Advertisement

Application of Norwegian Method of Tunnelling (NMT) Principles to Bypass Landslides in Mountainous Terrain

  • Rajinder BhasinEmail author
  • Arnstein Aarset
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 62)

Abstract

Tunnelling to bypass major landslide areas is considered as a good and long-term environmentally friendly solution to reduce an existing hazard. In Norway, hundreds of kilometres of tunnels have been constructed in areas prone to landslides and snow avalanches. Although tunnelling is considered as an expensive mitigation strategy for bypassing landslides, analysis indicate that in some cases the cost of building a tunnel can be repaid by savings in driving costs (fuel) alone over a period of 5-10 years due to reduced driving distances. The other benefits of constructing tunnels in landslide areas include savings in time and increased safety. The Norwegian Method of Tunnelling (NMT) is considered safe, efficient and cost effective compared to other tunnelling techniques. Some aspects of NMT, which are considered safe and cost efficient, are presented. The application of updated rock support techniques, including reinforced ribs of shotctrete (RRS), which is a key component of the Norwegian Method of Tunnelling (NMT), is highlighted.

Keywords

landslides tunneling rock support reinforced ribs of shotcrete 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barton, N., R. Lien and J. Lunde (1974). “Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support”, Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 189 236.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, N., Grimstad, E., Aas, G., Opsahl, O.A., Bakken, A., Pedersen, L., and Johansen, E.D. (1992). Norwegian Method of Tunneling, WT Focus on Norway, World Tunneling, June/August 1992.Google Scholar
  3. Barton, N. and Grimstad, E. (2014). Tunnel and cavern support selection in Norway, based on rock mass classification with the Q-system. Norwegian Tunneling Technology Publication No. 23, Norwegian Tunneling SocietyGoogle Scholar
  4. Berggren, A., Nermoen, B., Kveen, A., Jakobsen, P.D. and Neby, A. (2014). Excavation and support methods, Norwegian Tunneling Technology, Publication No. 23, Norwegian Tunneling Society.Google Scholar
  5. Bhasin, R., Grimstad, E., Aarset, A. and Malik, S. (2019). Overcoming rock engineering challenges for construction of transport tunnels in the Himalayas. Proceedings American Rock Mechanics Association, New York, 2019, Paper ARMA 19–1616Google Scholar
  6. Bhasin, R. and Løset, F. and Barton, N., (1999). Rock Support Performance of a Sub-Sea Tunnel in Western Norway. Proc. third International Symposium on Sprayed Concrete Gol, Norway, September 1999, pp.58-69Google Scholar
  7. Bhasin, R., Grimstad, E., Larsen, J.O., Dhawan, A.K., Singh, R. and Verma, S.K. (2002). Landslide Hazards and Mitigation Measures at Gangtok, Sikkim Himalaya. Engineering Geology, Vol. 64, pp. 351-368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhasin, R., Tshering, T. and Olsson, R. (2012). The Effect of Earthquake on Rock Support in Tunnels. World Tunnel Congress 2012, Bangkok, Thailand, 20-23 May 2012, Tunnelling and underground Space for a Global SocietyGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhasin, R., Pabst, T. and Aarset, A. (2017) Detailed engineering geological investigations and numerical modelling for a planned road tunnel in Bhutan Himalaya. Proc. World Tunnel Congress 2017 – Surface challenges – Underground solutions. Bergen, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  10. Grimstad, E., Barton, N. (1993). Updating the Qsystem for NMT. International Symposium on Sprayed Concrete. Fagernes, September 1993. Proceedings, pp. 46-66. Norsk Betongforening/NIF, Oslo 1993.Google Scholar
  11. Grimstad, E. (1986). Rock-Burst problems in road tunnels. Norwegian Road Tunneling, Publication no. 4, Norwegian Soil and Rock Engineering Association, Tapir Publishers, N-7034 TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  12. Grimstad, E. and Kvåle, J. (1999). The influence of Rock Stress and Support on the Depth of the Disturbed Zone in the Lærdal Tunnel. A key to Differentiate the Rock Support. Proceedings pp. 341-346. ITA Conference, Oslo June 1999.Google Scholar
  13. Grimstad, E., Bhasin, R., Hagen, A.W., Kaynia, A. and Kankes, K., (2003) Q-system advance for sprayed lining. Tunnels and Tunneling International (pp. 44-47), January 2003.Google Scholar
  14. NGI (2015). Using the Q-system, Rock mass classification and support design. Handbook, published at ww.ngi.no, 2015Google Scholar
  15. NPRA Norwegian Public Roads Administration. (2010). Technical Report No. 2538. Works ahead of the tunnel face and rock support in road tunnels, NPRA, Oslo (Norwegian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Geotechnical InstituteOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations