fluids

Article
Effect of Overburden Height on Hydraulic Fracturing
of Concrete-Lined Pressure Tunnels Excavated in
Intact Rock: A Numerical Study
Moses Karakouzian 1 , Mohammad Nazari-Sharabian 1, * and Mehrdad Karami 2
1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction, University of Nevada Las Vegas,
Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA; mkar@unlv.nevada.edu
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 8415683111, Iran;
karami.mehrdad.ce@gmail.com
* Correspondence: nazarish@unlv.nevada.edu; Tel.: +1-702-205-9336




Received: 2 June 2019; Accepted: 17 June 2019; Published: 19 June 2019


Abstract: This study investigated the impact of overburden height on the hydraulic fracturing of
a concrete-lined pressure tunnel, excavated in intact rock, under steady-state and transient-state
conditions. Moreover, the Norwegian design criterion that only suggests increasing the overburden
height as a countermeasure against hydraulic fracturing was evaluated. The Mohr–Coulomb failure
criterion was implemented to investigate failure in the rock elements adjacent to the lining. A pressure
tunnel with an inner diameter of 3.6 m was modeled in Abaqus Finite Element Analysis (FEA), using
the finite element method (FEM). It was assumed that transient pressures occur inside the tunnel due
to control gate closure in a hydroelectric power plant, downstream of the tunnel, in three different
closure modes: fast (14 s), normal (18 s), and slow (26 s). For steady-state conditions, the results
indicated that resistance to the fracturing of the rock increased with increasing the rock friction angle,
as well as the overburden height. However, the influence of the friction angle on the resistance to
rock fracture was much larger than that of the overburden height. For transient-state conditions,
the results showed that, in fast, normal, and slow control gate closure modes, the required overburden
heights to failure were respectively 1.07, 0.8, and 0.67 times the static head of water in the tunnel
under a steady-state condition. It was concluded that increasing the height of overburden should not
be the absolute solution to prevent hydraulic fracturing in pressure tunnels.

Keywords: pressure tunnel; hydraulic fracturing; transient flow; finite element method (FEM);
Abaqus Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

1. Introduction
High-pressure water tunnels, usually excavated in rock, convey water from the upstream reservoir
toward the turbines in hydropower plants, and turn the energy of the flowing water into electricity.
These tunnels can be either steel-lined or concrete-lined; steel-lined pressure tunnels are safer, but
more costly to construct. Concrete-lined pressure tunnels are faced with serious challenges in design
and construction. In these tunnels, due to the lining permeability in areas where the rock is jointed,
water seeps into the joints and expands the cracks. In cases where the rock is intact and not jointed,
high internal pressure can fracture the rock. This phenomenon is called hydraulic fracturing, which
makes the rock mass on the tunnel unstable.
Researchers studied various aspects of hydraulic fracturing in pressure tunnels, some of which
are mentioned below. In 1986, Schleiss investigated leakage from pressure tunnels in the presence of
groundwater, and presented the leakage relationships under two conditions: cracked and non-cracked

Fluids 2019, 4, 112; doi:10.3390/fluids4020112 www.mdpi.com/journal/fluids

Fluids 2019, 4, 112 2 of 18

concrete linings. The author concluded that dynamic pressure caused by various factors, such as a
water hammer or earthquake, had a significant impact on the rate of leakage and expansion of rock
joints [1]. Fernández and Alvarez (1994) used the finite element method (FEM) to study water leakage
from a tunnel and effective stresses in the surrounding rock. The authors considered the ratio of total
stress to effective stress in the rock as a safety factor against hydraulic fracturing [2]. Furthermore,
using the FEM and a closed-form analytical solution, Bobet and Nam (2007) studied effective stresses
around pressure tunnels under steady-state operation. The authors assumed there was no groundwater
presence around the tunnel, and presented a new analytical solution for stresses and displacements
in the surrounding rock and the lining. Their solution considered the interaction between the lining,
surrounding rock, and pore pressure in the rock environment, as a result of leakage through the
lining [3]. Moreover, Hachem and Schleiss (2010) evaluated pressure wave velocities in steel-lined
pressure tunnels, with and without considering the fluid–structure interactions. The authors showed
changes in pressure wave velocity, due to the characteristics of the surrounding rock, the thickness of
the lining, and wave frequency [4].
Using the FEM, and in order to optimize the thickness of the concrete lining, Olumide and Marence
(2012) simulated a pressure tunnel in a two-dimensional elasto-plastic space in order to study the
effects of seepage on the tunnel’s concrete lining. The authors investigated cracks in the lining by
coupling in situ stresses in the rock with the stresses caused by leakage, and validated their numerical
model by the analytical method proposed by Schleiss (1986) [5]. Furthermore, Simanjuntak et al. (2014)
studied displacements and stresses in the concrete lining and rock mass using the FEM, considering
non-uniform in situ stresses around a pressure tunnel [6]. The authors showed that, in non-uniform
stress conditions around the tunnel, when the coefficient of lateral rock pressure (k0 ) is ≤1, cracks form
in the crown of the tunnel due to high internal pressure. In 2015, Zhou et al. considered the interactions
between fluid and the concrete lining in pressure tunnels in order to study stresses in a tunnel lining.
The authors considered the hydro-mechanical behavior of the surrounding rock and the tunnel lining
by simulating the fluid inside rock joints and cracks in the concrete lining [7]. More recently, Pachoud
and Schleiss (2016) investigated the impacts of the transient pressure wave in pressure tunnels due
to water hammer. The authors presented analytical formulas for stresses and displacements in the
environment around the tunnel [8]. In 2018, Zareifard presented an analytical solution for the design
of pressure tunnels, considering seepage from a tunnel [9]. It should be noted that, in addition to the
negative impacts of hydraulic fracturing in water resources and related structures, it is widely used in
the oil and gas industry as a novel method for the exploitation of underground reservoirs [10].
Based on the literature review, many researchers investigated cracking in the rock or tunnel
concrete lining in steady-state conditions with constant overburden, yet they did not consider the
interactive effects of overburden height and transient pressures on hydraulic fracturing in the rock
environment surrounding a tunnel. In the present study, in order to fill this gap in knowledge,
the impact of overburden height on the bearing capacity of a tunnel in a steady-state condition was
studied. For the next step, the effect of transient pressure caused by rapid gate operations on hydraulic
fracturing in a tunnel in critical conditions (e.g., load rejection of the powerhouse) was investigated.
The Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion was used to investigate the rock failure both in steady-state and
transient-state conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

Using the FEM and considering the environment around the tunnel as an intact rock with
elasto-plastic behavior, stresses around a tunnel were studied using the Abaqus Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) software [11]. Because cracks were not explicitly modeled in the numerical model,
principal stresses were used as indicators of potential fracturing. Since this solution involves the
hydraulics of water flow in the tunnel and the impacts of internal pressures on the surrounding
rock, the Hammer software and Abaqus FEA were linked for modeling and analyzing the system.
The Hammer software [12], which works based on the method of characteristics (MOC), was employed
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 3 of 18

to analyze the changes in the internal pressure inside the tunnel, as a function of time. The hydraulic
Fluids 2019, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18
analysis results, from the Hammer software in transient-state conditions, were transferred to the
Abaqus FEA the
results, from in order
Hammerto analyze
softwarestresses in the surrounding
in transient-state conditions,rock. It was assumed
were transferred to the that,
Abaqusat first,
FEA
the internal pressure was in the steady-state condition. Afterward, because of sudden gate closure,
in order to analyze stresses in the surrounding rock. It was assumed that, at first, the internal pressure
transient
was in the pressures builtcondition.
steady-state up in the tunnel. The because
Afterward, flowchartof below summarizes
sudden thetransient
gate closure, main steps in this
pressures
study
built up(Figure
in the1).tunnel. The flowchart below summarizes the main steps in this study (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The flowchart of this study.

