ISSN 0016-8521, Geotectonics, 2016, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 336–346. © Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2016.

Prediction of Swelling Rocks Strain in Tunneling1

D. Parsapour and A. Fahimifar
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Amirkabir University of Technology, Hafez Ave., Tehran, Iran
e-mail: fahim@aut.ac.ir
Received September 8, 2015

Abstract—Swelling deformations leading to convergence of tunnels may result in significant difficulties

during the construction, in particular for long term use of tunnels. By extracting an experimental based
explicit analytical solution for formulating swelling strains as a function of time and stress, swelling strains are
predicted from the beginning of excavation and during the service life of tunnel. Results obtained from the
analytical model show a proper agreement with experimental results. This closed-form solution has been
implemented within a numerical program using the finite element method for predicting time-dependent
swelling strain around tunnels. Evaluating effects of swelling parameters on time-dependent strains and tun-
nel shape on swelling behavior around the tunnel according to this analytical solution is considered. The
ground-support interaction and consequent swelling effect on the induced forces in tunnel lining is consid-
ered too. Effect of delay in lining installation on swelling pressure which acting on the lining and its structural
integrity, is also evaluated. A MATLAB code of “SRAP” is prepared and applied to calculate all swelling anal-
ysis around tunnels based on analytical solution.

Keywords: tunnel, swelling strain, analytical solution, time, lining, SRAP

DOI: 10.1134/S0016852116030092

INTRODUCTION high repair costs in a number of tunnels surrounded by

Tunneling in swelling rocks may result in many dif-
ficulties, including distribution of additional stresses
in tunnel support system over an extended period of
time, which may lead to failure. Therefore, during the
design phase of tunnel, it is of paramount importance
to predict the swelling response of surrounding
ground. For example, the swelling phenomena in a
large number of tunnels in Southwestern Germany
have caused strong pressure against lining and high
floor heave in tunnels and in some cases swelling pres-
sures lead to the destruction of the tunnel lining [5].
Swelling mechanism is a combination of physico-
chemical reaction involving water and stress relief. The
physico-chemical reaction in presence of water is usu-
ally a major contribution but it can only take place
simultaneously with or following stress relief. As a
result of this mechanism, the volume of surrounding
rock mass can increase with time and the rock mass
moves inward over time. The rate of inward movement
and amount of deformation depend upon rock type,
stress distribution, and tunnel geometry [3].
Swelling can take place in soils and rocks where clay
minerals, anhydrite and pyrite/marcasite are present.
Anhydritic clay stones are among the most problematic
rocks in tunneling. Many cases have been recorded
about the precedency of serious damages to lining and
1 The article is published in the original.
such rocks which are capable of swelling. Swelling is
usually attributed to the anhydrite change into gypsum.
It is markedly the time-dependent process which might
take several decades to make the swelling occur and get
completed in nature. Serafeimidis and Anagnostou [20]
proposed a simplified model for anhydrite hydration,
which defines the governing process and duration of
swelling process. In general, two types of swelling
mechanisms are recognized in rocks: mechanical and
physico-chemical swelling [3]. Swelling behavior
depends on crucial factors, such as material properties,
boundary conditions, negative pore pressure and stress
distribution of the rock mass surrounding the tunnel
[6]. The swelling phenomenon in tunneling is treated as
a humidity-mechanical coupled process, i.e. the stress
redistribution, as well, water vapor diffusion around the
tunnel is taken into account [21].
Up to now, no common opinion is offered about
the applicability of constitutive laws and analyses or
dimensioning methods with which the swelling phe-
nomena of rocks can be described. However, various
opinions still prevail among the experts on suitability
of different design concepts for tunnels in swelling
rocks. This is to be recognized, although significant
efforts have been made in recent past by many
researchers that have cited in the paper. To choose an
appropriate tunnel lining in swelling rocks, the tunnel

