S C I E N C E P A S S I O N T E C H N O L O G Y

A TUNNELLING CASE STUDY IN

SWELLING ROCK

Bert Schädlich
Computational Geotechnics Group
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
2
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

CONTENTS
 Swelling rock behaviour
• Swelling phenomena in tunnelling
• Clay vs. anhydrite swelling
 Swelling rock model
• Stress dependency of swelling strains
• Development of swelling with time
 Pfändertunnel case study
• Project overview and geological conditions
• From laboratory test results to calculation parameters
• Influence of lining stiffness and anchoring
 Conclusions

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
3
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Swelling rock behaviour – motivation

Swelling phenomena in tunnelling:
• Large invert heave (even decades after tunnel excavation)
• Damage and/or destruction of tunnel lining
• Claystone and anhydrite
Chienberg road tunnel Flexible lining:

Stiff lining, shallow tunnel:

Butscher et al. (2011)

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012
 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
4
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Swelling rock behaviour – motivation

Measured tunnel invert heave over time:

Berdugo et al.
(2009)

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
5
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Swelling rock behaviour – clay swelling

1st mechanism: Innercrystalline 2nd mechanism: Osmotic
• Hydration of interlayer cationes • Development of diffusive water
• Very high swelling pressures layer between clay particles
 Usually completed in practice • Lower swelling pressures
 Not very relevant for geotechnical • Large deformations
engineering  Relevant swelling mechanism
 Reversible (by heat or pressure)
Madsen et al. (1989)

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
6
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Swelling rock behaviour – clay swelling

Stress dependency Mineral composition
• Grob’s logarithmic swelling law • Increases with content of
Montmorillonite and sheet silicates

(Montm.x sheet silicates)/carbonites

(t =∞ )
 σa 
εq = − k q ⋅ log  
 σ q0 
 

Swelling pressure

Wang et al. (2012) Weiss et al. (1980)

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012
 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
7
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Swelling rock behaviour – anhydrite swelling

Anhydrite reaction:
• Chemical reaction of unleached anhydrite with water to gypsum results in
volume increase up to 60%

Ca 2+ + SO 24− + 2H 2 O → CaSO 4 ⋅ 2H 2 O
Gypsum precipitation:
• Gypsum initially dissolved in water
• With increasing concentration, gypsum crystals grow in fissures and
microcracks

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
8
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Swelling rock behaviour – clay vs. anhydrite swelling

clays: anhydrite:
• Max. swelling pressure related to • No relation of max. swelling
(previous) overburden pressure to overburden
• Swelling pressures usually 600-1500 • Very high swelling pressures and
kPa large swelling strains common
• Maximum swelling strains 2-8% • Swelling mostly irreversible
• Swelling reversible by loading • Swelling takes years to decades to
• Swelling strains develop very fast finish (if ever)

Relatively well understood Some uncertainty and lack

of knowledge

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
9
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Swelling rock model – stress dependency

• Grob’s semi-logarithmic law for both clay and anhydrite
• parameters: max. swelling pressure σq0 and swelling potential kq
σyy
 σi 
ε iq (t =∞ ) = − k qi ⋅ log10 
Cartesian
 τyx
 σ q 0i  stresses τyz
  τxy σ
τzy xx

τzx τxz
σzz

Bedding
plane

• anisotropic swelling: kqt, kqp, σq0t, σq0p  ∆ε tq,1 

• no interaction of swelling in different  q
∆ε =  ∆ε n 
q
directions (Wittke-Gattermann)  ∆ε q 
• swelling strains calculated in bedding  t ,2 
plane system (Anagnostou/Benz)

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
10
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Swelling rock model – evolution of swelling with time

• Asymptotic convergence with final swelling strain
• 3 parameters: A0, Ael, Apl  dependency on volumetric strains

 −t 
q (t ) q (t =∞ )  η q (t ) 
εi = εi ⋅ 1 − e 
 
 

ε ( ) =
qt (ε q (t =∞ )
i − ε iq (t ) )
i
η q (t )

η q (t ) =
1
A0 + Ael ⋅ ε vel + Apl ⋅ ε vpl

may become 0 for negative

volumetric strains  end of
swelling
European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012
 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
11
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Swelling rock model

