METRO LINE 3

PROJECT

METRO LINE 3 TUNNEL FOR 28 MARZO 2023

THE CROSSING THROUGH
THE PANAMA CANAL
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
AGENDA

• BACKGROUND
• METHODOLOGY
• ANALYSED SECTIONS
• RESULTS
• RECOMMENDATIONS / CONCLUSIONS
• REFERENCES & STANDARDS
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
The study area is marked by several eruptive episodes during the Tertiary. These episodes alternate with periods of lower eruptive intensity that
allow the erosion, transport and deposition of the previous volcanic deposits, originating rocks of a marked sedimentary character corresponding
to the La Boca Formation (TI), originated during the Lower Miocene. Within this formation, the Tl2 and Tl3 units are a priori the most prone to
develop swelling phenomena.

Presence of La Boca formation along the aligment.

 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

The initial section of the tunnel up to around 1+600, sandstones predominate, alternating with tuffs in massive or compact levels.
From 1+600 to 3+250 and from 3+770 to 4+4400 it is formed mainly by shales and siltstones, normally stratified or laminated, with sandstones and
ash tuffs interbedded. Occasionally formed by massive levels with carbonaceous characteristics.

X-ray diffraction
100
90
80
70
Mineral %

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400
P.K.
Tl2 Smectite Tl2 Phyllosilicates Tl3-s Smectite Tl3-s Phyllosilicates Tl3-w Smectite Tl3-w Phyllosilicates
 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

The initial section of the tunnel up to around 1+600, sandstones predominate, alternating with tuffs in massive or compact levels.
From 1+600 to 3+250 and from 3+770 to 4+4400 it is formed mainly by shales and siltstones, normally stratified or laminated, with sandstones and
ash tuffs interbedded. Occasionally formed by massive levels with carbonaceous characteristics.

Clay and clay matrix content for petrographic analysis of thin sections
100
90
80
70
Clay percentage %

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
P.K.
 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Tl2 Tl2 cores belonging to siltstones and shales existing under basalt units

Offers geotechnical characteristics that place it between

hard soils and extremely soft rocks. Thin sections
describes at laboratory as fossiliferous carbonaceous
slate.
X-ray analysis results for Tl2 samples

Laboratory test analysis summary for Tl2

 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
Petrographic analysis of thin sections from Tl2
Tl2

Offers geotechnical characteristics that place it between

hard soils and extremely soft rocks. Thin sections
describes at laboratory as fossiliferous carbonaceous
slate.
X-ray analysis results for Tl2 samples

Clay content 23 – 60 %
 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Tl3 Tl3 siltstone cores

Shows a greater resistance than Tl2, thin sections describe

at laboratory as fossiliferous slaty siltstone.

X-ray analysis results for Tl3-s (sound rock) samples

Cores belonging to the transition between Tl2 to Tl3

X-ray analysis results for Tl3-w (weathered rock) samples

 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Tl3 Petrographic analysis of thin sections from Tl3

Clay content 15 – 65 %
 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Tl3

Laboratory test analysis summary for Tl3-s (sound rock)

Laboratory test analysis summary for Tl3-w (weathered rock)

 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

SWELLING POTENTIAL. What the available data show

Although there are concerns about the results of these tests, they clearly show high swelling potential but
it is not possible to confirm Null swelling pressure, which could be higher than 300-500 kPa kPa; with
uncertainties regards the upper bound 1.0 – 3.0 MPa?

Same happens with free swelling strain

Sampling, and sample storage and handling can be critical for the results and may impacted some

Swelling Tests performed

➢ Conventional oedometer test

• Free swelling test (ASTM D 4546-08)

• Swelling pressure tests (ASTM D 3877)

The free swelling of the Tl-2 and Tl-3 unit ranges between 0.5 and 3%.
The Null swelling pressure varies between 150 and 500 kPa.

➢ Rock type tests, Huder Amberg – executed to confirm the swelling potential with more rock-specific tests

Maximum swelling expected under 1 MPa load ≈ 5%

Montmorillonite content is critical to anticipate this, test only anticipate high smectite content in the clay
fraction
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

Null swelling pressure:

- Concerns about data from H-A test (very high and above 30 MPa)
- Clarification for ASTM D 4546 – 08 (stabilization times)

It must be noted H-A tests were performed months later after the conventional soil-type tests. Initial consolidation stress
path applied to a weathered material can help to induce additional damage to the samples
 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

Free swelling strain:

Neither H-A or Astm D 4546-08 provide guarrantee
of stabilization

Note: Cepasa performed, after discussion on H-A tests, free

swelling tests on sample poder obtaining 9 % & 20 %
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

Free swelling vs Null pressure (poor correlation)

SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

THE SWELLING MECHANISM

Drying & wetting of ground can boost the process but it is not the only cause for swelling.

