9780784412350s PDF

Compensation Grouting - Evolution, Field of Application, and Current State of the Art in UK Practice Clif Kettle
Technical Manager, Bachy Soletanche Ltd, Alton, UK; clif.kettle@bacsol.co.uk
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by dml u on 12/29/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ABSTRACT: Compensation grouting, in the modern currently accepted sense, is a relatively new application in the field of grouting which is being applied increasingly in the field of urban construction to mitigate the effects on surface and sub-surface structures and utilities which arise as a consequence of settlements induced by tunnelling and sub-surface excavations. This paper will review elements of current thinking on best practice, and examine key practical, technical, and contractual requirements for the successful application of this technique in the field.
134A_50835_ASCE_Vol_01_Txt_Resize_AA.job_Process Cyan_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Black_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Yellow_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Magenta_08/01/2012_10:49:40
INTRODUCTION
Compensation grouting, in the modern currently accepted sense, is a relatively new application in the field of grouting, which is receiving more and more attention, increasingly widespread application, and is frequently being specified as a key element of the construction process in urban areas. It would be fair to say that it has revitalized the approach to grouting by acting as a catalyst for new technology, by bringing an understanding of injection processes and capabilities to a wider engineering audience, largely by increasing interaction with civil engineering and tunnelling planners, designers, and contractors. The technique is being used increasingly in the field of urban construction, principally to mitigate the effect of settlement arising from face loss during tunnelling, but also settlements arising from any deep excavations, including even pile and diaphragm wall construction. The process is designed to avoid excessive differential settlement and the associated damage to surface and subsurface structures and utilities. The objective is to replace as early as possible any volume loss, and reverse relaxation of strata at depth, in order to limit the migration of this relaxation towards the surface. The technique relies upon a surgical approach to grouting, targeting injections in place and time, under complete control of the injection parameters and in concert with both the tunnelling excavation programme, and with a comprehensive monitoring system. It requires considerable pre-investigation and analysis of ground conditions, and of structures and utilities predicted to be adversely affected by tunnelling operations, early installation and priming of the grouting system, and very close co-ordination with excavation activity. It follows that compensation grouting is and always will be an expensive process, which should only be applied where other less expensive methods cannot be applied. As engineers and professionals we owe it both to our clients and to ourselves to deliver safety first of all, sound engineering, and a cost effective solution. We should consider all passive or active alternatives including - underpinning by piles, jet grouting, and permeation grouting; foundation
134
Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012
135
strengthening; block permeation; stress isolation by pile or jet wall; structural strengthening and/or repair; placement of jacks in foundation elements; tunnelling methodology including arch and face support measures to reduce face loss; and even, in some cases, de-commissioning or demolition of structures where protection is not cost effective. There has been some tendency to consider this technology as a get out of jail free card and we must guard against the temptation to over specify this method just because it appears too difficult to liaise with property owners or tunnelling contractors to apply alternative means. Nevertheless, despite the considerable cost, there are now many examples where alternative means of controlling settlement have proven either to be impossible, impractical, or where their effect on the project cost and programme have rendered them more expensive than compensation grouting. This paper aims to identify and share important lessons learned during in the evolution of this technology, with reference to a number of successful projects world-wide, where developments have taken place which have given clients, contractors, and third party stakeholders increased confidence in applying this technology on highly complex and demanding projects - not as a fringe specialist activity, but as a vital and core engineering process. In particular, the paper will explain something of the evolution of the process and highlight selected issues associated with this relatively new technique, including those of project risk and liability. 2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT Grouting injection in soils, whether fracture grouting or permeation grouting always causes localised displacement, even though this may never be observed. Frequently, in the past the means to measure such displacement were unavailable or were sufficiently insensitive to pick up the scale of movements generated. Most of the time such displacements were insignificant, or transient due to pore pressure dissipation, and very often were carried out in advance of construction below open field sites, or at sufficient depth so that no significant surface displacement was observed. Nevertheless, those displacements were undoubtedly present at depth, and compensation grouting utilises this capacity to displace soil. Many papers have been written about the use of grouting in soils as a remedial measure to restore support to and/or re-level a structure or floor slab which had settled as a result of inadequate foundations, loss of support, or heterogeneous soil conditions. Bernatzik in 1951 reported on the use of grouting to correct for ground loss by fracture grouting. In1967 Henri Cambefort, writing in Injections des Sols was detailing several examples where structures had been re-levelled by the application of grouting injection methods. Generally these were carried out at shallow depths, and immediately below the foundations or base slab. Such injections were generally carried out with a relatively viscous, non-shrink grout, as part of a continuous injection program of relatively short duration. During the 80s and 90s in the USA, papers such as Jim Warners 1984 paper Compaction Grouting-The First 30 Years, Alan Stilleys paper Compaction
136
Grouting for Foundation Stabilisation, and Lifting and Levelling Heavy Concrete Structures by John King and Eduardo Bindhoff, demonstrate that the practice of using viscous mortars and grouts was well-established for improving the density, stiffness, and bearing capacity of weak soils, whether for the purposes of improving soil bearing capacities for new build structures, or as a remedial process for existing structures. The increasing knowledge and understanding of soil behaviour was enabling progressive contractors to find an increasing range of applications for this technology. Also in 1984, Francisco Gallavresi reported on the degree of precision that was achievable by careful placement of medium to high viscosity cementitious slurries in the very weak soils of the Venice lagoon. This paper indicated some of the advanced thinking that was being applied to this process, including the careful use of instrumentation such as water cells to monitor and control differential uplifts, observations on the soil pre--conditioning effect of the early injections, and the selective targeting with increased injection volumes and pressures below the ground bearing elements of the foundation. In the late 80s and early 90s there were a number of similar examples in northern Germany, again for re-levelling of individual structures affected by shallow depth urban tunnelling. As early as 1977 Henri Cambefort had published his seminal work the Principles and Applications of Grouting. Although the use of rigid mortars occupies only a small part of this paper, detailing the controlled re-levelling of a factory unit in Rotterdam, it summarises concisely the levels of design and understanding which were currently being applied to the design of grout properties, and the precise nature in which particular grouts interact with soils and rocks during placement. His paper sets out a firm technical understanding on which the development of future grouting technology can be based, and highlights just how far grouting technology has progressed since the turn off the 20thcentury. Subsequent ground breaking work by specialists such as Dr.Tornaghi in Italy, and the collaboration between Don Deere and Prof Lombardi have completely revolutionised how we think about grouts and their application in the field, as well as enormously enhancing the credibility of grouting technology, distancing it forever from the black art label which it has often carried. In parallel with all these developments in grouting technology, both in the hardware and software, there has been an amazingly rapid advance in the level of research and understanding of soil mechanics, particularly in relation to soil-structure interaction, the engineering behaviour of soils, and our particular areas of interest for the topic of this presentation, the response of soils and structures to tunnelling and subsurface excavation. The paper by Y. Leblais for AFTES, published in 1995 summarises the then current understanding of the mechanisms for settlements induced by tunnelling, based upon the work of many earlier advances in soil mechanics theory by authors such as Glossop, Cording, Boscordin, Burland, Peck, and Mair amongst many others. There is today a very wide understanding and agreement on the mechanisms of soil deformation under a wide range of conditions, and this combined with our advances in grouting technology has enabled the development of the process which we now call compensation grouting.
137
Of course, there are two important missing elements which serendipitously have arrived at exactly the right time over the period of the last 20 years to enable compensation grouting to develop as a true engineering process, capable of being executed arguably with as much precision and control as any other branch of civil engineering. These are firstly the rapid development in the science of geotechnical and structural monitoring, using many new instruments which are available on the market such as electro levels, in-place inclinometers, automatic total station theodolites, piezometers, extensometers, and strain gauges, and a wide variety of other instruments which can be read remotely and in real and semi-real-time. Secondly, we cannot overlook the enormous contribution made by the advancement in computing technology and power, in both the hardware and software, which enables rapid assimilation, analysis, evaluation at site level of a huge volume of data arising from the injection processes, structure and soil deformation measurements, the strain and displacement in tunnel linings. In respect of the grouting process, computers in particular have completely revolutionised our understanding, recording, and control of the injection process, enabling us to place grout with surgical precision in response to observed or predicted movements of subsurface or surface structures, and soils. By enabling us to control precisely the injection parameters of any injection throughout the entire period of grout placement, by allowing us to examine the continuous record of these parameters during each individual injection, and by providing the means of rapidly assimilating the information from this huge stream of data into a visual graphical format for rapid evaluation, our understanding of the interaction between grout placement and the surrounding soil has given the modern grouting engineer a level of understanding of the fundamentals and mechanics of grouting which would have astonished their predecessors of 30 or 40 years ago. The coming together of all these technologies is vital and timely. There has never been more tunnelling activity around the world, particularly in urban areas, and there is always an overarching drive for efficiency and cost effectiveness in tunnel construction. The increasing congestion below established urban centres means that the interaction of the tunnelling operations with existing surface and subsurface infrastructure becomes critically important. Tunnel design and construction is becoming increasingly adventurous, even audacious, both in terms of increased tunnel diameters, and in the increasingly marginal and difficult ground conditions through which tunnels are being driven, thereby increasing the risks to the tunnelling operation and to third parties very significantly. There have been many recorded incidents of tunnel failure over recent years, generally during construction, and there has never been a more important time for the development of compensation grouting processes in order to assist in the safe and controlled subsurface excavation for tunnels and deep structures. In the early 1990s compensation grouting was raised to the level of a significant element of tunnelling design, planning, and construction by the construction of the Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) project in central London. The route of the proposed tunnels affected hundreds of structures, existing London Underground tunnels, major utilities, and including many historic buildings of national importance. It was recognised by the client that without compensation grouting the new Metro line
138
could not be constructed on its proposed alignment, or at least not without huge additional cost. The fact that the client was prepared to put so much confidence into this relatively new technique was due to the experience of the preliminary work is carried out in 1992-3 at the historic Victory Arch entrance to Waterloo Station. For this project, active compensation grouting was carried out in very close co-operation with the Building Research Establishment (BRE) monitoring specialists, who were trying to develop the level of understanding and control necessary for future projects. The success of the Victory project led directly to the process being applied extensively across the subsequent Jubilee Line Extension project, with approximately 70 million worth of specialist instrumentation and compensation grouting works being carried out during the period 1994 to 1996.
Waterloo Victory Arch
Largely Observational Approach

