Face support for a large Mix-Shield in

heterogeneous ground conditions

Sandor Jancsecz
Wayss & Freytag AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Walter Steiner
Balzari & Schudel AG, Bern, Switzerland

Abstract
Control of face support is a major issue in slurry shield tunnelling. Besides the
regular support with slurry also compressed air-support of the face during
maintenance of the tools in the working chamber is necessary. The required support
pressure is designed with a limit state model to balance water and earth pressures at
the face. Experience with face support and associated support mechanism are
described. Special procedures and slurry mixes were developed to ensure a safe
support of the face without uncontrolled loss of slurry or air.
Keywords : Bentonite, compressed air-support, design of face support, polymers,
sand content, slurry shield, support pressure.

1. Introduction

The Grauholz Tunnel is a double-track high-speed railway tunnel located north of

Bern, Switzerland ( Figure 1. ).

Figure 1. Location Map of Grauholz Line in Switzerland

L. J. Arthur et al., Tunnelling’ 94

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994
532 Face support for a large Mix-shield
It serves to alleviate the congested situation at Zollikofen Station ( Figure 2. ) and
fOnDS the first section of a new high-speed railway line to Olten. More details on the
design of the Grauholz line have been published elsewhere [1], [ 2 ].

Figure 2. Alignment of Grauholz Tunnel

An alternative proposal by a contractor joint venture had been selected proposing a

unilateral tunnel advance with a Mix-Shield, being able to excavate through soil,
rock and mixed-face conditions.
The contract was let in 1988. Tunnelling with the Mix-Shield started in November
1989 and the 5.4 km long mined section of the 6.3 km long Grauholz Tunnel was
holed through on May 6, 1993.
The changing ground conditions, with a wide range of soil types under various
hydrogeological and stress conditions, as well as rock and mixed-face sections, led to
substantial experiences.

2. Ground conditions

Ground conditions are briefly summarized here. More details have been presented
earlier [ 2 ], [ 3 ]. The Grauholz Tunnel is located where two major alpine glaciers
conflued. The eastern branch of the Rhone glacier flowed in from the west and from
the south the Aare glacier flowed in. Glacial deposits in general are complex.
Matters were further aggravated by the interaction of the two glaciers. Quarternary
deposits are underlain by tertiary bedrock. A geologic-hydrogeologic-geotechnical
longitudinal section is presented on Figure 3., together with the types of tunnelling
applied and the general characteristics of the ground types through which the tunnel
passed.
 !2221 GlACIOLACUSTRINE c::::J ICEI.IARGINAL DEPOSITS F:J FlU'<10GLACIAL (SAND ~O SlLTS)
~ fLU'<10GLACIAL (GRAVR) l'ZZZl BEDROCK G:J WATERTABLE OR PRESSURE HEAO
(mNN)
650-+
~ =i.
t--
~ ~
600+ a. a..
0- 0-
Vl
-<
'"
.....
~ ~~
550

500+ .~ "//////7,1/./././///;

I I I I II
I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I III II II II I I I I II III
I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I ;-I-~ ;-I-I·rl~'
§ § ~ § ~ § ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (km)
~ ..; ~ .,; .,;
'"'
ROCK LARCf
COl{!!

0
a
c
::s
Q.
(')
0
::s
ElIIROOC
UCS (UPo)
e:
c.
RNlG£: 1-29 0
ION : 4-10 ::s
QOI 10 Q,OI 60
'"
1£Ijj •••• •• WGt-

Figure 3. Geologic - geotechnical conditions VI

W
W
534 Face support for a large Mix-shield
Tunnelling started from the east portal. The first section ( Ian 11.3 - 11.0 ) contained
irregularly alternating glacial silts and sands. The content of fines less than < 0.06
mm was on the average 60 %. Most of the silts were of low plasticity, the plasticity
index being less than 4 %. Some layers of clayey silt with a maximum plasticity
index of 11 % were also present. Then from Ian 11.0 - 10.7 glacial tills with
plasticity indices from 5 to 12 % alternating with clean gravel were encountered.
The variation of permeabilities between the different layers were substantial. Water
pressures were a few meters above the crown.
From Ian 10.7 to 10.6 the tunnel entered into bedrock with a mixed-face. From Ian
10.6 to 9.6 bedrock with small cover (a few meters) was encountered. Between Ian
10.32 and 10.17 a depression in the rock surface caused mixed-face conditions, with
sand in the crown and a water pressure of 25 m above the crown. Between Ian 9.75
and 9.7 another depression was feared, the rock cover was there, but of insufficient
thickness. From km 9.6 to 7.85 bedrock cover was larger. Low strength sandstones
and shales were encountered. West of Ian 7.85 again soil was encountered. From Ian
7.85 to Ian 6.5 fluvioglacial gravel without groundwater was encountered.
Groundwater was perched in glaciolacustrine clay. From Ian 6.5 to the portal at Ian
5.92 icemarginal deposits with perched watertables at various levels had to be
crossed up to a few meters above the crown.