- Stress relief serves as initiating mechanism this allows

- Accessibility to water (existing ground is saturated and under hydrostatic conditions according with piezometers)
- Stress relieve changes saturation, porosity and can induce suctions and cracking (opening of preexisting joints)
- This water activates clay swelling
- Other factors con boost the process, for instance salt concentration.

It is important to highlight that stress relief can damage the rock structure and bonding. This makes easier the access of clay minerals to water.
This expansion mechanism can be triggered in a saturated ground.

It was anticipated a high slaking potential in the Tl2 and Tl3. Slaking does not correlate with swelling but can boost the process. STRESS
RELEASE & SLAKING POTENTIAL

High slaking potential

in Tl2 & Tl3.
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

SWELLING POTENTIAL. What is the experience in non sulphated rocks and soils in tunnel projects
Construction Swelling pressure
Tunnel Country Function Swelling litotype Test / Observation method Free swelling (%)
method (MPa)

Free swelling and swelling pressure

Tevla hydropower headrace NATM / Drill and Cambro-Silurian metasandstone weakness zones,
Norway Water 0.05 - 1.75 in eodemeter according NTNU-
tunnel blast faults/weakness zones in crystalline hard rock
method
Free swelling and swelling pressure
NATM / Drill and Precambrian granitic gneiss, faults/weakness zones
Romeriksporten, railway tunnel Norway Railway 0.1 - 0.8 in eodemeter according NTNU-
blast in crystalline hard rock
method
Free swelling and swelling pressure
NATM / Drill and Precambrian granitic gneiss, faults/weakness zones
Bekkelagshøgda, railway tunnel Norway Railway 1.2-1.45 in eodemeter according NTNU-
blast in crystalline hard rock
method
Alfalfal Hydropower Plant - NATM / Drill and Reddish sandstones and siltstones, containing
Water - -
Colorado Adduction Tunnel blast expansive clay minerals
Tailings Transfer Tunnel N° 1 of NATM / Drill and Reddish lithic tuffs and clayey volcaniclastic
Chile Water - -
Codelco’s Andina Mine blast mudstones and shales (lutita)
Chacabuquito Hydropower NATM / Drill and
Chile Water Clayey rocks and problematic reddish fault zones - -
Plant blast
NATM / Drill and
Hornitos Hydropower Plant Chile Water Well stratified reddish coloured sedimentary rocks - -
blast

Reddish tuffs
La Higuera Hydropower Plant &
Volcano-sedimentary units containing expensive Null swell test (preloading around
La Confluencia Hidropower Chile Water NATM/Drill and blast 0,2 - 0,657
clays 5kPa)
Plant
Coya-Machalí and Farellones Formations

Reddish tuffs
La Higuera Hydropower Plant & Huder Amberg
Volcano-sedimentary units containing expensive
La Confluencia Hidropower Chile Water NATM/Drill and blast >3,5 (pre-loading is equivalent to the in- 1.4
clays
Plant situ stress)
Coya-Machalí and Farellones Formations
0,6 - 0,9 ( preload 32
Reddish tuffs Mpa)
La Higuera Hydropower Plant & Swelling pressure tests using
Volcano-sedimentary units containing expensive
La Confluencia Hidropower Chile Water NATM/Drill and blast ground powdered rock
clays
Plant (pre-loading 2 Mpa and 32 MPa)
Coya-Machalí and Farellones Formations 0,5 - 0,75 ( preload 2
Mpa)
Reddish tuffs
La Higuera Hydropower Plant & Triaxial tes
Volcano-sedimentary units containing expensive 4,58 ( maximum volumetric
La Confluencia Hidropower Chile Water NATM/Drill and blast (samples were consilidated at
clays strain
Plant k0=1.5)
Coya-Machalí and Farellones Formations
Reddish lapilli tuffs and volcanic silstones,
Los Chacayes Hydropower
Chile Water Drill and blast /TBM sandstones and most particularly
Plant
breccia/conglomerates
NATM & Shield TBM Based on calibrations with first tube
Bregenz
Pfändertunnel (2nd tube) Road Argilaceous shale 0.3 - 0.5 heave records (extensometer
(Austria)
measurements)
Horizontal and vertical swell
rates were defined
Ontario
West Trunk Sewer Sewer Shield TBM Shale to range from 0.05% to 0.5%
(Canada)
and 0.1% to 2.5% per log
cycle of time. Around 8 %
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

