Table of Contents

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

ABSTRACT ..............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3 WHY WE STUDY HOBART CITY TUNNEL? ................................................................ 3 WHERE THE TUNNEL SHOULD BE?............................................................................. 5 LITERATURE REVIEW: .................................................................................................... 7 5.1 Geologycal consideration ...................................................................................................... 7 5.1.1 Faults, Joints and Bedding Planes: .................................................................................. 8 5.1.2 Weathering ...................................................................................................................... 9 5.1.3 Geohydrology .................................................................................................................. 9 5.1.4 Gases in the Ground ...................................................................................................... 10 5.2 Basic components of rock mass classifications................................................................... 10 5.2.1 Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system - Bieniawski ..............1Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.2.2 Rock Tunneling Quality Index, Q ................................................................................. 15

6. PLANNING FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................ 16 6.1 Geology of Hobart city: (approximately 4 5 weeks) ...................................................... 16 6.1.1 Main purposeStrategy ................................................................................................... 16 6.1.2 Strategy ......................................................................................................................... 16 6.2 Numerical modeling of the city tunneling of adjacent structures (5-6 weeks): ................ 18 6.2.1 Main purpose ................................................................................................................. 18 7. 8. ACTKNOWLEGMENTS ................................................................................................... 19 REFERRENCE .................................................................................................................... 19

1|Page

1. ABSTRACT:
This paper describes the review of literature relevant to the project (geology, material classification ) together with the reason for Hobart tunnel, and the planning framework about time and the way to solve each part of this project.

2|Page

2. INTRODUCTION:
An increase in population and growth of many big cities has resulted in increasing of infrastructure. As urban land spaces are becoming more limited, underground facilities such as tunnels are becoming more and more efficient in providing the required infrastructure such as mass rapid transit system, sewerage, power transmission tunnels, communication, gas pipes and other subsurface lifelines .Increase of population and development in most big cities causes major traffic congestion especially at peak hours. Therefore, this project we will consider the tunnel design is mainly for transportation purposes. Similarly, there are many new excavations have to be designed nearby existing structures, such as adjacent tunnels, buildings, pile and raft foundations, and pipelines. Excavation of soil will cause displacement and deformation to the ground. Therefore, is it essential to protect the adjacent tunnels as well as their existing underground support systems and control the ground displacements and deformation from causing any effects to the existing structure. This project developed a method of modelling step-by-step tunnel excavation and support, dealing the interaction between ground and support system, and evaluating the stability of shotcrete lining and rock bolts [1].

3. WHY WE STUDY HOBART CITY TUNNEL?

Firstly, Hobart is an active city with a resident population of around 49,900 (in 2009), supplemented by an additional 162,000 people across Greater Hobart, together with the attractive of University of Tasmania bring more foreign student and people from other state come to study and work (around 33,000 primary) . Thus, the increase in population brings more demands together with more investment in property, economic, shopping mall, factories (base on Hobart council, the City of Hobart has a rich pool of knowledge-based workers which is really suitable to invest business). As a result, Hobart has great advantages to develop and many problems to overcome. More particularly, the increase in population, jobs will request the increase in infrastructure traffic system in particular.

3|Page

Figure 1: Hobart city (http://www.madaboutphotography.net.au/images/galleryimages/Hobartcity.jpg) However, the city is already setup and the land cannot expand for more infrastructures that bring us to other solution tunnel.

Figure 2: one example of tunnel (http://www.gelighting.com/imgs/product_portfolio/fitting/outdoor_functional/tunnel_lighting_e nlarged.jpg)

4|Page

Advantages of tunnel: Long service time guarantee the traffic capacity of the city for long time Special area like City Hobart cannot allow overpass In Hobart City, the rock was standstone and dolerite suitable for tunnel

Disadvantages of tunnel: Cost

4. WHERE THE TUNNEL SHOULD BE?

Figure 3: Hobart map (http://maps.google.com/)

5|Page

Figure 4: Traffic report of Hobart city [2]

