (m-s) contact between joined
blocks.
3.2.3.2 POLY cube
POLY cube is a tool for generating irregularly-shaped boundaries. These boundaries may represent
geologic contacts or the borders of excavations. This is intended as an alternative to the PGEN
program. The advantage of POLY cube over the PGEN program is that the resulting shapes are
easier to zone and can be zoned as mixed discretization zones for plasticity. The disadvantage is
that the shapes can be complex in only two dimensions. Using PGEN, the shapes can be complex
in three dimensions.
The POLY cube process is relatively simple. The user specifies information about the size and the
orientation of the shape to be created. 3DEC then generates an area of six-sided polyhedra (cubes)
which occupies this area. The orientation of the region can be along any line in space and can be
rotated about that line. After the cubes are created, 3DEC uses the coordinates specified in a data
file (normally “overlay.txt”) to cut the geometry out of the cubes. Each cube is cut only once by
the boundary so the resolution of the shape is defined by the size of the cubes.
3DEC Version 3.0

The orientation of the cube area is defined by the dip, ddirection, top and rotate keywords which
define a control plane (see Figure 3.10). All blocks are created behind this control plane. The size
and shape of the cubes are defined by the number and spacing keywords. An outer box can be
created as a zoning transition by the box keyword. The IDs of the jointing are controlled by the id
keyword. The region numbers can be set by the inside and outside keywords.
The file which controls the cutting of the boundary shape is a simple text file of x,y,z coordinates.
A DXF file may also be used, but the coordinates in the DXF file must define a contiguous polygon.
The PGEN program may be used to edit the DXF file to connect discontinuous segments.
top point
rotate nz
ny
y x z
nx
spacing
control plane
defined by dip and
dip direction
Figure 3.10 Elements of the POLY cube command
This simple example demonstrates the construction of a 500 cube area which is cut by the polygon
stored in “overlay.txt.”
3DEC Version 3.0

Example 3.8 Data file which generates a model using POLY cube command
;
; example of use of poly cube command
;
poly br 0 100 0 100 0 40
poly cube dip 90 dd 180 num 10 10 5 spac 4 4 8 top 50 50 0
seek
hide reg 1
pl hold dip 100 dd 180 mag 2 color reg
ret
The cutting geometry is controlled by the data points in the file “overlay.txt.”
31 31 0
31 41 0
37 51 0
41 61 0
51 69 0
63 61 0
63 51 0
47 43 0
; end of segment
3DEC (Version 3.00)

1-Nov-02 8:21
dip= 80.00 below

dd = 0.00
center 5.000E+01
5.000E+01
2.000E+01
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 2.00
cycle 0
Figure 3.11 Resultant geometry from example
3DEC Version 3.0

3.2.4 Selecting the Coordinate System
As shown in Figure 3.5, the reference axes for 3DEC are a left-handed set (x,y,z) oriented, by
default, as x (east), y (vertically up), and z (north). In generating a 3DEC model of a given region,
the following conditions may require reorientation for input into the model:
(1) geometry of the problem structures (i.e., mine layout, tunnel locations, etc.);
(2) geometry of the geologic features (e.g., faults and joint sets); and
(3) orientation of the in-situ stress field.
In the ideal situation, the problem geometries would align with the 3DEC reference axes. In general
though, this is not the case, and one or two of the problem geometries will require transformation
to the 3DEC model reference frame.
Typically, it is best to orient the 3DEC model axes to align with the geometry of the problem
structures (e.g., the mine grid or centerline of a tunnel). For graphic presentation, it is best to
position the origin of the model axes at the center of the structure for which the analysis is intended.
In this case, the geologic features may require reorientation from global to local problem axes (see
Section 3.2.5, below), and the field principal stresses may require transformation for application to
the model boundary. The recommended procedure to execute this transformation is discussed in
Section 3.5.8.
For reasons of numerical precision, it is best to truncate coordinates to some convenient number.
For example, if the units for a model are from x = 15,423 to 15,443, it is best to truncate the
coordinates by 15,400 so that the model coordinates range from 23 to 43.
3.2.5 Orientation of Geologic Features to the Model Axes
If the problem axes do not align with the model axes (i.e., positive z-axis (north), x-axis (east) and
y-axis (up)), then the orientation of geologic features will have to be transformed from the problem
axes to the model axes. This can be accomplished by making use of a stereonet.
The reorientation of structural features to the model reference axes is demonstrated for the case
of a single fault that crosses a mine raise. The raise is oriented with an axis dip of 84◦ and dip
direction of 125◦ , and the fault is oriented 11◦ / 148◦ . The 3DEC model axes are located with the
z-axis directed down the raise, the y-axis lying in the vertical plane containing the raise dip vector,
and the x-axis lying in the horizontal plane. The origin of the model axes is located at the center of
the raise (see Figure 3.12). The dip and dip direction of the fault must be redefined relative to the
x,y,z-model axes as oriented in the figure.
3DEC Version 3.0

UP
N
ventilation
raise Raise Orientation
b = 125º
a = 84º
b
E
a
N35º
x
Model Axes
y
z
Figure 3.12 Orientation of 3DEC model axes (x,y,z) relative to north-east-up

reference axes
The fault pole is plotted on the lower hemisphere stereonet shown in Figure 3.14. The relation
between the fault and the model axes is found by plotting the positive x-, y- and z-axes of the model
on the stereonet. The dihedral angle between the fault pole and each axis is then read from the
stereonet. In this example, the dihedral angles are 86◦ for x-axis to fault pole, 73◦ for y-axis to
fault pole, and 17◦ for z-axis to fault pole.
On a second stereonet, Figure 3.13, the model axes are oriented to align with the axes of the
stereonet: z (north), x (east) and y (up). The intersection of the three dihedral angles on this plot
gives the pole of the fault (plotted on the upper hemisphere). The orientation of the fault relative to
the model axes is thus 74◦ / 2◦ .
3.2.6 Choice of Model Scale
Analysis of rock mass response involves several different scales. It is impossible and undesirable
to include all features, details or rock mass response mechanisms in one model. It is also well-
recognized that location of the far-field boundary in the model can have a significant influence
on results obtained for underground excavations. However, in three-dimensional analysis, it is
not always feasible to place boundaries sufficiently far from the excavations to avoid adversely
affecting the results. These two observations taken together suggest that a reasonable modeling
approach involves starting with a large global model and proceeding through reasonable models to
the smallest size required, with increasing complexity and detail added at each stage. 3DEC has an
automatic method of recording stresses at specified locations so that they can be applied as boundary
3DEC Version 3.0

tractions on smaller problems. This unique feature ensures stress compatibility between larger and
smaller models. See Section 3.4.4.2 for additional information on applying this technique.
3.2.7 Incorporation of Discontinuities
Selection of joint geometry for input to a model is a crucial step in distinct element analysis.
Typically, only a very small percentage of joints can actually be included in the model in order to
create models of reasonable size and execution speed for practical analysis. Thus, the modeler must
filter joint geometry data and select only those joints that are most critical to the mechanical response
by identifying those which are most susceptible to slip for the prescribed loading conditions. This
may involve, for example, determining whether sufficient kinematic freedom is provided (e.g.,
through the use of block theory) or comparing in-situ observations and records (e.g., microseismic
records to identify key joints).
Once a consistent set of joints is selected, the geometric parameters (e.g., strike, dip, location) for
these features are input into the model, and the practicality of the analysis in terms of required
memory and runtime are assessed. If the model size is too large, the number of joints must be
reduced, and it is necessary to further filter the input to bring the model to a practical size. This
dilemma of balancing model size and critical joint structures is addressed by Hart (1993).
In some cases it may not be clear exactly how important certain discontinuities are, or whether
discontinuities should be incorporated into the model at all. The guiding philosophy in these cases
is to first run the models with either no discontinuities or with the discontinuities in a welded
state. Comparisons should then be made with observations. If adequate calibration of the model
behavior can be obtained without discontinuities, then discontinuities need not be modeled. By
rerunning the model and allowing certain discontinuities to slip, the modeler can determine exactly
how the discontinuities affect the system behavior and whether that behavior agrees more closely
with observations.
3DEC Version 3.0

x-axis
86º
73º
pole to fault
17º E
z-axis
fault plane
Figure 3.13 Stereonet plot of fault relative to model axes
z
17º
73º
fault 86º
pole on
upper hemisphere
fault plane
74º/2º
y (up)
fault
pole on
lower hemisphere
Figure 3.14 Stereonet plot of pole to fault and model reference axes relative
to problem north-east axes
3DEC Version 3.0

3.3 Selection of Deformable versus Rigid Blocks
An important aspect of a discontinuum analysis is the decision to use rigid blocks or deformable
blocks to represent the behavior of intact material. The considerations for rigid versus deformable
blocks are discussed in this section. If a deformable block analysis is required, there are several
different models available to simulate block deformability; these are discussed in Section 3.7.
As mentioned in Section 1.1 in Theory and Background, early distinct element codes assumed
that blocks were rigid. However, the importance of including block deformability has become
recognized, particularly for stability analyses of underground openings and studies of seismic
response of buried structures. One of the most obvious reasons to include block deformability in a
distinct element analysis is the requirement to represent the “Poisson’s ratio effect” of a confined
rock mass.
3.3.1 Poisson’s Effect
Rock mechanics problems are usually very sensitive to the Poisson’s ratio chosen for a rock mass.
This is because joints and intact rock are pressure-sensitive; their failure criteria are functions of
the confining stress (e.g., the Mohr-Coulomb criterion). Capturing the true Poisson behavior of a
jointed rock mass is critical for meaningful numerical modeling.
The effective Poisson’s ratio of a rock mass is comprised of two parts: (1) a component due to the
jointing; and (2) a component due to the elastic properties of the intact rock. Except at shallow
depths or low confining stress levels, the compressibility of the intact rock makes a large contribution
to the compressibility of a rock mass as a whole. Thus, the Poisson’s ratio of the intact rock has a
significant effect on the Poisson’s ratio of a jointed rock mass.
A single Poisson’s ratio, ν, is, strictly speaking, defined only for isotropic elastic materials. How-
ever, there are only a few jointing patterns which lead to isotropic elastic properties for a rock mass.
Therefore, it is convenient to define a “Poisson effect” that can be used for discussion of anisotropic
materials.
The Poisson effect will be defined as the ratio of horizontal-to-vertical stress when a load is applied
in the vertical direction and no strain is allowed in the horizontal direction; plane-strain conditions
are assumed. As an example, the Poisson effect for an isotropic elastic material is
σxx ν
= (3.1)
σyy 1−ν
Consider the Poisson effect produced by the vertical jointing pattern shown in Figure 3.15. If this
jointing were modeled with rigid blocks, applying a vertical stress would produce no horizontal
stress at all. This is clearly unrealistic because the horizontal stress produced by the Poisson’s ratio
of the intact rock is ignored.
3DEC Version 3.0

yy
yy
Figure 3.15 Model for Poisson’s effect in rock with vertical and horizontal
jointing
The joints and intact rock act in series. In other words, the stresses acting on the joints and on the
rock are identical. The total strain of the jointed rock mass is the sum of the strain due to the jointing
and the strain due to the compressibility of the rock. The elastic properties of the rock mass as a
whole can be derived by adding the compliances of the jointing and the intact rock:

xx rock jointing σxx
= C +C (3.2)
yy σyy
If the intact rock were modeled as an isotropic elastic material, its compliance matrix would be

1+ν 1−ν −ν
C rock = (3.3)
E −ν 1−ν
The compliance matrix due to the jointing is
1
Skn 0
C jointing = (3.4)
1
0 Skn
where S is the joint spacing, and kn is the normal stiffness of the joints.
3DEC Version 3.0

If xx = 0 in Eq. (3.2), then
(total)
σxx C
= − 12
(total)
(3.5)
σyy C 11
where C (total) = C (rock) + C (j ointing) .

Thus, the Poisson effect for the rock mass as a whole is
σxx ν (1 + ν)
= (3.6)
σyy E/(Skn ) + (1 + ν)(1 − ν)
Eq. (3.6) is graphed as a function of the ratio E/(Skn ) in Figure 3.16. Also graphed are the results
of several two-dimensional UDEC simulations run to verify the formula. The ratio E/(Skn ) is a
measure of the stiffness of the intact rock in relation to the stiffness of the joints. For low values
of E/(Skn ), the Poisson effect for the rock mass is dominated by the elastic properties of the intact
rock. For high values of E/(Skn ), the Poisson effect is dominated by the jointing.
Now consider the Poisson effect produced by joints dipping at various angles. The Poisson effect
is a function of the orientation and elastic properties of the joints. Consider the special case shown
in Figure 3.17. A rock mass contains two sets of equally spaced joints dipping at an angle, θ , from
the horizontal. The elastic properties of the joints consist of a normal stiffness, kn , and a shear
stiffness, ks . The blocks of intact rock are assumed to be completely rigid.
UDEC Simulations
0.4
Analytic Solution
0.3
yy
0.2
xx
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
E
SK n
Figure 3.16 Poisson’s effect for vertically-jointed rock
(ν = 0.3 for intact rock)
3DEC Version 3.0

yy
S
O
yy
Figure 3.17 Model for Poisson’s effect in rock with joints dipping at angle θ
from the horizontal and with spacing S
The Poisson effect for this jointing pattern is
σxx cos2 θ [(kn / ks ) − 1]

= (3.7)
σyy sin2 θ + cos2 θ (kn / ks )
This formula is illustrated graphically for several values of θ in Figure 3.18. Also shown are the
results of numerical simulations using UDEC. The UDEC simulations agree closely with Eq. (3.7).
0.8
0.6
yy
xx
0.4
Analytic Solution UDEC Simulation
o
O = 20
o
0.2 O = 45
o
O = 60
0
2 4 6 8 10
Kn
Ks
Figure 3.18 Poisson’s effect for jointed rock at various joint angles (blocks
are rigid)
3DEC Version 3.0

Eq. (3.7) demonstrates the importance of using realistic values for joint shear stiffness in numerical
models. The ratio of shear stiffness to normal stiffness dramatically affects the Poisson response
of a rock mass. If shear stiffness is equal to normal stiffness, the Poisson effect is zero. For more
reasonable values of kn /ks , from 2.0 to 10.0, the Poisson effect is quite high, up to 0.9.
Next, the contribution of the elastic properties of the intact rock will be examined for the case of
θ = 45◦ . Following the analysis for the vertical jointing case, the intact rock will be treated as an
isotropic elastic material. The elastic properties of the rock mass as a whole will be derived by
adding the compliances of the jointing and the intact rock.
The compliance matrix due to the two equally spaced sets of joints dipping at 45◦ is

(j ointing) 1 ks + kn ks − kn
C =
2S kn ks ks − kn ks + kn
Thus, the Poisson effect for the rock mass as a whole is
σxx [ν(1 + ν)] / E + (kn − ks ) / (2S kn ks )

= (3.8)
σyy [(1 + ν)(1 − ν)] / E + (kn + ks ) / (2S kn ks )
Eq. (3.8) is graphed for several values of the ratio E/(Skn ) in Figure 3.19 for the case of ν = 0.2.
Also plotted are the results of UDEC simulations. For low values of E/(Skn ), the Poisson effect of
a rock mass is dominated by the elastic properties of the intact rock. For high values of E/(Skn ),
the Poisson effect is dominated by the jointing.
0.8 E SK n
= )
Rigid
Blocks (
0.6
yy
0.5
E SK n =
xx
0.4
Rock with No Joints ( E SK n

= 0 )
0.2 UDEC Simulation
0
2 4 6 8 10
Kn
Ks
Figure 3.19 Poisson’s effect for rock with two equally spaced joint sets
with θ = 45◦ (blocks are deformable with ν = 0.2)
3DEC Version 3.0

3.3.2 Zoning for Deformable Blocks
If a deformable block analysis is required, models with different densities of block zoning should
be evaluated, once the block cutting and boundary location have been established. The GENERATE
edge and GENERATE quad commands are used to specify the zoning density. The highest density
of zoning should be in regions of high stress or strain gradients (e.g., in the vicinity of excavations).
For greatest accuracy, the aspect ratio of zone dimensions (i.e., tetrahedron base length to height
ratio) should also be as near unity as possible; anything above 5:1 is potentially inaccurate. It is
also not advisable to have large jumps in zone size between adjacent polyhedra. The ratio between
zone volumes in adjacent polyhedra should not exceed roughly 4:1 for reasonable accuracy. Use
the PRINT max command to find the maximum and minimum zone volumes.
The GENERATE edge command will automatically create tetrahedral zones within an arbitrarily-
shaped concave polyhedron. It is recommended that if block cutting results in blocks that are long
and thin, that these blocks be further cut and joined before generating zones. By doing this, zones
with an aspect ratio closer to unity can be generated.
The GENERATE quad command will only generate zones within six-sided polyhedra. This command
creates mixed-discretization (m-d) zones (two overlays of five tetrahedral zones) that provide better
accuracy for problems involving failure and collapse of the intact blocks. (See Section 1.2.2.5 in
Theory and Background for details.) It is recommended that the GENERATE quad command be
used for analyses involving plastic failure of the intact material. The GENERATE edge command
can provide reasonable accuracy for certain failure modes (e.g., confined compression loading);
however, this type of zoning does not produce an accurate prediction for collapse loads in bearing
capacity problems. Comparisons of results using GENERATE quad versus GENERATE edge for
plasticity analysis are given in Sections 5 and 6 in the Verifications volume.
The GENERATE edge command produces zoning that is more computationally efficient, and is
recommended for blocks in regions where extensive intact material failure is not anticipated. In order
to improve the calculational efficiency for models involving intact material failure, the GENERATE
quad command can be used to generate m-d zones around an excavation, and the GENERATE edge
command can then be used to generate zones in blocks at greater distance from the excavation (or
for surrounding blocks that are not six-sided).
The GENERATE hotetra command produces high order tetrahedral zones which can be used in
blocks which cannot be zoned with m-d zoning. These zones have additional gridpoint nodes and
are more accurate than the standard tetrahedral zoning. Note that high order tetrahedral zones are
not compatible with the far field dynamic boundary or the extended zone models (cppudm).
The analysis of large models can also be aided by using the GENERATE center command, which
is a variation of the GENERATE edge command. This command allows the sizes of the tetrahedral
zones to be increased gradually outward from a central point.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.4 Boundary Conditions
The boundary conditions in a numerical model consist of the values of field variables (e.g., stress,
displacement) that are prescribed at the boundary of the model. Boundaries are of two categories:
real and artificial. Real boundaries exist in the physical object being modeled — e.g., a tunnel surface
or the ground surface. Artificial boundaries do not exist in reality, but they must be introduced in
order to enclose the chosen number of elements (e.g., blocks). The conditions that can be imposed on
each type are similar; these conditions are discussed first. Then (in Section 3.4.4), some suggestions
are made concerning the location and choice of artificial boundaries and the effect they have on the
solution.
Mechanical boundaries are of two main types: prescribed displacement or prescribed stress. A free
surface is a special case of the prescribed-stress boundary. The two types of mechanical boundary
are described in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. Viscous boundaries, which are used for dynamic analysis,
are described in Section 2 in Optional Features.
3.4.1 Stress Boundary
By default, the boundaries of a 3DEC model are free of stress and any constraint. Forces or stresses
may be applied to any boundary, or part of a boundary, by means of the BOUNDARY command. Note
that forces and stresses can be applied to either rigid or deformable blocks. Individual components
of the stress tensor (σxx , σyy , σzz , σxy , σxz and σyz ) are specified with the stress keyword. For
example, the command
boundary (0,10) (0,10) (-1,1) stress 0,-1e6,0 0,0,0
would apply σxx = 0, σyy = −106 and σzz = 0 and zero shear stresses to a model boundary lying
within the coordinate window 0 < x < 10, 0 < y < 10, -1 < z < 1. The user should always make
sure that the window encompasses all the boundary vertices designated for the assigned boundary
condition. This can be done using the command
print boundary state
Each exterior boundary vertex will be listed with its assigned boundary code. (See the PRINT
boundary command in Section 1.3 in the Command Reference.) The boundary can move during
a model calculation, so the user must make sure that the coordinate window is large enough to
include the appropriate boundary vertices at the time the BOUNDARY command is executed.
Alternatively, boundary conditions can be specified along a boundary defined by the orientation
of the boundary face. For example, the same boundary condition above can be applied with the
command
boundary dip 90 dd 180 or 0,0,1 above stress 0,-1e6,0 0,0,0
This will apply the boundary condition along the boundary face located within the range defined
by a plane with a dip angle of 90◦ , a dip direction of 270◦ and above the position x = 0, y = 0, z = 1.
3DEC Version 3.0

Compressive stresses have a negative sign, in accordance with the general sign convention for
internal stresses in 3DEC. Also, 3DEC actually applies stress components as forces, or tractions,
which result from a stress tensor acting on the given boundary plane. The tractions are divided into
two components, permanent and transient. Permanent tractions are constant loads and transient
tractions are time-varying loads applied for dynamic analysis (see Section 2 in Optional Features)
by using the history keyword on the same command line as the stress keyword. Various forms
of time-varying histories can be applied, including linear-varying, sine and cosine wave, and user-
supplied functions; these are described in Section 1.3 in the Command Reference (see BOUNDARY
history).
Individual forces can be applied to the model boundary of rigid or deformable blocks by using the
xload, yload and zload keywords that specify x-, y- and z-components of an applied force vector.
3.4.1.1 Applied Stress Gradient
The BOUNDARY command may take additional keywords xgrad, ygrad and zgrad, which allow the
applied stresses or forces to vary linearly over the specified range. Six parameters follow each of
these keywords and describe the variation of the stress components in either the x-, y- or z-direction:
xgrad sxxx syyx szzx sxyx sxzx syzx
ygrad sxxy syyy szzy sxyy sxzy syzy
zgrad sxxz syyz szzz sxyz sxzz syzz
The stresses vary linearly with distance from the global coordinate origin of x = 0, y = 0, z = 0:
◦
σxx = σxx + (sxxx)x + (sxxy)y + (sxxz)z
◦
σyy = σyy + (syyx)x + (syyy)y + (syyz)z
◦
σzz = σzz + (szzx)x + (szzy)y + (szzz)z
◦
σxy = σxy + (sxyx)x + (sxyy)y + (sxyz)z (3.9)
◦
σxz = σxz + (sxzx)x + (sxzy)y + (sxzz)z
◦
σyz = σyz + (syzx)x + (syzy)y + (syzz)z
◦ , σ ◦ , σ ◦ , σ ◦ , σ ◦ and σ ◦ are the stress components at the origin.

where σxx yy zz xy xz yz
The operation of this feature is best explained by an example:

boundary -.1,.1 -100,0 0,10 stress 0,-10e6,0 0,0,0 ygrad 0,1e5,0 0,0,0
3DEC Version 3.0

The stresses at the origin (x = 0, y = 0, z = 0) are
◦
σxx = 0
◦
σyy = −10 × 106
◦
σzz = 0
◦
σxy = 0
◦
σxz = 0
◦
σyz = 0
The equation for the y-variation in stress component σyy is
σyy = −10 × 106 + (105 )y
The value for σyy at y = -100 is then −20 × 106 . At points in between, the y-variation is linearly
scaled to the relative y-distance from the origin.
Typically, applied stress gradients are used to reproduce the effects of increasing stress with depth
caused by gravity. It is important to make sure that the applied gradient is compatible with the
gradient specified with the INSITU command and the value of gravitational acceleration (GRAVITY
command). Section 3.5 provides more details on this matter.
3.4.1.2 Changing Boundary Stresses
As discussed above, transient loading can be performed with the history keyword for dynamic
analysis. For static analysis, it may also be necessary to alter the values of applied stresses during
the course of a 3DEC simulation. For example, the load on a footing may change. To effect a
sudden change in an existing applied stress or load, a new BOUNDARY command is given with the
range that encompasses the same boundary vertices as in the original command but with a change
in stress value or variation.
In this case, the new value will be added to the existing value.* If the stress is to be removed,
the current value should be given with an opposite sign. If a transient load is changed (i.e., a load
assigned with the history keyword), any new load with the same history type is added to the existing
load; however, a new transient load with a different history type replaces the old transient load.
* The user should be aware that this approach is different than that used in the Itasca code FLAC, in
which the stresses are updated to the new values when a new boundary condition is specified.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.4.1.3 Checking the Boundary Condition
The boundary stresses and loads may be verified with the command PRINT bound. The PRINT bound
command lists the boundary vertex addresses along with current values and conditions assigned to
each vertex. Once a BOUNDARY command is issued, a boundary vertex list is created for the model
face that the boundary condition is assigned. Optional keywords can be used with the PRINT bound
command to check the different conditions along the boundary. For example,
print bound force
lists the permanent forces (fx,fy,fz) and incremental forces (fxi,fyi,fzi) added during the current
loading stage. If transient loads are applied (with the BOUND. . . hist command), the total forces
refer to the permanent plus transient loads at the current cycle number.
The command
print bound state
identifies the type of boundary condition assigned to a boundary vertex.

3.4.1.4 Cautions and Advice
In this section, some miscellaneous difficulties with stress boundaries are described. With 3DEC, it
is possible to apply stresses to the boundary of a body that has no displacement constraints (unlike
many finite element programs, which require some constraints). The body will react in exactly the
same way as a real body would — i.e., if the boundary stresses are not in equilibrium, then the
whole body will start moving.
A similar, but more subtle, effect arises when material is excavated from a body that is supported
by a stress boundary condition: the body is initially in equilibrium under gravity, but the removal
of material reduces the weight. The whole body then starts moving upward, as demonstrated in
Example 3.9 and illustrated in Figure 3.20.
Example 3.9 Uplift when material is removed

new
poly brick 0 10 0,10 0,10
jset dip 0 dd 180 or 0,5,0
gen quad ndiv 4 4 4
change cons 1
prop mat=1 dens 1000 bulk 8e9 g 5e9
prop jmat=1 kn 1e10 ks 1e10
gravity 0,-10,0
bound 0,10 -0.1,.1 0,10 stress 0,-1e5,0 0,0,0
bound -.1,.1 0,10 0,10 xvel = 0.0
bound 9.9,10.0 0,10 0,10 xvel = 0.0
bound 0,10 0,10 -.1,.1 xvel = 0.0
bound 0,10 0,10 9.9,10.1 xvel = 0.0
3DEC Version 3.0

insitu stress 0,-1e5,0 0,0,0 ygrad 0,1e4,0 0,0,0

hist ydisp 5,2.5,5
step 300
excavate 0,10 5,10 0,10
step 100
plot hold dip 70 dd 150 axes zol color mat vel blue
ret
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 10:59
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 150.00
center 5.000E+00
5.000E+00
5.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 400
Max Velocity =
5.307E-03
z
X
Figure 3.20 Uplift when material is removed
The difficulty encountered in running this data file can be eliminated by fixing the bottom boundary,
rather than supporting it with stresses. Section 3.4.4 contains information relating to the location
of such artificial boundaries.
Finally, the stress boundary affects all degrees-of-freedom. Velocity boundary conditions must,
therefore, be prescribed after stress boundary conditions affecting the same boundary corners. If
the stress boundary is applied after the velocity boundary, the effect of the prescribed velocity will
be lost. Example 3.10 demonstrates this problem:
Example 3.10 Mixing stress and velocity boundary conditions

new
poly brick 0 10 0,10 0,10
gen quad ndiv 4 4 4
3DEC Version 3.0


bound 0,10 -0.1,.1 0,10 yvel = 0.0
bound -0.1,.1 0,10 0,10 stress -1e5,0,0 0,0,0
bound 9.9,10.1 0,10 0,10 stress -1e5,0,0 0,0,0
bound 0,10 0,10 -0.1,.1 stress 0,0,-1e5 0,0,0
bound 0,10 0,10 9.9,10.1 stress 0,0,-1e5 0,0,0
bound 0,10 9.9,10.1 0,10 stress 0,-2e5,0 0,0,0
hist ydisp 0,0,0
step 100
plot hold zol axes color mat vel blue
ret
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 11:54
dip= 90.00 above

dd = 180.00
center 5.000E+00
5.000E+00
5.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 100
Max Velocity =
6.545E-03
z X
Figure 3.21 Mixing stress and velocity boundary conditions
The fixed y-velocity boundary condition along the bottom boundary of the model is removed along
the bottom edges of the block when the stress boundaries are applied. These points move downward,
as indicated by the velocity vector plot in Figure 3.21, when the model is loaded.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.4.2 Displacement Boundary
Displacements cannot be controlled directly in 3DEC; in fact, they play no part in the calculation
process, as explained in Section 1.2.2 in Theory and Background. In order to apply a given
displacement to a boundary of a deformable block model, it is necessary to fix the boundary and
prescribe the boundary’s velocity for a given number of steps (using the BOUNDARY command). If
the desired displacement is D, a velocity, V , is applied for a time increment, T (e.g., D = V T ),
where T = !tN , !t is the timestep, and N is the number of steps (or cycles). In practice, V should
be kept small and N large, in order to minimize shocks to the system being modeled.
The BOUNDARY command is used to fix the velocity of gridpoints of deformable blocks in the x-, y-
or z-direction (BOUND xvel yvel or zvel) or in the normal direction (BOUND nvel) along boundaries
not aligned with the x-, y- and z-axes. The velocity of rigid or deformable blocks can be fixed with
the FIX command (at the current velocity). Use the APPLY command to specify a velocity other
than the current value for rigid blocks. The velocity can also be altered with a FISH function.
Time-varying velocity histories can be applied via the BOUND . . . hist command for deformable
blocks or the APPLY . . . hist command for rigid blocks. This history keyword must appear on the
same line as BOUND xvel, BOUND yvel or BOUND zvel to prescribe a velocity history. Histories
can also be applied as FISH functions. As discussed above in Section 3.4.1.4, velocity boundaries
should always be assigned after stress boundaries. Fixed velocity conditions can be removed for
deformable blocks with the BOUND xfree, BOUND yfree or BOUND zfree command, and for rigid
blocks with the FREE command.
3.4.3 Real Boundaries — Choosing the Right Type
It is sometimes difficult to know the type of boundary condition to apply to a particular surface on the
body being modeled. For example, in modeling a laboratory triaxial test, should the load applied by
the platen be regarded as a stress boundary, or should the platen be treated as a rigid, displacement
boundary? Of course, the whole testing machine, including the platen, could be modeled, but that
might be very time-consuming. Remember that 3DEC takes a long time to converge if there is a
large contrast in stiffnesses. In general, if the object applying the load is very stiff compared with
the sample (say, more than 20 times stiffer), then it may be treated as a rigid boundary. If it is
soft compared with the sample (say, 20 times softer), then it may be modeled as a stress-controlled
boundary. Clearly, a fluid pressure acting on the surface of a body is of the latter category. Footings
on jointed rock can often be represented as rigid boundaries that move with constant velocity for
the purposes of finding the collapse load of the rock. This approach has another advantage — it is
much easier to control the test and obtain a good load/displacement graph. It is well-known that
stiff testing machines are more stable than soft testing machines.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.4.4 Artificial Boundaries
Artificial boundaries fall into two categories: planes of symmetry and planes of truncation. Sym-
metry planes take advantage of symmetry conditions in a physical system; truncation planes are
needed when modeling an infinite or very large system.
3.4.4.1 Symmetry Planes
Sometimes it is possible to take advantage of the fact that the geometry and loading in a system are
symmetrical about one or more planes. For example, if everything is symmetrical about a vertical
(yz) plane, then the horizontal displacements on that plane will be zero. Therefore, we can make
that plane a boundary and fix all gridpoints in the horizontal direction, using the command BOUND
xvel=0. If velocities on the plane of symmetry are not already zero, they will be set to zero with this
command. In the case considered, the y-component and z-component of velocity on the vertical
plane of symmetry are not affected; they should not be fixed. Similar considerations apply to a
horizontal plane of symmetry. The command BOUND nvel=0 can be used to set planes of symmetry
that lie at angles to the coordinate axes.
As discussed in Section 3.2.3, the presence of discontinuities makes the application of symmetry
planes more difficult. When using symmetry planes in 3DEC, the modeler should always be careful
to consider the effect of joint orientation.
3.4.4.2 Boundary Truncation — Location of the Far-Field Boundary
Analysis of rock mass response involves several different scales. It is impossible and undesirable
to include all features, details or rock mass response mechanisms in one model. It is also well-
recognized that location of the far-field boundary in the model can have a significant influence
on results obtained for underground excavations. However, in three-dimensional analysis, it is
not always feasible to place boundaries sufficiently far from the excavations to avoid adversely
affecting the results. These two observations, taken together, suggest that a reasonable modeling
approach involves starting with a large global model and proceeding through reasonable models
to the smallest size required, with increasing complexity and detail added at each stage. 3DEC
has an automatic method of recording stresses at specified locations so that they can be applied as
boundary tractions on smaller problems. This unique feature ensures stress compatibility between
larger and smaller models.
An example of the application of this technique is a mine in which the local topographic relief is
significant relative to the size of the mine, and in which a model incorporating both the surrounding
topography and the mine geometry is prohibitively large. A coarse regional model incorporating
a relatively large sample of the surrounding topography is first created, as shown in Figure 3.22.
Following this, a smaller central portion of the regional model is generated, incorporating details of
the mining geometry, which is more finely zoned. Boundary tractions applied to the detailed model
are transferred from the regional model at points corresponding to the locations of the detailed
model boundaries by the following procedure.
3DEC Version 3.0