SWELLING POTENTIAL. What is the experience in non sulphated rocks and soils in tunnel projects
Shield TBM 0.5 - 2 Laboratory tests
Belchen tunnel Swizerland Road Opalinus Clay shale
1.2 Pressure cells
Line 2 Cairo (Egypt) Metro EPB TBM Clay -
EPB TBM Full swelling pressure according
Line 3 Cairo (Egypt) Metro Clay 0.9
oedometer tests
Jinámar Tunnel
Pyroclastic rocks, breccias “block and ash” and
Section 3: Jinámar Station – El
Spain Railway NATM mainly tuff “ash and pumice” (pumice within a cineritic 0.21 - 0.4 MPa Null pressure test 5-6
Goro Industrial Park-Gran
matrix).
Canaria
4,5 - 15 (semiconfined
Travasur Tunnels - Gran Phonolitic rocks with clayey (80-95% Montmorillonie)
Spain Water NATM 0.18 - 1.6 MPa Null pressure test situation) >15 (during
Canaria interbeddings (1,5-3 m)
soaking)

Lausanne Utility Network Pipe- Utility cable Micro TBM pipe-

Switzerland Black marl Huder-Amberg 3.4
Jacking tunnel tunnel jacking

Mudstone and Tuffy conglomerate (both with

Road Tunnel Japan Road NATM 2 - 3.5 MPa Monitoring
smectite content)

Null pressure / Oedometer swelling

Grand Paris Express Paris (France) Metro NATM Lower Eocene Clay 0.12 - 1.2 MPa
tests

Slender West Lake Tunnel China Road EPB-TBM Clay > 0.5 Oedometric loaded swell tests 7.50%

Clay from hydrothermal fluid alteration acid oxidation 0.03 (w= 54.2%) 22 (w= 54.2%)
Yuxi Tunnel China Expressway NATM
after granitic intrusion at sandstones. 0.1513 (w= 22,4%) 95 (w=21.2%)

Oedometric preloaded (4MPa) swell

tests.
0.14
Chingaza Tunnel Colombia Water Drill and blast /NATM Shale with interbedded siltstones Fomeque formation Silstsotne
4.5
Shale
 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

SWELLING POTENTIAL. Experience in non sulphated

rocks and soils in tunnel projects

Analysis of previous experiences show examples in

residual soils, soft clayey rocks, mudstones and volcanic
environments

- Null pressures of up to 3 MPa look possible (UPPER

BOUND) according with literature (far below H-A
results)

- 1 MPa being a usual value obtained in several

projects (moderate conservatism and far below H-A
results)

- It is important to highlight the real conditions must be

investigated for each specific site since the results are
very impacted by the specifics of each environment

- No available data for Panama has been found yet

SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BACKGROUND

TBM TUNNELS. Designed & / or monitored due to swelling conditions (all ground types)

No damages recorded but tunnels were designed and monitored due to swelling.
Construction Swelling pressure
Tunnel Country Function Swelling litotype Test / Observation method Free swelling (%)
method (MPa)

SULPHATE-BEARING ROCKS (Gipskeuper &

Adler Tunnel Switzerland Railway Shield TBM 1.2-5.2 Design value
Anhydritgruppe)
Reddish lapilli tuffs and volcanic silstones,
Los Chacayes Hydropower
Chile Water Drill and blast /TBM sandstones and most particularly
Plant
breccia/conglomerates
NATM & Shield TBM Based on calibrations with first tube
Bregenz
Pfändertunnel (2nd tube) Road Argilaceous shale 0.3 - 0.5 heave records (extensometer
(Austria)
measurements)
Horizontal and vertical swell
rates were defined
Ontario
West Trunk Sewer Sewer Shield TBM Shale to range from 0.05% to 0.5%
(Canada)
and 0.1% to 2.5% per log
cycle of time. Around 8 %
Shield TBM 0.5 - 2 Laboratory tests
Belchen tunnel Swizerland Road Opalinus Clay shale
1.2 Pressure cells
Line 2 Cairo (Egypt) Metro EPB TBM Clay -
EPB TBM Full swelling pressure according
Line 3 Cairo (Egypt) Metro Clay 0.9
oedometer tests

