Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 315–326

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

2D numerical simulation on excavation damaged zone induced by

dynamic stress redistribution
W.C. Zhu a,⇑, J. Wei a, J. Zhao b, L.L. Niu a
a
Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education on Safe Mining of Deep Metal Mines, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110819, China
b
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Laboratory of Rock Mechanics (LMR), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The formation of an excavation damaged zone (EDZ) around an opening in a deep rock mass is associated
Received 28 June 2013 with the dynamic stress redistribution that starts from transient release of high in situ stress to the final
Received in revised form 8 May 2014 quasi-static stress state after the excavation. This study applies a theoretical analysis of stress redistribu-
Accepted 29 May 2014
tion due to transient unloading in surrounding rock under hydrostatic stress field, and develops a numer-
Available online 26 June 2014
ical elastodynamics model for finite element analysis. Coupling the theoretical and the numerical
solutions, a general damage model for heterogeneous rock mass is proposed by taking the dynamic stress
Keywords:
redistribution due to excavation into account. Finally, the dynamic stress redistribution, as well as the
Excavation damaged zone (EDZ)
Transient unloading
induced damage zone around the excavation under different lateral pressure coefficients is numerically
Dynamic stress redistribution simulated. The numerical result indicates that, the stress wave induced by the transient unloading will
Quasi-static far-field stress initially cause the damage only in the 1/3 radius vicinity of excavation perimeter. The damage zone
Lateral pressure coefficient may then develop further under the constant quasi-static far-field stress. Therefore, the EDZ development
Numerical simulation during deep excavation is closely dependent on in situ stress, rock strength and excavation method.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction released stress is rather significant in a relatively short duration.

