MEKELLE UNIVERSITY

EIT-M
SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

SQUEEZING POTENTIAL ON THE TUNNEL OF MEKELLE

WELDIYA/HARAGEBEYA RAILWAY PROJECT

A thesis submitted to the School of Civil Engineering in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

i
 Declaration
This thesis is our original work and it has not been presented for a degree in any other university
or institute and all the resource of material, idea and finding used in this thesis have been duly
acknowledged in the body of the report and bibliography.

GROUP MEMBERS……………………………………….signature……………

ATAKLITI GEBRE …………………………….. Signature………………

ELYAS ZEYNU ………………………..……… signature …………………

G/WAHD HLUF ………………………………. Signature ………………

HELEN HABENOM …………………………….. Signature ………………

TEMESGEN BIZUAYEHU……………………….Signatur………………

Main advisor

BRHANE.W (M.SC) ………………………………… signature ………………………

Examiners

……………………………………. Signature …………………………………….

……………………………………. Signature…………………………………

………………………………………Signature ………………………………….

……………………………………. Signature………………………………

i
 Acknowledgement
Above all we praise to the almighty god for giving us endurance and patience to challenge all the
ups and downs through the studding period.

This project is done under the instruction of our instructor MR.BRHANE.W at Mekelle
University, faculty of technology, and civil engineering department of geotechnical engineering.
Hence, we are very grateful for his interesting teaching methodologies, his support, guidance,
suggestions, encouragements and valuable comments during the thesis work.

Finally, thanks also go to all the people we met during the thesis work for their invaluable
contributions to our work, whom we could not name them here due to limited space.

MEKELLE, ETHIPOIA

June 2018

ii
 Abstract
The squeezing of tunnels is a common phenomenal is poor rock mas under high in situ stress
conditions. The critical strain parameter is an indicator that allows the degree of squeezing
potential to be quantified. It is defined as the strain level on the tunnel periphery beyond which
instability and squeezing problems are likely to occur. Presently, in the literature, the value of
critical strain is generally taken as 1%.

Large deformations of surrounding media around tunnels are often encountered during
excavation in rocks with squeezing characteristics. These deformations may sometimes continue
for long period of time. Predictions of deformation of tunnels in such grounds are urgently
needed, not because of stability concern, but also of their serviceability.

In absence of field tests, use of a classification approach is recommended and expressions are
suggested for critical strain in terms of rock mass quality Q. a rational classification based on
squeezing index (SI) is proposed to identify and quantify the squeezing potential in tunnels.

But in our case we analysis the tunnel mekelle weldiya/haragebeya railway project using a
software called PLIXIS 3D.

iii
Table of Contents
Declaration ................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................... ii
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... vii
Chapter-1......................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 constructions (tunneling) ....................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Problem facing while tunneling ............................................................................................ 5
1.4 problem statement ................................................................................................................. 8
1.5 objective of the thesis ............................................................................................................ 8
1.5.1 General objective................................................................................................................ 8
1.6 research methodology ........................................................................................................... 9
1.7 .scope and Limitation of the study: ....................................................................................... 9
1.8 research organization............................................................................................................. 9
Chapter-2....................................................................................................................................... 10

2. Literature review ....................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 PLAXIS 3D Review ............................................................................................................ 10

2.2 Squeezing potential of tunnel .............................................................................................. 12
2.2.1 Squeezing and critical strain ............................................................................................ 12
2.3 Rock mass strength estimates ................................................................................................. 16

2.4 Groundwater conditions ...................................................................................................... 18

2.5 Rock mass properties .......................................................................................................... 19
Chapter-3....................................................................................................................................... 22

3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 22

3.1 general step by step modeling and explanation ................................................................... 22

3.2 Trials for locating maximum effective overburden............................................................. 30

iv
 3.3 Trails for sensitive analysis ................................................................................................. 31
3.3.1. Strength parameters: .................................................................................................... 31
3.3.2 Stiffness parameter ....................................................................................................... 32
3.4 data used for analysis of squeezing potential ...................................................................... 33
Chapter -4...................................................................................................................................... 35

4. Result and discussion ................................................................................................................ 35

4.1 locating maximum over burden pressure ............................................................................ 35

4.1.1 Result from trails and discussion on the result ................................................................. 35
4.2 deciding to which parameter this analysis sensitive............................................................ 36
4.2.1 Result from trails and discussion on the result ................................................................. 36
4.3 analysis squeezing potential .................................................................................................... 41

4.3.1 Result from the software analysis and discussion on the result ....................................... 41
CHAPTER-5 ................................................................................................................................. 43

5. CONCLUSION AND RSCOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 43

5.1 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 43

5.2 RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................................................... 44

References ..................................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 46

v
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Strain versus rock mass over in situ stress .................................................................... 14
Figure 2 2 Approximate relationship between the Geological Strength Index (GSI) and the ratio
of in situ to laboratory uniaxial compressive strength of the rock ................................................ 16
Figure 3 Joints normal to tunnel direction favorable for good pull .............................................. 19
Figure 4 Poor advance with joints striking parallel to tunnel direction .............................. 19
Figure 5 Right side wall more prone to breakage due to obtuse angle between joints and tunnel
direction ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 6 Bench blasting with joints dipping towards the free face............................................ 20
Figure 7Bench blasting with joints dipping away from the free face ........................................... 21
Figure 8 tunnel designer window .................................................................................................. 23
figure 9 material properties window ............................................................................................. 24
Figure 10 2D finite element mesh of the shield tunnel project ..................................................... 25
Figure 11 3D finite element mesh of the shield tunnel project ..................................................... 25
Figure 12 first slices in which the tunnel excavated ..................................................................... 27
Figure 13 front plane in which tunnel contraction occur .............................................................. 27
Figure 14 local pore pressure distributions .................................................................................. 28
Figure 15 calculation window ....................................................................................................... 29
Figure 16 mean strain versus height of tunnel .............................................................................. 36
Figure 17cohesion versus effective stress ..................................................................................... 37
Figure 18 angle of friction versus effective stress ....................................................................... 38
Figure 19rock mass modulus versus mean strain ......................................................................... 39
Figure 20 Poisson’s ratio versus mean strain ................................................................................ 40
Figure 21 horizontal in around the tunnel ................................................................................... 41
Figure 22 the total strain ............................................................................................................... 41
Figure 23 Extreme incremental strain ........................................................................................... 42
Figure 24extreme mean stress ....................................................................................................... 42

