ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 987999

A methodology for assessing geotechnical hazards for TBM tunnellingillustrated by the Athens Metro, Greece
A.G. Benardos*, D.C. Kaliampakos
School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 9 Iroon Polytechneiou Str., GR 15780 Athens, Greece Accepted 28 March 2004

Abstract Unexpected ground conditions have always been a major problem for the tunnelling industry. As demand for the development of new underground structures, regardless of the ground conditions, has increased, safety and risk considerations have become even more important. The methodology presented in this paper aims at the identication of risk-prone areas, incorporating, at the same time, the uncertainty of ground conditions. It is focused on TBM tunnelling and can be implemented in the early stages of the project. The methodology assesses the hazards by introducing the concept of a vulnerability index, which is based on the principles of rock engineering systems, to identify the weighting of the parameters, and on probabilistic modelling to address the uncertainty in the parameters values. The proposed model is illustrated via the Athens Metro case study, used also for validating its performance under actual construction conditions. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Hazard assessment; TBM tunnelling; Vulnerability index

1. Introduction Underground construction projects many times nd themselves entrapped in the areas where unexpected ground conditions threaten the achievement of cost and schedule milestones. The utilisation of advanced investigation techniques and numerical methods has assisted in a more comprehensive analysis of the subsurface; however, the projects that are not able to successfully overcome such emergency-events have probably been the majority of cases [1]. Thus, the main question nowadays concerning underground construction has shifted, from whether can it be constructed to which is the most suitable construction method to be adopted and what will be the consequences of such a decision [2]. The setting up of an underground infrastructure within the urban environment poses new challenges to tunnel engineers. High prole works should not only overcome restrictions arising from existing city func*Corresponding author. Tel.: +30-2107722182; fax: +302107722156. E-mail address: abenardos@metal.ntua.gr (A.G. Benardos). 1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.03.007

tions, but also deal with the fact that the error margin for inicting damage on other infrastructure or property may be extremely small. Furthermore, the use of tunnelling boring machines (TBM), that, on the one hand provide increased advance rates but on the other nd it hard to bypass ground conditions other than those originally expected [3,4], increase the stakes. If everything goes according to plan, everybody can claim success; however, in the case where serious problems are encountered, the blame can be passed from one to another. To avoid such unfortunate situations, it is crucial to assess the possible areas that may pose a threat to the tunnelling operation and to identify the magnitude of such problems. Even though the above issue has been investigated by many researchers, it still concerns the tunnelling society. Amongst other researchers, the efforts of Einstein [57] introducing the decision aids in tunnellingDAT, should be noted. DAT simulates tunnel construction and studies the effects of different methods on the construction cost and time schedule. Marinos et al. [8] uses geological criteria and, in particular, the relative occurrence of geological classes, from investigation boreholes, to the overall tunnel proleso as to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
988 A.G. Benardos, D.C. Kaliampakos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 987999

characterise the anticipated conditions in terms of friendliness to tunnel construction. Alvarez Grima et al. [9] uses a different approach that incorporates a neuro-fuzzy model to assess TBM performance for a new project, based on a database of 640 tunnelling projects with explicit records of geological and machine characteristics. Finally, Barton [10] presented the Qtbm ; an index adapted from the Q-system and key machine parameters, attempting a direct link between the ground properties and TBM performance (advance rateAR; penetration ratePR; utilisationU). It is clear that there is substantial on-going research attempting to illuminate and formulate answers covering all aspects of possible tunnelling induced risks. In like fashion, this paper is concerned with the management of the uncertainty regarding the subsurface ground conditions, mainly focusing on the rst stages of the project. These initial phases are critical to the projects success [11] as, at that time, the construction guidelines and nal decisions are brought into shape; therefore, it is essential to have a clearer view of the underground conditions so as to tune the construction system and achieve a more efcient meeting of the site-specic demands. Nevertheless, during that period the main obstacle that has to be overcome is the uncertainty of the input data. The aim of this paper is to establish an overall assessment index of the problems that might be encountered during the TBM tunnelling operation, incorporating in the analysis the uncertainty and variability related to the geologic medium. Thus, a proactive assessment, focusing on potential problematic areas and the magnitude of the hazards encountered there, can be made possible via a common reference scale. In such manner, the advice given by Sir Alastair Morton [12] is invoked, that the primary challenge for the tunnel engineers is to address and manage the risk factors in tunnelling.

projects prole and gave rise to adverse comments from the engineering community [14,15]. Tunnelling in soft ground environments, as in the case of Athens, is more complex because the variability of ground conditions can signicantly affect the tunnels advance and cause considerable variations in the boring rateeven, sometimes, making unavoidable the use of systematic ground pre-treatment in an attempt to overcome such difcult areas. The proposed methodology mainly targets problems encountered during the TBM tunnel construction in soft ground environments. Accordingly, the major risk conditions encountered are:
* * *

face instabilities/collapses and overbreaks; surface settlements; and water inows.

