S01L02 Galler R SW

BRAZILIAN TUNNELLING
COMMITTEE
COMITÊ BRASILEIRO
DE TÚNEIS
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
TUNNELS FOR ENERGY
e
sp e
Iguassu Falls, Brazil 09 ‐ 10 May 2014
re itz
ir w
Geotechnical and Design Aspects
he - S
of Rock Tunnels
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
Robert Galler, Prof. Dr.
tio ou
Chairman of the ITA CET steering committee

ra F
Representative of ITAAustria
st T
llu E
lI C
Chair of Subsurface Engineering,

Al ITA
Montanuniversität Leoben, Austria

©
Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Project idea
Design procedure
r-s
Conceptual design
ne
tiv nd
Preliminary design
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
Tender design
re itz
ir w
he - S
Tender documents
ft n
O tio
Construction companies fill in their quotations
© a
n nd
tio ou
Opening of the quotations
ra F
st T
llu E
Quotations are checked by the client

lI C
Al ITA
Find the best bid

©
Construction starts
Essential aspects in the design process
r-s
Techniques based on the operation of the underground str.
ne
tiv nd
Aspects from the operation of the underground structure
ow
Infrastructure
ec rla
& Geological – hydrogeological – geotechnical conditions
e
sp e
Technique
re itz
Mass concept
ir w
Criteria catalogue
Aspects from the construction logistics
he - S
Economical aspects
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd Immissions
Environmental
tio ou
Aspects Density of population
ra F
st T
Ground water conditions

llu E
lI C
Al ITA
Cost & Cost

Risc Risc evaluation during construction
©

Cost ‐ Benefit relation of the Investigation Procedure
related to the different Project Phases
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Pre‐Feasibility & Feasibility Study
r-s
ne
 General Geological Architecture
tiv nd
ow
Corridor Assessment
 Determined by Key Parameters
ec rla
Comparison of different alignments
e
 Basic Ground Types
sp e
Geotechnical Risk Assessment
re itz
 Ground Mass Quality
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
Desk Studies  Faults
© a  Orientation, kinematics
‐ Relevant literature and documents
n nd
 Estimate the influencing factors
tio ou
‐ Maps
 Primary stresses
ra F
‐ Aerial photographs
st T
‐ Satellite images  Orientation of the dominant discontinuity

llu E
set ‐ Related to the direction of tunnel axis

lI C
Geological Field Survey of Selected

Al ITA
Areas  Groundwater (Table, permeability)

©

Conceptual Design & Alignement Selection
r-s
ne
Assessment of alignments  Rock Mass Types
tiv nd
ow
 Determined by Key Parameters
ec rla
 Estimation of Strength and Deformation
e
Preliminary Estimation of
sp e
re itz
Support Systems and Characteristics of the Rock Mass
ir w
Construction Methods  e.g. Hoek‐Brown procedure (sci, mi, GSI)
he - S
 Identification of Major Faults
Rough Cost Estimate
ft n
 Orientation, thickness, kinematics, strength
O tio
properties.
© a
n nd
Outcrop Studies  Estimation of Influencing Factors
tio ou
ra F
 Primary stresses
Surface und Subsurface
st T
 Orientation of the dominant discontinuity set

llu E
Investigation in Selected Areas

lI C
(Related to the direction of tunnel drive)

Al ITA
Laboratory Testing  Groundwater (Table, permeability,

hydrochemical properties)
©

Determination of the best alignment
r-s
ne
AREA / conflict zones OPTIONS
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
CORRIDOR
n nd SUGGESTED ROUTE
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Example: Layout of the underground power house Goldisthal
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
[Abb.: Reichenspurner, Walter Bau AG]

Example: Layout of the underground power house Goldisthal
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Intensity of impact Sensibility Methodology
r-s
& impact
1 2 3 4 5
ne
A I No measures needed
tiv nd
ow
Sensibility of the
environment
II
ec rla
B
e
sp e
III
C
re itz
IV
ir w
D
he - S
V
ft n
VI
High residual impact expected
O tio
partial
© a
good
good
Very
n nd
tio ou
no / Improvement
the measures
ra F
Effectivity of
low
Residual impact
st T
moderate
llu E
lI C
major
Al ITA
high
very high
©

