Probabilistic Analysis of Immersed Tunnel Settlement Using CPT and MASW
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Probabilistic analysis of immersed tunnel settlement using CPT and MASW Bob van Amsterdam January 16, 2019 Version: Final report Probabilistic analysis of immersed tunnel settlement using CPT and MASW Bob van Amsterdam Thesis committee: Prof. Dr. ir. K.G. Gavin Geo-engineering TU Delft Assoc. prof. Dr. ir. W. Broere Geo-engineering TU Delft Ir. K.J. Reinders Hydraulic engineering TU Delft Dr. ir. C. Reale Geo-engineering TU Delft January 16, 2019 Abstract Settlement data of the Kiltunnel and the Heinenoordtunnel show that immersed tunnels in the Netherlands have been experiencing much larger settlement than expected when designing the tunnels causing cracks in the concrete and leakages in the joints. Settlements of 8 - 70 mm have been measured at the Kiltunnel and of 7 - 30 mm at the Heinenoordtunnel while settlements in the range of 0 - 1 mm were expected. Both sites are investigated through non-invasive geophysical site investigation method MASW (Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves) for each 2.5 meter along the length of the tunnel and invasive site characterisation method CPT’s (Cone Penetration Tests). The settlement of immersed tunnels is similar to that of a shallow foundation. It can be modelled using the Mayne equation which uses the small strain shear stiffness and the degradation of secant stiffness based on the load compared to the ultimate bearing resistance. A way of characterising the site is determining the small strain stiffness directly from the shear wave velocity using the uncertainties in the relationship between shear wave velocity and cone penetration resistance and correlating the cone penetration resistance to this value. The correlation between the cone penetration resistance and shear wave velocity or small strain shear stiffness at the Heinenoord site is, however, so weak that it practically means that all possible qc values should be considered. Another way is to use both the shear wave velocity and the cone penetration resis- tance separately to characterise the site. The cone penetration resistance profiles are modelled stochastically based on the statistical data and the scales of fluctuations from the CPT’s. The vertical scale of fluctuation at the Heinenoord site ranges from 0.06 - 1.44 meter for sands and 0.19 - 1.37 meter for clays. The horizontal scale of fluctuation of the cone penetration test could not be determined accurately enough to use in a model due to lack of data within the correlation length. The horizontal scale of fluctuation of the shear wave velocity is a different quantity than v the horizontal scale of fluctuation of the cone penetration resistance because it has been shown that it is at least a factor 10 larger for the Heinenoord site. The 5% and 95% boundaries of the initial settlement at the middle element of the Heinenoordtunnel are 4.04 - 4.68 mm, this settlement can not be compared to the measured settlement because it has occurred before the start of the measurements. The 5% and 95% boundaries of the creep settlements that are calculated for the middle element of the Heinenoordtunnel are 0.39 - 0.80 mm in 1996. This is much smaller than the measured settlement of around 7 mm. The 5% and 95% boundaries of the initial settlement at the middle element of the Kiltunnel are 1.82 - 2.27 mm. The creep settlements that are calculated for the middle element of the Kiltunnel are in the order magnitude of 1.98 - 3.19 mm in 2018. This is much smaller than the measured settlement of around 7.5 - 18.1 mm in 2018. To see if cyclic loading has an effect on the settlement of the middle section the effect of thermal expansion and contraction of the elements and the cyclic loading of the tides is examined. The thermal expansion and contraction of the elements at an angle loaded the middle element. The expansion of the Gina Gaskets between the flat element and the elements at an angle is between -3 and 3 mm. This expansion and contraction of the Gina Gasket causes a vertical load on each of the edges of the middle element of 268 kN. This causes a settlement of 0.47 - 0.58 mm in 1996 at the edges of the middle element of the Heinenoordtunnel and a settlement of 0.42 - 0.55 mm in 2018 of the edges of the middle element of the Kiltunnel. This means that it does have a small influence on the settlement of both tunnels measured at these joints but does not explain all occurred settlement. The tide loads both tunnels because there is a layer of sludge on the bottom of the rivers that could cause a decay and a lag in the fluctuation of the pore pressures in