Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Aspects of Geotechnical Tunnel Design - Franklin Lecture - 2013 - VERY GOOD
Engineering Aspects of Geotechnical Tunnel Design - Franklin Lecture - 2013 - VERY GOOD
Rock Mechanics for Resources, Energy and Environment Kwasniewski & ydzba (eds)
2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-00080-3
ABSTRACT: The geotechnical design of underground structures deals with the interaction between the ground
and the structure. The key element of this behavior is the potential failure mode of the ground, which mainly
depends on the ground conditions including ground parameter, water and primary stress condition as well as
the excavation geometry. Typical ground behaviors for underground structures are discussed and engineering
design methods are presented. To deal with the uncertainties of the ground and the complexity of the subsurface
buildings a behavior based design methodology is discussed in combination with the risk management process
as described in ISO 31000. The integration of the processes leads to a sound design process, which allows the
application of individual and problem-oriented engineering design tools as well as the adaptation of the design
during the construction phase to minimize the geological and geotechnical risks if required.
INTRODUCTION
Independent of the applied method, the most important aspect of the geotechnical design of underground
structures is the interaction between the ground and the
structure. This behavior can be described as the reaction of the ground to any change of the natural in situ
conditions due to construction works such as excavation, support installation or ground improvement. It is
obvious that this behavior is dominated by the ground
conditions such as rock mass parameters, ground water
or primary stress condition as well as by the excavation process, the type of support measures and the
applied installation process. It is the result of the complex interaction within the system ground, excavation
and support and consequently a key element of any
geotechnical design.
In the following a systematic structure for the
geotechnical design of underground structures is
presented, including general design principles, rock
mechanical aspects concerning failure mechanisms
and ground behavior as well as aspects of risk management. Additionally focus is set on the applicability
of the geotechnical design during all design stages
including the construction phase of the underground
structure.
2
3.2
key parameter values and distributions are determined from available information and/or estimated
with engineering and geological judgment. The values
are constantly updated as pertinent information is
obtained. Ground Types are then defined according
to their key parameters.
The second step involves the evaluation of the
potential ground behaviors considering each Ground
Type and local influencing factors, including the relative orientation of relevant discontinuities to the
excavation, ground water conditions, stress situation,
etc. This process results in the definition of project specific Ground Behavior Types. The ground behavior has
to be evaluated for the full cross sectional area without
considering any modifications including the excavation method or sequence and support or other auxiliary
measures. Eleven general categories are listed in the
guideline.
Due to the fact that in many cases the ground conditions cannot be defined with the required accuracy
prior to construction, a continuous updating of the
geotechnical model and an adjustment of excavation
and support to the actual ground conditions during
construction is required. The final determination of
excavation methods, as well as support type and quantity is often only possible on site. In order to guarantee
the required safety, a safety management plan needs
to be followed.
Step 1: To be able to determine the encountered
Ground Type, the geological documentation during construction has to be targeted to collect and
record the relevant parameters that have the greatest
influence on the ground behavior. The geological and geotechnical data collected and evaluated
on site are the basis for the extrapolation and
prediction of the ground conditions into a representative ground volume, which determines the
behavior.
Step 2: Based on the predicted ground conditions the
system behavior in the section ahead has to be
assessed and compared with the framework plan.
Particular attention has to be paid on potential
failure modes.
Step 3: To determine the appropriate excavation and
support the criteria laid out in the framework
plan have to be followed. Consequently, the actual
ground conditions continuously have to be compared to the prediction for compliance. Based on
the additional data obtained during construction
the excavation and support methods are determined to achieve economic and safe tunnel construction. The System Behavior is predicted for
the next excavation sections, considering ground
conditions and the chosen construction measures.
Both, excavation and support, to a major extent,
have to be determined prior to the excavation.
After the initial excavation only minor modifications, like additional bolts, are possible. This fact
stresses the importance of a continuous short-term
prediction.
