2013 PresentationCompilation PDF

ROCK BURSTING PHENOMENON IN
TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION
- A CASE STUDY OF JINPING II TUNNEL
EOSC 547 Tunneling and Underground Design

Achala Soysa
Geological
Unpredictability
Tunnel
Construction
Heterogeneous
Ground Condition
Identification of Geological Units
Fault Zones
Geological Running Grounds
Unpredictability Strength Variation within in a geological unit
(Discontinuities / Fractures)
Tunnel
Construction
Ground Profile Variation - Elevation

Heterogeneous Ground Water Condition
Ground Condition
In situ Stress Variation
Discontinuities / Fractures
Brittle Failure
In situ Stress Variation
Spalling
Slabbing
Popping
Rock Burst
Kaiser et al (2000)
Rock Bursting
(i) Fault Slip Burst
(ii) Pillar Burst
(iii) Strain Burst
Rock Bursting
(i) Fault Slip Burst
If an excavation intersects with a fault

Sudden, earthquake-like movement along a weakness in the rock mass
If an excavation does not intersect with a fault

Stress-induced failure due to a dynamic stress increment
Acceleration of marginally stable rock blocks
Energy transfer to such blocks causing rock ejection.
(ii) Pillar Burst
Static or dynamic stresses exceed the rock mass strength and lead to the sudden failure of
an entire pillar or part of a pillar
(iii) Strain Burst
Static or dynamic stresses exceed the rock mass strength in the wall of an excavation
Jinping II Hydropower Station
Shaojun Li et al (2012)

Headrace Tunnels
Gong et al (2012)
Headrace Tunnels
Shan and Yan (2010)

Headrace Tunnels
7.2 m diameter 12.5 m diameter
Width 5.7 m 6.2 m
Height 5.7 m 6.7 m
Drill and Blast TBM Drill and Blast TBM
Two Transportation
Tunnels
2004 2008
Test Tunnels
Inside a
transportation
tunnel
2009
Four Diversion
tunnels
2009 2015
(expect)
Chen et al (2011)
Geological Profile
Shan and Yan (2010)

Rock Bursts at Tunnel A
Chen et al (2011)
Water Bursts at Tunnel A

Maximum flow rate of 15.6 m3/ sec with ground water pressure up to 10 MPa
Point water burst from bottom Point water burst from side
Chen et al (2011)
Rock Bursts at Tunnel A and B
(a) Surface spalling

(b) Deep rockburst pit
Shan and Yan (2010) (c) Schistose rupture,
Jiang et al (2010) (d) Parabolic shape of desquamation rock
Rock Bursts at Tunnel A and B
Shan and Yan (2010)

Sealing and Shotcreting
At Zones of rock burst and rich water.
Chen et al (2011)
Test Tunnels in Jinping II Traffic Tunnels
75 mm - 110 mm diameter
23 m 25 m length
-20 dip
(i) Stress Adjustment

(ii) Energy Accumulation
(iii) Crack Initiation and Propagation
(iv) Collapse and Ejection
Conclusions
A technology of rock burst control was proposed using traditional methods to release
the strain energy, using high performance shotcrete with nano-admixture to reduce
the energy release speed.
The comprehensive monitoring facilities, such as digital bore hole camera, acoustic
apparatus and sliding micrometer can provide effective methods for in situ testing of
rockburst. Effective valid data to assess and predict rock burst conditions in diversion
tunnels were obtained.
The nucleation and evolution of the rockburst involve four processes:

(i) Stress adjustment
(ii) Energy accumulation
(iii) Crack initiation, and propagation
(iv) Collapse and ejection of fractured.
Six basic modes of rock burst have been observed as:

tension fracture-spalling, tension fracture-dumpage, tension fracture-slippage,
tension fracture-cutoff, bending bread-off and periclinal outbreak.
References
Gong, Q. M., Yin, L. J., Wu, S. Y., Zhao, J., & Ting, Y. (2011). Rock burst and slabbing failure and its influence on TBM
excavation at headrace tunnels in Jinping II hydropower station. Engineering Geology.
HEN, S., ZHANG, H., TAN, X., & CHEN, L. (2011). Key technologies for construction of Jinping traffic tunnel with an
extremely deep overburden and a high water pressure. , 19(2).
Jiang, Q., Feng, X. T., Xiang, T. B., & Su, G. S. (2010). Rockburst characteristics and numerical simulation based on a
new energy index: a case study of a tunnel at 2,500 m depth. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment,
69(3), 381-388.
Kaiser, P. K., Diederichs, M. S., Martin, C. D., Sharp, J., & Steiner, W. (2000). Underground works in hard rock
tunnelling and mining. Keynote Lecture, Geoeng2000, Melbourne, Australia, Technomic Publishing Co, 841-926.
Kaiser, P. K., & Cai, M. (2012) Design of rock support system under rockburst condition. Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering. 2012, 4 (3): 215227
Li, S., Feng, X. T., Li, Z., Chen, B., Zhang, C., & Zhou, H. (2012). In-situ monitoring of rockburst nucleation and
evolution in the deeply buried tunnels of Jinping II hydropower station. Engineering Geology.
Palmstrm, A. (1995). Characterizing rock burst and squeezing by the rock mass index. In Int. conf. on Design and
Construction of Underground Structures; New Delhi
Shan, Z. G., & Yan, P. (2010). Management of rock bursts during excavation of the deep tunnels in Jinping II
Hydropower Station. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 69(3), 353-363.
Thank you
Questions?
EFFECTS OF Adam
EARTHQUAKES ON McIntyre
April 2, 2013
TUNNELS
EOSC 547: Tunneling and Underground Design
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
Seismic parameters affecting tunnel damage

Earthquake induced damage
Tunnel deformation
Damage patterns
Distribution of cracks in tunnel lining
Mitigative design/construction measures
Case studies of poor and good tunnel performance
General performance & analysis observations
Design considerations
Conclusions
4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 2

SEISMIC PARAMETERS AFFECTING
TUNNEL DAMAGE
Earthquake intensity
Source zone effects
Wave propagation theory
Surrounding ground conditions
Changing ground stiffness
Zones of weakened soil/rock
Tunnel capacity
Structural limitations of lining system
Construction issues
EARTHQUAKE INTENSIT Y
Intensity of seismic force exerted on a tunnel differs

depending on:
Distance from fault zone and epicenter
Distance to ground surface and nearby slopes
Seismic waves propagate in the ground a lose energy due to
dispersion and ground resistance
Tunnels exposed to greater seismic forces when nearer to fault zone
or epicenter
Seismic waves release energy at the ground surface due to
reflection and refraction
Tunnels near surface likely to absorb greater seismic energy

CONDITION OF SURROUNDING GROUND
Seismic waves propagate faster in hard/dense materials

Less energy will be released at places where the ground is harder
than the tunnel structure
Tunnels in harder ground will tend to deform with the ground and
suffer less damage
Conversely, tunnel structures in weaker soil/rock will absorb larger
amounts of seismic energy and suffer greater damage
Disturbance to the plastic zone between the tunnel wall and
reinforcement/lining structure could cause excessive vibration
due to passing seismic waves
Disturbance caused by cave-in/collapse during tunneling, squeezing
ground, inclined stresses, etc.
SEISMIC CAPACIT Y OF THE TUNNEL
Forensic studies imply that seismic capacity dependent on:

Structural arrangement (cross-section, refuge openings, etc.)
Presence of linings and inverts
Presence of lining reinforcement
Lining thickness
Presence of anomalies (porous structures, cavities, concrete
deterioration, etc.)

TUNNEL DEFORMATION
Tunnels undergo three

primary modes of
deformation during
seismic shaking:
Ovaling/racking: caused
primarily by seismic
shear waves
propagating
perpendicular to the
tunnel longitudinal axis
Axial and curvature
deformations: induced
by components of
seismic waves that
propagate along the
longitudinal axis
DAMAGE PATTERNS
Shallow tunnels of ten constructed in

weaker ground, where seismic waves
are amplified and large deformations
occur.
Tunnels through fractured zones
exposed to increased pressure,
resulting in damage to the lining and
deformation.
Tunnels crossing fault zones are
exposed to increased stresses during
ear thquake loading, leading to
complicated cracking and large
dif ferential displacements.

TUNNEL DAMAGE IN ACTIVE-FOLDING
ZONE
Kizawa tunnel damaged
during Mid-Niigata
Prefecture EQ (2004)
Laser-scanning revealed
parallel pairs of diagonal
cracks in concrete lining, West tunnel wall
East tunnel wall
ranging in length from 38

to 88 m
Cracks formed axial
opposite pattern, resulting
in zigzag folds
Tunnel crown shifted ~0.5
m laterally
Tunnel lining collapse Mid-Niigata EQ
CRACK DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE TUNNEL

LINING (WANG ET AL., 2001)
Cracking patterns induced into
tunnel lining by ear thquake
loading:
a) Sheared-off lining passing
through active faults
b) Slope failure induced collapse
parallel to slopes generating
landslides passing through the
lining
c) Longitudinal cracks large
deformation by surrounding
ground movements
d) Transverse cracks weak tunnel
joints
e) Inclined cracks combo of
longitudinal and transverse
cracks
f) Extended cracks partial
collapse of linings
g) Wall deformation transverse
reduction due to invert collapse
h) Spalling of lining transversal
section completely collapses
SEISMIC PROTECTION OF TUNNELS
Protective measures important in areas of abrupt

change in structural stiffness or ground conditions.
Differences in stiffness may impose differential
movements and generate stress concentrations.
Common solution is to introduce seismic flexible
joints.
Tunnel isolation proposed where tunnel passes
through soils of different stiffness.
TUNNELS CROSSING ACTIVE FAULTS
Two methods for tunnel design in active fault zones:

Empirical relationships expressing displacements as a function of
various source parameters.
Probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis (PFDHA).
Design strategies depend on the magnitude of displacement and
the length of tunnel over which displacement is distributed.
General philosophy to accommodate expected fault displacements and
allow for repair to the damage lining afterwards.
Retrofit design primarily consists of enlarging the tunnel
diameter across and beyond the displacement zone.
Function of amount of displacement and permissible curvature of the
road or track.
Predictably small fault displacement zones can be addressed by
providing articulation of the tunnel liner with ductile joints.