1. Run Model A.
2. Enter the command SET log on.
3. Enter the command PRINT brick xl xu yl yu zl zu where (xl, xu), (yl, yu) and
(zl, zu) correspond to the boundaries of Model B.
4. The loads printed to the log file for the PRINT brick command can be applied to
Model B by using the BOUND xtraction, BOUND ytraction and BOUND ztraction
commands.
An important modeling decision when using this procedure is how extensive a volume should be
incorporated into each of the regional and detailed models.
In the regional model, the topographic relief should be small relative to the external dimensions of
the model. A criterion recommended for selecting the depth of the model is that stresses near the
bottom of the model should be relatively uniform — i.e., it should not be possible to determine if a
point is beneath a mountain peak or a valley; otherwise, the finite depth of the model will influence
the stress field near the surface. Analyses performed using two-dimensional models indicate that to
satisfy this criterion, the thickness of the model beneath the valleys should be approximately three
times the topographic amplitude.
Model B
Model A
Figure 3.22 Models used to transfer stress boundary conditions
3DEC Version 3.0

Boundary locations for the detailed model are chosen using the conventional criterion that induced
stresses at the boundary location caused by internal changes (such as mining) should not be sig-
nificant. An estimate of this distance can be obtained using the elastic solution for stress around a
t , at a distance
sphere in a hydrostatic stress field. The induced tangential component of stress, σind
R from a cavity of radius a in a hydrostatic stress field po is:
t
σind a3
= (3.10)
po 2 R3
Because the decay of induced stress away from the excavation is more rapid than for a circular hole,
the two-dimensional equivalent, boundaries around three-dimensional excavations do not have to
be particularly far. For example, at a distance of approximately 2a, the induced stress is only 5%
of the hydrostatic level and only 1% at a distance of 3.7a. Solutions for other shaped openings can
also be used depending on the actual excavation shape.
An important aspect of the point-wise boundary traction transfer to the smaller model is that a more
complex boundary stress distribution can be generated than by conventional linear variations. The
dimensions of boundaries in the detailed model can, therefore, be small relative to the surrounding
topographic relief. This would be impossible to achieve using standard linearly-varying boundary
stress distributions.
An alternative to the stress transfer technique can be used when the entire model is not too big to
fit in memory but runs too slowly to allow investigation of such things as strength variations or
extraction sequences. In this case, the COUPLE command may be used. The COUPLE command
allows the decoupling of an inner and outer region. After reaching internal equilibrium, the large
mass shown in Figure 3.22 (Model A) is defined as a single region — for example, region 1 (see
the MARK command).
The outer area can be removed from calculation cycles by the COUPLE 1 off command. From this
point, 3DEC does not include the blocks that lie in region 1 in the cycle calculations. The model
forces at the interface between region 1 and all other regions are held constant. Changes in the
inner model that affect the interface will not cause a change in the forces at the boundaries unless
an outer region is turned back on (COUPLE 1 on). The status of any region can be determined by
the PRINT region command.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.5 Initial Conditions
In all civil or mining engineering projects, there is an in-situ state of stress in the ground, before any
excavation or construction is started. By setting initial conditions in the 3DEC model, an attempt is
made to reproduce this in-situ state, because it can influence the subsequent behavior of the model.
Ideally, information about the initial state comes from field measurements but, when these are not
available, the model can be run for a range of possible conditions. Although the range is potentially
infinite, there are a number of constraining factors (e.g., the system must be in equilibrium, and the
chosen yield and slip criteria must not be violated anywhere).
In a uniform layer of soil or rock with a free surface, the vertical stresses are usually equal to gρz,
where g is the gravitational acceleration, ρ is the mass density of the material, and z is the depth
below surface. However, the in-situ horizontal stresses are more difficult to estimate. There is
a common — but erroneous — belief that there is some “natural” ratio between horizontal and
vertical stress, given by ν/(1 − ν), where ν is the Poisson’s ratio. This formula is derived from the
assumption that gravity is suddenly applied to an elastic mass of material in which lateral movement
is prevented. This condition hardly ever applies in practice due to repeated tectonic movements,
material failure, overburden removal and locked-in stresses due to faulting and localization (see
Section 3.11.3). Of course, if we had enough knowledge of the history of a particular volume of
material, we might simulate the whole process numerically, so as to arrive at the initial conditions for
our planned engineering works. This approach is not usually feasible. Typically, we compromise:
a set of stresses is installed in the model, and then 3DEC is run until an equilibrium state is obtained.
It is important to realize that there is an infinite number of equilibrium states for any given system.
In the following sections, we examine progressively more complicated situations and the way in
which the initial conditions may be specified. The user is encouraged to experiment with the various
data files that are presented.
3.5.1 Uniform Stresses in an Unjointed Medium: No Gravity
For an excavation deep underground, the gravitational variation of stress from top to bottom of the
excavation may be neglected because the variation is small in comparison with the magnitude of
stress acting on the volume of rock to be modeled. The GRAVITY command may be omitted, causing
the gravitational acceleration to default to zero. The initial stresses are installed with the INSITU
command — e.g.,
insitu stress -5e6 -1e7 -5e6 0.0 0.0 0.0
The components σ11 (or σxx ), σ22 (or σyy ) and σ33 (or σzz ) are set to compressive stresses of 5×106 ,
107 and 5 × 106 , respectively, throughout the model. Range parameters may be added if the stresses
are to be restricted to a subregion of the model. The INSITU command sets all stresses to the given
values, but there is no guarantee that the stresses will be in equilibrium. There are at least three
possible problems. First, the stresses may violate the yield criterion of a nonlinear constitutive
model assigned to deformable blocks. In this case, plastic flow of zones in the blocks will occur
immediately after the STEP command is given, and the stresses will readjust; this possibility should
be checked by doing one trial step and examining the response (e.g., PLOT plas). Second, the stress
3DEC Version 3.0

state may result in slip or separation along joints within the model. The command PLOT vel should
indicate locations where joint movement is occurring. Third, the prescribed stresses at the model
boundary may not equal the given initial stresses. In this case, the boundary gridpoints will start
to move as soon as a STEP command is given; again, output should be checked (e.g., PLOT vel) for
this possibility.
The commands in Example 3.11 produce a single block with initial stresses that are in equilibrium
with prescribed boundary stresses.
Example 3.11 Initial and boundary stresses in equilibrium

new
poly brick 0 10 0,10 0,10
gen edge 2.0
bound (-0.1,0.1) (0,10) (0,10) stress -5e6, 0, 0 0,0,0
bound (9.9,10.1) (0,10) (0,10) stress -5e6, 0, 0 0,0,0
bound (0,10) (0,10) (-0.1,0.1) stress 0, 0,-5e6 0,0,0
bound (0,10) (0,10) (9.9,10.1) stress 0, 0,-5e6 0,0,0
bound (0,10) (-0.1,0.1) (0,10) stress 0,-1e7, 0 0,0,0
bound (0,10) (9.9,10.1) (0,10) stress 0,-1e7, 0 0,0,0
insitu stress -5e6 -1e7 -5e6 0,0,0
step 1
ret
3.5.2 Stresses with Gradients in an Unjointed Medium: Uniform Material
Variation in stress with depth cannot be ignored near the ground surface — the GRAVITY command
is used to inform 3DEC that gravitational acceleration operates on the model. It is important to
understand that the GRAVITY command does not directly cause stresses to appear in the model;
it simply causes body forces to act on all gridpoints of deformable blocks (or centroids of rigid
blocks). These body forces correspond to the weight of material surrounding each gridpoint. If
no initial stresses are present, the forces will cause the material to move (during stepping) in the
direction of the forces until equal and opposite forces are generated by zone stresses. Given the
appropriate boundary conditions (e.g., fixed bottom, roller side boundaries), the model will, in fact,
generate its own gravitational stresses compatible with the applied gravity. However, this process is
inefficient, since many hundreds of steps may be necessary for equilibrium. It is better to initialize
the internal stresses such that they satisfy both equilibrium and the gravitational gradient. The
INSITU command must include the xgrad, ygrad and zgrad parameters so that the stress gradient
matches the gravitational gradient gρ. The internal stresses must also match boundary stresses at
stress boundaries.
Even though the boundary and in-situ stresses are specified to produce a force balance, some cycling
of the model is normally required. This is because the boundary forces are only applied at the end
3DEC Version 3.0

of a cycle; a small force imbalance is produced by the in-situ stresses. Usually, this imbalance is
reduced within a few hundred cycles.
Consider, for example, a 20 m × 20 m × 20 m box of homogeneous unjointed material at a depth
of 200 m underground, with fixed base and stress boundaries on the other five sides. Example 3.12
produces an equilibrium system for this problem condition.
Example 3.12 Initial stress state with gravitational gradient

new
poly brick 0 20 0,20 0,20
gen edge 4.0
prop mat=1 dens 2500 bulk 5e9 g 3e9 phi 35
change cons 2
gravity 0 -10 0
bound (-0.1,0.1) (0,20) (0,20) stress -2.75e6 -5.5e6 -2.75e6 0,0,0 &
ygrad 1.25e4 2.5e4 1.25e4 0 0 0
bound (19.9,20.1) (0,20) (0,20) stress -2.75e6 -5.5e6 -2.75e6 0,0,0 &
ygrad 1.25e4 2.5e4 1.25e4 0 0 0
bound (0,20) (0,20) (-0.1,0.1) stress -2.75e6 -5.5e6 -2.75e6 0,0,0 &
ygrad 1.25e4 2.5e4 1.25e4 0 0 0
bound (0,20) (0,20) (19.9,20.1) stress -2.75e6 -5.5e6 -2.75e6 0,0,0 &
ygrad 1.25e4 2.5e4 1.25e4 0 0 0
bound (0,20) (19.9,20.1) (0,20) stress 0 -5.0e6, 0 0,0,0
insitu stress -2.75e6 -5.5e6 -2.75e6 0,0,0 &
ygrad 1.25e4 2.5e4 1.25e4 0 0 0
bound (0,20) (-0.1,0.1) (0,20) yvel = 0.0
step 500
ret
In this example, horizontal stresses and gradients are equal to half the vertical stresses and gradients,
but they may be set at any value that does not violate the yield criterion (Mohr-Coulomb, in this
case). After preparing a data file such as the one above, the model should be cycled to check that an
equilibrium state is reached. If material failure does occur (e.g., reduce phi = 10◦ ), this will show
as an unbalanced force magnitude roughly the same order of magnitude as the applied loading.
3.5.3 Stresses with Gradients in a Nonuniform Material
It is more difficult to give the initial stresses when materials of different densities are present.
Consider a layered system with a free surface, enclosed in a box with roller side boundaries and
fixed base. Suppose that the material has the following density distribution:
3DEC Version 3.0

1600 kg/m3 from 0 to 10 m depth
2000 kg/m3 from 10 to 15 m
2200 kg/m3 from 15 to 25 m

An equilibrium state is produced by the data file in Example 3.13.
Example 3.13 Initial stress gradient in a nonuniform material

new
poly brick 0 20 0,25 0,20
jset dip 0.0 or 0,10,0
jset dip 0.0 or 0,15,0
gen edge 5.0
change 0,20 0,10 0,20 mat 1
change 0,20 10,15 0,20 mat 2
change 0,20 15,25 0,20 mat 3
change jmat 1
prop jmat 1 kn 1e10 ks 1e10 coh 1e10
gravity 0 -10 0
insitu 0 20 0 10 0 20 stress 0.0 -4.8e5 0.0 0,0,0 &
ygrad 0.0 2.2e4 0.0 0,0,0
insitu 0 20 10 15 0 20 stress 0.0 -4.6e5 0.0 0,0,0 &
ygrad 0.0 2.0e4 0.0 0,0,0
insitu 0 20 15 25 0 20 stress 0.0 -4.0e5 0.0 0,0,0 &
ygrad 0.0 1.6e4 0.0 0,0,0
bound (0,20) (-0.1,0.1) (0,20) yvel = 0.0
bound (-0.1,0.1) (0,20) (0,20) xvel = 0.0
bound (19.9,20.1) (0,20) (0,20) xvel = 0.0
bound (0,20) (0,20) (-0.1,0.1) zvel = 0.0
bound (0,20) (0,20) (19.9,20.1) zvel = 0.0
hist unbal
step 500
ret
An individual block is created for each material density; fictitious joints separate each block. The
internal stress profile is calculated manually for each block from the known overburden above it.
Note that the example is simplified — in a real case, the elastic moduli would vary, and there would
be horizontal stresses. If high horizontal stresses exist in a layer, these may also be installed with
the INSITU command.
3DEC Version 3.0

This example is not in equilibrium at one calculation step; approximately 500 steps are required.
The presence of the fictitious joints also prevents the model from being in equilibrium when the
initial stresses match the boundary stresses. A jointed model will often require more steps to
equilibrate than an unjointed model.
3.5.4 Compaction within a Model with Nonuniform Zoning
Puzzling results are sometimes observed when a model with nonuniform zoning is allowed to come
to equilibrium under gravity. A model that is composed of deformable blocks of different sizes will
usually have nonuniform zoning. When a Mohr-Coulomb, or other nonlinear constitutive, model is
assigned to the blocks, the final stress state and displacement pattern are not uniform, even though
the boundaries are straight and the free surface is flat. The data file in Example 3.14 illustrates the
effect — see Figure 3.23 for the generated plot showing vertical stress contours.
Example 3.14 Nonuniform stress initialized in a model with nonuniform zoning

new
poly brick 0,10 0,10 0,10
jset dip 90.0 dd 90 or 3,0,0
gen edge 2.0
change cons 2
prop jmat 1 kn 1e10 ks 1e10 coh 1e10 ten 1e10
gravity 0 -10 0
bound (0,10) (-0.1,0.1) (0,10) yvel = 0.0
bound (-0.1,0.1) (0,10) (0,10) xvel = 0.0
bound (9.9,10.1) (0,10) (0,10) xvel = 0.0
bound (0,10) (0,10) (-0.1,0.1) zvel = 0.0
bound (0,10) (0,10) (9.9,10.1) zvel = 0.0
hist unbal
step 1000
; optional method 1
; insitu stress -1.5e5,-2.0e5,-1.5e5 0,0,0 &
; ygrad 1.5e4, 2.0e4, 1.5e4 0,0,0
; step 400
;
; optional method 2
; prop mat=1 bcoh 1e10 bten 1e10
; step 750
; prop mat=1 bcoh 0.0 bten 0.0
; step 250
plot hold x smin mag 2
ret
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC (Version 3.00)

Cross section plot:
27-Aug-02 12:03
geometric scale
0 2E 00
dip= 90.00 above

dd = 180.00
center 5.000E+00
5.000E+00
5.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 2.00
cycle 1000
min. p.s. contours
interval = 1.500E+04
from to
-8.500E+04 -7.000E+04
-7.000E+04 -5.500E+04
-5.500E+04 -4.000E+04
-4.000E+04 -2.500E+04
-2.500E+04 -1.000E+04
-1.000E+04 5.000E+03
Figure 3.23 Nonuniform stresses
Since we have roller boundaries on the four sides, we might expect the material to move down
equally on all sides. However, the zones are not the same size in the blocks. For static analysis,
3DEC tries to keep the timestep equal for all zones, so it increases the inertial mass for the gridpoints
of the smaller zones to compensate for their size. These gridpoints then accelerate more slowly
than those for the larger zones. This would have no effect on the final state of a linear material, but
it causes nonuniformity in a material that is path-dependent. For a Mohr-Coulomb material without
cohesion, the situation is similar to dropping sand from some height into a container and expecting
the final state to be uniform. In reality, a large amount of plastic flow would occur because the
confining stress does not build up immediately. Even with a uniformly-zoned model, this approach
is not a good one because the horizontal stresses depend on the dynamics of the process.
The best solution is to use the INSITU stress command to set initial stresses to conform to the
desired Ko value (ratio of horizontal to vertical stress). For example, the STEP 1000 command in
the previous data file could be replaced by the following lines:
insitu stress (-1.5e5,-2.0e5,-1.5e5,0,0,0) &
ygrad (1.5e4,2.0e4,1.5e4,0,0,0)
step 400
A stable state is achieved with Ko = 0.75; fewer steps are needed to reach equilibrium and the stress
state is uniform (see Figure 3.24). Note that there is a slight nonuniformity, but this is related to
the contouring routine and the coarseness of the zoning.
3DEC Version 3.0

Alternatively, the model can be run with an elastic behavior for the initial equilibrium calculation and
then changed to the nonlinear behavior model for the final state. Replace the STEP 1000 command
with the following lines:
prop mat=1 btens=1e10 bcoh=1e10
step 750
prop mat=1 btens=0 bcoh=0
step 250
The result is the same as that shown in Figure 3.24. The material is prevented from yielding during
the compaction process but the original properties are restored when equilibrium is achieved.
3DEC (Version 3.00)

Cross section plot:
27-Aug-02 12:08
geometric scale
0 2E 00
dip= 90.00 above

dd = 180.00
center 5.000E+00
5.000E+00
5.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 2.00
cycle 400
min. p.s. contours
from to
-1.600E+05 -1.300E+05
-1.300E+05 -1.000E+05
-1.000E+05 -7.000E+04
-7.000E+04 -4.000E+04
-4.000E+04 -1.000E+04
-1.000E+04 2.000E+04
Figure 3.24 Uniform stresses
3.5.5 Initial Stresses following a Model Change
There may be situations in which one material model for deformable blocks is used in the process
of reaching a desired stress distribution, but another model is used for the subsequent simulation.
Models can be changed for entire blocks (via the CHANGE command). If one model is replaced by
another non-null model, the stresses in the affected zones are preserved, as in Example 3.15.
3DEC Version 3.0

Example 3.15 Initial stresses following a model change

new
poly brick 0,5 0,5 0,5
gen edge 1.0
gravity 0 -10 0
bound (0,10) (-0.1,0.1) (0,10) xvel = 0.0 yvel = 0.0
hist unbal
step 250
pause
change cons 2
ret
At this point in the run, the stresses generated by the initial elastic model still exist and act as initial
stresses for the region containing the new Mohr-Coulomb model.
Two points should be remembered. First, if a null block is created (via the EXCAVATE command)
in any part of the model (even if it is subsequently replaced by another non-null block), all stresses
are removed from the null block. Second, if one material model is replaced by another and the
stresses should physically be zero in the new model, then an INSITU command must be used to reset
the stresses to zero in this region. This situation would occur if rock is mined out and replaced by
backfill; the backfill should start its life without stress.
3.5.6 Stresses in a Jointed Medium
A spatial heterogeneity in an initial stress state can develop in a jointed and fractured medium.
This results from the stress path followed during the geologic history of the medium and the
physical processes, related to fracturing and slip and separation along discontinuities, which may
have occurred at different stages in the history. Spatial heterogeneity of the stress state can be
an important factor in the design of underground excavations, particularly if the resulting stress
concentrations adversely influence the excavation stability.
It is very difficult to determine whether the stress state installed in a jointed model is representative
of the in-situ state of stress. As discussed later in Section 3.11.2, statistical analyses may provide a
means to develop confidence in the model representation. One such study using UDEC is reported
by Brady et al. (1986).
There are certain modeling aspects that should be considered when bringing a jointed model to an
equilibrated state. First, the INSITU command should be invoked after all joints are generated in
the model. Then the normal and shear stresses along joints will be initialized, corresponding to the
initial stress values resolved along the plane of each joint.
3DEC Version 3.0

As mentioned previously, a jointed model will not be in equilibrium initially, even when internal
stresses are set to match boundary stresses. Some calculation steps are required and the unbalanced
force should be monitored. In addition, histories of velocities or displacements should be recorded
at various locations in the model. These are good indicators of the calculation step at which motion
is negligible. The user should always ensure that motion in the model has essentially stopped for
the equilibrium stress state before beginning the next stage of an analysis.
It is possible that, for the specified initial stress state and joint strength properties, some joints will
slip or separate when the model is brought to an equilibrated state. Joint slip which is confined
within the model is acceptable; “locked-in” stresses at the joint ends will result. However, the user
should avoid conditions for which joint failure extends to the model boundary. This indicates that
the model conditions are not well-posed. It may be necessary to reevaluate the assigned stress state,
joint properties and joint orientations and locations. If conditions are such that joint failure still
extends to a boundary, then a fixed boundary condition should be considered. This implies that the
joint is truncated at the boundary.
The data file in Example 3.16 demonstrates the case of a joint dipping at 60◦ confined between two
joints dipping at 20◦ . The 60◦ joint slips for the prescribed initial stress while the 20◦ joints do not.
The friction angle for all joints is 30◦ .
Example 3.16 Slip of a confined joint

new
poly brick -10,10 -20,0 -10,10
jset dip 60 dd 90 or 0,-10,0
jset dip 20 dd 90 or 0,-8,0
jset dip 20 dd 90 or 0,-12,0
join -10 10 -20 -14 -10 10 on
join -10 10 -7 0 -10 10 on
gen edge 2.0
prop jmat=1 kn 5e11 ks 2.5e11 fric 30
insitu stress -2.5e7,-1e7 -2.5e6 0,0,0
bound -10.1,-9.9 -20,0 -10,10 stress -2.5e6 0 0 0 0 0
bound 9.1,10.1 -20,0 -10,10 stress -2.5e6 0 0 0 0 0
bound -10,10 -20,0 -10.1,-9.9 stress 0 0 -2.5e6 0 0 0
bound -10,10 -20,0 9.9,10.1 stress 0 0 -2.5e6 0 0 0
bound -10,10 -.1,.1 -10,10 stress 0 -1e7 0 0 0 0
bound -10,10 -20.1,-19.9 -10,10 yvel 0.0
hist unbal
hist ydis 0,-10,0
step 1000
plot hold x w mag 2 sxy jshear blue
ret
3DEC Version 3.0

Figure 3.25 shows a block plot on which the region of joint slip is indicated by joint shear vectors.
Contours of σxy are also plotted and show the areas of locked-in stresses near the ends of the 60◦
joint.
3DEC (Version 3.00)

Cross section plot:
27-Aug-02 12:34
geometric scale
0 5E 00
vector scale
0 1E-03
dip= 90.00 above

dd = 180.00
center 0.000E+00
-1.000E+01
0.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 2.00
cycle 1000
xy-stress contours
from to
-1.500E+05 -5.000E+04
0.000E+00 1.000E+05
1.500E+05 2.500E+05
3.000E+05 4.000E+05
4.500E+05 5.500E+05
Max shear in plane =

3.890E-04
Figure 3.25 Slip of a confined joint; plot shows shear stress contours
3.5.7 Determination of the In-situ Stress State
Knowledge of the virgin stress field is required in order to establish appropriate boundary and
initial conditions for models of underground excavations. However, often it is not possible to
perform in-situ stress measurements sufficiently far from underground excavations or topographic
features to determine virgin stresses. This is particularly true for mines using massive mining
methods. Boundary stresses may be approximated from regional stress compilations if available
— e.g., Müller et al. (1992), Lindner and Halpern (1978), but three-dimensional modeling can
be used to quantify the various forms of induced stress, such as those generated by topography,
excavations, or material property variations. Subtracting the induced stress components from the
total or measured stress enables the virgin stress field to be computed. The latter method has the
advantage of being able to utilize stress measurements which are known to include induced stresses
from various sources (or to check if the measurements are free of induced stress). It also enables a
computation of the local stress field to be made, which is not necessarily represented by the regional
stress field. The following procedure has been used in three-dimensional stress analyses to estimate
virgin stresses from in-situ measurements that were influenced by various forms of induced stress.
3DEC Version 3.0

The total stress field, σtot , at any point is the sum of virgin stress plus any induced stress components,
σind . Virgin stress, in turn, is composed of gravitational stress, σgrav , plus an as-yet-undetermined
additional horizontal component that will be referred to as a tectonic component, σtec . There
are various geological reasons for why this additional horizontal component of stress should be
incorporated into the total stress tensor. Eq. (3.11) relates these components:
σtot = σgrav + σtec + σind (3.11)
The induced stress, in turn, is composed of gravitational and tectonic components:
σind = σ̄grav + σ̄tec (3.12)
Substituting Eq. (3.12) into Eq. (3.11) produces:
σtot = σgrav + σ̄grav + σtec + σ̄tec (3.13)
which, upon regrouping, becomes:
σtec + σ̄tec = σtot − (σgrav + σ̄grav ) (3.14)
Terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (3.14) are either known (stress measurements are representative
of the total stress field) or can be computed using a model with only gravitational loading.
To start the computation process, it should be assumed that the problem geometry (i.e., topography,
nearby excavations) is the primary factor generating the induced stress field and that material
property variations produce only second-order effects. (Experience has shown this to be a reasonable
assumption.)
First, a model is constructed, taking into account the topography and excavation geometry. This
is run with gravitational loading only. The resulting stress field at the stress measurement points
accounts for gravity, plus the gravitational component of induced stress caused by the problem
geometry. The resultant calculated vertical stresses are compared to the corresponding measured
vertical stresses, and the measured stresses (all components) are adjusted to bring the measured
vertical stress into agreement with the calculated vertical stress. This latter step essentially scales
the measured stress to the model. If the computed and measured vertical components of stress are
found to differ by a large amount, then either the model is incorrect (e.g., incorrect densities), there
are other unknown sources of induced stress (e.g., locked-in stresses from geological processes), or
there are significant errors in the measurements. In these situations, it is wise to further investigate
to determine the reason for the stress anomaly, because confidence in the stress field is a critical
design requirement.
The unknown tectonic components can be solved by applying unit normal or shear stress boundary
conditions to the model and computing the resultant stress level at the stress measurement point.
3DEC Version 3.0

The correct “far-field” tectonic boundary stress is computed by scaling the unit stress results to
match the magnitudes of components obtained using Eq. (3.14). The total stress field is specified
by the combination of horizontal tectonic stresses applied at the boundary of the model, as well as
gravitational stresses.
3.5.8 Transferring Field Stresses to Model Stresses
A utility program, “TRANS.EXE,” is provided in the “\Tutorial\Solving” directory to transform

field stresses into a set of stress components referenced to the local problem axes defined for the
3DEC model. The orientation of the local (model) axes is defined by the dip and dip direction of
the local z-axis. The local y-axis lies in the vertical plane containing the z-axis dip vector, and the
x-axis lies in the horizontal plane. The program “TRANS.EXE” calculates local stress components
on the basis of the following input data.
field principal stress 1 (σ1 ): magnitude, dip and dip direction
local z-axis: dip and bearing
The user must ensure that the directions of σ1 , σ2 and σ3 are orthogonal.
“TRANS.EXE” computes, first, a set of stress components referenced to a left-handed set X, Y,
Z of global axes which are oriented X (north), Y (east) and Z (vertically up). Then, the set of
stress components referenced to the model axes are calculated. The output stress components are
recorded on a file named “TRANS.REC.”
The following example illustrates the transformation of field stresses to boundary stresses for the
3DEC model. A tunnel ventilation raise is oriented with an axis dip of 84◦ and dip direction of
125◦ , as shown previously in Figure 3.12. The 3DEC model axes are oriented as shown in that
figure. The z-axis is directed down the raise, the y-axis lies in the vertical plane containing the raise
dip vector, and the x-axis lies in the horizontal plane, directed N35◦ E.
The field stresses for this problem are listed below.
σ1 = 30 MPa directed 24◦ / 231◦ (dip / dip direction)

For a z-axis orientation of dip = 84◦ and dip direction = 125◦ , program “TRANS.EXE” computes
the following stress components relative to the local axis (in 3DEC, tensile stresses are considered
positive).
3DEC Version 3.0

Stress Data for 3DEC (left-handed axes)
Field Stress:
Principal Stress 1 Magnitude -30.0 Dip 24.0 Bearing 231.0
Stresses Relative to Global Axes (X (north), Y (east), Z (vertically up)):
FXX -19.44 FYY -22.47 FZZ -15.09
FXY - 5.79 FYZ - 5.17 FZX - 4.38
Model z-Axis Orientation:

Dip 84.0 Bearing 125.0
Stresses Relative to Model Axes:
SXX -25.85 SYY -16.38 SZZ -14.74
SXY 4.07 SYZ 1.59 SXZ - 6.16
This information is contained in “TRANS.REC.” The boundary stresses applied to the model are
then
σxx = -25.8 MPa, σyy = -16.38 MPa, σzz = -14.74 MPa
σxy = 4.07 MPa, σyz = 1.59 MPa, σzx = -6.16 MPa
3.5.9 Topographical Stresses
The command INSITU topograph automatically calculates gravity loading in models which have an
irregular top surface. The stresses are calculated based on the density of the overlying materials
and specifies Ko values.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.6 Loading and Sequential Modeling
By applying different model loading conditions at different stages of an analysis, it is possible to

simulate changes in physical loading, such as sequences of excavation and construction. Changes
in loading may be specified in a number of ways — e.g., by applying new stress or displacement
boundaries, by changing the material model in blocks to either a null material or to a different
material model, or by changing material properties.
It is important to recognize that sequential modeling follows the stages of an engineering work.
In most analyses, each work stage corresponds to a different static solution following a loading
change — i.e., physical time is not a parameter. 3DEC can perform calculations for heat transfer
and dynamic mechanical analysis as well (see Sections 1 and 2 in Optional Features). In these
cases, a static solution for an equilibrium stress state may be followed, for example, by a dynamic
calculation for an applied explosive excitation or a transient calculation for flow through joints.
Time-dependent behavior, on the other hand, cannot be simulated directly. Some engineering
judgment must be used to estimate the effects of time. For example, a model parameter may be
changed after a pre-determined amount of displacement or strain has occurred. This displacement
may be estimated to have occurred over a given period of time.
A loading change must cause unbalanced forces to develop in order to effect a change in model
response. Therefore, changing the elastic properties will have no effect, whereas changing strength
properties will if the change causes the current stress state to exceed the failure limit.
The recommended approach to sequential modeling is demonstrated by the following example.
This problem involves the stability analysis of an underground opening in jointed rock and includes
the evaluation of different types of support measures. The stages to be analyzed are:
(1) equilibration at the in-situ stress state;
(2) excavation of the tunnel; and
(3) application of the tunnel support.
The objective is to investigate the stability of the excavation under in-situ conditions and assess
the effect of the support measures. Three types of support are evaluated: local reinforcement rock
bolts, cable bolts and a continuous concrete liner. Note that this model is greatly simplified for
rapid execution, but it still illustrates the recommended steps for loading and sequential modeling.
The tunnel is located in rock containing three major faults: one dipping at 65◦ with a dip direction
of 40◦ ; the second dipping at 70◦ with a dip direction of 270◦ ; and the third dipping at 60◦ with a
dip direction of 130◦ . The tunnel is horseshoe-shaped and is centered along the z-axis of the model.
The tunnel is created with the TUNNEL command. A second TUNNEL command is also used to define
the location of the concrete liner. Note that this must be done before any cycling is performed. The
model is created by the following series of commands beginning with Example 3.17:
3DEC Version 3.0