Base on the result on 2010, the city center is dominated by through traffic which severely downgrades the streets and squares. Davey Street and Macquarie Street are major obstacles and barriers when it comes to linking the city and the waterfront. In detail, Davey St with 37,200 cars and Macquarie St with 28,500 cars per day are experienced as unpleasant streets for pedestrians [2]. Pedestrian environment Crossing at intersections only. It is an unpleasant experience to walk along the street and Environmental factors noise & pollution Noise and pollution problems are significant. People are unable to hold a conversation Bicycle safety & enjoyment Cycle tracks (raised, separated space for bicycles) are necessary. The quality of cycling is very low.
6|Page

Unpleasant street

there is no recreation life on footpaths In recent years, traffic jams happened in Davey and Macquarie St quite usually and reduce the traffic in two streets is the mission of city tunnel (to return Macquarie and Davey streets to people, every day pedestrian use). Hobart tunnel advocate Alderman Damon Thomas suggest to construct a tunnel from the city end of Southern Outlet to near the Hotel Grand Chancellor in Macquarie St[2].

5. LITURATURE REVIEW: 5.1. Geology considerations:

Generally, rocks are classified into three major groups based on their mode of origin: Igneous rocks: These form from the solidification of molten material that originates in or below the earths crust. The composition depends on the kind of molten material (magma) from which it crystallizes, and its texture depends on the rate at which the material cools. Slow rates of cooling promote larger crystal-sized rock, whereas fastcooling rates produce fine crystallized rock (basalt, rhyolite), or even amorphous glass (obsidian) [3]. Sedimentary rocks: these form from cemented aggregates of transported fragments of rock (standstone, siltstone, mudstone), from the accumulation of organic debris such as shell fragments and dead plants (limestone, coal), or minerals that are chemically precipitated (rock salt, gypsum, limestone) [3]. Metamorphic rock: these form deep in the earth from preexisting rocks of all types in response to increases in temperature or pressure or both (gneiss, schist, slate, marble, quartize). The composition of the metamorphosed rock depends on the original material and the temperature and pressure; its texture reflects the deformational forces [3].

Mineral Group Feldspars

Quartz

Chemical Composition Aluminosilicates of potassium( orthoclase feldspar) or sodium and calcium (plagioclase feldspar) with 3dimensional structures Silica,

Hardness 6

Color Whilte or grey, less commonly pink

Other Characteristics Weathers relatively easily

Colorless

Breaks with
7|Page

Clay Minerals

Micas

Chlorite

Calcite

chemically very stable Aluminosilicates with crystal size too small to be seen with a lowpowered microscope Aluminosilicates of potassium or potassiummagnesium-iron with sheet structures. Relatively stable minerals Chemically a hydrous ironmagnesium aluminosilicate Chemical composition CaCO3

2-3

Usually white, grey, or blac

conchoidal fracture May occur as sheets that give a characteristic clayey

2-3

Muscovite is colorless biotite is dark green or brown to black

Break readily along close parallel planes, forming thin flakes on weathering

2 2.5

Green

Soft, breaks readily and form flakes

Iron Ores

Oxides, Hematite 5 7 (Fe2O3); carbonates; pyrite (FeS2 ) Table 1: Common Minerals

Ferric iron ores are red and brown; ferrous iron ores are green and grey Dark green, brown to black

5.1.1. Faults, Joints and Bedding Planes: They are physical discontinuities which present in all rock masses, occur as a result of geological activities. The International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) Commission on Testing Methods has defined 10 parameters to characterize the discontinuities and allow their engineering attributes to be established: Orientation: Attitude of discontinuity in space. The plane of the discontinuity is defined by the dip direction and dip of the line of steepest declination in the plane of the discontinuity. Spacing: Perpendicular distance between adjacent discontinuities. This normally refers to the mean or modal spacing of a set of joints.
8|Page