Lausanne Utility Network Pipe- Utility cable Micro TBM pipe-

Switzerland Black marl Huder-Amberg 3.4
Jacking tunnel tunnel jacking

Design value according with

Boezberg tunnel Switzerland Railway NATM & Shield TBM Anhydrite, gypsum and claystone 0.8
previous experience

Slender West Lake Tunnel China Road EPB-TBM Clay > 0.5 Oedometric loaded swell tests 7.50%

Sulphate bearing rock.

Stuttgart 21 tunnels Germany Railway TBM >10 Back analysis
Claystones from unleached Gypsum Keuper
Back analysis calculation for several
Bözberg Tunnel Switzerland Railway TBM Gypsium Keuper, anhydrite lens 0.8 - 1.5 tunnels in the are with same rock
mass
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
METHODOLOGY

Although there are concerns about the inputs (null pressure and free swell strain), DJV is conducting calcs adopting swelling
rock model in Plaxis as parametric study

For this parametric study it’s been adopted:

Free swell strain 5%&9%

Null pressure 1 MPa & 3 MPa

Null pressures can be realistic according with order of magnitude of D 4546-08 tests and the Huder Amberg ones.
Also, according with recorded data from other clay swelling cases in volcanic environments and with correlations
with Slake DTs

Free swell, 5% is lower than registered by H-A tests. 9 % can be considered a tentative upper bound (based on
powder test performed by Cepasa 9-20%)

These inputs need to be confirmed with new investigation.

SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
METHODOLOGY

ABOUT THE DESIGN APPROACH. SWELLING ROCK MODEL

Uncoupling of swelling with Coupling of swelling with initial

initial stresses (uncoupling = 0) stresses (uncoupling = 1)

𝑞 𝑞
𝜀𝑖,𝑢𝑛𝑐 𝜀𝑖,𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑝

0
σ𝑖,∆𝑝 σ𝑖,∆𝑝 σ𝑖,0

Maximum swelling stress (𝜎𝑞0𝑖 ) is Initial stresses (𝜎𝑖,0 ) are considered as the
considered as the reference pressure for reference pressure for swelling strain
swelling strain calculations calculations instead of the maximum
swelling stress (𝜎𝑞0𝑖 )
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
METHODOLOGY

PROPOSED SWELLING POTENTIAL LAWS

kqi
1

log(3000 kPa) = 3.477

log(10 kPa) = 1
log(1000 kPa) = 3

Slope kqi = 2,5% for 1 MPa of Null pressure and 5% of free swelling (blue)
Slope kqi = 3,63% for 3 MPa of Null pressure and 9% of free swelling (red)
Slope kqi = 4,5% for 1 MPa of Null pressure and 9% of free swelling (green)
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
METHODOLOGY

ABOUT THE DESIGN APPROACH

Coupling of maximum swelling pressure to initial stresses

Plaxis Manual: The correlation between maximum swelling stresses and the initial, undisturbed stress state, is not fully clear yet. For
initially fully saturated clays, the initial stress state obviously poses an upper boundary for the maximum swelling pressure, whereas
no such relationship seems to exist for anhydrite.

• In the case of TL2 & Tl3 the border soil – rock is unclear, Tl3 could be described as soft rock; with a more complex behavior than
a saturated clay

• The stress release shall allow the water ingress to the new porosity, this can be boosted by the slaking potential of the formations.

• Slurry for face stabilization &/or inadequate backfilling (allowing water circulation in the trasdos) can feed new pores and cracking
with water.

• This supports that an uncoupled approach should not be discarded at this moment.

• This approach can provide an upper bound. That is why it is not adopted simultaneously with 3 Mpa of Null Pressure
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
METHODOLOGY

ANALYZED SECTIONS

Selection criteria:

2+020: Mixed face with swelling potential units in the invert. Crown area comprises soft ground

2+290: Mixed face (rock) with swelling potential units in asymmetric configuration. Upper part in hard rock

3+040: Full face in Tl3, high cover

Tl-3w
Tl-2s
Tl-3s
Tl-3s
Tl-3s

2+020
2+290
3+040
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
ANALYSIS OF RELEASE AREA

Area release

ASSUMPTION: Swelling can be triggered where the stress release is

higher than 50 kPa.