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Approximate relationship between strain and the degree of difficulty ............................ 15
Table 2 Table for estimating the Geological Strength Index GSI of a rock mass (Hoek and
Brown, 1997 .................................................................................................................................. 17
Table 3 rock parameters with respect to strength of rock ............................................................. 18
Table 4 Influence of joint direction on over break ....................................................................... 21
Table 5 trial for locating over burden pressure ............................................................................. 30
Table 6 trial for cohesion .............................................................................................................. 32
Table 7 trial for angle friction ....................................................................................................... 32
Table 8 trail for rock mass module ( E ) ....................................................................................... 32
Table 9 trail for poison’s ratio ...................................................................................................... 33
Table 10 geometric data ............................................................................................................... 33
Table 11 material property ............................................................................................................ 34
Table 12 result from trails for locating maximum overburden ..................................................... 35
Table 13 result from trails for cohesion ........................................................................................ 37
Table 14 result from trial for angle of friction .............................................................................. 38

vii
 Chapter-1

1. Introduction
1.1 General about tunnel
A tunnel is an underground passageway, dug through the surrounding soil/earth/rock and
enclosed except for entrance and exit, commonly at each end. A pipeline is not a tunnel, though
some recent tunnels have used immersed tube construction techniques rather than traditional
tunnel boring methods.

A tunnel may be for foot or vehicular road traffic, for rail traffic, or for a canal. The central
portions of a rapid transit network are usually in tunnel. Some tunnels are aqueducts to supply
water for consumption or for hydroelectric stations or are sewers. Utility tunnels are used for
routing steam, chilled water, electrical power or telecommunication cables, as well as connecting
buildings for convenient passage of people and equipment.

Secret tunnels are built for military purposes, or by civilians for smuggling of weapons,
contraband, or people. Special tunnels, such as wildlife crossings, are built to allow wildlife to
cross human-made barriers safely. Tunnels can be connected together in tunnel networks.

A major tunnel project must start with a comprehensive investigation of ground conditions by
collecting samples from boreholes and by other geophysical techniques. An informed choice can
then be made of machinery and methods for excavation and ground support, which will reduce
the risk of encountering unforeseen ground conditions. In planning the route, the horizontal and
vertical alignments can be selected to make use of the best ground and water conditions. It is
common practice to locate a tunnel deeper than otherwise would be required, in order to excavate
through solid rock or other material that is easier to support during construction.

Conventional desk and preliminary site studies may yield insufficient information to assess such
factors as the blocky nature of rocks, the exact location of fault zones, or the stand-up times of
softer ground. This may be a particular concern in large-diameter tunnels. To give more
information, a pilot tunnel (or "drift tunnel") may be driven ahead of the main excavation.

1
This smaller tunnel is less likely to collapse catastrophically should unexpected conditions be
met, and it can be incorporated into the final tunnel or used as a backup or emergency escape
passage. Alternatively, horizontal boreholes may sometimes be drilled ahead of the advancing
tunnel face.

 Other key geotechnical factors:

 "Stand-up time" is the amount of time a newly excavated cavity can support itself without
any added structures. Knowing this parameter allows the engineers to determine how far
an excavation can proceed before support is needed, which in turn affects the speed,
efficiency, and cost of construction. Generally, certain configurations of rock and clay
will have the greatest stand-up time, while sand and fine soils will have a much lower
stand-up time.

 Ground water control is very important in tunnel construction. Water leaking into a tunnel
or vertical shaft will greatly decrease stand-up time, causing the excavation to become
unstable and risking collapse. The most common way to control groundwater is to install
dewatering pipes into the ground and to simply pump the water out. A very effective but
expensive technology is ground freezing, using pipes which are inserted into the ground
surrounding the excavation, which are then cooled with special refrigerant fluids. This
freezes the ground around each pipe until the whole space is surrounded with frozen soil,
keeping water out until a permanent structure can be built.

 Tunnel cross-sectional shape is also very important in determining stand-up time. If a

tunnel excavation is wider than it is high, it will have a harder time supporting itself,
decreasing its stand-up time. A square or rectangular excavation is more difficult to make
self-supporting, because of a concentration of stress at the corners.

2
1.2 constructions (tunneling)
Tunneling excavation /construction methods

The choice depends on the following condition

 Geographical and hydrological conditions,

 Cross-section and length of continues tunnel,

 Local experience and time/cost consideration (what is the value of time in the project),

 Limits of surface disturbance, and many others factors

We excavate tunnels using the following methods:

 Classical methods

 Mechanical drilling/cutting

o Cut-and cover

o Drill and blast method

 Tunnel boring machine (TBM)

 Classical methods

Among the classical methods are the Belgian, English, German, Austrian, Italian and
American systems. These methods had much in common with early mining methods and
were used until last half of the 19th century.

 Excavation was done by hand or simple drilling equipment.

 Supports were predominantly timber, & transportation of muck was done on cars on
narrow gauge tracks and powered by steam.

 Progress was typically in multiple stages i.e. progress in one drift, then support, then
drifts in another drift, and so on.

3
  Cut-and-cover

Cut-and-cover is a simple method of construction for shallow tunnels where a trench is

excavated and roofed over with an overhead support system strong enough to carry the load of
what is to be built above the tunnel. Two basic forms of cut-and-cover tunneling are available:

• Bottom-up method: A trench is excavated, with ground support as necessary, and the
tunnel is constructed in it. The tunnel may be of in situ concrete, precast concrete,
precast arches, or corrugated steel arches; in early days brickwork was used. The
trench is then carefully back-filled and the surface is reinstated.

• Top-down method: Side support walls and capping beams are constructed from
ground level by such methods as slurry walling or contiguous bored piling. Then a
shallow excavation allows making the tunnel roof of precast beams or in situ
concrete. The surface is then reinstated except for access openings. This allows early
reinstatement of roadways, services and other surface features. Excavation then takes
place under the permanent tunnel roof, and the base slab is constructed.

Shallow tunnels are often of the cut-and-cover type (if under water, of the immersed-tube type),
while deep tunnels are excavated, often using a tunneling shield. For intermediate levels, both
methods are possible.

 Drill and Blast method

This method is generally the most effective and economical method of excavating hard rock, but
not convenient if the construction is cities, where high damage of properties and people are
expected. The machine is used to drill and form holes inside the tunnel for the placing of
explosive to activate the blasting. This machine is computer controlled and can drill 3 holes at
the same time with direction or angle precisely set. And the machine is called Jumbo tunneling
machine.

 Using Boring machines (TBMs)

Tunnel boring machines (TBMs) and associated back-up systems are used to highly automate the
entire tunneling process, reducing tunneling costs. In certain predominantly urban applications,
4
tunnel boring is viewed as quick and cost effective alternative to laying surface rails and roads.
Expensive compulsory purchase of buildings and land, with potentially lengthy planning
inquiries, is eliminated. Disadvantages of TBMs arise from their usually large size – the
difficulty of transporting the large TBM to the site of tunnel construction, or (alternatively) the
high cost of assembling the TBM on-site, often within the confines of the tunnel being
constructed.