Persistence: Discontinuity traces length as observed in an exposure. This may give a crude measure of the areal extent or penetration length of a discontinuity. Roughness: Inherent surface roughness and waviness relative to the mean plane of a discontinuity. Both roughness and waviness contribute to the shear strength. Large waviness may also alter the dip locally. Wall strength: equivalent compression strength of the adjacent rock walls of a discontinuity. This strength may be lower than the rock block strength due to weathering or alteration of the walls. This may be an important component of the shear strength if rock walls are in contact. Aperture: Perpendicular distance between adjacent walls of a discontinuity in which the intervening space is air or water filled. Filling: Material that separates the adjacent rock walls of a discontinuity and that is usually weaker than the parent rock. Seepage: Water flow and free moisture visible in individual discontinuities or in the rock mass as a whole. Number of sets: The number of joint sets comprising the intersecting joint system. The rock mass may be further divided by individual discontinuities. Block size: Rock block dimensions resulting from the mutual orientation of intersecting joint sets and resulting from the spacing of the individual sets. Individual discontinuities may further influence the block size and shape.

5.1.2. Weathering: Weathering is the destroying process rock, land and mineral which directly contact with atmosphere, water. There are two main classifications of weathering process: Physical weathering breaks the rock through directly contact with atmosphere condition like heat, water and pressure. Chemical weathering breaks the rock through the effect of atmospheric chemicals or biologically. 5.1.3. Geohydrology: Generally, all underground structures have to face with groundwater. During construction, water flow must be controlled and for permanent structures water flow may have to make nominally watertight or designed for controlled drainage. For a tunnel, the most important during construction is the instantaneous water inflow at any given location and the reduction of inflow rates with time. For the finish structure, the long-term inflow rates, as well as ground water pressures around the structure, are important. The grologic features controlling these effects can be summarized as follows [3]:
9|Page

The permeability of the rock mass (aquifer, shatter zone) controls the rate of flow at a given head or gradient. The head of water above the tunnel controls the initial flow gradient; the head may diminish with time. The head of water may also control external water pressures on the finished structure. The reservoir of water available to flow into the tunnel controls the duration of water inflow or the decrease of inflow with time. For the steady-state condition, groundwater recharge controls long-term water inflows. Groundwater barriers are aquitards or aquicludes of low permeability and may isolate bodies of groundwater and affect the volumes of water reservoir.

Sedimentary rocks: These include conglomerates, sandstones, siltstone, shales, mudstones, marls, and others. Most of these rock types can have a high porosity, but only the coarser grained of these (sandstone, conglomerate) have an appreciable permeability in the intact state. Thus the coarser rocks can experience porous flow or fracturing or both, depending on the character of fracturing. Flow through the finer grained sediments, however, is essentially fracture flow [3]. 5.1.4. Gases in the Ground: Natural gases are encountered rarely in tunneling. However, when natural gases enter tunnels and other underground opening, they bring a particularly severe hazard to workers. Classification systems [3]: Factors affecting rock material strength: Minerals making up the rock Way in which mineral grains are in contact Porosity Cement Discontinuities fractures, joints, faults Weathering

5.2.

Basic components of rock mass classifications:

10 | P a g e

Figure 5: Rockmass Classification Intact rock strength: Stronger rocks are more likely to be stable in general conditions than weaker rocks. Stiffness usually correlates directly with strength (Deere, 1968) Field stresses: At moderate depth the rockmass is likely to be confined and held together. Near surface, in late stage mining areas which have become relaxed, joints can open up, decreasing stiffness, strength and stability. At greater depth, stresses induced by creation of the excavation may exceed the strength of the rock, resulting in induced fracturing and instability.

11 | P a g e

Fracture density or Drill core quality: Diamond drill core from geotechnical or exploration drilling provides a convenient means of assessing the structural integrity of the rockmass prior to excavation. Number breaks in the core indicate a highly fractured or jointed rockmass which is more likely to be unstable when excavated. Joint persistence: Joints which are highly persistent are more likely to combine with other structures to form large free blocks of rock, than are short joints. These blocks may require support to ensure stability. Joint spacing: Closely spaced joints result in a smaller block size, increasing the potential for internal shifting and rotation as the rockmass deforms, and reducing stability. Groundwater: Groundwater can destabilize an excavation by eroding or weakening joint surfaces and infillings. In addition, water pressure reduces the frictional resistance to slip along fractures and further destabilizes the rockmass. Rock quality designation index (RQD) RQD was developed by Deere to provide a quantitative estimate of rock mass quality from drill core logs. RQD is defined as the percentage of intact core pieces longer than 100 mm in the total length core.

