See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223612622

Influence of stress path on tunnel excavation response - Numerical tool

selection and modeling strategy

Article  in  Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology · November 2008

DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2007.11.005

CITATIONS READS

96 1,284

1 author:

M. Cai
Laurentian University
115 PUBLICATIONS   3,012 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geological disposal for HLW in China View project

A study of pillars instability in deep underground mines (NSERC Discovery Grants Program) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Cai on 10 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Tunnelling and
Underground Space
Technology
incorporating Trenchless
Technology Research
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 618–628
www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Influence of stress path on tunnel excavation response – Numerical

tool selection and modeling strategy
M. Cai
Geomechanics Research Centre, MIRARCO, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada P3E 2C6

Received 18 October 2007; received in revised form 26 November 2007; accepted 27 November 2007
Available online 21 February 2008

Abstract

The actual stress path in a rock mass during tunnel excavation is complex. To capture the correct tunnel excavation response, it is
important to correctly resemble the stress path in situ in the numerical tools.
FLAC and Phase2 are two powerful two-dimensional continuum codes for modeling soil, rock, and structural behavior, in the fields of
geotechnical, geomechanics and in civil and mining engineering. FLAC is based on explicit finite difference formulation while Phase2 is
based on implicit finite element formulation. When the two codes are applied to the analysis of tunnel excavation problems, difference in
results might occur simply due to the different formulation methodologies used in these codes. It is shown that for linear elastic tunnel
excavation problems, both codes provide the same result because stress path is unimportant. For tunnel excavation in elasto-plastic
materials using long-round drill and blast method, there is significant difference in terms of yielding zone distribution by the two codes
if conventional modeling approach is used, especially when the rock strength is low relative to the in situ stress magnitude. The mech-
anism of the difference is investigated and recommendation provided for choosing appropriate tools and modeling strategies for tunnel
excavation problems. The importance of honoring the true stress path in tunnel excavation response simulation is illustrated using a few
examples.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Stress path; Tunnel excavation; FLAC; Phase2; FEM; FDM; Numerical model

1. Introduction Young and new professional engineers can not under-

FLAC (Itasca, 2005) and Phase2 (Rocscience Inc., 2004)
are two popular and powerful numerical analysis tools for
modeling soil, rock, and structural behavior, in the fields of
geotechnical, geomechanics and in civil and mining engi-
neering. These codes provide material models such as
Mohr–Coulomb, Hoek–Brown failure criteria which are
suitable for geotechnical materials, supply with features
to simulate underground excavation, and have structural
elements that can represent the soil and rock support sys-
tems installed. Some of the applications of the tools in rock
mechanics and rock engineering can be found in Hoek
(2001), Martin (1993), Cai et al. (2001, 2007a,b).
E-mail address: mcai@mirarco.org
stand the hardship in the 1970s and 1980s to perform a sim-
ple 2D numerical analysis of underground excavations.
Two to four weeks were often required for just preparing
the model mesh (Brady and Johnson, 1989). Nowadays,
easy-to-use user interface in the numerical tools has made
it possible for someone with or without strong knowledge
background of numerical modeling theory to conduct a
tunnel excavation analysis in just a few minutes. Colorful
outputs make the interpretation job much easier but at
the same time they also create an illusion that the obtained
results are remarkable and correct, regardless what input
parameters and modeling approaches are used in the
underlying analysis.
Another thing that is often taken for granted by some
users of the numerical tools is the lack of a complete under-
standing of the solution schemes used in the tools. By just