Example 3.17 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — initial model

new
poly brick -10 10 -10 10 -10 10
; --- tunz: FISH function to define tunnel geometry parameters --------
; ... tunnel along z axis, from ZZA to ZZB
; ... semi-circular roof, centered at (TXC,TYC)
;
def tunz
;
zza = -10.0
zzb = 10.0
;
; --- outer surface ---
txb1 = -4.0
tyb1 = -4.0
txb2 = 4.0
tyb2 = -4.0
;
txc = 0.0
tyc = 0.0
tr = 4.0
tx1 = txc + tr * cos(180*degrad)
ty1 = tyc + tr * sin(180*degrad)
;
; --- inner surface ---
; thickness th
th = 0.5
txb1i = -4.0 + th
tyb1i = -4.0 + th
txb2i = 4.0 - th
tyb2i = -4.0 + th
;
txc = 0.0
tyc = 0.0
tri = tr - th
tx1i = txc + tri * cos(180*degrad)
3DEC Version 3.0

ty1i = tyc + tri * sin(180*degrad)

;
end
;
; ---------------------------------------------------------------------
; (execute function)
tunz
;
; create outer surface
tunnel a txb1 tyb1 zza tx1 ty1 zza tx2 ty2 zza tx3 ty3 zza &
tx4 ty4 zza tx5 ty5 zza txb2 tyb2 zza &
b txb1 tyb1 zzb tx1 ty1 zzb tx2 ty2 zzb tx3 ty3 zzb &
tx4 ty4 zzb tx5 ty5 zzb txb2 tyb2 zzb &
reg 5
;
; create inner surface
tunnel a txb1i tyb1i zza tx1i ty1i zza tx2i ty2i zza tx3i ty3i zza &
tx4i ty4i zza tx5i ty5i zza txb2i tyb2i zza &
b txb1i tyb1i zzb tx1i ty1i zzb tx2i ty2i zzb tx3i ty3i zzb &
tx4i ty4i zzb tx5i ty5i zzb txb2i tyb2i zzb &
reg 7
;
; --- NOTE: region inside inner surface is REG 7
; region between surface (to be liner) is REG 5
;
save tun_a.sav
;
; --- joints --- 3 joints to form a wedge in the roof
;
jset dd 270 dip 70 or 0,5.7 0 id 10
jset dd 40 dip 65 or 0,5.7 0 id 10
jset dd 130 dip 60 or 0,5.7 0 id 10
;
save tun_b.sav
;
; --- mesh generation ---
; rock blocks
hide reg 5 7
3DEC Version 3.0

gen ed 5
;
; liner
find reg 5
gen ed 2
;
find reg 7
gen ed 5
;
save tun_z.sav
pl hold dip 70 dd 210 color mat
ret
Figure 3.26 shows the resulting model configuration. The tunnel geometry parameters are defined
in the FISH function tunz. The inner region of the tunnel is assigned region number 7, and the
region corresponding to the liner is assigned region number 5. Note that the tunnel is created first
and then the physical joint set is generated. Blocks are joined automatically with the TUNNEL
commands. Zone generation is performed separately for the rock blocks, the liner blocks and the
interior region of the tunnel.
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 13:59
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 210.00
center 0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 0
Y
z x
Figure 3.26 3DEC model of tunnel region
Material properties are assigned to the rock blocks (mat 1), the concrete liner blocks (mat 5), the
rock joints (jmat 1), the concrete-concrete joints (jmat 5) and the concrete-rock interface (jmat 6).
3DEC Version 3.0

The in-situ stress state and boundary conditions are applied assuming the tunnel is at a depth of
200 m and the ratio of horizontal to vertical stress is 0.5. Note that for a practical simulation, the
boundaries are too close to the tunnel excavation and should be moved to a greater distance to
minimize their influence on the model results — see Section 3.4.4.2.
The commands to assign material properties and achieve the initial stress state are listed in Exam-
ple 3.18.
Example 3.18 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — initial equilibrium stress

state
rest tun_z.sav
;
; --- properties ---
;
; --- MAT 1 : rock ---
; density = 2700 kg/m3 = 0.0027e6 kg/m3
; E=50 GPa, Poisson’s ratio=0.2
prop mat 1 dens 0.0027 k 27778 g 20833
;
; --- MAT=5 : concrete liner ---
; density = 2400 kg/m3 = 0.0024e6 kg/m3
prop mat 5 dens 0.0025 k 16667 g 12500
;
; --- JMAT=1 : rock joints ---
prop mat 1 kn 10000 ks 2000 fric 25
;
; --- JMAT=5 : concrete-concrete joints (elastic) ---
prop mat 5 kn 30000 ks 12000 coh 1e6 tens 1e6
;
; --- JMAT=6 : concrete-rock interface ---
prop mat 6 kn 10000 ks 2000 fric 0.001
;
; --- assign material numbers ---
; initially all materials are rock
change mat 1
change jmat 1
;
; --- insitu stress state ---
; assume tunnel at 200 m depth
; vertical stress: syy=(0.0027*g)*(y-200)
; at y=0: syy=-5.4
; y-gradient of syy: 0.027
; (positive: less compression going up)
; horizontal sxx=szz=0.5*syy
3DEC Version 3.0

;
insitu stress -2.7 -5.4 -2.7 0 0 0 &
ygrad 0.0135 0.027 0.0135 0 0 0
;
; gravity
grav 0 -10 0
;
; --- boundary conditions for insitu stress state ---
; top of model (y=10): syy=-0.027*190=-5.13
bound yr 9.9 10.1 stress 0 -5.13 0 0 0 0
; bottom
bound yr -10.1 -9.9 yvel 0
; sides
bound xr -10.1 -9.9 xvel 0
bound xr 9.9 10.1 xvel 0
bound zr -10.1 -9.9 zvel 0
bound zr 9.9 10.1 zvel 0
;
; --- histories to monitor convergence ---
hist nc=1 unbal
; top of model
hist xdis 0 10 0 ydis 0 10 0 zdis 0 10 0
;
save tun_c0.sav
cycle 500
save tun_c.sav
pl hold hist 2 3 4
ret
The maximum unbalanced force in the model and displacements at the top boundary are monitored
to help make sure that an initial equilibrium stress state is reached within 1000 cycles. Figure 3.27
shows the x-, y- and z-displacement histories for the gridpoint (x = 0, y = 10, z = 0) at the top of
the model.
3DEC Version 3.0


0.4
HISTORY PLOT
27-Aug-02 14:07
0.2 cycle 500
Hist. no. 2
-9.059E-07 to 0.000E+00
0.0
Hist. no. 3
-1.517E-06 to -8.306E-08
-0.2 Hist. no. 4
-1.335E-07 to 1.812E-07
VS
Time
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Figure 3.27 Displacement histories at top of model
If the tunnel is excavated without support, a rock wedge detaches and falls from the roof. This
is shown by running Example 3.19; the tunnel is excavated with the DELETE command, and the
y-displacement at a location in the roof is monitored while the model is cycled. Figure 3.29 plots
the y-displacement history and indicates that the position is moving downward. Figure 3.28 shows
a close-up view of the detached wedge, with surrounding blocks hidden for better viewing.
Example 3.19 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — unsupported tunnel

rest tun_c.sav
; delete interior blocks
remove reg 5 7
;
; history point at tunnel roof
reset disp time hist
hist ydis 0 4 0
;
cycle 5000
;
save tun_x.sav
pl hold hist 1
hide -.7 2.7 3.7 6 -10 -3
pl hold dip 90 dd 180 mag 2
ret
3DEC Version 3.0


0.0
HISTORY PLOT
27-Aug-02 14:10
cycle 5500
-0.4 Hist. no. 1

-2.227E-02 to -6.176E-05
VS
Time
-0.8
-1.2
-1.6
-2.0
-2.4
-2.8
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Figure 3.28 y-displacement history at tunnel roof
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 14:10
dip= 90.00 above

dd = 180.00
center 0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 2.00
cycle 5500
Figure 3.29 Close-up view of wedge in roof (surrounding blocks hidden)
3DEC Version 3.0

The effect of rock bolt support is evaluated first for local reinforcement elements (STRUCT axial) and
then for fully-bonded cable elements (STRUCT cable). See Section 4 in Theory and Background
for a detailed description of these two types of structural support.
Example 3.20 lists the commands to excavate the tunnel and install the local reinforcement elements,
and Example 3.21 lists those for cable element support. Note that we use the REMOVE command
to excavate the tunnel this time. This has the same effect as the DELETE command, but now we
can view the excavated region with the PLOT exc command. The reinforcement elements and cable
elements are positioned in the same locations in the side walls and roof of the tunnel. Figure 3.30
shows the location of the cable elements around the tunnel excavation.
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 14:07
dip= 80.00 above

dd = 190.00
center 0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 2.00
cycle 500
Figure 3.30 Cable bolts positioned around tunnel excavation
Example 3.20 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — local reinforcement support

rest tun_c.sav
;
remove region 7
; delete liner blocks
remove reg 5
; --- install axial elements ---
struct axial -8 -2 -5 -3.9 -2 -5 prop 7
struct axial -8 -2 0 -3.9 -2 0 prop 7
struct axial -8 -2 5 -3.9 -2 5 prop 7
3DEC Version 3.0

struct axial -6.8 6.8 -5 -2.8 2.8 -5 prop 7

struct axial -6.8 6.8 0 -2.8 2.8 0 prop 7
struct axial -6.8 6.8 5 -2.8 2.8 5 prop 7
;
struct axial 8 -2 -5 3.9 -2 -5 prop 7
struct axial 8 -2 0 3.9 -2 0 prop 7
struct axial 8 -2 5 3.9 -2 5 prop 7
struct axial 6.8 6.8 -5 2.8 2.8 -5 prop 7
struct axial 6.8 6.8 0 2.8 2.8 0 prop 7
struct axial 6.8 6.8 5 2.8 2.8 5 prop 7
;
struct axial 0 4 -5 0 8 -5 prop 7
struct axial 0 4 0 0 8 0 prop 7
struct axial 0 4 5 0 8 5 prop 7
;
struct prop 7 rkax 250 rlen 0.10 rult 0.55
;
hist ydis 0 4 0
;
cy 2000
;
save tun_lr.sav
pl hold hist 1
ret
Example 3.21 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — fully grouted cable support
rest tun_c.sav
;
remove region 7
; delete liner blocks
remove reg 5
; --- install cable elements ---
struct cable -8 -2 -5 -4.05 -2 -5 prop 8 seg 4
struct cable -8 -2 0 -4.05 -2 0 prop 8 seg 4
struct cable -8 -2 5 -4.05 -2 5 prop 8 seg 4
struct cable -6.8 6.8 -5 -2.85 2.85 -5 prop 8 seg 4
struct cable -6.8 6.8 0 -2.85 2.85 0 prop 8 seg 4
struct cable -6.8 6.8 5 -2.85 2.85 5 prop 8 seg 4
;
struct cable 8 -2 -5 4.05 -2 -5 prop 8 seg 4
struct cable 8 -2 0 4.05 -2 0 prop 8 seg 4
3DEC Version 3.0

struct cable 8 -2 5 4.05 -2 5 prop 8 seg 4

struct cable 6.8 6.8 -5 2.85 2.85 -5 prop 8 seg 4
struct cable 6.8 6.8 0 2.85 2.85 0 prop 8 seg 4
struct cable 6.8 6.8 5 2.85 2.85 5 prop 8 seg 4
;
struct cable 0 4.1 -5 0 8 -5 prop 8 seg 4
struct cable 0 4.1 0 0 8 0 prop 8 seg 4
struct cable 0 4.1 5 0 8 5 prop 8 seg 4
;
; start with high SBOND
struct prop 8 area 5e-4 e 100000 yield 0.55 kbond 15e4 sbond 1e6
;
hist ydis 0 4 0
;
cycle 500
;
; set real SBOND
struct prop 8 sbond 0.8
;
cy 1500
;
save tun_cab.sav
pl hold wire exc cable blue dip 80 dd 190 mag 2
pl hold hist 1
ret
The roof is stabilized for both types of reinforcement. The y-displacement history now indicates
that the wedge movement stops at roughly 25 mm displacement for both the reinforcement elements
and the cable elements (see Figures 3.31 and 3.32).
3DEC Version 3.0


0.0
HISTORY PLOT
27-Aug-02 14:30
cycle 2500
-0.5 Hist. no. 1

-2.616E-03 to -6.176E-05
VS
Time
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
Figure 3.31 y-displacement history at tunnel roof — reinforcement element

support

0.0
HISTORY PLOT
27-Aug-02 14:28
cycle 2500
-0.5 Hist. no. 1

-2.662E-03 to -6.071E-05
VS
Time
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
Figure 3.32 y-displacement history at tunnel roof — cable support
3DEC Version 3.0

The axial forces that develop in the support are greatest in the roof elements. This is shown for
both the reinforcement elements and the cable elements by the axial force plots in Figures 3.33 and
3.34.
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 14:30
dip= 90.00 above

dd = 180.00
center 0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 2.00
cycle 2500
interval = 5.000E-02
min max
2.500E-01 3.000E-01
2.000E-01 2.500E-01
1.500E-01 2.000E-01
1.000E-01 1.500E-01
5.000E-02 1.000E-01
0.000E+00 5.000E-02
Max Axial Rein Force=
2.861E-01
Figure 3.33 Axial forces in reinforcement elements
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 14:28
dip= 90.00 above

dd = 180.00
center 0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 2.00
cycle 2500
Max Axial Cable Force=

6.955E-02
Figure 3.34 Axial forces in cable elements
3DEC Version 3.0

The model of a tunnel excavation and support sequence should simulate the change in stresses
around the tunnel as the excavation advances, before the tunnel support is installed. This can be
done in a 3DEC model by alternately excavating the tunnel in sections and installing support after
each excavation section. This is the recommended approach to simulate support loading changes
due to tunnel advancement.
Alternatively, in this simplified model we simulate the effect of tunnel advancement by reducing
the tractions at the tunnel periphery in increments and installing the liner before the tractions are
completely removed. This demonstrates an approach for simulating a gradual excavation of a tunnel
section. Example 3.22 shows the data file for this approach.
Example 3.22 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — reduce tunnel tractions by

50% and install liner
rest tun_c.sav
delete region 7
;
; excavate liner blocks (not deleted)
excavate reg 5
;
hist xdis 0 4 0 ydis 0 4 0 zdis 0 4 0
;
; simulate the removal of approximately 50% of insitu stress
; applying at liner-rock interface a stress state
; syy=-2.7 sxx=szz=-1.35
;
bound -4.1 -3.9 -4.1 0.1 -11 11 str -1.35 -2.7 -1.35 0 0 0
bound 3.9 4.1 -4.1 0.1 -11 11 str -1.35 -2.7 -1.35 0 0 0
bound -4.1 4.1 -4.1 -3.9 -11 11 str -1.35 -2.7 -1.35 0 0 0
; note: need to include all faces on tunnel surface
; (inner radius must be a bit smaller than 4.0)
bound yr -0.1 4.1 cyl 0 0 -11 0 0 11 3.5 4.1 &
str -1.35 -2.7 -1.35 0 0 0
;
; must again fix end-surfaces that were freed by BOU STRESS
bou zr -10.1 -9.9 zvel 0
bou zr 9.9 10.1 zvel 0
;
; check that sum of applied forces on tunnel surface is zero
pr -5 5 -5 5 -11 11 bou for
pause
;
cycle 2000
;
3DEC Version 3.0

save tun_l1.sav
pause
;
; --- insert liner ---
; remove loads from tunnel surface
;
bound -4.1 -3.9 -4.1 0.1 -11 11 xfree yfree zfree
bound 3.9 4.1 -4.1 0.1 -11 11 xfree yfree zfree
bound -4.1 4.1 -4.1 -3.9 -11 11 xfree yfree zfree
bound yr -0.1 4.1 cyl 0 0 -11 0 0 11 3.5 4.1 xfree yfree zfree
;
; must again fix end-surfaces
bou zr -10.1 -9.9 zvel 0
bou zr 9.9 10.1 zvel 0
;
; insert liner
fill reg 5 mat 5 jmat 5
;
; join liner blocks
join reg 5
;
; assign rock-liner interface material
change rint 0 5 jmat 6
;
cy 2000
;
save tun_l2.sav
hide
seek reg 5
pl hold dip 80 dd 200 mag 2
pl hold hist 6
ret
The BOUND command is used to apply 50% of the in-situ stress state to the liner-rock interface, and
the BOUND range covers all faces on the tunnel surface. The applied stresses at the tunnel surface
should produce traction forces on the surface that sum to zero; this can be checked with the PRINT
bound force command. The model is cycled to an equilibrium state with tunnel tractions reduced
by 50%. Then, the tractions are removed completely, and the liner is installed (with the FILL region
command). Figure 3.35 shows the liner blocks created for this model. The model is cycled to a
new equilibrium state. The load that develops in the liner is due to the reduction of the tractions
from 50% to zero.
Note that the selection of a 50% reduction in tunnel tractions in this example is arbitrary and only
for demonstration purposes. If it is necessary to simulate a gradual excavation, it may be necessary
to reduce the tractions in smaller increments to minimize the effects of transient stress waves on
the response of the model.
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 14:45
dip= 80.00 above

dd = 200.00
center 0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 2.00
cycle 4500
Figure 3.35 Thick concrete liner support — liner blocks
The displacement of the roof is monitored in Figure 3.36. Roughly 1 mm of vertical displacement
occurs when the tractions are reduced by 50% and an additional 1 mm displacement after the tunnel
tractions are completely removed and the liner is installed.

0.8
HISTORY PLOT
27-Aug-02 14:45
cycle 4500
0.4
Hist. no. 6
-2.113E-03 to 2.505E-06
VS
0.0 Time
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
-1.6
-2.0
-2.4
-2.8
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Figure 3.36 y-displacement history at tunnel roof — tunnel liner added after
tractions reduced by 50%
3DEC Version 3.0

If a more representative model of the liner behavior, including an elastic-plastic response, is required,
then mixed-discretization zoning (see Section 3.3.2) should be used to define the liner with a
minimum of five m-d zones across the liner thickness. The POLY prism command can be used to
create liner blocks for the m-d zones. Example 3.23 presents a data file to create the liner with m-d
zoning.
Example 3.23 Stability analysis of an underground excavation — liner with m-d zoning
rest tun_c0.sav
delete reg 5 7
; ---------------------------------------------------------------------
; --- insert support with POLY prism commands ---
;
poly prism a txb1 tyb1 zza tx1 ty1 zza &
tx1i ty1i zza txb1i tyb1i zza &
b txb1 tyb1 zzb tx1 ty1 zzb &
tx1i ty1i zzb txb1i tyb1i zzb &
reg 8
;
poly prism a tx1 ty1 zza tx2 ty2 zza &
tx2i ty2i zza tx1i ty1i zza &
b tx1 ty1 zzb tx2 ty2 zzb &
tx2i ty2i zzb tx1i ty1i zzb &
reg 8
;
reg 8
;
reg 8
;
reg 8
;
poly prism a tx5 ty5 zza txb2 tyb2 zza &
txb2i tyb2i zza tx5i ty5i zza &
3DEC Version 3.0

b tx5 ty5 zzb txb2 tyb2 zzb &

txb2i tyb2i zzb tx5i ty5i zzb &
reg 8
;
poly prism a txb2 tyb2 zza txb1 tyb1 zza &
txb1i tyb1i zza txb2i tyb2i zza &
b txb2 tyb2 zzb txb1 tyb1 zzb &
txb1i tyb1i zzb txb2i tyb2i zzb &
reg 8
;
gen quad ndiv 5 5 10 rmul 1.0
;
change reg 8 mat 5
;
; --- MAT=5 : concrete liner ---
; density = 2400 kg/m3 = 0.0024e6 kg/m3
prop mat 5 dens 0.0025 k 16667 g 12500
;
; --- JMAT=5 : concrete-concrete joints (elastic) ---
prop mat 5 kn 30000 ks 12000 coh 1e6 tens 1e6
;
; --- JMAT=6 : concrete-rock interface ---
prop mat 6 kn 10000 ks 2000 fric 35
;
; ---------------------------------------------------------------------
;
hist ydis 0 4 0
;
cycle 2000
;
save tun_lin3.sav
hide
seek reg 8
pl hold dip 75 dd 188 color reg
pl hold wire zol
pl hold hist 1
pl dip 90 dd 180 x cent -1 2 2 mag 8 sscale 10 princ ccomp
ret
Note that the prism-shaped blocks must be created before cycling is initiated. In this example, we
delete the blocks in region 5 and insert prism-shaped blocks for the liner (defined now as region
3DEC Version 3.0

8). The m-d zoning is created with the GEN quad command and only elastic behavior is assigned
to the liner material. If we wish to evaluate the elastic-plastic response, the bilinear material model
(CHANGE cons 6 with the ubiquitous joint behavior suppressed) can be assigned to the liner material.
The liner supports the entire load in this example. (We could also reduce the tractions as before
in Example 3.22.) Figure 3.37 illustrates the liner blocks for this case, and Figure 3.38 shows the
m-d zoning within the liner.
3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 14:52
dip= 75.00 above

dd = 188.00
center 0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 2.00
cycle 2000
Figure 3.37 Thick concrete liner support — prism-shaped liner blocks
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC (Version 3.00)

27-Aug-02 14:52
dip= 75.00 above

dd = 188.00
center 0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 2.00
cycle 2000
z
x
Figure 3.38 Thick concrete liner support — mixed-discretization zoning in

liner blocks
3DEC Version 3.0

Figure 3.39 shows the plot of the y-displacement in the roof for this case. Approximately 1.6 mm
displacement occurs when the liner supports the tunnel. The stresses in the liner are plotted in
Figure 3.40.

0.0
HISTORY PLOT
27-Aug-02 14:52
cycle 2000
-0.2
Hist. no. 1
-1.743E-03 to -3.421E-06
-0.4 VS
Time
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
-2.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Figure 3.39 y-displacement history at tunnel roof — support by prism-shaped

liner blocks
3DEC (Version 3.00)

Cross section plot:
27-Aug-02 14:52
geometric scale
0 2E 00
vector scale
0 2E+01
dip= 90.00 above

dd = 180.00
center -1.000E+00
2.000E+00
2.000E+00
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 8.00
cycle 2000
tension
compression
Max compress. stress

-5.280E+00
Figure 3.40 Principal stress distribution in top section of liner
3DEC Version 3.0

3.7 Choice of Constitutive Model
This section provides an overview of the block and joint constitutive models in 3DEC as well
as recommendations concerning when to use a model. Section 2 in Theory and Background
presents background information on the block constitutive model formulations. Also see user-
defined models and extended material models in Optional Features. The joint models are described
in Sections 1.2.2.3 and 3 in Theory and Background.
3.7.1 Deformable-Block Material Models
There are five built-in block material models in 3DEC:

(1) null (EXCAVATE command);
(2) elastic, isotropic (CHANGE cons = 1);
(3) elastic, anisotropic (CHANGE cons = 3);
(4) Mohr-Coulomb plasticity (CHANGE cons = 2); and
(5) bilinear strain-hardening/softening, ubiquitous joint (CHANGE cons = 6).
Note that the null model is assigned with the EXCAVATE command. The other four models are
assigned with the CHANGE cons command. Model properties are then specified for the non-null
models with the PROPERTY mat command for material property numbers, and the property numbers
are assigned to the blocks with the CHANGE mat command.
Each block model is designed to represent a specific type of constitutive behavior commonly
associated with geologic materials. The null model is used to represent material which is removed
from the model. The elastic, isotropic model is valid for homogeneous, isotropic, continuous
materials which exhibit linear stress-strain behavior. The elastic, anisotropic model is appropriate
for elastic materials that exhibit a well-defined elastic anisotropy. The Mohr-Coulomb plasticity
model is used for materials that yield when subjected to shear loading, but the yield stress depends
on the major and minor principal stresses only; the intermediate principal stress has no effect on
yield. The bilinear strain-softening, ubiquitous joint model combines a strain-softening Mohr-
Coulomb model for the matrix material with a strain-softening ubiquitous joint model to represent
a well-defined strength anisotropy. This model includes a bilinear failure envelope for both the
matrix and the ubiquitous joints.
The material models in 3DEC are primarily intended for applications related to geotechnical engi-
neering — e.g., underground construction, mining, slope stability, foundations, earth and rock-fill
dams. When selecting a constitutive model for a particular engineering analysis, the following two
considerations should be kept in mind:
1. What are the known characteristics of the material being modeled?
2. What is the intended application of the model analysis?
3DEC Version 3.0

Table 3.2 presents a summary of the 3DEC block models along with examples of representative
materials and possible applications of the models. The elastic block model is generally applicable
for cases in which slip along discontinuities is the predominant mechanism for failure. The Mohr-
Coulomb model should be used when stress levels are such that failure of intact material is expected.
Mohr-Coulomb parameters for cohesion and friction angle are usually available more often than
other properties for geo-engineering materials.
Table 3.2 3DEC block constitutive models

Model Representative Material Example Application
null void holes, excavations, regions in which

material will be added at later stage
elastic homogeneous, isotropic continuum; manufactured materials (e.g., steel)
linear stress-strain behavior loaded below strength limit; factor-of-
safety calculation
Drucker-Prager limited application; soft clays with low common model for comparison to
plasticity friction implicit finite-element programs
Mohr-Coulomb loose and cemented granular materials; general soil or rock mechanics (e.g.,
plasticity soils, rock, concrete slope stability and underground
excavation)
strain-hardening / granular materials that exhibit studies in post-failure (e.g., progressive
softening Mohr- nonlinear material hardening or collapse, yielding pillar, caving) and
Coulomb with softening and/or thinly laminated excavation in closely bedded strata
ubiquitous-joint material exhibiting strength anisotropy
(e.g., slate)
The bilinear strain-softening, ubiquitous-joint model is actually a variation of the Mohr-Coulomb

model. This model will produce identical results for shear failure to that for Mohr-Coulomb if the
additional material parameters are set to high values.
The only difference between the Mohr-Coulomb model and the bilinear model is the tensile failure
criterion:
In the Mohr-Coulomb model, a tension cutoff is specified. When any principal stress
component in a zone exceeds the tension cutoff, all principal stress components in the
zone are set to zero.
In the bilinear model, tensile failure is defined by a tensile strength limit, and post-
failure is governed by an associated plasticity flow rule. The value assigned for the
tensile strength remains constant when tensile failure occurs. Tensile softening can be
controlled with the strain-hardening/softening component of the bilinear model.
3DEC Version 3.0

By default, the tensile strength is zero in both the Mohr-Coulomb and bilinear models. A comparison
of the two tensile failure conditions is given in Example 3.25.
The Mohr-Coulomb model is more computationally efficient than the bilinear model; the bilinear
model requires increased memory and additional time for calculation. For example, plastic strain is
not calculated directly in the Mohr-Coulomb model. If plastic strain is required, the bilinear model
must be used. This model is primarily intended for applications in which the post-failure response
is important — e.g., yielding pillars, caving or backfilling studies.
3.7.2 Joint Material Models
There are two built-in models available to represent the material behavior of discontinuities:
(1) joint area contact — Coulomb slip (CHANGE jcons = 1); and
(2) continuously yielding (CHANGE jcons = 3).
The joint models are assigned to one or more contacts by using the CHANGE jcons command.
Joint model properties are then specified with the PROPERTY jmat command for material property
numbers, and the property numbers are assigned to the contacts with the CHANGE jmat command.
The joint constitutive models are designed to be representative of the physical response of rock
joints. The joint area contact model is intended for closely packed blocks with area contact. The
model provides a linear representation of joint stiffness and yield limit and is based upon elastic
stiffness, frictional, cohesive and tensile strength properties and dilation characteristics common
to rock joints. The model simulates displacement-weakening of the joint by loss of cohesive and
tensile strength at the onset of shear or tensile failure. (A variation of the area contact model is also
available (CHANGE jcons = 2) in which the cohesion and tensile strength are maintained following
failure.) The continuously yielding joint model is a more complex model that simulates continuous
weakening behavior as a function of accumulated plastic-shear displacement.
Table 3.3 summarizes the 3DEC joint models and presents examples of representative materials
and possible applications. The area contact Coulomb slip model is most applicable for general
engineering studies. Coulomb friction and cohesion properties are usually available more often
than other joint properties.
3DEC Version 3.0

Table 3.3 3DEC joint constitutive models

Model Representative Material Example Application
area contact joints, faults, bedding planes in rock general rock mechanics (e.g., under-
ground excavation)
continuously rock joints displaying progressive cyclic loading and load reversal with
yielding damage and hysteretic behavior predominant hysteretic loop; dynamic
analysis
The continuously yielding joint model is an empirical expression that requires more detailed knowl-
edge of the joint behavior. The properties for the continuously yielding model are derived from
laboratory test results relating joint shear stress to shear and normal displacement. It is always
recommended that initial studies be based upon the Coulomb slip model first in order to develop
a fundamental understanding of joint response before applying a more complex joint model. This
is discussed further in the following section. A demonstration of the response of the continuously
yielding model and the required properties are provided in Section 3 in Theory and Background.
3.7.3 Selection of an Appropriate Model
A problem analysis should always start with simple block and joint material models; in most cases,
an elastic block model (cons = 1) and a joint area contact Coulomb slip model (jcons = 1) should
be used first. The elastic block model only requires three material parameters, mass density, bulk
modulus and shear modulus (see Section 3.8.1.2). The Coulomb slip model requires six parameters:
normal and shear stiffness, friction angle, cohesion, tensile strength and dilation angle. Estimates
and references for these properties are given in Section 3.8.2. These material models provide a
simple perspective of stress-deformation behavior in the 3DEC model; the results of these analyses
can help the user assess if a more complex (or simpler) material model is needed to describe the
block or joint behavior. For example, if the stresses and deformations in the blocks are low compared
to the joint movements, then a simpler, rigid block model may be sufficient.
It is often helpful to run simple tests of the selected material model before using it to solve the
full-scale, boundary-value problem. This can provide insight into the expected response of the
model compared to the known response of the physical material.
The following example illustrates the use of a simple test model. The problem application is the
analysis of joint slip around an underground excavation. A simple model is created to evaluate the
adequacy of the Coulomb slip model to represent the response of a joint subjected to shear loading.
The test is a simulation of a direct shear test, which consists of a single horizontal joint that is first
subjected to a normal confining stress and then to a unidirectional shear displacement. Figure 3.41
shows the model; the joint is defined by one contact that is composed of 10 sub-contacts.
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC (Version 3.00)

