Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 1625e1635

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.jrmge.cn

Full Length Article

Effect of rock joints on lined rock caverns subjected to high internal gas
pressure
Davi Rodrigues Damasceno*, Johan Spross, Fredrik Johansson
Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44, Stockholm, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The storage of hydrogen gas in lined rock caverns (LRCs) may enable the implementation of the first
Received 23 June 2022 large-scale fossil-free steelmaking process in Sweden, but filling such storage causes joints in the rock
Received in revised form mass to open, concentrating strains in the lining. The structural interaction between the LRC components
12 September 2022
must be able to reduce the strain concentration in the sealing steel lining; however, this interaction is
Accepted 14 November 2022
Available online 16 December 2022
complex and difficult to predict with analytical methods. In this paper, the strain concentration in LRCs
from the opening of rock joints is studied using finite element (FE) analyses, where the large- and small-
scale deformation behaviors of the LRC are coupled. The model also includes concrete crack initiation and
Keywords:
Lined rock cavern (LRC)
development with increasing gas pressure and rock joint width. The interaction between the jointed rock
Rock joints mass and the reinforced concrete, the sliding layer, and the steel lining is demonstrated. The results show
Strain concentrations that the rock mass quality and the spacing of the rock joints have the greatest influence on the strain
Lining interaction distributions in the steel lining. The largest effect of rock joints on the maximum strains in the steel
Finite element (FE) analysis lining was observed for geological conditions of “good” quality rock masses.
High gas pressure Ó 2023 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction against an internal gas pressure of about 25 MPa is provided by the

The conventional blast furnace steelmaking process is respon-
sible for about 8% of global CO2 emissions, and international climate
agreements require this industry to become cleaner (World Steel
Association, 2021). Major companies in Sweden have joined
forces in the joint venture Hydrogen Breakthrough Ironmaking
Technology (HYBRIT) to implement the first fossil-free steelmaking
process. In the HYBRIT project, fossil fuels used in the blast furnace
will be substituted by renewable hydrogen gas. Thus, industrial
quantities of hydrogen gas must be readily available in a large-scale
storage, and, as discussed by Johansson et al. (2018), the lined rock
cavern (LRC) concept should be the most suitable approach for
geological conditions of hard-jointed rock masses. An LRC for the
storage of pressurized natural gas was put into commercial oper-
ation in Skallen, southwestern Sweden, in 2002 (Glamheden and
Curtis, 2006; Tengborg et al., 2014).
The LRC components are illustrated in Fig. 1a following the LRC
design principles proposed by Johansson (2003). Confinement
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: davird@kth.se (D.R. Damasceno).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
surrounding rock mass, while the steel lining maintains gas tight-
ness. The steel lining is composed of welded steel plates with a
ductile material behavior, while the concrete layer is a transition
zone between the jointed rock mass and the steel lining. The aim of
the reinforcement and sliding layer is to redistribute strain con-
centrations in the steel lining caused by cracking in the concrete
layer. The shotcrete should prevent the falling of rock blocks from
the cavern wall during construction and support of the drainage
system when casting the concrete layer. During the construction of
the storage, the drainage system prevents groundwater pressure
from building up, as this could damage the steel lining. During
operation of the storage, the drainage system is filled with water
and functions as a gas detection system, collecting and evacuating
the gas in the event of a leakage.
Gas filling will increase the internal pressure in the LRC and
cause a volumetric expansion. This volume increase will in turn
result in tangential tensile strains in the rock cavern wall, opening
the rock joints and cracking the concrete layer, as illustrated in
Fig. 1b. Strains will concentrate in the steel lining at the locations
where concrete cracks develop. The reinforcement will decrease
the width of the concrete cracks, and the sliding layer will allow
movement at the concrete layeresteel lining contact, both with the
aim of reducing strain concentration at positions close to the steel