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2007.11.005
 M. Cai / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 618–628 619

looking at the user interface and modeling procedures of
FLAC and Phase2, an impression that they are the same
or at least similar can be formed. The fact that Phase2
employs the implicit Finite Element Method (FEM) while
FLAC uses the explicit Finite Difference Method (FDM)
may be forgotten or unrecognized by some users. Further-
more, the general attitude towards the relative merits of
FEM and FDM methods is that although the governing
equations are derived differently, the resulting equations
are identical for the two methods. The underlying implica-
tion is that for a specific boundary value problem in tunnel-
ing, FLAC and Phase2 should give the same result. But is
this always true?
In underground engineering such as civil tunnel con-
struction and mine excavation, rocks can be removed by
employing different excavation techniques such as full-face
drilling and blasting, TBM, mechanical excavation using
roadheaders, and staged excavation etc. During excavation
by conventional drill and blast method, the work face is
perforated by long drill holes. These holes are then filled
with explosives and blasted. A dynamic unloading condi-
tion is often created by this type of excavation method.
TBM excavation uses several rolling cutters and feeds high
pressure of the head against the face of the tunnel, and
when combined with a rotation of the head, the excavation
force can lead to the crushing of the rock at the face, thus
the excavation. Stress redistribution occurs due to the exca-
vation and is often modeled by FLAC or Phase2 for rock
support design. The question to be asked is: will these
two numerical tools, which are widely used in the rock
mechanics community, produce the same result for a tunnel
excavation problem?
This paper strives to illustrate that the results obtained
by FLAC and Phase2 can be very different, depending on
the material properties and the method of excavation used.
It will be explained that the difference can stem simply from
the solution scheme difference adopted in these two tools,
which has not been discussed in depth in the rock engineer-
ing community. Knowing such a difference is important in
interpreting obtained numerical results and choosing the
right tool and modeling approach for a particular problem
under investigation.
calculation cycle requires that the neighboring elements
should not affect each other, the adopted timestep must
be smaller than a critical value for numerical stability.
For plasticity analysis, FLAC checks the element state
(elastic or plastic) in each cycling step. First, an elastic trial
for the stress increment is computed from the total strain
increment and the stresses are checked against the yield cri-
terion. If the corresponding stresses violate the yield crite-
ria, plastic deformation takes place. The stresses are
corrected by using the plastic flow rule to ensure that they
lie on the yield surface. For an elastic problem, a total of
3000–5000 cycling steps are needed to reduce the unbal-
anced force to a negligible value and thus a static solution
is obtained. For an elasto-plastic problem, plastic yielding
is checked once the cycling starts. Hence, the stress path
differs significantly from the elastic one if yielding is
detected and stress state corrected. A typical elasto-plastic
problem requires 8000–10,000 cycling steps to accomplish
the solution.
2.2. Phase2
Phase2 is an implicit FEM program developed initially
for underground excavation simulation, and subsequently
new functions and capabilities have been added allow it
to be used for slope stability analysis and groundwater flow
simulation. In the FEM approach, the domain is discret-
ized into a finite number of elements with a fixed number
of nodes. Displacements inside an element are approxi-
mated using a shape function that links the nodal displace-
ment values, which are the system unknowns. The original
partial differential equations are replaced by an assembly of
algebraic system of equations. A global stiffness matrix is
formed and stored. Solving the system of equations deter-
mines the node displacement values which in turn can be
used to obtain stresses and strains in each element.
For plasticity analysis, Phase2 tackles the problem by a
series of static equilibrium solutions involving iterative pro-
cedures. An elastic solution is first obtained and the stress
state in each element is checked against the yield criteria. If
Table 1
Comparison of FLAC and Phase2

2. Difference in solution schemes between FLAC and Phase2 FLAC Phase2

Solution scheme Explicit Implicit
2.1. FLAC Computer memory Low High
requirement
Non-linear problem No iteration necessary Iteration required
FLAC uses dynamic equations of motion in its explicit, handling Computationally stable Diverge may occur
time-marching scheme, even for static problems. The solu- Physical process Always follow the physics Need to be
tion of solid body problems in FLAC invokes the equa- if the timestep criterion is demonstrated that it
tions of motion (Newton’s law of motion), constitutive guaranteed follows the physical
process
relations, and boundary conditions. The solid body is Excavation method Delete or assign null Excavation (assign
divided into a finite difference mesh composed of quadrilat- element very low modulus)
eral elements. In a calculation cycle, the new velocities and Structural elements Yes Yes
displacements are obtained from stresses and forces using Discontinuity model Yes (interface element) Yes (joint element)
the equations of motion, and then, strain rates are obtained User interface Good Excellent
First release 1986 1990
from velocities and new stresses from strain rates. Since the
620 M. Cai / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 618–628

