STEINER, EDLMAIR AND VERGEINER: PIPE-JACKING VERSUS CONVENTIONAL TUNNELLING

Confrontation of both methods at the Cable Tunnel System Graz Main Railway Station
By Helmut Steiner, Gerald Edlmair and Ralf Vergeiner

he upgrading of the existing railway properties of Graz Main Railway Station and therefore the increasing infrastructure requirements necessitate new data and power links. Additionally, the existing southbound railway line Sdbahn, the regional railway to Kflach and the new Koralmbahn Graz Klagenfurt will also be integrated to the existing and new facilities. The main cables are 15 kV traction power and 110 kV high voltage supply cables and multitudinous links for the railway control systems like data and telephone cables. Due to the dense arrangement of the existing facilities on the surface, such as railway tracks, buildings, platforms, a shallow placement of the cables was impossible. Therefore an underground solution with two different orientated tunnels was designed, which was later on constructed during unrestricted railway operation at the Graz central station. These structures consist of the 877 m longitudinal Main Cable Tunnel, the 85 m Cross Cable Tunnel, three access shafts, several cable ducts to existing facilities and an underground connection between the cross tunnel and the basement of the station building (Figures 1, 2, 11 and 12).

Description of both tunnelling methods

During preparation of the final design a conventional tunnelling method and a shield tunnelling method were considered. The costs for both methods were estimated to be similar. Hence it was decided to prepare tender documents for both methods (4). The tenderer could either select one of the two methods or bid for both methods. Additionally the tender documents also contained specifications for alternative offers.

Cross section
The cross section was designed to meet the requirements of a clearance profile of 1 m width and 2.1 m height, twelve cable trays on the walls and three cable ducts in the invert for 15 and 110 kV power cables (Figure 3).

Excavation methods
The excavation equipment had to be suitable for the geological situation with quaternary sandy gravel, silty gravel, silt and sand lenses, occasionally stones/blocks up to several dm diameter
auf den Bahnbetrieb, Vortriebskosten, allgemeine Sicherheitsbetrachtungen werden nher betrachtet und Vergleiche zwischen den beiden unterschiedlichen Vortriebsmethoden gezogen. The increasing infrastructure requirements of Graz main railway station required a longitudinal Main Cable Tunnel with 877 m in length and driven with pipe jacking by installing precasted concrete pipes and utilizing an open hooded shield (3.18 m internal diameter) for excavation. The Cross Cable Tunnel (85 m length) was driven by conventional excavation utilizing NATM support and a final shotcrete lining. The headings of the two tunnels had to be driven through quaternary sediments above the ground water table with an overburden varying from 3 to 14 m. As both excavation methods were carried out with similar cross sections (approximately 12 to 13m2 excavation section) and under similar ground conditions, a reliable comparison of both methods is possible. The paper includes technical and economical aspects, with the main focus on the comparison between prognosis and encountered conditions. Additionally following aspects like rates of advance and construction time, surface settlements and their effect on the railway operation, construction costs as well as general safety aspects are worked out and compared between the two different tunnelling methods.
FELSBAU 23 (2005) NO. 6

Rohrvorpressung oder NT-Vortrieb Gegenberstellung der beiden Vortriebsmethoden am Beispiel des Leitungskollektorensystems Graz Hauptbahnhof
Der steigende Bedarf an Kabelwegen im Bereich des Grazer Hauptbahnhofs machte es erforderlich, unter den bestehenden Gleisanlagen einen kontinuierlich aufgefahrenen Lngskollektor (Rohrvorpressung DN 3 180 mit offenen Haubenschild, Lnge 877 m) und einen rechtwinkelig davon abzweigenden, zyklisch vorgetriebenen Querkollektor (Lnge 85 m) zu errichten. Diese Vortriebe wurden bei berdeckungen von 3 bis 14 m in den wrm-glazialen Terassenschottern des Grazer Felds ausgefhrt. Da die beiden Vortriebsmethoden unter gleichen beziehungsweise hnlichen Untergrund- und nahezu identischen Querschnittsverhltnissen (etwa 12 bis 13 m 2 Ausbruchquerschnitt) zur Anwendung kamen, war es abschlieend mglich, vergleichende Betrachtungen hinsichtlich technischer und wirtschaftlicher Gesichtspunkte durchzufhren. Spezielles Augenmerk wird auf den Vergleich zwischen den vorab gettigten Prognosen und den vor Ort angetroffenen Verhltnissen und den dabei gemachten Erfahrungen gelegt. Die Aspekte Vortriebsleistung und Bauzeitvergleich, Oberflchensetzungen und die Auswirkungen