CASE STUDY OF POOR PERFORMANCE
New Sanyi Railway Tunnel in Central Taiwan

Damaged during the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake (M7.3).
Tunnel passes through two fault zones and areas of weak
ground.
Refuge spaces excavated on the side walls at 20 m intervals.
Tunnel lining comprised of primary shotcrete, waterproof
membrane, and unreinforced secondary lining for aesthetic
purposes.
CASE STUDY OF POOR PERFORMANCE
Damaging factors:
Design of secondary lining
did not consider excessive
EQ loading
Geological weak zones
(faults, moderate-high
potential for fracture or
swelling)
Concrete spalling resulting
from voids between linings
Unreinforced secondary
lining could not withstand
dynamic squeezing
Cross-sections with refuges
easily damaged due to
stress concentration

CASE STUDY OF GOOD PERFORMANCE
The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in San Francisco

was one of the first to be designed considering seismic
loading.
Tunnels constructed in fill and soft Bay Mud deposits.
Sustained no damage during the 1989 Loma Prieta
Earthquake.
Operated on a 24-hour basis soon after the earthquake occurred.
Tunnel structure utilized seismic joints to accommodate
differential movements at connections to ventilation
buildings.
Joints designed to support earth and water loads.
Maintained a watertight connection.
Did not exceed allowable differential movements.
GENERAL PERFORMANCE & ANALYSIS

OBSERVATIONS
Tunnels generally per form well
during earthquakes relative to above
ground structures.
Most issues involve lining damage due
to poor ground conditions and fault
zones.
For moderate earthquakes, static
design suf ficient to protect
structures from seismic motion.
Reported damage decreases with
increasing overburden depth.
Earthquake ef fect is governed by
ground-induced deformation
Shaking damage can be reduced by
improving the contact between the
lining and surrounding ground.
GENERAL PERFORMANCE & ANALYSIS
OBSERVATIONS
Degree of damage increases with magnitude and proximity to

the epicenter.
PGA, frequency content, and duration of the earthquake have
crucial influence on applied stresses.
Duration of strong-motion shaking may cause fatigue failure and
large deformations.
Ground motion amplified if wavelengths are between 1 and 4
times the tunnel diameter.
Interaction effects between twin tunnels are negligible when
the tunnels are spaced more than three diameters apart.
At closer spacing, there is interference between the stresses from
both the tunnels and thus lead to non-uniform stress distributions
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Most design codes are focused on portals and sections near

slope surfaces.
Goal of current research is to optimize design by better
understanding seismic waves and the stresses they impose on
tunnels.
Promoting performance-based seismic designs:
Maintain tunnel operation following more frequent, low intensity
events.
Avoid loss of human life during high intensity earthquakes.

CONCLUSIONS
Tunnel routes sometimes cannot avoid problematic conditions

such as weak ground, fractured zones, and faults.
Need tunnel design that can tolerate deformation without causing
irreparable damage and loss of life
Important to consider the variation in stiffness between the
tunnel lining and surrounding ground to reduce stress
concentrations on the tunnel
Modification to the lining stiffness (increase ductility and/or
strength)
Introduction of a tunnel isolation system
Should optimize tunnel geometry to limit stress
concentrations and avoid interference/interaction effects
Better tunnel performance with symmetric loading
REFERENCES
H a s h a s h , Y. M . A . , H o o k , J . J . , S c h m i d t , B . , a n d Ya o , J . I - C . ( 2 0 01 ) . S e i s m i c d e s i g n a n d
a n a l y s i s o f u n d e r g r o u n d s t r u c t u r e s . Tu n n e l l i n g a n d U n d e r g r o u n d S p a c e
Te c h n o l o g y, 1 6 , p p . 247 - 2 9 3 .
Ko n a g a i , K . , Ta ka t s u , S . , Ka n a i , T. , Fu j i t a , T. , I ke d a , T. , a n d J o h a n s s o n , J . ( 2 0 0 8 ) .
K i z awa t u n n e l c r a c ke d o n 2 3 O c to b e r 2 0 0 4 M i d - N i i g a t a e a r t h q u a ke : A n
exa m p l e o f e a r t h q u a ke - i n d u c e d d a m a g e to t u n n e l s i n a c t i v e - f o l d i n g z o n e s .
S o i l D y n a m i c s a n d E a r t h q u a ke E n g i n e e r i n g , 2 9 , p p . 3 9 4 - 4 0 3 .
Ku m a r i , S . D . A . , V i p i n , K . S . , a n d S i t h a r a m , T. G . ( 2 01 2 ) . S e i s m i c r e s p o n s e o f t w i n
t u n n e l s i n w e a t h e r e d r o c k s . G e o C o n g r e s s 2 01 2 , p p . 3 2 6 8 - 3 274 .
L a n z a n o , G . , B i l o t t a , E . , a n d Ru s s o , G . ( 2 0 0 8 ) . Tu n n e l s u n d e r s e i s m i c l o a d i n g : a
r ev i ew o f d a m a g e c a s e h i s to r i e s a n d p r o te c t i o n m e t h o d s . S t r a te g y f o r
Re d u c t i o n o f t h e S e i s m i c R i s k , p p . 6 5 - 74 .
L u , C - C a n d H wa n g , J - H . ( 2 0 0 8 ) . D a m a g e o f N ew S a ny i R a i l way Tu n n e l D u r i n g t h e
1 9 9 9 C h i - C h i E a r t h q u a ke . G e o te c h n i c a l E a r t h q u a ke E n g i n e e r i n g a n d S o i l
Dynamics IV, pp. 1-10
Wa n g , W. L . , Wa n g , T. T. , S u , J . J . , L i n , C .H . , S e n g , C . R . , a n d H u a n g , T. H . ( 2 0 01 ) .
A s s e s s m e n t o f d a m a g e i n m o u n t a i n t u n n e l s d u e to t h e Ta i wa n C h i - C h i
E a r t h q u a ke . Tu n n e l l i n g a n d U n d e r g r o u n d S p a c e Te c h n o l o g y , 1 6 , p p . 1 3 3 - 1 5 0
Ya s h i r o , K . , Ko j i m a , Y. , a n d S h i m i z u , M . ( 2 0 07 ) . H i s to r i c a l E a r t h q u a ke D a m a g e to
Tu n n e l s i n J a p a n a n d C a s e S t u d i e s o f R a i l way Tu n n e l s i n t h e 2 0 0 4
4/02/2013
N i i g a t a ke n - C h u e t s uUBC
E aEOSC
r t h q574:
u a ke . Q R o f R T R I , 4 8 ( 3 ) , p p . 1 3 6 - 1 41
Tunneling and Underground Design 20
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
QUESTIONS?

GEOTECHNICAL APPLICATIONS OF LiDAR
SCANNING IN TUNNELLING
based on work conducted by Fekete S.,
Diederichs M., and Lato M. 2010. Queens
University, Kingston, Ontario.
Overview
1. Introduction
Theory of LiDAR
Terminology
2. Field tests
Background
Results
Advantages
Limitations
3. Current technology
LiDAR modules
Software
4. Summary
5. References
Introduction
Theory of LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging):
Optical remote sensing
Same idea as radar and sonar, but uses light as signal
Common configurations:
Pulsed laser (time-of-flight) travel time/distance is based on delay
between signal transmission and reception
Continuous lasers (phase-shift) continuous frequency modulation;
travel time/distance is proportional to phase difference between
transmitted sinusoidal signal
Common signal sources:
Near-infrared wavelength used for airborne applications, topographic
surveys; easily absorbed by water
Green wavelength used for bathymetric applications; penetrates water
Introduction
Time-of-flight calculation:
Distance = (Speed of Light * Time of Flight)/2
Phase-shift distance calculation:
Distance = [Speed of Light * Phase Shift / (2 * Modulation

Frequency)]/2
Introduction
Terminology:
Pulse energy total energy content of single pulse; uJ to mJ range
Pulse duration amount of time where laser output energy is
above half of its maximum value; ns range
Pulse repetition frequency number of emitted pulses per second;
kHz range
Scan rate number of times the devices field of view is scanned
per second; typically 25-90 Hz range
Scan pattern typically zig-zag
Scan angle up to 75 degrees
Spot size of laser beam divergence; laser footprint; receiver field-
of-view
Field tests
Background:
Collaborative project between researchers at Queens University,
and the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
LiDAR has been only used for as-built tunnel characterization
Conducted in Asker-Sandvika, Akershus, and Bankal tunnels near
Oslo all constructed using drill and blast method
Static LiDAR scanning of tunnels using tri-pod mounted module,
during 30 minutes alotted for geotechnical assessment of face
between rounds of drilling/blasting
Facilitated by availability of portable phase-based laser LiDAR
modules much faster scan rates than pulse laser
Fast scan rate and ease-of-operation are necessary to minimize
down-time/costs
Ability of hardware to perform/survive under typical field conditions
evaluated to an extent
Field tests
Leica Geosystems HDS6000 scanner used
Maximum range of 79m
360 degrees horizontal, 310 degrees vertical field-of-view
Scans up to 500,000 points per second
Hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of points per scan is possible
Cyclone (Leica Geosystems), and Polyworks (InnovMetric Software
Inc.) used for data processing
Face, wall, and crown of three tunnel headings scanned
immediately after mechanical scaling dusty environment
LiDAR module set up between 0.5 to 1 tunnel diameter away from
face
Scans were completed within 5-7 minutes, inclusive of equipment
setup time
Field tests
LiDAR setup in the Asker-Sandvika tunnel

Fekete S., Diederichs M., and Lato M. 2010
Field tests
Completed LiDAR data sets from Asker-Sandvika tunnel

Field tests
LiDAR setup in 60m x 8m section of Bankal tunnel

Field tests
Raw LiDAR point cloud of 60 x 8m section in Bankal tunnel

Field tests
Raw LiDAR point cloud showing large discrete feature in tunnel face
Field tests
Results:
6mm distance between adjacent scanned points at tunnel heading
with scanner positioned 7m away
2 minutes required for setup, 3 minutes required for scanning, 2
minutes required to download data into field computer
Characterized of liner thickness down to several centimetres
Collected sufficient data to model displaced rock mass and wedges
Distinguished between tunnel surface features such as dry and wet
shotcrete, rock bolts, and rock mass
Can differentiate between wet and dry shotcrete using intensity of
reflected light, and relatively low resolution scans
Collected data for key joint sets which can be used for various
kinds of modeling
Field tests
Shotcrete thickness contoured onto model

