ARMA 24–0941

An Improved Time-Dependent Convergence Confinement Method for

Estimation of Tunnel Support Loads in Squeezing Ground Conditions
Arora, K.
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India
Gutierrez, M.
Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, United States

Copyright 2024 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 58th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium held in Golden, Colorado, USA, 23-26 June
2024. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical
review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent
of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.
ABSTRACT: In tunnel construction, the total tunnel wall displacement increases due to face advancement and the time-dependent
behavior of the surrounding rock mass. The convergence confinement method (CCM) is one of the approaches used to analyze the
interactions between tunnel wall displacement and support load. CCM utilizes either analytical closed-form solutions or empirical
Longitudinal Displacement Profiles (LDP); however, it usually neglects the influence of time-dependency of ground response and
associated gradually increasing deformations even after the excavation stage. Designing the tunnel support system without
consideration of the time-dependent deformation may result in a false selection of the installation time and the support system type,
causing safety issues, cost overruns, and project delays. This paper focuses on discussing a revised CCM to estimate the tunnel's
support system loads in a geomaterial with squeezing characteristics and tunnel wall converges significantly with time. The proposed
methodology is based on the outcomes of the physical model test results and observations from the tunnels that have experienced
squeezing in different parts of the world. The initial section of this paper elucidates the Convergence Confinement Method (CCM)
and outlines enhancements aimed at broadening its applicability to squeezing tunnels. The subsequent portion of the paper details the
validation process of proposed method, followed by a systematic approach to designing tunnel support systems in squeezing ground.
included experimental techniques (Arora, 2020; Arora et
1. INTRODUCTION
al., 2019; Arora et al., 2021a; Arora et al., 2021c; Mesri
Tunnels in squeezing ground experience significant et al., 2015; Semple, 1973), numerical analyses (Barla et
deformations even after the excavation (Barla, 1995). The al., 2012; Bonini et al., 2009; Dusseault & Fordham,
load the converging rock mass/soil imposes on the tunnel 1993; Kabwe et al., 2020), analytical methods (Ghaboussi
support system also increases gradually. The support & Gioda, 1977; Gioda, 1981 & 1982; Gioda & Cividini,
required to stabilize the tunnel boundary in squeezing 1996; Kallhawy, 1974; Pan & Dong, 1991; Singh et al.,
ground can be two to three times the thickness/stiffness of 2018; Sulem et al., 1987), and empirical equations (Arora
the support for the same tunnel in non-squeezing et al., 2021c; Aydan et al., 1996; Barton et al., 1974;
conditions (Jethwa et al., 1984). Estimating the Deere et al., 1970; Goel et al., 1995; Hoek & Marinos,
deformations due to squeezing beforehand is vital to 2000; Manh et al., 2015; Schubert, 1996; B. Singh et al.,
ensure safe, efficient, and economical tunnel construction 1992; Terzaghi, 1946; Vrakas et al., 2018). As per the
(Barla, 2001). International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM): a) the
The primary reason for the squeezing ground conditions most appropriate method for designing tunnels in
is the presence of clay minerals in a geological unit with squeezing ground conditions should incorporate field
a low strength ratio to the in-situ stress at the tunnel observations, numerical techniques, and conventional
location (Terzaghi, 1946; Wood, 1972). Some of the closed-form solutions, and b) must consider ground
notable examples of such tunnels include the John Street deformation due to elastoplastic behavior, creep,
Pumping Station Tunnel in Canada (Lo et al., 1987), the consolidation, progressive damage, and other physical
Still Water Tunnel in the United States (Phien-wej & phenomena (ISRM, 1994).
Cording, 1991), the Uluabat Project Tunnel in Turkey Even today, tunnels in squeezing ground conditions
(Bilgin & Algan, 2012), and the Laodongshan Tunnel in continue to encounter many engineering surprises, and
China (Cao et al., 2018). several issues need to be addressed (Wang et al., 2019).
Numerous approaches have been proposed in the The existing approaches are highly empirical, based on
literature over the years to study tunnel squeezing, which critical assumptions, case-specific, and derived from
 Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of (a) an advancing tunnel of radius R in isotropic stress p0, (b) tunnel cross-section A-A' and (c) plot
showing GRC, SCC and LDP for section A-A'.

