Underground Singapore 2016

Design and Construction of R75 Curve for East West

Transmission Cable Tunnel
S.Arimura, Y.Okamoto & S.Y.Liu
Nishimatsu Construction Co Ltd, Singapore

C.N. Ow & Y.K.Wong

Land Transport Authority Singapore

L.W. Weng
Singapore Power

K.H. Lim & T. Hosoi

Parsons Brinkerhoff

S.Yamauchi
Tac Pacific Pte Ltd

ABSTRACT: The curved tunnel of R75 and R80 radii for the contract EW3 of the East-West Trans-
mission Cable Tunnel is the bored tunnel of the tightest curvature constructed in Singapore to date.
The tunnel was constructed with segmental linings made of the composite of steel and in-fill rein-
forced concrete designed to withstand the eccentric thrust forces from the tunnel boring machine. Its
successful completion was a result of a confluence of two factors: a well-considered design, and the
employment of innovative construction techniques which include the use of Clay-Shock and Mini
Packers to maintain the stability of the ground and the erected segmental lining.

1 INTRODUCTION

Contract EW3 (the “Project EW3”) is one of the six contracts of the proposed 35km long Singapore
Power East-West and North-South Transmission Cable Tunnels. The Project EW3, which was con-
tracted to Nishimatsu Construction Co., Ltd in joint venture with KTC Construction and Engineering
Pte Ltd, encompasses the design and construction of a single tunnel of approximately 5.5km long and
30m to 60m deep, the associated enlargement shotcrete lining (“SCL”) tunnels, an equipment building
and a shaft at Kallang, a temporary shaft at Airport road, and a tunnel ventilation building and a shaft
at Paya Lebar. The tunnel drive from Airport Shaft to Paya Lebar Shaft comprises an alignment of dif-
ferent curvatures with radii of 200m, 112m, 80m and 75m (denoted as R200, R112, R80 and R75
curves respectively). The R75 curve, which was completed in January 2015, is the tightest curvature
for a bored tunnel constructed in Singapore to date.

The construction of the R75 and R80 tunnel necessitated the exertion of a non-uniform loading on the
erected tunnel segmental linings (“segments”) by the thrust jacks of the tunnel boring machine
(“TBM”), thereby giving rise to a highly concentrated force on one side of the segmental ring. In order
to withstand the substantially increased thrust load, segments made of the composite of steel and in-fill
reinforced concrete were used at the R75 and R80 curves. Each of these segments had a conventional
segment gasket fitted to its perimeter to ensure the water tightness of the tunnel.

Furthermore, as the boring of the R75 and R80 tunnel required the overcutting of the ground as the
TBM progressed, the stability of the excavated ground as well as the erected segments which would be
loaded eccentrically by the thrust jacks became a concern. In view of such consideration, a specially
formulated fill material, viz. Clay-Shock, was injected through TBM front body into the overcut
ground to maintain its stability. Contemporaneously, “Mini Packers” filled with a quick-setting grout
material were applied behind the TBM to minimize the potential movement of the erected segments.
A study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures adopted by examining the vari-
ous aspects of the bored tunnelling at the R75 and R80 curves in comparison with those at the greater
curvatures whereby the use of Clay-Shock and Mini Packers was not required. This paper discusses
the results of the study.

2 GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND PARAMETERS

The geology of the EW3 tunnel alignment is mainly composed of Kallang Formation with a very thick
underlying Old Alluvium ground. The majority of the tunnel is driven through the Old Alluvium soils.
The geological map of EW3 tunnel alignment is shown in Figure 1.

The Geotechnical Interpretative Baseline Report (GIBR) of Project EW3 states that the deposits pre-
dominantly consists of cohesionless soils (frequently cemented) of silty sand and clayey sand. Other
cohesive deposits such as silty clay, sandy clay, clayey silt and sandy silt are also encountered occa-
sionally. The Old Alluvium has 5 sub-classes in accordance to their weathering grade, from the un-
weathered Old Alluvium, O(A) to residual soil, O(E). Based on the site investigation data obtained, the
suggested minimum requirements of geotechnical design parameters from the GIBR are as shown in
Figure 2.

