Expanding Underground.

Knowledge and Passion to Make a Positive Impact

on the World – Anagnostou, Benardos & Marinos (Eds)
© 2023 The Author(s), ISBN 978-1-003-34803-0
Open Access: www.taylorfrancis.com, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

Tunneling with low rock cover within tight geometric constraints

M. Abrahamsen & R. Alves

Rambøll, Copenhegen, Denmark

C. Cátedra
Cowi, Copenhagen Denamrk (Former Rambøll during current project)

ABSTRACT: The case studied in this article covers a mined twin track railway tunnel
within Scandinavia. Where due to weakness zones and uncertainty on the rock levels, the usu­
ally drill and blast solution had to be replaced by soft ground tunneling.
A local lowering in the top of rock was identified in the existing geological information,
resulting in very low rock cover (or potentially no rock cover). The soil above the rock con­
sists of high permeable ground with more than 10m of water pressure.
The lowering is located below existing pile founded buildings and under a public road with
a range of utilities. This high congestion of both the surface and underground space made it
impossible to perform ground investigations prior to construction, to confirm the rock level
above the tunnel.
This led to a temporary solution comprising of ground freezing, pipe umbrellas, heavy sup­
port frames and a redesigned underpinning of the building immediately above the tunnel.
The current paper summarizes the design process and the chosen design, and the consider­
ations for dealing with uncertain geological conditions within a congested areas with high
water pressure.

1 INTRODUCTION

A section of a twin-track rail tunnel is passing over two parallel tunnels with less than 1m
rock in-between, and the crown of the tunnel is entering a zone of rock where several faults
are crossing and where there is a significant depression in the rock surface. The rock is over­
layed by 14m of water-bearing quaternary deposits. A building, founded on piles extending
into the soil pocket, is located immediately above the tunnel section.
The design of the tunnel section was developed in phases where the risk, opportunities, and
buildability formed the route to the final design. The process is now continuing into the execu­
tion phase where specialist contractor inputs are being implemented in the design to smoothen
the execution phase.
Throughout this article, the tunnel in design is referred as “TD” while the tunnels places
below are referred by “TB”

2 GEOMETRIC CONSTRAINTS

The main geometric constraints of the existing tunnel below and the pile foundations above.

DOI: 10.1201/9781003348030-204

1705
Figure 1. Initial proposed solution. a) longitudinal section.; b) Cross section.

2.1 Existing tunnels

The bench of the tunnel designed is built a few centimeters above 2 existing tunnels. The two
tunnels below cross at a skew angle and consist of two 17m wide tunnels separated by a ­
10 m wide rock column, both tunnels have been prepared for the new tunnel crossing above
by implementing concrete arches replacing the rock roof span.

Figure 2. Plan view of TD. concrete arches of TB marked in dashed.

2.2 Building foundations

The building above is 6 stories high and built in 1910, the front façade of the building where
originally founded on 8-10m long oak piles while the backside of the building is resting dir­
ectly on the bedrock. The building had ongoing settlements through its life, even after add­
itional underpinning that was performed in 1979. The original foundations and piling take up
most of the foundation area in the building and extends under the road in front of the house.
The narrow road in front of the building houses a range of utilities, water, sewerage, gas,
district heating, electricity and communication cables. Water and sewerage are located down
to 4m below the surface.
The alignment was fixed due to the location of a station nearby and the continuation of the
tunnel in the neighboring contract. The tunnel, therefore, had to pass above the tunnels below.
The tender design was based on a standard twin rail tube section including a local concrete lining.

1706
3 INITIAL KNOWLEDGE OF GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

Due to the crowded upper ground, the possibility for ground investigations is limited, and the
existing information on geology is only based on previous existing ground investigations and
information on the building foundation.
Based on the existing information along this stretch of the tunnel, it was expected to have 3
sets of fault zones in conjunction with a “soil pocket”, reducing drastically the rock cover.
However, at the feasibility stage of the design, the depth of the “soil pocket” was unknown,
meaning that the rock level could have been above the TD, protruding in the TD alignment or
even extending all the way to the bench of the TD, and no additional ground information was
seen possible until the start of excavation works.
The sketch below summarizes the uncertainties on the rock level and the fault zones along
the TD.
The approximately 18m of soil above the tunnel is primarily consisting of silty sand, sand
and gravels and is water-bearing with the aquifer a few meters below the ground surface,
lowering of the groundwater in the area is not allowed. For the structural design, the water
level has been conservatively assumed at the surface.

