# A Comprehensive Review of Mechanisms, Predictive Techniques, and Control Strategies of Rockburst
## 3 Technologies and Methods for Rockburst Research
### Physical Model Tests  
Physical model tests are important for understanding rock mechanics and engineering challenges, as they provide key information about rock characteristics [94]. As rockbursts are a significant problem in rock mechanics and engineering, many physical tests have been created to address rockburst concerns. These tests have specific criteria for identical materials, theories, instruments, and equipment to simulate the abrupt and dynamic nature of rockbursts. However, few physical models have been designed specifically for rockbursts. To achieve accurate results, the rockburst strength of the materials used should not be too low and must have a similar brittle connection. Additionally, suitable materials with similar hard structure surfaces and structural planes with various geometric shapes and mechanical qualities must be explored.  
Physical Modeling excavation has the following four major schemes:  
1. A cylinder core is pre-inserted and removed once the specimen dries, it is important to note that this method does not fully represent tunnel excavation and the stress related characteristics.  
Figure 4: (**a**) In-situ monitoring for rockbursts: (**a**) Structure of microseismic monitoring system in a mine (modified from ref. [93]); (**b**) pattern recognition for microseismic signals (modified from ref. [92]).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Monitoring Method** & **Description** \\ \hline HSP & High-frequency camera captures failure \\ AE & Monitoring and converting rock damage-induced transient \\  & elastic waves into AE signals \\ IR & Radiant exitance is detected and converted to temperature \\ EMR & Rock fractures produce abnormal charges and EMR signals \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Summary of monitoring technologies for rockburst tests [71].  
2. After drying and beginning stress, multiple tiny pieces are pre-inserted and pushed out in sequence, simulating sectional excavation, but matching small pieces with the test specimen is difficult.
3. Manual excavation of dried, loaded specimens is performed with a drilling rig or equipment, but difficulty arises with hidden excavations in restricted areas.
4. High efficiency is desirable, but a gap between the basic rock-breaking mechanism and the in-situ machine leads to low test accuracy. Keys to accuracy include TBM excavation rate, cutter head thrust, torque, shoe pressure, shield pressure, explosive selection, and similarity index of blasting impact.  
Several researchers, including [PERSON] [95], [PERSON] [96], [PERSON] [97], [PERSON] [98], and [PERSON] [99], have studied rockbursts in tunnels made of similar materials using both physical and mathematical modeling methodologies. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [100] used physical tests to analyze rockburst processes and mechanisms in circular caverns, while [PERSON] [101] recently conducted a physical simulation of rockburst in a typical tunnel cross-section. Although physical model testing has limitations, such as difficulty in simulating real-world conditions, limited monitoring methods, and resource consumption, it remains a valuable tool for investigating complex mining and geotechnical engineering issues.