Victory Arch
Electrolevel chains
Waterloo & City Line
New-build escalator sand passenger walkways Targeted compensation grouting within River Terrace Gravels and London Clay Sub horizontal arrays of in-place inclinometers
FIG. 1 Victory Arch Concept and key elements
139
FIG. 2 Exhumed Manchettes in the River Terrace Gravels The Victory Arch project provided an excellent opportunity to experiment with the injection methodology in both the River Terrace gravels and the London Clay. The geometry of the site meant that compensation grouting had to take place in both strata, and with an appropriate grout formulation injections in both were found to be very effective. Experiments were made with differing grout types to which a dye was added to facilitate later investigation. The project was extremely valuable in that it offered the rare opportunity to exhume early in the project some of the injection pipes, and valuable observations were made which influenced subsequent design and practice on the project. Fig. 2 above show the distribution of grout within the terrace gravels around a manchette (grout sleeve) location. The grout was deliberately chosen to be unstable, so that during injection the solids content would remain close to the point of injection, whilst the water was extruded from the mix by pressure filtration. A very weak formulation was selected, initially a bentonite cement slurry, but later a preblended material was used, comprising OPC and PFA in a ratio1:20, and with a water/solids ratio of 0.5. This mix was selected so that the build-up of grout around the manchette would not unduly inhibit the ability to break out through this material for subsequent injections. Although injection in the gravels were successful, even with a weak mix it became progressively more difficult to break out from the manchette, due to the fact that injections were executed over a period of six months, requiring up to 35 injections via some the individual sleeves. A notable feature within the gravels, which has been observed on subsequent contracts, is the effect of barrel expansion of the sleeve grout around the manchette. Whilst this expansion must have assisted the re-compaction around the manchette, it clearly contributed significantly to the increasing difficulty of breaking out through the sleeve grout. One observed advantage of injecting within the gravels was that it generated a progressive displacement of the soil akin to a ratcheting mechanism. In the London Clay however, more frequent injections were required over a longer period to effect a similar result because each individual injection elevated pore pressures locally, and these would dissipate over the following weeks so that a repeated cycle of displacement with partial relaxation evolved throughout the injection period.
140
Nevertheless the net displ lacement was positive and controllable and th nature of the he London Clay permitted in njections to be made more easily and at lower pressures than r within the gravels. These were all important observations which later informed decisions on grout selectio and compensation design for future projec on cts. Fig. 3 below indicates th typical pattern of grout penetration by hyd he dro-fracture within the London Clay. N that even very close to the gravel/clay in Note nterface the grout laminae remain sub- horizontal, and of no more than 2 to 5 mm i thickness. in Given that the London cla is a compressible material, and that lower i ay initial injection pressures are required to p propagate grout through the clay, means that t effect of the such injections is slower, more incremental, and generates much lower stresses over r a larger area than injection within the terrace gravels. ns
FIG. 3 Penet tration by hydro-fracture in the London Cl lay
This was an exciting per riod during which all the major consultants an specialist nd contractors were involved in trying to establish ground rules and techn d nology by which this process could b firmly established as an accepted working method. In be this regard, we are all inde ebted to Prof Robert Mair of the Geotechnica Consultancy al Group GCG for his keen i interest in the Victory Arch project, and the tr remendous level of constructive supp on the part of the Engineer, BRE, and the Client, port London Underground Ltd (LUL). d Also in the mid-late 199 a number of contractors, software develo 90s opers, instrument manufacturers, and university soil mechanics departments c collaborated on a European funded COSM MUS project during the construction of the Ri Piedras in io Puerto Rico and Madrid M Metro projects. This research project focused on the prediction and modelling of tunnelling induced settlements, and upon m modelling the effects of active compensa ation grouting - that is to say compensation g grouting carried out in parallel with tunnel lling operations in order to mitigate the effect on surface ts structures of those operati ions. The objective was to try to codify a syst tematic design approach to managing the negative impact of tunnelling operations on surface e structures. Over the past 18 years th process has been applied on many projects he s internationally including s significant projects in the USA, Canada, Puer Rico, rto
141
France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Belgium and Russia. This is a process whose time has come. Despite the prevalence of UK examples in the literature, it is today neither a purely British technology, nor suited solely to excavations within London clay. The process has been applied in many varying soil types and has consistently delivered excellent results. Currently, there is the exciting prospect of compensation grouting being applied to antique structures in Rome. Currently, London is embarking upon the new Crossrail project, a five-year, 15 billion infrastructure project aimed at connecting full-sized rail tunnels across the centre of London, and involving six new station complexes, and the upgrading of a further seven existing railway stations. By the completion of this project over 150 million worth of compensation grouting and monitoring will have been executed. Again, for many of the affected structures there would have been no viable alternative protective measures had compensation grouting not been available, and the project may never have received the Royal assent to proceed. The remaining part of this paper will examine the principles and technology on which much compensation grouting design and construction is based today, as well as detailing some of the difficulties and potential limits of the technology. 3 CORE PRINCIPLES AND DEFINITION Notwithstanding the route by which this technology has developed, modern day compensation grouting is very different from the remedial grouting technology upon which it is based. Most clients and specialist grouting contractors would today separate remedial grouting completely from compensation grouting, even though they may be closely related. Certainly third parties affected by urban tunnelling, whether proprietors, businesses, metro or utility companies and the like would rapidly be seeking injunctions to halt any on-going construction work if its progress were based on damaging buildings and then carrying out remedial works. Clients, and third parties affected by works carried out on behalf of the client, are looking for minimum of damage and continuity of functionality without risk to their business or public safety. In order to address these concerns compensation grouting has developed into be something far more powerful than simply a remedial or corrective technique. Put simply, compensation grouting today is intended to minimise the effects of tunnelling activity on surface and subsurface structures and utilities, to limit and manage total and differential settlements and deflections within acceptable and agreed limits. These acceptable limits will of course vary from structure to structure depending upon the nature of the business, the safety risks, the age and condition of the structure, and the value of the structure, whether historical or financial. Compensation grouting is an expensive process and is therefore not ideal for every situation. It really only comes into its own as a process where important structures, services, or utilities require protection and which by virtue of difficult access to the ground below the structure cannot be protected by any other means. As practised today, the key objective is to try to maintain structures and soil as close to at rest conditions as possible. Many structures which require the protection by compensation grouting are old, are of masonry or brick construction, and have a
142
complex structural history. These structures do not normally tolerate hogging, and their response to hogging, differential settlement, and/or repeated cycles of excessive settlement and heave, can seldom be accurately predicted. For these reasons we should not therefore advocate the approach of some designers and contractors, of either pre-heaving of the ground, allowing the anticipated settlement to return the structure close to its original position, or over reliance of post-settlement jacking up of structures. In fact, these approaches tend to be advocated in situations where there is either inadequate real-time monitoring of structures, and/or an absence of real time control of their injection processes, and both these scenarios involve a high degree of unnecessary risk. With compensation grouting at its current level of development we have an internationally proven technology, an industrial and highly effective process which can in appropriate conditions, and with adequate control and management, mitigate many of the effects of construction on surface and underground structures - e.g. total and differential settlement, angular distortion, excessive strain. It must be remembered that the specialist geotechnical contractor, however good or efficient, cannot compensate for errors and omissions in design, construction, or planning by the designer, client, principal contractor, or tunnelling contractor. Compensation grouting is not a bolt-on technology which can be added at will - for success and to maximise its efficiency, it must be integral to the design and planning of the project from the outset, because it demands a significant amount of preparation prior to the commencement of any excavation or tunnelling. It follows that the specialist contractor cannot safely or effectively carry out compensation grouting without a total, day by day, integration of the roles and operations of the various parties to the project. With these guiding principles in mind, the current preferred definition of compensation grouting, applied almost universally in UK, would be The injection, simultaneously with construction activity, of self-hardening grouts or mortars to replace ground loss as it occurs and/or locally re-compact soils to their original stiffness and density as they relax, in such a manner as to limit differential and total settlement of a given structure, and thereby mitigate the adverse effects of construction activity. The desired effects may be summarised as: limiting total and differential surface and subsurface settlements reduction in induced stresses and cyclical movements, to minimise the potential for damage accelerate the re-consolidation of soils for long-term stability The general characteristics of the process may be summarised as: a rapidly developing technology, developed to an industrial process level the Jubilee line extension, made possible via advances in computerised injection techniques and in structural and geotechnical monitoring technology active compensation grouting takes place in parallel with tunnelling and/or deep excavation works highly dependent upon efficient structural monitoring and analysis of structural displacements highly effective when applied correctly, but not appropriate everywhere
143
very controlled and responsive in reacting to observed settlements and effects allows considerable flexibility initially based upon an observational method approach, but increasingly benefiting from early intervention based upon predicted levels of face loss The general requirements for successful application of the process: establishment of clear objectives and performance criteria thorough geotechnical investigation, design, and modelling extensive structural surveys, defects monitoring, and damage prediction extensive and careful planning, preparation, and installation of geotechnical and structural monitoring effective control processes for all construction activities, including compensation grouting experienced designers and contractors integration of the design, monitoring, tunnelling, civil , and geotechnical operations flexibility of management structure appropriate commercial and contractual framework 4 DESIGN - KEY CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Fundamental Geotechnical Design There must be an agreed basis for the geotechnical design, with adequate, good quality, site investigation to establish the geotechnical base conditions. Whilst there is general agreement on the principles to be applied, there can be differences of interpretation. It is essential that the basis of calculation of the settlement trough geometry is agreed by all parties Research projects such as COSMUS1 have helped to confirm the basic design rules.
FIG. 4a & 4b Settlement model introduced by Peck (1969)
144
For the case of a single tunnel in green field conditions, Peck2 has shown that the surface settlement trough above and ahead of the advancing heading develops as shown on Figure 4a. The transverse settlement immediately following construction is well-described by a Gaussian bell as shown on Fig. 4b, given by;
S = S max exp( y 2 / 2i 2 )
(1)
Where S is the settlement at distance y from the tunnel centre line, and Smax is the maximum settlement, at long distance from tunnel face. Parameter i (distance of inflexion points to centre line) characterises the width of the trough. Volume of the settlement trough per meter of tunnel is given by
V s = 2 iS max
(2)
The Volume Loss Factor Vl can be defined as the ratio of settlement trough volume divided by excavated volume, or as:
Vl =
2 iS max A
(3)
Where A is the section of the tunnel. The first level of refinement is to correlate the opening of the trough to the depth of the tunnel centreline,
i = KZ
(4)
Where Z is depth of tunnel centreline and K is the proportionality factor. Further refinements can be introduced by differentiating K factor along X and Y axis: ix =KxZ, iy= Ky Z (5)
Although it is very basic and takes no account of any soil characteristics, this model has proved to be extremely efficient, and has been verified on a number of projects. For instance, the following experimental values have been found on Jubilee Line Extension, in London Clay: Ky = 0.55; Kx = 0.63 ; Vl = 2.5 % 4.2 Compensation Grouting Principles
Similarly, heave produced by grouting can be modelled by a Gaussian bell, with similar parameters i (opening of the bell), proportional to depth, and the following equation:
145
FIG. 5 Modelling the effect of grouting

S ( r ) = S max exp( r 2 / 2i 2 )
S max = GEC * V grout 2i 2
V heave V grout
(6) (7) (8) (4)
GEC =
i = KZ
Where S(r) is heave at the surface at distance r from the grouting point, Vgrout is the volume of grouting applied at depth Z Vheave is the volume of associated heave GEC is the grouting efficiency coefficient. The following experimental values have been found on Jubilee Line Extension, in London Clay: GEC in the range 0.3 - 0.6 ; K=0.4 ; More complex models have been developed using finite elements methods. The figures below illustrate two basic models employed by the Cambridge University Engineering Department to represent the expansion of a grout body.
Cavity Expansion Model
Hydrofracture Model
FIG. 6 Cambridge university models of grout expansion
146
FIG. 7 Cambridge university study on the effect of over-consolidation ratio on grouting efficiency
The COSMUS project and subsequent research have tried to evaluate the rules of application for both a hydro-fracture model injection, and a mortar or cavity expansion model injection (Fig 6). In the COSMUS project also, an original model was developed to calculate the evolution of the settlement trough and to evaluate the response which might be generated by injection of varying volumes of grout at several elevations above and ahead of advancing tunnel excavation. The majority of these investigations were carried out during the compensation grouting works in Puerto Rico, which has been fully reported elsewhere, but design development continued thereafter, evaluating the theoretical and physical effects of various patterns of injections at varying depths.
147
FIG.8a, b, & c Aspects of settlement and compensation modelling or the COSMUS programme (figures courtesy of TRACTEBEL) Although the COSMUS project was completed over 10 years ago, the main conclusions and recommendations of the research remain valid today: Core geotechnical objectives should be to: maintain soil as close as possible to at-rest (Ko) conditions; anticipate magnitude and distribution of settlements; efficient and timely compensation must start before settlements appear at the surface; minimise pore pressure increases by using small individual volumes for each grout injection. maintain precise control of grout injection parameters; surgical approach to injection - small volumes in the correct place at the correct time; precise real-time monitoring of instrumentation. early design and installation of instrumentation; early design and installation of grouting arrays; importance of a pre-conditioning grouting phase; predictive assessment phase for early intervention; responsive compensation grouting in sensitive environments; post construction re-compaction for long-term stability.
Process Control Prerequisites:
Operational prerequisites:
148
4.3
Systems of Compensation
In the early 1990s, when compensation grouting was becoming more widely accepted, the process was almost entirely observational, based upon repeated cycles of injections executed in response to observed surface or subsurface displacements. This was principally due to a lack of understanding of the relationship between the amount and geometry of the soil displacement or heave induced by the placement of a given volume of grout, in a given soil, at a given pressure. Today we are not confined to a purely observational approach, thanks to the extensive work carried out by many tunnelling and engineering designers, by specialist grouting and tunnelling contractors, and because of the impact of programs such as COSMUS and the huge amount of published research in the field of soil mechanics and the effects of tunnelling induced settlements. In an ideal world, with a perfectly responding compensation system there would be no surface settlement at all. This is clearly an impossible goal. The ideal scenario then becomes reducing the degree of settlement, and the rate of settlement, controlling it within predefined limits for a given structure, based on a detailed analysis of the condition and characteristics of the individual structure being protected. Essentially there are three basic methods by which compensation grouting has typically been executed - the observational method, the predictive method, and the pressure method. Only the observational method has ever been used in isolation, but it is now much more common to combine elements of these three methods, which can be briefly summarised as follows 4.3.1 Observational / Responsive
This method requires the injection of discrete volumes of grout, controlling volumes and pressures, and limited only by the observed response of adjacent structures and the ground. Grout is injected essentially to re-compact relaxed soil with a view to arresting the settlement to confine total settlement within specified limits, or of reversing the degree of settlement recorded. In practice, because settlement is progressive due either to on-going construction works or to the delayed reaction of the structure, the process in effect requires the repeated injections of grout to restore or maintain levels. Used in isolation, the system can be problematic, particularly for buildings sensitive to the effects of hogging, as it effectively requires repeated cycles of settlement and heave. The observational method is the only one of these three methods which has been used in isolation. Providing the means are in place to respond in a timely manner, this is the easiest method to apply, requiring less preliminary design and analytical work, relying entirely upon adequate real-time instrumentation to which the grouting programs respond. The observational approach will always be a significant and integral part of any compensation grouting solution, but its prevalence to date has been due to a number of factors the lack of a real consensus on the extent and geometry of the relaxation trough generated for a given tunnel geometry or excavation sequence
149

