See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328364817

Cross Passage Ground Treatment for the CTRL Thames Tunnel

Conference Paper · September 2003

CITATIONS READS
2 812

4 authors, including:

Colin Warren
Warren Geotechnical Limited
84 PUBLICATIONS   177 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

High Speed 2 View project

High Speed 1 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Colin Warren on 15 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cross passage Ground Treatment for the CTRL Thames Tunnel

C. D. Warren
Rail Link Engineering
P. Hughes
Keller Ground Engineering
A. Swift
Rail Link Engineering
J. Mielenz
Hochtief Murphy Joint Venture

Abstract

Success on any tunnelling project relies heavily on having a good understanding of the geology and
the nature of the ground to be encountered. This paper summarises the geotechnical and geological
aspects of the Thames Tunnel Project and provides a detailed description of the ground treatment
carried out at cross passage locations. Information is given into the methods employed for drilling and
grouting, the type of grout materials used and the pre- and post- permeability values obtained. Details
obtained from other tunnels in chalk are also briefly summarised.

1. Introduction

The CTRL Thames Tunnel currently under construction comprises twin, 2.5km long 7.2m internal
diameter bored tunnels and their 450m long approach structures made up of 300m long cut and cover
sections followed by 150m of retained cut 1. They pass through varying geology comprising alluvium,
terrace gravels and chalk with flints and are being bored using Herrenknecht mixshield slurry tunnel
boring machines. At the crossing point, the river Thames is some 1200m wide and 18m deep such that
at the Nadir (i.e. lowest point of the tunnel), the tunnel is subjected to over 400 kN/m2 (4 bar) water
pressure, Figure 1. As part of the scheme four of the six cross passages (i.e. XP2, XP3, XP4 and the
Nadir) have to be constructed through chalk, XP1 and XP5 being respectively located in northern and
southern cut and cover structures. Regarding the four cross passages in chalk :

• cross passages XP2, XP3 and XP4 are spaced approximately 665m apart and will allow
evacuation of people in the event of an emergency.

• the cross passage at the Nadir will have an associated sump which will form the permanent
pumping arrangement for the Thames Tunnel.

Because of the high water pressures and high permeability of the chalk existing in the area of the cross
passages, ground pre-treatment had to be undertaken prior to their excavation to allow their safe
construction. The treatment involved forming a treated block of approximate dimensions (height :
length : width) 8m : 11m : 8m around each of the cross passage locations in which the chalk
permeability was much reduced and strength increased. The post-treatment requirement was for the
grouted chalk to have a permeability equivalent to 1 to 2 Lugeons i.e. about 10-7 m s-1, as compared to
chalk permeability values of 10-4 m s-1 to 10-6 m s-1 existing before the treatment. Although ground
treatment is usually more cost-effective if undertaken from ground surface, it was not viable in this
case as two of the cross passages were located directly beneath the river Thames. Problems with
surface treatment also existed for the other two cross passages since both were located close to the
seawall with the one on the north sited in an area of special scientific interest. The contract for the
ground treatment was awarded to Keller Ground Engineering with works on site commencing in
November 2002 and being completed in May 2003.
 RIVER THAMES
0 mAOD
ALLUVIUM

GRAVEL
WEATHERED CHALK

XP2
XP4
40 mAOD
XP3 NADIR
CHALK

Figure 1 : Geological Section at Cross Passage Locations

2. Previous Experience of Grouting in Chalk

Several past tunnels constructed through the chalk have encountered problems with water ingress 2 and
have been subjected to ground treatment similar to that proposed for the Thames Tunnel. These have
included the Dartford Road Tunnels (UK) located immediately upstream of the Thames Tunnel, the
Channel Tunnel (UK and France) and the Storebaelt Tunnel (Denmark).

Dartford Tunnels 3,4,5

These two tunnels were constructed between the period 1936 and 1979 and were excavated using
tunnel shields with compressed air working and ground treatment through similar geology to the
CTRL Thames Tunnel, that is alluvium over river gravels on Upper Chalk with flints. Both tunnels
were constructed, firstly by driving nominal 3.6m diameter fully lined tunnels from which ground
treatment could be and was effected. The treatment was designed to control groundwater inflow,
improve general ground stability where necessary, and minimise compressed air losses. Treatment of
chalk carried out from surface and from the pilot tunnel using cement & cement-bentonite grouts. For
the first tunne1, the grouting was primarily limited to the mixed face zones in the underland sections
of the work and relatively high compressed air losses were tolerated to control groundwater inflow.
For the second tunnel , systematic forward probing and radial grouting was undertaken to provide a
secure annulus at least 2m thick around the excavation profile and to limit air pressure.

