ISSN 1062-7391, Journal of Mining Science, 2016, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 473–480. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2016.

_________________________________ GEOMECHANICS _______________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Investigation of Swelling Pressure of Weak Rocks

in Vicinity of Support Systems1
R. Doostmohammadi
Mining Engineering Department, University of Zanjan,
PO Box 45371-38791, University Boulevard, Zanjan, Iran
e-mail: ramin.doostmohammadi@znu.ac.ir
Received April 4, 2016

Abstract—The support systems of excavations (such as underground mining openings and water tunnels)
experience the time dependent induced pressure of the ground in vicinity of swellable rock. This research
examines the interaction of swellable rock under different initial pressure to simulate the behavior of such
rocks behind the support systems. A device was designed and constructed to model the condition in
laboratory. Marlstone samples from Marash project in North West of Iran were chosen to perform the tests.
The swelling pressure under different initial support pressure (ISP) was measured over time. The lowest
swelling pressure was recorded under the minimum initial pressure. The swelling pressure of samples do not
expose under high ISP (about 5 times of the steady swelling pressure). The differential swelling pressure
(swelling pressure minus the ISP) generally increases from a minimum, at the lowest initial pressure, to a
maximum, at the initial pressure equal to the steady swelling pressure. After reaching this maximum value,
the differential pressure reduces back to zero where the ISP hampers the swelling phenomenon.
Keywords: Argillaceous rock, swelling pressure, initial pressure of the support, laboratory test.
DOI: 10.1134/S1062739116030670

INTRODUCTION
The engineering problems caused by swelling rocks are widely recognized [1–4] as is the need to
test these rocks to determine the type and extent of their swelling behavior and to measure this for
purposes of design [5].
Swelling is a combination of physicochemical reactions involving water and pressure relief [6].
According to ISRM (1983), the physicochemical reaction with water is usually the major contribution
to swelling but it can only take place simultaneously with, or following, pressure relief. Einstein [1]
however notes that it would probably be better to modify this sentence by saying that pressure
changes “usually” have a significant effect. The excavation of underground openings and installation
of the support systems change the pressure state in the rock mass close to the opening. Reliable
prediction of support pressure is a difficult task in swelling ground. Starting with Terzaghi’s rock load
concept [7], several classification systems have been developed for estimating tunnel support
pressures. Barton et al. [8] has given due attention for assessing the support in swelling ground
conditions by considering the swelling conditions in Pressure Reduction Factor. Verman (1993) has
suggested increase in support pressure due to post-construction saturation as follows [2]:
Psat ≤ (1 − E sat / E dry )γH , (1)
where E sat —modulus of deformation of saturated rock mass; E dry —modulus of deformation of dry
rock mass; H—overburden in meters.
Recently, a numerical study has been presented to model construction of the tunnel advance
considering face support pressure, the grouting pressure, the trailer weight and the length, weight and
taper of the shield machine in homogeneous, soft, cohesive soil below the ground water table [9]. The
material behavior of the soil is modeled by an elasto-plastic model. Aksoy et al. [10] have tried to

1
The article is published in the original.
473
474 DOOSTMOHAMMADI

model the non-deformable support in swelling rock, numerically. They used modified Cam Clay as
material model and analyzed time dependent behavior of support system in a tunnel. This analyze
considers steel support, shotcrete, bolt and pipe as supporting systems.
All of the aforementioned researches do not consider the interaction of the ISP and swelling
pressure. If pre-tensioned support systems like rock bolts are installed in the tunnel, swelling will
change the pressure of the support over time. During construction of Masjed-Soleiman Hydro Electric
Underground Power Station in south of Iran, which was crossed by marlstone layers of Bakhtiari
formation at Khoozestan Basin, the increasing of bolt load (had been installed with initial pressures)
occurred which caused bolt failure, sudden throwing of the bolt head plate and damage to the near
equipment (Fig. 1). Following these observations, a research program was started focusing on
determination of the swelling pressure subject to different ISP.
In this paper, the swelling pressure of marlstone under different ISP is determined at the
laboratory. The paper describes the testing procedure and analyses the results.
2. MARASH PROJECT
Marash Dam is being constructed by the Zanjan Water Resources Management Company on Halab
River in North West Iran (Fig. 2). Rocks at the Dam site are variable sandstone, siltstone and
marlstone. Table 1 shows the mineral composition of four samples taken from marlstones at different
location of Dam.