3. The Mix-Shield system

With the assumed instability of the face in glacial deposits with and without ground
water, and relatively good face stability in the bedrock ( molasse ), a convertible
mix-shield machine - based on a patented design by Wayss & Freytag AG - was
selected by the client. This machine worked in the glacial soil deposits as a slurry
shield with pressurized face and hydraulical mucking. In the molasse it worked as a
TBM with dry mucking. The shield is described in more detail in [ 2 ]. As Figure 4.
shows the Mix-Shield has a double chamber system.

S£PARA nON BULJ(HEAD AIR CUSliION

JM"t-()I!~~~

CUTTING WHEELi)tlerr~~;;
STONE CRUSliER

PRESSURE DIAPHRAGM

Figure 4. The Mix - Shield system ( D = 11,6 m )

 The Mix-shield system 535
The pressure chamber for controlling the slurry pressure by an air cushion is
separated by a diaphragm bulkhead from the working chamber of the cutting
wheel. To reduce the number of entering into the working chamber there was a stone-
crusher installed in the centre, for breaking boulders up to 1 m3 in size.

3.1 Stages of face support

Beside the described adaptability there is an other advantage of this type of shield,
namely; maintenance on the cutting wheel can be undertaken with partial or full
drawdown of the slurry under compressed air. Figure 5. shows the typical
supporting modes and the distribution of support pressures on the tunnelling face.
However, the support with compressed air - either half or full - was a rather
exceptional case.

,-I;
a.) SLURRY SUPPORT b.) COMPRESSED AIR AND c.) COMPRESSED AIR
SLURRY SUPPORT SUPPORT
Po AIR CUSHION P. p AIR PRESSURE

P'ESSUR[
MEMBRANE
~~J'~I~N PRESSURE
__- DIAPHRAGM

Pu SLURRY

IS=SA tSs I
rn Ss
~

0
Pu=Po +D ')'F Pu=Po + 2')'F Pu=~AF

Figure 5. Supporting modes and distribution of face supporting pressures

When driving in slurry mode the face is supported by the slurry pressure. In this
case the slurry pressure distribution is very similar to the distribution of earth and
water pressures. The pressure - transmitting medium between liquid and soil is a
membrane or cake, filtrated from the bentonite slurry onto the tunnelling face.
The two most important questions regarding face support in slurry mode are; how
high the support pressure should be ( earth statical aspect) and how is it possible to
reach a safe and quick membrane developing ( fluid mechanical aspect).
An important element of the Mix-Shield system is the automatic fluid pressure
regulation with the help of an air cushion as shown in Figure 5. This makes it
possible to provide a constant support pressure on the face under continuous and
parallel charging and discharging of the slurry into and out of the working
chamber.With the face partly or fully supported by compressed air, various problems
536 Face support for a large Mix-shield
can arise: The support pressure is less ideal
influences the ground in different manners
losses of air may occur, finally resulting in a
occur under compressed air support and the
certain period of time ( stand-up time ).
( constant over face ). Compressed air
: soil is more permeable to air, large
blowout. In some soils drying out may
face may thus become unstable after a