The formation of an excavation damaged zone (EDZ) is expected
around excavated openings at depth in civil (e.g., tunnels and cav-
erns), mining (e.g., shafts, tunnels, drifts and stopes), and petro-
leum engineering (e.g., borehole) (Zhu and Bruhns, 2008).
Extensive studies have been performed to understand and predict
the extent of EDZ, and in recent years advances have been made in
the understanding of the formation mechanism of EDZ (Falls and
Young, 1998; Backblom and Martin, 1999; Cai et al., 2001;
Diederichs et al., 2004; Read, 2004; Martino and Chandler, 2004).
It is generally accepted that in high in situ stress conditions the
excavation induced stress redistribution is the main cause for the
formation of EDZ, which plays a more important role on the extent
of EDZ than that of the excavation method (Falls and Young, 1998).
Many researchers deem that the stress redistribution during the
formation and development of EDZ is a quasi-static process. This
approximation is generally acceptable if the level of the in situ
stress is low. In fact, excavations trigger sudden release of in situ
stress which leads to a strong transient disturbance to the sur-
rounding rock mass. Under high in situ stress condition, the
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 24 83687705; fax: +86 24 83681186.
E-mail address: zhuwancheng@mail.neu.edu.cn (W.C. Zhu).
It is unclear whether the quasi-static assumption is acceptable
(Lu et al., 2012). Some studies have revealed the necessity of study-
ing the transient process of stress redistribution and related
dynamic response.
As early as 1966, Cook et al. (1966) indicated that impulsive
release of the applied load could lead to over-relaxation of the dis-
placing rock, generating tensile stresses in the medium. Abuov and
Aitaliev (1988) pointed out that with the formation of a new open
surface in the rock mass, load-relief waves are formed, which leads
to the transfer of potential energy of bulk compression into kinetic
energy. During this process, particles of the rock move toward the
surface of rock exposure, and a rockburst may occur when the
potential energy of compression reaches a specific level. Carter
and Booker (1990), as well as Wang and Huang (1998) deemed that
the dynamic disturbance due to transient release rate of high
in situ stress has great influence on the extent of EDZ and resultant
rockburst occurrence. Cai (2008) thought that, in addition to
dynamic stress wave and blasting-induced gas pressure, there is
another mechanism that is dynamic unloading that may contribute
to the blasting-induced rock damage. For blasting induced damage
in excavation walls, the loss of confinement (excavation) and
dynamic loading from wave propagation cause both intended
and unintended damage. Zhou and Qian (2007) and Li et al.
(2009) took the stress redistribution as a dynamic process to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2014.05.023
0886-7798/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
316 W.C. Zhu et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 315–326
interpret the tension–compression alternation and zonal disinte-
gration phenomena around a deep tunnel. Sun et al. (2011) and
Lu et al. (2012) considered that the dynamic unloading wave
induced by transient release of in situ stress plays an important
role in vibration of surrounding rock. Chen et al. (2011) suggested
a method to determine the radius of the broken and plastic soften-
ing zone when considering the dynamic response of surrounding
rock. Yin et al. (2012) found the fractal dimension of sandstone
gradually increases with the unloading rate increasing. Wei et al.
(2014) explained the failure mechanism of transient unloading in
surrounding rock. In conclusion, the dynamic stress redistribution
induced damage zone results from two factors, i.e., a dynamic
unloading stress induced by transient release of in situ stress and
a quasi-static secondary stress due to the in situ stress. Therefore,
the stress redistribution under high in situ stress condition is a
dynamic process and rock dynamics approach could be applied
(Zhao et al., 1999, 2011).
The main mechanism in the development of EDZ is the initia-
tion and growth of cracks and fractures, owing to stress redistribu-
tion. Because of the anisotropy and heterogeneity of rock, which
may be also altered with damage evolution, it is difficult to theo-
retically characterize the EDZ. The field instrumentation records
contain unique deformation signatures that provide insight into
the mechanical response of rock mass to stress redistribution and
the formation of an EDZ. However, due to the limit of in situ data
obtained, it is usually difficult to clarify the associated mechanism
that is responsible for the formation of EDZ. Moreover, attempts to
generate fractures by impulsive unloading in laboratory tests have
been unsuccessful (Brady and Brown, 2004). Many researchers
(Lajtai, 1998; Hajiabdolmajida et al., 2002; Suknev, 2008; Feng
et al., 2012) tend to believe that the rock failure is dominated by
tensile fracture at the beginning, especially under unloading condi-
tion, but arguments still exist. Therefore, it is significant to develop
effective numerical models that can capture the damage evolution
during the stress redistribution caused by both dynamic unloading
and quasi-static in situ stresses, in order to fully characterize the
spatial and temporal development of EDZ in rock mass.
To this end, it is the dynamic and quasi-static response induced
by excavation of rock mass that defines the objective of this work.
In this respect, an elastodynamic analysis on the dynamic unload-
ing response of surrounding rock under hydrostatic stress field is
firstly given. Then, when the stress redistribution resulted from
transient release of in situ stress and quasi-static far-field stress
is taken into account, a general damage model for simulating
EDZ in heterogeneous rock is proposed and programmed into
COMSOL Multiphysics, a partial differential equation (PDE)-based
multiphysics modeling environment (COMSOL, 2008). In addition,
the numerical model is validated by simulating the elastodynamic
response during the excavation in homogeneous rock under hydro-
static stress field. Finally, the 2D numerical simulations on the
dynamic stress redistribution and resultant damage zone under
different lateral pressure coefficients (i.e., j = 0.2, 1.0, 2.0, it is a
ratio of horizontal far-field stress to vertical far-field stress) are
comprehensively conducted. Although this 2D analyses is some-
what different from the real tunneling practices, for example,
blasting in the mining face and the existed fractures are not prop-
erly addressed, it is really important for clarifying the associated
mechanism responsible for the EDZ development due to the
dynamic stress redistribution.
2. Damage mechanics – based model
Initially the porous medium is assumed elastic, with constitu-
tive relationship defined by a generalized Hooke’s law. In this
regard, a modified Navier’s equation, in terms of displacement
under a change of applied stresses (positive for tension) is
expressed as (Timoshenko and Goodier, 1951)
G @ 2 ui
Gui;jj þ uj;ji þ F i ¼ q 2 ; ð1Þ
1  2m @t
where ui (i = x, y, z) is displacement (m), t is time (s), q is rock den-
sity (kg/m3), G is shear modulus (Pa), v is the Poisson’s ratio, and Fi
is the components of the net body force in the i-direction (N/m3).
This equation expresses the mechanical equilibrium in rock sub-
jected to dynamic loading. It could be used for quasi-static analysis
when the acceleration term in right-hand term is set to zero. This
is general 3D equation, as for numerical simulation in Section 4, it
is simplified for 2D plain strain problem.
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the damage in tension or shear mode of
rock is initiated when its state of stress satisfies the maximum ten-
sile stress criterion or the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, respectively, as
expressed by:
F 1  r1  ft0 ¼ 0 or F 2
¼ r3 þ r1 ½ð1 þ sin /Þ=ð1  sin /Þ  fc0 ¼ 0 ð2Þ
where ft0 and fc0 are uniaxial tensile and compressive strength (Pa),
respectively, / is internal frictional angle, and F1 and F2 are two
damage threshold functions used to link the tensile and shear dam-
age, respectively.
According to the principle of elastic damage, the elastic modu-
lus of an element degrades monotonically as damage evolves, and
the elastic modulus of damaged material is expressed as:
E ¼ ð1  DÞE0 ð3Þ
where D represents the damage variable, which lies between 0 and
1, and E and E0 are the elastic moduli of the damaged and the
undamaged material (Pa), respectively. In this kind of numerical
simulation, the element as well as its damage is assumed isotropic,
so the E, E0 and D are all scalar. According to Fig. 1, the damage var-
iable can be calculated as:
8
> 0 F 1 < 0 and F 2 < 0
>
>  n
< et0 
D¼ 1   e1  F 1 ¼ 0 and dF 1 > 0 ð4Þ
>
>  n
>
: 1  ec0 
e3 F 2 ¼ 0 and dF 2 > 0
where et0 and ec0 are maximum principal strain in tension and max-
imum principal strain in compression when damage occurs, respec-
tively, and n is a constitutive coefficient and it is 2.0. In this respect,
the damage variable calculated with Eq. (4) is always from 0 to 1.0
regardless of what kind of damage it may suffer. However in the
damage zone figure, in order to distinctly display the two kinds of
damage modes (i.e. tensile damage and shear damage), the tensile
Fig. 1. The elastic damage-based constitutive law under uniaxial stress condition.
 W.C. Zhu et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 315–326 317

damage is represented as negative numbers, while the shear dam-

age is represented as positive ones.
It should be noted that, in the numerical implementation of Eq.
(4), the tensile damage is always preferable to shear one, that is to
say, the maximum tensile stress criterion is firstly used to judge
whether the elements damage in tension or not. Only the elements
that do not damage in tensile mode will be checked its shear dam-
age with the Mohr–Coulomb criterion.

