Bored Tunnel Lining Design in Soft Soils A Comparison

between Analytical and Numerical Analyses

P.T. Chong1, S. K. Tang1, T.L. Lim1, S. Sugawara2 and T. Furusono2

1
CPG Consultants Pte Ltd
2
Nishimatsu Construction Co., Ltd.

ABSTRACT

In Singapore, most of the recent major public infrastructures are constructed underground to
minimised land usage. This includes mass rail transit system with capacity up to 20,000 passengers.
This paper will present the tunnel lining design carried out for the on-going Singapore MRT Circle
Line Stage 2 Contract 823 project. The twin-bored tunnels will be constructed in very soft marine
clays. A cost-effective and practical design has been formulated. Analytical analyses using the Bedded
Beam Model by Duddeck and Erdmann (1982), as well as numerical analysis were conducted for the
bored tunnel lining design. The merits of each analysis will be discussed and compared in this paper.
The geotechnical and structural design parameters adopted for the analyses will also be described and
evaluated in the paper.

1. INTRODUCTION

The number and sophistication of design computations carried out for structural linings of tunnels
have been steadily increasing during the past several years. The need to provide a satisfactory estimate
of expected deformations, loading of the lining segment as well as the safety of the tunnel structure
itself are the important aspect in the tunnel lining design. The twin bored tunnels were proposed to
replace the original design cut and cover tunnels connecting bored tunnels of Contract 824 (Circle
Line Stage 1) and Old Airport Road Station of Contract 823 (Circle Line Stage 2).

2. BASIC REQUIREMENT TO DESIGN TUNNEL LINING

Prior to designing any tunnel lining, it is essential to specify the aims and constraints, which the
planned tunnel structure must satisfy:

a. Its function (rail or road transport, water or air conveyance, power or data conveyance,
storage, etc.;
b. Its operation constraints;
- geometrical criteria (clearance, route, construction tolerance, etc,
- watertightness criteria,
- fire resistance criteria,
c. Environmental constraints;
- geology and hydrogeology condition,
- site urbanisation (limitation of ground settlement, etc.),
d. Regulation, standard and recommendation to be applied.

F11 1
2.1 Properties and Geometry of The Bored Tunnels

A precast concrete lining for TBM-driven tunnel generally comprises of a sequence of rings placed
side by side. In this project, each tunnel ring consists of 5 standard segments and 1 key segment. Each
segment having a thickness of 275mm and the width of 1.4m. The standard segment will cover an
angle of 67.5o and the key segment having cover an angle of 22.5o wide and that will form a ring with
5.8m internal diameter. (Please refer Fig. 1 for the typical arrangement of the ring). The
circumferential and radial joints of the segment are connected using M24 Grade 8.8 curved bolt. The
structural design parameters of the tunnel lining are listed as follow:

Concrete grade, fcu = 60 N/mm2

Young Modulus, Ec = 32000000 kN/m2
Cross section area, A = 0.275 m2
Second moment of area, I = 0.00173m4/m
Poisson ratio, lining = 0.15

Average density of the soils above the bored tunnel was used to compute the vertical and horizontal
pressure action on the tunnel lining. Surcharge load of 75 kN/m2 was applied according to Clause 3.4.1
of the Civil Design Criteria provided by Land Transport Authority.

Figure 1: Typical arrangement of the tunnel lining.

2.2 Geotechnical Information

The soil condition along the proposed bored tunnels alignment consists of 3 to 5m Fill, followed by a
17 to 27m thick layer of Kallang formation which consists of fluvial sand (F1), fluvial clay (F2),
estuarine (E) and marine clay (M), then underlain by Old Alluvium (Please refer to Fig. 2 for the soil
profile). Table 1 shows the summary of the engineering properties of the soils.

F11 2
 Reduced level

Bored Tunnel Analysed

100m

90m

80m

70m

60m

50m

0m 100m 200m 300m 400m 500m 600m 700m 800m 900m 1000m
Distance
Legends
Fill Marine Clay Fluvial Clay (F2) Tunnel Alignment

Estuarine Fluvial Sand (F1) Old Alluvium

Figure 2: Soil profile at the proposed site

Table 1 Summary of engineering properties of soils

Strength Parameters
Unit Total Stress Effective Stress Deformation
SPT N-
Material Weight Modulus, E
Values Su c'
(kN/m3)# (MN/m2)
2 2
(kN/m ) (kN/m ) (o)
1. Fill 19 0 ~ 20 30 0 28 10
2. Kallang Formation Sand
20 3 ~ 15 11 0 30 10
(F1)
3. Kallang Formation Clay
19 2 ~ 20 40.5 5 25 15
(F2)
4. Upper Marine Clay 16 - 15 0 22 4.5
5. Lower Marine Clay 16 - 35 0 22 10.5
6. Old Alluvium 20 >100 500 25 35 200

Note:
#
Extracted from Land Transport Authority's Design Criteria.

