?

Central Station Antwerp

Compensation grouting under high loaded foundations

Dr.-Ing. Gerhard Chambosse, Dipl.-Ing. Reiner Otterbein Keller Grundbau GmbH, Bochum

Presented by Keller Grundbau GmbH Kaiserleistr. 44 D-63067 Offenbach Tel. 069 / 80 51 - 0 Fax 069 / 80 51 - 244
E-mail Marketing@KellerGrundbau.com www.KellerGrundbau.com

Reprint of: Response of buildings to excavation-induced ground movements, Imperial College, London, 17th 18th July 2001 Technical paper 61- 56 E

Central Station Antwerp Compensation grouting under high loaded foundations

Dr.-Ing. Gerhard Chambosse Dipl.-Ing. Reiner Otterbein Keller Grundbau GmbH, Bochum

Abstract With the redevelopment of the railway line Brussels Antwerp - Amsterdam - to a highspeed line it was decided to tunnel under the historic Central Station of Antwerp. The main piers of the buildings are founded at shallow depth on large footings (12 x 27 m) with pressures up to 800 kN/m. The tunnel underneath is constructed in a traditional way beneath a protective pipe umbrella roof which is some 6 m below the foundations. To avoid undue settlements Compensation Grouting was carried out in between the pipe umbrella and the underside of the foundations. It was the first time that this method had been applied in Belgium. The grouting works were controlled by a newly developed and well tested water level system on the basis of pressure monitoring rather than direct level measurements. This paper reports on the different grouting phases and the observed efficiency of the system. Keywords: Compensation grouting, water level system, preconditioning, efficiency

Introduction

By hydraulic fracturing, the soil is artificially fractured and the fissures (Soil-Fracs) are filled with grout under pressure. In this way an improvement of the soil and/or a controlled heave is obtained. During tunnelling or excavation works this method is often used to compensate for ground loss. In the case which is the subject of this paper, the method is called compensation grouting. Experience has been made with almost any type of soil such as: clay, silt, sand, gravel. Good results were achieved in normally consolidated as well as in over consolidated soils. The method is not economically viable in saturated very soft clays, organic soils, as well as very loose fills. The method was introduced more than fifty years ago and in the beginning it was applied to compensate settlements of buildings. BERNATZIK (1951) was the first to report on this. With the development of urban tunnelling the method was optimised and combined with real-time

?
G. Chambosse R. Otterbein

monitoring systems. The first application of the combined method in Germany was for a tunnel in the city of Essen (Germany). GABENER, RAABE and WILMS (1989) have reported the project in detail. Here, it was the first time that a water level system was used in order to monitor and control the settlements. Due to the good results the technique was extended to larger tunnel projects (Table 1).

City Essen Bielefeld Dortmund Dsseldorf

Country D D D D

Year 1986 1989 1993 1993

Soil Silt Clay Silt Gravel/Sand

Project AEG Factory Building / Subway Tunnel 6 story Buildings / Road Tunnel Housing Block / Subway Tunnel Bridge Abutments / Main Sewer Tunnel

Tunnel face 110 m 220 m 37 m 20 m

Table 1: Selection of compensation grouting projects for tunnelling works in Germany