limited observations. For example, the analytical methods estimate the loads on the tunnel's support system in
proposed in the literature attribute squeezing with the squeezing ground conditions. CCM is prevalent in tunnel
creep and assume no volumetric deformations (Gioda & design, but its application remains limited in squeezing
Cividini, 1996; Pan & Dong, 1991), which contradicts the ground conditions. The first part of this paper explains
observations of the other researchers (Arora, 2020; CCM and the proposed extension of the methodology for
Dusseault & Fordham, 1993; Fabre & Pellet, 2006). squeezing tunnels. The second part presents the validation
Similarly, numerical methods also require a reliable of the proposed method.
constitutive model for the time-dependent behavior of the
rock derived with minimum assumptions (Bonini et al.,
2. CONVERGENCE-CONFINEMENT METHOD
2009). Currently, most tunnel designs in such conditions (CCM)
use case-specific empirical methods, hold discrepancies, Excavating tunnels involves three-dimensional (3-D)
and are derived from limited field and laboratory processes, removing geomaterial under in situ stress and
experimental observations (Arora et al., 2021b). geostatic conditions. This excavation mechanically
The phenomenon of squeezing has not been extensively induces stress redistribution around the tunnel perimeter,
studied, and an applicable, reliable criterion for squeezing causing ground deformation. Studies have shown that
would improve understanding. More importantly, reliable minimizing the distance between the tunnel cross-section
criteria will guide tunnel engineers in designing and the tunnel face reduces stress redistribution (Su et al.,
squeezing-resilient support systems. This paper presents 2011; Zheng et al., 2016).
a new convergence-confinement method (CCM) to
Designing tunnel support systems requires anticipating cross-section 1-1'. The SCC will govern any increment in
ground deformations to maintain tunnel convergence tunnel convergence beyond this point. The convergence
within safe limits. Researchers have proposed various point of the previous step is marked on the GRC as point
analytical and numerical solutions to address the 3-D 4, and its projection of the internal pressure axis will
effects of excavation (Hedayat & Weems, 2019; Lü & provide support pressure pf supplied by the tunnel face to
Low, 2011; Su et al., 2011; Vlachopoulos & Diederichs, section 1-1' (point 5). As the tunnel advances further, the
2009; Vrakas & Anagnostou, 2016; Zhang et al., 2008). longitudinal distance of section 1-1' from the tunnel face
These analysis methods serve as crucial tools for swiftly will increase. Once the tunnel excavation is complete, the
assessing system behavior, with many methods being position of this section is defined by point 6 in Fig. 1c and
grounded in the widely used convergence-confinement represented by point 7 on the LDP. The critical point to
method (CCM) (Paraskevopoulou & Diederichs, 2018). be considered in the further analysis is that the LDPs are
The convergence-confinement method (CCM) offers a defined for unsupported tunnels, and in this case, section
means of integrating the three-dimensional (3-D) A-A' was supported as the tunnel advanced by distance xf.
interaction between rock and support in tunnels into a Project point 7 on the LDP vertically to the SCC in Fig.
simplified two-dimensional (2-D) plane model (Gesta et 1c to get point 8. This point represents the load carried by
al., 1983). This approach involves examining the the support system and the total convergence of the
following three elements: tunnel. The support pressure is represented by the 9 in Fig.
1c.
(i) Ground reaction curve (GRC): plot of radial
internal support pressure pi versus tunnel wall Using the above method, tunnel designers have been able
displacement (convergence) u. to approximately determine the design load of the support
(ii) Support Characteristic Curve (SCC): plot of system for a given allowable convergence. However, in
convergence provided by the support pi versus squeezing ground conditions, the surrounding ground
support convergence. continues to converge even after the excavation. The LDP
(iii) Longitudinal displacement profile (LDP) plot of of the tunnel also changes due to the time-dependent
convergence of the tunnel boundary u versus behavior of the material. This paper presents a new
distance from the tunnel face xf. The LDP approach for estimating the loads on the tunnel support
approximates the 3-D deformation of the tunnel in system in squeezing ground conditions. A time-dependent
a 2-D model. LDP is incorporated in the CCM, which accounts for the
increase in support load with time. The new methodology
GRC and SCC are derived analytically in a typical CCM, and the changes included in the existing CCM (defined
while the LDP is considered for the unsupported tunnel. above) are discussed in the following section.
Fig. 1 illustrates the calculation of the stresses on the liner
using CCM. Fig. 1a shows an advancing tunnel in an
3. METHODOLOGY
isotropic stress-state po. For a given position of the tunnel 3.1. A time-dependent LDP
face, the liner is installed at some distance behind the One major shortcoming of the CCM technique described
tunnel face, creating a 'lag' in Fig. 1a. The tunnel cross- above is that the time-dependent behavior of the ground
section 1-1' at the lag distance from the face is shown in material around the tunnel boundary is not explicitly
Fig. 1b. Fig. 1c shows GRC, LDP and SCC for the tunnel considered. Time-dependent closure in squeezing ground
excavated in an anisotropic stress state. In the plot, can have a considerable impact on support loading.
internal pressure on the tunnel boundary pi is normalized Failure to account for these additional loads can result in
with po, and tunnel convergence u and distance from the unforeseen failures, causing safety concerns and
face xf are normalized with respect to the tunnel radius R. ultimately leading to tunnel collapse (Arora, 2020).
Support stress calculation using CCM by converting the Gschwandtner & Galler suggested applying CCM in
3-D tunnel problem into a simplified 2-D problem is squeezing ground to investigate the behavior of different
elaborated in the following paragraph. support systems (e.g., combinations of shotcrete and rock-
At the time of support installation, point 1 in Fig. 1c bolts) with time (Gschwandtner & Galler, 2012).
represents the lag distance, i.e., the longitudinal distance One possible way of introducing the time-dependent
between the tunnel face and the cross-section (AA' in Fig. behavior in the CCM is by introducing time-dependent
1a) at which the tunnel support is installed. In Fig. 1c, LDP. Based on their experimental observations, Arora et
point 1 is projected on the LDP through a horizontal line al. (2021b) proposed the following time-dependent LDP
to reach point 2. Point 2 represents section 1-1' on LDP. for the tunnels in squeezing clay-rich rocks:
Point 2 is projected on the convergence axis to obtain 𝑢
point 3, representing the tunnel's convergence before 𝑅
(𝑡) = 𝑎 − 𝑏(𝑑)𝑡 (1)
support installation. If the tunnel does not advance
further, this will be the ultimate convergence of the tunnel
where, for any tunnel cross-section, u/R is the normalized 4. EXTENSION OF THE TIME-DEPENDENT
tunnel convergence (in percentage) for a tunnel with a LDP
radius R; a and b are the model parameters; d is the time
factor for squeezing ground conditions equal to 0.98; and The approach proposed in this paper to estimate the
t is the time (in hours) after excavation is complete. The squeezing loads on the tunnel support system utilizes a
model parameter a is a function of in-situ stress at tunnel time-dependent LDP. The parameters a and b for this
level po and distance of the tunnel cross-section from the LDP are well defined by Arora et al. (2021b) for synthetic
face xf. Parameter b was observed to be a function po and mudstone at different stress to strength ratio po/σcm and
independent of xf. Hence, a and b can be expressed as: normalized distance from the tunnel face X. The
dependency of the parameter a and b on material
𝑝𝑜
𝑎 = 𝑓 (𝑋, ) (2) properties should be calibrated for broader applicability.
𝜎𝑐𝑚
The parameters a and b can be defined as follows: At time
𝑝 𝑝 1.913 t = 0 and for d = 0.98 hours in Eq. (1), the convergence
𝑏= ℎ ( 𝑜) = 1.22 ( 𝑜 ) (3)
𝜎𝑐 𝜎𝑐𝑚 can be determined by the following equation,
𝑢
where X = xf/R is the normalized distance of the tunnel ( ) =𝑎−𝑏 (4)
𝑅 𝑖
cross-section from the face; po is the isotropic stress at the
tunnel location before excavation and σcm is the where (u/R)i is the convergence of the tunnel at time t = 0
unconfined compressive strength of the geomaterial at the hours, i.e., the ground has not been squeezed yet.
tunnel location. For a given ratio of po/σc, parameter a Similarly, as the time approaches infinity in Eq. (1), the
increased linearly with an increase in X. Also, for a given convergence reduces as,
tunnel cross-section (constant X), parameter a increases 𝑢
( ) =𝑎 (5)
with an increase in ratio po/σc. The correlations presented 𝑅 𝑢
in Eqs. (2) and (3) are based on the experimental where (u/R)u is the ultimate convergence of the tunnel due
observations from physical model tests on cubical to squeezing and non-squeezing factors. The ultimate
synthetic mudstone specimens by Arora et al. (2021b). convergence, as defined by Hoek & Marinos (2000) for
3.2. Revised CCM the tunnels excavated in squeezing ground conditions, can
The inclusion of the time-dependent LDP in the CCM to be defined by the following equation,
determine post-excavation increment in design support 𝑢 𝑝 2
pressure due to squeezing ground is presented in Fig. 2. (𝑅) = 0.2 (𝜎 𝑜 ) (6)
𝑢 𝑐𝑙
Consider a tunnel cross-section 1-1' at a distance x1 from
the tunnel face. The LDPs for the tunnel at three different Eq. (6) is defined for the tunnel cross-section at a
times t1, t2 and t3 in hours (t3 > t2 > t1) are shown in the considerable distance from the tunnel face. However, for
plot in Fig. 2. The points on the three LDPs representing tunnel cross-sections closer to the face, Eq. (6) changes
tunnel cross-section A-A’ are projected on the GRC as to,
shown in Fig. 2. 𝑢 𝑝 2
(𝑅) = 0.2 (𝜎 𝑜 ) 𝐹𝐿 (7)
For the tunnel cross-section A-A', the normalized 𝑢 𝑐𝑙