2.1. Governing Equations

2.1. Governing Equations
Using
Using the general Navier–Stokes
the general Navier–Stokes equation
equation (Equation
(Equation (1)) and simplifying
(1)) and simplifying assumptions—(a)
assumptions—(a) fluid
fluid
inside the tunnel is non-viscous, (b) fluid velocity fluctuations are ignored, and (c) water has linear
inside the tunnel is non-viscous, (b) fluid velocity fluctuations are ignored, and (c) water has linear
compressibility—the hydrodynamic pressure
compressibility—the hydrodynamic pressure inside
inside the
the tunnel
tunnel can
can be
be obtained using Equations
obtained using Equations (1)(1)
and (2) [13].
and (2) [13].
∂v
!
ρ ∂ + v.∇v = −∇p + µ∇2 v + B, (1)
∂t
+ .∇ = −∇ + ∇ + , (1)
ρ ∂2 p
= ∇2 p, (2)
K ∂t2 = ∇ , (2)
where v is the flow velocity (m/s), µ is the fluid∂viscosity (Pa·s), B is the vector of body forces (N), p is
where
the v is
fluid the flow velocity
hydrodynamic (m/s),in
pressure μ is
thethe fluid (Pa),
tunnel viscosity (Pa·s),
K is the B is
bulk the vector
modulus of tbody
(Pa), forces
is time (N), ρp is
(s), and
fluid hydrodynamic
the water 3
density (kg/m pressure in the
). The only tunnel condition
boundary (Pa), K is the bulk modulus
governing the fluid(Pa), t is time
inside (s), and
the tunnel is ρthe
is
the water between
boundary density (kg/m 3). The only boundary condition governing the fluid inside the tunnel is the
the water and the lining. This boundary condition is defined as in Equation (3) [13].
boundary between the water and the lining. This boundary condition is defined as in Equation (3)
[13]. ∂p ..
= −ρusn , (3)
∂n
=− ̈ , .. (3)
where n is a perpendicular vector to the shared surface between the water and the lining, and us is the
second 2 ). The above
where nderivative of the lining
is a perpendicular elements’
vector displacements
to the shared in contact
surface between thewith theand
water fluid
the(m/s
lining, and ü s is
equation
the second derivative of the lining elements’ displacements in contact with the fluid (m/s ). Thesimilar
is based on the assumption that the radial displacements of the fluid and lining 2 are above
at the contact
equation surfaces.
is based on theThe connection
assumption thatbetween
the radialthedisplacements
hydrodynamic of pressures
the fluid andinside theare
lining tunnel
similar{p}
at the contact surfaces. The connection between the hydrodynamic pressures inside the tunnel {p}
and forces applied to the model caused by the hydrodynamic pressure {f} are linked by matrix [Q]
(Equation (4)) [14].
[ ]{ } = { }. (4)
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 4 of 18

and forces applied to the model caused by the hydrodynamic pressure {f } are linked by matrix [Q]
Fluids 2019,(4))
(Equation 4, x [14].
FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18
 
[Q] p = f . (4)
The coupling matrix [Q] links the hydrodynamic pressures due to gate closure, with forces
The coupling
generated in the matrix
concrete[Q]lining.
links This
the hydrodynamic
equation is solved pressures
by the dueAbaqus
to gateFEA,
closure, with forces
by applying the
generated in the concrete lining. This equation is solved by the Abaqus
boundary and initial conditions. Finally, the displacements and stresses in the rock due to FEA, by applying the boundary
and initial conditions.
hydrodynamic pressuresFinally, the displacements
are calculated. The forcesand stresses
in the in the
concrete rockdue
lining dueto to hydrodynamic
water pressure are
pressures
transferred to the surrounding rock. As a result, the equilibrium equation in the surroundingto
are calculated. The forces in the concrete lining due to water pressure are transferred theis
rock
surrounding
as follows [14]:rock. As a result, the equilibrium equation in the surrounding rock is as follows [14]:

[[M]{] u..̈ r }+
+[[C] ]{u. r ̇ +
}+ [K[]{u]{ } =r },{ },
n o n o
r } = {R
(5)
(5)
{Rr} = {f} − {fs}, (6)
{Rr } = {f } − {fs }, (6)
where M, C, and K are mass, damping, and hardness matrices, respectively; Rr is the vector of external
where M, C, and K are mass, damping, and hardness matrices, respectively; Rr is the vector of external
.. ü r and
forces on the rock; . u̇ are the second and first derivatives of the rock elements, respectively;
forces on the rock; ur and ur arer the second and first derivatives of the rock elements, respectively; and
and ur is the displacement of the rock elements. Equation (6) shows that part of the hydrodynamic
ur is the displacement of the rock elements. Equation (6) shows that part of the hydrodynamic force is
force is resisted by the concrete lining (fs). Therefore, the relationship between hydrodynamic
resisted by the concrete lining (f s ). Therefore, the relationship between hydrodynamic pressure and
pressure and displacements in the surrounding rock is obtained by linking Equations (4) and (5).
displacements in the surrounding rock is obtained by linking Equations (4) and (5).
2.2.FEM
2.2. FEMandandEffective
EffectiveParameters
Parameters
In the FEM modeling, the following factors were considered in the simulations:
In the FEM modeling, the following factors were considered in the simulations:
 A circular tunnel was excavated in intact rock by a tunnel boring machine (TBM);
• A circular tunnel was excavated in intact rock by a tunnel boring machine (TBM);
 Water pore pressure was considered in the concrete lining and in the rock;
• Water pore pressure was considered in the concrete lining and in the rock;
 The Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion was implemented in order to study stresses in the
• The Mohr–Coulomb
rock; failure criterion was implemented in order to study stresses in the rock;
• A damage plasticity behavior
 A damage plasticity behaviorwas considered in the concrete
was considered lining. lining.
in the concrete
Using
Usinga trial-and-error procedure,
a trial-and-error procedure,the the
model boundaries
model werewere
boundaries selected in a way
selected in asoway
as tosonot
as affect
to not
stress
affectdistribution around the
stress distribution tunnel.
around theTherefore, the modelthe
tunnel. Therefore, boundaries were set atwere
model boundaries 25dat(d6d= ×tunnel
6d ×set 25d (d
diameter)
= tunnel (Figure 2). More
diameter) details
(Figure on the details
2). More grid andonboundary
the grid sensitivity analyses
and boundary are presented
sensitivity analyses in the
are
Appendix
presentedA.inTable 1 shows the
the appendix. mechanical
Table 1 shows properties of theproperties
the mechanical lining. It was assumed
of the lining. that theassumed
It was tunnel
was
thatlocated above
the tunnel wasthelocated
groundwater level.
above the groundwater level.

Figure2.2.The
Figure Thegeometry
geometryofofthe
thesurrounding
surroundingrock
rockand
andthe
theexcavation
excavationsection.
section.

Table 1. Mechanical properties of the lining [15,16].

Parameter Value
Elasticity (GPa) 25
Tensile strength (MPa) 3
Cohesion (MPa) 4.5
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 5 of 18

Table 1. Mechanical properties of the lining [15,16].

Parameter Value
Elasticity (GPa) 25
Tensile strength (MPa) 3
Cohesion (MPa) 4.5
Inner friction angle (◦ ) 45
Poisson's ratio (-) 0.25
Density (kg/m3 ) 2400
Axial compressive strength (MPa) 28.3
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s) 1 × 10−8

The only degree of freedom inside a water pressure tunnel is pressure in the fluid nodes. In Abaqus
FEA, acoustic elements possess this feature and are appropriate for simulating the fluid movement
inside a tunnel. Since acoustic environments are elastic, shear stresses do not exist in these environments
and pressure is proportional to volume strain. In addition, the effects of inertia and compressibility are
considered in acoustic elements [17].
In this study, the interactions between the fluid, lining, and surrounding rock were considered,
and the fluid density was set at 1000 kg/m3 , with a bulk modulus of 2.07 GPa. Taking into account the
interaction between the fluid and lining, the structure surfaces and fluid that are in contact were tied
together in Abaqus FEA. Applying the same reasoning, the external nodes of the lining were tied with
the nodes of the surrounding rock due to structure–rock interactions.
The environment around the tunnel has in situ stresses. By defining the height, specific weight,
and the lateral stress coefficients of the rock, equilibrium conditions between the horizontal and vertical
stresses were achieved, which resulted in zero ground settlement before tunnel excavation.
Since the transient pressure inside the tunnel depends on factors such as gate operations,
this pressure was applied to the model as a quasi-static load (by gradually increasing the loading,
so that the impacts of inertia became negligible). This means that, at different times, different pressures
were applied to the lining. In order to apply the time-variable pressure to all of the nodes in the acoustic
environment, the amplitude function in Abaqus FEA was used.
The plane strain elements with linear interpolation function were employed to mesh the
surrounding rock and concrete lining. In Abaqus FEA, these types of elements are called CPE4R
(continuum plain strain element 4-node reduced integration). Meshing was such that, by approaching
the tunnel section, the mesh size decreased to achieve more precise results. Moreover, plane stress
family elements were used for meshing the lining. In Abaqus FEA, these elements are called CPS4R
(continuum plain stress element 4-node reduced integration). Furthermore, in the lining and rock
elements, the reduced integration method was implemented, and AC2D4 elements (acoustic continuum
2-dimension 4-node) were used to simulate water transient pressure inside the tunnel [11,18].
The first step in this research study was simulating in situ stresses. In order to have zero ground-surface
settlement before tunnel excavation, these stresses should satisfy Equations (7) and (8) [19].