F the stresses violate the yield criteria, plastic deformation

takes place. The final solution is obtained by iteration
and the quality of the solution depends on the convergence
criterion and the algorithm (solver type) used to return
t
stresses to the yield surface.
T0
2.3. Comparison
E, ν, ρ T
F Vp A comparison of the explicit and implicit solution meth-
ods can be found in the FLAC manual – Theory and Back-
A L B ground. A comparison, specific to features of FLAC and
Fig. 1. Stress wave propagation in a beam. Phase2, is presented in Table 1. One thing that is of interest
for discussion is the ability of the tools to model the true
σy physical process in underground excavation. Since the
structure response is stress path depended for nonlinear
materials (Cai et al., 2002; Kaiser et al., 2001; Ruistuen
Host rock and Teufel, 1996), if a solution scheme cannot generate
stress paths that represent the actual ones, then, a different
structural response should be expected. This is the case for
Tunnel numerical tools that employ explicit and implicit solution
schemes. Explicit schemes can always follow the true stress
path during deformation but implicit schemes cannot. This
σx can be demonstrated by stress propagation in a long beam
“Excavated by deleting in
subjected to the loading and boundary conditions shown in
the numerical modeling” Fig. 1. Assume that the load (F) is applied to the left end A
instantly at time T0. Before the load is applied, the axial
stress in the beam is zero. At the time when the load is
applied, load at end A is equal to F but load at end B is still
zero. A stress wave is generated in the beam right after the
Fig. 2. Tunnel excavation simulation.

σ 3 (MPa)
-30.0
-27.0
-24.0
-21.0
-18.0
-15.0
Phase2 -12.0
-9.0
-6.0
-3.0
0.0

Minimum principal stress (Pa)

0.00E+00
6.00E+06
1.20E+07
FLAC 1.80E+07
2.40E+07
3.00E+07
Contour interval=3.00E+06

Fig. 3. Comparison of minimum principal stress distribution in Phase2 and FLAC (rx = 60 MPa, ry = 11 MPa; elastic response).
 M. Cai / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 618–628 621

load is applied andqthe compressive

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi stress front will travel In underground excavation, dynamic loading and
ð1mÞE
at a speed of V p ¼ qð1m2m 2Þ in the beam, where E, m, q are unloading conditions often exist. For example, a full-face,
long-round drill and blast excavation of a tunnel in rocks
the Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and density of the
will create a dynamic unloading condition to the host rocks.
beam, respectively. It will take T = L/Vp for the stress wave
If FLAC and Phase2 are used to model a tunnel excavation
to travel from A to B, where L is the beam length. Once the
problem (Fig. 2), the tunnel region is simply deleted or
stress wave reaches B, a portion of the compressive stress
assigned to an excavated material in FLAC and Phase2,
wave will be reflected and the stress wave travels in the
respectively, by following ‘‘standard” or ‘‘conventional”
beam back and forth a few times before final equilibrium
modeling approach. For reasons discussed above, it is antic-
is reached. This example shows that applying a load to a
ipated that results from FLAC and Phase2 could be very
beam creates a dynamic loading process; the time involved
different when the conventional modeling approach is used.
is so short that most people would think it as a static
The difference in modeling results by these two tools are
problem.
illustrated and discussed in the next section.
The physical process described above can be captured
by FLAC. If Phase2 is used, one obtains only the final
3. Yield zone distribution simulation in tunnel excavation by
result of the equilibrium state and the process of stress
FLAC and Phase2 – illustration examples
wave propagation cannot be captured. Since Phase2 is an
FEM program, it does not mean that FEM programs can-
3.1. Simulation model
not simulate the physical process described above. In fact,
FEM codes with explicit solution algorithm, such as ABA-
A circular 10 m diameter tunnel excavation problem is
QUS (www.abaqus.com), ELFEN (www.rockfield.co.uk),
considered. The outer boundary width and height are
and ANSYS (www.ansys.com) can simulate this type of
twenty times of the tunnel diameter with fixed boundary
dynamic loading processes as well.

