Geologically Active – Williams et al.

(eds)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-60034-7

Christchurch ocean outfall microtunnel settlement back analysis

C.H. de G. Price
URS New Zealand Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand

ABSTRACT: A new ocean outfall has been constructed at Christchurch, New Zealand,
comprising a 5 km long pipeline, terminating 3 km offshore and a pump station. The land
based section of the pipeline was constructed by microtunnelling and the offshore section
by dredging and sinking strings of pipes into the trench. The tunnelling was successfully
completed in 2008 using a Herrenknecht AVND-1800-AB TBM, and the offshore dredged
section was completed in 2010. The microtunnelling was carried out in three legs of 874 m,
604 m and 809 m length respectively. The paper outlines the ground conditions, the micro-
tunnelling operation, and some of the difficulties overcome. Ground settlement predictions
made during design are presented, and actual settlement data for two of the tunnel drives is
presented and discussed. The settlement data is back-analysed for trough width parameter
and volume loss for each of these drives, and the resulting parameters presented.

1 Introduction

Christchurch City Council has constructed a new waste water outfall which removes the dis-
charge point for treated water from the estuary of the Avon and Heathcote Rivers and takes
it to a point 3 km offshore (Figure 1). The need for this change came about as a result of the
implementation of the Resource Management Act (RMA) in 1991, which required discharge
to the estuary to cease by 2001 or the Council to apply for a new discharge consent. Further
details of the scheme are given by Moore, Fleming and Jones (2008).
The main elements of the outfall scheme consist of a pump station located adjacent to
an existing 230Ha area of oxidation ponds, 2.3 km of 1800 mm id concrete pipeline, 2.7 km
of 1800 mm od polythene pipe and thirteen diffusers located along the ultimate section of
pipeline, approximately 3 km offshore. The pipeline is designed to carry 6 m3/sec at maximum
flow, falling 13 m over its total 5 km length, with a constant gradient of 0.3%. Flow is by
gravity except to provide periodic cleansing velocities.
The overall project value was around NZ$85M, and the pipeline contract NZ$65M. This
paper discusses the construction of the 2.3 km land based section of pipeline, installed by
thrust bore techniques using a full face slurry TBM, and reviews the ground settlement above
the tunnels. This section of the project was designed by URS and constructed by McConnell
Dowell Constructors.

2 pipeline overview

The land based section of the pipeline naturally divides into three legs for construction pur-
poses. The first leg, 874 m long, commenced from a 12 m deep shaft in South New Brighton
Park (CMA 2) and crossed the estuary of the Avon River, terminating in a 9 m deep shaft at
the pump station (CMA 1). The second leg, driven from CMA 2, underlies the New Brighton
spit, traversing a distance of 604 m directly beneath a residential street and terminating in a
16 m deep shaft located within coastal sand dunes (CMA 3). The third leg traverses the surf
zone and takes the route about 650 m offshore, 809 m from CMA3. This leg was originally

3453
Figure 1. Site location and layout.

planned to be 830 m long, but the contractor opted to shorten it and lay the extra length as
part of the marine operation.
Cover over the pipeline across New Brighton spit varies from around 8 m to 11 m, except
for a short section as it crosses coastal dunes, where the cover increases to a maximum of
18 m. Cover then gradually reduces offshore to a minimum of 2 m at the seaward end of
the pipeline, where the diffusers are located. A minimum 4.2 m of cover was provided at the
deepest part of the estuary crossing.
Tenders were requested for the construction of the land based section of pipeline by con-
ventional dig and lay, which required a trench up to 5 m deep, or by tunnelling. The successful
tenderer, McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd, won the tender on the basis of tunnelling.
The offshore section of the pipeline was constructed by dredging a trench, 8 m wide at the
base and up to 4 m deep, into which the pipe has been sunk in 360 m long strings.
Following successful completion of the tunnelling the TBM was retrieved from its final
location offshore at the end of the third tunnelled leg by a ‘wet recovery’ technique. This
recovery technique avoided the construction of a shaft around the TBM, and was achieved
by underwater excavation of the soil around the machine before floating the TBM to the
surface with buoyancy bags, and removing it by barge.