27

PIPE JACKING

Pipe-Jacking versus Conventional Tunnelling

STEINER, EDLMAIR AND VERGEINER: PIPE-JACKING VERSUS CONVENTIONAL TUNNELLING

PIPE JACKING
Fig. 1 Top view of the Cable Tunnel System Graz Main Railway Station. Bild 1 Luftbild des LeitungskollektorenSystems am Grazer Hauptbahnhof. Fig. 2 Top view detail of the Main and the Cross Cable Tunnel. Bild 2 Luftbilddetail des Lngs- und Querkollektors. Fig. 3 Cross sections for conventional tunnelling and in case of shield excavation. Bild 3 Regelquerschnitte fr zyklischen und kontinuierlichen Vortrieb.

28 FELSBAU 23 (2005) NO. 6

STEINER, EDLMAIR AND VERGEINER: PIPE-JACKING VERSUS CONVENTIONAL TUNNELLING

Fig. 4 Schematically longitudinal and cross section for conventional tunnelling. Bild 4 Schematischer Lngs- und Querschnitt den zyklischen Vortrieb betreffend.

Fig. 5 Supporting works at conventional drive. Bild 5 Sicherungsarbeiten beim zyklischen Vortrieb.

so called Murnockerl and maybe local areas with conglomerates (6). Also further anthropogenic material in areas with low overburden and the possibility of relics from the 2nd world war had to be considered. As the ground water table is below the tunnel, only seepage water was expected. For conventional excavation a intersection of the cross section in the upper top heading section and the combined bench/invert section was foreseen. The maximum distance between tunnel face and invert closure was defined to

be less than 4 m (Figures 4 and 5). The surface settlements were estimated to be less than 10 mm. The shield construction applied was an open hooded shield (1). The accessibility of the tunnel face was a precondition for the method in order to remove anthropogenic material upon requirement. The basic design parameters of the shield are 72 inclined cutting edge, a longitudinal cutting head, three forepoling blades in the roof section, three breasting plates to support the upper face section and a horizontal intersec-

Fig. 6 Schematically longitudinal section through the open hooded shield. Bild 6 Schematischer Lngenschnitt durch das offene Haubenschild.

FELSBAU 23 (2005) NO. 6

29

PIPE JACKING

STEINER, EDLMAIR AND VERGEINER: PIPE-JACKING VERSUS CONVENTIONAL TUNNELLING

PIPE JACKING

tion of the face called table (Figures 6 and 7). The expected surface settlement in case of shield excavation was between 20 and 30 mm.

Tunnel lining
For conventional tunnelling a single shell shotcrete lining, thickness 0.25 m, lattice girders and two layers of wire mesh were designed. As there were no special requirements concerning evenness and water tightness of the cable tunnel, no final lining was necessary. In case of shield excavation a segmental lining, thickness 0.25 m, was defined in the tender documents. Within the alternative tender the segmental lining was replaced by precasted concrete pipes with 3.68 m outer diameter, 3.2 m length, 0.25 m thickness and 21.8 t weight (2, 3).
Fig. 7 View through the open shield to the excavation face. Bild 7 Blick durch das offene Schild in Richtung Ortsbrust.

Forepoling
The forepoling for conventional tunnelling was designed by the use of steel sheets (t = 5 mm, L = 2 to 2.5 m, b = 0.22 m, up to 30 pcs) or forepoling piles (d = 26 mm, L = 2.3 to 3.5 m, 25 to 40 pcs). The decision weather to use sheets or piles was made on site, depending on the soil density (see Figures 4 and 5). The shield was equipped with three blades in the roof section which were set with hydraulic jacks with a maximum stroke of 0.6 m (see Figure 6).

Face stability
The face stability for conventional tunnelling was ensured by intersection of the cross section in the upper top heading section and the combined bench/invert section, a supporting core and further face support by shotcrete and wire mesh (see Figures 4 and 5). In case of shield excavation the inclined tunnel face (between 40 and 72), the horizontal intersection (table) to create an upper support body of ground material and the three breasting plates for face support in case of a longer excavation stop, guaranteed the face stability (see Figures 6 and 7).

