Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

Cross passages between twin tunnels. Preliminary design schemes.

Kasra Daneshmand
Environment, Land and Infrastructure Engineering Department, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Vicenza Floria
Geodata Engineering S.p.A, Torino, Italy.
Daniele Peila
Environment, Land and Infrastructure Engineering Department, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Moreno Pescara
Geodata Engineering S.p.A, Torino, Italy.

ABSTRACT: When a project includes two parallel tunnels, cross passages linking both tunnels are
normally constructed for safety reasons during tunnel exercise. Design and construction of the cross
passages is a challenging issue in tunnelling design. Excavating cross passages through rock, soft
ground, and mixed face conditions presents very different challenges as well as handling
groundwater creates additional difficulties. Excavation of the main running tunnels, having a
relatively larger dimension compared to the cross-passages, usually involves in the use of full-face
mechanized excavation to mitigate the impacts of difficult subsurface conditions. For cross passages,
access is usually limited, excavation is implemented through traditional methods preceded by
treatments if required. Different scenarios were selected and afterwards by changing the geometrical
data of main tunnels, cross-passage, overburden and geotechnical parameters, a series of three-
dimensional numerical analyses (FLAC 3D) were performed. The aim of this ongoing parametric
study is to obtain some abacuses useful in engineering practice.

1 INTRODUCTION reinforcement of the ground is usually necessary

When a project includes two parallel tunnels,
cross passages linking both tunnels are
constructed for safety reasons during tunnel
exercise: the crossways provide an exit way in
order to evacuate the tunnel during a fire
accident and allow an access way for the means
of rescue, as shown in Figure 1, (Lawrence and
Taylor,2011).
Design and construction of the cross
passages can be challenging since this short
tunnel will be excavated in restricted zone.
Starting from the main tunnels and excavation is
carried out through the use of small equipment
(Tarada, 2000). Thus, some soil improvement or
Running
tunnel
liner
Ground treatment
Collar
Cross passage final lining
Ground treatment
Figure 1. Example of cross passage.
to allow safe construction of the cross passages.
Such pretreatment is determined on a case by
case situation depending upon the local geology
and geometry and constraints on surface.
Since the main tunnels need to be built
before construction of the cross passages can be
started, they are often on the critical path of the
schedule. As such, having an optimal design for
cross passage construction can be a critical
component for successful delivery of the
project. For this reason, it is necessary that at
design stage the most relevant aspects are
highlighted and known before starting the
construction with special modelling. On the
other hand already at the preliminary design
stage it is necessary to quantify the impact of
Running
tunnel
this excavation on the main tunnels, the surface
and the underground. This evaluation cannot be
done with simple analytical approaches due to
Temporary
support of
the geometry of the problem but on the other
running tunnel hand, a complete numerical modelling requires
liner
long time to be developed. For this reason a
systematic modelling with FLAC3D FDM code
was developed to provide a general overview
and design abacuses.
1
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.
2 NUMERICAL MODELLING
2.1 Model specifications and excavation
procedure
To evaluate the influence of the cross cut
excavation on the external environment, a fully
parametric model was developed using
FLAC3D (Itasca, 2006) to study displacements
and stresses around twin tunnels and cross
passage. Parametric analysis was carried out
assuming Mohr-Coulomb criterion and total
stress approach with focus on short-term
stability, using a frictionless material (=0) with
the undrained shear strength (cu)wich cohesion
and elasticity modulus are changing with depth
as well as frictional soil with constant both
friction angle and elasticity modulus. The tunnel
intersection geometry involves two parallel
main tunnels connected by a smaller cross
passage obtained with a service tunnel, as
shown in Figure 2. All three tunnels are of
circular shape and the main tunnels have the
same diameter (D).
L=100m
H=5D
W=9D
Figure 2. Developed model with excavated tunnels, model
height equals to 5D.
The excavation of both main tunnels were
considered to be done by use of shielded TBM
machines and a step-by-step simulation was
used for the advance of the TBM, as shown in
Figure 3. Shell elements are defined to model
the TBM shield and main tunnels lining are
implemented and fixed 2m, length of a ring,
behind the TBM to consider the needed space
for erection of linings. The shield was simulated
by shell elements, with the length of 10m, linear
variable face pressure was applied and fresh
grout in the tail void behind the shield was
simulated by a radial pressure.
2
Segmental
lining
TBM
shield
Backfilling
injection pressure
Face
pressure
Figure 3. The used step-by-step pressure method for
shield tunnelling advancement.
Cross passages excavation procedure was
simulated following open face tunnelling step-
by-step method (Hanafy and emery, 1980). In
this method, at all the calculation steps, ground
elements inside the cross passage are removed
to simulate an unsupported excavation with a
particular round length, with diameter of 4m,
and in the same phase a ring of new lining
elements is installed to support the previous
excavation phase. These calculation phases are
repeated in steps until the excavation of cross
passage is completed (Floria el al., 2009;
Daneshmand et al., 2013).
2.2 Input parameters
The effect of geometrical and geological
variations on the stresses inside the lining and
induced settlements of the excavation of the
three tunnels are studied in this paper.
To achieve this goal, four different cohesive
soils, three different frictional soil and nine
different geometries were considered. Changing
geometry parameters were considered as over-
burden (H) and the distance between two main
tunnels (D). That is to say, 63 different models.
To evaluate the influence of different geo-
metries on displacement, different overburdens
(H) and different intervals between two main
tunnels (D) were considered as a function of
main tunnel diameter (d). Therefore, three
different overburdens (H=2d,3d,4d) and tunnel
intervals (D=2d,4d,5d) were defined.
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