4. Theoretical approach of the face stability in non cohesive soils

To find out the right support pressure for a tunnelling face in granular soils, it is first
of all necessary to consider the forces on a possible and probable failure model.
Similar to other solutions in soil mechanics, application of limit equilibrium analysis
can deliver a limit earth pressure acting on tunnelling a face. Selection of an
appropriate factor of safety assisted by deformations or settlement control allows
determination of support presssure which is not too high or not too low. If the
support pressure is too low, face collapse or extreme settlements occur. If it is too
high excessive slurry or air penetration with surface upheaval may occur together
with loss in effective support, particulary with air. This may result in face collapse.
The first calculation of the support pressure for a Hydroshield ( an earlier designed
slurry shield from Wayss & Freytag AG ) based on a simple three dimensional
model, as shown in Figure 6.,

a,) LONGITUDINAL SECTION b,) FRONT VIEW

q.kN/m 2
Ground surface

4>. c

Ground woter

c,) TOP SIDE VIEW d.) FOOCES ON SOIL 'M:DGE

~ b ~
G,
1 1

uliI@
---~- . . ':~:~ .-
s
;-F-

Figure 6. Three dimensional limit equilibrium model

 Face stability in non-cohesive soils 537

was carried out approx. six years ago [ 4 ]. After six years experience in using this
failure model on different projects [ 5 ] it appears well proven , that there is no
particular need for more complicated or sophisticated calculation methods. Due to
many uncertainities like: soil parameters, boundary conditions, constitutive law etc.
it is more than adequate to use the simplified three dimensional model from Figure
6. It is more important to collect further practical experiences and carry out different
measurements to be able to adapt or apply the theoretical results to them. [ 6 ]
The three dimensional failure model consists of two parts ; a soil wedge ( lower
part ) and a soil silo ( upper part ) above them. For the first, the vertical pressure
resulting from silo and acting on the horizontal surface of the soil wedge will be
determined separately from the lower part. According to Terzaghi's solution the
vertical pressure is given by [ 7 ]

F
-y-c{ }
q S (t) = UAtan<l> 1 - exp ( - t ~ Atan<l» ( 1 )

Where y is the unit weight, <l> is the angle of internal friction, c is the cohesion, A is
the earth pressure coefficient, U and F are the circumference and area of the
horizontal plane from the soil wedge. As the expression shows, the vertical
overburden pressure acting on the top plane of the soil wedge is also a function of
the slip angle. This angle is the linking member between upper and lower part of the
failure model. The conditions of equilibrium for the lower part are (see also [ 8 ] )

L F + Rsin <l> + EcosJ3 - L Gsin J3 = 0 (2)

Rcos<l> + EsinJ3 + L GcosJ3 = 0 (3)

and with it the earth pressure is given by

L G (sinJ3 - cosJ3tan<l» - L F
E (4)
tan<l>sinJ3 - cosJ3

The maximum of the earth pressure is to derivate by fulfilling next differential

condition:

dE
o (5)
dJ3

The solution for J3 = f (~ ; <l> ) after solving the differential equation is obtained

through a series of iterations. Figure 7. shows the variation of the slip angle B over
538 Face support for a large Mix-shield
t
<l> and - . It is important to recognize that the effect of the overburden pressure on 13
D
t
- if - ~ 2 - is not that great. With knowledge of 13 it is possible to define a three-
D
dimensional earth pressure coefficient :

2 Ka
sin p cos p - cos p tan <l> - - cos p tan <l>
1.5
( 6)
2
cos p sin p + tan <l> sin p

1 - sin <l> + tan 2 ( 45 - ~) + 3

D
Where K "" and a Figure 8. clearly
2 t
+ 2-
D
indicates the predominant influence of the internal friction on the earth pressure. The
diagrams of Figures 7. and 8. can be applied for estimating support pressure in
different cases. For practical use and parametric studies a computer program was
developed by [9] using a Windows I Mathcad spread sheet.
Other solutions of the support pressure for cohesionless soil have been published by
[ 9 ]. Their theoretical solutions for statically admissible stress field ( lower bound )
and for kinematically possible collapse mechanism ( upper bound) were found to be
in close agreement with experimental results. Therefore this theoretical method
seemed to be applicable, as a calculation for comparison, to the three-dimensional
problem from the tunneling face especially - in fluvioglacial gravel above the ground
water level - in western part of the Grauholz - Line. The necessary magnitude of
uniform normal support pressure on the exposed periphery and face were estimated
after(7)and(8) :

yD
cr TL = - 2 - - - Kp2 (7)
Kp2 - I

yD ( 1
4 cos <l> tan <l> + <l> -
1t)
"2 (8)