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.11.011
1674-7755 Ó 2023 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1626 D.R. Damasceno et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 1625e1635
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of (a) the main LRC components and (b) the opening of rock joints and cracking of the concrete layer from gas pressurization of the LRC.
lining. However, large strain concentrations can increase the risk
for gas leakage because of a rupture of the steel lining. The local
effect of strain concentrations in the steel lining due to the opening
of rock joints therefore needs to be considered in the design of LRCs.
For the LRC design, Johansson et al. (1995) presented an
analytical model to calculate the wall displacement of rock caverns
given an internal gas pressure. The derivations and a more concise
form of these equations were presented by Damasceno et al.
(2022). This model assumed a long rock cavern and isotropic in
situ stress conditions. Furthermore, Johansson et al. (1995) and
Johansson (2003) presented another analytical model to predict the
strain concentration in the steel lining caused by the opening of
concrete cracks. This latter solution included the effect of the
sliding layer as a frictional interaction between the steel lining and
the concrete layer, and assumed equally spaced concrete cracks.
These analytical models contribute to the conceptual understand-
ing of the LRC deformation behavior and are easy to implement;
however, their applicability is limited to fundamental problems
with simplified LRC geometry, geological conditions, and lining
interactions. Therefore, numerical modeling is needed to analyze
the effect of opening rock joints and the complex lining interactions
for the LRC design.
The available numerical models for LRCs discussed in the liter-
ature usually only account for the large-scale deformation behavior,
i.e. there is no consideration of the opening of rock joints or the
lining interactions. For example, Lu (1998) used a three-
dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) model to simulate field gas
pressure tests performed in a pilot LRC in Grängesberg, Sweden,
and Glamheden and Curtis (2006) presented two-dimensional (2D)
finite difference models simulating the wall convergence of the
rock cavern during the excavation in Skallen, Sweden. Damasceno
et al. (2022), on the other hand, used analytical 2D and 3D FE
models to investigate the effect of horizontal in situ stress anisot-
ropy and cavern height on the rock cavern response to an internal
gas pressure. For application in compressed air energy storage
(CAES), analyses of LRC design issues using computational models
were performed by Perazzelli and Anagnostou (2016). They inves-
tigated failure related to rock mass uplifting, rock mass deforma-
tion, steel lining buckling, steel lining fatigue, and concrete plug
stability. Park et al. (2013) proposed a probabilistic-based structural
design for LRCs against the ultimate failure of the steel lining using
analytical and numerical methods, but disregarded the concen-
tration of strains due to the opening of rock joints in the rock mass
or sharp edges in the 3D geometry. Zhou et al. (2020) used a
thermo-mechanical damage model to study the long-term stability
of LRCs for CAES. They analyzed the influence of intersecting weak
planes in the rock mass and rock mass heterogeneity on the LRC
behavior. Other numerical models are available for similar under-
ground gas storages (e.g. Kim et al., 2012, 2013; Carranza-Torres
et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2017); however, they consider internal
gas pressures less than 10 MPa, and small-scale effects are dis-
regarded. Thus, there is a lack of numerical models that concisely
capture the complex interaction between all components in an LRC
and take into account the local strains induced by the opening of
rock joints because of the pressurization of the cavern.
In this paper, 2D FE analyses are used to investigate the con-
centration of strains in the steel lining because of the opening of
rock joints in LRCs subjected to high internal gas pressure. The 2D
geometry represents the horizontal cross-section at the LRC mid-
height. The FE model includes the interaction between the main
LRC components and coupling between large- and small-scale LRC
deformation behaviors. Concrete crack initiation and development
because of the opening of rock joints with increasing gas pressure
are considered. This concrete cracking induces strain concentra-
tions in the steel lining. The internal radius, material properties,
anisotropic in situ stresses, and internal gas pressure of the FE
model are chosen based on the LRC in Skallen (Glamheden and
Curtis, 2006). The interaction between individual LRC compo-
nents is demonstrated. Strain distributions in the steel lining are
studied where the largest rock joint width increase occurs, i.e. at
the location of the maximum tangential strain in the rock cavern
wall. The effect of geological conditions is investigated with respect
to the rock mass quality and the spacing of the rock joints, and the
influence of lining interactions is analyzed for different behaviors of
the reinforcement and sliding layer. Furthermore, the maximum
strains in the steel lining are studied, in a separate analysis, with
respect to the discrete rock joints and considering the effect of
tangential strains in the rock cavern wall.
2. Modeling of the LRC
2.1. Model assumptions
If the rock cavern is excavated deep enough and the cupola and
invert of the LRC are spherical, the maximum strain in the steel
lining is located close to the LRC mid-height. In this case, the critical
 D.R. Damasceno et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 1625e1635
Fig. 2. FE setups for horizontal cross-sections at the LRC mid-height: (a) Large-scale model (one quarter circumference); and (b) Small-scale model (one rock joint spacing arc
length).
failure mode is fatigue of the steel lining due to cyclic fillinge
emptying of the LRC. Considering that the LRC has a large height/
diameter ratio (cylindrical shape), a 2D plane-strain simplification
at the horizontal cross-section of the LRC mid-height can be used
for the analysis. The LRC design concept presumes that the built
facility is completely gas tight, thus gas migration in fractures
would take place only if the steel lining is ruptured. Therefore, the
model does not consider gas leakage. In the case of a real structural
failure, gas leakage would be detected by the gas detection system.
However, post-failure behavior belongs to the general risk man-
agement for the LRC, and is not within the scope of this paper.
The FE simulations are analyzed for the maximum internal gas
pressure in the LRC, which gives the largest width increase of rock
joints. Most of the plastic strains in the rock mass take place during
the first storage filling, while the following storage fillinge
emptying cycles have a smaller strain range. For reference, typical
ultimate strains for ductile steels are in the order of 15%, and the
strain range for the fatigue failure of the steel lining corresponds to
6& (for a monthly storage fillingeemptying cycle as considered in
Damasceno et al. (2022)). Positive sign notation is adopted for
extension since tensile strains acting tangentially on the LRC are the
critical strains for the analyses.
Mansson et al. (2006) presented field tests at the LRC in Skallen
where fillingeemptying storage cycles were performed. Gas
compression during filling increases the storage temperature,
expanding the LRC wall, while gas expansion during emptying
decreases the storage temperature, contracting the LRC wall.
Therefore, compared to constant temperature cases, the gas tem-
perature variation results in slightly smaller radial displacements at
maximum gas pressure and slightly larger wall radial displace-
ments at minimum gas pressure. The thermal influence is limited to
the surface of the LRC wall, and compared to the steel lining strain
concentrations at concrete cracks, the magnitude of thermal strains
is negligible. Therefore, constant temperature is considered in the
FE analyses in this paper.
2.2. FE model setup
In this paper, the commercial software package Abaqus v2020
(Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp, 2019) is used for all the FE ana-
lyses, i.e. geometry, materials, boundary conditions, loads, meshing,
simulation, and visualization. The FE model geometries used in this
1627
paper with applied loads and boundary conditions are presented in
Fig. 2. These two FE model geometries are used to account for both
the large-scale (more general) deformation behavior and the small-
scale (more detailed) deformation behaviors of the LRC. The dis-
placements at the LRC wall from the large-scale model are im-
ported to the boundaries of the small-scale model. Static analysis is
used to simulate an “excavation step” (large-scale model), and
quasi-static analysis is used for better convergence of the concrete
cracking in a “pressurization step” (large- and small-scale models).
In accordance with the field tests presented by Mansson et al.
(2006), an LRC internal gas pressure of pi ¼ 25 MPa is applied
over 20 d, which represents a quasi-static process.
Symmetry for the large-scale model geometry is taken at one
quarter of the LRC horizontal cross-section (Fig. 2a), where the rock
cavern radius is 19 m. The whole model has a dimension size of
1000 m  1000 m. The “excavation step” includes only the rock
cavern with the minimum and maximum horizontal in situ
stresses, sh and sH, respectively, applied in the rock mass. The
resulting stress field from the “excavation step” is imported to the
rock mass of the “pressurization step”, which includes an 1-m thick
concrete lining. Thus, the stresses in the lining are zero before the
gas pressure (pi ¼ 25 MPa) is applied to the lining internal surface.
Structured quadrilateral plane-strain elements (CPE4R) are used in
the whole model.
For the small-scale model, a portion of the large-scale lining
with arc length equal to one rock joint spacing, sj , is used (Fig. 2b).
In addition to the concrete layer, this model includes one rock joint,
the concrete reinforcement, and the steel lining. The intact rock
blocks are modeled with5-cm thickness. The thickness of the intact
rock blocks has no major influence on the cracking of the concrete
layer, since the rock mass deformation behavior is governed by the
opening of rock joints rather than internal deformations in the
intact rock blocks. The rock joint is modeled as a discrete contact
between the rock blocks. The orientation of the rock joints is
modeled orthogonally to the cavern walls because this results in
maximum opening of the rock joints and represents a worst case
scenario. As the LRC is a very large facility, it is likely that orthog-
onal or near-orthogonal rock joints would be present somewhere at
the rock cavern wall. Non-orthogonally oriented rock joints would
have larger resisting frictional forces at the contact because of
higher normal stresses acting on the joint, resulting in smaller rock
joint opening. Since tensile opening of the rock joints, which have
1628 D.R. Damasceno et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 1625e1635