• Split of total strain increment

∆ε = ∆ε el + ∆ε pl + ∆ε q

elastic plastic swelling

• Stress point algorithm
Swelling module: get ∆εq and new
FE input: dtime,
stress state σ after swelling with
∆ε, state variables
implicit line search algorithm

FE output: new σ, Plastic module: correction of

update state stress state for plastic strains (MC
variables criterion), get ∆εpl and σ

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
12
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Pfaendertunnel case study

• NATM tunnel in molasse marl (claystone), built 1976-1980
• Invert heave up to 30cm measured, damage to tunnel lining
• Change of lining: Reinforced invert, prestressed anchors
unreinforced
concrete
exploratory tunnel
d = 3.65 m

reinforced
invert arch

John & Pilser (2011) John (1982)

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012
 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
13
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Geological tunnel profil (after Czurda et al. 1983)

Km 6+971

km 6+000

km 5+373

km 5+000

km 4+000
zone
fault
debris
slope
portal
North

Molasse marl: sedimentary rocks with high clay mineral content

fault zone

km 3+000

km 2+000

km 1+000

km 0+000
coal

South
portal
tunnel advance

Molasse marl

sandstone marl konglomerat/sandstone/marl

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
14
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Numerical model km 5+373

• focus on swelling strains after invert arch installation
Calculation phases:
E = 50 MPa, ν = 0.35
φ = 34°, c = 10 kPa 1. initial stresses (K0)
E = 250 MPa, ν = 0.35
φ = 34°, c = 100 kPa
2. pilot tunnel (wip)
E = 2500 MPa, ν = 0.35 3. top heading
φ = 34°, c = 1000 kPa relaxation (75%)
Concrete lining: 4. SC installation
E = 30 GPa
ν = 0.35 5. invert relaxation
(37.5%)
anchors: 6. SC installation
EA = 98 MN
Fmax = 640 kN
7. invert arch
spacing 2.2 m installation
8. 65 days swelling
9. ring closure
10. 115 days swelling
11. anchor prestress.
12. 7000 days swelling
European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012
 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
15
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Calculation parameters for swelling

set 1: σq0 = 4900 kPa, kq = 0.8%

set 2: σq0 = 2500 kPa, kq = 2.5%

initial vertical stress

at tunnel level

Czurda et
al. 1983

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
16
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Best fit results

• Development of invert heave with time

anchor pre-
stressing

ring
depending on A-
closure
values, some sets
predict ongoing
Invert displacements
arch

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
17
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Pfaendertunnel case study – results

• size of swelling zone confined to area ~3m below invert arch
calculation km 5+373 measurement km 5+820
vertical displacement

 good (qualitative) match with measurements

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
18
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Variation of rock stiffness

Variation of rock stiffness – set 2b

Variation of rock stiffness – set 1b

Set 1b: Ael = 7

 Large influence of E

Set 2b: Ael = 0

 little influence of E

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
19
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Variation of support resistance

Variation of concrete stiffness (final lining thickness)

Variation of anchor pre-stressing

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
20
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Conclusions
 Swelling rock behaviour
• Different swelling mechanisms in clay and anhydrite
• Clay swelling much faster than anhydrite swelling
• Overburden pressure upper limit of swelling pressure in clay
• Water supply essential for swelling phenomena in tunnelling 
swelling usually concentrated at tunnel invert
 Numerical modelling of swelling behaviour
• Simple constitutive model with stress and time dependency of swelling
strains (MC + 3 additional parameters)
• Difficult to get calculation parameters from laboratory tests  back-
analysis of field measurements more reliable
• Advantage of carrying out parametric studies (stiff vs. deformable
support, swelling pressure on lining, …)

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
21
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Swelling test simulation

• Oedometer test simulations, E = 100 MPa, ν = 0.3
σ’yy

final swelling strain

Huder-Amberg-test
 Increase in horizontal stress
contributes to vertical deformation
if ν ≠ 0
 Influence increases at low stiffness

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012

 A tunnelling case study in swelling rock
22
Contents | Swelling rock behaviour | Swelling rock model | Pfändertunnel case study | Conclusions

Laboratory swelling tests

Czurda et al. (1983)

Czurda et al.
(1983)

Weiss et al. (1980) Large variation in experimental

results due to:
- natural heterogenity in
Montmorillonite content
- testing procedures

 difficult to chose
representative parameters!

European Plaxis Users Meeting, Karlsruhe, November 14th–16th 2012