Underground Singapore 2018

Ground Improvement for Bored Tunnel in Reclaimed

Land
Y. Yoshida
Nishimatsu Construction Co., Ltd., Singapore Branch

N. Janagan
Land Transport Authority, Singapore

S.S. Soh
AECOM Pte Ltd, Singapore

ABSTRACT: The Marina South District was reclaimed in 1980s without any works carried out to ac-
celerate consolidation settlement. With a very thick Marine Clay layer with on-going consolidation
(UP is approximately 60%), the Contractor on Thomson-East Coast Line Project Contract T228 pro-
posed Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) as the method for ground improvement (GI) with high strength to
eliminate future settlement of the bored tunnels. This paper presents the impact of the DSM works on
the temporary Earth Retaining and Stabilizing System (ERSS) based on the instrumentation readings
by inclinometers and ground settlement markers. In addition, a different method of GI was designed in
this contract for the highly permeable sand layer, called the Sand Key found below both banks of Ma-
rina Channel. The Sand Key encroaches into the tunnel alignment. To avoid inrush of water with soil
into the tunnel, GI was required in this sand key to create an impermeable zone. The area for this GI
below Marina Channel extends up to 100m from the channel bank. Directional drilling with Tube-a-
Manchette (TAM) and permeation grouting was proposed for this GI. This paper also describes the
selection of grout material and track record of directional drilling.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Contract brief

Contract T228 comprises of construction and completion of Gardens by the Bay (GRB) Station and
twin bored tunnels between GRB station and Gardens by the Bay East (GBME) shaft. First TBM
drive launched from GRB station, crossed under Marina Channel and broke in GBME shaft. Second
TBM driving launched from GBME shaft and broke in GRB station after doing a U-turn of TBM at
GBME shaft. Figure 1 shows the aerial photo of T228 project. T228 work site is located in Marina
South District, which is an area of reclaimed land carried out in 1980s. Ongoing consolidation settle-
ment in this area of 30 to 40mm/year is observed outside of influence zone of the ERSS excavation
and mining of bored tunnel of T228. Figure 2 shows the historical land use map.

GBME
Shaft
Marina Channel
Gardens by the Bay
Marina
Barrage Reclaimed Land
GRB Station T228
T225 1980s

T227

T226
1.2 Soil Condition
Figure 1. T228 Site Aerial Photo Figure 2. Historical Land Use Map
The geology for the T228 bored tunnel works consists of 10 to 15m thick of Fill layer overlying 20 to
40m thick of Kallang Formation. The underlying stratum below Kallang Formation is Old Alluvium
(OA). With the exception of the area undercrossing of Marina Channel, Kallang Formation was im-
proved with cementitious grouting by DSM along TBM alignment prior to commencement of TBM
driving as stated in the following chapters. Geology is shown on Figure 3.

Figure 3. Geology along Changi and Woodlands Bound

2 GROUND IMPROVEMENT BY DSM

2.1 Scope of works

The ground improvement for the excavation at station and entrances is specified in the tender draw-
ings for the Contractor to carry out GI to achieve the design requirement. The GI for elimination of
further settlement on bored tunnels was designed as a part of permanent structure by the developer.
The thickness of this ground improvement was 15 to 18m for station excavation area, and 10 to 30m
for the bored tunnel area. Specifically, the ground improvement to prevent future settlement, the GI is
required to be embedded into OA layer by at least 1m. Where TBMs were mining underneath con-
structed structure, which includes the Linkway and Entrance C, the purpose of ground improvement is
for ERSS excavation and against future consolidation settlement. Total volume of soil for ground im-
provement is approximately 300,000m3. Design concept of ground improvement is shown on Figure
4-1 and Figure 4-2. Type-1 is for bored tunnels and Type-2 is for excavation of station and entrance.
1

Arrival Shaft
2

(GBME)
1

Figure 4-1. Design Concept of Ground Improvement (Layout)

 SECTION 1-1 SECTION 2-2
▽GL ▽GL

▽FEL at Entrance-C

Type-2

Type-1
+Type-2
Type-1
Figure 4-2. Design Concept of Ground Improvement (Section)

This DSM will cause large ground movement vertically and horizontally, because of volume expan-
sion of subsurface ground due to discharging of cement slurry and static liquid pressure prior to hard-
ening. This ground movement will give some structural impact on adjacent structure which includes
the temporary ERSS wall in this project. Therefore, the lateral pressure due to DSM needs to be as-
sessed quantitatively. The location of this GI is shown on Figure 5.

