Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ABSTRACT
The steel pipe Umbrella Arch reinforcement is a form of forepoling method used to improve stability
of a tunnel prior to excavation. Steel pipes are inserted into drilled holes and then mortar is poured into
the holes and pipe shaft. Grouting enhances the stability of the tunnel crown by forming a reinforced
arch that controls permeability and improves the cohesion and other geotechnical parameters of the
reinforced soil mass. This method is widely used in large scale excavations in Italy and Japan,
especially with NATM operations. Conventionally, this method is modelled numerically both in 2dimensional and 3-dimensional analyses by approximating the steel pipes, grout and rock material as a
single composite material. However, such crude approximations may yield inaccurate results and to
date, there are no accurate approximations to efficiently model the Umbrella Arch. This paper
presents the results of a numerical study performed to investigate the effect of different
approximations for the umbrella arch on the predicted ground behaviour. Two methods of
approximation for the umbrella arch supporting a large shallow excavation in weak rock are compared.
The first method is the conventional approximation method of composite zone of enhanced properties
and the second method is more accurate where the steel pipes are modelled individually in a grouted
zone.
1. INTRODUCTION
The steel pipe Umbrella Arch method is used most often at fractured zones in especially poor ground
conditions over a long work section or where surface settlement is restricted, but is also executable in
other soil condition from moraine to sand. It is commonly employed as an auxiliary reinforcing
method in large diameter NATM tunnels, especially in Italy and Japan. This method has provided
successful results in restricting surface settlement for shallow tunnel excavations as described for
example by Yang et al. (2001), Haruyama et al. (2001), Matsuo et al. (1996), and Barisone et al.
(1982). The typical construction method and specifications of the steel pipe Umbrella Arch is shown
in Figures 1 and 2 for the longitudinal and cross sectional profiles respectively.
H05
Length of forepoles
Lap length
Steel pipe
Grout + Rock
Grout
Tunnel Advance
2. CASE STUDIES
Although the Umbrella Arch method has been widely used in weak ground and shallow depth
excavations since 1980s, there are no simple and definite methods to model the actual behavior of the
reinforced arch that is formed with steel pipes and grout.
Numerous authors had described detailed construction procedures for case studies in Japan and Italy
(e.g., Yang et al. (2001); Haruyama et al. (2001); Matsuo et al. (1996) and Barisone et al. (1982)).
Numerical analyses had also been carried out to some of the field cases stated above. Nishimaki et al.
(1995) conducted a three dimensional finite element analysis to model the steel pipe umbrella. The
three dimensional solutions were used to conduct a back analysis whereby the umbrella arch is
simulated by improving the material properties of the ground in two dimensional finite element
analyses.
Similarly, using the improvement of material property method, Ohtsu et al (1995) also studied the
behaviour of the ground due to tunnel excavation using a three dimensional finite element analysis.
Ohtsu et al (1995) assumed that the pre-lining arch (forepoles and shotcrete) acted as a combined shell
element.
Sato and Ito (1993) used a three dimensional finite element method to analyse the effect of the
Umbrella Arch method on tunnel face stability.
Most numerical modelers of the Umbrella Arch method had crudely simulated the steel pipes and
grout material as a composite material. Hoek (2000) showed that the method of weighted averages can
be used to estimate the strength and deformation of the reinforced zone surrounding the tunnel
periphery. In addition, Hoek (2000) also reinforced the fact that this method provides crude
approximations in the study of the effect of the Umbrella Arch method. Hence, a more accurate
approach should incorporate modeling the steel pipes individually in a grouted zone directly above the
excavated tunnel rather than as a composite material.
3. SIMULATION OF STEEL PIPES AND GROUT MATERIAL IN THE UMBRELLA ARCH
METHOD
The objective of this study is to compare ground deformations generated by 2 different approaches of
simulating the Umbrella Arch method as a pre-reinforcement when tunnelling in weak and shallow
ground. The conventional approach of combining steel pipes and grout material to form a composite
material and a new approach whereby steel pipes are modeled singularly as a separate component from
the grout zone are used to simulate the Umbrella Arch method. 2D finite difference analyses are
conducted to compare the difference in surface and crown settlement, and vertical and horizontal
displacement at the tunnel periphery of a test model.