I
provided that - ~ - . - - - I . Where D is the diameter of shield, y is the unit
D sm <l>

weight of soil, <l> is the angle of internal friction and K P 2 = tan 2 (45 + : )

is. Substituting D = 11.6 m and y = 22 KN/m 3 into the above equations the lower
 t (3 t KA3
IT <I> =20' <I> =25' <I> =30' <I> =35' <I> =40' D <I> =20' <I> =25' <I> =30' <I> =35' <I> =40'
60.340 62,611 64,802 66.900 68,918 0,386 0,310 0,248 0,199 0,159
°1 61,890 64,161 66,286 68,283 70,177
°1 0,354 0,279 0,222 0,177 0,141
2 62,197 64.464 66,580 68,566 70,423 2 0,348 0,273 0,217 0,173 0,138
3 62,322 64,592 66,706 68,683 70,527 3 0,345 0,271 0,214 0,171 0,136
45+ .! 55,0 57,5 60,0 62,5 65,0 KA2 =ton 2( 45- ~ ) 0,49 0,41 0,33 0,27 0,22
2
K= Ko+K2 0,574 0,4916 0,4167 0,349 0,287 K= Ko+KA2 0,574 0,4916 0,4167 0,349 0,287
2 2
-
0,1 0,2 0,3 KA3 0,4
~
CD
060 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 (3(') 00

/I V ~
~.
I I
I S·
b ~ b =
v I") g ~ N §I
o
'6< '6<
" " &" '6<
" '6<" o
2 2 go
t t '"
....<
D D CD

3 '"
3 ~
'"

Figure 7. Variation of the slip angle ~ Figure 8. Three dimensional earth pressure coefficient VI
W
\0
540 Face support for a large Mix-shield
and upper limit of support pressure were calculated and plotted versus the angle of
internal friction <I> as shown in Figure 9.
Calculations based on simplified three - dimensional model delivered very similar
results at <l> = 35 0_ 40 o. During tunnelling the stability of the face was verified by
reducing the air support pressure in the soils of the western tunnel section. For safe
and stable tunnelling a support pressure was judged necessary, corresponding to the
lower bound limit for gravel with a friction angle of <l> = 38 o. During the tests,
with reduction of air pressure, it was noticed that instabilities developed with support
pressures in the range of 15 - 25 KPa. This corresponds to the upper bound solution
for a friction angle from 38 0 to 44 o. Since such friction angles are possibly close to
the origin, the agreement between the analytical solution after [ 9 ] and experience
was cosidered as good.

100
90
"I'- D=11,6M
80
70
"" "I',
1'=22kN/m 3

w
a::
::>
(/)
60
~ --- "'" "
----->0..;
NORMAL
.........
RESSURE
- - - - - - )UPPQ~ - - - -
(60KPa)
(/)
50 ..... ....

-
w
a::
............... ..........

--
Q..
40

-----
I- UPPER OUND ..... .......... .......... LOWER BOUND
a::
0 30 ~
~ INSTABILI;~
Q..
::>

.
::>
(/) 20 START OFr

30 35 40 45 50 55 60
[0 I
ANGLE OF INT. FRICTION 4>
Figure 9. Support pressures after Atkinson & Potts

5. Support pressures along the tunnel alignment

The required support pressures along the tunnel axis were calculated with the help of
the above discussed methods. Figure 10. and Figure 11. shows the air cushion and
air pressure for to the centre lowered ( half drawdown ) slurry in the eastern and
western part of the tunnel. In slurry mode one has to recognize, that the support
pressure in the working chamber is of course not equal to the air cushion pressure.
The fluid pressure in the crown-point can be derived as follows Po = P AC - lr
where p AC is the air cushion pressure, y is the unit weight of slurry and I is the
distance between the crown-point and slurry level behind the bulkhead ( see Figure
 Support pressures along tunnel alignment 541

600
SEE LEGEND ON FIGURE 3. (mNN)

, r:~
I I I I (km)
500
~ 80 ~ §l ~
~R ~PRE~REp~ _ PRESSURE
3.0 (bar)

~ _~r--'ARm IRb
2.0
1.0
\ 0
AIR PRESSURE PAli

Figure 10. Support pressures in eastern part of tunnel

SEE LEGEND ON FIGURE 3.

