Instability at the face: its repercussions | for tunnelling technology L Cornejo, Geotechnics Department, Agroman, Spain Construction techniques Whenever this phenomenon becomes evident in rock tunnels in portal areas or in fault. zones, different preliminary support techniques ate used: 11 Excavation in stages with a stabilising central core; 2. Ground freezing; 3. Grouting: 4 Prior instalation of spies in the ‘excavation perimeter, sightly slanting in relation to the tunnel axis, forming fn open beam (umbrella); 5. a)using ordinary micropiles or coup- ling-pipes busing et grouting Technique (I) is frequently applied combined with one of the other tech- niques. “The different types of shield machine were developed to try. to guarantee stability Both atthe excavation face and athe back of the shield by placing the lining immediately. Their use is appro- priate when tunnels are to be_bullt throlgh ground with bad geomechanical characteristics, Rock which shows the greatest en dency towards instability is: shale, and clayey schist, rock with abundant min- erals like kaolin, illite, seicte, chlorite and graphite, micaceous rock which is highly fractured and altered, unconsoli- dated soft rock and very altered pyro- clastic deposits. Soils tending 10 stability include: soils not very compact = clays, silts, sands or un-cemented sandstones in the presence of water, and mixtures of these soils Causes of instability 1. Attributable 1 rock 4) Physical-mechanical characteristics of the minerals making up the rock matrix, ') Mechanical defets ofthe rock 2 State of stress; 3, Presence of water a, Rock characteristics Rock most prone to instability is that which has undergone greatest meteori- sation or alteration as atthe portal area, inshallow tunnels with litle overburden, Chemical alteration occurs in. those ‘minerals with an abundance of mag ‘esium, calcium or iron, which are most prone to meteorisation. Similar minerals Which are the product of alteration give very fine grained clay and micaceous (sericite) apart from aluminium and iron hydroxides, which are the most resistant ‘Meteorisation caused by the movement of underground water produces clayey ‘minerals like montmorillonite, illite, chlorite, vermiculiteand clayey mixtures. ‘Through the hydrothermal process, ar- | Bilisation is produced which converts rock, with the exception of quartz, into clayey mineral aggregates ‘Al these processes can convert com= petent rock into rock with practically no cohesion, whichis flowing and has clayey minerals’ likely to produce swelling phenomena when they are exposed 10 atmospheric humidity or underground Ib. Mechanical defects of the rock Fractures; Fissures Bedding planes and schistosity; Joints; Fault planes and areas, fragmented ‘Whatever the excavation method used, the fractures and fissures inherent in the rock mass are increased thereby reducing its strength characteristics. 2. State of stress As aresult of excavating the tunnel, the state of iaxial confinement of ‘the lunexcavated core, between D and 2D in front of the face, decreases, which means that ruptured areas in the core could develop. On the other hand, the excava- tion of a volume of rock produces a redistribution of stresses, inereasing it in the nearby support and in the rock mass in front of the face, which leads 10 deformation and possible fracture Fig 1. Chimney formation. ig 2. Definition of the Paraboloid - Directrix Parabola.wes will now be con- The following ca sidered Grounds con- Soils and soft rock sidered as with. cohesivestn isotropic and tional behaviour homogeneous. (CF), Granular so and soft rock is without cohesion o) (F). Clayey soils ©) Stratified Soils and soft rock around and with cobesive-ric: Soft rock with tional behaviour strength (CF), Granular so- properties 'swithout cohesion Fig Tunnel in clay subjected roa vertical Fig Tumelbelow plreaticleveloubjected ¥S1¥iNg ) pressure. and stabilisation o 10.4 stabilisation pressure P, Tae - Clayey soils (C). 