negligible tensile strength, occurs in the analyses, the strength The input parameters for the geological conditions considered
parameters of the contact do not have any influence on the inter- in the simulations are summarized in Table 1. A value of GSI ¼ 70 is
face behavior and are therefore not considered. used, which is similar to the values observed at the LRC in Skallen.
The reinforcement is embedded into the concrete layer. Dis- Based on the rock grade classification by Brown (1981), typical rock
placements from the large-scale model are transmitted to the types for hard rock mass conditions, e.g. marble, sandstone, granite,
boundaries of the steel lining using a tie constraint between the granodiorite, and gneiss, are within the “very strong” rock grade.
line edges and the laterals of the concrete layer. A cohesivee Based on Hoek (1983) and Hoek and Brown (1997), the values of
frictional interface interaction is used for the shotcrete at the rock fci ¼ 175 MPa and mi ¼ 25 are used as input parameters in the FE
blockseconcrete layer contact, and a frictional interface interaction model since they give the same average tangential strain at the LRC
is used for the sliding layer at the concrete layeresteel lining con- wall as observed in Skallen (Mansson et al., 2006). At the LRC mid-
tact. Movements at the boundaries of the small-scale model with height depth of 141 m, the horizontal in situ stresses are sH ¼ 8:3
respect to the displacements in the large-scale model are allowed MPa and sh ¼ 4:1 MPa (Glamheden and Curtis, 2006). The
by including a frictionless line interface at the outer boundaries of magnitude of sco ¼ 6:2 MPa is used as the confinement pressure to
the concrete layer and rock blocks. The small-scale model considers calculate the rock mass properties (Hoek et al., 2002) to be used
only one “pressurization step”, where the magnitude of pi ¼ 25 MPa during the rock cavern excavation. For a maximal internal gas
is applied to the internal surface of the steel lining, and the dis- pressure of pi ¼ 25 MPa, the shear yield limit of the rock mass is
placements from the large-scale “pressurization step” are applied not exceeded; therefore, no residual parameters are needed.
to the other boundaries of the small-scale model. Unstructured Following Hoek and Brown (1997)’s suggestions for “very good”
triangular plane-strain elements (CPE3) are used in the concrete quality hard rock masses, the Poisson’s ratio is set to 0.2. The
layer to allow greater flexibility for the cracking, and truss (T2D2) dilation angles for the intact rock and rock mass are estimated from
and beam (B21) elements are used for the reinforcement and steel Alejano and Alonso (2005). For rock joints oriented orthogonally to
lining, respectively. the rock cavern walls and assumed average values for “good”
The simulation of concrete crack initiation and propagation quality rock mass, a value of sj ¼ 1 m is assumed based on
follows the damaged plasticity material model (Lubliner et al., Bieniawski (1989)’s rock mass rating definition.
1989; Lee and Fenves, 1998). The concrete material is brittle, thus
the thickness of the concrete layer has no major influence on the
concrete cracking. An FE element size of le ¼ 1:9 cm yields well-
developed concrete cracks in the small-scale model and is there- 2.3.2. Concrete layer
fore used. This le is smaller than the maximum allowed FE element The guidelines from Malm (2016) regarding FE analysis using

size calculated from Rijkswaterstaat (2012). Based on Cervenka the concrete damaged plasticity model are followed. The damaged
et al. (2020), the expression for the concrete crack width is plasticity model was developed by Lubliner et al. (1989) and Lee
derived as wc ¼ 1:16le εcr , where εcr is the crack opening strain, i.e. and Fenves (1998) and gives a good description of the concrete
the plastic strain in tension. cracking behavior, as verified by other authors, e.g. Malm and
Holmgren (2008a, b), Genikomsou and Polak (2015), and Xiao
2.3. Characterization of LRC components et al. (2017). This material model allows for the simulation of
crack initiation and development by introducing a reduction in the
2.3.1. Jointed rock mass element stiffness. The default values of eccentricity (0:1), biaxial
Tensile and shear failures are allowed for both rock mass and
intact rock, following the Rankine and MohreCoulomb failure
Table 1
criteria, respectively. It is assumed that the blasting disturbance Properties of the jointed rock mass used in the analyses for the large-scale model
caused by the excavation is negligible. A “very strong” intact rock (“excavation step” and “pressurization step”) and small-scale model (“pressurization
and “good” quality rock mass are chosen to represent typical step”).
geological conditions of a hard-jointed rock mass, similarly to the Parameter Large-scale model (rock Small-scale model (intact rock
geological conditions at Skallen. The depth and horizontal in situ mass properties) properties) (pressurization step)
stresses of the LRC in Skallen (Glamheden and Curtis, 2006) are Excavation Pressurization
used in the model simulations. step step
The rock mass properties including Young’s modulus, cohesion, Rock cavern 19 19 19
friction angle, and tensile strength are estimated based on Hoek radius (m)
et al. (2002). The input parameters to estimate these rock mass Joint spacing, sj e e 1
properties are the geological strength index (GSI), the unconfined (m)
Density (kg/ 2700 2700 2700
compressive strength of the intact rock, fci , the intact rock constant,
m3)
mi , and the confining pressure in the rock mass, sco . When simu- Young’s 41.8 41.8 57.1
lating the excavation of the rock cavern, the average horizontal in modulus
situ stress is considered as the confining pressure, i.e. sco ¼ ðsh þ (GPa)
sH Þ=2, while sco ¼ pi is used during gas pressurization of the LRC Poisson’s ratio 0.2 0.2 0.2
Cohesion 3.9 7.1 22.6
because pi > ðsh þ sH Þ=2. (MPa)
The rock blocks have stiffer/stronger properties compared to the Friction angle 62.2 54.1 58.7
rock mass, favoring the opening of the rock joint instead of internal ( )
deformation of the rock blocks. The intact rock properties are Compressive 31.5 43.8 161.3
strength
chosen to represent the rock blocks in the small-scale model, which
(MPa)
yields a more conservative analysis (larger width increase of the Tensile 0.7 0.7 7
rock joint). The Young’s modulus of the intact rock is approximated strength
as proposed by Hoek and Diederichs (2006). The equivalent intact (MPa)
rock properties for cohesion, friction angle, and tensile strength are Dilation angle 9.8 4.9 5.4
( )
obtained from Hoek et al. (2002) using GSI ¼ 100.
 D.R. Damasceno et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 1625e1635 1629

failure ratio (1:16), and shape of yield surface (0:67) suggested in Table 3
Abaqus v2020 (Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp, 2019) are used. Properties of reinforcement used in the analyses.

The stressestrain relationship for the concrete under compres- Parameter Value
sion depends on the Young’s modulus of the concrete, the Diameter of rebar (cm) 1.6
compressive strength of the concrete at 28 d, and the concrete Spacing of rebar, sr (cm) 15
strain at maximum stress (EN 1992-1-1:2005, 2005a). For the Distance from steel lining (cm) 10
tensile behavior, the stress is expressed in terms of the crack Density of steel (kg/m3) 8000
Young’s modulus of steel (GPa) 200
displacement, as defined by Cornelissen et al. (1986). For normal-
Poisson’s ratio of steel 0.3
density concrete, the first and second material constants are 3 Yield strength of reinforcement (MPa) 500
and 6:93, respectively, and the stress-free crack width is calculated Ultimate strength of reinforcement (MPa) 540
based on the fracture energy, as estimated from the Fib (2010) Elongation at maximum stress of steel (%) 5
model code and the tensile strength of concrete.
The concrete properties are listed in Table 2. A concrete layer
with the thickness of 1 m and class C30/37 is chosen for the sim- Table 4
ulations, corresponding to a design used in the development of the Properties of the steel lining used in the analyses.

