PIPEJACKED TUNNELS WHAT TO DO IF A TUNNEL BORING MACHINE IS STUCK IN GROUND?

Wilson W.S. Mok

Black & Veatch Hong Kong Limited CEng, RPE (Civil & Geotechnical), CPEng, CSci, MICE, MIMMM, MHKIE, MIEAust

ABSTRACT: The pipejacking technique has been commonly adopted for pipeline construction in the urban
areas of Hong Kong, because of its fast operation and less disturbance to traffic. In the last 15 years, the scale of work in a contract increased from a short straight section, with the use of a single tunnel boring machine (TBM), to a few kilometers long, straight and curved sections, with deployment of different types of TBMs to account for the ground conditions likely to be encountered. Though the performance of this technique has been proved to be effective by the successful completion of more than 16km of drains and sewers, there have been some cases that the TBM was stuck in ground during the course of driving, due to obstruction. This paper discusses two cases experienced from two contracts, managed by the Drainage Services Department (DSD) of the Government of Hong Kong SAR, that the stalled TBMs necessitated a rescue tunnel and a rescue shaft respectively for recovery. The problems noted when the TBM could not advance further, the investigation and analysis carried out, the planning and design of the rescue operation, the difficulties encountered when executing the rescue, and the measures recommended to minimize the risk of TBM stoppage are also highlighted.

KEYWORDS: pipejacking, tunnel boring machine, obstruction, cutting tools, TBM stoppage, rescue tunnel,
rescue shaft, auxiliary jacking stations, sonic soft-ground probing

1.

INTRODUCTION

Used since at least the mid 20th century, pipejacking is an underground method of constructing pipelines using a tunnelling shield, with a size ranging from 1200 to 3000mm in diameter, in front, either operated mechanically or manually for excavation. The pipeline is then installed by pushing pipe sections, one by one, through the ground with hydraulic jacks from a jacking shaft to a receiving shaft. Microtunnelling, developed in Japan in the early 1970s, is a family of pipejacking for jacking small-sized pipelines, using steerable remote-controlled mechanical tunnelling shield. The size of the shield generally ranges from 450 to 900mm and is not suitable for safe man-entry working. Pipejacking has many advantages over the conventional open cut method. The most important of these is the ability to minimize construction impacts such as noise and vibration due to piling, ground settlement due to dewatering in excavated trench, disposal of excavated materials, and disturbance to residents and shops along the alignment of the pipeline. Other benefits include minimizing traffic disruption, maintaining normal operations of existing underground utilities and services, improving public safety due to the avoidance of trench excavation, and shortening the construction time. The first Government contract to use the pipejacking technique with track record was in 1989, with the construction of 370m of 1350mm diameter straight sewers, each section with a length of 50-80m, located at 6-14m below ground, using a Iseki Unclemole Earth Pressure Balancing TBM. Thereafter and up to 1996, the length of most of the pipelines constructed in a contract was generally less than 1km, with a depth range of 3-10m. Like most major cities, the roads of Hong Kong are underlain by an extensive network of utilities and services. Due to the aging or decay leading to leakages and ultimately collapse and the rapid growth
-1-

of population, replacement or continuous installation of new and larger capacity of these features is to be required. As a growing public concern on inconvenience and environmental control has taken place in recent years, the use of the pipejacking technique has become increasingly popular. Starting from 1996 onwards, more and more DSD contracts used pipejacking, with different types of TBMs and in different modes, to account for the ground conditions likely to be encountered, for pipeline construction on a large scale, with the length increased to a few kilometers and depths up to 20m in a contract. Following the rapid development in technology, the length of a single pipejacking drive also increased up to 500m, with the capacity of passing through an intermediate jacking shaft or an intermediate completed permanent manhole, under different ground conditions. Curve drives, including the S-shape configuration, were also introduced in the last few years. Up to the present, more than 16km of drains and sewers, managed by DSD, have been completed successfully by using the pipejacking technique. However, as noted from DSDs Report No. RD 1005/2, there had been some cases that the TBM was stuck in ground during the course of driving, mostly due to obstructions. This paper discusses two case studies that the stalled TBM had to be recovered by a rescue tunnel and a rescue shaft respectively. 2. CASE STUDY DSD CONTRACT NO. DC/95/05 CENTRAL, WESTERN AND WAN CHAI WEST TRUNK SEWERS This Contract consisted of the construction of 5.6km of trunk sewers from the Western District to Wan Chai West. The diameters of sewers ranged from 1200mm to 1800mm, with depths up to 18m. There were 43 pipejacking drives, with a length ranging from 45 to 246m. The alignment of the sewers in the Western District predominantly passed through a layer of loose to dense fill with isolated boulders in most of the area to a boulder zone of 4 to 5m in thickness at certain locations, whereas those in the Wan Chai area crossed a ground of fill in the west to marine deposits or alluvium in the east with boulder content being significantly reduced. The groundwater table was 2.5 to 3m below ground. The contractor, based on this and the site constraints, such as old seawalls, left-in sheetpiles and existing underground structures like pedestrian subways, box culverts and cooling main chambers, assessed the risk likely to be encountered and determined three different types of method for constructing the trunk sewers. The first one was the deployment of slurry pressure balancing machines in recent reclamation areas where the fill materials were under proper control. The second one was to use earth pressure balancing machines in old reclamation areas where the fill materials were unpredictable. The last one was to cross seawalls or left-in sheetpiles by hand-dug tunnels. As a result, 2 nos. of Herrenknecht slurry operated TBMs, in diameters of 1200mm and 1800mm respectively, a French CSM Bessac 1800mm diameter air pressurized open face TBM, and a 2440mm handshield, were ordered. The Bessac TBM was used to construct the pipelines through areas of pre-war reclamation. This TBM is 5400mm long with an external diameter of 2200mm, comprising two main parts. The first part is the shield which houses an operator chamber, a boring chamber, a hatch providing access to the excavation face through an airlock, a spoil conveying system, and air ducts. The second part is the telescopic tailskin for connecting the jacking pipes behind. The two parts are articulated to enable the steering and adjustment of the line and level of the pipeline. Excavation is effected by a boom cutter connected to an articulated telescopic arm mounted on a fully rotating turret, and the mucking chamber is under compressed air to balance groundwater (Figure 1). During its first 152m long drive and after the pipeline had been carried out for about 122m, the TBM and the two pipes behind were found inundated with soil when the workers came back after a holiday. It was later found that a valve in the front bulkhead was opened but the cause was unknown. A detailed inspection of the TBM indicated that its driving motor and the mucking system was completely damaged and could not be replaced from inside the TBM, thus losing its capacity for further excavation. Due to busy traffic and
-2-

the presence of trunk utilities, opening a rescue shaft on the road surface was impossible. A 2440mm internal diameter tunnel, made of precast reinforced concrete segments, was constructed from the receiving shaft to retrieve the TBM. A detailed hazard analysis was also carried out before the commencement of construction. The excavation of this tunnel was effected by means of a handshield with a length of 2990mm and 8 nos. of shove rams. Each ram had a diameter of 100mm and a stroke of 700mm. Prior to launching the handshield, horizontal grouting was carried out from the receiving shaft to prevent the ingress of groundwater when the launching eye was opened. The excavation was initially conducted in free air, with horizontal probing in the length of every 5m to determine the ground and groundwater conditions ahead, and then horizontal grouting as necessary (Figure 2). However, due to the ineffectiveness of grout, the rate of seepage in the work face increased when the excavation was proceeded. The contractor then changed the methodology by building a 1830mm internal diameter segmental tunnel inside the already completed section of the 2440mm diameter tunnel. 38mm diameter, 200mm long high tensile bars were inserted into every grout hole of the precast concrete segments of the small tunnel before application of the sleeve grout by bentonite cement. Three bulkheads were formed with doors at suitable locations to provide a horizontal air lock. Door nos. 1 and 2 were always

Figure 1 Front View of 1800mm Diameter Figure 2 Typical Ground Stabilization During CSM Bessac TBM the Course of Tunnel Construction

Figure 3 Set-up of the Rescue Tunnel in the Receiving Shaft

-3-

Figure 4 Appearance of the Rescue Tunnel Figure 5 Tunnel Excavation in Progress Viewed from Inside Door No. 3 closed and door no. 3 was left open at all times whilst workers were underground as this door was designated as an emergency escape door for tunnelling personnel (Figures 3 and 4). Tunnelling was continued using a compressed air pressure of approximately 0.9 bar, and due to the presence of high content of boulders, the excavation could only be carried out slowly (Figure 5), with an average production rate of 0.5m per day. Since the plant for the compressed air work, when operated, cannot be switched off to avoid the tunnel from being flooded, 3 nos. of compressors were placed, with two on duty and one on standby, to supply the quantities of air required. When the tunnel passed through porous grounds, loss of air was detected and the situation was rectified by ground treatment by injection of bentonite cement grout, sometimes with the addition of polymer, into the ground through the horizontal grout pipes drilled in the tunnel. After the 2440mm diameter tunnel had sleeved around the TBM, the shove rams in the handshield were removed and a double lip eye seal was fixed. Concrete screed was cast in the invert acting as a running deck, and the TBM was pushed within 3m of the horizontal air lock installation from the jacking shaft after the tunnelling personnel had vacated to avoid the risk of sudden loss of air pressue resulting from the ground possibly dislodged when the tunnel overlapped the TBM (Figure 6). The compressed air was subsequently reduced to atmospheric pressure in a gradual manner and the horizontal air lock, including the small tunnel and thrust frame, was removed. The TBM was then pushed into the receiving shaft and lifted up to the ground surface. During the stoppage of the TBM,

Figure 6 Procedures Showing the Recovery of the TBM by the Rescue Tunnel
-4-

lubricant, in the form of bentonite, was injected into the pipe annulus, formed by the overcut, through the lifting holes in the jacking pipes, twice a day, to prevent the close-up. In view of the uncertainty of time required for rescuing and repairing the TBM, the contractor ordered another slurry operated TBM to complete the remaining drives in the Western District. The whole rescue operation, including the time required for cleaning the TBM and the pipes behind and the inspection of the condition of the TBM, took about 10 months for completion. 3. CASE STUDY DSD CONTRACT NO. DC/2000/11 WAN CHAI EAST AND NORTH POINT SEWERAGE TRUNK SEWERS The works under this Contract comprised the construction of 4km long shallow and deep trunk sewers, from Causeway Bay to North Point, by 21 pipejacking drives. The diameters of the sewers, apart from one short section with 600mm, were 1200mm and 1800mm respectively. With a depth range of 6-20m, the pipelines had a length of 60 to 404m, and appeared in both straight and curved sections. The ground conditions for the shallow sewers, mainly located in Causeway Bay, generally consist of loose to medium dense Fill with boulders, overlying thin layer(s) of marine deposits and/or alluvium, whereas the deep sewers would tunnel through a mixed ground made of Fill with boulders of different content, marine deposits, alluvium, completely decomposed granite, and moderately to slightly decomposed granitic bedrock. The contractor, based on the site investigation results, selected 4 nos. full-face slurry TBMs equipped with disc cutters for rock excavation, three of which were manufactured by Herrenknecht whilst the last one was a Lovat TBM. According to the planning, the 1800mm diameter Lovat mts 2000 TBM (Figure 7) was responsible for constructing most of the pipelines in the North Point area. When it was engaged in driving a 270m long pipeline, with a curvature of 1750m, in a depth of 16.5m, the TBM was stuck at chainage 226 from the jacking shaft, due to obstruction, which was around 44m from the receiving shaft. It was noted that, before the stoppage, the TBM had travelled speedily with an advance rate of 100-200mm/min under a jacking load of 150-500 tonnes. Very little advancement was achieved by further progressive pushing, from both the main jacks (with the application of their maximum allowable loading of 900 tonnes) and the 2 nos. intermediate jacking stations. During the course of this operation, metal fragments were found in the desander which separated the excavated materials from the slurry. An attempt was carried out to inspect the condition of the disc cutters in the cutting

Figure 7 Front View of Lovat mts 2000 TBM

Figure 8 Condition of Damaged Disc Cutter Viewed from the Rear of the Cutting Wheel
-5-

wheel and the ground condition ahead, by opening the man access in the front bulkhead of the TBM, but was unsuccessful due to high groundwater pressure. It was therefore necessary to activate the compressed air, in a pressure of about 1.2 bar, from the air-lock chamber installed at the rear of the TBM. To effect this, an air vessel and a medical lock were set up at the jacking shaft location. During the inspection, all of the disc cutters were found to have been worn out or damaged, to a greater or lesser extent (Figure 8). Despite considerable effort, the replacement of these disc cutters failed as their connections to the TBM appeared to have been significantly distorted. It was also found that, in order to inspect the condition of each disc cutter, the excavated materials in the excavation chamber behind the cutting wheel needed to be removed and every time when the cutting wheel was rotated to allow the inspection, the overlying soil fell into the excavation chamber causing ground settlement above the stalled TBM, as evidenced by the sub-surface settlement markers in the concrete road slab. The contractor initially proposed to use a rescue tunnel by carrying out horizontal grouting ahead of excavation. However, in considering its construction time and cost, and after assessing the risk associated with the stability and safety, particularly the major road above and the presence of adjacent utilities and services, this proposal did not provide confidence that the groundwater could be controlled in a proper manner, thus likely endangering the working personnel and the works in general, as well as the public, and therefore was not supported by all concerned parties. Instead, the rescue shaft proposal was adopted. As constrained by the presence of the utilities/services at both sides, including a 975mm diameter sewer and a 1800mm diameter sewer, the external and internal widths of the rescue shaft at the ground level were about 2m and 1.2m only respectively, which were much narrower than the diameter of the TBM. The bottom part of the rescue shaft could, however, be extended to encompass the TBM (Figure 9). Given the above, and knowing the ground condition with boulders at intermediate depths and the moderately to slightly decomposed granitic bedrock protruded 500 to 800mm above the bottom and in front of the TBM, as revealed by 3 nos. of drill holes carried out at the rescue shaft location, vertical and raking pipe-piles were used as the temporary works for the intended purpose (Figure 10).

Figure 9 Plan Showing the Utility Constraints at the Rescue Shaft Location
-6-

Figure 10 Transverse Section Showing the Rescue Shaft

Figure 11 Appearance of the Damaged Cutting Wheel

To ensure watertightness in the shaft, slot holes were provided in the pipe-piles for injection of bentonite cement grout into the surrounding ground. As the piles had to stop 500mm above the crown of the stalled TBM to avoid damage, PU grout, a form of chemical grout which swells rapidly with water, was injected from the TBM to ensure that groundwater would not ingress into the rescue shaft through this gap which could cause stability problem when the shaft level was reduced during excavation. After the TBM had been exposed, all the disc cutters were found damaged and an uniform gouge, in the size of 25mm deep and 300mm wide, was also found between the gauge disc cutters and the semi-gauge disc cutters in the cutting wheel (Figure 11). This necessitated the change of a new cutting wheel with better disc cutter configuration, before the TBM could continue to complete the remaining drive length in the mixed ground condition. To confine its vertical alignment, a mass concrete block was cast on top of the rockhead allowing the TBM to have sufficient contact area with the same strength for cutting when the pipejacking work was resumed (Figure 12). Whilst the stalled TBM was being rescued, the soil friction along part of the pipeline behind was found to have increased significantly although lubricant was constantly injected into the surrounding ground, through the lifting holes of every fifth jacking pipe. This could be due to the closure of the tunnel overcut after the stoppage of the TBM, resulting from the bentonite, which was applied twice a day, being unable to travel effectively along the length of pipeline under such a no motion situation for a long time. To overcome the problem, two auxiliary intermediate jacking stations, each with 8 nos. hydraulic jacks with a stroke of 25mm and a capacity of 25 tonnes, were installed at the selected positions of the pipeline, such that the length of the pipeline to be pushed by each jack could be reduced (Figures 13 and 14). It was expected that, by repeated closing and opening the consecutive jacking stations, with lubrication applied, the pipe friction could gradually be reduced, thus enabling the whole pipeline to be pushed to the receiving shaft after the replacement of the cutting wheel. To further validate the design, a mock-up for the installation, removal and trial operation for jacking the auxiliary interjacking in the jacking pipes was carried out at the ground surface, in that no sign of cracks had been found on the pipes, thus confirming that the pipes could resist the load applied due to the repeated pushing and moving backward action of the auxiliary jacking. The pipeline was finally pushed to the receiving shaft, through the rescue shaft, after the stoppage for about 8 months. The two auxiliary intermediate jacking stations were then removed, and the respective jacking pipes were examined in detail to ensure no damage during the pushing operation.
-7-

Figure 12 Longitudinal Section Showing the Rescue Shaft (After Changing New Cutting Wheel)

Figure 13 Auxiliary Jacking Station Inside the Stalled Pipeline

Figure 14 Operation of Auxiliary Jacks in Stalled Pipeline 4. DISCUSSIONS

More than 16km of drains and sewers have been successfully installed since 1991, using the pipejacking technique, in the urban areas of Hong Kong. Most of them used TBMs because of their fast operation and cost effectiveness, when compared with the conventional open cut method. Based on DSDs Report No. RD 1005/2, about 1% of the pipejacking works encountered obstructions, resulting in the rescue operation. When a TBM is stuck in ground during the course of a drive, it is necessary to carry out a detailed investigation on its cause, and then the replacement of the damaged part. In the worst case, if the problem cannot be overcome, the stalled TBM has to be recovered by means of a rescue shaft or a rescue tunnel, as appropriate, which is a lengthy and expensive operation. The works would be delayed and new TBMs may need to be deployed for ensuring the completion of other drives on time, disturbing the programme of works. A typical TBM obstruction removal plan is given in Figure 15.
-8-

Figure 15 TBM Obstruction Removal Plan The obstruction may consist of construction debris, boulders, cobbles, bedrock, timber piles, anchors, left-in sheetpiles, abandoned utilities, concrete and metal objects, and would cause damage to the cutting tools in the TBM. If the damaged cutting tools are not replaced in due time, the function of the TBM would be jeopardized and further excavation could not be proceeded with. Since most of the pipejacked TBMs appear in blind mode, the TBM operator could only inspect the excavated materials from the storage tank after they have been delivered to the ground surface. However, there are generally signs when obstructions are encountered. These include the sudden increase of jacking load and torque pressure while the TBM advancement is significantly reduced, the sound of grinding metals in front of the TBM, and the metal flakes found in the excavated materials. Therefore, the TBM operators experience and response at that instance would minimize the damage of the cutting tools, allowing the investigation on the cause of the obstruction and the replacement of the damaged cutting tools at the right time. When obstruction is encountered, consistent high jacking load should be avoided as such would cause unforeseeable damage to the cutting tools, as well as the cutting wheel, and also lead to overheat in the driving motor, resulting in the complete TBM stoppage. The configuration in a TBM has a dominant effect on the capacity as to whether the obstruction can be cut through, and whether the ground condition ahead can be inspected, with the damaged cutting tools replaced, from inside the TBM. In view of the highly variable ground conditions and high groundwater table in Hong Kong soils, it would only be safe to carry out such investigations and inspections under a compressed air environment for deep drives. The TBM should have a centre access in the front bulkhead to the rear of the cutting wheel for replacement of all the damaged cutting tools. The present TBMs are incapable of dealing with large artificial obstructions and their removal can only be effected manually from outside the TBM after the ground has been stabilized by grouting. When a TBM is stuck in ground, the soil friction along the pipeline behind would increase with time, due to the close-up of the annulus formed by the overcut. It is therefore important and necessary that lubricant is injected into the surrounding ground, through an automatic system, at suitable intervals, such that the ground stability can be maintained and the pipe bore properly filled with lubricant to prevent ground closure. The installation of auxiliary jacking stations in between the already provided intermediate jacking stations should only be used with extreme care and as a last resort due to the easy
-9-

damage of the jacking pipes during the repeated extension and retraction operation. The jacking pipes used for a curved alignment pipeline will be subject to the reduction in capacity. The installation of an intermediate jacking station near or at the rear of the TBM (if no telescopic section is equipped), in addition to others provided in the pipeline, apart from ensuring sufficient capacity for excavation, would help to minimize shock loading in the cutting wheel during operation, which is liable to create excessive wear and/or damage to the disc cutters. Pipejacked tunnels always encounter obstructions during the course of driving. A detailed site investigation along the pipeline should be carried out as much as possible at suitable locations between any two shafts for advance planning, and selection of the appropriate tunnelling method. This is particularly important for small TBMs that their capacity in cutting through obstructions would be limited and the replacement of damaged cutting tools would not be possible. The installation of a fully automatic hardware and software system for detecting hard materials in front of TBMs by means of sonic soft-ground probing, which is currently a new technology for pipejacked tunnels, can allow the TBM operator adopting corresponding measures when the TBM is moving close to the obstruction. An electronic tools monitoring system installed in the disc cutters for detecting the wear limit, has also been developed by many TBM manufacturers. It is hoped that, through the above measures, the risk that a TBM is stuck in ground due to obstruction could be much minimized. 5. SUMMARY

Pipejacking has proved to be an effective and reliable technique for pipeline construction in Hong Kong. This technique will continue to become popular as it could eliminate most of the problems associated with the conventional open cut method, and will also be adopted for longer drives by virtue of the rapid development in TBM technology. Despite the fact that the TBM was stuck in ground due to obstruction in some cases, there are a multitude of solutions available in resolving the problems. However, such solutions may take a long time and be expensive, affecting the subsequent works. Therefore, the carrying-out of a detailed site investigation in the design stage and the selection of a TBM suitable to mixed ground conditions, which are not uncommon in Hong Kong, would minimize the risk of TBM stoppage. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to the Drainage Services Department of the Government of Hong Kong SAR, for permission in extracting the materials from the respective projects, to publish this paper. REFERENCES 1. Mok, W. W.S. 2002. Performance of Trenchless Techniques for Sewer Construction in Hong Kong, HKIE Transactions, Volume 9, No. 1, pp. 51-56. 2. Mok, W. W.S., Mak, M. K.W. and Poon F. H.T. 2007. Sewer Installation by Pipejacking in the Urban Areas of Hong Kong: Part I Planning, Design, Construction and Challenges, HKIE Transactions, Volume 14, No. 1, pp. 17-30. 3. Mok, W. W.S., Mak, M. K.W. and Poon F. H.T. 2007. Sewer Installation by Pipejacking in the Urban Areas of Hong Kong: Part II Performance of Works, Lessons Learned and Improvements Proposed, HKIE Transactions, Volume 14, No. 1, pp. 31-43. 4. Review of Pipe Jacking/Microtunnelling Techniques for Construction of Drainage Pipelines, Research & Development Report No. RD 1005/2, Drainage Services Department, Government of the Hong Kong SAR. 2002.

-10-