50 kPa represents a release around 9%-20% of average existing

stresses and the displacements in this area correspond with a range
between 1 mm and 3 mm.

This assumption is not needed for the coupled approach

Area release
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
ANALYSIS OF RELEASE AREA

K0=1 kPa K0=2 kPa

s’h= 250.4-> 265.3 s’h= 493.6->543.2
s’v= 258.5-> 195.9 s’v= 258.7->208.8
u= 258.2 u= 258.2
Def= 3.23mm Def= 2.59mm
1m
2m K0=1 kPa K0=2 kPa
s’h= 275.9-> 263.2 s’h= 544.7-> 543
s’v= 284.8-> 237.1 s’v= 285.1-> 257
u= 280 u= 280
Def= 1.06mm Def= 0.77mm

K0=1 kPa K0=2 kPa

s’h= 505.4-> 368.3 s’h= 988.4-> 342.8
s’v= 542.3-> 74.29 s’v= 544.1-> 66.65
u= 327.7 u= 327.7
Def= 25.54mm Def= 76.10mm
1m
2m K0=1 kPa K0=2 kPa
s’h= 531.6-> 640 s’h= 1041-> 629.8
s’v= 564.3-> 189.2 s’v= 565->190.3
u= 347.9 u= 347.9
Def= 16.72mm Def= 39.67mm
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
ANALYSIS OF RELEASE AREA

K0=1 kPa K0=2 kPa

s’h= 533.4-> 814.8 s’h= 1067-> 1531
s’v= 525.1-> 205.1 s’v= 527.9-> 256.9
u= 619.3 u= 619.3
Def= 4.27mm Def= 2.57mm
1m
2m
K0=1 kPa K0=2 kPa
s’h= 560.9-> 717.2 s’h= 1122-> 1539
s’v= 553-> 361.8 s’v= 555.9-> 542.5
u= 642.4 u= 642.4
Def= 3.06mm Def= 0.85mm
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
SECTION 2+020

Area release

Swelling Rock Model 1

- Free swelling strain = 5%
- Maximum swelling stress = 1MPa
- k0 = 1, k0 = 2

Swelling Rock Model 2

- Free swelling strain = 9%
- Maximum swelling stress = 3MPa
- k0 = 1, k0 = 2

Swelling Rock Model 3

- Free swelling strain = 9%
- Maximum swelling stress = 1MPa
- k0 = 2
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
SECTION 2+020
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
SECTION 2+290

Area release

Swelling Rock Model 1

- Free swelling strain = 5%
- Maximum swelling stress = 1MPa
- k0 = 1, k0 = 2

Swelling Rock Model 2

- Free swelling strain = 9%
- Maximum swelling stress = 3MPa
- k0 = 1, k0 = 2

Swelling Rock Model 3

- Free swelling strain = 9%
- Maximum swelling stress = 1MPa
- k0 = 2
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
SECTION 2+290
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
SECTION 3+040

Area release

Swelling Rock Model 1

- Free swelling strain = 5%
- Maximum swelling stress = 1MPa
- k0 = 1, k0 = 2

Swelling Rock Model 2

- Free swelling strain = 9%
- Maximum swelling stress = 3MPa
- k0 = 1, k0 = 2

Swelling Rock Model 3

- Free swelling strain = 9%
- Maximum swelling stress = 1MPa
- k0 = 2
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
SECTION 3+040
 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
DEFORMATION

Node analyzed
(Internal structures
not included)
 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
SUMMARY (STATIC CONDITIONS)

Non-Coupled Coupled

- 5 of 6 Swelling (1 MPa) scenarios are inside M-N diagram - 10 of 11 Swelling (1 MPa) scenarios are inside M-N diagram
(worst case related to 9% free swell)
- 5 of 6 Swelling (3 MPa) are inside N-M diagram
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
SUMMARY

Swelling + Seismic Analysis

Static Swelling ?
Seismic
St·1.35 Sw·1.35 Se·1.00

Static Swelling ?
Seismic
St·1.35 Sw·1.35 Se·1.00
 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
SUMMARY - SEISMIC
Non-Coupled Coupled

- Static and
swelling loads
factored by 1.35

- Uncoupled analysis results in potential impact on design - These results (coupled) could be manageable with
reinforcement
- Possible unfavourable impact of box support beams
 SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
BICOMPONENT ANALYSIS

BICOMPONENT ANALYSIS

- K0=2
- Coupled and no coupled cases
- Swelling 1 MPa

- No seismic analysis yet

SUMMARY

- Use Bicomponent E=1GPA the

behavior is similar than model
without bicomponent simulation.
- Use Bicomponent E=100 MPa could
reduce slightly the bending
moments but not significantly.