Figure 5. DSM Site Aerial Photo Figure 6. Blade (Advanced Soil

Discharge)

2.2 Ground movement

In order to mitigate impact of GI works on any adjacent utilities and ERSS walls, a special method of
DSM known as the TENOX-LD method was proposed. It was found that this was quite effective in
very thick marine clay of which consolidation is on-going. This method can mitigate ground move-
ment with the use of spiral blade on drilling rod (refer to Figure 6), and can discharge soil concurrent-
ly during drilling into the ground. Theoretically, in the case where soil discharge volume is the same
as the cement slurry volume injected, there should be no impact arising from the DSM works. Practi-
cally, as with the case on T228 case, even with 100% of discharge volume against volume of cement
slurry, ground heaving, as well as horizontal ground movement was observed. Additional mitigation
measure of pressure relief hole was also drilled by the DSM machine prior to grouting of cement slur-
ry at each column of the ground improvement.

Figure 7 shows horizontal movement in ground which was monitored by inclinometer in soil which
was installed 3m away from the edge of ground improvement (refer to Figure 8). Maximum horizontal
displacement in both upper and lower marine clay is plotted in Figure 9.
 3m 5m internal
地中傾斜計
0 1st Row
2nd Row
5 3rd Row
FILL
4th Row
10 : Inclinometer in soil
: Settlement Mark-
er
15
UMC Figure 8. Instrumentation Layout on DSM Arrangement

Depth
深度 (m)
20
F2 0
(m)
25 UMC (Upper Marine Clay,
上部海成粘土, GL-11m)
GL-11m
-10
下部海成粘土,
LMC (Lower Marine Clay, GL-27m)
GL-27m

Movement (mm)
LMC 30 -20
-30
1st Row
1列目施工 35 地中変位量 -40
OA 2nd Row
2列目施工
-50
3rd Row
3列目施工 40
-60
Horizontal

4th Row
4列目施工
45 -70
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
-80
Horizontal
変形量 Movement
(mm) (mm)

Figure 7. Horizontal Movement in Depth 日付

Figure 9. Max. Horizontal Movement in UMC and LMC

Based on these instrumentation readings, back analysis by elasto-plastic soil modelling was carried
out to obtain lateral pressure induced by DSM works. The applied software is KASETSU-5x which is
widely used in Japan. The comparison between actual and back analyzed deformation is shown on
Figure 10, and the proposed lateral pressure is shown on Figure 11. A maximum lateral pressure of
170kPa was proposed and expected to build up at the interface with Fill and upper marine clay, with
pressure at ground surface and toe of ground improvement starting and going back to zero. It is noted
that the lateral pressure induced by DSM is governed by volume of cement slurry, drilling method
(spiral blade, pressure relief hole), soil condition (thickness of marine clay), thickness of ground im-
provement, curing period of cement slurry, etc.

FILL FILL
Max.
10
Depth of Ground Improvement

170kPa

UMC UMC
20
深度 (m)
Depth (m)

F2 F2

LMC LMC Lateral Pressure

30 By DSM

OA OA
40 1m Thk.
実測値
Actual D-wall

逆解析結果
Back Analysis
50
-80 -60 -40 -20 0
土留壁変形量
Horizontal (mm)
Movement (mm)
Figure 10. Comparison (Actual and Back Analysis) Figure 11. Back Analysis Model
2.3 Impact assessment on ERSS

The ground improvement for TBM launching protection and elimination of future settlement behind
ERSS wall should be completed before commencement of 25m deep TBM launching shaft excavation.
However, in actual case, the DSM was carried out concurrently with the final stages of the ERSS ex-
cavation. Therefore, excessive wall deflection and strut force was expected. In consideration of afore-
said lateral force by 170kPa as additional loading, review was carried out on the impact to the 1m
thick of diaphragm wall and the strutting system. DSM rig is shown on Figure 12 and the site condi-
tion in shaft is shown on Figure 13. The shaft ERSS layout plan is shown on Figure 14 and section is
shown on Figure 15. No additional layer of strut was required, but review levels of the in wall incli-
nometer and strut force were established to monitor against the DSM works as shown on Table 1.
These review levels are the increment from the stage which is before DSM works to the Final Excava-
tion Level (FEL), and were obtained from this additional analysis.