28-Aug-02 9:28
dip= 70.00 above

dd = 200.00
center 0.000E+00
-7.451E-09
-7.451E-09
cut-pl. 0.000E+00
mag = 1.00
cycle 15100
Max Velocity =
5.003E-03
Figure 3.41 Direct shear test model
First, a normal stress of 20 MPa is applied that is representative of the confining stress acting on the
joint. A horizontal velocity is then applied to the top block to produce a shear displacement that
is also representative of the displacements expected in the problem application. For demonstration
purposes, we only apply a small shear displacement of less than 1 mm to this model.
The average normal and shear stresses and normal and shear displacements along the joint are
measured with a FISH function (av str). With this information we can determine the peak and
residual shear strengths and dilation that are produced with the different models. The data file for
this test using the Coulomb slip model is contained in Example 3.24.
Example 3.24 Direct shear test with Coulomb slip model

new
; Coulomb slip joint model
; direct shear test
;
poly brick -0.15,0.15 -0.10,0 -0.10,0.10
gen edge 1.0
poly brick -0.10,0.10 0,0.10 -0.10,0.10
gen edge 0.2
;
prop mat=1 d=0.0026 k=4000 g=3000
;
3DEC Version 3.0

; Coulomb slip model

change jcons=1
prop jmat=1 kn=100000 ks=100000 fric=30.0 dil 15 zdil 6e-4
; prop jmat=1 coh 10
;
fix -0.15,0.15 -0.1,0 -0.10,0.10
;
; normal load
bound -0.10,0.10 0.09 0.11 -0.10,0.10 str 0 -50 0 0 0 0
;
step 100
;
; function to calculate average joint stresses
; and average joint displacements
;
def av_str
whilestepping
sstav = 0.0
nstav = 0.0
njdisp = 0.0
sjdisp = 0.0
ncon = 0
jarea = 0.04
ic = contact_head
loop while ic # 0
icsub = c_cx(ic)
loop while icsub # 0
ncon = ncon + 1
sstav = sstav + cx_xsforce(icsub)
nstav = nstav + cx_nforce(icsub)
njdisp = njdisp + cx_ndis(icsub)
sjdisp = sjdisp + cx_xsdis(icsub)
icsub = cx_next(icsub)
endloop
if ncon # 0
sstav = sstav / jarea
nstav = nstav / jarea
njdisp = njdisp / ncon
sjdisp = - sjdisp / ncon
endif
ic = c_next{ic)
endloop
end
;
reset jdisp
; shear load
3DEC Version 3.0

bound -0.11 0.11 -0.01 0.11 -0.11 0.11 xvel=0.005

bound -0.16 0.16 -0.11 0.11 -0.11 0.11 zvel=0.0
;
hist unbal ncyc 5
hist sstav nstav njdisp sjdisp
;
hist sdis -1 0 -1 ndis -1 0 -1
hist sdis -1 0 1 ndis -1 0 1
hist sdis 0 0 0 ndis 0 0 0
hist sstr -1 0 -1 nstr -1 0 -1
hist sstr -1 0 1 nstr -1 0 1
hist sstr 0 0 0 nstr 0 0 0
hist sfor -1 0 -1 nfor -1 0 -1
;
cyc 15000
plot hold hist 2 vs 5
plot hold hist 4 vs 5
save cs_1.sav
return
The average shear stress versus shear displacement along the joint is plotted in Figure 3.42, and
the average normal displacement versus shear displacement is plotted in Figure 3.43. These plots
indicate that joint slip occurs for the prescribed model properties and conditions. The loading
slope in Figure 3.42 is linear until a peak shear strength of approximately 2.9 MPa is reached. As
indicated in Figure 3.43, the joint begins to dilate when the joint fails in shear, at roughly 0.3 mm
shear displacement. Dilation occurs until the limiting shear displacement (zdilation = 0.6 mm) is
reached for zero dilation. The maximum average dilation is approximately 0.077 mm.
3DEC Version 3.0


3.5
HISTORY PLOT
28-Aug-02 9:28
cycle 15100
3.0 Hist. no. 2

2.948E-02 to 2.886E+01
VS
Hist. no. 5
2.629E-07 to 9.857E-04
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
Figure
-0.5
3.42 Average shear stress versus shear displacement
— Coulomb slip model

9.0
HISTORY PLOT
28-Aug-02 9:28
cycle 15100
8.0
Hist. no. 4
-1.829E-08 to 7.692E-05
7.0
VS
Hist. no. 5
2.629E-07 to 9.857E-04
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

— Coulomb slip model
3DEC Version 3.0

As these results indicate, the Coulomb slip model (jcons = 1) only defines a limiting shear strength
value for the joint. The dilation that occurs after the joint begins to slip is approximated as a linear
function of the dilation angle with a dilation limit that is a function of the shear displacement.
(These functions are described in Section 1.2.2.3 in Theory and Background.)
Other modifications to the joint behavior are also available for the Coulomb slip model. For
example, a displacement-weakening behavior can be approximated by including a joint cohesion
of 10 MPa (PROP jmat 1 coh = 10). At the onset of failure, the cohesion is set to zero. The results
shown in Figure 3.44 illustrate the peak and residual strengths that develop when the effect of
cohesion is included. Note that the drop in strength occurs abruptly. The maximum dilation, as
shown in Figure 3.36, is lower than the previous case without cohesion for the same limiting shear
displacement, because more shear displacement occurs before the joint fails initially. (Compare
Figure 3.45 to Figure 3.43.)

4.0
HISTORY PLOT
28-Aug-02 9:39
cycle 15100
3.5
Hist. no. 2
2.950E-02 to 3.257E+01
VS
Hist. no. 5
3.0 2.629E-07 to 9.857E-04
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
-0.5
— Coulomb slip model with peak and residual strength
Note that if no weakening behavior is associated with a joint that has a cohesive strength, the
command CHANGE jcons = 2 should be given in place of CHANGE jcons = 1. In this case there will
be no change in the cohesion when the joint fails.
3DEC Version 3.0


5.5
HISTORY PLOT
28-Aug-02 9:39
5.0 cycle 15100
4.5 Hist. no. 4

-3.323E-08 to 4.981E-05
VS
4.0 Hist. no. 5
2.629E-07 to 9.857E-04
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

— Coulomb slip model with peak and residual strength
The displacement-weakening behavior is produced automatically with the continuously yielding

joint model (jcons = 3). This model simulates the progressive damage of the joint under shear.
For details and an example direct shear test with the continuously yielding model, see Section 3 in
Theory and Background.
The material properties for the Coulomb slip model in these examples were selected to produce
roughly the same response for joint shear strength and dilation for joints subjected to unidirectional
shearing. For an actual application, properties should be selected (and adjusted as necessary)
to simulate the response of the joints under the expected loading conditions. In most cases, the
Coulomb model parameters are relatively easy to estimate (see Section 3.8.2), and the simple
modifications that are available with the Coulomb model may be sufficient to approximate the joint
behavior.
For other joint models, such as the continuously yielding model, the determination of properties
is more involved. In order to use the continuously yielding model it is necessary to run a series
of joint shear tests to best-fit the model properties to physical test results. It is recommended that
simple shear tests always be performed, regardless of the joint model selected, to ensure that the
joint behaves as expected under the anticipated problem conditions.
If it is necessary to simulate a complicated joint response, then a more complex joint model may be
required. However, before going to a more complex model, it is usually helpful to apply a simple
model first to establish a basis for evaluating the influence of the more complicated joint behavior.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.8 Material Properties
3DEC requires material properties for both the intact blocks and the discontinuities. This section
provides an overview of typical properties used to represent the behavior of jointed rock and
presents guidelines for selecting the appropriate properties for a given model. There are also
special considerations such as the definition of post-failure properties and the extrapolation of
laboratory-measured properties to the field scale. These topics are also discussed.
The selection of properties is often the most difficult element in the generation of a model because
of the high uncertainty in the property data base. It should be kept in mind when performing an
analysis, especially in geomechanics, that the problem will always involve a data-limited system;
the field data will never be known completely. However, with the appropriate selection of properties
based upon the available data base, important insight to the physical problem can still be achieved.
This approach to modeling is discussed further in Section 3.11.
3.8.1 Block Properties
Properties assigned to blocks are generally derived from laboratory testing programs. The following
four sections describe intrinsic (laboratory-scale) properties and list common values for various
rocks.
3.8.1.1 Mass Density
The mass density is required for every non-void material in a 3DEC model. This property has units
of mass divided by volume and does not include the gravitational acceleration. In many cases, the
unit weight of a material is prescribed. If the unit weight is given with units of force divided by
volume, then this value must be divided by the gravitational acceleration before entering as 3DEC
input for density.
3.8.1.2 Intrinsic Deformability Properties
All material models for deformable blocks in 3DEC assume an isotropic material behavior in the
elastic range described by two elastic constants, bulk modulus, K, and shear modulus, G. The
elastic constants, K and G, are used in 3DEC rather than Young’s modulus, E, and Poisson’s ratio,
ν, because it is believed that bulk and shear moduli correspond to more fundamental aspects of
material behavior than do Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio. (See note 8 in Section 3.9 for
justification for using (K,G) rather than (E,ν).)
The equations to convert from (E,ν) to (K,G) are
E
K=
3(1 − 2ν)
(3.15)
E
G=
2(1 + ν)
3DEC Version 3.0

Eq. (3.15) should not be used blindly when ν is near 0.5, since the computed value of K will be
unrealistically high and convergence to the solution will be very slow. It is better to fix the value
of K at its known physical value (estimated from an isotropic compaction test or from the p-wave
speed), and then compute G from K and ν.
Some typical values for elastic constants are summarized in Table 3.4 for selected rocks.
Table 3.4 Selected elastic constants (laboratory-scale) for rocks

(adapted from Goodman 1980)
E (GPa) ν K (GPa) G (GPa)
Berea sandstone 19.3 0.38 26.8 7.0
Hackensack siltstone 26.3 0.22 15.6 10.8
Bedford limestone 28.5 0.29 22.6 11.1
Micaceous shale 11.1 0.29 8.8 4.3
Cherokee marble 55.8 0.25 37.2 22.3
Nevada Test Site granite 73.8 0.22 43.9 30.2
3.8.1.3 Intrinsic Strength Properties
The basic criterion for block material failure in 3DEC is the Mohr-Coulomb relation, which is a
linear failure surface corresponding to shear failure:

fs = σ1 − σ3 Nφ + 2c Nφ (3.16)
where Nφ = (1 + sin φ)/(1 − sin φ);

σ1 = major principal stress (compressive stress is negative);
σ3 = minor principal stress;
φ = friction angle; and
c = cohesion.
Shear yield is detected if fs < 0. The two strength constants, φ and c, are conventionally derived
from laboratory triaxial tests.
3DEC Version 3.0

The Mohr-Coulomb criterion loses its physical validity when the normal stress becomes tensile but,
for simplicity, the surface is extended into the tensile region to the point at which σ3 equals the
uniaxial tensile strength, σ t . The minor principal stress can never exceed the tensile strength —
i.e.,
ft = σ3 − σ t (3.17)
Tensile yield is detected if ft > 0. Tensile strength for rock and concrete is usually derived from
a Brazilian (or indirect tensile) test. Note that the tensile strength cannot exceed the value of σ3
corresponding to the apex limit for the Mohr-Coulomb relation. This maximum value is given by
t c
σmax = (3.18)
tan φ
Typical values of cohesion, friction angle and tensile strength for a representative set of rock
specimens are listed in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Selected strength properties (laboratory-scale) for rocks

(adapted from Goodman 1980)
friction cohesion tensile
angle (MPa) strength
(degrees) (MPa)
Berea sandstone 27.8 27.2 1.17
Repetto siltstone 32.1 34.7 —
Muddy shale 14.4 38.4 —
Sioux quartzite 48.0 70.6 —
Indiana limestone 42.0 6.72 1.58
Stone Mountain granite 51.0 55.1 —
Nevada Test Site basalt 31.0 66.2 13.1
The ubiquitous-joint component of the bilinear model also requires strength properties for the
planes of weakness. Joint properties are discussed in Section 3.8.2, below. The properties for joint
cohesion and friction angle also apply for the ubiquitous-joint model.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.8.1.4 Post-Failure Properties
In many instances, particularly in mining engineering, the response of a material after the onset
of failure is an important factor in the engineering design. Consequently, the post-failure behavior
must be simulated in the material model. In 3DEC, this is accomplished with properties which
define three types of post-failure response:
(1) shear dilatancy;
(2) shear hardening/softening;
(3) volumetric hardening/softening; and
(4) tensile softening.
These properties are only activated after the onset of failure, as defined by the Mohr-Coulomb
relation. Shear dilatancy is assigned for the Mohr-Coulomb and bilinear strain-hardening/softening,
ubiquitous joint model. Hardening/softening parameters are assigned for the bilinear model.
Shear Dilatancy — Shear dilatancy, or dilatancy, is the change in volume that occurs with shear
distortion of a material. Dilatancy is characterized by a dilation angle, ψ, which is related to the
ratio of plastic volume change to plastic shear strain. This angle can be specified in the block
plasticity models in 3DEC. The dilation angle is typically determined from triaxial tests or shear
box tests. For example, the idealized relation for dilatancy, based upon the Mohr-Coulomb failure
surface, is depicted for a triaxial test in Figure 3.46. The dilation angle is found from the plot
of volumetric strain versus axial strain. Note that the initial slope for this plot corresponds to the
elastic regime, while the slope used to measure the dilation angle corresponds to the plastic regime.
|s1 - s3|
s1
2 c cos f - (s1 - s3) sin f

E
1
e1
elastic plastic
s2 = s3
ev
s3
2 sin y
atan (1-2u) atan
1 - sin y
e1
Figure 3.46 Idealized relation for dilation angle, ψ, from triaxial test results
(Vermeer and de Borst 1984)
3DEC Version 3.0

For soils, rocks, and concrete, the dilation angle is generally significantly smaller than the friction
angle of the material. Vermeer and de Borst (1984) report the following typical values for ψ:
dense sand 15◦
loose sand < 10◦
normally consolidated clay 0◦
granulated and intact marble 12◦ − 20◦
concrete 12◦
Vermeer and de Borst observe that values for the dilation angle are approximately between 0◦ and
20◦ , whether the material is soil, rock, or concrete. The default value for dilation angle is zero for
all the constitutive models in 3DEC.
Dilation angle can also be prescribed for the joints in the ubiquitous-joint component of the bilinear
model. This property is typically determined from direct shear tests, and common values can be
found in the references discussed in Section 3.8.2.
Shear Hardening/Softening — The initiation of material hardening or softening is a gradual process
once plastic yield begins. At failure, deformation becomes more and more inelastic as a result of
micro-cracking in concrete and rock and particle sliding in soil. This also leads to degradation
of strength in these materials and the initiation of shear bands. These phenomena, related to
localization, are discussed further in Section 3.11.
In 3DEC, shear hardening and softening are simulated by making Mohr-Coulomb properties (co-
hesion and friction, along with dilation) functions of plastic strain (see Section 2.3.5 in Theory
and Background). These functions are accessed from the bilinear model, and can be specified by
using the TABLE command.
Hardening and softening parameters must be calibrated for each specific analysis with values that are
generally back-calculated from results of laboratory triaxial tests. This is usually an iterative process.
Investigators have developed expressions for hardening and softening; for example, Vermeer and
de Borst (1984) propose the frictional hardening relation
√
ep ef
sin φm = 2 sin φ for ep ≤ ef
ep + ef
(3.19)
sin φm = sin φ for ep > ef
where φ = ultimate friction angle;

φm = mobilized friction angle;
ep = plastic strain; and
ef = hardening constant.
3DEC Version 3.0

Numerical testing conditions can influence the model response for shear hardening/softening be-
havior. The rate of loading can introduce inertial effects; this can be controlled by monitoring the
unbalanced force and reducing the loading rate accordingly. A FISH function can be used to control
the loading rate automatically. The results are also mesh-dependent; thus, it is important to evaluate
the model behavior for differing zone sizes and mesh orientations whenever performing an analysis
involving shear hardening or softening.
Tensile Softening — At the initiation of tensile failure, the tensile strength of a material will generally
drop to zero. In the Mohr-Coulomb model the tensile strength is set to zero when tensile failure
occurs in a zone (instantaneous softening). The rate at which the tensile strength drops, or tensile
softening occurs, can also be controlled by the plastic tensile strain in 3DEC. This function is
accessed from the bilinear model, and can be specified by using the TABLE command.
A simple tension test (Example 3.25) illustrates brittle tensile failure, as built into the Mohr-Coulomb
model. The model is a tension test on a cubic block composed of Mohr-Coulomb material. The
ends of the sample are pulled apart at a constant velocity. The test is performed with both the cons
2 and the cons 6 block models.
Example 3.25 Tension test on tensile-softening material

new
poly brick 0 1 0 1 0 1
gen quad ndiv 1 1 1 rmul 1
; Mohr-Coulomb (cons = 2) model
change cons 2
prop mat=1 d=2500 k=1.19e10 g=1.1e10 bcoh 2.72e5 phi 44 bten 2e5
; bilinear (cons = 6) model
; change cons 6
; prop mat 1 dens 2500 k=1.19e10 g=1.1e10 bcoh 2.72e5 phi 44 bten 2e5
; prop mat 1 jcubs 1e20 jtubs 1e20 jfubs 44
; prop mat 1 ttab 1
; table 1 0 2e5 9e-6 0
;
bound 0,1 -0.1,0.1 0,1 yvel -1e-5
bound 0,1 0.9,1.1 0,1 yvel 1e-5
def ax_str
str = 0.0
ib = block_head
ig = b_gp(ib)
nx = 0
ny = 0
xbpos = 0.0
xbdis = 0.0
xtpos = 0.0
xtdis = 0.0
ybpos = 0.0
3DEC Version 3.0

ybdis = 0.0
ytpos = 0.0
ytdis = 0.0
loop while ig # 0
if gp_y(ig) > ytop then
str = str - gp_yforce{ig)
ytpos = ytpos + gp_y(ig)
ytdis = ytdis + gp_ydis(ig)
end_if
if gp_y(ig) < ybot then
ny = ny + 1
ybpos = ybpos + gp_y(ig)
ybdis = ybdis + gp_ydis(ig)
end_if
if gp_x(ig) < xbot then
nx = nx + 1
xbpos = xbpos + gp_x(ig)
xbdis = xbdis + gp_xdis(ig)
end_if
if gp_x(ig) > xtop then
xtpos = xtpos + gp_x(ig)
xtdis = xtdis + gp_xdis(ig)
end_if
ig = gp_next(ig)
end_loop
ax_str = str / area
xbdis = xbdis / nx
xbpos = xbpos / nx
xtdis = xtdis / nx
xtpos = xtpos / nx
ybdis = ybdis / ny
ybpos = ybpos / ny
ytdis = ytdis / ny
ytpos = ytpos / ny
ex_str = (xtdis - xbdis) / (xtpos - xbpos)
ey_str = (ytdis - ybdis) / (ytpos - ybpos)
end
set area = 1.0 ytop = 0.9 ybot = 0.1 xbot = 0.1 xtop = 0.9
hist ax_str
hist ex_str
hist ey_str
damp local
step 20000
save mc.sav
; save bil.sav
plot hold his 1 vs 3
3DEC Version 3.0

plot hold his 2 vs 3

ret
The plot of σyy stress versus yy-strain (Figure 3.47) shows that the average stress drops to zero
for the Mohr-Coulomb model in cons 2. The stress will remain constant in the bilinear model
without tensile softening. The brittleness of the tensile softening can be controlled by the plastic
tensile-strain function. If Example 3.25 is repeated with cons 6 and a tensile softening table, an
instantaneous softening response can be reduced, as shown in Figure 3.48.

2.2
HISTORY PLOT
28-Aug-02 9:44
cycle 20000
2.0
Hist. no. 1
0.000E+00 to 1.999E+05
1.8
VS
Hist. no. 3
1.002E-08 to 2.004E-05
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
-0.2
Figure 3.47 σyy stress versus yy-strain for tension test with cons 2 model
3DEC Version 3.0


2.2
HISTORY PLOT
28-Aug-02 9:54
cycle 20000
2.0
Hist. no. 1
0.000E+00 to 1.999E+05
1.8
VS
Hist. no. 3
1.002E-08 to 2.004E-05
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
-0.2
Figure 3.48 σyy stress versus yy-strain for tension test with cons 6 model and
tensile-softening table
The average xx-strain and zz-strain across the model decreases until tensile failure initiates. With
the cons 2 model, this strain is not controlled in the post-failure region; the model will continue to
contract as indicated by the plot of xx-strain versus yy-strain in Figure 3.49.
With the bilinear model, the strain is affected after the onset of tensile failure; the model expands
in the x- and z-directions as tensile softening occurs, as indicated in Figure 3.50.
3DEC Version 3.0


0.0
HISTORY PLOT
28-Aug-02 9:44
cycle 20000
-0.5 Hist. no. 2

-2.935E-06 to -1.339E-09
VS
Hist. no. 3
1.002E-08 to 2.004E-05
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
Figure 3.49 xx-strain versus yy-strain for tension test with cons 2 model

2.4
HISTORY PLOT
28-Aug-02 9:54
cycle 20000
2.0
Hist. no. 2
-1.162E-06 to 1.956E-05
VS
Hist. no. 3
1.6 1.002E-08 to 2.004E-05
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
Figure 3.50 xx-strain versus yy-strain for tension test with cons 6 model and
tensile-softening table
3DEC Version 3.0

Note that local damping (DAMP local) is used to minimize oscillations that can arise when the
abrupt tensile failure occurs. Alternatively, if adaptive global damping is used by giving the DAMP
auto command, oscillations are observed in the stress/strain plots. With adaptive global damping,
the damping parameter is continually decreased as the model is stretched. When tensile failure
occurs, the global damping parameter is low, and oscillations are produced that may affect the final
solution state. With local damping, the amount of damping varies from gridpoint to gridpoint and
is proportional to the unbalanced force. This damping minimizes the oscillations that are produced
when the abrupt tensile failure occurs. (See Section 1.2.2.7 in Theory and Background for further
discussion on damping.)
The brittleness of the tensile softening can be controlled by the plastic tensile strain function, by
using the bilinear model instead of the Mohr-Coulomb model. As with the shear-softening, the
tensile-softening must be calibrated for each specific problem and mesh size, since the results will
be mesh-dependent.
3.8.1.5 Extrapolation to Field-Scale Properties
The material properties used in the 3DEC model should correspond as closely as possible to the
actual values of the physical problem. Laboratory-measured properties generally should not be used
directly in a 3DEC model for a full-scale problem. The presence of discontinuities in the model
will account for a good portion of the scaling effect on properties. However, some adjustment of
block properties will still probably be required to represent the influence of heterogeneities and
micro-fractures, fissures and other small discontinuities on the rock mass response.
Several empirical approaches have been proposed to derive field-scale properties. Some of the
more-commonly-accepted methods are discussed.
Deformability of a rock mass is generally defined by a modulus of deformation, Em . If the rock
mass contains a set of relatively parallel, continuous joints with uniform spacing, the value for Em
can be estimated by treating the rock mass as an equivalent transversely isotropic continuum. The
relations in Section 3.8.2 can then be used to estimate Em in the direction normal to the joint set.
Deformation moduli can also be estimated for cases involving more than one set of discontinuities.
The references listed in Section 3.8.2 provide solutions for multiple joint sets.
In practice, the rock mass structure is often much too irregular or sufficient data are not available to
use the above approach. It is common to determine Em from a force-displacement curve obtained
from an in-situ compression test. Such tests include plate bearing tests, flatjack tests, and dilatometer
tests.
Bieniawski (1978) developed an empirical relation for Em based upon field test results at sites
throughout the world. The relation is based upon rock mass rating (RMR). For rocks with a rating
higher than 55, the test data can be approximately fit to
Em = 2(RMR) − 100 (3.20)
The units of Em are GPa.
3DEC Version 3.0

For values of Em between 1 and 10 GPa, Serafim and Pereira (1983) found a better fit, given by
RMR−10
Em = 10 40 (3.21)
References by Goodman (1980) and Brady and Brown (1985) provide additional discussion on
these methods.
The most-commonly-accepted approach to estimate rock mass strength is that proposed by Hoek
and Brown (1980). They developed the empirical rock mass strength criterion
σ1s = σ3 + (mσc σ3 + sσc2 )1/2 (3.22)
where σ1s = major principal stress at peak strength;

σ3 = minor principal stress;
m and s = constants that depend on the properties of the rock and the
extent to which it has been broken before being subjected to
failure stresses; and
σc = uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock material.
The unconfined compressive strength for a rock mass is given by
qm = σc s 1/2 (3.23)
and the uniaxial tensile strength of a rock mass is
1
σt = σc [m − (m2 + 4s)1/2 ] (3.24)
2
Table 3.6, from Hoek and Brown (1988), presents typical values for m and s for undisturbed and
disturbed rock masses.
It is possible to estimate Mohr-Coulomb friction angle and cohesion from the Hoek-Brown criterion
(see, for example, Hoek 1990).
For a given value of σ3 , a tangent to the function (Eq. (3.22)) will represent an equivalent Mohr-
Coulomb yield criterion in the form
σ1 = Nφ σ3 + σcM (3.25)
1+sin φ
where Nφ = 1−sin φ = tan2 ( φ2 + 45◦ )
3DEC Version 3.0

By substitution, σcM is:

σcM = σ1 − σ3 Nφ = σ3 + σ3 σc m + σc2 s − σ3 Nφ = σ3 (1 − Nφ ) + σ3 σc m + σc2 s
σcM is the apparent uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass for that value of σ3 .
The tangent to the Eq. (3.22) is defined by:
∂σ1 σc m
Nφ (σ3 ) = = 1 + (3.26)
∂σ3 2 σ3 · σc m + sσc2
The cohesion (c) and friction angle (φ) can then be obtained from Nφ and σcM :

φ = 2 tan−1 Nφ − 90◦ (3.27)
σM
c = c (3.28)
2 Nφ
3DEC Version 3.0

Table 3.6 Typical values for Hoek-Brown rock-mass strength parameters

(adapted from Hoek and Brown (1988))
Disturbed rock mass m and s values Undisturbed rock mass m and s values
FINE-GRAINED POLYMINERALLIC IGNEOUS
IGNEOUS & METAMORPHIC CRYSTALLINE

ROCKS — amphibolite, gabbro gneiss, granite,
CRYSTALLINE ROCKS — andesite, dolerite,
mudstone, siltstone, shale and slate (normal to
CRYSTALS AND POORLY DEVELOPED

ARENACEOUS ROCKS WITH STRONG
LITHIFIED ARGILLACEOUS ROCKS —
DEVELOPED CRYSTAL CLEAVAGE —
COARSE-GRAINED POLYMINERALLIC
CRYSTAL CLEAVAGE — sandstone and
CARBONATE ROCKS WITH WELL-
EMPIRICAL FAILURE CRITERION
dolomite, limestone and marble

σ'1 = σ'3 ÷ √(mσcσ'3 ÷ sσ2c)
σ'1 = major principal effective stress
norite, quartz-diorite
σ'3 = minor principaI effective stress
diabase and thyolite

σc = uniaxial compressive strength
of intact rock, and
cleavage)
m and s are empirical constants.
quartzite
INTACT ROCK SAMPLES
Laboratory specimens free m 7.00 10.00 15.00 17.00 25.00
from discontinuities s 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
CSIR rating: RMR = 100 m 7.00 10.00 15.00 17.00 25.00
NGI rating: Q = 500 s 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
VERY GOOD QUALITY ROCK MASS
Tightly interlocking undisturbed rock m 2.40 3.43 5.14 5.82 8.56
with unweathered joints at 1 to 3 m s 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.082
CSIR rating RMR = 85 m 4.10 5.85 8.78 9.95 14.63
NGI rating: Q = 100 s 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.189
GOOD QUALITY ROCK MASS
Fresh to slightly weathered rock, slightly m 0.575 0.821 1.231 1.395 2.052
disturbed with joints at 1 to 3 m s 0.00293 0.00293 0.00293 0.00293 0.00293
CSIR rating: RMR = 65 m 2.006 2.865 4.298 4.871 7.163
NGI rating: Q = 10 s 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205
FAIR QUALITY ROCK MASS
Several sets of moderately weathered m 0.128 0.183 0.275 0.311 0.458
joints spaced at 0.3 to 1 m s 0.00009 0.00009 0.00009 0.00009 0.00009
CSIR rating: RMR = 44 m 0.947 1.353 2.03 2.301 3.383
NGI rating: Q = 1 s 0.00198 0.00198 0.00198 0.00198 0.00198
POOR QUALITY ROCK MASS

Numerous weathered joints at 30-500 mm, m 0.029 0.041 0.061 0.069 0.102
some gouge; clean compacted waste rock s 0.000003 0.000003 0.000003 0.000003 0.000003
CSIR rating: RMR = 23 m 0.447 0.639 0.959 1.087 1.598
NGI rating: Q = 0.1 s 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019
VERY POOR QUALITY ROCK MASS

Numerous heavily weathered joints spaced m 0.007 0.01 0.015 0.017 0.025
<50 mm with gouge; waste rock with fines s 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001
CSIR rating: RMR = 3 m 0.219 0.313 0.469 0.532 0.782
NGI rating: Q = 0.01 s 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002
3DEC Version 3.0

3.8.2 Joint Properties
Joint properties are conventionally derived from laboratory testing (e.g., triaxial and direct shear
tests). These tests can produce physical properties for joint friction angle, cohesion, dilation angle,
and tensile strength, as well as joint normal and shear stiffnesses. The joint cohesion and friction
angle correspond to the parameters in the Coulomb strength criterion.
Values for normal and shear stiffnesses for rock joints typically can range from roughly 10 to 100
MPa/m, for joints with soft clay in-filling, to over 100 GPa/m, for tight joints in granite and basalt.
Published data on stiffness properties for rock joints are limited; summaries of data can be found
in Kulhawy (1975), Rosso (1976), and Bandis et al. (1983).
Approximate stiffness values can be back-calculated from information on the deformability and
joint structure in the jointed rock mass and the deformability of the intact rock. If the jointed rock
mass is assumed to have the same deformational response as an equivalent elastic continuum, then
relations can be derived between jointed rock properties and equivalent continuum properties.
For uniaxial loading of rock containing a single set of uniformly-spaced joints oriented normal to
the direction of loading, the following relation applies:
1 1 1
= +
Em Er kn s
or
Em Er
kn = (3.29)
s (Er − Em )
where Em = rock mass Young’s modulus;

Er = intact rock Young’s modulus;
kn = joint normal stiffness; and
s = joint spacing.
A similar expression can be derived for joint shear stiffness:
Gm Gr
ks = (3.30)
s (Gr − Gm )
where Gm = rock mass shear modulus;