Figure 3. Existing information on the geology. a) Uncertainty of the rock level; b) expected fault zones.

4 INITIAL RISK ASSESSMENTS

Based on the knowledge of the ground and the rock a range of primary risks was identified
and used to define the base structural solution, described in the section below.
The list below summarizes the principal risks and the initial possible mitigations.
1. Control of ground water – grouting, jet-grouting, freezing
2. Risk of further settlements of building – minimizing excavation steps to reduce volume loss
and avoiding inflow of soil and water
3. Uncertainty of condition of the surrounding rock – forming of tunneling method that can
span the two tunnels below
4. Uncertainty of the composition of the soils above the rock – include a vault that can sup­
port the soil if it extends into the tunnel cross section
5. Risk of collision with building piles when executing grouting and spiling – Probing and
vibration monitoring in building
6. Risk of building piles extending into the crown of the tunnel – considering new pile support
regime to allow cutting and undermining of piles

5 DESIGN PROCESS

Below it is described how the structural solution has evolved during the different stages of the
design based on the existing and new information.

1707
5.1 Feasibility solution
The initial design approach was based on a worst-case scenario where the tunnel needed to
carry all loads from above to the areas between and next to the tunnels below, the structure
consisted of two longitudinal beams along the sides of the rail tunnel, forming the base for the
vault supporting the soil, water and the building above.
The beam solution was initially formed as two parallel beams spanning over the tunnel
below and supporting soil, water pressure and building loading on the full length of the
beams. However, it was quickly acknowledged that the magnitude of load was too big for this
approach and the area of the arch had to be reduced to only covering the zone where the
depression of the rock was most prominent. Secondary vaults next to the weak zone included
support on the rock next to the beams.
It can be observed that the feasibility solution did not cover risk 1, 2, 5 and 6, presented in
section 4

Figure 4. Cross section in span and by supports.

5.2 Preliminary design

The modeling of the rock was further developed during the transition between feasibility and
preliminary design phase and led to 4 possible rock surfaces with varying degrees of depres­
sion of the rock (see Figure 3).
The most optimistic rock surface had a few meters of rock cover, while the most conserva­
tive rock surface had the soil pocket extending almost to the bench of the tunnel.
The preliminary design took offset in forming solutions that could allow for uncertainty in
the rock surface as explored during execution.
Calculations of the rock performance made at this stage gave an initial indication that the
beams could be omitted, this was though still to be confirmed by rock mass investigations.
On this basis it was then decided to discontinue the design of the beam solution and go for­
ward with a permanent arch solution, resting on the rock next to the tunnel vault (rock shelf
solution).
Parallel to this, there were studies of the building foundation piles and ground treatment to
explore methods for the execution of the tunnel vault. The key issues here were the presence of
a large number of piles, risk of boulders and weathered/heavily fractured rock and even the
potential of building piles protruding into the tunnel.
During this phase, it was concluded that conventional spiling was not a feasible solution as
it had a large risk of colliding with building piles. Additionally, the spiles themselves did not
offer the required strength to support the ground formation above. It was therefore decided to
go forward with a horizontal pipe umbrella roof supported by heavy steel ribs.

1708
Figure 5. TD cross section without beams (Feasibility study).

Figure 6. TD longitudinal profile, with pipe umbrella supported on steel ribs. (Feasibility study).

