Geotechnical Design Project: The Medway Tunnel

Geotechnical Design Project The Medway Tunnel
Geotechnical Design Project

The Medway Tunnel
Issue Date: 8th January 2007
Submission Date: 19th January 2007
Candidate: Christian Smallwood (0345236)
Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 1 of 32

Table of Contents
1. LETTER TO CLIENT ................................................................................................. 3

2. FOUR POSSIBLE OPTIONS FOR CASTING BASIN............................................ 5
2.1 – Option 1 ................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 – Option 2 ................................................................................................................. 7
2.3 – Option 3 ................................................................................................................. 8
2.4 – Option 4 ................................................................................................................. 9
3. OUTLINE FOR SUSTAINABILITY PLAN............................................................ 10
4. TUNNEL LOADING SCENARIOS ......................................................................... 14
4.1 Loading in the Dry .................................................................................................. 14
4.2 Loading when Immersed......................................................................................... 15
4.3 Proof of Floatability................................................................................................ 16
5. ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY................................................................... 17
5.1 Bearing Pressure Using Meyerhof Method............................................................. 17
5.2 Bearing Pressure from Terzaghi & Peck ................................................................ 17
5.3 Comparison ............................................................................................................. 17
6. TOTAL & EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS ....................................................... 18
6.1 Total Stress: Taylor’s Method ................................................................................ 18
6.2 Effective Stress: The Method of Slices................................................................... 20
6.3 Discussion on Soil Parameters................................................................................ 21
7. COST OF THE SCHEME ......................................................................................... 21
7.1 Excavation Costs..................................................................................................... 21
7.2 Combiwall Costs..................................................................................................... 22
7.3 Craneage Costs........................................................................................................ 22
7.4 Total Cost Summary ............................................................................................... 22
8. SOIL NAILING .......................................................................................................... 22
9. SETTLEMENT FOR STOCKPILED SPOIL ......................................................... 24
10. CRANE PILE DESIGN............................................................................................ 26
10.1 – Driven Pile ......................................................................................................... 26
10.2 – Under-reamed Pile ............................................................................................. 27
10.3 – Piling Summary ................................................................................................. 28
11. DEWATERING ........................................................................................................ 28
12. TEMPORARY HAUL ROAD ................................................................................. 29
13. STABILITY OF COFFERDAMS ........................................................................... 30
14. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 32

1. Letter to Client
Superman S.I. Inc
Wonderland
Scotland
EH1 2AB
Messrs Q.J. Leiper, M.C. Forde & Y. Yang

Assessors of 4th year Design Project
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh
Scotland
8th January 2007
Dear Messrs Q.J. Leiper, M.C. Forde & Y. Yang
RE: Project Risks & Concerns
Thank you for your letter dated the 8th of January. I appreciate your concern and have
included below a list of possible risks that may arise as a result of the different
construction options for the Medway Tunnel.
Firstly I would like to address the possible geotechnical & construction risks associated
with the construction of the tunnel.
Were a shallow submerged tunnel to be considered, our primary concern would be the
design. As this is a relatively new technology in Britain, there will be little previous
experience to rely upon. This can be dealt with by bringing in an external expert to
advise, however a language barrier may cause further problems. It is also unlikely that he
will have a local knowledge of the soil conditions. Needless to say consultants will also
incur high costs.
Other concerns and solutions are listed below, however this is by no means an
exhaustive study (some of the risks below also apply to deep tunnels):
¾ The placing of the tunnel segments could cause problems, as an unprecedented

level of accuracy is required. Included in this are the ballast calculations. These
must obtain an operational range which ensures that the tunnel will not sink or
float uncontrollably.
Weather conditions are also to be considered, as these are outside our control
and must be prepared for. Adverse wave patterns and increased flow rates may
increase the difficulty in maintaining a stable position whilst dropping the tunnel
segment.
¾ All seals and end caps are susceptible to thermal expansion in extreme weather
conditions, and cracking in extreme cold. This may cause unexpected movement
and possible leaks.
¾ An area will have to be excavated and dewatered for the casting basin. Slope
stability will have to be sufficient to avoid land slides and consequent erosions to
the bunds. However pump failure is the main concern here, and standby pumps
and generators will have to be made available to allow a constant dewatering
throughout the project construction.

¾ The retaining wall around the excavated area could be subject to blow-ins. As this
is a brown field site, there is also the possibility that the excavation may unearth
some old piles or slabs remaining from previous structures.
¾ A naval base has been identified upstream and munitions can be expected to have
leaked into the soil. If this is localised then can be treated appropriately, however
it is a risk that contamination may enter the river in a larger burst than the
surrounding ecosystem has been accustomed to.
¾ A nearby building is listed. There is a possibility of structural damage due to the
ground settlement as a result of the dewatering process
If a deep tunnel is to be considered, the following risks should also be taken into account:
¾ Unexpected rock formations or metal ore may be met as a result of drilling under
the river bed
¾ Due to the deep nature of the tunnel, it will surface much further from the river
side than its shallow counterpart, as a result land may need to be purchased and
increased planning permissions obtained.
¾ The risk of tunnel collapse is very low but present.
¾ Depending on the permeability of the rock, pump failure during drilling may be a
reason for concern. As will be the circulation of air inside the tunnel if the
electricity supply fails.
Secondly, regarding the impact on the local community, there has been local support for
the project since its inception, given it will serve as a means to regenerate the area,
bringing business, whilst freeing space on the already congested bridges upstream.
However an inevitable amount of dust and dirt will be expelled into the air. Local
traffic patterns will not be significantly altered as construction will take place on
previously unused land. I cannot imagine noise being a concern as most construction
occurs below ground in an excavated pit, which acts as an inherent noise barrier.
As the site was formerly an industrial estate, the destruction of local wildlife is
not a main concern.
Finally, we will require the following information to efficiently plan out possible risks to
enable the smooth procession of the Medway tunnel:
¾ An extensive boring exercise needs to be undertaken to provide more borehole

logs, thus providing lab test data on soil properties and contamination levels.
¾ Predictions for the weather conditions over the next two years need to be
provided.
¾ A study must be done to establish what silts and soils have been deposited on the
river bed
¾ A record of average river traffic is needed to avoid obstruction
¾ River flow rates through out the year
¾ A flow duration curve for the Medway river
I look forward to hearing from you soon,

