Numerical Analysis for Umbrella Arch Method in Shallow Large Scale Excavation in Weak Rock

A.M. Hefny1, W.L. Tan1, P. Ranjith2, J. Sharma3, J. Zhao1

1 2

Nanyang Technological University, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Singapore Monash University, Australia 3 University of Saskatchewan, Canada ABSTRACT The steel pipe Umbrella Arch reinforcement is a form of forepoling method used to improve stability of a tunnel prior to excavation. Steel pipes are inserted into drilled holes and then mortar is poured into the holes and pipe shaft. Grouting enhances the stability of the tunnel crown by forming a reinforced arch that controls permeability and improves the cohesion and other geotechnical parameters of the reinforced soil mass. This method is widely used in large scale excavations in Italy and Japan, especially with NATM operations. Conventionally, this method is modelled numerically both in 2dimensional and 3-dimensional analyses by approximating the steel pipes, grout and rock material as a single composite material. However, such crude approximations may yield inaccurate results and to date, there are no accurate approximations to efficiently model the Umbrella Arch. This paper presents the results of a numerical study performed to investigate the effect of different approximations for the umbrella arch on the predicted ground behaviour. Two methods of approximation for the umbrella arch supporting a large shallow excavation in weak rock are compared. The first method is the conventional approximation method of composite zone of enhanced properties and the second method is more accurate where the steel pipes are modelled individually in a grouted zone. 1. INTRODUCTION The steel pipe Umbrella Arch method is used most often at fractured zones in especially poor ground conditions over a long work section or where surface settlement is restricted, but is also executable in other soil condition from moraine to sand. It is commonly employed as an auxiliary reinforcing method in large diameter NATM tunnels, especially in Italy and Japan. This method has provided successful results in restricting surface settlement for shallow tunnel excavations as described for example by Yang et al. (2001), Haruyama et al. (2001), Matsuo et al. (1996), and Barisone et al. (1982). The typical construction method and specifications of the steel pipe Umbrella Arch is shown in Figures 1 and 2 for the longitudinal and cross sectional profiles respectively.

H05

Length of forepoles Lap length Grout

Steel pipe

Grout + Rock

Tunnel Advance

Fig. 1. Longitudinal profile of Umbrella Arch Method 2. CASE STUDIES

Fig. 2. Cross section profile of Umbrella Arch method

Although the Umbrella Arch method has been widely used in weak ground and shallow depth excavations since 1980s, there are no simple and definite methods to model the actual behavior of the reinforced arch that is formed with steel pipes and grout. Numerous authors had described detailed construction procedures for case studies in Japan and Italy (e.g., Yang et al. (2001); Haruyama et al. (2001); Matsuo et al. (1996) and Barisone et al. (1982)). Numerical analyses had also been carried out to some of the field cases stated above. Nishimaki et al. (1995) conducted a three dimensional finite element analysis to model the steel pipe umbrella. The three dimensional solutions were used to conduct a back analysis whereby the umbrella arch is simulated by improving the material properties of the ground in two dimensional finite element analyses. Similarly, using the improvement of material property method, Ohtsu et al (1995) also studied the behaviour of the ground due to tunnel excavation using a three dimensional finite element analysis. Ohtsu et al (1995) assumed that the pre-lining arch (forepoles and shotcrete) acted as a combined shell element. Sato and Ito (1993) used a three dimensional finite element method to analyse the effect of the Umbrella Arch method on tunnel face stability. Most numerical modelers of the Umbrella Arch method had crudely simulated the steel pipes and grout material as a composite material. Hoek (2000) showed that the method of weighted averages can be used to estimate the strength and deformation of the reinforced zone surrounding the tunnel periphery. In addition, Hoek (2000) also reinforced the fact that this method provides crude approximations in the study of the effect of the Umbrella Arch method. Hence, a more accurate approach should incorporate modeling the steel pipes individually in a grouted zone directly above the excavated tunnel rather than as a composite material. 3. SIMULATION OF STEEL PIPES AND GROUT MATERIAL IN THE UMBRELLA ARCH METHOD The objective of this study is to compare ground deformations generated by 2 different approaches of simulating the Umbrella Arch method as a pre-reinforcement when tunnelling in weak and shallow ground. The conventional approach of combining steel pipes and grout material to form a composite material and a new approach whereby steel pipes are modeled singularly as a separate component from the grout zone are used to simulate the Umbrella Arch method. 2D finite difference analyses are conducted to compare the difference in surface and crown settlement, and vertical and horizontal displacement at the tunnel periphery of a test model.