R75 Curve

Figure 1: Geological Map of EW3 Alignment [1] Figure 2: Geotechnical Parameters of EW3 Tunnel [2][3][4]

3 TIGHT CURVE CONSIDERATIONS

The Airport to Paya Lebar (ARP-PYL) tunnel alignment consists of curves of various radii, namely
R200, R112, R80 and R75. The alignment is intended to eventually connect to the existing Paya Lebar
Substation. Low rise commercial and industrial buildings line up on both sides of the roads (approxi-
mately 25m away from tunnel centre line). Due to the site constraints within an urban environment and
the requirement of keeping the tunnel footprint within the Road Reserve, R75 and R80 curves were
proposed for the ARP-PYL drive.

Table 1: Proposed Tunnel alignment (APR-PYL)

Type of Curve Length (m) Ring No
(ARP-PYL)
Straight 32 T13 - P15
R200 89 P16 - P85
Straight 99 P86 - P157
R112 196 P158-P353
Straight 214 P354-P507
R75 138 P508-P644
Straight 95 P645-P714
R80 142 P715-P857
Straight 6 P858-P862
Figure 3: Proposed Tunnel alignment radii R75/R80 Curves
4 DESIGN OF TIGHT CURVE

4.1 Design Considerations

For the purpose of this paper, only the R75 curve shall be discussed. The design of the R75 tight curve
was undertaken with the following considerations:

 The segmental lining of the tunnel consists of segments connected with joint bolts (in both longitu-
dinal and circumferential directions). Design forces are resisted by composite segment lining and
joint bolts respectively

 A global Spring-Beam model was adopted for the analysis of the tight curve of the tunnel to obtain
reaction of the ground due to unbalanced thrust force of the TBM. This was derived from the com-
bination of the strength of the mobilized primary grouting and that of the original ground.

 Based on the obtained reactions of ground, stress check of segment ring with mini packers and
strength check of mini packers will be undertaken.

4.2 Soil conditions at tight curve

The geological condition at the proposed R75 curve was constructed within Old Alluvium (“O”)
ground with overlying Kallang Formation (“K”) and Fill layers. The thickness of OA above the tunnel
crown varies from 14.5m to 22m. The Kallang Formation generally composed of 2m to 3m thick flu-
vial sand and organic layer; however, these layers have been largely replaced with 6m to 7m thick Fill
materials. An average SPT =78 O(B) layer is encountered at the tunnel alignment level. The geological
profile of the R75 tunnel section is shown in Figure 4.
Two Cutterhead Interventions (CHI) known as CHI#4 and CHI#5 were planned and undertaken for the
examination of tunnel face condition and cutter tools at the start and the end of the R75 curve respec-
tively. Based on the observations of the tunnel face during CHI#4, the ground encountered was hard,
light to dark brown and light grey CLAY and very dense, light grey with mottled brown, fine- to
coarse-grained, silty SAND, O(B). Hard CLAY was also observed at the crown. CHI#5 had very
dense, yellow and light grey, fine- to coarse-grained slightly clayey and silty SAND and the tunnel
crown was very dense, yellowish brown and light grey Silty SAND, Old Alluvium, O(B). Photos of
the ground encountered during CHI works are shown in Figures 5 to 8.

Figure 4: Geological profile along R75 curve

Figure 5: Tunnel Face Condition at CHI#4 Figure 6: Tunnel Face Condition at CHI#4
Hard, brown, yellowish CLAY Very Dense, grey silty SAND

Figure 7: Tunnel Face condition at CHI #5 Figure 8: Tunnel Face condition at CHI #5
Copy Cutter Pre Cutting Bits for TBM

4.3 Thrust Force and Eccentricity of TBM at Tight Curve

4.3.1 Thrust Force at Tight Curve

The total design thrust force of EW3 TBM is 20,000 kN (16 nos of jacks, 1250kN/jack applied uni-
formly). However, the operated thrust is controlled within 90% of design thrust force along the straight
alignment (i.e 18,000kN) whilst driving at tight curve areas.