Kind Regards,
Mr J. C. Smallwood
Engineer in Charge

2. Four possible Options for Casting Basin

In an immersed tube tunnel, the principle construction is the casting basin,
therefore a lot of attention has to be given to its design. The dimensions of the casting
basin are as a direct result of the chosen size for the immersed tunnel length, and the
number of segments the immersed section is to be split into. A total tunnel length of 375
metres was derived from ‘Figure 2: Medway Tunnel Plan and Borehole Locations’, as
supplied with the brief. Possible segment lengths were investigated and are summarised
in the table below:
Segments Segment Length (m) Total Tunnel Length (m)
1 375 375
2 187.5 375
3 125 375
4 93.75 375
5 75 375
Table 1 – Tunnel Section Lengths
To establish four initial layouts, tunnel section lengths of 125m and 93.75m have
been chosen and two varieties of each worked on. These were considered optimum
lengths as too long would raise problems with too much resistance against the flow of the
river, and too short would be uneconomical.
In selecting the site location, various criteria had to be taken into consideration.
The sites former use as a dock yard would ensure considerable foundations wherever the
casting basin was placed. To minimise the cost of removing foundation, the basin was
carefully positioned to avoid where possible the site of a demolished crane, or an
identified high pile risk area. With permission to demolish building no. 2, the choice was
taken in two cases to make use of this land, as it was assumed this would have fewer piles
than the no. 8 slipway. A brief overview of the 4 options can be seen in the table below:
Option Area (m2) Tunnel Sections Key Comments

Demolition required
1 32940 3 x 125m Avoids slipway
Over potentially 2 demolished crane site
Demolition required
2 39777.7 3 x 125m Avoids slipway
Over 1 demolished crane site
No Demolition
3 33176.25 4 x 93.75m Requires removal of Slipway
No Demolition
4 35656.8 4 x 93.75m Requires partial removal of Slipway
Table 2 – Four Possible Basin Layouts

Cost implications of the total excavated volume have also been taken into
account. Consequently, the smallest area was selected as the final option, taking into
consideration the associated foundation removal. This option can be seen below in
section 2.1.
2.1 – Option 1
32940m2 In terms of cost of excavation this is the most

3 x 125m preferable option. Due to its location it does not
run into problems encountering the numerous piles
reported in the slip way. However the demolition
of building no. 2 will be required, along with the
removal of its foundations, which may cause
problems. Monitoring to the adjacent listed
building will have to be undertaken as a
precautionary measure.

2.2 – Option 2
39777.7m
2 This option offers the same benefits as option
3 x 125m 1 however it requires a greater excavation area,
incurring a larger cost, the excavation & muck-away
operation being the biggest price component of the
casting basin.

2.3 – Option 3
33176.25m2 The 2nd smallest area of excavation,

4 x 93.75m depending on the flow of the river this is a
close contender for the final choice. If it is
demonstrated that the 125m segments will not
be controllable in the river, then this would be
the alternative. It is located over the slipway,
which will cause problems as far as the
removal of piles is concerned. However it does
not impose on building no. 2, and therefore will not require its demolition, but the two
former crane foundations will have to be removed.

2.4 – Option 4
2
35656.8m Due to the slightly larger area, this option comes in
4 x 93.75
at slightly more expensive than option 3. however that cost
may be covered by the lack of need to remove so many
piles from the slip way, as it does not impose on it as much
as option 3. It also only requires the removal of one dock-
crane foundation. Building no. 2 has not been touched.

3. Outline for Sustainability Plan

Increasingly, sustainable development is being promoted as
standard engineering practice, with more focus being put on energy
efficient designs, and minimal waste management. This has been brought
about partially through the construction industry’s transition from a
“corner cutting sector” to a client oriented “clean & honest industry”.
Using an environment conscious business plan promotes this clean &
honest image.
However, and possibly more importantly, it is becoming standard
practice as contractors & commissioners realise the true financial benefits
of going green. Moving to a more sustainable business plan is still met
with scepticism from much of the engineering workforce. It is however the
elite contracting groups who are benefiting from the extra business from
environmentally conscious clients, and the financial savings it offers, as
well as a moral and ethical advantage.
Consequently, sustainable action plans (SAPs) are now key
components to any major civil or structural engineering project, and
should be incorporated at an early stage to avoid any unnecessary risks.
Below, the key issues concerning the Medway Tunnel crossing SAP are
discussed:
¾ Reduce Wastage carbon dioxide not emitted through

transportation. 1
Site wastage encompasses a large It is also beneficial from a financial
range of product wastage, whether it is point of view, the contractor has saved on
the polystyrene protection for a delicate the cost of operating rigid HGVs. He has
piece of equipment, polyethylene also saved on material costs for several
wrapping, common litter or the excavated aspects of the project. The sand can be
soil. All of it has to be removed from the used in an onsite batching plant for the
site location to maintain a clean and concrete, the gravel as ballast fill as
efficient operation. With increased already discussed.
landfill taxes, contractors have had to The positive publicity resulting
take a new approach to how to deal with from the successful management of waste
the problem of waste. will incur public appreciation, and give
Using earth as an example of the contractor a serious competitive edge
wastage, in this case there is significant in future bids, thereby stabilising its
potential for on site soil recycling. Part of future. This is an attractive characteristic
the excavated material can be used for investors and shareholders alike, and
initially to make the bunds, whilst the rest will only add value to the fund holders’
can be used as fill material once the portfolio.
tunnel is immersed and in its final
position. ¾ Energy Conscious Design
This is very positive form a
sustainable point of view in that assuming In any project, there are three key
a rigid HGV carrying volume of 12 m3 of aspects: Cost, Time and Quality.2 When
earth, you have saved roughly 23,000 additional attention is given to one, it is
lorry journeys (see section 12). If the
nearest landfill site is 20km away, this 1
equates to approximately 71,000 kg of Assuming Urban driving: 0.154kg CO2/km.
2
Simon Smith: Engineering Project Management.