In total tension analyses, according to in Figure 5. As expected, with increasing the

cohesive soil, the undrained cohesion (cu) is soil cohesion and elasticity modulus for
changing with depth linearly and different soil cohesive soil as well as friction angle and
cohesions and elasticity modulus were elasticity modulus for frictional soil, z-
implemented into different models. Other geo- displacements decrease.
parameters were considered constant for all the
models and they are: =0.3, =0[˚],
=19[kN/m3] and k0=0.7. The following
cohesion values were considered: 5+3Z[kPa],
40+3Z[kPa], 90+3Z[kPa] and 140+3Z[kPa].
The elastic modulus were assumed as a function
of the undrained cohesion (300cu) according to
the abacus of Duncan and Buchignani (1976).
In the case of frictional soil, all the geo-
parameters were considered as constant values
along the depth. Other geo-parameters were
considered constant for all the models and they
are: =0.3, c=0[kPa], =17[kN/m3] and k0=0.7.
The following friction angles were considered:
=35[˚], =40[˚] and =45[˚]. The elastic Figure 4. Vertical displacement above tunnel axis and
modulus was assumed as a function of the cross passage centerline in the same model for frictional
relative density and are fixed as 43[MPa], and cohesive soil, geometry base data: H=2d, D=2d.
53[MPa] and 63[MPa].

3 DISCUSSION ON THE COMPUTED

DISPLACEMENTS

To study the influence of the cross cut

excavation on the displacement around the
tunnels, vertical z-displacements inside the
model and above cross passage centerline as
well as surface displacements at cross passage
cross section were studied.

