You are on page 1of 10

Computational model for secondary tunnel liner of two-pass lining system

Z. Eisenstein School of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta M. Salac Metrostav a.s. A. Zapletal Metrostav a.s. ABSTRACT: While design calculations of the primary liner of two -pass tunnel lining system receive a great deal of attention in design practice, including a number of computational models available, the secondary liner is often designed on the basis of excessively simplified assumptions. Thus a new computational model has been formulated as a two parameter numerical problem on the basis of FEM. This new model considers the time dependant degradation of the primary liner, taken into account as a deformation parameter, derived as a function of deformation modulus. As streng th parameters are chosen limitations, which govern the ability of the primary liner to carry shear and tensile stress. This new computational model has been used for the first time in design of the secondary liner for the road tunnel Mrazovka in Prague. This paper describes the model in detail, including practical application at the Mrazovka tunnel. 1. INTRODUCTION Secondary liner is a structure developed inside another structure (primary liner), which separates the secondary liner from the ground. Disreg a r d i n g s e v e r a l f a c t o r s o f l e s s e r significance (own weight, creep and shrinkage of secondary liner, residual creep of primary liner, temperature variations inside the tunnel, stress changes in the ground due to the tunnel excavation) it becomes obvious that t h e immediate causes of secondary liner loading are two features of the primary liner: its insufficient watertightness and its deterioration. This paper deals with the deterioration of the primary liner (in further text called deterioration for simplicity) and describes an FEM numerical model, capable of handling the deteriorating primary liner and its impact on primary liner loading in a complex way. An important part of this paper is devoted to a numerical study carried out using this model. The study investigates how the deterioration influences the distribution of ground mass loading on both liners. Because only circular cross sections are considered, the interpretation of results can be conveniently simplified. 2. AN EARLIER NUMERICAL MODEL OF DETERIORATION OF PRIMARY LINER An earlier model was proposed in 1998 (Zapletal, 1998). In this model, deterioration was considered as a phenomenon involving the entire primary liner as opposed to a local occurrence. An algoritmic model of deterioration was formulated to describe this process not just as a process of material softening, as is usual in modelling of creeping, but on a basis involving several other phenomena. Of course, the change of modulus of deformation of the primary liner still remains in the proposed algorithmic model as an important factor, but it describes only the deformation aspects of the whole process. The second aspect, the change of strength, cannot be formulated just using the plasticity boundary surfaces, because without appropriate experimental results it is not possible to obtain the required functional relationships between the deformation modulus and the strength, represented by the angle of internal friction and cohesion. Instead, in order to model the phenomenon of decreasing strength a restriction is placed on the ability of the deteriorating primary liner to carry shear and tensile stresses.

To model these requirements, the deteriorating primary liner is defined as an orthogonal discontinuous body with two systems of discontinuity surfaces. The first system is parallel to the curved axis of the primary liner, while the second system is perpendicular to it. Along these discontinuities, the strength parameters cohesion c, angle of internal friction and tensile strength (t) are made equal to zero. These artificially defined discontinuities bear no resemblance to the real discontinuities, which may occur during the process of deterioration. They only serve as an imaginary tool to restrict the ability of the deteriorating primary liner to carry shear and tensile stresses. In other words, no principal stress must be in tension. To illustrate the proposed model, one can visualise the deteriorating primary liner as a assemblage of rectangular blocks, orientated with their surfaces in the directions along and perpendicular to the liner axis. The blocks are assembled in rows and columns. Another feature of the algorithmic model sets the applied deformation modulus of the deteriorating primary liner E (,a) initially equal to the deformation modulus of the undeteriorated liner. It means that the actual deformation modulus of the primary lining is changing during the disintegration. The character of the change is that =1 if we express the dependence between the actual deformation modulus of the disintegrated primary lining E () and the deformation modulus of the non-disintegrated primary lining E (o) by a relation E () = E (o)/(1+) (1)

vertical equilibrium:
N dT q * R = 0,......... .q = q (1) q (2 )........( 3) d

moment equilibrium:
dM p *h*R +T * R + = 0.......... .......... ......( 4 ) d 2

Under the restriction that the shear force must be equal to zero (T=dT=0) as well as p(1)=0 and p(2)=0 (as a accompanying restriction modelling the contact between the primary and secondary liner where a waterproof barrier is normally placed), equations (2) (4) can be transformed into the following degenerated equations: dN = 0 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ........( 5 ) d N = ( q (1) q (2 )) * R.......... .......... .......... .......( 6) dM = 0 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......( 7 ) d

