MCR4 LNT 422 DR 400065 - A1 PDF

Mumbai Coastal Road Project – Package IV
(Design Certificate)
This Design Certificate refers to

Submission No. MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065 A1
which comprises:
[*Design Package No. Mumbai Coastal Road Package IV / the Definitive Design
Submission MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065 A1 in respect of:
[TBM Tunnel - Definitive Design Report]
The contents of this submission are scheduled in Section A below.
The documents scheduled in Section B below, for which a Notice to proceed has been issued,
are of relevance to this submission.
LEAD DESIGNER’S STATEMENT
We certify that:
(a) the design of the Permanent Works, as illustrated and described in the documents
scheduled in Section A below, complies with the Employer's Requirements, local
regulations and standards and ...... N.A. [see note 1 below];
OR (in the case of a Definitive Design Submission in respect of those elements

identified under Clause C2(6) of the Employer's Requirements - Design):
a. the outline designs, design briefs and performance specifications of those

elements of the Permanent Works as illustrated and described in the
documents scheduled in Section A below comply with the Employer's
Requirements and ......N.A.
[see note 1 below];
OR (in the case of a submission of documents that do not strictly comply with previous
documents for which a Notice to proceed has been received):
b. the design of the Permanent Works, as illustrated and described in the

documents scheduled in Section A below, complies with the Employer's
Requirements and (III) [see note 1 below] except in the following respects:
(I) Dimension of the segments (particularly the key segment); tapering of the
ring; details of the segments
(b) A detailed review and design check has been undertaken and completed to confirm
the completeness, adequacy and validity of the design of the Permanent Works as
illustrated an described in the documents scheduled in Section A below;
(c) all necessary and required approvals relating to the design of the Permanent
Works, as illustrated and described in the documents scheduled in Section A below,
have been obtained and copies of such approvals are annexed in Section C below;
Design Certificate 27/03/2019
1|Page
Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use

AND (in the case of a submission covering a part of the Permanent Works only):
all effects of the design comprising the submission on the design of adjacent or other parts of
the Works have been fully taken into account in the design of those parts.
Signed by “Authorised Representative”
(for Designer):
Name: Andrea Panciera
Position / Designation: Engineering Manager
Date: 09-04-2019
LEAD DESIGN CHECKER’S CERTIFICATION
We certify that the Work described in Section A of this certificate has been checked by us, and
meets the requirements of the Contract.
(for Design Checker)
Name: Mohan Gupta
Position / Designation: Engineering Manager
Date: 09-04-2019
CONTRACTOR’S CERTIFICATION
This Certifies that all design has been performed utilising the skill and care to be expected of
a professionally qualified and competent designer, experienced in work of similar nature and
2|Page

scope. This further certifies that all works relating to the preparation, review, checking and
certification of design has been verified by us and that the design meets the requirements of
the Contract and has been accepted by us.

(for Contractor) Name: Sandeep Singh
Position/Designation: Project Manager
Date: 09-04-2019
Note 1
The Contractor shall insert one of the following, as applicable:
(i) the Contractor's Technical Proposals
(ii) the Contractor's Technical Proposals and Design Packages Nos. MCR4-LNT-420-
PR-400010- A1 for which a Notice to proceed has been issued.
(iii) Design Packages Nos. MCR4-LNT-420-PR-400010- A1 for which a Notice to
proceed has been issued if such Design Packages develop and amplify the
Contractor's Technical Proposals.
(iv) The Definitive Design
Section A
Submission no. MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065 A1 Definitive Design Report comprises the

following:
Drawings:
Design Report for TBM Tunnel MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065

General arrangement Drawings for TBM
MCR4-LNT-420-DD-401619
segments
TBM Tunnel – Concrete Definition Drawings MCR4-LNT-420-DD-401622
TBM Tunnel – Miscellaneous Details MCR4-LNT-420-DD-401632
Documents: (TBM Tunnel - Definitive Design Report- MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065 Rev A1)
Others:
3|Page

Section B
Documents for which a Notice to proceed has been issued and which are of relevance to this
Submission No.
Document: MCR4-LNT-420-PR-400010- A1
submitted with
Design Package No. Mumbai Coastal Road Package IV

Definitive Design Submission No.
Construction Reference Drawings
Submission No
Date of Issue of Notice to proceed
(* Delete as appropriate)
Section C
[Contractor to attach copies of necessary and required approvals from statutory bodies, etc..]
4|Page

MCR1/2/4-LNT/HCC-401-CR00-CRS-XXXXXX
COMMENTS RESOLUTION SHEET(CRS)

REVIEWED DOCUMENT DATA CRS DATA
Transmittal / Document Ref. MCR4-LNT-TN-030/MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065 CRS Identification: MCR4-LNT-422-CRS-400065 Revision:
Transmittal / Document Title TBM Tunnel Status Code:
Document Type DR CRS Prepared by

Discipline(s) involved TBM Tunnel CRS Reviewed by
Location
CRS Approved Sign
Transmittal received date Employer's Personnel (PMC)
Disclaimer: Permission to proceed shall not constitute acceptance or approval of design details, calculations, analyses, test methods or materials developed or selected by contractor and shall not relieve the contractor from full compliance with contractual obligations.
Status codes: A: Notice of No Objection accorded – Work may proceed – B : Notice of No Objection accorded with comments – Revise and resubmit. Work may proceed subject to incorporation of comments – C: objection – Revise and resubmit. Work may not proceed –
D: Rejected – E: Review not required. Work may proceed.Contractual obligations.
Comment Responded Revised

No. Doc/Section/ Page Employer's Representative/Employer's Personnel Comments Initial Status Contractor's Response By
made by Status
Definitive Design Report
1
Page 1 of 1
4/10/2019
DEFINITIVE DESIGN
TBM Tunnel
A1 29-03-2019 AECOM/YOOSHIN 1st Issue
Rev Date of Submission Reviewed by Remarks
TBM Tunnel 27/3/2019

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 I|Page
Description Lombardi SMEC
(Sign)
(Name) Diego L’Amante

Prepared By -
Deputy Project Manager
Date: 29/03/2019
(Sign) (Sign)
(Name) Andrea Panciera (Name) Mohan Gupta

Approved By
Engineering Manager Engineering Manager
Date: 29/03/2019 Date: DD/MM/YYYY

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 II | P a g e
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. REFERENCES 4
2.1 Contract documents, standards and codes 4
2.2 Project Documents 4
2.3 Technical References 4
3. MATERIALS 7
3.1 Concrete 7
3.1.1 Durability and grade 7
3.1.2 Limits on cracks width 7
3.1.3 Water tightness 7
3.2 Reinforcement bars 8

3.2.1 Concrete cover 8
3.2.2 Minimum reinforcement 8
4. SOIL AND ROCK CHARACTERI ZATIO N 9
4.1 OVERVIEW 9
4.2 Representative sections 10
4.3 Seismicity 12
5. STRUCTURAL ACTIONS IN THE PERMANENT CONDITION 13
5.1 Generalities 13
5.2 Bending stiffness of the segmental lining 14
5.3 Section LO1 (km 3+440) 15

5.3.1 Model 15

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 III | P a g e
5.3.2 Results 18
5.4 Section CC1 (km 3+750) 23

5.4.1 Model 23
5.4.2 Results 25
5.5 Section FA1 (km 4+430) 29

5.5.1 Model 29
5.5.2 Results 30
5.6 Section HO1 (ch. 4+525) 34

5.6.1 Model 34
5.6.2 Results 36
5.7 Section MF1 (km 5+000) 39

5.7.1 Model 39
5.7.2 Results 41
5.8 Seismic loads 45
5.8.1 Penzien’s method 45

5.8.2 Results 47
5.9 Ring Verification 49

5.9.1 Bending moment and axial force (ULS) 49
6. STRUCTURAL ACTIONS IN TEMPORARY CONDITIONS 51
6.1 Demoulding 51
6.2 Storage 53
6.3 Handling 55
6.4 Grout pressure 57
6.5 TBM Thrust 58