?
Central Station Antwerp Compensation grouting under high loaded foundations

Central Station Antwerp

50 m

1 Dewatering 2 Grouting area 3 Pipe jacking 4 Diaphragm wall 5 Excavation 6 Tunnel ceiling 7 Tunnel slab

Foundation

0m

Existing tunnel

A B

C D E F

G H

2 3

New tunnel
23 m

Figure 1: Cross section and scope of work

4 5 6 7 4

1 Sand (Antwerpiaan) Boomse clay

The Central Station of Antwerp with its main building reaching a height of nearly 70 m, was built from 1899 1905 as a dead-end station. As the Belgium railway NMBS is extending the highspeed line from Brussels via Antwerp to Amsterdam, a tunnel under the Central Station Antwerp was planned to enable the through-passing of the trains. The required tunnel is constructed according to the well-proven Belgium Method. This meant, that after constructing a protective pipe umbrella roof, diaphragm walls with a depth of 15 m were excavated manually from out of the outer pipes. This is followed by further excavation works and the construction of the final roof and floor of the tunnel. The space between the pipe umbrella roof and the foundations amounts to 5 6 m. The main foundations of the station buildings, measuring 12 x 27 m, exert pressures of approximately 800 kN/m on the ground whereas the soil below the entrance hall is hardly loaded. Settlement predictions for all construction phases gave values of 60 to 120 mm. To avoid damage, the Soilfrac System was applied whereby after the pre-stabilization and prestressing of the soil, a compensatory heave can be achieved while building the tunnel. The maximum allowed settlement was limited to 5 mm for critical construction phases and maximum inclination of 1:2000. The subsoil in the area of the station consists of a tertiary slightly overconsolidated fine sand with 10 % silt. Cone Penetration Tests showed a point resistance of 18 24 MN/m. At a depth of 20 m so-called Boomse-Clay is underlying. During the construction works the groundwater was lowered by approximately 15 m. At the depth of the TAMs (tube manchette) a concentration of strong shell was encountered. Figure I shows the individual construction phases.

?
G. Chambosse R. Otterbein

2.1 Real-time Monitoring To control the settlement performance 8 different measuring systems were installed and had to be surveyed. In total 480 measuring points exist. Changes in the height were measured by an automatic water level system (System GeTec). This system uses pressure sensors instead of measuring level changes. With a precision of 0.02 mm of the sensors the guaranteed accuracy of the system is 0.3 mm. The measuring scope covers three levels. A special software program monitors the measuring results every 30 seconds, the data from which may be graphically displayed. The system has worked reliably and without failure since its installation 22 months ago. It is maintained by a remote control system and any excess in settlement limits is transmitted automatically by SMS-message via mobile telephone service. 2.2 Installation of TAMs Some 3.500 m steel valve tubes of 50 mm diameter and valve spacings of 0.5 1 m were installed. The maximum boring length was 45 m. The position of 35 % of the borings was measured by inclinometers. The deviations in homogenic sand were in the order of 1% only. Within the shell layer deviations of up to 2% were measured. The array of TAMs is about 3.50 m below the foundations. The maximum settlement during the boring works was less than 1 mm.Therefore, injections at this stage were not required. 2.3 Grouting

Point 468 Point 231

Figure 2: Phase I areas with low grout pressure

Shaft

Shaft

?
Central Station Antwerp Compensation grouting under high loaded foundations

The Grouting process principally consists of two phases: a) Phase 1 Preconditioning b) Phase II Heave or compensation of settlements At Phase I the soil is prestressed and compacted and thereby, in normal consolidated soils, the horizontal stress is increased. Any loose zones are detected by observing the grouting pressure and are stabilized accordingly. Figure 2 shows 15 zones within the treated area with less than 50 % of the pressure of 20 25 bar. This value was estimated according to overburden pressure and line loss. In total 15 % of the valves were affected. The combination of steel TAMs, injected material and stress increase raises the stiffness of the soil considerably. The improvement depends on the soil conditions. RAABE and ESTERS (1993) report an improvement of silty soil by a factor of 2 3. Accordingly, Phase I provides substantial reduction in settlements. MARTAK and LIEBSCH (1993) mention a reduction of up to 50 % of predicted values. At the construction of a tunnel (NATM) in the city of Bielefeld (Germany) a reduction of 35 % was measured. BOECK and SCHELLER (2000) report a measured reduction of 30%. By reducing the settlements any differential settlement will also be reduced. In some cases, Phase I in connection with a pre-heave will enable tunnel driving without problems. In general, Phase I will be terminated if a pre-determined pressure and a heave of 1 2 mm is achieved. Injections in Phase I depend on the type of soil, the state of stresses, foundation pressures, relic foundations, loose zones, etc. Since all these influences are not exactly calculable, the requirements for Phase I are hard to estimate. Table 2 shows projects with different quantities of injected grout between 42 and 115 l/m in order to obtain a contact heave. The values indicated refer to stiff to medium dense soil. The type of soil appears to be less important in comparison to other boundaries. As for the Central Station Antwerp there is quite a difference between low and high loaded foundations.
Project Soil-type Grout Range ( l/m ) Grout Average ( l/m ) Foundation Load ( kN/m )

Antwerp 1 Antwerp 2 Essen, AEG Bielefeld Dortmund 1 Dortmund 2 Dsseldorf Hamburg [4]

Sand Sand Silt Clay Silt Silt Gravel/Sand Sand/Silt

4246 87115 3555 5664 6575 8496 4252 3170

45 100 45 60 70 90 50 45

60 800 80 280 200 200 500 50

Table 2: Amount of injected Grout in Phase I

The required contact heave of 2 mm at the high loaded foundations resulted in heaves up to 5 mm in adjacent non-loaded areas. At two places in the dirt floor of the basement heaves of up to 150 mm were registered. Although the works were carried out with the utmost care, this phenomenon could not be avoided. KUDELLA and GUDEHUS (1992) have reported similar results in trials.

?
G. Chambosse R. Otterbein

2.4 Efficiency of Compensation Grouting The success of the measures is governed by the quantity of injected grout. As shown in chapter 2.3 at Phase I (Preconditioning) the consumption of grout depends mainly on boundaries which are difficult to assess. As for the efficiency, it is advisable to consider Phase II only. The efficiency EC of compensation Grouting is expressed by the ratio between heave and volume of grout.
EC [%] = 100 average heave [mm] Volume (Grout) [l/m]
(1)

According to formula 1 an average efficiency of 11% was determined for the Antwerp Central Station from Phase II. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the registered quantities of grout.

Grouting volume

600

400

200
Liter / m

Shaft
Shaft
N ew e Tu n n l

Foundation

Figure 3: Profile of injected quantity of grout material for Phase I + II

According to the varying consumptions in the different zones, the efficiency varies considerably. Whereas for the highly loaded foundations a value of EC = 5 % was computed, less loaded areas gave values of as much as 15 20 % Figure 4 shows the course of settlement and stages of compensation grouting at measuring points N 468 (Location see Figure 2). On the whole, settlements of approximately 23.5 mm were compensated up until February 2001. Point N 231, outside of treated area shows the influence of dewatering.

?
Central Station Antwerp Compensation grouting under high loaded foundations

Drilling TAM's 6.0

Preconditioning

Pipe jacking and compensation grouting

Tunnel excavation and compensation grouting

Tunnel excavation

Section 1

Section 2

Pipe E

4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

Point 231

mm

0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 28.08. 21.09. 15.10. 08.11. 02.12. 26.12. 19.01. 12.02. 07.03. 31.03. 24.04. 18.05. 11.06. 05.07. 29.07. 22.08. 15.09. 09.10. 02.11. 26.11. 20.12. 13.01. 06.02. 1999 2000 2001 Dewatering Dewatering (vacuum)

Figure 4: Settlement and heave at selected measuring points

It was proved that at the highly loaded foundations considerably higher settlements had to be compensated than at the less loaded floor of the hall. However, the Soilfrac -technique is suitable for both low as well as highly loaded foundations. There are merely differences in the degree of efficiency and, therefore, in the required quantity of grout to compensate settlements.

Pipe C Pipe H

Pipe B

Pipe D Pipe G

5.0

Point 468

Section 3

?
G. Chambosse R. Otterbein

References

[1] W. BERNATZIK

Anheben des Kraftwerkes Hessigheim am Neckar mit Hilfe von Zementunterpressungen, Der Bauingenieur, Heft 4, 1951 Soilfracturing techniques for terminating settlements and restoring levels of building and structures, In: Ground Improvement, M.P. Moseley, Hayward Baker Inc./ USA, Chapman & Hall, Glasgow, 1993 Soil-fracturing in silt and clay New applications in the Vienna Underground, Internationale Konferenz betreffend Injektionen in Fels und Beton, Salzburg, 1993, sterreichische Gesellschaft fr Geomechanik 4. Rhre Elbtunnel Sicherung der Bebauung am Nordhang der Elbe, Baugrundtagung in Hannover, 2000, Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Geotechnik e.V.

[2] E.W. RAABE and K. ESTERS

[3] L. MARTAK and H. LIEBSCH

[4] TH. BOECK and P. SCHELLER

[5] GABENER, RAABE and WILMS Einsatz von Soilfracturing zur Setzungsminderung beim Tunnelvortrieb, Taschenbuch fr den Tunnelbau, 1989, Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Erd- und Grundbau, Verlag Glckauf GmbH, Essen [6] KUDELLA and GUDEHUS Bodenverdrngung durch Einpressen von Fluiden, Vortrge der Baugrundtagung in Dresden, 1992, Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Erd- und Grundbau