3 tea ine equations (6)and (9) of Table 1 the safe Beanermark times the stabiltyof the prism (3) is more N=or-ot (8) T-1C¥ grounds precarious than theset of three pris, 30 Homogencous cohesive - frictional the safety factor ofthe latter should be for elayey soils (Fig 6) grounds belong to this group. From determined, considering the. smallest Table la. T-1 CF ground Satery — [General case — general Avance length without suppor factor of | safety factor A #0 ee the face an laa aan eoe maxon fee [ot Ll 0 Safety factor of the 5 ism Adorted | oo) |More foe? ae Fras hr an Parameces Behaviour Pressre which the support must wwitcand hie | Elawo-plasie Fracore | Brit rastre zim ay © [esonzfonzscaoinz | ccoimz|c 2C no tanger fracture Iaersreis cd Compaen | Open important seulement FSF > 2suppomt not ncesary | ground FSF= 1.28 ro shor term — face Fat es kaioe a ‘at very compe: |_ With iver & kets fieoos pagal Pe ‘eo/asen reanee Tow around | Cirelar Tul Ke 1>Ky 208 Deep) Shallow zips | zip io apply against tne fees. The Uniaxial sirength of ground o, (kg/cm?) (u/m’) pressure which the support (PS) has to pilaxil strength of ickness of ground over erown: 2(m) Vertical stress of field: ov carry to guarantee stability of the tunnel Height of ground which gravitates over Horizontal stress of field: oh can also be determined, Ode crows putin) Dept As im) Shearing stress inthe prism (2): Gav Nomenclature used (nr) Cohesion: © (t/m) Shearing stress in the prism (3): {m! References Normal pressure regarding fracture (/m*) 1. Tamez, ; Stability of tunnels excavated in plane: o(t/m') Coefficient at rest: K, soils, Mexico 1985 Interstitial or pore pressure: u(V/m#) Pressure which gravifates over the tunnel 2. Ellstein, AR. Heading failure of lined Internal friction angle: o(sexagesimal de- crown: 2 (t/m!) tunnels in Soft soil, Tunnels and Tunneling ‘arees). Stabilisation pressure: P, (t/m?) Juve 86 Unit weight of water: , (t/m) Tunnel diameter: D (m)' 3. Pera. J; Tunnellingin soft and water-bearing Drop in hydraulic head im) Coefficient: K, ‘rounds, Lyon 1984 Course corresponding to the drop in ¥ 4 Juarez, E, Badilo, A. Rico Rodrisver hhydraulic head: I(m) Thickness of ground above the water Mexico 1976 ‘Table 4, 1-2 € ground Safety factor ‘General case ofthe face azo General safety factor oy Parameters a Average cohesion of round 1o be freavated fle) jh 38) c Avctase cohesion of sround above the fe) dys 39)Fig ?. Equipotential and flow lines. Fig 8. Subaqueous tunnel value for stability purposes. ‘The parameters (m' and {m* are the average values ofthe shearing strength of the ground acting on the faces of prisms @)and (2) respectively. pore or interstitial pressure is important for determining the value of Gm’, which is why this should be determined if an accurate stability study is to be made. ‘When tunnels are below the water table (Fig 7), it will be necessary to consider seepage forces because of the destab ising effect they introduce, Gravel, sand, silt or their combination become ex- tremely unstable under the influence of seepage forces due to the rapid decrease in their shearing strength and the tendency to erosion. Seepage flow-rates are usually considerable and having to cope with them can cause difficulty during construction. To avoid thi, the following measures ‘can be adopted: Fig 9, Urban tunnel below water table with diferent ground. 4) Lowering the local water table ') Applying pressure to the tunnel face with compressed air (PE) with pressure greater than the hydrostatic pressure (Ph) =(h-+Z- W] yw. ©) Using closed front shields with pres- sure against the face The general expression for yZ_ in ‘equations (6) and (9) is: 92> Wy + (ZW) (-w) an, w= Z fora tunnel above the water table For sub-aqueous tunnels, the expression will be YE=DyyW+ L074) (18)(FiB 8). In Table I the expressions are given for determining the parameters (m?, (m*, for deep and shallow tunnels, and values (c) and (FSF) are given for ground exhibiting clastic, elasto-plastic, fracture and brittle fracture properties. The K,.K, values are also indicated, as well as the advance lengths without support, and the pres- sures which the support should carry. T-LF ground For granular soil without cohesion, such as: sand, silt, gravel or mixtures of them, the same expressions contained in Table 1 are applicable, taking. into account the values of the following parameters Parameter Value c ° ie os T-2.CF ground Cohesive-rictional ground belongs to this group, such as: silty sand, silty gravel, clayey sand, whose geomechanical pro- perties vary with depth. In Fig 9 the excavation ofa tunnelis shown in ground (witha thickness ,, with other ground (2).(3), (4) lying on top, with thicknesses (Z), (Z)), (2) with different geo- mechanical properties, In Table 2 the expressions formulated generally are summarised which, intro- duced in expressions (6) or (9), will determine the safety factor of the face Both the average cohesion in ground to be excavated and ofthat above the crown whose expressions are indicated, are taken into account, together with the average unit weights of the ground, to be excavated, and the ground both above and below the water table. In expression (27) the generalised form of the weight ofall the ground above the crown of the tunnel is indicated. To obtain these data, itis necessary to define the thickness of the different ground as well as its geomechanical parameters, together with the accurate measurement of the water table levels. TC ground Homogeneous cohesive ground be- longs to this group, such as: clay, sity clay and sandy sil. Expressions are included in Table 3 for determining the safety factor of the face according to different authors". Expressions(31).