3. Development of the vulnerability index (VI) methodology For the identication of vulnerable areas that may pose problems to the tunnelling operation, two main issues should be taken into account. The rst issue is to identify the parameters that are responsible for the occurrence of risk events, analyse their behaviour and evaluate the signicance that each one has in the overall risk conditions. Not only understanding the relative importance of each one is of essence, but also the assessment of their interaction mechanisms should be integrated in the analysis, because potential threats to the construction might be originated through critical inter-connections between the parameters. The second issue is to take into account the uncertainty and variability in the parameters values. Consequently, relying only on the mean values of the collected data is not a prudent approach, as it could well be more important to investigate the likelihood of occurrence of extreme values, low or high, that might disrupt the normal tunnelling sequence. In order to accommodate the above issues into the proposed methodology, two approaches have been employed. The rst approach makes use of the rock engineering systems (RES) principles, as illustrated by Hudson [16,17], concentrating on the interaction between the different variables and components of the rock mass, in an attempt to take all aspects into account. In this approach, the basic device used for describing and analysing the principal parameters and their interactive mechanisms is an interaction matrix. Through this matrix, the interaction intensity of the parameters can be evaluated and their relative weighting in the system, as a whole can be assessed. The second approach, the management and evaluation of the uncertainty, is achieved by selecting a

2. Athens Metro problems The problems that can be encountered during the TBM excavation differ in relation to the prevailing geological environments. For example, in hard rock projects it is not unusual to experience increased cutter wear and delays because of the frequent replacement of the cutters; in squeezing ground, the major problem is the large-scale tunnel deformation that can even result in the blocking of the machine [13]. In the case of the Athens Metro, the problems were mainly related to the presence of soft ground that caused instabilities and overbreaks. Also, the erratic behaviour of the Athens schist and the surface loading of the buildings caused many similar problems, even surface collapses. These made a negative impression of the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G. Benardos, D.C. Kaliampakos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 987999 989

probabilistic approach to the data values, making possible the systematic expression of the uncertain aspects in quantitative terms [18]. As Hoek [19] notes, uncertainties associated with the properties of geotechnical materials and the great care that has to be taken in selecting appropriate values for analysis has prompted several authors, including himself, to suggest that the traditional deterministic methods of geotechnical analysis should be replaced by probabilistic methods. More specically, the Monte-Carlo technique that applies random numbers to samples from known input probability distributions and determines specic outcomes is used [20]. Additionally, the system platform is a GIS application that facilitates the mapping and management of the input data. Furthermore, the GIS model is used for the spatial modelling of the data and the nal visualisation and classication of the areas under evaluation. The basic steps of the proposed methodology (Fig. 1) are:
*

length of 1129.36 m and an excavation diameter of close to 9.5 m [21]. The section examined in the model covers 1077.05 m, i.e. excluding the rst 53 m as, in that length, the details and adjustments for the machine operation were nalised. Therefore, this learning curve period is not representative of the tunnelling process and was excluded from further processing. The tunnel length under consideration is divided in 11 control areas (segments), in which the vulnerability index assessment is performed. Each segment represents an investigation area 100 100 m, following the TBM chainage (ch.), starting from ch. 11+100 to ch. 10+023. Every segment tracks 100 m of tunnelling length, except for the last one (segment 11) that is limited to only 77 m. In addition, the analysis is made in a 12 m thick layer, following the tunnelling depth, ranging along the chainage, from the level of +120 m to the level of +156 m.

3.1. Selection of principal parameters The selection of the principal parameters for the analysis is made bearing in mind the most useful and credible representation of the ground conditions, i.e. the geological, geotechnical and hydrogeological environmental properties, as well as other data related to site specic conditions (i.e. external loading by buildings, etc.). In doing so, one can nd numerous factors, each one inuencing the overall behaviour of the rock mass. However, the parameters given below represent the most important ones, and also the most easily obtainable without having to resort to special site investigation techniques. Also, as Benardos et al. note [22], the majority of these parameters have been proposed by researchers as essential indicators for

Identication of the principal parameters and rating assignments for their different value classes. Denition of statistical distributions that model the parameters behaviour and probabilistic modelling using Monte-Carlo simulation. Analysis and aggregation of the effect that the selected parameters have on the tunnelling process, through the generation of the interaction matrix. Vulnerability index estimation.