σv = γr h, (7)

σh = γr hk0 , (8)

where γr is the specific weight of the rock, h is the height of the overburden rock, and k0 is the coefficient
of lateral rock pressure. In the next step, the tunnel excavation was simulated. It was assumed that the
tunnel was excavated by a tunnel boring machine. At this stage, the release of stress and displacements
occurred in the rock. After the tunnel cross-section, the concrete lining was simulated. In this step,
a concrete lining with the specifications presented in Table 1 was modeled. Interaction between
the rock and the lining was considered using tangential and normal stiffnesses. The final step was
applying steady-state conditions and hydrodynamic water pressure to the lining. It was assumed
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 6 of 18

that the transient pressure inside the tunnel would occur due to the turbine gate closure in a typical
Fluids 2019, 4, x FOR
hydropower PEER
plant REVIEW
(Figure 3). 6 of 18

Figure
Figure 3. Simplified hydropower
3. Simplified hydropower plan.
plan.

Using the Hammer software, hydraulic analyses were performed in steady-state and transient-state
Using the Hammer software, hydraulic analyses were performed in steady-state and transient-
conditions, by defining the characteristics of the duct (water tunnel), reservoir, and gate closure schedule.
state conditions, by defining the characteristics of the duct (water tunnel), reservoir, and gate closure
The parameters used for these analyses and their values are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Water velocity
schedule. The parameters used for these analyses and their values are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
was considered to be 6 m/s, according to the recommended value by the United States Bureau of
Water velocity was considered to be 6 m/s, according to the recommended value by the United States
Reclamation [20]. Moreover, in order to create critical conditions in the tunnel to determine its bearing
Bureau of Reclamation [20]. Moreover, in order to create critical conditions in the tunnel to determine
capacity, it was assumed that the surge tank was disabled. The maximum flow rate was considered
its bearing capacity, it was assumed that the surge tank was disabled. The maximum flow rate was
to be 60 m3 /s, and, according to the gate closure time in typical water tunnels, the gate closure times
considered to be 60 m3/s, and, according to the gate closure time in typical water tunnels, the gate
were considered to be 14 s (fast), 18 s (normal), and 26 s (slow). Furthermore, based on the duct
closure times were considered to be 14 s (fast), 18 s (normal), and 26 s (slow). Furthermore, based on
characteristics, the pressure wave velocity according to the characteristics of the duct was determined
the duct characteristics, the pressure wave velocity according to the characteristics of the duct was
by Equation (9), where D is the inner diameter of the tunnel, E is the elastic concrete modulus, and tc is
determined by Equation (9), where D is the inner diameter of the tunnel, E is the elastic concrete
the lining thickness [21].
modulus, and tc is the lining thickness [21].s
1
a=     . (9)
ρw ( Kw 1+ Dλ
1
Etc )
= . (9)
1
( + )
Table 2. Geometric and hydraulic characteristics of the duct.

ItInner
was assumed that the lining
Hazencould expand
Initialin the longitudinal direction, which Initial
resultsFlow
in a λ
Thickness Pressure Wave Upstream
(confinement
Diameter coefficient) value of 1 [21].
Williams Discharge Velocity
(mm) Velocity (m/s) Head (m)
(m) Coefficient (-) (m3 /s) (m/s)
3.6 200 Table 2. Geometric
100 and hydraulic
60 characteristics
911 of the duct. 80 6

Initial Pressure
Initial Hazen Inner
It was assumed
Flow that the lining
Upstream Wave could expand in the longitudinal direction, which results in a λ
Thickness
Discharge Williams Diameter
(confinement
Velocity coefficient)
Head (m)valueVelocity
of 1 [21]. (mm)
(m3/s) Coefficient (-) (m)
The location for investigating
(m/s) stresses in the rock was considered to be near the penstock (Node C)
(m/s)
in the tunnel
6 path. Finally,
80 the pressure
911 values at
60this point, obtained
100 by the Hammer
200 software,
3.6 were
input to the Abaqus FEA, under hydrodynamic pressure loadings.
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 7 of 18

Table 3. Node elevations and properties of node E (turbine).

Elevations (m) Node Properties of Node E (Turbine)

The diameter of the spherical valve (m) 1.5
A (inlet) 2305 Efficiency (%) 90
B 2263.1 Moment of inertia (N·m2 ) 107
C 2262.62 Speed (rpm) 580
D 1753.5 Specific speed 115
E 1714.9
Gate closure schedule curve Variable
F (outlet) 1770

2.3. Parametric Study in Steady-State Conditions

In this study, the bearing capacity of the pressure tunnel under a steady-state condition was
investigated. The bearing capacity of a concrete-lined pressure tunnel is dependent either on the tensile
strength of the surrounding rock only, or both the concrete and the rock. Generally, in pressure tunnels
that are excavated in intact rock, the concrete lining does not contribute to the stability of the tunnel
during excavation and only provides an appropriate bed for water to be conveyed toward the turbine.
Crack formation in the surrounding rock (hydraulic fracturing), due to high internal pressure,
shows that the pressure tunnel reached its ultimate capacity; therefore, a parametric study was
performed to investigate the impact of overburden height on the ultimate bearing capacity of the
pressure tunnel in a steady-state condition. Figure 4 shows the effective parameters in the bearing
capacity of a tunnel. Pe (pi ) is the water pressure on the outer surface of the concrete lining due to
seepage. According to Equation (10), this parameter is dependent on internal pressure, and it was
calculated using the FEM in the present study [22].
pi
Pe ( pi ) =    , (10)
Fluids 2019, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW  kr ln rrei  8 of 18
1 +  
kc ln( rRe ) 

In each analysis, the bearing capacity of the tunnel was determined by increasing the internal
pressure (pi) to theof
where t (thickness point
the at whichk0the
lining), , krfirst crack was
(hydraulic formed in of
conductivity thethe
surrounding
rock), and rock. In thisweight
γr (specific situation,
of
the corresponding p was considered as the failure threshold, which indicates
the rock) were considered constant for all analyses, and their values are presented in Table 4. Moreover,
i the ultimate bearing
capacity
the valuesoffor theErtunnel.
, C, ϕ, and h are presented in Table 5.

Figure 4. Effective
Figure 4. Effective parameters
parameters in
in the
the parametric
parametric study.
study.

2.4. Verification of the FEM

Tunsakul et al. (2014) investigated fracture propagation in a rock mass surrounding a tunnel,
under high internal pressure, in an experimental model [26]. In order to verify the numerical model
developed in the present study, an experiment with k0 = 0.5 was considered. Other assumptions based
on the experimental model were as follows: no concrete lining exists (t = 0); the surrounding rock is
impermeable (Pe(pi) = 0). According to Tunsakul et al. (2014), the cracking location depends on the
Fluids 2019, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18

In each analysis, the bearing capacity of the tunnel was determined by increasing the internal
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 8 of 18
pressure (pi) to the point at which the first crack was formed in the surrounding rock. In this situation,
the corresponding pi was considered as the failure threshold, which indicates the ultimate bearing
capacity of the tunnel. Table 4. Constant values in present study.

Parameter Value
t (cm) 20
k0 (-) 0.5
kr (m/s) 1 × 10−7
γr (kN) 28

Table 5. Parameters and their values in parametric analyses [23–25].

Parameter Range
Er (GPa) 2–10
C (MPa) 0.635–1
ϕ (◦ ) 27.57–35.47
h (m) 10–40

In each analysis, the bearing capacity of the tunnel was determined by increasing the internal
pressure (pi ) to the point at which the first crack was formed in the surrounding rock. In this situation,
the corresponding pi was considered as the failure threshold, which indicates the ultimate bearing
capacity of the tunnel. Figure 4. Effective parameters in the parametric study.

2.4. Verification of the FEM

Tunsakul et al. (2014) (2014) investigated
investigated fracture
fracture propagation
propagation in in aa rock
rock mass
mass surrounding
surrounding aa tunnel,
tunnel,
under high internal pressure, in an experimental model [26]. In order to verify the numerical model
developed in the present
present study,study,an
an experiment
experimentwithwithkk00 = 0.5 was
= 0.5 was considered.
considered. Other
Other assumptions
assumptions based
on the experimental model were as follows: no concrete lining exists (t = = 0); the surrounding rock is
impermeable (Pee(p
impermeable (pi)i ) ==0).
0).According
Accordingto toTunsakul
Tunsakul etet al.
al. (2014),
(2014), the
the cracking
cracking location
location depends
depends on the
coefficient of lateral rock pressure (k00). When k00 <<1,1,cracking
pressure (k crackingoccurs
occursin inthe
thecrown
crown ofof the
the tunnel,
tunnel, and,
and,
for k00 ≥≥1,1,cracks
cracksform
format atthe
thesides
sidesof
ofthe
thetunnel.
tunnel. The
TheFEM FEMresults
results were
were inin agreement
agreement with
with the findings
of Tunsakul et et al.
al. (2014), since cracks formed in the crown crown of of the
the tunnel
tunnel (Figure
(Figure 5).
5).

Figure 5.
5. Comparing
Comparing the
the formation
formation and
and location
location of cracks in the
the numerical
numerical model
model (a)
(a) vs.
vs. the
experimental model by Tunsakul
Tunsakul et
et al.
al. (2014) (b).