Additional measures ahead of excavation works

Experience shows that within the well graded soil, sometimes lenses of non-cohesive rounded gravel occur. Though these gravels were not encountered within the site investigation programme, their existence had to be expected. Uniform sized layers could have a non-cohesive flowing behaviour and might jeopardize the stability of the tunnel face. As a precautionary measure grouting ahead of the tunnel face was carried out. Within the design of the conventional excavation method, grouting was foreseen by means of 6 m grouting lances. The lances are set every second round and grouted with low pressure to improve the abutment area of the forepoling.

Fig. 8 Shield drive performance per day and net shield drive performance per hour. Bild 8 Schildvortriebsleistungen pro Tag und netto Schildvortriebsleistungen pro Stunde.

30 FELSBAU 23 (2005) NO. 6

STEINER, EDLMAIR AND VERGEINER: PIPE-JACKING VERSUS CONVENTIONAL TUNNELLING

Estimated advance rates

The advance rates for conventional tunnelling were estimated to be between 2.5 and 3.5 m per day. For shield excavation the rates were estimated to be about 8 m/d. Due to the lower advance rates for conventional tunnelling two drives would be necessary to meet the time schedule.

Additional safety measures

World War II relics Graz Central Station and the nearby factories were subject to heavy bombing in the years 1944 to 1945 (5). Experience shows an percentage of about 10 to 15 % of the bombs were duds. Several areas and points were traced by the department of civil defence in Graz where duds were thought to be. As these areas covered nearly the whole project area, it was decided to carry out a systematic exploration by means of a magnetic field probe. With this method three possible points were traced and later on explored by means of test pits. One of the pits contained a 500 kg dud, which was deactivated by an expert from the ministry of the interior. Monitoring The monitoring for conventional tunnelling consisted of deformation measurements of shotcrete lining and of ground and track settlements. The monitoring for shield excavation consisted only of surface measurements of ground and track settlements. In both cases the inclination of railway catenary masts in critical excavation phases are monitored around the clock.

The first days were embossed by a very slow advance because equipment like the conveyor belt had to be installed simultaneously. But after a few days, on the 1st of October 2004 the excavation velocity reached the overall peak with 23 m/d due to favourable geological conditions and short mucking times (Figure 8). From chainage 230 m on increasing jacking pressures up to a level of over 500 bar and probably also the bended lining at the area of the Middle Shaft led to much lower advance rates than before. Around the 18th of November 2004 the shield advance reached again peak values up to 22 m/d although the mucking distance was fairly long (approximately 650 m). It seemed that at this part of the drive the excavation crew got used to the driving conditions, which could be interpreted as learning curve. The late rising of the learning curve is probably the result of unexpected unfavourable face conditions and that the jacking pressures were on their limit. Finally on 6th of December 2004 the shield reached successfully the target shaft north. It was intended to create a more or less homogeneous injection umbrella along the whole tunnel roof by drilling injection pipes in a certain grid with following grouting. During excavation

Fig. 9 Detail of the excavation face with partly solidified soil by grouting material Mixed Face Conditions. Bild 9 Detail der Ortsbrust mit teilweise durch Injektionsgut verfestigtem Boden.

Conditions and excavation velocity at the longitudinal Main Cable Tunnel

According to the Austrian Flexible Model of Construction Time the average mechanical tunnel drive had been offered by the contractor with a daily rate of 9.5 m. This rate already included the launching of the tunnelling machine, all calculated interruptions due to the working process, geological problems, predicted downtimes, reinstalling of the machinery and the refilling of the ring space. The real net tunnelling advance was calculated by the contractor with approximately 17 m/d. The daily excavation works were carried out on a 24 hour basis, three shifts eight hours each.
FELSBAU 23 (2005) NO. 6

31

PIPE JACKING

For shield excavation the underground grouting by use of lances out of the shield was estimated to be not economical because it would slow down the advance rate in a significant degree. Hence it was decided to carry out grouting measures from the surface. Expected problems were the spoiling of railway ballast substructure with grout and the interference of the grouting works with the railway operation.

STEINER, EDLMAIR AND VERGEINER: PIPE-JACKING VERSUS CONVENTIONAL TUNNELLING

PIPE JACKING

Conditions and excavation velocity at the mined Cross Cable Tunnel

The mined tunnel part of this project could be finished without any problems, except for steel lagging problems at one short part of the tunnel due to big stones in the tunnel perimeter. After changing steel lagging to forepoling piles no further problems were encountered. Because of the very small tunnel profile and the very short learning time for the tunnel crew the average driving performance was approximately 3 m/d.