3 geotechnical investigations and Ground conditions

The pipeline traverses an area of soils laid down in a marginal marine setting, containing modern
estuarine, dune, beach and shallow marine environment deposits. Sea level has been stable locally
for around 6,500 years and during this period the coastline has prograded several kilometres.
Underlying the marginal marine sediments are several hundred metres thickness of greywacke
gravel-dominated alluvial fan deposits, interbedded with occasional minor fine grained marine
deposits. Bedrock locally comprises basalt, Tertiary age sedimentary rocks and Mesozoic grey-
wacke and has not been encountered in wells up to 120 m below ground surface.
The upper 4 m to 8 m of soils beneath and to the west of the estuary consists of soft or
firm silts and fine sands laid down during recent times as estuary or lagoon deposits (Unit 1).
Beneath these deposits, and rising to the surface east of the estuary, the soils are less silty and
denser, consisting of fine uniform dense or very dense beach and dune sand (Unit 2). These
Unit 2 soils, interspersed with occasional thin silty or shelly layers, make up the bulk of the
ground on the spit and offshore.
3454
 100

90

80

70

Percent Passing (%)

60

50
Unit 1
40

30

20

10
Unit 2
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)

CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLE BOULDERS

0.002 0.06 2 60 200

Figure 2. Particle size distribution envelopes for Unit 1 and Unit 2.

The tunnel horizon generally lies within the Unit 2 fine uniform beach and dunes sand,
with more silty soils sometimes recovered in the TBM spoil from the beneath the estuary.
Particle size distribution envelopes for the Units 1 and 2 soils are given in Figure 2. Relative
densities for this unit, inferred from CPT results, range between 70% and 100%, with an esti-
mated mean value of around 80%.
Groundwater lies at around 1 m below ground level across most of the land based area of
the route.
Intrusive geotechnical investigations during the preliminary and detailed design phases were
carried out mainly by CPTU and dual tube sampling. ‘Dual Tube’ sampling is carried out by
jacking a pair of thick walled concentric tubes into the ground, recovering the soil in the inner
tube. Twenty four CPTUs were carried out and core recovered from five dual tube holes dur-
ing the design phase of the project, including investigation for the pump station. Eight trial
pits and ten dynamic cone penetration tests (DCPT) were also sunk on either side of the estu-
ary. The DCPTs were utilized to provide basic data in the intertidal zone of the estuary.
Following sinkhole appearances during the first tunnel drive further investigation was car-
ried out on the route of the second drive. The purpose of this was to identify timber presence
in the ground, and to confirm silt content.
A Geotechnical Baseline Report was prepared by the designer and issued as part of the
contract documents.

4 tbm and slurry sepAration

The tunnels were driven with a Herrenknecht AVND-1800-AB TBM, purchased new for
the project by the contractor, and named “Dora the Borer” by the local school children
(Figure 3a). This TBM is a closed face slurry machine which has the additional D-Mode capa-
bility brought in from Herrenknecht’s Mixshield range of TBMs. Operating in conventional
slurry mode the TBM supports the tunnel face by a combination of the slurry pressure and
the rate of advancement of the machine which applies direct thrust onto the tunnel face. Each
of these are controlled separately by the machine operator, with the slurry pressure at the face
controlled through the pressure of the feed and return slurry lines. The D-Mode introduces
a compressed air cushion directly into the back of the second slurry chamber. This cushion
is controlled directly by an external compressed air system and allows a relatively constant
pressure to be maintained on the slurry in the chamber and hence on the cutter head, which
in turn reduces the face pressure variability. This enables the operator to keep closer control
over the pressures applied to the ground at the face of the machine, and therefore ultimately
to have greater control over mining and hence ground settlement.
The slurry used had a bentonite base and additives were included to combat saline water,
and thickeners in certain ground conditions.
3455
Figure 3. a) The TBM set up to start operations in shaft CMA 2, and b) The shell of the TBM, show-
ing the slurry ports in the lower part of the face behind the cutterhead (not yet in place).