3. Problem definition and its analytical solution Fig. 3. Time-dependent boundary loads for model II for analytical analysis of stress
redistribution in consideration of transient unloading.
3.1. Analytical solution under hydrostatic stress field

Assuming that there is an infinite geologic body, under the Under the hydrostatic stress field, namely j = 1, the above prob-
in situ horizontal stress px (equals to jp0) and vertical stress py lem can be solved analytically. The stresses in model I yield the fol-
(equalling to p0), respectively. A circular tunnel with a radius a is lowing expressions:
excavated, resulting in the release of normal and shear stresses
which unload simultaneously linearly with duration of t0 on the
rr1 ¼ p0 rh1 ¼ p0 srh1 ¼ 0 ð6Þ
excavation surface. Extensive studies reveal that the duration t0 In model II, axisymmetric cylindrical stress wave is spread in
depends on the different excavation methods (such as tunnel bor- the medium. Radial displacement is irrelevant to h and z, but it is
ing machine (TBM) or drilling-and-blasting) (Li et al., 2009; Yan the functions of r and t due to the axial symmetry (Yang and
et al., 2009). The dynamic stress induced by transient release of Zhang, 1988). The following statements for the unloading-wave
in situ stress would spread outwards into the surrounding rock problem can be made (Miklowitz, 1960):
mass.
This problem can be resolved into a superposition of two @2U 1 @U 1 @2U
þ  ¼ 0 ðr P a; t P 0Þ ð7Þ
mechanical models (Miklowitz, 1960), as shown in Fig. 2. In model @r 2 r @r c2d @t2
I, the in situ stresses px and py are applied at external boundary in
X- and Y-directions, respectively, and the radial compressive stress @ Uðr; tÞ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ur2 ¼ ; cd ¼ ðk þ 2GÞ=q;
rr1 and shear stress srh1 are applied at the inner boundary, which @r
both vary with the polar angle h and can be gained by the coordi- Em E
k¼ ; G¼ ð8Þ
nate transformation formulas like Eq. (5) as (Xu, 2006) ð1 þ mÞð1  2mÞ 2ð1 þ mÞ

rr1 ¼ rx cos2 h þ ry sin2 h þ 2sxy sin h cos h Uðr; 0Þ ¼

@ Uðr; 0Þ
¼ 0ðr P aÞ; limUðr; tÞ ¼ 0ðt P 0Þ; rr2 ða; tÞ ¼ pðtÞ
2 @t r!1
¼ p0 ðj cos2 h þ sin hÞ ð5aÞ
ð9Þ
8
srh1 ¼ ðry  rx Þ sin h cos h þ sxy ðcos2 h  sin2 hÞ <0
> ðt < 0Þ
p
¼ p0 ð1  jÞ sin h cos h: ð5bÞ pðtÞ ¼  t00 t ð0 6 t < t0 Þ ð10Þ
>
:
p0 ðt P t0 Þ
This is a quasi-static model representing the strain and dis-
placement caused by quasi-static in situ stresses, in which the Eqs. (7), (9), and (10) are the displacement equations of motion, ini-
stresses of each point are not time-dependent. tial and boundary conditions, respectively, where U is potential
In model II, there is no in situ stress applied. At the excavation function of displacement, ur2 is the displacement in the r-direction,
moment t = 0, the radial tensile stress rr2 and shear stress srh2, r is the distance from excavation centre, a is the excavation radius,
which are both time-dependent loads, as shown in Fig. 3 (positive t0 is unloading duration, cd is longitudinal wave velocity, E is elastic
for tension), are applied at the inner boundary suddenly. Finally modulus, and k and G are lame constants.
the surrounding rock (considered as elastic) remains stable under The tangential stress expressions can be obtained by making
the constant quasi-static far-field stress, which is the denoted with use of Laplace transform, inversion integral and contour integra-
‘t ? 1’, as shown in Fig. 2(c). tion (Miklowitz, 1960):

(a) Model I (static) (b) Model II (dynamic) (c) Final stress state
Fig. 2. Partition of mechanical model for analytical solution of stress redistribution in consideration of transient unloading.
318 W.C. Zhu et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 315–326

Table 1
Basic parameters used in theoretical analysis under hydrostatic stress field.

Elastic modulus E (GPa) Poisson’s ratio m Density q (kg m3) Excavation radius a (m) In situ vertical stress p0 (MPa)
47.2 0.23 2700 5 25

 
rh2 ðr; tÞ ra are specified, in order to examine the effect of this unloading dura-
¼0 06t< ð11aÞ
p0 cd tion on the resultant dynamic response during the excavation.
Fig. 4(a and b) represent the radial stress rr/p0 and tangential
  Z 1
rh2 ðr; tÞ a2 ra 1 stress rh/p0 of particular unloading durations at r = 5.1 m (i.e.
¼ t 
p0 2
2r t 0 cd t0 p 0 0.1 m away from the excavation boundary), respectively. In this
8 h  i h   i9
<ðA þ BÞ cos xt  cos x ra þ ðC  DÞ sin xt  sin x ra = figure, including the subsequent figures, the stress is normalized
cd cd
 dx with p0. As seen from this illustration, radial stress firstly decreases
: ðF þ KÞx 2 ;
  substantially and then rebounds. Hereafter it undergoes several
ra ra
6t< þ t0 ð11bÞ smaller fluctuations and finally stabilizes until the quasi-static
cd cd
far-field stress conditions (Fig. 4(a)). Tangential stress increases
Z 1 rapidly and then decreases. Hereafter it also undergoes several
rh2 ðr; tÞ a2 1
¼  smaller fluctuations and remains stable finally (Fig. 4(b)). The
p0 2r 2 t 0 p 0
 dynamic effect of stress redistribution is more substantial for the
ðA þ BÞ½cos xt  cos xðt  t 0 Þ þ ðC  DÞ½sin xt  sin xðt  t 0 Þ
 dx shorter unloading duration. In particular, when t0 equals to 2 ms,
ðF þ KÞx2
  the tensile stress is induced at about t = 4 ms. In contrast, the
ra
tP þ t0 ð11cÞ
cd dynamic effect for t0 = 24 ms could be negligible, and thus tensile
stress is never found. However, dynamic effect does indeed exist,
A ¼ a1 a2 ; B ¼ a3 a4 ; C ¼ a3 a2 ; D ¼ a1 a4 ; F ¼ a2 a2 ; K ¼ a4 a4 which can be seen from the magnified curve of tangential stress
history (t0 = 24 ms) as shown in Fig. 4(b).
    Fig. 5 shows the radial stress rr/p0 and tangential stress rh/p0, at
2G x G x x the specific locations away from the excavation face. The dynamic
a1 ¼ J1 r þ J0 r ;
ðk þ 2GÞr cd ðk þ 2GÞ cd cd effect could be observed obviously. In particular, radial stress
   