Comparison of the excavation velocities

A theoretical comparison of the overall construction time based on the actual advance rates shows, that two conventional drives (north and south) for the longitudinal Main Cable Tunnel, would have shown the same construction time as a shield drive (approximately 180 d). Manufacturing time as for the shield was not needed in the case of conventional tunnelling which had positive effects on construction time (Figure 10).

Fig. 10 Theoretical comparison of construction time between shield and conventional excavation at the Main Cable Tunnel. Bild 10 Theoretischer Bauzeitvergleich zwischen zyklischem und kontinuierlichem Vortrieb beim Lngskollektor.

it was visible that wide areas around the roof were not injected because of the compactness of the ground. But also loose gravel layers were encountered uninjected possibly due to a too wide drilling grid (Figure 9). Unexpected changing of the ground compactness led to a reduction of the drive velocity as well as the above average maintenance times. Also the bentonite slurry used as a lubricant film around the jacking pipes could not built up properly due to permeable gravel layers in the quaternary sediments. The effects of this behaviour were high jacking pressures due to the high friction between the concrete pipes and the surrounding soil. Maintenance and downtimes calculated by the contractor have been exceeded significantly (7).

Settlements
Settlements encountered at the longitudinal Main Cable Tunnel
From the beginning of excavation it had to be learned that the geological conditions changed suddenly in an unpredictable way. The geotechnical safety management plan has foreseen that the normal settlement values would not exceed 10 mm. The 1st level alert criterion was reached

Fig. 11 Longitudinal section of the Main Cable Tunnel including geology and vertical settlements. Bild 11 Schnitt durch den Lngskollektor Darstellung der Geologie und der Setzungen.

32 FELSBAU 23 (2005) NO. 6

STEINER, EDLMAIR AND VERGEINER: PIPE-JACKING VERSUS CONVENTIONAL TUNNELLING

Fig. 12 Longitudinal section of the Cross Cable Tunnel including geology and vertical settlements. Bild 12 Schnitt durch den Querkollektor Darstellung der Geologie und der Setzungen.

by exceeding 10 mm surface settlements at the driving area and 20 mm 10 m behind the face. The 2nd level alert criterion has been triggered by reaching 50 mm and the 3rd criterion by exceeding 50 mm and posing effects to the safety of people or structures. Sudden inrushes of mostly loose gravel always triggered the 3rd level alert criterion. Fortunately these occurrences did not effect the surface immediately. Volume losses in front of the excavation face spread slowly within one to two days to the surface, depending on the overburden. So there was always enough time to inform the management of Graz Main Station. The average settlements had been measured with 40 to 60 mm at the area of overburden between 3.5 and 7.5 m (Figure 11). Afterwards the volume losses had to be filled up with cement grout from the surface to prevent further settlements and the tracks had to be readjusted by a ballast tamping machine.

could be prevented when passing difficult geological conditions. The maximum settlements at the surface have been measured with 9 mm, which did not really effect the railway tracks (Figure 12). The excavation of the cross passage could be finished without interruption of the train sequence above.

Comparison of settlements
At comparable tunnel sections by shield driving and by conventional tunnelling with similar overburden and geology one can clearly see a difference on the surface effects between the two methods. Similar areas are for the Main Cable Tunnel from tunnel metre 510 to the end of the drive (tunnel metre 877) and for the cross passage from the beginning to the end. Both zones have been excavated with overburdens from 3.5 to approximately 7.5 m. Primary settlements Whereas the excavation of the cross passage could be finished without interruption of the regular train operation, settlements above the shield drive led to continued interruption of train service on tracks above. The maximum vertical surface displacements have been measured with only 9 mm at the cross passage area. The peak
FELSBAU 23 (2005) NO. 6

Settlements encountered at the Cross Cable Tunnel

The same alert level criteria were valid for the cross passage, excavated by conventional mining technique. By using forepoling items like steel lagging and forepoling piles volume losses

33

PIPE JACKING

STEINER, EDLMAIR AND VERGEINER: PIPE-JACKING VERSUS CONVENTIONAL TUNNELLING

PIPE JACKING

value of settlements at the shield driving area was more than 200 mm, the average between 40 and 60 mm. Secondary consolidation Whereas the secondary consolidation stopped immediately after ring closure at the mined tunnel part, the consolidation above the shield drive kept on for weeks. The bulking of the surrounding soil caused by volume loss during shield drive led to excessive secondary consolidation. Three month after penetrating shaft north end of shield drive the average was measured with 8 mm at the area mentioned above.