3.1 Analysis of vertical displacement

The effect of geological variations on vertical
displacements was studied. Initially, z-
displacements above main tunnel axis and
above cross passage centerline for cohesive soil,
cu=40+3z, frictional soil, =45[˚] and fixed
geometry, H=2d D=2d, were calculated and
comparison of these displacements for both
frictional and cohesive soils are presented in
Figure 4. As it is shown in this figure, vertical z-
displacement above main tunnel axis is
increasing with depth while above cross passage
centerline is decreasing with depth and the trend
is the same for both type of soils.
The same comparison was made for different
geologies to study the effect of geology on z-
displacements above cross passage centerline
for the same geometry, H=2d D=2d, as shown
3
Figure 5. Vertical displacement above cross passage
centerline for different geologies, geometry base data:
H=2d, D=2d.
The vertical displacement above cross
passage centerline was defined after each cross
passage excavation step and ring installation.
The obtained results are summarized in Figure 6
for cohesive soils and Figure 7 for frictional
soils. As shown in these figures, with advance-
ment of cross passage excavation from step 1 to
step 8, z-displacements above cross passage
centerline is increasing for both soils and this
effect, as expected is more significant close to
cross passage.
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.
Figure 6. Effect of cross passage advancement on z-
displacement above its centerline for cohesive soil
(case C=40+3z) , geometry base data: H=2d, D=2d.
Figure 7. Effect of cross passage advancement on z-
displacement above its centerline for frictional soil
(case =45[˚]) , geometry base data: H=2d, D=2d.
3.2 Surface settlement
In order to evaluate the effect of different
geologies on surface settlement for the same
geometrical model, three different cohesive
soils as well as three different frictional soils
were considered. As shown in Figure 8 for
cohesive soils and Figure 9 for frictional soils,
with improving soil parameters, surface
settlement decreases. These results are in good
agreement with the results usually presented
applying analytic methods as reported by
Attewell and woodman (1982) and Guglielmetti
et al. (2008).
Figure 8.Surface settlement for different geologies,
cohesive soils, geometry base data: H=2d, D=2d.
4
Figure 9.Surface settlement for different geologies,
frictional soils, geometry base data: H=2d, D=2d.
Effect of different geologies and geometries
on surface settlement is summarized in the some
figures. As an example, Figure 10 presents the
maximum surface settlement for cohesive soil,
above main tunnels at cross passage cross
section before and after cross passage
excavation are presented.
Figure 10.Surface settlement above main tunnels for
different geometries and cohesive soils before and after
cross passage excavation.
In order to provide a tool for preliminary de-
sign for estimation of surface settlement above
main tunnels before and after cross passage ex-
cavation, all the data summarized in above men-
tioned figure were analyzed and some interpola-
tion equations were proposed. Equation (1)
reports the interpolation equation for the settle-
ments before cross passage excavation:
H
sk a, (1)
D
where S, H and D, are respectively induced sur-
face settlement [m], overburden [m] and dis-
tance between main tunnels [m] as well as k and
a are constant values function of soil cohesion
at surface that can be calculated as follow:
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

1 1
k , a , (2)
x y
cu cu
Where cu is soil cohesion [kPa], x and y are
constant values function of soil cohesion that
can be calculated with equations (3).
75  c u 81  c u
x  1.380  , y  1.236  , (3)
105 105
Figure 12.Surface settlement above cross passage
As it is shown in Figure. 10, obtained trend centerline for different geometries and cohesive soils
lines for induced surface settlement before and before and after cross passage excavation, D=5d.
after cross passage excavation above main tun-
Following the same approach, effect of
nels are practically parallel. Therefore it is pos-
different geologies and geometries on surface
sible to obtain a formula providing the surface
settlement for frictional soil was studied and the
settlement increment due to cross passage exca- same graphs for frictional soils are presented in
vation as a function of soil cohesion as present- Figures 13 and 14. As shown in these figures,
ed in equation (4): obtained trend lines for frictional soils behave
  2.81  0.02cu , (4) similar to those of cohesive soils.

Where ∆ is surface settlement increment due to

cross passage excavation above main tunnel
[mm].

Effect of different geologies and geometries

as well as cross passage excavation on surface
settlement was summarized in figures according
to fixed tunnel intervals (D). For example, the
maximum surface settlement for cohesive soil
above main tunnels in Figure 11 and above Figure 13.Surface settlement above main tunnels for
cross passage centerline in Figure 12 at cross different geometries and frictional soils before and after
cross passage excavation, D=5d.
passage cross section, for tunnel interval equals
to 5d, are presented. As conclusion for cohesive
soils, with increasing the geology properties,
surface settlement is decreased and with cross
passage excavation, surface settlement increases
while this effect above cross passage centerline
is more significant than above main tunnels.

Figure 14.Surface settlement above cross passage

centerline for different geometries and frictional soils
before and after cross passage excavation, D=5d.

4 EFFECT OF ADVANCEMENT OF CROSS

PASSAGE EXCAVATION ON INDUCED
STRESSES INSIDE LININGS
Figure 11.Surface settlement above main tunnels for Referring to different geometrical and
different geometries and cohesive soils before and after
cross passage excavation, D=5d. geological variations, induced stresses inside
5
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

linings for cohesive and frictional soils were
studied. According to this study, Induced
bending moment and axial force at the wall of
first main tunnel lining at conjunction with cross
passage increases with increasing the
overburden and main tunnels interval. With
improving the soil characteristics, induced
bending moment decreases while axial force
increases. Induced bending moment and axial
force at the crown of this cross section,
increases with increasing the overburden. With
improving the soil characteristics, induced
bending moment increases while axial force
decreases as well as with increasing main
tunnels interval, the induced bending moment
decreases while axial force increases. The
percentage of these changes depends on the
amount of changes on those parameters. Since
these effects are more significant at tunnel
crown, related graphs for tunnel crown for
cohesive soils are presented in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Comparison of bending moments, left side, and axial forces, right side, for model with different cohesive soils
and geometries at main tunnel crown after cross passage excavation
6
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