reduction in ground pressures due to squeezing are where σcl is the long-term compressive strength of the
marked as P1, P2 and P3 at time t1, t2 and t3, respectively, geomaterial at the tunnel location; FL is the long-term
in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2, it can be observed that from time t1 to tunnel face factor introduced to convert the 3-D problem
t2, the decrease in ground pressure is P1-P2. This research into 2-D defined by Vlachopoulos & Diedrichs (2009) as
considers that this difference in ground pressure is 1 3𝑋
directly transferred to the support. 𝐹𝐿 = 1 − [1 − 3 exp(−0.15𝑅∗ )] exp (− 2𝑅∗ ) (8)
The stability of the tunnel support system in the squeezing In the above equation, R* is the ratio of the extent of the
can be checked using this proposed method. The first step long-term plastic zone radius Rpl to the excavated tunnel
is to determine the tunnel's LDP at infinite time and mark radius R. The plastic zone radius Rpl can be defined as
the convergence for this unsupported tunnel cross-section (Hoek & Marinos, 2000),
on the LDP. Then, this LDP is projected vertically on the 0.57
𝑝
GRC to find the reduction in ground pressure. This 𝑅𝑝𝑙 = 1.25𝑅 (𝜎 𝑜 ) (9)
𝑐𝑙
pressure reduction is projected on the SCC as an
increment. The support will fail if the new point crosses Combining Eqs. (5) and (7) yields,
the yield after the increment. 𝑝 2
𝑎 = 0.2 (𝜎 𝑜 ) 𝐹𝐿 (10)
𝑐𝑙
 1 3𝑋
𝐹𝑆 = 1 − [1 − exp(−0.15𝑅∗ )] exp (− ) (12)
3 2𝑅∗

where R* is the ratio of the extent of the plastic zone Rpl

in the short-term to the radius of the excavated tunnel R.
To determine short-term Rpl, σcl is replaced by σcs in Eq.
(9).
Using Eqs. (4), (10) and (11) results in,
𝑝 2 𝑝 2
𝑏 = 0.2 [(𝜎 𝑜 ) 𝐹𝐿 − (𝜎 𝑜 ) 𝐹𝑆 ] (13)
𝑐𝑙 𝑐𝑠

Substituting a and b in Eqs. (10) and (13), respectively,

into Eq. (1), a generalized time-dependent LDP for the
tunnel is obtained as follows,
𝑢 𝑝 2 𝑝 2 𝑝 2
𝑅
(𝑡) = 0.2 {(𝜎 𝑜 ) 𝐹𝐿 − [(𝜎 𝑜 ) 𝐹𝐿 − (𝜎 𝑜 ) 𝐹𝑆 ] 0.98𝑡 }
𝑐𝑙 𝑐𝑙 𝑐𝑠
(14)
The above LDP can be incorporated in CCM to estimate
the time-dependent squeezing load on the tunnel support
system.
Considering the effect of time in the interactions of
support load and tunnel pressure is essential to have a safe
and economic support system. Using long-term response
alone will be unsafe if shear strength increases with time
because actual failure can occur at a lower strength and at
an earlier time (i.e., using long-term shear strength is
unconservative). For ground where shear strength
decreases with time, long-term shear strength will be
uneconomical because the actual shear strength at failure
will be larger than the long-term shear strength.

5. APPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED CCM

The model presented in this paper is applied to the
Yacambu´-Quibor tunnel in the State of Lara in
Venezuela. This tunnel is recognized as one of the most
challenging tunnels ever excavated. The primary reason
for the difficulty was the squeezing. The project, geology
and the significant issues are briefly discussed in the
Fig. 1. The time-dependent LDP in CCM is applied to estimate following section.
the post-excavation squeezing loading on the tunnel support
system.
5.1. Yacambu´-Quibor tunnel
The 5-m diameter and 24.3-km long tunnel was designed
Similarly, the convergence of the tunnel immediately to carry water through the Andes from the Yacambu dam
after the excavation can be defined by the following in the wet tropical Orinoco basin to the semi-arid yet
equation, fertile Quibor basin in western Venezuela. The tunnel was
2
located in silicified and graphitic phyllites at depths of up
𝑢 𝑝
(𝑅) = 0.2 (𝜎 𝑜 ) 𝐹𝑆 (11) to 1270 m below the surface. As per the descriptive
𝑖 𝑐𝑠 method of classifying rock, the Yacambu´-Quibor tunnel
where σcs is the short-term compressive strength of the location had five classes of rock identified as A, B, C, D1,
geomaterial at the tunnel location. The major difference and D2. The class A rock predominantly was silicified
between short-term and long-term compressive strength phyllite with small amounts of calcareous and/or graphitic
is that the latter considers the effect of creep, progressive phyllite. Class B rock had calcareous silicified phyllite
breakdown of individual rock pieces under high stress, with intervals of graphitic phyllite. In the class C rock,
and groundwater percolation. The parameter Fs is defined Graphitic phyllite with some intervals of silicified phyllite
as, was found. The class D1 rock was tectonically deformed,
folded and sheared form of classes A, B and C. The highly in D2 rock as monitored in the field (Hoek & Guevara,
squeezing class D2 had class D1 rock with clay gouge in 2009). Calculating the GRC for short-term and long-term
contact. Several tunnel sections along class D2 rock rock mass properties has only been applied to the plastic
experienced severe squeezing problems, creating zone. It is assumed that long-term changes due to
technical, financial, and political conflicts between the displacement-induced damage, air and water circulation,
client and contractors (Hoek & Guevara, 2009). and the like will be restricted to this zone. Upon
comparing the plotted GRCs, there is a significant amount
In 1976, ineffective attempts were made to counter the
of squeezing that the rock experiences with time, and
squeezing using an open-face TBM and a heavy support
designing the tunnel considering short-term properties as
system. For the next 28 years, several shapes of tunnel
design parameters will be disastrous.
cross-section and support type were analyzed to
overcome the difficulties encountered during The model-generated short-term (at t = 0 hours) and long-
construction. In 2004, the agreement on yielding support term LDPs are plotted in Fig. 5 for the studied tunnel
with circular cross-section was cleared by the owner's and alignment using the properties in Table 1 and Eqs. (1)
the contractor's conflicts. The emphasis was placed on through (14). It can be seen in Fig. 5 that the difference
developing a routine construction procedure, irrespective between short-term and long-term convergence is
of the rock conditions encountered at the face. Fig. 3 between 2.5% to 15% for X, varying between 0 to 20. This
shows the longitudinal cross-section along the alignment longitudinal displacement profile is based on the
of the Yacambu´-Quibor tunnel. Eight contractors combination of experimental study by Arora et al.
constructed the tunnel in more than 32 years, and the (2021b) and field observations of Hoek & Marinos
breakthrough was finally achieved in July 2008. (2000). The extent of the plastic zone Rpl was 9.90 m and
12.98 m, respectively, considering the short-term and
Hoek & Guevera (2009) identified the most challenging
long-term properties listed in Table 1.
tunnel segments of the tunnel alignment based on the
combination of overburden and rock mass properties. The
analysis was carried out for a 5.2-meter section of the
Yacambu´-Quibor tunnel mined at a depth of 1000 m
below the surface in class D2 rock. The short-term and
long-term properties of the class D2 rock, as considered
in their analysis, are summarized in Table 1.