the deeper sand layers. This means that the effective stress in the deeper sand layers can increase and decrease due to the tides. No accurate measurements are available for the fluctuations of these pore pressures in the deeper sand layers. For an indication of the settlement of the Heinenoordtunnel and the Kiltunnel under the loading of the tides a few calculations have been performed using an assumed lower bound of 40% and an upper bound of 90% of loading of the tides. At the Heinenoord the lower bound scenario gave results between 4.99 - 7.51 mm, which means that the measured values of around 7 mm are within the range of the vi results, while the upper bound scenario gave results between 10.05 and 15.57 mm which is larger than the measured values. At the Kiltunnel there is no real trend of which bound is more accurate compared to the measured settlements. At location 21 and 23 the lower bound is more accurate, at location 19, 25 and 27 the upper bound is more accurate while for location 29 the measured settlement is somewhere in between the two bounds. At location 19 even the 95 % of the upper bound (21.34 mm) is much smaller than the measured settlement (around 34 mm). The difference in shear wave velocity is not that large and can not explain the large difference in settlement while the information from the CPT’s is so limited that it is not possible to determine if there is a difference between location 19 and the other locations. These calculations show that there is a possibility that the settlements have occurred through a combination of the creep, the temperature effects and the loading of the tides but it does not conclude that all settlements occur because of these loading conditions. vii Contents Abstract v 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Problem statement . 1 1.1.1 Kiltunnel . 1 1.1.2 Heinenoordtunnel . 2 1.2 Scope of the project and research questions . 4 1.3 Reading guide . 5 2 Literature study 7 2.1 Multichannel analysis of surface wave (MASW) . 7 2.1.1 Parameter selection from MASW . 9 2.2 Cone penetration test (CPT) . 10 2.3 Settlement and bearing capacity calculations for shallow foundations 13 2.3.1 Conventional calculations . 13 2.3.2 CPT-based approaches . 15 2.3.3 Mayne model . 16 2.3.4 Zone of influence . 17 2.3.5 Creep settlement . 20 2.3.6 Cyclic loading model for sand . 20 2.4 Scales of fluctuation . 21 2.4.1 Vertical scale of fluctuation . 23 2.4.2 Horizontal scale of fluctuation . 24 2.5 Correlations CPT’s and MASW in literature . 24 2.5.1 Correlation shear wave velocity and cone penetration resistance 25 2.5.2 Correlation small strain shear stiffness and cone penetration resistance . 27 2.6 Concluding remarks literature study . 28 3 Site investigation 29 3.1 Site investigation Kiltunnel . 29 3.1.1 MASW Kiltunnel . 30 3.1.2 CPT’s Kiltunnel . 31 3.2 Site investigation Heinenoordtunnel . 31 ix 3.2.1 MASW Heinenoordtunnel . 32 3.2.2 CPT’s Heinenoord . 33 4 Correlations between MASW and CPT 35 4.1 Correlations CPT’s and MASW . 36 4.1.1 Correlation shear wave velocity and cone penetration resis- tance at the Heinenoord site . 37 4.1.2 Correlation small strain shear stiffness and cone penetration resistance . 39 4.2 Filtering measurements from multiple layers . 40 4.3 Comparison to literature . 42 4.4 Concluding remarks correlation approach . 43 5 Stochastic ground model approach 45 5.1 Statistical analysis . 47 5.1.1 Vertical scale of fluctuation . 48 5.1.2 Horizontal scale of fluctuation . 49 5.2 Soil profile simulations . 53 5.3 Determining ultimate bearing resistance . 55 5.4 Determining small strain modulus . 55 5.5 Loading conditions . 57 5.5.1 Static loading Kiltunnel . 57 5.5.2 Static loading Heinenoordtunnel . 58 5.6 Settlement calculations . 59 5.6.1 Verification at Blessington site . 59 5.6.2 Settlement calculations Heinenoordtunnel site . 61 5.6.3 Settlement calculations Kiltunnel site . 66 5.7 Concluding remarks stochastic ground model approach . 70 6 Cyclic loading 73 6.1 Thermal expansion and contraction of the tunnel lining . 73 6.1.1 Settlement of Heinenoordtunnel due temperature fluctuation 76 6.1.2 Settlement of Kiltunnel due temperature fluctuation . 78 6.2 Tidal loading . 78 6.2.1 Lower bound scenario . 81 6.2.2 Upper bound scenario . 82 6.2.3 Settlement calculations Heinenoordtunnel . 83 6.2.4 Settlement calculation Kiltunnel . 86 6.3 Concluding remarks cyclic loading . 89 7 Conclusions 91 8 Recommendations 93 x Bibliography 95 Appendices 99 A Appendix A: Statistical data CPT’s Heinenoord 101 B Appendix B: Hand calculations 109 B.1 Determining ultimate bearing resistance for the Mayne equation . 109 B.2 Determining the applied load on the middle section of the Kiltunnel .