(mNN)

600

550

~~~
I' ,, I ,
I I I , I I , I , I I I I I I I I 500
§ ~ § ~ § (km)
y:) ,....: ex)

PRESSURE / AIR CUSHION PRESSURE PAC

(bor)3.0 '---j-+---------=----
2.0 1 - - / + - - - - - - - - - - - f ) - -
it I
1.0 t-\--------------------------------f I
o ll-L-_ _~~-------L--L
\ AIR PRESSURE PAM

Figure 11. Support pressures in western part of tunnel

542 Face support for a large Mix-shield
5. ). During tunnelling in granular soils it has been proven that a factor of safety -
against collapse according to the simplified model - not higher than 1.2 to 1.3 was
necessary to ensure a stable face.

5.1 Experiences with face support

In bedrock with sufficient rock cover no face support was necessary and the Mix-
Shield was operated as an ordinary TBM. In soil and mixed-face conditions the Mix-
Shield was operated as a slurry shield. During slurry shield tunnelling no substantial
problems with face support developed. However, one has to be aware that with little
overburden the slurry pressure may cause heave. This limiting condition has to be
checked.
Problems developed essentially only with compressed air support, which had to be
applied for the purpose of maintenance of the tools. When pervious gravels were
encountered loss of air support was experienced twice under different conditions. In
both cases a collapse of the face occurred. The cutting wheel had to be freed either
from a shaft or by grouting from inside the shield [ 3 ]. Both operations were tedious
and time-consuming.
After the first incident protective roofs were frozen in maintenance stations, located
every 50 meter . This reduced loss of compressed air and prevented the development
of running ground.
After the second incident a special slurry was developed which formed an essentially
air-tight membrane on the surface of the ground. Also controlled entry procedures
were then prescribed. First the loss of supporting slurry was monitored after
increasing the face pressure by 0.5 bar ( 50 KPa ). The slurry at the face was then
lowered in stages and at each stage the loss of compressed air monitored. With these
procedures further incidents, with uncontrolled loss of face support pressure could be
avoided.

5.2 Settlements
The tunnel passed under free country-side and several roads, a petroleum pipeline
and a major motorway. Two of the roads were close to the portals. Since instabilities
could not be completely excluded with the overburden varying between 6.5 to 8 m,
the traffic was diverted when tunnelling directly underneath the road. No incidents
developed. With the first road crossing, less than 100 meters after the start of
tunnelling, and 6.5 m overburden above the crown, a central settlement of 25 mm
was monitored. This translates to a loss of ground of 0.4 %.
When passing under the motorway with 60 meters overburden the survey at the
ground surface did not detect any settlement. Also when crossing 20 meters
underneath the petroleum pipeline, which had been emptied prior to passage of the
tunnel, no settlement was detected. The saine was observed when passing underneath
the road close to the westportal. In these cases this might be partly attributed to the
local ground conditions with fine-grained layers of silt to clayey silt which deformed
less during tunnelling and allowed a complete grouting of the tail void. Interestingly
in zones where collapses to the surface had occured, no settlements were detected at
 Penetration of slurry 543
some distance (15 - 20 m) from the sink-holes and no settlements indicated imminent
collapse.

6. Penetration of slurry into the soil at the tunnelling face

A soil-bentonite-water slurry doesn't penetrate into the pores of the soil if the grain
size distribution of solids in the slurry is coarser than the pore-size ( = constriction
size ) distribution of the soil . Constriction size ( Dc ) is defined as the diameter of
the largest sphere that will pass through a particular constriction ( see Figure 12. ).

Constriction
c.) ffic Constriction size
/0=0.26

Boundory
Constriction size
Dc /D=0.16

Figure 12. Constriction size in dense assemblages of spheres after Kenney et al.

The distribution of constriction size is dependent mainly on the grain size distribution