2G x G x x shows tension–compression fluctuation adjacent to the excavation
a2 ¼ J1 a  J0 a ;
ðk þ 2GÞa cd ðk þ 2GÞ cd cd perimeter (r = 5.1 m), where the induced tensile stress may poten-
tially contribute to tensile damage around the excavation, because
    the rock mass is usually prone to tensile damage. Moreover, as
2G x G x x
a3 ¼ Y1 r þ Y0 r ; shown in Fig. 5(b), it may also incur the maximum dynamic tan-
ðk þ 2GÞr cd ðk þ 2GÞ cd cd
    gential stress that is considerably larger than the static stress there,
2G x G x x
a4 ¼ Y1 a  Y0 a ; which may possibly induce the compressive or shear damage
ðk þ 2GÞa cd ðk þ 2GÞ cd cd
around the excavation. In general, the transient unloading stress
where J and Y are ordinary Bessel functions. Similarly, the radial during the underground excavation may induce damage prior to
stress expressions can be obtained as a function of time. the final quasi-static stress redistribution resulted from excava-
The superposition of the solutions of the two models is the com- tion, which may be detrimental to the stability of underground
plete solution in the present problem. The basic constants specified opening.
in the theoretical analysis are listed in Table 1.
Extensive studies reveal that the transient stress redistribution 3.2. Comparison between numerical and analytical solutions
can finish within a few milliseconds during excavation either by
tunnel boring machine (TBM) or drilling-and-blasting methods When the lateral pressure coefficient is not equal to one (j – 1),
(Li et al., 2009; Yan et al., 2009). According to Yan et al. (2009), it is difficult to obtain the analytical expressions of the problem.
the durations of 2 ms and 24 ms are used to represent unloading However, it can be solved with resort to the numerical methods
process during the TBM and drilling-and-blasting excavation, such as finite element method (FEM). In this section, the theoreti-
respectively. The unloading durations of 2 ms, 10 ms and 24 ms cal model presented in Section 3.1 is implemented into COMSOL

2
1.9

1.2 2.2 1.8

20 25 30 35 40
1 2
t0=2ms
0.8 1.8
t0=10ms
σr /p0

σθ /p0

0.6 1.6 t0=2ms

0.4 t0=24ms 1.4 t0=10ms
0.2 1.2 t0=24ms
0 1
-0.2 0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
t (ms) t (ms)
(a) Radial stress (b) Tangential stress
Fig. 4. Analytical solution to stress time history for different unloading durations (r = 5.1 m, j = 1.0, p0 = 25 MPa).
 W.C. Zhu et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 315–326 319

1 2.1
0.8 1.9
r=5.1m
0.6 r=5.1m 1.7

σθ /p0
σr /p0
r=10m
0.4 r=10m 1.5
r=25m
0.2 r=25m 1.3
0 1.1
-0.2 0.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
t (ms) t (ms)
(a) Radial stress (b) Tangential stress
Fig. 5. Analytical solution to stress time history at different locations (t0 = 2 ms, j = 1.0, p0 = 25 MPa).

1.2
t0=0.2ms
1
t0=2ms
0.8
t0=24ms

σr /p0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
t (ms)

Fig. 8. Radial stress time history of numerical solutions under different unloading
durations (r = 5.1 m, j = 1.0, p0 = 25 MPa).

Table 2
Weibull distribution parameters of heterogeneous rock.

Homogeneity Mean of Mean of Ratio of uniaxial Internal

index Young’s uniaxial compressive frictional
Fig. 6. Finite element mesh. modulus compressive and tensile angle (°)
(GPa) strength (MPa) strength
5 47.2 80 80/6 35
Multiphysics (COMSOL, 2008). In the numerical model, the 2D
domain is 600 m  600 m in dimension and is discretized into
27,408 triangular elements, and it has been proved that the stress mesh around the excavation boundary is refined, as shown in
wave cannot arrive at the external boundary and being reflected Fig. 6. The termination time of the transient analysis is 45 ms.
back throughout the duration of transient unloading. In order to Due to the material heterogeneity set to every element, the diffrac-
guarantee the convergence of finite element analysis (FEA), the tion may occur at every element within the numerical model,

1.2 2.2
1 2
0.8 Theoretical 1.8
σθ /p0
σr /p0

0.6 1.6 Theoretical

Numerical
0.4 1.4
Numerical
0.2 1.2
0 1
-0.2 0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
t (ms) t (ms)
(a) Radial stress, t0 = 2 ms (b) Tangential stress, t0 = 2 ms
1.2 2.2
1 2
0.8 1.8
Theoretical
σr /p0