Figure 12. Site Condition on GL Figure 13. Site Condition in Launching Shaft

㉑ ㉒ ㉓ ㉔ ㉕ ㉖ ㉔ ㉕ ㉖

Ground Improvement
GL-1.5m
By DSM
Approx. 13m

GL-6.5m
A A
GL-9.5m
GL-13.8m
Ground Improvement
By DSM
GL-24.1m

1m Thk. D-wall

Figure 14. Launching Shaft ERSS Layout Plan Figure 15. Section A - A

Table 1. Review Level for ERSS at Launching Shaft

Ground Improvement Final Excavation L-
1st Strut
Deflection Strut Force Deflection Strut Force 2
On D-wall In 4th Layer On D-wall In 4th Layer 2nd Strut
(mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) 3rd Strut
L- L - th
AL 15 2,700 30 5,200 4 Strut
1 3 GL-17.5m
PDL 20 3,800 40 7,300
WSL 60 18,200 60 18,200 FEL-24.1m

Figure 16. Layout of 3D Prism

 The impact on the shaft ERSS was monitored by strain gauges on each layer of diagonal strut and 3D
prisms on surface of ERSS wall and each layer of waler (refer to Figure 16). The frequency of moni-
toring is 15 min. interval for strain gauge and twice per shift of working for 3D prism. In addition,
plumbing method was also used for easy and immediate checking of wall deflection. Figure 17 shows
force in 4th layer of diagonal strut by red line. It is noted that the overall increment of strut force is in
line with the prediction from the analysis carried out. However, it can be observed that the increment
varies during each construction stage. The observed strut forces against predicted strut forces
(2000kN against 3800kN for ground improvement stage) and (5500kN against 3500kN for final exca-
vation stage) are shown respectively in Figure 17. Figure 18 shows end wall deflection at GL-17.5m,
and it can be found that overall increment of deflection is similar with 70% of the predicted value by
analysis (PDL on Figure 18). The trend for increment of deflection is similar with strut force, and in
comparison with analysis results, lesser impact by DSM could be found.

7,300kN (Predicted)

4/12
4/17
4/22
4/27

5/12
5/17
5/22
5/27

6/11
6/16
15,000

5/7

6/1
5/2

6/6
Final

7,500kN (Actual)
GI works 4th
Excavation
火打ち梁軸力 (kN)

12,500 0
Increment of Diagonal

PDL -5

Deflection (mm)
10,000

(mm)
AL -10
Strut Force (kN)

7,500 -15 :L-1

測線1

土留壁変形量
3rd -20
測線2
:L-2
5,000 -25 :L-3
測線3
2nd -30
2,500 AL
-35
1st Wall -40
0 GI works Final PDL
-45
4/12
4/17
4/22
4/27

5/12
5/17
5/22
5/27

6/11
6/16
5/2
5/7

6/1
6/6

Excavation
-50
Figure 17. Monitored Diagonal Sturt Forces Figure 18. Monitored Wall Deflection

The possible reasons why the monitored values differed from analysis results are 1. Lateral pressure
induced by DSM works was lesser than assumed 170kPa and 2. 2D analysis model was used to ana-
lyze a condition that is has 3D effects. For further mitigation of impact on launching shaft ERSS by
DSM, curing period of cement slurry was maintained to be four days or more, and DSM works started
beside of end wall and also from center span of end wall toward outside. Figure 19 shows the compar-
ison between the actual wall deflection and analysis results based on 170kPa, and Figure 20 shows the
comparison between the actual and analysis results based on 85kPa. In case of 85kPa as additional lat-
eral force on ERSS wall, the wall deflection below the lowest layer of strut comes nearer to actual
monitored value. The lateral force induced by DSM works should tend to transfer to diaphragm wall
at other sides through diagonal strut and waler with shear connector as 3D behavior. The whole
launching shaft ERSS could support this lateral pressure above the lowest layer of strut, and the de-
flection of end wall was smaller than 2D analysis results.

