Rock Classification for Tunnelling Projects

Ian McFeat Smith Director IMS Tunnel Consultancy Ltd

Rock Classification for Tunnelling Projects

Special Design Issues for Tunnel Complexes and Rock Caverns Rock Classification for the Selection of Tunnel Support Systems Predicting Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) Performance Management and Prediction of Water Inflows Tunnelling Costs and Programming Risk Assessment New Code of Practice for Tunnelling Role of Rock Classification for Payment Purposes in Risk Sharing Contracts

Early Form of Rock Classification ?

The problem is mathematics is black and white but the real world is grey Albert Einstein

Site Investigation

Special Design Issues for Tunnel Complexes and Caverns

Rock Cavern for Tai Koo MTR Station

Impact of major joints / weathered seams on primary support system

Modification of lining design philosophy

Impact of incorrect on site rock classification on design and construction liability

Rock Classification for Selection of Tunnel Support Systems

NORWEIGN GEOTECHNICAL INSTITUTES (NGI) Q - SYSTEM

Q = RQD Jn x Jr Ja x Jw SRF

where

RQD Jn Jr Ja Jw SRF

is the rock quality designation is the joint set number represents the joint roughness represents the joint alteration is a joint water reduction factor is a stress reduction factor represents rock block size represents joint shear strength

Further RQD Jn Jr Ja And

Jw represents active stress SRF

Selection of Temporary Supports using Q system

Construction of twin 16 18m span tunnels for Eagles Nest Tunnels (Current)

Key Issues for Classification of Rock Masses in Tunnelling

1) Variability of geology /temp supports 2) 3D - RQD assessment? 3) Proportion of blast fractures?

CSIR GEOMECHANICS CLASSIFICATION OF JOINTED ROCK MASSES

System involves measurement, selection of a rating and addition of these for each of the following rock mass parameters:
INTACT STRENGTH OF ROCK RQD % SPACING OF JOINTS m CONDITION OF JOINTS GROUND WATER RATING ADJUSTMENT FOR ADVERSE JOINT ORIENTATIONS

From the overall rating the following is provided:

AVERAGE STAND UP TIME COHESION OF ROCK MASS ANGLE OF FRICTION

Description of IMS Rock Classes

IMS Rock Class 1 2 3 4 5A 5B Description Massive competent rock mass Favourable rock mass Moderately fractured / weathered rock Highly fractured or weathered Fault zones Fault gouge / soils

Application of IMS rock classes for preliminary design of Sha Tin Heights tunnel

Rock Classification for Estimating Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) Performance

Hong Kongs first TBM project - Open type hard rock Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM)

Hong Kongs first TBM projects cable tunnel and double shielded TBM for Tolo Tunnel

Hard rock earth pressure balance TBM for tunnelling in mixed face conditions

TBM excavated tunnel no effective overbreak and no support required

Comparison of support requirements for drill and blast and TBM excavated cable tunnels

Use of IMS rock classification for estimating overbreak for different methods of tunnelling

Management and Prediction of Water Inflows in Rock Tunnelling

Water Inflow Issues for Tai Po to Butterfly Valley Aqueducts

Cumulative water inflows experienced in aqueduct

Tai Po to Butterfly Valley

Large Disseminated Inflows in TBM Drives

Large inflows through individual open joints and shear zones

Tai Po to Butterfly Aqueduct water inflow at full hydrostatic head (700m)

SSDS subaqueous tunnels. Large inflows at full hydrostatic head below urban areas

Site measurement of Water Reduction Factor R with time.

PREDICTION OF WATER INFLOWS INTO ROCK TUNNELS IN HONG KONG

METHOD OF PREDICTING INFLOW REDUCTION FACTOR (R)
Water Source Size Factor (Sf)

Head Factor (Hf) Head m/100 (m)

Horizontal Separation (df) Separation

df = 1
dm 400 m

Source Sea Major Valley/ Reservoir Large Valley/ Reservoir Small River/ Reservoir Stream Ridge

Sf 1.0 0.85 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1

Head m >100 100 80 50 20

Hf 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.2

0 50 100 200

1.0 0.65 0.5 0.29

300 0.13 400 0 For d = 0 to 400m only

Notes : R = Sf x Hf x df with R being dimensionless.