Left was the issue with the treatment of the soil and the risk of clashes with building piles.
A range of solutions was kept open, such as high-pressure soil grouting, jet grouting, compen­
sation grouting, and soil freezing.
However, jet grouting was considered risky due to shading from piles and boulders, there were
also concerns about heave/settlements. There was no space available for a compensation grouting
scheme. Experience with the soils showed it to be hardly groutable while still water-bearing. And
finally, there were concerns about heave/settlement in connection with a freezing scheme.
Risk 1, 2, 5 and 6, presented in section 4, remained unsolved at the end of the preliminary
design phase, while the handling risk 3 and 4 still relied on late confirmation of rock quality.
The table below summarizes the evolution of the design throughout the different design
phases

5.3 Detail design

During detail design, it was possible to perform boreholes from the TB, confirming the exist­
ence of a rock shelf capable to transfer the loads from the vault of the TD. However, final
confirmation was still to be based on exploration drilling from within the tunnel, during
construction.
The initial design of the pipe umbrella and steel ribs was resulting in very large pipes and
ribs in the worst-loaded parts of the tunnel. This led to the decision of using ground freezing
to secure water tightness and to assist the temporary support structure in the temporary phase.

1709
Table 1. Evolution of the design trough the different design phases.

Ground freezing experts and grouting experts were once again approached to back
a decision on the type of ground treatment, and soil samples were recovered during the execu­
tion of a recharge well, these soil samples were sent for testing of frozen properties.
While the borehole from TB provided additional information on the rock between the TB
and the TD, it did not provide any clarification on the level of the rock above TD.
This uncertainty on the rock level led to a scenario-based design. Where the different rock
levels, described in section 3, were considered as design scenarios, and for each scenario,
a temporary solution has been designed. The final temporary support is then chosen on-site,
during construction, based on the results from probing performed at the face excavation.
Regardless of the scenario, the temporary ling is performed by pipe umbrellas; ground
freezing, and steel ribs, as described below.

Figure 7. Boreholes performed form the tunnel below, confirming the presence of a rock shelf.

5.3.1 Pipe umbrella

Due to the low rock cover and foundations above, the pipe umbrella has been designed to
support the entire overburden whilst still accounting for the contribution of the frozen
ground, as a structural member. The pipe umbrella spans over the excavation and it is sup­
ported on the steel ribs from the previous excavation and the ground/rock ahead of the exca­
vation, supporting the ground over the free span.
The pipe umbrella has been designed for each stretch individually. Along the 1st stretch,
where the confidence on the rock cover is higher, the umbrella is inclined, creating space for

1710
the installation of the 2nd pipe umbrella. Along the second stretch, the pipe umbrella is placed
horizontally, reducing the probability of hitting the existing pile foundations.
The drilling of the pipe umbrella is also used as preliminary probing, confirming if there is
a protrusion of ground in the excavation face.

Figure 8. Longitudinal alignment of TD, divided in stretches with respective temporary support solution.

5.3.2 Ground freezing

Freezing of the ground has been considered, both for water tightness during construction, and
for strengthening of the ground, in order to provide additional support during each excava­
tion advance, supporting the free span.
The freezing pipes have been placed inside the umbrella pipes in order to reduce space and
avoid drilling new boreholes. Temperature sensors used to monitor the temperature of the
frozen ground have been placed in the probing boreholes.

Figure 9. Structural verification of the frozen ground along the free span.

5.3.3 Steel ribs

Steel ribs have been used as part of the temporary lining, supporting both the overburden and
the pipe umbrella during excavation advances.
Since the uncertainties of the rock level led to a scenario-based design relying on probing
during construction, the final design solution had to be adaptable.
The final solution was then defined by maintaining the steel rib size, regardless of the design
scenario, and varying the free span (either by the length of the excavation advances and/or the
allowable distance between the face of the excavation and the last steel rib installed).

1711
Figure 10. Ground freezing scheme.

Along stretch 1 of the excavation, where there is a higher rock cover, HEM280 is con­
sidered, whereas, for stretch 2, the area with higher uncertainties on the existence of a rock
cover, HEM 320 is used.
Regardless of the scenarios or stretches, all the steel ribs are connected by a stiffener to help
to support and arch the forces during each advance, while only one side of the steel rib is filled
with concrete.

Figure 11. Representative sketch of the steel rib for temporary lining.

6 CONCLUSIONS

A range of risks/problems were identified at the feasibility level by a thorough risk assessment
and formed the basis for taking decisions during the design process.
The risk of hitting foundation piles and by that harming the building above was not closed
by the end of the detailed design, this led to the final decision of underpinning the building to
make sure that even if piles are hit the building above is still safe.
Working with a focus on risks leads to finding solutions that interact and solve more than
one design problem rather than solving one issue at a time.

1712