Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
This paper focuses on identification of boulders during subsurface exploration and
on baselining of boulder quantities for construction of underground facilities. Comments
are provided on the sensitivity and reliability of conventional and other subsurface
exploration methods in identifying boulders based on a literature study and survey sent to
exploration drillers. Geologic assessment and documentation of drilling observations are
two keys to boulder identification. Boulder quantities may be baselined by utilizing
statistical relationships between boulder indications in boreholes and quantities
encountered in excavations, experience databases, and probabilistic methods of data
evaluation.
Introduction
Boulders are often a cause of significant excavation difficulty for many shafts and
soft-ground tunnels. They are a major concern when micro-tunneling. They can result in
delays, lost ground problems, face instability and tunnel alignment difficulty (Cording et
al., 1989; Tarkoy, 1994). A 1984 study of many tunnels found that boulders and other
obstructions accounted for approximately 12 percent of tunneling problems and are a
common cause of differing site condition claims (US National Committee on Tunneling
Technology, 1984). Schmidt (1974) listed obstructions (including boulders) as one of
five high priority parameters to be assessed in a subsurface investigation for a tunnel
project.
To appropriately allocate risks and minimize unnecessary claims for extra work,
various tunneling committees and support organizations have concluded that pertinent
subsurface parameters such as boulder quantities should be thoroughly investigated
during design and baseline quantities included in contract documents for use by bidders.
The culmination of this effort is an American Society of Civil Engineers guideline
1
P.E., M. ASCE, Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Harza Engineering Company, Milwaukee, WI 53202
2
Ph.D., M. ASCE, Geotechnical Engineer, Harza Engineering Company, Chicago IL, 60606-6392
Geologic Setting
The distribution and properties of boulders within a soil unit should be assessed in
conjunction with the geology of the formations involved. Baselining of boulders based
on soil type, e.g. silty clay or gravelly sand, may not result in reasonable correlations.
Instead, boulder occurrence should be assessed for individual geologic soil units with
consideration of common geologic characteristics and anomalies. The importance of
using a geologic framework when assessing boulder occurrence (and other parameters
that affect tunneling) has been explained by Essex (1993), Gould (1995), Heuer (1978),
Legget (1979), Terzaghi et al. (1996) and others.
Hunt and Fradkin (1991) describe a Milwaukee project where drilling was not
monitored in the field by an engineer or geologist. As a result, the logs of 16 borings that
were drilled into bedrock through moderately bouldery till failed to report any boulders.
In addition to missing scattered boulders in an upper till, an underlying bouldery
lodgment till was misinterpreted as weathered bedrock. Excavation and ground support
problems at two shafts resulted in differing site condition claims and extra costs over
$500,000.
Tarkoy (1994) cites three case histories where borings did not properly identify
boulders, bedrock or both. Wallis (1993) describes a Seattle microtunneling project
where boulders were not anticipated by the geotechnical report, but where frequent
cobbles and small boulders were encountered. Abbott (1995) describes another Seattle
project where no boulders were reported on boring logs, but where frequent boulders up
to 0.6 m in size stopped and severely damaged a 1.17 m Isecki Unclemole. Stoll (1976)
describes a Michigan project where 17 borings failed to indicate any boulders but where
numerous boulders were encountered during tunneling. Many more examples can be
cited.
A study of these projects and other references (Gould, 1995; Osterberg, 1978)
suggests the following reasons why many subsurface investigations and geotechnical
reports fail to adequately predict boulder occurrence:
Boring Spacing
An appropriate spacing between borings for boulder identification is dependent on
many factors including nature and complexity of the site geology, availability of previous
borings and subsurface experience, the borehole diameter, use of supplementary
exploration methods (such as probe holes or seismic reflection/refraction), tunnel depth,
anticipated tunneling methods and subsurface exploration budget. A National Research
Council subcommittee on geotechnical site investigations found that an average boring
spacing of approximately 80 m (260 feet) was completed for 84 non-mountainous tunnel
projects studied (US National Committee on Tunneling Technology, 1984). To further
reduce tunneling risks and provide better overall exploration results they recommended
an average of 1.5 linear feet of borehole per route foot of tunnel alignment. This converts
to a much closer average spacing of 20 m (66 feet) assuming average borehole depths of
30 m (100 feet) are appropriate. Terzaghi et al. (1996) recommend a minimum spacing
of 30 to 60 m for subway [tunnel] projects. Essex (1993) recommends a minimum of one
borehole per shaft and a maximum spacing from 46 m to 61 m (150 to 200 feet) for
micro-tunnel and pipe jacking projects. Klein (1996) made essentially the same
recommendation, but with the maximum spacing at 91 m (300 feet).