There are a variety of TBM designs that can operate in a variety of conditions, from hard rock to
soft water- Some types of TBMs, the betonies slurry and earth-pressure balance machines, have
pressurized compartments at the front end, allowing them to be used in difficult conditions below
the water table. This pressurizes the ground ahead of the TBM cutter head to balance the water
pressure. The operators work in normal air pressure behind the pressurized compartment, but
may occasionally have to enter that compartment to renew or repair the cutters. This requires
special precautions, such as local ground treatment or halting the TBM at a position free from
water. Despite these difficulties, TBMs are now preferred over the older method of tunneling in
compressed air, with an air lock/decompression chamber some way back from the TBM, which
required operators to work in high pressure and go through decompression procedures at the end
of their shifts, much like deep-sea divers.

1.3 Problem facing while tunneling

 Ground Behavior

“Ground behavior” refers to how the material of the ground will behave when construction has
started. The “ground”—the rock or soil—behaving differently than expected is the most
significant problem involved in tunnel construction. The nature and composition of the ground
has implications for how construction should be approached: with hand-mining, drill-and-blast,
with shield or with tunnel-boring machines. Additionally, the presence of water can affect ground
behavior.

One major problem related to ground behavior is stand-up time. A stand-up time problem arises
when the ground cannot support itself for the time during which the tunnel is being constructed.
This issue affects the type of ground support used, the manpower requirements of construction,
production and schedule, equipment selection, and cost.

5
Another major problem related to ground behavior is in-situ stress, which refers to. how some
rock at certain depths is loaded with stress from other rock strata and from locked-in tectonic
stress resulting from geologic development. When tunnels are excavated in stressed rock, local
stress fields are disrupted and new sets of stresses are induced in surrounding rock, which can
have disastrous effects.

Avoiding accidents related to unpredicted ground behavior is not a simple matter, and an
approach of probability-based risk assessment should be taken in order to minimize the chances
of an accident.

 Existing Conditions

The existing conditions of the construction site are often sensitive to the construction process.
Engineers should take care to know as much as possible about surface and underground
structures, as well as possible hazardous materials stored in the ground.

Sometimes construction can expose gases previously trapped underground. These gases can be
toxic and can cause significant construction problems. If and when gas is encountered, the gas’s
properties must be evaluated and studied for its potential effect on personnel.

The worst industrial accident in American history occurred because of hazardous existing
conditions during the construction of the Hawks Nest Tunnel. The tunnel was being built by
Union Carbide through the Gauley Mountain in Fayette County, West Virginia. The tunnel was
meant to redirect water from the New River to drop it down almost 200 feet to power turbines
and create electricity. However, during construction, workers encountered 99.4 percent pure
silica that they were instructed to drill without protection. As a result, more than 750 workers
died.

 Rock Face Fall-out

Rock face fall-out refers to when rocks fall from the construction face as a result of weakening
ground and support conditions. According to studies, most accidents because of rock fall happen
when workers approach a tunnel, cutting face in order to mount a steel arch support.

6
In order to prevent rock face fall-out, the technique of “shotcreting” is used. Shotcreting refers to
spraying a newly excavated surface with a coat of concrete in order to give temporary support to
the newly exposed rock face. It also helps stop ground surface deterioration and secures loose
materials. If done remotely, this greatly minimizes the dangers of rock face fall-out.

 Compressed Air

Compressed-air techniques of tunnel construction are used mainly on driving earth tunnels
through water-bearing soils or adjacent to bodies of water. The technique is the most reliable
technique of tunnel construction when the tunnel is being built below the water table, especially
when face instability and water flow are predicted to be acute.

Compressed-air techniques can pose risks to construction and personnel, and they are expensive.
Personnel must be specially certified to work in the unique environment posed by compressed-
air construction techniques. This raises both personnel and equipment costs since items needed
such as air locks and compressors are expensive. Decompression, flooding, and fire are among
the possible risks of compressed-air construction. Therefore, other kinds of techniques should be
evaluated for their possible effectiveness before engineers decide to use compressed air.

 Ground water and Water Flow

The presence and movement of water can influence ground behavior, which poses risks to tunnel
construction. Flowing water might carry materials into newly excavated openings, causing
general instability in the mass of rock. Additionally, water can change the ground’s physical
properties and behavior, making it unpredictable.

Moreover, the presence of water makes handling of material difficult and may necessitate a
centralized pumping system, which takes time and money to install, raising general costs and
disrupting the construction schedule.

Though necessary, underground construction is a dangerous and difficult process that requires
preparation and many safety precautions.

7
1.4 problem statement
Nowadays, railway transport project in our country Ethiopia is vastly introduced .and railway
alignment needs gentle slope mostly less than 2% slope. However, especially around western
part of Ethiopia we can say almost all are under steep slope condition's, so to provide railway
line we need to align in gentle slop in order to do that need to provide appropriate tunnels.

While providing tunnels the squeezing potential must be analyzed. Therefore, this paper may
help how to analysis the squeezing potential. In this regard, the result and findings of the
proposed thesis work will be expected to have a great importance in design of the tunnels. Based
on the recommendation, the remedial methods will be known. Besides, the study may also be
utilized by the later researchers intending to work on the same subject or in the same study area.

1.5 objective of the thesis

1.5.1 General objective
The overall goal of this research was to analyze a squeezing potential of tunnel
found in mekelle weldiya/haragebeya.

1.5.2 Specific objectives

In this study, the following salient points are going to be address:

 If the tunnel is squeezed to provide safe remedial.

 To analyze different stability, seepage, and various stress situation of the tunnel.

 Locating maximum over burden pressure based on result

 Deciding to which parameter this analysis sensitive does.

8
1.6 research methodology
A .serving of previously done research and discussing about the squeezing potential of
tunnels.

B .Discussions and consolations of the methodology.

C .PLAXIS 3D tunneling was used to carry out the modeling, analysis and deformation
analysis squeezing potential of tunnel.

D. Analysis of the result and discussion of the findings has been done and conclusions
has drawn based on the findings and recommendations forwarded based on the
limitations and findings for better future research.

1.7 .scope and Limitation of the study:

In our thesis, a methodology is presented for estimating potential tunnel squeezing. This
methodology does not provide the tunnel designer with a final design of the tunnel
excavation sequence and support system to be used –these require additional analysis,
which are not covered in this paper .however, the end product of the analysis presented
gives a reliable first estimate of the severity of potential squeezing problems and if there
is problem an indication of the types of solutions that can be considered in overcoming
these problems.