a Phase2 b FLAC

state
Elastic
Shear Elastic, Yield in Past
Tension At Yield in Tension

σt = 5 MPa σt = 5 MPa

c d

σt = 10 MPa σt = 10 MPa

e f

σt = 15 MPa σt = 15 MPa

Fig. 4. Comparison of tensile yielding zone distribution between Phase2 and FLAC models for rt = 5, 10, 15 MPa (rx = 60 MPa, ry = 11 MPa).
622 M. Cai / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 618–628

condition. The Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the
rock mass are 60 GPa and 0.25, respectively. It is assumed
that the tunnel is excavated by long-round drill and blast
method so that the tunnel portion in the model is deleted
or excavation in one stage. In situ stress field and tensile
and shear strength are chosen as variable parameters to
study the excavation response simulated by FLAC and
Phase2. 4-node and 3-node elements are used in FLAC
and Phase2 models, respectively. Ideally, the same mesh
should be used in both the FLAC and Phase2 models to
isolate the effect of mesh size (and shape) but it is deemed
difficult to do so due to the different mesh generation algo-
rithms used in these two codes. As an alternative, very fine
meshes are used in both models to minimize the mesh influ-
ence. As can be seen from Fig. 3, the distributions of the
minimum principal stress in both models are very similar
(elastic response), except that contours near the tunnel
boundary in the FLAC model are missing due to a defi-
ciency in contour generation in FLAC.
3.2. Yielding in tension
Figs. 4 and 5 present the distributions of tensile yield ele-
ments in the FLAC (right column) and Phase2 (left col-
umn) models. The horizontal, vertical, and tunnel axis
parallel in situ stress components are assumed to be
rx = 60 MPa, ry = 11 MPa, rz = 45 MPa, respectively. In
this simulation, the shear strength is set to a high value
to ensure that only tensile yielding occurs in both models.
Zero residual tension model is used, which means that if
the rock fails in tension, its residual tensile strength is zero.
The peak tensile strength (rt) varies from 5 to 30 MPa in
the simulation. It is seen that when the rock tensile strength
is low at 5 MPa, the difference of the yielding zone distribu-
tion is large between the FLAC and Phase2 models (Fig. 4a
and b). As the tensile strength increases, the yield zone pat-
terns in the two models gradually converge. In addition,
both Phase2 and FLAC predict the tensile yielding in the
sidewall center where the tensile stress is the highest. How-

Phase2 FLAC
a b

state
Shear
Elastic
Tension
Elastic, Yield in Past
At Yield in Tension

σt = 20 MPa
σt = 20 MPa

c d

σt = 25 MPa σt = 25 MPa

e f

σt = 30 MPa σt = 30 MPa

Fig. 5. Comparison of tensile yielding zone distribution between Phase2 and FLAC models for rt = 20, 25, 30 MPa (rx = 60 MPa, ry = 11 MPa).
 M. Cai / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 618–628 623