H05

The problem studied is shown in Figure 3, which is approximately similar to the case study of the Egnatia Highway in Hoek (2000). A horseshoe shaped tunnel of 10m height and 6m width is to be excavated as part of a top heading and bench method in weak rock. The tunnel is situated at a shallow depth of 15 m from the ground surface in highly weathered and disturbed overburden rock mass. Tunnel construction is separated into the excavation of the top heading which is a semi circular tunnel of 6m diameter followed by the bottom bench of height 7m. Pre-support reinforcement is required to stabilise the top heading construction in this weak ground and the Umbrella Arch method was chosen. The Umbrella Arch spans 180 around the tunnel crown. It was anticipated that the umbrella arch will minimise the surface settlement and hence allow for the excavation of the bottom bench. Rock mass properties are assumed for this analysis based on Hoek and Brown (1997) and shown in Table 1. Table 1. Rock mass properties Geological strength index, GSI Hoek-Brown constant, mi Intact rock strength, ci Friction angle, Cohesive strength, c Deformation modulus, E Tensile strength 20 8 3 MPa 21 76 kPa 308 MPa 0.001 MPa

The numerical modelling only considered the top heading which is the semi circular part of the horse shoe tunnel. This is because the forepoling system is installed prior to excavation over the entire stretch of the tunnel crown to control the collapse of the rock mass whilst tunnelling and to control the surface settlement. The bottom bench is excavated after the top heading has been completed.
(-30, 0)

x y
15m

(30, 0)

Top heading
3m

Bottom bench

(-30,-30)

(30, -30)

Fig. 3. Boundary conditions employed in the numerical study. The first simulation (Method 1) approximated the Umbrella Arch as a composite material whereby steel pipes, grout and rock material properties are combined using weighted averages and an equivalent rock mass strength is derived as shown in Table 2. The other rock mass parameters shown in Table 3 are calculated using the equivalent rock mass strength and original rock mass properties (GSI=20 and mi=8) based on Hoek and Brown (1997). These parameters only apply to a strip of rock

H05

material (denoted as composite beam) of 600 mm around the tunnel crown as shown in Figure 4 after accounting for pipe size and site conditions. In the analysis, steel pipes of 150 mm diameter with 7 mm thickness are used as shown in Figure 5.

Spacing between pipes, s = 500mm

Composite beam

0.6m

Steel pipe with grout rock

0.6m

Top heading

Bottom bench

1.0m

Fig. 4. Dimensions of the composite beam. Table 2. Specifications of the composite beam Component Area (m2) Strength (MPa) 0.16 200 30 Product 0.096 1.256 0.87 2.222

Rock 0.6*1.0 = 0.6 Steel pipes 2*0.00314= 0.00628 Grout 2*0.0145=0.029 Sum 0.635 Rock mass strength = 2.222/0.635 = 3.50 MPa

Table 3. Rock mass parameters for the composite beam Geological strength index, GSI Hoek-Brown constant, mi Intact rock strength, ci Friction angle, Cohesive strength, c Deformation modulus, E Tensile strength 20 8 48 MPa 20 1.2 MPa 1230 MPa 0.014 MPa

The second method (Method 2) uses beam elements to form the steel pipes as shown in Figure 5, and these steel pipes will be inserted individually around the excavated tunnel and in the grout zone. The beam elements have dimensions of thickness 7 mm and length 150 mm. Steel pipes have Youngs modulus of 200 GPa and second moment of area, I, of 2.86E-08 m4.
grout OD =150mm steel 68mm Steel pipe section

Fig. 5. Description and dimension of a steel pipe.

H05

In this new method, grout zones are simulated with an equivalent rock mass strength using the method of weighted averages. The zone has a thickness of 600 mm spanning around the tunnel crown for 180 and the steel pipes are embedded in these zones. Figure 6 shows the calculations of the equivalent rock mass strength for the grout zone.

Steel pipes

Grout + rock zone

Area (m2) Rock Grout Total

0.6m

Strength (MPa) 0.16 30

Product 0.1 0.87

0.6x1.0= 0.6 0.029

0.629

0.97

Equivalent rock mass strength = 0.97/0.629 = 1.54 MPa

Fig. 6. Simulation of the grout zones. From the Hoek-Brown criterion, the equivalent rock mass strength translates into the parameters shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Rock mass strength of grout zone Geological strength index, GSI Hoek-Brown constant, mi Intact rock strength, ci Friction angle, Cohesive strength, c Deformation modulus, E Tensile strength 20 8 21 MPa 20 0.5 MPa 815 MPa 0.006 MPa

4. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS Surface settlement and crown displacement for both methods are compared in Figures 7 and 8. The surface settlement profile generated using the method of combining the steel pipes and grout material as a composite material (Method 1) showed that the maximum value developed directly above the tunnel crown is approximately 4.0 mm as compared to a value of 2.0 mm generated from singularly modelling the steel pipes in grout zone (Method 2). The crown displacement generated by the two methods also showed significant difference of approximately 4.0 mm. The analysis showed also that Method 1 produced about twice the crown displacement estimated from Method 2. Table 5 shows the vertical and horizontal tunnel closures. Vertical closure is the difference in vertical displacement between the tunnel crown and the base of the excavated tunnel. Horizontal closure is the difference in the horizontal displacement between the left and right side of the tunnel wall at the tunnel springline. Method 1 yielded a vertical tunnel closure that is about 30% larger than that yielded by Method 2. It can be observed that different approximations produce different results and hence it is important to compare such approximations with actual field cases and 3-D numerical analyses to

H05

obtain more comprehensive conclusion about the appropriate approximation for such problems. Field case studies and 3D numerical analyses are currently under investigation. It should be noted that in the composite beam method, the mixture of grout with the rock material outside the pipe diameter were not accounted for. In actual forepoling methods, holes are drilled larger than the pipe size before the perforated pipes are inserted and subsequently, the pipe shaft and the space between the pipe and drilled hole are grouted. Permeation or fracture grouting are commonly used and thus the grout may also penetrate a larger area outside the hole due to fractures and cracks produced by drilling operations. As such, the grout region is larger than the approximated area and deformations around the excavated zone could be substantially lesser since the reinforced area is larger.
Horizontal Distance (m ) -40 -30 -20 -10 0 0 10 20 30 40

Vertical Surface Settlement (mm)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Method 1 Method 2

Fig. 7. Comparison of surface settlement using various methods of analysis.

Horizontal Distance (m ) -40 -30 -20 -10 -1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Method 1 Method 2

10

20

30

40

Vertical Crown Settlement (mm)

Fig. 8. Comparison of crown settlement with various methods.

H05

Table 5. Vertical and horizontal tunnel closures Method vertical closure (mm) horizontal closure (mm) 1 20 7 2 15 6.5 5. CONCLUSIONS An investigation on the ground behaviour around tunnels supported by the Umbrella Arch method was conducted. Two methods of approximation for the Umbrella Arch are used in this investigation. The first method is based on the principles of improvement of geotechnical material properties. In the second method, the steel pipes are modelled individually. The results of the analyses show that different approximations produce significantly different values of surface settlement and crown displacement. Hence, crude approximations may not be viable for design of the Umbrella Arch method. In order to produce an accurate 2-D approximation for the Umbrella Arch, the 2-D numerical solutions should be calibrated with field case histories and 3-D numerical analyses, which take into account of the 3-D deformation at tunnel face. 6. REFERENCES Barisone, G., Pigorini, B. and Pelizza, S., 1982. Umbrella Arch method for tunnelling in difficult conditions - Analysis of Italian cases. Proceedings of the 4th Congress International Association of Engineering Geology, New Delhi, Vol. 4, pp. IV 15- IV 27. Haruyama, K., Teramoto, S., Harada, H. and Mori, M., 2001. Construction of urban expressway tunnel with special large cross section by NATM-Metropolitan Inter-city Highway (ken-O-Do) Ome Tunnel. Modern Tunnelling Science and Technology, Adachi et al. (eds.), pp. 693-698. Hoek, E., 2000. Numerical Modelling for Shallow Tunnels in Weak Rock. Presented during the 5th GRC Lecture, NTU, Singapore. Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International Journal for Rock Mech. & Mining Sci. & Geomechanics Abstracts. Vol. 34, pp. 1165-1186. Matsuo, H., Yamamura, S., Amano, M. and Taira, K., 1996. New construction method for urban tunnels in uncemented ground under high groundwater pressure. North American Tunnelling '96, Ozdemir (ed.), pp. 345-352. Nishimaki, A., Mitarashi, Y. and Uematsu, S., 1995. Study of the effects of the AGF method. South East Asian Symposium on Tunnelling and Underground Space Development, Bangkok, pp. 125-132. Ohtsu, H., Hakoishi, Y., Nago, M. and Taki, H., 1995. A prediction of ground behaviour due to tunnel excavation under shallow overburden with long length forepilings. South East Asian Symposium on Tunnelling and Underground Space Development, Bangkok, pp. 157-164. Sato, J. and Ito, J., 1993. Numerical analysis of the umbrella method for tunnel excavation. Infrastructures Souterraines de Transports, Reith (ed.), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 355-360. Yang, T., Woo, J. and Lee, S., 2001. Ground reinforcement for a tunnel in weathered soil layer beneath Han riverbed in Korea. Modern Tunnelling Science and Technology, Adachi et al. (eds.), pp. 493-496.

H05