6.5.1 Overview 58
6.5.2 Compression 59

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 IV | P a g e
6.5.3 Splitting 62
6.5.4 M-N induced by eccentric thrust 65
7. TECHNOLOGICAL PARTS 67
7.1 Connectors 67
7.1.1 Introduction 67
7.1.2 Shear 67
7.1.3 Pull-out 67
7.2 Gaskets 69
7.2.1 Introduction 69
7.2.2 Water tightness 70
7.2.3 Tensile splitting 72
7.2.4 Corner shear 73
8. CONCLUSIONS 75

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 V|Page
1. INTRODUCTION
Package IV of the Mumbai Coastal Road Project includes a twin-bore tunnel between km
5+270 (the launch pit) and km 3+280 (the southern portal). The tunnel shall be built with a
Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM).
The present technical report described the detailed design of the TBM tunnel demonstrating
the achievement of a safe tunnelling method and of a safe and durable permanent structure.
The structural and geotechnical design of the segmental lining is conducted in accordance
with the relevant applicable standards to check the ultimate (ULS) and serviceability (SLS)
limit states.
The lining is designed to withstand the following loads:
− Short and long-term actions induced by the construction procedure on the single
segment;
− Actions resulting from TBM advancement;
− Overburden, with appropriate vertical and horizontal pressures;
− Groundwater pressure;
− Surface load from traffic and buildings;
− Adjacent tunnels or excavations.
The structural and geotechnical verifications were supported by the numerical analysis of the
tunnel lining with 2D finite elements (FE) models in plane-strain conditions.
In the FE model the soil and the rock were treated as linear-elastic/perfectly plastic materials
with Mohr-Coulomb’s yield criterion (LE-PP/MC). The geo-mechanical parameters are in
agreement with the values reported in the geotechnical interpretation.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 1|Page
Figure 1-1 General Layout Plan from ch. 1+950 to ch. 3+300.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 2|Page

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 3|Page
2. REFERENCES
2.1 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, STANDARDS AND CODES
Design will be produced in accordance with the standards specified by tender documents:
[1] MCGM (2017). Mumbai Coastal Road Project (South) - Package IV. Volume 3:
Employer’s Requirements. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Tender Document
for Design and Construction Contract (Princess Street Flyover to Priyadarshini Park).
[2] MCGM (2017). Mumbai Coastal Road Project (South) - Package IV. Volume 4: Outline
Design Specification. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Tender Document for
Design and Construction Contract (Princess Street Flyover to Priyadarshini Park).
[3] MCGM (2017). Mumbai Coastal Road Project (South) - Package IV. Volume 5: Outline
Construction Specification. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Tender Document
for Design and Construction Contract (Princess Street Flyover to Priyadarshini Park).
[4] MCGM (2017). Mumbai Coastal Road Project (South) - Package IV. Volume 7:
Reference Documents. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Tender Document for
Design and Construction Contract (Princess Street Flyover to Priyadarshini Park).
2.2 PROJECT DOCUMENTS

[5] L&T Construction (2018). Mumbai Coastal Road Project (South) Package IV. Tender
Drawings.
[6] L&T Construction (2018). Geological & Geotechnical Interpretation Report, Doc. MCR4-
LNT-481-PR-400008
2.3 TECHNICAL REFERENCES

[7] ITA/AITES (2000). Guidelines for the Design of Shield Tunnel Lining, Tunneling and
Underground Space Technology 15(3): 303-331.
[8] ITA/AITES (1998). Guidelines for the Design of Tunnels, Tunneling and Underground
Space Technology 3(3): 237-249.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 4|Page
[9] AFTES (1994). The choice of geotechnical parameters and tests useful to the design,
dimensioning and construction of underground structures. Recommendation GT7R4A1
by “Association Française des Tunnels et de l'Espace Souterrain”.
[10] AFTES (1974). Choice of tunnel support. Recommendation GT7R1A2 by “Association
Française des Tunnels et de l'Espace Souterrain”, English edition, special publication
SP 93.
[11] AFTES (1999). Settlements induced by tunnelling. Recommendation GT16R1A1 by
“Association Française des Tunnels et de l'Espace Souterrain”, English edition, special
publication SP 99.
[12] BTS/ICE (2005) Closed-face Tunneling Machines and Ground Stability. Guidelines by
the British Tunneling Society and the Institution of Civil Engineers, Thomas Thelford,
London, UK.
[13] Bamforth, P.B. (2007) Early-age thermal crack control in concrete. CIRIA Report C660,
London, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, UK.
[14] Anagnostou, G., Kovári, K., 1996. Face stability conditions with earth-pressure-balanced
shields. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 11: 165–173.
[15] Boscardin, M.D. and Cording, E.G. (1989). Building response to excavation-induced
settlement, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(1).
[16] Burland J. P. & Wroth C. P. (1974), “Settlement of buildings and associated damage”,
SOA Rev. Conf. Settlement of structures, Cambridge, Pentech Press, London, pp 611 ÷
654
[17] Guglielmetti, V., Grasso, P., Mahtab A. et Xu, S. (2008). Mechanized tunneling in urban
areas: design methodology and construction control. Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
[18] Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N., and Burland, J.B., (1996), Prediction of Ground Movements and
Assessment of Risk of Building Damage. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, pp. 712-718, Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
[19] Panet M. (1995) Le calcul des tunnels par la méthode convergence-confinement,
Presses de l’ENPC, Paris, France.
[20] Peila D. (1994). A theoretical study of reinforcement influence on the stability of a tunnel
face. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 12: 145-168.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 5|Page
[21] Peck, R. B. (1969); “Deep Excavations and Tunnels in Soft Ground”. Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico
City, State of the Art Volume, pp. 225-290.
[22] Potts D.M. and Addenbrooke T.L. (1997), A structure's influence zone tunnelling-induced
ground movements, Proc. ICE – Geotechnical Engineering 125(2): 109–125.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 6|Page
3. MATERIALS
3.1 CONCRETE
3.1.1 Durability and grade
The tunnels of the Mumbai Coastal Road, Package IV, have 120 years of design life. The
concrete grade selected by the Designer is M50. It is worth emphasising that at the time of
writing the additional ground investigation, which includes chemical testing to define the
aggressiveness of ground and groundwater is not complete. It will be necessary, once the
data become available, to verify that they confirm the design assumptions described here.
3.1.2 Limits on cracks width
The tunnel lining concrete is designed to prevent excessive cracking due to flexure, early
age behaviour and thermal variations. The flexural crack width has been checked in
accordance with Appendix F of IS 456:2000, to verify compliance with the limits shown in
Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 TBM tunnel, cracks width limits.
Surface Exposure Max. crack width (mm)
External (contact with ground) Severe 0.20
Internal (no contact with ground) Moderate 0.30
3.1.3 Water tightness
The tunnel, during operation, shall be designed to be impermeable. A drainage system,

however, shall be placed inside the bored sections to deal with infiltration water or any liquid
existing inside the tunnel.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 7|Page
3.2 REINFORCEMENT BARS
3.2.1 Concrete cover
The cover thickness depends on the exposure conditions, that is the chemical and physical
conditions to which the structure is exposed in addition to the mechanical actions. Starting
from the exposure class and considering various factors such as the design working life of
the structure, the concrete strength class, the quality controls on production, it is possible to
define the required structural class and the minimum concrete cover.
A minimum concrete cover has been be provided in order to ensure:
− The safe transmission of the bond forces;
− The protection of the steel against corrosion (durability);
− Adequate fire resistance.
Table 3-2 TBM tunnels – Minimum nominal covers.
Nominal Cover for determination of Crack Width

Element
[mm]
Underground (Contact with soil) 45
Underground (No Contact with soil) 45
However, the minimum cover will be checked again once the environmental aggressivity data
from the additional ground investigation (under way at the time of writing) become available.
3.2.2 Minimum reinforcement
The minimum amount of reinforcement was calculated to satisfy the structural ULS and SLS.
In terms of crack width control, a certain amount of bonded reinforcement is required in the
zones where the existence of tensile stresses is foreseen. The minimum amount of
reinforcement was estimated from the equilibrium between the tensile force in the concrete
just before cracking and the tensile force in the reinforcement at yielding or at lower stress if
necessary, to limit the crack width.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 8|Page
4. SOIL AND ROCK CHAR AC TERIZATION
4.1 OVERVIEW
As discussed in the Geological and Geotechnical Interpretative Report [6] the geotechnical
units encountered along the tunnel alignment are, from shallowest to deepest:
- Geotechnical Unit GU1: existing Made Ground