Horn and Ciancia (1989) provide a detailed evaluation of the effect of boring
spacing variations from 3 m to 30 m (10 to 100 feet) on the number of boulders
encountered within a well documented, 91 m (300 foot) long bouldery stretch of the Red
Hook Intercepting Sewer in New York. Although they found that more borings hit
boulders as the spacing decreased, the percentage of borings hitting boulders did not
increase appreciably. An average spacing of 30.5 m (100 feet) was determined to be
reasonable for that project. They also concluded that borings should be spaced closer in
the vicinity of geologic features that may contain boulder concentrations.
Stoll (1976) found from a study of randomly distributed 305 mm (1 foot) diameter
boulders projected onto a plane, that about five times as many 102 mm (4-inch) diameter
holes as 914 mm (3-foot) diameter holes are required to achieve the same degree of
certainty on boulder concentrations. This study demonstrates that borehole diameter
should also be considered when determining the spacing of borings and probes.
Stoll (1976) demonstrated the value of large diameter holes. On one southeastern
Michigan project, 17 convention boreholes failed to identify one boulder. However, fifty
percent of the drilling logs from 150 dewatering wells having a 914 mm (3 foot) diameter
indicated boulder presence. Stoll found from a study of randomly distributed 315 mm (1
foot) diameter boulders projected onto a planar surface, that when a “boulder
concentration” ranges from 1 to 16 percent, 914 mm (3 foot) diameter holes encounter
boulders from three to five times more often than do 102 mm (4-inch) diameter holes.
Geophysical Methods
Geophysical methods may in some cases successfully complement conventional
drilling and sampling, but are generally ineffective for identifying and quantifying
boulders. Geophysical methods including active seismics (surface and borehole cross-
hole reflection/refraction), ground penetrating radar, magnetometer surveys, resistivity
and others have been performed along tunnel alignments with limited success. Past
discussions on use of geophysical methods in tunneling are presented in Alsup (1974)
and Schmidt (1974). De Pasquale and Pinelli (1998), Hindle (1995), and Miller (1996)
present more recent discussions of geophysical use on tunnel and directional drilling
projects.
Boring Logs
Final boring logs included in geotechnical reports often fail to adequately report
information on drilling methods and observations such as chatter, bouncing, relative
drilling resistance and estimated boulder and boulder zone thickness (Gould, 1995).
Even if drilling information and observations are fully documented on field logs, its value
is diminished unless it is transferred to the final logs. Field logs are seldom conveniently
available to bidders and their consultants. Therefore, the final boring logs should contain
detailed information on drilling behavior and boulder observations (Neyer, 1985).
Without other guidance, the boring log boulder data for these projects seems to
suggest that only a small number of boulders might be expected during tunneling. The
percentage of borings hitting boulders ranged from 0 to 35 percent. The percentage of
total length of boulders drilled as compared to lengths bored within potentially bouldery
till, outwash or ice-margin soils varied from 0 to 3.5 percent.
Case No. 1 2 3 4 5
Case Name Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Elgin IL,
Interplant South Ramsey CT-7 Northeast
Solids Pennsylvania Avenue Collector, Interceptor
Pipeline Ave. MIS Relief Sewer Bruce St.
Tunnel Length, 2295 2498 941 656 1313
m (ft) (7529) (8195) (3088) (2151) (4308)
Excavated 2.29 1.40 1.00 3.54 1.98
Diameter, m (ft)
(7.5) (4.6) (3.3) (11.6) (6.5)
No. of Borings 16 44 8 8 17
Avg. Boring 143.3 131.4 125.9 82.0 77.1
Spacing, m (ft)
(470) (431) (413) (269) (253)
% Boulder Length 2.9% 3.5% 0.4% 0.0% 2.4%
Drilled in Borings
No. of Boulders 7 25 1 0 8
Hit By Borings
% Borings Hitting 25% 25% 12.5% 0% 35%
Boulders
No. of Boulders In 232 282 7 5 112
Tunnel
Avg. Boulders per 3.1 3.4 0.3 0.2 2.6
30m (100 ft)
Avg. Till Boulders 7.1 9.0 0.3 0.2 2.6
per 30m (100 ft)
Max. Boulders per 49.0 27.1 7.0 1.0 32.3
30m (100 ft)
Estimated Boulder 44.3 27.4 0.6 0.6 19.3
Volume, m3 (yd3)
(58.0) (35.9) (0.8) (0.8) (25.2)
Avg. % Boulders 0.47% 0.72% 0.08% 0.01% 0.35%
By Volume
Avg. % Boulders 1.08% 1.82% 0.08% 0.01% 0.35%
By Volume Mined
in Till/Outwash/
Ice-Margin
Max % Boulders 10.52% 5.11% 1.21% 0.03% 1.12%
By Volume, 60m
(200’) Segment +/-
2.0%
1.8%
Average Percent Boulders By Volume Mined
1.6%
in Till/Outwash/Ice-Margin Units
1.4%
1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0%
After estimating average boulder fractions for the units and segments selected,
percent boulder volume may be estimated using a relationship such as that shown in
Figure 1. Boulder volumes may be estimated for estimated soil volumes to be
excavated/mined within each of the soil types and segments involved.
