World Tunnel Congress 2013 Geneva Underground the way to the future! G. Anagnostou & H.

Ehrbar (eds)

Evaluation of Overstressing of Deep Hard Rock Tunnels

Jacobs Associates, Vancouver, Canada

ABSTRACT: An increasing number of tunnels of being planned and constructed at significant depths more than 1500 m and up to 2500 m for new water transfer and transportation infrastructure. A key risk associated with deep tunnels is overstressing due to the impact on worker safety and tunnel stability. The occurrence of overstressing in deep hard rock tunnels is also important to recognize and evaluate prior to tunnel construction for constructability in terms of minimizing the risk of method of excavation, construction schedule and construction costs. Overstressing in the form of spalling and slabbing has been known to have occurred in an increasing number of deep tunnels. Observations and anecdotal information of spalling and slabbing have been back analyzed from several deep tunnel projects in relation to an empirical method for the prediction of spalling to assess the validity of the empirical method for tunneling practitioners to adopt as a practical approach for assessing the potential for overstressing in deep hard rock tunnels. A new overstressing classification has been developed based on evaluation and observations of overstressing in a number of deep tunnels and has been confirmed to be in good agreement with observations and anecdotal information. Unique graphical presentations have been developed for the characterization of overstressing to assist in its early identification, severity, and quantification as a risk evaluation tool.

Introduction

An increasing number of long tunnels are being planned at great depth in bedrock as part of infrastructure requirements for civil, hydropower and mining projects. Tunnel boring machines (TBMs) are strongly considered for long tunnels due to the schedule and overall cost benefits. Drill and blast excavation has however been adopted for some long tunnels due to geological risks and improved technology for high speed productivity. Recently completed and ongoing deep hard projects include the 57 km twin Gotthard Rail Base Tunnel in Switzerland, the Olmos Water Supply Tunnel in Peru, the 46 km Pahang Selangor Water Supply Tunnel in Malaysia, and the 15 km Ceneri twin rail tunnel in Switzerland. Figure 1 shows severe overstressing in a the 5 km, 5 m diameter Piora Mulde TBM exploration tunnel in Switzerland at a depth of 1700 m. The stability of and support requirements for tunnels at great depth are a function of intact rock strength and the prevailing in situ stresses. Tunnels at great depth may be subject to brittle failure as spalling due to overstressing of varying degrees since de-stressing of the rock conditions only occurs to a very limited extent near the advancing face unlike for drill and blast excavation. The recognition of the potential for overstressing in deep hard rock TBM excavated tunnels is important for worker safety, tunnel stability and support requirements, constructability evaluation of the method of excavation, and construction schedule and construction costs. Overstressing is a serious condition in tunnel construction that can significantly influence the safety and choice of tunneling operations. Extreme occurrences of overstressing may result in rockbursting which has now occurred and has also been suspected in several deep recent and onging tunnels projects. Finally, unique graphical presentations have been developed for the characterization of overstressing to assist in its early identification, severity, and quantification during the early stages of planning and design for new deep tunnels.

-1-

Figure 1. Example of severe overstressing is deep tunnel with 1700 m of cover

Examples of Overstressing in Deep Tunnels

Overstressing in the form of spalling and slabbing is known to have occurred from direct observations and from anecdotal information in several deep hard rock tunnels around the world as listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Examples of Overstressing Project Alfalfal Lesotho Transfer Rio Blanco Kemano T2 Vereina Manapouri Casecnan Loetschberg El Platanal Ashlu Olmos Jinping Seymour Capilano Qinling Pahang Selangor Year 1990 1990 1990 1991 1996 2002 2002 2005 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2013 Excavation Method Drill & Blast TBM TBM TBM TBM TBM TBM D&B/TBM Drill & Blast TBM TBM TBM TBM TBM TBM Length [km] 4.5 45 11 8 21 10 21 34 12 4 14 16 14 28 46 Size [m] 5 5 6.5 6 6.5 10 6.5 8 6 4.1 5 12 4 12 5 Overburden [m] 1150 1300 1200 650 1500 1200 1400 2000 1800 600 2000 2500 550 2200 1200 Actual Overstress Rockburst Severe Severe Minor Extreme Minor Moderate Rockbursts Rockbursts Moderate Rockbursts Rockbursts Rockbursts Severe Moderate

-2-

3
3.1

In Situ Stresses
Topographic Stresses

Topographic stresses can result from the re-distribution of stresses by the erosion of valleys in steep mountainous and fjord areas. Higher than expected topographic stresses commonly exist along steep valley sidewalls and at the toes of steep mountainous terrain where the overlying and upward extending mountain rock contributes to the in situ stresses at depth. In some cases the maximum boundary stress around a tunnel sited near the toe or sidewall can be as much as 2.5 times the vertical rock cover. This was first recognized in Norway in the early 1990s where rockbursts occurred during the construction of new highway tunnels (Myrvang and Grimstad, 1983). The presence of higher than expected theoretical stresses at the toe of major slopes or near the side walls of major valleys has been confirmed on numerous projects from the measurements of minimum stresses performed as part of the design of the length of steel linings for hydropower projects. Many of the project examples are sited in mountainous terrain with high relief greater than 1500 m where overstressing has occurred. 3.2 Measured In Situ Stresses