Field tests
LiDAR model of wedge shaped groundfall

Field tests
3D model showing the location of displaced rock mass within the

tunnel
Field tests
Tunnel features distinguishable from point cloud data

Field tests
Tunnel features distinguishable from point cloud data

Field tests
Modeling of joint sets and wedges in Dips and Unwedge

Field tests
Joint planes identified using three aligned LiDAR scans

Field tests
Joint planes identified using three aligned LiDAR scans

Field tests
Joint spacing for one joint set

Field tests
Advantages of mapping with LiDAR:
Significantly faster than mapping tunnel face using compass
Provides detailed documentation of construction stages
Increases quantity of measurements better represents variation
of discontinuities
Increases accuracy of measurements not affected by compass
deviations and approximations for hard to reach discontinuities
Available software can automatically identify key joint sets by
grouping planes with similar normal vectors although this might
not necessarily be a huge advantage
Detailed documentation of tunnel features that may become
obscured by support installation facilitates analysis of
persistent/large-scale features of rock mass through multiple
rounds of excavation
Field tests
Limitations of mapping with LiDAR:
Scan range of phase-based systems limited to 80m (at the time)
Scans performed post-scaling may not accurately represent
inherent discontinuities in the rock mass
Scans performed pre-scaling leads to under-estimation of shotcrete
thickness
Occlusion and scan bias, especially of discontinuities parallel to or
out of line-of-sight
Mesh type used for point cloud analysis can potentially have a
significant impact on conclusions
Large data files, requiring large amounts of memory for computing,
and powerful and expensive video cards for visual rendering
Scanners can be fairly expensive tens of thousands to hundreds
of thousands of dollars for a single module
Current technology
LiDAR modules:
Zoller+Frhlich Profiler 9012 (most recent model)
360 degrees horizontal field-of-view
Scans up to 1 million points per second
Up to 200 Hz scan rate
Maximum range of 119m
64 GB internal flash memory
Ethernet and USB 2.0 interface
Operating temperature from -10 to 50 degrees C
Weighs 13.5 kg
Can be mounted with orientation pins and mounting screws
Current technology
Zoller+Frhlich Profiler 9012

http://www.zf-laser.com/Z-F-PROFILER-9012-2.19.0.html?&L=1
Current technology
Leica Geosystems HDS 7000
Most advanced phase-based laser scanner from Leica Geosystems
Internal 64 GB SSD storage
Ethernet and USB 2.0 interface for data transfer
Can be controlled using touchscreen, wireless PDA or tablet PC, or
laptop using Cyclone software
360 degrees horizontal field-of-view
Scans 1,000,000+ points per second
Maximum scan range of 187m
Operating temperature from -10 to 45 degrees C
Internal lithium-ion battery, good for 2.5 hours of operation
Weighs ~ 11.5 kg
Current technology

http://www.leica-geosystems.ca/en/HDS7000_90337.htm
Current technology

http://www.leica-geosystems.ca/en/Leica-HDS6200_64228.htm
Current technology
Bever Win 3D Profiler
Part of a fully automated computer controlled guidance system for
mining and tunnelling applications
Can be mounted directly to AMV, Atlas Copco, Tamrock jumbo rigs
Real-time operation during drilling/blasting rounds, and before/after
shotcreting
Integrated software calculates, visually displays cross-section of tunnel
profile with schematic of lining thickness etc.
Can navigate jumbo rig using profiler and control software
All raw and processed data can be exported to excel
Control software runs on Windows XP
Current technology
Bever Win 2000 running on Windows XP system in operators cabin

http://bevercontrol.com/products_1/product_info_downloads/content/text_1276601625246/127660
1804825/bever3dprofilerwin2000uk_2.pdf
Current technology
Bever Win 2000 read-out blasted section, shotcrete, rock bolts

Current technology
Software:
Leica Geosystems Cyclone control interface for HDS scanners, &
point cloud manipulation/modeling/publishing
Leica Geosystems CloudWorx allows point cloud data to be
exported to AutoCAD
Geomagic Studio support for large number of file types,
scanners, other CAD software including Leica and Z+F scanners
InnovMetrics Software Polyworks
Rapidform XOR3
Summary
Static LiDAR scanning is a quick method for tunnel construction
documentation
LiDAR can estimate liner thickness, underbreak, overbreak fairly
well
Most discontinuity and discontinuity planes can be detected using
resolutions available on modern LiDAR systems
Can distinguish between different rock and support materials to
some extent, based on intensity of reflected light
Not so good yet for making JRC estimates limited by resolution of
point cloud
Susceptible to scan bias and occlusion of surface features need
to be mindful of where to place scanner
Does not eliminate the need for hand mapping completely
manual measurement of features should still be used to assess the
quality of LiDAR data
References
Bever Control AS. Accessed 24/03/2013, from http://bevercontrol.com/
Fekete S., Diederichs M., & Lato M. (2010). Geotechnical and Operational Applications
for 3-Dimensional Laser Scanning in Drill and Blast Tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology: vol. 25, pp. 614-628.
Geomagic 3D Haptic Design, Imaging and Metrology Software. Accesed 24/03/2013,

from http://www.geomagic.com/en/
Leica Geosystems. Accessed 24/03/2013, from http://www.leica-

geosystems.ca/en/index.htm
Nayegandhi A. (2007). LiDAR Technology Overview. U.S. Geological Survey, Florida

Integrated Science Center.
Zoller+Frhlich. Accessed 24/03/2013, from http://www.zf-

laser.com/Home.91.0.html?&L=1
NYMTACC, 2013
SHOTCRETE IN TUNNELING
EOSC 547 Tunneling and underground Engineering

Prepared by: Ben Singleton-Polster
1 EOSC 547 Tunneling and Underground Engineering March 19, 2013
SHOTCRETE IN TUNNELING
` Overview
` What is shotcrete?
` Advantages of shotcrete
` Application
` Design
` Testing

What is shotcrete?
` Originally called Gunite and now called Sprayed
Concrete, Shot Concrete, and Shotcrete
` Concrete (mixture of water, cement and aggregates)
sprayed using high velocity/pressure air through a nozzle
which can be used for many applications.
` Vary aggregate size and amount of concrete, water and
additives to achieve project requirements
` Additives used to accelerate or retard curing, increase
engineering properties such as strength
` Fibers can be added to increase ductility, cohesion,
reduce shrinkage, cracking/spalling
` Shotcrete can be used for the 3 main types of support
needed: Light protective cover (1-10 cm), structural layer
providing some support (10-100cm) and full structural
ring support
Sika, 2011 RocScience, 2006
Advantages of shotcrete
` Spraying removes the requirement to form for
placing of concrete, high velocity spray results in
dense void free concrete that sets fast
` Fast, easy placement, can be done robotically and
even automatically
` Different application methods and mix designs to suit
different conditions and requirements from temporary
mining applications to final structural tunnel ring
lining

Dry Mix Application
RocScience, 2006
Wet Mix Application
RocScience, 2006

Application
Manual Application
FHWA, 2009
Application
Robotic Application
Meyco, 2013

Application
Shotcrete Mix Design
ASTM C1436 Sika, 2012

Tunnel Lining Design Compute Deformation
` Using the procedures outlined in Vlachopoulos &
Diederichs (2009). We can estimate the amount of
closure prior to support installation if we know the
plastic radius and distance from tunnel face
` Can be done by staging a 2D analysis or by 3D
analysis
Vlachopoulos & Diederichs, 2009
Shotcrete Mix Design - Accelerated
Sika, 2012

Shotcrete Mix Design - Fibers

Tunnel Lining Design - Numerical

Testing (QA/QC)
` Standard concrete testing for batched materials
` In place testing ASTM C1604 & C1140
` Test panels
Sika, 2011
EN 14488-2
Questions?

References
` NYMTACC, 2013 MTA Capital Construction Company
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtacc-esa/8537715054/
` http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1201/9780203023389
` http://www.meyco.basf.com/en/meyco_solutions/meyco_equipment/b
asf_meyco_equipment_range/Pages/logica.aspx
` RocScience, 2006. Shotcrete Support
http://www.rocscience.com/hoek/corner/16_Shotcrete_support.pdf
` Rabcewicz, L. 1969. Stability of tunnels under rock load. Water
Power 21(6-8) 225-229, 266-273, 297-304.
` Sika, 2012. Special Mix Design
` Sika, 2011. Sprayed Concrete Handbook 2011
` Vlachopoulos, N. & Diederichs, M.S., 2009. Improved Longitudinal
Displacement Profiles for Convergence Confinement Analysis of
Deep Tunnels. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 42(2),
pp.131146

EOSC 547 Tunnelling and
Underground Design
The Other Kinds of Obstruction

in a Hong Kong Tunnel
Ms. Carie LAM

19 March 2013
1 of 522
Express Rail Link (XRL)
Shenzhen
26 km long
To accommodate a
high-speed railway
(200 km/hr)
45 min. journey from
west Kowloon to
West Kowloon Shenzhen shortens
Terminal Station
to 14 min.
HKD$ 62.4 billion
Jan 2010 - Dec 2014
2 of 522
3 of 522
Ground Conditions and Method of Construction
Lai Chi Kok

Interchange
Nam Cheong Station
West Kowloon
Terminal Station
Abrupt change in rockhead
CD/HD
Granite
> 35 m of Fill, Marine Deposits, Alluvium overlying weathered Granite and Granite Bedrock
Mixed (soft) ground conditions => Earth Pressure Balance TBM
4 of 522
Outline
Project description
Options
Combinations of methods: Piles Removal
Machine cutting in bored piles

Tailor-made soldier piling rig
Mini-piles
5 of 522
2 steel truss footbridges

built in 2005 supported by
pre-bored socketed steel
H-piles found at 40 m
70 m below ground level
Total 17 piles
6 of 522
2/17
7 of 522
3/17
1. Remove
superstructures and
pile caps
2. Extend pile up to
ground level
610 mm
8 of 522
Options Considered
Extract by vibration
Deep excavation
Hand cutting
Tailor-made soldier drilling machine
(~ 800 mm )
Machine cutting (in 3m bored pile)
Mini-piles (~ 220 mm )
9 of 522
4/17
Extraction by Vibration
Extract the pile

directly by
NO
Vibration /
Jacking?
Rock socketted!!
10 of 522
5/17
Deep Excavation
IVE Haking Wong
CLP
Sham Mong Road
Waterfront Annex
NO
Diaphragm Wall?
Substation Proposed Diaphragm Wall
Proposed
XRL Tunnel
Congested Site Area and
Disturbance to Existing
Structures and Utilities
Cable Trench
400kV Cable
11 of 522
6/17
Hand-cutting
Cut by diver?
NO
Hand-Dug Caisson?
NOT SAFE
Work in confined spaces
12 of 522
Extraction by Drilling down to Bottom of Piles
13 of 522
Machine-cutting
14 of 522
8/17
Machine-cutting
3.0m
15 of 522
7/17
Machine-cutting
16 of 522
9/17
Machine-cutting
Problem .. 3.0m OD outer casing is required
W
d
17 of 522
Mini-piles
ROCK-SOCKETTED PILE FRICTION PILE
18 of 522
15/17
Mini-piles (UPROOT)
Destroy grout inside the
rock socket using down-
the-hole hammer.
Overcome residual friction

between destroyed grout
and H-pile using vibro-
hammer.
19 of 522
16/17
Confined Working Dia. of Left-in Shallow