Gr = intact rock shear modulus; and
ks = joint shear stiffness.
3DEC Version 3.0

The equivalent continuum assumption, when extended to three orthogonal joint sets, produces the
following relations:
−1
1 1
Ei = + (i = 1, 2, 3) (3.31)
Er si kni
−1
1 1 1
Gij = + + (i , j = 1, 2, 3) (3.32)
Gr si ksi sj ksj
Several expressions have been derived for two- and three-dimensional characterizations and multiple
joint sets. References for these derivations can be found in Singh (1973), Gerrard (1982(a) and
(b)), and Fossum (1985).
There is a limit to the maximum joint stiffnesses that are reasonable to use in a 3DEC model. If
the physical normal and shear stiffnesses are less than ten times the equivalent stiffness of adjacent
zones (see Eq. (3.33) in Section 3.9), then there is no problem in using physical values. If the
ratio is more than ten, the solution time will be significantly longer than for the case in which the
ratio is limited to ten, without much change in the behavior of the system. Serious consideration
should be given to reducing supplied values of normal and shear stiffnesses to improve solution
efficiency. There may also be problems with block interpenetration if the normal stiffness, kn , is
very low. A rough estimate should be made of the joint normal displacement that would result from
the application of typical stresses in the system (u = σ/kn ). This displacement should be small
compared to a typical zone size. If it is greater than, say, 10% of an adjacent zone size, then either
there is an error in one of the numbers or the stiffness should be increased.
Published strength properties for joints are more readily available than stiffness properties. Sum-
maries can be found, for example, in Jaeger and Cook (1969), Kulhawy (1975), and Barton (1976).
Friction angles can vary from less than 10◦ for smooth joints in weak rock, such as tuff, to over
50◦ for rough joints in hard rock, such as granite. Joint cohesion can range from zero cohesion to
values approaching the compressive strength of the surrounding rock.
It is important to recognize that joint properties measured in the laboratory typically are not rep-
resentative of those for real joints in the field. Scale dependence of joint properties is a major
question in rock mechanics. Often, the only way to guide the choice of appropriate parameters is
by comparison to similar joint properties derived from field tests; however, field test observations
are extremely limited. Some results are reported by Kulhawy (1975).
3DEC Version 3.0

3.9 Tips and Advice
When problem solving with 3DEC, it is often important to try to optimize the model for the most
efficient analysis. This section provides several suggestions on ways to improve a model run. Also,
some common pitfalls which should be avoided when preparing a 3DEC calculation are listed.
1. Designing the Model
It is tempting to try to build as much detail of the geologic structure as possible
into a 3DEC model. The main arguments against this approach are that (1)
it is futile to ever expect to have sufficient data to model a jointed rock mass
in every detail, (2) the computer hardware requirements for a detailed model
quickly exceed that typically available for engineering projects, and (3) most
importantly, a controlled engineering understanding of model results becomes
less effective as more detail is added.
Two considerations should be kept in mind when creating the 3DEC model.
The first is whether or not a discontinuum analysis is actually required. This
depends in large part on the ratio of the scale of the physical system under
investigation to the average spacing of the joint structure. For example, if
an excavation is made in a rock mass containing a single joint set with an
average spacing of 1 m or less, and the minimum dimension of the excavation
is 10 m, then a continuum analysis with a ubiquitous-joint material model
may be a more reasonable approach. At this scale, the continuum analysis
can produce a response that is broadly equivalent to that obtained when the
joints are explicitly modeled. The analysis with 3DEC provides a more detailed
analysis of the failure mechanism, but may require more computation time than
the continuum analysis. In instances where the ratio of the physical system
scale to the joint spacing exceeds approximately 10:1, a continuum analysis
may be preferred. Analyses should be conducted with both continuum and
discontinuum analyses when there is a question as to whether the continuum
analysis is sufficient to represent the discontinuum response. See Board et al.
(1996) for an illustration of the application of discontinuum and continuum
analyses (using UDEC and FLAC) in a comparative study of toppling behavior
of a jointed rock slope.
The second consideration is the extent to which the detailed geologic structure
should be included in the model. A detailed representation which includes
the most critical joint structure (see Section 3.2.7) is usually only required
within a limited region surrounding the area of interest (e.g., within a few
tunnel radii surrounding a tunnel excavation). Generally, the greater jointing
detail only needs to extend from the area of interest to a distance sufficient
to encompass the region in which failure is anticipated. That is, the detailed
geologic structure should extend beyond the distance to which joint slip and
separation are calculated.
3DEC Version 3.0

2. Check Model Runtime

The solution time for a 3DEC run is a function of both the number of rigid
blocks or gridpoints in deformable blocks, and the number of contacts in a
model. If there are very few contacts in the model, then the time is pro-
portional to N 3/2 , where N is the number of rigid blocks or gridpoints in
deformable blocks. This formula holds for elastic problems. The runtime will
vary somewhat, but not substantially, for plasticity problems.
The solution time will increase as more contacts are created in the model. It
is important to check the speed of calculation on your computer for a specific
model. An easy way to do this is to run the benchmark test described in
Section 6. Then use this speed to estimate the speed of calculation for the
specific model, based on interpolation from the number of gridpoints and
contacts.
3. Effects on Runtime
3DEC will take a longer time to converge if:
(a) there are large contrasts in stiffness in block materials or in joint
materials or in block versus joint materials; or
(b) there are large contrasts in block or zone sizes.
The code becomes less efficient as these contrasts become greater. The effect
of a contrast in stiffness should be investigated before performing a detailed
analysis. For example, for mechanical-only calculations, joint normal and
shear stiffnesses should be kept smaller than ten times the equivalent stiffness
of the stiffest neighboring zone in blocks adjoining the joint — i.e.,

K + 4/3G
kn and ks ≤ 10.0 max (3.33)
!zmin
where K and G are the bulk and shear moduli, respectively, of the block
material, and !zmin is the smallest dimension of the zone adjoining the joint
in the normal direction. If the joint stiffnesses are greater than 10 times the
equivalent stiffness, the solution time of the model will be significantly longer
than for the case in which the ratio is limited to ten, without a significant
change in the behavior of the system.
On the other hand, there may be problems if the normal stiffness, kn , is very
low. A rough estimate should be made of the joint normal displacement that
would result from the application of typical stresses in the system (u = σ/kn ).
This displacement should be small compared to a typical zone size. If it is
greater than roughly 10% of an adjacent zone size, then either there is an error
in one of the numbers or the stiffness should be increased.
3DEC Version 3.0

4. Considerations for Density of Zoning

3DEC uses constant-strain elements in deformable blocks. If the gradient
of stress/strain is high, many zones will be needed to represent the varying
distribution. Run the same problem with different zoning densities to check
the effect. Constant-strain zones are used in 3DEC because a better accuracy
is achieved when modeling plastic flow with many low-order elements than
with a few high-order elements.
Try to keep the zoning as uniform as possible, particularly in the region of
interest. Avoid long, thin zones with aspect ratios greater than 5:1.
5. Check Model Response
3DEC shows how a system behaves. Make frequent simple tests to check
whether you are doing what you think you are doing. For example, if a
loading condition and geometry are symmetrical, make sure that the response
is symmetrical. After making a change in the model, execute a few calculation
steps (say, 5 or 10) to verify that the initial response is of the correct sign and in
the correct location. Do back-of-the-envelope estimates of the expected order
of magnitude of stress or displacements and compare to the 3DEC output.
If you apply a violent shock to the model, you will get a violent response. If
you do physically unreasonable things to the model, you must expect strange
results. If you get unexpected results at a given stage of an analysis, review
the steps you followed up to this stage.
Critically examine the output before proceeding with the model simulation.
If, for example, everything appears reasonable except for large velocities in
one corner block, do not go on until you understand the reason for this. In this
case, you may have not fixed a boundary corner properly.
6. Use Bulk and Shear Moduli
It is better to use bulk modulus, K, and shear modulus, G, than Young’s
modulus, E, and Poisson’s ratio, ν, for elastic properties in 3DEC.
The pair (K, G) makes sense for all elastic materials that do not violate thermo-
dynamic principles. The pair (E, ν) does not make sense for certain admissible
materials. At one extreme we have materials that resist volumetric change but
not shear and at the other extreme materials that resist shear but not volumetric
change. The first type of material corresponds to finite K and zero G, and
the second to zero K and finite G. However, the pair (E, ν) is not able to
characterize either the first or the second type of material. If we exclude the
two limiting cases (conventionally, ν = 0.5 and ν = -1), the equations
3DEC Version 3.0

3K(1 − 2ν) = E
(3.34)
2G(1 + ν) = E
relate the two sets of constants. These equations hold however close we ap-
proach (but not reach) the limiting cases. We do not need to relate them to
physical tests that may or may not be feasible; the equations are simply the
consequence of two possible ways of defining coefficients of proportionality.
Suppose we have a material in which the resistance to distortion progressively
reduces, but in which the resistance to volume change remains constant. ν
approaches 0.5 in this case. The equation 3K(1 − 2ν) = E must still be
satisfied. There are two possibilities (argued on algebraic grounds, not physi-
cal): either E remains finite (and nonzero) and K tends to an arbitrarily large
value; or K remains finite and E tends to zero. The first possibility we rule out
because there is a limiting compressibility to all known materials (e.g., 2 GPa
for water, which has a Poisson’s ratio of 0.5). This leaves the second, in which
E is varying drastically, even though we supposed that the material’s principal
mode of elastic resistance was unchanging. We deduce that the parameters
(E, ν) are inadequate to express the material behavior.
7. Choice of Damping
In most instances, it is recommended that DAMP local be used for static anal-
yses. This is generally appropriate for static analysis for the reasons given in
Section 1.2.2.7 in Theory and Background. Also, as demonstrated in Ex-
ample 3.25, local damping is more suitable to minimize oscillations that may
arise when abrupt failure occurs in the model.
In some cases, particularly when calculating an initial equilibrium state, it
may be more computationally efficient to use DAMP auto. As discussed in
Section 1.2.2.7 in Theory and Background, local damping is most efficient
when velocity components at gridpoints pass through zero periodically, be-
cause the mass-adjustment process depends on velocity sign changes. Adap-
tive global damping, on the other hand, applies a constant damping factor that
is not affected by velocity sign-changes. If velocities act predominantly in
one direction (e.g., due to gravity loading), then a system with local damping
may take longer to converge than one with adaptive global damping. When in
doubt, it is usually best to run the model with both DAMP local and DAMP auto
and compare the calculation steps required to reach convergence.
3DEC Version 3.0

8. Avoiding Rounding Errors

Most of the calculations in 3DEC are in single precision (e.g., coordinate up-
dates and displacements). Usually, the significant figures that are available
in single-precision, 32-bit computer arithmetic are sufficient to keep rounding
errors from affecting the solution. However, there are circumstances in which
numerical rounding errors can affect the results of an analysis. For exam-
ple, rounding errors may become noticeable in problems that run for several
hundred thousand cycles with a low applied velocity.
To minimize rounding error problems, avoid large coordinates when creating
a model. For example, it is tempting to adopt the same coordinate values as
those used in mine plan and section drawings when creating a model for a
mining application. This makes it easier to refer plots and results back to the
mine drawings, but it may inadvertently magnify the rounding errors in the
computation.
3DEC always updates coordinates progressively as deformations develop. If
the initial coordinates are very large numerically (e.g., a coordinate range of
10000 to 10100), significant accuracy may be lost when small displacement
increments are added to the coordinates. Also, searches for block contacts,
which involve differences between coordinate values, may become unreliable.
By changing the coordinates to range from 0 to 100, the problem can be
avoided.
9. Determining Collapse Loads
In order to determine a collapse load, it often is better to use “strain-controlled”
boundary conditions rather than “stress-controlled” — i.e., apply a constant
velocity and measure the boundary reaction forces rather than apply forces and
measure displacements. A system that collapses becomes difficult to control
as the applied load approaches the collapse load. This is true of a real system
as well as a model system.
10. Determining Factor-of-Safety
3DEC does not calculate a “Factor-of-Safety” directly. If you need a safety
factor, it can be determined for any selected parameter by calculating the ratio
of the selected parameter value under given conditions to the parameter value
that results in failure. For example,
applied load to cause failure

FL =
design load
tan (actual failure angle)

Fφ =
tan (friction angle at failure)
3DEC Version 3.0

Note that the larger value is always divided by the smaller value (assuming
that the system does not fail under the actual conditions). The definition of
failure must be established by the user.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.10 Interpretation
Because 3DEC models a nonlinear system as it evolves in time, the interpretation of results may
be more difficult than with a conventional finite element program that produces a “solution” at the
end of its calculation phase. There are several indicators that can be used to assess the state of
the numerical model for a static analysis* — e.g., whether the system is stable, unstable, or is in
steady-state plastic flow. The various indicators are described below.
3.10.1 Unbalanced Force
Forces are accumulated at each centroid of rigid blocks and each gridpoint of deformable blocks.
At equilibrium — or steady plastic flow in deformable blocks — the algebraic sum of these forces
is almost zero (i.e., the forces acting on one side of the block centroid or gridpoint nearly balance
those acting on the other). During timestepping, the maximum unbalanced force is determined for
the whole model; this force is displayed continuously on the screen. It can also be saved as a history
and viewed as a graph. The unbalanced force is important in assessing the state of the model for
static analysis, but its magnitude must be compared with the magnitude of typical internal forces
acting in the model; in other words, it is necessary to know what constitutes a “small” force. A
representative internal gridpoint force for deformable blocks may be found by multiplying stress by
zone area perpendicular to the force, using values that are typical in the area of interest in the model.
Denoting R as the ratio of maximum unbalanced force to the representative internal force, expressed
as a percentage, the value of R will never decrease to zero. However, a value of 1% or 0.1% may be
acceptable as denoting equilibrium, depending on the degree of precision required (e.g., R = 1%
may be good enough for an intermediate stage in a sequence of operations, while R = 0.1% may
be used if a final stress or displacement distribution is required for inclusion in a report or paper).
Note that a low value of R only indicates that forces balance at all gridpoints; however, steady
plastic flow may be occurring, without acceleration. In order to distinguish between this condition
and “true” equilibrium, other indicators, such as those described below, should be consulted.
3.10.2 Block/Gridpoint Velocities
The velocities of rigid blocks and gridpoints of deformable blocks may be assessed by plotting the
whole field of velocities (using the PLOT vel command) or by selecting certain key points in the
model and tracking their velocities with histories (HIS xvel, HIS yvel or HIS zvel). Both types of plots
are useful. Steady-state conditions are indicated if the velocity histories show horizontal traces in
their final stages. If they have all converged to near-zero (in comparison to their starting values),
then absolute equilibrium has occurred. If a history has converged to a nonzero value, then either
the block is falling, or steady plastic flow is occurring at the block/gridpoint corresponding to that
history. If one or more velocity history plots show fluctuating velocities, then the system is likely
to be in a transient condition.
* Interpretation of the state of a model for a dynamic analysis is discussed in Section 2 in Optional
Features.
3DEC Version 3.0

The plot of the field of velocity vectors is more difficult to interpret, since both the magnitudes and
the nature of the pattern are important. As with gridpoint forces, velocities never decrease precisely
to zero. The magnitude of velocity should be viewed in relation to the displacement that would
occur if a significant number of steps (e.g., 1000) were to be executed. For example, if current
displacements in the system are of the order of 1 cm, the maximum velocity in the velocity plot is
10−3 m/sec and the timestep is 10−5 sec, then 1000 steps would produce an additional displacement
of 10−5 m, or 10−3 cm, which is 0.1% of the current displacements. In this case, it can be said
that the system is in equilibrium, even if the velocities all seem to be “flowing” in one direction.
More often, the vectors appear to be random (or almost random) in direction and (possibly) in
magnitude. This condition occurs when the changes in gridpoint force fall below the accuracy limit
of the computer, which is around six decimal digits. A random velocity field of low amplitude is
an infallible indicator of block stability and no plastic flow.
If the vectors in the velocity field are coherent (i.e., there is some systematic pattern) and their
magnitude is quite large (using the criterion described above), then either blocks are falling or
slipping, plastic flow is occurring within blocks, or the system is still adjusting elastically (e.g.,
damped elastic oscillation is taking place). To confirm that continuing plastic flow is occurring,
a plot of plasticity indicators should be consulted, as described below. If, however, the motion
involves elastic oscillation, then the magnitude should be observed in order to indicate if such
movement is significant. Seemingly meaningful patterns of oscillation may be seen; however, if
amplitude is low, then the motion has no physical significance.
3.10.3 Plastic Indicators for Block Failure
For most of the nonlinear block models in 3DEC, the command PLOT plas displays those zones in
which the stresses satisfy the yield criterion. Such an indication usually denotes that plastic flow
is occurring, but it is possible for a block zone simply to “sit” on the yield surface without any
significant flow taking place. It is important to look at the whole pattern of plasticity indicators to
see if a mechanism has developed. A failure mechanism is indicated if there is a contiguous line
of active plastic zones that join two surfaces. The diagnosis is confirmed if the velocity plot also
indicates motion corresponding to the same mechanism. Note that initial plastic flow often occurs at
the beginning of a simulation, but subsequent stress redistribution unloads the yielding elements so
that their stresses no longer satisfy the yield criterion (“yielded in past”). Only the actively yielding
elements (“at yield surface”) are important to the detection of a failure mechanism. If there is
no contiguous line or band of active plastic zones between boundaries, two patterns should be
compared before and after the execution of, say, 500 steps. Is the region of active yield increasing
or decreasing? If it is decreasing, then the system is probably heading for equilibrium; if it is
increasing, then ultimate failure may be possible.
If a condition of continuing plastic flow has been diagnosed, one further question should be asked:
Does the active flow band(s) include zones adjacent to artificial boundaries? The term “artificial
boundary” refers to a boundary that does not correspond to a physical entity, but exists simply to
limit the size of the model that is used. If plastic flow occurs along such a boundary, then the
solution is not realistic, because the mechanism of failure is influenced by a nonphysical entity.
This comment only applies to the final steady-state solution; intermediate stages may exhibit flow
along boundaries.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.10.4 Histories
In any problem, there are certain variables that are of particular interest (e.g., displacements may
be of concern in one problem, but stresses may be of concern in another). Liberal use should be
made of the HIST command to track these important variables in the regions of interest. After some
timestepping has taken place, the plots of these histories often provide the way to find out what the
system is doing.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.11 Modeling Methodology
3.11.1 Modeling of Data-Limited Systems
In a field such as geomechanics, where data are not always available, the methodology used in
numerical modeling should be different from that used in a field such as mechanical engineering.
Starfield and Cundall (1988) provide suggestions for an approach to modeling that is appropriate
for a data-limited system. This paper should be consulted before any serious modeling with 3DEC
is attempted. In essence, the approach recognizes that field data (such as in-situ stresses, material
properties and geological features) will never be known completely. It is futile to expect the model
to provide design data, such as expected displacements, when there is massive uncertainty in the
input data. However, a numerical model is still useful in providing a picture of the mechanisms
that may occur in particular physical systems. The model acts to educate the intuition of the design
engineer by providing a series of cause-and-effect examples. The models may be simple, with
assumed data that are consistent with known field data and engineering judgement. It is a waste of
effort to construct a very large and complicated model that may be just as difficult to understand as
the real case.
Of course, if extensive field data are available, then these may be incorporated into a comprehensive
model that can yield design information directly. More commonly, however, the data-limited
model does not produce such information directly, but provides insight into mechanisms that may
occur. The designer can then do simple calculations, based on these mechanisms, that estimate the
parameters of interest or the stability conditions.
3.11.2 Modeling of Chaotic Systems
In some calculations, especially in those involving discontinuous materials, the results can be
extremely sensitive to very small changes in initial conditions or trivial changes in loading sequence.
At first sight, this situation may seem unsatisfactory and may be taken as a reason to mistrust the
computer simulations. However, the sensitivity exists in the physical system being modeled. There
appear to be a least two sources for the seemingly erratic behavior.
1. There are certain geometric patterns of discontinuities that force the system to
choose, apparently at random, between two alternative outcomes; the subse-
quent evolution depends on which choice is made. For example, Figure 3.51
illustrates a small portion of a jointed rock mass. If block A is forced to move
down relative to B, it can either go to the left or to the right of B; the choice
will depend on microscopic irregularities in geometry, properties, or kinetic
energy.
3DEC Version 3.0

Figure 3.51 A small portion of a jointed rock mass
2. There are processes in the system that can be described as “softening” or, more
generally, as cases of positive feedback. In a fairly uniform stress field, small
perturbations are magnified in the subsequent evolution because a region that
has more strain, softens more and thereby attracts more strain, and so on, in a
cycle of positive feedback.
Both phenomena give rise to behavior that is chaotic in its extreme form (Gleick (1987) and Thomp-
son and Stewart (1986)). The study of chaotic systems reveals that the detailed evolution of such
a system is not predictable, even in principle. The observed sensitivity of the computer model to
small changes in initial conditions or numerical factors is simply a reflection of a similar sensitivity
in the real world to small irregularities. There is no point in pursuing ever more “accurate” cal-
culations, because the resulting model is unrepresentative of the real world, where conditions are
not perfect. What should our modeling strategy be in the face of a chaotic system? It appears that
the best we can expect from such a model is a finite spectrum of expected behavior; the statistics
of a chaotic system are well-defined. We need to construct models that contain distributions of
initial irregularities — e.g., by using 3DEC ’s adev parameter on the JSET command. Each model
should be run several times, with different distributions of irregularities. Under these conditions,
we may expect the fluctuations in behavior to be triggered by the imposed irregularities, rather than
by artifacts of the numerical solution scheme. We can express the results in a statistical form.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.11.3 Localization, Physical Instability and Path-Dependence
In many systems that can be modeled with 3DEC, there may be several paths that the solution
may take, depending on rather small changes in initial conditions. This phenomenon is termed
bifurcation. For example, a shear test on an elastic/plastic material may either deform uniformly,
or it may exhibit shear bands, in which the shear strain is localized rather than being uniformly
distributed. It appears that if a numerical model has enough degrees-of-freedom (i.e., enough
elements), then localization is to be expected. Indeed, theoretical work on the bifurcation process
(e.g., Rudnicki and Rice (1975) and Vardoulakis (1980)) shows that shear bands form even if the
material does not strain-soften, provided that the dilation angle is lower than the friction angle. The
“simple” Mohr-Coulomb material should always exhibit localization if enough elements exist to
resolve one or more localized bands. A strain-softening material is more prone to produce bands.
Some computer programs appear incapable of reproducing band formation, although the phe-
nomenon is to be expected physically. However, 3DEC is able to allow bands to develop and
evolve, partly because it models the dynamic equations of motion (i.e., the kinetic energy that ac-
companies band formation is released and dissipated in a physically realistic way). Several papers
document the use of two-dimensional FLAC in modeling shear band formation (Cundall (1989),
(1990), and (1991)). These should be consulted for details concerning the solution process. One
aspect that is not treated well by 3DEC is the thickness of a shear band. In reality, the thickness of
a band is determined by internal features of the material, such as grain size. These features are not
built into 3DEC ’s constitutive models. Hence, the bands in 3DEC collapse down to the smallest
width that can be resolved by the grid, which is one grid-width if the band is parallel to the grid, or
about three grid-widths if the band cuts across the grid at an arbitrary angle. Although the overall
physics of band formation is modeled correctly by 3DEC, band thickness and band spacing are
grid-dependent. Furthermore, if the strain-softening model is used with a weakening material, the
load/displacement relation generated by 3DEC for a simulated test is strongly grid-dependent. This
is because the strain concentrated in a band depends on the width of the band (in length units), which
depends on zone size, as we have seen. Hence, smaller zones lead to more softening, since we move
out more rapidly on the strain axis of the given softening curve. To correct this grid dependence,
some sort of length scale must be built into the constitutive model. There is controversy, at present,
concerning the best way to do this. It is anticipated that future versions of 3DEC will include a
length scale in the constitutive models — probably involving the use of a Cosserat material, in which
internal spins and moments are taken into account. In the meantime, the processes of softening
and localization may be modeled, but it must be recognized that the grid size and angle affect the
results; models must be calibrated for each grid used.
One topic that involves chaos, physical instability and bifurcation is path-dependence. In most
nonlinear, inelastic systems, there are an infinite number of solutions that satisfy equilibrium,
compatibility, and the constitutive relations. There is no “correct” solution to the physical problem
unless the path is specified. If the path is not specified, all possible solutions are correct. This
situation can cause endless debate among modelers and users, particularly if a seemingly irrelevant
parameter in the solution process (e.g., damping) is seen to affect the final result. All the solutions
are valid numerically. For example, a simulation done of a mining excavation with low damping
may show a large overshoot and, hence, large final displacements, while high damping will eliminate
the overshoot and give lower final displacements. Which one is more realistic? It depends on the
path. If the excavation is done by explosion (i.e., suddenly), then the solution with overshoot may
3DEC Version 3.0

be the appropriate one; if the excavation is done by pick and shovel (i.e., gradually), then the second
case may be more appropriate. For cases in which path-dependence is a factor, modeling should
be done in a way that mimics the way the system evolves physically.
3DEC Version 3.0

3.12 References
Bandis, S. C., A. C. Lumsden and N. R. Barton. “Fundamentals of Rock Joint Deformation,” Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 20(6), 249-268 (1983).
Barton, N. “The Shear Strength of Rock and Rock Joints,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geotech.
Abstr., 13, 255-279 (1976).
Bieniawski, Z. T. “Determining Rock Mass Deformability: Experience from Case Histories,” Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 15, 237-247 (1978).
Board, M., E. Chacon, P. Varona and L. Lorig. “Comparative Analysis of Toppling Behaviour at
Chuquicamata Open-Pit Mine, Chile,” Trans. Instn. Min. Metall., Sec. A, 105, A11-A21, 1996.
Brady, B. H. G., and E. T. Brown. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. London: George
Allen and Unwin., 1985.
Brady, B. H. G., J. V. Lemos and P. A. Cundall. “Stress Measurement Schemes for Jointed and
Fractured Rock,” in Rock Stress and Rock Stress Measurements, pp. 167-176. Luleå, Sweden:
Centek Publishers, 1986.
Clark, I. H. “The Cap Model for Stress Path Analysis of Mine Backfill Compaction Processes,” in
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Vol. 2, pp. 1293-1298. Rotterdam: A. A.
Balkema, 1991.
Cundall, P. A. “Numerical Experiments on Localization in Frictional Material,” Ingenieur-Archiv,
59, 148-159 (1988).
Cundall, P. A. “Numerical Modelling of Jointed and Faulted Rock,” in Mechanics of Jointed and
Faulted Rock, pp. 11-18. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1990.
Cundall, P. A. “Shear Band Initiation and Evolution in Frictional Materials,” in Mechanics Com-
puting in 1990s and Beyond (Proceedings of the Conference, Columbus, Ohio, May, 1991), Vol.
2: Structural and Material Mechanics, pp. 1279-1289. New York: ASME, 1991.
Fossum, A. F. “Technical Note: Effective Elastic Properties for a Randomly Jointed Rock Mass,”
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 22(6), 467-470 (1985).
Gerrard, C. M. “Elastic Models of Rock Masses Having One, Two and Three Sets of Joints,” Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 19, 15-23 (1982b).
Gerrard, C. M. “Equivalent Elastic Moduli of a Rock Mass Consisting of Orthorhombic Layers,”
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 19, 9-14 (1982a).
Gleick, J. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.
Goodman, R. E. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.
Hart, R. D. “An Introduction to Distinct Element Modeling for Rock Engineering,” in Compre-
hensive Rock Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 245-261. Oxford: Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1993.
3DEC Version 3.0

Hoek, E. “Estimating Mohr-Coulomb Friction and Cohesion Values from the Hoek-Brown Failure
Criterion,” in Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 27(3), 227-229 (1990).
Hoek, E., and E. T. Brown. “The Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion — a 1988 Update,” in Rock
Engineering for Underground Excavations, pp. 31-38. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1988.
Hoek, E., and E. T. Brown. Underground Excavations in Rock. London: Instn. Min. Metall.,
1980.
Huang, X., B. C. Haimson, M. E. Plesha and X. Qiu. “An Investigation of the Mechanics of Rock
Joints — Part I. Laboratory Investigation,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 30,
257-269 (1993).
Jaeger, J. C., and N. G. W. Cook. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, 2nd Ed. London: Chapman
and Hall, 1969.
Jing, L., E. Nordlund and O. Stephansson. “An Experimental Study on the Anisotropy an Stress-
Dependency of the Strength and Deformability of Rock Joints,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr., 29, 535-542 (1992).
Kulhawy, Fred H. “Stress Deformation Properties of Rock and Rock Discontinuities,” Engineering
Geology, 9, 327-350 (1975).
Lindner, E. N., and J. A. Halpern. “In-Situ Stress in North America: A Compilation,” Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 15, 183-203 (1978).
Lorig, L. J., and B. H. G. Brady. “An Improved Procedure for Excavation Design in Stratified
Rock,” in Rock Mechanics — Theory-Experiment-Practice, pp. 577-586. New York: Association
of Engineering Geologists, 1983.
Müller, B., M. L. Zoback, K. Fuchs, L. Mastin, S. Gregersen, N. Pavoni, O. Stephansson and C.
Ljunggren. “Regional Patterns of Tectonic Stress In Europe,” J. Geophys. Res., 97(B8), 11783-
11803 (1992).
Rosso, R. S. “A Comparison of Joint Stiffness Measurements in Direct Shear, Triaxial Compression,
and In-Situ,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 13, 167-172 (1976).
Rudnicki, J. W., and J. R. Rice. “Conditions for the Localization of the Deformation in Pressure-
Sensitive Dilatant Materials,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 23, 371-394 (1975).
Serafim, J. L., and J. P. Pereira. “Considerations of the Geomechanical Classification of Bieni-
awski,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Geology and Underground
Construction Lisbon 1983, Vol. 1, pp. II.33-42. Lisbon: SPGILNEC, 1983.
Singh, B. “Continuum Characterization of Jointed Rock Masses: Part I — The Constitutive Equa-
tions,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 10, 311-335 (1973).
Souley, M., F. Homand and B. Amadei. “An Extension to the Saeb and Amadei Constitutive Model
for Rock Joints to Include Cyclic Load Paths,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.,
32, 101-109 (1995).
3DEC Version 3.0

Starfield, A. M., and P. A. Cundall. “Towards a Methodology for Rock Mechanics Modelling,” Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 25(3), 99-106 (1988).
Thompson, J. M. T., and H. B. Stewart. Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1986.
Vardoulakis, I. “Shear Band Inclination and Shear Modulus of Sand in Biaxial Tests,” Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Meth. in Geomechanics, 4, 103-119 (1980).
Vermeer, P. A., and R. de Borst. “Non-Associated Plasticity for Soils, Concrete and Rock,” Heron,
29(3), 3-64 (1984).
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

FISH BEGINNER’S GUIDE 4-1
4 FISH BEGINNER’S GUIDE
4.1 Introduction and Overview
FISH is a programming language embedded within 3DEC that enables the user to define new
variables and functions. These functions may be used to extend 3DEC ’s usefulness or add user-
defined features. For example, new variables may be plotted or printed, special model generators
may be implemented, servo-control may be applied to a numerical test, unusual distributions of
properties may be specified, and parameter studies may be automated.
FISH was developed in response to requests from users who wanted to do things with Itasca
software that were either difficult or impossible to do with existing program structures. Rather
than incorporate many new and specialized features into the standard code, it was decided that an
embedded language would be provided so that users could write their own functions. Some useful
FISH functions have already been written; a library of these is provided with the 3DEC program.
It is possible for someone without experience in programming to write simple FISH functions or
to modify some of the simpler existing functions. Section 4.2 contains an introductory tutorial for
non-programmers. However, FISH programs can also become very complicated (which is true of
code in any programming language); for more details, refer to Section 2 in the FISH volume.
As with all programming tasks, FISH functions should be constructed in an incremental fashion,
checking operations at each level before moving on to more complicated code. FISH does less
error-checking than most compilers, so all functions should be tested on simple data sets before
using them for real applications.
FISH programs are simply embedded in a normal 3DEC data file — lines following the word DEFINE
are processed as a FISH function; the function terminates when the word END is encountered.
Functions may invoke other functions, which may invoke others, and so on. The order in which
functions are defined does not matter as long as they are all defined before they are used (e.g.,
invoked by a 3DEC command). Since the compiled form of a FISH function is stored in 3DEC ’s
memory space, the SAVE command saves the function and the current values of associated variables.
A complete definition of FISH language rules and intrinsic functions is provided in Section 2 in
the FISH volume. This includes rules for syntax, data types, arithmetic, variables and functions.
All FISH language names are described in Section 2 in the FISH volume, and a summary of the
names is provided in Section 2 in the Command and FISH Reference Summary.
3DEC Version 3.0