H05
The problem studied is shown in Figure 3, which is approximately similar to the case study of the
Egnatia Highway in Hoek (2000). A horseshoe shaped tunnel of 10m height and 6m width is to be
excavated as part of a top heading and bench method in weak rock. The tunnel is situated at a shallow
depth of 15 m from the ground surface in highly weathered and disturbed overburden rock mass.
Tunnel construction is separated into the excavation of the top heading which is a semi circular tunnel
of 6m diameter followed by the bottom bench of height 7m. Pre-support reinforcement is required to
stabilise the top heading construction in this weak ground and the Umbrella Arch method was chosen.
The Umbrella Arch spans 180 around the tunnel crown. It was anticipated that the umbrella arch will
minimise the surface settlement and hence allow for the excavation of the bottom bench. Rock mass
properties are assumed for this analysis based on Hoek and Brown (1997) and shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Rock mass properties
Geological strength index, GSI
Hoek-Brown constant, mi
Intact rock strength, ci
Friction angle,
Cohesive strength, c
Deformation modulus, E
Tensile strength
20
8
3 MPa
21
76 kPa
308 MPa
0.001 MPa
The numerical modelling only considered the top heading which is the semi circular part of the horse
shoe tunnel. This is because the forepoling system is installed prior to excavation over the entire
stretch of the tunnel crown to control the collapse of the rock mass whilst tunnelling and to control the
surface settlement. The bottom bench is excavated after the top heading has been completed.
(-30, 0)
(30, 0)
x
y
15m
Top heading
3m
Bottom bench
(-30,-30)
(30, -30)
H05
material (denoted as composite beam) of 600 mm around the tunnel crown as shown in Figure 4 after
accounting for pipe size and site conditions. In the analysis, steel pipes of 150 mm diameter with 7
mm thickness are used as shown in Figure 5.
Composite beam
0.6m
Top heading
rock
Bottom bench
0.6m
1.0m
Area (m2)
Strength
(MPa)
0.16
200
30
Rock
0.6*1.0 = 0.6
Steel pipes
2*0.00314= 0.00628
Grout
2*0.0145=0.029
Sum
0.635
Rock mass strength = 2.222/0.635 = 3.50 MPa
Product
0.096
1.256
0.87
2.222
20
8
48 MPa
20
1.2 MPa
1230 MPa
0.014 MPa
The second method (Method 2) uses beam elements to form the steel pipes as shown in Figure 5, and
these steel pipes will be inserted individually around the excavated tunnel and in the grout zone. The
beam elements have dimensions of thickness 7 mm and length 150 mm. Steel pipes have Youngs
modulus of 200 GPa and second moment of area, I, of 2.86E-08 m4.
grout
OD =150mm
steel
68mm
Steel pipe section
H05
In this new method, grout zones are simulated with an equivalent rock mass strength using the method
of weighted averages. The zone has a thickness of 600 mm spanning around the tunnel crown for 180
and the steel pipes are embedded in these zones. Figure 6 shows the calculations of the equivalent rock
mass strength for the grout zone.
Steel pipes
Area (m2)
Rock
Grout
Total
Strength (MPa)
Product
0.6x1.0= 0.6
0.16
0.1
0.029
30
0.87
0.629
0.97
0.6m
20
8
21 MPa
20
0.5 MPa
815 MPa
0.006 MPa
H05
obtain more comprehensive conclusion about the appropriate approximation for such problems. Field
case studies and 3D numerical analyses are currently under investigation.
It should be noted that in the composite beam method, the mixture of grout with the rock material
outside the pipe diameter were not accounted for. In actual forepoling methods, holes are drilled larger
than the pipe size before the perforated pipes are inserted and subsequently, the pipe shaft and the
space between the pipe and drilled hole are grouted. Permeation or fracture grouting are commonly
used and thus the grout may also penetrate a larger area outside the hole due to fractures and cracks
produced by drilling operations. As such, the grout region is larger than the approximated area and
deformations around the excavated zone could be substantially lesser since the reinforced area is larger.
Horizontal Distance (m )
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
40
0.5
1
1.5
Method 2
2
2.5
3
Method 1
3.5
4
4.5
-30
-20
-10
-1 0
10
20
30
40
0
1
2
Method 2
3
4
5
6
Method 1
7
8
9
10
H05
H05