Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Use of A Digger Shield For TBM Adverse Ground Conditions - Cobbles - Boulders
Use of A Digger Shield For TBM Adverse Ground Conditions - Cobbles - Boulders
Segment 1 consisted of 2,134 m (7,000 ft) of open-cut construction, and 914 m (3,000 ft) of largediameter, 2.13 m (84 in.) microtunnel. Segment 2 consisted of 1,829 m (6,000 ft) of conventionally excavated
soft ground tunnel through the highland bluff that borders the east bank of the Willamette River. The tunnel
contains a 1,676 mm ID (66 in.) fiberglass reinforced polymer (Hobas) force main pipe. The tunnel extends
up to 42.7 m deep (140 ft) through sandy Catastrophic Glacial Flood Deposits and Troutdale Formation
gravel between the South Portal Shaft and the North Connection Shaft. The tunnel was mined and lined from
a shaft at the south end of the alignment. Figure 2 shows the South Portal Shaft configuration and the railroad
runs between the shaft and the base of the bluff.
The contractor was responsible for preventing settlement and was required to submit corrective measures,
taken when thresholds were exceeded and, and verify that these corrective measures were effective.
A geotechnical instrumentation and monitoring program was incorporated into the project.
Instrumentation included surface settlement control point arrays. Each array consisted of three points that are
centered above tunnel centerline. At selected locations, the central settlement control point was replaced with
a settlement casing to monitor ground settlement below the surface that could propagate to the surface. The
first combined surface/subsurface monitoring array was located near the start of the tunnel.
In specifying requirements for the tunneling operations, there were numerous discussions on how
prescriptive to be on the machine requirements. In the end, it was decided to allow flexibility for the
contractor to select the machine it felt best suited the conditions. Both a digger shield and an earth pressure
balance (EPB) TBM were allowed; however, provisions for face control were required for both options.
To help manage risk, the project included a geotechnical baseline report that described the materials
expected to be encountered and included baselines for the ground behavior for the tunnel excavation. The
anticipated ground behavior through the fine-grained flood deposits was predominantly slow raveling to fast
raveling. Boulders were baselined for the Troutdale Formation and in mixed face conditions along geologic
contacts.
The GBR also described the successful construction of the existing 2,179 m long (7,149 ft), horseshoeshaped Portsmouth Tunnel. This tunnel was constructed between 1966 and 1967 using an 2.4 m diameter (8
ft) open-face pneumatic shield in the fine grained flood deposits. Figure 5 shows the shield that was used.
Tunnel excavation took eight months to complete, and five men worked at the heading during each shift. This
past experience confirmed that the fine grained flood deposits are favorable for tunneling.
Figure 5. Portsmouth Tunnel open-face pneumatic shield (front view) in 1967 photograph
RAILROAD CROSSING
A cased crossing was required by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) for the force main construction
beneath its tracks adjacent to the South Portal Shaft. A minimum of 1.4 m (4.5 ft) of vertical cover between
the top of the track tie to the top of the casing was required. The original crossing permit envisioned concrete
casing pipe being installed using pipe jacking methods from the South shaft to the northern edge of the
(UPRR) right-of-way. The contractor requested a modification to the crossing permit to install a 3,048 mm
diameter (120 in.) steel casing beneath the tracks using open-cut methods. This was approved by UPRR
because traffic on the track consisted of a single train, no more than once per day Monday through Friday.
The steel casing pipe was backfilled in the trench with controlled-density fill (CDF). UPRR personnel
replaced the ties, ballast, and track. Figure 6 shows the crossing configuration. The sizing of the casing
proved to be an essential criterion for being able to remove the TBM, as discussed later.
Figure 6. Railroad crossing profile for turning under the highland bluff
TUNNEL EXCAVATION
The TBM was launched through the casing in September 2009. The contractor selected a Lovat
MP104PJ, Series 11200 TBM to excavate a 2,642 mm diameter (l04 in.) tunnel. The TBM consisted of a
conventional open face cutterhead with closure doors, internal pressure regulated gates (muck ring) and a
conveyor system for the transport of spoil from the face to the muck cars. Figure 7 shows the cutterhead face
of the machine looking out through the casing. The tunnel was supported by steel ribs and steel lagging for
about 3 m (10 ft) beyond the end of the 3,048 mm (120 in.) steel casing, at which point wood lagging was
utilized. A double track switch was constructed inside the casing and through to the shaft, where an empty
train of muck cars and flat car with materials, was stationed for transport into the tunnel.
TUNNELING DIFFICULTIES
Coarse grained gravel deposits containing loose cobbles and boulders were encountered during the initiation
of tunneling, leading to significant difficulties for the TBM. These deposits are not typical of the Troutdale
Formation and were not identified in project design boreholes. In addition, the boulders were greater in size
and greater in number than described in the GBR for the Troutdale Formation. The TBM cutting tools were
not configured to break boulders, so the tunneling method consisted solely of pulling boulders through the
face of the machine. Early on, the muck ring was damaged and the pressure regulating gates were removed to
provide better face access to remove cobbles and boulders.
Several of the boulders encountered were too large to fit through the doors of the head of the TBM and
had to be broken up by hand in front of the machine. Boulders that were small enough to fit through the doors
also impacted the excavation, since to bring them into the TBM the doors had to be opened as wide as
possible, allowing the fine-grained soils to run into the heading. The TBM cutterhead direction also had to be
alternated to try to catch the boulders in the cutterhead opening and bring them into a position where they
could be broken by hand. These efforts resulted in significant ground disturbance and overexcavation. Figure
8 shows a typical boulder in the cutterhead and the void that formed in front of the machine. Several large
sinkholes formed in the bluff slope above the tunnel, as shown in Figure 9.