Figure 16. Comparison of bending moments, left side, and axial forces, right side, for model with different frictional soils
and geometries at main tunnel crown after cross passage excavation

The effect of cross passage excavation on Table 1.Variations of induced stresses inside first main
induced bending moment and axial force at the tunnel lining due to cross passage excavation.
wall of main tunnel lining at conjunction with Parameter Soil Main tunnel Main tunnel
cross passage for the same geology was condition wall crown
evaluated. By excavating the cross passage, the Cohesive Decrease Increase 20-
Bending soil 8% 40%
induced bending moment decreases and this Frictional Increase Negligible
moment
reduction value is decreased as the main tunnel soil 11% variations
interval increases for both frictional and
cohesive soils. Furthermore, the effect of cross Cohesive Increase Decrease
Axial force soil 11% 7%
passage excavation on induced bending moment Frictional Increase Decrease
and axial force at the crown of this cross section soil 13% 20%
for the same geology, for both frictional and
cohesive soils, was evaluated. The percentage of Since these effects are more significant at
induced stresses variations inside the first main tunnel crown, Related graphs for tunnel crown
tunnel lining at conjunction with cross passage are presented in Figure 17 for cohesive soils and
is presented in Table 1. Figure 18 for frictional soils.
7
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

Figure 17. Bending moments, left side, and axial forces, right side, at the crown of first main tunnel lining for different
geometries, before and after cross passage excavation, Case C=90+3Z.

The advancement effect of cross passage percentage of these variations is presented in

excavation on induced stresses inside the lining Table 2.
of cross passage first ring was studied. To gain Table 2.Variations of induced stresses inside first ring of
this goal, the induced bending moment and axial cross passage lining due to cross passage excavation.
force inside cross passage lining after each step
of cross passage excavation for the cohesive Parameter Soil CP* wall CP* crown
condition (1st ring) (1st ring)
soil, C=40+3Z, and frictional soil, =40˚, as Cohesive Increasing Decreasing
well as geometry, H=2d D=2D, were evaluated, soil 16% 71%
Bending
as shown in Figure 18. The induced bending moment Frictional Increase Decreasing
moment and axial force at the wall of the first soil 75% 55%
ring of cross passage lining increase at the
primary steps of cross passage excavation while Cohesive Increase Decrease
Axial force soil 18% 22%
they decrease at the crown and with the cross
Frictional Increase Decrease
passage advancement these variations stop for soil 25% 40%
both frictional and cohesive soils. The * Cross Passage

8
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

Figure 18. Bending moments, left side, and axial forces, right side, at the crown of first main tunnel lining for different
geometries, before and after cross passage excavation, Case =40˚.

Figure 19. Effect of cross passage advancement on stress distribution inside first ring of cross passage lining for cohesive
soil, C=40+3Z, and frictional soil, =40˚.

9
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

The induced bending moment and axial force axial force increases. The percentage of these
of the second main tunnel lining at conjunction variations is presented in Table 3.
with cross passage were also studied. The in-
duced bending moment and axial force at the Table 3.Variations of induced stresses inside second main
tunnel lining due to terminal steps of cross passage
crown of this cross section do not show any sig- excavation.
nificant changes during primary steps of cross
passage excavation while as the cross passage Parameter Soil Main tunnel Main tunnel
condition wall crown
excavation advances and cross passage becomes Cohesive Increase 13 Increase
closer to the second main tunnel, the bending Bending soil times 83%
moment at tunnel crown increases during termi- moment Frictional Increase Increase
soil 62% 20%
nal steps of cross passage excavation while the
axial force decreases as shown in Figure 19. Cohesive Increase Decrease
This effect on the left wall of second main tun- Axial force soil 23% 11%
nel lining which is adjacent to cross passage and Frictional Increase Decrease
soil 25% 5%
is demolished during the last step of cross pas-
sage excavation was evaluated: during primary The induced bending moment and axial force
steps of cross passage excavation does not show at the right wall of the second main tunnel lining
any effect on stress distribution while as the at conjunction with cross passage which is at the
cross passage excavation advances and during opposite side of cross passage conjunction with
terminal steps of cross passage excavation, the main tunnel, do not change significantly during
bending moment and axial force inside left wall the advancement of cross passage excavation.
of tunnel lining increases significantly while the