LRC concept (Johansson, 2003). Based on the studies by Malm Parameter Value
(2006), a suitable value of the concrete dilation angle for normal- Thickness of steel plates (cm) 1.2
grade concrete with a high degree of confining pressure is chosen Density of steel (kg/m3) 8000
to be 30 . In compression, the behavior of the concrete is assumed Young’s modulus of steel (GPa) 200
to be elastic up to 40% of the compressive strength of concrete at 28 Poisson’s ratio of steel 0.3
Yield strength of steel plates (MPa) 355
d.
Ultimate strength of steel plates (MPa) 490
Strain at hardening initiation (%) 1.2
2.3.3. Reinforcement Elongation at maximum stress of steel (%) 5
The properties of the reinforcement are listed in Table 3. In the
small-scale model, the concrete reinforcement of type B500B (EN
1993-1-9:2005, 2005b) is used. Johansson (2003)’s observations Table 5
from LRC experiments showed that a good concrete crack distri- Interface properties of the shotcrete and sliding layer used in the analyses.

bution close to the steel lining was achieved for a reinforcement Parameter Value
placed at a clearance of 10 cm from the steel lining, with a rebar
Adhesion of the shotcrete interface (MPa) 0.81
diameter of 1.6 cm, and a rebar spacing of sr ¼ 15 cm, which are Cohesion of the shotcrete interface (MPa) 1.62
therefore used in the simulations. The rebar spacing for the con- Friction coefficient of the shotcrete interface 1
crete reinforcement is modeled in 2D as an equivalent cross-section Friction coefficient of the sliding layer interface, ms 0.35
area.

2.3.4. Steel lining
The properties of the steel lining are listed in Table 4. For the
steel plates, the steel of type S355 with a plate thickness of 1.2 cm
was tested in the development of the LRC design (Johansson, 2003),
and this steel lining is therefore adopted in this paper. It is assumed
that, after yielding initiation, the steel elongates 1:2% before strain
hardening occurs. Degradation of the steel properties due to, for
example, corrosion and hydrogen embrittlement is associated with
the long-term behavior of the LRC and is not included.
2.3.5. Shotcrete, sliding layer, and drainage system
The interface properties used for the shotcrete and sliding layer
are listed in Table 5 and are explained in the next paragraphs. The
drainage system should not have any significant influence on the
mechanical behavior of the LRC and is not included in the FE model.
The shotcrete for the LRC is modeled as a cohesive interface
between the rock blocks and the concrete layer. Bjureland et al.
(2019) showed that the mean value for the adhesion of shotcrete
Table 2
Properties of the concrete layer used in the analyses.
Parameter
Thickness of the concrete layer (m)
Density of concrete (kg/m3)
Young’s modulus of concrete (GPa)
Poisson’s ratio of concrete
Compressive strength of concrete at 28 d (MPa)
Tensile strength of concrete (MPa)
Concrete strain at maximum stress (%)
Dilation angle of concrete ( )
to the rock surface is about 0.81 MPa. Using the Griffith criterion,
the cohesion of the rock blockseconcrete layer interface is esti-
mated to be 1.62 MPa, i.e. twice the adhesion. Based on the labo-
ratory work by Krounis et al. (2016), an average friction coefficient
value of 1 is assumed for the rock blockseconcrete layer interface.
The sliding layer for the LRC is modeled as an interface inter-
action between the concrete layer and the steel lining. Baltay and
Gjelsvik (1990) showed that, under high pressures, the static co-
efficient of friction, ms , between concrete and steel can reach
magnitudes close to 0.6. If an intermediate thin layer of sliding
material, e.g. bitumen, is added between the concrete and steel, the
value of ms can be decreased to as low as 0.1 (Johansson, 2003).
Because it is difficult to ensure that the sliding material homoge-
neously covers the whole concrete layeresteel lining interface, an
average value of ms ¼ 0:35 is assumed for the sliding layer.
2.4. List of analyses
A summary of 42 FE simulations analyzed in this paper is shown
in Table 6. In Section 3, 19 FE simulations are performed to study the
interaction between LRC components. Additional 12 FE simulations
are done in Section 4 to analyze strain distributions in the steel
Value
lining. To investigate the influence of rock joints on the maximum
1 strains in the steel lining, additional 11 FE simulations are run in
2400
Section 5.
33
0.2 The interactions between LRC components, which contribute to
38 the final strain distribution in the steel lining, are studied in Section
2.9 3, considering the conditions of hard-jointed rock mass and lining
0.22 setup described in Sections 2.2e2.4. The influence of the in situ
30
stress anisotropy on the width increase of rock joints is investigated
1630 D.R. Damasceno et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 1625e1635