336
 PREDICTION OF SWELLING ROCKS STRAIN IN TUNNELING
engineer has to quantify the swelling strains, timely
and correctly.
Several time-independent constitutive models
have been developed for swelling of rocks [7, 10, 23].
H.H. Einstein [8] examined the available swelling
models in literature and concluded that, although the
swelling deformation due to chemical changes may
be adequately predicted using available models, but
time-dependent swelling models need to be devel-
oped from a fundamental knowledge of swelling
mechanism. An overview of the theoretical models
and experimental investigations of swelling rock can
be found in [1]; the authors of [16, 17] developed rhe-
ological models for prediction of swelling properties
of rocks surrounding tunnels using closed-form solu-
tions. Field monitoring of tunnels showed that these
models simulate the trend of swelling behavior well
and they are being used in design of underground
openings. However, K.Y. Lo and C.M.K. Yuen [16]
did not consider the effect of stress on swelling in
their model, K.Y. Lo and C.M.K. Hefny [17]
assumed that only the radial pressure on tunnel lining
has an effect on swelling deformation. The exclusion
of any stress effect makes the prediction conservative.
It is also necessary to predict long-term swelling
deformation that is observed in the field. Y.R. Kiehl
[15] developed a three-dimensional constitutive law
on the basis of the results obtained from multi-axial
laboratory swelling tests. According to the swelling
law, the total strain rate consists of elastic, time-
dependent swelling and viscoplastic components.
This model has been implemented within a numeri-
cal program using finite element method.
On the basis of laboratory tests, A. Hefny et al. [13]
proposed a rheological model consisting of three Kel-
vin units connected in series, in order to model the
non-linear long term swelling behavior of Queenston
shale. The time dependency was simulated in the
model using rate parameters, and stress dependency
was handled through the use of stress dependent
deformation moduli for Kelvin unit.
B.C. Hawlader et al. [11] developed a constitutive
model for rock swelling that considers three-dimen-
sional stress effects and anisotropic swelling. The aniso-
tropic and three-dimensional stress-dependent swelling
model cannot be presented in a closed-form solution,
and a numerical method must be applied. B.C. Haw-
lader et al. [12] used a finite element algorithm, incor-
porating new constitutive model, for numerical analy-
sis. In this paper, an experimental based analytical solu-
tion is used to compute time-dependent swelling
strains. The application of this model is also presented
to evaluate swelling strain around tunnels.
SETTING THE FINAL SWELLING STRAIN
Increase in volume of a swelling rock depends upon
stress distribution. This is why that swelling will be
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 50 No. 3 2016
337
ceased at a specific level of compressive stress.
Y. Huder and G. Amberg [14] proved experimentally
dependence of swelling on stress distribution in marl
and clay-stone rocks. Y. Huder and G. Amberg
applied an axial load to a cylindrical rock sample in
oedometer. Then, the sample is unloaded and subse-
quently watered, and finally strains due to swelling are
measured. Strain magnitudes are plotted for different
normal stresses on a logarithmic scale. The plot fits
well with a straight line approximation. The results of
Y. Huder and G. Amberg [14] tests show the relation
between normal stress and normal swelling strain.
F.T. Madsen [18] has introduced modification to the
original procedure of Y. Huder and G. Amberg test,
basically removing loading/unloading cycle.
Based on the results of Y. Huder and G. Amberg
test, H. Grob [10] proposed a mathematical model for
relating final swelling strain to stress. According to this
model, swelling strain decreases with logarithm of
stress, and maximum swelling occurs when there is a
minimum normal stress acting on the specimen. This
relationship is expressed in Eq. (1) below:
ε ∞zs = K q log(σ z σ 0 ), (1)
where ε ∞zs is the maximum value of normal swelling
strain, Kq is dimensionless coefficient of final normal
swelling strain, and σ z is a principal normal stress
corresponding to direction of swelling strain, and σ 0
is a least principal normal stress at which swelling
doesn’t occur (the upper limit of stress). P. Wittke-
Gattemann [24] expanded Grob’s mathematical
model as in Eq. (2):
⎧0, σ z ≥ σ0
⎪
ε ∞zs = −K q ⎨log(σ z σ 0 ), σ c ≤ σ z ≤ σ o. (2)
⎪log(σ c σ 0 ), σ z ≤ σ c
⎩
In which, σ c is the least principal normal stress that
causes reduction of swelling strain to occur (lower
limit of swelling stress).
Figure 1 shows the linear decrease of swelling
strains in no rmal direction of a rock specimen with
logarithm of stress, in which the slope line denoted as
Kq, and it physically defines the swelling potential. For
small stresses, swelling is limited by a minimum prin-
cipal normal stress, σ c , then swelling decreases lin-
early for stresses more than σ c , and eventually swelling
strains cease at a maximum normal stress σ 0 .
PROPOSAL OF A TIME-DEPENDENT
ANALYTICAL SOLUTION
Mathematical models presented in Eqs. (1) and
(2), are limited to computing final swelling strains at
338 PARSAPOUR, FAHIMIFAR

0.7 εzs(t) ε∞zs

1.0
0.6 σz = 0
Test results dε
0.5 W. Gatterman 0.8 dt
Test results
0.4
ε∞zs , %

Proposed model
0.6

εzs(t), %
0.3 σz = 16.2 KPa
σz = 32.2 KPa
0.2 0.4 σz = 65 KPa
0.1 σ0 σz = 130 KPa
σc
0.2
0 σz = 260 KPa
1 10 100 1000
σz = 520 KPa
σz, KPa
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time, days
Fig. 1. Final swelling strain vs. principal normal stress,
Expanded model (Eq. (2)) [24]. Fig. 2. Experimental results for swelling strains vs. time [14].

