Doha Metro Joanna Station Shoring

Qatar Rail
Document Review Sheet (Engineer)
Company Management System
28-Jun-15
MOOCI·GDB-GED-RPT·00103
DOCUMENT NO.: MOOII·GDB-GED-DWG·YWSTSAD·AA.0-4501 to 04504, Englneel1ng
04500 to 512, 04520 to 04529
DOCUMENT TITL.E: AI Sadd StaUon Interim Geotechnical Design Repon and dl'llwlngs. DOCUMENT TYPE: Design calculaUons 1111d dlliWings
submrssion Is for the excavatron lateral support for the AI Sedd

on See No 8 below for further submissions required to complete
!temporary works desrgn The following documents heve bHn revutwed:
MOOB-GDB-GEO-RPT-00103 Rev1
MOOB-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD·AA-04501 Rev1
MOOB-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD·AA-04502 Rev 1
M008·GDB-GEO-DWG·YWSTSAD·AA-04503 Rev 1
MOOB-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD·AA-04504 Rev 1
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG·YWSTSAD·AA-04506 Rev 1
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG·YWSTSAD·AA-04507 Rev 1
MOOB-GDB-GEO-DWG·YWSTSAD-AA-04508 Rev 1
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG·YWSTSAD·AA·04509 Rev 1
SPA General 2 Noted Closed
MOOB·GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD·AA·0-4510 Rev 1
M006-GDB·GEO·DWG-YWSTSAD·AA·04511 Rev 1
MOOS-GDB·GEO·DWG-YWSTSAD·AA-04512 Rev 1
MOOS-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD·AA-04520 Rev 1
M006·GDB·GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD·AA·04521 Rev 1
M006-GDB-GEO·DWG·YWSTSAD·AA·04522 Rev 1
MOOB-GDB· GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04523 Rev 1
MOOB-GDB·GEO-DWG·YWSTSAD-AA·04524 Rev 1
MOOB-GDB·GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04525 Rev 1
MOOB-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA·04526 Rev 1
MOOB-GDB-GEO-DWG·YWSTSAD-AA-04527 Rev 1
• M006-GDB-GEO-DWG·YWSTSAD-AA-04528 Rev 1
required in Volume 4 as soon es the 1nchor design,

2 SPA General Open
Noted. Please submit all required documents for SONO.
TM·20H03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 Page 1 of 10

Qatar Rail
REV.: I 2
MOOII·GDI!I-GEO·RPT-00103
DOCUMENT NO.: MOOII·GDB-GEO..DWG·YWSTSAD·AA..Q4501 to 04504, Engineering
04506 to 512, 04520 to 04529
DOCUMENTTI1\.E: Design calculations 1111d drawings
followmg doc:uments wh ich ere referred to In document

I·GEO-RPT-00103 have not re VIewed.
M006-GOB-GEO-RPT·00003
M006-GOB-GEO-RPT·00005
I . M006-GOB-GEO-PLN-00006
3 I SPA I Page 6 to 8 I Sec:t,on 1.3 2 1• M006-GOB-GEO-RPT-04003 I INcted I Closed
M006-GOB-GEO-RPT-00013
M006-GDB·GEO·RPT·00009
M006-GOB-GEO-ENN..Q0004
M006-GOB·ARC-RPT -00009
4 I SPA I General Please ensure all assumption have been closed out in Comply pro. I I Confirmed. I Closed
contiguous piles are not designed fa- water pressure. A method

statement will be required detailing how ground water levels will be
5 I SPA I Page 19/Cieuse 4 3.2 I 2 I
mon itored during the construction process, what trigger levels will be I IPiaase refill' to the I&M Plan fa- A I Sadd station I Closed
implemented and what measures will be taken if these levels araa
reached.
M006-GOB-GEO-OWG·
The size of excavation, loeetion & eo-ordinates are based on an
6 I SPA I YWSTSAO-AA..Q4506 2 I INctad I Closed
unapproved architectural footprint all at Contractor's own risk .
Rev 1
a ) BS EN 1020-1 for hot finished structural hollow sections is incorrect.

M006-GOB-GEO-OWG- T his should be BS EN 10210.
7 I SPA I YESTSAO-AA..Q4501 2 b) BS EN 571·1 & BS EN 1290 are superseded by BS EN 3452·1 & BS I !References on the drawings have been amended. I Closed
Rev 1 EN 17638 respectively. Please follow latest code.
TM-203-F03 Rev , 3.0, 22/06/14 Pag e 2 of 10

Qatar Rail
REV. : 2
I~ Dewateri ng design end drawings.

8 I SPA I General I 1
Ground anchor design.
design ere under DVE rev1ew. Closed
Soft eye design.

I&M Buildng impact usassment.
It is noted that the proposed design report has bean submitted as DD-1
Stege subm ission . Please note that the NOWC status is subject to the
9 I PKU I Gen I 1 l apprOYal of all the relevant submissions for this report i. e. GIR. Dewatering Noted. DD1 stage it 1nterom and DD2 based on the GIR. Closed
Design. ground anchors design. I&M Plans and Construction Impact
Reports.
The following documents have been referred in this section;

MOOS-GDB-GEO-RPT-00005 Geotechnical Design Basis Report
nor submlrred for Qarar Rail for approval)
Noted. W ill be removed.
Pre Construction Instrumentation and
Pla n - (T71e Documenr No. penalns ro ExCIIvar/on Face
B) Reference to M006-GDB-GEO·PLN-00006 Pre Construction I&M Plan
PKU Pg.9/Sec. 2 5 1 m~plng Rerx>rd and norrhe I&M Plan, please ~~~Mnd).
has b11n deleted es there is now e station specific I&M Plan.
c) M006-GDB-GEO-ENN-OOOQ4. The Doalmenr starus on Aconex Is
Open
I
10 "Failed" by QR.
I Please indicate the Rev. No. end approval status of ell the referred
Noted. Will be removed.
documents.
IPlease indicate th e Rev. No. and approval status of all the referred
PKU I I 3
documents.
Please refer to the Document from wh1ch the proposed characte rost1c
velues have been referred Also, please confirm that the proposed specific G IR charactanshc values have been checked as part of the
11 I PKU I Pg 13/Table-03 I 1 1characteristic values shall be verified by Site specific GIR et DD-2 Stage rev1sion of the report.
Closed
subm1ssion of present design report.
TM-203-F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/ 14 Pagel of 10

Qatar Rail
REV.:
confirm th81 globel and local fa ilure caMs have b. .n analysed end
Please confirm that beth Global as wall as local stability fa ilure casas has
12 PKU Gen tssed as part of the risk asHssment proceedure including Closed
been analyzed, incorporaUng the fincings of Geophysical Survey.
I consideration of the geophysical survey results.
following further design submissions are required to complete the

'l'lislion·
Geophysical Survey Report

reports have been developed and will be submitted rn conjunction with
PKU General 3 Dewatering design.
GDR.
Ground anchor design.
13 Open
Predicted Displacements.
Construction Impact Assessment Studies.
Instrumentation and Monitoring Plan to verify Design Assumptions.
rev iew status of present submission is subject to submission and

PKU General
of the above mentioned design submission as ELS Package
Drg. No. M006-GDB· include General Notes regarding Dewatering Works (Groundwater
14 PKU GEO·DWG· YESTSAD· Soft Ground Formations), as per employer's requ irements IDawaterina notes were included on the maj or rev ision drawing. Closed
AA-04501 Rev.01 Sec. 3.1.6 and Sec. 3.1.8).
TM·203-F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 Page4 of 10

Qatar Rail
REV.: 2 28·Jun·15
DOCUMENT NO.: Engineering
DOCUMENT T11LE: Design calculations and drawings
Drg. No. MOOS·GDB· C.C; Considering the robu stness ofthe ELS System and TBM Netas have bean added to this section to identify that headwall is to be
15 PKU GEO·DWG·YESTSAD· at the head walls, provision of Weier Beams across the short piles supported by permanent structure before TBM break out/break in Closed
AA-04507 Rev.01 be considered . operations.
through the Pile Section have been provided. Drilling fer Anchors
Design allows for rebar to be cut as part of coring process. Ncte added to
Drg. No. MOOS·GDB· after Pile Installation may cause structural de mage to the Piles. Please
nctes to identify that structural damage should be minimised by
16 PKU GEO·DWG· YESTSAD· add a note in the General Netas Drawing (Org. No. MOOS.GDB-GEQ. Closed
end any overbreeking made good with grout w~h C32140
AA-04512 Rev.01 DWG·YESTSAD·AA·04501 Rev.01) that any structural damage to piles
must be avoided during anchor installation.
Design and check certificate not 1ssued in the format required in Volume 4
17 PKU DVE Certificate
12-1 of the Employer's Requirements. Please comply.
The DVE observation sheet has an caveat that "Review excludes

appendix A toG of the present report as they are excluded from the
18 PKU DVE Certtficate
submissions to DVE", please explain the reason for omission of the
mentioned Appendices from DVE review submission.
TM-203-FOl Rev. 3.0, 22/ 06/14 PageS ollO

Qatar Rail
REV.: 2
Design for considered station (Doc . No. MOOS-GDB-GEO-RPT-0001
19 I PKU I General I 1
r--- relevant Drawings), has been already rev iewed (D-NOWC), by Qatar
n- " Please clarify the requirement of submitting the ELS Design under
document/drawing numbers .
Design for considered station (Doc. No. MOOS-GDB-GEO-RPT-00013

and re levant Drawings ), has been olready reviewed (D-NOWC ). by Qatar
Rail. Please confirm that with the present submissions, the already
20 I PKU I General I 1 1submitted design and drawings has become superseded/obsolete. Also
please expla in how the same shall be formal ized to avoid confusion on site
of having two different sets of approved dasignsldrawings
It is to note !hot the proposed ELS Design under the scope of this report
only station box and excludes ELS design for entrances and
21 I PKU I General I 1 ! subways. Please clarify at what stage the same shall be submitted. Also
plain how the interface ELS design for these structures shall be
and presented.
design report has been submitted as DD2 Stage

hence all the required design aspects should be addressed,
22 I CT I GENERAL I 1 lin eluding grouting and dewatering and ground anchor design . Please add
chapters for these designs or provide addtiona ly the necessary relevant
design documents.
TM-203-F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 Page6 of 10

Qatar Rail
to04504, REV.: 2
Accordtng to the destgn of the Open Cut Excavattons the selectton of the
I
requtred support elements (sprayed concrete wtth or wtthout
dowelslrockbolts) or excv atton at a 1 to 2 slope through the HWSL will be
based on the tn-sttu est•matl on of the rock mass GSI . as shown 1n
Drawtngs MOOS-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04502 and M006-GDB-
DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04510 However no gutdance IS gtven to the
Qeolechntcal engineer or geolog st how to esttmale lhe GSI
GENERAL Table TYPICAL APPLICATION OF SUPPORT ELEMENTS
and Drawing tn Drawtng MOOS-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04502 does
23 CT
MOOS-GDB-GEO-DWG- al the cases of rock masses anltctpated at the s•le dunng the
YWSTSAD-AA-04502
draw•ng shoud be resumbtlted by addtng tn the aforemenltoned
so the reqwed support be descnbed for all the formalions and
thetr GSI categones antiCipated tn the spectfic stle Furthermore, an
>nal column should be added wtth the area wtlhtn the GSI
l classtfication grap , corresponding to each formalton The sile geolechntcal
or geolog st wtll esttmale the GSI vtsually hence they should
ow how do tl and thts IS posstble only through the GSI dtagram
measures are proposed for the case the displacements

24 CT GENERAL loads exceed the specified in the design, erther for the pile walls or
open cut excavations. Please provide.
thicknesses of lhe ground layers considered in the GOR are those of

GIR and are different from these presented in the final GIR.
p 11 3 1
25 CT
Table 2
differences might have infiuence in the design. Also, the
lthicknesses of the ground layers shown in the drawings are different from
amend wherever required.
the geotechnical parameters' values in the GOR ore stgnificontly

p 12 1 3 3 1 from those presented in the GIR. These difh!rences might have
26 CT
Table 3 tn the design . Please explain how you denved the new values
wherever requtred.
TM·203·F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 Page 7 of 10

Qatar Rail
Design CIIICUIIItlons lllld drawings
27 I CT I
p.12 / 3.3.1
p.22 / 4 6.1
1
r··....................... ....................
Th is back analys1s has been performed for another structure at another
,~
geotechnical parameters and should not be included in the design.
Appendix Bas well as the referrences to this analysis in the body of the
and
APPENDIX B I report are not relevant to the present design. We see no benefit of it. In
· ···· it is not clear from the back analysis what type of deformation
(e.g. ground moovements) has been examined.
It is written "Groundwater /eve/was conservatively assu,.,.d to be at the

!'ormation level within the exc•vation, rOJther than 1m below ground /eve/."
28 I CT I p 15 / 4 2 3 I 1
However 1 in thfl accompanying figure the minimum drawdown is shown 1
m below formation level. Please amend.
It is written "... closest building to the excav•tion •t the northwest comer of

the site. At that location m•ximum surch•rge from this structures is
greater than 20kP• but less th•n 35 kPa and h•s
been found not to m•ke • significant difference to the design. " According
the "AI Sodd Station- Assessment of Construction Impact on Existing
repor1, these are buildings SAD-OBs and SAD-07s, which have
29 I CT I p 18 14 3 2 I 1 14 stories and the estimated surgharge is 40 kPa > 35 kPa. Furthermore,
distance of the closest point of these buildings to the excavation is -4.5
(see drawing MOOS-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-
not approx. 8 m as mentioned in this report. According to
5.3.1 and 5.8 1.2 of Vol. 6 of ER, a specific ana lysis for Section A
performed, taking into account the correct distance of the
its correct foundation level and the correct surcharge.
---
.. is written ". .a seri•s of sensitivity studies were c•rried out by varying
p.23 / 4.6.2
the value of Ko assumed for a typical anchored retaining WOJII on the Gold
30 I CT I and
APPENDIX C, p.1 I 1
Line. Ko values ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 wem tested." However, in
1• ----~ ' - C the range is from 0.6 to 2.0. Please amend.
TM·203-F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 PageS of 10

Qatar Rail
M006·GDB.QEO-RPT·00103
DOCUMENT NO.: MOOII·GDB.QEO·DWG·YWSTSAD-AA..Q4501 to 04504, Engl""erlng
04506 to 512, 04520 to 04529
DOCUMENT 111LE: AI Sedd SteUon Interim Geotechnical Design Report and drawings. DOCUMENT TYPE : Design calculaUons and drawings
"Structural analysis has shown that • structural sprayed

layer thickness of 750 mm is adequate for
31 I CT I p29 1612 I 1 Isupport of the Rus formation." No reference is made to the adequacy of
the 150mm sprayed concrete layer for the Simsina l.Jmestone and the
M1dra Shale formations. Please add accordingly
The seven (7) pages of the AI Sadd Open Cut Slope- Oasys Slope FE
32 I CT I APPENDIX A I 1 !Modeling Summary ere presented two times. Please subtract the second
bunch .
It is written "It w;os found th;ot thll wall forces and bending moments were
not grl!wtly sensitiVe to thll v•lue of K 0 with an increase in K 0 from 1.0 to
2.0 causing only a 10% incrl!ase in computed wall bending moment.
ISimilar increases of 12% and 6% in shear force and anchor load,
33 I CT I APPENDIXC I 1
respectivllly, war• a/so observed. " However, Figure 1 I p.2 shows a
considerable increase in the displacements of the order of 100% for the
maximum disploc"m"nt and of 160% for the shallow depth Ill Please
how this increase has been implemented in the design.
Drawing The MOOS-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04501 drawing should be

MOOS-GDB-GEO-DWG- resubmitted after the anchor design in order to give details about the
YWSTSAD-AA-04501 testing of anchors. The
34 I CT I and
1
STRUCTURAL BOUNDARY shown in drawing M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-
MOOS-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04501 is not the same with that 1n drawing M006-GDB-
YWSTADB-AA-04506 GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04506. Please amend accordingly.
35 I CT
Drawing
I MOOS-GDB-GEO-DWG-
I 1
r t the TYPICAL ARRANGEMENT a "LOCATION OF DEWATERING
WELLS" is wntten, without any other reference. Also, at the bottom of the
YWSTSAD-AA-04502 same drawing a "PUMPING WELL" is written , without any other reference.
TM-203-F03 Rev. 3 0, 22 /06/ 14 Page9 of 10

Qatar Rail
clearly showing the MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM

36 CT WATER EXCLUSION BY ANY GROUTING WORKS
that a number of Qatar Ra il comments in relation to

37 CT General
ol">rr~soondin" GIR must be also adequately addressed.
c. SONO E. FaiVNot approved

Document Review Status Code: D
Dpt.Eng. Manager
TM-203 ·F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 Page 10 ollO

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
QATAR INTEGRATED RAIL PROJECT

Doha Metro: Gold Line
AI Sadd Station - Geotechnical Design
Report For Excavation Temporary Works
M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00103
PREPARATION BY CONTRACTOR:
Action Name Signature Role Company Date
Originator D.Niarchos Discipline Engineer Arup 01-May-2015

4. ~ ..-C '-'--
Checker Vincent Tirolo Discipline Manager Arup 01-May-2015
rr cjll::?
Reviewer Anouar El Molaka ~.~~ 17 Engineering Manager ALYSJ .{ CJ • o5 . -f ~
Approval Andreas Tauschinger ~ c .s..kr7 Project Director ALYSJ 1~·c:J5 . "lS""

ENGINEER'S ASSISTANT ~ y
IZ~y vt:JNJ:m..J 6us.srm- : ~~ Project Director PMC ·~ ~ - ()£ _1r
STATUS (/
A B c (o) E F
Approved ""' Fail/Not No Review
Approved with SONO NOWC
Approved Required
Comments
Document Number: M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00103 Rev 2 Page 1 of 35 01-May-2015
Uncontrolled if printed, refer to EDMS for current version

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
Revision History:
Rev. Date Description Originator Checked Reviewed Approved
Issued for
1 10-March-2015 DIN VJT AEM ATA
approval
Issued for AEM

2 01-May-2015 DIN VJT ATA
approval
Controlled Copy Issue Log: (Applicable only for hard copy as may be required outside of EDMS)
This hard copy document has been assigned as below and will be reissued automatically upon any future
revision.
Copy Company Name Representative

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
CONTENTS PAGE
CONTENTS PAGE ........................................................................................................................................3

1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................5
1.1 General 5
2 Project Background and Outline Of Temporary Works Proposals ................................................ 6
2.1 Project Background 6
2.2 Description Of The AI Sadd Structure 6
2.3 Temporary Works Interaction With Surrounding Infrastructure 6
2.4 Proposed Excavation and Lateral Support Systems 7
2.4. 1 Open Cut Excavation 7
2.4.2 Bored Pile Walls 7
2.4.3 Groundwater Control 7
2.4.4 AI Sadd Temporary Works Layout 8
2.5 Reference Documents 8
3 Existing Ground Conditions .............................................................................................................11

3.1 Ground Model Considered 11
3.2 Groundwater 11
3.3 Adopted Geotechnical Parameters 11
3.3.1 Temporary Stability and Retention Analysis 11
3.4 Permeability 13
4 Geotechnical Design Methodology .................................................................................................. 14
4.1 Introduction 14
4.2 Open Cut Slope Analysis 14
4.2.1 Methodology 14
4.2.2 Surcharge Loads 15
4. 2.3 Design Assumptions 15
4.2.4 Seismic Loading 16
4.2.5 Volume 6 Section 5.3.1 of Employer's Requirements 17
4.3 Retaining Wall Analysis 18
4. 3. 1 Methodology 18
4. 3. 2 Surcharge Loads 18
4.3.3 Design Assumptions 18
4.3.4 Volume 6 Section 5.3.1 of Employer's Requirements 20
4.4 Ground Movement and Building Damage Assessment 21
4.5 Groundwater Inflow Analysis 21
4.6 Consideration Of Ground Risk In The Geotechnical Design 22
4.6.1 Derivation of "Worst Credible" Ground Parameters Through Case History Example 22
4.6.2 Potential Variation in The Ko Value 23
4.6.3 Groundwater 23
4.6.4 Alternative Modelling Techniques to Cover Rock Behaviour 23
5 Structural Design Methodology .......................................................................................................25
5.1 Introduction 25
5.2 Design Codes 25
5.3 Material Input Parameters 25
5.3.1 Reinforced concrete: 25
5. 3. 2 Reinforcement Steel 26
5. 3. 3 Structural Steel 26
5.3.4 Shotcrete Layer 26
5.4 Design of Piled Walls 26