In order to estimate the models performance, the nal stage includes the model validation with respect to the actual conditions encountered during the tunnelling period. The model applies to the interval between the Katehaki and Panormou stations (Fig. 2), having a total

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

PARAMETERS' IDENTIFICATION

GENERATION OF THE INTERACTION MATRIX

PARAMETERS' RATING
PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF GEOLOGICA FORMATIONS' CHARACTERISTICS Intact Strength, Permeability, Weathering

ASSESSMENT OF PARAMETERS' WEIGHTING

HISTOGRAMS, STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTIONS

SPATIAL MODELLING RMR, RQD, Overburden, Hydrogeology, Geological Formations

PROBABILISTIC MODELLING

VULNERABILITY INDEX ASSESSMENT

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the proposed vulnerability assessment methodology.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
990 A.G. Benardos, D.C. Kaliampakos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 987999

Fig. 2. 3D model of the examined tunnel. The tunnel alignment, the investigation boreholes, as well as the buildings in that area are shown.

assessing the TBMs tunnelling performance. These parameters are:

*

* * *

* * *

Rock mass fracture degree as represented by RQD (P1 ). Weathering degree of the rock mass(P2 ). Overload factorstability factor (N)(P3 ). Rock mass quality represented by RMR classication(P4 ). Uniaxial compressive strength of the rock(P5 ). Overburdenconstruction depth(P6 ). Hydrogeological conditions represented by the watertable surface relative to the tunnel depth(P7 ). Rock mass permeability(P8 ).

Ideally, the selected parameters should be independent of each other, avoiding any double counting that might bias the nal outcome. However, some of the parameters listed above do have a degree of interconnection between them (e.g. RQD with RMR, because RQD is included in the RMR constituent parameters). Nevertheless, this is not considered to be a difculty as each parameter is used to describe a specic issue relating to possible problems. For example, RQD values are used to describe the fracturing degree of the rock mass; whereas, RMR denotes the quality of the rock mass and can be used as an assessment indicator of the excavations stand-up time. Thus, the option of including such information can further enhance the discerning capability of the model, not only for use as an overall hazard index, but also to assist in indicating the possible associated problem or failure mode. For

instance, even when there are cases with same overall RMR values, where similar behaviour is expected, differences in the fractures and the joint network in those cases could lead to different stability conditions. The next step is the rating of the parameters values with respect to their effect in the vulnerability conditions. The rating is made using an interval scale approach, with a total of 4 classes, from 0 to 3, where 0 denotes the worst case (most unfavourable) and 3 the best (most favourable condition). The limits set in every class are representative of the specic site conditions and the machine characteristics. In the case of the Athens Metro, the tunnel is constructed at a relative low depth and, in general, in soft ground conditions with a double shield TBM machine. The rating of each parameter is presented in Table 1. Special focus is given on the lower range of the values so as to cover the most critical cases and to enhance the analysis resolution in those classes. 3.2. Denition of statistical distributions that model the behaviour of the parameters The denition of the statistical distribution describing a parameters behaviour is used in order to proceed with the probabilistic modelling. Two basic groups can be discerned between the parameters: the rst group is comprised of parameters that are associated with the geological formations (lithology), such as intact strength, permeability, etc.; whereas, parameters in the second group are characterised only their relative position (spatial data), such as fracture degree, construction depth, etc.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G. Benardos, D.C. Kaliampakos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 987999 Table 1 Proposed rating of the principal parameters Value class Rock mass fracture degreeRQD o10 1030 3060 >60 Overload factor (N) >5 35 1.253 o1.25 UCS (MPa) o2 215 1540 >40 Water table surface (m) >10 510 05 o0 Rock mass weathering Compl. weath.-CW High weath.-HW Med. weath.-MW SW, fresh Rock mass ratingRMR o10 1030 3060 >60 Overburden (m) o7.5 7.512.5 12.517.5 >17.5 Permeability (m/s) o104 104106 106108 >108 Rating 0 1 2 3 991

0 1 2 3

occurrence of the geological formations in that specic area. For example, consider k geological formations, namely G1 ; G2 ; y; Gk ; having a probability of occurrence, in a specic area, PG1 ; PG2 ; y; PGk : Also, denote w1 and w2 ; as parameter values, having a probability of occurrence PG1 w1 ; PG1 w2 ; PG2 w1 ; PG2 w2 ; y; PGk w1 ; PGk w2 ; for each geological formation, respectively. What is in question is to assess the probability of having the values w1 and w2 in that specic area. This is possible through the following formulae: k X Pw1 PGi PGi w1 ;
i1