Applications for excavated material
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
11
Topics to be considered by the utilization of excavation
r-s
materials from underground construction sites
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Construction processes have to
r-s
include analysing techniques
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Preliminary Design
r-s
ne
Support Systems, Excavation  Structural and Kinematic Analyses
tiv nd
ow
Rates, Construction Methods  Discontinuities statistics, failure modes.
ec rla
 Statistical and Probabilistic Analyses of
e
Establishment of Design Criteria
sp e
re itz
Environmental Impact Mechanical and Hydraulic Data
ir w
Assessment  Assessment of Initial Stresses
he - S
Estimate of Construction  Assessment of Groundwater Situation
ft n
Schedule and Costs  Table, permeability, transmissivity.
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
Detailed Engineering Geological  Mechanical Analyses

st T
 Occasionally numerical simulations, stress

llu E
Mapping
lI C
redistribution, displacements.
Al ITA
Drilling; Geophysiks, etc.

In situ and Laboratory Testing  Establishment of Mechanical and
Hydraulic Models
©

Principle Components of a hydropower plant
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla

e
sp e

re itz
ir w

he - S
 Upper reservoir
ft n
O tio
 Lower reservoir
tailrace tunnel 1 © a

n nd

tio ou
 Pressure shaft
ra F
 tailrace tunnel 2
st T
Power station
llu E

lI C
 Upper surge tank 

Al ITA


 Lower surge tank (opt.) 
©

Possibilities regarding the vertical alignment
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
Alignment 1: above‐ground penstock
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
Alignment 2: inclined pressure shaft
he - S
ft n
O tio
Alignment 3: underground powerhouse
© a
n nd
tio ou
Alignment 4: Swedish design Alignment

ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
5: Norwegian design
Al ITA
©

Design step: Determination of the Ground Behaviour
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
Ground variability and
ec rla
e
sp e
Ground properties fault zones
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
Construction Ground
O tio
method
© a Behaviour
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Groundwater Stress situation

Al ITA
©

Design step: Determination of the Ground Behaviour
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
Symbolic description
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
Orientation of main Joint plane sets
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
Primary stress
lI C
Ground water
Al ITA
Rock mass behavior

©
Radial deformation

Design step: Determination of the System Behaviour
r-s
Geomechanically relevant parameters
ne
Determination of Ground Types
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
Mountain water Primary stresses Orientation discontinuities ‐ tunnel
re itz
ir w
Size, shape, location of tunnel
he - S
ft n
Determination of Behavior Types (BT)
O tio
© a
n nd Assessment of boundary conditions
tio ou
Definition of requirements (RQ)

ra F
st T
Selection of construction concept

llu E
lI C
Al ITA
Detailed selection of excavation & support

©
Assessment of System Behavior (SB)

Design step: Determination of the System Behaviour
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
SN‐mortar anchor 250 kN, L = 4.0 m
sp e
re itz
Face support: Shotcrete,
ds = 10 cm (75%) 4 face Theoretical excavation
ir w
anchors IBO (250 kN), L = 9.0 m anchor boundary
plates without preload
he - S
25 cm shotcrete 2
layers AQ 60; lattice
girders, Wx = 53
ft n
cm³, F>11cm²
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
25 cm shotcrete 2
layers AQ 60; lattice
girders, Wx = 53
ra F
cm³, F>11cm²
st T
llu E
lI C
25 cm shotcrete
2 layers AQ 60
Al ITA
©

Design step: Determination of Excavation and Support
r-s
Detailed selection of excavation & support
ne
tiv nd
ow
Assessment of System behavior (SB)
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
no SB
ir w
conforms
he - S
RQ
ft n
yes
O tio
© a
n nd
Geotechnical report, excavation & support requirements
tio ou
contractual obligations
ra F
Determination of excavation & support classes
Specifications,
st T
llu E
lI C
Distribution of excavation & support classes