Wall
土留壁変形量 (mm)
Deflection (mm) 土留壁変形量 (mm)
80 60 40 20 0 80 Wall
60 Deflection
40 (mm)
20 0
80 60 40 20 0 80 60 40 20 0
1st 00 1st 00
2nd 2nd
3rd 3rd
1010 10
10
4th 4th
4th Exc. Level 4th Exc. Level
GI 2020 GI 20
20
FEL FEL
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
深度 (m)
深度 (m)

GI 12.5m Thk GI 6.9m Thk

3030 30
30
LMC LMC

F2
4040 F2
40
40
OA OA
最終掘削時 解析値 5050 50
50
最終掘削時 実測値
6060 60
60
: At Final Excavation (170kPa, analysis) : At DSM Works (170kPa, analysis)
: At Final Excavation (actual, prism) : At DSM Works (actual, prism)
: At Final Excavation (170kPa, analysis)
: At Final Excavation (actual, prism)
Figure 19. Comparison of Wall Deflection Figure 20. Comparison of Wall Deflection
with 170kPa with 85kPa
3 GROUND IMPROVEMENT BY TAM GROUTING WITH DIRECTIONAL DRILLING

3.1 Scope of works

Twin bored tunnels were designed to be mined underneath approximately 300m wide Marina Channel,
and at both banks of this channel, there is a loose sand with relatively small fine content which is
known as sand key. This sand key was backfilled on fluvial clay after dredging of 10 to 15m thick up-
per marine clay, and the purpose of this is to stabilize reclaimed land in long term. The alignment of
both bored tunnels was designed to encroach into this sand key which would be a major hazard for the
TBM mining. The hazards include: 1. In-rush of water and sand through screw conveyor of EPB
TBM, 2. Blow out tail void grouting into the channel. To mitigate these risks, ground improvement
with high strength and low permeability was designed by the authority. As shown on the Figures 21
and 22, this sand key is widespread from both banks, and in consideration of usage of water in this
channel as domestic water, inclined and direction drilling with permeation grouting was proposed, in-
stead of jet grouting and deep soil mixing method which requires installation of a platform over the
channel.

Marina Marina
Channel Channel

19m
17m

280m 35m 30m 30m 50m

GBME Shaft
DSM TAM (Inclined) Sand Key TAM (Directional) TAM (Inclined) DSM
Sand Key
bottom bottom
Bored Tunnel Bored Tunnel

Figure 21. Ground Improvement in Sand Key (Left: GRB side, Right: GBME side)

Marina Channel

14 7
13 6 GBME Shaft
12 5
11
10 3
4
 34m
9 2
8 1

14 7
13 6
12 5
11 4
10 3
9 2
8 1 Total 28nos
GI with
Directional Drilling

Figure 22. Layout Plan of Directional Drilling

Figure 23. Directional Drilling Machine

3.2 Directional drilling system

This special drilling method was developed in Japan and adopted for drilling underneath live train
track railways and live airport runways/aprons. This drilling system has a gyro sensor installed in the
drilling rod. This enables the actual drilling alignment to be checked t real time and with high accura-
cy (refer to Figure 24). Figure 25 shows the monitored tolerance of drilling in this project, and it could
be found that the tolerance was less than 1/200 and less than 30cm off from the design alignment de-
spite the curved alignment and relatively long drilling distance. The alignment of direction drilling is
shown on Figure 26, and drilling length is approximately 100m with curve radius by 100m in sand key.
The SPT-N in sand key is mainly 5 to 20, and 10 to 20 especially in curved alignment (refer to Figure
27). The conceptual sketch of this GI is shown on Figure 28.