automatically taken from the other. ¾ Sourcing local materials

Energy design falls under Quality, and in
countries where energy is cheap, it is very As with the discussion above
easy to sacrifice on it in favour of speed concerning the removal of earth from the
and price of construction. site, the same can be said for bringing
In this project operational costs will material to the site.
be fairly high, a large portion of which Huge environmental savings can be
can be blamed on energy consumption made from selecting a local supplier
due to constant ventilation and rather than a cheaper international
monitoring systems. The client will have supplier. An example of this: The
paid close attention to an energy efficient Bouygues Bâtiment Internationales’ hotel
design, as this will have given rise to long construction in Trinidad shipped in
term savings. Thus, whilst the capital cost bamboo flooring from China, even while
of the project may be higher due to the it is an indigenous wood to Trinidad, due
inclusion of an efficient design, the to the fact that China could source and
savings over the tunnels lifespan will also process the material for less than Trinidad
be increased. It is a win-win situation for could3. The carbon emissions that
both the contractor and the clients’ resulted from the transport of the bamboo
organisation. halfway across the world are
It is also a positive strategy in terms monumental.
of sustainable development. Having to Whilst it may cost more to source
rely less on fossil generated energy, the locally, the contractor is investing in the
consequent emissions are vastly reduced. national economy by doing so. This is a
For instance, the design may incorporate positive tact, in that it promotes a civic
a wind capture channel, to make use of duty by the contracting firm, and raises
the prevailing winds, and use them to the firms’ image in a local context.
ease the strain on the permanent However from a fund raisers point of
circulation fans. view, the cost here of being sustainable
may be too high. This will cause negative
¾ Efficiency & Education of Labour publicity among the investment
community, and raising funds through
Promoting efficiency among the private equity will cease to be such an
workforce is an important route to available opportunity.
minimising wastage. Well trained,
organised and caring personnel will ¾ Tidal Electricity generation
achieve faster results at a higher quality.
But the leadership to do so must come Venturing into the extremities of a
from the senior management. It is sustainable development, the Medway
therefore essential that everyone River is tidal. This raises the possibility
understands the need for sustainable of using tidal generation as a means of
development, from the business oriented energy supply for all the tunnels’
CEO to the job oriented brick layer. A services.
simple method of doing so is to introduce Whilst this is in itself a separate
sustainability into the site induction project, it could also be one of lucrative
process. potential. Coming up to 2010, Britain’s
An efficient workforce will be aim to comply with the Kyoto protocol
recognised by institutions and clients guarantees a booming sector for
alike, and will serve positively in terms of renewable energy contractors. It would
sustainable development and financial. also serve to promote the client/contractor
as proactive in the fight against global
3
Data from my work placement in Trinidad.
warming, something which could be

considered a competitive asset.
Any excess energy could be sold back
to the grid, generating additional revenue
for the operating company, and its
stakeholders.
¾ Minimising risk
Risk management is an important

component of any project, and should be
brought in at an early stage.
From a sustainable point of view, it
decreases the wastage of materials that
otherwise shouldn’t have been used if the Carillion: “New Sun Diagram”
risk had initially been averted.
From a financial point of view, the ¾ Automated systems
inclusion of risk aversion is a logical
business step, minimising unnecessary Basic systems such as motion sensors
costs through averting mistakes which or timers can be used to good effect,
could have serious financial or health & dramatically decreasing the period of
safety consequences. Good practice time an item is left switched on for. This
incites confidence in shareholders, will save on energy costs, and give an
especially when money has been saved as impression of a technologically advanced
a result. site, hence improving the corporate
image.
¾ Lead, don’t follow As far as permanent works are
concerned, automatic stations linked into
Whilst sustainable development is a central monitoring network will remove
still met with a degree of scepticism, it is the need for a permanent on site
the bigger entity’s responsibility to lead technician. This can serve to not only
the way. As industrialised nations set a reduce carbon emissions through
trend for developing countries, so too reducing travel to work, but also by
must the larger contracting firms set a alternating ventilation to meet minimum
default model for smaller organisations to carbon monoxide levels, instead of
follow. having a constant speed which covers all
Enterprises like Carillion plc are traffic conditions.
doing just this. By incorporating their Whilst again increasing the capital
“sun diagram” into their business model, cost of the project, the long term benefit
they are putting sustainability at the is clearly identifiable.
forefront of every project. By assuming
this pro-active role, they have gained an ¾ Visual & Environmental Impact of
edge against their reaction-based Temporary Works
competition.
A market leader is a favourable Whilst the human culture may protest
position to hold, and a very attractive large scale temporary works as disruptive
prospect in any tender bid. A client and unpleasant, the human is adept to
organisation seen to be working with such change. In the case where the flora and
a contractor will gain sympathy for fauna’s local habitat has been disrupted,
acknowledging the need for the respective species is not as adaptable
sustainability, and this will reflect as humans are.
positively on its fund holders’ portfolio.
It is to this end that careful This will remove possible complexities

consideration must be paid to minimising from future works, as well as give a clean
the impact to local wildlife. corporate record for local affairs.
Negative attention from animal
welfare groups can minimise the chance Conclusion
of winning a contract, thereby damaging Thus as can be seen through a
the contractors’ future financial potential. variety of means, sustainability can easily
If the contractor is still selected, the be incorporated into the business model
negative attention may be shifted to the of any enterprise, adding to the financial
client, damaging in turn the clients’ growth of the business. However more
public image and investment capacity. importantly, it acts to secure the future of
our increasingly limited resources.
¾ Community consultation However it is not only large steps
that can be taken to achieving a
A positive relationship with the local sustainable goal, day to day activities can
community is a valuable edge to have in vastly reduce on wastage, be it visible or
future competition for any other council invisible. As in cricket, it is not the 4’s
funded projects. and 6’s that win the game, but the single
If a concern is raised by the runs.
community, it should be heeded, and
every effort made to solve the problem.