Summary
According to construction costs and time there is no significant difference between the two methods. However a glance at surface settlements and its effects on railway operation gives the mined method conventional tunnelling a clear preference for projects with similar boundary conditions in the future. The constant threat of surface instability above the tunnel drive caused by potential sudden inrushes of ground material is unfavourable for a reliable safety management on site. The comparison resumes as follows: Similar costs per metre, Similar total construction time, considering preparation time, maintenance time and downtime, Absolute advantage for the conventional method concerning surface settlements. The surface settlements of the conventional method add up to only 10 to 20 % of the shield drive, Absolute advantage for the conventional method concerning the face stability and the minimization of interference on the railway structures, Absolute advance for the shield method concerning the working conditions for the tunnel crew, Advance for the shield method for the later maintenance and equipment installations in the cable tunnels due to the perfect even shaped concrete surface.
References 1. Steiner, H. ; Vigl, A. ; Vergeiner R. ; Hrlein N.: Leitungskollektor Graz Hbf. Pressrohrvortrieb DN 3180 mit offenem Haubenschild. Felsbau 23 (2005) Nr.5, S.76-82. 2. Hrlein, N. ; Ppperl, R. ; Steiner, H. ; Schneider, K.: Der Kabelkollektor Graz Hauptbahnhof. Beton Zement 4/2004, S. 42-45. 3. Kolic, D. ; Hrlein, N. ; Schneider, K. ; Steiner H.: Competitiveness of Pipe-Jacking Tunnels. Symposium Keep Concrete Attractive, Budapest 2005. 4. Fischer, P. ; Bauer, F.: Zuschlagskriterien zur Beurteilung von Alternativangeboten am Beispiel des Wienerwald Tunnels. Tagungsband sterreichischer Tunneltag 2004, S. 87-90. 5. Brunner, W.: Bomben auf Graz. Die Dokumentation Weissmann. Graz: Leykam Verlag, 1989. 6. sterreichische Bundesbahnen: Baugeologische Dokumentation und Vortriebsbetreuung des Leitungskollektors Graz Hbf. Mag. Erhard Neubauer ZT GmbH, 2005 (intern). 7. sterreichische Bundesbahnen: Geotechnische Dokumentation Leitungskollektors Graz Hbf. iC consulten, 2005 (intern). Authors Dipl.-Ing. Dr. mont. Helmut Steiner, BB-Infrastruktur Bau AG, Geschftsbereich Projekte, Projektleitung Koralmbahn 1, Griesgasse 11 / 2. Stock, A-8020 Graz, Austria, E-Mail helmut.steiner@hl-ag.com; Dipl.-Ing. Gerald Edlmair, Laabmayr & Partner, Preishartlweg 4, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria, E-Mail office@laabmayr.at; Dipl.-Ing. Ralf Vergeiner, iC consulenten, Kaiserstrae 45, A-1070 Vienna, Austria, E-Mail r.vergeiner@ic-vienna.at

Working conditions for the tunnel crew

Shield drive
The soils encountered usually during the shield drive had a constant humidity so that no dust could develop. The shielded space showed excellent air conditions for the tunnelling crew during the whole drive and also the staffs access to the shield was mostly dry and clean. Although sudden inrushes of soil into the shield occurred, the staffs health and safety were never at risk due to the sufficient distance between the machine driver and the excavation face.

Conventional tunnelling
Due to small portions to be supported step by step this could only be managed by application of dry shotcrete. During spraying and significant time after the small tunnel profile was still full with dust although the tunnel was ventilated. Especially to the nozzle man the situation was quite uncomfortable because of very reduced visibility during placing the shotcrete. The stability of the tunnel itself was never in danger.

Theoretical comparison of excavation costs

A retrospective comparison show similar costs of about 5 100 EUR per metre for both methods. The sum includes tunnelling costs, costs for shield and mining equipment, cost for site facilities, time related cost, cost for muck transport, costs for surface grouting and costs for exploration on war legacies.

www.vge.de
34 FELSBAU 23 (2005) NO. 6