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
5.5 Design of Wailing Beams 26

5.6 Design of Anchor Stools 26
5.7 Design of Capping Beams 27
5.8 Design of Shotcrete Face Support For Open Cut Slopes 27
5.9 Consideration of Anchor Failure in the Design 27
5.1 0 Consideration Of Anchor Head Detail 27
6 Summary of Design Results .............................................................................................................29
6.1 Open Cut Slopes 29
6. 1. 1 Geotechnical Results 29
6. 1.2 Structural Summary 29
6.2 Retaining Wall Analysis 30
6. 2. 1 Geotechnical Results 30
6. 2. 2 Structural Results 32
6.3 Groundwater Inflow Analysis 33
7 Risk Assessment, Instrumentation and Monitoring and Construction Mitigation ..................... 33
7.1 Introduction 33
7.2 Risk Assessment 33
7.3 Instrumentation and Monitoring Strategy 34
7.4 Construction Mitigation 34
8 Conclusions and Recommendations ...............................................................................................35
Appendix A Detailed Geotechnical Design Analyses Input and Results

Appendix 8 Determination of "Worst Credible" Parameters Based on Case History Information
Appendix C Study on the Impact of Ko
Appendix D UDEC Analysis
Appendix E Structural Calculations
Appendix F APPENDIX NO LONGER REQUIRED
Appendix G Groundwater Inflow
Appendix H Risk Register

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
1 Introduction
1.1 General
The Doha Metro is being procured as a number of contract packages and the Qatar Railways Company (The
Employer) has engaged the AKTOR, Larsen & Toubro, Yapi Merkezi, STFA and AI Jaber Engineering Joint
Venture (AL YSJ JV) (the Contractor) to design and build Package 6, Gold Line Underground.
The Gold Line comprises a number of deep underground structures including AI Sadd , a 177m long (174m
clear between headwalls) and approximately 29m deep station and switchbox. The structure will comprise
reinforced concrete and will be constructed as a bottom up cut and cover box. Temporary excavation and
lateral support arrangements are required to create working space for the permanent works. Arup have been
commissioned by AL YSJ JV to provide a design for these temporary works.
This report sets out the design philosophy and initial calculations in developing the proposed temporary works
arrangement for the station. The report initially gives an overview of the scheme, station geometry and
temporary works proposals. It then goes on to describe the ground conditions at the site and the geotechnical
parameters used in the design. The design methods adopted are outlined. A summary of the design results
is then presented together with conclusions and recommendations.
The report has the following sections:-
• Section 2- Project Background and Outline of Temporary Works Proposals.
• Section 3- Existing Ground Conditions.
• Section 4- Geotechnical Design Methodology.
• Section 5- Structural Design Methodology.
• Section 6- Summary of Design Results.
• Section 7- Risk Assessment, Instrumentation and Monitoring and Construction Mitigation
• Section 8- Conclusions and Recommendations
The temporary works proposals include a number of elements that will be subcontractor designed elements.
These include grouting , dewatering and bored pile tie back anchors . The design of these elements will
therefore not be covered in this report but will be dealt with by others. Performance requirements for these
elements will, however, be set out in this report and outlined on the drawings.
This report has been prepared with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Agreement
with the AL YSJ JV, taking account of the resources devoted through this agreement and based on information
available at the time of preparation and submission . Any significant change to the available information -
such as results of the full additional geotechnical and geophysical investigations or any changes to the
station layout, size, location or formation levels -may require changes to the recommendations depicted in this
report. The borehole logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations
and times of sampling. The designated boundaries between strata, and in particular between soil and rock,
are approximate and may vary across the site.
This report takes into account the specific instructions and requirements of AL YSJ JV. It is not intended for
and shall not be relied on by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
2 Project Background and Outline Of Temporary

Works Proposals
2.1 Project Background

The Doha Metro is being procured as a number of contract packages and the Qatar Railways Company (The
Employer) has engaged the AKTOR, Larsen & Toubro, Yapi Merkezi, STFA and AI Jaber Engineering Joint
Venture (AL YSJ JV) (the Contractor) to design and build Package 6, Gold Line Underground .
The Gold Line Underground M20 package starts from Airport City North underground station and moves west
through underground stations at AI Sharq I National Museum , Doha Souq , Musheirb (constructed by others),
AI Adhawaa, AI Sadd C Ring, AI Sadd, AI Sadd Stadium AI Waab City, Sports City, Villagio and optional stations
Doha Zoo, AI Rayyan South, Muaither and beyond to an at-grade transition.
The Gold Line is approximately 20.6 km in total length included station pass through. Twin bore tunnels to link
between stations make up approximately 15.2 km of the line length.
The Gold Line Underground M20 package also interfaces with part of the Red M1 0 Line and Green M30 Line
at Msheireb Station (constructed by others) and also the future planned Blue M40 Line.
2.2 Description Of The AI Sadd Structure

AI Sadd Station is connected to two bored tunnels carrying the Gold Line through the station to the AI
Sadd I G-Ring Station to east and AI Sadd Stadium Station to the southwest. The station structure has an
internal length between headwalls of 174m and will be constructed as a single integral reinforced concrete
structure by bottom-up cast in-situ methods.
Temporary excavation and lateral support arrangements are required to create working space for permanent
works construction and launching area for the bored tunnel structures. It is proposed that these temporary works
will be independent from the permanent works. It is assumed that the 1.5m earthing deep earth matt trench is
located away from the trench and will not impact on the design.
The design of the structure is still ongoing and the geometry is subject to change.
Based upon the available information the following formation levels have been assumed during the design of
the temporary works:
• Station Box Formation Level= -20.200m QNHD.
• Concourse (Mezzanine) Level= -2 .7m QNHD.
The formation levels above includes a 100mm allowance for blinding. The top of rail (TOR) level for the AI
Sadd station box is -15.05 QNHD. Levels above are based on information in the CVR for the station M006-
GDB-ARC-RPT-00009 Rev 1.2 together with correspondence with the ALSY J regarding required formation
levels for TBM drag through.
2.3 Temporary Works Interaction With Surrounding

Infrastructure
The proposed AI Sadd Station is on a commercial section of AI Sadd Street east of AI Waab Street.
The following have been considered during the design of the temporary works:
• Loads from adjacent structures . The closest adjacent structures include relatively large high occupancy
buildings of the south side of the station

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
• Position of existing utilities relative to the temporary works particularly adjacent to the headwalls. The
utilities include electric cables, foul and storm sewers and Ooredoo cables. Proposed Excavation and
Lateral Support Systems.
• Protection of the road surface on AI Sadd street and intersecting roadways.
The proposed temporary works solution comprises a mixture of open cut slopes where available land allows
and bored soldier pile walls in locations where critical infrastructure or buildings are to be supported . These
are described in further detail below.
2.3.1 Open Cut Excavation