4. Tunnel Loading Scenarios

4.1 Loading in the Dry
The dry load of the tunnel is found from calculating the area of the cross
section, and multiplying it by the materials’ density. In this case the density of the
concrete is 24kN/m3, for the purpose of this calculation it is assumed that this density
incorporates the steel reinforcement, cooling ducts and sandflow pipes within the
concrete. The calculation also assumes a standard cross section throughout the whole
length of the immersed tunnel, as displayed below:
1200
600
1200
9500 6800
1500
10450 10450
1000
25900
Tunnel Cross-Section, to scale
Area Dimensions (mm) Output (m2)

Base Slab (1500 x 25900) 38.85
Outside Walls (6800 x 1200) x 2 16.32
Centre Wall (6800 x 600) 4.08
Roof Slab (1200 x 23900) 28.68
Total 87.93
Table 3 – Dimensions of Tunnel Cross Section
Density of Concrete: 24kN/m3

Area of Section: 87.93 m2
Loading: 24 x 87.93
2110.32kN per metre run of tunnel
Pressure: 81.48 kN/m2

4.2 Loading when Immersed
The loading of the tunnel segments in their final immersed position is similar
to the dry load, with the addition of the ballast concrete within the tunnel and ballast
gravel surrounding the tunnel. As can be seen from the diagram, toes have been used
to make use of the gravel fill on the sides. For the purpose of this calculation, 2 metres
of gravel fill and 1 metre of concrete fill have been assumed. Previous assumptions
still apply.
600 1200
2000
1200
9500 6800
1000
1500
10450 10450
1000
25900
Tunnel Cross-Section with Ballast Material, to scale

Base Slab (1500 x 25900) 38.85
Outside Walls (6800 x 1200) x 2 16.32
Centre Wall (6800 x 600) 4.08
Roof Slab (1200 x 23900) 28.68
Concrete Ballast (1000 x 10450) x 2 20.9
Total 108.83
Soil on Top (2000 x 25900) 51.8
Soil on Sides (8000 x 1000) 8
Total 59.8
Table 4 – Dimensions of Tunnel & Earth Cross Sections
Density of Concrete: 24kN/m3

Density of Fill: 16kN/m3

Area of Fill: 59.8 m2
Loading: (24 x 87.93) + (16 x 59.8)

3568.72 kN per metre run of tunnel
Pressure: 137.79 kN/m2
4.3 Proof of Floatability
To ensure the tunnel sections can be sunk into their final positions, they must
first be able to float. This is a simple check of making sure the volume of water
displaced by the sealed tunnel section is heavier than the sealed section itself.
8000
9500
1500
25900
Area of displaced water, to scale

Base Slab (1500 x 25900) 38.85
Tunnel Segment (8000 x 23900) 191.2
Total 230.05
Table 5 – Area of Displaced Water
Density of Water: 9.81kN/m3

Loading of water: 9.81 x 230.05

2256.8kN per metre run of tunnel
Dry Load
If < 1 , then the tunnel section will float when submerged.
Wet Load
2110.32
= 0.935
2256.8
When it is sunk into place, enough ballast has to be supplied to ensure it stays
immersed. The factor of safety against it floating can be investigated through a similar
calculation:
Immersed Load 3568.72

Factor of Safety = = = 1.58
Wet Load 2256.8

5. Allowable Bearing Capacity

5.1 Bearing Pressure Using Meyerhof Method
Bearing pressure, q p = cN c* + q ' N q* + 0.5γ BNγ*

Bearing pressure, φ = 36.7 → N q* = 38
Bearing pressure, φ = 36.7 → N c* = 50
Bearing pressure, φ = 36.7 → Nγ* = 45 (assuming Hansen's Nγ* )
Bearing pressure, q p = 0 + 0 + ( 0.5 ×15.8 × 25.9 × 45 )
Bearing pressure, q p = 9207.45kN / m 2
However this value of the bearing pressure incorporates a factor of safety of between
2.5 to 44:
9207.45
⇒ qp = = 2301.9 kN / m 2
4
9207.45
⇒ qp = = 3683.0 kN / m 2
2.5
5.2 Bearing Pressure from Terzaghi & Peck
Using K. Terzaghi and R. Peck’s curve5, a value of the allowable bearing

capacity can be established using just the N-Value from the SPT test.
Bearing Pressure Values & Result

S.P.T. at 10.35 OD 4, 8, 6, 9, 9, 10
Width of footing >>6m
N value 34
Allowable Bearing Capacity 340 kN/m2
Table 6 – Values for Bearing Capacity
5.3 Comparison
Terzhaghi & Beck’s method is generally considered very conservative, and

with Meyerhof’s method producing significantly greater results, it is understandable
why. However even the conservative result of 340 kN/m2 is far greater than the 82
kN/m2 required by the tunnel section, thereby ensuring the soil is safe to work on.
4
Dr Yummin Yang: Foundation engineering pile design
5
Copy can be found in attached spreasheet
6. Total & Effective Stress Analysis

