Numerical investigation into the face stability of a double-o-tube TBM

R. Peters Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Civil Engineering Division W. Broere A. Broere's Aannemingsmij. BV, Amsterdam and Geotechnical Laboratory, Delft University of Technology

ABSTRACT: The tunnel under the Groene Hart is part of the Dutch High Speed Line South and will be constructed using a slurry machine. During the pre-contracting phase several alternatives for the construction of the tunnel were studied under authority of the Project Organisation HSL-South. One of those studies dealt with the possibility to use a Double-O-Tube TBM and the influence this construction method would have on the face stability. An analytical method and a three -dimensional finite element model were used to investigate the maximum and minimum boundaries of allowable support pressure for prevailing cross sections. The results were close to results obtained for a regular (circular) TBM, with the minimal required support pressure only slightly higher. 1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 The shield driven tunnel under the "Groene Hart" 1.1 The Dutch High-Speed Line The Dutch High Speed Rail Link South is part of the Dutch high-speed rail network and will connect the Netherlands to the Trans-European Network. The entire line is now under construct i o n a n d w i l l e n t e r s e r v i c e i n t h e beginning of 2006. The HSL Project Organisation, part of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, manages the execution of the project. Aim of this project is to shorten travel time between several major cities in the Netherlands and within Europe and to integrate the Netherlands in the European high -speed rail network, ensuring the countrys continued optimum accessibility. [1] The HSL South will run from Amsterdam to the Belgian border on an almost 100km long and newly constructed route. In this route several construction projects as complex crossings, bridges, elevated sections and tunnels will be build. One of the major engineering works will be the shield driven t u n n e l u n d e r t h e " G r o e n e H a r t " f r om Westeinde to Leiderdorp (HSL Project Organisation 2000). Before the tender phase of the Design & Construct contract for this shield driven tunnel, a reference design was made. This reference design consists of two tunnel tubes connected by cross passages every 300m. The bored length of the tunnel would be approximately 7km. Several alternatives for this reference design were investigated such as a single tube large diameter tunnel and a so-called Double-O-Tube (DOT) alternative.

layer clay peat sand

gem (kN/m3) 14.3 10.6 19.9

c'gem (kPa) 2 5 0

'gem () 20.0 20.0 33.8

'gem () 0.0 0.0 3.8

(-) 0.40 0.45 0.33

E (kPa) 300 300 30700

top of the layer (m NAP) -5.1 -8.1 -12.1

K0 (-) 0.7 0.7 0.5

Table 1 Geotechnical profile and input parameters for ca lculations

1.3 Advantages and disadvantages of a DOT TBM compared with a "normal" circular TBM The DOT tunnel is favourable to the other alternatives in a number of aspects. First, there is no need to construct the cross passages between the tunnel, as in the twin -tunnel reference design. The amount of soil to be excavated is less than in the reference design and in the large diameter single tube alternative.
Figure 1 Cross section of DOT TBM for HSL South

influence on the minimum pressures on the face of the TBM. An analytical method was used to find the minimum support pressures, based on the theories of Jancsecz & Steiner (1994) and Broere (2001). In the numerical investigation, a preliminary release of the 3D finite element code PLAXIS 3D was used. This release is now available as PLAXIS 3D Tunnel. For the maximum face pressures no numerical investigation was carried o ut, only a simple analytical solution was used. 2 REFERENCE DESIGN SHIELD DRIVEN TUNNEL "GROENE HART"

As a result less bentonite is used and less bentonite-containing spoil is generated if a slurry shield is