0 1 2 3

Pw2

k X i1

PGi PGi w2 where

k X i1

PGi 1:

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3

The lithology is not selected as a primary parameter, despite its great importance, because establishing its valuation in quantitative terms is not easy, bearing in mind the variations occurring in each formation. In contrast, modelling its properties (e.g. strength) can be a much safer and simpler task. Thus, the value of the parameter associated with the geological formations, for a specic area, is calculated as the product of the combined probability of the parameter value for each geological formation multiplied by the probability of

In the proposed model, the probability of occurrence of a geological formation is considered as spatial data. The probability distributions describing the parameters values are taken from the site investigation ndings, or even assessed according to engineering judgements and relevant literature studies, in cases where missing or incomplete data are encountered. The main geological units found in the area under investigation were: sandstone -S, siltstone -s, breccia-b, limestone-L and conglomerate-Cg. For all units, the spatial modelling regarding their probability of occurrence is performed, followed by the modelling focusing on all other spatial parameters. This analysis is based on the spatial modelling capabilities of the GIS application having as input the data gathered from approximately 16 boreholes. In Fig. 3, for example, the spatial modelling of the RQD values is presented, covering the wider area of the KatehakiPanormou metro tunnel. The distributions describing the values of all involved parameters are found through such spatial modelling. In each of the 11 segments, the spatial behaviour for every parameter is identied and transformed to a respective statistical distribution. For example, the statistical data relating to the geological formations probability of occurrence found in segment 10 (ch. 10+200 to ch. 10+100), is presented in Table 2. Breccia (b), sandstone (S) and siltstone (s) are the dominant geological units found there and their statistics and correlation data are clearly indicated. The probabilistic modelling is performed having as inputs the distribution of each parameter. The results, also in distribution form, are transformed into a discrete probability structure, after applying the ratingsfrom Table 1to each parameter. This is presented graphically in Fig. 4 for all of the involved parameters in the 11 analysis segments. Looking into the data shown there, one can see important variations in the parameters values, across the segmentsthus having a rst

ARTICLE IN PRESS
992 A.G. Benardos, D.C. Kaliampakos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 987999

Fig. 3. Spatial modelling of the RQD values in the wider area of the examined tunnel.

Table 2 Statistical data regarding the probability of occurrence for the geological formations (S, s, b) found in segment 10 Univariate statistics Min S s b Correlation matrix S s b 0.24404 0.130531 0.351724 S Max 0.370042 0.318397 0.470959 s Mean 0.338905 0.245878 0.407728 b St. dev 0.0345332 0.0529392 0.0285298

1 0.961347 0.692604 0.961347 1 0.864377 0.692604 0.864377 1

indication of the rock mass behaviour with respect to the tunnelling operation. 3.3. Generation of the interaction matrix and associated parameter values The generation of the interaction matrix can assist in assessing the weighting of the parameters within the rock mass system as a whole. The principal parameters (Pi ) are listed along the leading diagonal of the matrix and the interactions are placed on the off-diagonal cells. These interaction mechanisms between the parameters are identied and their intensity is evaluated using the ESQ (Expert Semi-Quantitative) coding as proposed by Hudson [17]. According to this coding technique, the interaction intensity is denoted by integral values from 0 to 4, from no interaction to critical interaction, as shown in Table 3. The matrix for the examined metro case is presented in Table 4, where the interactions between all the principal parameters are evaluated and coded. The principal parameters are listed along the leading

diagonal of the matrix from top left to bottom right; then the interactions are represented by the off-diagonal boxes using a clockwise convention. For example, the fracturing degree of the rock mass (P1 ) has a critical inuence on the weathering (P2 )as represented by the value 4 in the second box of the top row in Table 4and on RMR (P4 ) and hydrogeology (P7 ), while having a strong interaction with permeability (P8 ). Similarly, the permeability has no interaction with overburden depth (P6 ) and can only slightly inuence the compressive strength (P5 ). Thus, the matrix describes the Cause (C) and Effect (E) of the parameters on one another using the clockwise convention. More specically, the sum of the coding values, each value being Iij ; in the row passing through Pi ; represents the inuence of Pi on all the other parameters in the systemi.e. the Cause value. Conversely, the sum of the coding values in the column through Pi represents the inuence of the other parameters, i.e. the rest of the system, on Pi the Effect [17]. Thus, the following are evaluated: n X CPi Iij
j1

extent to which the parameter affects the system; EPj

n X i1

Iij

extent to which the parameter is affected by the system:

The interactive intensity value of each parameter is denoted as the sum of the C and E values (C E) and is used as an indicator of the parameters signicance in the system. The C E histograms for the selected case are presented in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the values, for the case under investigation, are not widely spread

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G. Benardos, D.C. Kaliampakos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 987999
RQD Rating 100% 80%
3

993

Weathering Rating 100% 80%

2 1

60% 40% 20% 0% 1 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 100% 80% 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UCS Rating 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

60% 40% 20% 0% 1 100% 80% 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

3 2 1 0

Overload factor Rating

RMR Rating

3 3 2 1 0

60% 40% 20% 0% 1 100% 80% 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Overburden Rating

2 1 0

60% 40% 20% 0% 1 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Water-Table Rating

2 1 0

60% 40% 20% 0% 1 100% 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Permeability Rating

2 1 0

3 2 1 0

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

3 2 1 0

Fig. 4. Rating of the principal parameters for each of the examined segments. Table 3 ESQ-coding of the parameters interaction intensity used in the model Coding 0 1 2 3 4 Description No interaction Weak interaction Medium interaction Strong interaction Critical interaction

fracture degree and the hydrogeological conditions, whereas the least interactive is the overburden. In conclusion, the percentage value of (C E) is used as the parameters weighting factor (ai ), (Table 5) according to the following expression: ai P Ci Ei P %; i Ci i Ei

indicating that there are no major differences in the importances of the parameters; nevertheless, the most interactive parameters are the rock mass rating, the

where Ci : cause of the ith parameter, Ei : effect of the ith parameter, i: number of principal parameters.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
994 A.G. Benardos, D.C. Kaliampakos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 987999 Table 4 Interaction matrix coding for the Athens Metro case Fracture degree 2 3 1 3 3 4 1 4 Weathering 1 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 Overload Factor 2 3 4 2 3 4 4 2 Rock Mass Rating 4 2 4 2 1 4 2 3 UCS 1 3 1 1 1 3 0 2 Overburden 1 0 4 2 0 2 0 3 Hydrogeology 3 3 4 2 4 1 1 2 Permeability

40 35 30

C+E value

25 20 15 10 5 0
re De gr ee W e h at er in g ad lo er Fa ct or m s as Ra tin g UC S Co ns D tr. ep th o dr Hy ge o ol gi ca l Pe rm ea bi lity

Fr

ac

tu

Ro

ck

Fig. 5. C E values of the principal parameters, as calculated from the interaction matrix.

Table 5 Final weighting of the principal parameters Principal parameter Fracture degreeRQD Rockmass weathering Overload factorN Rockmass ratingRMR UCS Overburdenconstruction depth Hydrogeological conditions Permeability ai (%) 14.11 13.31 11.69 14.52 11.69 9.27 13.71 11.69

as given by the discrete probability distribution, summed over the n parameters. The probabilistic modelling approach is also used in estimating VI, as Pi is expressed in a discrete probability form, where the values (class rating 0, 1, 2 and 3) correspond to a certain probability of occurrence, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Thus, VI is also in the form of a probabilistic distribution and is calculated using the following formula:
n X i1

VI

100

! Pi ai ; Pmax

3.4. Vulnerability index estimation The nal stage includes the estimation of the vulnerability indexVI [23]. As noted, VI can be used as an overall indicator of the potential problems encountered (instabilities/settlements/inows) in the area under investigation during the tunnel construction phase. It is expressed as the linear combination of the parameters weighting (ai ) and its respective rating (Pi )

where ai is the weighting of the ith parameter in the system, Pi the value (rating) of the ith parameter, and Pmax the maximum value a parameter can take (normalisation factor). The term Pmax ; used as the denominator in the summation formula above, is added so as to normalise the vulnerability index to a 0100 scale. In the case examined, Pmax 3; the maximum rating value for all the involved parameters.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G. Benardos, D.C. Kaliampakos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 987999 995

In this way, the VI is calculating the combined total result of the parameters taking values in a percent scale (0100), ranging from the more favourable conditions (low vulnerability) to the more adverse ones (high vulnerability). With respect to the parameter rating from 0 to 3, three main vulnerability classes can be discerned, namely [0, 33), (33, 66) and (66, 100], as seen in Fig. 6. Moreover, each class can be divided in two sub-classes so as to improve resolution for the interpretation of the results. The VI calculation for segment 8 (ch. 10+400 to ch. 10+300) is shown in Fig. 7, as output from the MonteCarlo probabilistic modelling method. The VI values are presented there (x-axis), in relation to their probability of occurrence, after 1000 iterations. It can be clearly seen that, with a certainty level of 99.8%, the VI ranges from 32.88 to 59.68. The histograms of the VI values for all the examined segments are presented in Fig. 8. On the x-axis, the Vulnerability Index in 5 point interval classes, truncated to a 2580 scale, is shown, while the frequencies for these specic classes are presented on the y-axis. Additionally, the complete VI statistics are given in Table 6. The interpretation of the results should not rely only on the mean values reading. The VI histograms can also be used in a risk assessment approach, as they can provide data for the probability of encountering a certain vulnerability type (consequence) that affects the tunnelling. Also, the certainty degree of the estimates can be assessed, as illustrated in Fig. 9. In this graph, the vulnerability index values are given using three certainty levels of 25%, 50% and 90%. For the case investigated, with respect to the VI ndings, the following can be concluded:
*

