Topics
Rainer Rengshausen
Riku Tauriainen
Andreas Raedle
TBM and spoil treatment selection process –
case history Crossrail C310 Thames Tunnel
Slurry TBM versus EPB TBM
The contract C310 comprises the construction of the Plumstead
and North Woolwich Portals and the twin tube Thames Tunnel,
which has a length of approximately 2.6 km between the two
portals. The two TBMs used for the construction of the Thames
Tunnel will drive through varying ground conditions (Thanet
Sand, River Terrace Deposit (gravel), and chalk) below the water
table. During the drive under the River Thames, the tunnels will
only have an overburden of approximately 12 m. The effect of
pressure variation due to the tidal River Thames has to be ac-
counted for in the control of the tunnelling. The tunnel will pass
underneath several grade II listed buildings, utilities, adjacent to
operational railway tracks and close to existing subway tunnels.
Previous experience of the handling and disposal of excavated
chalk has been gained on several tunnelling projects in chalk,
most notably the Dartford Road Tunnels, the Channel Tunnel, the
Brighton Stormwater Tunnel, the Lille Metro Tunnel, the Socatop
Road Tunnel near Paris and Channel Tunnel Rail Link CTRL 320.
The Contract allowed for both Mixshield and EPB TBM Technolo-
gy. The advantages and disadvantages of a TBM-S with Earth
Pressure Balanced face support (EPB-TBM) and a TBM-S with
Slurry Face support (Mix-Shield TBM) for the C310 Thames Tun-
nels were discussed after contract award and a comparative risk
assessment was developed. A Mixshield TBM is more expensive
but outperformed the EPB TBM in the overall scoring of risk as-
sessment and therefore it has been decided to use this type at
C310.
1 C310 Thames Tunnel project overview
1.1 Project Crossrail
Crossrail, the biggest infrastructure project in Europe, is a
new major cross-London rail link project, which has been
developed to link east to west by crossing the heart of
London and its important business locations. It will bring
1.5 million people within 45 minutes commuting distance
of London’s key business districts. The project includes
the construction of a twin-bore tunnel on a west-east align-
ment under Central London and the upgrading of existing
National Rail lines to the east and west of Central Lon-
don. The new rail line (Fig. 1) starting in Shenfield/Abbey
Wood in the east of London and ending in Maidenhead/
Heathrow Airport in the west of London includes the con-
struction of eight central area underground stations,
which will provide interchanges with London Under-
ground, National Rail and London Bus services, as well as
the upgrading or renewal of existing stations outside cen-
© 2014 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Geomechanics and Tunnelling 7 (2014), No. 1
DOI: 10.1002/geot.201400001
tral London. The estimated construction cost volume is
approximately € 18  bn overall. Altogether there will be
118 km of new rail track, including 42 km of tunnels and
37 train stations.
1.2 Contract C310 Thames Tunnel (Bored tunnel drive H)
Hochtief Murphy Joint Venture (HMJV) is responsible for
the construction of two tunnels underneath the River
Thames, under the contract name C310 Thames Tunnel.
The contract C310 comprises the construction of both the
Plumstead and North Woolwich Portals, as well as the
twin tube Thames Tunnel which has a length of approxi-
mately 2.6  km between the two portals. Contract com-
mencement date was in early March 2011; in November
2011 the construction of the tunnel portal at Plumstead
commenced. The main tunnelling works started in Janu-
ary 2013 and the anticipated completion of the tunnelling
work including cross passages and pump sumps is Sep-
tember 2014. Completion of the whole works is expected
mid June 2015. C310 is a challenging project, both techni-
cally and operationally, due to its location and difficult ge-
otechnical conditions. The two TBMs will drive through
varying ground conditions (Thanet Sand, River Terrace
Deposit (gravel), and chalk) below the water table (Fig. 2).
During the drive under the River Thames, the tunnels will
only have an overburden of approximately 12 m. The ef-
fect of pressure variation due to the tidal River Thames
has to be accounted for in the control of the tunnelling.
Additionally, the drive under the River Thames is charac-
terized by fissured and weathered chalk and layers of dis-
continued sediment discharge. The tunnel will pass under-
neath several grade II listed buildings, utilities, adjacent to
operational railway tracks and close to existing subway
tunnels.
2 Geotechnical and hydrogeological conditions
2.1 Geotechnical conditions
The encountered River Terrace Deposits (gravel) are typi-
cally described as: medium dense to very dense, grey (or-
ange or green) brown or dark grey, slightly silty, slightly
clayey, fine to coarse sand and fine to coarse subangular to
rounded flint gravel. The sand and gravel proportions vary
from very gravelly sand to sandy gravel. Quartzite and flint
cobble are found occasionally.
45
R. Rengshausen/R. Tauriainen/A. Raedle · TBM and spoil treatment selection process – case history Crossrail C310 Thames Tunnel
Fig. 1. Crossrail project overview and route
Fig. 2. Geotechnical longitudinal section
The Thanet Sand is predominately a sequence of fine-
grained sand beds, with higher proportions of clay and
silts in the lower part. The unweathered formation is grey
to brownish grey, and at the surface it weathers to a pale
yellowish grey. The basal Bullhead Bed is a conglomerate
comprised of rounded coarse flint gravels and nodular
flints in a matrix of dark greenish grey, clayey fine to
coarse grained sand. It is described as dense to very dense.
Approx. 80 % of the C310 tunnel cross section is lo-
cated in chalk. Chalk is generally considered to be a
soft/weak rock, a very pure white limestone formed from
the skeletal remains of sub-microscopic algae. However,
unlike many limestones, chalk is very widespread as a con-
sequence of its entirely planktonic origin. Two features
commonly found in chalk are flints and marl seams. Flint
46 Geomechanics and Tunnelling 7 (2014), No. 1
is a microcrystalline silica rock that occurs as dispersed,
usually black nodules or as tabular bands or sheets. Flints
represent very strong, brittle inclusions in contrast to the
comparatively weak host chalk matrix. Marl seams are
horizons with increased concentrations of clay.
Two different chalk layers are encountered by the
C310 tunnel, the chalk of the Haven Brow Beds and the
Cuckmere Beds. The chalk at the top of the layer is very
weak, highly weathered and described as low density
white chalk improving in both strength and density with
depth. Generally the chalk is described as medium density
chalk. The geotechnical and geological grading of the
chalk has a range from A to Dc. Chalk Engineering Grade
of A1 is considered to be the highest rock mass quality,
with Dm considered to be the worst rock mass quality.
 R. Rengshausen/R. Tauriainen/A. Raedle · TBM and spoil treatment selection process – case history Crossrail C310 Thames Tunnel

Fig. 3. Groundwater diagram

CIRIA publication 574 [1] introduces a general procedure

for chalk grading depending on the density, discontinuity
aperture and discontinuity spacing.

2.2 Groundwater conditions

There are two aquifers within the London area. The main
deep aquifer is located in the Chalk Group whereas the
River Terrace Deposits contain the second, shallow
aquifer.
In the eastern part of London, these two aquifers are
in hydrostatic contact, as at C310 Thames Tunnel. A re-
sponse to the tidal motion of the River Thames was ob-
served, dependent on the distance to the river. A minimum
and a maximum water level were derived from the geo-
Fig. 4. Tunnelling in proximity of Network Rail Assets
technical investigations. The maximum is set at 104.5  m
ATD whereas the minimum is set at 96.5 m ATD (above
tunnel datum). A variation of ± 4 m to the average ground-
water level of 100.5 m ATD can be found in close proximi- 3 TBM tunnelling underneath sensitive structures
ty to the River Thames (Fig. 3). This is due to the ± 3.5 m and buildings and within tidal influence
tidal influence. The rest of the tunnel alignment has a pre- 3.1 TBM launching in close proximity to operational NKL
set variation of ± 1 m. In addition to the values given by with low overburden
Crossrail [4], further investigations were undertaken. The
long-term measurements were reviewed and continuous Directly after cutting through the diaphragm walls at
reading of piezometer measurements was carried out over Plumstead Portal, the TBMs excavate in the Network Rail
a time period of four weeks. From this information, the zone of influence for a duration of approx. 36 calendar
three design water levels were defined (see Fig. 3). These days each close/adjacent to the operational North Kent
design levels indicate the pore water pressure in the pre- Line and underneath the White Hard Road Bridge and
sent aquifer. The support pressure calculations were car- Cathedral Substation (Fig.  4). The tunnel cross-section
ried out using these three design levels. here is located in mixed-face conditions (gravel, Thanet

Geomechanics and Tunnelling 7 (2014), No. 1 47

R. Rengshausen/R. Tauriainen/A. Raedle · TBM and spoil treatment selection process – case history Crossrail C310 Thames Tunnel
Sand and chalk) with shallow overburden of approx. 7 to
10 m for the first 150 m of tunnelling.
Real-time monitoring devices were installed consist-
ing of ATS and prisms on the railway and hydrostatic lev-
elling cells on the bridge and the Cathedral Substation.
The HMJV monitoring system, Advanced Tunnel Drive
Steering (ATDS), collects any movement and potential set-
tlement on a continuous 24/7 basis and shows the data in
real time.
For the commencement of the tunnelling works, a so
called LONO (Letter of no objection) is required from
Network Rail otherwise tunnelling is not allowed to start.
Settlements are to be minimised and support pressure has
to be controlled in a safe and robust manner to maintain
the confidence of Network Rail and demonstrate assur-
ance.
3.2 Tunnelling underneath sensitive structures
Along the alignment, further sensitive structures had to be
underpassed (Southern Outfall Sewer, Royal Mail Build-
ing and Middlegate House) and overpassed (Docklands
Light Railway tunnel with approx. 2 m clearance). To pre-
vent settlement from tunnelling operations underneath
the Cathedral Substation and Middlegate House, compen-
sation grouting was designed and implemented indepen-
dent of the TBM type. The White Hart Road Bridge is lo-
cated west of the main worksite at Plumstead approxi-
mately 40 m from the launch headwall. To mitigate settle-
ment caused by tunnelling operations, the foundation of
the bridge had to be supported, with a micro-pile and soil
anchor scheme being the preferred method of underpin-
ning to strengthen/support the foundation of the White
Hart Road Bridge.
Fig. 5. Tunnelling underneath the Thames
48 Geomechanics and Tunnelling 7 (2014), No. 1
3.3 Tunnelling within tidal influence and underneath
the River Thames
In this area, the pressure variation due to the effects of the
tidal River Thames has to be taken into account for tun-
nelling (Fig.  5). Due to the proximity to the sea, the
Thames water level and therefore the adjacent groundwa-
ter level are highly affected by tides. The duration of one
tidal cycle is about 12 h, corresponding to two cycles with
two minimum trough and two maximum peaks per day.
Between low tide and high tide, the Thames water level al-
ternates in general up to 8 m, causing relevant face pres-
sure changes of approx. 0.8  bar. Therefore the support
pressure has to be constantly reviewed and appropriately
adapted. An additional consideration is the time depen-
dence of the damping. The delay measured in the bore-
holes adjacent to the river was approximately 0.5 h. This
time effect will be covered by an increase of the pore water
pressure by 2.5  m for low Thames water levels. The in-
crease of 2.5 m creates a confined pore pressure at lowest
Thames water level. The damped value is used to calculate
the corresponding theoretical support pressure.
Detailed operational tables for the support pressure
for the regular tunnel drive were derived from detailed cal-
culations. For each ring position and tunnel metre respec-
tively, the corresponding pressures for the three different
water levels were compiled and interpolated between the
calculation cross-sections.
Based on these tables, an automatic calculation and
respective correlation of the support pressure to the tidal
measurements (displayed damped water level) takes place
within the TBM Data Process Management System TPC.
Subsequently the theoretical support pressure is dis-
played. The damped water level for the calculation of the
 R. Rengshausen/R. Tauriainen/A. Raedle · TBM and spoil treatment selection process – case history Crossrail C310 Thames Tunnel
theoretical support pressure is capped at a minimum of
99 m ATD although the minimum design river water level
is 96.5 m ATD. The reason for this is to maintain a conser-
vative assumption. During low Thames water level, we
have to assume that, due to the damping effect, some wa-
ter could remain in the ground so the pore pressure would
be higher than the actual river level.
4 TBM machine type selection and spoil treatment
4.1 Principles EPB and Slurry TBM
4.1.1 Principle of TBM with earth pressure balanced (EPB)
face
The support pressure of a TBM with earth pressure bal-
anced (EPB) face is provided by the resistance of the exca-
vated soil or rock, which is transformed into an earth
mud. The latter is remoulded by the excavation tools and
the mixing tools at the temporary face and in the extrac-
tion chamber, potentially with the aid of liquid or foam
conditioning agents. Tunnelling with earth pressure bal-
anced face support is also referred to as EPB mode.
The extraction chamber is closed against the tunnel
by a pressure wall. Here, the support pressure ps has to
balance at least the horizontal rock mass pressure ph and
a potential water pressure pw. The pressure induced by the
thrust cylinders at the pressure wall is transferred to the
earth mud and monitored by pressure gauges mounted on
the pressure wall.
The earth mud is conveyed by a screw conveyor. The
support pressure ps is controlled by the TBM advance
speed and the revolution speed of the screw conveyor, the
aim being to keep the earth pressure constant during tun-
nelling. The earth pressure support to the temporary face
requires the transformation of the excavated soil/rock
mass into an earth mud, i.e. into a soil with soft to very
soft consistency, high water absorption capability and low
water permeability [2]. The optimised earth mud should
be a cohesive soil with soft to very soft consistency to act
as the medium required to support the temporary face.
On the other hand the consistency of the appropriate
earth mud should not be too soft or liquid to avoid poten-
tial handling problems on the belt conveyor system and al-
so to guarantee that the subsequent muck disposal can be
carried out without any additional measures (e.g. adding
quick lime to increase the consistency of the “liquid
muck” should be avoided absolutely).
4.1.2 Mixshield TBM tunnelling
The TBM finally used on the C310 Thames Tunnel, called
a Mixshield TBM, was specially designed for the expected
ground conditions, to minimise settlement and also en-
sure continuous face support control, which can be ad-
justed in real-time to the appropriate monitored water lev-
els and respective water pressures.
A Mixshield TBM can be used as a slurry shield or a
compressed air shield machine.
Located at the front of the TBM is the cutterhead and
behind the cutterhead is the pressure chamber, or excava-
tion chamber, which is divided by a submerged wall. The
slurry rises behind the submerged wall and a compressed
air cushion applies the necessary pressure onto the slurry
to compensate for pressure fluctuations in this part of the
machine [3].
The excavated soil is mixed with the slurry and is
then pumped out at the bottom of the excavation chamber
for separation at the slurry treatment plant located outside
the tunnel. For compressed air support, the pressure
chamber is partially or completely filled with compressed
air.
4.2 Experience with other tunnels located in chalk
Previous experience of the handling and disposal of exca-
vated chalk has been gained on several tunnelling projects
through chalk, most notably the Dartford Road Tunnels,
the Channel Tunnel, the Brighton Stormwater Tunnel, the
Lille Metro Tunnel, the Socatop Road Tunnel near Paris
and Channel Tunnel Rail Link CTRL 320 A brief descrip-
tion of the experience gained and problems met on each
of these projects is summarised below.
4.2.1 Dartford Road Tunnels
These tunnels under the River Thames are large diameter
tunnels (10.3 to 10.7 m cut diameter) which were excavat-
ed through Upper Chalk with flints using tunnel shields
with compressed air working and ground treatment meth-
ods [7]. Spoil disposal for the first tunnel (built in the early
1960s) involved transporting the chalk (and the overlying
gravels) from the face on a conveyor to a crushing mill lo-
cated behind the shield, and then pumping it to the sur-
face where it was discharged into 3  m deep settling la-
goons. Limited information is available on the geotechni-
cal properties of the chalk spoil but some 105,000 m3 of
chalk spoil was handled in this way and with the exception
of 5 % of the colloidal material, all the pumped material
eventually proved suitable for re-excavation and incorpo-
ration into flood protection works [8].
4.2.2 Channel Tunnel – UK side
On the British side of the Channel Tunnel, chalk marl was
excavated using open face TBMs (5.4 to 8.7 m cut diame-
ter). The excavated material was loaded via a conveyor in-
to 14  m3 side tipping wagons and transported to the
Shakespeare Cliff pit bottom, where the wagons tipped in-
to a bunker storage area from which the spoil was con-
veyed to the surface and deposited by a radial spreader in-
to a lagoon area located behind a newly constructed sea-
wall. The total volume of cut rock was 3.6 million m3 with
a peak production rate of 10,000 m3 per day. Minor prob-
lems with spoil handling were experienced at the start of
the undersea drive for the first 10 km. These were associ-
ated with minor inflows of water encountered during exca-
vation, which caused the marl to stick to the wagons. This
chalk marl had much higher clay content than the chalk at
the CTRL Thames Tunnel [9].
4.2.3 Channel Tunnel – French side
On the French side, Upper, Middle and Lower Chalk were
excavated using Earth Pressure Balance (EPB) machines
(5.6 to 8.8  m cut diameter). Spoil excavated through a
Geomechanics and Tunnelling 7 (2014), No. 1 49
R. Rengshausen/R. Tauriainen/A. Raedle · TBM and spoil treatment selection process – case history Crossrail C310 Thames Tunnel
screw was transported in muck wagons to the Sangatte
shaft. There the material was crushed (to less than 20 mm
in size) and mixed with 50 % water in a basculeur (tipper),
with the resultant slurry being pumped to Fond Pignon
reservoir located at a distance of 2 km. Eight twin-piston
Putzmeister pumps were used, each able to pump 90 m3/h
of slurry through the 250  mm diameter pipes. Problems
were experienced during construction in slurrifying the
spoil and also with blockages in the pipes, which resulted
in significant TBM downtime. The spoil disposal system
controlled TBM production rates because it took 45 min-
utes to process and pump the spoil as against 30 minutes
for ring building. On completion of filling, the reservoir
held 5.4 million m3 of spoil representing 3.07 million m3
of cut chalk [9].
4.2.4 Brighton Stormwater Tunnel
This tunnel through the Upper Chalk with flints was exca-
vated using an EPB machine (6.9 m cut diameter). The ex-
cavated material was loaded into muck wagons, which
were emptied at the pit bottom onto a conveyor and taken
to the surface to be deposited in holding bunkers. Average
production was 100 m3/d. Handling problems were expe-
rienced with the chalk due to high moisture content, with
chalk sticking to the sides of the muck wagons. These
problems were exacerbated by large inflows of water en-
tering the tunnel face plus the addition of water needed to
wash the muck out of the wagons. Both of these factors
significantly wetted up the spoil between the face and the
surface. Flocculants and Eimco filter presses were used to
reduce the moisture content of the spoil somewhat. It was
then transported by road in sealed tipper trucks to the
Sheepcote Valley landfill site 2.5 km distant.
4.2.5 Lille Metro Tunnel, Northern France
On Contract 4 of the Lille Metro, Upper Chalk with flints
was excavated by a roadheader. This was part of the con-
struction of a 1.24  km long twin track railway tunnel,
which was 5.8 m high and 6.5 m wide. The progress rate
was 25  m/week. The excavated chalk was broken down
and crushed to 50  mm size or smaller before water was
added to form a slurry. The resulting thick paste was then
pumped by Putzmeister sludge pumps up to 600 m hori-
zontally along the tunnel and 30 m up the shaft into a silo
above ground. The capacity of the system was 30  m3/h.
No problems were reported on this contract but on the ad-
jacent contract, which utilised a Mixshield slurry TBM,
problems were encountered because 70 % of the chalk
went into suspension [10].
4.2.6 Socatop Road Tunnel, Paris, France
Here, Upper Chalk with flints was excavated using an
11.6 m diameter Herrenknecht Mixshield slurry/EPB ma-
chine. The chalk had an in-situ dry density of 1.56 t/m3,
an in situ moisture content of 26 %, and a UCS of
2.4  MPa. Excavation of the chalk was carried out in
open/EPB mode and production was 2,000 m3/d. Chalk
spoil was transported from the face via a conveyor to
barges before being transported along the River Seine to a
50 Geomechanics and Tunnelling 7 (2014), No. 1
former sand and gravel pit where it was spread in 0.3 to
1 m thick layers across the ground using low ground bear-
ing pressure bulldozers. Problems were experienced with
handling the chalk, especially during periods of wet weath-
er. These problems included breakdowns of the conveyor
leading from the TBM face to the barges due to the sticky
nature of the chalk, and problems at the main disposal site
where the chalk was initially too wet (porridge consisten-
cy) and could not be trafficked nor easily worked.
4.2.7 Channel Tunnel Rail Link CTRL 320, London –
Mixshield TBM
The tunnel spoil totalled some 263,000 m3, of which 80 %
was chalk spoil, 18 % gravel with the remaining 2 % com-
prising soft alluvial clays and peats. The tunnels were both
bored from the Swanscombe side. The excavated material
was crushed at the face and pumped through a high pres-
sure slurry main back to the surface where it was sent to a
treatment plant. The gravels and crushed flints were
screened off and then the remaining slurry passed through
a series of hydrocyclones and centrifuges to remove the
water. The chalk residue was then transported by closed
conveyor over a distance of 1 km to Craylands Pit, an old
chalk quarry located immediately adjacent to the site. To
facilitate the early strength gain required to fulfil the re-
quirements of the land-raising operation, cement was
added to the chalk spoil as an integral part of the separa-
tion process. The chalk paste was then compacted in lay-
ers for future development. Although this constitutes the
most environmentally friendly disposal process (and at the
same time increased the structural integrity of the existing
shear cliff faces), it did however present a significant logis-
tical challenge on the project [5] [6].
Initially the secondary separation plant was equipped
with three centrifuges with a total input slurry capacity of
210  m3/h producing 75  m3/h of solids. During the early
stages of the down-line tunnel drive, it became evident
from the nature and quantity of the chalk slurry to be
processed that additional capacity of the secondary sys-
tem would be required. A decision was made to install an
additional three centrifuges bringing the slurry capacity
up to 470 m3/h with an output of approximately 170 m3/h
of solids. With these additional centrifuges on line, TBM
productivity reached over 130  m/week and peaked at
18 rings per day i.e. 27  m/d. The separation plant, cen-
trifuges and flocculent system were maintained and oper-
ated by five operatives.
The successful and sustainable re-use of the chalk
tunnel spoil from the CTRL Thames Tunnel for engi-
neered fill was the result of several years of pre-contract
geotechnical investigations and studies, careful plant de-
sign, and extensive trials between contract award and the
start of tunnelling. Although some early difficulties were
experienced in dealing with the chalk slurry and placing
the material in the Craylands Lane Pit, these were soon
overcome through engineering ingenuity aided by co-oper-
ative working between all parties. In chalk earthworks, the
general plan is to reduce breaking down of the chalk
lumps, adding water, and working the chalk over the win-
ter – however the Thames Tunnel team had to do all three
to produce a satisfactory platform for future development.
 R. Rengshausen/R. Tauriainen/A. Raedle · TBM and spoil treatment selection process – case history Crossrail C310 Thames Tunnel

Table 1. Comparative risk assessment for TBM selection

Requirements Alternatives
2 Slurry TBMs 2 EPB TBMs
1 Safety Safe Safe
Interventions
Tunnelling operations
2 Budget Within budget Under budget
Procurement of the TBM systems More expensive than EPB Cheaper than slurry
Competition between potential suppliers Some competition Several suppliers more competition
than on slurry
Cost of tunnelling Higher power consumption (pumping) Conditioning required
Treatment cost and disposal of it More expensive than EPB Cheaper than slurry but MC above 35 %
Cost of interventions Lower Higher and more frequent
3 Programme Good and predictable Average
Daily advance Neutral Neutral
Intervention frequency Less interventions required Frequent interventions required
Wear and tear / CH repairs Low wear and tear High wear and tear
Down time on other equipment If muck treatment works – neutral
4 Settlement minimisation Good and more controllable Average
Control of support pressure Good Less good
Anticipated volume loss Could be less than requirements Could meet requirement but problem
in the control zone < 0,5 %
Control of over-excavation Good Less good
Adjustment to tidal changes possible Good Less good
5 Coping with C310 Geology (face support) Good Average
River Terrace Gravel Deposits Good Difficult needs foam/bentonite added
Chalk Good Good, high wear
Thanet Sands Good Satisfactory

6 Logistics and disposal of excavated Good Average

material
Tunnel logistics Standard Standard tunnel will be dirty
Shaft logistics Standard Zigzag solution and interface with propping
Treatment of excavated material System required Not based on system, difficult
35 % Moisture content Possible if filter presses work Not possible, only by adding lime,
cement etc.
7 Previous experience (references) Good Poor
Tunnelling in similar geology Very good experience, only spoil Poor
treatment requires adequate capacity
Tunnelling under the Thames Very good experience Difficulty sealing screw conveyor
8 Interventions Less critical Requires frequent interventions
Intervention frequency Low High
Interventions in different geology Possible, easier and faster Possible, takes longer time
Ease of interventions Easier
9 Risk minimisation Good and more predictable Average and risk of unforeseen events
Risk of cost overrun Low High
Risk of programme overrun Low High
Risk of settlement Low High

Geomechanics and Tunnelling 7 (2014), No. 1 51

R. Rengshausen/R. Tauriainen/A. Raedle · TBM and spoil treatment selection process – case history Crossrail C310 Thames Tunnel
4.3 Client’s specification
The contract allowed for both Mixshield and EPB-TBM
technology. The advantages and disadvantages of a TBM-
S with Earth Pressure Balanced face support (EPB-TBM)
and a TBM-S with slurry face support (Mixshield TBM)
for the C310 Thames Tunnels were discussed after the con-
tract award.
4.4 Comparative risk assessment
As described in Chapter 3 for the C310 Project, lack of dis-
ruption to the operation of the North Kent Line had to be
ensured during the TBM launching phase. Furthermore
for tunnelling in areas of low overburden underneath sen-
sitive structures, the control of support pressure and sub-
sequent minimisation of settlements were decisive factors
for the final selection of the TBM from the risk manage-
ment point of view.
Nevertheless the following main criteria and require-
ments for an appropriate selection of the most convenient
TBM type were investigated and considered:
– Safety,
– Within budget/costs,
– Programme security,
– Settlement minimisation,
– Coping with C310 geotechnical conditions,
– Logistics,
– Treatment of spoil (e.g. disposal of chalk),
– Interventions,
– Previous experience (e.g. DLR tunnels/CTRL 320),
– Risk.
HMJV prepared a comparative risk assessment at the start
of the project which considered the above listed criteria
and an appropriate weighting/scoring/comparison of the
different criteria regarding the corresponding TBM Type.
Table 1 illustrates and outlines the detailed comparison.
The Mixshield TBM is more expensive but outperformed
the EPB TBM in overall scoring of risk assessment and
therefore it was decided to use this type at C310 (Fig. 6).
4.5 Spoil treatment in chalk, use of filter presses
The use of a slurry shield TBM a plant makes it necessary
to filter the spoil out of the slurry to recycle it. This task is
handled by the STP. To manage the excavated material
with a maximum tunnelling advance rate up to 80  mm/
min, a slurry flow rate of 1,600  m3/h has to be treated.
This material consists of Thanet sands and chalk with var-
ious amounts of flint nodules (5 to 25 %). Especially the
particles of the excavated chalk spoil, of which up to
100 % are smaller than 40 μm in size, disperse in the slur-
ry and so additional treatment is carried out with filter
presses. To suit the agreed spoil management and disposal
scheme, the moisture content of spoil produced from the
treatment plant shall not exceed 35 %.
The STP consists of the five following principal com-
ponents (Figs. 7 and 8):
– Scalping, desanding and desilting sections,
– Slurry management,
– Primary slurry preparation,
52 Geomechanics and Tunnelling 7 (2014), No. 1
Fig. 6. Mixshield TBM, factory acceptance
– Water management,
– Treatment of excess mud.
A rotating drum with an integrated screen cuts off all ma-
terial with a size over 8 mm as a scalping unit. This mater-
ial drops directly onto a belt conveyor and is transported
to the dump.
All the slurry and the grains, which pass the openings
in the screen, are split into three equal volumes and each
collected in a small tank. There are three parallel lines in-
cluding a desanding and desilting section. In each line, a
centrifugal pump driven by a 132 kW electric motor feeds
the slurry out of the intermediate storage tank to two big
cyclones (650 mm in diameter). The underflow of the cy-
clones is sent to a dewatering screen, where the solids are
separated out of the fluids and drop down onto the belt
conveyor. The fluids and particles passing the openings
are pumped again through the desanding components.
The overflow of the cyclones with a size smaller than
70  μm feeds an additional tank for the desilting section,
where a similar process starts but with twelve smaller cy-
clones (250 mm in diameter) and a cut-off size of 40 μm.
The underflows of these cyclones are also sent to the de-
watering screen. One part of the overflow is sent back to
the cyclones and the rest falls by gravity to the slurry man-
agement section.
The slurry management section includes several
tanks to store the regenerated slurry, the waste mud, the
main bentonite, a distribution box and two smaller tanks
to complete the cycle in various modes. With many sen-
sors, valves and the Programmable Logic Controller
(PLC), the plant can run in automatic mode to set the re-
quired properties of the slurry for pumping to the excava-
tion chamber.
After passing the desanding and desilting sections,
the slurry is distributed to be reused in the slurry circuit by
sending it to the regenerated slurry tank and the excess
slurry is stored in a waste mud (waste slurry) tank. To pre-
vent sedimentation of the solids, two agitators are in-
stalled in this tank. The last separation step is the treat-
ment of the waste mud by carrying out a filtration process
 R. Rengshausen/R. Tauriainen/A. Raedle · TBM and spoil treatment selection process – case history Crossrail C310 Thames Tunnel
Fig. 7. Flowchart and 3D model of slurry treatment plant (STP)
in the filter presses. Before the slurry is pumped into the
chambers of the filter presses, a defined amount of lime
milk is added, for which lime powder has to be mixed and
matured in a preparation unit. Lime milk consists of water
and lime powder and is mixed in a process similar to the
main bentonite preparation. Depending on the settings for
lime milk concentration and lime dosage, which can set in
the operators cabin, the required amount of milk is calcu-
lated using the values of outflow of waste mud tank mea-
sured by a flowmeter and densimeter. The lime milk is
added before a centrifugal pump, which feeds the limed
mud into two storage silos before pumping into the filter
presses. The purpose of the lime milk for the filtration
process is to accelerate the process itself and also to re-
duce the stickiness of the filter cake surface to improve the
discharge of the filter cakes.
The filtration process includes the steps of closing,
feeding, inflating (only two filter presses), core blast, open-
Geomechanics and Tunnelling 7 (2014), No. 1 53
R. Rengshausen/R. Tauriainen/A. Raedle · TBM and spoil treatment selection process – case history Crossrail C310 Thames Tunnel

enough space to drop out the cakes. The cakes discharge

by gravity, assisted by shaking the plates. The cakes fall
down into a provided box, where they can be collected by
a wheeled loader, mixed up with material from the belt
conveyor and loaded onto a truck.

References

[1] CIRIA 574: Engineering in Chalk.

[2] Wittke, W.: Stability Analysis and Design for mechanized
Tunnelling. Geotechnik in Forschung und Praxis, WBI-
PRINT 6, Essen: VGE-Verlag, 2006.
[3] Maidl, B., Herrenknecht, M., Maidl, U., Wehrmeyer, G.:
Mechanised Shield Tunneling. 2nd Edition. Berlin: Ernst &
Fig. 8. Slurry treatment plant Sohn, 2012.
[4] Crossrail: Geotechnical Sectional Interpretative, Report 4:
Isle of Dogs to Plumstead, Volume 1: Text. Report No.
1D0101-G0G00-00520, Rev. B. 2007.
ing and demoulding. There are six filter presses, where [5] Warren, C. D., Phear, A., Schulthies, T., Gregg, I.: Treat-
each allows a treatment of 14.5  t/h of dry mud. Four of ment and Placement of Chalk Spoil from the CTRL Thames
them are normal chamber filter presses with a maximum Tunnel. Underground Construction, 2003.
[6] Tauschinger, M., Gallagher, M., Heron, W., Watson, P.,
closing pressure up to 250 bar, operated by two hydraulic
Warren, C. D.: Construction of the CTRL Thames Tunnel.
jacks. Another two are membrane chamber filter presses,
Underground Construction, 2003.
which use an additional squeezing/inflating process after [7] Kell, J.: The Dartford Tunnel. Paper 6671. Proc. Inst. Civ.
the normal feeding process. Due to this additional Eng. 22 (1963), pp. 359–372.
process, the closing pressure of 400  bar is much higher. [8] Shutter, G. B., Bell, G. A.: Design and construction of the
The excess mud treatment starts with the closing of the second Dartford Tunnel. Tunnelling 79, Inst. Mining & Met-
100 chambers of a filter press and is followed by mud feed- allurgy, pp. 331–337.
ing, with a volume of approximately 7,300 l of limed mud [9] Varley, P., Shuttleworth, P.: Spoil Disposal. In Harris, Hart,
out of the storage silo being pumped into the chambers. Varley, Warren (eds.) Engineering Geology of the Channel
The solid particles in the slurry collect on the surface of Tunnel. pp.174-193. London: Thomas Telford, 1996.
the filter cloth and create a so-called filter cake. At the [10] N.N.: Muck pumping solves chalky problem in Lille. Tun-
nels & Tunnelling May 1987, pp. 42–43.
same time the water flows through the cake and the cloth
into the plates, where it is led through small channels to a
drain into a tank. In consequence of the increasing thick-
ness of filter cake, the pressure increases to 7 bar. At this
pressure set-point, the feeding pumps are regulated to hold Rainer Rengshausen
the pressure for a certain time until the filtration process is Hochtief Solutions AG
Civil Engineering and Tunneling
completed. The feeding process can also end after the use
Alfredstraße 236
of a measured and calculated water content or a certain
45133 Essen
minimum flow of filtrate. Before the core blast sequence Germany
starts, the inflating mode is carried out in the two mem- Rainer.Rengshausen@hochtief.de
brane filter presses. During this mode, the volume of the
chamber is reduced by inflating membranes to the plate Tauriainen, Riku, MSc
working water pressure of 14  bar. The compression re- Project Director
moves residual water contained in the cake. The pressure Hochtief Murphy JV
is held over a certain time until the process is ended by a HMJV Site Office
required criterion. White Hart Avenue, off Western Way
After finishing this mode or following the feeding Plumstead, SE28 0GW
London, United Kingdom
process (filter presses without membranes) respectively,
rikutauriainen@murphygroup.co.uk
the liquid core in the presses needs to be removed. This is
necessary to prevent the liquid mud falling down onto the Dipl.-Ing. Andreas Raedle
dry filter cakes. Therefore compressed air is passed Technical and Risk Manager
through the centre of the filter press to discharge the ma- Hochtief Murphy JV
terial into a small tank, where it is pumped back to the HMJV Site Office
limed mud silo. Before the hydraulic pressure is released White Hart Avenue, off Western Way
to allow opening of the plates, the membranes is drained. Plumstead, SE28 0GW
Then compressed air is fed into hydraulic jacks on both London, United Kingdom
sides between the plates in a defined order to provide andreasraedle@murphygroup.co.uk

54 Geomechanics and Tunnelling 7 (2014), No. 1