(32) and (33) are particular eases of general expressions (6) and (9) for |= h, K, = 1, Gm = (mm? = ¢, For a = 0 the expression (22) is obtained. Expression (34) isthe generalised form lof the expression proposed by A Ellstein? for a sub-aqueous tunnel (Fig 8), with diameter D, to which a stabilisation pressure P, is applied. Expressions (34) and (35) are valid for WSZ - D/2; for W2Z, yw = 0; for intermediate values of W, namely ZW>Z-D/2, intermediate values of Should be considered, between (y-yw) and . When calculating the safety factor of the face, all the expressions (31), (32), (33), (34), (35), (36) should be used and the results obtained with each of them compared,As a result of these processes and the interstitial or pore pressure, the ground ‘core can lose’ its initial strength, pro: ‘ducing flow of the material towards the void 3. Presence of water In cases of instability associated with flow and/or swelling of the ground, the interstitial water housed in the pores, fissures and fractures of the rock plays & vital role. The pressure of the water trapped in the pores and fissures (pore pressure) plays a very important role in the shearing fracture process which is quantified through the equation: P=Ct(o-uted @ ‘The relaxation ofthe rock loss of confinement causes small move: ‘ments of interstitial water towards the excavation, giving the rock an additional amount of water which encourages the flow and/or swelling phenomena, When, besides, there is free water which reachesa given level onthe floor of the tunnel, the hydrostatic pressure and the hydrodynamic pressure should be considered, expressed as Py = y Wh (2), Which is capable of altering the specific Weight of the material submerged and of reducing the effective pressure and hence the shearing strength when a flow of water occurs, This flow, generated as a result of the variation in the head (pressure load + position load), induces seepage forces Definition of the paraboloid ~ Protadyakonov parabola, fig 3 Formation of the chimney which affects the surface. F,= 74 Gin which i=ah@ uM is the hydraulic gradient These forces are tangential to the flow lines and represent an additional de- stabilising force. Evolutional process of the fracture ‘Where instability occurs in the face, i controling action is not taken, ground movements. will progress affecting an increasingly large volume of rock. Astate of equilibrium willeventually be reached, but at the expense of having formed chimney” above the crown and a fracture in the core on the plane of maximum shearing (Fig 1) “The volume of rock gravitating to the erown of the tunnel will be that of the paraboloid ‘defined by. the directrix Parabola in Fig 2in which Or=a+tsh, o 3 sand the parabola in Fig 3in which HI= B. The parameters that intervene are: 11 Iength advanced without support F= Protodyakonov factor for rockst =o, 100 for soils: when = 0,f= te When e #0, I= hig (4s -6/2) B=b+2hig (45° -4/2) idth of tunnel ight of tunnel ‘imple compressive strength of the ground = cohesion 2= thickness of ground over the crown ‘This means that: for hyZ, hy When the fracture reaches the surface, a subsidence crater will be produced, 3s observed in the photograph, Criteria for determining the instability of the face There are several calculation models for determining the stability or otherwise ‘of the face. They are all based, in one way another, on the arching theory, proved ‘perimenially, combined with the the- ory of elasticity. It is taken into account own, from a giv ial does not gravitate Fig 4 Prismatic volume gravitating over the crown system of forces. To simplify the calculation, the para- boloid is replaced by a prismatic volume (Fig 4) in which the forces acting are established anda safety factory is defined of the stability ofthe face FSF= MSFR MSFA, through the ratio between the moments of the reaction forces and the forces applied, reaching the general expression proposed by E Tamez! For tunnels in homogeneous and cohesive soils, in which lining accom- panies excavation, the following general expression isalso proposed, based on that defined by A Ellstein® (Fig 5). Another equation frequently used is the