Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

Underground Space the 4th Dimension of Metropolises Bartk, Hrdina, Romancov & Zlmal (eds) 2007 Taylor &

mp; Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-40807-3

Selecting auxiliary construction methods for NATM tunnel excavation in urban areas
J. Yorita & Sasaki
Iiyama Railway Construction Office, Japan Railway Construction, Transport and Technology Agency, Iiyama city, Nagano, Japan

N. Yamaki & M. Okamura


Toda Co., Ltd., Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT: The Takaoka Tunnel on the Hokuriku Shinkansen Line is a tunnel 6,938 m long (north sector: 3,990 m, south sector: 2,948 m) under construction by the NATM in an urban area in northern Nagano Prefecture. The geology of the south sector is fractured cohesive soil (N-value 10 to 20) and silt (N-value 10 to 30) intercalating sand aquifer. Excavation is performed at small depths (tunnel diameter multiplied by about 2 to 3) directly below many existing structures. This paper discusses a technique for selecting auxiliary methods by statistical and FEM analyses, newly introduced for minimizing adverse impact of tunneling work upon nearby structures.

INTRODUCTION

The Takaoka Tunnel on the Hokuriku Shinkansen Line is a NATM tunnel 6,938 m long, longitudinally traversing the Nagaoka Hills on the right bank of the Chikumagawa River running in northern Nagano Prefecture, located at the Fossa Magna. The construction alignment is divided into two parts, north (3,990 m long) and south (2,948 m long) sectors. The south sector of this tunnel is located in the southern Nagaoka Hills, running just below many residences and other

neighboring structures (Fig. 1). To minimize adverse impact of tunneling upon these structures, the primary requirement is to limit surface settlement. A technique was established for selecting auxiliary methods for limiting surface settlement. Statistical analysis was conducted as the first step, involving data obtained during the construction, to evaluate the auxiliary methods. Based on the results of the statistical analysis, auxiliary methods for numerical modeling were selected. Then, a numerical analysis model was created to mechanically evaluate the auxiliary methods.

Figure 1. Plan.

1111

to Nagano

to Joetsu
Location

Terminal point for construction of Takaoka Tunnel (south) Legend Gravel, cohesive soil, sand Silt stratum m1 Tuff breccia, Tuff
Sand stratum

Silt stratum m2

Sand gravel stratum

Name of Minamisato stratum formation (Mi) T67 transmission Ws residence line tower

Toyono formation S transmission line tower S apartment Intersection of the block inclined shaft

Fine-grained sand layer with Pumiceous tuff stratum gravel, sandy silt breccia Sarumaru stratum (Pyroclastic flow deposit)
formation

Terminal point for Conglomarate construction of Takaoka Tunnel (south) (dominant)

Along the prefectural road - Angenji village


Prefectural road Kamiimai line Syncline axis

Ks residence

Prefectural road Nakano-toyono line

T plant
Crown

Anticline axis

Nagaoka b fault

Figure 2. Longitudinal profile.

GEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

The geology of the south sector is weak and unconsolidated. The tunnel is to be constructed at shallow depths just below many residences and important infrastructure. The Toyono stratum forming a large part of the ground of this sector is mainly composed of silt of 1.0 MPa in unconfined compressive strength. Settlement at the support foot and other parts is anticipated due to decrease of bearing capacity of the ground. The silt stratum contains intercalating or alternating sand and gravel layers. Where the ground contains water, there is fear of ground collapse because of water inflow with the soil. The geology is very complex with noticeable folds, dips and faults generated by active tectonic movements (Fig. 2). 3 EVALUATION OF THE AUXILIARY METHODS BY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS (MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS)

evaluate by means of regression analysis. Scarcity of available numerical data of tunnel excavation sometimes makes it difficult to develop a suitable model. Nevertheless, data were quantified as much as possible for analysis. The results of the regression analysis are summarized in Table 1. Table 2 shows the effect each auxiliary method had in limiting settlement when used alone. This table demonstrates that each auxiliary method is similar in surface settlement effect. However, X(5) (closure with struts), X(3) (AGF: injection type long forepiling) and X(7) (sidewall pre-grouting) are comparatively more effective. Hence these variables should be involved in the modeling to develop an accurate FEM model. 3.2 Correlation analysis

Different auxiliary methods were evaluated in terms of their effect in limiting settlement by means of statistical analysis (multivariate analysis). Since the ground conditions of the tunnel (geology, existence of fault, folding, overburden, etc.) vary from section to section, it is difficult to evaluate each auxiliary method in a generic manner. However, the authors attempted generalized evaluation by multivariate analysis with plural samples of quantifiable data. By involving samples of multiple sections, it is possible to assess the effect of each auxiliary method in limiting settlement in typical geology in the south sector of the Takaoka Tunnel. 3.1 Evaluation by regression analysis