spaces cycle outer 610OD Hard
required? casing casing material /
rockhead
Machine- NO 8 days 3m OK OK
cutting in provided
bored pile with pre-drill
holes
Tailor-made NO 9 days <1m Not OK OK
soldier
piling
machine
DTH NO 12 days N/A OK OK
Method
(UPROOT)
20 of 522
Acknowledgement
Sub-subcontractor:
Main Contractor:
Sub-Contractor:
21 of 522
Thank You
22 of 522
Analysis and Design of Pressure Tunnel Liners for
Hydroelectric Projects
EOSC 547
April 2, 2013
Charlie Harrison
1 of 27
Overview
A. Hydroelectric Projects
B. Pressure Tunnel
C. Feasibility Design
D. Detailed Design
E. Grout Plug/Curtain
2 of 27
Conceptual Model of a Hydro Project
Reservoir
Powerhouse
hi
Head (H)
Tailrace
H is a measure of potential energy available for generating power
3 of 27
Examples of Hydro Project Layouts
Surface supported penstock
Fully steel lined high pressure

conveyance system
Fully unlined high pressure

conveyance system
Broch, 1982
4 of 27
Consequences of Leakage
Some consequences of leakage from a pressure tunnel:
Loss of revenue
Operation, maintenance and aesthetic problems when leakage
enters the powerhouse area
Development of high hydraulic pressures behind low relative
permeability features within the rock mass leading to valley
side instability
Development of high hydraulic pressures behind low relative
permeability surface deposits leading to slope failure
Development of high hydraulic pressures around steel-lined,
concrete-encased sections leading to buckling of the steel lining
Spring formation above erodible materials in valley sides
leading to mud and debris flows
Tunnel or shaft instability through piping of erodible, or
leaching of dissolvable materials
5 of 27
Decision Tree for Lining design
Meritt, 1999
6 of 27
Decision Tree for Lining design
Examples of failure:
1. 6.7 km tunnel with 50 m reinforced
concrete U/S of steel liner, with
remainder with plain concrete;
extensive cracking with only 58 m
head.
2. 12 km tunnel with 600 m steel

lining, remainder unreinforced
concrete; leakage of 3700 L/s after
3 days; 70% of concrete lining
cracked.
Deere, 1983
Used withUsed
limited success
Meritt, 1999
7 of 27
Cost of Steel Lining
Sy-Sima Hydro Project
System Part Technical Data Cost in Norwiegan Kroners circa 1982 2012 Kr 2012 US
Value of
Cost Total Total Total
energy loss
kr/m kr/m kr/m kr/m $/m
Steel Lined Shaft Shaft area = 12 m 2 90,000 40,000 130,000 336,259 57,164
3
El. 40 m Concrete = 5 m /m
Lining ID = 3 m
Steel weight = 3000 kg/m
Steel-lined shaft Shaft area = 12 m 2 90,000 10,000 100,000 258,661 43,972

El. 600 m Concrete = 6 m 3 /m
Lining ID = 3.9 m
Steel-lined tunnel Tunnel area = 22 m2 90,000 10,000 100,000 258,661 43,972

from El.600 to end of Concrete = 10 m3/m
steel lining Lining ID = 3.9 - 4 m
Unlined tunnel Area = 52 m2 11,000 2,000 13,000 625 106

from end of lining to
intake
Mysert, 1982
8 of 27
Unlined
In the early 1970s, Norway had over 50 hydro projects
with heads of over 150 m utilizing unlined shafts and
tunnels
With many over 200 m:
Project Year Head
m
J0RUNDLAND 1971 285
SKJOMEN 1973 367
BORGUND 1974 255
LEIRD0LA 1978 459
LOMI 1979 601
SKIBOTN 1980 449
Buen, 1982
9 of 27
Mauranger Hydroelectric Power Plant
~860 m
455 m
Bergh-Christensen, 1982
10 of 27
Concerns
Notable failures:
Brokke Power Plant (300 m static head) failed in 1968
skra Power Plant (200 m static head) failed in 1970
Designers of the Mauranger Hydro Project realized a

need to analyze failures to understand why such low
head projects were subject of failure
11 of 27
Characteristics of Failure
Brokke and skra:
Situated in steep valley slopes
Cut by steep, permeable joints and zones of weakness striking
nearly parallel to the slope
Side cover of the tunnel/shaft measured as the shortest
distance out to the valley slope considered moderate and less
than the vertical cover
In summary, the internal tunnel pressures hydraulically

jacked open the joints of the rock mass leading to
increased permeability
12 of 27
Cover
13 of 27
Design (a.k.a Norwegian) Criteria
14 of 27
Generalized Norwegian Criteria
H = head in tunnel at point of interest

w = unit weight of water
r = unit weight of rock
= inclination of valley slope
FS = factor of safety
Rancourt, 2011
15 of 27
Recommended Factor of Safety

FSi
Parameter Description Fa Fb Fc
A. Rock Mass Characteristics

Soft, low modulus (Erm < 5 GPa) Sedimentary 1.3
Highly anisotropic Metamorphic 1.3
Horizontal lying 1.3
Medium Modulus (5 20 GPa) Sedimentary 1.2
Anisotropic Metamorphic 1.2
Volcanic 1.2
Hard, high modulus (> 20 GPa) Gneiss 1.1
Isotropic with slight foliation Massive 1.0
B. Cover to tunnel diameter ratio, C/DT
<5 Not recommended
5 10 1.2
10 20 1.15
> 20 1.1
C. Presence of structures near tunnel
Within 2 DT Yes 1.1
Consider semi-lined section Perpendicular to surface 1.2
No structures 1.0
* In equation for the Norwegian Criteria, use FS = (Fa )(Fb)(Fc)

Rancourt, 2011
16 of 27
Limitation of the Norwegian Criteria
Does not account for locked in stresses
Should only be used during feasibility and preliminary design
In-situ hydraulic jacking tests are highly recommended during
preliminary and detailed investigations
In-situ testing may need to be carried out in adits or during
construction when not feasible to drill to the depth of the
tunnel or shaft from the surface
17 of 27
In-situ Testing of Stress Hydraulic Jacking
Location of joint
being jacked
ASTM, 2008
18 of 27
Testing Considerations
General:
results of the hydraulic fracturing method can be interpreted in
terms of in-situ stresses only if the boreholes are approximately
parallel to one of the three principal in-situ stresses
hen the principal stress parallel to the borehole axis is not the
least principal stress, only the two other principal stresses can be
determined directly from the test
In the unlikely event that the induced fracture changes orientation
away from the borehole, its trace on the borehole wall cannot be
used in stress determinations
From inside tunnel/adit:
minimum principal stress estimates from tests performed in
boreholes drilled behind the tunnel face significantly
underestimated the pre-excavation minimum principal stress
tests conducted according to basic ISRM guidelines generally
failed to provide reliable estimates of minimum principal stress
orientation and magnitude
19 of 27
Tunnel Grout Plug/Curtain

Tunnel grout plug/curtain grouting of rock mass
around the upstream end of the steel lining
Purpose:
Reduce the hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass by creating
an impervious zone around the steel liner
Consolidate the rock and improving liner-rock contact
20 of 27
Profile View of Tunnel Grout Plug/Curtain
21 of 27
Cross Section of Tunnel Grout Plug/Curtain
22 of 27
Tunnel Grout Plug/Curtain
Three types of grouting:
Contact grouting: fill large voids behind the steel lining
Embedment grouting: seal the gap between the steel liner and
concrete due to concrete shrinkage
Consolidation grouting: consolidate blast damaged rock, relaxed
rock, to close joints, and reduce leakage
Design controlled by:

Total amount of permissible leakage, and
Maximum gradient (i = h/L)
23 of 27
Recommended Gradients
Type of material Acceptable hydraulic gradients
Massive hard rock, widely jointed 10 - 15

Hard to moderately hard, moderately jointed 8 - 10
Moderate to weak rock, moderately jointed 5-7
Weak, closely jointed or sheared 3-5

Very weak, possibly erodible Less than 3 plus appropriate filtering
Bensen, 1982
24 of 27
Concluding Remarks
Steel liners are expensive but necessary to prevent
excessive leakage from pressure tunnels and shafts
Empirical relationships available for feasibility and
preliminary design; however, in-situ stress testing
necessary to confirm final design
Empirical relationships not necessarily conservative;
application of FS should be done with this in mind
Recommended testing standards from hydraulic jacking
tests should be reviewed prior to testing programs to
confirm applicability to project
No liner design, steel or otherwise, is complete without
a grout plug/curtain
25 of 27
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Mr. Rich Humphries and Mr. Grant Bonin of
Golder Associates for providing reference material for
the preparation of this presentation.
26 of 27
References
Anon, Norges Bank. Available at: http://www.norges-bank.no/en/price-stability/inflation/price-calculator/.
ASTM, 2008. D4645 - Determination of In-Situ Stress in Rock Using Hydraulic Fracturing Method.
Benson, R.P., 1989. Design of unlined and lined pressure tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 4(2), pp.155170.
Bergh-Christensen, J., 1982. Design of unlined pressure shaft at Mauranger Power Plant Norway. In ISRM International Symposium.
Brekke, T. & Ripley, B.D., 1993. Design of pressure tunnels and shafts. In Comprehensive Rock Engineering, Vol 2. Pergamon Press,
Inc., Elmsford, NY, pp. 349369.
Broch, E., 1982. The development of unlined pressure shafts and tunnels in Norway. In ISRM International Symposium. pp. 545554.
Buen, B. & Palmstrm, A., 1982. Design and Supervision of Unlined Hydro Power Shafts and Tunnels with Head up to 590 Meters. In
ISRM International Symposium.
Dahl, T. et al., 2003. Adverse effects of pore-pressure drainage on stress measurements performed in deep tunnels: an example
from the Lower Kihansi hydroelectric power project, Tanzania. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
40(1), pp.6593.
Deere, D.U., 1983. Unique geotechnical problems at some hydroelectric projects. In Proceedings of the Seventh Panamerican
Conference in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Associacao Brasileira de Mecahnica dos Solos, Sao Paulo, Brazil. pp.
865887.
Henn, R.W., 1996. Practical guide to grouting of underground structures, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Henn, R.W., 2003. AUA guidelines for backfilling and contact grouting of tunnels and shafts, Thomas Telford.
Merritt, A.H., 1999. Geologic and geotechnical considerations for pressure tunnel design. In Geo-Engineering for Underground
Facilities. ASCE, pp. 6681.
MYRSET, . & LIEN, R., 1982. High pressure tunnel systems at Sima Power Plant. In ISRM International Symposium.
Rancourt, A.J. & Mitri, H., 2011. Application of rock cover alteration ratio concept in preliminary design of unlined pressure tunnels.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 48(11), pp.16741682.
27 of 27
Questions?
28 of 27
EOSC547
TunnelingandUndergroundEngineering
UnderseaTunnels:
DesignandConstructionofthe
GregWenger
April02,2013
EOSC547
Outline
SpecialConsiderationsforUnderseaTunnels
SeikanTunnelLayout,DesignandConstruction
Location
SiteInvestigationandUnderseaGeology
DepthofCover
Layout
Grouting
Support
ConstructionMethodology
FloodingDuringConstruction
Summary
Matsuo,1986
TheFutureofDeepUnderseaTunnels
2
EOSC547
Special Considerations for Undersea Tunnels
Higherriskofunexpectedgeological
conditionsduetotheincreased
difficultyofsiteinvestigation
Longuninterrupteddrivesdueto
reducedlocationsforshaftaccess
Highhydrostaticpressuresontunnel
lining
Highseepagegradientscanleadto
largeinflowsinzonesofhigher Kitamura,1986
permeability
3
EOSC547
Seikan Tunnel Location