Al ITA
©
Tender documents

Water losses from the pressure tunnel
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
• Must be restricted due to economic losses in terms of energy
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
• Acceptable and tolerable losses are project specific
ir w
he - S
• Suggestions
ft n
O tio
– Kieser: 1 l/s per 1000 m2 surface of the pressure tunnel
– Gysel:
© a
n nd 1 l/s per km length and bar internal pressure
– Lauffer: 5 ‰ of mean flow rate
tio ou
ra F
st T
permeability of rock mass < 10^‐7 m/s (Lauffer)

llu E
lI C
< 10^‐6 m/s (Schleiss)

Al ITA
©

Hydraulic rock failure
r-s
ne
• Rock bearing capacity is assured as long as the internal water pressure
tiv nd
ow
pi does not exceed the minimal natural rock stress σ3 (pi < σ3)
ec rla
e
sp e
•
re itz
If pi > σ3 hydraulic rock failure occurs
ir w
he - S
• Minimum stress criteria:
ft n
– Factor of safety 1,2 – 1,5
O tio
© a
n nd
• Knowledge of the natural or primary stress field is of significant
tio ou
importance
ra F
– In‐situ measurements (hydraulic tests)

st T
llu E
– Numerical calculations
lI C
Al ITA
– Analytical solutions for an estimation of the natural rock stresses

©

©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F

tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
Types of lining
Unlined pressure tunnels
r-s
ne
• The following conditions must be fulfilled
tiv nd
ow
– Erosion resistance of the rock
ec rla
– Rock properties remain unaltered under water contact
e
sp e
re itz
– Profile is stable during excavation without support
ir w
– Rock has low permeability
he - S
– Hydraulic jacking/hydraulic fracturing can be excluded
ft n
O tio
• Energy economics
© a
n nd
– Rock surface of tunnels cut by TBM is relatively smooth (kST ≈ 60
tio ou
m1/3/s)
ra F
– Conventional drill and blast tunnels (kST ≈ 30 m1/3/s) require

st T
llu E
enlarged cross sections

lI C
Al ITA
©

Concrete linings
r-s
ne
• Shotcrete
tiv nd
ow
– mainly used to prevent hydraulic erosion and to seal joints
ec rla
e
– protection in the event of rock fall
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
• Unreinforced concrete lining
– Most economical and widely used lining system
ft n
O tio
– Thickness of the lining: 5 % of the inner diameter
© a
n nd
(min. 25 cm due to structural reasons)
tio ou
ra F
• Reinforced concrete lining

st T
– Aim: to limit and distribute the cracks within the lining

llu E
lI C
– “self‐sealing” up to a crack widths of 0,3 mm

Al ITA
©

Pre‐stressing of the lining
r-s
– Gap between the rock and lining is injected at high pressure with grout
ne
tiv nd
material
ow
– Goal: stress‐free lining (no tension due to internal pressure)
ec rla
e
sp e
– Different systems: “Kernring” (A), “TIWAG Interface grouting method” (B)
re itz
and “Borehole grouting method” (C)
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Sandwich construction method
r-s
ne
Additional sealing element to attain absolute tightness of the lining
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
1. Concrete lining with plastic membrane
sp e
re itz
 approx. 5 mm thick membrane
ir w
he - S
 Polyvinylchloride (PVC) or polyethylene (PE)
 Membrane has to be flexible enough so that cracks within the lining
ft n
O tio
can be bypassed
© a
n nd
2. Thin steel sheet with concrete inner ring
tio ou
ra F
 approx. 5 mm thick steel sheet

st T
 Installation either on‐site with subsequent concreting of the inner

llu E
lI C
ring or the compound system is delivered as a precast element

Al ITA
©

Sandwich construction method
r-s
3. Glass fibre reinforced plastic pipe with concrete inner ring
ne
• Low weight results in good installation performance
tiv nd
ow
• Corrosion resistance
ec rla
e
• Easy connection of the pipe segments
sp e
re itz
• High abrasiveness
ir w
• Smooth surface
he - S
• Limitation in diameter that can be produced to 4 to 5 m
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd Steel liner
tio ou
• Needed if no bearing capacity of the surrounding rock can be achieved

ra F
• Lining has to take over the complete internal water pressure

st T
llu E
• Positioning of the lining from bottom to top

lI C
Al ITA
• Welding of the segments and subsequently filling of the gap between steel
liner and the surrounding rock with concrete
©