a lack in the early days of this technology of understanding and experience of the relationship between the volume and distribution of grout injected, and the degree of response of the ground and structures the lack of extensive techniques and software for recording and managing the real-time monitoring of structures and soil displacements, either due to the then limited extent of software and equipment development, or the reluctance of to pay for real-time monitoring limited availability of real-time monitoring equipment, techniques, and software to assist the grouting engineer in preplanning the daily injection programs
The risk with a purely observational system, particularly if the borehole array is at considerable depth and supported only by surface monitoring, is that it allows the majority of the relaxation to migrate above the borehole array before any surface settlement becomes evident. This builds up a significant amount of settlement inertia and necessitates an increased work content in the injection program because the grouting is now required not only to re-compact soil but to lift the structure and the entire body of soil above the borehole array in order to effect any correction in the rate and amount of settlement. More critically, it builds unnecessary delay into the response time, resulting in greater settlement, and/or a greater amplitude to the cycle of settlement and recovery. The observational method will be adequate for certain sites, but where there are sensitive underground structures/utilities, or very demanding limits on differential and total settlement, it would be preferable to combine the observational and predictive methods. 4.3.2 Predictive Method
With this method compensation grouting is controlled by design assumptions on the percentage face loss, the rate of tunnelling, the induced settlement profile for each 1metre element of advance, the grout placement sequence, and the grouting induced displacement, including the grouting efficiency coefficient (GEC - ratio of volume of grout injected to the net volume replacement) From an assessment of the net effective face or ground loss deriving from underground excavation, a programme of injection is implemented whereby a smaller proportion of the replacement volume is injected ahead of the advancing tunnel face with the majority of grout injected into zone immediately behind the tunnel face exclusion zone. To be fully effective, this method requires very close coordination with the tunnel contractor, and an accurate estimate of the GEC. The planning and implementation of the grouting is complex and the predictive method requires considerably more pre-planning, design and analysis than a purely observational system. It should ideally incorporate additional subsurface monitoring such as extensometers and sub horizontal arrays of in-place inclinometers (IPI) to take full advantage of the possibilities. The predictive method has become more viable as a significant component of this method because of: increased experience of managing the compensation grouting process in the field,
150

rapid advances in the capability of monitoring instrumentation and analytical software increased empirical basis for assessing the GEC The method uses the excavation rate and geometry of each element of the tunnel advance, the predicted face loss for the given tunnelling method and soil type, and the GEC to calculate in advance the optimum volume and distribution of grout for each element (typically 1m) of the tunnel advance. Combined with subsurface instrumentation this enables a very early response to the onset of relaxation at depth, before this is manifested at the surface It generally requires smaller grout quantities, and induces smaller displacement of structures at the surface, reducing the cycles of settlement / jacking and associated cyclical shear strains in structures.
Depending upon the soil type, it also permits a proportion of the grout required to be injected ahead of the tunnel face and its associated exclusion zone, the balance of the grout being injected after the exclusion zone has passed. The predictive method should always be used in conjunction with the observational method because the % face loss, the GEC, and the anticipated building response to differential settlement are all predictions. For this reason the full volume of grout predicted is never injected in a continuous phase,to avoid the possibility of over-injecting and thereby unnecessarily stressing subsurface structures and utilities.
FIG. 9 Schematic flow chart of the predictive approach for compensation grouting Pressure Method
4.3.3
In this method the effective stresses within the soil are assessed by carrying out an extensive phase of grouting prior to the onset of tunnelling, when the soil is at an at-
151
rest natural state, in order to assess the pressure of injection required to initiate soil displacements at each injection port. This value, the signature pressure, becomes the limiting injection pressure. Thereafter, all subsequent injections are limited by this established limiting pressure, the objective being purely to re-compact soil to its initial condition prior to tunnelling. The pressure method has been used with considerable success, but on a very limited number of contracts because it requires extensive pre-injection and analysis of the pre-injection results to define the pressure characteristics of the ground around each individual injection port an injection control and data management system, preferably real-time, which allows the original pressure characteristics of the ground to be utilised as a target value to automatically terminate the injection
The objective with the pressure method is simply to locally restore the ground stresses to the conditions which existed prior to any excavation work or relaxation. It has been used principally on the Jubilee line extension project 101 below the Ritz Hotel in London, where the specified maximum differential settlement across the structure was set at an extremely onerous value of 1: 3000. It was successful because the rate of excavation was very slow, with the tunnel being advanced by backhoe excavator or hand-dig methods. It is unlikely that this method could ever cope effectively with rapid rates of excavation generated by a TBM.
Surface movement
Surface Movements Over Time
Time
FIG. 10 Comparison of the cyclical surface displacements associated with a purely observational process, with those of a pressure method approach 4.3.4 Summary
For all three methods there are a number of absolutely fundamental requirements in order to enable the system to respond in a timely and control manner to the effects of tunnelling: Thorough analysis of the anticipated settlement contours for each phase of tunnelling, to permit the design of appropriate monitoring and grouting programmes The basic arrays of injection pipes must be fully installed prior to the commencement of any activity which might induce movement or stresses in adjacent structures, since after the onset of settlement there is insufficient
152
time to install injection plant and the grout injection pipes in required locations. Prior to the onset of any tunnelling, a period of injection is required in all areas in order to pre- condition the ground. This is effected by injecting grout until there is the slightest visible (1mm 2mm) response of adjacent structures. This process primes the natural undisturbed ground prior to the start of tunnelling, so that any grout subsequently injected during or after tunnelling is purely addressing the problem of ground relaxation due to the tunnelling or excavation. In this way significant delays can be avoided at critical stages of construction by eliminating the time necessary to compact the natural soil sufficiently so that it can efficiently transfer the effects of grouting to adjacent structures or soil. Accurate, timely monitoring of any structures or soil likely to be affected by the construction works. Where either the buildings are sensitive, the construction sequence complex or critical, or where adjacent structures are expected to respond rapidly to the construction works, it is essential that the compensation grouting team have access to accurate, real-time, data concerning movement of structures and the ground around structures. Data collection for background signature movements of structures likely to be affected by the works must commence sufficiently in advance of the works to enable normal movements induced by normal cyclical daily temperature variations and usage, to be assessed and understood. It is essential that the practical implementation of the compensation grouting is done in an absolutely controlled manner. To achieve this, the site practical procedures and equipment must permit total control of the injection process. The requisite safety and management systems must be in place, including not only the measures and procedures necessary to record the process and effects of compensation grouting, but to analyse the data and to respond in a timely and controlled manner. Detailed condition surveys for affected structures to enable a prediction of the response to any induced settlements Active Compensation
4.4
The design of an active compensation grouting program requires detailed attention to many aspects of the operation, and must be combined with: a detailed knowledge of the tunnelling method and programme a detailed understanding of the specified performance criteria, including the management of trigger values ( eg. settlement, deflection, strain, damage ) full knowledge and awareness of the structural nature and condition of the buildings to be protected a thorough understanding of the geology and the key geotechnical parameters accurate 3-D modelling of the borehole array and the injection ports in relation to all existing structures, utilities, and infrastructure, as well as to the new-build tunnel elements
153

an understanding of any external operations which may affect the settlement of structures falling within the scope of the compensation grouting a detailed appreciation of the proposed monitoring equipment, including access to and interface with the monitoring data an understanding of the natural cyclical movement of the targeted structures, based upon the background baseline monitoring established by the client
In order to minimise the effects of tunnelling induced settlements, it is important to be able to respond to the onset of relaxation as early as possible to limit the migration of this relaxation through the strata to the surface. In order to achieve this it is vital to understand, and have an engineering basis for, calculating the volumes of grout, and the distribution of grout injections required for each individual element of the tunnel excavation. The ideal is to model the volume of excavation, the volume of face loss, and a corresponding volume and distribution of grout required for each 1 m advance of the tunnel. With this information, it becomes a routine exercise to prepare daily injection programs based upon the optimum distribution of grout around the element of excavation, while still respecting the face exclusion zones. The geometry of these grouting exclusion zones around the excavation face is frequently defined in great detail within the contract documents. Clearly whilst the exclusion zone is present at a given location, there can be no volume replacement immediately above the tunnel face within the settlement trough. Any relaxation which occurs during the presence of this contractually imposed exclusion zone cannot be made the responsibility of the geotechnical contractor, since no compensation grouting can take place. However, this does not mean the project or the geotechnical contractor is left completely without the means to provide protection to the overlying structures. By carefully targeting injections around the exclusion zone, it is frequently possible to maintain the structure within its specified settlement limits, until such time as the exclusion zone has passed and the contractor is able to regain access to the former exclusion zone to carry out any remaining injections which would have taken place had access been available at the time. In order to facilitate the contractor in covering this critical period, which can be extremely important where the excavations are at shallow depths and/or complex, or where the exclusion zone remains in place for an extended period (eg: where a complex element of the tunnel excavation such as a cruciform or turn out element is constructed), the contractor should consider providing a degree of passive support to assist in bridging the exclusion zone, thereby allowing the contractor time to effect a measured re-compaction of the soil in due course. The easiest way of providing such a passive support is to install manchette tubes in these critical areas which are heavy duty structural elements in their own right, allowing them to provide a passive reinforcement of the soil not dissimilar to pipe roofing. An array of this type, combined with a sufficient and thorough pre-consolidation phase, can assist greatly in allowing stresses to be distributed to the ground outside the limiting exclusion zone. In critical locations it may be possible, even necessary, to install multiple layers of boreholes which need not be necessarily parallel or follow the same alignments. Fig. 11 below indicates the arrangement of three arrays of structural steel manchettes provided for the passive and active protection of live railway track at
154
King's Cross station in London during the excavation of very shallow tunnels as part of the station redevelopment. The design was intended to mobilise not only the stiffness of the structural steel array with the possibility of compensation grouting once the exclusion zone had been removed, but also to provide support by the array acting in a similar manner to tension piles, bridging the area of maximum settlement to produce a protective vault below the live track.
FIG. 11 Section view and 3D model view of King Cross passive/active compensation grouting array.
Provided space is available it would be possible to combine pipe roofing at one level, possibly close to the foundations of the structure, with a compensation grouting array closer to the source of relaxation at depth. Given the space and access,
155
the designer may have many options in trying to provide coverage which will allow controlled compensation grouting. By liaising carefully with the tunnelling contractor at daily review meetings, the geotechnical contractor can understand the programme of excavation for the following 24 hours, and schedule a programme of injection specifically targeted at the relaxation generated within that period. It can be seen that this information could equally be used to provide an element of predictive grouting ahead of the tunnel face, for example by injecting 10 to 15% of the anticipated grout volume, leaving the balance to be injected after the exclusion zone has passed thereby carrying out the maximum amount of work at the earliest possible time. Fig.12 below indicates the detailed geometry of the face exclusion zone specified for a Crossrail tunnel advance. Managing injections around this advancing face is critical to ensuring the minimum response time of the operation. It should be noted however that great care is required when injecting outside an exclusion zone not to increase the slope of the settlement trough and the resulting differential displacement of the structure above.
FIG. 12 Grouting exclusion infront of SCL Exclusion zones are often imposed to avoid grouting in close proximity to the tunnel face a) to avoid risk to the stability of the face, and b) prevent excessive pressures on the new-build tunnel lining. This is an important issue, as the exclusion zone necessitates complex adjustments to the injection programme design, and generally prohibits injection at the precise location and time where it is most needed. There are numerous cases where compensation grouting was rendered impossible for several critical weeks due to the exclusion zone geometry. Often the design of the geometry of the exclusion zone is highly empirical, and much more research is required to assess the necessity for, and optimum geometry of, this zone.
156
FIG. 13 COGNAC design software output for an injection programme around a cruciform exclusion zone Borehole Geometry
4.5
A key constraint and challenge for any compensation grouting exercise is to find the optimum location in which to inject. The elevation at which arrays are installed may often be dictated by subsurface congestion of utilities and existing infrastructure, and the sensitivity of the tunnel linings under construction, the presence of basements, and access to the target areas for drilling. Many infrastructure and utility companies impose a permanent exclusion zone around their assets, in the range of 3 to 12 m depending on the sensitivity of the asset, within which no compensation grouting is allowed to take place. The subsurface limitations are often compounded by the lack of surface access to install enough shafts for manageable drilling, leading in some cases to a requirement for exceptionally long boreholes of up to 80 m to be drilled sub horizontally from small specially constructed shafts of diameter 4 to 5 m. It is often specified that the maximum distance between the injection boreholes at the edge of the array is no greater than 3 to 5 m. For very extensive arrays of boreholes, this leads to a very high congestion of injection pipes and boreholes in the 30 meters surrounding the shaft, and, particularly when steel injection pipes installed designers should give careful consideration to any future works which may require excavations through this forest of steel pipes.
157
The maximum vertical settlements and gradients induced by tunnel excavations are located above the excavation itself. The settlement trough increases in width towards the surface, and correspondingly the vertical displacements and gradients reduce. In general, therefore, where tunnels are deep, it is often considered more efficient to carry out compensation grouting at depth where the settlement trough is narrowest. Where tunnels are at relatively shallow depths, there is often very little choice of the horizon into which the injection pipes must be installed, and in these situations careful consideration should be given as to whether the strata at this horizon is suitable for compensation grouting. Where space is limited it is limited necessary to strike a balance between maintaining a safe distance from both the tunnel excavation and from any adjacent or overlying structures, infrastructure, and utilities. This dilemma is often managed by the imposition of exclusion zones around the tunnel face as it advances. Fig. 14 indicates various elevations within the trough where arrays might be installed.
Compensation Grouting - Premise
Where to grout for best effect and efficiency ? Depends upon structure condition ground conditions predicted settlements damage risk tunnelling method access constraints time constraints
FIG. 14 Selection of the appropriate zone for compensation grouting is heavily dependent upon 3D site geometry and access. Adjacent to tunnel excavations it is necessary to maintain an adequate exclusion zone around the tunnel excavation face, so that localised soil displacements due to grouting do not induce unacceptable stresses on the tunnel temporary or permanent lining. This approach is easy to implement where there is considerable distance between the tunnel excavation and the foundations of overriding or adjacent structures, much more complex when tunnels are at shallow depth. For surface structures with a raft foundation, the problems of any differential settlements or subsequent soil displacements induced by compensation grouting tend to be evened out over the plan area of the building. However, where a structure is constructed on heavily loaded strip or pad footings, there is a risk that if injection is carried out in close proximity to the foundations, much of the effectiveness of treatment will be negated by lateral displacement of soil into the zone between foundation footings where vertical stresses are lower. In order to avoid this
158
possibility, care must be taken in targeting the location of grout injection and in controlling the rate and volume of injected material. Consideration should also be given to some pre-injection to limit grout migration during active compensation. In Figure 15a below, the right-hand arch indicates an example of this problem which has occurred in practice, and the left-hand arch indicates how this could be managed by stiffening the soil below the arch to prevent the lateral displacement of soil. Figure 15b indicates an example on the Jubilee line project where the compensation grouting within the London clay was confined by the formation of a slab within the overlying gravels by permeation grouting, thereby confining the compensation grouting and distributing its effect to avoid grout punching towards the surface below the arch as shown in Fig. 15 below:
FIG. 15a & 15b Compensation of structures with areas of variable loading
Because of the complexity of many urban underground developments, it is becoming standard practice to design the installation of the borehole array using a full 3-D modelling capability which is capable of handling the geometry of all newbuild tunnels, existing utilities infrastructure, exclusion zones, and borehole arrays. Without such a model the compensation grouting could be rendered ineffective and the source of very considerable risk to both the tunnelling operations and structures which are to be protected. The borehole geometry must also take into account all possible sources of relaxation during the works, and there are a number of projects where the compensation grouting contractor was charged by the client with protecting the structures specified in his contract, even if those structures are subject to relaxation coming from adjacent worksites or external activities with which the contractor has no commercial and contractual contact. This may mean including boreholes to address, for example, an adjacent deep excavation which might give rise to the lateral relaxation due to the deflection of a diaphragm wall or pile wall. (Refer to Fig. 16 below)
159
FIG. 16 An example where borehole arrays designed to deal solely with tunnelling induced relaxation will have little effect in protecting the structure from the effects of lateral movement on the wall, without the installation of additional boreholes. It is not uncommon, due to the lack of access, for the installation of dedicated shafts for compensation grouting, to install arrays of boreholes from deep excavations which form part of the permanent works, or from existing structures which are used for temporary access to the duration of the project. In these circumstances it may be necessary on compilation of the compensation grouting works to provide the means for decoupling the steel injection pipes from the permanent structure in order to isolate it from the drag effect of any long-term settlement within the area of the borehole array. 4.6 System Of Injection
In the early days of compensation grouting there was much debate over whether a viscous slurry or mortar, injected as a compaction grouting exercise was preferable to the injection of a fluid slurry injected via manchette pipes. Each method has its advantageous and disadvantages. Compensation grouting is essentially a type of displacement grouting, of which there are many varieties. Figure 17 below indicates a general classification of grout mechanisms based upon the type of grout selected, and the method of placement. Compensation grouting would normally be confined to the processes included within the intrusion grouting area in Fig. 17 below.
160
The soil grouting process