2.1 Comparison of TBMs used. Furthermore, a DOT TBM generally needs less overburden than a single tube double track tunnel, as the height of the cross-section is less. Disadvantages of the DOT tunnel are that little experience is available with a DOT TBM and the available experience limited to earth pressure balance DOT machines, which were used on projects in Japan No slurry DOT machines have been constructed as yet. Also, no DOT tunnel was built before with these dimensions and the manoeuvrability of this type TBM in softer soils, such as found in the Netherlands, is as yet unknown. 1.4 Objective of this desk study for the Project Organisation HSL South In the reference design the two tunnels would be bored using two TBMs with an outer diameter of 10.44m each, resulting in a face surface of 85.6m2. When a DOT TBM of equal height is used, the resulting outer width is 17.9m. This DOT TBM face would have 1.71 times the width of the TBMs used in the reference design, and 1.82 times more surface area. 2.2 Geotechnical conditions and input parameters for calculations One of the most critical cross sections of the reference design is located in the Noordplaspolder, near the Southern exit of the tunnel. This cross section is schematised for the numerical calculations as shown in table 1. The reference levels of the soil layers are in relation KA3 = 30 0.282 0.252 0.201 0.070 = 35 0.228 0.202 0.155 0.042 = 40 0.182 0.161 0.122 0.036

In this study the influence of the difference in width between the Double -O-Tube TBM and a circular TBM is investigated, particularly the H/D = 20 = 25 = 30 = 35 = 40 = 20 = 25 0 58.271 60.610 62.896 65.136 67.341 0.428 0.348 1 66.169 68.507 70.548 72.318 73.867 0.396 0.316 2 73.072 75.851 77.955 79.425 80.383 0.352 0.265 3 80.640 84.577 87.006 87.960 87.907 0.257 0.141 Table 2 Angle of soil wedge and 3D active soil (KA3 ) coefficient for a DOT -TBM

with the Dutch reference level NAP (Nieuw Amsterdams Peil). Groundwater level is at NAP6.4m and surface NAP5.1m. The axis of the TBM in both cases is at NAP -26.6m. 3 CALCULATIONS

3.1 Wedge Stability Model For the analytical derivation of the minimal support pressures a wedge stability model was used. This was derived from the model proposed by Jancsecz and Steiner (Jancsecz & Steiner 1994) although several improvements have been made. In the model by Jancsecz and Steiner the soil in front of the tunnel face should be homogeneous and in their tabulated values of the calculated 3dimensional earth pressure coefficient K A3 the influence of the cohesion of the soil has not been shown. Also, the influence of slurry infiltration cannot be accounted for in the model. The wedge stability model described by Broere allows for heterogeneous soils in front of the tunnel face and can deal directly with cohesive soils in front of and above the tunnel (Broere 1998, 2001). Also, the width of the wedge is variable, so that in the case of a DOT TBM a width B can be used unequal to the diameter or height D of the tunnel. In table 2 the derived angle of the soil wedge a n d t h e t h r e e-dimensional earth pressure coefficient KA3 , calculated for a DOT with a width of 17.9m, are presented. In all cases the influence of soil arching over the tunnel has been taken into account. 3.1.1 Support pressures The minimum support pressure at the TBM axis can be found from the theories of Jancsecz & Steiner (Jancsecz & Steiner 1994) for the circular TBM, respectively derived from table 2 for the DOT TBM, using: min, support = KA3v + p (1) This results in a minimum support pressure min, support of 167kPa for the circular TBM of the reference design and 174kPa for a slurry supported DOT machine. The maximum support pressure is given by the vertical total soil stress, increased by times the undrained shear strength c u: max, support= v + p + cu (2)

With equal to 2 this would yield the pressure at which fracturing of the soil occurs (Janscecz & Steiner, 1994). In order to obtain a conservative maximum support pressure, is taken equal to 1. In sands, where generally no undrained shear strength is taken into account, this term reduces to zero. This results in max, support = 323kPa at the top of the TBM as a maximum support pressure ###for both cases. 3.2 Numerical investigation In this numerical calculation the DOT TBM was modelled as a beam element with a stiffness of 108 kNm2 with 6 node elements in 2D which are extended to 15 node elements in 3D. The mesh consisted of 9 x 10 x 8 (width x height x depth) elements. A soil body of 21.5m x 38m x 37m (width x height x depth) was modelled in this way.
Figure 2 Circular TBM minimum support pressure

At every node displacements, effective and total stresses and pore pressures are calculated. Only half the tunnel was modelled, in order to reduce the calculation time. The calculations were executed on a Pentium 233MHz and calculations

took about 45 minutes until the face became unstable.