Table 6 joint width, wj , is analyzed here. After gas pressurization, the

Summary of the analyzed simulations. The reference model is described in Sections stresses at the circumference of the rock cavern wall are about 23:5
2.2e2.4.
MPa in the radial direction and close to zero in the tangential di-
Section Model setup specification rection (because of tensile yielding). Fig. 3 shows the distribution of
3 Interaction between LRC components εqw and wj along the rock cavern wall as a function of qh . The largest
3.1 Rock joint opening caused by tangential qh ¼ 1:5 , 5 , 10 , ., 80 , 85 , values of εqw ¼ 2:5& and wj ¼ 2:3 mm are observed at qh ¼
strains in the rock cavern wall and 88:5 88:5 . The smallest values of εqw z0:6& and wj z0:3 mm occur at
3.2 Cracking of the concrete layer due to the qh ¼ 1:5 , 45 , and 88:5
opening of rock joints
qh  60 . This εqw value is close to the average tangential strain
3.3 Response of lining components to the qh ¼ 88:5 εqw ¼ 0:7&measured at the Skallen LRC. It is noticeable that the
cracking of the concrete layer effect of the anisotropic in situ stress condition is limited to one
3.4 Comparison with the analytical model qh ¼ 88:5 third of the value of the rock cavern wall oriented closest to the
4 Steel lining strain distributions
direction of sH .
4.1 Quality of the jointed rock mass a GSI ¼ 60; sj ¼ 0:1 m, 0:5 m,
and 1 m
GSI ¼ 70; sj ¼ 0:5 m, 1 m, and 3.2. Cracking of the concrete layer due to the opening of rock joints
2m
GSI ¼ 80; sj ¼ 1 m, 2 m, and 3
m
In this subsection, the cracking behavior of the concrete layer
4.2 Behavior of the reinforcement and sliding Reference: sr ¼ 15 cm, ms ¼ due to the opening of rock joints is analyzed. The concrete cracking
layer a 0:35 pattern at pi ¼ 25 MPa is shown in Fig. 4a for qh ¼ 1:5, 45 , and
Unreinforced concrete layer: 88:5 . The rock joint opens at the rock cavern wall at a radial dis-
ms ¼ 0 and N
tance from the steel lining of xs ¼ 100 cm, i.e. the thickness of the
Reinforced concrete layer: ms ¼
0 and N concrete layer, and concrete cracks develop inward from the rock
5 Steel lining strain concentrations due to GSI ¼ 60; sj ¼ 0:1 m, 0:25 m, joint. The most damaged concrete is at qh ¼ 88:5 , where the
discrete rock joints a ., 0:875 m, and 1 m largest magnitudes of wj and εqw are observed in Fig. 3. For this
GSI ¼ 70; sj ¼ 0:5 m, 0:75 m, case, the concrete crack with the largest width is the middle con-
., 1:75 m, and 2 m
GSI ¼ 80; sj ¼ 1 m, 1:5 m, 2 m,
crete crack in Fig. 4a, which is connected to the rock joint opening
2:5 m, and 3 m and cuts through the concrete layer with a close-to-straight
a cracking pattern. Secondary cracks develop diagonally with
The position of the rock joint relative to the boundary of the large-scale model
varies slightly with respect to sj and is calculated using qh ¼ 90  1:5sj . smaller crack widths. The concrete cracks intersect the reinforce-
ment at xs ¼ 10 cm and the steel lining at xs ¼ 0 cm. For the cases
of qh ¼ 1:5 and qh ¼ 45 , the concrete layer has small tensile
by varying the orientation angle of the rock joint with respect to the damage, thus the concrete cracks do not develop. The radial dis-
direction of sh , qh (see Fig. 3), within the boundary limits of the tribution of the calculated concrete crack width, wc , within the
large-scale model, i.e. 1:5  qh  88:5 . The rock joint is positioned thickness of the concrete layer (0 cm  xs  100 cm) is shown in
at the arc length of 0:5sj in the small-scale model, thus the outer- Fig. 4b. At the rock masseconcrete layer contact (xs ¼ 100 cm), it is
most possible values of qh have a difference of 1:5 with respect to observed that the maximum concrete crack width, maxðwc Þ, is
the boundaries of the large-scale model (at 0 and 90 ). The similar to the rock joint width, wj , at all considered qh (1:5 , 45 ,
cracking of the concrete layer due to the opening of the rock joints and 88:5 ). For qh ¼ 88:5, the magnitude of maxðwc Þ ¼ 2:5 mm is
is then analyzed at qh ¼ 1:5 , 45 , and 88:5 . The behavior of in- observed at xs ¼ 100 cm. At the reinforcement (xs ¼ 10 cm), the
dividual components at the LRC wall and the distribution of strains value of maxðwc Þ decreases sharply from 0:7 mm to 0:4 mm,
in the steel lining are studied for the location of the largest rock reaching 0:25 mm at xs ¼ 0 cm. The cases of qh ¼ 1:5 and
joint width increase, which is located at qh ¼ 88:5 . qh ¼ 45 give very small concrete cracks and would not represent a
Additional analyses are performed in Section 4 for strain dis- significant influence on the strain concentration in the steel lining.
tributions in the steel lining considering variations in the reference Therefore, only the worst-case scenario, i.e. the case of qh ¼ 88:5 ,
conditions described in Sections 2.2e2.4. Typical values of sj are is further analyzed.
used for conditions of GSI ¼ 60, 70, and 80 to study the influence
of geological conditions on the steel lining strain concentrations.
These simulations are performed at the location of the largest rock
joint width increase, i.e. qh ¼ 90  1:5sj . The effect of lining in-
teractions on the steel lining strains is analyzed for combinations of
concrete layers without reinforcement or with reinforcement
(sr ¼ 1.6 cm) and interfaces at the concrete layeresteel lining
contact with frictionless (ms ¼ 0) or rough (ms /N) behaviors.
The influence of discrete rock joints on the maximum strains in
the steel lining is further studied in Section 5. Additional simula-
tions are performed for refinement on the values of sj within the
ranges specified in Section 4.1.

3. Interactions between LRC components

3.1. Rock joint opening caused by tangential strains in the rock

cavern wall
Fig. 3. Tangential strains and rock joint widths along the rock cavern wall. The defi-
The relationship between tangential strains in the rock cavern nition of qh is shown in the figure.
wall, εqw , and the opening of the rock joints, expressed by the rock
 D.R. Damasceno et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 1625e1635 1631

Fig. 4. Simulation results of (a) concrete cracking patterns (tensile damage contour) and (b) crack width distribution along the radial thickness of the concrete layer. The definition
of xs is shown in (a) at qh ¼ 88:5 .

3.3. Response of lining components to the cracking of the concrete suitable sc value for the analytical model, and the maximum εs can
layer be overestimated if the steel yields without strain hardening. The
presented FE model is more robust and can better capture the in-
In Fig. 5, the interaction of the concrete cracks with the main teractions between the LRC components; therefore, this FE model is
lining components, i.e. the sliding layer, reinforcement, and steel
lining, is demonstrated. Fig. 5a shows the values of wc and the steel
lining slip length, ls , with respect to the tangential distance from
the rock joint, xj . Fig. 5b shows the corresponding values of strain in
the steel lining, εs , and the reinforcement strain, εr , along xj . Con-
crete cracks that cause strain concentrations in the steel lining have
wc > 0:05 mm; however, the two largest εs are observed for wc >
0:2 mm at xj ¼ 30 cm and xj ¼ 20 cm. The largest slip of
maxðls Þ ¼ 0:04 mm and largest strains of maxðεr Þ ¼ 12& and
maxðεs Þ ¼ 13& occur close to the location of the two largest
concrete cracks. Locations of peak strains for the reinforcement are
slightly shifted due to the diagonal development of the concrete
cracks from the rock joint. The steel lining slip and strain of the
reinforcement take place at the concrete crack locations, reducing
strain concentrations in the steel lining.