The TBM head had an overall diameter of 2185 mm and the concrete pipes an OD of
2120 mm, resulting in a 32.5 mm annular overcut around the tunnel. The TBM cutterhead
was fitted with a mixed face of soft ground picks and hard rock discs to facilitate breakage
of any cobbles which might be encountered.
The soil cuttings were separated from the slurry in a series of operations: on its arrival
from the tunnel face the coarse solids were separated off on the screens of a Milchem Shaker,
the underflow then being passed through 500 mm and 125 mm hydrocyclones and a vibrating
dewatering screen. The resulting slurry was then sent to settling tanks before being recycled
to the TBM. A centrifuge was included in the system for use when fines content increased.

5 tunnel construction

The first drive was carried out from CMA 2, located on New Brighton spit, running back under
the estuary towards the shaft at CMA 1. This section of tunnel ran beneath a stand of mature
pine trees for 170 m before reaching the estuary. Cover over the tunnel here was around 8 m to
8.5 m, equivalent to four tunnel diameters. A number of sinkholes developed directly above the
tunnel over the initial 260 m of this drive, with the first appearing few metres from the start of
the drive, and thirteen occurring over a 90 m length of drive at the edge of the estuary alone.
Difficulties were experienced in driving the tunnel over this section of the route, with high
torques bring recorded on occasions which resulted in the TBM head rotation stalling. There
was also a point within 15 m of leaving the shaft at CMA 2 where the machine stalled and cutter
head rotation was not able to be gained in either direction. This obstruction was subsequently
cleared by combination of back flushing and localised driving changes. Small timber fragments
were recovered from the slurry at various points throughout this tunnel drive, and the difficulties
with maintaining head rotation was largely attributed to this factor. The timber was recovered in
the form of twigs, up to around 20 mm in diameter, and some timber which had been shredded
by the cutterhead, presumably from larger pieces of driftwood deposited within the sediments.
Beds of shells were also encountered, and these together with the timber were thought to be
responsible for blockages of the slurry ports in the TBM head (Figure 3b) and in the return
slurry pumps. Blockages were cleared by back flushing when encountered in the head.
Some work was undertaken to correlate the sink holes with timber encountered and with
shell beds, and some correlation was found.
The presence of sinkholes above the first drive was not of particular concern in itself as
this was an isolated area away from structures. However, the second drive would cross New
Brighton spit and follow a residential street containing a sewer and other services. Surface
settlement for this later drive was therefore a significant concern; it was necessary to avoid
surface deformation and to closely monitor settlement above this drive.
3456
 In order to minimize jacking forces and reduce the risk of the forces exceeding the
capabilities of the system, two measures were taken: the bentonite slurry was thickened and
D mode was utilized. In addition, the pipe lubrication bentonite was thickened with additives
to minimize its penetration into the surrounding sands.
Intermediate jacking stations (IJS) were installed on all drives at approximately 115 m
centers. These were not operated on either Drive 1 or Drive 2, which were 874 m long and
604 m long respectively, but two or three were activated on the 809 m long Drive 3 over a
short drive length near the 700 meter chainage point. These stations had jacking capacities of
1,100 tonnes. The main jacks in the shafts had capacities of 850 tonnes and the pipes could
accommodate a jacking load of 800 tonnes.
Pipe lubrication was systematically injected through nozzles in the pipes using an auto-
mated control system. Sufficient lubricant (bentonite and additive) was injected to fill the
overcut annulus and this was considered by the contractor to be largely responsible for main-
taining jacking forces at manageable levels.

