Excavation Problem in Mixed Ground Conditions at the Kabatas–Mecidiyekoy Metro (Istanbul) Tunnels

Original paper
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

Mechanized tunnelling is a well-established tunnel construction method which allows constructing tunnels in various conditions including mixed ground conditions as well as tunnels in vulnerable urban areas. The selection of the excavator suitable for the geological structure is important in terms of realizing an efficient tunnel excavation. Tunnel excavation studies of Istanbul Kabatas–Mecidiyeköy Metro tunnels are implemented as a double tube. Geology in this section is composed of sandstone, siltstone, mudstone interbedded or as separate units along with dyke intrusions. Calcareous clay, clayey limestone, clayey sand are also rarely observed. Between the Kabatas–Mecidiyekoy tunnels includes two types of mechanical excavation methods namely tunnel boring machine (TBM) and new Austrian tunnelling method (NATM). Main purpose of this study is mixed ground and their impacts on mechanized tunnelling. At the end, some issues have been presented which seems to be important for the success of TBM and NATM in the mixed grounds. As the tunnel excavation studies continued, the problem of collapse on the ground surface of Barbaros Boulevard in Besiktas station increased the importance of tunnel excavation under mixed ground conditions.

Keywords

Metro Tunnel excavation Geological structure Mixed ground Istanbul 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author expresses his gratitude to the staff of the Kabatas–Mecidiyekoy Metro partnership for access to the site and construction data. The author is grateful to Alarko Contracting Group, EMAY International Engineering and Consultancy Inc., Artson Geotechnical Engineering Company and Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality for their help. The author also thanks the anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments.