- Use of deformable simultaneous backfilling is not so common after discussing with suppliers
- It is used ‘deformable’ for E > 250 MPa. 100 MPa could be a lower bound with feasibility to be confirmed by suppliers
- Contribution of this mortar may not be critical
- Lower modulus can result in high permeabilities and low durability
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS

These calculations are a parametric study due to lack of accurate input data.

At this stage, they bring a reasonable and consistent degree of conservatism and realistic scenarios, according with the case
story / state of the art analysis and the available data. The output could allow to move forward the D. Design accepting some
(limited) level of risk and conditioned to the conduction of additional tests to clarify and confirm the inputs.

It is critical to clarify:
• Null-Maximum swelling pressure / Free swell strain
• Results show potential impact on current design with values of 3 MPa &/or 9 % free swelling strain.
• Null pressures of < 1 MPa appear designable in general (85% of the scenarios analyzed) considering current
designed reinforcement or with slight adaptations.
• Depending on maximum free swelling strain some sections could need further analysis

• Behavior of Tl2 & Tl3 soft rocks in order to be more conclusive regarding the most adequate design approach

Current study could not take into account the time-dependency of the phenomenon which also needs of more accurate inputs.

Mitigation actions as special deformable admixture for the backfilling are pending also of further studies, which also should be
based on accurate data.

Accurate design inputs should be obtained from new tests performed in new fresh samples. These are needed to provide a
conclusive and robust analysis. Without more accurate data, this methodology is based on unvalidated assumptions no likely
to be accepted by MPSA.
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
REFERENCES & STANDARDS

-Structural design codes such as AASHTO and ACI are the primary codes used for the design of the TBM segmental lining.
These codes define load combinations and resistance factors for the purposes of structural design.

-These design codes do not mandate the methodology of determining ground loads, they only specify the load factors to be
applied in various load combinations.

-The requirement to include swelling pressures in AASHTO LRFD design is unambiguous. As defined in AASTHO LRFDTUN,
swelling ground is a ground which generates loads on the final lining (Chapter 3 – Loads and Load Combinations) and is
specifically identified as a geotechnical hazard which must be evaluated (Chapter 5 - Geotechnical Considerations).

-US FHWA-NHI-10-034 (Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels — Civil Elements. 2009) and FHWA-
HIF-20-035 (Precast concrete segmental liners for large diameter road tunnels) similarly treat swelling in the same way as
other particular ground loading cases (such as squeezing ground, rock wedge load, creeping ground, etc..), that is as a
specific type of ground classification which generates earth pressure.

-This is consistent with other internationally recognized design guides such as the British tunnelling Society’s (BTS) “Tunnel
design guide” which explicitly states “Where swelling is unavoidable, the linings should be designed specifically for the stress-
dependent portion of volume change. Basic stress/strain relationships can be obtained from the Huder–Amberg (1970) test
where the actual loading/unloading conditions are reproduced as accurately as possible.”

-It is clear that the code intent is to treat swelling as an earth pressure (in other words a pressure on the lining exerted by earth
– regardless of the mechanism generating it). And is thus applied as such in the AASHTO LRFD load combinations. Note that
this is different from seismic, which is a low probability acceleration, and not technically an earth load.
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
REFERENCES & STANDARDS

Other documents that have been analysed:

• ACI 533.5R-20 Guide for Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments

• AASTHO - LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction Guide Specifications

• US FHWA-NHI-10-034. Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels — Civil Elements. 2009.