Grout is a self hardening fluid or slurry injected into ground for consolidation or impermeabilisation
Permeation grouting
Displacement grouting
Slab jacking
Intrusion grouting
Grout jacking
Compaction Viscous paste or mortar High Injection pressure Fewer single injections
Fracture Fluid slurry Lower Injection pressure Repeated small injections
Claquage Soilfrac Hydrofracture
FIG. 17 Grouting classified according to grout viscosity and method of injection Stiff Mortars
4.6.1
The problem with the compaction grouting approach is that in essence it is a single phase operation. If the operations were a pre-heaving exercise, or a remedial grouting exercise after the building had settled, there would be no particular time constraint other than cost. However, for most compensation grouting projects this is not the situation in which we find ourselves, because we are dealing with a dynamic situation where buildings are in the process of settling as the ground relaxes. Timely controlled placement of grout is therefore of the essence.
The soil grouting process - compaction grouting
Mortar
Compaction grouted body can be columnar lenticular elliptical or spherical Depends upon ground structure & compressibility, grout properties injection sequence & volume Typically, combined drill and grout pipe progressively withdrawn
Zone of compaction
Zone of plastic deformation
FIG. 18 Compaction grouting principle - volumetric expansion of a body of mortar, physically displacing the soil mass
161
For compensation grouting we generally are dealing with multi-phased excavations, often carried out over an extended period up - to 2 or three years is not uncommon for a major civil engineering or tunnelling project - and we are trying to respond as rapidly and as early as possible from time at which the face loss or relaxation occurs. This places a severe restriction on the use of compaction grouting with a stiff mortar, because it is slow to implement, and it requires the continued presence of a drill on site in order to carry out subsequent phases of reinjection. Very often space is congested and there is only time and space to carry out either drilling or grouting at any one time. Further, access constraints often dictate that the drilling of the grout holes has to take place from within shafts of small diameter (4-5m) and this is generally incompatible with the injection of viscous mortars. A compaction grouting approach, because of the practical constraints, means that any volume replacement at a particular location takes place in one single operation, implying very significant local displacements of the soil by up to 300 to 400 mm from the point of injection. This inevitably creates huge stresses locally within the soil Another constraint with the use of viscous mortars again relates to access. Very often compensation grouting boreholes are required to have a length of up to 60 m, and it is generally impracticable to place viscous mortars in a borehole with any control over this sort of distance. A final major disadvantage can be the pressure required to place the mortar, which may be in excess of 30bars. In purely simplistic terms, the concept of injecting a stiff mortar to physically displace the soil in a very localised area sounds like an ideal mechanism for compensation grouting. However many compensation grouting operations take place in close proximity to subsurface utilities, the new build tunnels which may have sprayed concrete linings, and existing subsurface infrastructure. These three categories of structure are extremely sensitive to the application of localised stresses and for this reason compaction grouting techniques are simply not allowable due to limitations imposed by designers and owners on induced stresses. Despite all these reservations, there may still be situations where localised placement of a viscous mortar immediately below a key foundation element, particularly where this is ground-bearing, might be appropriate as part of a more comprehensive settlement mitigation program. 4.6.2 Fluid, Non-Shrink Slurries
Fluid, non-shrink slurries have many advantages for compensation grouting. They can be placed via a manchette system which means that once the borehole array has been drilled and injection pipes installed, the specialist drilling crew can be demobilised from site, leaving the restrictive worksite free for the injection crew. The principal advantage with the use of the manchette is however that it lends itself to repeated injections over an extended period as the successive phases of injection take place. It is not uncommon for a single structure to be affected by up to 10 or 15 phases of excavation during the construction of complex tunnelling works. There may be multiple tunnels, multiple phases of excavation and enlargement for a single tunnel, cruciform junctions, connections with existing structures etc. Once the boreholes have been drilled and the manchette is installed, the boreholes are typically
162
surveyed for alignment using an instrument such as the Maxibor. This allows a precise location with X, Y, Z coordinates can be defined for each injection port along the length of the borehole. This means the grout can be placed repeatedly at a precise location within the soil. This is a critical advantage where structures have a ground bearing foundation since it allows placement in a very surgical manner below a key foundation element, depending upon the degree of settlement being observed in recorded. A secondary but important advantage of using a manchette system is that it dictates the nature of the grout which may be employed. The grout of course is required to be fluid, non-shrink, self-hardening, but of relatively low strength. In fact excessive strength is a disadvantage. It is sufficient for the grout to be self-hardening within a reasonable period of time, and the grout is required to be solid but sufficiently weak to be fissile over the duration of the excavation works, so that the strength of the grout does not become an impediment to repeated injections at a precise location. A major advantage of the use of a fluid grout is that it can be placed at very significantly lower pressures than a viscous mortar. Typically injection pressures, after the initial breakout from the manchette, may be as low as 3-10 bars. Further, because the injection tends to be in the form of a narrow lens or filament of grout, the localised displacement generated by each injection may be only of the order of several millimetres. Given that most soils are compressible to a lesser or greater degree this means that volume replacement with a fluid grout is characterised by repeated successive injections of small quantities of grout at relatively low pressure, making it a very much more cautious and incremental approach to replacing volume and re-establishing stresses in the ground, not least by allowing greater time for pore pressures to dissipate in cohesive soils. This is a huge advantage when trying to control the impact of grouting-induced stresses on structures and utilities in close proximity. Fig. 18 below indicates the nature and extent of fissures generated by hydro fracture with a cement slurry in stiff over-consolidated London clay. Note that the fissures are generally somewhat horizontal, and this is to be expected since they ought naturally to propagate at right angles to the direction of principal stress.
163
FIG. 19 Exhumed injection pipe in stiff, overconsolidated clay, demonstrating thin (approx. 5mm), sub-horizontal grout intrusions 4.7
Grout Mix
The basic objective of compensation grouting is the replacement of volume loss associated with tunnelling or deep excavation, and/or the re-compaction of relaxed soils to re-establish the stresses within the soil which existed prior to excavation. Depending upon the soil type, the predicted extent and magnitude of settlement, and the rate of construction, the grout type selected may either be a fluid, stable, grout based upon a cementitious self - hardening suspension, a non-stable self hardening suspension, or a viscous mortar. A non-stable grout is one which under pressure loses constituent water from the grout mix due to pressure filtration, and therefore becomes more viscous. This type of grout can be the best solution in granular materials. The description stable when applied to grout implies the property of retaining fluidity and integrity when under pressure, and stable grouts are commonly used in cohesive materials where there is no exit route to allow the dissipation of any expelled water. Each grout type has its advantages and disadvantages depending upon the particular application. Mortar Grouts may be favoured by some designers and practitioners in more compressible soils, or where the rate of settlement or ground loss are expected to be high. Whereas fluid grouts tend to be injected at lower pressures and to have a wider area of influence from a given injection, mortars naturally tend to be injected at much greater pressures and have a much more localised effect. The disadvantage of mortars when used in close proximity to delicate structures is that locally they can generate high soil displacements and stresses. In clays, particularly stiff clays such as London Clay, there can be an added disadvantage that localised stresses build up due to the compressibility of the soil and the consequent tendency to jack up pore pressures. These elevated pore pressures may take time to dissipate, such that the final degree of stress and displacement is not seen at the time of cessation of grouting, and this can lead to uncontrolled increase in stresses coming onto a tunnel lining over some considerable period after cessation of injection. Clearly, this is difficult to control. The process of mortar injection is generally therefore best confined to situations where the geometry allows injection to take place at some distance from any sensitive structures likely to be influenced by the grouting, such that the localised high displacements and stresses are dissipated over a wide area with the passage of time. In summary, the process of mortar injection is therefore best confined to situations where a) the geometry allows injections to take place at some considerable distance from any sensitive structures likely to be influenced by the grouting, such that the localised high displacements and stresses are dissipated over a wide area with the passage of time, or b) there is a robust and/or heavy structure with high ground bearing pressure, where there may be benefit in a targeted mortar injection immediately below the footing. In these circumstances mortar injection may provide a valuable component of a more comprehensive settlement mitigation scheme
164
Fluid Grouts since the primary objective is to replace a volume loss, there is no requirement for a high-performance grout mix. In fact, the set grout need not be any stronger than the strata into which it is being injected. Most grouts selected for compensation grouting are therefore relatively weak, with a 28 day strength of the order of 3 to 5 N, and with a very low bleed capacity. The latter is essential in cohesive or unstable soils because in these conditions we do not want to introduce free water into the soil, and we do not want to lose the efficiency and advantage of the volume of grout already placed. Typically these grouts may consist of cementitious slurries of low water solids ratio, in the range 0.4 -1.0, although stable low bleed slurries with a water cement ratio of up to 2 have been reported. Primary decisions which need to be made at the outset are therefore injection mechanism - compaction grouting with a stiff mortar, or claquage (hydrofracture) with a more fluid slurry grout mix type - viscosity, mix constituents geometry of the installation system - the borehole array. This is generally dictated by the access available to the ground below the structure to be protected.
When using fluid grouts there may be circumstances where it is necessary to accelerate the setting times during periods of rapid settlement, to allow rapid incremental re-compaction of volume replacement. The geometry of the borehole array, and the distance of the injection port from the point of injection will dictate whether an accelerator additive is required. It is rarely practicable to add an accelerator anywhere else than at the point of injection via a separate grout line feeding the accelerator into the mix at the point of injection. 4.8 Injection Parameters
Injection parameters will vary greatly from location to location, depending upon the nature of the compensation grouting, the depth of injection, the proximity of sensitive structures, and any limits imposed by the tunnelling contractor and utilities/infrastructure operations. Since the settlement mitigation process cannot be effective unless grout is placed in a timely manner, tunnel designers must consider carefully the design of the primary lining, and the tunnel construction procedures in order to allow the grouting contractor to intervene as early as this is practicably possible. For SCL (sprayed concrete lining) tunnelling operations, contractors tend to design their linings for at the very least for full overburden pressure plus a factor of safety to protect the excavation face from the effects of compensation grouting. Clearly, a compromise has to be made between the extent of the exclusion zone, the efficiency of the grouting operation, and the cost of the tunnel lining. Whatever the injection parameters selected, it is of critical importance to ensure that these are adhered to, and that there is no risk of human error or oversight in allowing excessive pressures, flow rates, or volumes to be placed at any time during individual injection. The safest and most efficient way to manage this risk is to
165
employ computer piloted grouting equipment with the facility to automatically stop the pump when limiting injection pressures or volumes are reached. It goes without saying that the ideal is to place the grout at the minimum practicable volume in a controlled measured approach which allows observation of the response. A predictive approach, with early and timely intervention, will minimize the necessity of placing grout rapidly under duress in order to try and rapidly arrest a high rate of settlement. 4.9 Specified Performance Criteria
Many individual strands of research have come together to help designers establish the principles and guidelines upon which the current specification criteria for compensation grouting in particular, and settlement mitigation in general, are based. Much detailed analysis has been carried out by Burland, Standing, and Jardine and others on behalf of CIRIA (UK governmental agency - Construction Industry Research &Information Association) and research by the building research establishment (BRE) into the strain effects on structures of tunnelling induced sagging and hogging. There has been a gradual movement away from the establishment of settlement limits for individual structures, towards criteria such as the differential settlement and deflection ratio for individual structures. Depending upon the nature and condition of the structure the performance criteria may be specified for the project as a whole, or may vary to suit the requirements and sensitivity of individual structures. Clearly the geotechnical contractor is dependent upon the adequacy of the structural monitoring systems installed. Often the monitoring system is specified by the client and installed under a separate contract, and this has the benefit of being an independent check. It is therefore essential for the specialist contractor to understand what information he requires in order to manage his responsibilities under the contract, and to insist upon the level of monitoring, the frequency of monitoring, the mode of data presentation and the arrangements for access to the interpreted settlement data. Failure to insist on these points, which can be overlooked if they are not a part of the geotechnical package, could place the project, the client and specialist contractor at considerable risk.
166
FIG. 20 Extracts from Building Response to Tunnelling by Burland, Standing, and Jardine
On the basis of this CIRIA and BRE research, in the UK the approach to establishing a functional and realistic specification has been to: start from a base prediction of the green field settlement, based on the excavation geometry and a specified target value for the % face loss. carry out a detailed damage assessment analysis for individual structures, based upon the anticipated differential settlements and angular deflections suggested by the green field settlement analysis. Various damage classification levels been established by Burland et al., and these are typically
167
used by the client to identify individual structures which are a risk. These structures are then specified as requiring mandatory protection. Other structures at lower risk of damage are specified as requiring mandatory monitoring during the excavation of the project undertake a further level of sensitivity analysis upon the proposed method of construction of the building, with further levels of consideration including the historical importance of the structure, the impact on public safety of a failure, etc carry out, prior to commencement of the excavation works either as a requirement on the part of the Client or on the part of the contractor, a detailed structural condition survey for building is considered to be a risk, in order to identify any particular structural elements or defects requiring special consideration. Because of various practical and contractual constraints, these structural damage assessments are rarely carried out prior to the award of contract. based upon all of the foregoing analysis, define acceptable performance limits limits, including total and differential settlement, allowable deflection across consecutive monitoring points, allowable strain, and damage. define a series of trigger values for each of the control criteria, together with a schedule appropriate responses and/or hold points in the event of any breach of trigger value. define the nature and extent of mandatory structural and ground monitoring to ensure adequate control of the excavation and settlement mitigation works define the minimum levels of management and supervision, including levels of experience and competency for key individuals Currently in UK for the Crossrail project, the Client has specified very precisely just such performance criteria in respect of compensation grouting, in terms of settlement limits, differential settlement and angular deflection, with some discretion left to the contractor for specifying additional measures establishing the ground conditions, and augmenting the monitoring regime.
168
TABLE No. 1 Extracts from the BRE classification of Building Damage Classification upon which UK settlement mitigation strategy is based.
Building Damage Classification
1 Risk Category 0 1
2 Max Tensile Strain % 0.05 or less More than 0.05 and not exceeding 0.075 More than 0.075 and not exceeding 0.15 More than 0.15 and not exceeding 0.3
3 Description of Degree of Damage Negligible Very Slight