1.8 research organization

The main report is divided in to five main chapters in which the first chapter deals with
the introduction part discuses about tunnel and the problems that face tunnel while
tunneling as to conduct this research, chapter three is all about sensitive analysis of
PLAXIS 3D and modeling of tunnel, chapter four about the results found from the
PLAXIS 3D and the discussions made and the last chapter concludes the results found
and recommendations drawn.

9
 Chapter-2

2. Literature review
2.1 PLAXIS 3D Review
The PLAXIS 3D Tunnel program is a geotechnical finite element package specifically
intended for the three-dimensional analysis of deformation and stability in tunnel
projects. Geotechnical applications require advanced constitutive models for the
simulation of the non-linear, time-dependent and anisotropic behavior of soils and rock.
In addition, since soil is a multi-phase material, special procedure are required to deal
with hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic pore pressures in the soil. Although the modeling of
the soil itself is an important issue, many tunnel projects involve the modeling of
structures and the interaction between the structures and the soil. The PLAXIS 3D Tunnel
is equipped with special features to deal with the numerous aspects of complex
geotechnical structures. A brief summary of the important features of the program is
given below.

Graphical input of cross-section models:

The input of soil layers, structures, construction stages, loads and boundary conditions is
based on convenient CAD drawing procedures, which allows for a detailed and accurate
modeling of the major geometry cross-section. From this cross-section model a 3D finite
element mesh is easily generated.

Automatic mesh generation:

The PLAXIS3D Tunnel program allows for an automatic generation of unstructured 2D

finite element meshes with options for global and local mesh refinement. The 2D mesh
generator is a special version of the Triangle generator, which was developed by
Sepra .From this 2D mesh, a 3D mesh is generated by a linear extension in the third
dimension.

10
Volume elements:

Quadratic 15-node wedge elements are available to model the deformations and stresses
in the soil.

Plates:

Special plate elements are used to model the bending of tunnel linings, shells, retaining
walls and other slender structures. The behavior of these elements is defined using a
flexural rigidity, a normal stiffness and an ultimate bending moment. A plastic hinge may
develop for elastoplastic plates, as soon as the ultimate moment is mobilized. Plates may
be used together with interfaces to perform realistic analyses of tunnel projects and other
geo technical applications.

Interfaces:

These joint elements are needed for calculations involving soil-structure interaction. They
may be used to simulate, for example, the thin zone of intensely shearing material at the
contact between a tunnel lining and the surrounding soil. Values of interface friction
angle and adhesion that are not necessarily the same as the friction angle and cohesion of
the surrounding soil may be assigned to these elements.

Anchors:

Elastoplast spring elements are used to model anchors and struts. The behavior of these
elements is defined using a normal stiffness and a maximum force. A special option exists
for the analyses of prestressed (ground) anchors and excavation supports.

Tunnels:

The PLAXIS 3D Tunnel program offers a convenient option to create circular and non-
circular tunnels composed of arcs and lines. Plates and interfaces may be added to model
the tunnel lining and the interaction with the surrounding soil. Fully iso parametric
elements are used to model the curved boundaries within the mesh. Various practical
methods have been implemented to analyses the deformations that occur due to the
construction of the tunnel.

11
2.2 Squeezing potential of tunnel
Squeezing is a unique problem faced by rock engineers while excavating tunnels through
rock masses of very poor quality under high rock cover. High deformability, low shear
strength and the high in situ stress state are the major factors that govern the tunnel wall
stability and extent of closure. Prediction of squeezing conditions is of great importance
to a designer for designing a stable support system of the tunnel.[1]

It is suggested in this study that there is a threshold value of strain at the tunnel periphery
above which instability and support problems are likely to occur. This threshold value of
strain is termed as the critical strain. It is also suggested that the critical strain may be
obtained from the properties of the intact rock and the jointed rock mass. If the observed
strain exceeds this value, squeezing is likely to occur.

A relationship is suggested for computing the critical strain. For a reasonable prediction
of the critical strain, the modulus of deformation of the rock mass will be required. In
absence of field tests, the critical strain is linked with Barton’s rock mass quality Q. The
approach is demonstrated by applying it to several case studies on squeezing and non-
squeezing tunnels from the literature.[1]

2.2.1 Squeezing and critical strain

Squeezing stands for large time dependent convergence during the tunnel excavation
(Barla, 2001). Though the fundamental mechanism of squeezing is yet to be fully
understood, it is well known, that the excavation of tunnel redistributes the stresses in the
tectonically stressed rock mass. The tangential stresses around the tunnel periphery
become large and exceed the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass in the
tangential direction at that point.

The rock mass at the periphery therefore fails and the broken zone progresses slowly in
the radial direction giving rise to time-dependent-large-tunnel convergence. Many
attempts to ‘quantify’ squeezing potential are based on concept of comparing the rock
mass strength with the induced stress in one way or the other.[2]

12
Here is a recent general interest in tunnels which underwent large deformation. The cause
of large deformation of tunnels is said to be due to the yielding of intact rock under a
redistributed state of stress following excavation, which exceeds its strength. If this
deformation takes place instantaneously, it is called rock-bursting. On other hand, if the
deformation takes place gradually, it is termed as squeezing. Muirwood (1972) initially
proposed the competency factor which is defined as the ratio of uniaxial strength of rock
to overburden stress to assess the stability of tunnels. This parameter was later used by
Nakano (1979) to recognize the squeezing potential of soft-rock tunneling in Japan.[3]

Saari (1982) suggested the use of intensity of the tangential strain of tunnels as a
parameter to assess the degree of squeezing of the rock and he suggested a threshold
value of 1% for the Aydan et al. recognition of squeezing. Saari conceived the squeezing
phenomenon as an elastic- viscos-plastic behavior of rock and he did some numerical
analyses and proposed closed form solutions for some special cases. However, his model
does not consider the deterioration of the strength of the medium in relation to straining.[3]

Tanimoto (1984) conceived the squeezing phenomenon as an elasto-plastic behavior of

the surrounding rock and he proposed an elasto-plastic solution with a strain- softening
constitutive law to estimate the degree of straining of the rock around the tunnel. He
suggested that squeezing would occur when the rock is strained to its residual plastic state
(flow state). However, such a suggestion corresponds to the threshold value for heavy
squeezing. It should be also noted that the squeezing is initiated long before the flow of
rock occurs. Therefore, better models are necessary to predict the squeezing potential of
rocks and its degree together with a physical interpretation of the state of squeezing rocks
around the tunnels.[3]

A practical method is proposed to predict the squeezing potential and deformation of

tunnels in squeezing rock. Then, the method is applied to actual tunneling projects, where
squeezing problems were encountered, to check its applicability and validity. Several
applications of the method to predict the squeezing potential and deformation of the rock
around actual tunnels are given and compared with actual observations.