4.3.2 Eccentricity due to Unbalanced Thrust Force of TBM

A ratio of the operated thrust of the right hand side jacks to the one of left hand jacks for R75 curve is
controlled as follows:

 Total thrust force of right hand jacks (No 1 to No 7) / Total thrust force of left hand jacks
( No 9 to No 15) = 6/4.

Figure 9: Thrust Jack Position of TBM

 8* Fjl + 8* Fjr = 18,000 kN , Ratio Fjl / Fjr = 6 / 4

Where Fjl = Jack force (LHS) = 1350kN / Jack

Fjr = Jack force (RHS) = 900kN / Jack

(a) Eccentricity (e1) due to unbalanced jack force

(Fjl)(rj)(sin22.5+sin45+sin67.5+sin90+sin112.5+sin135+sin157.5+sin180) - (sin202.5+sin225+
sin247.5 + sin270 + sin292.5 + sin315+sin337.5+sin360)/(8Fjl+8Fjr) = 400mm

(b) Eccentricity of Driving Operation at Tight Curve (e2)

A simulation study was undertaken by Hitachi Zosen [5] which details the modelling of segments
(spaced at 1m intervals) before, during and after the negotiation of tight curve radius alignment us-
ing the proposed 6.88m EPB TBM machine. A maximum eccentricity of 45mm was obtained at the
tightest point. The design of the eccentricity of driving operation tight curve (e2) was adopted as:
e2 = 50mm
Total Eccentricity= e1+e2 = 450mm = 0.45m

Figure 10: Simulation of Hitachi Zosen’s Study on TBM driving operations for Tight Curve [5]

4.4 Spring Beam Model of Tunnel

The spring beam model generally consists of “Beam” (Tunnel Tube) and “Spring” (ground and prima-
ry grout) and is shown in Figure 11 below:

Figure 11: Spring Beam Model of Tunnel [6] [7]

4.5 Tunnel Rigidity and Spring of Ground

4.5.1 Rigidity of Beam

The “Equivalent rigidity EI” is commonly adopted in tunnel design analysis. Various axial forces and
bending moments are calculated using the EI (10%) and EI (100%) conditions to confirm the assump-
tion of the rigidity of the “beam” (tunnel tube). The analysis shows bending forces are much smaller
than the axial compressive forces. Tensile forces are also found not to likely occur during this state.
Therefore, EI = 100% is adopted for R75 curve.

4.5.2 Spring of the Model

Spring perpendicular to the Tunnel Axis and along the Tunnel Axis at Tight Curve

The coefficient of subgrade reaction perpendicular to the tunnel axis (kgv) is estimated as [7]

kgv=(kgvo)(Bgv/(0.3))-3/4(kN/m3)

Whereby kgvo = (1/0.3)(α) (Eo)

Eo = 1500*N (N is estimated to be 38.8 from ABH316)
α =1
Bgv = Outer diameter of the tunnel = 6.58m
kgv = (194,000)(6.58/0.29)-3/4= 18,660 kN/m3
Kgv = (kgv)( Bgv) = (18,660)*(6.58) =1.23 × 105 kN/m2
Kghc = (1/3) (kgv) (1/2) (π)(Bgv) = (1/3) (18,660) (1/2) (π)(6.58) =6.4×104 kN/m2

Spring perpendicular to the Tunnel Axis and along the Tunnel Axis at Normal Curve

Kgv = (kgv)( Bgv) = 1.23 × 105 kN/m2

Kghs = (1/3) (kgv) (π) (Bgv) = (1/3) (18,660) (π ) (6.58) = 1.29×105 kN/m2

4.5.3 Reduction of spring around TBM

The co-relation between primary grout with time, in relation to TBM operations is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Relationship between strength of primary grout and TBM progress
For R75 curve, the strength of the primary grout is assumed conservatively to be zero from Point A to
Point B whereby Point A is defined as jacking point and Point B is defined as 1m away from tail end
of the TBM. The total distance (AB=3.5m) represents a combination of 2.5m (inside TBM tail) and
1.0m (outside TBM).

The expected strength of primary grout, which is carried out from tail end of TBM is recorded as
0.1N/mm2 for minimum at1 hour and 1.0N/mm2 at24 hours.

