Effects of Pipe Roof Supports and The Tunnels Excavation On The Ground Settlement
Effects of Pipe Roof Supports and The Tunnels Excavation On The Ground Settlement
Effects of Pipe Roof Supports and The Tunnels Excavation On The Ground Settlement
Soon Min Ng
School of Civil Engineering, USM, Engineering Campus,
14300 Nibong Tebal, Seberang Perai Selatan, P. Pinang, Malaysia
e-mail: soonmin1612@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT
Tunneling is one of the challenging tasks in civil engineering because it involves a variety of
decision making and engineering judgment based on prediction and experience. One of the
challenges is to construct tunnel under a sensitive area with shallow overburden in which the
ground settlement is inevitable. This paper discussed the interaction between twin parallel
tunnels with shallow overburden and the tunnel supports parameters that provide information on
ground settlement prediction using 2-D elasto-plastic finite element analysis. The objective of
this study is to determine the magnitude of ground settlement induced by the interaction
between a twin parallel tunnel that supported by a method called pipe roof system. The system
acts as a support to protect the above ground structure during tunnel excavation with different
horizontal spacing at a constant depth of 10 m. Composite beam is designed to represent the
pipe roof system which consists of steel pipes, grout infill and rock properties that were
combined using weighted averages and an equivalent rock mass strength derivation. The result
shows a different value of ground settlement at different spacing between the tunnels with and
without the pipe roof system. The highest magnitude of settlement recorded for pipe roof and
non-pipe roof tunnel were 6.8 x 10-3 mm and 8.1 x 10-3 respectively. The result obtained
delivers a great portion of engineering justification that may help engineer to make important
decisions during the planning, design and construction stages of tunnels with shallow
overburden.
KEYWORDS: Ground settlement, twin tunnels, pipe roof system, numerical analysis,
shallow overburden.
- 1045 -
Vol. 18 [2012], Bund. E 1046
INTRODUCTION
Tunneling in shallow depth areas is always a challenge for all stakeholders involved in the
construction such as the client and the engineers. The increasing demand for urban space together
with other existing obstacles such as high rise and historical buildings had forces future
infrastructure to be carried out underground [1]. In addition, the increasing pressure on land use
especially in the urban area has lead to escalation in the number of tunneling project such as for
flood mitigation and transportation service purposes. This is due to the increasing number of
population in an area that derives the demand on the efficiency of public transport and
transportation system. For example, metro tunnels were constructed to reduce the use of land on the
ground and to avoid demolition of pre-existing or historical buildings for the purpose of selecting
route location alignment.
In urban tunneling, the consciousness of preservation and care for the surrounding environment
has raised the level of difficulty and challenge especially in the selection of suitable tunnel support
system. The most essential part of determining the types of support are the stability of the earth
materials that is being excavated, the quality of the building and structures surrounding the area and
the regions within the tunnel where field stresses have been changed during project phases [2].
Thus, all the factors that influence the strength properties and surface settlement of the underground
must be investigated carefully in order to reduce the surface settlement by means of engineering
controlled [3].
Pipe roof is one of the tunnel support system used during a shallow tunnel construction. The
installation of the support utilizes the area around the crown and sides of the tunnel wall. It acts as a
temporary reinforcement to enhance the soil structure before any excavation being held. However,
excavation of shallow tunnel normally leads to unavoidable amount of surface settlement especially
in the excavation of soft soil formation and weathered weak rocks. The surface settlement is caused
by a combination of ground loss at the tunnel, which includes the ground loss at the tunnel face,
convergence of the tunnel opening and the closure of the physical gap between the concrete lining
[4]. The magnitude of intensity and extension of settlement significantly depends on several factors
such as physical, mechanical and hydraulic properties of the interested rock/soil formation,
geomorphologic condition, tunnel overburden, tunnel cross-sectional area, excavation methods and
construction phases [5]. These problems become more critical when excavation performed below
an urban or congested area where the interaction between the tunnel and buildings foundation is
crucial. The dynamic loads created by moving objects add an extra displacement above the
excavated tunnel due to the densification or swelling effect of the overburden. Thus, study on this
problem is crucial in order to predict the amount of ground settlement to enable preventive measure
can be taken when and where necessary during the tunnel excavation.
pressure inside the soil; thus, it may take a few months to a few years to reach stabilized level. The
underground are so unique in many ways that engineer will faces new challenges and obstacles in
monitoring the quality of the underground condition in their routine works. Generally most tunnel
design and construction are based on the observational design and construction method which was
widely applied in most of the underground construction throughout the world besides having
individuals with different experience on site [6].