equilibrium (t = ∞). Thus, determining swelling time. If isotropic swelling is assumed, it can be
strains during time is not possible. A. Fahimifar and adopted from Fig. 3:
D. Parsapour [9] employed a closed-form solution to
achieve a time-dependent swelling strain formulations d ε zs (t ) e zs ( ∞ ) − ε zs (t )
= . (3)
based on experimental results considering Wittke- dt C
Gattemann’s model. The calculation process of solu-
Equation (3) was also presented by Y.R. Kiehl [15].
tion is described in the following sections.
Comparison between Eq. (3) and Kiehl’s swelling law,
For the purpose of obtaining a proper time-depen- yields C = ηq , that ηq is time-dependent modulus of
dent analytical solution, on the basis of real behavior
of swelling rock, a mathematical relation is derived swelling.
between the progressive swelling strains and time Incorporating Eq. (2) into Eq. (3) and setting C = ηq
using experimental results from Huder-Amberg tests yields Eq. (4):
[14], as is shown in Fig. 2. The analytical solution is
also illustrated in Fig. 3 [9]. d ε zs (t )
Swelling strains in one-dimenional condition are dt
represented as a function of two variables of stress and ⎧− ε zs (t ) , σz ≥ σ0 (4)
⎪
= ⎨K q log(σ z σ 0 ) − ε zs (t ) , σ c ≤ σ z ≤ σ o ,
1
ηq ⎪
⎩K q log(σ c σ 0 ) − ε zs (t ) , σ z ≤ σ c
C Equation (4) is solved using Bernoulli’s bivariate
solution [25] and final relationship for swelling strains
zs ( t )

as a function of time and principal normal stress is

derived as follows [9]:
zs – εzs

dε εzs(t)
dt
ε∞zs

ε zs (t )
εzs(t), %

⎧0, σz ≥ σ0
ε∞zs

( ) ⎪
(−t ηq ) (5)
= 1−e K q ⎨log(σ z σ 0 ), σ c ≤ σ z ≤ σ o .
εzs(t)

⎪log(σ c σ 0 ), σ z ≤ σ c
⎩

In which:
Time ε zs (t ): Principal swelling strain at time (t) due to
stress relief; t : Time; Kq : Coefficient of swelling strain
Fig. 3. Mathematical model of swelling strain vs. time [9]. (dimensionless); σ z : Total Principal normal stress;

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 50 No. 3 2016

 PREDICTION OF SWELLING ROCKS STRAIN IN TUNNELING
σ 0 : Least total principal normal stress at which swell-
ing strain ceases (upper limit of stress); σ c : Least total
principal normal stress at which swelling strain begins
to decrease (lower limit of stress); η q : Time dependent
modulus of swelling.
The convergence of tunnel contour is the most
important effect arises from swelling, particularly
during and after construction. According to the exper-
iments used in Grob’s model expansion (Eq. (2)),
strains in rock mass surrounding a tunnel are calcu-
lated in radial direction, and tangential strains are
practically zero. This behavior is similar to actual
deformation behavior of tunnels after excavation, in
which maximum principal stresses are tangent to tun-
nel perimeter, and as a result, swelling strains in this
direction are negligible. Such a condition may be sim-
ulated in oedometer testing apparatus, in which lateral
deformations of rock sample are prohibited by steel
sample holder. Thus, by replacing stress σ z with the
radial stress σ r in Eq. (5), swelling deformations in
tunnel invert and sidewalls are predicted. In Eq. (5),
parameters Kq, σ 0 , σ c and η q are obtained from
oedometer swelling tests, and stress, σ z , can be calcu-
lated using analytical or numerical approaches.
The proposed model is based on a series of labora-
tory experiments ran by Y. Huder and G. Amberg, and
thus, it is expected that the corresponding results are
conditioned by the results and duration of conducted
swelling tests. However, it is shown that the model is
capable of predicting swelling deformation of tunnel
walls with an acceptable approximation. Though the
model allows one to calculate swelling strains at a
given time, there are still few restrictions due to the
following issues:
—The model is clearly dependent upon swelling
tests duration and the amount of maximum swelling
strain measured.
—No scale factors are considered between labora-
tory and in-situ behavior.
—Definition of “long term” referred to tunnel ser-
vice life is different from that of “long term” for labo-
ratory tests.
However, it is important to denote the following
points to distinguish necessity and merits of the pre-
sented analytical solution:
(a) The proposed model, in closed-form solution
for the case of supported tunnel, represents significant
advances, as it lets calculation of lining pressure build-
up with time. Besides, the model includes stress
dependency in simulation of time dependent behavior.
The present model is capable of taking into account
the state of initial stress prior to excavation, time
dependent properties of rock, and time lapse occur-
ring between tunnel excavation and lining installation.
(b) Although anisotropic and three-dimensional
stress-dependent swelling models can provide better
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 50 No. 3 2016
339
prediction, but the present model gives a quick esti-
mation of swelling effects in a tunnel. For design pur-
poses, like what is implemented in the current paper,
any adoption between two numerical and closed-form
solutions depends on the nature of project, availability
of a complete characterization of rock mass and geo-
logical conditions. It goes without saying that numer-
ical solution has to consider anisotropic and three-
dimensional stress-dependent swelling models. It
would be expedient to use the present solution for pre-
liminary design consideration and then, a numerical
method to examine the selected lining for finalizing
design. For underground structures in rocks of high
swelling potential, the present model could remark-
ably facilitate design measures to be adopted.
VALIDATION OF PROPOSAL SOLUTION
A. Fahimifar and D. Parsapour [9] used the experi-
mental results of odeometer test done by Y. Huder and
G. Amberg [14] and verified the analytical solution.
Experimental results from Y. Huder and G. Amberg
oedometer tests on samples of swelling rocks were used
to examine the results obtained using proposed analyti-
cal model. Swelling strains calculated using proposed
model in this paper, were also compared with the results
of rheological model of A. Hefny et al. [13] and also four
investigations and testing programs on rock cores recov-
ered at different depths and locations in Queenston for-
mation at the Niagara area [13]. Using measured results
of investigations and testing programs in Queenston
formation, as shown in Fig. 4, and also by using try and
error method, approximate values as η q = 75 hours,
Kq = 0.23% and σ 0 = 600 KPa are allocated to the rock.
Proposed model illustrates appropriate correlation in
representing swelling strains within period of time, in
particular; it characterizes adequately the strains for
higher values of time as representatively shown in Fig. 4.
This figure proves that two models have different slopes
in long term. This could result in substantial differences
when very long periods, as decades, are considered.
Parameter, ηq , in Eq. (5) which was defined as time
dependent modulus of swelling, impresses rate of
swelling strains in rocks. The effects of this parameter
was studied by A. Fahimifar and D. Parsapour [9] and
it is observed that with a high value of 1/ηq , rock mass
reaches its ultimate swelling strain in a shorter time
and rate of swelling strain raises accordingly. In gen-
eral, it may be implied that, for surrounding rocks with
higher values of 1/ηq , tunnel convergence needs to be
controlled rapidly. It may also be concluded that, in a
rock mass with specific geomechanical properties,
value of ηq does not have any effect on final value of
swelling strain, however, it characterizes the rate or
time of reaching ultimate value of swelling strain.
Previous arguments dealt with a model extraction
and data verification following it, the new proposed
340 PARSAPOUR, FAHIMIFAR

