Tunnel du Mont-Blanc

Prepared by: Gabriel Becerril Jr., Weiling Cai, Ayyaz Fareed, Kyle Rink

Prepared for: Engineering Geology and Rock Engineering

1
https://www.chamonix.net/english/travel/mont-blanc-tunnel
Outline
● Introduction
● Geological Information
● Geology
● FEM Simulation
● Conclusion
● References

2
 INTRODUCTION

3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc#/media/File:Mont-Blanc_from_Planpraz_station.jpg
Background Information
● Mont Blanc is the highest mountain in the Alps (> 4800 m,
15000 ft)
○ Second highest mountain in all of Europe
● Shared boundary between France, Italy and Switzerland
● A ‘young’ exhumation (2 Mya) period
● Due to its location, a passage through the mountain rather than
around would be time saving

4
Background Information
● Tunnel idea dates back to the 18th century
○ Envisioned by du Saussure in 1787
● Not until after Napoleon’s defeat in 1814 was the idea considered by governments
● In 1954, France and Italy reached an agreement for a roadway through Mont Blanc
○ Length of 11.6 km
○ Width of 8.6 m
○ Vehicle speed would be 60 km/h
○ Traffic flow would be 450 vehicles/hour and 600 vehicles/hour during rush hour
● Construction began in January 1959

5
 Construction
Italian side French side

● Utilized the Swedish Method: ● Used heavy American equipment

○ Atlas Copco's rock drills with
pusher legs of the Lion type
○ Sandvik Coromant's rock drill bits

https://cdn.fiaccola-network.com/720x405/media/gallery/6ff2e2751d8cecd21d70d951c03bd https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/workers-working-on-mt-blanc-that-will-connect-franc
8d5.jpg e-and-italy-picture-id50679819?s=612x612 6
GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION

7
Rock types, Folds, and Fault
● Major rock types encountered on the French side were:
○ Schist
○ Granite
○ Limestone
● Major rock types encountered on the Italian side were:
○ Granite
○ Limestone
○ Slate-like mylonite
● Structured in a series of synclinal and anticlinal folds
● Medium-angle fault
○ Now called Thrust faults (frontal ramps) 8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schist#/media/File:Schist_d https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/education/imag
etail.jpg es/granite2-copy.jpg?maxwidth=650&autorotate
=false

https://www.123rf.com/photo_23324207_black-
limestone-rock-texture.html

https://www.sandatlas.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_557
https://www.britannica.com/science/slate-geology
0-mylonite.jpg 9
 https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*ByVBK-4tA
HpJHEEAOjjhgA.jpeg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Antecline_%28PSF%29.png

https://www.geological-digressions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Thrust-faults-lateral-ramp-scaled.jpg
10
Engineering Challenge
● Construction on the Italian side of the tunnel encountered a large increase
in water infiltration
○ 3.6 km from the portal
● Preceded by a drop in water temperature
● Normally, water temperature increases with an increase in rock-cover
thickness
● Water infiltration was as high as 1084 L/s
● Dropped to 450 L/s after 4 months

11
Engineering Challenge
● Water discharge caused a section of the tunnel to collapse
○ 100 m in length
● Buried the machine used for excavation
● Caused a 100 day delay
● Had the benefit of cooling the working environment
● Drilling speed increased afterwards to the fastest time recorded on
both the French and Italian side

12
Geology

13
Soil/Rock Profile

(5) - Geological section along the Mont Blanc tunnel

(5) - Location of the Mont Blanc massif showing position of the road tunnel.