Fig.1: Equilibrium Equations

3. THE CONSEQUENCES OF DEGENERATED EQUATIONS An analysis of the degenerated equations leads to several conclusions and allows for a formulation of a basic theoretical concept of the changes of loading during primary liner deterioration: Even the deteriorated primary liner has a capacity albeit limited to function as an arch with a simple interaction of forces with a constant normal force acting between the blocks (see Eq. (5)). The greater is this normal force, the smaller would be the load acting on the secondary liner (an expected result of Eq. (6)). In the limit case,

The elementary continuum mechanics set the equations of equilibrium of the liner arch as (see Fig. 1): horizontal equilibrium:
dN + T p * R = 0 ,.... p = p (1) + p ( 2 )......... .( 2 ) d

when N=q(1)*R, the load on secondary liner q(2) would be zero. There exists one more possibility how to achieve a small, in an extreme case zero, loading on the secondary liner. This would be the case, when the loading imposed on the primary liner by the ground q(1) would be small, leading to small N or q(2) respectively. With an acceptable degree of approximation it would be possible to interpret the case of N=q(1)*R or N q(l)*R (paragraph 3.3.) as the initial state of the tunnel loading, with fresh (undeteriorated) primary liner, carrying all ground loads without the help of a secondary liner. Paragraph 3.3. can be understood as a result of a sudden decrease of ground pressure, acting on the primary liner. This decrease is inevitable, because the deteriorating primary liner gradually softens and looses its stiffness. Even without the benefits of the mathematical analysis presented, it would be conceivable to admit the effects of deterioration process would be significant. Paragraph 3.4. defines the extreme cases of secondary liner loading, that is immediately after completion of the tunnel and after some unspecified length of tunnel operation. Theoretically, both cases would have the secondary liner without any load. Meanwhile, between these two cases, the secondary liner is undoubtedly under load. This means that the critical load to be considered for design of the secondary liner has to be found as the extreme load acting between those two limiting situations. It is a load, which increases initially and then decreases later. The validity of this concept has to be proven. It has to be proven both mathematically and by actual observations. It cannot be excluded that the extreme loading can be found, at least mathematically, outside the period of actual deterioration. If this is the case, the loading transmitted on the secondary liner would continually increase and the highest load would be reached at the end of the tunnel life. A numerical analysis can show that the extreme

loading is actually reached sometime during the lifespan of a tunnel. However, to do this, the mathematical model used so far has to be extended. 4. EXTENDED MODEL OF DETERIORATING PRIMARY LINER The extension of the original mathematical model would be achieved by adopting the following steps: The angle of internal friction = constant 1. This assumption makes it possible to transmit shear forces. By selecting the value of one can control this process. Deformation modulus of deteriorated primary liner is given by E() = E(o)/(1+), 0,), E ()E(,a). This means the deteriorated liner can soften beyond any limitation. Then the extended model of the deteriorating primary liner is defined as a two parameter numerical problem with parameters and E(). 5. NUMERICAL STUDY OF PRIMARY LINER DETERIORATION Using the extended model a numerical study was carried out, analysing the deterioration of liner of a circular tunnel. The tunnel had an internal diameter of 5.1 m (corresponding to the cross section of running tunnels of Prague Metro subway), the thickness of the primary liner being 20 cm and of the secondary liner 28 cm. The initial deformation modulus of the primary liner was E(o)=19 GPa, the deformation modulus of the secondary liner was 27 GPa. The ground around the tunnel had a deformation modulus Edef =1000 MPa. The ground pressure was the only load considered. The extended model parameters and E() were determined in this study as shown in the following Table.

Table 1: Summary of Values of Parameters Fi and E(fi) obtained in the Numerical Study
F Shear Force Transfer:0% Shear Force Transfer: 100% E(f) 1,0E(o) 0,99E(o) 0,5E(o) 0,1E(o) 0,01E(o) 0,001E(o) 1,0E(o) 0,99E(o) 0,5E(o) 0,1E(o) 0,01E(o) 0,001E(o)

The ground pressure acting on the primary liner decreases as the liner deteriorates. As soon as the deterioration process begins, the primary liner begins to shed the load it carries onto the secondary liner. This load transfer increases with increasing deterioration of the primary liner. The loading on the secondary liner increases accordingly. When the deformation modulus of the primary liner decreases to the value equal to E()= E(o), (<1 is defined as a coefficient of extremity) the load transfer (or load shedding) from the primary is completed and remains as such during a continuing deterioration. However, the deterioration continues to be associated with further decrease of the ground pressure. As from the point E(o) the load on secondary liner is equal to the ground pressure, the load on the secondary liner, so far increasing, has to begin to decrease. This is why the load on the secondary liner in point E(o) reaches its extreme value. . The extreme load in this study was reached when the coefficient of extremity was = 0.1 , which corresponds to a deformation modulus value reaching E() 0.1 E(o) 2 GPa. This is a realistic value for a deteriorating liner, as follows from this comparison: The deterioration of the primary liner can be compared to the change of rock class R2 (solid rock) to R3 (weathered rock) according to Czech Standard Norms classification. Nevertheless, the process of liner degradation will continue. This is why the loading on the secondary liner reaches its extreme value some time during the lifespan of the tunnel, as discussed theoretically in previous section 2.5. 7 CONCLUSIONS The results of the numerical study presented here allow for the following statement: When during the deterioration process of the primary liner the load shedding (transfer) is complete, the load on the secondary liner reaches its extreme value.