Tender Design
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
Detail Design of Construction  Statistical and Probabilistic Evaluation of
ec rla
e
Mechanical and Hydraulik Data
sp e
Bill of Quantities
re itz
 Kinematic and Structural Analyses
ir w
Contract Set‐Up  Numerical Simulations
he - S
 Stress redistribution, displacements.
ft n
Assessment of Construction
 Refinement of Mechanical and Hydraulic
O tio
Schedule and Costs
Models
© a
n nd
tio ou
Specific Laboratory Tests
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Final Design
r-s
ne
 Statistical and Probabilistic Evaluation of
tiv nd
Final design of Support and
ow
Excavation (Type and Data from Rock Mass Characteristics,
ec rla
e
frequency) Excavation, Support and Displacements
sp e
re itz
Update of Construction  Short‐term Prediction
ir w
Schedule and Costs
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
Geological Face Mapping and n nd  Occasionally Numerical Simulations
Geotechnical Monitoring  Stress redistribution, displacements.
tio ou
 Refinement of Mechanical and Hydraulic

ra F
Specific Laboratory and in situ

Models
st T
Testing
llu E
 by extrapolating data from face mapping,

lI C
Probing ahead of the Face monitoring and short‐term prediction.

Al ITA
©

Special cross sections
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Special cross sections
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

What is the standard set of EQUIPMENT
in conventional hard rock tunnelling?
r-s
ne
 Drilling jumbo to drill holes
tiv nd
ow
 for blasting
ec rla
e
 rock bolting
sp e
re itz
 water and pressure release, grouting etc.
ir w
 Road header or excavator
he - S
 in cases where blasting is not possible or not economic
ft n
O tio
 Lifting platform
© a
 allowing the miners to reach each part of the tunnel crown and of the tunnel
n nd
face
tio ou
 Lifting equipment for steel sets

ra F
 Loader loading ground onto dump trucks

st T
llu E
 Dump trucks for hauling excavated ground

lI C
Al ITA
 Set of shotcrete manipulators for wet or dry shotcrete

©

What are the common elements for primary support?
r-s
ne
tiv nd
 Rock bolts
ow
ec rla
e
 Shotcrete
sp e
re itz
 Not reinforced
ir w
he - S
 Reinforced with fibres
ft n
O tio
 Reinforced with wire mesh
© a
n nd  Steel ribs
tio ou
 Lattice girders
ra F
st T
 Meshes
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Hard rock conditions – Conventional tunnelling
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
 The typical sequence for conventional excavation is subdivided
ec rla
into top heading – bench – invert.
e
sp e
 The top half of the tunnel cross section is excavated first, the
re itz
bench follows simultaneously a few hundred meters behind.
ir w
he - S
A ramp is maintained on one half side of the cross‐section to
enable access to the top heading.
ft n
O tio
 The invert is prepared at quite some distance to the bench
© a
excavation. n nd
 An invert arch is only installed, where a ring closure is required
tio ou
by the prevailing rock conditions. The invert arch construction

ra F
st T
is also split into two halves to maintain access to the tunnel

llu E
face at any time.

lI C
Al ITA
©

©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F

tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
Drill and Blast
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
Drill and Blast
st T
ra F

tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F

tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
Shotcreting
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
WHAT can be changed during construction?
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
 Increase or decrease of support
ec rla
 e.g. the thickness of shotcrete
e
sp e
 number and/or lengths of rock bolts per meter of tunnel spacing and
re itz
dimensions of steel arches
ir w
he - S
 number and lengths of spiles
 application of shotcrete at the tunnel face
ft n
O tio
 bolting the face etc.