3.4. Comparison with the analytical model

Johansson (2003) presented an analytical model for the steel

lining strain concentration due to the opening of concrete cracks,
which is compared with the FE model results in this section.
Because the derivation of this analytical model was not presented
previously, it is derived in detail in Appendix A. This analytical
model assumes that all tangential displacements are taken by the
opening of evenly spaced concrete cracks of equal width. Also, all
plastic strains prior to strain hardening in the steel are taken at
yielding initiation. Following the results from the FE model, two
concrete cracks along the 94 cm arc length of the concrete layer are
assumed for the analytical model, i.e. an average concrete crack
spacing of sc ¼ 31:3 cm. The other required inputs are pi ¼ 25
MPa, average steel lining strain of εs ¼ εqw ¼ 2:5& (Section 3.1),
steel lining properties from Table 4, and ms ¼ 0:35 (Table 5).
The comparison between the analytical and FE models is shown
in Table 7. Although the analytical model estimation of wc is more
than two times larger than the maximum wc from the FE model, the
minimum and maximum εs magnitudes are reasonably close be- Fig. 5. Response of lining components to the concrete cracking, showing (a) wc and ls
tween these two models. However, it is difficult to estimate a and (b) εs and εr . The location and range of xj are indicated in the figure.
1632 D.R. Damasceno et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 1625e1635

further analyzed in the next section for strain distributions in the Table 8
steel lining. Rock mass quality scenarios for the analysis.

Rock mass quality GSI εqw (&) min(sj) (m) mode(sj) (m) max(sj) (m)

4. Steel lining strain distributions “Fair” 60 6.1 0.1 0.5 1

“Good” 70 2.5 0.5 1 2
“Excellent” 80 1.1 1 2 3
4.1. Quality of the jointed rock mass

The geological conditions contribute with the largest un-

certainties in the LRC design and have a major influence on the
opening of rock joints. The influence of GSI on the strain in the steel
lining, εs , is studied considering the scenarios of “fair” (GSI ¼ 60),
“good” (GSI ¼ 70), and “excellent” (GSI ¼ 80) qualities of the rock
mass. The input rock mass parameters for each scenario are
calculated as described in Section 3.1. Based on the rock mass rating
system (Bieniawski, 1989) and considering correlation between fci ,
the drill core quality, and sj , possible values for minðsj Þ, modeðsj Þ,
and maxðsj Þ are estimated, as presented in Table 8. The calculated
magnitudes of εqw in this analysis vary only with GSI and are also
displayed in Table 8.
The distribution of εs over the arc length is shown in Fig. 6 for
the different scenarios in Table 8. Different εqw and sj are used in
these analysis, which have an influence on the concrete cracking
patterns, as shown in Fig. 6. For “excellent” quality rock mass, the
development of only a few narrow concrete cracks that stop at the
reinforcement can be observed. As the rock mass quality becomes
poorer, a larger number of wider concrete cracks develop and reach
the steel lining. Because of the fixed concrete layer thickness of 1 m
and the geometry of concrete cracking, all εs concentrations for
models with different sj take place within 50 cm < xj < 50 cm. In
general, a smaller GSI value with larger sj results in a higher fre-
quency of wider concrete cracks, where large εs magnitudes are
observed. For GSI ¼ 60 with sj ¼ 1 m, a maxðεs Þ ¼ 20& takes
place at xj ¼ 25 cm and 30 cm. For GSI ¼ 70 with sj ¼ 2 m,
values of maxðεs Þ ¼ 20& and 16& are located at xj ¼  20 cm and
30 cm, respectively. No significant strain concentrations take place
for GSI ¼ 80, giving εs z1:3& for all the considered sj .

4.2. Behavior of the reinforcement and sliding layer

In this analysis, the influences of the reinforcement and sliding

layer on the redistribution of strains in the steel lining are inves-
tigated. Regarding the reinforcement, the cases of an unreinforced
concrete layer and a well-reinforced concrete layer, i.e. using sr ¼
1:6 cm as the diameter of the rebar, are considered. The contact
behavior at the sliding layer concerns the cases of complete
detachment (ms ¼ 0) and complete attachment (ms / N) between
the concrete layer and the steel lining.
For the cases of ms ¼ 0, maximum values of wc ¼ 0:6 mm (no
reinforcement) and wc ¼ 0:4 mm (with reinforcement) are
observed, giving a maximum steel lining slip of ls ¼  0:4 mm in
both cases. For the cases of ms /N, there is no slip and wc < 0:2
mm. The distributions of εs are shown in Fig. 7, including the
reference scenario described in Sections 2.2e2.4 (sr ¼ 15 cm and
ms ¼ 0:35). For the unreinforced concrete layer, the value of
maxðεs Þ ¼ 18& is observed when ms ¼ 0 (xj ¼ 35 cm). The steel
lining behaves like a reinforcement at the surface of the concrete
Table 7
Comparison between the analytical and FE models.
Parameter Analytical
Fig. 6. Distribution of εs with respect to rock mass quality for (a) GSI ¼ 60, (b) GSI ¼
70, and (c) GSI ¼ 80. The values of minðsj Þ, modeðsj Þ, and maxðsj Þ are identified in
Table 8, and the corresponding concrete crack patterns are shown to the right.
layer when ms /N, giving a more even distribution of the εs values
with maxðεs Þ ¼ 12&. Adding the reinforcement in the concrete
layer with ms ¼ 0 results in a value of maxðεs Þ ¼ 14&, similar to
the reference scenario. When ms /N, further decrease of the con-
crete crack widths results in a more even εs distribution and lower
values of maxðεs Þ ¼ 8&. A reduction of 10& in the maximum steel
lining strain is observed between the cases of an unreinforced
concrete layer with ms ¼ 0 and a reinforced concrete layer with
ms /N. The reference scenario with sr ¼ 15 cm and ms ¼ 0:35
should be on the practical limit of the lining efficiency, since the
reinforcement behaves similarly to the one with sr ¼ 1:6 cm, and it
would be difficult to ensure ms /N at the concrete layeresteel
lining contact.
FE

Concrete crack width, wc (mm) 0.77 0.06e0.23

Minimum steel lining strain, minðεs Þ (&) 1.3 1.9e2.1
Maximum steel lining strain, maxðεs Þ (&) 14.6 10e13
 D.R. Damasceno et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 1625e1635 1633

Fig. 7. Analyses of the influence of the reinforcement and steel lining on the redis-
tribution of concrete cracks and strain concentrations in the steel lining. Distributions
of εs are shown for reference model and cases with ms ¼ 0 and ms / N considering (a)
the unreinforced concrete layer and (b) the reinforced concrete layer. “*” denotes that
the reference model from Sections 2.2e2.4 corresponds to sr ¼ 15 cm and ms ¼ 0:35.