The numerical modeling of the twin tunnel had focused on the effect of ground settlement due
to the interaction between the tunnels. The tunnel spacing interval was chose based on the
correlation with tunnel width, d (0.0d, 0.5d, 1.0d, 2.0d, and 4.0d). The boundary condition that
employed in this numerical analysis is shown in Figure 1. The detail of the composite beam is
displayed in Figure 2 and the specifications of the composite beams are shown in Table 2 as well as
the calculations of the equivalent composite beam that consists of rock, steel pipes and grout.
(-50, 0) X (50, 0)
Z0 = 10m
CL CL
1 3
2 4
Spacing(m)
(-50, -30)
(50, -30)
The simulation begins with the setup of boundary condition which having free resistant at the
surface and horizontal restraint at both right and side boundary. The bottom of the boundary
condition was set up to create restraint on both vertical and horizontal direction. The excavation
stages were divided into 4 stages begins with the left side tunnel and ends at the right side tunnel.
The steel frames were installed by defining the liner properties after the excavation of both tunnels
with the stiffness of 30 x 103MPa and 0.1 m thickness. The analysis was performed to observe the
changes of settlement that occur at the ground surface. The change in ground settlement had been
observed when the interval between the two tunnels had been increased. The interval is based on
the distance between the centers of the two tunnels. Thus, to reduce the ground settlement, the
Vol. 18 [2012], Bund. E 1049
effectiveness of the pipe roof will be further investigated. To install the pipe roof, 1 m width and
0.6 m depth of composite beam is used. The composite beam consists of steel pipes with outer
diameter of 130 mm and 6 mm thickness at 0.5 m spacing. The strength of the steel pipes is 200
MPa. The hollow section of the steel pipes had been filled with grout material with the strength of
30 MPa. During the numerical analysis, the results were compared to the non-pipe roof twin tunnels
which having the same input parameters and model frame.
From Table 2, the rock mass strength of the composite beam is to be determined as
1.832/0.627=2.92 MPa.
Table 3: Rock mass parameters for the composite beam using Generalized Hoek-Brown
Failure Criterion
Geological index, GSI 30
Hoek-Brown constant, mi 10
Intact rock strength, ci 35
Disturbance factor 1
Material Constant, mb 0.0674
Material constant, s 8.58 x 10-6
Material constant, a 0.5223
Deformation modulus, E 1250 MPa
0.6 m
Grout 0.6 m
Top heading
0.5 m
Bottom heading
1.0 m
Rock
0
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
-0.001
-0.002
0.0d
-0.003 0.5d
Settlement (m)
-0.004 1.0d
2.0d
-0.005
4.0d
-0.006
-0.007
-0.008
-0.009
-0.002
0.0d
Settlement (m)
-0.003 0.5d
1.0d
-0.004
2.0d
-0.005 4.0d
-0.006
-0.007
-0.008
Figure
F 5(a): Non-Pipe Roof
R (left) an
nd Pipe Rooff Tunnel (rigght) at 0.0d sspacing
Figure
F 5(b): Non-Pipe Roof
R (left) an
nd Pipe Rooff Tunnel (rigght) at 0.5d sspacing
Vol. 18 [2012
2], Bund. E 1053
Figure
F 5(c): Non-Pipe Roof
R (left) an
nd Pipe Rooff Tunnel (rigght) at 1.0d sspacing
Figure
F 5(d): Non-Pipe Roof
R (left) an
nd Pipe Rooff Tunnel (rigght) at 2.0d sspacing
Vol. 18 [2
2012], Bun
nd. E 1054
CONCLU
C USIONS
S
The interacttion betweenn twin tunneels was analyzed by using 2D finitee element method m to
inveestigate the performance
p of pipe roof system. Inn this study, the pipe rooof is represennted as a
commposite beam m consists oof steel pipes, grout and rock properrties combination using weighted
w
averrages and ann equivalentt rock mass strength derrivation. Thhe geotechniccal propertiees of the
grouund were sellected basedd on Hoek-B Brown criteriion. The resu ults from thhe numerical analysis
show w that the veertical displaccement decreeased as the spacing betw ween the twiins tunnels inncreased.