During construction of the pilot tunnel for the first drive between 1936 and 1938, air pressures of up
to 240 kN/m2 (2.4 bar) were employed with 11m3/min average air consumption at the face . Problems
met on the Kent bank where 22m3/min air lost and a blowout occurred through an ungrouted borehole.
The rate of compression sickness, expressed per number of total compressions, was between 1 – 1.5%
with one reported death as a result. For the first main drive of 10.7m external diameter built between
1957 and 1960, approximately 10,000 tonne of Portland cement was injected under the assumption
that 330kg of cement would be required to treat each cubic metre of chalk. Air pressures used during
the drive were typically 140 kN/m2 (1.4 bar) , 190 kN/m2 (1.9 bar) at maximum , with average and
maximum air consumption at the face of 4m3/min and 12m3/min respectively. The rate of
compression sickness (expressed per number of total compressions) , mostly bends, was 0.56%.

Treatment for the pilot tunnel for the second tunnel involved drilling and grouting in 11m stages ahead
of the face; holes included 9 number 13.5m long primary holes and 8 number 6m long secondary holes
when required. Treatment for the main tunnel involved drilling 16 number holes radially out from the
pilot tunnel at 3m intervals and injecting grout so as to form a treated zone extending 2m beyond the
annulus of the main drive. Bentonite-cement grout was used and the hole spacing was never greater
than 3m apart centre to centre. Severe water ingress however was still met during construction even
under compressed air working.

Channel Tunnel 6,7,8,

The 50km long Channel Tunnel built during the period 1987 to 1994 was constructed from both the
English and French sides. On the English side, the ground treatment was limited to a 700m length of
wet ground some 3km offshore which had been met in the smaller 5.4m diameter pilot service tunnel
drive. The geology in this area is Chalk Marl (Lower Chalk). Permeability tests performed in
boreholes drilled across to the crown of both 8.8m diameter running tunnels over this length indicated
values of 10 Lugeons (about 10-6 m s-1 ) or slightly greater. Due to the difficulties experienced with
water and overbreak in the service tunnel the decision was taken to treat both running tunnel crowns
above axis level.

The treatment was carried out from the service tunnel , 3 number holes being drilled every 3m along
both walls across to the crown of both running tunnels. Some 80000m3 of fissured chalk was treated
in this way to form a 3m arch around the crown. Tube-a-manchette methods and chemical grout
(Silacsol) was employed with grouting pressures up to 25 bar (twice overburden pressure) to induce
controlled hydrofracturing of the chalk. Grout take was 2.5% of the treated chalk volume. The
treatment proved highly effectual with post- treatment Lugeon values of less than 1 (about 10-7 m s-1 )
being measured.

On the French side, the form of treatment was more extensive, and was undertaken not only from
within the service tunnel at locations of ancillary tunnels such as cross passages and piston relief
ducts, but also from the Sangatte Shaft at the six TBM breakouts and from surface in geologically
critical areas underland e.g. fault locations. The geology underland comprises white chalks (Upper,
Middle & Lower) down to Grey Chalk. Geology undersea comprises Grey Chalk & Chalk Marl.
Treatment of the 3.3m diameter cross passages and 2m diameter piston relief ducts was normally
required where the exploratory boreholes drilled at each location indicated permeabilities above 20
Lugeons (about 2 x 10-6 m s-1 ).