In particular, the rst group covers the rst 4 segments (ch. 11+100 to ch. 10+700), where their mean VI values are approximately 56, but their upper vulnerability limits reach an average value of 75. On the other hand, the second group consists of the remaining seven segments (ch. 10+700 to ch. 10+023), having lower mean values in the range of 47, but more importantly, their upper limits are in the range of 62. Furthermore, it can be deduced that the area expected to encounter the most signicant problems is found in segment 1 (ch. 11+100 to ch. 11+000); whereas the most risk-free area is found in segment 7 (ch. 10+500 to ch. 10+400). In a more explicit manner, four major hazard categories can be identied: Category 1: high to medium vulnerabilityits main portion is in the IIb category, but caution should be paid to the 1520% found in IIIa category. Certain individual regions that might cause several difculties during the excavation process must be taken into account (segments: 1,2; ch. 11+100 to ch. 10+900). Category 2: relatively medium to high vulnerability as it is mainly found in II category (approximately 40% in IIa and 60% in IIb) although it tends towards increased vulnerability. The problematic regions that must be taken into account are fewer with respect to the previous category (segments: 3,4; ch. 10+900 to ch.10+700).

Forecast: VI Segm8
1.000 Trials
0.133 0.100 0.067 0.033 0.000 32.88 39.31 46.10 52.89 59.68

Frequency Chart

1.000 Displayed
133 99.75 66.50 33.25 0

Probability

Frequency

The VI ranges from 28 to 79, having an overall mean value of about 50, characterising the tunnelling environment as medium to highly vulnerable. The average VI values for all segments range from 44 to 59, thus having a relative difference in the order of 40%. The control segments can be discerned in two major groups, having a gap of about 9 units in their mean values.

Certainty is 99.00% from 32.88 to 59.68

Fig. 7. VI estimation in segment 8, as output of the probabilistic modelling.

Fig. 6. Proposed VI scale.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
996 A.G. Benardos, D.C. Kaliampakos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 987999

Fig. 8. VI histograms for each segment (truncated to a 2580 scale).

Category 3: medium vulnerableand its values are found in IIa category (6570%), while the rest are located to more vulnerable categories. In general, the problems that may be encountered are not of particular

difculty (segments: 5,6,8,9,10,11; ch. 10+700 to ch. 10+500 and ch. 10+400 to ch. 10+023). Category 4: medium to low vulnerabilitysmall-scale problems are expected that cannot signicantly affect

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G. Benardos, D.C. Kaliampakos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 987999 Table 6 VI estimation in each of the tunnel segments Statistics Mean Median Mode St. dev Minimum Maximum Range Std. error Vun Seg1 59.72 58.20 61.29 6.04 41.80 77.96 36.16 0.19 Vun Seg2 57.69 58.06 58.06 6.47 40.19 79.44 39.25 0.20 Vun Seg3 54.05 54.57 54.70 6.36 36.83 72.31 35.48 0.20 Vun Seg4 53.79 54.17 51.34 4.51 39.65 68.82 29.17 0.14 Vun Seg5 48.11 48.92 45.03 4.68 35.08 61.16 26.08 0.15 Vun Seg6 48.70 47.98 51.08 4.81 31.05 61.16 30.11 0.15 Vun Seg7 44.13 44.89 40.99 4.51 28.76 59.01 30.24 0.14 Vun Seg8 46.85 46.51 49.60 5.17 33.33 62.77 29.44 0.16 Vun Seg9 48.86 49.87 49.87 4.79 32.66 62.90 30.24 0.15 Vun Seg10 47.80 46.77 45.97 4.90 33.06 62.90 29.84 0.16 Vun Seg11 46.65 45.97 45.30 4.49 33.06 62.90 29.84 0.14 997

Trend Chart
80.00

90% 66.25

52.50

50%

38.75 25%

25.00

the excavation process. Approximately 80% is found in IIa, and a 15% is in Ib category (segment: 7; ch. 10+500 to ch. 10+400).