Fig. 1. The bolt failure caused by marlstone swelling at Masjed-Soleiman Project.

Fig. 2. Location of the Marash Dam in North West of Iran.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 52 No. 3 2016

 INVESTIGATION OF SWELLING PRESSURE OF WEAK ROCKS IN VICINITY OF SUPPORT SYSTEMS 475

Table 1. Clay mineralogy of marlstone samples, %

Sample ZN.1 ZN.2 ZN.3 ZN.4
Montmorillonite 11 5 6 4
Illite 23 15 18 10
Kaolinite 13 7 10 5
Chlorite 4 2 1 0
Quartz 8 30 32 61
Feldspar 37 28 23 0
Calcite 4 13 10 20

Fig. 3. Simulated ground and support condition.

In the vicinity of dam foundation, the marlstone daylights in some clearly distinguished layers
dipping approximately at 5o towards South East. During the design stage of the project, the marlstone
was identified as being a weak rock having swelling potential and more research is needed on the
effect of swelling on the support pressure.
3. SWELLING PRESSURE TEST UNDER ISP
The objective of this test series is to simulate the supported swellable ground as shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3a shows a tunnel has been excavated in the argillaceous rock and supported using rock bolts.
Swelling rock, support system and boundary condition have been simulated by a designed apparatus
as shown in Fig. 3b.
The apparatus (Fig. 3b) consists of a stiff four-columned load frame 1 with a screw-driven plunger
2 to simulate the support system. The thrust is manually controlled by a reduced gear 3 enable to
insert different initial pressure. The displacement is measured by a high precision mechanical gauge 4
with resolution of 0.005 mm. The force is measured with an electronic load cell 5. The specimen 6 is
mounted in a saturation unit which is installed under the plunger. The watering unit consists of a
massive stainless steel ring 7 with an internal diameter of 50 mm and a wall thickness of 10 mm and
two filter slabs. The specimen fits perfectly in the ring which prohibits lateral strain. The specimen
height is less than the height of the ring. This space is filled by 5 mm thick filter slabs on both ends.
The load is transmitted through a steel ball 8. The watering unit is set in a water basin which consists
of a plexiglass tube 9 with a diameter of 150 mm and a 20 mm thick base plate. The described
constructed laboratory device is shown in Fig. 4.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 52 No. 3 2016

476 DOOSTMOHAMMADI

Fig. 4. Constructed device to investigate the swelling pressure of weak rock in vicinity of support system.

3.1. Specimen Preparation

The rate of swell is related to the behavior of different argillaceous sedimentary rocks in the
presence of water. It appears that texture, structure, clay content, bulk density, specific gravity, dry
density, initial moisture content, initial void ratio, porosity, degree of saturation, cation exchange
capacity, clay activity index and carbonate content are effective parameters [11]. As these parameters
can vary along the rock samples, therefore, it is important to perform the designed tests on the unique
rock specimen to able to compare and analyze the results. According to the aim of the current
research, the swelling pressure of specimens under different initial pressure is considered. Then
unique sample should be tested under different initial pressures. Before starting the main tests, each
specimen is subjected to cyclic swell and shrink test to eliminate the cyclic wetting and drying effect
and reach to a steady state (steady swelling pressure) as explained by Doostmohammadi et al. [12].
The specimen with the watering unit is installed in the load frame and an initial load of 50 N is
applied to eliminate any slack in the system. After 24 h, water is filled in, up to a level just above the
top of the ring (Fig. 3). The axial strain (εa) is kept equal to zero and the swelling pressure (σa) is
measured over time. When the swelling pressure has reached an almost constant value, the water is
removed and the specimen is dried by raising the temperature up to 35 centigrade degree. The drying
process continues till no considerable pressure change is observed. This procedure is repeated in each
cycle.
Cyclic wetting and drying is continued till no considerable difference between swelling potential
of two repeated cycles is observed.
Figure 5 shows the results of swelling pressure tests with different number of cycles for wetting
and drying in various specimens.
Table 2 shows the results of swelling pressure tests under wetting and drying cycles. All the
specimens presented increasing swelling pressure after each cycle of drying and wetting according to
Table 2 and Fig. 5. The maximum swelling potential of final cycle (steady swelling pressure) is
considerably more than the maximum swelling potential in the first test (Table 2).