In total , all ancillary tunnel locations were treated underland and 26 number out of 131 number
undersea. Typically tube-a-manchette were employed with bentonite/cement first stage injection
(water – cement ratio of between 2 : 1 and 3 : 1) followed by second stage chemical injection
(Silacsol). Grouting was carried out in two stages, with the first phase consisting of low-pressure
grouting of a 5m thick annulus around the outer surface of the lining to create a buffer that could
withstand the much higher pressures of the second stage. The refusal pressure for first stage grouting
was 5 bar above the ambient hydrostatic pressure. The second stage comprised treatment beyond the
5m annulus and pressures were limited to 3000 kN/m2 (30 bar) 30 bar that is 2000 kN/m2 (20 bar)
above ambient water pressures. Grout takes typically averaged 2% to 3% of the treated chalk volume
(range 1% to 5%). Pre- and post- treatment Lugeon values were 10 to 50 (about 1 to 5 x 10-6 m s-1 )
and less than 1 to 3 Lugeon (about 1 to 3 x 10-7 m s-1 ) respectively

Storebaelt Tunnels 9,10

The 14.6km long 7.7m diameter twin-bore Storebaelt Rail Tunnel including 29 cross passages was
built between 1988 and 1997 to connect the Danish islands of Zealand and Funen. As part of its
construction, treatment of the 17m long 4.75m external diameter cross passages in Palaeocene chalk
marl had to be undertaken. 16 number cross passages were treated in this way with hydrostatic water
pressures ranging between 500 and 700 kN/m2 (5 and 7 bar). The treatment was carried out from both
running tunnels and typically employed tube-a-manchette grouting methods in combination with
vacuum dewatering (drain holes up to 12 number and 8 - 10m long).

An annulus of 3 - 5m was treated using microfine cements (Spinor A12) with a water : cement ratio
of 1 : 1 together with a Microsol dispersing agent. A basic pattern of 8 to 9 primary holes at a
spacing of 5 – 6m centres was drilled from one side of the cross passage. Drilling was undertaken
through blowout preventers and the drilling and grouting automatically datalogged. All holes with
outflows greater than 20 litres used tube-a-manchette grouting methods (section lengths typically
2.5m) ; lower outflows employed a single packer. Grout pressures were limited to 400 kN/m2 (4 bar)
above ambient groundwater pressure close to the tunnel and up to 1000 kN/m2 (10 bar) further afield,
and grout volumes to a maximum volume of 2000 litres. After the primary pattern had been
completed a secondary pattern of 3 – 4 additional holes were drilled between the primary points and
the process repeated. The volume of grout injected was limited to 2% of the treated marl volume with
the actual grout volume used being typically between 1 - 1.5%. Spile bars were also installed on
occasion to provide additional support. Once sufficient ground treatment had been carried out,
excavation could commence, a flood protection door that could close within one minute having been
fitted to guard against inundation.

3. Investigations for the Thames Tunnel

Site investigations for the tunnel were carried out in six phases between the period January 1994 and
March 2001 and included an offshore geophysical survey and extensive borehole drilling 11. The
offshore geophysical survey aided definition of seabed bathmetry, top of chalk and geological
structure at the crossing point. A total of twenty-four multichannel seismic lines, each some 1km in
length, were run with four lines aligned across the river and twenty aligned perpendicular to the route
(interval spacing of 50m). Additional information on the possible presence of buried river channels
and thickness of the superficial deposits in the area were provided by nine infill lines run using a
single channel system, including a repeat of two route alignment cross-stream lines.

The borehole investigations comprised a total of 108 deep holes extending over a corridor width of
200m and drilled using rotary or percussive techniques. 51 of these were associated with the tunnel
itself and were drilled at twenty-seven locations including 17 holes at nine locations in the river. 57
holes were sunk as part of the investigations for the tunnel approaches and open cut structures, cone
penetration test holes providing extra information. Boreholes on land were typically spaced 100 –
150m apart as compared to 200m offshore. Investigation holes for the tunnel generally extended well
below tunnel level and comprised a series of paired holes at each location, one hole being used to
obtain good quality core and the adjacent hole being used for in situ testing i.e. downhole geophysical
logging, variable head and packer permeability tests, pumping tests and pressuremeter tests. Standpipe
piezometers installed in many of the onshore boreholes were monitored up to present providing
information on groundwater levels including tidal fluctuations.

Chalk cores recovered from the boreholes were logged in accordance with the new CIRIA Grade
definitions (see Table 1) and together with examination of nearby quarries allowed the detailed
lithostratigraphy along the line of the proposed tunnel and information on the nature of the chalk (e.g.
discontinuities, chalk grade and flint size/frequency) to be obtained.