3. Results and Discussion

3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Changes in Pore Pressure
3.1. Changes in Pore Pressure
Since concrete is not completely impermeable, water passing through the pores penetrates into the
surrounding rock. The permeability of rock varies between 1 (completely permeable) and 10−12 m/s
 m/s (almost impermeable). Figure 6 shows a comparison between the pore pressures obtained from
the numerical model and the value obtained from Bouvard’s and Pinto’s (1969) analytical solutions
(Equation (10)) [22]. According to Figure 6, the pore pressure obtained using the analytical solution
is greater than the value obtained from the numerical solution.
The hydro-mechanical interaction is caused by jointing in rocks due to water pressure. As a
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 9 of 18
result, water penetration toward the rock increases, which consequently leads to more leakage from
the tunnel, and increases the pore pressure inside the rock joints. In analyses performed by Bouvard
and Pinto,
(almost it was assumed
impermeable). that6 the
Figure rocka was
shows a porousbetween
comparison medium, without
the effective obtained
pore pressures stresses due
from to
overburden
the numericalrock. However,
model and thein the present
value numerical
obtained modeling,
from Bouvard’s andeffective
Pinto’s stresses due to overburden
(1969) analytical solutions
rock, which
(Equation (10))reduce the pore to
[22]. According pressure inthe
Figure 6, thepore
rock, were considered
pressure as important
obtained using factors
the analytical in the
solution is
simulation.
greater than the value obtained from the numerical solution.

50
Present Numerical Model

40 Analytical
Pore Pressure (kPa)

30

20

10

0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Distance from the Center of the Tunnel (m)
Figure 6. Numerical vs. analytical results for pore pressures in the rock.
Figure 6. Numerical vs. analytical results for pore pressures in the rock.
The hydro-mechanical interaction is caused by jointing in rocks due to water pressure. As a result,
3.2. Bearing Capacity of the Tunnel in Normal Operating Conditions (Steady-State Conditions)
water penetration toward the rock increases, which consequently leads to more leakage from the tunnel,
and increases
Based onthe pore
the pressure inside
mechanical the rock joints.
characteristics of the In analyses
rock, performed
and using by Bouvard and failure
the Mohr–Coulomb Pinto,
itcriterion,
was assumed that the
the failure of rock was ainporous
elements medium,
the rock withoutsurrounding
environment effective stresses due to was
the tunnel overburden rock.
investigated.
However, in the present
In this regard, maximum numerical modeling,
and minimum effectivestresses
principal stresses were
due tocalculated
overburden rock,
and arewhich reduce
presented in
the pore7.pressure
Figure Since thein problem
the rock, was
weresymmetric,
consideredhalf
as important factors
of the rock in the
elements simulation. the tunnel were
surrounding
investigated.
3.2. Bearing Capacity of the Tunnel in Normal Operating Conditions (Steady-State Conditions)
3
Based on the mechanical characteristics of the rock, and using the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion,
Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)

C = 0.635 MPa
the failure of elements in the rock
Er = 2environment
GPa surrounding 2.5the tunnel was investigated. In this regard,
maximum and minimum principal stresses
φ = 27.57° were calculated and are presented in Figure 7. Since the
h = 10 m 2
problem was symmetric, half of the rock elements surrounding the tunnel were investigated.
In the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion, the critical line divides the two-dimensional (2D) principal
1.5
stresses into the safe zone (below the critical line), and the area where stresses cause failure in the
element (above the critical line). Due to water pressure on 1the lining, and the transmission of part of
this pressure to the rock, tensile stresses appear around the tunnel. Figure 7 shows that the combined
stresses in elements surrounding the tunnel are located below 0.5 the critical line, indicating that these
elements do not fail. In Figure 7, the elements located near the critical line are considered as critical
0
elements, which means higher-0.8
water pressures
-0.6 -0.4
will cause
-0.2
these0 elements0.2
to fail.0.4Therefore, this internal
pressure is the ultimate value that the rock can endure.
Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)
 Based on the mechanical characteristics of the rock, and using the Mohr–Coulomb failure
Fluids 2019, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18
criterion, the failure of elements in the rock environment surrounding the tunnel was investigated.
In this regard, maximum and minimum principal stresses were calculated and are presented in
Figure 7. The principal stresses in elements surrounding the tunnel, and their locations relative to the
Figure 7. Since
Fluids critical
2019, 4, 112
the problem was symmetric, half of the rock elements surrounding the tunnel were
line. 10 of 18
investigated.
In the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion, the critical line divides the two-dimensional (2D)
3
principal stresses into the safe zone (below the critical line), and the area where stresses cause failure

Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)

C = 0.635 MPa
in the element (above the critical line). Due to water pressure
Er = 2 GPa 2.5 on the lining, and the transmission of
part of this pressure to theφrock, tensile stresses appear around the tunnel. Figure 7 shows that the
= 27.57°
combined stresses in elementsh = 10surrounding
m 2 located below the critical line, indicating
the tunnel are
that these elements do not fail. In Figure 7, the elements located near the critical line are considered
1.5
as critical elements, which means higher water pressures will cause these elements to fail. Therefore,
this internal pressure is the ultimate value that the rock can1 endure.
Considering the ultimate bearing capacity (Pi ) obtained from the FEM, the Norwegian design
U

criterion (NC) was evaluated to determine the overburden 0.5 required to prevent hydraulic fracturing,

due to the internal static head in the pressure tunnel (Equation

0
(11)).
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 . 0 0.2 0.4
ℎ >Principal Stress
Minimum , (MPa) (11)
. cos
where Figure theThe
h is 7. principal stresses
minimum in elements
overburden heightsurrounding
to preventthe tunnel, and
hydraulic their locations
fracturing, H isrelative to thewater
the static
heightcritical
in theline.
tunnel, β is the slope of the valley that is equal to zero in this study, and γw and γr are
the specific gravities of water and rock, respectively. The NC estimated the ultimate bearing capacity
Considering the ultimate bearing capacity (P U ) obtained from the FEM, the Norwegian design
of the tunnel as 28 m water (for γw = 10 kN, γr = 28i kN, and h = 10 m).
criterion (NC) was evaluated to determine the overburden required to prevent hydraulic fracturing,
Figure 8 shows (a) the ultimate bearing capacity of the tunnel under a steady-state condition
due to the internal static head in the pressure tunnel (Equation (11)).
based on the FEM results and the NC, (b) stress distribution in the rock, and (c) vertical displacements
in the rock. According to the FEM results, the internal γw ·H pressure equal to 8.7 bar (87 m water) is the
maximum bearing capacity of the tunnel. According h > ,
toβFigure 8d, at first, the concrete lining cracks, (11)
γr · cos
and then cracking occurs in the surrounding rock. Afterward, a parametric study was performed and
where h isof
the effect theoverburden
minimum overburden
height on the height to prevent
bearing capacity hydraulic fracturing,
of the tunnel H is the static(Figure
was investigated water height
9 and
in the tunnel,
Table 6). β is the slope of the valley that is equal to zero in this study, and γ w and γ r are the specific
gravities
For of water andofrock,
validation the respectively. The NC
results, an actual estimated
pressure the ultimate
tunnel project bearing capacityNorway)
(Herlansfoss, of the tunnel
was
as 28 m water
considered. thisγproject,
In(for w = 10 kN, theγrock
r = 28surrounding
kN, and h = the 10 m). tunnel is made of non-cracked schist with a
Figure
friction angle8 shows
equal (a) the ultimate
to 30°. bearing
At chainages capacity
150–200 m ofof the
the tunnel
tunnelunder
path, athesteady-state condition based
tunnel is horizontal, with
on the FEM results
overburden height andand the NC, (b) stress
an internal distribution
pressure of 45 m and in the 136rock, and (c)respectively.
m water, vertical displacements
In this range, in the
no
rock. According to the FEM results, the internal pressure equal to 8.7 bar
failure of the rock due to the internal pressure is observed [23]. The Pi values based on the FEM (87
U m water) is the maximum
bearing(Figure
results capacity9), of the
the tunnel.
NC, and According to Figure
in the actual 8d, at
project, arefirst, the to
equal concrete lining
138, 126, andcracks,
136 m and then
water,
cracking occurs
respectively, in the surrounding
indicating that the FEM rock. Afterward,
results a parametric
are reliable. According study was performed
to Table 6 and Figure and9,the effect
changes
of overburden height on the bearing capacity of the tunnel
in Pi with increasing the overburden height are more dependent on φ than E and C.
U was investigated (Figure 9 and Table 6).