© a
Variation of ring closure time
n nd
 Variation of the ring closure distance from excavation face
tio ou

ra F
Variation of explosives charge per blasting round

st T
 Variation of detonator sequences

llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

… and if the stand‐up time of the ground is changing?
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
 Increase or decrease length of excavation round
ec rla
e
sp e
 Partial excavation by splitting the excavation face into:
re itz

ir w
Crown, bench and
he - S
invert or
 Pilot and sidewall galleries
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

And what about exceptional ground conditions?
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
There is a variety of auxiliary construction technologies like
ec rla
e
 different kinds of Grouting
sp e
re itz
ir w
 Technologies to stabilize and improve the ground
he - S
 forepoling
ft n
O tio
 pipe umbrella
© a
n nd
 horizontal jet grouting
tio ou
 ground freezing
ra F
st T
 etc.
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

So WHAT are the big advantages of Conventional Tunnelling?
r-s
ne
 Conventional Tunnelling in connection with the wide variety of auxiliary
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
construction methods enables experienced project managers to make the
e
sp e
most appropriate choice to achieve safe and economic tunnel
re itz
ir w
construction even in situations with changing or unforeseen ground
he - S
conditions.
ft n
O tio
© a
 It allows reacting in both directions ‐ depending on the ground ‐ either
n nd
tio ou
changing to the less favourable or towards the more favourable side. This
ra F
flexibility makes Conventional Tunnelling the most advantageous

st T
llu E
lI C
tunnelling method in many projects.

Al ITA
©

What are the most possible HAZARDS?
r-s
ne
 Collapse of the roof
tiv nd
ow

ec rla
Rock fall
e

sp e
Rock burst
re itz
 Failure of the working face
ir w
he - S
 Convergence
 Heave of the tunnel due to swelling
ft n
O tio
 Deterioration of lining due to aggressive groundwater
 Inflow of water or mud
© a
n nd

tio ou
Gas (methane, radon, etc.) or dangerous substances in the atmosphere like dust
(quartz, asbestos)
ra F
st T
 High temperatures in the rock mass or in the groundwater

llu E

lI C
Seismic actions
Al ITA
 etc.
©

Is it possible to counteract the hazards?
r-s
ne
 Choice of a different alignment
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
 Choice of a structure that does not fail without prior warning
e
sp e
 Choice of suitable geotechnical auxiliary measures
re itz
ir w
 Choice of suitable construction materials
he - S
 Appropriate structural analysis and dimensioning
ft n
O tio
 Execution as planned and carried out with proper care
© a
n nd
 Suitable execution checks and warning systems
tio ou
 Special protective measures for neighbouring structures and plant

ra F
st T
 Measures to deal with critical events

llu E
lI C
Al ITA
 Appropriate monitoring and maintenance

©

What should be specified to be able
r-s
to modify the construction on site
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
 The design should specify information to be collected on site during
e
sp e
construction:
re itz
 Geological records of the tunnel face
ir w
he - S
 Results of advance probing
 Qualitative observations
ft n
O tio
 Monitoring results
© a
n nd
 Criteria for the selection of excavation
tio ou
 Criteria for support or auxiliary measures

ra F
st T
llu E
 A management concept with all technical and organisational provisions to

lI C
Al ITA
allow a timely decision‐making process during construction

©

Why MONITORING?
r-s
ne
The purpose of the instrumentation is:
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
 Checking the structural behaviour with respect to
e
sp e
 safety criteria
re itz
 serviceability criteria
ir w
he - S
mainly during construction and in some cases during operation.
ft n
 The quantification of structural response to a specific method of
O tio
construction and checking the effectiveness of specific support
© a
measures.
n nd
tio ou
 The comparison of theoretical predictions with the actual structural

ra F
behaviour and the assessment of the material parameters of the

st T
ground.
llu E
lI C
 Checking adjacent structures and facilities for their safety and

Al ITA
serviceability as a result of the construction of the tunnel.