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 52 No. 3 2016

INVESTIGATION OF SWELLING PRESSURE OF WEAK ROCKS IN VICINITY OF SUPPORT SYSTEMS 477

Fig. 5. Swelling pressure of marlstone specimens in different cycles: (a) ZN.1; (b) ZN.2; (c) ZN.3; (d) ZN.4.

Table 2. Results of cyclic swelling tests

Specimens ZN.1 ZN.2 ZN.3 ZN.4

Maximum swelling pressure in ordinary test, kPa 413 211 327 134

Maximum swelling pressure in the first test, kPa 413 211 327 134

Maximum swelling pressure in the second test, kPa 508 265 402 288

Maximum swelling pressure in the third test, kPa 509 97 430 320

Maximum swelling pressure in the fourth test, kPa 473 340 456 361

Maximum swelling pressure in the fifth test, kPa 100 482 479 423

Maximum swelling pressure in the sixth test, kPa 503 425 482 448

Maximum swelling pressure in the seventh test, kPa 504 479 484 455

Steady swelling pressure, kPa 503 479 482 455

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 52 No. 3 2016

478 DOOSTMOHAMMADI

Fig. 6. The trend of maximum swelling pressure of specimens in cycles.

3.2. Main Test Procedure

Specimens have reached to the steady state after the above mentioned treatments. Following the
final cycle of drying, an initial pressure is applied on specimens. After 24 h, water is filled in, up to a
level just above the top of the ring and the swelling pressure (σa) is measured over time. When the
swelling pressure has reached an almost constant value, the water is removed and the specimen is
dried by raising the temperature up to 35 centigrade degree, again. This process continues under
different initial pressures.
Fig. 7 shows the results of the tests with different initial pressures in various specimens.
The tests for which the results are above the bisector line (Initial support pressure=Steady swelling
pressure) show the applied initial pressure has not prevented the occurrence of the swelling
phenomenon. It is observed that the hamper pressure can be increased up to 2500 kPa (about 5 times
the steady swelling pressure) approximately, which is much more than the steady swelling pressure of
the samples (Fig. 7 and Table 3).

Fig. 7. Final swelling pressure versus the initial support pressure: (a) ZN.1; (b) ZN.2; (c) ZN.3; (d) ZN.4.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 52 No. 3 2016

 INVESTIGATION OF SWELLING PRESSURE OF WEAK ROCKS IN VICINITY OF SUPPORT SYSTEMS 479

Table 3. Comparison of hamper and steady (final) swelling pressure

Specimens ZN.1 ZN.2 ZN.3 ZN.4

Steady swelling pressure, kPa 503 479 482 455

Hamper pressure, kPa 2900 2500 2550 2350

Hamper pressure/steady swell pressure 5.7 5.2 5.3 5.2

Fig. 8. Variation of differential pressure against the initial support pressure: (a) ZN.1; (b) ZN.2; (c) ZN.3; (d) ZN.4.

The differential swelling pressure versus the ISP is observed in Fig. 8.