Table 1 CIRIA Chalk Classification 12

CIRIA Chalk Grade Typical Discontinuity Aperture Subdivision

mm
Grade D Structureless or remoulded melange Dm = comminuted matrix
Dm >35% (matrix dominated)
Dc Dc = comminuted matrix
<35% (clast dominated)

Grade C >3 Suffix 1 - 5

Grade B <3 Suffix 1 - 5
Grade A Closed Suffix 1 - 5

Suffix Typical Discontinuity Spacing mm

1 > 600
2 200 – 600
3 60 – 200
4 20 – 60
5 < 20
4. Geology along the Tunnel

The geology along the tunnel route and at cross passage locations is shown in Figure 1 and comprises
10 - 12m Alluvium over 6m Terrace Gravels resting on low-medium density Upper Chalk.
Alluvium and much of the Terrace Gravels are absent in the river. The groundwater table lies close to
ground surface and is subjected to tidal fluctuations especially adjacent the river.

The Alluvium consists of soft to very soft greenish grey organic clays with peat layers and occasional
deposits of fine silty sand and gravel. The Terrace Gravels may be described as a medium dense to
dense grey or brown very sandy (medium to coarse) angular to rounded flint gravel with occasional
cobbles. Typical grading curves would indicate 5% silt, 25% sand and 70% gravel sized fraction. The
permeability of the gravels are high with packer tests and pumping tests producing values in the range
10-4 m s-1 up to 4 x 10-3 m s-1.

The Upper Chalk in which the cross passages are to be constructed form part of the Seaford and
Lewes Chalks 13. The chalk is orthogonally jointed and high to moderately weathered in the top 10m
(CIRIA Grade D to 2 - 4m below top followed by Grade C to 10m depth) but this gives way at depth
to unweathered blocky chalk (Grades A and B). The orthogonal joint sets comprise a subhorizontal
set and two near vertical sets aligned N-S and WNW-ESE. The unconfined compressive strength of
the chalk is of the order of 2 - 4 MPa as compared to 600MPa for the numerous horizons of flints that
occur within the sequence. The flints typically exist as seams of nodular flints, usually 50 – 300mm in
diameter and spaced 600 - 1000mm apart, and tabular sheets generally between 25mm and 50mm
thick infilling vertical, horizontal or inclined discontinuities. Packer and pumping tests indicate the
overall mass permeability to be in the range 10-6 m s-1 up to 5 x 10-4 m s-1, the higher permeabilities
being associated with the weathered and open fabric of the chalk close to surface.

The chalk beds dip gently eastwards at less than 2° but some minor faulting exists. No major faulting
has been identified. Both the borehole and geophysical evidence points to the absence of deep local
depressions or dissolution pipes infilled with gravels along the tunnel route, the top of chalk lying
generally between -16 to -18 mOD. Possible local solution features and open fissures (open up to
150mm but usually infilled with gravel and spaced at intervals of 20 – 40m) could however exist on
basis of evidence from surrounding quarries

Table 2 provides a summary of the geology at each of the cross passage locations based on the
borehole evidence and from inspection of the face carried out in the downline tunnel as it passed
through each area with the slurry drawn down, Figures 2 and 3. Interventions into the face at cross
passages XP2 and XP4 had to be carried out in 2.8 to 2.9 bar air pressure due to the high water inflows
experienced through the weathered and fissured chalk and oxygen decompression was required
(Figure 4). In comparison it was possible to undertake the face inspection at the Nadir and XP3 in free
air or at low air pressure (i.e. less than 1.8 bar), due to the closed nature of the jointing in the
unweathered chalk existing at this location and hence much reduced water inflow into the face.
Information on the face geology for the upline tunnel is still awaited and this will be obtained and
assessed prior to commencing the cross passage construction. The observations made at the face
generally reflect the extent of the treatment that had to be undertaken at each of the cross passage
locations with higher water outflows and grout takes being recorded at XP2 and XP4.
 Table 2 Geology at Cross Passage Locations

Cross Water Ground Geology from Ground Surface TBM Face

Passage Pressure Cover to Crown from Borehole Geology*
(chainage) above Information*
Crown

2.3m Made Ground

10.6m Alluvium Chalk
XP2 2.5 bar 25m 6.6m Gravel (B5)
(32961) 5.5m Chalk intervention under
(2.8m Dm/Dc - 1.2m C4 - 1.5m C3) 2.8 bar pressure