and probabilistic methods can be used to estimate the distribution for ~ given
gradation, e.g. from [ 11 ]. Figure 13. shows an example for the constriction size
distribution in

SilT SAND COBlES

U'l
100 ~
11 t:.111l111GRAVEL
II: 1111
U'l
-<
:::;;: 80
~ GRAIN SIZE
CONSTRICTION ANUMBER CURVE /
60 SIZE DISTRIBUTION
/
40 FLUVIO CLACI AL I--
!. GRAVEL
20
§ SA 'M)USTII 1/
~ OR SANOv V
o 0,01 IIII V
0,06 0,10 1.00 2 10,00 60 100,00
GRAIN SIZE D {mm}

Figure 13. Particle size and constriction size distributions

544 Face support for a large Mix-shield
comparison with the mass distribution of gravel and sawdust or fines. Granular
materials are composed of a range of particle sizes and, therefore, contain a range of
constriction sizes. The filtering capability of a soil at the face is dependent on the
minimum size of constrictions along flow paths. [ 12 ]
According to [13] the penetration length ( Figure 14.)

SLURRY FACE
IN PRESSURE
CHAMBER

Figure 14. Penetration length in state of stagnation

of a bentonite slurry in a pore channel of soil is given by

(9)

Where ~p is the difference between slurry pressure and water pressure, dlO is the
effective particle size and 't s is the shear resistance of the slurry. Figure 15.
illustrates an example for the penetration in soils with different d lO and at constant
pressure difference and at two different shear resistance. Experiences have proved,
that the slurry intrusion will be unacceptably high when d lO > 2 - 3 mm, even if
the stability criteria of a single particle or particle group after [ 14 ]
d 10 (1 - n)( y s - y S )
't s - - - - - - - - - is the fulfilled. Where n is the porosity, Y8 is the
~
tan <I>
specific weight of soil particle and Ys is the unit weight of slurry. In some similar
 Penetration of slurry 545
cases the tunnelling face collapsed because the stabilizing effect of the penetrated
slurry ( state of stagnation ) outside the possible failure area is practically equal to
zero. On the other hand in strong heterogeneous soil the above mentioned
equilibrium criterion is less or not valid because forces between and torques on
single particles are not considered in it.

20
18
IIII II IIII
fl p-l00KPa I
I
I
16
I
20Pa I
E
'-""
14 T =

.r:
0- 12
c: I
<l.l
10
c: I
0 I
8
~<l.l
6 T- 50Pa I
c:
<l.l
a... 1/
4

2 /
...-"'-
....-
o
0,001 0,01 0,10 1 10 100
Effective grain size d 10 (mm)

Figure 15. Penetration lengths in different soils

Over years collected field experiences, series of laboratory and in situ tests have
formed the philosophy at Wayss & Freytag AG for a quick developing membrane on
the face without large intrusion of slurry into the pores of any kind of soils,
fullfilling criterias for pumpability (1S < 40 - 50 Pa ), separability and last but not
least the cost efficiency. In soils with higher sand content there is no problem to
reach a quick cake developing with a pure bentonite slurry.
In the western section of the Grauholz tunnel ( km. 7.6 - 6.5 ) the sand content in
the slurry circuit was artifically kept high ( density of slurry 10.8 to 11.2 KN/m3 )
by taking out of operation half the capacity of the multicyclones and recirculating it
to the face. The slurry had a shear strength of only 10 - 20 Pa.
In addition to bentonite ( 50 kg I m3 ) also polymer was mixed to the slurry ( 0.4
kg I m3 ). The polymer with long strings forms a " net" over the pores causing a
rapid clogging almost without respect on any filter law. Figure 16. tries to visualize
this special situation. The soil-bentonite slurry would penetrate relatively deep into
the pores if there were no polymer strings in the slurry mixture.
546 Face support for a large Mix-shield

SLURRY

SAI'IIlUST OR SOIL GRAIN

IN BENTONITE MATRIX

Figure 16. Membrane ( cake) developing with special slurry

Quintessence of the above discussed experiences is that, when developing a

membrane without penetration of slurry into the pores is possible, then the role of
the shear resistance is secondary. In Figure 17. an attempt has been made to
demonstrate that a

T - SHEAR RESISTANCE (N/m 2)

I 10 100
_ 10
a;
..
-0
....,
~
.E-
o-
:z: '>-r--. .......... IBENTONITE +POL YMER ~
~
:z: ~ BENTONITE I 'MTHOUT MEMBRANE
8 r-.
'= r-- -..... 1\
\
~
:z:
50
BENTONITE +SAIIDUST .- P'<
--
t....I
w +SAND+POL YMER
I t-...
'MTH MEMBRANE
0'
DEVELOPING