Hokaido
Honshu
4
EOSC547
Location
Doubletrackrailtunnelbuilttoaddresspopulationdemands
54kmlong(worldslongestunderseatunnel)
23kmlongsubseasection
240mtotaldepth
140mwaterdepth
5
Akagi,1972
EOSC547
Site Investigation
Siteinvestigationweredifficultdue140m
waterdepthandstrongtidalcurrents.
Preconstructioninvestigationsincluded:
Geophysicalsurveys
Boring
Seabedobservationwithmidgetsubmarine?
Informationgatheredbydrillinginadvance
ofconstructionofinclinedaccessshafts
andpilottunnel
Detailedinformationgatheredinadvance Kitamura,1986
drillingofmaintunnelconstruction
6
EOSC547
Undersea Geology
MioceneGreenTuffsequenceoffoldedandfaulted,submarinevolcanogenic
sedimentaryrocks
HashimotoandTanabe,1986
Kunnui Formation:Tuff Kuromatsunai Formation: Kunnui Formation:Tuffand
BrecciaandAndesiticRocks Relativelysoftmudstone mudstone
RepresentativeUCS:5to100MPa
PoorlyConsolidatedorAlteredRockUCS:2MPa 7
EOSC547
Depth of Rock Cover

Lesscover:
Shortertunnel
Lowerhydrostaticpressure
Morecover:
Longerseepagepathsfromthe
seabed:lowervolumeofseepage
Precedenceatthetimefor140m
waterdepth:notmuch
Currentlytherearefoursubsea
tunnelsinNorwayover250mdeep,all
withrockcoverof3050m.
ForSeikanTunnellookedat
regulationsforunderseacoalmines:
min100m. 8
Dahlo &Nilsen,1994
EOSC547
Layout
INOUE,1988
Pilotandservicetunnels:
investigation
constructionaccess
maintenance
9
Matsuo,1986
EOSC547
General Undersea Section Construction Sequencing
Sato,1983
Akagi,1972
1.InclinedShafts
2.PilotTunnel
3.ServiceTunnel
4.MainTunnel
10
EOSC547
Lining Loads, Drainage, and Grouting

Underseatunnelshavehighhydrostaticloadinadditionto
overburdenstress
Iftunnelliningisimpermeable:
Fullhydrostaticpressurewilldeveloparoundlining,but
archingcanreduceeffectiveload
Verysubstantial,impracticalliningrequired
Ifliningallowsfulldrainage:
Hydrostaticpressurecanbereduced,buteffectiveground
pressureneartunnelcanincreaseduetoseepageforces
Eseinstein,1994
Ifgroundisgrouted:
Seepageforcesreduced,
Increasedrockstrength,
Hydrostaticpressureacts
ongroutedring(less
loadonlining)
11
EOSC547
Grouting
Groutingconductedpriortoexcavation:
Transformsgroundintozoneoflowerpermeability(reducesseepage)
Compressivestrengthisincreased(improvestunnelstability)
Fullhydrostaticpressureactongroutedzone,nottunnellining
12
Eisenstein1994 Kitamura,1986
EOSC547
Grouting Extent
Determinationofextentofgroutingintermsoftunneldeformation
andvolumeofseepage:
Measurementofdeformationconvergenceintesttunnelsduringpilottunnel
construction
IdealizedBoundaryValueproblem
13
Adachi,1986
EOSC547
Grouting Extent
DecoupledIdealizedBoundaryValue
problemgovernedby:
Idealizedthickwalledcylindrical
problem
ElasticplasticMohrCoulombyield
condition
Coefficientofpermeabilityimproved
by102 bygrouting
FlowgovernedbyDarcysLaw
Adachi,1986
Result:groutingareagenerallydesigned
tobe3xdia.oftunnel;5xdia.Inpoor
conditions
14
EOSC547
Main Tunnel Support

0.7 0.9m 0.250.35m
Reinforced
Kitamura,1986
Grouting
15
EOSC547
Construction Methodology
Drillandblastwithdifferent
constructionmethods.Sidedrift
mostused.
Sequencing:
Advancedrilltoassessconditions
Grout
Drill/blast/excavate
Shotcrete
Rockbolt
ConcreteLining
Maru andMaeda,1986 16
EOSC547
Construction Timeline
TotalConstructiontime:
21years
1964:inclinedshaft
excavationbegins
1967:PilotTunnel
excavationbegins
1971:MainTunnel
excavationbegins
1983:PilotTunnel
connected
1985:MainTunnel
connected
Matsuo,1986
17
EOSC547
Flooding Incidents During Construction

Fourmajorfloodingincidentsoccurredduringconstructionintheservicetunnel
Maxflowsof16,11,6&70m3/min
Nofatalitiesduetodownwardtunnelgradientandsmallerservicetunnelsection
Collapsedmaterialhelpedpreventcatastrophicflows
18
HashimotoandTanabe,1986
EOSC547
Flooding Incidents During Construction

Drainageequipmentwasreinforced;waterpumpedout,6monthdelay
Servicetunnelrealigned
Groutingcriteriawasrevised
Inflowpredictedmethoddevelopedbasedongeochemicalanalysisofborehole
water.Largeinflowstendedtobeseawater,whileregularseepagewas
groundwater(meteoricwater)
AbnormalWaterIncidentINOUE,1988 Sekietal,1986 19
EOSC547
Drainage System
Totaloperationaldrainage:40m3/min
20
Matsuo,1986
EOSC547
Summary
Increaseduncertaintyofgroundconditions:otherpredictionmethods
developed(advanceboring,geochemicalwateranalysis)
Longuninterrupteddrive:pilotandservicetunnelsallowedbetteraccessto
maintunnelandavoidedpotentialcatastrophicfloodingevents
Highporewaterpressure:groutingemployedtoreduceseepageand
hydrostaticloadontunnellining.Systemdevelopedtorationalizeextentof
grouting.
Highseepagegradientscanleadtolargeinflowsinzonesofhigher
permeability:yup.Prediction,groutingkeytoavoidingfloods
21
EOSC547
The Future of Deep Undersea Tunnels
Nevelsky Strai
450m?
22
EOSC547
References
Adachi,T."GeotechnicalreportontheSeikantunnel." Tunnelling andUndergroundSpaceTechnology 1.3(1986):351
355.
Akagi,NewsReport:SeikanUnderseaTunnelSoilsandFoundations,Japanses SocietyofSoilMechanicsand
Foudnation Enginerring,Vol.12,No.1,(1972)
Dahl,T.S.,andB.Nilsen."Stabilityandrockcoverofhardrocksubseatunnels." Tunnelling andUndergroundSpace
Technology 9.2(1994):151158.
Eisenstein,Z.D."Largeunderseatunnelsandtheprogressoftunnelling technology." Tunnelling andUndergroundSpace
Technology 9.3(1994):283292.
Hashimoto,Kazuhisa,andYutakaTanabe."ConstructionoftheSeikanunderseatunnelII.executionofthemost
difficultsections." Tunnelling andUndergroundSpaceTechnology 1.3(1986):373379.
Ikuma,Michitsugu."MaintenanceoftheunderseasectionoftheSeikanTunnel." Tunnelling andundergroundspace
technology 20.2(2005):143149.
INOUE,Toshitaka,AShortStoryofSeikanUnderseaTunnelProjectDobokuGakkai ronbunshu,391(1988),41
Kitamura,Akira."TechnicaldevelopmentfortheSeikantunnel." Tunnelling andUndergroundSpaceTechnology 1.3
(1986):341349.
Maru,Yoshimitsu,andTakashiMaeda."ConstructionoftheSeikanunderseatunnelI.Generalschemeof
execution." Tunnelling andUndergroundSpaceTechnology 1.3(1986):357371.
Matsuo,Shogo."AnoverviewoftheSeikanTunnelproject." Tunnelling andUndergroundSpaceTechnology 1.3(1986):
323331.
Sato,K.U.N.I.A.K.I."Hydrauliccharacterofdischargehydrographfortunnelling." Soilsandfoundations 23.4(1983):
2733.
Seki,Y.,etal."Geochemicalpredictionofimpendingcatastrophicinflowofseawaterduringconstructionofthe 23
underseapartoftheSeikanTunnel,Japan."Applied geochemistry 1.3(1986):317333.
EOSC547
Thank you
Questions?
Kitamura,1986
24
Kimberley Newman
Introduction
What is the SMART
Tunnel?
Site Investigation
Grouting Program
Results
References
Questions (http://www.itsinternational.com/sections/associations/products/
conference-delegates-to-visit-dual-purpose-tunnel)
2
(Google, 2013)
Monsoonal type
Low intensity rain-
long duration
Thunderstorms
High intensity- short
duration
flash-flood
Multiple times per
year
Storm increased
intensity and
frequency over time
(Abdullah, 2004) 4
3.75 million people live along the main basin
Area in yellow often flooded during storms
(Darby and Wilson, 2005) 5
Urbanization
Development on
floodplains
Insufficient drainage
downstream of the city
Insufficient infrastructure
Poor maintenance of
drainage infrastructure
Flooding rates increased
during mitigation measure
implementation
Solution = SMART Tunnel
http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2010/12/10/central/7592351&sec=central
6
9.8 km long
11.8 m diameter
10-16 m below surface
1 million m3 capacity
3 km section with car traffic
Only 1 entry and 1 exit point
Ventilation system allows
airs to escape when upper
decks get flooded
Doubles as emergency access
points
Design-build construction
2003-2006
(http://www.geotechnics.mottmac.com/projects/smart)
Increase capacity Klang Gate dam upstream

Build Batu dam upstream
Batu Dam
Klang Gates Dam
http://mywatermalaysianwateremilyleow.blogspot.ca/2011/05/water-history-in-malaysia.ht
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/3067284
8
Divert water from
upstream to
downstream
Undulating terrain is
not good for a
channel
Tunnel was chosen
Release is regulated,
avoid downsteam
flooding
(Darby and Wilson, 2005)