XP3 3.4m Gravel Chalk

(33617) 4 bar 21.8m 18.4m Chalk (A2/A3)
& (0.3m Dm/Dc - 7.3m C4 intervention under
Nadir - 10.2m B3 - 0.6m A3) free air
(33649)

6.9 Made Ground Chalk

XP4 2.5 bar 18.6m 6.6m Alluvium (C3)
(34286) 5.1m Chalk intervention under
(3.2m Dm/Dc – 1.9m C4) 2.9 bar pressure

* CIRIA chalk grade given in parenthesis

Figure 2 : TBM – Partial Slurry Mode to allow Face Inspection

Figure 3 : Face Inspection Chalk (Grade A2/3)

Figure 4 : Oxygen Decompression in Manlock

5. Ground Treatment

Methodology
Ground treatment of the four cross passage locations was carried out after the first tunnel, the
downline tunnel, had passed beyond each location. Treatment was carried out using a single crew and
one drilling rig located on an elevated steel working platform located within the downline tunnel, the
bulk of the equipment and plant having been established on the platform prior to its entry into the
tunnel, Figure 5. Any additional plant, equipment or materials was transported to the working
platform by locomotive and lifted into place using a gantry crane/winch located at the tunnel crown.

Figure 5 : Drilling Gantry

The treatment involves forming an 8m treated block of chalk extending 2m around the annulus of the
cross passage, see Figures 6 and 7. At cross passage XP4 the treated zone extended 3m above the
crown. The borehole layout was based on 5 arrays (Lines A, B, C, D and E) of 42mm diameter
boreholes to depths of between 2m and 15m. The boreholes of arrays B,C and D entered the treatment
block through portholes in the the pre-installed SGI lining and the outer two arrays A and E were
located within the concrete segmental linings. Each array had between 6 – 8 porthole entry points.
Conventional descending stage grouting of 2 – 3 m long sections was adopted, the grouting following
a primary, secondary and tertiary hole pattern. The typical borehole layout is shown in Figure 6.
 Figure 6 : Borehole Array Lines A - E

D D D

Figure 7 : Typical Borehole Treatment Array

The 42mm diameter treatment holes were typically spaced 1 – 1.5m apart with the tertiary boreholes
(Lines B and D) acting as both treatment holes and on site testing holes providing confirmation as to
whether the post-treatment target permeability of 1 Lugeon (i.e. about 10-7 m s-1) had been achieved.
An observational approach was adopted allowing the form and extent of the treatment, in terms of hole
layout, stage length, injection pressures and grout volumes, to be adapted depending on the conditions
met. Increased treatment was undertaken at XP2 and XP4 as a consequence of the high water
outflows met as compared to reduced treatment for the deeper cross passages (XP3 and Nadir) were
water outflows were less than predicted allowing stage lengths to be increased to 9m. Grouted glass
reinforced plastic dowels were also installed above the crown at cross passages XP2 and XP4 so as to
provide additional reinforcement to the 4 – 5m of weathered chalk cover existing at these locations;
no treatment of the overlying gravels was carried out at these locations as the gravel/chalk interface is
beyond the extent of the treatment zone.

Figure 9 : Drilling in Progress Figure 10 : Shut-off valve

Drilling was carried out segment using rotary open-hole techiques and water flush through a shut-off
valve mounted on the tunnel., Figures 9 and 10. The drilling returns and wastewater was collected in
sumps located at the base of the platform. Details provided prior to drilling include entry point
location, borehole direction, borehole inclination (set out using an inclinometer) and borehole depth.
Borehole entry points were located through the pre-formed grout holes in the SGI segments and also
through holes cored through the concrete segments immediately adjacent to the SGI segments. Prior
to coring through the concrete segments shut-off valves had to be installed. This involved coring
175mm diameter holes to within 25mm of the outside face and fitting a mounting plate and shut-off
valve to the segment, Figure 10. Each entry point hole could have a number of boreholes drilled
through it, each at different offset angles. Prior to coring through each entry points a small 15mm
diameter hole was initially drilled through the lining to check the quantity of groundwater inflow. If
the inflow was significant, the hole was sealed using a simple bung and local grouting carried out as
necessary.