The Distortional Loading Coefficients (K) values in the Table 2 below are used in FEM analysis
accordance with Clause 7.5.1.4 of the Civil Design Criteria provided by Land Transport Authority.

Table 2: Distortional Loading Coefficients for various type of soil.

Stratum Distortional Loading Coefficient, K
FILL 0.50
Marine Clay (M) 0.75
Fluvial Clay (F2) 0.75
Fluvial Sand (F1) 0.50
Old Alluvium 0.50

F11 3
3. DESIGN APPROACH

Soft ground requires immediate support. Therefore general agreement exists on the following basic
assumption:

a. For the design model of the lining, it may be sufficient to consider only a cross-section on the
assumption of plain strain conditions for the lining and the ground.
b. The active soil pressures on the lining are taken as equal to the primary stresses in the
undisturbed ground because the ground is soft. Hence it is assumed that for the final stage the
ground will eventually return to the same condition as before the tunnelling, except for the
passive stresses due to the deflection of the lining.
c. Between the lining and the ground exists a bond either for radial and tangential deformations
or for radial deformations only. With this assumption, the model complied with the
equilibrium conditions as well as with the compatibility conditions at the boundary between
the lining and the ground.
d. The material behaviour of ground and lining is generally assumed as being elastic.

3.1 Analytical Method

The bending moment and stresses developed in the lining are dependent on the stiffness of the lining
relative to that of the soil surround it. The Bedding Beam Model proposed by Duddeck and Erdmann
(1982) using the following expression for bedding modulus Kr = Es/R and the stiffness of the ground is
expressed as Es = Ec(1-)/(1+)(1-2), where Ec is elasticity modulus of the continuum. Below are the
analytical formulation proposed by Duddeck and Erdmann (1982) for the tunnel lining design.

Mmax = v(1-Ko)R2/[4+{(3-2)(EcR3)}/{3.(1+)(3-4)(EJ)}] (1)

Nmax = v(1-Ko)R/[2+{(4EcR3)/(EJ)}/{(3-4)12(1+)+(EcR3)/(EJ)}] (2)
umax = v(1-Ko)(R4/EJ)/[12+{(3-2)(EcR3)}/{(1+)(3-4)(EJ))] (3)

Where Mmax, Nmax and umax are the maximum value of bending moment, shear force and displacement
respectively. Surcharge load of 75 kN/m2 was applied. The analysis result is summarised in Table 3.
The analytical method discussed in this paper is not able to analyse the shear force acting on the tunnel
lining, therefore a comparison cannot be made. Besides, this analytical method is also not able to
analyse the soil behaviour surround it.

3.2 Finite Element Method (FEM)

Commercial software has been used to model the bored tunnel, this finite element package intended
for two-dimensional analysis of deformation and stability geotechnical engineering. The FEM able to
model the interaction between the structure and the soil and provide the complete stress state
throughout the soil mass and the tunnel lining. The forces and moments are used in the reinforced
concrete design of the tunnel lining.

Mohr Coulomb soil model with 4th order 15-node triangular elements are used to model the
deformations and stresses in the soils. Beam element is used to model the tunnel lining. The behaviour
of this element is to define using flexural rigidity, a normal stiffness and an ultimate bending moment.
Beam elements with interface were used to perform realistic analysis of geotechnical structure. Two
cases were analysed to study the tunnel lining with and without segmental joints, each cases surcharge
and no surcharge were considered. Segmental joints was modelled by using the joint spring stiffness of
10000 kNm/rad/m.

F11 4
Figure. 3 showed the finite element model used to analyse the bored tunnel. The results from the finite
element analysis were showed in Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7, which are the results for bending moment,
shear force and axial force respectively for cases analysed showed in Table 3. It is known that the
tunnel lining displacement obtained from the FEM analysis included the tunnel movement due to soil
deformation beside the lining distortion itself, which will give bigger value compared to analytical
method. It is difficult to single out the lining distortion from the total displacement, therefore
comparison will not carried out for the lining displacement for these two methods.

Figure 3. Finite element model of the bored tunnel.