100

Figure 17. Effect of additives on membrane developing

 Penetration of slurry 547
very high shear resistance alone ( up to 90 N/m2 ) is not enough for membrane
developing in a very coarse soil like the fluvioglacial gravel. Results taken from
[ 15 ].
The theory of the small slurry penetration into the pores leads to a relatively thick
and resistant slurry mixture. Even if this could be described as a tendency to earth
pressure or slime balancing method, an important difference has to be emphasised :
to adjust an appropriate support pressure in a slurry shield is more exact, safer and
technically easier. It is not so dependent on the workmanship of the crew as in a
earth pressure balanced shield. Also the applied pressure acts directly at the interface
of the tunnel. A slurry shield acts in terms of effective stresses which are applied to
the face.
It is necessary to limit and relate the above postulated thesis of the quick cake
developing for a " high speed " face advance in a medium coarse sandy gravel. In
such a case, also depending on the pressure difference and bentonite content, there is
no time for a deep slurry penetration into the soil even if the mixture doesn't fulfill
the filter law or contains additives. Consequently no significant pressure loss will be
obtained at the face. This " overriding " method is only practicable under really
favourable conditions.
Another major issue is in very coarse soils support of the face - partly or fully -
with compressed air. Not only great air losses but the danger of a blowout and I or
face instability can occur.
In the fluvioglacial gravel, above the ground water level a special slurry : formed
from a mixture from fines + sawdust + polymer + bentonite and water was used to
obtain an air-tight or less air-permeable membrane. The role of the sawdust is
similar to the fines from soil ( clogging) with one difference, that a cake which
contains sawdust particles is more compressible at the beginning of the filtration and
therefore the cake will be developed safer and will be denser than with sand only.
Tests with a slurry containing the same amount of sand by volume did not give an
impervious membrane. The sawdust of the same gradation gave an impervious
membrane. [3], [ 14 ]
Repairing works in the working chamber were systematically carried out on
Mondays. After the last shift on every Friday the above described special slurry was
pumped into the shield chamber and pressurized over the normal pressure needed (
up to 1,7 - 2,0 bar air cushion pressure). This was continued over the weekend.
Slurry losses between 15 - 30 m3 were recorded. In fact these were liquid or water
losses until a very dense non permeable cake was achieved. The result was a very
stable air supported tunnelling face in the coarse gravel. In this connection it is
important to remember the height of the air supported face from 11.6 m. Figure 18.
shows the air consumption measured in a Monday-shift on 23 rd . Nov. 1992, first
between 08 _13 30 hours with a very low max. air loss ( 30 m3 I min) for the full-
face compressed air support. After a short pressurizing, between 13 30 - 16 hours,
again with special suspension, the working chamber was entered with to the center
lowered suspension i.e. half-face compressed air support. In this case a higher air
consumption tendency was obtained but still within a very acceptable range. From
548 Face support for a large Mix-shield

I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
E /
/
AIR PRESSURE: ~ (
PAtO.6bar ;g I
I
I
23rd Nov. 1992 08" -13'"
I"
19 I
I
18 FULL AIR SUPPORT I
------
c 17 AFTER SATURATION /
'E THE PORES ON WEEKEND I
-......... 16 I
15 (Area of face= 106 m2) -'
L----,-_ _ _..,.-_---11
14 ,.......1
13 I
12 I
I
11 I
1O+----+-----l~+1-__,d.l__l
9
8
7
6
5
4
3

1
o
16" 17" 18" 19" 20" 21" 22"
8" 9" 10" 11" 12" 13" 14"
TIME (hours)

Figure 18. Air consumption during face support with compressed air
 References 549
Figure 18. it is also interesting to recognize the relatively long " no air loss "
periods; in both cases approx. 1.5 hour, directly after entering the working chamber.
This phenomenon could be explained with a consolidation process within the cake (
two phase or saturated condition ) followed by an successive emptying of pore