Time, days
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.7
Measured
Proposed model σz = 20 KPa
0.6 Hefny et al., 1996

0.5
Swelling strain, %

σz = 100 KPa
0.4

0.3

0.2 σz = 1000 KPa

0.1 σz = 3000 KPa

Fig. 4. Typical measured [13] and calculated swelling strains vs. time under different applied stresses.

model is used for a tunnel analysis implementing vari-
ous tunnel geometrry, so as the model becomes appli-
catory and above all, the effect of various factors such
as tunnel section geometry and lining installation time
are examined.
THE ROLE OF TUNNEL SHAPE
ON SWELLING DEFORMATION
A. Fahimifar and D. Parsapour [9] evaluated the
tunnel geometry effect on swelling strains in unsup-
ported tunnels. Here, in addition to a brief history of
their works in 2010, further studies as well as new tun-
nel analysis are provided too. Besides, the ground-
support interaction and the effect of support installa-
tion time on tunnel deformation and support’s inter-
nal forces induction are considered.
To evaluate the effect of tunnel geometry on swelling
deformations, five different types of tunnel shapes were
considered in analyses, as shown in Fig. 5. All geome-
Type 1
R4775 mm
chanical parameters including material properties,
model dimensions, boundary conditions, and rock
overburden were chosen the same and equal for all tun-
nels. 2D stress analyses were performed by numerical
analysis of tunnels, i.e. finite element method under
stress ratio (horizontal to vertical in-situ stress) as K =
0.7. In-situ vertical stress is assumed as the overburden
pressure (according to tunnel depth), and in-situ hori-
zontal stress is obtained from stress ratio (K0). Numeri-
cal analysis was just used for obtaining stress distribu-
tion around each tunnel and swelling strains were calcu-
lated by analytical solution (Eq. (5)).
Swelling strain and stress were calculated as a
function of time, using the programming capabilities
of MATLAB R2013a code [19] and, was entitled with
“Swelling Rock Analysis Program” or “SRAP”.
SRAP can closely model the events and subsequent
effects (swelling stress and strain) of tunnel construc-
tion processes. This approach provides mathematical
relations for lining pressure, stress, thrust force and
Type 2 Type 3
moment through the rock and lining interface for a

R4775 mm
R4775 mm

8598.84 mm
1423.84 mm 7175 mm
7175 mm
7475 mm

8175 mm

range of isotropic swell and deformation behavior

85 mm

parameters and also provides an explicit strain/stress

R8567.
m
15 m

versus time solution.