5. Steel lining strain concentrations due to discrete rock

joints

It was observed in Section 4 that the largest effect on the

maximum magnitude of εs is associated with the geological con-
ditions, and that the reinforcementesliding layer setup used in the
reference case efficiently redistributes strains in the steel lining. In
this section, the analysis focuses specifically on the influence of
rock joints on the maximum strains in the steel lining, maxðεs Þ. In
Fig. 8a, evolutions of maxðεs Þ values within the steel lining as a
function of wj are shown for the rock mass quality scenarios in Fig. 8. Analyses of maxðεs Þ for (a) the rock mass scenarios described in Table 8
Section 4.1. The sharp increase in maxðεs Þ occurs if the steel lining considering the evolution of wj with respect to increasing εqw and (b) the steel lin-
yielding strain is exceeded, i.e. maxðεs Þ > 1:8&, as indicated in ing strain concentration relative to the maximum value of εqw at pi ¼ 25 MPa. Addi-
Fig. 8a. A constant maxðεs Þ is approached for the cases of GSI ¼ 60 tional simulations are performed in (b) for refinement with respect to sj .

with sj  0:5 m, which correspond to the cases with the most-

cracked concrete layers (see Fig. 6). The steel lining strain concen-
trations are redistributed by the newly formed concrete cracks. For
the case of GSI ¼ 80, the steel lining behaves elastically. In Fig. 8b,
the influence of discrete cracks on the steel lining strain concen-
trations is analyzed for GSI ¼ 60, 70, and 80 at the maximum
values of εqw ¼ 6:1&, 2:5&, and 1:1&, respectively. The ratios of
maxðεs Þ=εqw are plotted and shown for typical values of sj . The
largest influence of strain concentrations in the steel lining due to
discrete rock joints is observed for GSI ¼ 70, which is associated
with moderately large values for both εqw and sj . These conditions
correspond to “good” quality rock masses and have maximum steel
lining strains in the range of 3 < maxðεs Þ =εqw < 8. For the cases of
GSI ¼ 60, smaller values of sj and a more cracked concrete layer
result in smaller magnitudes of maxðεs Þ=εqw with a range of 2 <
maxðεs Þ =εqw < 4. The influence of discrete rock joints is minor for
GSI ¼ 80, having maxðεs Þz1:3εqw .
6. Conclusions
The FE model of an LRC subjected to high internal gas pressure
was analyzed to investigate the effect of the opening of rock joints
on strain concentrations in the steel lining. The characterization of
the main components was inspired by the LRC in Skallen in
southwestern Sweden. The displacements from a large-scale model
were applied to the boundaries of a small-scale model, where the
main LRC components were modeled in more detail. The initiation
and development of concrete cracks due to LRC gas pressurization
and opening of discrete rock joints were simulated.
The main observations from the analyses in this paper were as
follows:
(1) The presented FE model takes into account the effect of
opening of discrete rock joints and cracking of the concrete
1634 D.R. Damasceno et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 1625e1635

layer, and can better simulate the expected LRC behavior ls Steel lining slip length relative to the concrete layer
than the analytical model from Johansson (2003) (derived in mi Intact rock constant
Appendix A). This FE model included the complex interaction pi Pressure inside the lined rock cavern
between LRC components and can be used to calculate sc Average spacing of concrete cracks
maximum strains in the steel lining in the design of the LRC. sj Average spacing of rock joints
(2) Attained cavern wall tangential strain and the rock joint sr Spacing of reinforcement rebar
spacing were in combination with the most critical factors wc Width of concrete crack
for the concentration of strains in the steel lining. Thus, a wj Width of rock joint
discrete rock joint has the largest influence on the LRC design xs Radial distance from the steel lining
for geological conditions of “good” quality rock masses xj Tangential distance from the rock joint
(GSI ¼ 70), because such geological conditions combine εcr Crack opening strain
moderate values for both cavern wall tangential strain and εr Strain in the reinforcement
rock joint spacing. For better (GSI ¼ 80) or poorer (GSI ¼ εs Strain in the steel lining
60) rock mass qualities, the combined effect was less, even εqw Tangential strain in the rock cavern wall
though individual factors were larger. qh Angle from the direction of minimum horizontal in situ
(3) The smallest and most evenly distributed strains in the steel stress
lining were achieved for the case of a reinforced concrete ms Friction coefficient of the concrete layeresteel lining
layer with a rough contact interaction at the concrete layere contact
steel lining interface. For this case, the steel lining acted as an sco Confining pressure in the rock mass
additional reinforcement and further reduced the size of sh Minimum horizontal in situ stress
concrete cracks. sH Maximum horizontal in situ stress

In the presented model, the maximum steel strain was located

at the LRC mid-height, which may not be the case if the invert of the
LRC is not spherical or if weakness zones are present in the lining or
rock mass. However, the assumption of a large LRC height (2D
plane-strain) is conservative because it yields larger deformations
compared to a smaller-height LRC.
To facilitate analyses of strain concentrations related to non-
spherical inverts in the LRC geometry, future studies should
consider 3D models. To account for the uncertainty and variability
in the rock mass properties, reliability-based analyses could be
implemented. In addition, the influence of abrasion at the location
of the sliding layer and the interaction of hydrogen gas with the
steel lining should be investigated in future studies.
LRCs can be used as efficient large-scale storages for hydrogen
gas to contribute with the transition to a clean and renewable en-
ergy matrix for modern society. High safety requirements are
imposed for the storage of pressurized gases and the rock mass
properties are uncertain; thus, further studies on LRC design are
needed to ensure the reliability of this concept.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was financially supported by the Swedish Energy
Agency (Grant Nos. 42684-2 and P2022-00209). The authors are
very grateful to Dr. Richard Malm and Mr. Jonas Enzell for their
support with the concrete modeling.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.11.011.
List of symbols
fci Unconfined compressive strength of intact rock
GSI Geological strength index
le Element size in the small-scale model
References
Alejano, L.R., Alonso, E., 2005. Considerations of the dilatancy angle in rocks and
rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 42 (4), 481e507.
Baltay, P., Gjelsvik, A., 1990. Coefficient of friction for steel on concrete at high
normal stress. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2 (1), 46e49.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. Wiley, New York, USA.
Bjureland, W., Johansson, F., Sjölander, A., Spross, J., Larsson, S., 2019. Probability
distributions of shotcrete parameters for reliability-based analyses of rock
tunnel support. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 87, 15e26.
Brown, E.T., 1981. Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring e ISRM Suggested
Methods. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.
Carranza-Torres, C., Fosnacht, D., Hudak, G., 2017. Geomechanical analysis of the
stability conditions of shallow cavities for Compressed Air Energy Storage
(CAES) applications. Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour. 3, 131e174.