6 RESULTS OF STUDY Typical distribution of internal forces within both the primary and secondary liners, as obtained from the study, is presented on Figures 2 and 3. This form of forces distribution diagram makes it possible to describe the state of stress in both liners using one single number the value of normal force. This number is denoted for the primary liner by the symbol N(p) and for the secondary liner by N(s). The influence of the primary liner deterioration on the values of the normal forces is illustrated by the graph on Figure 4. In this graph, the horizontal axis represents the deformation modulus of the primary liner, which changes as a result of deterioration (in the graph, the deterioration progresses from the right to the left side). The vertical axis represents the normal forces. Each liner has two curves N(p) and N(s). One curve corresponds to the case, when the ability of the primary liner to carry shear forces is equal to 100%. The second curve is for 0%. It is not difficult to derive the liner loads from the normal forces. With sufficient accuracy it can be assumed that the loads are distributed uniformly. The ground pressure acting on the primary liner shall be denoted as q(h) and the primary liner pressure acting on the secondary liner as q(s). Then the resulting pressure acting on the primary liner shall be q(p)=q(h) q(s). It can be stated: q(p) = N(p)/R(p), q(s) = N(s)/R(s), q(h) = q(p)+q(s), where R(p) and R(s) are the radii of the primary and secondary liners respectively. The relationship between these pressures and the degree of primary liner deterioration, expressed similarly to Fig. 4 as a change in deformation modulus, is shown on Figure 5. From the graphs on Figures 4 and 5 one can draw the following conclusions:

while it was increasing prior to reaching the complete transfer (shedding). In other words, when the primary liner reaches the point of transferring its entire load to the secondary liner, the secondary liner load reaches its extreme. The conclusion above (sub 8.1.) has a far reaching mathematical validity, exceeding limits of what is physically admissible. This is because E() can, in the mathematical study, accomplish unrealistically small values (see chapter 3). Inside the extended range of E() values it is always possible to find the extreme load. In order to remain within the physically admissible range of values it is thus necessary to introduce at least an approximate limitation. This is done by introducing the coefficient of extremity as follows: Assuming that a freshly applied shotcrete corresponds to rock class R2, then the correlation between the coefficient of extremity and a corresponding level of liner deterioration is given in Table 2.

Fig.2: Typical Diagram of Internal Forces in Primary Liner

Deterioration, corresponding to 0.001 is obviously at the realistic limit of possible level of degradation. Deterioration, corresponding to << 0.001 is thus unrealistic. This leads to a conclusion, that it is not necessary to study liner deterioration for <0.001, however, it should be carried out for the interval of 0.001; 1. This conclusion can be further specified, if the actual process of deterioration is known more precisely. However, if such knowledge is not available or is only of a speculative nature, the study of loads on a secondary liner should be carried out for a coefficient of extremity range as stated above, 0.001; 1. This happens to be the interval of Fig.3: Typical Diagram of Internal Forces in Secondary the presented numerical study.
Liner

Comments: Ground pressure during primary liner deterioration decreases and the primary liner transfers these pressures onto the secondary liner. When the process of load shedding is complete, the secondary liner carries all ground pressure. The ground pressure, however, continues to decrease further, which means that the loading on secondary liner decreases as well,

The extreme loading is also a function of the geotechnical characteristics of the ground mass. The worse is the ground, the more deteriorated must be the primary liner when reaching the point of extremity. Thus it cannot be excluded that there are situations when the secondary liner will achieve its extreme (highest) loading at the end of the lifespan of the tunnel. This is normally assumed intuitively as a general rule. It is,

however, obvious that such a situation might be possible, but not inevitable.
Table 2: Correlation between Coefficient of Extremity and Corresponding Level of Primary Liner Deterioration
Coefficient of Primary Liner (corresponding to Rock Class R2) is Extremity degraded to Level Rock Class R3 0,1 Rock Class R6 0,01 Sandy Soil 0,001