To summarise, the spring values for R75 curve considered in the design is as follows:
 Spring value at Point A to Point B =0
 Spring value at Point B = 10% of value at Point C
 Spring value at Point C = Estimated spring of the original ground is equivalent to
the primary grout strength qu=1.0N/mm2

For tight curve analysis, distance AC = 7.5m* 2 (Safety factor) =15m (See Figure 11)

4.6 Use of Clay Shock and Mini Packer for Tight Curve

4.6.1 Introduction
The ground inside the curve will be cut by the TBM copy cutter whereas the ground outside of curve
will be naturally over-excavated by the trajectory of the cutter head. At the overcut sections, these
voids should be filled with backfill grout as soon as possible with the segmental linings “fixed” to the
ground as early as possible to ensure stability.
When overcutting, there will be a void left in place around the TBM. The backfill grout will likely
reach the articulation joint area. Any inadequate primary backfill grout injection coupled with the pos-
sibilities of segmental lining being free from the ground may cause ground movement/settlement and
potential higher risk of the surrounding ground becoming unstable.

Figure 13: Concept of Clay Shock and Mini Packer [8]

4.6.2 Clay Shock

Clay-Shock is a high viscosity plasticized fill material, which comprises proportional mixing of a spe-
cially designed Clay-Sand (TAC-BetaII) and Sodium Silicate. This mix content ensures adequate li-
quidity of a backfill material which will be filled into the over cutting ground by pressurised injection.
The high viscosity ensures that large gaps can be filled up effectively. Clay Shock is injected from
TBM front body and provides the following:

 Pushes and allows soils to be drawn into the chamber

 Prevents any soil collapse around TBM body
 Prevents any infiltration of backfill grout material into the over cutting section
 Reduce thrust force of TBM operation
4.6.3 Mini Packers
Quick setting backfill grout is injected into Mini Packers which are installed at lifting holes of compo-
site segments. The Mini Packer provides the following:

 Ensures stable control in TBM advancement

 Ensures segmental linings are kept in position with minimal movement behind the TBM
 Prevents any excess deformation of segmental linings behind the TBM

During TBM driving at the R75 curve, the “long setting type backfill grout” is carried out simultane-
ously with the “quick setting type backfill grout” injected into the Mini Packers. The mobilisation rate
of the “long setting type grout” is very slow and as such, only the Mini Packers are able to resist the
TBM thrust. The design considerations require four numbers of Mini Packers per ring to be fixed at
outer side of tunnel curve and two numbers per ring on inner side of tunnel curve. Figure 14 shows the
typical arrangement of Mini Packers around the segmental ring.

Figure 14: Mini Packer arrangements

4.6.3.1 Spring of Mini Packer

The unconfined compressive strength of grout in the Mini Packer (qm) = 300kN/m²

Equivalent Standard Penetration Test value (SPT) of Mini Packer Nm

qi = 2cu = 2*(5*Nm) = 300kN/m² then, Nm = qi/10 = 30
The coefficient of subgrade reaction perpendicular to segment surface (Kgv) is estimated as
Kgv = (kgvo)(Bgv/(0.3)-3/4 (kN/m3)

Whereby kgvo = (1/0.3)(α) ( Eom)

Eom = 1500*N and N = 30
α =1
kgvo = (1/0.3)*(1)*(45,000) = 150,000kN/m²

Considering Mini Packer diameter =0.6m

kgv = (150,000)(0.6/0.3)-3/4 = 8.9 х 1044 kN/m²
Kgv = (Bgv)(kgv) = (0.6 )*(8.9 х 104) = 5.3 х 104 kN/m/mp
Kgh = 0.3(kgv) = (0.3)*(5.3 х 104) = 1.59 х 104 kN/m/mp

4.6.3.2 Stress Check of Segmental Lining and Mini Packer

The ground reaction due to the perpendicular component of TBM Thrust is Ft = 270kN/m. The force at
each jack point ft = Ft / 16 = 16.88kN / jack. The spring beam model for Mini Packers is shown in
Figure 15.
Figure 15: Spring Beam of Mini Packers [6] [7]

The allowable reaction of Mini Packer is calculated as:

(0.6)*(0.6)*(π/4)*300kN/m² = 85kN per Mini Packer

5 CONSTRUCTION OF TIGHT CURVE

5.1 Tight Curve Considerations

The TBM shield typically advances within the excavated section such that the outer front and rear ends
of the TBM will be in contact with the outer wall of the excavated section. In a tight curve drive, over-
cutting shall be carried out to inner wall of the excavated section to ensure there are sufficient clear-
ances as the rear body is not able to assist in advancing/ cutting into inner wall of the excavated sec-
tion. The required clearances for tail end to pass through segment extrados can be defined as the
minimum amount of over-cutting required whereby segment extrados does not come into contact with
TBM tail end. Due to the close proximity of the segment extrados and the TBM tail, larger tail clear-
ances are set. An additional measure during the tight curve construction includes daily manual tail
clearance check which will assist in the installation of Mini Packers as well. The features of the TBM
are shown in Figure 16.
Copy Cutter Articulation

Figure 16: Features of TBM for Tight Curve

5.1.1 Composite Steel Segments

The R75 radius tight curve encompasses the use of composite segments (steel segment with in-fill
concrete and reinforcement bars). These composite segments are designed to withstand the large con-
centration of forces due to the non-uniform thrust forces from the TBM rams. A typical section of a
composite segment (infilled with reinforced concrete) with 25mm thick girder and 6mm thick skin
plate is shown in Figure 17 below. The composite segment joints are fitted with an EPDM gasket, sim-
ilar to the provision of RC segment. Table 2 summarises the tapered segments adopted for tunnel
alignment curves.

Figure 17: Composite Segment Section [9]

Table 2: Segment Types for EW3 tunnel alignment

Curve Dia. Type Length Thick. Taper
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

A R ＞ 6,000 RC 1,400 300 60

200m

B 200≧R≧ 6,000 RC 1,000 300 80

100m

C 100m ＞ 6,000 Com- 1,000 290 110

R posite

5.1.2 Water Proofing and Control of Water Flow

The composite segment is designed with a provision of extrados 6mm steel skin plate which provides a
similar function of epoxy coating. In addition, EPDM gasket and additional hydrophilic strip is applied
for the composite segments where grooves are formed as part of the 30mm thick steel side plates. Hy-
drophilic water stop are provided to ensure sufficient control of water flow is provided. The typical
waterproofing details of tunnel segments for radial and circumferential joints are presented in Figure
18.
Figure 18: Water proofing Details for Composite Segment [9]

5.1.3 Backfill Grout and Mini Packer

For Mini Packer installation, an injection instruction sheet is required for every segmental lining with-
in the tight curve alignment to calculate volume of injection rate based on the measurement of the
TBM tail clearance. Figure 19 shows a typical instruction sheet.

Figure 19: Mini packer injection instruction and Mini packer details
5.1.4 Copy Cutter

Appropriate controlled overcutting inside of curve is undertaken by the copy cutter at TBM cutterhead
when negotiating the R75 curve. The copy cutter was physically checked thoroughly before and after
TBM entering the tight curve.

5.2 Construction Sequence of Tight Curve

The construction sequence for R75 curve is summarised as follows:

 The TBM shield is gradually driven into the tight curve with progressively adjusted articula-
tion and overcut.
 Injection of clay shock is made through the front body of the TBM.
 When Mini Packers are installed, long setting type backfill grout is carried out.
 Mini packers are installed with quick setting type grout.
 Composite segments are adopted throughout the curved tunnel alignment

A schematic diagram with the considerations of tight curve construction is shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20: Considerations of Tight Curve Construction [8]

5.3 Construction Cycle Time for R75 Curve

5.3.1 Comparison between planned and actual cycle time

The planned and actual cycle for the R75 radii curve are summarised in Figure 21 below:
Activity 0 60 120 180 Time (m)

Planned 135 62
Mining
Actual 73

Injection of Mini Planned 30 22

Packer
Actual 52
(6 ports)

Planned 60 55
Assembly
Actual 115

Figure 21: Planned vs Actual Cycle Time

The actual construction cycle time per segment shows a reduction of 8min (195min as compared to
187min). The actual injection of Mini Packer took longer than planned due to the control of grout vol-
ume, mixing and setting for the 6 installations per ring. It was observed that the simultaneous injection
of Mini Packer could not match the actual mining speed of TBM, thus resulting in the addition of ap-
proximately 22 minutes for the injection stage. In addition, the assembly of composite segments took
longer than planned due to the configuration of bolts. Tightening works proved to be difficult and a
special torque wrench was used to reduce the working time required for ring assembly.