Maximum Bending Moment = 76.73 kNm/m Maximum Shear Force = 49.74 kN/m
(a). (b)
Figure 4. Bending moment, shear force and axial force for lining without joint (surcharge 75kN/m2).

Maximum Bending Moment = 37.06 kNm/m Maximum Shear Force = 23.87 kN/m
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Bending moment, shear force and axial force for lining without joint (no surcharge).

F11 5
 Maximum Bending Moment = 54.18 kNm/m Maximum Shear Force = 33.21 kN/m
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Bending moment, shear force and axial force for lining with joint (surcharge 75kN/m2).

Maximum Bending Moment = 27.33 kNm/m Maximum Shear Force = 19.83 kN/m

(a) (b)
Figure 7. Bending moment, shear force and axial force for lining with joint (no surcharge).

3.3 Analysis Results

Table 3 showed the summary of results obtained from analytical method using Bedding Beam Model
and finite element method.

Table 3: Summary of analysis results.

With surcharge Without surcharge
Bedding FEM (Lining FEM Bedding FEM (Lining FEM
Beam without (Lining Beam without (Lining
Model Joint) with Joint) Model Joint) with Joint)
Maximum bending 85.77 76.36 54.18 53.19 37.06 27.33
moment, Mmax
(kNm/m).
Maximum hoop 1061.16 1310.00 1330.00 835.85 1020.00 1130.00
forces, Nmax
(kN/m).
Maximum shear - 49.74 33.21 - 23.87 19.83
force, Smax (kN/m).
Maximum radial 7.36 - - 4.48 - -
displacement, umax
(mm).
- No value available from analytical method.

F11 6
Table 3 showed that the analysis using the Bedding Beam Model give larger results compared to finite
element model. These differences are due to the Bedding Beam Model is a structural design model
which is subjected sorely to the vertical and horizontal loads. The stress and moments developed in a
lining are dependent on the stiffness of tunnel lining relative to the soil, there is no structure soil
interaction. The relationship between relative stiffness and moment or stress can be obtained using
Equations (1) and (2). This assumption is hardly ever met in real problem except when lining is
installed immediately behind the advancing face of a tunnel. It is noted that the maximum bending
moment is controlled by the flexibility ratio EcR3/EJ. For a larger value of flexibility ratio (large soil
modulus), the moment becomes very small. Conversely, for a small value of flexibility ratio (relatively
rigid lining), the moment is large. FEM able to model construction sequences and soil-structure
interaction was considered. This soil-structure interaction capability in the FEM analysis caused the
results to be smaller than analytical method due to soil arcing effect. The soil will transfer part of
active pressure by arcing and the tunnel lining gets relative smaller pressure, this arcing effect will be
larger if the soil surround the tunnel is stiffer according to Vermeer (2001).

Table 3 also show results for cases where tunnel lining was analysed with segmental joints, the
bending moment and shear force are smaller compared to tunnel lining that modelled as a complete
ring. This result suggests that if the segmental joints were considered in the FEM analysis, the bending
moment and shear forces will reduce to about half of the value compared to the analysis without
considering segmental joint. These results is reasonable as the segmental joints having a smaller
stiffness compared to concrete lining, which caused smaller bending moment and shear stress.

4. CONCLUSION

Analytical model and finite element model were used to analyse the stresses acting on the bored tunnel
lining for the on-going Singapore MRT Circle Line Stage 2 Contract 823 project. Results showing
that analytical method using Bedding Beam Model proposed by Duddeck and Erdmann (1982) give
larger results in bending moment but smaller hoop forces compared to finite element method (Table
3). The difference may due to the soil arching effect modelled in the FEM analysis, where analytical
method does not consider soil-structure interaction according to Vermeer (2001). FEM analysis with
the consideration of segmental joint will give lower bending moment and shear stress. The present of
segmental joints cannot be modelled in the analytical method.

Even though the analytical method will give higher results in bending moment, but this results is
acceptable for the design of the tunnel lining in the event that time is the main concern because
running FEM analysis always time consuming. Analytical method can also serve as preliminary design
tool when the detailed soil information is not available.

5. REFERENCES

Civil Design Criteria for Road & Rail Transit Systems, 2002, Land Transport Authority Singapore,
Rev. A4.
Duddeck, H. and Erdmann, J., 1982. Structural design models for tunnels. Proceedings Tunnelling82,
London. pp. 83-91.
Vermeer, P., 2001, On single anchored retaining walls. Bulletin of the Plaxis, No. 10, pp. 2-4.

F11 7