- Geotechnical Unit GU2a: Sands and Silty Sands
- Geotechnical Unit GU2b: Clay
- Geotechnical Unit GU3: Basalt
- Geotechnical Unit GU4: Breccia with Shales
The rock masses of GU3, Basalt, And GU4, Breccia with Shale, are further classified in four
sub-units, labelled with letters from (a) to (d) according to their weathering grade, as
summarised in the following Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Weathering Grade
Geotechnical sub-unit Weathering grade
a V Completely weathered rock,
b IV Highly weathered rock
c III Moderately weathered rock
d I - II Fresh to slightly weathered rock
In the finite element (FE) calculations carried out to check the ground loading on the
segmental lining the geotechnical parameters defined in [6] were used, as detailed,
calculation by calculation, in the following sections. In particular, the shear strength of soils
– GU1, GU2a and GU2b – was defined with the Mohr Coulomb parameters presented in the
Geological and Geotechnical Interpretative Report (GGIR); the shear strength of the rock
masses – GU3 and GU4 – was defined converting into locally equivalent Mohr-Coulomb
parameters the Hoek-Brown parameters presented in the GIR.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 9|Page
4.2 REPRESENTATIVE SECTIONS
The tunnel alignment has been divided into seven roughly homogeneous zones in which the
excavation behaviour is approximately similar. The zones are briefly described in the
following text and plotted in the geotechnical-geo-mechanical profile. For each zone a
representative cross section was identified and modelled in a FE analysis to evaluate the
structural action in the lining. The zones are presented here from the lowest to the highest
chainage (which is the opposite direction to the TBM drive as planned at the time of writing).
ZONE 1, km 3+360÷3+700: break-out section with low cover. Excavation in moderately

weathered Breccia and Shales with marine deposits (GU2) above the excavation section.
The tunnel cover is 11÷13 m. Zone 1 includes the passage underneath some buildings and
a swimming pool.
For this stretch, the section at km 3+440 is taken as representative an identified with LO1.
ZONE 2, km 3+700÷4+400: excavation mainly in Breccia and Shales with medium-low

weathering grade. The tunnel cover is 13÷20 m.
For this stretch, the section at km 3+750 is taken as representative an identified with CC1.
ZONE 3, km 4+400÷4+500: excavation in Breccia and Shales with low weathering grade. In
this area, however, the tunnel may encounter a zone of faulting, before the end of this
section, where the cover increases sharply from 20 m up to 60÷65 m under Malabar Hill.
For this stretch, the section at km 4+430, in the potentially faulted region, is taken as
representative an identified with FA1.
ZONE 4, km 4+500÷4+900: excavation mainly in Breccia and Shales with low weathering
grade and high rock cover of 45÷67 m. The Basal can occur on the crown of the tunnel.
For this stretch, the section at km 4+525, with the highest overburden, is taken as
representative and identified with HO1.
ZONE 5, km 4+900÷5+270: excavation in Basalt with variable weathering grade from low to
high. The cover is of 13÷45 m. The cover decreases smoothly towards the break-in.
For this stretch, the section at km 5+000, with mixed front conditions, is taken as
representative and identified with MF1

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 10 | P a g e
In the GGIR the strength and of the rock mass is defined according to the Hoek & Brown
criterion (1997; 2002) expressed by the following equations:
𝑎
𝜎′3 𝐺𝑆𝐼 − 100
𝜎′1 = 𝜎′3 + 𝜎𝑐𝑖 (𝑚𝑏 + 𝑠) 𝑚𝑏 = 𝑚𝑖 𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( )
𝜎𝑐𝑖 28 − 14𝐷
𝐺𝑆𝐼 − 100 1 1
𝑠 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) 𝑎 = + (𝑒 −𝐺𝑆𝐼⁄15 − 𝑒 −20⁄3 )
9 − 3𝐷 2 6
Where:
GSI = geological strength index, a dimensionless index that represents the rock mass quality
(a function of the degree of fracturation, discontinuity conditions etc.) in the range from 0
(extremely poor) to 100 (extremely good)
ci = uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock;
mi = lithology rock mass constant (Hoek e Marinos, 2005);
D= disturbance factor, function of the excavation methodology (range 0÷1);
The rock mass elastic modulus has been estimated with the approach proposed by the Hoek
e Diederichs (2006), which links the stiffness modulus of the rock mass to the modulus of the
intact rock, Ei, with the equation:
1 − 𝐷 ⁄2
𝐸𝑟𝑚 = 𝐸𝑖 (0.02 + )
1+ 𝑒 ((60+15𝐷−𝐺𝑆𝐼)⁄11)
The equivalent Mohr-Coulomb parameters (effective cohesion and friction angle) were
determined with the software RocLab 1.033 (Roscience). This was done by fitting an
average linear relationship to the curve generated by solving the Hoek & Brown criteria for a
range of minor principal stress values (comprised between σt and σ’3,max). σ’3,max is
determined for tunnels giving equivalent characteristic curve for the two failure criteria. In
case of shallow tunnels, the method is still valid excluding caving to surface (Hoek, Carranza-
Torres and Corkum, 2002)
The equivalent calculation parameters at front for the prevalent material are summarized in
Table 4-2 for each representative section.
Table 4-2: Key geo-mechanical parameters.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 11 | P a g e
Name Material Chainage Cover sat c’ ’ Erm rm

- - km m kN/m3 kPa  MPa
LO1 UG4b 3+440 11 23 35 37 150 0.3
CC1 UG4c 3+750 13 23 63 50 300 0.25
FA1 Fault 4+430 26 17 5 33 30 0.25
HO1 UG3d 4+550 67 26 350 46 2000 0.25
MF1 UG3c 5+000 37 26 200 45 1000 0.25
Where,
sat saturated unit weight
Erm rock mass stiffness modulus;
rm drained Poisson’s ratio;
c’ effective cohesion;
’ angle of internal friction
4.3 SEISMICITY
As per Indian Standard IS 1893, the site falls under Seismic Zone III. The basic horizontal
seismic coefficient corresponding to this zone is 0.16g, where g is the gravitational
acceleration.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 12 | P a g e
5. STRUCTURAL ACTIONS IN THE PERMANENT CONDITION
5.1 GENERALITIES
The structural actions on the tunnel, in its final configuration, were estimated by means of 2D
FE analysis with the software PLAXIS.
The proposed lining is built with 11.00 m internal diameter rings of 8 segments, which are
375 mm thick,
Figure 5-1 Segment configuration

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 13 | P a g e
Figure 5-2 3D arrangement of segments
5.2 BENDING STIFFNESS OF THE SEGMENTAL LINING
In the FE models, the final lining was modelled with beam characterised by a certain
- axial stiffness EcA

- bending stiffness EcI
where Ec is the Young’s modulus of concrete, A is the cross-sectional area (per meter run)
and I is the moment of inertia.
While the definition of the axial stiffness is straightforward also for a segmental lining, the
bending stiffness of an equivalent plate should take into account the reduced capability of
transmitting moments across the joints, which differentiate a segmental lining from a
monolithic lining with the same thickness.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 14 | P a g e
Figure 5-3 Conceptual view of circumferential joints in a segmental lining.
In the resent calculation the reduced moment of inertia of the segmental lining was calculated
with the approach proposed by Muir and Wood (1975):
𝐼1 = 𝐼𝑗 + (4/𝑛)2 ∙ 𝐼𝑜
Where:
- I1 is the equivalent inertia of the lining (with joints);

- Ij is the inertia of the single joint;
- I0 is the inertia of the lining (without joints);
- n is the number segments composing the ring.
In the present case where Ij is assumed equal to 0 and n =
5.3 SECTION LO1 (km 3+440)
5.3.1 Model
The ground profile and the geo-mechanical parameters used in the analysis are reported in
the table and in the figure below.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 15 | P a g e
Table 5-1: Calculation parameters.