4. Model validation The validation of the vulnerability index methodology is based on the actual construction records [24] of the selected inter-station tunnel. The direct approach is to analyse the problems experienced in each one of the examined segments in relation to the vulnerability index classes. An indirect, but more quantitative, assessment can be made possible by examining the tunnelling advance rate (AR) in each segment, as problems relating to geological conditions result in unplanned downtime and delays in the tunnelling operations.

Vun Seg1

Vun Seg2

Fig. 9. VI assessment, for each segment, in relation to the certainty degree of the estimate.

Vun Seg3

Vun Seg4

Vun Seg5

Vun Seg6

Examining the construction records revealed that the major problems were encountered in the boring of the rst 4 segments, from which the most intense were located in segment 1. These problems consisted of overbreaks, where a ground treatment program (mostly grouting) had to be implemented so as to overcome such conditions, ground water inows and nally occurrence of extensive surface settlements mainly in areas of segment 1, in which records showed a maximum displacement value of about 110 mm. More illuminating can be the linkage between the vulnerability index and the advance rate achieved in the analysed segments. It should be noted that all delays resulting from external causes (e.g. strikes, maintenance, etc.) were excluded. In Fig. 10 the cumulative advance of the TBM in each of the 11 segments is presented, while the average maximum and minimum tunnelling advance rates are

Vun Seg7

Vun Seg8

Vun Seg9

Vun Seg10

Vun Seg11

ARTICLE IN PRESS
998 A.G. Benardos, D.C. Kaliampakos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 987999
120
Seg 7 Seg 8 Seg 10 Seg 9 Seg 5 Seg 6 Seg 4 Seg 3 Seg 2 Seg 1

100

Cumulative Progress (m)

80

Seg 11

Seg 1

60

Seg 2 Seg 3 Seg 4

40

Seg 5 Seg 6 Seg 7

20

Seg 8 Seg 9 Seg 10 Seg 11

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Days

Fig. 10. Tunnelling cumulative progress in each segment.

Table 7 Tunnelling advance rate data in each of the tunnel segments Segment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Average AR (m/day) 4.00 4.54 6.25 4.35 9.82 9.09 16.67 11.11 10.85 12.50 14.07 Max AR (m/day) 8.8 8.8 10.4 13.5 12.1 13.7 21.0 18.3 17.0 17.3 14.8 Min AR (m/day)
Average Advance Rate (m/day)

18
Seg 7

16
Seg 11

0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.5 7.3 14.7 4.4 6.1 1.6 10.4

14
Seg 6

12 10 8

Seg 8 Seg 9 Seg 5 Seg 6

Seg 3

6
Seg 4 Seg 2 Seg 1

4
Correl = -0.925

given in Table 7. With the help of these data, the construction history of the tunnel can be observed. For example, looking at Fig. 10, the steepest the cumulative advance line is, the faster the boring is made. Accordingly, at areas indicate that problems were experienced there, resulting in delays. Also, the advance rate statistics (Table 7) can indicate the segments in which interruptions in the boring process have taken place and furthermore present the consistency of the achieved boring rate in the various segments. It is evident that the VI results are consistent with the analysis ndings, as in the rst four segments, and particularly in segments 1, 2 and 4, the lowest TBM advance rates have been measured. The boring time for each of these segments (14) was more than 16 days, reaching a maximum of 25. In all others (segments 5 11), the tunnelling was completed in a maximum of 12 days, having an average advance rate of about 1012 m/ day. Furthermore, in segments 7 and 11, the best results were recorded (average AR of about 15 m/day), while

35

40

45 50 55 Average Vulnerability Index

60

65

Fig. 11. Relation between average VI and AR values for each segment.

having at the same time a remarkable consistency regarding the achieved AR; throughout the tunnelling period. Accordingly, the mean values of VI and AR (Fig. 11) for all the examined tunnel segments have a high negative correlation coefcient, about 0.92, signifying the coherent behaviour of the proposed vulnerability index methodology. The relation between the two variables for this case study is approximately AR 0:78VI 49: Apart from the mean values, the spread in both the VI and AR values is important as well. The models consistency is also of value there, as the VI limits, with respect to their probability of occurrence, can be considered as an indicator of the expected tunnelling

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G. Benardos, D.C. Kaliampakos / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 987999 999

performance, providing information regarding the severity of the problems and the extent of the problematic areas.

