1 Introduction
2 Strength factor and prediction of tunnel deformation
3 Projects description
3.1 Geological and geotechnical setting
3.1.1 Shibli twin tunnels
3.1.2 Ilam-Mehran tunnel
Tunnel | Block/zone | Initial supports | Inner concrete lining (cm) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Steel rib | Shotcrete (cm) | Rockbolt | Welded wire mesh | |||
Shibli | A | IPE180@1 m | 25 |
\(\phi 25,L = 6\;{\text{m}}@1 \times 1\;{\text{m}}\)
|
\(\phi 6@100 \times 100\)
| 40 |
B | IPE180@1 m | 25 |
\(\phi 25,L = 6\;{\text{m}}@1 \times 1\;{\text{m}}\)
|
\(\phi 6@100 \times 100\)
| ||
C | IPE180@0.5 m | 25 |
\(\phi 25,L = 6\;{\text{m}}@1 \times 1\;{\text{m}}\)
|
\(\phi 6@100 \times 100\)
| ||
Ilam-Mehran | LI-1 | IPE160@1 m | 20 |
\(\phi 25,L = 4\;{\text{m}}@2 \times 2\;{\text{m}}\)
|
\(\phi 6@100 \times 100\)
| 30 |
LI-2 | – | 15 |
\(\phi 25,L = 4\;{\text{m}}@2 \times 2\;{\text{m}}\)
|
\(\phi 6@100 \times 100\)
| ||
Lsh | – | 15 |
\(\phi 25,L = 4\;{\text{m}}@2 \times 2\;{\text{m}}\)
|
\(\phi 6@100 \times 100\)
| ||
ShL | IPE160@1 m | 20 |
\(\phi 25,L = 4\;{\text{m}}@2 \times 2\;{\text{m}}\)
|
\(\phi 6@100 \times 100\)
|
Tunnel | Block | UCS (MPa) | RMR |
Q
| GSI | C (kPa) | φ (°) | E (GPa) | γ (g/cm3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shibli | A | 45–48 | 48–52 | 1.2–1.3 | 44–47 | 328 | 36 | 2.3 | 2.35 |
B | 40–45 | 43–46 | 0.7–0.8 | 38–41 | 357 | 34 | 2.04 | 2.32 | |
C | 35–40 | 38–42 | 0.6–0.65 | 33–37 | 340 | 33 | 1.94 | 2.2 | |
Ilam-Mehran | LI-1 | 35–40 | 47–57 | 1.3–4.2 | 42–52 | 185 | 44 | 3.3 | 2.5 |
LI-2 | 20–25 | 35–40 | 0.5–0.6 | 30–35 | 320 | 31 | 1.82 | 2.4 | |
Lsh | 35–40 | 45–47 | 1.1–1.3 | 40–42 | 165 | 47 | 3.3 | 2.4 | |
ShL | 25–30 | 35–40 | 0.36–0.64 | <30 | 150 | 45 | 1.25 | 2.3 |
Tunnel | ID | Dip/dip direction | Spacing (cm) | Persistence (m) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Shibli | 1 | 72/302 | 30–50 | 1–3 |
2 | 67/224 | 20–30 | 1–2 | |
3 | 33/310 | 35–45 | 2–3 | |
Ilam-Mehran | 1 | 45/060 | 40–45 | 3–6 |
2 | 35/295 | 28–36 | 2–3 | |
3 | 45/080 | 50–55 | 1–3 | |
4 | 25/175 | 30–35 | 1–3 |
3.2 Tunnels monitoring
Samples | LL (%) | PL (%) | PI (%) | Swelling (%) | Swelling potential | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct methods according to free swelling | Indirect methods according to Atterberg limits | ||||||
Holtz and Gibbs [25] | Chen [26] | Dakshanamamurthy and Raman [27] | |||||
S1 | 49 | 14 | 35 | 23.5 | Moderate | Medium | Moderate |
S2 | 61 | 12 | 49 | 30.2 | Moderate | High | High |
S3 | 45 | 14 | 31 | 21.3 | Moderate | Medium | Moderate |
4 Empirical correlations
Tunnel | Station | Cover thickness (m) | Strength factor | Radial strain (ɛt) (10−2) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Shibli 2A | 27 + 340 | 156 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
27 + 420 | 161 | 0.38 | 0.56 | |
27 + 540 | 168 | 0.51 | 0.35 | |
Shibli 2B | 27 + 980 | 177 | 0.48 | 0.69 |
28 + 005 | 174 | 0.49 | 0.65 | |
Ilam-Mehran | 9 + 450 | 44 | 0.54 | 0.47 |
9 + 530 | 48 | 0.86 | 0.42 | |
9 + 570 | 64 | 0.81 | 0.56 |
5 Discussion
Strength factor | Stress magnitude | Failure types |
---|---|---|
<0.4 | High | Squeezing—large deformation |
0.4–0.6 | Medium | Face collapse |
0.6–1 | Low | Wedge failure in hard rock, cave in weak rock |
6 Conclusions
-
The RMSE and VAF values indicate that the modified criterion has an acceptable accuracy and little error in the prediction of tunnel deformation.
-
The strength factor of 0.38 (approximately 0.4) can be used to determine the boundary between squeezing and non-squeezing conditions.
-
The type of failure in tunnel is predictable using the strength factor. If the strength and in situ stress are close to each other, the failure in the tunnel would have structural control, i.e., falling and/or sliding wedge from wall and roof. In this state, the behavior of discontinuities will be more important.
-
Both types of instability (stress-induced and structural) may occur in strain levels of less than 1%.