Unit Elastic
Material From To Effective cohesion Friction angle
weight modulus
- [mASL] [mASL]  kN/m3] c’ [kPa] ’ [°] E’ [MPa]
UG2b 1.0 -1.0 16 20 20 10
UG1 -1.0 -3.0 17 0 35 5
UG2b -3.0 -8.0 16 20 20 10
UG4a -8.0 -11.0 21 25 30 50
UG4b -11.0 -21.0 23 35 37 150
UG4d -21.0 -50.0 23 200 50 2000
First Second
Figure 5-4 Plaxis model.
Considering that this section represents the worst-case scenario (lowest overburden, rock of
poor quality at the front), the analysis is carried out considering the excavation of both the
bores to see the effect on the final lining of the first excavated section. The results refer to
two configurations:
- ST: excavation of the first tunnel;

- LT: effect of the excavation of the second tunnel on the first one.
The numerical analysis is carried out through the following phases:

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 16 | P a g e
1. Stress initialization: a K0 procedure is employed for the generation of the initial stress
state. The soils have a coefficient of earth pressure are rest K0 = 1- sen(φ), in
agreement with Jaky’s formula (1948). The rock has K0 = 0.7.
2. Front relaxation: equal to 30%: according to the analytical Longitudinal Displacement
Profile, LDP (Vlachopoulos and Diederichs, 2009);
3. Shield relaxation: according to the analytical Longitudinal Displacement Profile, LDP
(Vlachopoulos and Diederichs, 2009) at a distance from the front corresponding to
the TBM shield tail the relaxation is equal to 90%. For such a relaxation, the
convergence of the wall exceeds the gap around the shield. For this reason, a
kinematic constraint is assumed at 2 cm of convergence for the shield conicity. For
this section, the kinematic constraint is reached for a relaxation of 50%. Past that
level, the load is applied all on the lining;
4. Installation of the lining (ST1): the final lining is activated in this phase and the
relaxation is equal to 100%. The final lining is modelled by means of a plate element
with thickness equal to 37.5m and concrete grade M50;
5. Repeat from point 2 to 4 for the second tunnel (ST2);
6. Long-term condition (LT): the long-term conditions are assumed to a water load on
the crown of 11.0 m (according to the geological profile) increasing with the depth.
The figure below shows the adopted relaxations at the front and at the tail shield of the TBM
on the analytical LDP (Vlachopoulos and Diederichs, 2009).

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 17 | P a g e
Front
Tail Shield
Figure 5-5 Analytical LDP (Vlachopoulos and Diederichs, 2009).
5.3.2 Results
The figures below show the structural actions in the lining both for ST and LT phases as
described in the previous paragraph.
The influence of the second tunnel on the lining of the first tunnel in terms of change in the
structural actions is in the range of 4-9%.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 18 | P a g e
Figure 5-6 Bending moment (ST1).
Figure 5-7 Axial forces (ST1).

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 19 | P a g e
Figure 5-8 Shear forces (ST1).
Figure 5-9 Bending moment (ST2).

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 20 | P a g e
Figure 5-10 Axial forces (ST2).
Figure 5-11 Shear forces (ST2).

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 21 | P a g e
Figure 5-12 Bending moment (LT).
Figure 5-13 Axial forces (LT).

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 22 | P a g e
Figure 5-14 Shear forces (LT).
5.4 SECTION CC1 (km 3+750)
5.4.1 Model
The ground profile and the geotechnical parameters used in the analysis are reported in the
Table 5-2
Table 5-2: Geo-mechanical parameters.

Unit Elastic
weight modulus
- [m] [m]  kN/m3] c’ [kPa] ’ [°] E’ [MPa]
UG2a 1.5 -4.0 17 5 33 20
UG2b -4.0 -7.5 16 20 20 10
UG4b -7.5 -8.5 23 32 40 150
UG4c -8.5 -18.0 23 63 50 300
UG4d -18.0 -50.0 23 200 56 2000

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 23 | P a g e
The analysis of the current section is carried out through the following phases:
1. Stress initialization
2. Front relaxation: equal to 30% according to the analytical Longitudinal Displacement
Profile, LDP (Vlachopoulos and Diederichs, 2009).
3. Tail shield relaxation: according to the analytical LDP at a distance from the front
corresponding to the TBM shield tail, the relaxation is 90%.
4. Installation of the lining (ST): the final lining is activated in this phase and the
relaxation goes up to to 100%.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 24 | P a g e
Front
Tail Shield
5.4.2 Results
The figures below show the actions in the lining both for ST and LT phases as described in
the previous paragraph.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 25 | P a g e
Figure 5-17 Bending moment (ST).
Figure 5-18 Axial forces (ST).

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 26 | P a g e
Figure 5-19 Shear forces (ST).

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 27 | P a g e

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 28 | P a g e
5.5 SECTION FA1 (km 4+430)
5.5.1 Model
The ground model and the geo-mechanical parameters used in the analysis are reported in
the table and in the figure below. The angle at which the potential fault would intersect the
tunnel is not known with certainty. In order to maximise the adverse effects in the
calculations, the fault was modelled as an inclined band of much weaker rock completely
encasing the tunnel.
Table 5-3: Design geotechnical/geo-mechanical parameters.

Unit Elastic
Material Initial Final Effective cohesion Friction angle
weight modulus
- Zi [m] Zf [m]  kN/m3] c’ [kPa] ’ [°] E’ [MPa]
UG2a 14.0 12.0 17 5 33 20
UG4c 12.0 7.5 23 63 50 300
UG4d 7.5 -50.0 23 260 56 2000
Fault - - 17 5 33 30

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 29 | P a g e
The analysis of the current section is carried out through the following phases:
1. Stress initialization
2. TBM excavation: in the fault section the front is not stable. In such a case, a TBM
front pressure of 1.6 bar is applied. According to the analytical Longitudinal
Displacement Profile at at the TBM shield tail relaxation is 90%. In this range (0%-
90%), the front pressure is applied by the TBM to stabilize the excavation.
relaxation goes ut to 100%.
5.5.2 Results
The figures below show the structural actions in the lining both for ST and LT phases as

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 30 | P a g e

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 31 | P a g e

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 32 | P a g e

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 33 | P a g e
5.6 SECTION HO1 (CH. 4+525)
5.6.1 Model
the Table 5-4and in the Figure 5-30 below.

Unit Elastic
weight modulus
- [m] [m]  kN/m3] c’ [kPa] ’ [°] E’ [MPa]
UG4d - - 23 350 46 2000
The analysis of the cross section is carried out through the following phases:
1. Stress initialization: in this section, the tunnel is deep (H > 3D) and a field stress
procedure is adopted where a state of stress corresponding to the geostatic stress at

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 34 | P a g e
the tunnel axis is assumed. The rock has a coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
equal to 0.7.
2. Front relaxation: equal to 30%: according to the analytical Longitudinal Displacement
Profile
3. Tail shield relaxation of 90%.
relaxation goes up to 100%.
Front
Tail Shield

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 35 | P a g e
5.6.2 Results
The figures below show structural actions in the lining both for ST and LT phases as

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 36 | P a g e

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 37 | P a g e

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 38 | P a g e
5.7 SECTION MF1 (km 5+000)
5.7.1 Model
the table and in the figure below.