4-2 User’s Guide
4.2 Tutorial
This section is intended for people who have run 3DEC (at least for simple problems) but have
not used the FISH language; no programming experience is assumed. To get the maximum benefit
from the examples given here, you should try them out with 3DEC running interactively. The short
programs may be typed in directly. After running an example, give the 3DEC command NEW to
“wipe the slate clean,” ready for the next example. Alternatively, the more lengthy programs may
be created on file and CALLed when required.
Type the lines in Example 4.1 after 3DEC ’s command prompt, pressing <Enter> at the end of
each line.
Example 4.1 Defining a FISH function
def abc
abc = 22 * 3 + 5
end
Note that the command prompt changes to Def> after the first line has been typed in; then it changes
back to the usual prompt when the command END is entered. This change in prompt lets you know
if you are sending lines to 3DEC or to FISH. Normally, all lines following the DEFINE statement
are taken as part of the definition of a FISH function (until the END statement is entered). However,
if you type in a line that contains an error (e.g., you type the = sign instead of the + sign), then
you will get the 3DEC prompt back again. In this case, you should give the NEW command and
try again from the beginning. Since it is very easy to make mistakes, FISH programs are normally
typed into a file using an editor. These are then CALLed into 3DEC just like a regular 3DEC data
file. We will describe this process later; for now, we’ll continue to work interactively. Assuming
that you typed in the above lines without error and that you now see the 3DEC prompt 3Dec>,
you can “execute” the function abc,* defined earlier in Example 4.1, by typing the line
print abc
The message
abc = 71
should appear on the screen. By defining the symbol abc (using the DEFINE ... END construction,
as in Example 4.1), we can now refer to it in many ways using 3DEC commands.
For example, the PRINT command causes the value of a FISH symbol to be displayed; the value is
computed by the series of arithmetic operations in the line
abc = 22 * 3 + 5
* We will use courier boldface to identify user-defined FISH functions and declared variables
in the text.
3DEC Version 3.0

This is an “assignment statement.” If an equal sign is present, the expression on the right-hand side
of the equal sign is evaluated and given to the variable on the left-hand side. Note that arithmetic
operations follow the usual conventions; addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are done
with the signs +, -, * and /, respectively. The sign ˆ denotes “raised to the power of.”
We now type in a slightly different program (using the command NEW to erase the old one):
Example 4.2 Using a variable
new
def abc
hh = 22
abc = hh * 3 + 5
end
Here we introduce a “variable,” hh, which is given the value of 22 and then used in the next line.
If we give the command PRINT abc, then exactly the same output as in the previous case appears.
However, we now have two FISH symbols; they both have values, but one (abc) is known as a
“function” and the other (hh) as a “variable.” The distinction is as follows.
When a FISH symbol name is mentioned (e.g., in a PRINT statement),
the associated function is executed if the symbol corresponds to a
function; however, if the symbol is not a function name, then the
current value of the symbol is simply used.
The following experiment may help to clarify the distinction between variables and functions.
Before doing the experiment, note that 3DEC ’s SET command can be used to set the value of any
user-defined FISH symbol, independent of the FISH program in which the symbol was introduced.
Now type in the following lines without giving the command NEW, since we want to keep our
previously-entered program in memory.
Example 4.3 SETting variables
set abc=0 hh=0
print hh
print abc
print hh
The SET command sets the values of both abc and hh to zero. Since hh is a variable, the first PRINT
command simply displays the current value of hh, which is zero. The second PRINT command
causes abc to be executed (since abc is the name of a function); the values of both hh and abc
are thereby recalculated. Accordingly, the third PRINT statement shows that hh has indeed been
reset to its original value. As a test of your understanding, you should type in the slightly modified
sequence shown in Example 4.4 and figure out why the displayed answers are different.
3DEC Version 3.0

4-4 User’s Guide
Example 4.4 Test your understanding of function and variable names

new
def abc
abc = hh * 3 + 5
end
set hh=22
print abc
set abc=0 hh=0
print hh
print abc
print hh
At this stage, it may be useful to list the most important 3DEC commands that directly refer to
simple FISH variables or functions. (In Table 4.1, below, var stands for the name of the variable or
function.)
Table 4.1 Commands that directly

refer to FISH names
PRINT var
SET var = value
HISTORY var
We have already seen examples of the first two (refer to Examples 4.3 and 4.4); the third case is
useful when histories are required of things that are not provided in the standard 3DEC list of history
variables. Example 4.5 shows how this can be done.
Example 4.5 Capturing the history of a FISH variable

new
poly brick 0,10 0,10 0,10
gen edge 10
prop mat=1 dens 1000 k 1e9 g 0.7e9
bound 0, 10 -0.01, 0.01 0,10 yvel 0.0
grav 0 -10 0
def stress_y
zoneIdx = b_zone(block_head)
stress_y = z_syy(zoneIdx)
end
hist stress_y
cyc 200
pl his 1 hold
3DEC Version 3.0

In this example, a history of the vertical stress in one zone is recorded. The symbols b zone(),
block head and z syy() are pre-defined names that permit access to 3DEC ’s data structures. We
obtained the index of the first zone in the one block in our model. With that index we can access a
number of parameters associated with that zone. In this case, we have accessed the vertical stress
and monitored its change in a history.
In addition to the above-mentioned pre-defined variable names, there are many other pre-defined
objects available to a FISH program. These fall into several classes; one such class consists of
scalar variables, which are single numbers — for example,
clock clock time in hundredths of a second
unbal maximum unbalanced force
pi π
step current step number
urand random number drawn from uniform distribution between
0.0 and 1.0.
This is just a small selection; the full list is given in Section 2.5.2 in the FISH volume.
Another useful class of built-in objects is the set of intrinsic functions, which enables things like
sines and cosines to be calculated from within a FISH program. A complete list is provided in
Section 2.5.4 in the FISH volume; a few are given below:
abs(a) absolute value of a
cos(a) cosine of a (a is in radians)
log(a) base-ten logarithm of a
max(a,b) returns maximum of a, b
sqrt(a) square root of a
An example in the use of intrinsic functions will be presented later, but now we must discuss one
further way in which a 3DEC data file can make use of user-defined FISH names.
Wherever a number is expected in a 3DEC input line, you may
substitute the name of a FISH variable or function.
This simple statement is the key to a very powerful feature of FISH that allows such things as
ranges, applied stresses, properties, etc. to be computed in a FISH function and used by 3DEC
input in symbolic form. Hence, parameter changes can be made very easily, without the need to
change many numbers in an input file.
As an example, let us assume that we know the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of a material.
Although properties may be specified using Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, internally 3DEC
3DEC Version 3.0

4-6 User’s Guide
uses the bulk and shear moduli, we may derive these with a FISH function, using Eqs. (4.1) and
(4.2):
E
G= (4.1)
2(1 + ν)
E
K= (4.2)
3(1 − 2ν)
Coding Eqs. (4.1) and (4.2) into a FISH function (called derive) can then be done as shown in
Example 4.6, below.
Example 4.6 FISH functions to calculate bulk and shear moduli
new
def derive
s_mod = y_mod / (2.0 * (1.0 + p_ratio))
b_mod = y_mod / (3.0 * (1.0 - 2.0 * p_ratio))
end
set y_mod = 5e8 p_ratio = 0.25
derive
print b_mod s_mod
Note that, here, we execute the function derive by giving its name by itself on a line; we are
not interested in its value, only what it does. If you run this example, you will see that values are
computed for the bulk and shear moduli, b mod and s mod, respectively. These can then be used,
in symbolic form, in 3DEC input as shown in Example 4.7.
Example 4.7 Using symbolic variables in 3DEC input
poly brick -1,1 -1,1 -1,1
jset
gen edge 1
prop mat 1 density = 2000 k =b_mod g = s_mod
print property block
The validity of this operation may be checked by printing the bulk and shear moduli with the PRINT
property block command. In these examples, our property input is given via the SET command
— i.e., to variables y mod and p ratio, which stand for Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio,
respectively.
In passing, note that there is great flexibility in choosing names for FISH variables and functions;
the underline character ( ) may be included in a name. Names must begin with a non-number and
must not contain any of the arithmetic operators (+, –, /, * or ˆ). A chosen name should not be
3DEC Version 3.0

the same as one of the built-in (or reserved) names; Section 2.2.2 in the FISH volume contains a
complete list of names to be avoided, as well as some rules that should be followed.
In the above examples, we checked the computed values of FISH variables by giving their names
explicitly as arguments to a PRINT command. Alternatively, we can list all current variables and
functions. A printout of all current values, sorted alphabetically by name, is produced by giving
the command
print fish
We now examine ways in which decisions can be made and repeated operations can be done in
FISH programs. The following FISH statements allow specified sections of a program to be repeated
many times:
LOOP var (expr1, expr2)
ENDLOOP
The words LOOP and ENDLOOP are FISH statements, the symbol var stands for the loop variable,
and expr1 and expr2 stand for expressions (or single variables). Example 4.8 shows the use of a
loop (or repeated sequence) to produce the sum and product of the first 10 integers.
Example 4.8 Controlled loop in FISH
new
def xxx
sum = 0
prod = 1
loop n (1,10)
sum = sum + n
prod = prod * n
endloop
end
xxx
print sum, prod
In this case, the loop variable n is given successive values from 1 to 10, and the statements inside
the loop (between the LOOP and ENDLOOP statements) are executed for each value. As mentioned,
variable names or an arithmetic expression could be substituted for the numbers 1 or 10.
A practical use of the LOOP construct is to install a nonlinear initial distribution of elastic moduli
in a 3DEC model. Suppose that the Young’s modulus at a site is given by Eq. (4.3).
√
E = E◦ + c y (4.3)
where y is the depth below surface, and c and E◦ are constants. We write a FISH function to install
appropriate values of bulk and shear modulus in the model, as in Example 4.9.
3DEC Version 3.0

4-8 User’s Guide
Example 4.9 Applying a nonlinear initial distribution of moduli

new
poly brick 0,30 -30,0 0,30
jset dip 36 dd 270 spac 6 num 20
jset dip -58 dd 270 spac 6 num 20
def install
iprop = 0
loop while iprop < 7
iprop = iprop + 1
y_depth1 = (float(iprop) - 1.0) * 5.0
y_depth2 = y_depth1 + 5.0
y_mod = y_zero + cc * sqrt((y_depth1 + y_depth2) / 2.0)
command
prop mat = iprop ymod = y_mod
prop mat = iprop prat = 0.25 dens = 2000
endcommand
bi = block_head
loop while bi # 0
y_depth = float(-b_y(bi))
if y_depth > y_depth1 then
if y_depth <= y_depth2 then
b_mat(bi) = iprop
endif
endif
bi = b_next(bi)
endloop
endloop
end
set y_zero = 1e7 cc = 1e8
install
plot color mat hold
Having seen several examples of FISH programs, let’s briefly examine the question of program
syntax and style. A complete FISH statement must occupy one line; there are no continuation lines.
If a formula is too long to fit on one line, then a temporary variable must be used to split the formula.
Example 4.10 shows how this can be done.
3DEC Version 3.0

Example 4.10 Splitting lines

new
def long_sum ;example of a sum of many things
temp1 = v1 + v2 + v3 + v4 + v5 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v9 + v10
long_sum = temp1 + v11 + v12 + v13 + v14 + v15
end
In this case, the sum of 15 variables is split into two parts. Note also the use of the semicolon
in line 1 of Example 4.10 to indicate a comment. Any characters that follow a semicolon are
ignored by the FISH compiler, but they are echoed to the log file. It is good programming practice
to annotate programs with informative comments. Some of the programs have been shown with
indentation — that is, space inserted at the beginning of some lines to denote a related group of
statements. Any number of space characters may be inserted (optionally) between variable names
and arithmetic operations to make the program more readable. Again, it is good programming
practice to include indentation to indicate things like loops, conditional clauses and so on. Spaces
in FISH are “significant” in the sense that space characters may not be inserted into a variable or
function name.
One other topic that should be addressed now is that of variable type. You may have noticed,
when printing out variables from the various program examples, that numbers are either printed
without decimal points or in “E-format” — that is, as a number with an exponent denoted by “E.”
At any instant in time, a FISH variable or function name is classified as one of three types: integer,
floating-point or string. These types may change dynamically, depending on context, but the casual
user should not normally have to worry about the type of a variable, since it is set automatically.
Consider Example 4.11.
Example 4.11 Variable types
new
def haveone
aa = 2
bb = 3.4
cc = ’Have a nice day’
dd = aa * bb
ee = cc + ’, old chap’
end
haveone
print fish
3DEC Version 3.0

The resulting screen display looks like this:
Value Name
----- ----
2 aa
3.4000e+000 bb
- string - cc
6.8000e+000 dd
- string - ee
0 haveone
The variables aa, bb and cc are converted to integer, float and string, respectively, corresponding
to the numbers (or strings) that were assigned to them. Integers are exact numbers (without decimal
points) but are of limited range; floating-point numbers have limited precision (about six decimal
places) but are of much greater range; string variables are arbitrary sequences of characters. There
are various rules for conversion between the three types. For example, dd becomes a floating-point
number because it is set to the product of a floating-point number and an integer; the variable ee
becomes a string because it is the sum (concatenation) of two strings. The topic can get quite
complicated, but it is fully explained in Sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 in the FISH volume.
There is a further language element in FISH that is commonly used — the IF statement. The
following three statements allow decisions to be made within a FISH program.
IF expr1 test expr2 THEN
ELSE
ENDIF
These statements allow conditional execution of FISH program segments; ELSE and THEN are
optional. The item test consists of one of the following symbols or symbol-pairs:
= # > < >= <=
The meanings are standard except for #, which means “not equal.” The items expr1 and expr2
are any valid expressions or single variables. If the test is true, then the statements immediately
following IF are executed until ELSE or ENDIF is encountered. If the test is false, the statements
between ELSE and ENDIF are executed if the ELSE statement exists; otherwise, the program jumps
to the first line after ENDIF. The action of these statements is illustrated in Example 4.12.
3DEC Version 3.0

FISH BEGINNER’S GUIDE 4 - 11
Example 4.12 Action of the IF ELSE ENDIF construct

new
def abc
if xx > 0 then
abc = 33
else
abc = 11
end_if
end
set xx = 1
print abc
set xx = -1
print abc
The displayed value of abc in Example 4.12 depends on the set value of xx. You should experiment
with different test symbols (e.g., replace > with <).
Until now, our FISH programs have been invoked from 3DEC either by using the PRINT command,
or by giving the name of the function on a separate line of 3DEC input. It is also possible to do
the reverse — that is, to give 3DEC commands from within a FISH function. Most valid 3DEC
commands can be embedded between the following two FISH statements:
COMMAND
ENDCOMMAND
There are two main reasons for sending out 3DEC commands from a FISH program. First, it is
possible to use a FISH function to perform operations that are not possible using the pre-defined
variables that we already discussed. Second, we can control a complete 3DEC run with FISH.
3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

GRAPHICAL INTERFACE 5-1
5 GRAPHICAL INTERFACE
3DEC contains a graphical interface to facilitate both model creation and presentation of results.
When 3DEC is in the graphics screen mode, the user can enter input interactively in order to
“move” the model for better viewing and select various types of output for graphical presentation
(e.g., vectors, tensors, contours). The graphical interface is displayed when the command PLOT is
given from the command mode. A graphical plot of the model appears on the screen along with a
menu box containing a list of the active keystrokes that can be used to manipulate the model. The
user can view the results of the keystroke (or combination of keystrokes) directly on the screen.*
A mouse can also be used when the cursor is active. The elements of the graphical interface are
illustrated in Figure 5.1.
When in the graphics mode, the 3DEC model plot is viewed from a “viewing plane.” The viewing
plane is always oriented parallel to and coincident with the graphics screen (see Figure 5.1). The
model view is defined in terms of the position of the viewing plane relative to the model reference
axes. The model axes are a left-hand set (x,y,z) oriented, by default, as x (east), y (vertically up)
and z (north). (See Section 3.2.4 for further discussion on the model axes.) The default view of the
model is from the viewing plane oriented parallel to the xy-plane of the model, with the centroid
of the model positioned at the center of the screen.
A “cut-plane” is also defined in the interface to permit the cutting of blocks (i.e., splitting a block
into two blocks) while in the graphics mode (see Figure 5.1). The cut-plane, like the viewing plane,
is always parallel to the screen, but it also can be moved into and out of the screen (i.e., along the
normal to the viewing plane).
viewing plane (screen)
model axes
y
z x
cut plane 3DEC menu box
center of
3DEC Version 2.0
screen
3DEC model
perspective view
Figure 5.1 3DEC graphical interface (DOS version)
* Note that an hourglass will appear on the screen while the action of a keystroke is being performed.
The time required to complete a keystroke action will depend upon the number of blocks (and
zones) in the model.
3DEC Version 3.0

5-2 User’s Guide
5.1 Overview
Seven different colors are available with shading to create three-dimensional perspective plots and
cross-section plots of the 3DEC model. A menu box also appears to the right of the graphical
display on the screen. The main menu is visible in the menu box when first entering the screen
mode, and all active keystrokes are listed. When a keystroke is selected from the main menu, the
results are viewed directly. (It is not necessary to follow the keystroke with the <Enter> key.)
For certain keystrokes, an action is taken (e.g., by pressing the <M> key, the size of the plot is
magnified). For other keystrokes, a new menu will appear in the menu box (e.g., by pressing the
<C> key, a ColorMode menu appears, and a listing of block coloring options is given).
There are three levels of menus in the graphical interface. These are summarized in the menu guide
shown in Figure 5.2. The required keystrokes to move from the main menu to a second-level menu,
and from second-level to third-level menus, are shown in bold on the figure. When in a second-level
or third-level menu, a new list of active keystrokes is displayed.
The user has three options in a second-level or third-level menu:
(1) pressing a key for a selected action and then pressing <Enter> (or left mouse
button) to invoke this action;
(2) pressing the <Q> key to reset all actions to their default condition and then
pressing <Enter> to invoke the reset; or
(3) pressing the <Esc> key to escape from this menu and returning to the pre-
ceding menu.
The keystroke actions are described in the following sections for the main menu and all second-
and third-level menus.
Pressing the arrow keys will rotate or translate the model in directions as specified in the main menu
(menu items 1-5).
Moving the mouse with the left button pressed is the same as repeatedly pressing the arrow keys.
Clicking on a block with the right mouse button will center the view and rotation on the centroid
of that block.
The background color may be changed by SET back = color. The default background color is gray.
The hardcopy background can be changed by SET plot background = color. The default background
for hardcopies is iwhite.
3DEC Version 3.0

COLOR
MODE
INTERROGATE BLOCK
JOINT
MODE COLOR BLOCK
(P) MATERIAL NUMBER

TARGET
ACTIVE (O) CONSTITUTIVE NUMBER
JOIN 2 BLOCKS
LINER/CABLE
MAIN
(X) CROSS SECTION
MENU
SPECIAL
OPTIONS
RUNNING
STRESS PLOT COLOR STRESSES/STATE
VECTOR
COLOR VECTORS
PLOT
(F10) HARD COPY
SECOND-LEVEL MENUS THIRD-LEVEL MENUS
Figure 5.2 3DEC menu guide
3DEC Version 3.0

5-4 User’s Guide
5.2 Menus
5.2.1 Main Menu
C Color Mode Blk

changes the colors for blocks. When the <C> key is pressed, theColorMode menu
appears (see Section 5.2.2).
J Joint Structure
displays the joint structure only. All blocks are hidden. When the <J> key is pressed,
the JointMode menu appears with options for displaying joints (see Section 5.2.3).
K “Knife” (cut blocks)

All visible blocks intersected by the cut-plane are split into two. The cut-plane is
parallel to the screen.
L Struct
Structural liner or cable information is displayed on 3D wireframe plots. The <L>
key only operates (and is visible in the menu in the place of the DisplayTarget menu
item) after the <W> (wireframe) key is pressed. When the <L> key is pressed, the
Liner/Cable menu appears (see Section 5.2.5).
T Display Target
A target or cursor is displayed (except in wireframe mode), and the TargetActive
menu appears (see Section 5.2.4). The cursor can be moved with the arrow keys or
with a mouse.
M Magnify
The size of the plot is magnified. Repeated typing of the <M> key increases the
magnification.
O Special Options
Plotting options are available by pressing the <O> key. When this key is pressed,
the SpecialOptions menu appears (see Section 5.2.6).
3DEC Version 3.0

Q Quit Plot Mode

The program switches to command-line mode (see Section 1 in the Command
Reference).
R Run (do cycles)

The model will begin cycling from the screen mode. When the <R> key is pressed,
the Running menu appears. The cycle number and values of variables, if selected
in the Stresses or Vectors menus, are printed in the menu box. The model plot is
refreshed every 10 cycles. Press the <Esc> key to stop the run.
S Stresses
Stresses are displayed on surfaces or two-dimensional cross sections through the
model. This menu permits plotting principal stress tensors, planar tractions, stress
contours and plasticity indicators. The <S> key only operates (and is visible in the
menu) after the <X> (cross section) key is pressed. When the <S> key is pressed,
the Stress menu appears (see Section 5.2.7).
U “Un-magnify”
The size of the plot is diminished (un-magnified). Repeated typing of the key
decreases the magnification.
V Vec/Con
Vectors are displayed in wireframe mode in 3D or cross-section plots. Contours
are displayed on cross-section plots. If in 3D block model mode, the <V> key
only operates (and is visible in the menu) after the <W> (wireframe) key is pressed.
When the <V> key is pressed, the Vector(andContours) menu appears, and dis-
placement and velocity vectors and contours can be plotted (see Section 5.2.8). If
in JointStructure mode (<J> key and <1> key), then the <V> key operates to
plot joint stress and displacement contours (see Section 5.2.8).
W Wire-Frame Display
A wireframe plot of the model is displayed. The solid model plot is displayed when
the <W> key is pressed again.
X Cross Section
A two-dimensional cross section is created through the model at the position of the
cut-plane.
3DEC Version 3.0

5-6 User’s Guide
The following seven keys in the Main Menu control the action of the arrow keys in the numeric
keypad. The arrow keys are used to move objects, change the view, move the cursor, and so on.
The particular action of the keys depends on the mode that is currently set. Moving the mouse with
the left button pressed is the same as repeatedly pressing the arrow keys. There are 5 modes, set by
typing the appropriate key (on the top row of the keyboard):
1 Eye Position
In mode 1, the up and down arrows move the eye position closer to or farther from
the object (i.e., the perspective view is changed).
2 left-right up-down
In mode 2, the four arrow keys cause the displayed block system to move to the left
or right, or up or down.
3 x-rotate y-rotate
In mode 3, the up/down arrows cause the block system to rotate about an axis pointing
to the right in the plane of the screen; the left/right keys cause a rotation about an
axis pointing upward in the plane of the screen.
4 Move Cut-plane
In mode 4, the up/down keys cause the cut-plane to move nearer to or farther from
the screen. The cut-plane is always oriented parallel with the plane of the screen.
5 z-move z-rotate
In mode 5, the up/down keys cause the block system to move nearer to or farther
from the screen; the left/right keys cause a rotation about an axis normal to the plane
of the screen.
+ Increase Movement
This increases (by a factor of 5) the movement caused by the arrow keys.
– Decrease Movement
This decreases (by a factor of 5) the movement caused by the arrow keys.
3DEC Version 3.0

(F2) PCX File

Each time <F2> is pressed, a PCX image of the screen is created. Any previously
existing file will be overwritten unless autoname is on.
(F9) Movie Capture
This captures screen plots to a movie file for later replay as a movie. The <(F9)>
key only operates (and is visible in the menu) after the MOVIE on command is given
in command-line mode (see Section 1.3 in the Command Reference).
(F10) Copy PostScript/Bitmap/Printer

This causes a hardcopy plot of the current screen plot to be made. This keystroke
performs the same action as the COPY command (see Section 1.3 in the Command
Reference). The file type is defined by the SET plot command. The file name is set
by the SET out command.
The main menu also contains information on the current viewing position of the model plot, cut-
plane, magnification and cycle number. The model view is defined in terms of the position of the
viewing plane relative to the model reference axes. The viewing plane is located by a dip angle and
dip direction* relative to the model axes and by location of the center of the viewing plane (i.e., the
screen center) relative to the origin of the model axes. (See Figure 5.3.)
* In 3DEC, the following definitions apply.
Bearing is the horizontal angle measured clockwise between a line in the horizontal plane (i.e., the
model xz-plane) and the z- (North) coordinate direction.
Dip angle is the inclination (in degrees) of the line of greatest slope of an inclined plane measured
relative to the horizontal plane (i.e., the model xz-plane).
Dip direction is the bearing in the horizontal plane of the dip angle projected to the horizontal
plane, measured in degrees from model North (+ z-axis).
Strike is the bearing of the intersection between a given plane and a horizontal plane. Strike is
perpendicular to the dip direction.
3DEC Version 3.0

5-8 User’s Guide
dip: Dip angle, in degrees, of the viewing plane is measured downward from the model xz-plane.
The range for the dip angle is 0 ≤ dip ≤ 90◦ . If the dip direction is pointing from the model axes
toward the viewing plane, the word “above” follows the dip angle. If the dip direction is pointing
away from the viewing plane, the word “below” follows the dip angle. (default dip = 90◦ )
dd: Dip direction, in degrees, of the viewing plane is measured clockwise from the positive z-axis.
The range for dip direction is 0 ≤ dd ≤ 360◦ . (default dd = 180◦ )
center: Location of the center of the viewing plane is measured relative to the origin of the model
axes. (default center = x,y,z-coordinates of model centroid)
cut-pl.: Location of the cut-plane is measured relative to the center of the viewing plane. The value
is negative if the cut-plane is located inside the screen (away from the viewer) and is positive if
located outside the screen (toward the viewer). The default location of the cut-plane is parallel and
coincident with the viewing plane.
mag: magnification factor (default mag = 1)
cycle: current cycle number
3DEC Version 3.0

model axes
y
z
x
DD
DIP
center
distance
2.0
3DEC Version
center
viewing plane
(screen)
Figure 5.3 Location of viewing plane in terms of dip, dip direction and center
distance from model axes
3DEC Version 3.0

5.2.2 Select Color Mode Menu
B Block Sequence
The blocks are plotted in different colors. Colors will change as the model is altered.
C Constitutive Number
The block colors are assigned according to constitutive model number:
0 (null model) blue
1 (elastic model) green
2 (Mohr Coulomb model) cyan
3 (anisotropic elastic model) red
6 (bilinear strain softening Mohr Coulomb matrix blue
ubiquitous joint model)
M Material Type
The block colors are assigned according to material type number specified for the
block (colors are mod 6, so material 7 will be the same color as material 1):
1 green 6 blue
2 cyan 7 green
3 red 8 cyan
4 magenta 9 red
5 yellow 10 magenta
R Region Number
The block colors are assigned according to region number specified for the block
(colors are mod 6):
0 green 4 yellow
1 cyan 5 blue
2 red 6 green
3 magenta colors repeat
Z Freeze Color
The present block color state is frozen and will not change when blocks are hidden
or deleted.
3DEC Version 3.0

GRAPHICAL INTERFACE 5 - 11
5.2.3 Select Joint Mode Menu
0 Joint Mode Off

Blocks are plotted.
1 Joint Structure
All joints are plotted in perspective view. (Blocks are hidden from view.) Joints can
be plotted individually by joint number n if the PLOT joint n command is issued first
from the command mode.
2 Cons Near X Sect

Only joints within a tolerance, ETOL, of the viewing plane are plotted. (Type PRINT
state for current value of ETOL. Type SET etol to change tolerance.)
3 Flow Structure
Shows fluid flow planes.
3DEC Version 3.0

5.2.4 Target Active Menu
In TargetActive mode, either a mouse or the arrow keys can be used to move the cursor. The left
mouse button performs the same action as the <Enter> key. To return to the main menu from the
TargetActive menu, press the <Esc> key.
I Interrogate Block
When the key is pressed, the cursor can be moved to each block in the model;
then, by pressing the <Enter> key or left mouse button, current information on the
block will appear in the menu box. An example menu is shown in Figure 5.4. Press
<Q> (or right mouse button) to return to the TargetActive menu.
C Color Block
The color of a block can be changed. When the <C> key is pressed, a select
BlockColor menu will appear, and a different color can be chosen. The menu
contains the following color choices:
0 black 4 red
1 blue 5 magenta
2 green 6 yellow
3 cyan 7 white
First, press the number corresponding to the selected color and <Enter> (or left
button) to change the block to this color; then, press <Esc> to return to the
TargetActive menu.
3DEC Version 3.0

Block 34527 Block 217

Mat 1 Con 1 Reg 0 Mat 2 Con 1 Reg 10
Rigid Block Zones 6
X 7.45E-01 X 1.50E+00
Y 5.77E-01 Y 2.50E+00
Z -4.96E-01 Z 0.00E+00
Volume 2.64E-01 Volume 3.50E+02
Mass 5.29E+02 Mass 5.29E+02
Disp Vel Disp Vel

X 5.07E-07 1.25E-04 X -3.99E-07 1.19E-10
Y -6.03E-06 -8.55E-05 Y -5.42E-06 2.64E-10
Z -5.60E-07 -1.35E-04 Z 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Tx 0.00E+00 -4.26E-04 Tx 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Ty 0.00E+00 -5.25E-06 Ty 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Tz 0.00E+00 -4.41E-04 Tz 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Force Sums Stress Avg

X 0.00E+00 S1 -6.61E+04
Y 0.00E+00 S2 -1.40E+04
Z 0.00E+00 S3 -1.08E+04
Tx -3.68E+02 SS 2.77E+04
Ty -4.53E+00
Tz -3.40E+02
(a) rigid block information (b) deformable block information
Figure 5.4 Example interrogate block menu
3DEC Version 3.0

P Material #
The material type number for a block can be changed. When the key is
pressed, a (P)SelectMaterialNumber menu will appear, and a different material
type number can be chosen. This menu contains the following material number
choices:
1 material 1 6 material 6
5 material 5 a material 10
First, press the number or letter corresponding to the selected material type number
and <Enter> (or left button) to change the block to this number; then, press <Esc>
to return to the TargetActive menu.
O Constitutive #
The constitutive number for a block can be changed. When the <O> key is pressed,
a (O)SelectConstitutiveNumber menu will appear, and a different constitutive
number can be chosen. This menu contains the following constitutive number
choices:
1 cons 1 elastic
2 cons 2 Mohr-Coulomb
First, press the number corresponding to the selected constitutive model and
<Enter> (or left button) to change the block to this number; then, press <Esc> to
return to the TargetActive menu.
J Join 2 Blocks
Two blocks can be joined. (One block becomes the master block and the other the
slave.) After the <J> key is pressed, the cursor is moved to the first block to be
joined and the <Enter> key (or left mouse button) pressed; then, the cursor is
moved to the second block (it must be adjacent to the first), and the <Enter> key
(or left button) pressed again. The two blocks will then be joined. Several blocks
can be joined by repeating this procedure.
3DEC Version 3.0