9
Category 1
Peak flow < 70 m3/sec
No bypass
Category 2
Peak flow 70-150 m3/sec
Category 3
Peak flow 150-300 m3/sec
10
Kuala Lumpur underlain by 40% Limestone
Problems with Karstic rock:
Roof collapse over voids
Subsidence of cover soil
Founding structures on pinnacles or irregular rock heads
Loss of water from reservoirs
Pollution of groundwater
(Raju & Yew, 2006) (Raju & Yew, 2006) 11
(Ismail et al., 2011)
LANDSAT
Digital Terrain Models
Topographic Maps
RADAR SAT
Existing boreholes from
infrastructure construction
Previous mining
Used to identify sinkholes

Slope map delineated
limestone area (5o-10o)
Fault zones with
underground streams
12
Geotechnical engineering
issues with Karst:
Flexible bars with telescoping
joints
Lining canals and ditches
Monitoring groundwater
Lowering can cause subscidence
Remediate sinkholes
Clog swallow holes
Make an impermeable surface
Ground improvements
Grouting
compaction
(Ismail et al., 2011)
13
Tight construction
schedule
Fast
Safe
High density of
infrastructure
Tunnel through highly
irregular cavernous
limestone bedrock
overlain by alluvial soils
Mixed shield TBM (slurry
shield)
2 purchased
Average speed 0-2.5
cm/min

14
Open excavations
Settlement sensitive areas
Fill solution cavities
Grout behind gaps in retaining
wall
Compact loose overburden
using mortar
Thick soil overburden
(especially loose/soft soil)
Rock with high fracture density
*Emergency response team always

available
(Raju & Yew, 2006) 15
Grouting large fissures

around open excavations
Grout curtain
Stops water
Termination
Attained maximum pressure
pre-determined
Exceed pre-determined flow
Stop
Resume grouting in 24 hrs
Use secondary grout holes as
required
(Raju & Yew, 2006)
16
Compaction grouting
Loose soil overburden
Stiff mix pumped into soil with high pressure
Creates homogeneous grout bulb
Most effective in non-cohesive soils
Create a grid of columns
(Raju & Yew, 2006)

17
Compaction grouting
Cavity filling
Cavity filled with loose material
(Raju & Yew, 2006) 18

Jet grouting
Seal gaps between retaining wall piles
Reduce lateral earth pressure
Mix soil with cement grout at high pressure
1.0 m to1.4 m diameter hole
(Raju & Yew, 2006) 19
Emergency grouting
Fill hole with aggregate
Compaction grout
Continued till ground heave
observed
(Raju & Yew, 2006)
20
Cutter Head
Maintenance
Lowers risk of
subsidence
during
maintenance
Precautionary
measure
Pre-determined
stop locations
Grout Block (Raju & Yew, 2006)
21
Limestone karst causes issues

Site investigation
Grouting
Tunnel helps decrease flooding and traffic
jams
(http://smarttunnel.com.my)
(http://rainbowstampsandcoins.blogspot.ca/2012/08/
22
odd-stamps-03c-3d-stamps-moving.html)
Abdullah, K. (2004). Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel (SMART) a
Lateral Approach to Flood Mitigation Works. International Conference on
Bridge Engineering & Hydraulic Structures (pp. 5979).
Darby, A., & Wilson, R. (2005). Design of the SMART Project, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Ismail, S., Mansor, S., Rodsi, A., & Bujang, B. K. (2010). Geotechnical
modeling of fractures and cavities that are associated with geotechnical
engineering problems in Kuala Lumpur limestone, Malaysia. Environmental
Earth Sciences, 62(1), 6168. doi:10.1007/s12665-010-0497-3
Raju, V. R., & Yew Weng, I. (2006). Grouting in Limestone for SMART Tunnel
Project in Kuala Lumpur. International Conference and Exhibition on
Tunneling and Trenchless Technology (pp. 4569). Selangor, Malaysia.
http://www.geotechnics.mottmac.com/projects/smart/
http://rainbowstampsandcoins.blogspot.ca/2012/08/odd-stamps-03c-3d-
stamps-moving.html
http://www.itsinternational.com/sections/associations/products/conference
-delegates-to-visit-dual-purpose-tunnel/
http://smarttunnel.com.my/smart/what-is-smart/
23
24
http://outre-monde.com/2012/04/12/keep-on-asking-questions/

*%*'+,-&&$!&

*%1'*(+'&!&*+
'$!'&++* &&!&*!&
'*,'*1? @

*%*'+,-&&$+* !$!,1

*+&,18 +$1&.

4&!,!'&
*%*'+,'&+8'!$*'4$&(
.!'*8 /,!$!,17
,*&, 6*(

.*.!/8+!+7 -&&$7'$'1
0.,!'&8!,7'*,$7!&2
''$!&, '+8*!*,!'&7++!.
*'$%+8'*%,!'&7-$!%,!'&
'$-,!'&+8 ''#!&
*'-&*%!&!&,'*$'/AO'*,$+,
C1*+
(&+'&
&
'+&',*)-!*, (*+&'/,*
*'-&!!+'%'+,'&*&/!, *+(,,'
(*%*'+, .!'*
,!. 1*
(, '*'
%($!,-
', *%$*!&,
*%*'+,'&

'&,!&-'-+
!+'&,!&-'-+
('*!

+'$,
'*+:*!&+'!$ .+!3*&,$1, &4&:*!&+'!$

'*+:*!&+'!$+N&'&*'+,:+-+(,!$
'&','*%+!&!4&,+*,!
!&:*!&+'!$+N*'+,+-+(,!$
'*%+*,!&*(*'&,'*'+, .
,,$%&,&$'++'+,*&, -('&, /!&
,*&, !++,*'&$1,%(*,-*
(&&,

'/*,%(*,-*N ! *
+,*&, N*+*(*,+

D+,+'*(8
B@*!%*1
C@'&*1
D@*,!*1
',!&'07$+#
!&,!&&'(*,199*%1
0.,BJGD:GJ7'&'!&*+*
8.$-,%!&!&&'&+,*-,!'&
, &!)-+!&(*%*'+,
BBA%$'&
BF%$'/*'-&+-*
0!%-%!%&+!'&+F%0C9F%
'&+!+,+'C%!&(*,+
'*!2'&,$!,
!&2?
&$!&!,@
!#!$,$1* -&&$!+!&'&,!&-'-+(*%*'+,
'0*.$+
!+,*'# *1'+,*-,-*+!&+!$,
'%($,-*!&/!&,*+*'%BJGD:GG
+$#!*#'&,!&-'-+:1$!&* !&
0.,!&,'%&:%+*(%&,
BA%$'&+,!'&
',!&++'&$$1*'2&+'!$
)-!*++,*-,-*$+-(('*,&,%(*,-*
'&,*'$
'&-*!&/!&,*BJGI:GJ
&!)-+-+8
'&.&,!'&$8*!$$&$+,
&'&.&,!'&$8, *%$*$0,!'&7 1*-$!*,-*!&
*!,1'*!$$&$+,, &!)-+
*1*!$$!&
,*!$$!&
*1*!$$!&/!, -+,'$$,'*
*1*!$$!&/!, -+,'$$,!'&%'+,+-++-$
+-*!&+-%%*%'&, +
!&,!&,-&&$,%(*,-*,:EO
-,+!-!$!&'&,!&!&'%(*++'*-&!,
&**!*&,(-%(
*!*&,(-%(,'('*,$*/ *'$
!*!+, &$'/&!&,',-&&$

&!,!$+'$-,!'&>++!.'&.,!.''$!&
,*!.&*'%+-*,'&'!,
,-*$'&.,!'&-**&,+*!./*%!*'-,',-&&$&'$
!*!&

-**&,+'$-,!'&>'*!*%!&,''$!&
*'-,50!$-,++', ,, 1(-$$'$!*!&*'%'-,+!
&*('*,$
$'/*-&!,+,-*&'3!&, .&,/!&,*,%(*,-*+*!+'.
*2!&
C%!&(*'$%+0(*!&8
B@'*%,!'&8*(&$%!&,!'&
C@-$!%,!'&8$'++'!%,*!0
$'/7&'&:,+,*'( !(*'++
-*+(*'%!&&,$1!&!,?+!$,+@
HF%!&,'!,>&',!$*''
+!&
JE%>!&++!$-,'$*
$.$+'*(
, %&,'+!$,$'&
$%!&,!'&+'*.$$1+&
$+'8'$$(+'*''!&*.$*''%$'&
*.$:+!$,'-&*1
$,,'*$,!. -%!!,1'!*-$,!&!*:
%,*!$*$+++%,*!0$'+,
! *,'$$'/!&0.,!'&7*++
,*/*+

&!,!$*,!&+!$,/+BE%!&GF1+

&+!$,+8*$+'+!$,;-+,<

&*.$+8*$+'*!&+
!$$*-(*+>,*,:FO7*$,!.
-%!!,1JA:JFM
'+,&4,&$1+!+'"-+,!& -%!!,1.+9
$&!&-+,
-**!&
%(*,-*7*(,7&'('*( !
'&!,'*!&
:0.,!'&'!,&*.$*''%
-&&$0(&+!'&>$$CABD
&!&*!&,!.!,!+7+-+,-&&$!&7
!+*-(,, ', *%$*!%'+'!$

&+!&,%(*,-**/ ,*!.,
(*'$%,! .!'*'(*%*'+,

C%!&(*'$%+&'-&,*/!, ,-&&$!&
!&(*%*'+,*'*%,!'&&
+-$!%,!'&
&!&&1$'(!8*%*'+,9 ,,(8==
///9, &!&&1$'(!9'%=*,!$+=(*%*'+,
*%1'*(+'&!&*+ *%*'+,-&&$+!,8 ,,(8==
(*%*'+,,-&&$9**$9-+9*%19%!$=
-+,*-$!79-$$'#79?CAAB@9&**'-&!&!&, '+8&!&*!&
-&%&,$+&
&,*&,!'&$+,-!+9(BCC
"$$79&,!$$'79$79 .*79?CAAI@9.$-,!'&', *%*'+,
-&&$9
1+/+#!79"$$79,-*%79?CABA@9 !+,'*1&-,-*'*%*'+,
-&&$*'07$+#9((BCCC:BCCH

1994Heat
hrowTunnel
Col
l
apse

EOSC547,Ter
m 2,2012-
2013 Mi
chael
Huber
Out
l
ine
Pr
ojectdescr
ipt
ion
Cont
ract
Ear
lypr
obl
ems
Col
l
apse
Lessonst
obel
ear
ned
2
Pr
ojectl
ocat
i
on
Heat
hrowExpressRai
lLi
nk:connect
sai
rpor
t
wi
thCentr
alLondon