The differential swelling pressure increases from a minimum, at the lowest initial pressure, to a
maximum, at the initial pressure equal to the steady swelling pressure. It can be concluded that the
minuscule voids of specimen which can replace a part of swelling deformation are closed in higher
initial pressures and therefore, the swelling potential will expose as a pressure mode. After reaching a
maximum, the differential pressure reduces back to zero where the ISP suppresses the swelling
phenomenon.
It is concluded that the ISP not only does not reduce the induced swelling pressure, but also in the
case of neglecting those mentioned interactive behaviors, it can lead to the failure of the support
system as observed in Masjed–Soleiman Hydro Electric Power Plant (Fig. 1).
CONCLUSIONS
Reliable prediction of tunnel support pressure is a difficult task in swelling ground. Assessment of
support pressure in swelling grounds depends upon the ISP. The interactive behavior of support and
rock can be determined using the designed and constructed device discussed in the paper
(Figs. 3 and 4).
Swelling pressure of marlstone samples taken from Marash Dam in North West of Iran increases
with wetting and drying periods and reaches to a steady pressure in 7 cycles.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 52 No. 3 2016

480 DOOSTMOHAMMADI

The results of the tests, performed on the marlstone samples show that the ISP at less than 5 times
the steady swelling pressure, does not suppress the swelling potential and samples still tend to induce
the swelling pressure on the support system.
If the ISP is less than the steady swelling pressure, the induced pressure in the support system will
have an ascending trend. This means that the support system does not have a positive rule in this
range of pressures and it may fail if the described behavior is neglected during the design process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Collaboration of Zanjan Water Resources Management Company is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1. Einstein, H.H., Tunnelling in Difficult Ground—Swelling Behavior and Identification of Swelling Rocks,
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 1996, vol. 28.
2. Singh, B, Goel, R.K., Jethwa, J. L., and Dube, A.K., Support Pressure Assessment in Arched Underground
Openings through Poor Rock Masses, Engineering Geology, 1997, vol. 48.
3. Barla, M., Tunnels in Swelling Ground—Simulation of 3D Stress Paths by Triaxial Laboratory Testing,
Ph.D Thesis, Politecnico di Torino, 1999.
4. Butscher, C., Huggenberger, P., Zechner, E., and Einstein, H.H., Relation between Hydrogeological
Setting and Swelling Potential of Clay–Sulfate Rocks inTtunneling, Engineering Geology, 2011, vol. 122.
5. Madsen, F.T., Suggested Methods for Laboratory Testing of Swelling Rocks, International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts, 1999, vol. 36.
6. ISRM. Characterisation of Swelling Rock. Commission on Swelling Rock, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
UK, 1983.
7. Terzaghi, K., Rock Defects and Load on Tunnel Supports, in Introduction to Rock Tunnelling with Steel
Support, Proctor, R.V., White, T.C. (Eds.), Commercial Shearing and Stamping Co., Youngstava, OH,
USA, 1946.
8. Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J., Analysis of Rock Mass Quality and Support Practice in Tunneling, and
a Guide for Estimating Support Requirements, Report by NGI, June, 1974.
9. Kasper, T. and Meschke, G., On the Influence of Face Pressure, Grouting Pressure and TBM Design in
Soft Ground Tunneling, Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 2006, vol. 21.
10. Aksoy, C. O., Ogul, K., Topal, L., Ozer, S. C., Ozacar, V., and Posluk, E., Numerical Modeling of Non-
Deformable Support in Swelling and Squeezing Rock, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 2012, vol. 52.
11. Pejon, O.J. and Zuquette, L.V., Analysis of Cyclic Swelling of Mudrocks, Engineering Geology,
2002, vol. 67.
12. Doostmohammadi, R., Moosavi, M., Mutschler, Th., and Osan, C., Influence of Cyclic Wetting and
Drying on Swelling Behavior of Marlstone in South West of Iran, Environmental Geology, 2009, vol. 58.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 52 No. 3 2016