While stress measurements are an important aspect of tunnel design it is recognized that it may be difficult to perform for deep tunnels due to limited access, availability of experienced specialist contractors, and the appreciable costs associated with the testing. Hydraulic fracturing testing can be performed in deep boreholes and is a cost effective method whereby numerous tests can be performed to give multiple results for greater confidence for interpretation and evaluation of the full state of in situ stress. Where existing excavations may be present it is worthwhile to consider to carry out overcoring in situ stress testing that can provide a more reliable estimate of the in situ state of stress.

Evaluation of Overstressing

An evaluation of overstressing has been performed for all of deep tunnel examples listed in Table 1 above. This evaluation considered the empirical approach of spall prediction suggested by Diederichs et al. (2010) shown in Figure 2 that provides a relationship between the estimated depth of spalling and the ratio of the maximum boundary stress to the uniaxial compressive strength (max/c). This approach suggests that overstressing as spalling can be expected to occur when max/CI > 1.0, (1) where CI is defined as the Crack Initiation Strength and typically equal to about 40% of the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and the maximum boundary stress is defined as max= 31 - 33 = 3(3k-1), (2) where 1 is the maximum principal stress, 3 is the minimum principal stress, and k is the stress ratio. Examples of the evaluation of overstressing following the empirical approach are presented for a selected number of case projects of Table 1. (Rio Blanco, Olmos, Loetschberg). Each of the observed cases of overstressing was evaluated by simply plotting the inferred or implied maximum boundary stresses along the tunnel alignment in relation to the Crack Initiation Strength (CI) as determined from uniaxial compressive strength testing of rock cores from drillholes completed both prior to and during tunnel excavation along the tunnel alignment or from block samples that were tested during construction for the respective tunnel projects Figures 3, 4 and 5 present plots of limited Crack Initiation Strength (CI) data versus maximum boundary stresses (max) for variable stress ratios of 1.02 for the Rio Blanco Tunnel, stress ratios of 1.2, 2.0, and 2.5 for the Olmos Tunnel, and stress ratios 1.2 and 2.0 for the Loetschberg Tunnel respectively. No stress measurements were performed prior to the construction of these projects. Overcoring stress measurements were performed during the excavation of the 11 km, TBM excavated Rio Blanco water transfer tunnel due to overstressing experienced during construction. Figure 4 presents Crack Initiation Strengths (CI) from numerous UCS data from rock cores versus maximum boundary stresses based on a measured stress ratio of k = 1.03.

-3-

Moderate overstressing was observed along long sections of the central part of the tunnel alignment of the Rio Blanco Tunnel at the El Teniente Mine in Chile and the empirical assessment is in good agreement with these findings.

Figure 2. Empirical Relationship of Spalling

Figures 3. Overstressing Characterization, Rio Blanco Tunnel

-4-

Figures 4. Overstressing Characterization, Olmos Tunnel

Figures 5. Overstressing Characterization, Loetschberg Tunnel

-5-

Severe overstressing including rockbursts occurred along appreciable areas of the eastern high cover section of the tunnel alignment during the excavation of the 14 km TBM excavated Olmos water transfer tunnel in Peru. The empirical assessment is also in good agreement with these findings from this project where very challenging excavations were experienced. Severe overstressing including rockbursts also occurred along appreciable areas of the southern high cover section of the tunnel alignment during the excavation of the 34 km TBM excavated section of the Loetschberg rail tunnel in Switzerland. The empirical assessment is also in good agreement with these findings from this project where very challenging excavations were experienced. The plots of Crack Initiation Strengths (CI) versus the inferred maximum boundary stresses from site specific in situ stress testing or implied topographic stresses provide a simple method of evaluation of the observed overstressing. This approach serves to indicate the level of stress ratios existing at these sites to have caused the observed overstressing. Based on the good agreement of the empirical approach of assessment to the observations of actual overstressing this approach appears to be valid for the prediction of overstressing of new deep tunnels.

Overstressing Classification

A classification for overstressing has been developed based on the observations of overstressing from the project cases and consideration of historical work on the subject (Hoek and Marinos, 2009). The ratio of the maximum boundary stress to the uniaxial compressive strength (max/c) is suggested as the key parameter for the identification and severity of overstressing as follows:
Table 3. Overstress Classification OS Class 1 2 3 4 5 max/c 0.45 0.60 0.90 1.20 1.60 Description Minor Moderate Severe Extreme Possible Rockbursts

The quantification of overstressing can be assessed by identifying the extent over which values of the ratio of max/c exceed 0.45 along a tunnel alignment with further characterization of the severity of overstressing subject to the increasing ratio of max/c and the linear extent defined by station chainages.