©

 Deformations: What can be MONITORED?
r-s
 Displacements
ne
 Strains
tiv nd
ow
 Changes in inclination
ec rla
 Changes in curvature
e
sp e
re itz
 Stresses:
ir w
 Contact stresses
he - S
 Boundary stress on a beam
ft n
O tio
 State of stress
© a
 Forces:
n nd
tio ou
 Bolt force
ra F
 Normal load on a compression element

st T
 Normal load on a steel arch

llu E
lI C
Al ITA
 Piezometric levels
 Temperatures
©

©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F

tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
Typical Displacement History Diagram
ow
ne
r-s
Risc Management from the geotechnical point of view
r-s
ne
Risk level
Inacceptable risk level
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
Late
sp e
recognition
re itz
Early
ir w
recognition
he - S
Change of
conditions
ft n
O tio
„Normal“ risk level
© a
n nd
tio ou
Decision making Time

ra F
Slow return
st T
Measures
to „normal“
process
llu E
conditions
lI C
Al ITA
Decision making
Fast return
Measures
to „normal“
process
©
conditions
Construction organisation is essential
r-s
ne
tiv nd
CLIENT
ow
Project Management
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
Independent
DESIGNER Controlling
ir w
he - S
ft n
Site Supervision
O tio
© a
Geological documentation
n nd Health and Safety
tio ou
ra F
Geotechnical Engineer
st T
Tunnelling
llu E
Expert
lI C
Geotechnical Monitoring
Al ITA
CONTRACTOR
©
©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
Construction by Conventional Hard Rock Tunnelling or TBM?
©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
Cutter Wear
©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
Areas of the cutter head
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
Face area
Gauge area
Centre area
Cutter life time depending on the position of the disc
r-s
ne
31 31 31
29 29
tiv nd
28
ow
27 27
ec rla
25 25 25
e
23 23
22
sp e
21 21
Cutter position
Cutter position
re itz
Cutter position
19 19 19
ir w
16 17 17
15 15
he - S
13 13 13
10 11 11
ft n
9 9
O tio
7
7 7
© a
4 5 5
1
n nd 3 3
1 1
tio ou
0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Length of cutter path/revolution [m] Number of exchanged cutters Total path length per cutter [m]
ra F
st T
llu E
Relevant data:
lI C
Boring diameter DB: 4,5 m Evaluated tunnel length: 3250 m

Al ITA
Cutter diameter DC: 430 mm Number of exchanged cutter: 423

©
Number of cutters on cutterhead: 32

Correlation of CAI and UCS
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
[Wittke - Statik und Konstruktion maschineller Tunnelvortriebe]

©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
Grain size distribution of the excavated material
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Penetration p of the discs
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F

tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
In situ calibration + installation
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Disc Cutter Force Measurement Results
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Data‐Management Concept
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
Measuring Signal‐
e
sp e
amplifier Transformation
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
Data ‐
© a
n nd preparation
tio ou
disc load [kN]
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
TBM‐Data
Al ITA
time [s] or angle [°]

©

Interpretation – Detection of Anisotropies
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Interpretation of fault zones
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Geological mapping
[Ritter 2013, KAT2]
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Penetration prediction models
r-s
• Robbins
ne
• Gehring
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
• NTNU
e
sp e
• RMi
re itz
ir w
• CSM
he - S
• Q‐System
ft n
• Lislerud
O tio
• Mikura
© a
n nd
• ETH Zürich Wanner, Aeberli
tio ou
ra F
• Sanio
st T
• Case study Hong Kong

llu E
lI C
• RMC model
Al ITA
• others
©

©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F

tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
The Alpine Modell
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
Prediction models by Insitu tests
r-s
• While a TBM is excavating the ground a number of parameters can be
ne
tiv nd
ow
recorded. Some of them are
ec rla
– thrust
e
sp e
– penetration rate
re itz
– Torque
ir w
he - S
– rotation speed of the cutterhead
ft n
O tio
• Some of these parameters are influenced by properties of the rock mass,
© a
n nd
including uniaxial compressive strength, Brazilian tensile strength,
tio ou
orientation and spacing of discontinuities, and others.

ra F
st T
llu E
• Due to the complexity of the excavation process and the large range of
lI C
factors influencing the process a formalized procedure should be used to

Al ITA
ensure that results are objective and comparable.

©

Thrust‐penetration curves for the Altkristallin
in lot Amsteg, Gotthard Base Tunnel
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
[Villeneuve, 2008]
Thrust‐penetration curves for the Leventina Gneiss
in lot Bodio, Gotthard Base Tunnel
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
[Villeneuve, 2008]
Plot of a penetration test with interpretation
r-s
ne
18000
tiv nd
y = 582,73x + 10317
ow
16000
ec rla
Subcritical penetration
e
sp e
14000
re itz
ir w
12000
he - S
Total thrust force [kN]
10000
ft n
O tio
8000
© a
n nd
6000
tio ou
ra F
4000
st T
l I Friction
llu E C
2000
Al ITA
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
©
Penetration rate [mm/rev]
[Frenzl, Entacher, Galler, Thuro, 2013]

Full scale cutting tests / CSM model
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
76
©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F

tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
(c)
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
77
©
Al ITA
lI C
llu E
st T
ra F
tio ou
n nd
© a
O tio
ft n
he - S
ir w
re itz
sp e
ec rla
tiv nd
e
ow
ne
r-s
78
Comparison Large scale test / Mini cutting test / UCS / Brazilian test
Automated
Face Mapping
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
[Entacher, Henzinger, Galler 2013]

Automated
Face Mapping
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Automated
r-s
Face Mapping
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

Thanks for your attention!
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©

r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
TUNNELS FOR ENERGY
e
sp e
Iguassu Falls, Brazil 09 ‐ 10 May 2014
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
Disclaimer
© a
n nd
A. The speakers are presenting their own personal views and are not expressing the
tio ou
view of the Foundation.
ra F
B. Papers and documents displayed or handed out during the Event are copyrighted.
st T
llu E
The participants must observe and comply with all applicable law regulations
lI C
concerning the copyright.

Al ITA
©

S01L02 Galler R SW

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

S01L02 Galler R SW

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

BRAZILIAN TUNNELLING

Chairman of the ITA CET steering committee

Chair of Subsurface Engineering,

Montanuniversität Leoben, Austria

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Quotations are checked by the client

Find the best bid

Ground water conditions

Cost & Cost

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

‐ Satellite images  Orientation of the dominant discontinuity

set ‐ Related to the direction of tunnel axis

Geological Field Survey of Selected

Areas  Groundwater (Table, permeability)

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

 Orientation of the dominant discontinuity set

Investigation in Selected Areas

(Related to the direction of tunnel drive)

Laboratory Testing  Groundwater (Table, permeability,

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

[Abb.: Reichenspurner, Walter Bau AG]

[Abb.: Reichenspurner, Walter Bau AG]

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Detailed Engineering Geological  Mechanical Analyses

 Occasionally numerical simulations, stress

Drilling; Geophysiks, etc.

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

 Upper surge tank 

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Alignment 4: Swedish design Alignment

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Groundwater Stress situation

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Rock mass behavior

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Definition of requirements (RQ)

Selection of construction concept

Detailed selection of excavation & support

Assessment of System Behavior (SB)

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Determination of excavation & support classes

Distribution of excavation & support classes

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

permeability of rock mass < 10^‐7 m/s (Lauffer)

< 10^‐6 m/s (Schleiss)

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

– In‐situ measurements (hydraulic tests)

– Analytical solutions for an estimation of the natural rock stresses

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

– Conventional drill and blast tunnels (kST ≈ 30 m1/3/s) require

enlarged cross sections

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

• Reinforced concrete lining

– Aim: to limit and distribute the cracks within the lining

– “self‐sealing” up to a crack widths of 0,3 mm

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014

Tunnels for Energy | Iguassus Falls, Brazil – 09-10 May 2014