3
Pr
ojectdet
ail
s
Twi
n-pl
atf
ormt
unnel
s
Dept
hof30m t
oinver
ts
8m wi
de,7m hi
gh
Londoncl
ay(noprevi
ous
NATM exper
ience t
rial
t
unnel)
Twophase:si
degal
l
ery
andenl
argement

4
Pr
ojectdet
ail
s

Tunnel
sext
endout
sidesi
teboundar
y

Li
mit
edaccept
abl
eset
tl
ement
sunderbui
l
dings
Li
mit
edaccept
abl
eset
tl
ementf
orbui
l
ding
5

Cont
ract

NewEngi
neer
ingCont
ract
for
des
ignandconst
ruct

Sel
f
-cer
ti
fi
cat
i
onofqual
i
tybycont
ract
or
Paymentl
i
nkedt
osat
i
sfact
orycompet
i
ti
onofact
i
vit
i
es
def
ect
-
not
i
ces,t
obewr
it
tenbycont
ract
or,candel
ay
payment
Per
for
mancespeci
f
icat
i
ons,t
echni
cal
riskatcont
ract
or
Lessi
nfl
uenceofcl
i
ent
'
sengi
neer
s:onl
yper
iodi
cal
audi
t
s
6
Ear
lypr
obl
ems
Del
ayedconst
ruct
ionofshot
cret
epl
ant
I
nsuf
fi
ci
entsuppl
yfr
om ot
hersi
t
eonai
rpor
t
Under
str
engt
h(wetsandandaddi
t
ives)
Consul
t
antobser
vesqual
i
tyi
ssues
Shot
cret
espr
ayi
ngf
rom t
oof
arawayandwr
ongangl
e
I
nsuf
fi
ci
entover
lapofwi
remeshati
nver
t
Advancer
ateonl
y1.
5m perweek(
4.2m pl
anned)
Set
tl
ementandgr
out
i
ng
Set
tlementofCamborneHouseexceeds25mm (
9
mm predi
cted) compensat
iongr
outi
ngpl
an
act
ivat
ed
Cr
owni
nConcour
seTunneldepr
esses60mm ormor
e
Ci
rcumf
erent
ialcr
acksasar
esul
t
8

Cr
acks

9
I
nver
tdamage

I
nvesti
gati
oni
nvici
nit
yofCambor
neHouse:r
emovi
ng
1m t
hickcl
aybackf
il
l

Reveal
sli
nert
hicknessofasl
owas100mm (
300mm
speci
fi
ed)

Reveal
sinver
tfai
l
ure:onesi
desl
i
desov
ert
heot
her
Repai
rsoveral
engt
hof20m,eventhoughdi
stor
ti
on
wasal
someasuredfr
om chai
nage30t
o41
10
Pr
e-col
l
apse
Fr
om Sept
ember:newcracksi
nConcour
seTunnel
asPl
atf
ormtunnel
sadvance
11

Pr
e-col
l
apse
Engi
neer
sconcer
nedaboutmovement
sand
cr
acks
Newinver
tinvest
i
gat
ionr
eveal
ssi
mil
arf
ail
ure
asbef
ore
Uncoor
dinat
edr
epai
rs
12
Col
l
apse
Ac
cel
erat
i
ngcr
acki
ngandconcr
etespal
l
ing
Somewor
ker
sleavet
unnelont
hei
rown
Sect
i
onagentandcont
ract
orengi
neerconcer
ned,cal
l
f
orconsul
tant
'
sengi
neer
Workersareevacuat
edf
rom
t
unnelstocant
een
Pr
opagat
ingcol
l
apseover
t
henextdays
Pi
cadi
l
lyLi
nest
ayscl
osed
13
Col
l
apse
14

Bef
ore.
..

15
.
..
andaf
ter
16
Recover
yandt
ri
al
60mi
l
li
oni
nit
i
alcostofcont
ract
orswor
k
150mi
l
li
onr
ecover
ywor
k
Openi
ng6mont
hsdel
ayed
1.
2mi
l
li
onf
inef
orcont
ract
or
0.
5mi
l
li
onf
inef
orconsul
t
ant
17
Lessonst
obel
ear
ned
Part
icul
arrevi
ewfornewtechnol
ogi
est
oident
i
fy
hazardsandestabl
i
shri
skmanagement
Makesur
ethatever
ypart
yunderst
andst
hei
rrol
e
andhast
henecessaryr
esour
cesandknowl
edge
Revi
ewandasses
sri
skofr
emedi
alandmai
ntenance
work
Prepareemer
genc
ypr
ocedur
es,ev
enf
orunl
i
kel
y
events
18
Ref
erences
Bowers,K.
H.,Hill
er,D.
M.andNew,B.M.(
1996)Groundmov
ement
overt
hreeyearsattheHeathr
owExpr
essTri
alTunnel
,i
nMairand
Tayl
or(eds
.),pp.64752.
Heal
t
handSaf et
yExecut
i
ve(2000)Thec
oll
aps
eofNATM t
unnel
sat
Heat
hrowai
rport
,HMSO,London.
Mui
rWood,A.(
2002)
.Tunnel
l
ing:managementbydes
ign.Tayl
or&
Fr
anci
s.
Rank i
n,W.J.andDav i
es,A.J.(1997)Predi
cti
onsandobser vat
ions
ofgroundcondit
i
onsfoll
owingtheHeat hrowEx pressTunnel
col
lapse,Tunnel
ing,I
nst.ofMiningandMet al
l
ur gy.
Wal
li
s,S.(1999).Heathr
owfai
lureshighl
ightNATM (abuse?)
mi
sunder
standings.Tunnel
,Gthers
loh,pp.66-73.
19
Microtunneling-a Viable Trenchless
Technology in Deep Gravelly Soil
Mujib Rahman
Student# 47834098
Apr 02, 2013
Outline
Background - ( a river crossing project)

Location
Site Geology -HDD Crossing
Mitigation Options and Risks
Why Microtunneling
Case Studies
Conclusion
Background
TP Pipeline supplies Natural gas to Ft Nelson

a river crossing in the Muskwa River
Potential exposure of the pipeline in the midstream
Possess integrity hazards
Consequence of failure -
From Loss of only gas service
From Public safety
Location- a River Crossing

Location of the Crossing
Location- a River Crossing
Site Geology -HDD Crossing
presence of gravels along the proposed

crossing alignment
upper sand and gravel layers not suitable for
drilling
gravel, cobbles and boulders would impede
progress HDD
over 70 m of casing required to seal & isolate
the drill path from gravel
Site Geology
Site Geology Presence of gravels along the proposed
crossing alignment
Mitigation Options and Risks-

History of the Crossing
1960 1973 2008 2010 2011-12 2012 2013
NPS 114 Investigation

Original and design
Crossing completed for
The Crossing Trenchless
installed HDD Crossing
replaced with Technology
on Bridge
NPS 168 In- Pursued with Preferred
stream Xing PWGSC Canada
for bridge
Microtunneling
Crossing; Cont.
option preferred
monitoring
Potential
Pipe Evaluated all in-
Exposure stream Crossing
options
Mitigation Options and Risks-Trenchless Options
Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD)

Microtunneling
Auger Boring
Pipe Jacking
Pilot Tube
Utility Tunneling
Pipe Ramming
Piercing Tools
Why Microtunneling-Consideration
Geotechnical considerations specially groundwater

Obstructions along the proposed alignment
First Nations and potential environmental impact
Required drive lengths
Pipe diameters
Cost
Depth & alignment (re: river scouring and bank erosion)
Site access
Impact to surface activities
Right of Way requirement
Proximity and impact to Alaska Highway Bridge
Why Microtunneling-Acceptable Options
Replacement crossing Horizontal Directional Drill
Replacement crossing Open Cut
In-Stream Remediation Live Line Lowering
Intermediate Pressure Bridge Crossing (IP Bridge) ??
In-stream Remediation Cabled Concrete Mats
In-stream Remediation Rip Rap Replacement
Replacement crossing Aerial Pipeline Crossing
Microtunneling
Why Microtunneling-Benefits
Application and Benefits
Can excavate through cohesive and non-cohesive soil
Ground support provided immediately after excavation
No dewatering required
Drives of several hundred meters readily available
Accuracies of 25 mm achieved easily
Why Microtunneling-Challenging Ground
Why Microtunneling-Salient Features

Why Microtunneling-Salient Features
Case Study-River Crossing for Natural Gas

Case Study-Toronto Pearson Airport
Conclusion
Acknowledgement
FortisBC
Engineering Technology Inc. (Entec)
Ward & Burke Microtunneling
Hatch Mott MacDonald
Questions???
Suggestions???
Simon Fraser University
Engineering Geology and Resource Geotechnics Research Group
OUTLINE
About Block Caving

Mechanical vs. Drill and Blast Excavation
Current technology
INTRODUCTION
Block caving is used to

exploit low-grade, high-
tonnage deposits which are
too deep for open pit mining
Although the operating costs
a relatively low, it requires
extensive, costly,
development prior to mining
Development involves
driving kilometers of tunnels
and sinking deep shafts
Improving tunneling and
shaft sinking methods will
reduce start up costs
After Hen and Caldwell (2012)
DRILL AND BLAST VS.

MECHANICAL EXCAVATION
Unless extremely careful blasting practices are used, blasting induces
damage in the surrounding rock
The extent of this damaged zone is the subject of debate but work by
Bahrani et al. (2010) used a 0.8 m zone, based on work by Saiang &
Nordlund (2009)
Modelling of mechanically excavated pillars (no damage) vs. blasted
pillars (0.8m damage zone) has provided insights to the advantages of
mechanical excavation in addition to faster advance rates (Bahrani et
al., 2010)
Blast damage reduces rock mass
strength by breaking rock bridges,
reducing cohesion and tensile
strength
After Bahrani, Suorineni, and Maloney. (2010)

DRILL AND BLAST VS.
All pillars were found to be weaker with decreased
width/height ratio
zone of blast zone of blast
influence influence
pillar height
pillar width
Modified after Bahrani, Suorineni, and Maloney. (2010)
DRILL AND BLAST VS.