Unit Elastic
weight modulus
- [mASL] [mASL]  kN/m3] c’ [kPa] ’ [°] E’ [MPa]
UG3d 28.0 -18.0 26 350 40 2000
UG3c -18.0 -21.0 26 200 45 1000
UG4d -21.0 -50.0 23 250 45 1500

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 39 | P a g e
Figure 5-38 PLAXIS model.
The analysis is carried out through the following phases:
1. Stress initialization: in this section, the tunnel is deep (H > 3D) and a field stress
procedure is adopted where a state of stress corresponding to the geostatic stress at
the tunnel axis is assumed. The rock has a coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
equal to 0.7.
2. Front relaxation: equal to 30%
3. Tail shield relaxation: according to the analytical relaxation is 90% at the shield tail.
relaxation is brought up to 100%.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 40 | P a g e
Front
Tail Shield
Figure 5-39 Analytical LDP (Vlachopoulos and Diederichs, 2009)
5.7.2 Results
The figures below show the structural action in the lining both for ST and LT phases as

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 41 | P a g e

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 42 | P a g e

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 43 | P a g e

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 44 | P a g e
5.8 SEISMIC LOADS
Seismic loads were included in the calculations according to Eurocode 8 – Design of

structure for earthquake resistance – Part 5. The seismic parameters were selected on the
basis of the seismicity of Mumbai.
The earthquake effects in bored tunnels were estimated through equivalent static methods
that, according to ITA, AFTES and other international design criteria, can be used instead of
a full dynamic analysis allowing for ground-structure interaction. The Free-field distortion
method is adopted here.
Earthquake-induced strains in the ground are estimated in the absence of structures. This
provides an approximated – and pessimistic - estimate of the actual structure’s deformation.
A horizontal displacement is directly applied at the tunnel crown; and the ensuing additional
actions are calculated.
5.8.1 Penzien’s method
The bending moment and axial force increment in full slip and no slip condition are computed
according to Penzien (2000):
Full slip
∆𝑑 𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑥
=±
𝑑 2
𝑛
±∆𝑑𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 = ±𝑅 𝑛 ∆𝑑𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒−𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑑
4(1 − 𝜐𝑚 ) 12𝐸𝑙 𝐼(5 − 6𝜐𝑚 )

𝑅𝑛 = ± 𝛼𝑛 = 3
𝑛
(𝛼 + 1) 𝑑 𝐺𝑚 (1 − 𝜐𝑙2 )
𝑛
12𝐸𝑙 𝐼Δ𝑑𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝜋
𝑁(𝜃) = − 𝑐𝑜𝑠2 (𝜃 + )
𝑑3 (1 − 𝜐𝑙2 ) 4
𝑛
𝑀(𝜃) = − 𝑐𝑜𝑠2 (𝜃 + )
𝑑2 (1 − 𝜐𝑙2 ) 4
𝑛
𝑉(𝜃) = − 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 (𝜃 + )
𝑑3 (1 − 𝜐𝑙2 ) 4

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 45 | P a g e
No slip
𝑛
±∆𝑑𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 = ±𝑅 𝑛 ∆𝑑𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒−𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑑
4(1 − 𝜐𝑚 ) 24𝐸𝑙 𝐼(3 − 4𝜐𝑚 )

𝑅𝑛 = ± 𝛼𝑛 = 3
𝑛
(𝛼 + 1) 𝑑 𝐺𝑚 (1 − 𝜐𝑙2 )
𝑛
𝑁(𝜃) = − 𝑐𝑜𝑠2 (𝜃 + )
𝑑3 (1 − 𝜐𝑙2 ) 4
𝑛
𝑀(𝜃) = − 𝑐𝑜𝑠2 (𝜃 + )
𝑑2 (1 − 𝜐𝑙2 ) 4
𝑛
𝑉(𝜃) = − 𝑐𝑜𝑠2 (𝜃 + )
𝑑3 (1 − 𝜐𝑙2 ) 4
Figure 5-46 Sign convention for Penzien’s formulation (2000).

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 46 | P a g e
5.8.2 Results
In the table below the terms introduced in the previous paragraph are detailed and the
correspondent values are shown.
The characteristic seismic internal forces are calculated in two main geo-mechanical
configurations:
- Breccia and Shales, with a small-strain modulus of 3 GPA;

- Basalt, with a small-strain modulus of 10 GPa.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 47 | P a g e
Table 5-6: Calculation of the seismic actions in the final lining.

Mumbai Costal Road
Sezione Breccia Basalt
EARTHQUAKE PARAMETERS
PGA at tunnel depth ag (at depth) 0.16 0.16
COEFF PGV 66 66
PGV (Peak ground velocity) Vs (m/s) 0.11 0.11
ROCK PARAMETERS
Rock unit weight rm (kg/m3) 2300 2300
Elastic modulus of the rock Em (MPa) 3000 10000
Elastic modulus of the rock Em (kPa) 3000000 10000000
Poisson ratio vm (-) 0.25 0.25
Small strain rock shear
Gmax (kPa) 1200000 4000000
modulus
Shear wave velocity Cm (m/s) 722 1319
Maximum shear distorsion gmax (-) 0.00015 0.00008
TUNNEL PARAMETERS
Tunnel equiv. diameter d (m) 11.8 11.8
Tunnel radius r (m) 5.88 5.88
Lining thickness t (m) 0.375 0.375
Concrete modulus El (kPa) 3.28E+07 3.28E+07

Concrete Poisson ratio vl (-) 0.2 0.2
Lining inertia (50% Igross) I (m4) 0.0022 0.0022
Compressibility ratio C 2.2 7.3
Flexibility ratio F 1079.2 3597.4
LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION Wang (1993) FF

q 45 45
0,003 > eab 7.37E-05 4.02E-05
TRANSVERSAL DIRECTION Penzien (2000) Full

C C
an 0.00162 0.00049
Rn 2.995 2.999
Ddnlin 0.00257 0.00141
Nmax (kN) 1.4 0.8
Mmax (kNm) 8.4 4.6
Vmax (kN) 1.4 0.8
Penzien (2000) No
C C
an 0.00185 0.00056
Rn 2.994 2.998
Ddnlin 0.00257 0.00141
Nmax (kN) 2.9 1.6
Mmax (kNm) 8.4 4.6
Vmax (kN) 2.9 1.6

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 48 | P a g e
5.9 RING VERIFICATION
Once the actions in the ring are known, they are compared with the structural capacity of the
reinforcement segments and of joints, gaskets and connectors.
The steel cage resulting from the structural sizing of the segments is generally composed by:
− Two steel grids placed at the intrados and extrados of the segment, respectively;
− Additional reinforcement at the segment circumferential faces (long sides) to resist to

TBM thrust;
− Additional reinforcement at the segment longitudinal faces (short sides) to resist to

forces exchanged in correspondence of the joints between segments of the same ring;
− Specific local reinforcement in correspondence of bolts (if any), connectors, erector’s

lifting points and jack shoes.
5.9.1 Bending moment and axial force (ULS)
The structural verification of the segment is carried out considering a reinforced section with
100 kg/m3 steel ratio. The check is carried out per meter in the out-of-plane direction. The
verification considers the maximum design bending moment and the minimum characteristic
axial force in order to maximize the eccentricity.
According to IS, the characteristic seismic internal forces are multiplied by a factor of 1.5
when combined with the static ones. The static internal forces are always multiplied by a
partial factor of 1.5.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 49 | P a g e
Table 5-7: Maximum bending moment and axial forces in absolute values.
Seismic increment
Characteristic maximum Design maximum Total
(Design)
Sectio
n Nmin Mmax Nmin Mmax Nmin Mmax N M
[kN/m] [kNm/m] [kN/m] [kNm/m] [kN/m] [kNm/m] [kN/m] [kNm/m]
LO1 520 69 780 104 5 14 785 117
CC1 93 10 140 15 5 14 144 29
FA1 1047 10 1571 15 5 14 1575 29
HO1 339 2 509 3 5 14 513 17
MF1 230 1 345 2 3 8 348 9
The Figure 5-47 below shows that the internal forces are in the M-N domain for all the
analysed section.
200
150
LO1
100
50 LO1 CC1
HO1 FA1
Mrd [kNm]
0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
-50
-100
-150
-200
N [kN]
M-N Domain Internal forces
Figure 5-47 Bending moment and axial forces check for all the analysed sections.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 50 | P a g e
6. STRUCTURAL ACTIONS IN TEMPORARY CONDITIONS