120
Internal Pressure (m water)

100
= 87 m water (the FEM)

80

60

40
PiU = 28 m water
(the NC)
20
(a)
0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Maximum Principal Stress (MPa)

Figure 8. Cont.
 Fluids 2019, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 11 of 18
Fluids 2019, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

Figure 8. (a) The bearing capacity of the tunnel; (b,c) maximum stress and vertical displacement
contours
Figure 8. (a)inThe
8. the surrounding rockof
bearing capacity in the
a steady-state condition;
tunnel; (b,c) maximum (d,e) crack
stress formation
and
and vertical in
vertical the lining and
displacement
displacement
rock.
contours in
contours inthe
thesurrounding
surroundingrock
rock
inin a steady-state
a steady-state condition;
condition; (d,e)
(d,e) crack
crack formation
formation in theinlining
the lining and
and rock.
rock.
160 160
Internal Pressure (m water)

Internal Pressure (m water)

160140 160140

140120 140120
Internal Pressure (m water)

Internal Pressure (m water)

120100 120100

100 80 100 80

80 60 80 60

60 40 60 40

40 20 40 20
(a) (b)
20 0 20 0
-0.5 0 0.5 (a) 1 -0.5 0 0.5 (b) 1
0 0
Max. Principal Stress (MPa) Max. Principal Stress (MPa)
-0.5 0 0.5 1 -0.5 0 h = 200.5
m 1
h = 10 m
Max. Principal Stress (MPa) Max. Principal Stress (MPa)
h = 10 m h = 20 m
160 160
Internal Pressure (m water)
Internal Pressure (m water)

160140 160140
Internal Pressure (m water)

140120 140120
Internal Pressure (m water)

120100 120100
100 80 100 80
80 60 80 60
60 40 60 40
40 20 40 20
(c) (d)
20 0 20 0
-0.5 0 0.5 (c) 1 -0.5 0 0.5 (d) 1
0 0
Max. Principal Stress (MPa) Max. Principal Stress (MPa)
-0.5 0 0.5
h = 30 m 1 -0.5 0 h = 400.5
m 1
Max. Principal Stress (MPa) Max. Principal Stress (MPa)
h = 30 m h = 40 m
φ = 27.57° φ = 29.34° φ = 32.86° φ = 34.32° φ = 35.47°

φ = 27.57° φ = 29.34° φ = 32.86° φ = 34.32° φ = 35.47°

Figure 9. Effect of overburden height on the bearing capacity of the tunnel. (a) h = 10 m; (b) h = 20 m;
h = 30 m;
(c) Figure (d) h =of40overburden
9. Effect m. height on the bearing capacity of the tunnel. (a) h = 10 m; (b) h = 20 m;
(c) h = 30 m; (d) h = 40 m.
Figure 9. Effect of overburden height on the bearing capacity of the tunnel. (a) h = 10 m; (b) h = 20 m;
(c) h = 30 m; (d) h = 40 m.
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 12 of 18

Table 6. The ultimate bearing capacity of the tunnel (PU

i
), under different scenarios. FEM—finite element model.

Scenario No. Er (MPa) h (m) C (MPa) ϕ (◦ ) PU

i
(m) Based on the FEM
M-1 2177.94 0.635 27.57 87.3373
M-2 3076.42 0.701 29.34 87.2097
M-3 6138.26 10 0.851 32.86 93.5221
M-4 8185.51 0.929 34.32 120.7
M-5 10,304.94 1.003 35.47 138.62
M-6 2177.94 0.635 27.57 83.0878
M-7 3076.42 0.701 29.34 116.1696
M-8 6138.26 20 0.851 32.86 118.795
M-9 8185.51 0.929 34.32 114.442
M-10 10,304.94 1.003 35.47 100.166
M-11 3076.42 0.701 29.34 89.491
Fluids 2019, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW
M-12 2177.94 0.635 27.57 110.301 12 of 18
M-13 Table 6. The6138.26 capacity of the0.851
ultimate bearing30 32.86
tunnel ( ), under 120.613
different scenarios. FEM—finite
M-14 8185.51 0.929
element model. 34.32 100.115
M-15 10,304.94 1.003 35.47 119.295
Scenario No. Er (MPa) h (m) C (MPa) φ (°) (m) Based on the FEM
M-16 2177.94 2177.94
M-1 0.635
0.635 27.57 27.57 87.3373 58.334
M-17 M-2
3076.42 3076.42 0.701
0.701 29.34 29.34 87.2097 126.234
M-18 M-3
6138.26 6138.2640 10 0.851
0.851 32.86 32.86 93.5221 98.698
M-19 M-4
8185.51 8185.51 0.929
0.929 34.32 34.32 120.7 100.362
M-5
M-20 10,304.9410,304.94 1.003
1.003 35.47
35.47 138.62
101.633
M-6 2177.94 0.635 27.57 83.0878
M-7 3076.42 0.701 29.34 116.1696
M-8 6138.26 20 0.851 32.86 118.795
For validation of the M-9
results, an
8185.51
actual pressure
0.929
tunnel
34.32
project (Herlansfoss, Norway) was
114.442
considered. In this project,
M-10the rock surrounding the
10,304.94 tunnel
1.003 is made of 100.166
35.47 non-cracked schist with a friction
angle equal to 30◦ . At chainages
M-11 150–200
3076.42 m of the tunnel
0.701 path,
29.34 the tunnel is horizontal, with overburden
89.491
M-12 2177.94 0.635 27.57 110.301
height and an internal pressure of 45 m and 136 m water, respectively. In this range, no failure of the
M-13 6138.26 30 0.851 32.86 120.613
rock due to the internal pressure is observed [23].0.929 U
The P34.32
M-14 8185.51 i values based on the FEM results (Figure 9),
100.115
the NC, and in the actual project,10,304.94
M-15 are equal to 138, 126, and
1.003 35.47 136 m water,
119.295respectively, indicating that
M-16 2177.94 0.635 27.57 58.334
the FEM results are reliable. According to Table 6 and Figure 9, changes in Pi U with increasing the
M-17 3076.42 0.701 29.34 126.234
overburden height are moreM-18 dependent
6138.26 on40 ϕ than E and32.86
0.851 C. 98.698
In this study, the NCM-19estimated the ultimate0.929
8185.51 bearing capacity of100.362
34.32 the concrete-lined tunnel with
M-20 10,304.94 1.003 35.47 101.633
20 cm of the lining thickness and 3.6 m of diameter in intact rock, less than the value obtained from the
numerical modelIninthis study,
most the NC
cases estimated
(Figure the According
10). ultimate bearingto capacity
Figureof10,thefor
concrete-lined
all frictiontunnel with up to 30 m
angles,
20 cm of the lining thickness and 3.6 mU of diameter in intact rock, less than the value obtained from
of overburden height, the NC estimated Pi less
the numerical model in most cases (Figure
than the FEM. By increasing the overburden height
10). According to Figure 10, for all friction angles, up to
U obtained from the FEM results
to values greater than
30 m of 30 m, height,
overburden for allthe quantities
NC estimated ofPfriction
iU less than the FEM.PBy
angles, i increasing the overburden
approached theheight to values
value greaterfrom
obtained than 30
them,NC.
for all quantities ofthe
Therefore, friction
NC angles, PiU obtainedthe
overestimates from the FEM
overburden required
results approached the value obtained from the NC. Therefore, the NC overestimates the overburden
to prevent hydraulic fracturing in pressure tunnels located near the ground surface (h ≤ 30 m).
required to prevent hydraulic fracturing in pressure tunnels located near the ground surface (h ≤ 30
m).
160
Herlansfoss Project
140
120
PiU (m water)

100
80
60
40
Safe Zone According to the NC
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Height of the Overburden (m)

φ = 27.57° φ = 29.34° φ = 32.86° φ = 34.32° φ = 35.47° The NC

Pi U based
Figure 10. Comparing Pi based on the finite element model (FEM) results, the Norwegian design
U
Figure 10. Comparing on the finite element model (FEM) results, the Norwegian design
criterion (NC), and an actual pressure tunnel project, under steady-state conditions.
criterion (NC), and an actual pressure tunnel project, under steady-state conditions.
3.3. Applying Pressure Fluctuations in Transient-State Conditions
While the gate is being closed, the velocity upstream of the gate decreases, which results in a
pressure build-up in the tunnel. The maximum pressure occurs when the gate is fully closed. Figure
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 13 of 18
Fluids 2019, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18