13
Note that, for strain levels in excess of about 5%, face stability problems can dominate
the behavior of the tunnel and it may be necessary to pre-support the face by forepoles
and/or grouted fiberglass dowels or to reduce the cross-sectional area of the face by using
multiple drift excavation methods (e.g. Lunardi, 2000).

This analysis, although very crude, gives a good first estimate of potential tunneling
problems due to squeezing conditions in weak rock at significant depth below surface.
Where the engineering geology model is considered to be reliable, the type of analysis
presented above can be used to divide the tunnel into sections according to the categories
suggested in table 1. [4]

Figure 1 Strain versus rock mass over in situ stress

14
Table 1 Approximate relationship between strain and the degree of difficulty

strain geotechnical issues support types

%
a less Few stability problems and very simple Very simple tunneling conditions,
than 1 tunnel support design method can be used. with rock bolts and shotcrete
Tunnel support recommendation based up on typically used for support.
rock mass classification provide an adequate
basis for design.
b 1 to Convergence confinement methods are used Minor squeezing which are
2.5 to predict the formation of a ‘plastic’ zone in generally dealt with by rock bolts
the rock mass surrounding a tunnel and of the and shotcrete; sometimes with
interaction of the progressive development of light still sets or lattice girders are
this zone and different types of support. added for additional security.
c 2.5 to Severe squeezing problems
5 Two-dimensional finite element analysis, requiring rapid installation of
incorporating support elements and sequence, support and careful control of
are normally used for this type of problem. quality. Heavy still sets embedded
Face stability is generally not a major in shortcerte generally required.
problem.
d 5 to 10 The design of tunnel is dominated by face Very severe squeezing and face
stability issues and, while two-dimensional stability problems. for poling and
finite analyses are generally carried out, some face reinforcement with steel sets
estimate of the effect of for poling and face embedded in shortcrete are
reinforcement are required. usually necessary.
e more Severe face instability as well as squeezing of Extreme squeezing problems. For
than tunnel make this an extremely difficult three- poling and face reinforcement are
10 dimenstional problem for which no effective usually applied and yielding
design method are currently available. Most support may be required in
solutions are based on experience. extreme cases.

15
 2.3 Rock mass strength estimates
The properties of the rock mass used in this analysis can be estimated by means of the Hoek-
Brown failure criterion (Hoek and Brown 1997). The critical rock mass parameters for this
analysis are the angle of friction φ, the cohesive strength c, the modulus of deformation E and the
in situ uniaxial compressive strength σcm. These properties can be estimated from the
Geological Strength Index GSI. [6]

The value of GSI can be estimated in the field from the rock mass descriptions illustrated in table
3. Note that, for the purposes of this discussion on ‘weak rock masses’, GSI values from 5 to 35
are of primary interest.[6]

For this range of values, an approximate relationship between GSI and the ratio of in situ to
laboratory uniaxial compressive strengths can be derived and this is illustrated in Figure 4. This
relationship provides a simple means for estimating the in situ rock mass strength σcm that is
used in the following analysis of tunnel deformation. [6]

Figure 2 2 Approximate relationship between the Geological Strength Index (GSI) and the ratio of in situ to laboratory uniaxial
compressive strength of the rock

16
Table 2 Table for estimating the Geological Strength Index GSI of a rock mass (Hoek and Brown, 1997

17
Table 3 rock parameters with respect to strength of rock

Compressive GSI Rock type based on Cohesion Angle of internal

strength of rock Hoek and Brown friction of rock
150 75 Blocky 7000-13000 46-68
80 50 Very 3000-4000 30-65
blocky/partially
disturbed
50 75 Blocky 2000-4000 40-60
30 65 Very blocky 1000-2000 40-60
20 30 Blocky/disturbed 400-600 20-44
15 24 Disintegrated 300-500 24-38
5 20 Foliated 90-100 23-28

2.4 Groundwater conditions

The excavation of the tunnel and the slope for the adjacent carriageway result in changes in the
groundwater conditions in the slope. These changes have a significant impact on the effective
stresses in the rock mass surrounding the tunnel. Consequently, a full analysis of these
groundwater conditions is a starting point for this analysis of the tunnel stability.

A permeability of 1 x 10-7 m/sec for the shear zones and 1 x 10-6 m/sec for the jointed and
bedded sandstones, a finite element analysis of the groundwater conditions in the slope is carried
out. The resulting water tables, for different stages of tunnel and slope excavation. In this
analysis it is assumed that the tunnel acts as a drain except for an extreme long term condition in
which the tunnel drains are blocked.

In the finite element analysis of the tunnel lining that follows the pore water pressures and the
resulting effective stresses, from the groundwater analysis described above, have been
incorporated into the tunnel stability model.

18
2.5 Rock mass properties
The results of rock blasting are affected more by rock properties than by any other variables
(Hagan, 1995). As the mean spacing between the joints, fissures or the cracks decreases,
Blasting for tunnels and roadways. The importance of rock material strength decreases while that
of the rock mass strength increases. The blasts are required to create many new cracks in a rock
mass with widely spaced joints. In a closely fissured rock mass, on the other hand, generation of
new cracks is not needed and the fragmentation is achieved by the explosion gas pressure which
opens the joints to transform a large rock mass into several loose blocks. The tunnel blasting
efficiency is affected to a lesser degree by other rock mass properties like the internal
friction, grain size and porosity. The effects of joint orientations on over break/under break and
pull in heading and benching operations during tunnel excavations are explained by Johansen
(1998).

Figure 3 Joints normal to tunnel direction favorable for good pull

Figure 4 Poor advance with joints striking parallel to tunnel direction

19
Figure 5 Right side wall more prone to breakage due to obtuse angle between joints and tunnel direction

Benching
the dip direction of the blasted strata on pull could be well experienced while blasting in the
development faces where the pull was increased in the rise galleries compared to that in the dip
galleries (Chakra borty, 2002).