The open cut slopes will be dug at angles of 1 in 2 through the made ground and superficial deposits, then at
1 in 7.5 through the underlying rock stratum . The excavation faces will be inspected as the levels are reduced
and suitable face support measures installed . In general, for competent rock mass, it is envisaged that face
protection in the form of sprayed concrete for local face stability. Where the rock mass is of poorer quality, and
also within the Rus Formation, rock dowels working in conjunction with a structural sprayed concrete face will
be adopted for stability reasons. Further details are given on the general arrangement drawings.
2.3.2 Bored Pile Walls

The bored pile walls will comprise contiguous pile (at end walls} or soldier pile walls supported by tie back
anchors. The contiguous pile walls will comprise 1.0m diameter piles at 1.1m intervals. The soldier pile walls
will comprise 1.0m diameter piles at 2.2m intervals with a sprayed concrete face protection between piles. A
geo-composite drain strip will be pinned to the rock surface prior to placing sprayed concrete to minimize the
risk of hydrostatic pressures loading the sprayed concrete face. Weepholes will be installed through the geo-
composite to assist in minimizing this risk. The loading and geometry for these anchors will be specified and
defined on the ELS drawings. It is proposed that the tie back anchors will be fixed directly to the piles and that
wailing beams will generally not be employed . Wailing beams comprising short lengths of reinforced concrete
stool will , however, be used locally. The anchor bond length will be subcontractor designed.
At headwall locations a combination of contiguous piled walls and combined with soldier pile walls are
proposed . The tunnel eyes will be formed by a bolted sprayed concrete rock face which will be achieved by
toeing piles up locally in the area of the tunnel and using sprayed concrete with carbon fibre rock dowels for
face support as the excavation proceeds. Vertical dewatering wells will be installed behind the tunnel eye if
groundwater conditions dictate that this is required for tunnel launch or break in operations. A capping beam
will also be installed to take the vertical load of the piles above the tunnel heading once the TBM passes
through .
2.3.3 Groundwater Control

Both open cut excavations and bored pile wall excavations will be dewatered through the use of weepholes,
horizontal drains and deep well pumping . Grouting will be employed to control the level of groundwater ingress
into the excavations. This grouting treatment is not intended to form a grout curtain around the excavation,
rather to mitigate against high ingress rates within jointed rock or through karstic features. In some instances,
where space is too restrictive to grout vertically, the grout treatment will be undertaken from inclined holes
drilled from within the excavation . The inclination of these holes will be 1 in 3.
The dewatering systems and grouting arrangement are to be designed by others . The requirements for these
systems in terms of the required geometry of the grout treatment and the assumed groundwater levels from
the design will be defined on the drawings as inputs to that design process. Groundwater is assumed to
remain drawn down during the construction of the permanent works.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
2.3.4 AI Sadd Temporary Works Layout

The layout of the solutions for AI Sadd are shown on drawings listed in Section 2.4 and are summarised in the
table below:-
Table 1 -Summary of Excavation and Lateral Support Measures at AI Sadd
Base scheme Location around station perimeter

Western Headwall Eastern Northern Southern
to bored tunnels Headwall to Perimeter Perimeter
bored tunnels
Support to Anchored Anchored Anchored Soldier Anchored Soldier

ground and Contiguous and Contiguous pile wall with pile wall with
surcharge Soldier Pile wall and Soldier sprayed concrete sprayed concrete
loads with sprayed Pile wall with face protection face protection
concrete tunnel sprayed over western half between piles.
and CFRP rock concrete of the excavation
bolt supported tunnel and with open cut
tunnel eye . CFRP rock bolt solution over the
supported eastern half.
tunnel eye.
Groundwater Inclined Grout Vertical Grout 0Qen cut solution : Inclined Grout
control (Note 1) Treatment (Note 2 ) Treatment (Note 2) Treatment (Note 2)
Offset Grout
Weepholes Treatment (Note 2 )
Weepholes and
Deep Well and Deep Well Weepholes and Weepholes and
Pumping (Note 3). Pumping (Note 3) Deep Well Deep Well
Pumping (Note 3). Pumping (Note 3)
Pile wall solution :

Inclined Grout
Treatment (Note 2)
Weepholes and
Deep Well
Pumping (Note 3).
Notes:
1) The design and construction of the groundwater control zone will be undertaken by the
Contractor to achieve the assumptions regarding groundwater pressures set out in this report.
The groundwater control measure will be a mix of grouting and pumping.
2) Grout treatment under consideration by AL YSJ JV with respect to use, extent and works
methodology. Design arrangement by specialist contractor;
3) Deep well pumping is assumed. Actual dewatering system arrangements to be designed by the
specialist contractor.
4) Location-specific dewatering requirements will be shown on relevant drawings.
2.4 Reference Documents

This report should be read in conjunction with the following documents:

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00003 Geotechnical Appraisal Report

M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00005 Geotechnical Design Basis Report
M006-GDB-GEO-PLN-00504 AI Sadd Station-Construction Instrumentation and

Monitoring Plan
MN006-GDB-GEO-RPT-04003 Geotechnical Factual Report on Additional Geotechnical
Investigations AGI for AI Sadd Station
M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00013 AI Sadd Station Geotechnical Design Report
M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00009 Interim Geotechnical Interpretive Report
M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00110 AI Sadd Station- Assessment of Construction Impact on Existing Structures
M006-GDB-ARC-RPT-00009 AI Sadd Station Concept Validation Report
M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00032 Geotechnical Interpretive Report AI Sadd Station (SAD)
The following geotechnical drawings should also be read in conjunction with the report:
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04501 AI Sadd ELS- Structural Temporary Works- General Notes
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04502 AI Sadd ELS - Open Cut Excavation -Typical Profile and
Sequencing
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04503 AI Sadd ELS- Open Cut Excavation- Standard Details Sheet
1 of 2
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04504 AI Sadd ELS- Open Cut Excavation- Standard Details Sheet
2 of 2
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04506 AI Sadd ELS- Excavation General Arrangement
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04507 AI Sadd ELS - Headwall East- Section along TBM Launch
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04508 AI Sadd ELS - Headwall West- Section along TBM Launch
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04509 AI Sadd ELS - Cross Sections- Sheet 1 of 2
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-0451 0 AI Sadd ELS- Cross Sections- Sheet 2 of 2
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04511 AI Sadd ELS- General Arrangement Excavation and Utilities
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04512 AI Sadd ELS- General Arrangement with Soldier Piled Wall
with Inclined Grout Treatment Solution
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04520 AI Sadd ELS- Bored Pile Walls- Setting Out Details
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04521 AI Sadd ELS - Piling Structural Details - West and East
Headwall
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04522 AI Sadd ELS- Piling Structural Details- Headwall Elevation
West
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04524 AI Sadd ELS- Piling Structural Details- Headwall Elevation
East
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04526 AI Sadd ELS- Piling Structural Details- Flank Wall
Elevation South