Step 4: By monitoring the system behavior the
compliance with the requirements and criteria
defined in the geotechnical safety management
plan is checked. In case of differences between
the observed and predicted behavior occur, the
parameters and criteria have to be reviewed. When
the displacements or support utilization are higher
than predicted, a detailed investigation into the
reasons for the different System Behavior has to
be conducted, and if required improvement measures (like increase of support) ordered. In case the
System Behavior is more favorable than expected,
the reasons have to be analyzed as well, and
the findings shall be used to modify the design
accordingly.
Stable;
Potential of discontinuity controlled block fall;
Shallow failure;
Voluminous stress induced failure;
Rock burst;
Buckling;
Crown failure;
Raveling ground;
Flowing ground;
Swelling ground; and
Ground with frequently changing deformation
characteristics.
4
4.1
The main goal of a geotechnical design is the definition of measures to construct a safe and economic
underground structure. Due to the uncertainties of the
ground, the risks related to construction methods and
the usual demand for cost reduction also the results of
the geotechnical design are affected by uncertainties
and risks. To deal with these risks it is proposed to
apply the principles of risk management and combine
it with the typical procedures of geotechnical design as
presented above (Goricki et al. 2002, Schubert 2011).
For such approach it is important to clearly differentiate between basic condition, measures and effect of
measures.
In the design of underground structures the behavior of the ground is evaluated and, if the predicted
ground behavior is not acceptable, e.g. in case of predicted ground instabilities, measures such as bolting or
shotcreting are designed to achieve an acceptable and
stable behavior. In terms of risk management, a not
acceptable risk was reduced due to measures to fulfill
the risk criteria and became acceptable. Additionally
a pre-defined factor of safety is usually considered
in engineering designs, which also influences the risk
level.
The interaction between risk, measures and costs is
shown quantitatively in Figure 1. Without any measures the probability for occurrence of damages is
highest and might lead to catastrophic conditions. If
intensive measures are implemented, the risk decreases
to a minimum but the costs for the measures will
increase significantly and might lead to unreasonable
high costs. With a decrease of the risk due to measures the costs for possible damages decrease, while
the costs for measures develop opposite to the costs of
risk. At a certain point the total costs, calculated as the
sum of costs from possible damages and costs for mitigation measures, show a minimum. Independent to
these minimum total costs an acceptable mitigation
threshold is introduced, which defines the balance
more option for modifying the risks. The risk treatment is a cyclic process of developing a treatment,
assessing a treatment, deciding about acceptable residual risk levels and checking the effectiveness of that
treatment by comparing with risk level. The risk treatment options can include avoiding a risk, taking or
increasing a risk, removing a risk source, changing
the likelihood, changing the consequences, sharing a
risk or retaining a risk. A risk treatment plan describes
the implementation of the chosen treatment options.
Finally, both monitoring and review should be
planned as part of the risk management process and
shall ensure
These requirements are risk criteria and the process of design and check of the modified behavior
equals the process of risk treatment. During construction many input data but also the behavior of the
ground with measures can be observed and interactive
process of monitoring and reviewing must be executed.
4.4
General
Mechanism: the loading of the rock mass due to secondary stresses around the underground excavation
exceeds the rock mass strength. This leads to the development of fractures along discontinuities and through
intact rock. Depending on the stress condition and the
rock mass properties the stress induced failures can
occur differently from plastic to brittle.
Important parameters: deformation and strength
parameters of intact rock, discontinuities and rock
mass; the significance of the parameters highly
depends on the detailed mode of stress induced failure.
Methods for design and analysis: closed form
solutions and numerical models, which describe the
strain/stress condition, the utilization of the ground
surrounding the excavation or more detailed fracture
propagation are the typical methods for modeling.
Therefore it is important that the relevant ground
parameters are considered and that the applied model
can reproduce or represent the potential failure mechanism. Anisotropic ground properties for example or
distinct zones of weakness must be considered in the
applied model if the behavior of the ground is triggered
by these influences (Goricki et al. 2005).