To ensure the slopes in the excavation of the casting basin will not fail, a stress
analysis must be performed. The method of Slices, Taylor’s method and the φu=0
method have been employed to determine the associated factors of safety relevant to
each slope6, as per the diagram below:
Taylor's Method
Total Stress
Fill Method of Slices
Sandy Silt
Effective Stress
Silty Clay
0m OD
Gravel Excavation Level
Chalk
Cross-Section of slope down to excavation, to scale.
6.1 Total Stress: Taylor’s Method
3131,38
8171,02
35°
4200
10672,85
Section to be analysed by Taylor’s Method
6
Craigs R.F.Soil Mechanics, 6th Edition, pp 377 - 381
Using the φu=0 Method
Values as taken from above Diagram

cu 21 kN/m3*
La 10.67285 m
r 8.17102 m
γ 20 kN/m3
W 352.65 kN/m
d 3.13138 m
Area 17.6325 m2
* cu from scatter diagram in brief
Table 7 – Values for Factor of Safety Calculation
cu La r
F= where W = γ × area
Wd
21×10.67 × 8.17
= = 1.66
352.65 × 3.13
Estimated Minimum (Taylor Method):
Values as Derived from Graphs

β 35
Ns 0.14
cu 21
γ 20
H 4.2
Table 8 – Values for Stress Analysis Calculation
cu
F=
N sγ H
21
= = 1.79
0.14 × 20 × 4.2
It is at this stage that an anomaly occurs. Taylor’s method should return a

value smaller than the φu=0 Method, however this is not the case, this points to two
possibilities. There is an irregularity in the above calculations, this is quite possible
due to the inaccuracy of the scatter diagram in supplying a cu value; or it simply
demonstrates how outdated and inaccurate the Taylor method is in acquiring a
suitable factor of safety.

6.2 Effective Stress: The Method of Slices
The Method of slices analyses the slope in two dimensions. An assumed

failure surface is drawn, and divided into an arbitrary number of slices. The forces
acting on each slice are then individually analysed. Here the slope has been divided
into ten slices, each of 1.2m width. A much more in depth table of the results can be
found in the Slope Stability spreadsheet on the cd-rom.
Individual Arc Individual Arc

Lengths Angles
Slope to be analysed by Method of Slices
Slice h cos α h sin α u l ul

W W cos α W sin α W cos α - ul
No. (m) (m) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m)
1 0.409 0.331 0.000 1.557 0.000 9.967 7.746 6.273 7.746
2 1.175 0.763 1.970 1.429 2.814 26.559 22.274 14.465 19.460
3 1.854 0.944 8.365 1.343 11.232 39.444 35.145 17.907 23.913
4 2.062 0.792 12.507 1.283 16.052 41.885 39.103 15.010 23.051
5 2.121 0.568 14.230 1.243 17.689 41.629 40.210 10.774 22.521
6 2.025 0.357 13.772 1.217 16.764 38.989 38.397 6.770 21.633
7 1.795 0.126 11.337 1.204 13.645 34.117 34.034 2.380 20.389
8 1.428 0.025 7.030 1.201 8.441 27.082 27.078 0.473 18.637
9 0.937 -0.115 0.768 1.218 0.936 17.904 17.770 -2.182 16.835
10 0.337 -0.072 0.000 1.218 0.000 6.536 6.393 -1.359 6.393
Sum 14.14 3.72 12.91 87.57 339.43 70.51 251.86
Table 9 – Table of Values for Stress Analysis Calculation
Using the values from the table above, the following equation can be used to
establish a factor of safety as above:

c ' La + tan φ ' ∑ (W cos α − ul )

F=
∑W sin α
c' = 0
φ ' = 37
0 + ( 0.7536 × 251.86 )
=
70.51
189.790
= = 2.69
70.51
6.3 Discussion on Soil Parameters
Total Effective
cu (kN/m ) φu (°) c’ (kN/m2) φ ' (°)
2
21 0 0 37
Table 10 – Effective & Total Stress Parameters
These values are much derived from engineering judgement. The value of cu is
taken from the scatter diagram executed in alluvial clay. The value of 21 can be
considered a conservative estimate. As it is an alluvial clay, the undrained angle of
friction is taken as 0. The effective cohesion of clay is also taken as 0, however the
effective angle of friction can be estimated using the N-value from the standard
penetration test. In this case, an N value of 34 returned a φ ' value of 37°.
7. Cost of the Scheme

7.1 Excavation Costs
Volume of Whole Cuboid:

164.7m x 200m x 14.95m
492,453 m3
Volume under Slope:

(376.1749 x 2(164.7)) + (376.1749 x 2(128))
220,213 m3
Total Excavated Material:

492,453 – 220,213
272,240 m3
Rate: £19.50/ m3
Total Cost of Excavation: £5,308,684.16

7.2 Combiwall Costs
Length of combiwall: 441m

Height of combiwall: 21m
Rate: £275/m2
Total Cost of combiwall: £2,646,775.00
7.3 Craneage Costs
Quantity: 1 Crane
Rate: £175,000/year
Total Craneage Costs: £402,500.00
7.4 Total Cost Summary
Item Rate Unit Quantity Total

Excavation £19.50 m3 272,240 £5,408,684.16
Combiwall £275.00 m2 9261 £2,646,775.00
Craneage £175,000.00 Year 2.3 £402,500.00
Total £8,457,969.16
Table 11 – Associated Costs of Casting Basin
This cost however is purely indicative, and does not include for a huge variety
of necessary operations, for example the dewatering pumps. An extensive study into
the cost of the casting basin would return a larger value
8. Soil Nailing
The process of soil nailing, originally a French technique, is extremely simple
in concept. By driving metal rods into a slope, the apparent cohesion will increase due
to their ability to handle tensile loads, hence increasing the stability of the slope. It is
in essence an in-situ soil reinforcement.
The drive behind soil nailing is the same drive behind the development of
multi story buildings, the constantly increasing sparsity of useable land. It is highly
popular on road and highway lane expansions, where instead of purchasing new land
upon which to construct, they simply increase the incline of the cut, as below:

Land Reclaimed through soil nailing
Potential reclamation of land through slope increase
However there are limitations to the application of soil nails, for instance the slope
concerned must be able to stand along before the nails are applied. The type of soil is
also a factor in its viability, as summarised in the table 12:
Practical Impractical
Clays Soft, plastic clays
Sandy Soils Organics/Peat
Weathered rock, Tallus slope deposits Loose, low density and/or saturated soils
Heterogeneous and stratified soils Fills (rubble, cinder, ash, etc.)7
Table 12 – Suitable & Unsuitable conditions for soil nailing
Thus whilst soil nailing would be an obvious solution in most scenarios, from
the bore hole log the soil is defined as “Very soft becoming soft […] silty clay…”,
making it impractical for the casting basin excavation. Were it to be an option, it
would potentially enable the placing of the casting basin to avoid the extensive pile
foundation in the slipway and the demolition of building no. 2.
Estimated costs of soil-nailing are about £100/m2, with approximately 3460 m2
of soil to nail, the total cost of soil nailing would be £346,000.008. This is a meagre
cost in the total casting basin tally, and would probably be offset by the cost of the
removal of the piles in the slipway.
7
Table information sourced from Hayward Baker Services.
<http://www.haywardbaker.com/services/soil_nail.htm>
8
Assumes 3 nailed slopes of 3:1 and 364.7m of longitudinal slope
9. Settlement for Stockpiled Spoil

As appropriate data is not supplied for the entire clay stratum, assumptions
have been made concerning the coefficient of volume compressibility, as
demonstrated below:
Assumed Mv=1.2
0m OD
Mv=1.2
Assumed Mv=0.69
Mv=0.69
Mv=0.6
Assumed Mv=0.6
The total settlement, if left for an infinite amount of time, is defined by the equation:
dh = ∑ h × mv × dθ , where dθ = 6 × ( 9.81× 1.77 )
h mv dθ dh
6.7 1.2 104.1822 837.6249
1.8 0.69 104.1822 129.3943
2.3 0.6 104.1822 143.7714
Total dh 1110.791
Table 13 – Settlement Values
With a total settlement of 1.11m, the coefficient of consolidation can be used

to determine a settlement after a set amount: Using the equations below, table 14 was
formed to give an idea of the rate of settlement:
cv t 4Tv
Tv = & Ut =
d 2
π

T Settlement
Tv Ut
(years) (mm)
0.2 0.00 0.06 65.65
0.4 0.01 0.08 92.84
0.6 0.01 0.10 113.71
0.8 0.01 0.12 131.30
1 0.01 0.13 146.80
1.2 0.02 0.14 160.81
1.4 0.02 0.16 173.70
1.6 0.02 0.17 185.69
1.8 0.02 0.18 196.95
2 0.03 0.19 207.61
2.2 0.03 0.20 217.74
2.4 0.03 0.20 227.42
2.6 0.04 0.21 236.71
2.8 0.04 0.22 245.64
3 0.04 0.23 254.26
2.3 0.03 0.20 222.63
Table 14 – Settlement over a period of time
Using this data, the following graph was produced to impose a visual
impression of the settlement over 3 years. Assuming the spoil will be stored on site
for 2.3 years, a maximum settlement of 223 mm is expected.
Settlement vs Time
0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-50.00
Settlement (mm)
-100.00
-150.00
-200.00
-250.00
-300.00
Time (yrs)

10. Crane Pile Design

For the pile design, the following soil properties have been used:
Soil Characteristics
Δ1 1.6
Δ2 varies
α1 0.45*
α2 0.9
cu 1 30
cu 2 80
*Nominal value for London clay
Table 15 – Soil Characteristics at -10.5m OD and below
For the following Driven and Under-reamed Calculations,
Æ Qs was derived using the α method:
Qs = ∑ f × pΔ × L
f = α cu
Æ Q p was derived using Meyerhof’s method
q p = cN c* + q ' N q* + γ BNγ*
B0
φ = 0 → N q* = 1
φ = 0 → N c* = 9
Q p = Aq p = A ( ( 80 × 9 ) + ( 0 × 1) ) = 720 A
10.1 – Driven Pile
To calculate the basic properties of the pile, the skin friction and point bearing
pressure of the pile must first be established. Once they have been established, a pile
length that delivers a loading capacity of 1012kN, which incorporates a factor of
safety of 1.5 for skin friction and 3 for point bearing capacity, can be established. An
assumption has been made that the price per metre of the pile is constant to an infinite
depth, and is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the pile. The assumption has
also been made that there is no critical depth for skin friction. Below is a summarised
table of the results. For the extensive calculation, please consult the spreadsheet on the
attached cd-rom.

Diameter Length L/D Qs Qs Mod Qp Qp Mod Q Tot £/m £

0.40 17.58 43.94 1472.76 981.84 90.48 30.16 1012.00 80.00 1408.00
0.45 15.65 34.78 1460.74 973.83 114.51 38.17 1012.00 101.25 1589.63
0.50 14.10 28.19 1447.31 964.88 141.37 47.12 1012.00 125.00 1762.50
0.55 12.81 23.30 1432.47 954.98 171.06 57.02 1012.00 151.25 1936.00
0.60 11.74 19.56 1416.21 944.14 203.58 67.86 1012.00 180.00 2106.00
0.65 10.81 16.63 1398.54 932.36 238.92 79.64 1012.00 211.25 2281.50
0.70 10.01 14.30 1379.46 919.64 277.09 92.36 1012.00 245.00 2450.00
0.75 9.31 12.41 1358.96 905.97 318.09 106.03 1012.00 281.25 2615.63
0.80 8.69 10.86 1337.04 891.36 361.91 120.64 1012.00 320.00 2784.00
0.85 8.13 9.57 1313.72 875.81 408.56 136.19 1012.00 361.25 2926.13
0.90 7.63 8.48 1288.98 859.32 458.04 152.68 1012.00 405.00 3078.00
Table 16 – Extract from spreadsheet for Driven Piles
As can be seen, the more slender the pile, the cheaper it is. However a
maximum length to depth ratio of 20 has been assumed. With this in mind, the
cheapest pile design is a 0.6 m diameter pile, of 11.74m depth. The total piling for this
crane foundation will cost £2106/pile, or £8424 in total.
10.2 – Under-reamed Pile
A similar method is used to find a suitable pile with an under-reamed base.