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04527 AI Sadd ELS - Piling Structural Details- North and South
Flank Wall
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04528 AI Sadd ELS- Piling Structural Details - Flank Wall
Elevation South
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04529 AI Sadd ELS- Anchor Structural Details- Headwalls and
Flank Walls
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04530 AI Sadd ELS- Construction Instrumentation & Monitoring
General Arrangement
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04531 AI Sadd ELS- Zone of Influence and Settlement Contour
Plan
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04534 AI Sadd ELS- Instrumentation & Monitoring General Notes
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04535 AI Sadd ELS- Instrumentation & Monitoring Typical Array
Details
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04536 AI Sadd - ELS Zone of Influence and Settlement Contour
Plan - Excavation Only
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- YWSTSAD-AA-04537 AI Sadd - ELS Settlement Contours, Instrumentation and
Critical Utilities

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
3 Existing Ground Conditions
3.1 Ground Model Considered

The ground models considered in these analyses have been based on a review of tender stage ground
investigations supplemented by information from the additional ground investigation (AGI) as reported within
the site specific GIR (report M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00032 REV 0.1)
Based on the available information stated above, the ground profile indicated in Table 2 below has been
adopted for the purpose of this geotechnical design report.
Table 2 Ground Model
Depth (m) Level (mQNHD) Thickness

Ground Profile
(m)
From To From To
QMS EGL 1.9 8.3 6.4 1.9
Highly Weathered
1.9 2.5 6.4 5.8 0.6
Simsima Limestone
Slightly Weathered
Simsima Limestone
2.5 14 5.8 -5.7 11.5
(Simsima Limestone unit
predominates
Midra Shale 14 20.5 -5.7 -12.2 6.5
1
Rus Formation 20.5 48.3 -12.2 -40.0 27 .8
1
Thickness of RFL unproven in ground investigation
3.2 Groundwater
The findings of the AGI indicated a maximum recorded groundwater level of +QNHD, after monitoring borehole
Doh_MW10DB_725 of +7.89m QNHD. According to Qatar Railways Company guidelines the design
groundwater level (DGWL) shall not be lower than 500mm above the maximum present groundwater level
(GWL). This would result in a DGWL of 8.39m QNHD. Due to the limited monitoring period over which the
groundwater level was measured and the general trend of rising groundwater levels with time, it was considered
appropriate to allow for a potential rise in groundwater level. As such, a design groundwater level of +8.5m
QNHD was adopted for the purposes of this report.
The unit weight of water was assumed to be 10.3 kN/m 3 in accordance with Clause 1/4/1/5/1 of Vole 6 of the
Contract requirements .
3.3 Adopted Geotechnical Parameters
3.3.1 Temporary Stability and Retention Analysis

An assessment of the characteristic material properties of the strata at the site has been carried out based on
the tender stage ground investigation information and the findings of the site-specific AGI within the GIR reports
available. The following parameters were taken for the design.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
The dominant ground conditions at the site comprise rock strata of Simsima Limestone in varying states of
weathering, Midra Shale and Rus Formation. In general, the properties of these materials were derived in the
framework of the Hoek-Brown (H-B) criterion, a numerical model based on a mix of quantitative and qualitative
parameters that define the strength and stiffness characteristics of the rock mass.
For implementation in numerical models , the H-B criteria have been converted to an equivalent set of linear
elastic Mohr-Coulomb (M-C) parameters . The derived M-C parameters depend in the H-B parameters and also
on the stress level relevant to the situation under consideration . The characteristic M-C parameters
recommended by the Interim GIR are summarised below.
Table 3 Characteristic Values of Geotechnical Parameters
Stratum Unit Poissons Friction Cohesion At Rest Young's Tensile

weight ratio angle (kPa) Earth Modulus strength
(kN/m 3 ) n Pressure (MPa) (kPa)
Coeff.,Ko
(MPa)
QMS 18.00 0.30 29.0 3.0 0.52 7 0
HWSL 19.00 0.29 19.0 50.0 0.75 170 1
SL 23.00 0.21 48.0 430.0 0.75 5000 55
Midra 22.00 0.18 42.0 320.0 0.75 1800 70
Shale (MS)
Rus 22.00 0.24 36.0 205.0 0.75 1500 15
Formation
Engineered 20 .00 0.20 36 .0 0.10 0.41 50 0
Fill
Calculations have been carried out in accordance with BS EN 1997-1:2004 + A1 :2013 and the UK national
Annex. Each design case has been analysed for Ultimate Limit States using Design Approach 1 Combination
1 (DA 1C1) and Design Approach 1 Combination 2 (DA 1C2). Design Approach 1 has also been considered as
a conservative assessment of the Serviceability Limit State (SLS). The partial factors adopted for each case
are summarised in Table 4, below.
In addition to the standard design approaches discussed above, an analysis of each design case was carried
out based on a direct assessment of the "Worst Credible" (WC) parameters. These parameters were based on
back analysis work carried out on the observed behaviour of open cut slopes at AI-Matar G-Ring station. See
section 4.6.1 and Appendix B for further details. Partial factors consistent with DA 1C2 ULS analysis were
adopted except for partial factors for material strength which were all taken as 1.0

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
Table 4 Partial factors for GEO/STR in persistent and transient design situations
Design Approach 1 Combination 1 t t t
Combination 2 t t t
Partial Factor Set A1 A2 M1 M2 R1
Actions or Action Effects
Permanent Unfavourable YG 1.35 1.0
Actions (G) Favourable 1.0 1.0
YG;fav
Variable Unfavourable yo 1.5 1.3
Actions (Q) Favourable 0.0 0.0
Ya;fav
Material Properties
Angleofshearing y ep 1.0 1.25
resistance (tan <p)
Effective cohesion (c') Yc' 1.0 1.25
Undrained strength (cu) Ycu 1.0 1.4
Unconfined strength (qu) yqu 1.0 1.4
Weight density (y) YY 1.0 1.0
Resistances
Bearing resistance (Rv) YR;v 1
Sliding resistance (Rh) YR;h 1
Earth resistance (Re) YR;e 1
Prestressed anchorages ya 1.1
The partial factor applied to anchor loads in the accidental anchor failure case was taken to be 1.05.
3.4 Permeability
Seepage through the rock is primarily governed by its fractures and joints, a secondary permeability, often
leading to anisotropic permeability. For the purposes of seepage analysis reported in this document, however,
the rock is assumed to behave homogeneously. The permeability values assumed for the purposes of this
report are included in the table below and were based on site-specific GIR data available for the site.
Table 5 Permeability values
Stratum Permeability
(m/day)
QMS 3.20 E-05
HWSL 6.50 E-05
SL 9.90 E-06
Midra Shale 4.00 E-06
Rus Formation 7.30 E-06