Fig. 3. Ground reaction curves (GRCs) for the critical section

of the Yacambu´-Quibor tunnel for the short-term and long-
term properties as reported by Hoek & Guevera (2009)
Fig. 2. Cross-section along the alignment of the Yacambu´-
From several years of experience and field observations,
Quibor water conveyance tunnel in Venezuela.
tunnel designers determined that, for the deepest sections
Table 1 Short-term and long-term properties of D2 rock along of the tunnel in the poor-quality rock, the tunnel would be
the Yacambu´-Quibor tunnel's alignment circular and that it would be lined with a high-quality
shotcrete lining (Hoek & Guevara, 2009). The shotcrete
Property for tunnel Short-term Long-term
section in D2 rock value value
was mixed at surface batching plants adjacent to the
Depth below surface H 1000 m portals and transported by rail to the faces, where it was
Unit weight of rock mass applied as a wet mix. The tests on in-situ drilled cores of
0.026 MN/m3 shotcrete provided a uniaxial compressive strength of 30
ϒ
In situ stress po 26 MPa MPa with a minimal standard deviation. The shotcrete
Cohesive strength c 1.26 MPa 0.84 MPa had no fiber added as a reinforcing material, as the lining
Friction angle 𝜙 21.2° 17.4° was under compressive loading only. The only parameters
Rock mass compressive to be decided were the thickness of the lining and the
3.68 MPa 2.29 MPa
strength σc timing.
Elastic modulus E 1.65 GPa 0.93 GPa
In this study, the stability analysis of the tunnel liner
Fig. 4 shows the short-term and long-term ground thickness between 0.2 m and 1.0 m has been studied. The
reaction curves (GRCs) for the Yacambu´-Quibor tunnel unconfined compressive strength of the shotcrete is taken
as 30 MPa, and the shotcrete is installed 2 m behind the tunnel (Hoek & Guevara, 2009). These results
face. The shotcrete's Support Characteristic Curves (SCC) demonstrate the application and validity of the proposed
were determined by the methodology defined by Brown method for estimating the squeezing load on the tunnel
& Hoek (1980). The increment in load due to squeezing support system for the Yacambu´-Quibor tunnel.
ground conditions was determined per the procedure
discussed in section 3.2. Fig. 6 shows the CCM for the
critical cross-section of the Yacambu´-Quibor tunnel. It
can be observed from the CCM analysis that, due to
squeezing, the change in pi/po is 0.13. This change will be
added to the tunnel support system per the proposed
method. If the support does not yield due to this stress
increment, it is stable against the squeezing.

Fig. 4. Short-term (t = 0 hours) and long-term (t = ∞ hours) Fig. 5. CCM for the Yacambu´-Quibor tunnel along with SCC
Longitudinal Displacement profiles (LDPs) for the critical zone for the tested shotcrete liners for different shotcrete thickness
of the Yacambu´-Quibor tunnel
5.2. John Street Pumping Station Tunnel in Canada
Fig. 6 also shows the SCC for shotcrete liner thickness 0.2 The John Street Pumping Station Tunnel was built in 1925
m to 1 m. Considering that the tunnel did not advance to supply water in downtown Toronto, Canada. During
after installing the shotcrete liner, it will be reasonable to the 1980s, a new 1.5 m diameter tunnel was proposed to
assume that all stresses on the liner will be due to help supply water along with the existing tunnels. The
squeezing. It can be seen from the SCC of shotcrete in tunnel site is located on land reclaimed from Lake
Fig. 6 that the 0.2 m shotcrete will yield when subjected Ontario. The tunnel goes through the Georgian Bay
to pi/po increment of 0.13. The 0.4 m thick shotcrete liner formation sandwiched between maroon-colored.
will be on the verge of yielding and should be considered Queenstone shale above and black Collingwood shales
a primary tunnel support system. The shotcrete liner below. The formation consists of a thick sequence of
having a thickness of 0.6 m and more will take the thinly bedded or laminated shales, calcareous mudstones,
additional squeezing load without yielding. This 0.6 m siltstones, and occasionally sandstones with siliceous or
liner thickness is the same as the actual thickness of argillaceous limestone interbeds. The majority of the
shotcrete used in constructing the Yacambu´-Quibor
tunnel alignment passes through the weak clay shales after one year due to excessive roof deformation,
(Arora et al., 2021c). sometimes as large as one meter, the construction was
halted until June 2006. Finally, the excavation resumed
Table 2 summarizes the average short-term and long-term
from chainage 11.465 km to 1.792 km. The geology of
properties of the squeezing clay shale encountered at the
Uluabat area contains the Karakya and Akc¸akoyun
John Street pump station tunnel site. Fig. 7a presents the
formations. The tunnel route within chainages 11.465 km
short-term and long-term LDP for the John Street
to 7.750 km and 6.000 km to 1.792 km consisted of the
pumping station tunnel calculated using the methodology
Karakaya formation. Karakaya formation is made up of
proposed in this paper.
Triassic-aged meteoritic rocks like fine-grained meta-
Table 2 Short-term and long-term properties of Clay Shale claystone, meta-siltstone, meta-sandstone, and graphitic
rock along the John Street pumping station tunnel in Canada schists (Arora et al., 2021c).
Short-term Long-term
Clay Shale Table 4 summarizes the average short-term and long-term
value value*
Depth below surface H 30 properties of the squeezing mudstone encountered at the
Unit weight of rock mass tunnel site. Fig. 7c presents the short-term and long-term
0.025 MN/m3
ϒ LDP for the Uluabat project tunnel in Turkey calculated
Porosity n % 11.5 using the methodology proposed in this paper.
In situ stress po 11 MPa
Table 3 Short-term and long-term properties of Mudstone
Cohesive strength c 0.10 MPa 0.06 MPa along the Laodongshan Tunnel in China
Friction Angle 18 15 Short-term Long-term
Mudstone
Average rock mass value value*
0.30 MPa 0.25 MPa
compressive strength σc Depth below surface H 230 m
Elastic modulus E 0.1 GPa 0.05 GPa Unit weight of rock mass ϒ 0.0247 MN/m3
* Calculated as per Lajtai (1990) Porosity n % 13.6
In situ stress po 5.6 MPa
Average rock mass
5.3. Laodongshan Tunnel in China 1.50 MPa 1.15 MPa
compressive strength σc
The Laodongshan Tunnel is a part of the Guangtong Elastic modulus E 0.81 GPa 0.56 GPa
Kunming railway in China, which experienced squeezing * Calculated as per Lajtai (1990)
failure in its early tunneling stage. The tunnel is 7578 m
long and was excavated in the zone of maximum
overburden of 370 m. This tunnel's start and end points Table 4 Short-term and long-term properties of Mudstone
along the Uluabat Project Tunnel Turkey
are located at chainage 947 + 555 km and 955 + 133 km,
respectively. During the field exploration, 14 boreholes Short-term Long-term
Mudstone
value value*
totaling 1360.42 m were drilled. The field investigation
found that this area's geology contains mudstone, Depth below surface H 500 m
Unit weight of rock mass ϒ 0.025 MN/m3
sandstone, and marl at the tunnel location along the
Porosity n % 11.6
alignment. As per the rock mass rating (RMR) of 1989,
In situ stress po 12 MPa
the rock mass grades ranged from type III, a fair grade of
Cohesive strength c (MPa) 0.35 MPa 0.27 MPa
the rock mass, to type V, a very poor grade of the rock
Friction angle 20 15
mass. Tunneling along the mudstone was found to be
most problematic due to high overburden and very poor Average rock mass
1 MPa 0.7 MPa
rock mass condition (Arora et al., 2021c). compressive strength σc
Elastic modulus E 0.8 GPa 0.57 GPa
Table 3 summarizes the average short-term and long-term * Calculated as per Lajtai (1990)
properties of the squeezing mudstone encountered at the
Laodongshan tunnel site. Fig. 7b presents the short-term
and long-term LDP for the Laodongshan tunnel 5.5. Stillwater Tunnel in USA
calculated using the methodology proposed in this paper. Stillwater Tunnel is a 13 km long and 3.5 to 4-m
excavated diameter tunnel in Utah, USA. The tunnel is a
5.4. Uluabat Project Tunnel in Turkey part of the trans-mountain Strawberry Aqueduct of the
The Uluabat Project Tunnel is located in the southern part Central Utah project of the US Bureau of Reclamation.
of Uluabat-Bursa (Apolyont) Lake. A power tunnel of Excavation of the tunnel was initiated in 1976, and it was
11.465 km in length was proposed, and the excavation the second tunnel-boring machine (TBM) excavation in
started in 2002. Initially, conventional tunneling methods rock in the history of the US. The excavation encountered
and support systems were used in this project. However, undesirable and unanticipated ground response, which led
to severe damage to the TBM and the concrete segments.
After extensive investigations, it was found that the prime
cause of the problem was the unforeseen squeezing of the strength can be estimated from one such experimentally
shale mass at such a depth due to its dominant plastic and developed criteria.
viscous behavior (Arora et al., 2021c).
Table 5 summarizes the average short-term and long-term
properties of the squeezing clay shale encountered at the
tunnel site. Fig. 7c presents the short-term and long-term
LDP for the Stillwater Tunnel in Utah calculated using the
methodology proposed in this paper.
Table 5 Short-term and long-term properties of Clay Shale rock
along the alignment of Stillwater tunnel in the USA
Short-term Long-term
Clay Shale
value value*
Depth below surface H 500 m
Unit weight of rock mass ϒ 0.025 MN/m3
Porosity n % 12.03
In situ stress po 12 MPa
Average rock mass
1.2 MPa 0.90 Mpa
compressive strength σc
Elastic modulus E 0.1 GPa 0.06 GPa
* Calculated as per Lajtai (1990)