σθ /p0

1.6 Theoretical
0.6
Numerical 1.4
0.4 Numerical
1.2
0.2 1
0 0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
t (ms) t (ms)
(c) Radial stress, t0 = 24 ms (d) Tangential stress, t0 = 24 ms
Fig. 7. Comparison between theoretical and numerical solutions to the stress distribution under different unloading durations (r = 5.1 m, j = 1.0, p0 = 25 MPa).
320 W.C. Zhu et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 315–326

therefore the time step must be shorter enough to represent this
effect. In this regard, during the numerical simulation, the initial
time step is 0.2 ls and the maximum time step is 0.5 ls, namely
the time step varying between 0.2 ls and 0.5 ls is adopted. The
relative and absolute tolerances for the iteration during the FEA
are 1e5 and 1e6, respectively. The time interval for outputting
the numerical simulation is set as 0.3 ms. It has been checked that
the time step is short enough to guarantee the convergence and
high resolution for this FEA.
Prior to the FEA of transient stress redistribution around the
underground opening under different lateral pressure coefficients,
a logical way to validate the numerical model is to compare the
numerical solutions with the analytical ones. As shown in Fig. 7,
it is found that the numerical solutions align favorably with the
theoretical solutions, even though the induced tensile radial stress
at about t = 4 ms is not captured. The reason for this may be the
precision of FEM in solving this elastodynamic problem. However,
as shown Fig. 7(a), the tensile stress is only about 0.04 p0 when
t0 = 2 ms, compared to the in situ stress, it is too low to induce
the tensile damage of the rock.
As shown in Fig. 8, the existence of tensile stress around the
boundary can also be found with our numerical simulation when

Fig. 9. Stress and damage zone distribution in heterogeneous surrounding rock around the excavation when lateral pressure coefficient j equals to 1.0 (t0 = 24 ms).
 W.C. Zhu et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 315–326 321

t0 is 0.2 ms, thus denoting the correlation of this induced tensile
stress with the unloading duration. The induced tensile stress is
prone to occurring under the shorter unloading duration. In addi-
tion, the existence of tensile stress, together with resultant tensile
damage zone, is also dependent on the rock heterogeneity, because
the rock heterogeneity may trigger transmission and reflection of
the stress wave. Therefore the rock heterogeneity is a crucial factor
dominating the tensile stress and damage zone distribution around
the excavation, which will be discussed in Section 4.
Based on the comparison between numerical and analytical
solutions, together with the validation of this model in predicting
the rock blasting in the previous publications (Zhu et al., 2013),
it is deemed that this damage-based model is feasible to simulate
the excavation damaged zone induced by dynamic stress redistri-
bution with certain accuracy.
4. Numerical simulation on damage zone development
In this section, the damage model considering the stress wave
induced by the transient release of in situ stress and quasi-static
stress due to the in situ stress field is used to assess the damage
zone development around the opening when the rock heterogene-
ity is taken into account. According to the description of rock

Fig. 10. Stress and damage zone distribution in heterogeneous surrounding rock around the excavation when lateral pressure coefficient j equals to 0.2 (t0 = 24 ms).
322 W.C. Zhu et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 315–326

heterogeneity used in previous publications (Zhu and Tang, 2004; Weibull distribution with the parameters as listed in Table 2, and
Zhu et al., 2005, 2010), the rock is assumed to be heterogeneous no heterogeneity is introduced in ratio of uniaxial compressive/
with its Young’s modulus and strength specified according to a tensile strength and internal frictional angle. The values of other