Multicollinearity among variables (among different auxiliary methods) is found in the results of correlation analysis shown inTable 3.This is attributable to the fact that multiple auxiliary methods work in concurrence with each other to restrain surface settlement, that is to say, auxiliary methods combine to limit settlement. Although the analysis used all the explanatory variables that could be quantitatively given, t-value (test of hypothesis concerning mean) is small for the variables, showing that they are not reliable as explanatory variables, except for closure with struts, foot reinforcement pile and sidewall pre-grouting (Table 3). This can be assumed to be due to multicollinearity among variables. The same holds for F-value (variance test). 3.3 Evaluation by the statistical analysis

Ground surface settlement was taken as an objective variable, and ground condition, supports and auxiliary methods as explanatory variables, to quantitatively

The statistical analysis was capable of quantitatively analyzing the effects of the auxiliary methods. As shown by the analytical results, the effects of X(3) (AGF: injection type long forepiling) and X(7) (sidewall pre-grouting) are more effective for surface settlement. Hence these variables should be modeled for creating an accurate FEM model. In addition, the analysis on correlation among the different

1112

Table 1.

Results of regressing analysis. Partial correlation coefficient 0.15 0.11 0.18 0.06 0.37 0.46 0.23 0.17

No. X (1) X (2) X (3) X (4) X (5) X (6) X (7) X (8) Constant

Variable Steel support PASS AGF Top heading temporary closure Closure with struts Foot reinforcement pile Sidewall pre-grouting Face bolt 0.85 0.72 33

Regression coefficient 2.98 8.35 3.02 0.33 2.31 11.28 1.83 1.41 258.41

F-value 0.54 0.32 0.78 0.09 3.75 6.48 1.34 0.72

t-value 0.73 0.56 0.88 0.30 1.94 2.54 1.16 0.85

Multiple correlation coefficient: Contribution ratio: Number of samples:

PASS: Pre-Ach Shell Support AGF: Injection type long forepiling

Table 2.

Surface settlement limiting effect. Reduction in settlement (mm) 15 25 38 10 46 23 33 18

No. X (1) X (2) X (3) X (4) X (5) X (6) X (7) X (8)

Variable Steel support PASS AGF Top heading temporary closure Closure with struts Foot reinforcement pile Sidewall pre-grouting Face bolt

Remarks Use of higher grade: H200 instead of H150 3 m PASS 12.5 m long pile 30 cm thick shotcrete 20 cm struts Foot pile Grouting and reinforcement of steel pile 1.25 m long fact bolt

Order 7 4 2 8 1 5 3 6

Table 3.

Correlation analysis. Top heading Foot temporary Closure reinforcement Sidewall closure with struts pile pre-grouting Face bolt 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.50 0.40 0.55 1.00 0.37 0.16 0.23 1.00 0.39 0.58 1.00 0.66

Steel support PASS X (1) X (2) X (3) X (4) X (5) X (6) X (7) X (8) Y Steel support PASS AGF Top heading temporary closure Closure with struts Foot reinforcement pile Sidewall pre-grouting Face bolt Surface settlement 1.00 0.36 0.35 0.45 0.54 0.46 0.71 0.22 0.47 1.00 0.98 0.80

AGF 1.00 0.79

0.67 0.66 0.83 0.47 0.44 0.67 0.47 0.48 0.48

0.61 0.69 0.49 0.67 0.71 0.61

1113

Table 4.

Comparison of values obtained in the respective analytical steps. Crown settlement (mm) Nonlinear Non-linear Measurement Elastic elastic Elasto-plastic Measurement Elastic elastic Elasto-plastic 29 38 31 90 117 94

Surface settlement (mm) Step 1 Dead weight analysis 2 Top heading excavation Stress release ratio 40% 3 Top heading support 4 Top heading excavation Stress release ration 60% 5 Bench excavation Stress release ration 40% 6 Bench support 7 Bench excavation Stress release ratio 60%

58

91

71

160

239

186

64

105

79

169

261

198

104119

69

121

85

210232

177

288

204

variables quantitatively revealed the fact that they exhibit expected effects by dependency on each other. 4 4.1 CREATING A NUMERICAL ANALYSIS MODEL Selection of an analysis model

Referring to the results of statistical analysis, an FEM model was created, which is capable of accurately simulating the surface settlement aimed at curbing impact on structures in the vicinity. Through study on the surface settlements in the sector already constructed, elastic analysis, nonlinear elastic analysis and elasto-plastic analysis were conducted, to select a prediction model capable of closely simulating the actual situation. The geology of the section considered in the analysis was comparatively uniform, mainly composed of silt, located at 133 km 680 m, with modulus of deformation E = 27 MN/m2 , internal friction angle f = 20 degrees, cohesion C = 101 kN/m2 and overburden depth of 35 m. Comparison was made in the analytical section, between measured surface settlements and those given by direct analysis of each analytical technique, and between surface settlement and tunnel crown settlement at each analysis step (Table 4). In addition, studying the major principal strain distribution diagram of each model, the authors attempted to determine a model that can correctly express the deformation characteristics of the tunneling sector discussed here.