11 shows the pressure fluctuations upstream of the gate during the total time of hydraulic analysis.
3.3. Applying Pressure Fluctuations in Transient-State Conditions
In this study, it was assumed that the gate closure was done at a constant rate. Under sudden load
FluidsWhile
rejection, 4,the
2019,which
x FORgate is being
happens
PEER closed,
when
REVIEW the velocity
the gate is closedupstream
quickly atof the gate decreases,
a constant rate, criticalwhich results
conditions in
of a
occur
13 18
pressure build-up in the tunnel. The maximum pressure occurs when the
in the hydropower tunnel. This often occurs in special situations, such as a turbine generator shut gate is fully closed. Figure 11
shows
11 shows
down the pressure
due the
to an fluctuations
pressure
earthquake. Ifupstream
fluctuations of closed
upstream
the gate is theofgate induring
the gate the
during
several total
thetime
stages, ofdifferent
total
with hydraulic
time analysis.
of hydraulic
closure In this
analysis.
rates, the
study,
In thisitstudy,
maximum was assumed
transient that theand
it waspressure
assumed gate
thattheclosure
the gatewas
consequent done
closure at a done
was
damage constant arate.
to theatlining Under
constant
will sudden
rate. Under
decrease. load rejection,
sudden load
which Inhappens
rejection, which
this when
study, thethemaximum
happens gate isthe
when closed
gate
pressurequicklythatatquickly
is closed a constant
was rate,
at a constant
reached critical
after rate, conditions
critical
complete gate occur inoccur
conditions
closure the
was
hydropower
considered astunnel.
in the hydropower This often
tunnel.
the hydrodynamic Thisoccurs
load inthespecial
ofteninoccurs situations,
in special
simulations; such as
situations,
therefore, a rock
turbine
such
the generator
asresisted
a turbine shut down
generator
maximum shut
water
due
downto an
dueearthquake.
to an If
earthquake.the gate
If is
theclosed
gate in
is several
closed stages,
in with
several different
stages, with
pressure, and the probability of hydraulic fracturing increased. The pressure–time curves at three closure rates,
different the
closure maximum
rates, the
transient
maximum
different pressure
gatetransient and the
closurepressure consequent
times areand damage
the consequent
presented to the
in Figuredamage lining
12. will decrease.
to the lining will decrease.
In this study, the maximum pressure that was reached after complete gate closure was
considered as the hydrodynamic load in the simulations; therefore, the rock resisted maximum water
pressure, and the probability of hydraulic fracturing increased. The pressure–time curves at three
different gate closure times are presented in Figure 12.

Figure 11.
Figure Pressure fluctuations
11. Pressure fluctuations upstream
upstream of
of the
the gate
gate during
during the
the hydraulic
hydraulic analysis.
analysis.

In this study, the maximum pressure that was reached after complete gate closure was considered
as the hydrodynamic load in the simulations; therefore, the rock resisted maximum water pressure,
100
and the probability of hydraulic fracturing increased. The pressure–time curves at three different gate
Figure 11. Pressure fluctuations upstream of the gate during the hydraulic analysis.
Pressure (m water)

closure times are presented in Figure 12.

95

100
90
(m water)

95
85
Internal

Slow closure (26 s)

Internal Pressure

90
80 Normal closure (18 s)
Fast closure (14 s)

85
75
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Slow closure (26 s) 22 24 26
80 Closure Time (s)
Normal closure (18 s)
Fast closure (14 s)

Figure 12. Changes in pressure upstream of the gate, in different scenarios: 14 s, 18 s, and 26 s.
75
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Figure 12 shows that the curves have a rising Closuretrend.
Time (s)According to Figure 12, by increasing the
gate closure time, the maximum hydrodynamic pressure was reduced; during the first few seconds,
Figure 12. Changes in pressure upstream of the gate, in different scenarios: 14 s, 18 s, and 26 s.
kinetic energy
Figure converts
12. Changes intoin pressure energy at
pressure upstream of athe
faster
gate,rate; duringscenarios:
in different the last seconds
14 s, 18 s, of
and gate
26 s.closure,
as water upstream of the gate reaches a steady-state condition, the
Figure 12 shows that the curves have a rising trend. According to Figure 12, by increasing pressure energy decreases.
Figure 12
Transferring shows
these loadsthatto the curves have
Abaqus FEA aand rising trend. According
employing to Figure 12,
the Mohr–Coulomb by increasing
failure criterion, the
the
the gate closure time, the maximum hydrodynamic pressure was reduced; during the first few
gate closure
stresses in the time,
rock the maximum
elements hydrodynamic
surrounding the pressure
tunnel were was reduced;
calculated for during
different the first
gate few seconds,
closure times,
seconds, kinetic energy converts into pressure energy at a faster rate; during the last seconds of gate
kinetic
and energy converts
are presented in Figure into13.pressure
Accordingenergy at a faster
to Figure 13, therate; during
stress the last
in almost seconds of gateisclosure,
closure, as water upstream of the gate reaches a steady-state condition, the all of
pressurethe elements above
energy decreases.
as water
the criticalupstream
line, which of indicates
the gate reaches
that thesea steady-state
elements condition,
failed. When the
the pressure
gate closes energy
in 14 decreases.
seconds,
Transferring these loads to the Abaqus FEA and employing the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion,
Transferring these
hydrodynamic loads to
pressures the Abaqus
impose greater FEA andonemploying
forces the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion, the
the stresses in the rock elements surrounding the the surrounding
tunnel rock. Increasing
were calculated for different the gate
gate closure
closure
stresses
time in the the
decreases rockpressures
elementsresulting
surroundingfromthethetunnel were calculated
transient-state condition. for different gate closure times,
times, and are presented in Figure 13. According to Figure 13, the stress in Figure
almost 13c shows
all of that some
the elements is
and are presented
elements are in the in Figure
safe zone,13. According
which to Figure
demonstrates 13,increasing
that the stress in almost
the all of thetime
gate closure elements is above
decreases the
the criticalofline,
possibility whichfracturing
hydraulic indicates in that
thethese
rock. elements failed. When the gate closes in 14 seconds,
hydrodynamic pressures impose greater forces on the surrounding rock. Increasing the gate closure
time decreases the pressures resulting from the transient-state condition. Figure 13c shows that some
elements are in the safe zone, which demonstrates that increasing the gate closure time decreases the
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 14 of 18

above the critical line, which indicates that these elements failed. When the gate closes in 14 seconds,
hydrodynamic pressures impose greater forces on the surrounding rock. Increasing the gate closure
time decreases the pressures resulting from the transient-state condition. Figure 13c shows that some
elements are in the safe zone, which demonstrates that increasing the gate closure time decreases the
possibility
Fluids 2019, of
4, xhydraulic fracturing in the rock.
FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18

3 3

Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)

Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5
(a) (b)
1 1
-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Minimum Principal Stress (MPa) Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)

3
Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)

2.5

1.5
(c)
1
-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)

Figure 13. Stress in the elements by closing the gate in (a) 14 s, (b) 18 s, and (c) 26 s.

Figure 13. Stress

The Effect of Increasing in the elements
the Overburden by closing
Height the gate inHydraulic
on Preventing (a) 14 s, (b) Fracturing
18 s, and (c) 26 s.

In The
3.3.1. order to investigate
Effect of Increasingthe impact of the overburden
the Overburden Height on rock on hydraulic
Preventing fracturing,
Hydraulic the critical gate
Fracturing
closure time of 14 s was considered. In this regard, the failure of the elements in the rock around the
lining Inwasorder to investigate
investigated the impact
by considering theofoverburden
the overburdenheightrockas 10,on20,hydraulic
40, and 70fracturing,
m. Figure the critical
14 shows
gate
the closure
stresses intime
theseofelements,
14 s was considered.
with respectIn tothis
the regard, the failure
critical line, under of the elements
different in the rock around
overburdens.
the According
lining was to investigated by considering the overburden height as
Figure 14, by increasing the overburden from 0.13H to 0.26H, stresses 10, 20, 40, and 70 m. Figure
in some14
shows the
elements arestresses in these
higher than the elements, withtherefore,
critical value; respect tothese
the critical
elements line,
areunder
locateddifferent overburdens.
above the critical line.
On the other hand, in some elements, stresses are less than the critical value, and they are locatedinbelow
According to Figure 14, by increasing the overburden from 0.13H to 0.26H, stresses some
elements are higher than the critical value; therefore, these elements are
the critical line. By increasing the overburden to 0.26H, as expected, the risk of hydraulic fracturinglocated above the critical
line. On the
decreased as other
more hand,
elements in some elements,
appeared below stresses are less
the critical than
line. By the critical value,
increasing and they are
the overburden located
to 0.53H,
below the critical line. By increasing the overburden to 0.26H, as expected,
more elements appeared below the critical line, but a number of elements were still above the critical the risk of hydraulic
fracturing
line. For thedecreased
case of anas more elements
overburden equalappeared
to 0.93H,below the critical
all elements line. Byinincreasing
appeared the overburden
the safe zone below the
critical line, since the elements on the sides of the tunnel section are under the influence still
to 0.53H, more elements appeared below the critical line, but a number of elements were above
of stress
concentration. As a result, they appear in the safe zone earlier than the other elements, due tozone
the critical line. For the case of an overburden equal to 0.93H, all elements appeared in the safe an
below the critical line,
increase in the overburden. since the elements on the sides of the tunnel section are under the influence of
stress concentration. As a result, they appear in the safe zone earlier than the other elements, due to
an increase in the overburden.
 Fluids 2019, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 18

3 3
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 15 of 18

Stress (MPa)

Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)

Fluids 2019, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 18
2.5 2.5
3 3

Stress (MPa)

Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)

PrincipalPrincipal
2
2.5 2.5 2

Minimum
1.52 2 1.5
(a) (b)