6. DISCUSSION
The approach presented in section 4 of this paper has
calculated the increase in the tunnel support load due to
the squeezing behavior of the rock mass. The
methodology requires detailed field and laboratory
characterization of the rock mass to determine the short-
term and long-term strength parameters. The
methodology has been tested only for the Yacambu´-
Quibor tunnel due to the limited availability of the data,
especially long-term strength parameters. The long-term
creep and consolidation characteristics of the squeezing
rocks will provide an estimate of the long-term strength
properties.
It is not certain that the long-term strength will always
govern the design, as in case of prolonged exposure to the
loads, the shear strength of the geomaterial might
increase. For instance, it is well established that the shear
strength of the over-consolidated (OC) clay increases
with time due to an increase in effective stress. On the
other hand, shear strength decreases with time for the
normally consolidated (NC) clay due to a decrease in
effective stress with drainage (Scholfield & Wroth, 1968).
Hence, complete geomaterial characterization is
extremely important for the safe, sustainable, economical,
Fig. 7. Long-term and short-term longitudinal displacement
and efficient design of the tunnel support system in profile for (a) the John Street pumping station tunnel in Canada,
squeezing ground conditions. (b) the Laodongshan Railway tunnel in China, (c) the Uluabat
Though the case studies of the geomaterial's long-term Project Tunnel in Tukey, and (d) the Stillwater tunnel in the
and short-term strength parameters in squeezed tunnels USA
are limited, much work has been carried out to correlate Fig. 8 presents a flow chart explaining the process of the
the short-term strength of the geomaterial with the long- CCM proposed in this paper to aid the tunnel engineers
term strength (Adachi & Takase, 2020; Innocente et al., and designers. The chart covers the methodology
2021). In the case of paucity of time, the long-term presented in section 4 of this paper and other important
contributions related to the tunnels in squeezing ground 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
conditions.
The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the support
from the University Transportation Center for
Underground Transportation Infrastructure (UTC-UTI) at
the Colorado School of Mines for funding this research
under Grant No. 69A3551747118 from the US
Department of Transportation (DOT). The opinions
expressed in this paper are those of the Authors and not
of the DOT.