R13
1000 mm

8950 mm 8950 mm 8950 mm

In the analyses, surrounding rock mass is assumed
to be isotropic and elastic .The basis of formulation in
Type 4 Type 5
MATLAB is described below:
R4775 mm

R4775 mm
2375 mm 7175 mm
2375 mm 7175 mm

9550 mm
9550 mm

Total strain ε ltot (t ) is the total sum of elastic strain

ε1el (t ) and swelling strain ε1swelling (t ) :
8950 mm 8950 mm

Fig. 5. Different tunnel geometries. {ε tot

1 (t )} = {ε1el (t )} + {ε1swelling (t )} . (6)

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 50 No. 3 2016

 PREDICTION OF SWELLING ROCKS STRAIN IN TUNNELING 341

The elastic strain is based on three dimensional X, m

Hooke’s law, so the swelling strain according to Eq. (5) –20 –10 0 10 20
is as follows: 40

ε1tot (t ) = 1 σ1 (t )
E 30
t (7)
− ν ( σ 2 (t ) + σ 3 (t )) + ε 1swelling
∫ ( σ1 (t ) , ε1
swelling
)
(t ) dt.

Ht
E 20
0

In which, E and ν are elastic modulus and Pois-

Y, m
H
son’s ratio of rock mass, respectively.
10
According to Eq. (7), principal normal stress σ1(t) R1

Hm
can be calculated as a function of time as in Eq. (8): a
R2
b 0
⎛ t
⎞
( )
W
σ1 (t ) = E ⎜ ε1tot (t ) − ε1swelling σ1 (t ) , ε1swelling (t ) dt ⎟
∫

⎜ ⎟ (8)
⎝ 0
+ ν ( σ 2 (t ) + σ 3 (t )) .
Mesh generation and numbering of elements and
nodes were carried out using automatic mesh genera-
tion capabilities of ANSYS15 [2]. The finite element
model is based on finely divided mesh with isoparamet-
ric Q4 elements (containing four integration points) and
plane strain condition [4]. Typical geometrical model
and finite element mesh are shown in Fig. 6.
Mesh generation was undertaken to ensure that
aspect ratios of all elements to be as close as to unity,
particularly in proximity of tunnel boundaries. Geo-
metrical characteristics of the model and tunnels cross
sections are listed in Table 1.
The geomechanical properties of surrounding rock
mass are listed in Table 2. These values are chosen
based on practical projects and previous swelling tests.
ANSYS program is only used for modeling of tunnel
geometry and its surrounding rock mass. The results
from ANSYS including mesh specification, such as
numbering of elements and nodes, are used as input
Hb
⎠ –10
–14
Bl Br
B
Fig. 6. General geometry model and ANSYS mesh gener-
ation
data for SRAP, to perform stress analysis of surround-
ing rock mass.
Swelling analysis of surrounding rock mass was per-
formed by SRAP. Subsequently, total strains were com-
puted both in horizontal and vertical directions (radial
strain) for the sidewalls (Point ‘a’) and invert (Point ‘b’)
of all section shapes. All tunnels with specific section
were considered unsupported (without lining) in the
analyses. The results were plotted as strain-time curves,
as illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8. As is observed, type 5, i.e.
the inversed U-shaped tunnel, has the largest deforma-
tion in both sidewalls and invert. On the other hand,

Table 1. Geometric properties of the model and parameters of tunnels sections (meters)
W R2 R1 B Br Bl Ht Hm Hb H Type

8.95 – 4.775 40 20 20 30 7.475 12.525 50 1

8.95 13.150 4.775 40 20 20 30 8.175 11.825 50 2
8.95 8.568 4.775 40 20 20 30 8.599 11.40 50 3
8.95 4.775 4.775 40 20 20 30 9.550 10.45 50 4
8.95 – 4.775 40 20 20 30 9.550 10.45 50 5

Table 2. Geomechanical properties of surrounding rock mass

E (MPa) ν K0 γ (KN/m3) Kq ηq (hours) σ 0 (MPa) σ c (MPa)

4000 0.25 0.7 22.00 0.5% 500 4.25 0.005

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 50 No. 3 2016

342 PARSAPOUR, FAHIMIFAR

1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
Total strain, %

Total strain, %
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, mounths Time, mounths
Type 1 Type 3 Type 5 Type 1 Type 3 Type 5
Type 2 Type 4 Type 2 Type 4

Fig. 7. Horizontal (radial) strain curves for tunnel sidewalls Fig. 8. Vertical (radial) strain curves for tunnel invert
(Point ‘a’). (Point ‘b’).