4 Description of Typical Damage and Likely Form of Repair for Typical Masonry Buildings Hairline Cracks Fine cracks easily treated during normal redecorations. Perhaps isolated slight fractures inside building. Cracks in exterior brickwork visible upon close inspection Cracks easily filled. Redecoration probably required. Several slight fractures inside building. Exterior cracks visible; some repointing may be required for water-tightness. Doors and windows may stick slightly. Cracks may require cutting out and patching. Recurrent cracks can be masked by suitable linings. Repointing and possibly replacement of a small amount of exterior brickwork may be required. Doors and windows sticking. Utility services may be interrupted. Weather tightness often impaired. Extensive repair involving removal and replacement of sections of walls, especially over doors and windows required. Windows and door frames distorted. Floor slopes noticeably, some loss of bearing in beams. Utility services disrupted. Major repair required involving partial or complete reconstruction. Beams lose bearing, walls lean badly and require shoring. Windows broken by distortion. Danger of instability.
5 Approx2 Crack Width (mm)
0.1 to 1
Slight
1 to 5
Moderate
5 to 15 or a number of cracks greater than 3
More than 0.3
Severe
15 to 25 but also depends on number of cracks
Very severe
Usually greater than 25 but depends on number of cracks
169
TABLE No. 2 Extracts from the BRE classification for Sensitivity Assessment of Listed Buildings
Scoring for Sensitivity Assessment of Listed Buildings
Score
Criteria Sensitivity of the structure to ground movements and interaction with adjacent buildings Sensitivity to movement of particular features within the building
Masonry buildings with lime mortar not surrounded by other buildings. Uniform facades with no particular large openings. Buildings of delicate structural form or buildings sandwiched between modern framed buildings which are much stiffer, perhaps with one or more significant openings. Buildings which, by their structural form, will tend to concentrate all their movements in one location.
No particular sensitive features. Brittle finishes, e.g. faience or tight joined stonework, which are susceptible to small movements and difficult to repair Finishes which if damaged will have a significant effect on the heritage of the building, e.g. cracks through frescoes.
It is a sign of the increasing confidence in this technology, based on extensive field experience, that specifications with very tight, precise, limits on displacement can be contemplated and specified. It is worthwhile therefore reproducing a few selected extracts from the Crossrail specification for the extensive works currently underway, which clearly demonstrate current UK thinking and practice :a) The compensation grouting works comprise the injection of cementitious grouts through Tubes Manchettes grout tubes (TAMs) installed from shafts, adits, box excavations or from the ground surface. The purpose of the compensation grouting treatment is to control settlement and associated angular distortions of the structures and utilities to prevent the development of unacceptable damage. The requirement for compensation grouting is driven by the need to protect buildings and services and, in particular, sensitive Listed buildings as a result of the reduced level of settlement and damage deemed acceptable for these structures.
b) All instrumentation on structures and in the ground, detailed in the Specification and Drawings, shall be installed and commissioned prior to the commencement of any works which will produce ground movements including the sinking of temporary shafts for the installation of the compensation grouting facilities. The specified instrumentation is a minimum requirement; the Contractor will propose any additional instrumentation that he requires to control the Works, for acceptance by the Project Manager. In particular, the Contractor shall review the Defect Surveys procured by the Project Manager and propose the installation of instrumentation on all significant defects.
170
KC21.1302 Principle of Implementation The principle for implementation of compensation grouting is that, whenever practicable, injections will be made concurrent with tunnel excavation to limit movements to a practicable minimum. Ground movements generated by shaft and box excavations are also to be mitigated by undertaking compensation grouting during the excavation phase either concurrent with excavation or as grout jacking episodes after each excavation phase. 3.2.5.1 The Works Information expressly requires the Contractor to provide a zone of compensation grouting in the vicinity of the two stations extending over part of the platform tunnels and associated station structures. The Contractor shall provide this compensation grouting to limit ground settlements as far as is practicable and in any event shall ensure the induced settlement complies with the following Compensation Grouting Performance Requirements. The settlement shall not produce: (i) a slope between any adjacent monitoring points in excess of 1/1000 and (ii) a deflection ratio (/L) determined from any three points along a building boundary wall (including party walls), or on surface points above a utility, in excess of 1/2000. These values are subject to modification where the grouting extent is complex and for buildings adjacent to either piled buildings or those where mitigation measures are shown as under development on the drawings.
3.2.3.5 Green, amber and red trigger values shall be set at volume losses equal to 80%, 100% and 125% of the specified volume loss limit respectively. A trigger will be deemed to be exceeded if more than 2 of the settlement points record settlement of 2mm or more greater than the calculated settlement trend for that specific trigger at any stage of construction. These trigger levels are for Construction Control and Design Verification; trigger levels for Asset Protection will be given in the Employers I&M Plans.
3.3.2.3 The Contractor shall continue to undertake settlement monitoring after the completion of excavation until it can be reliably demonstrated that the rate of settlement has reduced to less than 2mm/year by a minimum of four readings over a period of 12 months.
FIG. 21 Extracts from Crossrails Works Information and Specification for the Control of Ground Movements
It order to effectively manage the compensation grouting operations and compliance with this specification, it is necessary for the contractor to generate contour plots of the predicted settlement for each individual phase of tunnelling excavation - for example the pilot tunnel, and for each successive stage of tunnel enlargement. This is vital because for a given structure the differential settlement generated, whether hogging or sagging, may be worse for the partial settlement generated by a single phase of excavation than may be suggested by an analysis of
171
the settlements generated by the whole of the works. This can be particularly evident where a structure lies within the settlement trough of two or more tunnels which are excavated different times. It will be evident that the management of settlement mitigation is a complex and time-consuming activity which cannot be managed by one party in isolation. It requires the full participation and co-operation of all parties to the contract. It is also evident that it order to meet the performance criteria, for a dynamic process such as compensation grouting, it is impossible to consider the design and execution of the works without a total integration of the monitoring system. In addition to the performance criteria established for the compensation grouting, tunnelling specifications typically set a limit on the allowable percentage face loss for different elements of the works. On the face of it, this is clearly a sensible approach since it targets the primary activity giving rise to face loss or relaxation, and hence impacts directly upon the choice of tunnelling method and work procedures adopted by the contractor. The difficulty is that it is almost impossible, when compensation grouting is taking place above, to verify the actual face loss, and whether or not the tunnelling contractor has complied with the specified limit. This is because the percentage face loss, the degree of surface settlement generated by this face loss, and the efficiency factor for the grouting, are all assumptions, and it is very difficult if not impossible to separate out these three activities. It is this reason that the various parties involved in the works need to be bound together so that they work together as a single team with a common goal. Whatever the performance criteria specified, it is essential that the implication of these criteria, and the trigger values associated with them are clearly understood by and communicated to everyone associated with the works. In this regard it is always beneficial to try to summarise the performance criteria in a graphical, visual manner so that there is no confusion. The same benefit derives from ensuring that the monitoring data presentation is focused upon the performance criteria and not just on absolute values. A visual representation of the trigger values established on a recent UK project (Figure 22). Note that in order to allow more time to place grout in a controlled manner, the contractor imposed on his operations more onerous trigger values than had been set by the specification. The plan requires that as each trigger value is approached, a deeper level of scrutiny is required on the data, with more senior engineers and management notified and participating in the review of progress and procedures.
172
FIG. 22 An example of progressive remedial work in response to breach of specified trigger values for total settlement
4.10 Monitoring It is normal for the Client or Engineer to specify a basic level of monitoring, and establish the principles for the monitoring regime. However, it is frequently the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the scope, design, sensitivity, and management system of the monitoring proposals are adequate to allow the works to be properly controlled, and to specify and/or provide any additional monitoring which he thinks may be required in order to allow to him comply with the specification. If the monitoring is being provided by others, it is essential for the specialist subcontractor to have direct access to the monitoring database on a real-time basis for the automatic monitoring, and on a daily basis for precise levelling. The availability of accurate real-time information is of vital importance to compensation grouting in closed proximity to adjacent structures, and it is essential that a daily review meeting be convened between Engineer, Principal Contractor, monitoring sub-contractor, and specialist contractor to jointly evaluate the latest monitoring data prior to the specialist sub-contractor preparing a detailed programme of injection for the following shift. Part of this evaluation will require a detailed analysis of the progress of tunnel excavation, and the compensation grouting programme.
173
In addition to the surface instrumentation, designers and contractors should consider at a very early stage the installation of subsurface instrumentation in the form of extensometers or sub horizontal arrays of boreholes, containing chains of electrolevels or IPIs. The purpose of these additional arrays is to provide much greater sensitivity in the control of the grouting operation by identifying the onset of relaxation at depth, both to assist in tracking the development of the settlement trough across the project, and to observe any unwanted or excessive local displacements induced by the grouting. In UK practice the application of trigger values is a core feature of all settlement mitigation works. These trigger values, whether based for example upon differential settlement, angular deflection, or strain are essential in focusing the attention of all parties on the dynamic aspect of the settlement and settlement mitigation, and they form the basis for the review of data. The trigger values require some consultation and agreement between the various parties. It is pointless having trigger values which are just an alert that a threshold has been breached. The trigger value must be set at a level which gives sufficient advance warning for the compensation grouting contractor to have sufficient time to respond by increasing the scale and frequency of injections. On previous projects, the focus has been very much on the settlement limits rather than the angular deflection or differential settlement, because it is relatively simple to collect and disseminate this information to all parties. Monitoring techniques are constantly developing, becoming more powerful and sophisticated. For the Crossrail project it is expected that settlement data will be presented graphically in real time, and/or as a daily contour plot highlighting not just the basic settlement contours, but also in the form of a graphical contour plot of the gradients to identify as early as possible any developing hotspots. It is essential that monitoring data be interpreted by specialists familiar with the characteristics of the instruments installed, and that the results of monitoring be presented in a format which enables the key features to be rapidly understood by all parties. This is an essential prerequisite to achieving a common understanding and consensus as to the current situation, and the on-going program of settlement mitigation. Failure to manage the analysis and presentation of monitoring data in a timely manner can lead to either an inadequate or excessive level of response, and a total loss of control of settlement.
174
FIG. 23a, b and c Examples of interactive real-time screen display of structural movement EXECUTION
For most compensation grouting operations there are a number of discrete phases of work which need to be respected. The following chart is a very simplified indication of the cadence of activities on a typical site, for a single shaft. Of key importance to the planning of the works are the essential activities which need to be fully completed prior to commencement of any excavation which might generate relaxation. It should be noted that clients are increasingly looking for baseline monitoring data to be collected for periods of the order of 3 to 12 months prior to any construction activity, so that seasonal variations in the natural climate-induced
175
movements of structures can be recorded and fully understood prior to commencement of the project.
Timescale - Project Level - Early planning and preparation
Typical basic construction sequence and timing
Monitoring TaM Installation Pre consolidation Predictive injection Tunnelling / Excavation Active compensation Soil recompaction / stabilisation Site presence 3-4 weeks 1-2 weeks < 1 weeks n weeks n weeks 1-3 weeks
FIG. 24 Typical sequence of compensation grouting activity 5.1 Drilling
Although very much a secondary operation there are several issues to consider when planning and executing the drilling operation. Access to the target area for compensation grouting is often at distances of up to 60m to 80m. The Clients scheme for Crossrail envisages horizontal drilling with a high degree of accuracy, 1/80 over distances of up to 80m. This onerous criteria is intended to ensure an adequate density of injection ports at the distal end of the borehole array. Directional drilling is expensive and difficult to execute from shafts where the diameter is often a small as 4 to 4.5m. The drilling design and methodology therefore has to be very carefully considered in order to allow the accuracy of grout placement required beneath individual foundation elements. These drilling distances frequently mean the use of high flow and pressure in the flushing medium. There have been several occasions where these pressures have led to unwanted heave in the very structures which the contractor was trying to protect. For accuracy, and to enable drilling to be executed with the minimum flush pressure and volume, every effort should be made to facilitate the task of drilling wherever possible by installing and carefully locating sufficient shafts so that the drilling distances can be kept to a moderate length - ideally not more than 40 to 50m maximum.
176
Where there is a risk of encountering granular material along the length of the borehole, any method employing augers should be avoided at all costs as this may lead to the over excavation during drilling, thereby removing ground support in the short-term, and potentially leading to an excessive thickness of sleeve grout around the manchette which could impede future operations. In weak soils, or even in stiff cohesively soils where drilling in close proximity to foundation bearing elements, it may be necessary to consider the use of a polymer as the flushing medium to avoid softening or erosion of the soil with water. In close proximity to utilities, air flush should be avoided. There is always the risk that an intensive drilling operation may in itself generate settlement in the short-term, and it is therefore necessary to have on hand the means to carry out localized compensation to address this issue. The risk can be greatly alleviated by phasing the works such that drilling is not concentrated within any given area, but sequenced so that the sleeve grout around an individual borehole is fully rigid before another borehole is installed within a radius of 4 to 5 m. Finally, it is often not so critical if a borehole deviates from its planned alignment, provided this is not excessive. However to execute targeted grouting below individual foundation elements it is essential to understand exactly where the injection ports are located, and for this reason boreholes over a length of 30 to 35 m should in every case the surveyed, their as-built alignment plotted accurately on a foundation plan of the structure, and the location of each injection port indicated in relation to the building footings. 5.2 Grout Plant Selection And Installation
In the area of any given tunnel excavation face, provided the tunnelling operations are executed to minimise face loss, the volume of grout required to be injected within a 24-hour period is usually small, of the order of a few m3. However, with the boreholes radiating out to length of up to 60 to 80 m from a single shaft, the area covered can be enormous, involving very many structures and utilities. On a complex project it is therefore possible that several excavation faces may generate a requirement for compensation grouting simultaneously from within the same shaft. Since compensation grouting is a dynamic exercise, carried out when excavations are progressing and structures are subject to continuous displacement, it is therefore vital to ensure that the grouting facilities at each shaft location are adequate to meet the mixing and injection capacities required for all the tunnel faces, and sufficient to provide backup capacity in the event of a breakdown. It should be remembered also that settlement may continue in an area long after a given tunnel face has passed, so that the number of areas requiring compensation may exceed the number of working faces in the tunnel. Cleaning manchette pipes at lengths of up to 60 to 80 m is a very onerous and backbreaking task. Upto 60% of a 24-hour cycle can be required to be spent just in cleaning the manchettes, and contractors are strongly advised to have on hand a highpressure jetting pump with a rotating head in order to thoroughly scour the manchette after each phase of grouting. Failure to do this may lead to blockage or nonaccessibility of a critical group of manchettes when a given foundation starts to settle.
177