1/

Tolerance of Drilling
1/

1/
Cross
1/

1/
Plan Longitudinal

Drilling Length (m)

Figure 24. Display (Real-Time Monitoring) Figure 25. Tolerance of Directional Drilling
N値
SPT-N
0 10 20 30
0
19m
Alignment of Drilling 29.
5
74m
43.63
m 32.
GL - (m)

30.98m 10

Curved Drilling
3.96m

15
m
43.63
R10

18.23m
20
0m

Lower MC Sand Key Bottom

25

Figure 26. Alignment of Drilling Figure 27. SPT-N in Sand Key

Despite the wide grouting area (approximately 750m2 on plan for twin tunnels), only 28 points of di-
rectional drilling was required. Had vertical drilling from ground level been implemented, the number
of drilling points required would be in excess of 200 points with the drilling length extending outside
of grouting area required by the directional drilling. Figure 29 shows section of direction drilling area
in which 2 layers of 7 drilling rods were installed.

Marina Channel
Sand Key 12.35m
3m
GI
1.5m

1.8m
F2/UMC 3m
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LMC
Twin Tunnels

Figure 28. Conceptual Sketch of GI Figure 29. Arrangement of Drilling at Section

3.3 Quality of permeation grouting

The grouting method is TAM grouting, with lower pressure (minimum target 0.5MPa) and higher in-
jection rate (15L/min) required compared to most common grouting parameters adopted. Because 1.
Low uniformity coefficient: UC=7 (refer to Figure 30), 2. Widespread grouting zone, 3. Grouting un-
derneath channel. Table 2 shows physical specification of sand key, and the coefficient of permeabil-
ity varies 4.1x10-5 to 3.3x10-6m/sec in original ground. Table 3 shows the ground improvement design
requirement.

Table 2. Sand Key Physical Properties

Dry
Grain Size Distribution (%) Specific Porosity
Density
Gravity
Gravel Sand Fines Mg/m3 %
7.6 82.9 9.5 1.66 2.69 38.0

Table 3. Requirement of GI Percentage Passing (%)

CU k
300kPa 1*10-8m/s

Particle Size (mm)

Figure 30. Sand Key Particle Size Distribution Curve

Typically, cementitious material would be proposed in order to achieve the specified design strength.
However, as the grouting is carried out near the interface between the upper marine clay and the sand
key, a solution type material is proposed as grouting material to ensure proper permeation to through
the sand key is achieved. Three types of grout material were carried out in the trial. They were micro
fine cement, Silicarizer and Geo-Keep. As the cementitious material, micro fine cement slurry
(D95=5m) was grouted, but it was quite difficult to permeate due to mixture of fine fraction in sand,
and impossible to carry out in-situ permeability test due to hole collapse. As one of the most popular
material for chemical grouting, Silicarizer was injected and could get better permeation in ground, but
could not achieve the design requirement. After detailed physical property testing of sand key, it was
known that there is too high content of carbonated calcium (12%) in the sand key. This carbonated
calcium was originated from shell and coral fragments, and would react with sulfuric acid in Silicariz-
er leading to foaming in the ground, instead of hardening. Geo-Keep, which does not contain sulfuric
acid as a reactor for water glass, was eventually proposed, and could achieve design requirement.
Original material of sand key and improved sand key by Geo-Keep are shown on Figures 31 and 32.

Figure 31. Material of Sand Key Figure 32. UU Test Sample (by Geo-Keep)
4 CONCLUSION

The parameters for the T228 DSM ground improvement works are as follow: 1. Cement dosage more
than 200kg/m3, 2. Thickness of GI more than 20m, 3. GI in marine clay with on-going consolidation.
In T228, pressure relief holes were drilled by the DSM machine immediately next to the column to be
grouted. This is to mitigate lateral pressure induced by DSM works and control the ground movement.
Even so, high lateral pressure of approximately 100kPa was still observed on site. Therefore, it is sug-
gested that lateral pressure should be considered in the impact assessment on adjacent structure for
DSM works.

Sand key is loose, low uniformity coefficient and high permeable layer, and with stringent bentonite
slurry control, no collapse of drill hole could be achieved. Due to high content of carbonated calcium,
Silicarizer could not be effective, and it could be suggested that chemical analysis should be carried
out, if chemical grouting to be required for water stoppage in sand key.

The twin bored tunneling by one EPB machine was successfully completed in these special conditions
which are long distance of mining in ground improvement with high strength and underneath river
with high potential risk against water and soil in-rush and water pollution. Both of these track records
are first experience in Singapore, and we hope that these introduced techniques will support any fur-
ther difficulties against ERSS and bored tunneling works.