Figure 3. Distribution of major principal strain (nonlinear elastic analysis).

This comparative study confirmed that the nonlinear elastic analysis is capable of simulating the ground deformation characteristics of the tunneling sector in question, providing final surface settlement and crown settlement close to the measured values, and expressing, in the major principal strain distribution diagram, loosened zone in the crown and at the top heading. Consequently, the nonlinear elastic model was selected for analytical study of excavation patterns (Fig. 3). The silt stratum is the main geology of the tunneling sector. It has a small modulus of deformation,

1114

Table 5.

Study cases and analytical prediction. Auxiliary method Case 1 127 141 15 cm 87 103 30 cm 86 101 15 cm H150 84 99 15 cm Bench 76 87 15 cm Top heading, bench 70 81 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6

Condition

Result

Forepoling Foot reinforcement pile Top heading temporary closure Shotcrete thickness Top heading struts Shotcrete invert (20 cm) Sidewall pre-grouting Surface settlement (mm) Crown settlement (mm)

25 L=4.0m
Figure 4. Longitudinal section of sidewall pre-grouting.

where fracture at the sidewall portion was assumed to partially progress along with excavation, causing the whole ground to deteriorate, decreasing the modulus of deformation of the ground around the tunnel, thereby increasing tunnel convergence and surface settlement. The nonlinear elastic analysis gives gradual decrease of modulus of deformation in response to increase in stress. Therefore, this analytical technique well expresses variation in modulus of deformation of ground in a wide range in ground mainly composed of silt. 4.2 Selection of auxiliary methods using the analytical model

4.3 Evaluation of sidewall pre-grouting In the tunneling sector, partial development of fractures in the cracked zone at the sidewall was anticipated, leading to deterioration of the whole ground, and resulting in lower modulus of deformation of the whole ground around the tunnel. For preventing such adverse changes, it is essential to improve the ground strength before the modulus of deformation of ground begins to decrease, or more specifically, before the face arrives at the sidewall portion of top heading and bench, since ground deterioration is induced by fracture in those sections. Therefore, a new auxiliary method, i.e., sidewall pregrouting was adopted (Figs. 4 to 6). To validate the effect of this auxiliary stabilizing practice, numerical analysis was conducted on the preceding improvement with injection rock bolts and the succeeding improvement with injection rock bolts from the excavated cavity (Table 6). Comparison of the results shows that only the preceding improvement achieved surface settlements below control criterion (80 mm), proving the effectiveness of the sidewall pre-grouting. For verifying the improvement effect, sidewall pregrouting was tentatively implemented and bore hole load test was conducted. The test results showed cohesion of the top heading of 181 kN/m2 and that of the

By the use of the nonlinear elastic FEM model created for the section at 133 km 680 m, assuming the typical overburden depth and geological conditions of the tunneling sector, support patterns and support members were combined, to evaluate their effects in limiting surface settlement. The simulation study involved silt-dominant geology with N-value = 24, modulus of deformation E = 24 MN/m2 , internal friction angle f = 18 degrees, cohesion C = 94 kN/m2 and overburden depth of 25 m. Table 5 shows the analytically obtained surface and crown settlements with excavation patterns studied.

1115

Figure 5. Plan of sidewall pre-grouting (top heading). Table 7. values. Comparison between analytical and measured Auxiliary method Condition Forepoling Foot reinforcement pile Top heading temporary closure Shotcrete thickness Top heading struts Shotcrete invert (20 cm) Sidewall pre-grouting Analytical Measurements P-5 PASS x 30 cm x Top heading, bench 79 82 M AGF x 30 cm x Top heading, bench 82 86

25 L=4.0m

Figure 6. Plan of sidewall pre-grouting (bench). Table 6. Effect of sidewall pre-grouting canalytical. Crown settlement (mm) Without improvement Grouting at sidewall after excavation Sidewall pre-grouting 173 154 138 Surface settlement (mm) 86 84 75

Result

analytical and measured values, confirming validity of the numerical model.

CONCLUSIONS

bench of 185 kN/m2 achieving the required strength level.

5 VALIDATION OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL To validate the numerical model, comparison was made between analytical values and measured values of surface settlement with excavation patterns P-5 and M (Table 7). Good agreement was found between

Tunneling in the sector discussed in this paper was planned at shallow depths in unconsolidated ground, with many vital infrastructure and residences on the surface just above. For minimizing impact of tunneling upon these structures, it was imperative to select an excavation method well suited to this project. First, various auxiliary methods were quantitatively evaluated in terms of surface limiting effect by means of statistical analysis. This analysis enabled quantitative expression of surface settlement effect. On the basis of the results of the statistical analysis, auxiliary methods to be involved in modeling were appropriately selected, thereby improving simulation accuracy of the numerical analysis model.

1116