ever, the shallow tensile failure on the sidewall, distributed shown in Fig. 3a. To proof this point, we first set the tensile
over a large region away from the sidewall center, is not strength in the FLAC model to a high value and cycle the
captured by the Phase2 model. When the peak tensile model 8000 steps to reach equilibrium. An elastic solution
strength is 30 MPa, both models predict no tensile yielding is thus obtained and the minimum principal stress distribu-
(Fig. 5e and f).
To explain the result difference shown in Figs. 4 and 5,
we need to further examine the solution scheme difference
in FLAC and Phase2, which had been briefly discussed in Phase2
Section 2. In reality, when a tunnel is excavated by long-
round drill and blast method, some of the strain energy
in the system is converted into kinetic energy that needs Shear
to be dissipated. A sudden excavation creates large unbal- Tension
anced forces right at the excavation boundary and the
unbalanced forces need to be dissipated. FLAC, by its
explicit nature, can model the stress redistribution process σt = 5 MPa
directly because inertial terms are included. To illustrate
the stress propagation and dissipation process after excava-
tion, the minimum principal stress distributions in a linear
elastic model over several cycle steps (10, 30, 60, 100, 200)
FLAC
are shown in Fig. 6. Large tensile stresses are observed over
a wide area at step 10. If a plastic tensile failure model
(Rankine model) is used, immediate yielding would occur state
if the tensile stress is larger than the tensile strength. After Elastic
200 steps, the r3 P 5 MPa contour extended to a depth of Elastic, Yield in Past
At Yield in Tension
0.5 m. To reach a final solution shown in Fig. 3b, about
5000 cycling steps are required. For the results shown in
Figs. 4 and 5, the plastic tensile model is active right at σt = 5 MPa
the beginning in the FLAC model cycling, which means
that yield elements are generated at an early stage in the
Fig. 7. Comparison of tensile yielding in the Phase2 and FLAC models
cycling. In contrast, Phase2 detects the yield element based (rx = 60 MPa, ry = 11 MPa). In the FLAC model, an initial high tensile
on an initial estimate using the linear stiffness matrix, strength is set and after an equilibrium state is reached, the tensile strength
employing the initial minimum principal stress distribution is set to 5 MPa and the model is cycled to equilibrium.

Step 10 Step 30 Step 60

Minimum principal stress (Pa)

0.00E+00
2.00E+06
4.00E+06
6.00E+06
8.00E+06
1.00E+07
Step 200 Contour interval= 1.00E+06
Step 100

Fig. 6. Distribution of the minimum principal stress in the FLAC model at cycling step 10, 30, 60, 100, and 200 (elastic response, rx = 60 MPa,
ry = 11 MPa).
624 M. Cai / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 618–628

tion is shown in Fig. 3b. Next, we change the rock tensile steps, the minimum principal stress is tensile. If the rock
strength to 5 MPa and run the model for another 5000 tensile strength is low, tensile failure will result at an early
steps. Immediately after cycling following the change of stage, before the final equilibrium is reached.
tensile strength properties, tensile failure is detected and
plastic correction conducted. The resulting tensile yield ele-
ment distribution is presented in Fig. 7b, which is different (107)
from the pattern shown in Fig. 4b but very similar to the
distribution pattern obtained by Phase2 shown in Fig. 7a. 0.800
In other words, if an elastic solution is first obtained in

Minimum principal stress (Pa)

Tensile
FLAC, followed by conducting the plastic solution, then, 0.400
the FLAC result will be similar to that obtained from the
Phase2 model.
0.000
Hence, the observed difference in yielding zone distribu-
tion by the FLAC and Phase2 models is attributed to the
solution scheme difference adopted in the numerical tools. -0.400
The solution scheme difference leads to a stress path differ-
ence. To further demonstrate the point, the influence of -0.800
in situ horizontal to vertical stress ratio (Ko) is conducted Compressive Tunnel
and the results are presented in Fig. 8. When Ko = 5.45,
both the FLAC and Phase2 models predict tensile yielding -1.200

on the sidewalls. When Ko is less than 3, the FLAC model

still predicts tensile yielding due to dynamic unloading gen-
erated by tunnel excavation but the Phase2 model shows no 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

tensile failure in the model (not shown in Fig. 8). The evo- Cycling step (x 10)

lution of the minimum principal stress in the first 200 Fig. 9. Evaluation of the minimum principal stress at the sidewall center
cycling steps, at the center of the sidewall for Ko = 1, is during the first 200 steps in the FLAC model (rx = 60 MPa, ry = 60 MPa;
shown in Fig. 9. It is seen that during the first 20 cycling elastic solution).