14
Case Study: Fire in the Mont
● Fire in 1999
○ Created homogeneous layers of
concrete
○ Heat from the fire created sharp
cracks and micro cracks due to
high stress
○ Considerable reinforcement work
required
○ Measured EM impulse that traveled
through the concrete

(4) - Cross Section of Mont-Blanc

15
Case Study: Fire in the Mont
● NDT/E of Tunnel Walls using Ground
Penetrating Radar (GPR)
○ GSSI model SIR-10H
○ Three zones: SZ, MZ, and HZ
■ 10-15cm, 10-20cm, 5-10cm
○ Cores can damage the tunnel’s
integrity
○ Only yield a point-specific data for
the tunnel
○ GPR can be used extensively in
order to recover the thickness of
each layer after calibration.
(Schmidt Hammer in class) 16
Mont Blanc Geology
● Thrust and Reverse Fault Along Tunnel
○ Average slope ~35deg from top of
Mont Blanc
○ Thrust dips 55 degrees to the NW

17
Additional Features
● Sits on Bedrock
● Entire length hand drilled
● No original reinforcement

18
FEM Simulation

19
CASE A: Purely elastic isotropic material (circular
tunnel)

20
Geometry of the tunnel
● 150mx150mx150m
● Circular shape
● Block and cylinder shape

21
Material properties and mesh size
● Granite
● Unit weight: 2750 KN/m3
● Poisson ratio: 0.25
● Young’s modulus: 40 GPa
● Mesh size: Fine

22
 Loads application
● Vertical load: 2061750 Pa
● Lateral load: 1237050 Pa
● K= 0.6
● Fixed constraint and gravity

Lateral load (σh)= k x σv

Vertical load (σv)= Unit weight (rock) x depth

23
Von Mises Stresses
● Stress distribution
● Higher stresses at tunnel walls
● For verification⇒ Cut planes

24
Cut planes
● Drawn at 75 m along y-axis

25
Cut planes
● Drawn at 83.6m along y-axis

26
Cut planes
● Drawn at 83.6m along z-axis

27
Principal stresses

28
CASE B: Tunnel without internal support

29
Geometry of the tunnel
● Three layers were used:
⇒ Schist, granite and limestone
● Discontinuity⇒ 5m W & H, 1050m D
● 2°rotation for discontinuity (z-axis)
● Height and width of each layer: 150m
● Depths
⇒ Schist = 150m
⇒ Granite = 600m
⇒ Limestone= 300m
30
Material properties and loads
Properties Granite Limestone Schist

Young’s Modulus (GPa) 40 34.2 32.5

Poisson Ratio 0.25 0.33 0.2

Unit Weight (KN/m3) 27.49 26.7 26

Vertical load (Pa) 2061750 2002500 1950000

Lateral Loads (Pa) 1237050 1201500 1170000

31
Mesh
● Extra fine mesh was used

32
Von Mises stress
● More stresses around walls and junction

33
Principal stresses (Schist layer)

34
Principal stresses (Granite layer)

35
Principal stresses (Limestone layer)

36
CASE C: Adding concrete lining to CASE B

37
Geometry of the tunnel
● Same as Case B except concrete lining
● Concrete properties:
⇒ Poisson ratio: 0.25
⇒ Young’s modulus: 25 GPa
⇒ 2300 kg/m3
● Concrete lining
⇒ No reinforcement, 0.5m thickness

38
Mesh
● Extra fine mesh was used

39
Von Mises stress
● More stresses around tunnel walls but less as compared to Case B

40
Principal stresses (Schist layer)

41
Principal stresses (Granite layer)

42
Principal stresses (Limestone layer)

43
Alternative FEM simulation using Geostudio

44
Alternative FEM modelling using GeoStudio
● The module of SIGMA/W from GeoStudio
● Simulate the in-situ stress conditions and the
associated load-deformation relationship
● The elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb model
● The geometry of the tunnel is consistent with that in
COMSOL.
● The earth pressure coefficient is influenced by
Poisson's ratio.
● Case A (without discontinuity); Case B (with
discontinuity); Case B with internal support

45
Alternative FEM modelling using GeoStudio
● Elastic modulus of granite rock: 40 GPa
● Poisson’s ratio of granite rock: 0.25
● In-site K0: 0.333
● Unit weight of granite rock: 27.5 kN/m3
● The friction angle of the granite rock: 60°
● Cohesion strength of the granite rock: 28 MPa
● Two-dimensional simulation