Longer rounds in tunnels can be pulled when the dominant joint sets are normal to the tunnel
axis. Whereas, better pull can be obtained in shaft sinking if the discontinuities are parallel to the
line joining

Figure 6 Bench blasting with joints dipping towards the free face

Advantage

 Good forward movement of muck

Disadvantage

 Large back break

 Poor contour and slop control

20
Figure 7Bench blasting with joints dipping away from the free face

Advantage

 Small back break

Disadvantage

 Restricted forward movement

 Tight muck pile

Table 4 Influence of joint direction on over break

Joint orientation
Dip Strike with respect to Face advance Roof over break
tunnel axis
Steep parallel Very poor Very small

Steep across Very good Very large

Gentle across fair large

Moderate Across/oblique good small

21
 Chapter-3

3. Methodology
This chapter includes methods used for the main part of analysis tunneling using the software.

These are:

 Analysis to locate maximum over burden pressure

 Sensitive analysis of the software(i.e. to which parameter does the software sensitive)

 Modeling of the tunnel using PLAXIS 3D

 Input material properties to PLAXIS 3D

 2D mesh generation

 3D mesh generation

 Generation of water pressure and initial stress condition

 And finally the calculation part

3.1 general step by step modeling and explanation

Geometry

The tunnel excavation is carried out by a tunnel boring machine (TBM) which is 25 m
long and 7.7 m in diameter. The model is 48 m wide, it is 222.7m deep. With these
dimensions, the model is sufficiently large to allow for any possible collapse mechanism
to develop and to avoid any influence from the model boundaries.

The subsoil consists of 3 layer.as we do have three layers; the upper very blocky layer is
104.7 deep. Below the upper layer is blocky/disturbed that is 81m thick. hence, the
bottom layer is 37m disintegrated rock.To crate the geometry model, follow these steps

22
 Start the input program and select new project

 Select the geometry line button from toolbar(this should in fact already be selected for a
New project)draw the section area

 The shield tunnel. Click on the tunnel designer button and the tunnel designer will pop
up. Select the left half tunnel button to create the half of the tunnel. Radius 3.85m is in
section one two and three. And angle is 60. Select shell and interface

 Make sure that the tunnel is in its exact position.

 Specify boundary click on the standard fixities at the bottom, vertical rollers at the
vertical side and rotation fixities at the ends of the tunnel.

Figure 8 tunnel designer window

Material properties

 After the input of boundary conditions, the material properties of soil clusters and other
geometry objects are entered in data sets. Interface properties are included in the data sets
for soil (data sets for soil and interfaces.)

 Three data sets needed to be created; one for the soft upper sandstone layer, two for the
upper stiff sandstone layer and three for blocky layer.

23
  Click on the material sets button on the toolbar. Select soil and interfaces as the set type
click on the <New> button to create a new data set.

 Drag the data set to the respective material cluster of the geometry and drop it.

 And also set material properties of the plate.

figure 9 material properties window

2D Mesh Generation

 In this modeling the standard fine mesh is used.

 Click on the generate mesh button in the toolbar. A few seconds later, fine mesh is
presented in the output window. The 3D tunnel program automatically refines the mesh at
the tunnel points. Although the interface has a zero thickness, it is given an arbitrary
thickness in the plot to visualize the connectivity between the various elements.

24
  Click on the < update> button to return to the geometry input.

Figure 10 2D finite element mesh of the shield tunnel project

3D Mesh Generation

Only the TBM (which is 8.6 m long) and 16.4 m ahead of the TBM are modeled.

Hence, the 3D model extends 25.0 m in the Z-direction. Three planes are required to model the
situation: a front plane at 0.0 m, an intermediate plane at -8.6 m to represent the face of the TBM
and a rear plane at -25.0 m.

In the z-direction, the largest gradient of displacement will occur at the face of the TBM,
therefore a mesh refinement is applied at the middle plane representing the face of the TBM.

Figure 11 3D finite element mesh of the shield tunnel project

25
 The initial conditions of current project require the generation of water pressures and the
generation of initial stresses. The generation of water pressures (i.e. pore pressures and
water pressures on external boundaries) is based on the input of phreatic levels.

 The simplest way is to define a general phreatic level, under which the water pressure
distribution is hydrostatic, based on the input of a unit water weight. The general phreatic
level is used for the generation of external water pressures and this line is automatically
assigned to all clusters for the generation of pore pressures. As an alternative to this
procedure based on a general phreatic level, individual cluster may have a separate
phreatic level or an interpolated pore pressure distribution. However, in this example only
a general phreatic level is defined at MSL.

 An existing phreatic level may be modified by using the selection button from the toolbar
and moving the existing points, or by just drawing a new phreatic level at a new position.
On deleting the general phreatic level (by selecting it and pressing the <del> key on the
keyboard), the default general phreatic level will be created again at the bottom of the
geometry. The graphical input or modification of phreatic levels does not affect the
existing geometry.

 In practice, the construction of a tunnel is a process that consists of several phases. In this
case, we concentrate on the tunnel heading stability and consider that the TBM has
already advanced its own length (8.6 m) into the soil. Therefore , the first phase will
consist of the excavation of the soil to allow the installation of the TBM , the application
of the TBM itself , the lowering of the water level in the TBM , the application of the
tunnel face pressure and the application of contraction to simulate the fact that the TBM
is conical towards its tail. Also, the adapted material sets(with reduced interface friction
and adhesion)are assigned to the first slice in which the tunnel is excavated.to define this
first calculation phase, follow these steps:

 In the staged construction: window, click on the tunnel shell and a selection window will
appear in which the option plate should be selected.

26
 Figure 12 first slices in which the tunnel excavated

 Now, the TBM should be active in <slice1>.to excavate the tunnel, click once on the two
clusters inside the TBM to deactivate them.

 To assign the modified material sets (with reduced interface friction and adhesion) to the
corresponding soil clusters in <slice 1>,click on the material sets button, select
‘clay(R<1)’ and drag the material set to the middle layer. Select ‘stiff sand (R<1)’ and
drag the material set to the bottom layer.

 Click on the tab sheet of the front plane. Double click on the tunnel reference point, i.e.
the center of the tunnel. The tunnel contraction window pops up.

Figure 13 front plane in which tunnel contraction occur

27
 For each plane, a value may be entered for the Contraction parameter, which involves a
shortening of the tunnel shell and thus a reduction of the tunnel radius during the
calculation. The option is only available for Bored tunnels with shells and can be used to
simulate the soil volume loss around the tunnel due to overcutting, conicity of the TBM,
or any other cause. The value of contraction defines the cross section area reduction as a
percentage of the whole tunnel cross section area. In this case the Front plane (i.e. the tail
of the TBM) should be given a contraction of 0.5% to simulate the conicity of the TBM

 While the Front plane is highlighted, enter a value of 0.5 for the contraction parameter
and click the <OK> button to close the tunnel contraction window.

 Proceed to the Water conditions mode by clicking on the 'switch' in the toolbar. In the
water pressures mode, Global pore pressure distribution (which is valid for the whole
geometry)

 Local pore pressure distribution (which is valid for one slice only) can be applied.

 To obtain a dry tunnel, double click on one of the two clusters inside the tunnel

 Click on the <Update> button to finish the definition of the construction phase. As a
result, the Staged construction window is closed and the Calculations window reappears.
The calculation phase has now been defined and saved.