FLAC

state
Elastic
Elastic, Yield in Past
At Yield in Tension

σt = 5 MPa

(a) Ko= 5.45 (b) Ko= 3

(σx = 60 MPa σy = 11 MPa) (σx = 60 MPa σy = 20 MPa)

FLAC

(c) Ko= 2 (d) Ko= 1

(σx = 60 MPa σy = 30 MPa) (σx = 60 MPa σy = 60 MPa)

Fig. 8. Influence of in situ stress ratio on the tensile yielding in the FLAC model (for Phase2 model, no tensile yielded elements exist for the stress condition
shown in (b)–(d)).
 M. Cai / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 618–628 625

3.3. Yielding in shear
To understand the impact of dynamic unloading on shear
failure of rocks in tunnel excavation by drill and blast
method, the same circular tunnel excavation simulation
was carried out using reduced shear strength parameters.
The Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion is used with a perfect
plastic model that has three strength parameters: c – cohe-
sion; / – friction angle; w – dilation angle. The in situ stresses
used in the calculations are: rx = 60 MPa, ry = 11 MPa,
rz = 45 MPa. The tensile strength is intentionally set to a
high value so that only shear failure is observed in the mod-
eling results.
Fig. 10 presents the simulation results by FLAC (right
column) and Phase2 (left column), showing the shear
yielding distribution around the tunnel. It is seen that
when the shear strength is relatively high (c = 30 MPa),
the yielding zone distributions in both models are similar
(Fig. 10a and b). When the shear strength is reduced to 25
and 20 MPa, the shear failure patterns in both models
start to differ. Some shallow shear yielding elements are
observed in the FLAC model all over the tunnel bound-
ary but not consistently show up in the Phase2 model.
The deepest shear failure depths on the roof and floor
as well as in the sidewalls in both models seem to agree
with each other. The reason for this agreement is that
to cause rocks on the roof and floor to fail in shear, the
maximum tangential stress has to reach a higher value
(e.g., 85.8 MPa for c = 20 MPa and / = 40°). This
requires approximately 400 cycling steps in FLAC. At this
point, the overall stress distribution in the FLAC model is
close to the elastic model result by Phase2. Subsequent
cycling in FLAC leads to stress redistribution in the
model in a fashion that resembles the stress iteration in

Phase2 FLAC
a b

state
Elastic
Shear
At Yield in Shear or Vol.
Tension
c = 30 MPa Elastic, Yield in Past
φ = 40o
ψ = 10o

c d

c = 25 MPa
o
φ = 40
o
ψ = 10

e f

c = 20 MPa
φ = 40o
ψ = 10o

Fig. 10. Comparison of shear yielding zone distribution between Phase2 and FLAC models for different strength levels (rx = 60 MPa, ry = 11 MPa).
626 M. Cai / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 618–628

Phase2 so that the deep located shear failure zones in both 3.4. Yielding in both tension and shear
models are similar.
Fig. 11 presents the tensile and shear yielding zone distri-
butions in both FLAC and Phase2 models for c = 20 MPa,
/ = 40°, w = 10°, rt = 5 MPa, under the in situ stress
field of rx = 60 MPa, ry = 11 MPa, rz = 45 MPa. Again,
dynamic unloading is assumed and the tensile yielding zone
is concentrated on the sidewalls and shear yielding zone on
the roof and floor. The resulting yield zone is very close to
Phase2 a simple composition of the yield zones in tension and shear
(Figs. 4b and 10f). The major difference between the two
Shear
Tension modeling results is the tensile yielding on the sidewalls.

3.5. Discussion

Modeling of tunnel excavation using Phase2 and FLAC

by deleting the excavation area is like excavating the tunnel
by using long-round drill and blast construction method. If
a dynamic unloading condition exists and when rocks
behave in an elasto-plastic manner, the results obtained
FLAC
from these two numerical tools can be drastically different,
especially when tensile strength of the rock is low. FLAC,
state
due to its explicit modeling scheme, seems to capture the
Elastic rock dynamic unloading process well. The insight from this
At Yield in Shear or Vol.
Elastic, Yield in Past investigation also explains why more rock damage is
At Yield in Tension
expected in tunnels excavated by drill and blast method.
Previous models for describing the mechanisms by which
blasting damages rock have either rated the role of the
Fig. 11. Comparison of tensile and shear yielding zone distribution dynamic stress wave as more important in blasting fragmen-
between Phase2 and FLAC models (rx = 60 MPa, ry = 11 MPa). tation (Dally et al., 1975) or the gas action (Nilson et al.,