On completion of each drilling stage the drill rods were withdrawn and a flow test carried out to
determine the local permeability at each stage location. A top hole packer was then installed to
effectively seal the borehole at the entry point and allow grouting to commence Grouting was carried
out at pressures ranging up to 20 bars but was limited to 2 bar for the first stage grouting to within 3m
of the tunnel lining. Grouts initially adopted were standard cement grouts (water : cement ratio of
4 : 1) but these proved ineffectual and were replaced by microfine cement grouts (water : cement
ratios ranging from 2 : 1 to 0.6 : 1) depending on the grout take and injection pressures measured

Problems encountered
Occasional problems were experienced associated with the drilling and the ground encountered.
Achieving the required drilling inclination at some of the entry point was sometimes difficult because
of tunnel services including pipework and ventilation bagging, e.g. increased production rates noted
for XP3 as compared to the other cross passages, see Table 4. Flints within the chalk also affected
progress by causing blockages and obstructions during drilling requiring removal of the drill rods and
replacement of the rotary drill bit with a percussive cross bit which enabled the flints to be broke out.
Soft pockets of weathered chalk and high outflows also encountered in XP2 and XP4, especially the
former, and these required additional grouting.

Post-Treatment Results
Tables 3 and 4 provides a summary of the treatment results and production rates at each of the cross
passage locations. Post–treatment permeability tests carried out using a single packer confirm that a
general permeability in the range 10-6 m s-1 to less than 10-7 m s-1 has been achieved i.e. 10 Lugeons
to less than 1 Lugeon. Grout takes, in terms of the percentage grout injected in relation to the volume
of the ground, have generally been between 0.8% - 1.2% for the cross passage at the Nadir and
number 3 located at depth in unweathered chalk grades A2/3 to be as compared to 4% - 8 % for
cross passages numbers 2 and 4 sited in structured yet slight to moderately weathered chalk (CIRIA
chalk grades B3/4 to B5; occasionally C4/5).

Table 3 Results of Ground Treatment

Cross Pre-treatment Post-treatment Grouts Types Ground Remarks

Passage Permeability Permeability and Volumes Treated
(chainage) (m s-1) (m s-1) (%)

XP2 10 – 4 to 10 – 6 10 –6 to < 10 -7 269 stages 7.7 Hydrofracturing

(32961) (up to 5 x 10-4 on 68.8 m3 of chalk at 4 bar
occasion) microfine water pressure.
cement

XP3 5 x 10 – 6 to 10– 7 10 –6 to < 10 -7 151 stages 1.2 No

(33617) (up to 10-5 on 9.1 m3 hydrofracture at
occasion) microfine 7 bar water
cement pressure.

Nadir 5 x 10 – 6 to 10– 7 10 –6 to < 10 –7 122 stages 0.8 No

(33649) (up to 10-5 on 5.8 m3 hydrofracture at
occasion) microfine 7 bar water
cement pressure.

XP4 10 – 4 to 10 – 6 10 –6 to < 10 -7 260 stages 4.4 Hydrofracturing

(34286) (up to 5 x 10 -4 on 35.2 m3 of chalk at 3 bar
occasion) (59% OPC water pressure
41% microfine
cement)
 Table 4 Ground Treatment Production Rates

Item Unit XP2 Nadir XP3 XP4 Total

Start date for treatment Date 13/2/03 26/1/ 03 16/4/ 03 5/12/02 -

Working 12 hr shifts No 54 18 16 56 144
Contact Boreholes No 24 28 28 28 108
Treatment boreholes No 82 40 44 64 230
Dowel boreholes No 15 Nil Nil 15 30
Water test boreholes No 8 4 4 11 27
Total metres drilled m 2259 658 783 1735 5435
Boreholes per shift No 2.4 4 4.9 2.1 -
Metres per shift m 41.8 36.6 50.5 31 =
Grout injection stages No 269 122 151 260 802
Injection stages per shift No 5.0 6.8 9.8 4.6 6.5
Grout volume injected m3 68.8 5.8 9.6 35.2 119.4
Block dimensions m 8:14 : 8 8:11: 8 8:11.5: 8 9:11: 8 -
Height : Length : Width
Block volume m3 896 704 736 792 -
Grout take per volume % 7.7 0.8 1.2 4.4 -