5.2.1. Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system - Bieniawski: The following six parameters are used to classify a rock mass using the RMR system: Uniaxial compressive strength of rock material Rock quality designation (RQD) Spacing of discontinuities Condition of discontinuities Groundwater conditions Orientation of discontinuities

12 | P a g e

Table 2 : Rock Mass Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989) Parameter 1 Strength of intact rock material Point-load strength index Uniaxial comp. strength Rating Drill core Quality RQD Rating Spacing of discontinuities Rang of values >10 MPa 4-10 MPa 2-4 MPa 1-2 MPa For this low range-uniaxial compressive test is preferred 5-25 MPa 1-5 MPa 1 <25% 3 <60 mm 5 Soft gouge >5mm thick or Separation >5mm Continuous <1 MPa

>250 MPa

100250 MPa 12 75-90% 17 0.6-2m 15 Slightly rough surfaces Separation <1mm Slightly weatherd walls 25 <10

50-100 MPa

25-50 MPa

2 3

15 90-100% 20 >2m 20 Very rough surfaces Not continuous No separation Unweathered wall rock 30 None

Rating Condition of discontinuities

Rating 5 Groundwater Inflow per 10m tunnel length (l/m) (Joint water 0 <0.1 0.1-0.2 press)/Major principal s General Completely Damp Wet conditions dry Rating 15 10 7 RATING ADJUETMENT FOR DISCONTINUITY ORIENTATION

7 50-75% 13 200-600 mm 10 Slightly rough surfaces Separation <1mm Highly weathered walls 20 10-25

4 25-50% 8 60-200mm 8 Slickensided surfaces or Gouge <5mm thick or Separation 1-5mm Continuous 10 25-125

0 >125

0.2-0.5

>0.5

Dripping 4 0

Flowing

13 | P a g e

Strike and dip orientations Rating

Very favourable

Favourable

Fair

Unfavourable

Tunnel & mines 0 -2 -5 -10 Foundations 0 -2 -7 -15 Slopes 0 -5 -25 -50 ROCK MASS CLASSES DETERMINED FROM TOTAL RATINGS Rating < 21 100 81 81 61 60 41 40 21 Class number I II III IV V Description Very good rock Good rock Fair rock Poor rock Very poor rock MEANING OF ROCK CLASSES Class number I II III IV V Average stand-up time 20 yrs for 15m 1 year for 10m span 1 week for 5 m span 10 hrs for 2.5m 30 mins for 1m span span span Cohesion of rock mass (kPa) >400 300-400 200-300 100-200 <100 Friction angle of rock mass (deg) >45 35-45 25-35 15-25 <15 GUILDLINES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF DISCONTINUITY Discontinuity length (persistence) <1m 1-3m 3-10m 10-20m >20m Rating 6 4 2 1 0 Separation(aperture) None <0.1 mm 0.1-1.0mm 1-5mm >5mm Rating 6 5 4 1 0 Roughness Very rough Rough Slightly rough Smooth Slickensided Rating 6 5 3 1 0 Infilling (gouge) None Hard filling < 5mm Hardfilling >5mm Soft filling <5mm Soft filling >5mm Rating 6 4 2 2 0 Weathering Unweathered Slightly weathered Moderately weatherd Highly weathered Decomposed Rating 6 5 3 1 0 EFFECT OF DISCONTINUITY STRIKE AND DIP ORIENTATION IN TUNNELLING Strike perpendicular to tunnel axis Strike parallel to tunnel axis Drive with dip - Dip 45-900 Drive with dip - Dip 20-450 Dip 45-900 Dip 20-450 Very favourable Favourable Very unfavourable Fair 0 0 0 Drive against dip Dip 45-90 Drive against dip Dip 20-45 Dip 0-20 Irrespective of strike Fair Unfavourable Fair