Figure 14 local pore pressure distributions

28
 Click on the <Next> button to create the second phase

 In the General tab sheet, accept all defaults (Calculation type Plastic, Load adv. ultimate
level ; Start from phase 1 - <phase 1>

 In the Parameters tab sheet, keep the default value for the Additional steps parameters
(250) and select the Reset displacements to zero option. In the Loading input box, select
Total multipliers.

 Click on the <Define> button or on the Multipliers tab. In the Multipliers tab sheet

 Enter 0 for Sum M load A all loads defined as load system A (in this case only the Z-
Load representing the tunnel face pressure), will gradually be reduced to 0.

 The calculation definition is now complete. Before starting the calculation it is suggested
to select nodes or stress points for a later generation of load-displacement curves or stress
and strain diagrams.

 Click on the Set points for curves button on the toolbar

 Click on Plane A and select the following nodes; the bottom of the tunnel, the center of
the tunnel, the top of the tunnel and the ground surface right above the tunnel. Click on
the <Update> button

 I

Figure 15 calculation window

29
3.2 Trials for locating maximum effective overburden
Overburden pressure is also called lithostatic pressure, confining pressure or vertical stress, is the
pressure or stress imposed on a layer of soil or rock by the weight of the overlying material.
Starting from the highest point above tunnel up to the value of strain and stress is no more affect
the tunnel in other word the pressure above the point is distributed to the sides. And we made
trials in order to get a point where the maximum overburden is located.

Table 5 trial for locating over burden pressure

Trial number Height above the Description

bottom of tunnel(m)

1. 222.7 m The maximum height above the bottom of tunnel

2. 210.7 All parameter are constant but reduce height by 10m

3. 200.7 All parameter are constant but reduce height by 20m

4. 190.7 All parameter are constant but reduce height by 30m

5. 150.7 All parameter are constant but reduce height by 70m

30
 3.3 Trails for sensitive analysis
The technique used to determine how independent variable values will impact a particular
dependent variables under a set of assumptions is defined as sensitive analysis. Its usage will
depend on one or more input variables within the specific boundaries.

Sensitive analysis works on the simple principle change the parameters and observe the behavior.
The parameters that need to note while doing the sensitive analysis:

3.3.1. Strength parameters:

The shear strength of a soil is derived from two parameters called shear strength
parameters which are inherent properties of the soil. They are cohesion (c) and the
angle of internal friction (𝜙�).

In its original form: s = c + 𝜎� tan 𝜙�

Where s is the shear strength (kN/m2),

c is the cohesion (kN/m2),

𝜎� is the normal stress (kN/m2) and

𝜙� is the angle of internal friction (degree

Our discussion so far veered round to total shear strength parameters c and 𝜙. It is relevant in
respect of saturated soils to investigate the effective stress parameters c’ and 𝜙′, taking into
account the influence of pore water pressure on the results. At the failure plane in a saturated soil
the presence of pore water obviously does not contribute to shear strength simply because water
has no shear strength. Therefore frictional failure (slip) can only occur along the points of grain
contact at the failure plane produced by the effective normal stress 𝜎′ and the effective angle of
internal friction 𝜙′.

31
 Cohesion of rock (c):

Table 6 trial for cohesion

Trial number Cohesion (kpa) Description

1 100 Make constant all the parameters
2 150
3 200
4 250

Angle for friction

Table 7 trial for angle friction

Trail number Angle of friction (degree) Description

1 20 Make constant all the parameters
2 30
3 40
4 50

3.3.2 Stiffness parameter

 Rock mass modules (E)

Table 8 trail for rock mass module ( E )

Trial number Rock mass modules ( E) Mpa Description

1 200 Make constant all the

parameters
2 300

3 400

4 500

5 600

32
  Poisson’s ratio
Table 9 trail for poison’s ratio

Trial number Poisson’s ratio description

1 0.1 Make constant all the

2 0.2 parameters
3 0.3
4 0.4

3.4 data used for analysis of squeezing potential

Geometric data

The height of the tunnel is not constant throughout the length. But the highest point is 240 m
above the tunnel.

Table 10 geometric data

Number Geometric Data name Dimension (m)

1 Width 4.4m-4.6m

2 Diameter 7.7m

3 Length 3662 m

4 Height above the tunnel 240m

5 Side Width out of the tunnel 43.8 m

33
Material property data

At the section of high over burden we do have three layers; first layer is Shale<10-3>W 2, layer
two is Diabase<7-1> W 2 and the third layer is Gravelly<6-4>.

Table 11 material property

Number Material properties Shale<10- Diabase<7- Gravelly< unit

3>W 2 1> W 2 6-4>

1 Cohesion 155 125 100 KN/m2

0
2 Frictional angle 45 55 40

3 Passion’s ratio 0.4 0.3 0.25 -

4 Rock mass modulus 6.0*105 4.5*105 2.0*105 KN/m2

5 Saturated unit weight 20 20 20 KN/m3

6 Unsaturated unit weight 18 18 18 KN/m3

7 Interface strength reduction 1 1 1 -

8 Permeability 1*10-6 1*10-6 1*10-7 m/s

34
 Chapter -4

4. Result and discussion

This chapter includes all result and discusses the output from analysis of the squeezing potential
of tunnel. These are:

 Locating maximum over burden pressure

 Deciding to which parameter this analysis sensitive.

 At the last analyzing squeezing potential.

4.1 locating maximum over burden pressure

While we are locating the effective maximum over burden pressure, we try to do trials
staring from the highest point above tunnel up to the value of strain and stress is no more
affect the tunnel in other word the pressure above the point is distributed to the sides.

4.1.1 Result from trails and discussion on the result

Table 12 result from trails for locating maximum overburden

Trial Height above the bottom of Volumetric Incremental strain Effective

number tunnel(m) strain (%) 10-6 (%) 10-6 stress(KN/m) 10-3

1. 240 342.22 2.45 -522.07

2. 222.7 342.22 1.57 -312.38

3. 220 277.66 1.32 -308.28

4. 210 269.66 1.02 -252.2

5. 200 229.34 0.616 -122.2

35
 Y-Values
400 location of maximum
overburden pressure
350

300
mean strain in 10 -6 %

250
240
200 222.7

150 220
210
100
200
50

0
195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240 245
hieght of tunnel above bottom of tunnel m

Figure 16 mean strain versus height of tunnel

From the above graph the maximum overburden pressure is found at 222.7 m from the bottom of
the tunnel. This value is not the highest point of tunnel. Above this point the pressure distribute
to the side.

4.2 deciding to which parameter this analysis sensitive

This sensitive analysis, while changing value of one parameter by making all the
remaining parameter constant, see does the value of strain and stress increase
dramatically. If so the parameter is sensitive while analyzing. And need high carefulness
in that sensitive parameter.