a
Tensile yielding zone
FLAC
σt = 5 MPa

c
70

60

50
Modulus softening
E (GPa)

40
E=60 GPa
30
b 20
Phase2 10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stage
E=60 0 GPa
over 10 stages

σt = 5 MPa
Tensile yielding zone

Fig. 12. Distribution of tensile yielding zone by material softening method in: (a) FLAC and (b) Phase2 (rx = 60 MPa, ry = 11 MPa).
 M. Cai / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 618–628
1985; Coursen, 1979). It is seen that in addition to dynamic
stress loading and gas action, there is another important ele-
ment by dynamic unloading that will contribute to the
blasting-induced rock damage. In general, dynamic unload-
ing-induced rock damage is shallow (<0.5 m), as revealed
by the FLAC modeling result.
The essence of the modeling result difference is the stress
path dependent nature of plastic materials. In fact, full-face
tunnel excavation by FLAC and Phase2 creates two sets of dif-
ferent stress paths in the host rock due to the explicit and impli-
cit solution schemes used in the codes, respectively. Tunnel
excavation is a 3D problem. If FLAC3D (explicit, www.itas-
cacg.com) and a Phase2 comparable 3D FEM (implicit) tool
are used, similar result difference should be expected.
To honor the stress path due to face advance and alter-
native excavation method such as full-face TBM tunneling,
various excavation modeling methods have been used in
the numerical tools. One approach is called excavation
relaxation method, which is available in ELFEN and can
be realized in FLAC by writing a FISH function and in
Phase2 by manual intervention. The elements are removed
from the simulation and replaced by a set of forces equal to
the internal forces of the group removed. The equivalent
forces are then relaxed over a specific time period to simu-
late the gradual excavation relaxation process. Another
approach uses the material softening method. Young’s
modulus of the elements in the tunnel area are degraded
to zero over a specific time period or over a few stages to
simulate the gradual excavation effect. It is expected that
the yield zone distribution obtained by either excavation
relaxation or material softening method will be the same
in both the FLAC and Phase2 models, because the same
stress path is followed in both models. It should be noted
that this stress path (by excavation relaxation or material
softening) is different from the stress paths in FLAC or
Phase2 by a ‘‘sudden” excavation of the tunnel. For refer-
ence, the tensile yield element distribution obtained from
FLAC and Phase2 by softening the Young’s modulus from
60 to 0 GPa over ten stages is presented in Fig. 12a and b.
The tensile strength is 5 MPa and the shear strength is set
to a high value so that only tensile failure occurs in the
model. The yield zones obtained from both codes are sim-
ilar. Because the material softening generates a stress path
which is different from the one-stage excavation, the tensile
yield zone distribution shown in Fig. 12a or b is quite dif-
ferent compared to the result shown in Fig. 4a or b.
4. Conclusions
For a given rock mass and in situ stress condition, exca-
vation induced failure or damage to the rock mass depends
on the stress path, which in turn depends on the excavation
methods employed. The essence of this dependency is that
the mechanical response of elasto-plastic materials is stress
path dependent.
FLAC and Phase2 are used to simulate a tunnel excava-
tion problem assuming that the tunnel is excavated by
627
long-round drill and blast method. The yield zone distribu-
tions obtained by these two tools demonstrate a significant
difference when the rock fails in tension and the tensile
strength is low. This departure of analysis result by FLAC
and Phase2 is attributed to the fact that one tool can handle
the dynamic unloading by default while the other cannot.
FLAC employs explicit solution scheme but Phase2 takes
an implicit solution approach and the explicit formulation
can follow the physical process automatically. Modeling of
tunnel excavation problems using FLAC or Phase2 is not
simply an exercise of building a model, deleting a group
of elements in the model, letting the model runs, and pro-
ducing colorful outputs when the calculation is finished,
with the click of a few icons. The users need to have a thor-
ough understanding of the theory behind the tools in order
to obtain results that mimic the reality. The danger of using