• DAUB. Recommendations for the design, production and installation of segmental rings. 2013

• ITA WG-2. Guidelines for the design of segmental Tunnel Linings. ITA Report 22, 2019

• Japan Society of Civil Engineers. Standard Specifications for tunnelling 2016. Shield Tunnels

• AFTES. The design, sizing and construction of precast concrete segments installed at the rear of a tunnel boring machine
(TBM)
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
REFERENCES & STANDARDS

1. B. Lecomte, S. Giuliani-Leonardi, R. Eymery , J.F. Serratrice. Management of unexpected swelling clay on Cairo Metro line 3
Phase 2. Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil
2. Jianxiu Wang, Jiaxing Liu, Xiaotian Liu, Yunhua Jiang, and Xuezeng Liu. In-site Experiments on the Swelling Characteristics of
a Shield Tunnel in Expansive Clay: A Case Study. Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Civil Engineering. 2016.
3. Martin Ziegler, Arash Alimardani Lavasan, Simon Loew. Stress evolution around a TBM tunnel in swelling clay shale over four
years after excavation. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 128. 2022.
4. Ramon, A. Expansion mechanisms in sulphated rocks and soils. PhD Thesis. 2014.
5. Alonso, E. Ramon-Tarragona A., Verda, L. Designing Tunnel Lining in Anhydritic Claystones. Intensity and Distribution of
Swelling Forces. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 2022.
6. T.G.Carter, , S.O. Castro, J.L.Carvalho, D.Hattersley, , K.Wood. Tunnelling Issues of Chilean Tertiary Volcaniclastic Rocks.
Proc. MIR 2010. XIII Ciclo di conferenze di Meccanica ed Ingegneria delle Rocce, Torino, Nov., 2010 pp. 215-236 .
7. Gens, A. On the hydromechanical behaviour of argillaceous hard soils-weak rocks . Proceedings of the 15th European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering – Geotechnics of Hard Soils – Weak Rocks (Part 4). 2013.
8. Maximiliano R. Vergara, Theodoros Triantafyllidis. Swelling behavior of volcanic rocks under cyclic wetting and drying.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2015.
9. G. Piaggio, T. Schönborn, M. Barla. Swelling Rocks Investigation on Hydro Tunnels – A Comprehensive Characterization
based on Laboratory Tests and Constitutive Models. Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2017 – Surface challenges –
Underground solutions. Bergen, Norway
10. Bjørn Nilsen. Challenges and Some Recommendations Related to Estimation of in-situ Swelling Pressure of Gouge Materials.
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 2021.
11. L. Selen, K. K. Panthi. A review of the testing approaches in swelling rock conditions at three different institutions. Mechanics
and Rock Engineering, from Theory to Practice. 2021.
12. PLAXIS Manual. Swelling Rock model .
SWELLING IN SEGMENTAL LINING
REFERENCES & STANDARDS

13. Kovari et al. Empirical Basis for the Design of Tunnel Linings in Swelling Rock containing Anhydrite. 2014
14. Marcher, T. Tunnel design and construction practice: technical solutions in swelling ground. 2011. Jornada Técnica: Túneles
en terrenos salinos y expansivos Barcelona"
15. Dimillo et al. Development of a grout mix to be used as annular fill behind pre-cast concrete segments installed in tunnel with
time dependent deformation character. 2016.
16. Ashraf Abu-Krisha. Analysis of TBM tunnelling in swelling soils. 2006. TUST
17. Pérez-Romero et al. Design and optimization of the lining of a tunnel in the presence of expansive clay levels. 2006.
18. A. Koliji et al. Extending the urban underground utility network capacity - A long drive large diameter pipe-jacking tunnel. 2019.
19. Y. Oku. Design of countermeasure for squeezing and swelling in mountain tunnel. 2019.
20. Zhang et al. Experimental study and numerical simulation of Paris plastic clay. ITA WTC 2022.
21. Wang et al. In-site Experiments on the Swelling Characteristics of a Shield Tunnel in Expansive Clay: A Case Study. 2016
22. Zhang et al. Origin of clay in granite intrusive contact zone and its influence on tunnel deformation and instability. 2023.
23. B. Brattli et al. Stability problems in water tunnels caused by expandable minerals. Swelling pressure measurements and
mineralogical analysis. 1995.
24. N. Isago et al. Long-term deformation of mountain tunnel lining and ground under swelling rock condition. 2015.
25. W. Wittke. AJRM as basis for design and construction of more than 70 km of tunnels of the Railway Project Stuttgart-Ulm.
2017
26. T. Zieger. Challenges and innovative solutions at the new construction of the Bözberg Tunnel.2018.