To keep the TBM going, a remedial grouting program, using polyurethane and cement bentonite grout,
was implemented through horizontal holes in the bluff slope and through the tunnel face to help stabilize the
fine grained soils. The process was marginally effective and resulted in extremely slow progress and
numerous delays. The tunnel only advanced about 56 m (184 ft) in 8 months of active mining.
Midway through the remedial grouting efforts it was determined that grouting from the ground surface
would be a more effective method for stabilizing the soils above the tunnel and preventing additional
sinkholes. A surface grouting program was initiated in March 2010. The program utilized sodium silicate
grout injected through vertical and battered sleeve port pipes to stabilize the granular soils (Harkins, 2012).
The pipes were installed from a hiking trail located mid slope above the TBM. Figure 10 shows the grouting
plan and section that was implemented. The grouting stabilized an approximately 21 m long (70 ft) zone
behind and in front of the TBM. Upon completion of the grouting, the TBM was advanced an additional 12 m
(40 ft) into the grout stabilized zone so that the TBM could be inspected and tunneling methods reevaluated
by the construction team.
Figure 10. Grout port array to stabilize ground in front of TBM (Harkins, 2012)
Concurrent with the grouting program, additional rotosonic borings were drilled along the south end of
the tunnel alignment in order to investigate the nature and lateral extent of the coarse gravel deposits. The
results of the additional borings indicated that the gravel deposits and the upper contact with the Troutdale
Formation could extend for another 610 m (2,000 ft). It was concluded that boulders could continue to cause
excavation difficulties. The revised geologic profile is shown in Figure 11.
because the 3,048 mm (120 in.)casing size selected by the contractor was large enough to accommodate an
inner casing that was larger than the machine.
Once the tunnel and casing were stripped of all materials and equipment, including the tunnel rails, a
2,997 mm (118 in.) diameter casing was jacked through the 3,048 mm casing and along the outside of the
tunnel from the South Portal Shaft. The casing encapsulated the initial ground support and the majority of the
TBM. The portion of ribs and lagging that was covered by the new casing was removed at the end of each
advance. Since the tunnel began to curve in the area were the TBM was located, the casing joints were
designed to float using connection tabs to allow the casing to negotiate the curve. Bentonite injection ports
were included in the casing for lubrication.
The TBM was placed on rollers and moved to the beginning of the horizontal curve section using the
TBM thrust rams to pull the TBM. From there the TBM was removed from the casing using a crane and
pulleys to tug on a cable attached to the back of the machine. After one of the TBM rollers broke 10 feet from
the portal, the thrust cylinders on the pipe jacking frame was used to complete the extraction.
After the TBM was pulled back from the face, the casing was advanced to within 1 foot of the tunnel
face. Figure 12 illustrates the three-step process of casing installation (Step 1), TBM retrieval (Step 2), and
casing advancement to the tunnel face followed by the installation of the new digger shield (Step 3). Figure
13 shows the TBM exiting the casing in the South Portal Shaft.
Figure 12. General sequence for TBM removal and digger shield launch
Figure 14. Herrenknecht open face digger shield with excavator arm
Initially, the digger shield excavation progressed slowly. Concerns about overexcavation and sinkholes,
carried over from the previous TBM experience, caused the operators to implement a procedure that required
them to stop mining as soon as running and raveling ground was evident and perform remedial grouting from
the face. Although the grout provided temporary relief from ground loss, it also bound up the digger shield,
requiring significant effortssteering and thrustto break it free and continue mining. This resulted in an
extremely low tunnel advance rate. Since running and raveling ground was anticipated throughout the entire
alignment, these digger shield operational procedures were not sustainable. The start-stop procedures also
made accurately monitoring muck volumes difficult.
The operational procedures were modified to place more emphasis on forward thrust and controlled
muck removal, followed by systematic void filling behind the shield. This change required that the operators
become confident in their abilities to operate the digger shield in ground that is not improved with grout. The
sinkholes developed quickly because of shallow ground cover and significant overexcavation by the original
TBM. In the deeper ground it took several days for settlement to propagate enough to be observed in a
multilevel settlement monitoring point after an overexcavation event with the digger shield. This indicated
that the material above the tunnel started to effectively bridge/arch and settlement risk could be significantly
reduced by quickly filling (within 2 or 3 shifts) the overexcavated annulus or void above the tunnels initial
support. The deeper ground cover and improving ground behavior as the tunnel got into more uniform fine
grained flood deposits increased the operators confidence balancing muck removal and digger shield
advance rate. The advance rate improved and settlement was not observed for the remainder of the tunnel.
The contractor used a VMT system to consistently log the location of the digger shield and provide data
daily. As a quality control check, the contractor bored a 152 mm (6 in.) hole from the ground surface through
the tunnel to ensure the tunnel was on the correct alignment prior to the last curve into the North Shaft for
retrieval. The alignment of the tunnel was surveyed using this down hole, and minor adjustments were made
to the machine heading prior to reaching the North Shaft. As a result, the machine entered the North Shaft on
the correct alignment within the break-in window of the liner plate shaft wall.
The North Shaft was an elliptical shape supported by ring steel and steel lagging. The shaft was
constructed over and around the existing Portsmouth Tunnel. The elliptical shape allowed for clearance to
remove the tunnel shield without disturbing the exposed existing tunnel and thus eliminated a sewer bypass.
The contractor broke through the North Shaft on April 29, 2011. The advance rate ended up averaging
14.1 m (46.4 ft) per day, even considering the slow start and operating difficulties early in the tunnel drive.
The total construction cost for the tunnel, force main, and shaft structures was around $30 million.