Advertisement

Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment

, Volume 78, Issue 8, pp 6311–6334 | Cite as

Geotechnical studies and primary support design for a highway tunnel: a case study in Turkey

  • Ayberk KayaEmail author
  • Fikri Bulut
Original Paper

Abstract

The main aim of this study is to appraise the geotechnical characteristic of the rock masses and to propose the proper support design for the Cankurtaran Tunnel project situated in NE Turkey. The exhaustive engineering geological investigations were done to determine the characteristic of rock masses that primarily consist of volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The tunnel route was divided into 15 segments according to their lithological and structural properties. The rock mass rating (RMR) and Rock Mass Quality Index (Q) systems were used to determine the quality of rock masses and final tunnel lining support. To check the capacity of the suggested support units analytically, the convergence-confinement (CC) technique was applied. The efficiency of the support design, dimensions of the plastic zones and deformations were determined using the 2D and 3D numerical finite element method (FEM) modeling. The empirical support system suggested in this study reduced the total displacement and dimension of the plastic zone.

Keywords

Tunneling Convergence-confinement method Rock mass classification FEM Tunnel lining design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge to the editor and reviewers for their valuable contribution. Also, thanks to MSc. Geology Engineer Aytuna Sayin from the Turkish General Directorate of Highways (TGDH) for the office work associated with this study.

