Grout Pressures around a Tunnel Lining, Influence of Grout Consolidation and Loading on Lining

A. Bezuijen1, A.M. Talmon2

1 2

Geodelft, Delft, The Netherlands WL | Delft Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT The influence of the grout properties on the grout pressure distribution around a tunnel lining is investigated. Initial yield stress of the grout and consolidation properties appear of importance. The consolidation properties are determined by means of element tests and appeared also to be influenced by the properties of the soil surrounding the tunnel. Field measurements have shown that grout pressures vary during the bore-cycle. Consolidation of the grout after injection in the tail void is one of the factors affecting the grout pressure distribution. The vertical pressure gradient in the grout decreases with increasing distance from the TBM. This decrease in gradient is important to determine the loading on the lining. It is shown that at some distance from the TBM the grout pressure is in most cases comparable to the pore pressure for a tunnel drilled in sand. 1. INTRODUCTION Grout pressures around a tunnel lining determine the loading on the lining and are an important parameter to predict the settlement above the tunnel. Grout pressures have been measured in several projects (See for example Hashimoto et al. 2002, Koyama 2001). It was noticed (Hashimoto 2002) that the measured pressures are not in agreement with the design method used in Japan. The measured pressures were lower than predicted according to the design method when a tunnel was constructed in sand. To increase the knowledge on the grout pressures these were measured systematically at 2 crosssections of the Sophia Rail tunnel (Bezuijen et al, 2002 and Bezuijen et al, 2004). Apart from these measurements it was decided to perform element tests and model tests to acquire information on the properties of the grout and to develop calculation models (Talmon et al., 2001 and Bezuijen & Talmon 2003). The research was performed by the COB (Centre of Underground Construction) in the Netherlands and Delft Cluster (a foundation in which the leading Delft Institutes on civil engineering co-operate). This paper will deal with measured grout pressures and consolidation of the grout during standstill of the TBM and will deal with some consequences for the loading on the lining and the pressure distribution in the soil. 2. MEASUREMENTS 2.1 Field measurements Grout pressures were measured around two of the lining segments of the Sophia Rail Tunnel. The Sophia Rail tunnel is a tunnel constructed with a slurry shield TBM. The diameter of the tunnel is 9.55 m. It is situated in the western part of the Netherlands. The tunnel is covered with nearly 15 m soil at the location of the measurement and surrounded with Pleistocene sand. The soil consists of soft

F01

Holocene layers of clay and peat above the Pleistocene sand See Figure 1. More details on the tunnel are presented by Stive (1999), more information on the measurement conditions can be found in Bezuijen et al (2002 and 2004). A result of the measurements is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1: Cross-section of the Sophia Rail Tunnel, some of the instrumentation and soil layering at the measurement location. Depths are presented in meters below the surface.

) n i m / m m ( y t i c o l e v g n i r o b

60 40 20 0 03:00 4.0
TBM

06:00
e s a e r g

09:00

12:00
grout

15:00

3.5 ) r a b ( e r u s s e r p t u o r g 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 03:00

A2a A1b A1a Cb Ca Kb Ka Bb

Kb Ca Cb A1a Bb Ka Kb Ca Cb A1a A1b A2a

Ka Bb injection point pressure sensor A2a A1b

06:00

09:00 time

12:00

15:00

Figure 2. Position of instruments, boring velocity and measured grout pressures at the right side of the tunnel as a function of time.

F01

Figure 1 also shows the position of the various instruments placed in the soil surrounding the tunnel. However, this paper is focused on the measured grout pressures directly around the tunnel lining. The measurement results shown are comparable to results that have been found in other tunnel projects in the Netherlands. The grout pressure increases during drilling and decreases during stand still. The pressures are plotted as a function of depth in Figure 3. It is clear that the pressure increases linearly with depth, but that the pressure as well as the vertical pressure gradient changes with time. This becomes even clearer when the average vertical pressure gradient in the grout is plotted as a function of time of distance from the TBM, see Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4

) m ( l e n n u t p o t w o l e b h t p e d

hydrostatic grout pressure

06:19:30 07:00:00 08:00:00 10:00:24 16:59:52 water press. hyd.press. grout

water pressure

grout pressure (bar)

Figure 3: Measured grout pressures at the Sophia Rail tunnel. The pressure measured at 16:59:52 was measured several hours after boring has stopped.

) m / a P k ( t n e i d a r g e r u s s e r p

20 15 10 5

no. strokes per sec. (1/s) 0.4 0.3 gradient 0.2 0.1 A1 0.0 06:00 09:00 time 12:00 15:00

0 03:00

Figure 4: Pressure gradient over the tunnel lining at one location, and pump activity for one of the injection points (A1) as a function of time.

2.2 Element tests Tests have been performed to investigate the hardening and bleeding of conventional grout, see Figure 6 and Figure 7. In this test a grout layer of 0.2 m is loaded mechanically with a constant load of 30 300 kPa overpressure. The expelled water is a measure for the consolidation of the grout. After several minutes of consolidation the sample was unloaded and the shear strength of the grout was measured at different locations in the grout with a vane. An example of results of such a test is shown in Figure 8

F01

and Figure 9. Figure 9 shows the amount of expelled pore water as a function of time and the applied pressure. In this test a pressure of 300 kPa was applied. Pressure was relieved several times to be able to perform the vane tests. Figure 9 shows the measured shear strength after various times that pressure was applied. In this test it was focussed on the lower values of the shear strength. Therefore only shear strengths up to 6 kPa were measured and presented in the plot. The type of grout tested here, was tested before at atmospheric pressure (Bezuijen et al. 2002). In that test it appeared that the measured shear strength remained more or less constant until 5.5 hours and after that time the hardening of the grout started. For this grout it was therefore the consolidation and the resulting increase in grain stress that determines the increase in shear strength after injection of the grout. The influence of hardening is only limited. This result depends on the type of grout used and the pressure difference with pore water. The hardening time will be dominant for a grout that hardens quickly and has a long consolidation time.
) m / a P 15 k ( t n e i d 10 a r g e r u s 5 s e r p

20

0 -2 0 2 4 6 displacement TBM (m)

Figure 5: Pressure gradient over the tunnel lining at one location as a function of displacement of the TBM with respect to grout pressure sensors in the lining.

3. INTERPRETATION The decrease in the measured grout pressure in the field measurements during stand still is caused by bleeding (or consolidation) of the grout. It was shown by the element tests described before and calculations (Bezuijen & Talmon 2003) that applying a pressure on the grout at comparable conditions as in a tail void will result in a 5 to 10 % of volume loss due to bleeding. The relative small volume loss leads to considerable decrease in pressure, because the surrounding dense sand has a high shear modulus for unloading. The principle is shown in Figure 10. Elastic deformation in the sand is assumed and a pressure decrease that is constant over the circumference of the tunnel (this last assumption is a simplification of the real situation, but it results in the order of magnitude of the deformation and grout pressure decrease). For such a situation the relation between x ( the reduction of the grout thickness due to bleeding or consolidation of the grout, see Figure 10) and the decrease in the grout pressure can be written as (Verruijt, 1993):

x = 2 G r

(1)

Where is the change in pressure, x the change in radius due to consolidation (see Figure 10), r the radius of the tunnel and the grout and G the shear modulus of the soil around the tunnel. In case of a consolidating grout, x will be equal to the thickness of the water layer that is expelled from the grout. A typical value of the shear modulus of dense sand for unloading is 50 to 100 Mpa. Assuming a tunnel radius of 5 m and 5% thickness reduction of the grout due to consolidation (=0.01 m for a grout layer with a starting thickness of 0.2 m), such a thickness reduction will lead to a pressure decrease of 200 to 400 kPa. Such a grout pressure reduction is sufficient to decrease the grout pressure to values close

F01

to the pore water pressure. Consolidation will stop when the grout pressure is close to the pore water pressure.
air pressure plate d valve load cell

grout

sand

water collection

Figure 6: Measurement principle (grout loading by air pressure)

1.4 ) g k ( r e t a w d e l l e p x e t h g i e w 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 0 10,000 time (s) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50 20,000 ) a P k ( e r u s s e r p r i a d e i l p p a

Figure 7: Experimental setup

20 18 16 14 ) m 12 c ( t h 10 g i e 8 h 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 strength (kPa)
10 min 20 min 30 min

Figure 8: Test result expelled water as a function of time and applied pressure.

Figure 9: Strength development as measured with a vane.

soil (sand) flow

x
rt

consolidated uncons. grout q=0 d

lining

grout

lining

flow by expelled pore water from the grout

Figure 10: Sketch of consolidating grout around a tunnel lining and detail.

F01

The dominant parameters for the rate of the pressure decrease in the situation tested in the element tests were the permeability of the grout and the shear modulus of the soil. The calculation method as described by Bezuijen & Talmon (2003) indicates that the permeability of the subsoil also influences the rate of consolidation in cases where this permeability is less than 50 times the permeability of the grout (10-7 to 10-8 m/s was found as typical permeabilities for the grouts tested). The mechanisms that cause the changes in the vertical pressure gradient are described in detail in Bezuijen et al. (2004). Since grout can be described as a Bingham liquid with a certain yield stress, it is possible that the vertical pressure gradient changes during the grouting process. Without yield stress, there can only be a hydrostatic grout pressure distribution and the density of the grout would purely determine the vertical pressure gradient. Due to the yield stress, the grout pressure in the tail void directly behind the TBM is governed by the injection strategy and the magnitude of the yield stress in the grout during drilling (Talmon et al, 2001). At a larger distance from the TBM the buoyancy forces and again the yield stress in the grout determine the vertical pressure gradient as will be explained below. Assume, as a starting point, a hydrostatic pressure distribution in the grout with a pressure gradient that is determined by the density of the grout (2190 kg/m3). In the field measurements for the Sophia Rail tunnel this corresponds to a vertical pressure gradient of approximately 21 kPa/m. The average density of a cross-section of the tunnel (the weight of the tunnel lining divided by the volume of the tunnel including lining) is much lower. A diameter of 9.45 m, a lining thickness of 0.4 m and a density of the lining of 2400 kg/m3 results in an average density of the tunnel of 390 kg/m3. Assuming a linear increase with depth for the grout pressure, according to Archimedes law, a cross-section of the lining would be in equilibrium for a vertical pressure gradient of 3.8 kPa/m. The gantry of the TBM adds additional weight and therefore vertical equilibrium with the buoyancy forces will be reached for a higher gradient (6.4 kPa/m), but in all cases the vertical hydraulic gradient for vertical equilibrium of a cross-section of the lining will be much lower than the hydrostatic pressure distribution in the grout and in most cases even lower than the gradient in the pore water. A vertical pressure gradient as low as 6.4 kPa/m was not measured during the field measurements for the Sophia rail tunnel. This means that there will always be some loading on the lining. This loading will be transferred to the TBM and the part of lining where the grout is hardened. It is shown in Bezuijen & Talmon (2004) that there is a relation between the yield strength and the vertical grout pressure gradient. Without yield strength the vertical pressure gradient can only be 21 kPa/m for the conditions of the field tests. However, a lower vertical pressure gradient is possible when the yield strength increases. Close to the TBM the yield strength in the grout is limited and therefore the vertical pressure gradient is relatively high. At a larger distance the gradient decreases to lower values due to the increased yield strength of the grout. 4. LOADING ON THE LINING The measured vertical pressure gradient in the grout, behind the TBM, is higher than the gradient that corresponds with vertical equilibrium of a cross section of the lining during the measurement. This means that there is no vertical equilibrium in one cross-section of the lining and equilibrium has to be obtained by interaction between the lining elements. The lining reacts as a beam supported by the TBM on one side and the already consolidated or hardened grout at the other side. Vertical forces at the supports and moments in the lining will depend on the length over which the beam is loaded. The moment in longitudinal direction can be calculated using the beam equation:

EI

d4y =w dx 4

(2)

F01

Where EI is the longitudinal bending stiffness of the tunnel (kNm2), x the length of the lining between the TBM and the hardened grout (m), y the vertical deformation (m) and w the vertical loading on the tunnel (kN/m). This equation can be solved analytically for various schemed boundary conditions. In our study we have measured the loading w (it can be determined from the vertical gradient, see Figure 5, or from all the grout pressures measured around the tunnel, see Figure 2 and Figure 3). A numerical solution is practical to use these measurement results as input for various loading situations. We used a finite difference solution. The differential equation can be written in finite differences for the point (i) on the beam:

EI

yi+2 4 yi+1 + 6 yi 4 yi1 + yi2 = wi h4

(3)

Here is h the distance between the finite difference points and wi the loading in that point. This equation is valid for all points (i) on the beam. This leads to a matrix equation that can be solved in a spreadsheet. Note that we use the measured pressures around the lining and it is therefore necessary to model the lining only. The soil interaction is included in the measured grout pressures and doesnt have to be modelled to simulate the reaction of the lining on the measured grout pressures. Preliminary simulations have been run with the set of equations described above. If the distance over which high vertical gradients are present over the lining increases, this leads to an increase of the bending moments in the lining that is quadratic with this distance (as could be expected). However, it also became clear that the bending moments and deformation in the lining are influenced quite substantially by the boundary conditions at both sides on the lining. What is the reaction force and moment of the TBM on the lining and what is the boundary condition at the other end where the measurement ends. What boundary conditions have to be used, will be a subject for further research. In this research we will use the simple beam model described above to check the influence of various parameters. Furthermore 4-D finite element simulation will be used to study details of the TBM lining and lining soil interaction. A 2-D grout flow model is available to provide input pressures for these models (Talmon et al, 2001). The preliminary calculations with the beam equation showed clearly that to reduce the forces on and the moment in the lining it is necessary to limit the length of the lining that is surrounded by not yet consolidated or not hardened grout. The measurements show clearly that the vertical gradient (and thus the loading on the lining) is highest directly behind the TBM, where the grout has the lowest viscosity and yield stress. 5. CONSEQUENCES FOR THE GROUT PROPERTIES The grout applied influences the loading on the lining. In this paper we have only discussed the distribution of the loading perpendicular to the axis of the lining. For this loading it is of importance that the unsupported part of the lining (where buoyancy forces dominate) is as short as possible to reduce the moment in the lining and high vertical forces at the TBM and there where the grout is hardened. This can be achieved in 3 different ways: 1. The grout has a relatively high initial shear stress. In a situation with a high initial shear stress of the applied grout, the shear strength in the not yet hardened grout is already sufficient to prevent upward movement of the tunnel lining. 2. Subsoil and grout allow for a rapid consolidation of the grout, resulting in an increase of allowable shear stress in the grout and as a result in only a limited unsupported length of the lining. 3. The grout used hardens quickly. This also leads to a limited unsupported length of the lining.

F01

These 3 methods can be used for a tunnel made in sand. For a tunnel in clay the second option is not possible, because the low permeability of the clay prevents consolidation of the grout. 6. CONCLUSIONS Results of field measurements on grout pressure decay during standstill of a TBM have been analysed in combination with the results of element tests. Grouts normally consolidate after injection into the tail void. This leads to a reduction of grout volume and to a decrease in grain stress of the surrounding soil. It was found for several tunnel projects, where a tunnel was bored in sand, that the final pressure distribution around a tunnel was comparable to the pore water pressure and was more or less independent from the injection strategy. Only the initial pressure distribution directly behind the TBM can be influenced by the injection strategy. Grout properties in combination with the soil properties influence the loading on the lining directly behind the TBM. It is therefore necessary to select a grout taking in into consideration the soil properties at the location and desired grout properties (yield stress, bleeding and hardening parameters).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Research was supported within the framework of the research on the Botlek and Sophia Rail Tunnel as initiated by COB (the Dutch centre for underground construction) and supported by ETAC grout injection BV. We acknowledge COB and its participants for their permission to publish the results and the members of the working groups for stimulating support.

REFERENCES
Bezuijen A., Talmon A.M, Kaalberg F.J. and R.Plugge, 2002, Field measurements on grout pressures during tunnelling, 3th Int. Symp. on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft. Ground - IS Toulouse, 23-25 October. Bezuijen A., Talmon A.M, 2003, Grout the foundation of a bored tunnel, 2003, Proc ICOF 2003 Dundee. Bezuijen A., Talmon A.M, Kaalberg F.J. and R.Plugge, 2004, Field measurements on grout pressures during tunnelling,Accepted for publication in Soils and Foundations. Hashimoto T, Nagaya J, Konda T, Tamura T, 2002, Observation of lining pressure due to shield tunnelling, 3rd Int Symp. on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, ISToulouse. Koyama Y., Design Method of Shield tunnel -Present status and subjects-, proc. IS-Kyoto 2001 conference on Modern tunneling Science and Technology, pp.29-38. Stive R.J.H. 1999, Design features of the Sophia Rail Tunnel in the Betuweroute. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol 14, No.2, pp. 141-149. Talmon A.M., Aanen L., Bezuijen A. & W.H. van der Zon, 2001, Grout pressures around a tunnel lining, proc. IS-Kyoto 2001 conference on Modern tunneling Science and Technology, pp.817-822. Verruijt, A., 1993, Soil Dynamics, Delft University of Technology, b28.

F01