REFERENCES
1. Adachi, T., & Takase, A. A. (1981). Prediction of long term
strength of soft sedimentary rock. In ISRM International
Symposium.
2. Arora, K. (2020). Experimental study of tunnels in
squeezing ground conditions (Doctoral dissertation,
Colorado School of Mines).
3. Arora, K., Chakraborty, T., & Rao, K. S. (2019).
Fig. 8. Summary of the experimentally verified criteria Experimental study on stiffness degradation of rock under
developed for the analysis of tunnels in squeezing ground uniaxial cyclic sinusoidal compression loading. Rock
conditions Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 52, 4785-4797.
4. Arora, K., Gutierrez, M., & Hedayat, A. (2021a). New
physical model to study tunnels in squeezing clay-rich
7. CONCLUSIONS rocks. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 44(6), 1–25.
The Convergence Confinement Method (CCM) stands https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20200081
out as a favored approach for examining the three- 5. Arora, K., Gutierrez, M., Hedayat, A., & Cruz, E. C.
dimensional intricacies of tunnel construction. However, (2021b). Time-dependent behavior of the tunnels in
squeezing ground: an experimental study. Rock Mechanics
the majority of CCM studies overlook the time-dependent
and Rock Engineering, 54, 1755-1777.
behavior of the surrounding ground near the tunnel 6. Arora, K., Gutierrez, M., Hedayat, A., & Xia, C. (2021c).
perimeter. Tunnels in squeezing clay-rich rocks. Underground
The refined CCM introduced in this study offers a space, 6(4), 432-445.
solution for estimating tunnel support loads under 7. Aydan, Ö., Akagi, T., & Kawamoto, T. (1996). The
squeezing potential of rock around tunnels: theory and
squeezing ground conditions. This method accounts for
prediction with examples taken from Japan. Rock
time-dependent phenomena such as creep and the gradual mechanics and rock engineering, 29, 125-143.
breakdown of individual rock elements under intense 8. Barla, G. (1995). Squeezing rocks in tunnels. ISRM News
stress. journal, 2(3), 44-49.
9. Barla, G. (2001). Tunnelling under squeezing rock
This methodology is notably straightforward, relying
conditions. Eurosummer-school in tunnel mechanics,
solely on the ground's short-term and long-term strength Innsbruck, 169-268.
parameters, which can be readily determined through 10. Barla, G., Debernardi, D., & Sterpi, D. (2012). Time-
laboratory tests. Developed through extensive physical dependent modeling of tunnels in squeezing
model tests in laboratory settings and insights gained from conditions. International Journal of Geomechanics, 12(6),
numerous tunnels excavated in highly stressed squeezing 697-710.
zones, this approach is deemed reliable and holds broad 11. Barton, N., Lien, R., & Lunde, J. J. R. M. (1974).
applicability. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of
tunnel support. Rock mechanics, 6, 189-236.
To validate the proposed procedure, it was rigorously 12. Bilgin, N., & Algan, M. (2012). The performance of a
tested against the Yacambu´-Quibor tunnel. The results TBM in a squeezing ground at Uluabat, Turkey. Tunnelling
affirm the applicability and accuracy of the methodology. and Underground Space Technology, 32, 58-65.
Introducing this time-dependent CCM is anticipated to 13. Bonini, M., Debernardi, D., Barla, M., & Barla, G. (2009).
enrich both the theoretical understanding and practical The mechanical behaviour of clay shales and implications
implementation of tunnel design and construction in on the design of tunnels. Rock mechanics and rock
squeezing ground conditions, particularly when engineering, 42, 361-388.
14. Brown, E. T., & Hoek, E. (1980). Underground
complemented by tunnel monitoring and laboratory data
excavations in rock. CRC Press.
analysis.
15. Cao, C., Shi, C., Lei, M., Yang, W., & Liu, J. (2018). rock conditions—a new approach. In Design and
Squeezing failure of tunnels: a case study. Tunnelling and Performance of Underground Excavations: ISRM
Underground Space Technology, 77, 188-203. Symposium—Cambridge, UK, 231–238.
16. Deere, D. U., Peck, R. B., Parker, H. W., Monsees, J. E., & 32. Kabwe, E., Karakus, M., & Chanda, E. K. (2020). Isotropic
Schmidt, B. (1970). Design of tunnel support damage constitutive model for time-dependent behaviour
systems. Highway Research Record, (339). of tunnels in squeezing ground. Computers and
17. Dusseault, M. B., & Fordham, C. J. (1993). Time- Geotechnics, 127, 103738.
dependent behavior of rocks. In Rock testing and site 33. Kallhawy, F. H. (1974). Finite element modeling criteria
characterization (pp. 119-149). Pergamon. for underground opening in rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
18. Fabre, G., & Pellet, F. (2006). Creep and time-dependent Geomech Abstr, 11, 465-472.
damage in argillaceous rocks. International Journal of 34. Lo, K. Y., Cooke, B. H., & Dunbar, D. D. (1987). Design
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 43(6), 950-960. of buried structures in squeezing rock in Toronto, Canada.
19. Gesta, P., Bouvard, M. M. E., Rauzy, M., Colombet, G., Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24(2), 232–241.
Coste, J., & Guenot, A. (1983). L'emploi de la méthode 35. Lü, Q., & Low, B. K. (2011). Probabilistic analysis of
convergence/confinement. Tunnels et ouvrages underground rock excavations using response surface
souterrains, (59), 218-238. method and SORM. Computers and Geotechnics, 38(8),
20. Ghaboussi, J., & Gioda, G. (1977). On the time‐dependent 1008–1021.
effects in advancing tunnels. International Journal for 36. Manh, H. T., Sulem, J., Subrin, D., & Billaux, D. (2015).
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 1(3), Anisotropic Time-Dependent Modeling of Tunnel
249-269. Excavation in Squeezing Ground. Rock Mechanics and