6. Proposed Construction of the Cross Passages

Construction of the cross passages by semi-mechanised methods is likely to be carried out from both
the downline and upline tunnel, the general nature of the ground at each cross passage location having
been established before breakout by face inspection in each of the main tunnel drives as they pass
through each area. At each cross passage location, two hybrid rings with cast-iron opening sets have
been installed in both upline and downline tunnel to allow cross passage construction. To ensure
safety during their excavation and mitigate the risk associated with possible inundation, flood
protection doors are also provided at each location. The flood doors are incorporated into two forms
of propping system designed to minimise movement of the running tunnel rings including the during
breakout and excavation of the cross passages. One system is based on 6 full steel rings, required at
XP2 and XP4 where chalk cover to the gravel is low and where the chalk is both highly weathered
and highly permeable, and the other system is based on 2 full steel rings, for XP3 and the Nadir cross
passage where sound unweathered less permeable chalk exists and some benefit will be gained by
pressure relief of the water pressures acting on the lining. The current proposal is to install both
propping systems in the recently completed downline tunnel to allow concurrent working of XP4 and
the Nadir cross passages before moving the two propping systems into the upline tunnel upon
completion of the drive to complete construction of XP2 and XP3, Figure 11 .

7. Conclusions

Treatment of the Thames Tunnel cross passages located entirely within chalk using dominantly
microfine cement grouts appears to have been successful in reducing permeability values to 1 - 5
Lugeons (10 Lugeons at maximum). Water inflows experienced during excavation of the cross
passages due to commence in July of this year will hopefully provide further evidence to support this
conclusion especially at the more critical cross passage locations sited beneath both river banks where
chalk cover (the majority of it weathered) to the overlying gravels is less than 5 to 6 metres.
 Figure 11 Proposed Propping and Dewatering from Downline Tunnel

References

1. A. TAUSCHINGER, M. Gallagher, W Heron, P. Watson and C.D. Warren : “Construction of

the CTRL Thames Tunnel” Underground Construction 2003
2. C.K.HASWELL : “Problems of Tunnelling in Chalk” Tunnels and Tunnelling, November
1975, 40 – 43 including discussion January 1976, 61 – 65.
3. J. KELL : “The Dartford Tunnel”, Paper 6671, Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs, 1963, 22, 359 - 372.
4. G.B.SHUTTER and G.A. Bell : “Design and construction of the second Dartford Tunnel”,
Tunnelling 79, Inst. Mining & Metallurgy, 331 - 337.
5. L.M. LAKE : “ Underground Excavations in Chalk” . Keynote Address. Chalk. Thomas
Telford, London ,1990, 461- 467.
6. P. VARLEY and C.D.Warren : "The Channel Tunnel : Geology, Geotechnics & Encountered
Conditions". Keynote Address Proceedings XI ECSMFE. Copenhagen, 1995. 10, 71 – 118 .
7. C. POLLARD and J. Crawley : “UK Tunnels : ground treatment”, Engineering Geology of
the Channel Tunnel , C. Harris, M.B. Hart, P.M. Varley and C.D. Warren (eds), Thomas
Telford, London, 1996, 261 - 269.
8. J. BOSSE and X. Jullian : “French Tunnels : ground treatment”, Engineering Geology of the
Channel Tunnel , C. Harris, M. B. Hart, P.M. Varley and C.D. Warren (eds), Thomas Telford,
London, 1996, 270 - 276.
9. S.R. DORAN, D.Hartwell, P. Roberti, N. Kofoed and S. Warren : Implementation of cross
passage ground treatment Proceedings XI ECSMFE. Copenhagen, 1995, 5, 5.93 – 5.102
10. A. R. BIGGART and R. Sternath : “Storebaelt eastern railway tunnel : construction”,
Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers, Paper 10961, 1996, 20 –39.
11. C. D. WARREN, P. Watson, W Heron and T. Schultheis : “Geology, Geotechnics &
Monitoring of the Thames Tunnel” Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference, New
Orleans, USA, 2003
12. J.A. LORD, C.R.I. Clayton and R. N. Mortimore : “Engineering in Chalk.” CIRIA
Publication 574, 2002.
13. C. D. WARREN and R.N. Mortimore : “Chalk Engineering Geology – Channel Tunnel Rail
Link and North Downs Tunnel” Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. 36, Part 1, 2003, 17 – 34.

View publication stats