The maximum vertical
v displaacement wass observed att the centre between
b the tunnels
t and gradually
g
movves towards above
a the tunnnels. The reeduction of maximum
m setttlement of 20-30%
2 was recorded
as thhe distance between thee tunnels inccrease graduually. After the t spacing between thee tunnels
reacched 4.0d, thee interactionn between thee tunnels hass become lesss significant.. The trend ofo ground
settllement betweeen the tunneels is expected to be the same in anyy twin tunnels constructioon except
withh a differentt magnitude.. The compaarison betweeen non-pipee roof and pipe p roof tunnnel had
show wn a significcant reduction of 10-20% % in ground settlement.
s T proved thhat the installlation of
This
pipee roof is ablee to reduce thet amount of o ground seettlement. Thhus, it can be b concludedd that the
distaance betweeen the tunneels plays ann important factor in deetermining thhe characterristics of
grouund settlemen nt besides thhe effectiveness of the pippe roof as a support systtem. The effeect of the
pipee roof was simmulated in tw wo-dimensioonal form durring the excaavation although the effecctiveness
of thhe pipe roof system still can be furth her investigatted in the fo
orm of three dimensionall form by
conssidering the advancing effect
e and sequence of exxcavation sin nce the grou und settlemennt is also
effeccted by otherr factors suchh as ground loss, methodd of excavatio on and overb burden depthh.
ACK
KNOWLED
DGEMEN
NT
REFERENCES
[1] Eder S., Poscher G. And Kohl B. (2004) Tunnelling in Urbanised Areas Geotechnical
Case Studies at Different Project Stages, Engineering Geology for Infrastructure Planning in
Europe, Vol. 4, pp. 435-443.
[2] Ocak I. (2008) Control of Surface Settlements with Umbrella Arch Method in Second
Stage Excavations of Istanbul Metro, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 23,
pp. 674-681.
[3] Karakus M., Ozsan A. And Baarr H. (2006) Finite Element Analysis for the Twin
Metro Tunnel Constructed in Ankara Clay, Turkey, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 71-79.
[4] Tan W. L. And Ranjith P. G. (2008) Numerical Analysis of Pipe Roof Reinforcement in
Soft Ground Tunnelling, The 16th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, University of
Washington, Seattle, 16-18 July 2008.
[5] Barbieri G. And Collotta T. (2010) Subsidence Induced by Shallow Tunnels
Construction: A Simplified Approach to the Risk-of-Damage Band Evaluation, The European
Rock Mechanics Symposium (EUROCK), Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 475-478.
[6] Lee Y. Z., Schubert W. And Kim C. Y. (2005) The Influence of the Round Length on
the Stability of Tunnel Face and Unsupported Span, Underground Space Use: Analysis of The
Past and Lessons for the Future, Vol. 1, pp. 211-216.
[7] Mirhabibi A. And Soroush A. (2012) Effects of Surface Buildings on Twin Tunnelling-
Induced Ground Settlements, Tunnelling and underground Space Technology, Vol. 29, Issues 1-
2, pp. 40-51.
[8] Chakeri H., Hasanpour R., Ali-Hindistan M. And nver B. (2010) Analysis of
Interaction between Tunnels in Soft Ground by 3D Numerical Modelling, Bulletin of
Engineering Geology and the Environment, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp. 439-448.
[9] Chapman D.N, Rogers C. D. F. And Hunt D. V. L. (2004) Predicting the Settlements
above Twin Tunnels Constructed in Soft Ground, Tunnelling and underground Space
Technology, Vol. 19, Issues 4-5, pp. 378.
[10] Chenade F. H. And Shahrour I. (2008) Numerical Analysis of the Interaction between
Twin-Tunnels: Influence of the Realative Position and Construction Procedure, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, Vol. 23, pp. 210-214.
[11] Afifipour M., Sharifzadeh M., Shahriar K. And Jamshidi H. (2011) Interaction of Twin
Tunnels and Shallow Foundation at Zand Underpass, Shiraz Metro, Iran, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, Vol. 26, pp. 356-363.
[12] Hefny A.M., Tan W.L., Ranjith P., Sharma J. And Zhao J. (2012) Numerical Analysis
for Umbrella Arch Method in Shallow Large Scale Excavation in Weak Rock, Tunnelling and
underground Space Technology, Vol. 19, Issues 4-5, pp. 500.
[13] Hoek E. And Brown E. T. (1997) Practical Estimates of Rock Mass Strenght,
International Journal for rock Mechanic and mining Science and Geomechanics Abstract, Vol.
34, pp. 1165-1186.
[14] Phienwej N., Sirivachiraporn A., Timpong S., Tavaranum S. And Suwansawat S. (2006)
Characteristics of Ground Movements from Shield Tunnelling of First Bangkok Subway Line,
International Symposium on Underground Excavation and Tunnelling, pp. 319-330.
Vol. 18 [2012], Bund. E 1056
[15] Gonzlez C. And Sagaseta C. (2001) Patterns of Soil Deformations around Tunnels.
Application to the Extension of Madrid Metro, Computer and Geotechnics, Vol. 28, pp. 445-468.
[16] Verruijt A. And Booker R. (1996) Surface Settlements due to Deformation of a tunnel in
an Elastic Half Plane, Gotechnique, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 753-756.
2013, EJGE