21. Gioda, G. (1981). A finite element solution of non-linear Rock Engineering, 48(6), 2301–2317.
creep problems in rocks. In International Journal of Rock 37. Mesri, G., Febres-Cordero, E., Shields, D. R., & Castro, A.
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics (2015). Shear stress-strain-time behaviour of clays. Geot,
Abstracts (Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 35-46). Pergamon. 31(4), 537–552.
22. Gioda, G. (1982). On the non‐linear ‘squeezing’effects 38. Pan, Y. W., & Dong, J. J. (1991). Time-dependent tunnel
around circular tunnels. International Journal for convergence—II. Advance rate and tunnel-support
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 6(1), interaction. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
21-46. Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 28(6), 477–
23. Gioda, G., & Cividini, A. (1996). Numerical methods for 488.
the analysis of tunnel performance in squeezing 39. Paraskevopoulou, C., & Diederichs, M. (2018). Analysis
rocks. Rock mechanics and rock engineering, 29, 171-193. of time-dependent deformation in tunnels using the
24. Goel, R. K., Jethwa, J. L., & Paithankar, A. G. (1995). Convergence-Confinement Method. Tunnelling and
Tunnelling through the young Himalayas—a case history Underground Space Technology, 71, 62–80.
of the Maneri-Uttarkashi power tunnel. Engineering 40. Phien-wej, N., & Cording, E. J. (1991). Sheared shale
Geology, 39(1-2), 31-44. response to deep TBM excavation. Engineering Geology,
25. Gschwandtner, G. G., & Galler, R. (2012). Input to the 30(1), 371–391.
application of the convergence confinement method with 41. Schofield, A. N., & Wroth, P. (1968). Critical state soil
time-dependent material behaviour of the mechanics (Vol. 310). London: McGraw-hill.
support. Tunnelling and Underground Space 42. Schubert, W. (1996). Dealing with Squeezing Conditions
Technology, 27(1), 13-22. in Alpine Tunnels. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,
26. Hedayat, A., & Weems, J. (2019). The elasto-plastic 29(3), 145–153.
response of deep tunnels with damaged zone and gravity 43. Semple, R. M. (1973). The Effect Of Time-Dependent
effects. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 52, 5123- Properties Of Altered Rock On Tunnel
5135. Supportrequirements. University of Illinois at Urbana-
27. Hoek, E., & Guevara, R. (2009). Overcoming squeezing in Champaign.
the Yacambú-Quibor tunnel, Venezuela. Rock Mechanics 44. Singh, A., Kumar, C., Kannan, L. G., Rao, K. S., &
and Rock Engineering, 42, 389-418. Ayothiraman, R. (2018). Estimation of creep parameters of
28. Hoek, E., & Marinos, P. (2000). Predicting tunnel rock salt from uniaxial compression tests. International
squeezing problems in weak heterogeneous rock Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 107,
masses. Tunnels and tunnelling international, 32(11), 45- 243–248.
51. 45. Singh, B., Jethwa, J. L., Dube, A. K., & Singh, B. (1992).
29. Innocente, J. C., Paraskevopoulou, C., & Diederichs, M. S. Correlation between observed support pressure and rock
(2021). Estimating the long-term strength and time-to- mass quality. Tunnelling and Underground Space
failure of brittle rocks from laboratory testing. Technology, 7(1), 59–74.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining 46. Su, Y.-H., Li, X., & Xie, Z.-Y. (2011). Probabilistic
Sciences, 147, 104900. evaluation for the implicit limit-state function of stability
30. ISRM. (1994). Comments and recommendations on design of a highway tunnel in China. Tunnelling and
and analysis procedures for structures in argillaceous Underground Space Technology, 26(1), 422–434.
swelling rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics 47. Sulem, J., Panet, M., & Guenot, A. (1987). An analytical
and Mining Sciences, 31(5), 535–546. solution for time-dependent displacements in a circular
31. Jethwa, J. L., Singh, B., & Singh, B. (1984). 28 Estimation tunnel. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
of ultimate rock pressure for tunnel linings under squeezing Mining Sciences, 24(3), 155–164.
48. Terzaghi, K. (1946). Rock defects and loads on tunnel
supports. In R.V. Proctor & T.L. White (Eds.), Rock
tunneling with steel supports (pp. 45–92). Commercial
Shearing and Stamping Company.
49. Vlachopoulos, N., & Diederichs, M. S. (2009). Improved
Longitudinal Displacement Profiles for Convergence
Confinement Analysis of Deep Tunnels. Rock Mechanics
and Rock Engineering, 42, 131–146.
50. Vrakas, A., & Anagnostou, G. (2016). Ground Response to
Tunnel Re-profiling Under Heavily Squeezing Conditions.
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 49(7), 2753–
2762.
51. Vrakas, A., Dong, W., & Anagnostou, G. (2018). Elastic
deformation modulus for estimating convergence when
tunnelling through squeezing ground. Jgeot, 68(8), 713–
728.
52. Wang, X., Lai, J., Garnes, R. S., & Luo, Y. (2019). Support
System for Tunnelling in Squeezing Ground of Qingling-
Daba Mountainous Area: A Case Study from Soft Rock
Tunnels. Advances in Civil Engineering, 1–18.
53. Wood, A. M. M. (1972). Tunnels for roads and motorways.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 5(1–2), 111–
126.
54. Zhang, P., Yin, J. J., Nordlund, E., & Li, N. (2008).
Determination and verification of the longitudinal
deformation profile in a horse-shoe shaped tunnel using
two-stage excavation. 5th International Conference and
Exhibition on Mass Mining, Luleå Sweden 9-11 June 2008,
11, 845–854.
55. Zheng, Y. L., Zhang, Q. B., & Zhao, J. (2016). Challenges
and opportunities of using tunnel boring machines in
mining. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology,
57, 287–299.
56. Lajtai, E. Z. (1991). Time-dependent behaviour of the rock
mass. Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, 9, 109-
124.