PREDICTION OF WATER INFLOWS INTO ROCK TUNNELS IN HONG KONG

Prediction of Initial (Ii) and Final Inflows (Fi) Ii = R.IF & Fi = R2IF

IF VALUES FOR IMS ROCK CLASSES (l/min/m) IMS Rock Class IF High values l/min/ Averag m e Low 1 0.6 0.45 0.3 2 1.4 1.05 0.7 3 12.2 6.55 0.9 4 37 24 11 5 3.8 3.1 2.4

GUIDE TO GROUND TREATMENT FOR PRE-GROUTING OF ROCK TUNNELS Rock mass classification
1.

IMS Rock Class

1 1

Grouting required

Grout material

JOINTED ROCK
No grouting Spot or targeted grouting N/A MFC, if joints >0.5mm; OPC MFC

1.1 Massive, no joints 1.2 Very few joints; < 0.1 joints/m

1.3 Few joints; < 1 joints/m, 2 joint sets 1.4 Jointed rock; <10joints/m, >2 joint sets 1.5 Very jointed rock; 10 joints/m 2. FAULT ZONES 2.1 Zones with clay 2.2 Silty zones 2.2 Sandy zones 2.3 Gravel zones or sugar cube rock 2.5 Mixed material

Limited to continuous

Continuous

MFC

4-5A

Continuous, closer spacing, in stages Displace, wash out/replace, compact Penetrate, very close spacing, in stages Penetrate, close spacing, in stages Penetrate, quick set, in stages

MFC, UFC

5A-5B 5A-5B 5A-5B 5A-5B 5A-5B

OPC, MFC UFC, Chemical MFC, UFC OPC, MFC

3.

REGIONAL STRUCTURAL ZONE

Penetrate, displace, compact, OPC, MFC, replace, in stages, close spacing UFC, Chemical Depends of size of zone and composition. Often a combination of 1.5 and 2.5 above.

Tunnelling Costs and Programming

Risks for Tunnelling

Risks - rockhead Issues

Key risks 1. Defining rockhead? - 5m CDG below 12mof competent rock; 2. tunnelling close below rockhead in urban areas

Collapse of HK MTR Island Line Tunnels in Hennessy Road,1983

Island Line Tunnels

Key Risks Rock tunnelling (blasting) in urban areas with low rockhead cover ; blast vibrations restrictions ; damage to third parties

Athens Metro: Collapses of TBM Tunnels to Street Level

Key Risk - lack of geological risk management plan

Hong Kong MTR large boulders in soft ground

Singapore and Hong Kong

Key Risk: Failure of Earth Pressure Balance System for tunnelling in extreme mixed face conditions; risk to third party property

PUBLIC LIABILITY ISSUES

IMS Method of Selecting Face Control for Soft Ground TBMs

CLAY EPB EPB
SLURRY

EPB EPB
SLURRY

MEDIUM LOW PRESSURE PRESSURE OPEN EPB EPB

OPEN OPEN

SILT SAND

EPB EPB
SLURRY

MEDIUM OPEN PRESSURE LOW PRESS EPB EPB

Slurry or Special Measures

EPB
SLURRY
Slurry or Special Measures

EPB

MEDIUM LOW PRESSURE PRESSURE EPB EPB MEDIUM LOW PRESSURE PRESSURE EPB EPB

Special GRAVEL Measures SOFT / LOOSE FILL

EPB
SLURRY

EPB 60

20

40

80

100
VERY FIRM VERY STIFF

SPT

SOIL DENSITY ALLUVIUM

New Joint Code of Practice for Tunnels

British Tunnelling Society The Association of British Insurers

New Code of Practice for Tunnels

Client responsible for sufficiency of site investigations Geotechnical data forms part of contract Geotechnical baseline conditions i.e. rock classification, to be drawn up by Client or Tenderer Geotechnical baseline conditions and used for assessing unexpected geological conditions Risk assessment and management at all stages of development of project Continuous tracking and mitigation of risks through risk register Insurance cover may be suspended or cancelled in event of a breach of code requirements

Risk Levels and Action Plans

Risk Level R1 Action and Timescale
Work shall not begin until mitigation implementation has been completed and verified. Mitigation of risk of high priority and risk must be reduced significantly or alternative methods adopted. Work shall not begin until mitigation implementation has been completed and verified. Mitigation should reduce risk to R3 Level Mitigation should be completed before works begin. Mitigation to be undertaken as resources

