| Summary: | In the construction of a tunnel, the characterization of the rock mass is performed in three different steps, in the pre-investigations, in the engineering geological forecast and in the tunnel mapping during construction. There has in previous work been observed that discrepancies exist between the results from these different steps, with a tendency to assign poorer rock mass quality in the tunnel mapping than in the pre-investigations and in the engineering geological forecast. One example is the work done by Kjellström [1] on the Cityline where the divergence in rock mass quality was analyzed between the different steps. If a divergence exists between the engineering geological forecast and the actual conditions observed in the tunnel mapping, it will influence both planning and budget. It is therefore important that the engineering geological forecast is as close as possible to the actual rock mass conditions in the field. The aim of this thesis was, using the case study of the Northern Link, to analyze those discrepancies in the rock mass quality estimated in the characterization and in the classification between the mapping of drill cores, the engineering geological forecast and the tunnel mapping thus complementing the work by Kjellström [1]. The aim was also identifying which parameters included in the Q-system that causes these discrepancies The analysis of the results showed that it is difficult to make the engineering geological forecast and the actual mapping match for every single meter, but that the overall correlation between them was good. The methodology used in the characterization and classification in the different phases (drill-core mapping, engineering geological forecast, tunnel mapping) may to some extent explain this divergence. The parameters Jr, Jn and Ja, included in the Q-system were the ones identified as having the largest influence on the discrepancies. In future work, it is recommended that focus is given on these parameters. A way to improve future engineering geological forecast for tunnel contracts would be to have a better follow up of the engineering geological forecast and to have standardized guidelines on how to assess clearly the value of the Q parameters in each phase (for the drill cores as well as for the actual mapping). The reduction of those differences would then lead to a better planning and budget management in future tunnel projects in Sweden.
|
|---|