4.2.1 Result from trails and discussion on the result

Strength parameters:

 Cohesion of rock (c) and

 Angle of friction

36
 1. Cohesion of rock (c):
Table 13 result from trails for cohesion

Trial number Effective Cohesion Effective Normal stress *10 -3

(Kpa) KN/m2

1 100 195.25

2 150 195.25

3 200 195.25

4 250 195.25

250

200
Effective stres

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
cohesion in Mpa

Figure 17cohesion versus effective stress

We can see from the result the analysis is not sensitive for cohesion and also cohesion is strength
parameter mostly affect shear stress.

37
Angle of friction

Table 14 result from trial for angle of friction

Trail Angle of friction (degree) Effective Normal stress *10 -3 KN/m2

number
1 10 369.15

2 20 369.15

3 30 369.15

4 35 369.15
Effective stress

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
angle of friction

Figure 18 angle of friction versus effective stress

We can see from the result the analysis is not sensitive for cohesion and also cohesion is strength
parameter mostly affect shear stress .

38
2. Stiffness parameters

 Rock mass modulus (E) and

Table 13 result from trail for rock mass modulus

Trial number Rock mass modules ( E) Mpa Mean strain *10-6 %

1 200 660.22

2 300 502.72

3 400 355.74

4 500 349.44

700

600

500
Mean strain in %

400

300

200

100

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Rock mass modules E in Mpa

Figure 19rock mass modulus versus mean strain

The result shows that the analysis is sensitive in parameter called rock modulus.so carefulness
need while are dealing with this parameter.

39
  Poisson’s ratio

Table 14 result from trial for Poisson’s ratio

Trial number Poisson’s ratio Mean strain * 10-6 %

1 0.2 38.05

2 0.25 25.88

3 0.3 20.09

4 0.4 20.09

40

35

30
Mean strain in %

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Poisson's ratio

Figure 20 Poisson’s ratio versus mean strain

The result shows that the analysis is more or less sensitive for Poisson’s ratio.

40
4.3 analysis squeezing potential
By using the geometric and geotechnical data we try to analyze the problem of squeezing. And
on the third chapter we model the tunnel and know we are going to explain and discuss the
outputs.

4.3.1 Result from the software analysis and discussion on the result
Horizontal displacement occur around the tunnel of mekelle weldiya/haragebeya railway tunnel

Figure 21 horizontal in around the tunnel

Result : horizontal displacement around the tunnel is 13.3 * 10-6 m

Figure 22 the total strain

41
Result: Total volumetric or the total strain for this specified tunnel found along mekelle
weldiya/haragebeya railway project has 0.3422 % squeezed.

Extreme incremental strain of mekelle weldiya/haragebeya railway tunnel

Figure 23 Extreme incremental strain

Result: extreme incremental strain along front plan of tunnel is 0.000582%.

Extreme mean stress around the tunnel

Figure 24extreme mean stress

Result: extreme mean stress around the tunnel is -0.36 kN/m2.

42
 CHAPTER-5

5. CONCLUSION AND RSCOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSION
The general objective of this research is to analyze the squeezing potential of the a tunnel found
in mekelle,weldya/haragebya railway project. Squeezing of tunnel is common phenomena in a
poor rock mass under high in situ stress conditions. Deeper and /or long tunnel should be
carefully planned to avoid too high overburden causing squeezing ground condition or rock
bursts. Under mountain by pass tunnel along railway is becoming popular in Ethiopia. Due to
this development of underground structures (tunnels) its needs to use modern techniques and
knowledge. The tunneling media could be stable(non-squeezing) or squeezing (failing) depend
up on the in situ stress rock mass strength a weak overstressed rock mass experience squeezing
ground condition where as a hard and massive over stressed rock mass experience burst ground
condition.

The finding of this study indicates that most of the topography in which the railway passes
through high mountains and its needs of tunneling rather than excavating and also its needs
modernized technology to avoid squeezing of tunnels.

Plaxis 3D tunnel software is one of the latest technologies used to know whether a tunnel is
squeezed (unstable) or stable. Using this software and geological and geotechnical data’s like;
angle of friction, cohesion, poison’s ratio, elastic modulus, overburden height. Based on this
software and these parameters we have determined the stability of the tunnel , accordingly the
extreme volumetric strain is 0.3422 % which is very slightly squeezed almost it is not-squeezed
but needs light linings due to undetailed investigations and may be present cavity and
compressed air inside the rock.

43
5.2 RECOMMENDATION
We recommended that during tunnel design and construction a detailed investigation should be
performed. Ethiopian railway corporation (ERC) planned to construct railway roads throughout
the country and across the continent by separating in different phases. But the topography of the
country is dominated by mountains then it needs construction of tunnels. Our result represents
only for this tunnel due to different places have different geological and geotechnical properties.

Few stability problems and very simple tunnel support design method can be used. Tunnel
support recommendation based up on rock mass classification provide an adequate basis for
design. Very simple tunneling conditions, with rock bolts and shotcrete typically used for
support.

Software users has to involve sensitive analysis. Because software is highly dependent on the
inputs. If you give a garbage input, software will give you garbage output. Hence users need to
careful while they give input to software.

It is strongly recommended that, where significant potential squeezing problems have been
identified, the tunnel should be subjected to numerical analyses. Several excellent two- and
three-dimensional finite element and finite difference programs, written specifically for tunnel
design, are now available commercially. These programs allow the user to model the sequential
excavation and support systems for any tunnel shape, in situ stress field and rock mass
conditions. It is suggested that each of the support categories proposed for the tunneling
operation should be subjected to detailed analysis by means of one of these programs.

44
References
Brady, B. a. (1985). Rock mechanics for underground mining. London: Allen and Unwin.

Carranza-Torres, C. F. (1999). General formulation of the elasto -plastic response of openings in

rock using the Hoek-Brown failur critriterion. intrnational journal of rock mechanics and
mining science.

Chern, J. Y. (n.d.). Tunneling in squzing graund ang support estimation.proc . regional

symposium on sedimentary rock engineering,Taipei.

Duncan Fama, M. (1993). Numerical modeling of yield zones in weak rock . in comprehensive
rock engineering. Pergamon Oxford.

Hoek, E. (1999). Support for very weak rock associated with faults and shear zones . in rock
support and reinforcementpractice in mining. . Rotterdam.

Hoek, E. a. (1980). under ground excavations in rock. London: Instn Min. Metall.

Sakurai, S. (1983). Displacement measurements associated with the design of underground

opennings . zurich: Proc.Int.symp.field measurements in geomechanics,.

45
Appendix

Plan view

46
Profile of the tunnel

47
Entrance of the tunnel

48