6 Ground settlement

Settlement above tunnels in soft ground is generally considered to form a Gaussian shaped
profile in the ground surface (Peck, 1969). The cross sectional area of surface settlement can
be expressed as a percentage of the tunnel face area, and the maximum ground surface settle-
ment can then be related to this volume loss as

r2
wmax = 0.0125 ⋅ Vl (1)
iy

where wmax = the final settlement above the tunnel centre line, Vl = the volume loss per linear
meter of tunnel expressed as a percentage of the face area, r = tunnel radius, and iy = distance
from the tunnel centre-line to the point of inflection of the settlement profile (Lake, 1996).
The volume loss factor, Vl, is related by definition to the tunnel face area, and is equated to the
surface trough area by virtue of the method given above. However, the actual volume of the surface
settlement trough may be less than the actual ‘face yield’ due to bulking and other factors. The ‘vol-
ume loss’ term in this case reflects the nett effect of settlement, as observed on the surface.
Following O’Reilly and New (O’Reilly and New, 1983) the trough width is 6 iy, and iy can
be estimated from:

i y = K ⋅ z0 (2)
where K = Trough width constant, and z0 = depth from the surface to the tunnel axis.

6.1 Settlement prediction

These methods were used during design to predict surface settlement, and have been used
to back analyse settlement data obtained by the contractor on Drives 1 and 2. A maximum
settlement directly above the tunnel centerline of between 15 mm and 25 mm was predicted
during design, together with a trough which extended to 10 m either side of the tunnel cen-
treline, and these values were reported to the contractor in the GBR. Based on this CCC took
responsibility for effects resulting from up to 25 mm of settlement measured directly above
the tunnel, and 12 mm at a distance of 5 m either side of the tunnel.

6.2 Drive 1
6.2.1 Monitoring and construction effects
Although not required under the contract, the contractor monitored the ground surface set-
tlement at 5 m intervals over a 130 m length of Drive 1 as the tunnel progressed from CMA
3457
2 towards the estuary. The ground surface in this area is covered with mature pine trees and
depth of cover over the monitored section of tunnel is fairly constant at 8.0 m to 8.5 m.
The difficulties in maintaining steady advancement of the tunnel face, due partly to the
overtorquing of the cutter head, on occasion resulted in over excavation of the face, settle-
ment and sinkhole development. Over torquing is where the torque applied to the cutter head
is sufficiently high for the TBM to roll more than the allowable limit. This generally occurs
when there is a restriction in the face being excavated. Over-excavation, increased settlement
and sinkholes were also considered to have been caused by the back flushing of the slurry
ports in the cutter head, and by plucking of shells and twigs from the face and sidewalls of
the tunnel. Around half of the sinkholes coincided with stoppages of the TBM. Variable
ground conditions, with soft silt, denser sand and shell and timber layers, may also have con-
tributed to the difficulties in maintaining control, and resulted in increased settlement.
Settlement recorded on the tunnel centre line varied from 7 mm to 18 mm at sixteen of
the monitored cross sections. Ten other stations were damaged, some being lost due to the
development of sinkholes. The recorded settlement figures reported here therefore reflect
movement only in areas where sinkholes did not develop.

6.2.2 Back analysis

A full set of settlement readings, with settlement values recorded at each survey point across the
tunnel, was available at six cross sections, and this data is shown on Figure 4a. Each monitored
cross section contained five survey points: one on the tunnel centre line and a pair at the 5 m
and 10 m offsets each side of the tunnel. Final readings on these stations were made eight days
after the tunnel had passed over chainage 133.8 m, which is the location of the final cross sec-
tion assessed in this back analysis. During these eight days the tunnel progressed 75 metres.
Settlement at these six cross sections varied from 7 mm to 15 mm on the tunnel centerline,
4 mm of heave to 3 mm of settlement at the 5 m offsets, and 3 mm of heave to zero settlement
at the 10 m offsets.
Back analysis has been carried out using the data at these six cross sections, evaluating trough
width parameter, K, and volume loss, Vl, for O’Reilly and New’s method, as outlined above.
The best fit Gaussian curves to this data suggests that K ranges from 0.2 to 0.3, and Vl
ranges from 0.9% to 2.3%, although the lower volume losses should be disregarded due to
reading anomalies, and a best fit range of 1.3% to 2.3% is more realistic. Two of these sets of
data with their best fit curves are shown on Figure 4b.
The range of 0.2 to 0.3 for K compares with a value of 0.5 which is often considered appro-
priate for cohesionless soils below the water table (Lake LM, 1996). 0.3 is usually considered
appropriate for dry, rather than saturated, sands.