R2

R3

The IMS Risk Evaluation System

Key Risk Categories

TERRAIN CONSTRAINTS SITE INVESTIGATION GROUND CONDITIONS WATER ISSUES DESIGN & SPECIFICATION COMPLEXITY OF WORKS TUNNELLING METHODS PRECEDENCE/ EXPERIENCE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT COMMERCIAL A COMMERCIAL B PROGRAMME A type of terrain and cover proximity to tunnels of adjacent man-made structures and other constraints adequacy and quality classification and variability of conditions predictability, achievability of watertightness specification and likely impact robustness of design, quality of specifications and implementation including layout, number of working faces, interfaces, ease of access, and spoil disposal ground control requirements, support, and excavation difficulty for type and scale of works and by contractor management systems and site culture quality of contract documents, partnering and risk sharing cost of project relative to available funds and previous works commercial risk as a percentage of cost of works quality, level of detail and contribution

Score Forms IV Ground Conditions

Risk Type Risk Evaluation Score

5 Ground Mass Characterisation

(rock and soft ground tunnels to be classified using IMS rock or soil classes)

Very poor e.g. IMS Rock Class 5B, extreme mixed ground; rockhead at tunnel crown; regions of high seismicity; very high in situ stresses Poor e.g. soft ground with boulders / low rockhead cover Intermediate e.g. soft ground or variable rock moderate risk Low risk e.g. consistent soft ground or moderate rock No risk e.g. competent rock tunnel

25

16 9 4 1 25 16 9 4

6 Variability

Major variations / impossible to predict accurately Highly variable high risk Intermediate moderate risk Consistent generally easy to predict

Score Forms V Water Issues

Risk Type Risk Evaluation Score

7 Predictability of Inflows

No local precedence much uncertainty creating very high risk Difficult variable inflows Intermediate Moderate risk Small risk Consistent or low flows Likely

25 16 9 4 1 25 16 9 4 1 25 16 9 4

8 Watertightness Specifications

Very Unlikely to be Achieved Difficult to Achieve Intermediate Moderate Risk Low Risk Very Easy to Achieve

9 Likely Impact of Inflows in terms of Ground Movements, Disposal, Tunnel

Extreme Risk Major Impact High Impact Anticipated Intermediate Moderate Risk Low Risk

Score Forms XI Contract

Risk Type Risk Evaluation Very Poor, Inappropriate for Job, Allocation of Risks Unclear Poor Quality Many Ambiguities Just Sufficient Moderate Risk Good standard Excellent Quality, Well structured, Clear and Easy to Implement Score 25 16 9 4 1 25 16 9 4 1 25 16 9 4

25 Quality of Contract Documents

26 Partnering
(general attitude towards mutual co-operation)

Partnering is not allowed strict pursuit of contract conditions. Parties accept partnering in principle but reluctant strict focus on contract rather than problem solving Client passively involved in partnering but lacking experience. Client actively involved in partnering but lacking experience. Client participates in partnering and encourages broad involvement

27 Risk Sharing All risks are transferred to the Contractor

Risk sharing occurs but biased in favour of the Client Equal client specified distribution of risks Risks are allocated to party most able to manage them

Re-measurement Risk Sharing Forms of Contract

Tunnel for Tolo Effluent Export Scheme HK Governments first TBM project - 7.5 km long tunnel
completed within budget and 6 months ahead of programme; using double shielded TBM

Re-measurement Risk Sharing Contract for Tolo Tunnel:

Only major risk sharing contract used for tunnelling in HK to date. Payment for geological conditions made on re-measurement of IMS rock classes

Re-measurement Risk Sharing Contract for Tolo Tunnel:

Actual Limit to Governments Risk

The Present System

Rock Classification for Tunnelling Projects

Special Design Issues for Tunnel Complexes and Rock Caverns Rock Classification for the Selection of Tunnel Support Systems Prediction of Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) Performance Prediction and Management of Water Inflows Tunnelling Costs and Programming Risk Assessment New Code of Practice for Tunnelling Role of Rock Classification for Payment Purposes in Risk Sharing Contracts