As mentioned above, different modes of stress
induced failure may propagate due to different combinations of ground parameters, stress conditions and
excavation geometry. In the following typical types of
stress induced failure are discussed briefly.
5.4.1
5.4.2
10
5.5
Swelling ground
11
deviations, modifications can immediately be developed by following the procedure as described above
starting with step 1 for the actual excavation round.
After construction the observation and evaluation
of the behavior of the ground and the structural elements continues. The experience shall be used for the
optimization of future construction works as described
in step three. In case of deviations from the predicted
behavior an evaluation must be done and, if required
measures must be developed based on the principles
of project risk management.
CONCLUSIONS
12
REFERENCES
Anagnostou, G., Cantieni, L. 2007. Design and analysis of
yielding support in squeezing ground. In: The second half
century of rock mechanics, 11th ISRM Congress Lisbon,
Vol. 2: 829832.
Anagnostou, G., Pimentel, E., Serafeimidis, K. 2010.
Swelling of sulphatic claystone some fundamental questions and their practical relevance. Geomechanics and
Tunnelling 3 (2010), No. 5: 567572.
Austrian Society for Geomechanics. 2010. Guideline for
the geotechnical design of underground structures with
conventional excavation. Salzburg.
Barla, G., Bonini, M., Debernardi, D. 2010. Time Dependent
Deformations in Squeezing Tunnels. International Journal
of Geoengineering Case Histories. Vol. 2, Issue 1: 4065.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1992. Design methodology in rock engineering: theory, education and practice. Balkema, Rotterdam
CEN European Committee for Standardisation. 2011.
EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
Einstein, H.H. 1996. Tunnelling in Difficult Ground
Swelling Behavior and Identification of Swelling Rocks.
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 29 (3): 113124.
Feng, X.T. & Hudon, J.A. 2011. Rock Engineering Design,
CRC Press.
Frhlich, B. & Dauwe, L. 2006. Part renovation of the Weinsberg Tunnel in swelling gypsum Keuper rock. Mitteilung
fr Ingenieurgeologie und Geomechanik, Vienna University of Technology, Vol. 7 (2006): 3rd Colloquium Rock
Mechanics theory and practice: 177190.
Goodman, R.E., Shi, G-H. 1985. Block Theory and its
Application to Rock Engineering. Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey.
Goricki, A., Schick, K.J., Steidl, A. 2002. Quantification of
the Geotechnical and Economic Risk in Tunneling. Probabilistics in Geotechnics: Technical and Economic Risk
Estimation, Graz, Austria, Sept. 2002: 483489.
Goricki., A. 2003. Classification of Rock Mass Behaviour
based on a Hierarchical Rock Mass Characterization for
the Design of Underground Structures. Doctoral thesis,
Graz University of Technology, Austria.
Goricki, A., Button, E., Schubert, W., Poetsch, M., Leitner, R.
2005. The Influence of Discontinuity Orientation on the
Behaviour of Tunnels. Felsbau 23 (5), 1218.
Goricki, A., Rachaniotis, N., Hoek, E., Marios, P., Tsotsos, S.,
Schubert, W. 2006. Support Decision Criteria for Tunnels
in Fault Zones. Felsbau, 24 (2006) Nr 5: 5157.
Goricki, A. & Rachaniotis, N. 2011. NATM Designs for
Challenging Tunnel Projects in Northern Greece. In:
Kolic, D. (ed.). Using underground space, 1st International Congress on Tunnels and Underground Structures
in South-East Europe, Dubrovnik, Croatia: 5657.
Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. 1980. Underground Excavation in
Rock. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., Bawden, W.F. 1995. Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Hoek, E., Marinos, P.G. 2009. Tunnelling in overstressed
rock. In: Vrkljan, I. (ed). Rock Engineering in Difficult
13