46
Alternative FEM modelling using GeoStudio
Case A: Without discontinuity and internal
support

Fig. 1 Two-dimensional profile of major principal stress

47
Alternative FEM modelling using GeoStudio
Case A: Without discontinuity and internal
support

Fig. 2 Two-dimensional profile of minor principal stress

48
Alternative FEM modelling using GeoStudio
Case A: Without discontinuity and internal
support

Fig. 3 Two-dimensional profile of maximum shear stress

49
Alternative FEM modelling using GeoStudio
Case A: Without discontinuity and internal
support

Fig. 4 Two-dimensional profile of deviator stress

50
 Alternative FEM modelling using GeoStudio
Case A: Without discontinuity and internal
support

Fig. 4 Comparison of s and s between FEM simulation and Kirsch equation

rr qq 51
Alternative FEM modelling using GeoStudio
Case B: With discontinuity and without
internal support

● Elastic modulus of granite rock: 40 GPa

● Poisson’s ratio of granite rock: 0.25
● In-site : 0.333
● Elastic modulus of the discontinuity: 4 GPa
● Unit weight of granite rock: 27.5 kN/m3
● The friction angle of the granite rock: 60°
● Cohesion strength of the granite rock: 28 MPa

52
 Alternative FEM modelling using GeoStudio
Case B: With discontinuity and without
internal support

53
 Alternative FEM modelling using GeoStudio
Case C: With discontinuity and internal
support

● This model considers the influence of the

internal support on the tunnel simulated
in the Case B.
● All boundary conditions are the same but
an internal pressure in the tunnel is
provided.
● Internal pressure: 1400 kPa (Brekke and
Ripley 1987)

54
 Alternative FEM modelling using GeoStudio
Case C: With discontinuity and internal
support

55
Conclusions

56
● The geological features of the tunnel have been investigated using GPR
○ Analyzed the concrete lining’s integrity and thickness following the 1999 fire
○ Stress conditions of the tunnel have been simulated by COMSOL (3-D) and
GeoStudio (2-D).
● Tunnel excavation would induce the stress concentration phenomenon
● With the consideration of the discontinuity in the rock foundation, the von Mises
stress on the boundaries of the tunnel increases.
● With the internal support, the von Mises stress on the boundaries of the tunnel
decreases.
● Future study could investigate the influence of anisotropy properties of rocks,
groundwater table, and traffic loading on the stress conditions of the tunnel.

57
References
1. https://www.chamonix.net/english/travel/mont-blanc-tunnel
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc#/media/File:Mont-Blanc_from_Planpraz_station.jpg
3. Dal Piaz, G. V., & Argentieri, A. (2021). 150 years of plans, Geological Survey and drilling for the Fréjus to Mont Blanc tunnels
across the Alpine Chain: An historical review. Italian Journal of Geosciences, 140(2), 169–204.
https://doi.org/10.3301/ijg.2020.29
4. Odile, A., & Xavier, D. (2003, February 19). Non-Destructive Testing of Fired Tunnel Walls: The Mont-Blanc Tunnel Case
Study [Review of Non-Destructive Testing of Fired Tunnel Walls: The Mont-Blanc Tunnel Case Study]. ScienceDirect.
https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.rowan.edu/science/article/pii/S0963869503000343
5. Maréchal, J. C., Perrochet, P., & Tacher, L. (1999). Long-term simulations of thermal and hydraulic characteristics in a mountain
massif: The Mont Blanc case study, French and Italian Alps. Hydrogeology Journal, 7(4), 341–354.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s100400050207
6. Brekke, T. L., & Ripley, B. D. (1987). Design guidelines for pressure tunnels and shafts (No. EPRI-AP-5273). California Univ.,
Berkeley (USA). Dept. of Civil Engineering; Electric Power Research Inst., Palo Alto, CA (USA).
7. GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. 2012. An Introductory SIGMA/W Example Calgary, Alberta, Canada www.geo-slope.com.

58