type 4 (circular tunnel) has the least amount of defor-
mation in sidewalls and invert. Strains in sidewalls and
invert of all tunnels reach maximum value, within
approximately 3 months after excavation.
Swelling behavior in each tunnel invert, is evalu-
ated using SRAP. In Fig. 9, the swelling zones in invert
have been displayed by shaded zones. All tunnels have
been considered unsupported in analyses. Minimum
strain for beginning of swelling, in these analyses, was
selected as 0.2% (an average of about 1.5 mm). Type 5
(inversed U-shaped tunnel) has the largest shaded
zones corresponding to a large vertical displacement in
invert, and type 4 (circular tunnel) has the least shaded
zone corresponding to a small vertical displacement in
invert. It is also evident that, swelling strains in the cir-
cular tunnel are minimum.
The effect of swelling strain on tunnel lining struc-
ture which originates from final swelling deforma-
tions, can also be evaluated in SRAP, for internal
forces; including thrust force and bending moment.
The lining consists of 30 cm thick concrete, reinforced
with two rows of ∅20@100 × 100 mm steel bars.
Mechanical properties of the lining used in the analy-
ses are listed in Table 3.
The results obtained from SRAP, are shown below
in Fig. 10, as a pair of maximum bending moment and
thrust force in the same location in the lining. Mini-
mum and maximum bending moments occur in tun-
nel types 4 and 5, respectively. Critical combination of
internal forces occurs in end sides of invert. To evalu-
ate the structural integrity of concrete lining due to
swelling deformations, the force-moment interaction
diagram was constructed. Through the graph of inter-
nal forces, Mmax and P, structural integrity of concrete
lining was examined at two locations, i.e. at two ends
of tunnel invert. As illustrated in Fig. 10, except for
tunnel type 5, the support system will be adequate.
As swelling strains in rocks are highly time-depen-
dent, the SRAP can be used to evaluate the effect of
(lining) support installation time on radial swelling
pressure development acting on the support. It is
shown that small strains have a strong influence on the
swelling stress [22]. If a period of time is allowed to
lapse between excavation of tunnel and lining installa-
tion, so lining pressure would significantly reduce.
Thus, considering type of surrounding rock mass and
method of tunnel excavation, maximum possible
elapsed time between excavation and installation of
lining can be used to permit swelling deformations of
rock mass to occur. Thus, the pressure acting on sup-
port, would decrease. In this regard, tunnel type 3 with
an arch invert was analyzed with different values of
time lapse before lining installation. The results are
illustrated in Fig. 11, indicating maximum radial

Table 3. Mechanical properties of lining

Concrete properties Steel bar properties

f c' (MPa) ν γ c (KN/m3) Ec (MPa) Gc (MPa) bar type f y (MPa) f u (MPa)

24 0.2 24 24500 10200 AIII 400 600

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 50 No. 3 2016

 PREDICTION OF SWELLING ROCKS STRAIN IN TUNNELING 343

swelling pressure in invert and sidewalls at elapsed Type 1 Type 2

times of zero, 1, 2, 7, 14, and 28 days between excava-
tion face and lining installation time.
Figure 11, evidently illustrates that with delay in
lining installation time, swelling pressure is signifi-
cantly reduced. It could be implied that, maximum
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4

Y, m

Y, m
radial swelling pressure in invert is reduced by 30% in 3 3
one day, and 50% in two days. 2 2
1 1
For better understanding of effect of time lapse on 0 0
internal forces reduction before lining installation, –1 Swelling zone
–1 Swelling zone

design analysis of lining for tunnel types 1 and 5 –2 –2

which have greater internal forces (according to –3 –3
–4 –2 0 2 4 –4 –2 0 2 4
Fig. 10), were re-analyzed, with respect to time X, m X, m
effect. As shown in Figs. 12 and 13, for type 1, the Type 3 Type 4
interaction points for elapsed times (between excava- 9 9
tion face and lining installation time) of 1, 2, 7, 14, 8 8
and 28 days as computed by SRAP are all within the 7 7
envelope. For type 5, the interaction points for 6 6
elapsed times of 7, 14, and 28 days all lie within the 5 5
4 4

Y, m

Y, m
envelope. However, the interaction points for zero, 1, 3 3
and 2 days of elapsed times are outside the envelope 2 2
which clearly reveals time effect of swelling on struc- 1 1
tural integrity of lining. 0 0 Swelling zone
Swelling zone
–1 –1
–2 –2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS –3 –3
–4 –2 0 2 4 –4 –2 0 2 4
Time-dependent deformation is a significant issue X, m X, m
in design of underground structures in swelling rocks, Type 5
specifically for long term performance of tunnels. The 9
8
deformation level due to swelling depends on stress 7
distribution and swelling potential of surrounding rock 6
mass. Since, experience about swelling rocks around 5
tunnels clearly shows that swelling deformations need 4
Y, m

to be considered in design of these structures, so addi- 3

tional work to incorporate further details of constitu- 2
tive response and construction process is clearly war- 1
0
ranted. –1 Swelling zone

