During the construction of the Semmering Base Tunnel, Lot SBT1.1, the drives have already encountered several fault zones in the Greywacke Zone. Because of the high overburden, the exact position of these fault zones is unknown at tunnel level; a common problem for all tunnelling projects in mountainous regions. Simple exploration drilling techniques such as percussion drillings, where only cuttings and not cores are won, do not always provide enough information to precisely specify the position of the fault zones or their nature ahead of the face. This is reason enough to examine other possibilities for the short‐term prediction of fault zones with differing characteristics ahead of the face. Usually displacement data evaluation provides the basis for a short‐term prediction of the system behaviour. However, experiences from Lot SBT1.1 show that applying this approach solely does not always yield satisfying results. A further systematic analysis of selected geological data can improve the short‐term prediction. In particular, changes of discontinuity and rock mass characteristics mapped at the tunnel face are analysed to spot significant trends indicating fault zones ahead of the face. These trends are then related to and verified by the results of displacement data evaluation. This combination of rock mass characteristics mapped at the face and state‐of‐the‐art evaluation of displacement data has helped to improve the reliability of short‐term predictions during the tunnel excavation.

One of the major fault zones in the Semmering area runs along the Auebach Valley. In this fault zone a combination of soft fault rocks and water bearing hard rocks led to extremely challenging conditions in the design and execution of the tunnel. In difficult conditions, overlapping exploratory drillings in front of tunnel drive are essential to improve the geological‐hydrogeological model and to assess geotechnical risks. However, in the encountered geological‐hydrogeological conditions, the well‐established exploratory drilling methods reached their limits. Despite the ongoing risk analysis, a very large‐scale water and ground inflow with subsequent tunnel face collapse and development of a sinkhole on the surface occurred during the tunnelling. This paper describes the causes of the incident and the development of procedures to cope with the problem. In addition to the geological‐geotechnical analyses, the article also discusses the limitations of geotechnical surveillance in complex heterogeneous rock masses.

No abstract

No abstract

The use of geophysical methods for the planning of complex underground structures such as deep tunnels has made significant progress in the last two decades. The realization of large underground construction projects in complex geological environments has led to an increase of geophysical exploration during excavation activities, drilling, and geological documentation. The aim is to continuously update and improve the geological model in order to identify and mitigate potential risks. Flexible planning of geophysical measurements and their fast and efficient implementation are required to minimize the impact on ongoing construction works.During construction of the Semmering Base Tunnel geophysical measurements were and are used to supplement exploratory drillings and tunnel documentation. This paper presents results from the construction lots SBT1.1 (Gloggnitz) and SBT3.1 (Grautschenhof) with an emphasis on carbonate prediction, and from the Göstritz cavern where sudden water ingress required an update of the geologic model. For each assignment a tailored‐made geophysical methodology was designed and applied.