Demoulding, stockpiling and application of jack forces by the TBM are transient design
situations and structural actions originating in these conditions must be checked as part of
the structural design.
The table below shows the strength design values of the reinforced concrete section used in
the temporary situations.
Table 6-1 Segment structural strength.
Strength
Section
Short-term Concrete M15 -
Long-term Concrete M50 -
Steel 100 kg/m3
ULS
MULS,ST 107.6 kNm/m
MULS,LT 122.2 kNm/m
MULS,ST 215.2 kNm
MULS,LT 244.4 kNm
6.1 DEMOULDING
For demoulding, it should be considered that, after casting, each segment is aged in the
formwork until the concrete has reached a minimum compressive strength equivalent to M15,
before being lifted out of the formwork. The segments are lifted out of the formwork by
vacuum pads fixing the segment at its centre; this can be studied with the simplified static
system shown in the following figure.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 51 | P a g e
Figure 6-1 Segment demoulding and first handling (static system).
During this stage, the segment is stressed by his own weight and by the adherence strength
of moulder as well. Considering the segment will be demoulded my means of a vacuum
device, the dead load is increased by 50% to account for the dynamic load. Basing on similar
experiences, the adherence strength could be evaluated approximately in 10 kPa and
considered as a variable load. The structural analysis is carried out considering the very
conservative assumption of segment restrained only at its central position.
The structural verification of the segment is carried out considering a 100 kg/m3 steel
reinforced section. Considering the strength values of Table 6-1, the verification is satisfied.
Table 6-2 Demoulding check.

Demoulding
Load
Wc,dyn 16.9 kN
Whumid 1.7 kN
Wadherence 18.0 kN
Wc 84.4 kN
Wtot 120.9 kN
p 13.4 kN/m/m
MULS 45.9 kNm/m
Check
ULS Verified

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 52 | P a g e
6.2 STORAGE
The segments are stored outside the factory by stockpiling together those forming a complete
ring. The first segment is placed on two supports in 0.8 m to the segments centre. Each
additional segment is placed on two supports that are aligned vertically over the first
supports.
To prevent large bending moments and shear forces, it is important that the supports
between the segments are aligned vertically. To check potential damage to the segments
due to inappropriate vertical alignment of the supports, two different cases will be considered:
(I) internal misalignment of supports by 100 mm and (II) external misalignment of supports
by 100 mm (as shown in the following figure).

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 53 | P a g e
Figure 6-2 Static schemes from misalignment of supports.
Since storage in stack will be effectuated immediately after demoulding, when complete
concrete maturation has not been reached yet, as for demoulding verification a characteristic
cylinder compressive strength equal to 12 MPa is taken into account.
reinforced section. As a safety choice, no axial force is considered. Generally, the curing
process is not finished during storage in stack and a concrete grade of M15 is considered.
According to the strength values of Table 6-1, the verification is satisfied.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 54 | P a g e
Table 6-3 Storage check.

Storage
Load
nstock 8 -
Wsup 632.8 kN
R 316.4 kN
pult 9.38 kN/m/m
e 0.1 m
Lsupports 0.80 m
Lsbalzo 1.45 m
MULS,max 69.3 kNm
Check
ULS Verified
6.3 HANDLING
A handling clamp will be employed for handling the segments. At the time of writing, no
indication about the geometry of the device was available. It’s assumed that the clamp can
lift a maximum of three segments at the same time.
A total load of 168.8 kN weights on the base segment, divided in two concentrated forces
(considered variables) of 84.4 kN each one. Dead load of the base segment and variable
loads due to the weight segments are increased by 50% to take into account dynamic effects.
As we defined an offset d = 0.1 m in the storage check, the following static schemes will be
adopted.
reinforced section. As a safety choice, no axial force is considered.
According to the strength values of Table 6-1, the verification is satisfied.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 55 | P a g e
Figure 6-3 Hypothetic handling clamp schematization.
Table 6-4 Handling check.

Handling (Straight)
Load
MSLS,max 125.6 kNm
MULS,max 169.6 kNm
Check
ULS Verified

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 56 | P a g e
6.4 GROUT PRESSURE
The ground for the backfilling is injected at a certain pressure in the tail void between the
installed ring and the rock/soil. The grout pressure acts as a distributed load on the final
lining.
Figure 6-4 Typical geometry of the jack-segment contact area.
During the excavation phase and until the hardening of the grouted backfilling, the effect of
the radial pressure can be analysed with the Mariotte’s formula:
𝑃𝐷 500𝑘𝑃𝑎 ∙ 11.75𝑚
𝜎 = 𝛾𝑄 = 1.5 = 11.8 𝑀𝑃𝑎 < 𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 26.7𝑀𝑃𝑎
2∙𝑡 2 ∙ 0.375𝑚
Where P is the injection pressure (kPa) equal to the maximum value of 500 kPa, D is the
tunnel diameter (m) and t is the thickness of the final lining (m).

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 57 | P a g e
6.5 TBM THRUST
6.5.1 Overview
The thrust force was estimated summing two components: (a) the face support pressure
applied at the front, (b) the force required to overcome the shield friction.
The TBM advancement is obtained through hydraulic jacks pushing against the mounted
segmental rings. Concentrated thrust applied locally leads to high localized compressive
forces and tensile splitting forces in the ring joint.
The calculation of the stress state originating in the segmental lining takes into account the
arrangement of the hydraulic jack around the ring and the detailed geometry at the jack-
segment contact.
Figure 6-5 Example of hydraulic jacks’ arrangements.
Figure 6-6 Typical geometry of the jack-segment contact area.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 58 | P a g e
The resistance of the segments against the TBM thrust jacks must be checked by verifying
that the segments reinforcement withstands:
- Average and Local compression: the distribution of the compressive stresses is

calculated according to §6.7, EN 1992-1-1:2004 and compared with the local
compressive strength of the concrete;
- Splitting: the tensile stresses are calculated with analytical formulations and
compared with the strength of the local steel reinforcement.
6.5.2 Compression
6.5.2.1 Average compression
The area of the circular section loaded by the thrusting rams is equal to:
Atot =  (5.8752 – 5.5002) = 13.40 m2
The verification is carried out considering the maximum nominal thrust Smax:
Sd = γQ  Smax = 1.5  70000 = 105000 kN
Where Q = 1.5 for variable load according to EN 1991.
The stress in the lining along the longitudinal direction induced by the thrust of the TBM is
equal to:
 = Sd / Atot = 7.8 N/mm2 << fcd = 26.7 N/mm2
The stress (independent from the arrangement of the rams along the ring) is much lower
than the compressive strength fcd (M50). The lining can sustain the maximum nominal thrust
of the TBM.
6.5.2.2 Local compression
The verification is carried out considering the concentration of stress induced by the thrusting
ram in the localized area underneath.
For this check, reference is made to the stress distribution induced by small loading
according to §6.7 of l’EN 1992-1-1:2004 and showed in the figure below.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 59 | P a g e
Figure 6-7 Model for the stress distribution of small loading area.
The rubber contact of the shoe is assumed with a rectangular shape with dimensions bo =
33 cm e l0 = 103 cm. The rubber contact distributes the thrust of a couple of jacks. The rubber
contact area is equal to:
Ac0 = 33cm  103cm = 339’900 mm2
The maximum homothetic distribution of the force in the segment thickness (Ac0) is equal to:
Ac1 = 37.5cm  107.5cm = 403’125 mm2
The verification is carried out considering the maximum nominal thrust Smax of thrusting ram:
Sd = γQ  Smax / nrams = 1.5  70000 / 12 = 8750 kN
Where Q = 1.5 for variable load according to EN 1991.
In case of local verifications of local stresses induced by a compression force acting on a

limited area, the concrete compressive strength can be modified based on the compression
level. The strength force (uniform compression force on Ac0) is equal to:

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 60 | P a g e
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑐1 𝑓𝑐𝑘