Following the expansion of Wittke-Gattermann’s –2

model with considering stress in surrounding rock mass
of tunnel, behavior of swelling rock can be predicted
with proper approximation. Stress in rock surrounding
tunnel can be calculated analytically or numerically,
and swelling potential of rock Kq can be determined
experimentally. Considering time-dependent charac-
teristics of rock formation with high swelling potential,
an analytical model and a computer program of
“SRAP”, presented in this paper, can be used to com-
pute swelling strain and stress with regard to time. The
presented analytical solution and corresponding
approach, for analysis of tunnels in swelling rock, con-
sider time-stress dependent behavior of swelling rock
and taking into account initial stress distribution prior
to excavation, time dependent properties of rock, and
time lapse occurring between tunnel excavation and lin-
ing installation. This approach also includes interaction
between rock and tunnel structure.
The solution provides expressions for lining pres-
sure, stress, thrust force and moment along rock and
–3
–4 –2 0 2 4
X, m
Fig. 9. Swelling zones in tunnels’ invert.
lining interface for a range of isotropic swell and defor-
mation behavior parameters and also provides an
explicit strain/stress versus time solution.
Finally, based on the results presented in this
paper, in rocks with high potential of swelling, Kq, and
low time modulus of swelling ηq , it is better to use sec-
tions with shapes more or less similar to circular
shapes (3 and 4 sections). Such tunnel sections, not
only insures the least swelling zone around tunnel, but
also a delay of one or two days in support installation,
causes 30 and 50% reduction in swelling pressure,
respectively, reduces support internal forces as well.

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 50 No. 3 2016

344 PARSAPOUR, FAHIMIFAR

5000

4000
Force-moment diagram
3000 Type 1
Thrust force, KN

2000 Type 2
Type 2 Type 5 Type 3
1000 Type 4 Type 3
Type 1 Type 4
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Type 5
–1000

–2000
3.6 m
–3000 Bending moment, KN-m

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5

P, KN 677.9 790.0 834.3 543.7 676.8
Mmax, KN-m 800.0 767.9 670.0 293.4 1329.7

Fig. 10. Force-moment interaction diagram of linings (the ends sides of invert) for various tunnel types.

700
Hor. stress sidewall
Ver. stress invert
600

500
Lininig pressure, KPa

400

300

Invert
200
Sidewall

100

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Elapsed time, days

Fig. 11. Maximum radial swelling stress in the invert and sidewalls as a function of time of lining installation.

Unlike the sections with shapes nearly the same as cir-
cular sections, in the case of inversed U-shaped sec-
tions, all conditions assumed the same, not only the
swelling zone is bigger, but also there is much more
internal forces in support than that of in nearly circular
shapes. It is recommended that in NATM excavated
tunnels, choosing circular sections are probably less
economically remarkable on account of rise in excava-
tion volume and consequently the lean concrete vol-
ume in tunnel invert. Such cases may happen in sub-
way, transport and railway tunnels. So in current cases,
it is strongly recommended to enhance invert curve-
ness (sections No. 2 and 3) to the purpose of swelling
strains decline to desirable degree. Further more, if the

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 50 No. 3 2016

 PREDICTION OF SWELLING ROCKS STRAIN IN TUNNELING 345

5000

4000
Force-moment diagram
3000 Day zero
Day 1
Thrust force, KN

2000
Day 2
Day 7
1000 Day 1 Day zero
Day 14 Day 7 Day 2 Day 14
Day 28 Day 28
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
–1000

–2000

–3000 3.6 m
Bending moment, KN-m

Fig. 12. Force-moment interaction diagram for lining of tunnel type 1 (the ends sides of invert) at various times of lining instal-
lation.

5000

4000
Force-moment diagram
3000 Day zero
Day 1
Thrust force, KN

2000 Day 2
Day 7
1000 Day zero Day 14
Day 7 Day 2 Day 1 Day 28
Day 14
Day 28
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
–1000

–2000
4.78 m
–3000
Bending moment, KN-m

Fig. 13. Force-moment interaction diagram for lining of tunnel type 5 (the ends sides of invert) at various times of lining instal-
lation.

ground characteristics and features, letting no delay in REFERENCES

support installation, it is better to use a temporary
flexible lining, such as shotcrete and wire mesh or
fiber reinforcement shotcrete, makes swelling defor-
mation to take place prior to installation of final lining.
As a result, methods of tunnel excavation and sup-
port installation in swelling ground govern rate of tun-
nel advance, and this for its part, overrides magnitude
of swelling deformation and eventually lining perfor-
mance.
1. G. Anagnostou, E. Pimentel, and K. Serafeimidis,
“Swelling of sulphatic claystones-some fundamental
questions and their practical relevance,” Geomech.
Tunnelling 3, 567–572 (2010).
2. ANSYS Ver. 15.0. User’s Manual (ANSYS Inc., 2013).
3. M. Barla, Ph. D. Thesis, (Politecnico di Torino, Turin,
1999).
4. K. J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures (Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982).