5. Conclusions The identication of vulnerable areas that might cause problems in tunnelling, in a proactive context, is vital to the projects nal success. The approach adopted in this paper aims at providing a quantitative estimation regarding the possible hazards encountered in TBM tunnelling, with special focus on the uncertainty prevailing in the early stages of the project. The introduction of the vulnerability index provides an effective way of estimating the anticipated conditions through a common scale of reference. The case study illustrated its importance in identifying risk-prone areas allowing the engineers to:
*

focus the site investigation program on selected areas that will allow clarication of the prevailing conditions; assess the possible dangers (consequences) induced from tunnelling operations and dene the acceptable risk limits for the project; change or adjust the tunnelling specications in order to successfully deal with the possible problems; and introduce measures towards the improvement of the geotechnical characteristics of the subsurface in a proactive approach.

Another aspect of the methodology is the ability to assist in a prediction of the TBMs advance rate, a parameter crucial to the project success. Even though in the case example illustrated here, the model was calibrated to the specic site conditions and machine characteristics, it can be easily adapted to other cases as well. Its exible form allows it to be implemented in applications where the parameters and their importance to the tunnelling system varies.

References
[1] Smith M. Madrid Metro: A Story of Success, World Tunnelling (Special Supplement p1), December 1998. [2] Reilly JJ. The management process for complex underground, tunnelling projects. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol 2000;15(1):3144.

[3] Mcfeat-Smith I. Considerations for mechanised excavation of rock tunnels. Proceedings of the 6th Australian Tunnelling Conference, Melbourne, 1987. p. 14957. [4] Sutcliffe H. In: Bickel J, Kuesel T, King E, editors. Tunnel boring machines, tunnelling engineering handbook. London: Chapman & Hall; 1996. p. 20319. [5] Einstein HH, Dudt JP, Halabe VB, Descoudres F. Decision Aids in TunnellingPrinciple and Practical Application, Monograph, Swiss Federation Ofce of Transportation, Project Alptransit, 1992. [6] Sineld JV, Einstein HH. Evaluation of tunnelling technology using the decision aids for tunnelling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology Incorporating Trenchless Technology Research, vol. 11(4). 1996. p. 491504. [7] Haas C, Einstein HH. Updating the decision aids for tunneling. J Construct Eng Manage 2002;128(1):408. [8] Marinos PG, Novack MG, Blanke J, Benissi MD, Rovolis GD. Geological and environmental considerations for selecting an Athens metro tunnel alignment beneath an important archaeological area. Proc Eng Geol Environ Athens 1997;3:277784. [9] Alvarez Grima M, Bruines PA, Verhoef PNW. Modelling tunnel boring machine performance by neuro-fuzzy methods. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol 2000;15(3):25969. [10] Barton NR. TBM tunnelling in jointed and faulted rock. Rotterdam: Balkema; 2000. [11] Degn Eskesen S, Tengborg P, Kampmann J, Holst Veicherts T. Guidelines for tunnelling risk management, International Tunnelling Association, Working Group No. 2-1. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol 2004;19(3):21737. [12] Morton A, Tunnelling t for purpose. Inaugural Address at Tunnelling 97 Minerals Industry International, London, 1997. p. 513. [13] US Army Corps of Engineers. Tunnels and Shafts in Rock Engineering and Design, EM No. 1110-2-2901, 1997. [14] Greeman A. Athens tunnel collapse raises metro doubts. New Civil Eng 1995;1136:34. [15] Greeman A. Epic Drama. New Civil Eng 1995;1138:169. [16] Hudson JA. Atlas of rock engineering mechanisms: underground excavations. Int J Roc Mech Min Sci Geomech (Abstracts, vol. 28, No. 6). 1991;5236. [17] Hudson JA. Rock engineering systems: theory and practice. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood Limited; 1992. [18] Whitman RV. Organising and evaluating uncertainty in geotechnical engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2000;126(7):58393. [19] Hoek E. Muller Lecture Presented at 7th Congress of the . International Society for Rock Mechanics, Aachen, Germany, September 1991. [20] Vose D. Quantitative risk analysis: a guide to Monte Carlo simulation modelling. New York: Wiley; 1996. [21] Attiko Metro SA. Interstation KatehakiPanormou: GeologicalGeotechnical Data, 1995. [22] Benardos AG, Kaliampakos DC. Modelling TBM performance with articial neural networks. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol 2004; in press. [23] Benardos A. Hazard identication in the construction of underground excavations using tunnelling boring machines (TBM). The Case of the Athens Metro. Ph.D. thesis, School of Mining Engineering and Metallurgy, NTUA, 2002. [24] Attiko Metro SA. Interstation KatehakiPanormou: General Construction Report, 1995.