Figure 20: Effect of cross passage advancement on stress distribution inside second main tunnel lining at conjunction
with cross passage for cohesive soil, C=40+3Z, and frictional soil, =40˚.

tunnel wall and crown as well as axial force at

4.1 Preliminary suggestions for design phase
The design of tunnel lining is often developed at
the first steps of design without taking into
account the effect of cross passage excavation
on induced stresses inside tunnel lining and very
often only 2D models are used. Therefore,
obtained results are useful to provide a guideline
for designers to consider the increment of
induced stresses. With cross passage excavation,
bending moment at the first main tunnel crown
and axial force at the first main tunnel wall
increase. Bending moment at second main
10
the second main tunnel wall, which is in front of
cross passage, increase at terminal steps of cross
passage excavation. With step by step
advancement of cross passage excavation, the
induced bending moment and axial force inside
the first lining ring of cross passage wall
increase during primary steps of cross passage
excavation and the increase stops with
advancement of cross passage excavation. The
diagrams proposed in figures can give an
indication for a preliminary design.
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

5 CONCLUSION Engineering Report. University of California.

Berkeley.
Floria, V. ; Repetto, L. ; Russo, G. and Fidelibus, C. 2009.
The paper presents the main results of a Scoping Calculations of TBM Advancement in Flysch
research that has the goal to highlight the effect and Breccias of Strait-of-Gibraltar Tunnel.
of cross passage excavation on the induced EUROTUN. Ruhr University Bochum.
stresses inside tunnel linings and on ground Guglielmetti, V. ; Grasso, P. ; Mahtab, A. and Xu, S.
displacements. Ground displacements are 2008. Mechanized tunnelling in urban areas. Taylor
influenced by changing the geology: with and Francis.
Hanafy, E.A. and Emery, J. J. 1980. Advancing Face
improving the ground characteristics, surface Simulation of Tunnel Excavation and Lining
settlement and vertical ground displacements Placement. Under Ground Rock Engineering. v.22.
above tunnels are decreasing. With P.119–125.
advancement of cross passage excavation, Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2006. www.itascacg.com.
vertical displacement above cross passage Lawrence, C. and Taylor, J. 2011. Design of Tunnel Cross
Passages. http://www.hatchmott.com/technical-
centerline as well as surface settlement are papers/2011/10/design-tunnel-cross-passages.
increasing while this effect above cross passage Tarada, F. May 2000. Critical Velocities for Smoke
centerline is more significant than above main Control in Tunnel Cross Passages. First International
tunnels. Finally, the effect of different geologies Conference on Major Tunnel and Infrastructure
and geometries on surface settlement above Projects. Taiwan.
main tunnels and cross passage centerline is
discussed in some figures which can provide a
good tool for designers for a preliminary
estimate of surface settlement for cohesive soils.
Induced stresses inside tunnels lining are
influenced by changing the geology, geometry
and cross passage excavation. Therefore,
Obtained results are summarized to provide
some guidelines for designers to consider the
increment of induced stresses in some cross
sections: With cross passage excavation,
bending moment at the first main tunnel crown
and axial force at the first main tunnel wall
increase. Bending moment at second main
tunnel wall and crown as well as axial force at
the second main tunnel wall, which is in front of
cross passage, increase at terminal steps of cross
passage excavation. With step by step
advancement of cross passage excavation, the
induced bending moment and axial force inside
the first lining ring of cross passage wall
increase during primary steps of cross passage
excavation and these effects are dissipated with
advancement of cross passage excavation.

REFERENCES

Attewell, P.B. and Woodman. 1982. Predicting the

Dynamics of Ground Settlement and its Derivatives
Caused by Tunnelling in Soil. Ground Engineering.
v.15. P.13–22.
Daneshmand, K. ; Floria, V. ; Peila, D. and Pescara. 2013.
Preliminary design of cross passage by 3D numerical
simulation. Gallerie e Spazio Sotterraneo nello
Sviluppo dell’Europa. Bologna. Italy.
Duncan, J.M. and Buchignani, A.L. 1976. An engineering
manual for settlement studies. Geotechnical

11