Typical thickness of the primary liner of the three lane tunnel reflects the geological conditions of the site. It is 40 cm along the upper arch and the sides and 30 cm along the bottom. The secondary liner is a cast-in-place reinforced concrete. Typical thickness of the secondary liner is 45 cm in the upper arch. The lower part is designed as a composite bridge structure. 8.2 Loading Cases The secondary liner was designed considering its own weight (for all cases) plus the following combinations of additional loading: summer temperatures shrinkage, winter temperatures ground pressure, summer temperatures ground pressure, winter temperatures hydrostatic pressure, shrinkage, winter temperatures ground pressure, hydrostatic pressure, summer temperatures ground pressure, hydrostatic pressure, shrinkage, winter temperatures

8 PRACTICAL APPLICATION AT THE MRAZOVKA ROAD TUNNEL IN PRAGUE The tunnel Mrazovka in Prague consists of two large diameter tubes, which form a part of the Prague City Ring Road. The construction of Mrazovka started early in 1999, with a completion date planned for August 2004. The owner of the project is the City of Prague, the design has been carried out by SATRA consulting company and the contractor is a joint venture of two largest tunnelling firms in the Czech Republic Metrostav and Subterra. Metrostav acts as the leader of the joint venture. Due to the relatively short length of the tunnels (cca 1000m) and the complex variability of the tunnel profiles the tunnelling has been carried out by the New Austrian Tunnelling Method. 8.1 Description of the Liners The tunnelling complex of Mrazovka consists of a number of different tunnel profiles, with cross section areas from 80 to 320 m2. This study will be carried out for the dominant profile of the two basic three lane running tunnel tubes with a cross section area of 160 m2. These tunnels are designed with a two pass liner system, with a watertight barrier between the primary and secondary liners. The watertight barrier, formed by a plastic sheet, is completely closed around the tunnel. The primary liner is formed by a shotcrete layer, reinforced with steel wire mesh and steel lattice girder ribs and supported by rock anchors.

The decisive loading cases are those involving the ground and hydrostatic pressures. 8.3 Mathematical Model of the Mrazovka Tunnels Structural analysis of the secondary liner was carried out by the tunnel designers SATRA considering the loading cases above. The calculations were done by the Finite Element method, with the mesh illustrated on Figure 6, under the condition of two dimensional plane strain. Individual ground layers were defined as elasto-plastic medium with associated plastic flow rule of the Drucker Prager type (compromise envelope). The shotcrete primary liner was defined either as an elasto -plastic medium with time dependant change of the deformation modulus and with the conditions of no tension and no creep (before deterioration) or as an orthogonal discontinuous body (after the onset of deterioration). The cast-in-place secondary liner (B30 concrete class) was defined as an elastic medium. The sequence of

excavation was simulated according to the conditions. 8.4 Results of Calculations In the original design, the secondary liner was considered as a closed ring. The deck carrying the road lanes and the underlying utilities structure were designed as a separate, build -in component, without any interaction with the secondary liner (Figure 7). However, the initial structural analyses had shown very clearly that such assumption was unrealistic and this led to the decision to structurally combine the bottom part of the secondary liner with the build-in components

(Figure 8). This approach fundamentally changed the structural role of the road deck, which became a tensile element, carrying tensile forces up to 1600kN/m. The diagram of internal forces acting inside the secondary liner for the most critical loading case is given on Figure 9, while the deformations of the secondary liner for the same loading case in on Figure 10. Applying this approach resulted in the secondary liner to be designed not only safely, but very economically as well. For a comparison, calculations done using the conventional Beam Element Model would result in much heavier structure.

Notes:
1/ N(p) is normal force in primary liner 2/ N(s) i s n o r m a l f o r c e i n secondary liner 3/ Motion from the right to the left corresponds to the deterioration of primary liner 4/ D ef orm at i on m odu l u s o f primary liner E(fi) is a real modulus. It differs from design elasticity modulus. E(o) is deformation modulus of intact primary liner.

Fig.4: Normal Forces in Primary and Secondary Liner at the Moment of Deterioration of Primary Liner

Fig. 5: Loading of the Secondary and Primary Liner at Deterioration of the Primary Liner. Capability of the Primary Liner of Bearing Shearing Forces: 0%

Fig.6: Mrazovka Tunnel. Mesh of Computational Model FEM

Fig.7: Mrazovka Tunnel. Cross- S e c t i o n o f t h e Secondary Liner before the Calculation

Fig.8: Mrazovka Tunnel. Cross- S e c t i o n o f t h e Secondary Liner after the Calculation

Fig.9: Mrazovka Tunnel. Three-lane Profile, Internal Forces in Secondary Liner

Fig.10: Mrazovka Tunnel. Three-line Profile Displacement of Secondary Liner