FLAC and Phase2 as black boxes for numerical modeling
can be seen from the examples presented in this study.
Because the tensile strength of the rock is low relative to
its compressive strength, rocks can fail easily in tension
than in compression. This failure phenomenon is magnified
near the tunnel boundary where dynamic unloading
induced tensile stress is high. When shear failure domi-
nates, the maximum depths of yielding zone by the two
numerical tools are comparable. Shallow shear failure
due to dynamic unloading is also possible. Knowing such
a difference is important in interpreting obtained numerical
results and choosing the right tool and modeling approach
for a particular problem under investigation.
The most notable conclusion from this study is not to
judge whether FLAC is superior to Phase2 or vice versa,
but to point out the importance of selecting the right tool
and modeling approach to represent the expected stress
path as close to reality as possible. Stress path changes in
a tunnel not only exist over a large time span such as tunnel
face advancing and near-by mining excavation but also
show up in a very short time span such as ‘‘instant” remov-
ing of a rock block. The correct rock mass response can
only be captured if the stress path is correctly represented
in a model.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Derek Martin of Uni-
versity of Alberta for his comments and suggestions during
the preparation of the manuscript.
References
Brady, T.M., Johnson, J.C., 1989. Comparison of a finite-difference
code to a finite-element code in modeling an excavation in an
underground shaft pillar. In: Pietruszczak, S., Pande, G.N. (Eds.),
Proceedings of Third International Symposium on Numerical
Modelling in Geomechanics (NUMOG III), Niagara Falls, pp.
608–619.
Cai, M., Kaiser, P.K., Martin, C.D., 2001. Quantification of rock mass
damage in underground excavations from microseismic event moni-
toring. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. 38, 1135–1145.
628 M. Cai / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 618–628
Cai, M., Kaiser, P.K., Uno, H., Tasaka, Y., 2002. Influence of stress-path
on the stress–strain relations of jointed rocks. In: Lin, Y. et al. (Eds.),
Second International Conference on New Development in Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, pp. 60–65.
Cai, M., Kaiser, P.K., Morioka, H., Minami, M., Maejima, T., Tasaka,
Y., Kurose, H., 2007a. FLAC/PFC coupled numerical simulation of
AE in large-scale underground excavations. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min.
Sci. 44 (4), 550–564.
Cai, M., Morioka, H., Kaiser, P.K., Tasaka, Y., Minami, M., Maejima,
T., 2007b. Back analysis of rock mass strength parameters using AE
monitoring data. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 44 (4), 538–549.
Coursen, D.L., 1979. Cavities and gas penetration from blasts in stresses
rock with flooded joints. Acta Astron. 6, 341–363.
Dally, J.W., Fourney, W.L., Holloway, D.C., 1975. Influence of contain-
ment of the bore hole pressures on explosive-induced fractures. Int. J.
Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 12, 5–12.
Hoek, E., 2001. Big tunnels in bad rock, 2000 Terzaghi lecture. J. Gotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE 127 (9), 726–740.
View publication stats
Itasca 2005. FLAC-Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua, 5. Itasca
Consulting Group Inc.
Kaiser, P.K., Yazici, S., Maloney, S., 2001. Mining-induced stress change
and consequences of stress path on excavation stability – A case study.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 38 (2), 167–180.
Martin, C.D., 1993. The strength of massive Lac du Bonnet granite
around underground opening. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manitoba, p.
278.
Nilson, R.H., Proffer, W.J., Duff, R.E., 1985. Modelling of gas driven
fractures induced by propellant combustion within an explosion cavity.
Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 22, 3–19.
Rocscience Inc., 2004. Phase2, 5. Rocscience Inc., Toronto, <www.roc-
science.com>.
Ruistuen, H., Teufel, L.W., 1996. Analysis of the influence of stress path
on compressibility of weakly cemented sandstones using laboratory
experiments and discrete particle models. In: Aubertin, M. et al. (Eds.),
Proceedings of Second North American Rock Mech. Symposium, pp.
1525–1531.