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
4 Geotechnical Design Methodology
4.1 Introduction
The following section sets out the approach taken with each design element of the temporary works at the site.
At present, two main geotechnical structure types have been considered:
• Open cut slopes
• Anchored soldier pile walls with sprayed concrete lagging and drain holes.
Open cut slopes typically comprise staged excavation of slopes at 1 in 7.5 with localised rock dowels installed
within the Highly Weathered Simsima Limestone, Simsima Limestone, Midra Shale and Rus Formation . The
zones of rock bolting will include a sprayed concrete facing with drain holes to permit drainage through the
lining.
The anchored walls generally comprise 1m diameter bored cast-in-situ soldier piles installed at 2.2 m centres
along the station flank walls and combination of 1.1 contiguous bored pile and soldier pile walls at the east and
west head walls .. Sprayed concrete lagging will be constructed between the piles as excavation progresses
with drain holes provided to permit drainage through the wall. The walls will be supported by rows of
prestressed ground anchors at 2.2m centres which will be directly fixed to the bored piles.
In both cases, a zone of grout treatment will be provided behind the wall, mainly to control seepage into the
excavation through Karst features. For the open cut slopes this will comprise a vertical grout treatment offset
by 1Om from the toe of the slope. For the anchored walls, it will generally comprise an inclined grout treatment
installed at 1h:3v. For the east headwall, however, the grout treatment will be vertical and offset by a minimum
distance of 1Om from the wall.
The performance of the grout treatment has been monitored in field trials. In general, it has been demonstrated
that the form of treatment adopted has a minimal impact on groundwater flow on the macro scale and therefore
the excavation has been assumed to be dewatered in the design calculations. Some sensitivity analysis to test
different groundwater flows has been carried out within the design.
4.2 Open Cut Slope Analysis
4.2.1 Methodology
The Open cut slopes were analysed using approaches:
• Finite element analysis using Plaxis 20.
• Oasys Slope FE
• Finite element analysis using UDEC.
Plaxis 20 is a 20 finite element package used extensively for nonlinear ground-structure interaction analysis.
It has been used here to model the staged excavation of the open cut slopes in plane strain to assess potential
movements and structural forces. ULS analyses were carried out by performing analyses with factored material
properties and actions. Stability was also assessed by carrying out a c-phi reduction analysis at the end of
relevant analyses. In this case, the strength of the rock/soil is incrementally reduced until a failure mechanism
develops. The size of the strength reduction at failure is an indication of the overall factor of safety of the
structure. The factor of safety derived in this way is only really comparable to traditionally adopted factors when
used in a serviceability limit state or DA 1C1 analysis.
Refer to Appendix A for detailed descriptions of the input and assumptions within the analyses undertaken.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
Oasys Slope FE is the latest version Oasys Slope. Oasys Slope FE performs two-dimensional slope stability
analysis to study circular or non-circular slip surfaces. The program uses the method of slices and offers a
variety of established methods for calculating interslice forces. These methods include Fellenius or Swedish
slip circle analysis, the Bishop horizontal or constant inclined inter-slice forces method, and for non-circular slip
surfaces the equivalent Janbu methods are available . The program combines two types of analysis within one
easy-to-use program interface. Finite element steady state seepage analysis calculates the pore pressure
distribution, followed by analysis of slope stability by traditional limit equilibrium methods. For this analysis
Slope FE 20.0 build 23 have been used. Refer to appendix A for more detailed information.
The Universal Distinct Element Code (UDEC) is an advanced 2D discrete element modelling code. It is
designed to analyse discrete jointed, blocky rock systems and how they interact with each other. Refer to
Appendix D for further information.
4.2.2 Surcharge Loads

All surcharge loads have been treated as variable unfavourable actions . In accordance with Volume 6 Section
1.4.16.3 of the Employer's Requirements, a characteristic surcharge of 20kPa was included outside the
excavation . This is considered representative of a conservative construction surcharge and any buildings
adjacent to the excavation.
4.2.3 Design Assumptions

The following assumptions have been adopted in the analyses :
• One open cut section was analysed for the main length of the open cut excavation. The section
included the concourse (mezzanine) formation line -2.7m QNHD and the main station formation level
-20.200m QNHD which includes a blinding allowance.
• The open cut slope assessment assumed the excavation is dewatered. The design case assumption
that the groundwater profile behind the grout treatment is 1/3 of the overall height of the institute water
column was adopted for the design in line with the diagram below. Other sensitivity studies on
groundwater were undertaken as described in Section 4.4.3.
• For analyses with and without grout treatment it was assumed the groundwater will be able to drain
freely through the excavation face via the weepholes.
• Groundwater level was conservatively assumed to be at the formation level within the excavation,
rather than 1m below ground level.
• The minimum utilisation factor for ULS analyses using design values of parameters was taken as <::1.00
in accordance with BS EN 1997. For SLS analysis a minimum FOS of 1.3 was deemed to be
acceptable.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
Distance X to be determined by individual site constraints- see

Note 2. Grout treatment can be inclined. Same criteria apply. Existing Ground Level
OGWL T _Y._
Top of grout trl!atment Sm below
ground level (from specialist) De>ign value
Adopted Case: Groundwatl!r
profile assumed 1/ 3 of Hw behind of in situ
groundwater control zone groundwater
Excavation slope (or retain ing wall) level

Groundw ater w ill not be
permitted to rise above t h is
level. This is to be controlled
1
Hea d of Water {Hw)
by the dewatering
Groundwater Control
con tractor In conjunction
Zone (assumed dr.~ined)
w ith t he contractor
..1. ............
·········
. ::::::: .................................................... .
Grouting installation deta ils
r---and methods by specialist
level
~--------- - -- - --- - - --- - - - ----------

lm Base of grout
1 t reatment Sm below
Formation level (from
Specialist)
Minimum drawdown
lm Below Formation
level
Notes o n Assumptions
1. Slope/retention ana lysis based on Adopt ed Case, where ground treatment works are planned .
2. Grout treatment specialist contractor is assumed to achieve w orks such that any groundwater
inflow limitation Is at or beyond m inimum distance x. Distance x is indicated in referenced
Drawings. In the case of the inclined grout treatment the value of x will vary with depth. Refer to
relevant sections.
3. Dewatering specialist contractor is assumed to achieve Adopted Case groundwater drawdown or
better. Deep pu mping wells assumed to be w ithin excavation (additiona l pumping wells may be
necessary.
4. The groundwater assumption holds for all intermediate dig levels as we ll as the final excavation
level.
4.2.4 Seismic Loading