Cervenka, 
V., Jendele, L., Cervenka, J., 2020. ATENA Program Documentation, Part 1:

Theory. Cervenka Consulting Ltd., Prague, Czech Republic.
Cornelissen, H.A.W., Hordijk, D.A., Reinhardt, H.W., 1986. Experimental determi-
nation of crack softening characteristic of normal weight and lightweight
concrete. Heron 31 (2), 45e56.
Damasceno, D.R., Spross, J., Johansson, F., 2022. Rock mass response for lined rock
caverns subjected to high internal gas pressure. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.03.006.
Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp, 2019. Abaqus v2020 Software and Documentation.
Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., Johnston, USA.
EN 1992-1-1:2005, 2005a. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures e Part 1-1:
General Rules and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization
(CEN), Brussels, Belgium.
EN 1993-1-9:2005, 2005b. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures e Part 1-9: Fa-
tigue Strength. CEN, Brussels, Belgium.
Fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete), 2010. Fib Model Code for
Concrete Structures 2010. Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Genikomsou, A.S., Polak, M.A., 2015. Finite element analysis of punching shear of
concrete slabs using damaged plasticity model in ABAQUS. Eng. Struct. 98, 38e
48.
Glamheden, R., Curtis, P., 2006. Excavation of a cavern for high-pressure storage of
natural gas. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 21 (1), 56e67.
Hoek, E., 1983. Strength of jointed rock masses. Geotechnique 33 (3), 187e223.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (8), 1165e1186.
Hoek, E., Diederichs, M.S., 2006. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. 43 (2), 203e215.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., Corkum, B., 2002. HoekeBrown failure criterion e
2002 edition. In: Hammah, R. (Ed.), NARMS-TAC 2002: Mining and Tunnelling
Innovation and Opportunity: Proceedings of the 5th North American Rock
Mechanics Symposium and the 17th Tunnelling Association of Canada Confer-
ence. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, pp. 267e273.
Johansson, J., 2003. High Pressure Storage of Gas in Lined Rock Caverns: Cavern Wall
Design Principles. PhD Thesis. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Johansson, J., Stille, H., Sturk, R., 1995. Pilot Plant for Lined Gas Storage in Grän-
gesberg e In-Depth Analysis of the Experimental Results. TRITA-AMI Report
3004. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).
Johansson, F., Spross, J., Damasceno, D., Johansson, J., Stille, H., 2018. Investigation of
Research Needs Regarding the Storage of Hydrogen Gas in Lined Rock Caverns:
 D.R. Damasceno et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 1625e1635
Prestudy for Work Package 2.3 in HYBRIT Research Program 1. KTH Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Technical Report TRITA-ABE-RPT-
182.
Kim, H.M., Rutqvist, J., Ryu, D.W., Choi, B.H., Sunwoo, C., Song, W.K., 2012. Exploring
the concept of compressed air energy storage (CAES) in lined rock caverns at
shallow depth: a modeling study of air tightness and energy balance. Appl.
Energy 92, 653e667.
Kim, H.M., Rutqvist, J., Jeong, J.H., Choi, B.H., Ryu, D.W., Song, W.K., 2013. Charac-
terizing excavation damaged zone and stability of pressurized lined rock cav-
erns for underground compressed air energy storage. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 46,
1113e1124.
Krounis, A., Johansson, F., Larsson, S., 2016. Shear strength of partially bonded
concreteerock interfaces for application in dam stability analyses. Rock Mech.
Rock Eng. 49, 2711e2722.
Lee, J., Fenves, G.L., 1998. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete
structures. J. Eng. Mech. 124 (8), 892e900.
Lu, M., 1998. Finite element analysis of a pilot gas storage in rock cavern under high
pressure. Eng. Geol. 49, 353e361.
Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., Oñate, E., 1989. A plastic-damage model for concrete.
Int. J. Solid Struct. 25 (3), 299e326.
Malm, R., 2006. Shear Cracks in Concrete Structures Subjected to In-Plane Stresses.
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Malm, R., 2016. Guideline for FE Analyses of Concrete Dams. Energiforsk, Stockholm,
Sweden, p. 159. Report 2016:270.
Malm, R., Holmgren, J., 2008a. Cracking in deep beams owing to shear loading. Part
1: experimental study and assessment. Mag. Concr. Res. 60 (5), 371e379.
Malm, R., Holmgren, J., 2008b. Cracking in deep beams owing to shear loading. Part
2: non-linear analysis. Mag. Concr. Res. 60 (5), 381e388.
Mansson, L., Marion, P., Johansson, J., 2006. Demonstration of the LRC gas storage
concept in Sweden. In: Proceedings of the 23rd World Gas Conference. Inter-
national Gas Union, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 404e420.
Park, D., Kim, H.M., Ryu, D.W., Choi, B.H., Han, K.C., 2013. Probability-based struc-
tural design of lined rock caverns to resist high internal gas pressure. Eng. Geol.
153, 144e151.
Perazzelli, P., Anagnostou, G., 2016. Design issues for compressed air energy storage
in sealed underground cavities. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 8 (3), 314e328.
1635
Rijkswaterstaat, 2012. Guidelines for Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Concrete
Structures, Scope: Girder Members. Ministry of Infrastructure and Environ-
ment, Delft, Netherlands.
Tengborg, P., Johansson, J., Durup, J.G., 2014. Storage of highly compressed gases in
underground lined rock caverns e more than 10 years of experience. In: Tun-
nels for a Better Life: Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014. Inter-
national Tunnelling and Underground Space Association (ITA), Foz do Iguaçu,
Brazil.
World Steel Association, 2021. Climate Change and the Production of Iron and Steel.
https://worldsteel.org/publications/policy-papers/climate-change-and-the-
production-of-iron-and-steel/.
Xiao, Y., Chen, Z., Zhou, J., Leng, Y., Xia, R., 2017. Concrete plastic-damage factor for
finite element analysis: concept, simulation, and experiment. Adv. Mech. Eng. 9
(9). https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814017719642.
Zhou, S.W., Xia, C.C., Zhao, H.B., Mei, S.H., Zhou, Y., 2017. Numerical simulation for
the coupled thermo-mechanical performance of a lined rock cavern for un-
derground compressed air energy storage. J. Geophys. Eng. 14 (6), 1382e1398.
Zhou, S., Xia, C., Zhou, Y., 2020. Long-term stability of a lined rock cavern for
compressed air energy storage: thermo-mechanical damage modeling. Eur. J.
Environ. Civ. Eng. 24 (10), 2070e2093.
Davi Rodrigues Damasceno obtained his BSc degree in
Petroleum Engineering from the Federal University of
Espírito Santo, Brazil in 2014 and MSc degree in Structural
Geomechanics from the Missouri University of Science
and Technology, USA in 2016. He is currently a PhD stu-
dent at the Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics in the KTH
Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. His research focus
is on the improvement of the lined rock cavern design
methodology for the storage of hydrogen gas. This work is
a contribution to the Hydrogen Breakthrough Ironmaking
Technology (HYBRIT) initiative, which is a joint venture
project between major companies in the mining, iron-
making, and energy sectors, to implement a fossil-free
steelmaking process in Sweden. His work involves
reliability-based design within geotechnical engineering using finite element analysis.