It should be remembered also that the manchette pipes themselves are subject to distortion of alignment as a result of the tunnelling induced settlements, and even the compensation grouting itself. Where the injection work is likely to be intensive, or of long duration, designers should specify the use of steel manchette pipes as this will give increased durability and facilitate the cleaning operations. In areas where high ground bearing pressures are foreseen, where active compensation grouting may be prevented for considerable periods due to the presence of an exclusion zone, designers should consider the use of steel manchettes which have the ability to serve both for injection, and at the same time act as a rigid passive strengthening element, similar to pipe roofing. Finally, where there are intermittent phases of compensation grouting over a long duration it is important to ensure the functionality of the system at all times by regularly re-visiting the manchettes and cracking the sleeve grout with water or bentonite, so that there is no delay in the event of any requirement for rapid intervention. 5.3 Pre-Conditioning Phase
The pre-conditioning phase is carried out prior to tunnelling, or any other construction process which might give rise to settlement. The grouting is intended to induce a slight uplift or response in adjacent structures likely to be affected by the tunnel works. A low radius of action for the grout is not required, since the aim is simply to check the system and the ground reaction, and prime the ground ready for subsequent active compensation grouting. This operation reduces the response time during active compensation by ensuring that time is not wasted at critical periods in improving the competence and bearing capacity of the virgin soil to enable it to transfer the uplift effects of grouting to the foundations. The initial surface response required by current specifications is generally limited to a range of from 1 - 3 mm. Although it may give comfort to see physical displacement during preconditioning as evidence that the ground is fully primed, there are occasions when this may be impracticable or inadvisable. Where there are heavily loaded footings or facades weighing many thousands of tons, it may be extremely time-consuming and costly to generate significant heave. It may also pose considerable risk to shallow utilities and infrastructure. Under these circumstances it may be necessary to use the grout injection records as a measure of when the ground has been sufficiently primed. 5.4 Active Compensation Grouting
This phase of injection is carried out in parallel with the tunnelling operation and is aimed at protecting the structure in real-time from settlements induced by the tunnel excavation. The extent and timing of injection during this phase relies upon information received from the real-time and other monitoring data provided by the Clients instrumentation sub-contractor. Where the system is purely observational, active compensation grouting may be characterised by a relatively continuous programme for a short duration, in the form of regular daily injections. It is extremely rare that injections need to take place for more than a few hours in each 24-hour cycle. In fact, it is often considered
178
advantageous to carry out active compensation on a single shift basis, generally dayshift, when there are more supervisory staff present on duty. This then allows the background settlement trend to be monitored during the second shift, the data collated and interpreted, ready for the all-party daily review meeting at commencement of the dayshift. Notwithstanding this regime, most specifications require the contractor to provide for a full grouting crew to be present at all times whilst tunnel excavation is progressing, even if on standby, and for a crew on emergency callout at any time during the project in the event of settlement developing. The daily review meeting is vital to ensuring adequate cooperation between all parties on site, and is principally where the results of the previous days grouting are reviewed against the response of the structure, and the advance of the tunnelling excavation. Based upon the overnight monitoring information an informed decision can be made of whether or not it is safe and/or necessary to grout during the current shift without risk to the tunnelling operations, underground structures, or utilities. Where there is a predictive element to the compensation grouting, grouting programs may be executed more regularly, in anticipation to the actual rate of tunnel advance and the volume of face loss, rather than in response to any observed movement surface or on affected structures. A key feature is the managing of any static or transient exclusion zones which may have been specified in the contract. Such exclusion zones may be a defined physical area around the advancing tunnel face, or there may be built into the contract an override whereby the actual strength of the tunnel lining, in the case of sprayed concrete, is measured daily and taken into consideration. Much will depend upon how the primary and secondary linings of the tunnel are designed. In order to protect sprayed concrete linings from any accidental oversight in grouting program or error of measurement of the SCL strength, linings are designed to take full overburden pressures, applied with a factor of safety, such that surface recovery or heave would be generated before there is a risk of the collapse of the SCL lining. 5.5 Post Excavation Re-Compaction
This phase is carried out after completion of the tunnel excavation and the construction of the permanent lining. The general aim is to re-compact the ground in areas of residual relaxation, to prevent further settlements in the long-term. This long term relaxation is generally a function of both the slow dissipation of the elevated pore pressures generated by the grouting activity, and by the geometry of the borehole array, which may be at some distance from the source of relaxation. For the current Crossrail works in London the Client has specified that the specialist contractor must remain on site with full capability for a minimum of three months after cessation of tunnelling work, unless the contractor is able to demonstrate to the client that the long-term relaxation has levelled off to an acceptable level. Only at this point may the contractor de-commission and backfill the manchette pipes and demobilize.
179
5.6
Process Control And Management
Every contractor will have their own procedures, equipment, and analytical methods for managing their injection programs. Over the last 30 years, therefore, and in particular over the last 15 years with the advent of powerful desktop computers, contractors and equipment manufacturers have been developing operational control measures for grouting operations from the point of view of practicing geotechnical engineers. With their understanding of the principles of both geotechnical design and practical grouting technology, contractors have sought to develop processes and equipment which allow their grouting engineers and designers total control over the injection processes. The key element of this development has been the development of an unrivalled capacity for the handling and analysis of processing and geotechnical data, and the presentation of such data in a manner which can be readily understood and utilised by site operatives and engineers. The core elements of such systems are : A series of technical developments in the design and construction of grouting pumps and equipment, enabling the automation of the pump performance throughout the injection process, to both control and record the injection process in real-time. Software for the design and control of grout injections, for the recording and interpretation of data, and for the presentation of interpretive reports and production reports. Closer integration of construction data and monitoring data to track the specific effects of each element of the excavation and settlement mitigation works. Transparent control and management procedures with open exchange of data between all parties. It is becoming increasingly common for consulting engineers and clients to insist upon terminals in their own offices, often remote from site, to allow them free access to observe the progress of the works and the status of affected structures.
Since all company systems vary, in order to provide some understanding of how far these developments have taken the industry, included below is a brief summary of the various software packages employed within my own Group. Within my own Group, the combination of the two areas of development outlined above have resulted in a series of technical modules which are used in various combinations depending upon the requirements of individual work sites. For compensation grouting, a number of these modules provide essential tools for controlling the process :-
180
TABLE No. 3 An example of computer assisted design and control software employed in managing compensation grouting works
Module Enpasol Castaur Sphinx
Activity Drilling Drilling & Grouting Drilling & Grouting
Function Monitor drilling parameters in real-time and produce a detailed soil geotechnical profile 3-D modelling of the drilling arrays with respect to the anticipated zone grouting Design and programming of grouting parameters, preparation of electronic grouting instructions from the computer piloting of the grout pumps, injection data records and database analysis Automated piloting of the grout pumps in accordance with the injection parameters generated in Sphinx Detailed design of compensation grouting injection programmes based upon the tunnelling parameters and rate of advance, the predicted GEC, and the location of the injection ports in relation to the settlement trough, source of relaxation, and foundation geometry Graphical display of grout injection data for rapid interpretation Graphical interface indicating in real-time borehole array, the current point of injection, and the real-time monitoring data Web based monitoring station where all project monitoring data can be accessed and reviewed at any time, management of figure values for individual structures, and interface with the injection software to automatically halt any injection in response to predetermined criteria.
Spice Cognac
Grouting Grouting
Scan 3D Visu Spice
Grouting Grouting
Geoscope Web
Monitoring
Whilst the process control procedures may vary from company to company, the core elements are common to most companies working in this field as they are essential elements to safely managing settlement mitigation works. 5.7 Reporting
Even for a simple project involving a single structure, but especially for a major project involving different contractors working on different Lots, it is essential to establish a common, and commonly understood system of reporting for all parties.
181
Particularly for the client, it would be extremely difficult and extremely risky undertaking to try to manage a project if different contractors had their own proprietary monitoring and reporting system, because under these circumstances it could lead to significant data being overlooked because a particular settlement trend or feature was presented with different emphasis from one part of the project to another. Information should be freely available to all parties associated with the works if full and open co-operation is to be guaranteed. In particular the output from the daily all-party review meeting should be immediately available not only for individuals attending the meeting, but for the engineers and operatives in the field carrying out works. A system of daily briefings, with an adequate handover package to the following shift must be established from the outset. If the reporting system is not in place and fully formed at the start of the project it could lead to considerable difficulties if any significant changes to the system have to be made on stream during the works, and it is very easy to lose continuity in terms of a feel for the project and the developing conditions for each structure.
FIG. 25 Example of a daily synopsis report prepared for the all-party daily review meeting
182
All reporting needs to be concise, clear, and unambiguous. With a dynamic process engineers and operatives in the field do not have the time to waste in trying to independently interpret lengthy or tabulated daily reports. The daily executive summary report, produced after the review meeting need not be more than one two pages for each activity , and should wherever possible contain visual/graphic presentation of just the essential data.
FIG. 26 Graphical plot of injection volumes and pressures for each injection port, which were targeted below ground bearing footings
At daily progress meetings it is common for the all of the contracting teams tunnelling and civil engineering monitoring, and geotechnical / settlement mitigation, to report their activities and obtain clearance to proceed. There is often a huge amount of base data particularly for the monitoring, to be collected, synthesised, analysed, and summarised prior to the review meeting. The collection and presentation of this data is a key role on all compensation grouting works, demanding a high level of skill and experience, and the level of time and resource required for this task should not be underestimated, particularly when tunnelling operations are running 24/7 or 24/5, and settlement mitigation works are responding in real time to a dynamic and developing source of relaxation at depth.
183
FIG. 27 Daily reports visually displaying latest real time data as typically recorded at start of shift. Both are screen plots of active screens which can be interrogated to display time -settlement data for trend and anomaly analysis.
184
FIG. 28 Synopsis plot of preconditioning phase injections , which identified at the southern end of this site an extensive area of weaker material within the London Clay. Each box represents an injection port. The size of the box is proportional to the grout take and the colour indicates the final average injection pressure. SELECTED CASE HISTORIES
Compensation grouting works are currently under consideration or in progress in a number of countries, but there is a lack of detail case histories as a guide to those entering is field for the first time. The recent paper by Mair, Viggiani, and Menkiti refers to a number of historical projects including the Channel Tunnel rail link CTRL 220, Jubilee Line Contract 102 at Big Ben, the Treasury Building, Cab Road and Kings Cross in London, and Naples and Bologna. From this and other papers referenced herein it is possible to appreciate the very wide range of applications for this technology, whether for rapid TBM excavation or much slower hand dug and backhoe excavations, and the very wide range of ground conditions in which they can be employed, from stiff cohesive soils, through alluvial sands and gravels to brecciated limestone.
185
6.1
Bologna Tunnels
Temporary pit Existing Naples-Milan onry rail link on maso viaduct 59.4 1.5m yers of Two lay curved TAMs T Treatment zone t
60.1 57.7
4.4m
3.0m
42.0
10m Scale Tunnel 1 Tunnel 2
FIG. 29 Bologna Tunne ( after Mair, Viggiani, Menkiti ) - Direct els tional drilling executed from an open cut trench at surface to target an otherwise inaccessible compensation grouting zone up to 60m distant. Note the close pro g oximity to the tunnelling works.
FIG. 30 Grouting with relatively fluid cement bentonite slurry (w ratio 0.78 ) w/c in granular deposits to maintain the structure with a differential settlement of 1:1000. The trig gger value to initiate injection was set at 1:3000.
186
6.2
Cab Road, Waterlo Road, London oo
FIG. 31 Complex geometry of new-build tunnels below existing pi iers and piles. Structural settlemen were corrected by a combination of und nts derpinning, ground consolidation by grouting, flat jacks incorporated into piers, and n compensatio grouting in a highly complex constructio on on Toulon
6.3
187
FIG. 32a & b Multiple borehole arrays drilled through highly variable strata below a ground-bearing residential structure. The injections to control differential settlement were controlled by electro-levels installed in the basement, within the specified limits of 1/833 for heave and 1/2000 for settlement. 6.4 Great Northern Hotel, London
FIG. 33 Plot of recovery of extensive settlement, induced by open-cut excavation, and recovery under compensation grouting operations (periods highlighted in red), with partial lossof recovery due to pore pressure dissipation
188
FIG. 34 Example of compensation grouting array employed pre-tunnelling to selectively rotate a structure which had been subject to displacement arising from an adjacent open cut excavation on a different contract - indicating the degree of precision which is achievable by a programme of targeted, well controlled injection. Red figures are pre-injection, blue figures are post. Madrid Metro
6.5
Use of rigid elements designed to absorb stress and to isolate structures from displacements. Plaxis was used to design a rigid element as an alternative or supplement to active compensation grouting.
Use of FE analysis to predict the effect of rigid jet grout elements and to refine the design-control feed-back loop.
Madrid
0.000
-3.000
-6.000
-9.000
-12.000
-15.000
-18.000
Deformed Mesh Extreme total displacement 1,41 m (displacements scaled up 2,00 times)
FIG. 35 Stress isolation/ capture by rigid element modelled in Plaxis
189
6.6
Antwerp ( After Dekker &Otterbein)
FIG. 36 Antwerp Station - Innovative hybrid solution with jacked tubes providing reaction for compensation grouting arrays at shallow depth below historic station, and a vault for the new tunnel excavation below. Heavy loadings and complex geometry reduced the efficiency factor, expressed in this case as volume of induced heave to volume of grout, to 11% 6.7 Crossrail Bond Street Station
For the current works at Bond Street Station in London, extensive preliminary design is being undertaken to examine the feasibility of installing borehole arrays through a highly complex network of major utilities and existing infrastructure to compensate below pad foundations, some of which merge with the utilities, demonstrating the absolute necessity of 3-D modelling and detailed foundation surveys. Borehole modelling is required to accommodate the allowable envelope of borehole deviation. The complexity of the juxtaposition and interaction of underground and surface structures to be protected, each with their own individual specification for settlement limits and allowable damage, will entail a complex design incorporating compensation grouting at various elevations, installed from dedicated drilling shafts and galleries, passive support from heavy duty compensation grouting boreholes, pipe roofing, and ground treatment. It is likely that directional drilling will be required for many holes where sub-surface geometry requires high precision drilling over distances of up to 70m.
190
FIG. 37 Bond St Station - Avon House Crossrail Project C510 Liverpool Street Station
6.8
This example demonstrates the increasingly demanding requirements currently being made of compensation grouting, to mitigate settlements from tunnels to be excavated through and between bearing piles, and below major structures, utilities, and infrastructure.
191