References

  1. Arıç C (1955) Haliç-Küçükçekmece Gölü bölgesinin jeolojisi, Ph.D. thesis, ITU Mining Faculty, Istanbul, unpublished (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  2. Arıoğlu B, Yüksel A, Arıoğlu E (2002) İzmir Metro Projesi Nenehatun Tünelindeki geoteknik çalışmalar ve değerlendirilmesi. ECAS2002 Uluslararası Yapı ve Deprem Mühendisliği Sempozyumu, 14 Ekim 2002, Orta Doğu Teknik Universitesi, Ankara, Türkiye, pp 358–368Google Scholar
  3. Artson Geotechnical Engineering Company (AGEC) (2016a) İstanbul Metrosu Kabataş-Mecidiyeköy arası Jeolojik-Jeoteknik etüd raporu, Cilt 1, İstanbul, unpublished (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  4. Artson Geotechnical Engineering Company (AGEC) (2016b) İstanbul Metrosu Kabataş-Mecidiyeköy arası Jeolojik-Jeoteknik etüt raporu, Cilt 2, İstanbul, unpublished (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  5. Ball RPA, Young DY, Isaacson J, Champa J, Gause C (2009) Research in soil conditioning for EPB tunneling through difficult soils. In: Almeraris G, Mariucci B (eds) Rapid excavation and tunnelling conference. Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc. (SME), Las Vegas, pp 320–333Google Scholar
  6. Barla G, Pelizza S (2000) TBM tunneling in difficult ground conditions. In: GeoEng 2000—an international conference on geotechnical and geological engineering. Melbourne, Australia, p 20Google Scholar
  7. Barton N (2000) TBM tunneling in jointed and faulted rock. Balkema, Rotterdam, p 173Google Scholar
  8. Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech Rock Eng 6(4):189–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bieniawski ZT (1989) Classification of rock masses for engineering: the RMR system and future trends. Compos Rock Eng 3:553Google Scholar
  10. Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M (2004) Estimation of rock-mass deformation modulus and strength of jointed rock-masses using the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carrieri G, Grasso PG, Mahtab A, Pelizza S (1991) Ten years of experience in the use of umbrella-arch for tunneling. In: Proceedings of the congress on soil and rock improvement in underground works, Milano, vol 1, pp 99–111Google Scholar
  12. Carrieri G, Fiorotto R, Grasso P, Pelizza S (2002) Twenty years of experience in the use of the umbrella-arch method of support for tunnelling. In: International workshop on micropiles, VeniceGoogle Scholar
  13. Dalgıç S (2004) Factors affecting the greater damage in the Avcılar area of Istanbul during the 17 August 1999 Izmit Earthquake. Bull Eng Geol Environ 63:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goel RK, Jethwa JL, Paithankar AG (1995) Indian experiences with Q and RMR systems. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 10(1):97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gong QM, Yin LJ, She QR (2013) TBM tunneling in marble rock masses with high in situ stress and large groundwater inflow: a case study in China. Bull Eng Geol Environ 72:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gong Q, Yin L, Ma H, Zhao J (2016) TBM tunneling under adverse geological conditions: an overview. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 57:4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Güven G (2009) Istanbul metrosu Otogar-Kirazlı I arasının mühendislik jeolojisi ve tünel kazılarına bağlı oluşan deformasyonların değerlendirilmesi. M.Sc. thesis, ITU Institute of Science, Geological Engineering, Istanbul, unpublished (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  18. Heuer RE (1974) Important ground parameters in soft ground tunneling. In: Proceedings of specialty conference on subsurface exploration for underground excavation and heavy construction. ASCE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Heuer RE, Virgens DL (1987) Anticipated behavior of silty sands in tunneling. In: Proceedings, rapid excavation and tunneling conference. Society of Mining Engineers, Inc, LittletonGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(8):1165–1186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(97)80069-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground excavations in hard rock. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  22. Ji F, Lu JF, Shi YC, Zhou CH (2013) Mechanical response of surrounding rock of tunnels constructed with the TBM and drillblasting method. Nat Hazards 66(2):545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karakus M, Fowell RJ (2004) An insight into the new Austrian tunnelling method (NATM), ROCKMEC2 2004—VIIth regional rock mechanics symposium, Sivas, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  24. Ketin I (1992) İstanbul ve dolayının jeoloji haritası. İSKİ, İstanbul, unpublished (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  25. Kim T, Marcelo GS (2006) Fuzzy modeling approaches for the prediction of machine utilization in hard rock tunnel boring machines. In: 41st industrial application society annual meeting, industry applications conference, record of the 2006 IEEE, pp 947–954Google Scholar
  26. Kim SH, Baek SH, Moon HK (2005) A study on the reinforcement effect of umbrella arch method and prediction of tunnel crown and surface settlement. In: Erdem Y, Solak T (eds) Underground space use. Analysis of the past and lessons for the future, Proceedings of the International World Tunnel Congress and the 31st ITA General Assembly. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 245–251Google Scholar
  27. Laughton C (2005) Geotechnical problems encountered by tunnel boring machines mining in sedimentary rocks. In: Erdem Y, Solak T (eds) Underground space use. Analysis of the past and lessons for the future, Proceedings of the International World Tunnel Congress and the 31st ITA General Assembly. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 857–863Google Scholar
  28. Lunardi P (2000) The design and construction of tunnels using the approach based on the analysis of controlled deformation in rocks and soils. Tunnels and Tunnelling International Supplement, ADECO-RS Approach, May 2000, pp 3–30Google Scholar
  29. Marinos PG, Novack M, Benissi M, Stoumpos G, Papouli D, Panteliadou M, Marinos V, Boronkay K, Korkaris K (2009) Assessment of ground conditions with respect to mechanized tunneling for the construction of extension of the Athens Metro to the city of Piraeus. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68(1):17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martinotto A, Langmaack L (2007) Toulouse metro lot 2: soil conditioning in difficult ground conditions. In: Bartak J, Hrdina I, Romancov G, Zlamal J (eds) ITA-AITES world tunnel congress, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 1211–1216Google Scholar
  31. Muller L, Fecker E (1978) Grundgedanken und Grundsätze der Neuen Österreichischen Tunnelbauweise-Basic ideas and principles of the new Austrian tunnelling method. In: Trans Tech Publications, pp 247–262Google Scholar
  32. Ocak I (2013) Interaction of longitudinal surface settlements for twin tunnels in shallow and soft soils: the case of Istanbul Metro. Environ Earth Sci 69:1673–1683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ocak I, Bilgin N (2010) Comparative studies on the performance of a roadheader, impact hammer and drilling and blasting method in the excavation of metro station tunnels in Istanbul. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 25(2):181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ÖNORM B 2203-1 (Austrian Standard) (2008) Underground works—works contract. Part 1: cyclic driving (conventional tunnelling). Österreichisches NormungsinstitutGoogle Scholar
  35. Russo G (2007) Improving the reliability of GSI estimation: the integrated GSI-RMI system. In: Proceedings of I.S.R.M. Workshop “Underground Works under Special Conditions”, Madrid, pp 123–130Google Scholar
  36. Seymen I (1995) İzmit Körfezi ve çevresinin jeolojisi, İzmit Körfezi Kuvarterner istifi. In: Meriç E (ed) Kocaeli Valiliği Çevre Koruma Vakfı, KocaeliGoogle Scholar
  37. Shahriar K, Sharifzadeh M, Hamidi JK (2008) Geotechnical risk assessment based approach for rock TBM selection in difficult ground conditions. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 23(3):318–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shaterpour-Mamaghani A, Tumac D, Avunduk E (2016) Double shield TBM performance analysis in difficult ground conditions: a case study in the Gerede water tunnel, Turkey. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:251–262.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-015-0743-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Terzaghi K (1950) Geologic aspects of soft ground tunneling. In: Task R, Parker D (eds) Chapter 11 in applied sedimentation. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Wu HN, Shen SL, Ma L, Yin ZY, Horpibulsuk S (2015) Evaluation of the strength increase of marine clay under staged embankment loading: a case study. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 33(6):532–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yoo C, Kim SB (2008) Three-dimensional numerical investigations of new Austrian tunnelling method (NATM) twin tunnel interactions. Can Geotech J 45(10):1467–1486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yoo C, Shin HK (2003) Deformation behaviour of tunnel face reinforced with longitudinal pipes-laboratory and numerical investigation. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 18:303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhao J, Gong QM (2006) Rock mechanics and excavation by tunnel boring machine—issues and challenges. In: Proceedings of 4th Asian rock mechanics symposium, ISRM international symposium 2006. Singapore, pp 83–96Google Scholar
  44. Zhao J, Gong QM, Eisensten Z (2007) Tunnelling through a frequently changing and mixed ground: a case history in Singapore. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 22:388–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geological Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringSüleyman Demirel UniversityIspartaTurkey

Personalised recommendations