6.3 Drive 2
6.3.1 Monitoring
Monitoring was carried out at stations located directly above the tunnel centerline at 10 m
intervals between drive chainages 50 m and 550 m, with additional readings taken at 5 m and

Offset from Tunnel Centre line (m) Offset from Tunnel Centre line (m)
-10 -5 0 5 10
5 -10 -5 0 5 10
0

0
Settlement (mm)

Settlement (mm)

-5
-5

-10
-10

-15 -15

Figure 4. a) Data from all six cross sections on Drive 1 which were used for the back analysis and,
b) Data for two cross sections on Drive 1 with Gaussian best fit curves.

3458
10 m offsets from the centreline at some of the stations. The tunnel alignment runs directly
beneath a residential street, with tarmac surfacing and a 150 mm diameter sewer at 1.5 m
below ground level running between chainages 170 m and 550 m. The 5 m offset survey
points were located at the road kerb line, and the 10 m offsets on surfaced footpaths.
Readings were taken on a daily basis throughout the tunnelling operations at all stations
within 80 m of the progressing tunnel face. Base readings were taken at each survey point two
months prior to the commencement of tunnelling on this second drive. The maximum recorded
settlement of the ground surface after tunnelling, relative to these base readings, was 5 mm, with
apparent settlements of 3 mm or greater occurring at 18 of the stations. On review of the data,
however, it became clear that much of the apparent movement was actually due to variations in
readings which had occurred during the two months prior to commencement of tunnelling, and
therefore could not be attributed to the tunnelling operations. Reduction of all data back to the
date of commencement of tunnelling indicates that settlement due to tunnelling was generally
no more than 2 mm, with a maximum of 3 mm occurring at no more than three stations.

6.3.2 Ground surface effects

Settlement readings are available for 380 m of tunnel alignment located directly beneath the
tarmac paved surface, and for 120 m of alignment with no artificial surface.
Comparison of the settlement records for the lengths of drive with and without pavement
surfacing indices little different between the two, with readings in both areas ranging from
nil to 3 mm.
Deflections measured at 5 m and 10 m offsets from the tunnel centerline were limited to no
more than 1 mm of settlement or 2 mm of heave. All offset survey points were located in the
section of drive covered by tarmac surfacing.

6.3.3 Back analysis

The very small settlement recorded limits the degree to which back analysis can usefully be
evaluated without a higher degree of precision in the survey data. However, as for Drive 1, it
is apparent that if a value of 0.5 is assumed for O’Reilly and New’s trough width parameter,
K, the resulting trough width would be excessive. Settlements of around 2 mm would be
expected at the 5 m offset points for K = 0.5, whereas actual settlement at this offset was no
more than 1 mm. K must therefore be smaller than 0.5. The back analysis suggests a K value
of no more than around 0.3 is appropriate, similar to that indicated by the back analysis of
Drive 1, and this implies a maximum volume loss of 0.7%. A higher K value of 0.5 would
suggest a volume loss of 1.0% for the 3 mm of settlement achieved.
It is of interest to note that the TBM overcut of 32.5 mm alone would represent a volume
loss of 6.2%, so it is clear that the bulk of this overcut has not been transmitted upwards to
the surface from the face. This can be attributed to the injection of the pipe annulus with
thickened bentonite during the tunnelling operations, assisted by the use of the D-Mode on
the TBM and a thick slurry. There may also be a contributing factor from bulking, which is
known to occur in granular soils in particular.

6.3.4 Post construction effects

Grouting around the tunnel was attempted on completion of this drive, with the aim of void filling,
but grout takes were negligible, and the operation was discontinued as being of little value.
The tunnel drive was completed in November 2007 and no signs of delayed settlement
have been noted in the two intervening years with normal traffic use. Delayed settlement
might be expected if bridging had occurred due to the presence of the pavement.

7 conclusions

Three tunnel drives have been completed with a 2185 mm diameter Herrenknecht AVND-
1800-AB TBM through fine uniform sand and silt, and fine uniform beach and dunes sand.
Two of these drives were bored using the TBM is simple slurry mode and one in D Mode.
3459
 Ground surface settlements of 15 mm to 20 mm, and a trough width extending 10 m either
side of the tunnel centreline were predicted during design, and these predictions incorporated
in a geotechnical baseline report. Based on these predictions the client took responsibility for
the effects of 25 mm of settlement on the tunnel centreline. The effects of settlement in excess
of this became the responsibility of the contractor.
Difficulties experienced in Drive 1 resulted in blockages of the slurry ports on the TBM head
and blocked return slurry pumps, stalling of the TBM rotation, and development of sinkholes
above the tunnel. These problems were put down to timber and shells which were recovered in
the slurry, and variable ground. Slurry port blockages were cleared by back flushing, and head
rotation freed up by reversing the rotation direction of the head and back flushing.
Settlement observed over a 130 m length of Drive 1 varied from 7 mm to 18 mm on the
tunnel centreline.
Back-analysis of six cross sections on Drive 1 indicated a value for O’Reilly and New’s
trough width parameter, K, of 0.2 to 0.3, and volume losses, Vl, of 1.3% to 2.3%. Tunnel
centerline settlement at these cross sections varied from 7 mm to 15 mm.
Settlement observed over a 500 m length of Drive 2 reached a maximum of 3 mm on the
tunnel centreline, and 1 mm at a distance of 5 m from the centerline.
Back-analysis of the Drive 2 data indicated a value for O’Reilly and New’s trough width
parameter, K, of no more than 0.3, and volume losses, Vl, of 0.7%. This compares with a value
of 0.5 which is often considered appropriate for cohesionless soils below the water table.
The limited settlement and volume loss can be largely attributed to the systematic injection
of the pipe annulus with bentonite and additives during the tunnelling operations, assisted by
the use of the D-Mode on the TBM.
The overcut of the TBM cutterhead of 32.5 mm represented a volume loss of 6.2%. The
back analysis shows that the bulk of this overcut has not been transmitted upwards to the
surface from the face.
Comparison of the settlement records for lengths of Drive 2 made beneath a paved surface
with those made in open ground indicates little difference between the two, with readings in
both areas ranging from nil to 3 mm.
Grout takes around the tunnel following completion of Drive 2 were negligible.
No signs of delayed settlement have been noted in the two years following completion of
Drive 2, suggesting that bridging is not responsible for the small settlements monitored.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Christchurch City Council for permission to publish this paper,
and McConnell Dowell Constructors for allowing use of data supplied by them, and for
reviewing and contributing additional comments to this paper.

References

Moore, J., Fleming, R. and Jones, G. 2008. Microtunnelling the Ocean Outfall Pipeline, Christchurch,
New Zealand. Proc. 13th Australian Tunnelling Conference, 2008.
Lake, L.M. 1996. Prediction and effects of ground movements caused by tunnelling in soft ground
beneath urban areas. CIRIA Project Report No. 30.
Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. Proc 7th Int Conf Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Vol. 3, pp. 225–90.
O’Reilly, M.P. and New, B.M. 1983. Settlements above tunnels in the United Kingdom, their magnitude
and prediction. Proc. Tunnelling ’82, Brighton 1982, pp 173–181. Report of discussion, Transactions
of the Inst of Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. 92, Section A, pp. A35–A48.

3460