FIGS. 38a & b, Crossrail - Liverpool St Station Figure 38b above is a case where settlement limitation measures will require highly detailed design and analysis. The specified zone of sub-horizontal drilling for the injection pipe installation (highlighted in red) is required to serve for protection of a highly sensitive and relatively light Victorian era brick tunnel (part of the London Underground network) which is surrounded by utilities, and the very heavy stone facade of a prestigious office structure, the ground bearing facade of which is retained by stainless steel dowels from the more recently stripped-out and piled interior. The new station tunnels passing below the LUL and Post Office tunnels will be constructed first, followed by a new passenger walkway tunnel way located only 9m below the foundations of the facade and LUL tunnel. The solution will require a high attention to face loss control during tunnelling, with the Client seeking to limit face loss to 1% . Further protection will probably require both passive stiffening by pipe roofing, active compensation grouting, and structural support to the light well. 6.9 London Jubilee Line - protection to Big Ben clock tower
A highly classic case history of the protection of an iconic national structure, - by a combination of observational and predictive compensation grouting and real time monitoring, requiring extreme care in the design, planning, and construction of the diaphragm wall box and its internal support measures for a very large station box excavation. The Big Ben tower already had a slight tilt, generating critical soil stresses critical under the eastern edge of the timber foundations. The protection measures included low level tunnelled struts constructed prior to full excavation of
192
the box, and equipped wit jacks to allow for lateral expansion, large d th diameter jacked pipe arch, and extensive a active compensation grouting.
FIG. 39 a & 39b W Westminster Station, Jubilee Line Extension London n,
193
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT In the future we may confidently expect continued detailed research into the fundamental soil mechanics principles governing the generation of settlement by construction activity the development of advanced tunnelling techniques which minimise the potential face loss the development improved monitoring equipment and techniques, particularly for subsurface monitoring, including the use of optic fibre strain measurement and improved means of graphical presentation the development of injection equipment, design and control systems, and processes to improve the targeted placement of grout the development of more sophisticated contractual arrangements and performance specifications which reflect the shared responsibility and risk in delivering complex works with the minimum risk to public safety improvements in evaluating and managing project technical and commercial risk continuing increases in the market for tunnelling work in congested urban environments, requiring adventurous and demanding construction techniques
FIG. 40 Modern grout injection station with computer controlled pumps and a project monitoring database terminal for trigger alarm notification and automatic pump arrest We must however be wary of trying to push the technology too far, or too fast. We must always consider alternative processes wherever possible which might deliver either increases in safety, or deliver the same level of safety and protection more cost effectively. The industry must not be tempted to consider compensation grouting as the primary means of protection of structures. The primary means of protecting
194
structures must always be the selection of tunnelling method, and the quality of the personnel, equipment, and work procedures employed. Compensation grouting should be considered is a valuable and important secondary protective measure, to be employed where physical constraints on the tunnelling and the civil engineering works may require an additional level of safeguard to ensure the safety of the works and the public We must also not consider this technology as the easy option to be wish dreamed in-place, solving all potential problems by transferring the construction and safety risks to the specialist geotechnical contractor alone. On a given project the safest, most appropriate, but not necessarily least expensive, solution may lie within realms of the structural or tunnelling design and construction. 8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Through continuous development of design, construction techniques, monitoring systems, and grouting technology industry has responded to the challenges of urban development by evolving a new field of application in the field of grouting which is already advanced to a high level of sophistication, and which is gaining increasing acceptance world-wide. In order for this methodology to reach its full potential it is essential that clients, engineering organisations, and contractors are generous in sharing their experience in delivering compensation grouting projects, competently, professionally and with the highest regard to the safety of the public and their employees. 9 REFERENCES
Allard, A.J., sand Goldney R.,P(1998) Jubilee Line Extension: Waterloo Station ticket hall construction, Proceedings of the ICE Structures and Buildings, Volume 128, Issue3, pages 274-281 Attewell, P.B., Yeates, J. & Selby, A.R. (1986). Soil movements induced by tunnelling and their effects on pipelines and structures. Blackie and Son Ltd, UK. Baker, W.H., McPherson, H.H., Cording, E.J. (1980). Compaction routing to limit ground movements: instrumented case history evaluation of the Bolton Hill Subway Tunnels, Baltimore, MD. Technical Report, U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Bernatzik, W. Anheben des Kraftwerkes Hessigheim am Neckar mit Hilfe van Zementunterpressungen, Der Bauingenieur, Heft 4, 1951. Boeck, T.H. and Scheller, P. 4. RohreElbtunnel Sicherung der Bebauung am Nordhang der Elbe. Baugrundtagung in Hannover, 2000, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Geotechnike.V. Boone, S.J., Artigiani, E., Shirlaw, J.N., Ginanneschi, R., Leinala, T. & Kochmanova, N. (2005). Use of ground conditioning agents for earth pressure balance machine tunnelling. Proc. AFTES International Congress, Cambery.
195
Borghi, F.X. (2006). Lubrication and Soil conditioning in pipe jacking and tunnelling.PhD Thesis, Cambridge University. Borghi, F.X. &Mair, R.J. (2006) Soil Conditioning for EPB tunnelling machines in London ground conditions. Tunnels and Tunnelling International. September 2006, 18-20. Burland, J., B., Simpson, B. and St John, H., D. (1979) Movements around excavations in London Clay. Invited National Paper. Proc 7th European Conf. on SMFE, Brighton, I, pp 13-29. Burland, J.B. (1995). Assessment of risk damage to buildings due to tunnelling and excavation. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Earthquake Geot. Eng., IS-Tokyo 95 Burland, J.B. (2001). Results of the research. Ch. 21 of Building Response to tunnelling 0 case studies from construction of the Jubilee Line Extension, London. Volume 1: Projects and methods. Burland, J.B., Standing, J.R., and F.M. Jardine eds. (CIRIA Special Publication 200, CIRIA and Thomas Telford), pp 315-344. Carayol, S. (1998).Linjection de compensation assistee par ordinateur.Travaux No. 748, pp. 49-53. Carayol, S (1997) Settlement Monitoring and Compensation Grouting (1997), Tunnels et Ouvrages Souterrains No. 140, March/Apr 1997. Chambosse, G. and Otterbein, R. Central Station Antwerp Compensation Grouting under high loaded foundations. Chen, X.L., Liu, Y.H., Cao, W.H., HE, Z.F. (1998). Protection of the former observatory during construction of the Yan An Dong Lu Tunnel. Tunnels and Metropolises. Negro Jr. & Ferreira (eds), 1083-1088. Dimmock, P. and Mair, R.J. (2006b) Estimating volume loss for open face tunnels in London Clay. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 160(1) pp 13-22 1 European Research Project COSMUS (1996-2000), led by Soletanche Bachy,; Tractebel, Gltzl, Cea-Leti, Cambridge University, EPFL Gabener, Raabe and Wilms.Einstatz van Soilfracturing zur Setzungsminderungbeim Tunnelvortrieb, Taschenbuch fur den Tunnelbau, 1989, Deutsche Gesellsschaft fur Erd- und Grundbau, Verlag Gluckauk GmbH, Essen Gay M., Rippentrop, G., Hansmire, W., Romero, V. (1999). Tunnelling on the Tren Urano Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico ; 1999 Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference Proceedings. Gens, A., Di Mariano, A., Gesto, J.M. & Schwartz, H (2006). Ground movement control in the construction of a new metro line in Barcelona. In Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground ) eds Bakker, K.J., Bezuijen, A., Broere, W. and Kwast, E.A.) pp 389-395. Leiden: Taylor & Francis/Balkema. Hamelin, J.P., Lavene, L., La Fonta, J.G. (2000), Compensation Grouting Under Real-Time Monitoring, Rio Piedras Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Proceedings og the 25th Annual Members Conference and Eighth International Conference and Exposition,2000, New York NY DFI 2000 International Conference. Harris, D.I., Mair, R.J., Love, J.P., Taylor, R.N. and Henderson, T.O. (1994) Observations of ground and structure movements for compensation grouting
196
during tunnel construction at Waterloo Station. Geotechnique Vol 44 No.4, 691713 Harris, D.I., Menkiti, C.O., Pooley, A.J. & Stephenson, J.A. (1996).Construction of low-level tunnels below Waterloo Station with compensation grouting for the Jubilee Line Extension. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Mair& Taylor (eds) 1996 Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 5410 856 8 Harris, D.I., Mair, R.J., Burland, J.B. and Standing, J. (1999) Compensation grouting to control tilt of Big Ben Clock Tower. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Kusakabe, Fujita & Miyazaki (eds), 2000 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5809 1 066 Harris, D. (2001). Protective measures, Chapter 11 in: Building response to tunnelling case studies from construction of the Jubilee Line Extension, London, Vol.1 Projects and Methods. Thomas Telford, London, 135-176 Harris, D. (2001). The Big Ben Clock Tower and the Palace of Westminster, Chapter 28 in: Building response to tunnelling. Case studies from construction of the Jubilee Line Extension, London, Vol.2 Case Studies. Thomas Telford, London, 453-508. Kettle, C., Totty, R., McLachlan, R. (2008) Kings Cross Station Re-Development: Passive and Active Mitigation of Tunnelling Induced Settlement, Proceedings of 33rd Annual and 11th International Conference on Deep Foundations, 2008, New York, NY, USA. Kimmance, J.P., Linney, L.F. & Stapleton, M.J. (1995). Potential of grouting method to prevent and compensate for tunnelling induced settlement of London Clay. Engineering Geology of Construction, Geological Society. Special publication No. 10, pp 289-297. Komiya, K., Soga, K., Akagi, H., Jafari, M.R. & Bolton, M.D. (2001). Soil consolidation associated with grouting during shield tunnelling in soft clayey ground. Geotechnique 51, No.10, 835-846. Kovacevic, N Edmonds, H.E., Mair, R.J., Higgins, K.G. & Potts, D.M. (1996).Numerical modeling of the NATM and compensation grouting trials at Redcross Way. Proc. Int. Symp. On Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground. London (eds. R.J. Mair and R.N.Taylor), Balkema, pp 553-559. Kudella and Gudehus, Bodenverdrangungdurch Einpressen von Fluiden, Vortrage der Baugrundtagung in Dresden, 1992, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Erd- und Grundbau Kummerer, C., Thurner, R., Rigazio, A. and Zamagni, A. (2007). Compensation grouting for limiting settlements of two railway bridges induced by a twintunnel excavation. Proceedings of European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Madrid, September 2007. La Fonta, J.G &Carayol, S (1997) Settlement Monitoring and Compensation Grouting (1997), Tunnels et Ouvrages Souterrains No. 140, March/Apr 1997. La Fonta, J.G. & Person, T.H. (1999) Puerto Rica, real-time compensation grouting with the Cyclops System, Geotechnical News Volume 17 No.2, June 1999.
197
Lee, K.M. & Rowe, R.K. (1991). An analysis of three dimensional ground movements: Thunder Bay tunnel. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol 28, pp2541 Leinala, T., Grabinsky, M., Delmar, R. & Collins, J.R. (2000). Effects of foam soil conditioning on EPBM performance. Proc. North American Tunnelling 00, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 514-524. Le Project Cosmus:Une Methode observationnelle pour les injections de compensation, ABTUS Study day on 08.12.2000 in Antwerp on compensation grouting and visit of the works. Maidl, U. (1995). Erweiterung der Einsatzbereiche der Erddruckschildedurch Bodenkonditionierungmit Schaum. PhD thesis, Ruhr University, Bochum. Maiorano, R.M.S., Viggiani, G.M.B. (2003). Observed movements above a tunnel on pyroclastic ground. Proc. Int. Conf. on Response of buildings to excavationinduced ground movements, London. Jardine F.M. ed., CIRIA Special Publication 201, pp 375-386. Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N. & Bracegirdle, A. (1993). Sub-surface settlement profiles above tunnels in clays. Geotechnique.43 No.2, 315-320. Mair, R.J. &Hight, D.W., (1994). Compensation grouting. World Tunnelling. November 1994, 361-367. Mair, R.J. (1994). Report on Session 4: Displacement Grouting. Proc. Conf. Grouting in the Ground, ICE, Nov. 1992, 375-383. London: Thomas Telford. Mair, R.J., Viggiani, G., Menkiti, C.O. Reduction and control of surface settlement induced by shallow and deep excavations. Mair, R.J., Harris, D.I., Love, J.P., Blakey, D. & Kettle, C. (1994). Compensation grouting to limit settlements during tunnelling at Waterloo Station. Proceedings of Conference Tunnelling 94, London, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, 279-300, Chapman and Hall. 2 Mair, R.J. & Taylor R.N. (1997). Bored tunnelling in the urban environment. Stateof-the-art Report and Theme Lecture. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Balkema, Vol. 4., 2353-2385. Mair, R.J. (2008). Tunnelling and geotechnics: new horizons. 46th Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique 58, No, 9, 695-736 Martak, L. and Liebsch, H. Soil-fracturing in silt and clay New applications in the Vienna Underground, Internationale Konferenzbetreffend Injektionen in Fels und Beton, Salzburg, 1993. Osterreichische Gesellschaft fur Geomahanik. Merritt, A.S., Borghi, F.X. &Mair, R.J. (2003). Conditioning of Clay soils for earth pressure balance tunnelling machines. Proc. Underground Construction, London Dockland, UK:455-466. Merritt, A.S. (2004). Soil conditioning for earth pressure balance amchines.PhD Thesis, Cambridge University. Merritt, A.S. &Mair, R.J. (2006). Mechanics of tunnelling machine screw conveyors: model tests. Geotechnique 56 (9) 605-615 Merritt, A.S. &Mair, R.J. (2008). Mechanics of tunnelling machine screw conveyors: a theoretical model. Geotechnique 58, No.2, 79-94.
198
Milligan, G.W.E. (2000). Lubrication and soil conditioning in tunnelling, pipe jacking and microtunnelling: A state-of-the-art review. Geotechnical Consulting Group, London, UK. www-civil.eng.ox.ac.uk/research/pipejack/soilcond.html Milligan, G.W.E. (2001). Soil conditioning and lubricating agents in tunnelling and pipe jacking. Proc. Underground Construction Symposium 2001, London Docklands, UK: 105-116. OCarroll, J.B. (2005). A guide to planning, constructing and supervising earth pressure balance TBM tunnelling. Monograph 18 published by Parsons Brinkerhoff, New York. Oteo, C.S., Arnaiz, M., Trabada, J., Melis, M. &Mendana, F. (1999). Experiences in the subsidence problems in Madrid Subway Extension. In Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft grounds (edsKusakabe, O., Fujita, K. and Miyazaki, Y.) pp 275-280. London: Balkema Peck, R.B. (1969a). Deep excavations and tunnelling in sift ground. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Mexicao City. State of the Aty Volume, pp 225-290. Peck, R.B. (1969b) Advantages and limitations of the Observational Method in applied soil mechanics, Geotechnique, 19 (2) pp 171-187 Pigorini, A., Iannotta, F., Mair, R.J., Harris, D.I., Menkiti, C.O. & Leoni, F. (2009). The application of compensation grouting to protect a railway viaduct from tunnelling induced movements, ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, Budapest, Hungary, May 23-28, 2009 Potts, D.M. &Addenbrooke, T.I. (1996). The influence of an existing surface structure on the ground movements due to tunnelling. Proc. Int. Symp. On Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction on Soft Ground. London, Balkema., pp. 573-578. Potts, D.M. (2003) Numerical analysis: a virtual dream or practical reality?, Geotechnique Vol 53, No.6, pp 535-573 Raabe, E.W. and Esters, K. Soilfracturing techniques for terminating settlements and restoring levels of building and structures, Ground Improvement, M.P. Moseley, Hayward Baker Inc./USA, Chapman & Hall, Glasgow, 1993. Rankin, W.J. (1988). Ground movements resulting from urban tunnelling: predictions and effects. Engineering Geology of Underground Movement, Geology Society, Engineering Geology Special Publication No.5, 79-92 Rowe, R.K. &Kack, G.J. (1983). A theoretical examination of the settlements induced by tunnelling: 4 case histories. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol 20, pp 229-324. Soga. K., Bolton, M.D., Au, S.K.K., Komiya, K., Hamelin, J.P., Van Cotthem, A., Buchet, G., Michel, J.P. (1999). Development of Compensation Grouting Moddelling and Control System.Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction on Soft Ground (IS-Tokyo). Soga, K., Au, S.K., M.R. Jafari, R. and Bolton, M.D. (2004) Laboratory investigation of multiple grout injections into clay. Geotechnique 54, No.2, 81-89. Sola, P.R., Monroe, A.S., Martin, L., Blanco, M.A. & San Juan, R. (2003). Ground treatment for tunnel construction on the Madrid Metro. Proc. ASCA 3rd Int.
199
Conf. on Grouting and Ground Treatment 1, (eds Johnsen, L.F., Bruce, D.A. and Byle, M.J.) New Orleans, 1518-1533. Standing J.R. and Burland, J.B. (2006). Unexpected tunnelling volume losses in the Westminster area, London, Geotechnique, Vol 56 pages 11-26 Viggiani, G.M.B. (2001). Grout intensities. Ch 20 of Building response to tunnelling case studies from construction of the Jubilee Line Extension, London. Volume 1: Projects and methods. Burland, J.B., Standing, J.R. and F.M. Jardine eds. (CIRIA Special Publication 200, CIRIA and Thomas Telford), pp 311-314. Viggiani, G.M.B., de Sanctis, L., Mandolini, A. (2007). Monitoraggio di scavi :lesperienzadella Linea 1 dellaMetropilitana di Napoli. Proc XXIII ConvegnoNazionale di Geotecnica previsione e controlle del comportamentodellaopere - AbanoTerme Viggiani, G.M.B., Standing, J.R. (2001) The treasury. Ch 26 of Building response to tunnelling case studies from construction of the Jubilee Line Extension, London.Volume 2, Case Studies.Burland, J.B., Standing, J.R. and F.M. Jardine eds. (CIRIA Special Publication 200, CIRIA and Thomas Telford), pp 401-432 Woods, E., Battye, G., Bowers, K. and Mimnagh, F. (2007). Channel Tunnel Rail Link Section 2: London Tunnels. Proc ICE. Civil Engineering, 160, November 2007, 24-28, paper 700008. Wongsaroj. J. Borghi, F.X., Soga, K., Mair, R.J., Sugiyama, T., Hagiwara, T. & Bowers, K.J. (2005). Effect of TBM driving parameters on ground surface movements: Channel Tunnel Rail Link Contract 220. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground. Bakker et al. (eds) 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 0 415 39124 5, pp 335-341 World Tunnelling (2008) Another fine mesh, World Tunnelling, Nov 2008, www.world-tunnelling.com/features/another-fine-mesh