Minimum
1.5 1.5
1 1
-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 (a) 0.4
0.3 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 (b) 0.3 0.4
0.1 0.2
Minimum Principal1Stress (MPa) Minimum Principal
1 Stress (MPa)
-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
3
Minimum Principal Stress (MPa) Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)
3
(MPa)(MPa)

Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)

3 3

Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)

2.5 2.5
Stress

2.5 2.5
Stress
Principal

2 2
Principal

2 2
Minimum

1.5 1.5
Minimum

1.5 1.5
(c) (d)
(c) (d)
1 1
-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 1 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Minimum Principal Stress (MPa) Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)
Minimum Principal Stress (MPa) Minimum Principal Stress (MPa)

Figure
Figure 14.The
14.
Figure The
14.
main
main
The
stresses ininsurrounding
mainstresses
stresses in surrounding
rock bybyincreasing
rockby
surrounding rock increasing
increasing
overburden:
overburden:
overburden:
(a)
(a)0.13H,
(a) 0.13H,0.13H, (b)
(b)0.26H,
(b) 0.26H, 0.26H,
(c)
(c)
(c)
0.53H,
0.53H,and
and (d) 0.93H
(d) (gate
0.93H (gateclosure
closuretime in
time all
in cases
all caseswas
was 14 s).
14
0.53H, and (d) 0.93H (gate closure time in all cases was 14 s). s).

Furthermore,
Furthermore,
Furthermore, Figure
Figure
Figure 1515shows
15 showsthe
shows therelationship
the relationship between
relationshipbetween
between thethe overburden
overburden
the overburden andandthe the
thepercentage
andpercentage of
percentage ofof
fractured
fractured elements around the tunnel. According to Figure 15, an increase in the overburden is nota a
elements
fractured elementsaround
aroundthe tunnel.
the tunnel. According
According to
to Figure
Figure 15,
15, an an increase
increase in in
the the overburden
overburden is not is
a not
safe
safesolution
safe to prevent
solution
solution the hydraulic
totoprevent
prevent fracturing
the hydraulic
the hydraulic phenomenon.
fracturing
fracturing phenomenon. In other
phenomenon. In words,
other duewords,
words,
In other to due
rock tooverburden,
duerockto rock
the overburden,
environment the environment
around the around
tunnel has the
in tunnel
situ has in
stresses. situ
If thestresses. If
combinationthe combination
of stresses of stresses
caused by the
overburden, the environment around the tunnel has in situ stresses. If the combination of stresses
caused
transient by the transient
pressure inside pressure
the tunnel inside
and the
the tunnel
rock inand thestresses
situ rock in situ stresses
reaches a reachesstate,
critical a critical
the state,
elements
caused by the transient pressure inside the tunnel and the rock in situ stresses reaches a critical state,
will the elements will fail. The occurrence
hydraulic of hydraulic in fracturing in one element willtolead to a critical state
thefail.
in
The occurrence
elements
other elements. Theofoccurrence
will fail.Therefore, fracturing
it shouldofbe hydraulic one element
noted thatfracturing
increasingin
willelement
theone
lead
overburden will
a critical
doeslead tostate in other
a critical
not necessarily state
elements.
in other Therefore,Therefore,
elements. it should itbeshould
noted be that increasing
noted that the overburden
increasing the does not does
overburden necessarily
not put all
necessarily
put all elements in the safe zone.
elements in the safe
put all elements in zone.
the safe zone.
100 100 100
100 (a) 100
(b) 100
(c)
80 (a) 80 (b) 80 (c)
(%) (%)

Cracked Elements (%)

Cracked Elements (%)

80 80 80
Elements

Cracked Elements (%)

Cracked Elements (%)

60 60 60
Elements

60 60 60
40 40 40
Cracked

40 20 40 40
Cracked

20 20

20 0 20
0 0 20
0.4H

0.8H

0.4H

0.8H

0.4H

0.8H
0.13H
0.27H

0.53H
0.67H

0.93H
1.07H

0.13H
0.27H

0.53H
0.67H

0.93H
1.07H

0.13H
0.27H

0.53H
0.67H

0.93H
1.07H

0 Overburden Height (m) 0 Overburden Height (m) 0

Overburden Height (m)
0.4H

0.8H

0.4H

0.8H

0.4H

0.8H
0.13H
0.27H

0.53H
0.67H

0.93H
1.07H

0.13H
0.27H

0.53H
0.67H

0.93H
1.07H

0.13H
0.27H

0.53H
0.67H

0.93H
1.07H

Figure 15. Percentage of cracked elements due to increased overburden height for gate closure times
Overburden Height (m) Overburden Height (m) Overburden Height (m)
of (a) 14 s, (b) 18 s, and (c) 26 s.
Figure
Figure15. 15.Percentage
Percentageofofcracked
crackedelements due
elements to to
due increased overburden
increased height
overburden for gate
height closure
for gate times
closure of
times
(a)of14 s, (b) 18 s, and (c) 26 s.
(a) 14 s, (b) 18 s, and (c) 26 s.
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 16 of 18

4. Conclusions
Different aspects of hydraulic fracturing in pressure tunnels were investigated in previous studies,
and various strategies were proposed to prevent this serious issue. One strategy is to increase the
height of overburden rock. In the present study, using the FEM, and considering the fluid–structure
interactions, a pressure tunnel with an inner diameter of 3.6 m was modeled in intact elasto-plastic rock,
and the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion was employed to investigate failure in the rock environment
surrounding the tunnel. A parametric study was performed to evaluate the bearing capacity of the
tunnel, and the effect of transient pressure on the failure of the rock elements around the tunnel was
investigated. Moreover, the applicability of the Norwegian design criterion was evaluated. Hydraulic
analyses in transient hydraulic states were performed using Hammer software. The output of this software,
including pressure–time values, were used in Abaqus FEA in order to analyze stresses in the rock.
The results showed the following:

• Firstly, the concrete lining cracked, and then the elements in the surrounding rock failed;
• Initial cracks were formed in the crown of the tunnel;
• Increasing the overburden height had a less significant impact than a higher friction angle of the
rock, on preventing the hydraulic fracturing of the rock elements;
• The Norwegian design criterion is not an appropriate measure to prevent hydraulic fracturing in
pressure tunnels with a typical diameter of about 3 m in intact rock with an approximate specific
weight of 28 kN, and low overburden height (h ≤ 30 m);
• The rate of gate closure is a significant factor causing damage to the tunnel’s structure;
• Increasing the gate closure time caused the maximum hydrodynamic pressure to decrease upstream
of the gate, which resulted in a fewer number of failed elements in the rock around the tunnel;
• Maximum transient pressures occurred in the early stages of gate closure and, consequently,
hydraulic fracturing occurred during that time;
• Analyses of the effects of different overburden heights indicated that increasing the overburden
height would not always decrease the fracturing of rock elements;
• Based on the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion results, by increasing the overburden height, fewer
elements in the rock environment surrounding the tunnel failed, which can be attributed to the
combination of principal stresses.

In order to prevent hydraulic fracturing in the rock, construction of a grouted zone around the
pressure tunnel, along with increasing the overburden height, is recommended. The grout integrates
the rock, in case any cracks exist, and improves its mechanical properties. In addition, the grouted
zone results in decreased pore pressure in the rock, and reduces the possibility of hydraulic fracturing.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.K. (Karakouzian), M.K. (Karami) and M.N.-S.; methodology, M.K.
(Karakouzian), M.K. (Karami) and M.N.-S.; software, M.K. (Karami) and M.N.-S.; validation, M.K. (Karami) and
M.N.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.N.-S. and M.K. (Karami); writing—review and editing, M.N.-S.;
supervision, M.K. (Karakouzian).
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Grid and Boundary Sensitivity Analyses

Based on a trial-and-error procedure, a grid sensitivity analysis was performed in the model,
in order to ensure convergence of the finite element equations, and the optimum pattern of meshing
was determined. The mesh sizes used near the tunnel cross-section were smaller than those near the
model boundaries (Figure 2).
Fluids 2019, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 18
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 17 of 18

Moreover, a sensitivity analysis was performed on the side boundaries of the model. According
to Figure A1, for
Moreover, x ≥ 6D (Danalysis
a sensitivity is the tunnel diameter)on
was performed thethe
side
sideboundaries
boundariesdo
of not affect stresses
the model. in the
According to
rock environment
Figure A1, for x ≥ 6Dsurrounding the diameter)
(D is the tunnel tunnel. Inthe
order
side to ensure preventing
boundaries do not affecterrors in in
stresses thethe
model
rock
calculations, surrounding
environment this distance thewastunnel.
considered twice
In order the value
to ensure obtained
preventing fromingrid
errors sensitivity
the model analysis
calculations,
(Figure
this 2). was considered twice the value obtained from grid sensitivity analysis (Figure 2).
distance

Figure
Figure A1. Sensitivity analysis
A1. Sensitivity analysis onon the
the model
model boundaries:
boundaries: (a)(a) changes
changes inin stress
stress in
in the
the rock
rock environment,
environment,
vertically;
vertically; (b)
(b) changes
changes in in stress
stress in
in the
the rock
rock environment, horizontally; xx is
environment, horizontally; is the
the distance
distance from
from the
the tunnel
tunnel
lining, σ H the horizontal stress in the rock, σ
lining, σH is the horizontal stress in the rock, σV is the vertical stress in the rock, PH is the initial
is V is the vertical stress in the rock, P H is the initial
horizontal
horizontal stress
stress in
in the
the rock, and PPVV is
rock, and is the
the initial
initial vertical
vertical stress
stress in
in the
the rock.
rock.

References
References
1.
1. Schleiss,
Schleiss, A.J.
A.J. Design
Design ofof pervious
pervious pressure tunnels. Int.
pressure tunnels. Int. Water
Water Power
Power Dam
Dam Constr. 1986, 38,
Constr. 1986, 38, 21–26.
21–26.
2.
2. Fernández,
Fernández, G.; Alvarez, T.A., Jr. Seepage-induced effective stresses and water pressures around
G.; Alvarez, T.A., Jr. Seepage-induced effective stresses and water pressures around pressure
pressure
tunnels. J. Geotech. Eng. 1994, 120, 108–128. [CrossRef]
tunnels. J. Geotech.Eng. 1994, 120, 108–128, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:1(108).
3.
3. Bobet,
Bobet, A.;A.; Nam,
Nam, S.W.
S.W. Stresses
Stresses around
around pressure
pressuretunnels
tunnels with
withsemi-permeable liners. Rock
semi-permeable liners. Rock Mech.
Mech. Rock
Rock Eng.
Eng.
2007, 40, 287–315. [CrossRef]
2007, 40, 287–315, doi:10.1007/s00603-006-0123-6.
4.
4. Hachem,
Hachem, F.E.;
F.E.; Schleiss,
Schleiss, A.J.
A.J. A
A review
review of
of wave
wave celerity
celerity in frictionless and
in frictionless and axisymmetrical
axisymmetrical steel-lined
steel-lined pressure
pressure
tunnels. J. Fluids Struct. 2011, 27, 311–328. [CrossRef]
tunnels. J. Fluids Struct. 2011, 27, 311–328, doi:10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2010.11.009.
5.
5. Olumide,
Olumide, B.A.;B.A.; Marence,
Marence, M. M. Finite
Finite element
element model
model for
for optimum
optimum design
design of
of plain
plain concrete
concrete pressure
pressure tunnels
tunnels
under high internal pressure. Int. J. Sci. Technol. 2012, 1, 216–223.
under high internal pressure. Int. J. Sci. Technol. 2012, 1, 216–223.
6. Simanjuntak, T.D.Y.F.; Marence, M.; Mynett, A.E.; Schleiss, A.J. Pressure tunnels in non-uniform in situ stress
6. Simanjuntak, T.D.Y.F.; Marence, M.; Mynett, A.E.; Schleiss, A.J. Pressure tunnels in non-uniform in situ
conditions. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 2014, 42, 227–236. [CrossRef]
stress conditions. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 2014, 42, 227–236, doi:10.1016/j.tust.2014.03.006.
7. Zhou, Y.; Su, K.; Wu, H. Hydro-mechanical interaction analysis of high pressure hydraulic tunnel.
7. Zhou, Y.; Su, K.; Wu, H. Hydro-mechanical interaction analysis of high pressure hydraulic tunnel. Tunnell.
Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 2015, 47, 28–34. [CrossRef]
Undergr. Space Technol. 2015, 47, 28–34, doi:10.1016/j.tust.2014.12.004.
8. Pachoud, A.J.; Schleiss, A.J. Stresses and displacements in steel-lined pressure tunnels and shafts in anisotropic
8. Pachoud, A.J.; Schleiss, A.J. Stresses and displacements in steel-lined pressure tunnels and shafts in
rock under quasi-static internal water pressure. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2016, 49, 1263–1287. [CrossRef]
anisotropic rock under quasi-static internal water pressure. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2016, 49, 1263–1287,
9. Zareifard, M.R. An analytical solution for design of pressure tunnels considering seepage loads. Appl. Math.
doi:10.1007/s00603-015-0813-z.
Model. 2018, 62, 62–85. [CrossRef]
9. Zareifard, M.R. An analytical solution for design of pressure tunnels considering seepage loads. Appl. Math.
10. Jia, B.; Tsau, J.S.; Barati, R. A review of the current progress of CO2 injection EOR and carbon storage in shale
Model. 2018, 62, 62–85, doi:10.1016/j.apm.2018.05.032.
oil reservoirs. Fuel 2019, 236, 404–427. [CrossRef]
10. Jia, B.; Tsau, J.S.; Barati, R. A review of the current progress of CO2 injection EOR and carbon storage in
11. Simulia. ABAQUS Theory Manual; Dassault Systèmes: Providence, RI, USA, 2012.
shale oil reservoirs. Fuel 2019, 236, 404–427.
12. Bentley Systems. HAMMER V8i User’s Guide. Available online: https://www.bentley.com/en/products/
11. Simulia. ABAQUS Theory Manual; Dassault Systèmes: Providence, RI, USA, 2012.
product-line/hydraulics-and-hydrology-software/hammer (accessed on 15 January 2019).
12. Bentley Systems. HAMMER V8i User’s Guide. Available online:
13. Gasch, T.; Facciolo, L.; Eriksson, D.; Rydell, C.; Malm, R. Seismic Analyses of Nuclear Facilities With Interaction
https://www.bentley.com/en/products/product-line/hydraulics-and-hydrology-software/hammer
Between Structure and Water: Comparison between Methods to Account for Fluid-Structure-Interaction (FSI); Elforsk:
(accessed on 15 January 2019).
Frederiksberg, Denmark, 2013.
13. Gasch, T.; Facciolo, L.; Eriksson, D.; Rydell, C.; Malm, R. Seismic analyses of nuclear facilities with
14. Chopra, A. Dynamic of Structures, 4th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2012.
interaction between structure and water: Comparison between Methods to Account for Fluid-Structure-
15. Uchida, Y.; Kurihara, N.; Rokugo, K.; Koyanagi, W. Determination of tension softening diagrams of various
Interaction (FSI). Elforsk: Frederiksberg, Denmark, 2013.
kinds of concrete by means of numerical analysis. Fract. Mech. Concr. Struct. 1995, 1, 17–30.
14. Chopra, A. Dynamic of Structures, 4th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2012.
16. Lee, J.; Fenves, G.L. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J. Eng. Mech. 1998, 124, 892–900.
15. Uchida, Y.; Kurihara, N.; Rokugo, K.; Koyanagi, W. Determination of tension softening diagrams of various
[CrossRef]
kinds of concrete by means of numerical analysis. Fract. Mech. Concr. Struct. 1995, 1, 17–30.
Fluids 2019, 4, 112 18 of 18

17. Karami, M.; Kabiri-Samani, A.; Nazari-Sharabian, M.; Karakouzian, M. Investigating the effects of transient
flow in concrete-lined pressure tunnels, and developing a new analytical formula for pressure wave velocity.
Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 2019, 91, 102992. [CrossRef]
18. Karakouzian, M.; Karami, M.; Nazari-Sharabian, M.; Ahmad, S. Flow-induced stresses and displacements in
jointed concrete pipes installed by pipe jacking method. Fluids 2019, 4, 34. [CrossRef]
19. Jaeger, J.C.; Cook, N.G.W.; Zimmerman, R.W. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, 4th ed.; Blackwell Publishing:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007.
20. Williams, O. Engineering and Design—Tunnels and Shafts in Rock; US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington,
DC, USA, 1997.
21. Halliwell, A.R. Velocity of a water-hammer wave in an elastic pipe. J. Hydraul. Div. 1963, 89, 121.
22. Bouvard, M.; Pinto, N. Aménagement Capivari-Cachoeira étude du puits en charge. La Houille Blanche
1969, 7, 747–760. [CrossRef]
23. Brekke, T.L.; Ripley, B.D. Design of pressu.re tunnels and shafts. Anal. Design Methods 1995, 349–369.
[CrossRef]
24. Hoek, E.; Carranza-Torres, C.; Corkum, B. Hoek-Brown failure criterion—2002 edition. Proc. NARMS-Tac
2002, 1, 267–273.
25. RocLab, Rocscience Inc. Available online: https://www.rocscience.com/ (accessed on 15 January 2019).
26. Tunsakul, J.; Jongpradist, P.; Soparat, P.; Kongkitkul, W.; Nanakorn, P. Analysis of fracture propagation
in a rock mass surrounding a tunnel under high internal pressure by the element-free Galerkin method.
Comp. Geotechnol. 2014, 55, 78–90. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).