References

  1. Aydan O, Akagi T, Kawamoto T (1993) The squeezing potential of rocks around tunnels; theory and prediction. Rock Mech Rock Eng 26(2):137–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aydan O, Ulusay R, Kawamoto T (1997) Assessment of rock mass strength for underground excavations, proceedings of the 36th US rock mechanics symposium, New York, pp 777–786Google Scholar
  3. Aydan O, Ulusay R, Tokashiki N (2014) A new rock mass quality rating system: rock mass quality rating (RMQR) and its application to the estimation of geomechanical characteristics of rock masses. Rock Mech and Rock Eng 47(4):1255–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aydin A, Ozbek A, Acar A (2014) Geomechanical characterization, 3-D optical monitoring and numerical modeling in Kirkgecit-1 tunnel, Turkey. Eng Geol 181:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton NR (2002) Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterization and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:185–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech (4):189–239Google Scholar
  7. Basarir H (2006) Engineering geological studies and tunnel support design at Sulakyurt dam site, Turkey. Eng Geol 86:225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Basarir H, Ozsan A, Karakus M (2005) Analysis of support requirements for a shallow diversion tunnel at Guledar dam site, Turkey. Eng Geol 81(2):131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bieniawski ZT (1974) Geomechanics classification of rock masses and its application in tunneling, Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Rock Mechanics, Vol. 1A. International Society of Rock Mechanics, Denver, 27–32Google Scholar
  10. Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. Wiley, New York, p 251Google Scholar
  11. Cai M, Kaiser PK, Tasaka Y, Minami M (2007) Determination of residual strength parameters of jointed rock masses using the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 4(2):247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Capkinoglu S (1981) Geology of the district between Borcka and Cavuslu (Hopa), MSc. thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  13. Carranza-Torres C, Engen M (2017) The support characteristic curve for blocked steel sets in the convergence-confinement method of tunnel support design. Tun Und Space Tech 69:233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carranza-Torres C, Fairhurst C (1999) The elasto-plastic response of underground excavations in rock masses that satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36(6):777–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carranza-Torres C, Fairhurst C (2000) Application of the convergence-confinement method of tunnel design to rock-masses that satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Tun. Und. Space Tech. 15(2):187–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Curran JH, Hammah RE, Thamer EY (2003) A two dimensional approach for designing tunnel support in weak rock, Proc. 56th Canadian Geotech. Conference, Winnebeg, MonibotaGoogle Scholar
  17. Deere DU (1964) Technical description of rock cores for engineering purposed. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1:17–22Google Scholar
  18. Dhawan KR, Singh DN, Gupta ID (2002) 2D and3D finite element analysis of underground openings in an inhomogeneous rock mass. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Genis M, Basarır H, Ozarslan A, Bilir E, Balaban E (2007) Engineering geological appraisal of the rockmasses and preliminary support design, Dorukhan tunnel, Zonguldak, Turkey. Eng Geol 92:14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gurocak Z, Solanki P, Zaman MM (2007) Empirical and numerical analyses of support requirements for a diversion tunnel at the Boztepe dam site, eastern Turkey. Eng Geol 91:194–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guven IH (1993) 1:250000-scaled geology and compilation of the Eastern Pontide. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA) of Turkey, Ankara (unpublished)Google Scholar
  22. Hoek E (2007) Practical Rock Engineering, Evert Hoek Consulting Engineer Inc., Vancouver, Canada (Available for download at), https://www.rocscience.com/learning/hoek-s-corner/books
  23. Hoek E, Diederichs MS (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoek E, Marinos P (2000) Predicting tunnel squeezing, Tunnels and Tunneling International, Part 1 – November 2000, Part 2–December 2000Google Scholar
  25. Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground excavations in hard rock. AA Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002 edition. proceedings of NARMS-TAC2002, mining innovation and technology. Toronto, Canada, pp 267–273Google Scholar
  27. ISRM (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006, International Society of Rock Mechanics Turkish National Group, Ankara, Turkey, 628Google Scholar
  28. Javadi AA, Snee CPM (2002) Numerical modeling of air losses in compressed air tunneling. Int J Geomech 2(4):399–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kanik M, Gurocak Z (2018) Importance of numerical analyses for determining support systems in tunneling: a comparative study from the Trabzon-Gumushane tunnel, Turkey. J Afr Earth Sci 143:253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kanik M, Gurocak Z, Alemdag S (2015) A comparison of support systems obtained from the RMR89 and RMR14 by numerical analyses: Macka tunnel project, NE Turkey. J Afr Ear Sci 109:224–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaya A, Sayin A (2017) Engineering geological appraisal and preliminary support design for the Salarha tunnel, Northeast Turkey. Bul Eng Geo Env.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1177-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaya A, Bulut F, Alemdag S, Sayin A (2011) Analysis of support requirements for a tunnel portal in weak rock: a case study in Turkey. Sci Res Ess 6(31):6566–6583Google Scholar
  33. Ketin I (1966) Tectonic units of Anatolia. J Gen Direc Min Res Exp, (MTA) 66:23–34Google Scholar
  34. Kockar MK, Akgun H (2003) Engineering geological investigations along the Ilıksu tunnels, southern Turkey. Eng Geol 68(3–4):141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lauffer H (1958) Classification of in-situ rock in tunnel construction. Geology Bauwesen 24:46–51Google Scholar
  36. Lin SY, Hung HH, Yang JP, Yang YB (2017) Seismic analysis of twin tunnels by a finite/infinite element approach. Int. J. Geomech.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000677
  37. Lugeon M (1933) Barrages et geologic methods de recherche´ terrasement et un permeabilisation. Litrairedes Universite, ParisGoogle Scholar
  38. Marinos P, Hoek E, (2000) GSI: a geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation, In: Proceedings of the GeoEng2000 at the international conference on geotechnical and geological engineering, Melbourne, Technomic publishers, Lancaster, 1422–1446Google Scholar
  39. Ozdogan MV, Yenice H, Gonen A, Karakus D (2018) Optimal support spacing for steel sets: Omerler underground coal mine in western Turkey. Int. J. Geomech.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ozsan A, Basarir H (2003) Support capacity estimation of a diversion tunnel in weak rock. Eng Geol 68:319–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ozsan A, Karpuz C (2001) Preliminary support design for Ankara subway extension tunnel. Eng Geol 59(1–2):161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palmström A (1995) RMi-a rock mass characterization system for rock engineering purposes, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo, Norway, 400Google Scholar
  43. Park KH (2004) Elastic solution for tunneling-induced ground movements in clays. Int. J. Geomech. 4:310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Priest SD, Hudson JA (1976) Discontinuity spacing in rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geo Abs 13:135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quinones-Rozo C (2010) Lugeon test interpretation, revisited, In: Collaborative Management of Integrated Watersheds, 30rd Annual USSD (United States Society on Dams) Conference, US Society on Dams, Denver, CO, USA, 405–414Google Scholar
  46. Rabcewicz L (1964) The new Austrian Tunnelling method. Water Power 16:453–457Google Scholar
  47. Rocscience Inc (2016a) Dips v7.0 graphical and statistical analysis of orientation data, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, www.rocscience.com
  48. Rocscience Inc (2016b) RocData v5.0 rock, soil and discontinuity strength analysis, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, www.rocscience.com
  49. Rocscience Inc (2016c) RS3 v1.0 3D finite element analysis for rock and soil, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, www.rocscience.com
  50. Rocscience Inc. (2017) RS2 v9.0 finite element analysis for excavations and slopes, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, www.rocscience.com
  51. Sari D, Pasamehmetoglu AG (2004) Proposed support design, Kaletepe tunnel, Turkey. Eng Geol 72:201–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sheorey PR, Murali MG, Sinha A (2001) Influence of elastic constants on the horizontal in situ stress. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38(1):1211–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sopaci E, Akgun H (2008) Engineering geological investigations and the preliminary support design for the proposed Ordu peripheral highway tunnel, Ordu, Turkey. Eng Geo 96:43–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Terzaghi K (1946) Rock defects and loads on tunnel supports, in Proctor, R.V., and White, T.L., eds., Rock tunneling with steel support, Youngstown, Ohio, Commercial Shearing and Stamping Company, 1:17–99Google Scholar
  55. TGDH (2013) Specification for highway works (in Turkish), Turkish Ministry of Public Works, General Directorate of Highways, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  56. Trinh QN, Broch E, Lu M (2010) 2D versus 3D modeling for tunneling at a weakness zone, ISRM Regional Symposium-EUROCK 2009, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  57. Ucer S (2006) Comparison of 2D and 3D finite element models of tunnel advance in soft ground: A case study on Bolu tunnels, MSc Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  58. Wickham GE, Tiedemann HR, Skinner EH (1972) Support determination based on geologic predictions, In: Lane, K.S.A.G., L. A., ed., North American Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference: Chicago, New York: Society of Mining Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, 43–64Google Scholar
  59. Wyllie DC, Mah CW (2004) Rock slope engineering civil and mining, Spon Press, Taylor and Francis e-libraryGoogle Scholar
  60. Xu Q, Xiao Z, Liu T, Lou T, Song X (2015) Comparison of 2D and 3D prediction models for environmental vibration induced by underground railway with two types of tracks. Comput Geotech 68:169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yalcin E, Gurocak Z, Ghabchi R, Zaman M (2015) Numerical analysis for a realistic support design: case study of the Komurhan tunnel in eastern Turkey. Int. J. Geomech.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil EngineeringRecep Tayyip Erdogan UniversityRizeTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Engineering, Department of Geological EngineeringKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey

Personalised recommendations