𝐹𝑅𝑑,𝑢 = 𝐴𝑐0 ∙ ∙√ = 9871 𝑘𝑁 ≤ 3 ∙ 𝐴𝑐0 ∙ = 27192 𝑘𝑁
𝛾𝑐 𝐴𝑐0 𝛾𝑐
Where c = 1.5 is partial factor on the concrete strength.
The ULS check is satisfied as shown:
FRd,u ⁄Fsd = 1.13 > 1.00
6.5.2.3 Eccentric local compression
In case the thrusting jacks are not positioned accurately, an eccentricity between the ram
axis and the segment axis could happen. In such a case, the stress distribution is not uniform.
The accidental eccentricity of the thrusting force can be taken into account as follows:
2 ∙ 𝐹𝑠𝑑
𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑖𝑓 𝑒 > ℎ1 ⁄6
3 ∙ (ℎ1 ⁄2 − 𝑒) ∙ 𝑏
𝐹𝑠𝑑 6∙𝑒
𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ∙ (1 + ) 𝑖𝑓 𝑒 ≤ ℎ1 ⁄6
𝐴𝑐0 ℎ1
Where:
e = eccentricity of the rams with respect to the segment axis;
h1 = width of the rubber shoe on which act the force produced by the jack, considering the
most unfavourable dimension (330 mm)
Figure 6-8 Contact pressure distribution.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 61 | P a g e
Two different load configurations are considered where the maximum allowable eccentricity
is prescribed in order to avoid structural damage to the segments or concrete spalling:
− CASE 1: minimum eccentricity and maximum thrust in accidental condition (Q=1.0):

𝐹𝑠𝑑 = 5833 𝑘𝑁 (e = 0.03 m)
𝐹𝑠𝑑 6∙𝑒 𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑐1

𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ∙ (1 + ) = 26.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎 < 𝑓𝑐𝑑𝑢 = ∙√ = 29.0 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝐴𝑐0 ℎ1 𝛾𝑐 𝐴𝑐0
− CASE 2: maximum allowable eccentricity and working thrust (p=300kPa) with Q=1.5:
𝐹𝑠𝑑 = 2711 𝑘𝑁 (e = 0.07 m)
2 ∙ (1.5 ∙ 𝐹𝑠𝑑 ) 𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑐1

𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = 27.7 𝑀𝑃𝑎 < 𝑓𝑐𝑑𝑢 = ∙√ = 29.0 𝑀𝑃𝑎
3 ∙ (ℎ1 ⁄2 − 𝑒) ∙ 𝑏 𝛾𝑐 𝐴𝑐0
6.5.3 Splitting
6.5.3.1 Generalities
High concentrated forces are introduced in the lining by the thrust of the rams. As a result, a
so-called disturbed region (D-region) developed, as schematically shown in figure below for
a load acting on a 2D element (Collins & Mitchell, 1997), leading to:
− tensile transverse stresses (defined as splitting or bursting), perpendicular to the

direction of the load P, occur;
− tensile stresses also developed in the “dead corners” near the loading area (generally
defined as spalling stresses).

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 62 | P a g e
Figure 6-9 Single concentrated load acting on a slab. Example of 2D D-region, (Collins &
Mitchell, 1997).
6.5.3.2 Thrust side
A local reinforcing bars for withstanding to these tensile stresses after cracking is necessary.
The total transverse bursting force Z (Fsd), is calculated as (Leonhardt, 1977):
𝑑1 330𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝑠𝑑 = 0.25 ∙ 𝑃 ∙ (1 − ) = 0.25 ∙ 8750𝑘𝑁 ∙ (1 − ) = 263𝑘𝑁
𝑑2 375𝑚𝑚
Where the ratio d1/d2 basically governs the amount of expected bursting stresses and P
corresponds to the applied load by the ram, computed with the maximum nominal thrust:
𝑃 = 𝛾𝑄 ∙ 𝑆𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 /𝑛𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 = 1.5 ∙ 70000𝑘𝑁/12 = 8750𝑘𝑁
The splitting reinforcement is equal to:
263𝑘𝑁
𝐴𝑠 = 𝐹𝑠𝑑 /𝑓𝑦𝑑 = = 6.71𝑐𝑚2
391300𝑘𝑃𝑎

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 63 | P a g e
Zy
Zz
a) b)
Figure 6-10 Scheme of the superposition of principal compressive trajectories (two-planes)
in presence of a 3D D-region (Leonhardt, 1975) b) 3D D-region as the sum of two
2D contributions.
In case of eccentric force, the total transverse bursting force Z (Fsd), is calculated as
(Hiltscher and Florin, 1963):
2𝑒 2∙50𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝑠𝑑 = 0.15 ∙ 𝑃 ∙ (1 − √ ) = 0.15 ∙ 8750𝑘𝑁 ∙ (1 − √ ) = 262𝑘𝑁
𝑑2 375𝑚𝑚
Where the ratio e/d2 basically governs the amount of expected bursting stresses, e is the
eccentricity of the load equal to 50 mm and P is the applied load by the ram.
The splitting reinforcement is equal to:
262𝑘𝑁
391300𝑘𝑃𝑎
Note that similar relationships are reported in recommendations concerning precast tunnel
segments (AFTES; ITA Report (2000) and DAUB).

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 64 | P a g e
6.5.3.3 Opposite side
The splitting forces of all the rams affect the opposite side with respect to the thrust. The total
transverse bursting force Z (Fsd), is calculated as (Hiltscher and Florin, 1963):
𝑑1 330𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝑠𝑑 = 0.25 ∙ 𝑁𝑒𝑑 ∙ (1 − 𝑑2) = 0.25 ∙ 2938𝑘𝑁 ∙ (1 − 375𝑚𝑚) = 88𝑘𝑁
Where the ratio d1/d2 basically governs the amount of expected bursting stresses and Ned
corresponds to the applied load by all the rams along the lining perimeter, computed with the
maximum nominal thrust:
𝑁𝑒𝑑 = 𝛾𝑄 ∙ 𝑆𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 /𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 1.5 ∙ 70000𝑘𝑁/35.7𝑚 = 2941𝑘𝑁
The splitting reinforcement in the opposite side is equal to:
88𝑘𝑁
391300𝑘𝑃𝑎
6.5.4 M-N induced by eccentric thrust
The effect of the eccentricity between the thrusting ram axis and the segment axis produce
internal forces in the longitudinal direction. The structural verification of the segment is carried
out considering a 100 kg/m3 steel reinforced section.
Two different load configurations are considered according to the maximum allowable
eccentricity prescribed in §6.5.2.3 to avoid structural damage to the segments or concrete
spalling:
− CASE 1: minimum eccentricity and maximum thrust in accidental condition (Q=1.0):

𝐹𝑠𝑑 = 5833 𝑘𝑁 (e = 0.03 m)
𝑛
𝑁𝑒𝑑 = 𝐹𝑠𝑑 ∙ = 3889𝑘𝑁/𝑚
𝐿𝑎𝑟𝑐
𝑀𝑒𝑑 = 𝑁𝑒𝑑 ∙ 𝑒 = 29𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 < 𝑀𝑟𝑑 = 397𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚
Where n = 3 is the number oh thrusting rams per segment, Larc = 4.5 m is length of
the arc of the segment.
− CASE 2: maximum allowable eccentricity and working thrust (p=300kPa) with Q=1.5:
𝐹𝑠𝑑 = 2711 𝑘𝑁 (e = 0.07 m)

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 65 | P a g e
𝑛
𝑁𝑒𝑑 = 𝐹𝑠𝑑 ∙ = 2349𝑘𝑁/𝑚
𝐿𝑎𝑟𝑐
𝑀𝑒𝑑 = 𝑁𝑒𝑑 ∙ 𝑒 = 164𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 < 𝑀𝑟𝑑 = 397𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 66 | P a g e
7. TECHNOLOGICAL PARTS
7.1 CONNECTORS
7.1.1 Introduction
The connectors along the circumferential joint (between two rings) can be verified according
to the calculation scheme proposed in the following picture, where it’s considered the case
of an accidental disengagement of the rams on the top segments. In such a way, the specific
requirements for the shear and pull-out strength of the connectors will be determined.
Figure 7-1 Calculation scheme. W = segment weight, T = traction in the connectors.
7.1.2 Shear
The shear force is computed as acting on two connectors:
𝑊 84.4𝑘𝑁
𝑉 = 𝛾𝑄 ∙ = 1.5 ∙ = 63.3𝑘𝑁
2 2
Where W is the weight of the segment (kN), γQ is partial coefficient for variable load. A shear
strength higher than 80 kN is prescribed.
7.1.3 Pull-out
The bending moment induced by the dead weight of the segment is computed as:
𝑊 ∙ 𝐿𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 84.4𝑘𝑁 ∙ 2𝑚
𝑀 = 𝛾𝑄 ∙ = 1.5 ∙ = 126.6𝑘𝑁𝑚
2 2