Fig. 11. Stress and damage zone distribution in heterogeneous surrounding rock around the excavation when lateral pressure coefficient j equals to 2.0 (t0 = 24 ms).
 W.C. Zhu et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 315–326
parameters are specified identical to the above-mentioned elastic
analysis in previous sections. Due to the heterogeneity of material
parameters within the numerical model, the wave diffraction may
occur at different elements, in this regard, the accuracy of FEA
could be guaranteed when the time step shorter than 0.5 ls is
adopted.
The 2D domain for the numerical simulation is 600 m  600 m
in dimensions. However, in the following figures, the display is
focused only around the excavation with a size of 10 m  10 m
or 30 m  30 m in order to observe the damage zone clearly. The
dynamic analysis under transient unloading will not be stopped
until there is no further increase in damaged area, and it is fol-
lowed by the quasi-static analysis under far-field stress that is
denoted by ‘t ? 1’.
4.1. Effect of lateral pressure coefficient
4.1.1. Case I (j = 1.0)
When lateral pressure coefficient j is 1.0, the stress and damage
zone distribution are shown in Fig. 9, in which the elastic solution
for homogeneous rock specimen is also shown, in order to high-
light the effect of rock heterogeneity on the damage zone develop-
ment. As shown in Fig. 9(a), at t = 21.3 ms, the stress along the
radial direction for the heterogeneous rock model with a homoge-
neity index of 5.0 fluctuates near that for the homogeneous elastic
model, and no tensile stress is induced. However, along with the
propagation of unloading wave, at t = 25.2 ms the tensile stress
(Fig. 9(b)) and the associated tensile damage (Fig. 9(c)) with a
depth of 0.6 m emerge around the excavation, which is not charac-
terized for the homogeneous model as shown in Fig. 7. The incon-
Fig. 12. Final damage zone under different lateral pressure coefficients when the contribution of both transient unloading stress and constant quasi-static far-field stress are
taken into account.
323
sistency between the homogeneous model (Fig. 7) and
heterogeneous model (Fig. 9) suggests that the effect of rock heter-
ogeneity on the stress wave propagation is a very important factor
for the induced tensile stress even though the unloading duration
t0 is as long as 24 ms.
By comparing the damage zone at t = 25.2 ms and that at t ? 1,
it is found that the quasi-static far-field stress hardly contributes to
the further development of damage zone under this lateral pres-
sure coefficient. The lateral pressure coefficient of j = 1.0 is favor-
able to the stability of the excavation with circular cross section;
therefore, the damage caused by the quasi-static far-field stress
is very limited. Therefore, the tensile stress induced by transient
unloading is the predominant mechanism responsible for the dam-
age around the excavation. Moreover, due to the rock heterogene-
ity incorporated in the numerical model, the stress distribution,
tensile stress zone and tensile damage zone are not symmetrically
distributed in the sidewall and roof although the lateral pressure
coefficient is 1.0.
4.1.2. Case II (j = 0.2)
Fig. 10(a) presents the distribution of the major principal stres-
ses along the horizontal line (h = 0°) and the vertical line (h = 90°)
under the lateral pressure coefficient j = 0.2, in which the numer-
ical result for homogeneous rock specimen is also shown. Fig. 10(b)
highlights this tensile stress zone induced by transient unloading,
which may be high enough to induce tensile damage, as shown
in Fig. 10(c). At t = 21.3 ms, the tensile stress is found in the roof
even for the homogeneous elastic model, so is the heterogeneous
model. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 10(c), very shallow damage zone
is induced in the roof and floor for the heterogeneous model. At
324 W.C. Zhu et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 315–326
Fig. 13. Final damage zone distribution under different unloading durations and that without considering transient unloading (j = 2).
t = 25.2 ms, the tensile damage zone extends further in the roof
until a depth of about 1.5 m, because of the propagation of tran-
sient unloading stress wave. At the same time, there is odd distri-
bution of shear damage found in the east and west sidewalls. As
show in Fig. 10(a), the stress concentration in the damaged zone
in the roof is released because the load-bearing capacity in the
damage zone declines significantly.
After the contribution of transient unloading, the damage zone
may develop a little under the action of quasi-static far-field stress
(at t ? 1), indicating that the quasi-static far-field stress only
plays a little role in the damage zone development. Due to the rock
heterogeneity, once damage occurs in an element, it may induce
the stress concentration around it, thus enhancing rock heteroge-
neity further. Therefore the damage zone around the excavation
is asymmetrical even although the loading conditions and geome-
try of the domain are symmetrical.
4.1.3. Case III (j = 2)
Fig. 11 gives the distributions of the major principal stress,
minor principal stress and damage zone under the lateral pressure
coefficient j = 2.0. At t = 21.3 ms, no tensile stress appears around
the opening, but the compressive stress concentration is found,
resulting in a small amount of shear damage in the roof and floor.
As time elapses, at t = 25.2 ms, the tensile stress can be seen all
around the excavation but the tensile damage zone is mainly
induced in the sidewall (with a depth of 1.3 m), while the shear
damage zone (with a depth of 1.6 m) is dominated in the roof
and floor because of the highly concentrated compressive stress.
In general, the damage zone induced by transient unloading is still
shallow around the excavation with a maximum depth of 1.6 m.
After the transient unloading, the damage zone in the roof and
floor develops further under the contribution of quasi-static far-
field stress. At this stage (t ? 1), as shown in Fig. 11(d), the high
compressive stress is induced in the roof and floor of the excava-
tion, thus extending the shear damage at this area until a depth
of 12.1 m. The stress concentration in the roof and floor is released
because of the local damage zone development, which can be
found from the curve of major principal stress and minor principal
stress as shown in Fig. 11(a and b), respectively. Under this lateral
pressure coefficient, the damage zone development under the
quasi-static far-field stress is predominant to develop the damage
zone around the excavation.
The dynamic tensile stress is induced when the transient
unloading during the excavation is taken into account, it may exist
around the deep underground excavation regardless of the lateral
pressure coefficient j. However, under these three lateral pressure
coefficients as discussed above, the damage zone induced by the
transient unloading is only in a small range in the vicinity of the
excavation perimeter. Thereafter, independent of the lateral pres-
sure coefficient j of the in situ stress, the tensile damage zone
induced by transient unloading is very shallow, approximating
0.6 m, 1.5 m and 1.3 m for j = 1.0, 0.2 and 2.0, respectively. Most
importantly, the shear damage with a depth of 1.6 is induced
around the excavation under the lateral pressure coefficient of
2.0. Anyway, under these 3 lateral pressure coefficients, the dam-
age zones induced by transient unloading are not deeper than
1/3 radius around the excavation. As suggested by Brady and
Brown (2004), the impulsive release of the geo-stress due to exca-
vation may lead to over-relaxation of the rock, based on which the
over-break of surrounding rock during blasting can be explained
most satisfactorily. In this regard, the damage zone induced by
transient unloading could satisfactorily reveal the mechanism of
over-break when the dynamic stress redistribution due to excava-
tion is taken into account.
4.2. Effect of unloading duration
As shown in Fig. 12(a), under the increasing lateral pressure
coefficients from 0.2 to 2.0, the shear damage zone in the roof
and floor becomes emerged, because the higher in situ stress at
the horizontal direction is applied. The lateral pressure coefficient
is a key factor that not only affects the damage zone induced by
transient unloading, but also governs the damage zone induced
by quasi-static far-field stress.
When the unloading duration is as short as 2.0 ms, as shown in
Fig. 12(b), the larger extent of damage zone is induced by transient
unloading even the damage pattern is similar, thus confirming that
the effect of dynamic effect caused by transient unloading is clo-
sely related to the unloading duration. For example, when
j = 1.0, the damage zone at the roof induced by transient unload-
ing is 1.7 m in depth under unloading duration of 2 ms. In contrast,
it is 0.6 m in depth when the unloading duration is 24 ms.
Fig. 13 shows the comparison of final damage zone under differ-
ent unloading durations when the lateral pressure coefficient is
2.0. In contrast, the incorporation of transient unloading during
the numerical simulation can increase the extent of damage zone
adjacent to the excavation perimeter, which may become larger
with the shorter unloading duration. In this respect, the stress
wave induced by transient unloading will firstly cause the damage
at the vicinity of excavation perimeter; however, it may also con-
tribute to the further expansion of the final damage zone under
the quasi-static far-field stress. For instance, when the lateral pres-
sure coefficient is 2.0, the damage zone depth at the roof is 7.6 m if
transient unloading is not taken into account. By contrast, it may
increase to 12.1 m and 13.4 m when the transient unloading with
the duration of 24 ms and 2 ms are considered.
 W.C. Zhu et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 315–326
5. Conclusion
The excavation-induced stress redistribution and resultant
damage zone are dominated by a dynamic process starting from
transient release of high in situ stress to the final quasi-static
far-field stress after the excavation. In this study, the excavation
damage zone induced by transient unloading and by quasi-static
far-filed stress, as well as their relevance to the in situ stress con-
dition and unloading duration, are studied mainly based on the 2D
numerical simulation. The following conclusions are drawn:
(1) Excavation can trigger strong disturbance in surrounding
rock mass due to the transient release of in situ stress. It
could lead to tension compression alternation of stress adja-
cent to the excavation perimeter. The dynamic effect caused
by transient unloading during underground excavation,
becoming more obvious under the shorter unloading dura-
tion, may induce foregoing tensile stress prior to the final
quasi-static stress redistribution. This dynamic tensile stress
induced by transient unloading can be captured with our
numerical simulations when the unloading duration is as
short as 0.2 ms, which may also be dominated by heteroge-
neity of surrounding rock even though the unloading dura-
tion t0 is as long as 24 ms.
(2) The dynamic tensile stress, together with the resultant dam-
age zone, induced by transient unloading during the excava-
tion may exist around the deep excavation regardless of the
lateral pressure coefficient. However, independent of the lat-
eral pressure coefficient j of the in situ stress, such as the
in situ stress condition specified in this study, the tensile
damage zone induced by transient unloading is very shal-
low, approximating 0.6 m, 1.5 m and 1.3 m for j = 1.0, 0.2
and 2.0, respectively. Most importantly, the shear damage
with a depth of 1.6 is induced around the excavation under
the lateral pressure coefficient of 2.0. Moreover, transient
unloading-induced damage at the vicinity of excavation
perimeter, may also contribute to the expansion of final
damage zone under the constant quasi-static field-field
stress. It reveals the mechanism of over-break satisfactorily
which cannot be predicted without considering the transient
unloading.
Based on the 2D numerical simulation in this work, the mecha-
nism for formation of EDZ induced by dynamic stress distribution
due to underground excavation is illustrated. However, there is
still a gap between the numerical results discussed in this paper
and the tunneling engineering practices. In reality, the geometry
and proximity of the tunnel face have a significant effect on the
distribution and magnitude of stresses in the walls of tunnel. In
addition, there may be fractures into the walls and ahead of the
tunnel face before the dynamic excavation takes place, which
could not been considered in 2D modeling. A rigorous 3D numeri-
cal analysis is really necessary to simulate this excavation process
more realistically, so as to capture the real excavation response due
to transient unloading. In this respect, this 2D numerical simula-
tion is very helpful for clarifying the rock damage mechanics
induced dynamic stress redistribution due to excavation, which
may lay a solid basis for the future 3D numerical analysis.
Acknowledgements
The present work is funded by National Science Foundation of
China (Grant Nos. 51222401, 51374049 and 51304037), China-