Very Unfavourable -12 -25

14 | P a g e

5.2.2. Rock Tunneling Quality Index, Q: Barton et al (1974) of the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute proposed a Tunnelling Quality Index (Q) for the determination of rock mass characteristics and tunnel support requirements:

Where: RQD is the Rock Quality Designation Jn is the joint set number Jr is the joint roughness number Ja is the join alteration number Jw is the join water reduction factor SRF is the stress reduction factor

Base on classification system, the level of support can be release for construction. However, In particular case like Sydney tunnel and caverns, the RMR system provide poor discrimination of range in rock mass quality and Q-system predicts a significantly lesser lever of support than actually adopted.

15 | P a g e

Table 3: Estimated support categories base on the tunneling quality index Q ( reproduced from Palmstrom and Broch, 2006)

6. PLANNNING FRAMWORK:
There are two main parts of this project: geology of Hobart city and numerical modeling of the city tunneling on adjacent structures. From here to the 1st of June I got nearly 12 weeks.

6.1.

Geology of Hobart city: (approximately 4 5 weeks)

6.1.1. Main purposes: The mechanical properties of the rock The geo-hydrologic conditions Effect of weathering Discontinuities: joints and faults on rock mass Occurrence of ground water Therefore last results come up with a model in Slide 2 describe the underground layer where the tunnel will located. 6.1.2. Strategy:

16 | P a g e

I cannot do experiment or laboratory to measure the quality of underground rock. Thus, I have to lean on previous laboratory result, geological report, geological maps, online databases using the web map viewer and data download facilities, publications and report (engineering geology of the Greater Hobart area by P.J.Hofto)

Figure 6: Geology of Hobart map (almost Davey Street and Macquarie Street are upon the quartzose sandstone rock)

17 | P a g e

Figure 7: Drill holes detail at Davey St

6.2. Numerical modeling of the city tunneling of adjacent structures (56 weeks):
The main software to simulate the effect of tunneling of adjacent structures if ABAQUS.

18 | P a g e

Abaqus: There are several types of finite element model program available commercially in the market. ABAQUS will be used as the 3D finite element analysis to model the tunnel in this project. ABAQUS are used in this project because it is capable to simulate the stress and pore pressure analysis of the tunneling; the interaction between different types of contact surface, the soil section and the tunnel shotcrete lining; presence of few different types of materials with different properties; and able to model and analyze 3D model [10]. Other software such as Rocscience can only manage to analyze 2D model, a 2D analysis could not produce the deformation of the model as accurate as 3D, whereas to produce a more precise results, 3D model analysis are required to be used in this project. 6.2.1. Main purpose: Use couple method to study the tunneling and adjacent surface building interaction Different loads and pressure case acting on ground surface Stress on Tunnel Vertical spatial displacement

7. ACTKNOWLEGMENTS:
This project have been a great experience for me, it really motivate me to push myself to another level. Learning new software and approaching with a project that I never contact before have never been easy for me. Therefore, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Hong Yuan Liu who has been really kind and patient enough for guiding me through the whole project and with some great ideas given from him.

8. REFERRENCE:
[1] Liu,H.Y.,J.C.Small, and J.P.Carter, Full 3D modeling for effects of tunneling on existing support systems in the Sydney region,2007. [2] Analysis - Hobart Public Space and Public Life 2010 . Gehl Architects [3] Engineer Manual U.S.Army Corp of Engineers Washington, DC 20314-1000, 30 May 97 [4] Freitas, M.H.d., ed. Engineering Geology, Principles and Practice. 2007, spring-verlag berlin heidelberg. [5] Klaas Jan Bakker, A.B., W. Broere, Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground. 2005.
19 | P a g e

[6] P.J.N.Pells* , Developments in the design of tunnels and caverns in the Triassic rocks of the Sydney region, 2002 [7] B.Singh R.K.Goel , Rock Mass Classification A practical Approach in Civil Engineering

20 | P a g e