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 67 | P a g e
Where W is the weight of the segment (kN), γQ is partial coefficient for variable load and
Llong is the segment depth.
The pull-out force is computed as acting on two connectors:
𝑀 126.6𝑁
𝑇= = = 158.2𝑘𝑁𝑚
2 ∙ 𝑧 2 ∙ 0.40𝑚
Where z is equal to 0.40 m. A tensile strength higher than 180 kN is prescribed.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 68 | P a g e
7.2 GASKETS
7.2.1 Introduction
Single segmental linings are sealed by gasket frames. The proof of suitability for the gasket
frames is carried out by experiments. It is recommended a Dätwyler M38936 Type “Rennes”
or an EPDM anchored gasket with equivalent properties.
Figure 7-2 Detail of the EPDM gasket anchored in the formwork.
Geometry
d1 49 mm
ds/2 51 mm
ds 102 mm
a 26 mm
b 3 mm
g1 12 mm
g2 12.1 mm
l min 29 mm

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 69 | P a g e
Figure 7-3 Typological geometry of the gasket with the dimensions used in the calculations.
7.2.2 Water tightness
The decisive water pressure shall be maintained without leakage. The tightness tests are
carried with different offsets and groove basic gaps. It shall be accounted for, that the gaskets
must also be effective, if the lining deforms and/or the construction tolerances are fully
utilized.
Figure 7-4 Tightness diagram of profile M38936.
After installation, the segments are loaded and consequently the joints may open locally.
Moreover, assembly inaccuracies as well as the different loading of the segmental rings lead
to offsets after installation, which are usually limited to a maximum of 10 mm.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 70 | P a g e
The compressive stress decay in the gaskets due to a short-term relaxation is shown in the
figure below. The relaxation is equal to 30%.
Figure 7-5 Short-term relaxation of profile M38936.
The joint gap width for the design of the element can be determined starting from the force-
displacement line of the gasket applying the following contributes:
- Initial relaxation = 30%;

- Technological tolerance = 2 mm.
The total assumed gap is almost 5 mm. In the tightness diagram this value guarantee water
tightness at least for pressure of 10.0 bar:

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 71 | P a g e
𝑃𝑟𝑑 = 10.0 𝑏𝑎𝑟 > 𝑃𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 = 6.5 𝑏𝑎𝑟
Where Pnominal is the maximum water pressure on the tunnel alignment taking into account
the uncertainties under Malabar Hill.
7.2.3 Tensile splitting
At the edges of the groove for the gasket, compressive stresses are introduced into the
segments due to the compression of the gaskets during installation of the segments. Due to
the redistribution of these stresses in the segment, transverse tensile stresses occur.
Because of the small size of the groove for gasket, and the small spacing between the groove
and the outside edge of the segment, the installation of a tensile splitting reinforcement in
this zone usually is not possible. Therefore, the tensile strength of the unreinforced concrete
of the segment is accounted for the proof of the transverse tensile stresses.
Technological
Tolerance
= 2 mm
Figure 7-6 Tensile splitting mechanism.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 72 | P a g e
Table 7-1 Check for the splitting underneath the gasket.

Tensile Splitting
Tensile Strength
fctk 2.46 MPa
γm 1.8 -
fctd 1.36 MPa
Tensile Splitting Stress
Leonhardt (1977)
Zs,d 9.65 kN/m
σct,d 0.24 MPa

Check fct > σct,d
The verification is satisfied since the strength values is higher than the loading one.
7.2.4 Corner shear
The shear loading of the unreinforced concrete of the segments shall not exceed the
admissible values. Because of the small size of the groove for gasket, and the small spacing
between the groove and the outside edge of the segment, the installation of a shear
reinforcement in this zone usually is not possible.
The verification is satisfied since the strength values is higher than the loading one.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 73 | P a g e
Figure 7-7 Corner shear mechanism.
Table 7-2 Check for the corner shear.

Shear loading
Shear Strength
t 0.375 m
cp 0.147 MPa
k 2 -
vmin 0.63 -
Vrdmin 18.8 kN
Shear Load
Fd 74.3 kN/m
p 1350 kN/m2
Vs,c 16.3 kN/m
Check Vrdmin > Vs,c

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 74 | P a g e
8. CONCLUSIONS
A 11.00 m internal diameter, 375 mm thick segmental lining was designed for TBM-
excavated tunnel of the Mumbai Coastal Road project (Package IV).
The proposed lining, which is made of grade M50 concrete and is reinforced with a steel ratio
of 100 kg/m3, was verified in the permanent situation by means of 2D FE analysis that
covered the different geotechnical conditions encountered at the site.
The temporary situations were also considered to cover:
- segments demoulding,
- stockpiling,
- handling,
- TBM thrust during construction
- grouting during construction
Appropriate technological parts were selected as discussed in Section 7, where connectors

and gaskets are discussed.
The proposed lining satisfies all the design checks mentioned above.

MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065
Rev A1 75 | P a g e

MCR4 LNT 422 DR 400065 - A1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MCR4 LNT 422 DR 400065 - A1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mumbai Coastal Road Project – Package IV

This Design Certificate refers to

[TBM Tunnel - Definitive Design Report]

The contents of this submission are scheduled in Section A below.

LEAD DESIGNER’S STATEMENT

OR (in the case of a Definitive Design Submission in respect of those elements

a. the outline designs, design briefs and performance specifications of those

b. the design of the Permanent Works, as illustrated and described in the

Design Certificate 27/03/2019

Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use

Signed by “Authorised Representative”

Name: Andrea Panciera

Position / Designation: Engineering Manager

LEAD DESIGN CHECKER’S CERTIFICATION

Signed by “Authorised Representative”

(for Design Checker)

Name: Mohan Gupta

Position / Designation: Engineering Manager

Design Certificate 27/03/2019

Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use

Signed by “Authorised Representative”

Position/Designation: Project Manager

The Contractor shall insert one of the following, as applicable:

(i) the Contractor's Technical Proposals

Submission no. MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065 A1 Definitive Design Report comprises the

Design Report for TBM Tunnel MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065

Documents: (TBM Tunnel - Definitive Design Report- MCR4-LNT-422-DR-400065 Rev A1)

Design Certificate 27/03/2019

Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use

Design Package No. Mumbai Coastal Road Package IV

Design Certificate 27/03/2019

Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use

COMMENTS RESOLUTION SHEET(CRS)

Transmittal / Document Title TBM Tunnel Status Code:

Document Type DR CRS Prepared by

Comment Responded Revised

A1 29-03-2019 AECOM/YOOSHIN 1st Issue

Rev Date of Submission Reviewed by Remarks

TBM Tunnel 27/3/2019

Description Lombardi SMEC

(Name) Diego L’Amante

(Name) Andrea Panciera (Name) Mohan Gupta

Date: 29/03/2019 Date: DD/MM/YYYY

TBM Tunnel 27/3/2019

2.1 Contract documents, standards and codes 4

2.2 Project Documents 4

2.3 Technical References 4

3.2 Reinforcement bars 8

4. SOIL AND ROCK CHARACTERI ZATIO N 9

4.2 Representative sections 10

5. STRUCTURAL ACTIONS IN THE PERMANENT CONDITION 13

5.2 Bending stiffness of the segmental lining 14

5.3 Section LO1 (km 3+440) 15

TBM Tunnel 27/3/2019

5.4 Section CC1 (km 3+750) 23

5.5 Section FA1 (km 4+430) 29

5.6 Section HO1 (ch. 4+525) 34

5.7 Section MF1 (km 5+000) 39

5.8 Seismic loads 45

5.8.1 Penzien’s method 45

5.9 Ring Verification 49

6. STRUCTURAL ACTIONS IN TEMPORARY CONDITIONS 51

6.4 Grout pressure 57