Figure 22: Grout Injection for Mini Packer and Segment Installation

6. COMPARISON BETWEEN R75 AND R112 CURVE

After the successful completion of the R75 curve, a comparison study was also made by comparing the
various TBM parameters between the R75 and R112 curve (also along the ARP-PYL alignment prior
to R75 curve).

6.1 TBM Parameters

Figure 23: Comparison of TBM Parameters (R75 VS R112)

Table 3: Comparison Table for R75 and R112 curve

Parameter R75 Curve R112 Curve
Face pressure (kPa) 200 200
Thrust Force (kPa) 12000 10000
Advancement Speed (mm/min) 25 15
Cutter Torque (kNm) 1500 1800
Backfill Grout Injection Volume (%) 105 105
In general, the R75 and R112 curves had comparable TBM parameters. Face pressures and thrust forc-
es were similar due to similarity in geology along the ARP-PYL alignment. The advancement speed
for R75 curve was faster. Injection volume of backfill grout was both kept at 105% to ensure ground
stability.

6.2 Instrumentation and Monitoring

(a)

(b)
Figure 24: Comparison of Settlement readings (a) R75 vs (b) R112
The instrument readings taken from ground settlement markers were compared between the R75 and
R112 curves. The maximum settlement readings for R75 and R112 were 7mm and 10mm respectively.
All readings were observed to be within the respective ALs (Alert levels) and PDLs (Pre-determined
levels). It can be therefore concluded that tunnel annulus grouting was carried out efficiently at R112
and R75 curves with the provisions for proper backfill grout control, Clay Shock application and the
use of Mini Packers for the R75 curve.

7 CONCLUSIONS

The curved tunnel of R75 and R80 radii for Contract EW3 of the East-West Transmission Cable Tun-
nel is the bored tunnel of the tightest curvature constructed in Singapore to date. The successful com-
pletion of such curved tunnels was a combination of robust design (i.e. special composite segments)
and the implementation of special techniques such as injection of Clay Shock, long setting type back-
fill and the adoption of Mini Packers. A review of instrumentation results have indicated that minimal
ground settlements had incurred at R75 tight curve with the successful implementation of the tunnel-
ling techniques.

REFERENCES

1. DSTA. 2009. Geology of Singapore, 2nd Edition, Defense Science & Technology Agency
2. SPPA 2011a. Powergrid transmission Cable Tunnels, Tunnel 2: Ayer Rajah to Paya Lebar. Report of Ground
Investigation, GI-1:C203, Final Report. Vol. I, II, III. /Econ Geotech Pte Ltd. 2001.
3. SPPA. 2011b. Soil Investigation for East-West Transmission Cable Tunnel (Stretch C203). Final Report,
Vol. I, II, III & IV. Econ Geotech Pte Ltd., 2009.
4. Singapore Power Assets, AECOM Singapore Pte. Ltd.: Geotechnical Interpretative Baseline Report, East
West Contract3 2011
5. HitachiZosen: φ6.88 EPB type TBM, Study of R75 Excavation from Airport Road Shaft to Paya Lebar
Shaft, 2012, 25 September
6. Japan Society of Civil Engineer: Standard Specifications for Tunneling 2006: Shield Tunnel, August 2007,
pp85-87
7. Japan Road Association: Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction, 2002, pp149-154
8. TAC Pacific Pte. Ltd.: Technical Manual, Clay-Shock & Mini Packer. 2014
9. Nishimatsu-KTC JV, Parsons Brinkerhoff: Design and Construction of East- West Cable Tunnel Contract3,
Segmental Lining Analysis using Mini-Packer in Sharp Curve Alignment, 2013