9780784412350s PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9780784412350s PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Compensation Grouting - Evolution, Field of Application, and Current State of the Art in UK Practice Clif Kettle

Technical Manager, Bachy Soletanche Ltd, Alton, UK; clif.kettle@bacsol.co.uk

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

136A_50835_ASCE_Vol_01_Txt_Resize_AA.job_Process Cyan_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Black_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Yellow_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Magenta_08/01/2012_10:49:40

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

Waterloo Victory Arch

Largely Observational Approach

138A_50835_ASCE_Vol_01_Txt_Resize_AA.job_Process Cyan_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Black_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Yellow_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Magenta_08/01/2012_10:49:40

Waterloo & City Line

FIG. 1 Victory Arch Concept and key elements

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

140A_50835_ASCE_Vol_01_Txt_Resize_AA.job_Process Cyan_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Black_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Yellow_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Magenta_08/01/2012_10:49:40

FIG. 3 Penet tration by hydro-fracture in the London Cl lay

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

142A_50835_ASCE_Vol_01_Txt_Resize_AA.job_Process Cyan_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Black_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Yellow_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Magenta_08/01/2012_10:49:40

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

FIG. 4a & 4b Settlement model introduced by Peck (1969)

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

FIG. 5 Modelling the effect of grouting

(6) (7) (8) (4)

Cavity Expansion Model

FIG. 6 Cambridge university models of grout expansion

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

146A_50835_ASCE_Vol_01_Txt_Resize_AA.job_Process Cyan_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Black_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Yellow_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Magenta_08/01/2012_10:49:40

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

Process Control Prerequisites:

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

148A_50835_ASCE_Vol_01_Txt_Resize_AA.job_Process Cyan_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Black_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Yellow_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Magenta_08/01/2012_10:49:40

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

150A_50835_ASCE_Vol_01_Txt_Resize_AA.job_Process Cyan_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Black_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Yellow_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Magenta_08/01/2012_10:49:40

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

Surface Movements Over Time

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

152A_50835_ASCE_Vol_01_Txt_Resize_AA.job_Process Cyan_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Black_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Yellow_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Magenta_08/01/2012_10:49:40

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012

GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012

154A_50835_ASCE_Vol_01_Txt_Resize_AA.job_Process Cyan_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Black_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Yellow_08/01/2012_10:49:40 Magenta_08/01/2012_10:49:40