Tunnel Support for Overstressing

The occurrence of overstressing in TBM tunnels requires special tunnel support systems to effectively contain spalling and slabbing rock fragments and under extreme conditions to protect workers from possible rockbursting. Table 4 presents suggested tunnel support systems that have been used in a number of TBM tunnels constructed to adequately support overstressing conditions.

-6-

Table 4. Tunnel Support for Overstress Conditions OS Class 1 2 3 4 5 Overstress Depth ~ 1.0 1.25 1.60 1.95 2.40 Support Types Spot Bolts Pattern Bolts/Mesh Pattern Bolts/Channels Steel Ribs/Mesh Continuous full profile system, eg. McNally System

Extreme overstressing and rockbursting conditions can be effectively supported with nominal impact to TBM productivity using the McNally Roof Support System as proven on the 13 km, Olmos Water Supply Tunnel in Peru.

Conclusions

The empirical method to estimate overstressing as spalling presented by Diederichs et al. (2010) is in good agreement with observations of varying degrees of overstressing including rockbursting from several interantional deep tunnel projects. This approach has been validated through evaluation of these projects relating the Crack Initiation Strength (CI) to the inferred and calculated maximum boundary stresses based on consideration of topographic stresses in steep valleys and in situ stress measurements at the case projects. Higher than expected in situ stresses and related maximum boundary stresses are believed to exist around tunnels that are sited near the toe and aligned parallel to steep valleys. These higher than expected stresses can result in significant overstressing over appreciable lengths of tunnels sited and aligned in relation to such topography. This validation serves to establish a practical approach to predict the potential for overstressing in future deep, hard rock, tunnels, excavated either by TBMs or by traditional drill and blast. A classification of overstressing has been proposed along with effective tunnel support systems. Unique graphical presentations have been developed and serve for simple and quick characterization of overstressing to assist in its early identification, severity, and quantification during the early stages of planning and design for new tunnels. This approach highlights the importance of having an appropriate amount of rock strength data prior to construction from drillhole core or rock block samples along the tunnel alignment in addition to measured in situ stresses in order to perform a comprehensive evaluation of overstressing.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge various colleagues in the international tunneling industry who have contributed project data to evaluate overstressing in the example projects and help to develop the overstressing classification. These individuals and companies include Meridan Energy, the Robbins Company, Felix Amberg, Renzo Cardoza, and Franois Vuilleumier.

-7-

References

Santiago O. Castro, Juan P. Soler, Carlos F. Andrade and Hugo A. Delucchi. 1996. Rock Mass Stress Release in the Alfalfal Main Water Tunnel: Evidence and Remedial Actions.

Diederichs, M.S., Carter, T., and Martin, D. 2010. Practical Rock Spall Prediction in Tunnels. Proceedings from the International Tunnel Association Conference, Vancouver, Canada. Myrvang, A.M and Grimstad, E. 1983. Rockburst Problems in Norwegian Road Tunnels Recent Case Histories. IMM Symposium on Rockburst Prediction and Control, London. Hoek, E. and Marinos, P. 2009. Tunnelling in Overstressed Rock. Keynote address presented at EUROCK2009, Rock Engineering in Difficult Ground Conditions Soft Rocks and Karst. Dubrovnik, Croatia. Gong, Q.M., Yin, L.J., Wu, S. Y. and Ting, Y. 2011. Rockburst and Slabbing Failure and its influence on TBM Excavation at headrace tunnels at Jinping II hydropower station. Engineering Geology (124) 98-108.
Franois Vuilleumier & Markus Aeschbach. 2004. The Loetschberg Base Tunnel Lessons Learned From The Construction of The Tunnel, First Brazilian Congress on Tunnels and Underground Structures International Seminar on South American Tunnelling.

-8-

Summary of Deep Excavated Tunnels Validation of Overstressing Classification

Furka Alfalfal LesothoTransfer RioBlanco KemanoT2 Vereina Manapouri Casecnan Loetschberg ElPlatanal Ashlu Olmos Jinping SeymourCapilano BrennerExploration Cheves Qinling PahangSelangor

Switzerland Chile Lesotho Chile Canada Switzerland NewZealand Philippines Switzerland Peru Canada Peru China Canada Italy Peru China Malaysia

1982 1990 1990 1991 1992 1996 2002 2002 2005 2006 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013

15 8 45 11 8 21 10 21 34 12 4.4 14 17 14 10.5 14 28 46

5 5 5.0 6.5 5.7 6.5 10.0 6.5 8 6 4.0 5.0 12. 3.8 6.3 5 12 5.0

1400 1150 1300 1200 650 1500 1200 1400 2000 1200 600 2000 2500 550 1250 1400 2200 1200