Mechanically excavated pillars had higher confinement, which
increases pillar strength (Mortazavi et al., 2009)
The blast damaged zone doesnt carry as much load, and concentrates
vertical stresses at the pillar core
Less confined pillars with higher core stresses have a greater chance of
crack initiation and propagation (less stable)
After Bahrani, Suorineni, and Maloney. (2010)
DRILL AND BLAST VS.
Mechanically excavated pillars exhibit a more even stress
distribution across the pillar
Higher stresses increases the risk of rock bursting which is
based on the ratio of 1 to c (Barton, 1994)
Blasted pillars have a de-stressing on the outsides, moving
the risk area to the core of the pillar 1/ c
AKER WIRTH
MOBILE TUNNEL MINER
TBM cutters are mounted to road header style arms
Allows for excavation of square tunnel profiles
Flexible profile allows for 30 m turning radius compared to
500 m for a conventional TBM
After Aker Wirth

AKER WIRTH
MOBILE TUNNEL MINER
Crawler locomotion removes need for grippers and allows
machine to back up easily
Advance rates up to 10m/day in hard rocks (up to 300 MPa)
Improves safety by reducing exposure to the face
After Aker Wirth
AKER WIRTH
MOBILE TUNNEL MINER
Unlike a TBM, the cutters work by undercutting
Require half as much energy as a TBM and allow for any
tunnel shape
After Aker Wirth

ATLAC COPCO
MODULAR MINING MACHINE
TBM cutters are mounted on a cutting wheel
Wheel makes multiple cuts to produce full tunnel width (can be
square cross section)
Quick turning allows for Y intersections
Crawler locomotion increases mobility
Road header style muck handling system
After Chadwick. (2010) After Mining and Construction. (2010)
HERRENKNECHT
SHAFT SINKING
MACHINES
Uses a rotated cutting head like the
Modular Mining Machine
Drives a trench and then rotates the
head 180 degrees to make a cut
Rotation of the wheel picks up muck
Bolter and shotcrete behind the cutter,
as in a conventional TBM
Uses grippers for locomotion
Partial face excavation like other
systems
After Fenzel. (2010)
SUMMARY
Due to high development costs associated with extensive

tunneling and shaft sinking, block cave mines can
significantly benefit from faster, more stable excavation
methods
Numerical modelling has suggested that mechanically
excavated pillars are more stable than their blasted
counterparts but may be more susceptible to rock bursting
New mechanical excavation machines have been developed
specifically for deep block caving to provide the flexibility of
drill and blast, with the advance rates, safety and stability of
TBMs
All new methods utilize partial face excavation, which allows
for square and horseshoe tunnel profiles commonly found in
mining
REFERENCES
Aker Wirth . Undercutting technology. Retrieved from: http://www.wirth-erkelenz.de/index.php?id=160 on March 13, 2013
Aker Wirth. Mobile Tunnel Miner. Retrieved from: http://www.wirth-
erkelenz.de/index.php?id=377&L=1%5C%22onmouseover%3D%5C%22MM_swapImage%28%5C%27langflag_de%5C%27 on March 13, 2013
Atlas Copco. (2010). Bigger, stronger, faster and environmentally friendly mining. Retrieved from:
http://www.atlascopco.com/achieve/themes/Innovation/bigger.aspx on March 14, 2013
Bahrani, N., Suorineni, F., & Maloney, S. (2010). Pillar stability assessment approach for mechanized and drill and blast excavations. Paper
presented at the 44th US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th US-Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium,
Barton, N. 1994. A Q-system case record of cavern design in faulted rock. In: Proc. of Tunneling in Difficult Ground, Torino, Italy, 8p.
Bauma Innovation. Aker Wirth GmbH Mobile Tunnel Miner. Revolution in underground mining. Retrieved from: http://www.bauma-
innovationspreis.de/en/press/press-releases-on-innovations/29-pressemitteilungen-innovationen-copy/113-aker-wirth-gmbh-mobile-tunnel-
miner-eng.html?template=baumainnovationspreis-leer on March 13, 2013
Chadwick, J. (2010). Rapid development for cave mines [PDF document]. Retrieved from:
http://www.infomine.com/library/publications/docs/InternationalMining/Chadwick2010t.pdf on March 14, 2013
Frenzel, C., Burger, W., Delabbio, F. (2010). Shaft boring systems for mechanical excavation of deep shafts. Australian Centre for
Geomechanics Newsletter. Vol. 34
Frenzel, C. (2010). The Shaft Boring System for deep shafts [PDF Presentation]. Retrieved from:
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3276045/shaft-boring-system-ii-pdf-november-15-2011-4-10-pm-1-7-meg?da=y on March 13, 2013
Hem, P. & Caldwell, J. (2012). Block Caving. Retrieved from:
http://technology.infomine.com/reviews/BlockCaving/assets/PopUp/BlockCaving1.html on March 14, 2013
Mining and Construction (2010). Atlas Copco and Rio Tinto win top design award. Retrieved from:
http://miningandconstruction.com/news/atlascopcoandriotintowintopdesignaward-1009/ on March 14, 2013
Mortazavi, A., Hassani, F., & Shabani, M. (2009). A numerical investigation of rock pillar failure mechanism in underground openings.
Computers and Geotechnics, 36(5), 691-697.
Saiang, D. and E. Nordlund. 2009. Numerical analyses of the influence of blast-induced damaged rock around shallow tunnels in brittle rock,
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 42: 421-448.
EOSC 547 Presentation
March 19, 2013
Stephanie Hunter
Cave mining
Advantages and disadvantages
Applicability
The block cave method
Problems/considerations
Risks
Conclusion
Weve found all the easy (shallow) ones
12
10
8
Exposed
6 Covered
4 Blind
2
0
1980's 1990's 2000's
Weve found all the good (high grade) ones
Undercutting causes orebody to cave from gravity

Material is collected through draw points
Several types of cave mining
Underground Mining Methods
Pillar Supported Unsupported Artificially Supported
Room Sublevel Long- Block

Sub- Bench Cut and
and and wall and Shrink VCR
level and Fill Fill
Pillar Longhole Mining Panel Stoping Stoping
mining Stoping Stoping
Open Caving
Stoping
Block caving produces most tpd and ton/man shift with lowest relative
cost per tonne
Use of gravity to break rock instead of explosives
High production
High degree of mechanization
ButWhy not?
High capital
Simple concept but technically challenging
Requires a high level of design, quality construction and rigorous
management
Lots of uncertainty
Orebody with
Large vertical extent
Massive
Tabular
Pipe-shaped
Low, consistent grade
Block cave often

below an open pit
Moss, 2011
Most common in copper (porphyry) mining but used in molybdenum and

diamonds as well
Moss, 2011
Once a large enough area is undercut by drill and blast it will

cave due to gravity until it reaches surface or open pit
Extensional failure in roof of tunnel = spalling (sounds familiar!)
Key components
Orebody access
Shafts and tunnels
Undercutting
Cave initiation level
Extraction
Ore removed from broken rock
Ore Flow
Sizing and transfer to surface
Infrastructure
Support systems, power, supplies etc.
Video
Explanation
Eberhardt et al., 2012
Video
Explanation
Hem and Caldwell, 2013

Fragmentation is key to success
Small enough to prevent clogging
Constant caving desired (production)
Must break big blocks (depends on equipment)
Beware of air blast
Primary
Controlled by orientation of
cave front with respect to
joints and direction of
principal stresses
Secondary
CMEW, 2013
Cave Flow
Describes path of falling rock boundary
Vyazmensky,
2013
Design and determine resource on cone shape but if goes wide get dilution
Controlled by rock bridges, joint set orientation, faults
Good mine plan requires:
Detailed knowledge of local and
regional geology
Use of accepted rock mass
classification systems (MRMR)
Knowledge of regional and induced
stresses
Cavability is f(strength, structure, in

situ stress)
Prediction of cave flow and
expected fragment size
Size of draw controls caving rate
Too fast = air gap + dilution
Undercutting must be complete to
induce caving
Support requirements (RMR vs
MRMR)
Laubscher, 1994
Palabora
Undercut 400m below pit
Cracking followed by months of movement before failure
Location of cave beneath wall and pit was a big influencing factor
Interaction between cave and open pit most pronounced at northwest wall
causing cave to flow that way
Underground vs. Surface
Initiation of mining much deeper
Limited information
Little knowledge of ore sampling
Limited control (think cave flow e.g.)
High level of uncertainty
Eberhardt et al., 2012. Integration of field characterisation, mine production and InSAR monitoring data to
constrain and calibrate 3-D numerical modelling of block caving-induced subsidence. Int Journal of Rock Mech
and Mining Sciences 53:166-178
Laubscher, 1994. Caving state of the art. The Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy pp.279-292
Moss, 2011. An introduction to block and panel caving. Presentation for the BMO Capital Markets 2011
Global Metals & Mining Conference
Hem and Caldwell, 2013. Block Caving.

http://technology.infomine.com/reviews/Blockcaving/welcome.asp?view=full
http://constructionandminingmachinary.blogspot.ca/2012/10/rock-flow-continuous-hard-rock-haulage.html
Vyazmensky et al., 2010. Numerical Analysis of Block Caving-Induced Instability in Large Open Pit Slopes: A
Finite Element/Discrete Element Approach. Journal of Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:2139
https://sites.google.com/site/alexvyazmensky/research

2013 PresentationCompilation PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2013 PresentationCompilation PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ROCK BURSTING PHENOMENON IN

EOSC 547 Tunneling and Underground Design

Ground Profile Variation - Elevation

(ii) Pillar Burst

(iii) Strain Burst

If an excavation intersects with a fault

If an excavation does not intersect with a fault

(ii) Pillar Burst

(iii) Strain Burst

Jinping II Hydropower Station

Shan and Yan (2010)

Jinping II Hydropower Station

Drill and Blast TBM Drill and Blast TBM

Shan and Yan (2010)

Water Bursts at Tunnel A

(a) Surface spalling

Rock Bursts at Tunnel A and B

Shan and Yan (2010)

Test Tunnels in Jinping II Traffic Tunnels

Test Tunnels in Jinping II Traffic Tunnels

(i) Stress Adjustment

The nucleation and evolution of the rockburst involve four processes:

Six basic modes of rock burst have been observed as:

EOSC 547: Tunneling and Underground Design

Seismic parameters affecting tunnel damage

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 2

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 3

Intensity of seismic force exerted on a tunnel differs

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 4

Seismic waves propagate faster in hard/dense materials

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 5

SEISMIC CAPACIT Y OF THE TUNNEL

Forensic studies imply that seismic capacity dependent on:

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 6

Tunnels undergo three

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 7

Shallow tunnels of ten constructed in

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 8

ranging in length from 38

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 9

CRACK DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE TUNNEL

Protective measures important in areas of abrupt

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 11

TUNNELS CROSSING ACTIVE FAULTS

Two methods for tunnel design in active fault zones:

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 12

New Sanyi Railway Tunnel in Central Taiwan

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 13

CASE STUDY OF POOR PERFORMANCE

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 14

The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in San Francisco

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 15

GENERAL PERFORMANCE & ANALYSIS

Degree of damage increases with magnitude and proximity to

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 17

Most design codes are focused on portals and sections near

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 18

Tunnel routes sometimes cannot avoid problematic conditions

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 19

4/02/2013 UBC EOSC 574: Tunneling and Underground Design 21

Distance = (Speed of Light * Time of Flight)/2

Phase-shift distance calculation:

Distance = [Speed of Light * Phase Shift / (2 * Modulation