channels from water ( three phase condition).

7. Conclusions

The ground conditions at the Grauholz Tunnel were quite demanding due to the
heterogeneous ground conditions. The great variety of ground conditions on the same
project allowed insight and direct comparison in the functioning of the Mix-Shield in
particular when operating as a slurry shield.
The double chamber slurry shield greatly facilitates maintenance. With the slurry
shield face support can be actively and positively controlled. Slurry pressure must
balance water and earthpressure. Design procedures for determining support
pressures were established and verified. In order to prevent loss of air pressure
special slurry mixes and entry procedurs were developed.
The Mix-Shield, with the lessons learned at the Grauholz Tunnel, has developed to a
method for tackling complex ground conditions, mixed-face and rock conditions.
However, the importance of well-trained experienced personnel with the necessary
understanding of geotechnical factors should not be overlooked.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank for the kindly permission of the Swiss Federal Railroads
to publish this paper. Very special thank to the staff of the joint venture, especially
to the engineers Mr. Aebersold, Mr. StrliBer and Mr. Bonsch for their cooperation
and useful discussions.

References

1. Steiner, W. ( 1988 ) : The Grauholz high-speed railway tunnel in difficult

ground.
Proceedings of Int. Conf. on Tunnels and Water, Madrid. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, Vol. 3, pp. 1381 -1385
2. Steiner, W. and Becker, C. ( 1991 ) : Grauholz tunnel in Switzerland: large
mixed-face slurry shield.
Proceedings of RETC, Seattle, WA., pp. 329 - 347
3. Steiner, W. ( 1993 ) : Experience with an 11.6 m diameter Mix - Shield:
The importance of the ground machine interface.
Proceedings of RETC, Boston, MA., pp. 759 - 779
4. Jancsecz, S. ( 1987 ) : Three dimensional calculation of required support
pressures for the Hydroshield tunnelling in Berlin U-8, Lot D 79. (in
German) Report submitted to the Senate of City Berlin, FRG. 27th. April. 1987
550 Face support for a large Mix-shield
5. Jancsecz, S. ( 1988 - 1992 ) : Support pressure calculations for Mix-Shields
( all in Gennan )
Duisburg ( D 6.52 m ), City Rail TA6, Lot 22N.
1988 -1989. Reportss ubmitted to the City Duisburg.
Berne, Grauholz Tunnel ( D = 11.6 m ).1990 - 1993. Reports submitted to
Swiss Federal Railway.
Cologne ( D = 6.52 m ), City Rail, Lot MI. 1992.Reports submitted to the
City Cologne.
Essen ( D = 8.33 m ), City Rail, Lot 34. 1992. Reports submitted to the city
Essen.
Dusseldorf (D = 5.55 m ), Main Sewer, Lot 1. 1992. Reports submitted to the
City Dusseldorf
6. Jancsecz, S. ( 1991 ) : Definition geotechnischer Parameter fur den Einsatz
von Schildvortriebsmaschinen mit suspensionsgestutzter Ortsbrust.
Tunnelbau - Neue Chancen aus europaischen Impulsen. Vortrage der STUVA -
Tagung in Dusseldorf, F. + P. 34
7. Kezdi, A. ( 1962) : Erddrucktheorien.
Springer - Verlag, Berlin / G6ttingen / Heidelberg
8. Prater, E. G. ( 1973 ) : Die GewOlbewirkung der Schlitzwande.
Der Bauingenieur, 48, pp. 125 - 131
9. Jancsecz, S. ( 1993 ) : Windows / Mathcad* based computer program for
support pressure calculation. Not published.
*Windows is a trade mark from Microsoft Corp., USA
Mathcad is a trade mark from MathSoft. Inc. Cambridge, MA, USA
10. Atkinson, 1. H. and Potts, D. M. ( 1977 ) : Stability of shallow circular
tunnel in cohesionless soil. Geotechnique 27, No.2, pp. 203 -215
11. Ziems, J. ( 1968 ) : Beitrag zur Kontakterosion nichtbindiger Erdstoffe.
Dissertation, TV Dresden
12. Kenney, T. C., Chahal, R., Chiu, E., Ofoegbu, G. I., Omange, G, N., Ume,
C. A. ( 1985) : Controlling constriction sizes of granular filters.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 32 - 43
13. DIN 4126 ( 1986) Ortbeton - Schlitzwande. Konstruktion und Ausfuhrung
14. Muller- Kirchenbauer, H. ( 1972 ) : Stability of slurry trenches.
Proc. of 5th Europ. Conf. SMFE Madrid, Vol. I.,pp. 543-553
15. Puntke, W. and Wichmann, W.-R. ( 1993 ) : Laboratory tests on differently
composed suspensions for Grauholztunnel. Lot West. ( in Gennan)
Report ( No. 599) submitted to Swiss Federal Railway