325
South Africa Joint Research Programme (Grant No. CS06-L01/
2012DFG71060), the Key Project of Chinese Ministry of Education
(No. 113019A), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities of China (Grant Nos. N110201001 and N120101001)
and the Sino-Swiss Science and Technology Cooperation (SSSTC)
program (Grant No. EG31-092011).
References
Abuov, M.G., Aitaliev, S.M., 1988. Studies of the effect of dynamic processes during
explosive break-out upon the roof of mining excavations. J. Min. Sci. 24 (6),
581–590.
Backblom, G., Martin, C.D., 1999. Recent experiments in hard rocks to study the
excavation response: implications for the performance of a nuclear waste
geological repository. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 14 (3), 377–394.
Brady, B.H.G., Brown, E.T., 2004. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining, third ed.
Springer, The Netherlands.
Cai, M., 2008. Influence of stress path on tunnel excavation response – numerical
tool selection and modeling strategy. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 23 (6),
618–628.
Cai, M., Kaiser, P.K., Martin, C.D., 2001. Quantification of rock mass damage in
underground excavations from microseismic event monitoring. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 38 (7), 1135–1145.
Carter, J.P., Booker, J.R., 1990. Sudden excavation of a long circular tunnel in elastic
ground. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 27 (2), 129–132.
Chen, J.G., He, H., Zhang, Y.X., 2011. Dynamic and static analysis of mechanism of
loosen zone in surrounding rock (in Chinese). Chinese J. Geotech. Eng. 33 (12),
1964–1968.
COMSOL AB. 2008. COMSOL Multiphysics Version 3.5, User’s Guide and Reference
Guide <http://www.comsol.com>.
Cook, M.A., Cook, U.D., Clay, R.B., 1966. Behavior of rock during blasting. Trans. Soc.
Min. Eng. 10 (2), 17–25.
Diederichs, M.S., Kaiser, P.K., Eberhardt, E., 2004. Damage initiation and propagation
in hard rock during tunnelling and the influence of near-face stress rotation. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (5), 785–812.
Falls, S.D., Young, R.P., 1998. Acoustic emission and ultrasonic-velocity methods
used to characterize the excavation disturbance associated with deep tunnels in
hard rock. Tectonophysics 289 (1–3), 1–15.
Feng, X.T., Chen, B.R., Ming, H.J., 2012. Evolution law and mechanism of rockburst in
deep tunnels: immediate rockburst (in Chinese). Chinese J. Rock Mech. Eng. 31
(3), 433–444.
Hajiabdolmajida, V., Kaiser, P.K., Martin, C.D., 2002. Modelling brittle failure of rock.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 39 (6), 731–741.
Lajtai, E.Z., 1998. Microscopic fracture processes in a granite. Rock Mech. Rock Eng.
31 (4), 237–250.
Li, S.C., Qian, Q.H., Zhang, D.F., 2009. Analysis of dynamic and fractured phenomena
for excavation process of deep tunnel (in Chinese). Chinese J. Rock Mech. Eng.
28 (10), 2104–2112.
Lu, W.B., Yang, J.H., Yan, P., 2012. Dynamic response of rock mass induced by the
transient release of in-situ stress. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 53, 129–141.
Martino, J.B., Chandler, N.A., 2004. Excavation-induced damage studies at the
underground research laboratory. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (8), 1413–1426.
Miklowitz, J., 1960. Plane-stress unloading waves emanating from a suddenly
punched hole in a stretched elastic plate. J. Appl. Mech. 27 (4), 165–171.
Read, R.S., 2004. 20 years of excavation response studies at AECL’s underground
research laboratory. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (8), 1251–1275.
Suknev, S.V., 2008. Formation of tensile fractures in the stress concentration zone in
gypsum. J. Min. Sci. 44 (1), 43–51.
Sun, J.S., Jin, L., Jiang, Q.H., 2011. Loosing mechanism of jointed rock mass induced
by transient adjustment of in-situ stress (in Chinese). Chinese J. Vib. Shock 30
(12), 28–34.
Timoshenko, S., Goodier, J.N., 1951. Theory of Elasticity. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc.
Wang, X.N., Huang, R.Q., 1998. Analysis of deformation and failure features
characteristics of rock under release conditions and rock burst effect.
Mountain Res. 16 (4), 281–285 (in Chinese).
Wei, J., Zhu, W.C., Niu, L.L., Wei, C.H., 2014. Finite element analysis of transient
unloading and plastic zone distribution in surrounding rock (in Chinese). J.
Northeastern Univ. 35 (1), 117–121.
Xu, Z.L., 2006. Theory of Elasticity (in Chinese). China Higher Education Press,
Beijing, pp. 59–61.
Yan, P., Lu, W.B., Chen, M., 2009. Study of the damage characteristics of surrounding
rocks for tunnels constructed using TBM and drill-and-blast (in Chinese). China
Civil Eng. J. 42 (11), 121–128.
Yang, G.T., Zhang, S.Y., 1988. Elastodynamics (in Chinese). China Railway Press,
Beijing, pp. 199–203.
Yin, Z.Q., Li, X.B., Jin, J.F., 2012. Failure characteristics of high stress rock induced by
impact disturbance under confining pressure unloading. Trans. Nonferrous
Metals Soc. China 22 (1), 175–184.
326 W.C. Zhu et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 315–326
Zhao, J., Zhou, Y.X., Hefny, A.M., Cai, J.G., Chen, S.G., Li, H.B., Liu, J.F., Jain, M., Foo, S.T.,
Seah, C.C., 1999. Rock dynamics research related to cavern development for
ammunition storage. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 14, 513–526.
Zhao, J., Zhou, Y.X., Xia, K.W., 2011. Keynote: advances in rock dynamics modelling,
testing and engineering. In: 12th International Congress on Rock Mechanics,
Beijing.
Zhou, X.P., Qian, Q.H., 2007. Zonal fracturing mechanism in deep tunnel (in
Chinese). Chinese J. Rock Mech. Eng. 26 (5), 877–885.
Zhu, W.C., Bruhns, O.T., 2008. Simulating excavation damaged zone around a
circular opening under hydromechanical conditions. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
45 (5), 815–830.
Zhu, W.C., Tang, C.A., 2004. Micromechanical model for simulating the fracture
process of rock. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 37 (1), 25–56.
Zhu, W.C., Liu, J., Tang, C.A., Zhao, X.D., Brady, B.H., 2005. Simulation of progressive
fracturing processes around underground excavations under biaxial
compression. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 20 (3), 231–247.
Zhu, W.C., Li, Z.H., Zhu, L., Tang, C.A., 2010. Numerical simulation on rockburst of
underground opening triggered by dynamic disturbance. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 25 (5), 587–599.
Zhu, W.C., Wei, C.H., Li, S., Wei, J., Zhang, M.S., 2013. Numerical modeling on
destress blasting in coal seam for enhancing gas drainage. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 59, 179–190.