The method used here assumes that the base diameter should be twice the pile
diameter, and that it projects at 45° from the vertical. The skin friction takes into
account the under-reamed base. Below is an abridged table of the results of the
calculations using the equations and values above. A complete table can be seen on
the attached cd-rom.
Diameter* Length L/D Qs Qs Mod Qp Qp Mod Q Tot £/m £**

0.40 9.09 22.72 1337.04 891.36 361.91 120.64 1012.00 80.00 1228.00
0.45 8.08 17.96 1288.98 859.32 458.04 152.68 1012.00 101.25 1320.13
0.50 7.76 15.52 1235.26 823.50 565.49 188.50 1012.00 125.00 1475.00
0.55 7.03 12.77 1175.88 783.92 684.24 228.08 1012.00 151.25 1558.75
0.60 6.39 10.65 1110.85 740.57 814.30 271.43 1012.00 180.00 1652.00
0.65 5.84 8.98 1040.16 693.44 955.67 318.56 1012.00 211.25 1725.25
0.70 5.34 7.63 963.82 642.55 1108.35 369.45 1012.00 245.00 1798.50
0.75 4.90 6.53 881.83 587.88 1272.35 424.12 1012.00 281.25 1878.13
0.80 4.49 5.62 794.18 529.45 1447.65 482.55 1012.00 320.00 1940.00
0.85 4.12 4.85 700.87 467.25 1634.26 544.75 1012.00 361.25 1981.13
0.90 3.78 4.20 601.91 401.27 1832.18 610.73 1012.00 405.00 2039.00
*Base Diameter = 2 x Diameter
**Cost is inclusive of generic £500 cost for under-reaming.
Table 17 – Extract from spreadsheet for Under-Reamed Piles

Again assuming a maximum value of L/D of 20, here the appropriate choice
would be a pile between 0.4 – 0.45m in diameter, and 8 – 9m in length.
10.3 – Piling Summary
Pile Type Diameter Length L/D Cost

Driven 0.6 11.74 20 2106
Under-Reamed 0.43* 8.5* 20 1274*
*Values interpolated from Table 17
Table 18 – Summary of Selected Pile Properties
From this table, it can be seen that the cost of a driven pile is considerably
more than an under-reamed pile. However the installation of a driven pile is much
faster, and less prone to accidents.
11. Dewatering
Dewatering is often needed in any large excavation, the reason is obvious: to
prevent the construction area from flooding. A variety of methods exist to free the
site from water, and they are all specific to the nature of the geology of the soil. For
example, sheet piling physically blocks the flow of water, but may be impeded by the
presence of boulders, or whilst a pump drains the water, the pressure may be
insufficient in a granular soil of high permeability. A presence of both may also be
used. Essentially, they work by artificially lowering the level of the phreatic surface
and disturbing the normal flow into the area concerned.
A physical cut off, such as the combi wall used in the Medway tunnel, can be
used in soils of any permeability as an effective long term flooding prevention system.
If the toe penetrates an impermeable layer, then a pump will only be needed to
initially drain the excavated area, and can then be left. However if the strata at the
base of the pile is permeable, then pumps will still be needed during the operation
period. However once the water has initially been cleared, fewer pumps will be
needed to maintain the drawdown.
From the borehole log of the casting basin site, it can be seen that the base of
the combi wall penetrates a chalk layer. This shallow chalk will have a high porosity,
so pumping will be required in addition to the physical cut-off. Due to the significant
depth of the excavation base, at -10.5m OD, wellpoints are not a suitable choice. As

an alternative, deepwells or ejector systems, which have a sufficient depth range, are
the best option9 for the Medway borehole log.
Installation cost (£) Running Cost (£/week) Cost over 2.3 years.
b Pump Feasible?
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Combi-wall Sump No -- -- 120 240 14352 28704
Combi-wall Wellpoint No 2000 5000 250 400 31900 52840
Combi-wall Deep Well Yes 1500 2000 60 105 8676 14558
Combi-wall Ejector System Yes 250 850 500 750 60050 90550
Table 19 – Possible Pumping Systems & costs per pump
The above table gives a summary of the key pumping systems, as well as their
approximate costs per pump. The deep well is by far the cheapest for the period of
time its being employed. However contingency systems have to be put in place for
both the deep well and ejector system, as both require electricity. Contingency pumps
will also be required for maintenance on other pumps, which can quickly become
expensive.
12. Temporary Haul Road
cu 21
CBR = = = 0.913
23% 23%
9
Table 1.3 “summary of principal pumped well groundwater control methods”, Ciria report C515, p
34.
Assuming that a standard HGV has a carrying capacity of 12m3, the number of truck
journeys is:
Excavation 272, 420m3
= = 22, 686
Truck Capacity 12m3
Assuming that a standard HGV has 4 axles, the total number of axles to pass over the
road is:
22,686 x 4
= 90,746.04
= 0.091x106
Therefore, from the above graph, sub-base thickness:

375mm @ 2% CBR
525mm @ 0.913% CBR
13. Stability of Cofferdams

Cofferdams are very high risk structures, and when they’re built into a river, as
is the case with the Medway tunnel, a failure can have catastrophic consequences
leading to potential loss of life. A failure in the cofferdam in certain cases may also
make the land unrecoverable. Therefore, a lot of research has to be done into the
geology of the ground it is being installed in. Some of data collected might be:
• Tidal data & rate of flow
• Scour behaviour
• River bed profiles
• Soil parameters
• Water quality
• Previous site use
• Collision risk from river traffic
• River regulations.
The most likely threat to materialise is the risk of piping, whereby the water
passes beneath the base of the sheet pile. This can occur when the cofferdam is
founded on relatively permeable material, and flood the area of excavation.
Depending on the circumstances of the soil, there are two ways to avert this. If
the toe of the sheet piles penetrate a stratum of low permeability, such as clay, then no
additional major works need to be done. Once the excavation site has been dewatered
to 1m below the excavation level, then the lowered phreatic surface need only be
monitored. However significant investigation needs to be done to establish whether
there are any sand pockets in the clay stratum, as these will allow the clay pore
pressures to return to hydrostatic pressures more rapidly.
If however the sheets are being installed into a permeable stratum, such as
sand or gravel, then dewatering will not be enough to keep the water table below
excavation level. Additional measures such as anchoring a concrete slab to the
excavation base can be used to seal off the excavation area. Alternatively a water tight
geotextile can be installed below the phreatic surface, and enough ballast sand fill put
on top to counteract the pore water pressure uplift.
In larger sites, such as the one needed for the east and west portal of the
Medway tunnel, more significant measures need to be used to oppose the overturning
force from the hydrostatic pressure of the adjacent river water. The two principle
options are to construct a cellular cofferdam, or to use a double wall cofferdam. Both
act in a similar way: they are effectively a retaining wall against the water.
The base stability is also affected by the lateral hydrostatic pressure. Therefore
the profile of the sheet piling can also play a significant part. For instance, a straight
sheet will be prone to significant bending stresses, where as a corrugated sheet will be
largely more effective. The layout of the excavated area can also have a significant
impact on the effectiveness of countering overturning pressure. For example, an arc
sheet wall will be less likely to collapse in the same way that a cathode ray tube
avoids implosion through having a curved screen.
The cofferdam structure used in the portals of the east and west end of the
tunnel will have had extensive investigation and analysis done prior to the
construction. It will have been designed to a high factor of safety, as the excavation
area is considerably large, and would have been in operation for a significant period
of time. Failure in this case would have been catastrophic!

14. Bibliography
Craig, R.F. (2004), Soil Mechanics, 6th Edition, E & FN Spon
Craig, R.F. (1997), Soil Mechanics, 7th Edition, E & FN Spon
Engineering Standards, Designs, Practices & Procedures, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill

Professional
Forde, M (2006), Foundation Engineering: Cofferdams, Unpublished: Course

Material
Hayward Baker (2003), Soil Nailing, [Online], Available:

http://www.haywardbaker.com/services/soil_nail.htm (Last accessed: 18/01/2007)
Phear, A., Dew, C., Ozsoy, B., Wharmby, N.J., Judge, J. and Barley, A.D. (2005) Soil
nailing - best practice guidance (C637), CIRIA
Preene, M., Roberts, T.O.L., Powrie, W. and Dyer, M.R. (2000) Groundwater control
- design and practice (C515), CIRIA
Puller, Malcolm (1996) Deep excavations: a practical manual, Thomas Telford
The Phi Group (2006) Soil Nailing and Facing Systems, [Online], Available:
http://www.phigroup.co.uk/downloads/soilnailing.pdf (Last accessed: 18/01/2007)
Tomlinson, M.J. (2001) Foundation Design & Construction, 7th Edition, Prentice Hall
Yang, Y (2006), Foundation Engineering: Pile Design, Unpublished: Course Material

Geotechnical Design Project: The Medway Tunnel

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Geotechnical Design Project: The Medway Tunnel

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Geotechnical Design Project The Medway Tunnel

Geotechnical Design Project

Issue Date: 8th January 2007

Submission Date: 19th January 2007

Candidate: Christian Smallwood (0345236)

Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 1 of 32

1. LETTER TO CLIENT ................................................................................................. 3

Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 2 of 32

Messrs Q.J. Leiper, M.C. Forde & Y. Yang

Dear Messrs Q.J. Leiper, M.C. Forde & Y. Yang

RE: Project Risks & Concerns

¾ The placing of the tunnel segments could cause problems, as an unprecedented

Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 3 of 32

¾ An extensive boring exercise needs to be undertaken to provide more borehole

I look forward to hearing from you soon,

Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 4 of 32

2. Four possible Options for Casting Basin

Option Area (m2) Tunnel Sections Key Comments

Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 5 of 32

32940m2 In terms of cost of excavation this is the most

Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 6 of 32

Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 7 of 32

33176.25m2 The 2nd smallest area of excavation,

Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 8 of 32

Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 9 of 32

3. Outline for Sustainability Plan

¾ Reduce Wastage carbon dioxide not emitted through

Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 10 of 32

automatically taken from the other. ¾ Sourcing local materials

warming, something which could be

Risk management is an important

It is to this end that careful This will remove possible complexities

Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 13 of 32

4. Tunnel Loading Scenarios

Tunnel Cross-Section, to scale

Area Dimensions (mm) Output (m2)

Density of Concrete: 24kN/m3

Pressure: 81.48 kN/m2

Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 14 of 32

4.2 Loading when Immersed

Tunnel Cross-Section with Ballast Material, to scale

Area Dimensions (mm) Output (m2)

Density of Concrete: 24kN/m3

Density of Fill: 16kN/m3

Loading: (24 x 87.93) + (16 x 59.8)

4.3 Proof of Floatability

Area of displaced water, to scale

Area Dimensions (mm) Output (m2)

Density of Water: 9.81kN/m3

Loading of water: 9.81 x 230.05

Immersed Load 3568.72

Christian Smallwood (0345236) Page 16 of 32

5. Allowable Bearing Capacity

Bearing pressure, q p = cN c* + q ' N q* + 0.5γ BNγ*

5.2 Bearing Pressure from Terzaghi & Peck

Using K. Terzaghi and R. Peck’s curve5, a value of the allowable bearing

Bearing Pressure Values & Result

Terzhaghi & Beck’s method is generally considered very conservative, and

6. Total & Effective Stress Analysis

Gravel Excavation Level

Cross-Section of slope down to excavation, to scale.

6.1 Total Stress: Taylor’s Method