F Find Block
Hidden blocks can be found. If the <F> key is pressed, the <Enter> key (or left
button) can then be pressed to restore (i.e., make visible) the last block hidden while
in text mode. If the <Enter> key (or left button) is pressed repeatedly, all hidden
blocks will be restored.
H Hide Block
Blocks are hidden from view. After the <H> key is pressed, the cursor can be moved
to a block that is to be hidden; then, by pressing the <Enter> key (or left button),
the block will be made invisible. It is put on a stack and can be recalled with the
<F> key in TargetActive mode.
When blocks are invisible, they cannot be split by the <K> key or JSET command;
in this way, discontinuous joints can be made. However, the invisible blocks still
interact normally with other blocks and are remembered on restart. Only visible
blocks can be deleted, by the <D> key or by the DELETE command. Only visible
blocks are affected by the CHANGE command and have region numbers assigned or
changed by the MARK command.
D Delete Block
Blocks are deleted. After the <D> key is pressed, the cursor can be moved to a
block that is to be deleted; then, by pressing the <Enter> key (or left button), the
block will be deleted. Caution: Deleted blocks cannot be restored.
E Face Generator
This is a utility which allows the user to click on three scalar symbols on the screen
and generate a POLY face command in the log file. Note that SET log on must be
specified by the user.
G Joint Set Generator

This is a utility which allows the user to click on three scalar symbols and generate
a JSET command which would cut the defined plane. Note that SET log on must be
specified by the user.
L Line Generator
This is a utility which allows the user to draw on the surface of a block. The line
segments are appended to the overlay plotting file. The default name for this file is
“OVERLAY.TXT.”
3DEC Version 3.0

S Scalar Generator
This is a utility which creates scalars for each click of the mouse. The type and
magnitude are both equal to 1. If SET log on is specified, the SCALAR command will
also be written to the log.
A Automatic Refresh
When the <A> key is active, the plot will be redrawn (screen refreshed) each time
a block is hidden or deleted.
M Manual Refresh
When the <M> key is active, the plot will not be redrawn (screen refreshed) each
time a block is hidden or deleted. The screen will only be refreshed when the <R>
key is pressed.
R Refresh
The screen is refreshed. The <R> key is only active (and visible in the menu)
after the <M> key is pressed. When <R> is pressed, the plot is redrawn (screen
refreshed).
X 3D View/Cross Section
A switch from 3D perspective view to cross-section view can be made. The <X>
key is pressed to switch between 3D perspective view and cross-section view while
the target is active.
Z Zoom
Zoom is used to window in on a specific area. A cross-hair cursor will appear. Move
the cross-hair to one corner of the new window. Press and hold the left mouse button.
Stretch the rubber-band box to the new dimension and release the left mouse button
again. Use the (un-magnify) key in the main menu to zoom back out again.
(ins) Change Speed

The speed of the cursor movement with the arrow keys is changed. The <(ins)>
key is a toggle to increase or decrease the movement of the cursor when an arrow
key is pressed.
3DEC Version 3.0

5.2.5 Structure Menu
1 Axial Reinforcement
Local reinforcement locations.
2 Axial Force — Axial Reinforcement

Axial (local) reinforcement axial forces are plotted.
3 Cable Bolt
Cable geometry is plotted.
4 Axial Force — Cable

Axial cable forces are plotted at the center of each element.
5 Liner
Liner plate elements are plotted.
6 Beam
Beam element location.
M Color by Magnitude
The axial cable force vectors are colored by magnitude.
3DEC Version 3.0

5.2.6 Special Options Menu
C Freeze Colors
Block colors will not change when blocks are deleted, excavated or hidden.
E Show Excavations
Only excavated blocks (i.e., blocks removed for calculation purposes by the EX-
CAVATE or REMOVE command; see Section 1.3 in the Command Reference) are
plotted.
F Freeze Scale
The present scale for vector plots will remain constant for all vector plots. The scale
can be “unfrozen” by returning to the SpecialOptions menu and pressing the <F>
key again.
A x-y-z Axis Labels

x-, y-, z-coordinate axes are drawn in the lower-left corner of the screen to help the
user orient the model. The axes can be removed by pressing the <A> key again.
N N-E-U Axis Labels

N- (north), E- (east), U- (up) coordinate axes are drawn in the lower-left corner of
the screen to help the user orient the model. The axes can be removed by pressing
the <N> key again.
L Hardcopy Legend
A legend box replaces the menu box with the menu used for hardcopy screen dumps.
When the legend box is visible, all screen-mode keys still operate. To return to the
menu box, type the <O> key followed by the key and <Enter>.
J Joint Material
plots contacts associated with a joint plane. Contacts are displayed as diamonds if
the contact type is face-to-face. All other contact types are displayed as arrows. The
color of the symbol indicates the joint material type number. (For clarity, this menu
item should only be used with one joint plane at a time.)
S User-Defined Scalars
plots scalar quantities defined by the SCALAR command (see Section 1.3 in the
Command Reference).
3DEC Version 3.0

V User-Defined Vectors
plots vector quantities defined by the VECTOR command (see Section 1.3 in the
Command Reference).
Y User-Defined Tensors
plots tensor quantities defined by the TENSOR command (see Section 1.3 in the
Command Reference).
Z Plot Zone Outlines

plots zone outlines on faces of deformable blocks.
H Hide MS Construction
does not plot lines between joined blocks.
P Perspective Plot
turns on/off perspective plotting.
D DXF
turns on DXF file overlay defined by the PLOT dxf or SET dxf command.
K User-Defined Labels
allows user-defined labels to be plotted.
1 X-Boundary Condition
plots symbols which represent the boundary condition applied to gridpoints in the
x-direction.
2 Y-Boundary Condition
y-direction.
3 Z-Boundary Condition
z-direction.
3DEC Version 3.0

5.2.7 Stresses Menu
P Principal Stresses
plots principal stress tensors, indicating magnitudes and directions. By default,
tensors are colored by magnitude of maximum compressive stress, PS1.
T Planar Tractions
plots tractions acting on cross section. Circles indicate relative magnitude of trac-
tions, and an arrow indicates direction and relative magnitude of shear component
of traction. If only a dot shows in the center of the circle, the traction is entirely
a normal stress; if the arrow extends to the full radius of the circle, the traction is
entirely a shear stress. By default, circles are colored by the magnitude of the ratio
of shear-to-normal stress.
C Select Color Mode

The color mode for stress and planar traction plots can be changed. When the <C>
key is pressed, a SelectColorMode menu appears, and a different color mode can
be chosen.
For stress plots, the menu contains the following menu choices:
0 compr/tens
Stresses are colored by magnitude relative to maximum compressive
stress.
1 sigma 1
Stresses are colored by magnitude relative to maximum major prin-
cipal stress, PS1.
2 sigma 2
Stresses are colored by magnitude relative to intermediate principal
stress, PS2.
3 sigma 3
Stresses are colored by magnitude relative to maximum minor prin-
cipal stress, PS3.
4 shear
Stresses are colored by magnitude relative to maximum shear stress.
3DEC Version 3.0

5 slip
Stresses are colored by slip condition. Parameters must be set by a
SET pltphi command.
6 plastic state
Stresses are colored by plastic state.
7 Mohr-C FOS
Stresses are colored by Mohr-Coulomb strength/stress factor. Pa-
rameters must be defined by a SET pltphi, SET pltcoh or SET plttens
command.
8 Hoek-Brown FOS
Stresses are colored by Hoek-Brown strength/stress factor. Parame-
ters are defined by a SET ucs, SET hbs or SET hbm command.
For planar traction plots, the menu contains the following menu choices:
0 all same color

All tractions are plotted red.
1 magnitude
Tractions are colored by magnitude relative to maximum compressive
stress.
2 shear stress
Tractions are colored by magnitude relative to maximum shear stress.
3 excess shear stress

Tractions are colored by magnitude relative to maximum excess shear
stress. Parameters must be set by a SET pltphi or SET pltcoh command.
X Component Arrow
Arrows are displayed on the component of principal stress which is being used to
scale colors.
3DEC Version 3.0

Y Plastic Indicators
Plasticity indicators are plotted, identifying zones that have failed based on the Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion. If the symbols are red, the stress state is currently at the
yield limit. If the color is cyan, the stress state is below the yield limit. The symbols
shown below identify the failure mode. If no symbol is shown, the zone is elastic
and has never failed.
matrix shear
matrix tension
ubiquitous joint shear
ubiquitous joint tension
Figure 5.5 Symbols identifying failure mode
1 Max. p.s. Contours

maximum principal stress contours*
2 Int. p.s. Contours

intermediate principal stress contours∗
3 Min. p.s. Contours

minimum principal stress contours∗
4 xx-stress Contours
xx-stress contours∗
* Use the PLOT command to control contouring parameters.
3DEC Version 3.0

5 xy-stress Contours
xy-stress contours∗
6 xz-stress Contours
xz-stress contours∗
7 yy-stress Contours
yy-stress contours∗
8 yz-stress Contours
yz-stress contours∗
9 zz-stress Contours
zz-stress contours∗
A Use Zone Averaging

The zone averaging technique for contouring stresses (see the PLOT command in
Section 1.3 in the Command Reference) is turned on or off.
B Use Block Fill Contouring

Fills entire area of zone cross section with color representing the stress in that zone.
This more accurately represents the stresses than zone averaging.
G Show Contour Grid

The grid used to interpolate values for stress contour plotting is displayed.∗
Z Show Zone X Sect

The intersections of zones with the cross-section plane are plotted.
3DEC Version 3.0

5.2.8 Vectors (and Contours) Menu
If in 3D block model mode, the following keys operate.
D Displacement Vectors
Displacement vectors are plotted at vertices.
N Joint Normal Displ.

Relative normal displacement vectors along joints are plotted at contacts.
S Joint Shear Displ.

Relative shear displacement vectors along joints are plotted at contacts.
V Velocity Vectors
Velocity vectors are plotted at vertices.
C Color by Magnitude
The color of vectors can be changed. When the <C> key is pressed, a SelectColor
menu will appear, and a different color mode can be chosen. The menu contains the
following color choices.
0 All Same Color

All vectors are red.
1 magnitude
Vectors are colored by magnitude relative to maximum vector value.
2 x-displacement/velocity
Vectors are colored by magnitude relative to maximum x-displace-
ment (velocity) value.
3 y-displacement/velocity
Vectors are colored by magnitude relative to maximum y-displace-
3DEC Version 3.0

4 z-displacement/velocity
Vectors are colored by magnitude relative to maximum z-displace-
1 x-disp. Contours
x-displacement contours*
2 y-disp. Contours
y-displacement contours∗
3 z-disp. Contours
z-displacement contours∗
4 x-velocity Contours
x-velocity contours∗
5 y-velocity Contours
y-velocity contours∗
6 z-velocity Contours
z-velocity contours∗
T Temperature Contours
temperature contours (only active for thermal configuration)
Z Show Zone X Sect

The intersections of zones with the cross-section plane are plotted.
G Show Contour Grid

The grid is used to interpolate values for displacement, and velocity contour plotting
is displayed.∗
* Use the PLOT command to control contouring parameters.
3DEC Version 3.0

If in JointStructure mode, the following keys operate. These keys only apply for deformable
blocks:
1 Normal Stress
joint normal stress contours
2 Shear Stress
joint shear stress contours
3 Joint Normal Displ.

joint normal displacement contours
4 Joint Shear Displ.

joint shear displacement contours
If in FlowStructure and Solid mode, the following keys operate.
1 Pore Pressure Contour
2 Aperture Contour
If in FlowStructure and Wireframe mode, the following key operates.
1 Discharge Vectors
3DEC Version 3.0

MISCELLANEOUS 6-1
6 MISCELLANEOUS
6.1 3DEC Runtime Benchmark
3DEC has been tested on a number of different computers. The calculation rates are compared here
for the following benchmark problem: a cubic model that contains 125 blocks subject to applied
pressure boundary conditions. The timing test is made for both a rigid block analysis (with 1000
vertices) and a deformable block analysis (with 750 zones and 1000 gridpoints). The model is run
for 1000 steps, and the rate is calculated by a FISH function. The data file is given in Example 6.1;
Table 6.1 summarizes the calculation rates for different computers.
Table 6.1 3DEC runtime calculation rates

Computer Deformable Blocks
sec / gp / 1000 steps
Pentium Pro 200 MHz 0.131
Pentium Pro 266 MHz 0.101
Pentium II 300 MHz 0.088
Pentium II 450 MHz 0.061
AMD Athelon 1000 MHz 0.026
AMD Athelon 1200 MHz 0.021
AMD Athelon 1600+ 1400 MHz 0.019
Pentium 4 2000 MHz 0.013
3DEC Version 3.0

6-2 User’s Guide
Example 6.1 Benchmark data file — “TIMING.DAT”

def rate
rate = (t1 - t0) / (1000)
end
def time_0
t0 = clock / 100.0
end
def time_1
t1 = clock / 100.0
end
poly brick 0,10 0,10 0,10
prop jmat 1 kn 1e9 ks 1e9 fric 45.0
;
; for deformable block model
gen ed 4.0
prop mat 1 dens 1000
prop mat 1 bulk 1e9 g 7e8
;
bound 0,10 9.9,10.0 0,10 stress 0 -2e6 0 0 0 0
bound 9.9,10.1 0,10 0,10 stress -2e6 0 0 0 0 0
bound 0,10 0,10 9.9,10.1 stress 0 0 -2e6 0 0 0
;
; for deformable block model
bound -.1,.1 0,10 0,10 xvel 0.0
bound 0,10 -.1,.1 0,10 yvel 0.0
bound 0,10 0,10 -.1,.1 zvel 0.0
;
; for rigid block model
; apply 0 2 0 10 0 10 xvel 0.0
; apply 0 10 0 2 0 10 yvel 0.0
; apply 0 10 0 10 0 2 zvel 0.0
time_0
cyc 1000
time_1
print rate
3DEC Version 3.0

MISCELLANEOUS 6-3
6.2 Error Reporting
Although 3DEC has been tested extensively, it is almost impossible to test all available combinations
of options in a code as complex as 3DEC. For this reason, some errors may have evaded our notice.
If you discover a genuine bug, please let us know as soon as possible so that we may correct it.
6.2.1 Reporting via Internet
Itasca’s current Internet e-mail address is

software@itascacg.com
Please include the same information requested on the error notification form (in Section 6.2.2),
followed by the contents of your data file.
6.2.2 Reporting via Fax
A sample form for you to copy and mail or fax to us is given on the next page. Please fill out the
form completely, as this is the minimum information we will need to find and correct the error. The
sample file should, if possible, contain the minimum number of commands necessary to produce
the error. We may have to contact you for further information if we are unable to duplicate the error.
Be aware that it is always possible that the error is peculiar to your hardware, making it impossible
for us to duplicate.
6.3 Technical Support Service
Itasca and its offices and agents will provide telephone support, at no cost, to assist code owners
in the installation of Itasca codes on their computer system. Additionally, general assistance may
be provided in aiding the owner to understand the capabilities of the various features of the code.
However, no-cost assistance is not provided for help in applying an Itasca code to specific user-
defined problems.
Questions should, in the first instance, be directed to the office or agent where 3DEC was purchased.
3DEC Version 3.0

6-4 User’s Guide
3DEC Version 3.0

MISCELLANEOUS 6-5
ERROR NOTIFICATION FORM
Found By:
Phone: Fax:
Email:
Computer: RAM:
3DEC Data
Serial No.: Version*
Key No.: Options
Description:
* Type PRINT version to report your complete version number
Please attach a sample input file that produces the error.
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Phone: (1) 612-371-4711

Mill Place Fax: (1) 612·371·4717
111 Third Avenue South, Suite 450 E-Mail: software@itascacg.com
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 USA Web: www.itascacg.com
3DEC Version 3.0

6-6 User’s Guide
3DEC Version 3.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY 7-1
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adachi, T., Y. Ohnishi and K. Arai. “Investigation of Toppling Slope Failure at Route 305 in
Japan,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on Rock Mechanics (Aachen, Germany,
September, 1991), Vol. 2, pp. 843-846. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1991.
Al-Harthi, A., and S. Hencher. “Physical and Numerical Modelling of Underground Excavations
in Dilational Rock Masses,” in Proceedings of the ISRM Regional Conference on Fractured and
Jointed Rock Masses (Lake Tahoe, June, 1992), Vol. 3, pp. 608-615. Berkeley, California:
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1992.
Alfonsi, P., J. L. Durville and X. Rachez. “Modelisation Numerique d’une Fondation sur Versant
Rocheux par la Methode des Elements Distincts: Comparaison 2-D/3-D,” in Proceedings of the
9th ISRM Congress on Rock Mechanics (Paris, 1999), Vol. 1, pp. 71-76. Rotterdam: A. A.
Balkema, 1999.
Antikainen, J., A. Simonen and I. Makinen. “3D Modelling of the Central Pillar in the Pyhasalmi
Mine,” in Innovative Mine Design for the 21st Century (Proceedings of the International Congress
on Mine Design, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, August, 1993), pp. 631-640. W. F. Bawden and
J. F. Archibald, Eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1993.
Bandis, S. C., N. R. Barton and M. Christianson. “Application of a New Numerical Model of Joint
Behaviour to Rock Mechanics Problems,” in Fundamentals of Rock Joints (Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Fundamentals of Rock Joints, Björkliden, September, 1985),
pp. 345-356. Luleå, Sweden: Centek Publishers, 1985.
Barla, G., M. Borri-Brunetto and G. Gerbaudo. “Physical and Mathematical Modelling of a Jointed
Rock Mass for the Study of Block Toppling,” in Proceedings of the ISRM Regional Conference
on Fractured and Jointed Rock Masses (Lake Tahoe, June, 1992), Vol. 3, pp. 616-623. Berkeley,
California: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1992.
Baroudi, H., J. P. Piguet, J. P. Josien, I. Arif and P. Lebon. “Modelling of Underground Cavity
Storage and Consideration of Rock Mass Discontinuities,” in Proceedings of the 7th International
Congress on Rock Mechanics (Aachen, Germany, September, 1991), Vol. 2, pp. 1073-1081.
Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1991.
Barton, N. “Modelling Jointed Rock Behavior and Tunnel Performance,” World Tunnelling, 4(7),
414-416 (November, 1991).
Barton, N., L. Harvik, M. Christianson, S. Bandis, A. Makurat, P. Chryssanthakis and G. Vik.
“Numerical Analyses and Laboratory Tests to Investigate the Ekofisk Subsidence,” Fjellsprengn-
ingsteknikk Bergmekanikk/Geoteknikk, 21.1-21.23, 1985.
Barton, N., L. Harvik, M. Christianson and G. Vik. “Estimation of Joint Deformations, Potential
Leakage and Lining Stresses for a Planned Urban Road Tunnel,” in Large Rock Caverns (Pro-
ceedings of the Conference on Large Rock Caverns, Helsinki, 1986), pp. 1171-1182. Oxford:
Pergamon Press, 1985.
3DEC Version 3.0

7-2 User’s Guide
Barton, N., R. Lien, F. Løset, T. Löken, E. Grimstad, H. Hansteen, L. Harvik and M. Christianson.
“Methods for Selecting Support in Sub-Sea Rock Tunnels,” Proceedings of the International Sym-
posium on Strait Crossings (Stavanger, Norway, October, 1986), Vol. 2, pp. 715-731. Trondheim,
Norway: Tapir, 1986.
Barton, N., F. Løset, A. Smallwood, G. Vik, C. Rawlings, P. Chryssanthakis, H. Hansteen and T.
Ireland. “Radioactive Waste Repository Design Using Q and UDEC-BB,” in Proceedings of the
ISRM Regional Conference on Fractured and Jointed Rock Masses (Lake Tahoe, June, 1992),
Vol. 3, pp. 735-742. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1992.
Barton, N., A. Makurat, M. Christianson and S. Bandis. “Modelling Rock Mass Conductivity
Changes in Disturbed Zones,” in Rock Mechanics: Proceedings of the 28th U.S. Symposium
(Tucson, June-July, 1987), pp. 563-574. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1987.
Barton, N., K. Monsen, P. Chryssanthakis and O. Norheim. “Rock Mechanics Design for High
Pressure Gas Storage in Shallow Lined Caverns,” in Storage of Gases in Rock Caverns, pp. 159-
176. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1989.
Barton, N., L. Tunbridge, F. Løset, H. Westerdahl, J. Kristiansen, G. Vik and P. Chryssanthakis.
“Norwegian Olympic Ice Hockey Cavern of 60 m Span,” in Proceedings of the 7th International
Congress on Rock Mechanics (Aachen, Germany, September, 1991), Vol. 2, pp. 1073-1081.
Bigarre, P., K. Ben Slimane and J. Tinucci. “3-Dimensional Modelling of Fault-Slip Rockburst-
ing,” in Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines 93 (Proceedings of the International Symposium,
Kingston, Ontario, Canada, August, 1993), pp. 315-319. R. Paul Young, Ed. Rotterdam: A. A.
Balkema, 1993.
Blair, Stephen C., Steven R. Carlson and Jeffrey L. Wagoner. “Analysis of Geomechanical Behavior
for the Drift Scale Test,” in Proceedings of the 9th International High-Level Radioactive Waste
Management Conference (IHLRWM, Las Vegas, April-May 2001), Paper 08-3. La Grange Park,
Illinois: American Nuclear Society, Inc., 2001.
Blair, Stephen C., Steven R. Carlson and Jeffery L. Wagoner. “Distinct Element Modeling of the
Drift Scale Test,” in Rock Mechanics in the National Interest (Proceedings of the 38th U. S.
Rock Mechanics Symposium, Washington, D.C., July 2001), Vol.1, pp. 527-531. Lisse, The
Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger B. V., 2001.
Board, M. Examination of the Use of Continuum versus Discontinuum Models for Design and
Performance Assessment for the Yucca Mountain Site. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
NUREG/CR-5426, August, 1989.
Board, M. UDEC (Universal Distinct Element Code) Version ICG1.5, Vols. 1-3. U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5429, September 1989.
Board, Mark, Richard Brummer and Shawn Seldon. “Use of Numerical Modeling for Mine Design
and Evaluation,” in Underground Mining Methods: Engineering Fundamentals and Interna-
tional Case Studies, pp. 483-491. W. A. Hustrulid and R. L. Bullock, Eds. Littleton, Colorado:
SME, 2001.
3DEC Version 3.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY 7-3
Board, M., T. Rorke, G. Williams and N. Gay. “Fluid Injection for Rockburst Control in Deep
Mining,” in Rock Mechanics (Proceedings of the 33rd U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics),
pp. 111-120. J. R. Tillerson and W. R. Wawersik, Eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1993.
Board, M., S. Seldon, R. Brummer and R. Pakalnis. “Analysis of the Failure of a Large Hangingwall
Wedge: Kidd Mine Division, Falconbridge, Ltd.,” CIM Bull., 93(1043), 89-97 (September 2000).
Borri-Brunetto, M. “A Direct Variational Approach to Static Analysis of Discontinua,” in Second
European Speciality Conference on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering (San-
tander, Spain, September, 1990), pp. 33-44, 1990.
Brady, B., and J. Lemos. “Dynamic Analysis of Surface Rock Structures,” in Proceedings of the
2nd Italian Conference on Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 1988.
Brady, B. H., S. H. Hsiung, A. H. Chowdhury and J. Philip. “Verification Studies on the UDEC
Computational Model of Jointed Rock,” in Mechanics of Jointed and Faulted Rock, pp. 551-558.
Brady, B. H. G., M. L. Cramer and R. D. Hart. “Preliminary Analysis of a Loading Test on a Large
Basalt Block,” Int. J. Rock Mech., 22(5), 345-348 (1985).
Chen, S. G., J. G. Cai, J. Zhao and Y. X. Zhou. “3DEC Modeling of a Small-Scale Field Explosion
Test,” in Pacific Rocks 2000: Rock Around the Rim (Proceedings of the 4th North American
Rock Mechanics Symposium, Seattle, July-August 2000), pp. 571-576. J. Girard et al., Eds.
Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema 2000.
Choi, S. K. “The Application of the Distinct Element Method for Rock Mechanics Problems,” in
Proceedings of the 1st U.S. Conference on Discrete Element Methods (Golden, Colorado, 1989).
G. G. W. Mustoe et al., Eds. Golden, Colorado: CSM Press, 1990.
Choi, S. K., and M. A. Coulthard. “Modelling of Jointed Rock Masses Using the Distinct Element
Method,” in Mechanics of Jointed and Faulted Rock, pp. 471-478. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema,
1990.
Christianson, M. Sensitivity of the Stability of a Waste Emplacement Drift to Variation in Assumed
Rock Joint Parameters in Welded Tuff. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5336,
April, 1989.
Christianson, M., J. Itoh and S. Nakaya. “Seismic Analysis of the 25 Stone Buddhas Group at
Hakone, Japan,” in Rock Mechanics (Proceedings of the 35th U.S. Symposium, University of
Nevada, Reno, June, 1995), pp. 107-112. J. J. K. Daemen and R. A. Schultz, Eds. Rotterdam:
A. A. Balkema, 1995.
Christianson, M. C., and B. Brady. Analysis of Alternative Waste Isolation Concepts. U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5389, June, 1989.
Chryssanthakis, P., and N. Barton. “Predicting Performance of the 62 m Span Ice Hockey Cavern
in Gjøvik, Norway,” in Proceedings of the ISRM Regional Conference on Fractured and Jointed
Rock Masses (Lake Tahoe, June, 1992), Vol. 3, pp. 624-631. Berkeley, California: Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, 1992.
3DEC Version 3.0

7-4 User’s Guide
Chryssanthakis, P., K. Monsen and N. Barton. “Validation of UDEC-BB Against the CSM Block
Test and Large Scale Application to Glacier Loading of Jointed Rock Masses,” in Proceedings of
the 7th International Congress on Rock Mechanics (Aachen, Germany, September, 1991), Vol. 1,
pp. 693-698. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1991.
Contador, Nolberto V., and Marcelo F. Glavic. “Sublevel Open Stoping at El Soldado Mine: A
Geomechanic Challenge,” in Underground Mining Methods: Engineering Fundamentals and
International Case Studies, pp. 325-332. W. A. Hustrulid and R. L. Bullock, Eds. Littleton,
Colorado: SME, 2001.
Coulthard, M. A. “Distinct Element Modelling of Mining-Induced Subsidence — A Case Study,”
in Proceedings of the ISRM Regional Conference on Fractured and Jointed Rock Masses (Lake
Tahoe, June, 1992), Vol. 3, pp. 751-758. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
1992.
Coulthard, M. A., and I. H. Clark. “Computational Stress Analysis for Mine Excavation Design,” in
Computer Applications in the Mineral Industry (Proceedings of the 2nd Australian Conference,
The University of Wollongong, N.S.W., July, 1991), pp. 165-170. E. Y. Baafi, Ed. Wollongong:
University of Wollongong, 1991.
Coulthard, M. A., and A. J. Dutton. “Numerical Modeling of Subsidence Induced by Underground
Coal Mining,” in Key Questions in Rock Mechanics: Proceedings of the 29th U.S. Symposium
(University of Minnesota, June, 1988), pp. 529-536. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1988.
Coulthard, M. A., N. C. Journet and C. F. Swindells. “Integration of Stress Analysis into Mine
Excavation Design,” in Rock Mechanics (Proceedings of the 33rd U.S. Symposium, Santa Fe,
June, 1992), pp. 451-460. J. R. Tillerson and W. R. Wawersik, Eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema,
1992.
Cundall, P. A. “Alternative User Interfaces for Programs that Model Nonlinear Systems,” in Appli-
cations of Computational Mechanics in Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 343-352. Vargas et al.,
Eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1994.
Cundall, P. A. “Formulation of a Three-Dimensional Distinct Element Model — Part I: A Scheme
to Detect and Represent Contacts in a System Composed of Many Polyhedral Blocks,” Int. J. Rock
Mech., Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 25, 107-116 (1988).
Cundall, P. A. “Numerical Modeling of Jointed and Faulted Rock,” in Mechanics of Jointed and
Faulted Rock, pp. 11-18. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1990.
Cundall, P. A., and R. D. Hart. “Development of Generalized 2-D and 3-D Distinct Element
Programs for Modeling Jointed Rock,” Itasca Consulting Group Report to U.S. Army Engineering
Waterways Experiment Station, May, 1983; published as Misc. Paper SL-85-1, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1985.
Cundall, P. A., and R. D. Hart. “Numerical Modeling of Discontinua,” in Comprehensive Rock
Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 231-243. J. A. Hudson, Sr. Ed. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd., 1993.
3DEC Version 3.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY 7-5
Cundall, P. A., and J. V. Lemos. “Numerical Simulation of Fault Instabilities with the Continuously
Yielding Joint Model,” in Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, pp. 147-152. C. Fairhurst, Ed.
Damjanac, Branko, and Charles Fairhurst. “Ecoulement tri-dimensionnel d’eau sous pression dans
les milieux fracturés," in La sécurité des grands ouvrages: Hommage á Pierre Londe (October
2000), pp. 5-19. Paris: Presses de l’école nationale des Ponts et chaussées, 2000.
Damjanac, Branko, Charles Fairhurst and Terje Brandshaug. “Numerical Simulation of the Effects
of Heating on the Permeability of a Jointed Rock Mass,” in Proceedings of the 9th ISRM Congress
on Rock Mechanics (Paris, 1999), Vol. 2, pp. 881-885. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1999.
Dasgupta, B. “Numerical Modeling of Large Underground Caverns for Hydro Power Projects,” in
Trends in Rock Mechanics, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 102, Proceedings of Sessions
of Geo-Denver 2000 (August 2000, Denver), pp. 50-64. J. F. Labuz et al., Eds. Reston, Virginia:
ASCE, 2000.
Dasgupta, B, R. Dham and L. J. Lorig. “Three-Dimensional Discontinuum Analysis of the Under-
ground Power House for Sardar Sarovar Project, India,” in Proceedings of the Eighth International
Congress on Rock Mechanics (Tokyo, September 1995), Vol. II, pp. 551-554. T. Fujii, Ed. Rot-
terdam: A. A. Balkema, 1995.
Dasgupta, B., and L. J. Lorig. “Numerical Modelling of Underground Power Houses in India,” in
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Observational Method of Construction of Large
Underground Caverns in Difficult Ground Conditions, (8th ISRM International Congress on
Rock Mechanics, Tokyo, September, 1995), pp. 65-74. S. Sakurai, Ed.
Dasgupta, B., K. N. Reddy and S. Nayak. “Discontinuum Analysis of Rock Slopes,” in Proceedings
of the Asian Regional Symposium on Rock Slopes (New Delhi, December, 1992), pp. 157-164.
New Delhi: Oxford EIBH Publications, 1993.
Dasgupta, B., and V. M. Sharma. “Numerical Modelling of Underground Power Houses in India,”
in Distinct Element Modeling in Geomechanics, pp. 187-217. V. M. Sharma et al., Eds. New
Delhi, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., 1999.
Dasgupta, B., M. K. V. Sharma, M. Verman and V. M. Sharma. “Design of Underground Caverns
for Tehri Hydropower Project, India by Numerical Modelling,” in Proceedings of the 9th ISRM
Congress on Rock Mechanics (Paris, 1999), Vol. 1, pp. 357-358. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema,
1999.
Dialer, C. “A Distinct Element Approach for the Deformation Behavior of Shear Stressed Masonry
Panels,” in Proceedings of the 6th Canadian Masonry Symposium (University of Saskatchewan,
June, 1992), pp. 765-776, 1992.
Dialer, C., and M. Karaca. “Application of DEM to Problems in Rock Mechanics, Structural
Engineering and Material Testing,” submitted to the 2nd International Conference on Discrete
Element Methods (DEM), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1993.
3DEC Version 3.0