Figure 3 DOT TBM minimum support pressure

3.2.1 Minimum support pressure The support pressure was modelled as external pressure acting at the TBM face onto the soil. This pressure was given a density (gradient) of 12kN/m3 acting as a bentonite fluid. This pressure was initially taken equal to the in situ horizontal stress and slowly decreased during the calculation. When collapse of the face occurred, the acting pressure was taken as the minimum support pressure. No infiltration at the face or groundwater flow was taken into account. In the case of the reference design collapse occurred at a support pressure of 152kPa, for the DOT TBM collapse occurred at 152kPa. The pore pressure at the top of the of the TBMs is 150kPa. 3.2.2 Maximum support pressure The maximum support pressure was derived by slowly increasing the external pressure applied at the tunnel face. This method did, however, not res ult in realistic maximum support pressures. A large passive wedge, resembling the failure mechanism described by Leca & Dormieux, would result. This wedge intersected with the bounds of the model, resulting in unrealistic allowable pressures. Also, no loca l failure mechanisms, such as fracturing, could be predicted using the continuum elements. As a result the calculated high maximum support pressure were discarded. 4 CONCLUSION The minimum support pressures found from a numerical investigation are considerably lower than those obtained by an analytical model, for both the circular and the DOT TBM considered. In the analytical model, a wedge stability model, there is a clear influence of the increased width of the tunnel face in front of a DOT TBM. This influence is not found in the numerical FEM calculations. Here the activated region of soil in front of the TBM, before collapse occurs, is relatively large, resulting in calculated minimum support pressures only slightly above the pore

pressures. As the activated region was slightly larger in the case of a DOT TBM this resulted in also slightly lower support pressures. The maximum support pressure at the TBM crown in both cases is taken equal to the total vertical stress plus 1 times the undrained shear stren gth. The numerical calculations did not yield realistic maximum support pressures. Overall conclusion is that a DOT TBM the same minimum and maximum support pressures requires as a "normal" circular TBM. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank A. Verruijt, G. Arends, W.L. Leendertse and M.P. Oude Essink for their assistance in the completion of this project and the Projectorganisatie HSL-Z u i d f o r t h e i r permission to publish this research. REFERENCES Brinkman, J., Boortunnel "Groene Hart", grondparameters, B/HBR/R985272/3.1 611-1998; Broere, W. Tunnel Face Stability & New CPT Applications, Delft University Press, Delft, 2001; Broere, W. Face stability calculation for a slurry shield in heterogeneous soft soils, Geotechnical Laboratory, Delft 1998; Jancsecz, S & Steiner, W., Face support for a large mix shield in heterogeneous ground conditions, Proceedings Tunnelling London 1994; Leca, E & Dormieux, L., Upper and lower bound solutions for the face stability of shallow circular tunnels in frictional material, Gotechnique, 40, p 581-606. Leaflet HSL "The Dutch High -Speed Line Transport of the Future Flying without wings, publication of the HSL Project Organisation, August 2000; Prater, E.G., Gewlbewirkung der Schlitzwnde, Bauingenieur 48 (1973) p 125-131Ve r m e e r , R . B . J . B r i n k g r e v e , PLAXIS Manual Version 6.0, Rotterdam 1995;

Terzaghi, K., Theoretische Bodenmechanik, Berlin/Gttingen/Heidelberg 1954; Veenma, M.F.H., DOT-tunnel onder het Groene Hart (afstudeerverslag) in Dutch, TU Delft/DHV, Oktober 1999;