Tang and Quek (1986) developed statistical models of boulder size and boulder
fraction. The first model uses intercepted boulder chord length data to estimate the
distribution of boulder diameters for the entire boulder population. Bayesian analysis is
used to update the mean boulder size. This method is very thorough from a mathematical
perspective but may not be practical due to the difficulty in measuring chord lengths
during drilling and where sufficient data is lacking. In addition, the method assumes that
all the boulders are spheres.
The second probabilistic model presented by Tang and Quek (1986) relates the
fraction of boulder volume encountered at boring locations within a bouldery stratum to
boulder volume within the stratum. This parameter may be easier to use in practice since
the required data may be directly obtained from boring logs. A key assumption with the
method is that the boulders are randomly distributed. Based on two Singapore sites
studied, Tang and Quek found that a lognormal cumulative distribution function
correlated well with the data. They hypothesized that Bayesian updating methods as
described in Ang and Tang, 1975 could be used to incorporate data from additional sites.
If the parameters of the distribution function can be updated or verified for a site, then
boulder fraction data may be used to estimate boulder volume within a selected volume
of the same soil mass.
An effort was made to evaluate the data from the five Milwaukee/Chicago area
cases that were previously discussed. A simple method based on the percentage of
borings that encountered boulders proved to be ineffective. The data in Table 1 shows
that the percentage of borings encountering boulders is not directly related to either the
Conclusions
The primary conclusions of this paper are as follows:
1. Boulder quantities may be baselined by combining local geologic knowledge and
boulder experience with the results of a phased subsurface investigation program.
2. Boulder baselining should start with a desk study of available information on the
geologic setting of the site and of local boulder experience within similar geologic
units. This information should be utilized to plan an initial subsurface exploration
program. Subsequent exploration phases should reduce geologic uncertainties by
more intensively exploring the ground, reducing data gaps and providing redundancy.
3. Conventional subsurface exploration should provide useful boulder data if drillers are
instructed to carefully report indications of boulders and if a properly qualified
geotechnical professional is assigned to monitor drilling in the field and to document
all pertinent observations. Final boring logs should include field observations.
4. Redundant or supplementary exploration methods should be considered for one or
more phases of exploration. These methods might include use of auger borings where
rotary wash borings were previously used. Larger diameter borings, more sensitive
(less powerful) drill rigs, percussive methods such as rotosonic drilling, test pits, 0.9
to 1.2 m diameter auger drilled shafts and geophysical methods such as seismic
refraction/reflection may also provide useful supplementary or redundant
information.
5. The normal criteria recommended in the literature for determination of boring spacing
on tunnel projects should be suitable for boulder detection. An average borehole
spacing ranging from 30 to 90 m (100 to 300 feet) is typical for soft-ground tunnel
projects. For randomly distributed boulders, the average percentage of borings hitting
boulders is generally not sensitive to borehole spacing within this range. Closer
borehole spacing (e.g. 30 m or less) guided by geologic interpretation may be
References
Abbott, D.G. (1995). “Another Perspective on “Teamwork ……..” Trenchless
Technology. July 1995, 6-7.
Ang, A. H.-S., and Tang, W. H. (1975). Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning
and Design, Vol. 1 - Basic Principles, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Alsup S. (1974). ”Recommended Borehole Investigation for Soft Ground” Subsurface
Exploration for Underground Excavation and Heavy Construction. American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 117-127.
Brierley, G.S. (1996). “Microtunneling! Schmicrotunneling!” Trenchless Technology.
September 1996, 8.
Brierley G.S., Howard, A.L. and Romley R.E. (1991). "Subsurface Exploration
Utilizing Large Diameter Borings for the Price Road Drain Tunnel." Proceedings,
1991 Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference. Society for Mining Metallurgy
and Exploration. Littleton CO. Chapter 1, 3-15.
Cording, E.J., Brierley, G.S., Mahar J.W., and Boscardin M.D. (1989). “Controlling
Ground Movements During Tunneling.” The Art and Science of Geotechnical
Engineering. Editors: Cording, E.J., Hall W.J., Haltiwanger J.D., Hendron, A.J. Jr.,
and Mesri G. Prentice Hall. New Jersey, 478-482.
Davis R. and Oothoudt T. (1997). “The Use of Rotosonic Drilling in Environmental
Investigations,” Soil and Groundwater Cleanup, May 1997, 34-36.