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 50 No. 3 2016

346 PARSAPOUR, FAHIMIFAR
5. I. Berdugo, E. Alonso, E. Romero, A. Gens, and
M. Albis, “A review of expansive phenomena in
Wagenburg North Tunnel,” Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc.
Exactas, Fis. Nat. 33, 455–468 (2009).
6. M. Bonini, M. Barla, and G. Barla, “FLAC applica-
tions to the analysis of swelling behavior in tunnels,”
2nd FLAC Symposium on Numerical Modeling in Geo-
mechanics, Lyon, France, 2001 (Balkema, Lisse, 2001),
pp. 29–31.
7. H. H. Einstein, N. Bischoff, and E. Hofmann, “Verh-
alten von Stollensohlen in quellendem Mergel,” in
Berichte, Internationales Symposium für Untertagebau,
Luzern, Switzerland, 1972 (1972), pp. 296–319.
8. H. Einstein, “Comments and recommendations on
design and analysis procedures for structures in argilla-
ceous swelling rock,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. 31, 535–546 (1994).
9. A. Fahimifar and D. Parsapour, “Analytical model for
prediction of strains for tunneling in swelling grounds,”
in GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling and
Design, West Palm Beach, USA, 2010 (Curran Assoc.,
Inc., Red Hook, NY, 2010), Vol. 1, pp. 370–380.
10. H. Grob, “Schwelldruck im Belechtunnel,” in Berichte,
Internationales Symposium für Untertagebau, Luzern,
Switzerland, 1972 (1972), pp. 99–119.
11. B. C. Hawlader, Y. N. Lee, and K. Y. Lo, “Three-
dimensional stress effects on time-dependent swelling
behaviour of shaly rocks,” Can. Geotech. J. 40, 501–
511 (2003).
12. B. C. Hawlader, K. Y. Lo, and I. D. Moore, “Analysis
of tunnels in shaly rock considering three-dimensional
stress effects on swelling,” Can. Geotech. J. 42, 1–12
(2005).
13. A. Hefny, K. Y. Lo, and J. A. Huang, “Modelling of
long-term time dependent deformation and stress
dependency of Queenston Shale,” Can. Tunnelling J.,
115–146 (1996).
14. J. Huder and G. Amberg, “Quellung in Mergel, Opali-
nuston und Anhydrit,” in Vol. 88 of Schweizerische
Bauzeitung, Jahrgang Heft 43 (1970), pp. 975–980.
15. J. R. Kiehl, “Ein dreidimensionales Quellgesetz und
seine Anwendung auf den Felshohlraumbau,” Proceed-
ings of the 9th National Felsmechanik Symposium,
Aachen, Germany, 1990, pp. 185–207.
16. K. Y. Lo and C. M. K. Yuen, “Design of tunnel lining
in rock for long-term time effects,” Can. Geotech. J.
18, 24–39 (1981).
17. K. Y. Lo and A. Hefny, “Design of tunnels in rock with
long term time-dependent and nonlinearly stress-
dependent deformation,” Can. Tunneling, 179–213
(1996).
18. F. T. Madsen, “Suggested methods for laboratory test-
ing of swelling rocks,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. 36, 291–306 (1999)
19. MATLAB R2013a Ver. 8.1.0. User’s Manual (Math-
works Inc., 2013).
20. K. Serafeimidis and G. Anagnostou, “On the time-
development of sulphate hydration in anhydritic swell-
ing rocks,” Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 46, 619–634 (2013).
21. S. B. Tang and C. A. Tang, “Numerical studies on tun-
nel floor heave in swelling ground under humid condi-
tions,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, Vol. 55, p. 139–150 (2012).
22. M. R. Vergara, K. Balthasar, and T. Triantafyllidis,
“Comparison of experimental results in a testing device
for swelling rocks,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geo-
mech. 66, 177–180 (2014).
23. W. Wittke and B. Pierau, “Fundamentals for the design
and construction of tunnels in swelling rock,” in Pro-
ceedings of the 4th International Congress on Rock
Mechanics, Montreux, Switzerland, 1979 (Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1979), Vol. 2, pp. 719–729.
24. P. Wittke-Gattermann, “Verfahren zur Berechnung
von Tunnels in quellfähigem Gebirge und Kalibrierung
an einem Versuchsbauwerk,” in Geotechnik in For-
schung und Praxis (Glückauf, Essen, 1998), pp. 22–31.
25. D. Zwillinger, Handbook of Differential Equations (Aca-
demic Press, Boston, 1997).
Reviewer: V.G. Trifonov
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 50 No. 3 2016