7-6 User’s Guide
Donovan, K. S., G. A. Lehmann, R. S. Pearce and K. Kim. “Rationale for Development of Consti-
tutive Models of a Basalt Rock Mass for Design of a Nuclear Waste Repository at the Hanford Site,”
in Rock Mechanics: Proceedings of the 28th U.S. Symposium (University of Arizona, Tucson,
June-July, 1987), pp. 715-724. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1987.
Dupin, J.-M., W. Sassi and J. Angelier. “Homogeneous Stress Hypothesis and Actual Fault Slip:
A Distinct Element Analysis,” J. Struct. Geol., 15(8), 1033-1043 (1993).
Fairhurst, C. “Analysis and Design in Rock Mechanics — The General Context,” in Comprehensive
Rock Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 1-29, J. A. Hudson, Editor-in-Chief. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd.,
1993.
Fairhurst, C. “Rock Mechanics and Nuclear Waste Repositories,” in Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Workshop on the Rock Mechanics of Nuclear Waste Repositories (Vail, Colorado, June
1999), pp. 1-43. S. Saeb and C. Francke, Eds. Alexandria, Virginia: American Rock Mechanics
Association, 1999.
Fairhurst, C. “Three Gorges Dam Reservoir, Yangtze River, China,” Felsbau, 13(6), 390-394
(1995).
Fairhurst, C., B. Damjanac and R. Hart. “Numerical Analysis As a Practical Design Tool in Geo
Engineering,” in Slope Stability 2000, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 101, Proceedings of
Sessions of Geo-Denver 2000 (August 2000, Denver), pp. 169-183. D. V. Griffiths, Ed. Reston,
Virginia: ASCE, 2000.
Fairhurst, C., and R. D. Hart. “Verification and Validation of Coupled Mechanical/Water Flow
Effects in Rock Masses: Some Possibilities and Limitations,” in GEOVAL-87 (Stockholm, April,
1987), pp. 527-545. Stockholm: SKI, 1987.
Hammer, H., H. C. Siegfried Niedermeyer and T. Niedermeyer. “Untersuchen zu Gebrigs-spannun-
gen und - bewegungen in der Schwabischen Alb,” Felsbau, 13(6), 367-373 (1995).
Harper, T. R., and N. C. Last. “Interpretation by Numerical Modelling of Changes of Fracture
System Hydraulic Conductivity Induced by Fluid Injection,” Geotechnique, 39(1), 1-11 (1989).
Hart, R., P. Cundall and J. Lemos. “Formulation of a Three-Dimensional Distinct Element Model
— Part II: Mechanical Calculations for Motion and Interaction of a System Composed of Many
Polyhedral Blocks,” Int. J. Rock Mech., Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 25, 117-126 (1988).
Hart, R., and C. Fairhurst. “Application of Discontinuum Modeling in Geotechnical Studies for
Nuclear Waste Isolation,” in Geoecology and Computers (Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Advances of Computer Methods in Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
neering, Moscow, February 2000), pp. 15-28. S. A. Yufin, Ed. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema,
2000.
Hart, R., D. Hanson and D. Swan. “A Three-Dimensional Ground Control Program for Falconbridge
Limited,” Paper No. 89, 92nd Annual General Meeting of CIM — 1990. Canadian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Ottawa, May, 1990.
3DEC Version 3.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY 7-7
Hart, R. D. “An Introduction to Distinct Element Modeling for Rock Engineering,” in Proceedings
of the 7th International Congress on Rock Mechanics (Aachen, Germany, September, 1991),
Vol. 3, pp. 1881-1892. W. Wittke, Ed. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1993; in Comprehensive Rock
Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 245-261. J. A. Hudson, Sr. Ed. Oxford: Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1993.
Hart, R. D. “Discontinuum Analysis for Deep Excavations in Jointed Rock,” in Rock at Great
Depth, Vol. 3, pp. 1123-1130. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1990.
Hart, R. D., M. Board, B. Brady, B. O’Hearn and G. Allan. “Examination of Fault-Slip Induced
Rockbursting at the Strathcona Mine,” in Key Questions in Rock Mechanics, pp. 369-379. P. A.
Cundall et al., Eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1988.
Hart, R. D., P. A. Cundall and M. L. Cramer. “Analysis of a Loading Test on a Large Basalt Block,”
in Research and Engineering — Applications in Rock Masses, Vol. 2, pp. 759-768. E. Ashworth,
Ed. Boston: A. A. Balkema, 1985.
Hella, P., and P. Saksa. “3D Geological Modelling, Model Transfer and Validation,” in Proceedings
of the SCSC’95 Conference (Ottawa, July, 1995), pp. 967-971. T. I. Oren and L. G. Birta, Eds.
Place: SCS, 1995.
Hobbs, B. E., A. Ord and C. Marone. “Dynamic Behavior of Rock Joints,” in Rock Joints (Proceed-
ings of the International Symposium on Rock Joints (Loen, Norway, June, 1990), pp. 435-445.
Hökmark, H. “Acceptance of Emplacement Hole Positions — Stage 1 Thermomechanical Study,” in
Preprints of Contributions to the Workshop on Computational Methods in Engineering Geology
(Lund, Sweden, October, 1996), pp. 42-51. R. Pusch and R. Adey, Eds. Lund: Clay Technology
AB, 1996.
Hökmark, H. “Numerical Study of the Performance of Tunnel Plugs,” in Preprints of Contributions
to the Workshop on Computational Methods in Engineering Geology (Lund, Sweden, October,
1996), pp. 212-221. R. Pusch and R. Adey, Eds. Lund: Clay Technology AB, 1996.
Homand-Etienne, F., N. Rode and R. Schwartzmann. “Block Modelling of Jointed Cliffs,” in
Mechanics of Jointed and Faulted Rock, pp. 819-825. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1990.
Hudson, J. “Rock Mechanics Studies for Disposal of Radioactive Waste in the UK: 1979-1999,” in
Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Rock Mechanics of Nuclear Waste Repositories
(Vail, Colorado, June 1999), pp. 229-258. S. Saeb and C. Francke, Eds. Alexandria, Virginia:
American Rock Mechanics Association, 1999.
Jakubowski, J., and P. Starzec. “Deformable and Rigid Block Models within the Scheme of Sta-
tistical Simulation,” in Proceedings of the Fifth North American Rock Mechanics Symposium
and the Seventeenth Tunnelling Association of Canada conference — NARMS-TAC (Toronto,
Canada, July 2002), pp. 1225-1232. Hammah et al., Eds. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
2002.
3DEC Version 3.0

7-8 User’s Guide
Jakubowski, J., A. Tajdus, J. Walaszczyk and P. Starzec. “Probabilistic Approach to Deformable

Blocky Rock Mass Modeling,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Probabilistics
in Geotechnics: Technical and Economic Risk Estimation (Graz, Austria, September 2002),
pp. 105-112. R. Pöttler et al., Eds. Essen: Verlag Glückauf, 2002.
Jing, L. Numerical Modelling of Jointed Rock Masses by Distinct Element Method for Two, and
Three-Dimensional Problems. Doctoral Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Division of Rock
Mechanics, 1990:90, November, 1990.
Jing, L., E. Nordlund, O. Stephansson. “Technical Note: A 3-D Constitutive Model for Rock Joints
with Anisotropic Friction and Stress Dependency in Shear Stiffness,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
& Geomech. Abstr., 31(2), 173-178 (1994).
Jing, L., and O. Stephansson. “Distinct Element Modeling of Sublevel Stoping,” in Proceedings
of the 7th International Congress on Rock Mechanics (Aachen, Germany, September, 1991),
Vol. 1, pp. 693-698. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1991.
Jing, L., and O. Stephansson. “Numerical Modeling of Large-Scale Sublevel Stoping by Three-
Dimensional Distinct Element Method,” in Proceedings of the 1st U.S. Conference on Distinct
Elements (Golden, Colorado, October, 1989). Golden, Colorado: CSM Press, 1989.
Jing, L., O. Stephansson and E. Nordlund. “Study of Rock Joints Under Cyclic Loading Conditions,”
Rock Mech. Rock Engng., 26(3), 215-232 (1993).
Johansson, E., M. Hakala, E. Peltonen, J.-P. Salo and L. Lorig. “Comparisons of Computed Two-
and Three-Dimensional Thermomechanical Response of Jointed Rock,” in Proceedings of the 7th
International Congress on Rock Mechanics (Aachen, September, 1991), pp. 115-119. Rotterdam:
Johansson, E., M. Kalliomaki, L. Lorig and S. Narvi. “Three-Dimensional Geomechanics Mod-
elling: City Planning for the Kamppi Underground Bus Terminal in Helsinki,” in Underground
Construction in Modern Infrastructure, pp. 119-123. T. Franz‚ et al., Eds. Rotterdam: A. A.
Balkema, 1998.
Johansson, E., and L. J. Lorig. “Use of Numerical Models in Design and Excavation Monitoring
of Multiple Parallel Caverns,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Unique Under-
ground Structures (Denver, June, 1990), Vol. 1, pp. 11-1 to 11-19. Golden, Colorado: CSM
Press, 1990.
Johansson, E., and J. Rautakorpi. “Rock Mechanics Stability at Olkiluoto, Hästholmen, Kivetty
and Romuvaara,” Posiva Oy, Posiva 2000-02, February 2000.
Johansson, E., R. Riekkola, J.-P. Salo and P. Anttila. “State-of-the-Art Nuclear Waste Repository
Projects and Rock Mechanics in Finnish Program,” in Proceedings of the International Workshop
on the Rock Mechanics of Nuclear Waste Repositories (Vail, Colorado, June 1999), pp. 117-141.
S. Saeb and C. Francke, Eds. Alexandria, Virginia: American Rock Mechanics Association, 1999.
Johansson, E. J. W. “Treating Sewage Underground,” Tunnels & Tunnelling, 21-23 (July, 1995).
3DEC Version 3.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY 7-9
Johansson, E. J. W., and H. Kuula. “Three-Dimensional Back-Analysis Calculations of Viikinmaki

Underground Sewage Treatment Plant in Helsinki,” in Proceedings of the Eighth International
Congress on Rock Mechanics (Tokyo, September, 1995), Vol. II, pp. 597-600. T. Fujii, Ed.
Johnson, K. I., C. F. Voss and D. J. Sherwood. “A Sensitivity Study of Near-Field Thermomechanical
Conditions in Tuff,” in FOCUS ’89 (Proceedings of the Conference on Nuclear Waste Isolation
in the Unsaturated Zone, Las Vegas, September, 1989), pp. 10-19. New York: American Nuclear
Society, 1989.
Jung, J., and S. R. Brown. “A Study of Discrete and Continuum Joint Modeling Techniques,” in
Proceedings of the ISRM Regional Conference on Fractured and Jointed Rock Masses (Lake
1992.
Karaca, M. “The Effects of Discontinuities on the Stability of Shallow Tunnels in Weak Rock,”
in Proceedings of the ISRM Regional Conference on Fractured and Jointed Rock Masses (Lake
1992.
Kay, D. R., K. E. McNabb and J. P. Carter. “Numerical Modelling of Mine Subsidence at Angus
Place Colliery,” in Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference, Cairns, Australia, May, 1991), pp. 999-1004. Rotterdam: A. A.
Balkema, 1991.
Kelly, M. S., X. Luo, P. Hatherly, S. R. Balusu, G. Smith Leblanc and W. Gale. “Ground Behaviour
about Longwall Faces and its Effect on Mining,” in Proceedings of the 9th ISRM Congress on
Rock Mechanics (Paris, 1999), Vol. 1, pp. 307-310. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1999.
Konietzky, H., P. Blümling and F. Rummel. “In Situ Stress Field in the Wellenberg Area,” NAGRA
Bull., No. 26, 38-48 (November 1995).
Kosugi, M., N. Barton and G. Vik. “Studies on Predicting Jointed Rock Mass Behavior (Part
1): Joint Behavior Modelling and UDEC Analysis,” Resources, 3(2), 11-22 (1991) (abstract in
English); Kosugi, M., G. Vik and N. Barton. “Studies on Predicting Jointed Rock Mass Behavior;
Part 2): Joint Characterization Based on JRC/JRC Indexes,” Resources, 3(1), 51-62 (1991) (abstract
in English).
Kosugi, M., H. Ishihara and M. Nakagawa. “Tunnelling Method Coupled with Joint Monitoring
and DEM Analysis,” in Proceedings of the ISRM Regional Conference on Fractured and Jointed
Rock Masses (Lake Tahoe, June, 1992), Vol. 3, pp. 765-770. Berkeley, California: Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, 1992.
Kulatilake, P. H. S. W., H. Uepirti, S. Wang, G. Radberg and O. Stephansson. “Use of the Distinct
Element Method to Perform Stress Analysis in Rock with Nonpersistent Joints and to Study the
Effect of Joint Geometry Parameters on the Strength and Deformability of Rock Masses,” Rock
Mech. Rock. Engng., 25(4), 253-274 (1992).
3DEC Version 3.0

Kwon, S., B. Y. Park, C. H. Kang and K. Chang. “Structural Stability Analysis for a High-Level
Underground Nuclear Waste Repository in Granite,” in Pacific Rocks 2000: Rock Around the
Rim (Proceedings of the 4th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, Seattle, July-August
2000), pp. 1279-1285. J. Girard et al., Eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema 2000.
Larsson, H., R. Glamheden and G. Ahrling. “Storage of Natural Gas at High Pressure in Lined
Rock Caverns — Rock Mechanics Analysis,” in Storage of Gases in Rock Caverns, pp. 177-184.
Last, N. C., and T. R. Harper. “Response of Fractured Rock Subject to Fluid Injection: Parts I-III
(Development of a Numerical Model, Characteristic Behavior, Practical Application),” Tectono-
physics, 172, 1-65 (1990).
Lemos, J., R. Hart and L. Lorig. “Dynamic Analysis of Discontinua Using the Distinct Element
Method,” in Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Rock Mechanics (Montreal,
1987), Vol. 2, pp. 1079-1084. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema and the Canadian Rock Mechanics
Association/CIM/CGS, 1987.
Lemos, J. V. “A Comparison of Numerical and Physical Models of a Blocky Medium,” in Mechanics
of Jointed and Faulted Rock, pp. 509-514. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1990.
Lemos, J. V. “Assessment of the Ultimate Load of a Masonry Arch Using Discrete Elements,”
Proc. Int. Conf. Comp. Meth. in Struct. Masonry, Lisbon, Portugal, April, 1995.
Lemos, J. V. “Discrete Analysis of the S. Vicente de Fora Model Test,” in Monument 98 —
Workshop on Seismic Performance of Monuments (Lisbon, November 1998), pp. 13-20. Lisbon:
LNEC, 1998.
Lemos, J. V. “Discrete Element Analysis of Dam Foundations,” in Distinct Element Modeling in
Geomechanics, pp. 89-115. V. M. Sharma et al., Eds. New Delhi, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.,
1999.
Lemos, J. V. “Discrete Element Modelling of Historical Structures,” in Proc. Int. Conf. New
Technologies in Structural Engineering, Lisbon, Vol. 2, pp. 1099-1106. S. P. Santos and A. M.
Baptista, Eds. Lisbon: LNEC, 1996.
Lemos, J. V. “Discrete Element Modelling of the Seismic Behaviour of Stone Masonry Arches,”
Computer Methods in Structural Masonry — 4 (Proceedings of 4th International Symposium
Num. Methods Structural Masonry — STRUMAS IV, Florence, September, 1997), pp. 220-227.
G. N. Pande, J. Middleton and B. Kralj, Eds. London: E&FN Spon, 1997.
Lemos, J. V. “Modelling of Arch Dams on Jointed Rock Foundations,” in Prediction and Perfor-
mance in Rock Mechanics & Rock Engineering (Proceedings of ISRM International Symposium
EUROCK ’96, Turin, September, 1996), Vol. 1, pp. 519-526. G. Barla, Ed. Rotterdam: A. A.
Balkema, 1996.
Lemos, J. V. “Numerical Models for Seismic Analysis of Historical Figures,” in Proceedings of
the Assisi-99 Workshop on Seismic Performance of Built Heritage in Small Historical Centres
(Assisi, April 1999), pp. K53-K51. CICOP Italia, 1999.
3DEC Version 3.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY 7 - 11
Lemos, J. V., R. D. Hart and P. A. Cundall. “A Generalized Distinct Element Program for Modelling
Jointed Rock Mass: A Keynote Lecture,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Fundamentals of Rock Joints (Björkliden, 15-20 September, 1985), pp. 335-343. Luleå, Sweden:
Centek Publishers, 1985.
Lemos, J. V., and L. J. Lorig. “Hydromechanical Modeling of Jointed Rock Masses Using the
Distinct Element Method,” in Mechanics of Jointed and Faulted Rock, pp. 605-612. Rotterdam:
Lemos, J. V., C. A. B. Pina, C. P. Costa and J. P. Gomes. “Experimental Study of an Arch Dam
on a Jointed Foundation,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Rock Mechanics
(Tokyo, September 1995), Vol. 3, pp. 1263-1266. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1997.
Lemos, J. V., F. Schiappa de Azevedo, C. Sousa Oliveira and G. Sincraian. “Three-Dimensional
Analysis of a Block Masonry Pillar Using Discrete Elements,” in Monument 98 — Workshop on
Seismic Performance of Monuments (Lisbon, November 1998), pp. 117-126. Lisbon: LNEC,
1998.
Lightfoot, N. “The Use of Numerical Modeling in Rockburst Control,” in Innovative Mine Design
for the 21st Century (Proceedings of the International Congress on Mine Design, Kingston,
Ontario, Canada, August, 1993), pp. 355-360. W. F. Bawden and J. F. Archibald, Eds. Rotterdam:
Lorig, L. “The Roles and Necessary Capabilities of Numerical Methods for Design Analysis
of Excavations in Rock,” in Proceedings of the VII National Congress on Soil Mechanics and
Cement Engineering (Lima, December, 1993), pp. 1-17. Lima: Servicomp Publicaciones, 1993.
Lorig, L., and C. Fairhurst. “Three-Dimensional Discontinuum Modeling for Underground Exca-
vations,” in Proceedings of the 1992 Rock Engineering Symposium in Taiwan (Tainan, Republic
of China, December, 1992), pp. 349-358. S.-T. Chen et al., Eds. Tainan, Taiwan: National Cheng
Kung University, 1992.
Lorig, L. J. “A Simple Numerical Representation of Fully Bounded Passive Rock Reinforcement
for Hard Rocks,” Computers and Geotechnics, 1, 79-97, 1985.
Lorig, L. J. “Analysis of Novel Retaining Structures Using Explicit Finite Difference Codes,”
in Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference, Cairns, Australia, May, 1991), pp. 157-164. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1991.
Lorig, L. J. “Distinct Element — Structural Element Analysis of Support Systems in Jointed
Rock Masses,” in VI Australian Tunnelling Conference (Melbourne, March, 1987), pp. 173-182.
Parkville, Australia: Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 1987.
Lorig, L. J. “Modeling of Support Structures in Hard Rock,” in Kalliomekaniikan Paiva 1990
(Finnish Rock Mechanics Day 1990), Paper No. 9. Espoo, Finland: Vuorimiesyhdistys Bergs-
mannaforeningen r.y., 1990.
3DEC Version 3.0

Lorig, L. J., and P. A. Cundall. “Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Using the Distinct Element
Method,” in Fracture of Concrete and Rock, pp. 459-471. S. P. Shah and S. E. Swartz, Eds.
Bethel, Conn.: SEM, 1987.
Lorig, L. J., and B. Dasgupta. Analysis of Emplacement Borehole Rock and Liner Behavior
for a Repository at Yucca Mountain. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5427,
September, 1989.
Lorig, L. J., R. D. Hart, M. P. Board and G. Swan. “Influence of Discontinuity Orientations and
Strength on Cavability in a Confined Environment,” in Rock Mechanics As a Guide for Efficient
Utilization of Natural Resources, pp. 167-174. A. Wahab Khair, Ed. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema,
1989.
Lorig, L. J., R. D. Hart and P. A. Cundall. “Slope Stability Analysis of Jointed Rock Using the
Distinct Element Method,” Transportation Research Record, 1330, Soils, Geology, and Foundations
(Behavior of Jointed Rock Masses and Reinforced Soil Structures), 1-9 (1991).
Lorig, L. J., and B. E. Hobbs. “Numerical Modeling of Slip Instability Using the Distinct Element
Method with State Variable Friction Laws,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.,
27(6), 525-534 (1990).
Mack, M. “Verification of Thermal Logic in the Three-Dimensional Code 3DEC,” ICG Report to
U.S. NRC, Contract No. NRC-02-85-002, August, 1989.
Mack, M. G., T. Brandshaug and B. Brady. “Rock Mass Modification Around a Nuclear Waste
Repository in Welded Tuff,” Itasca Consulting Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission, Contract 02-85-002, Topical Report 006-01-T5, March, 1989; NUREG/CR-5390, August,
1989.
Makurat, A., N. Barton, G. Vik and S. Bandis. “Investigation of Disturbed Zone Effects and
Support Strategies for the Fjellinjen Road Tunnels Under Oslo,” in Proceedings of the International
Congress on Progress and Innovation in Tunnelling (Toronto, September, 1989), pp. 125-134.
Toronto: TAC/NRC/ITA, 1989.
McKinnon, S. D. “Analysis of Stress Measurements Using a Numerical Model Methodology,” Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 38, 699-709 (2001).
McNearny, R. L., and J. F. Abel, Jr. “Large-Scale Two-Dimensional Block Caving Model Tests,”
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 30(2), 93-109, 1993.
Morrison, D. M., G. Swan and C. H. Scholz. “Chaotic Behavior and Mining-Induced Seismicity,”
in Innovative Mine Design for the 21st Century (Proceedings of the International Congress on
Mine Design, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, August, 1993), pp. 233-237. W. F. Bawden and J. F.
Archibald, Eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1993.
Ng, L. K. W., G. Swan and M. Board. “The Application of an Energy Approach in Fault Models
for Support Design,” in Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines 93 (Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Symposium, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, August 1993), pp. 387-391. R. Paul Young, Ed.
3DEC Version 3.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY 7 - 13
Nordlund, E., and L. Jing. “Distinct Element Modelling of Jointed Rock Pillars,” in Proceedings
of the 1st U.S. Conference on Discrete Element Methods (Golden, Colorado, October, 1990).
G. G. W. Mustoe et al., Eds. Golden, Colorado: CSM Press, 1989.
Nordlund, E., and G. Radberg. “Determination of Failure Modes in Jointed Pillars By Numerical
Modeling,” in Proceedings of the ISRM Regional Conference on Fractured and Jointed Rock
Masses (Lake Tahoe, June, 1992), Vol. 3, pp. 751-758. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, 1992.
O’Connor, K. M., and C. H. Dowding. “Monitoring and Simulation of Mining-Induced Subsidence,”
in Mechanics of Jointed and Faulted Rock, pp. 781-787. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1990.
O’Hearn, B., D. Morrison, G. Allan, M. Board and R. Hart. “Use of Numerical Modeling in Mine
Design at Falconbridge, Ltd.,” SME Annual Meeting (Phoenix, January, 1988), Geomechanics,
Session II, 1988.
O’Hearn, B., and G. Swan. “The Use of Models in Sill Mat Design at Falconbridge,” in Innovations
in Mining Backfill Technology (Montreal, October, 1989), pp. 139-146. Rotterdam: A. A.
Balkema, 1989.
Papastamatiou, D., I. Psycharis, P. Carydis, C. Papantonopoulos, H. Mouzakis, J. V. Lemos and
C. Zambas. Monuments Under Seismic Action: A Numerical and Experimental Approach,
National Technical University of Athens, Laboratory for Earthquake Engineering, Report to E. U.
Environment Programme, NTUA/LEE-97-01, May 1997.
Pritchard, M. A., K. W. Savigny and S. G. Evans. “Toppling and Deep-Seated Landslides in Natural
Slopes,” in Mechanics of Jointed and Faulted Rock, pp. 937-943. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema,
1990.
Roest, J. P. A., R. D. Hart and L. J. Lorig. “Modelling Fault-Slip in Underground Mining with the
Distinct Element Method,” in Proceedings of the 6th International IAEG Congress (Amsterdam,
August, 1990), pp. 105-110. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1990.
Rosengren, L., M. Board, N. Krauland and S. Sandström. “Numerical Analysis of the Effectiveness
of Reinforcement Methods at the Kristineberg Mine in Sweden,” in Rock Support in Mining and
Underground Construction (Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Support,
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, June, 1992), pp. 507-514. P. K. Kaiser and D. R. McCreath, Eds.
Salo, J., R. Riekkola, E. Johansson, M. Hakala, P. Särkka and H. Kuula. “Further Development
of the Continuously-Yielding Joint Model for Studying Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste in
Crystalline Rock (Yhteistyöprojekti II),” Saanio & Riekkola OY, Report T-2000-41/97, November
1997.
Santarelli, F. J., D. Dahen, H. Baroudi and K. B. Slimane. “Mechanisms of Borehole Instability in
Heavily Fractured Rock,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 29(5), 457-467, 1992.
3DEC Version 3.0

Senseny, P. E. “Stress Wave Loading of a Tunnel: A Benchmark Study,” in Dynamic Analysis and
Design Considerations for High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories, pp. 311-338. Q. A. Hossain,
Ed. New York: ASCE, 1993.
Shen, B., and O. Stephansson. “Rock Mass Response to Glaciation and Thermal Loading from
Nuclear Waste,” in GEOVAL’90, pp. 550-558. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development, 1991.
Siebrits, E., M. W. Hildyard and A. Daehnke. “Elastodynamics: Past, Present and Future,” in The
Application of Numerical Modeling in Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 9-12. Pretoria: ISRM-
SANG, 1994.
Sjöberg, J. “Failure Modes and Pillar Behavior in the Zinkgruvan Mine,” in Rock Mechanics
(Proceedings of the 33rd U.S. Symposium, Santa Fe, June, 1992), pp. 491-500. J. R. Tillerson
and W. R. Wawersik, Eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1992.
Sjöberg, J., E. Nordlund and E. Olofsson. “Analysis of Rock Culverts Under Railroads,” in Rock
Mechanics for Industry (Proceedings of the 37th U.S. Rock Mech. Symp., Vail, Colorado, June
1999), Vol. 2, pp. 577-584. Bernard Amadei et al., Eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1999.
Stephansson, O. “Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive
Waste Repositories in Sweden,” in Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Rock Me-
chanics of Nuclear Waste Repositories (Vail, Colorado, June 1999), pp. 205-227. S. Saeb and
C. Francke, Eds. Alexandria, Virginia: American Rock Mechanics Association, 1999.
Stephansson, O., and B. Shen. “Modelling of Rock Masses for Site Location of a Nuclear Waste
Repository,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on Rock Mechanics (Aachen,
Germany, September, 1991), Vol. 1, pp. 157-162. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1991.
Stephansson, O., B. Shen and J. Lemos. “Modelling of Excavation, Thermal Loading and Bentonite
Swelling Pressure for a Waste Repository,” in High-Level Waste Management (Proceedings of the
Second Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April-May, 1991), pp. 1375-1381.
New York: American Nuclear Society/ASCE, 1991.
Thorval, A., H. Baroudi, J. P. Piguet, E. Vuillod, G. Abdallah, A. Hosni and J. Lin. “Couple
Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical Phenomena in Fractured Rocks: Recent Developments in Modelling
Methods and Validation Tests (in French),” in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on
Rock Mechanics (Tokyo, September, 1995), Vol. 2, pp. 703-706. T. Fujii, Ed. Rotterdam: A. A.
Balkema, 1995.
Tinucci, J. P. “A Ground Control Computer Program for Support Analyses of Three-Dimensional
Critical Rock Blocks,” in Rock Support in Mining and Underground Construction (Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Rock Support, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, June, 1992),
pp. 49-56. P. K. Kaiser and D. R. McCreath, Eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1992.
Tinucci, J. P., and D. S. G. Hanson. “Assessment of Seismic Fault-Slip Potential at the Strathcona
Mine,” in Rock Mechanics Contributions and Challenges, pp. 753-760. Rotterdam: A. A.
Balkema, 1990.
3DEC Version 3.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY 7 - 15
Tinucci, J. P., and J. Israelsson. “Site Characterization and Validation Excavation Stress Effects
Around the Validation Drift,” SKB Stripa Project Technical Report 91-20, August, 1991.
Tinucci, J. P., A. R. Leach and A. J. S. Spearing. “Improved Seismic Ground Conditions with the
Double-Cut Mining Method in Wide Tabular Reef Extraction,” in Rockbursts and Seismicity in
Mines 93 (Proceedings of the International Symposium, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, August,
1993), pp. 429-434. R. Paul Young, Ed. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1993.
Tolppanen, P. J., E. J. W. Johansson and R. Riekkola. “Comparison of Vertical and Horizon-
tal Deposition Hole Concept for Disposal of Spent Fuel Based on the Rock Mechanical In-Situ
Stress/Strength Analyses,” in Preprints of Contributions to the Workshop on Computational Meth-
ods in Engineering Geology (Lund, Sweden, October, 1996), pp. 230-237. R. Pusch and R. Adey,
Eds. Lund: Clay Technology AB, 1996.
Tolppanen, P. J., E. J. W. Johansson and J. P. Salo. “Rock Mechanical Analyses of In-Situ
Stress/Strength Ratio at the Posiva Oy Investigation Sites, Kivetty, Olkiluoto and Romuvaara, in
Finland,” in Prediction and Performance in Rock Mechanics & Rock Engineering (Proceedings
of ISRM International Symposium EUROCK ’96, Turin, September, 1996), Vol. 1, pp. 435-442.
G. Barla, Ed. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1996.
Valdivia, C., and L. Lorig. “Slope Stability at Escondida Mine,” in Slope Stability in Surface
Mining, Ch. 17, pp. 153-162. W. A. Hustrulid, M. K. McCarter and D. J. A. Van Zyl, Eds.
Littleton, Colorado: SME, 2000.
Vervoort, A. “Initial Roof Movement During Development of Room and Pillar Sections,” in Com-
puter Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (Proceedings of the 7th International Conference,
Cairns, Australia, May, 1991). Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1991.
Vonk, R. A., H. S. Rutten, J. G. M. van Mier and H. J. Fijneman. “Micromechanical Simulation of
Concrete Softening,” in Fracture Processes in Concrete, Rock and Ceramics, Section 10. London:
E. & F. N. Spon, 1991.
3DEC Version 3.0

NOTE: NUREG reports may be ordered from:

The National Technical Information Service
5285 Fort Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
Telephone: (703)-487-4650
3DEC Version 3.0

Manual 3DEC PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Manual 3DEC PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

3DEC

3 Dimensional Distinct Element Code

Terms and Conditions for Licensing 3DEC

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

3 PROBLEM SOLVING WITH 3DEC

3DEC Version 3.0

3.2 Model Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3DEC Version 3.0

3.8 Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 86

4 FISH BEGINNER’S GUIDE

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

Example 4.2 Using a variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

* See Section 6 for a comparison of 3DEC runtimes on various computer systems.

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

1.2 Comparison with Other Methods

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

1.3 General Features

1.3.1 Basic Features

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0

1.3.2 Optional Features

3DEC Version 3.0

1.4 Summary of Updates from Version 2.0

1.4.1 Automatic Topographic Stress Initialization

1.4.2 User-Defined Models (UDM)

1.4.3 Additional Constitutive Models

1.4.4 Double Precision Version

1.4.5 Dynamic Free Field

3DEC Version 3.0

1.4.6 Partial Density Scaling

1.4.7 Higher Order Tetrahedral Elements

1.4.8 Improved Bitmap and Printer Output

1.4.9 Poly Cube

1.4.10 Structural Beam Elements

1.4.11 Surface Stress Plotting

3DEC Version 3.0

1.4.12 Generalized Boundary Histories

1.4.13 Joint Fluid Flow

1.4.14 New Mouse Controls

1.4.15 User-Controlled Colors for Contours

will use a red to green variation for the contour colors.

1.4.16 User-Defined Stress Plot Planes

3DEC Version 3.0

1.5 Fields of Application

3DEC Version 3.0

1.6 Guide to the 3DEC Manual

3DEC Version 3.0

3DEC Version 3.0