As per Tender Document, Tender No. RTC/040/2012, Volume 6 - Employers Requirements - Design
Specifications, Section 1.4.10.1, the design horizontal seismic acceleration is taken s 0.07g .
Earthquake related resistance calculations are to be carried out based on a seismic acceleration (horizontal)
of 0.07g This value is defined in BS EN 1998 as the reference peak ground acceleration; e.g. a9 R = 0.07g where
g is the acceleration due to gravity (g=9.81 m/sec.).
As per BS EN 1998-1 Section 3.2.1 (3), the, design ground acceleration on type A ground (a 9 ) is equal to a9 R
times the importance factor y1:
Ag =Y1 X agR
Where y1 is the importance factor. As per BS EN 1998-1 Section 4.2.5 - Table 4.3, considering importance
class Ill where "buildings whose seismic resistance is of importance in view of the consequences associated
with a collapse, e.g. schools, assembly halls, cultural institutions etc."
BS EN 1998-1 Section 4.2.5 subcase (5)P, the recommended values of importance classes Ill is equal to 1,2.
Consequently,
Ag = Yi x agR
Ag = 1.2 X O.Op7 = 0.084
In order to account for this, limit equilibrium slope, limit equilibrium slope analyses were carried out in which
horizontal seismic acceleration of 8.4% were a lied. Refer to A endix A for further details.
Document Number: M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00103 Rev 2 01-May-2015

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
4.2.5 Volume 6 Section 5.3.1 of Employer's Requirements

The purpose of this section is to declare the way in which the requirements of Volume 6 Section 5.3.1 of the
Employer's Requirements have been satisfied .
Earth pressure:
Earth pressures are calculated and taken into account, where relevant, automatically by the software being
used based on the material parameters included in Section 3 and the construction sequence/geometry
modelled.
Water pressure:
The design groundwater level satisfies the requirements of Volume 6 Section 1.4.15.3 of the Employer's
Requirements - this is discussed in detail in Section 2.2. In all analyses presented in this report, the
groundwater level has been assumed to have been maintained at the base of the excavation , which is
slightly higher than that required by Volume 6 Section 5.8.6.4 of the Employer's Requirements. A value of
3
10.3kN/m has been assumed for the unit weight of water for all analyses in accordance with Volume 6
Section 1.4.15.1 of the Employer's Requirements .
Deck loads:
This is not relevant for the proposed open cut, as no bridging structures are proposed.
Surcharge loads:
In all analyses presented in this report, a characteristic surcharge load of 20kPa has been included outside
the excavation , in accordance with Volume 6 Section 1.4.16.3 of the Employer's Requirements.
Seismic loads:
Seismic loads as per description given above.
Support types and arrangement:
This is discussed in Section 2.
Any other incidental load:
An overdig of allowance of 0.5m has been included in each analysis in addition to the formation levels stated.
Construction/demolition sequence:
Where rock bolting is required, the analysis has allowed for no more than 0.5m excavation below the relevant
bolt level prior to installation of the bolt.
Calculated ground and adjacent existing building structures settlements, movements and
distortions:
This design aspect will be addressed in a separate report.
Calculated fluctuations in groundwater levels both within and outside of the excavation and
support walls:
This design aspect will be addressed separately.
Calculated changes from existing building structures loading conditions, present and
predicted from future developments or public projects:
This is not applicable to this report.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
4.3 Retaining Wall Analysis
4.3.1 Methodology
The anchored retaining walls were analysed using the commercially available software Plaxis 20 to assess the
support requirements, structural forces and ground movements for the support arrangements outlined
previously. Plaxis 20 is a 20 finite element package used extensively for nonlinear ground-structure interaction
analysis. It has been used here to model the staged excavation of the bored pile walls in plane strain to assess
potential movements and structural forces.
ULS analyses were carried out by performing analyses with factored material properties and actions. Stability
was also assessed by carrying out a c-phi reduction analysis at the end of relevant analyses. In this case, the
strength of the rock/soil is incrementally reduced until a failure mechanism develops. The size of the strength
reduction at failure is an indication of the overall factor of safety of the structure. The factor of safety derived in
this way is only really comparable to traditionally adopted factors when used in an SLS or DA 1C1 analysis.
For the retaining wall analysis the formation level was assumed to be the underside of the blinding. An
overdig of 0.5m was then included in the analysis to allow for any potential accidental excavation below
stated formation levels.
Refer to Appendix A for detailed descriptions of the input and assumptions within the analyses undertaken .
4.3.2 Surcharge Loads

All surcharge loads have been treated as variable unfavourable actions. In accordance with Volume 6 Section
1.4.16.3 of the Employer's Requirements, a characteristic surcharge of 20kPa was included outside the
excavation . This is considered representative of a conservative construction surcharge and any buildings
adjacent to the excavation except for the closest building to the excavation at the northwest corner of the site .
At that location maximum surcharge from this structures is greater than 20kPa but less than 35 kPa and has
been found not to make a significant difference to the design.
4.3.3 Design Assumptions

The following assumptions were made in the analyses:
• The design covered three sections, two flank walls and the open cut slope. The formation levels for
the flank walls are -20.200 QNHD. For the open cut the formation levels were -2.7m QNHD at the
concourse (mezzanine) and -20.2m QNHD in the station . All formation levels had an allowance for
blinding .
• All aspects of the construction sequence were modelled, including backfilling and de stressing of the
ground anchors. The backfilling material was assumed to be granular fill.
• The bored pile walls were assessed assuming the excavation is dewatered . A design case assuming
the groundwater profile behind the grout treatment is 1/3 of the overall height of the insitu water column
was adopted for the design in line with the diagram below. This groundwater level is assumed for all
stages of construction. Other sensitivity studies on groundwater assessment where performed and are
discussed in Section 4.4.3.
• It has been assumed that water will be allowed to drain freely though the wall through weepholes.
• In accordance with Volume 6 Section 5.8.6.4 of the Employer's Requirements, the groundwater
level was maintained at a minimum of 1m below the base of the excavation.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
Distilnce X to b!!' deteJmined bv

individual site .:on!ibilli nh - ~Note 2.
I
Grout treiiltment ca11 b12 irulined. S-ame
E:Ortint: Cjro und Level
criiteri.a .applv.
Top o f B"'" '

lteatme nt sm, be low
!!:round l~e l ~ ft om ~I ~val••
~j:ledia ll st) .Adli'PI"Gd C.n;llil ; Gr>QYnd,'l'.atcr ofim:situ
profile ;assumed 1/3 of Hw gr-ound!N.ater
behind erou ndw.:~tli!r contro1 level
Reta jnine Willl ,lo r
exc:av.ation ·d ope)
Groundwatet Contrel
zone
Groundwirter will nm be pe~mttted to rl:sl!!
.aboue llhlste ... e-1. Tl'lls is. to be ( Oilitrolled
1
liead of Water (Hlw)
Zone (a ~med ~r.a l ned) ~the d ~w;,tert n s !:cmt r~~ctor 1l n
W njunt]iO n With ~ he O:mlF.Je10i'
.... . .!..... . . . ..
--············· ················
GroundW<!Ier elf~fiiiCtion
froR1 deep pumpine

wells ~de!sixn bv o th.fts~ ..
.~.._._:._ _._._._._._·_·_·______ . ------- ·.. ·----
FO<mation LoV<I ~ GrgliJtinlj:

;and m!!thod.s. by
in st a. ll;:~tion de-tails
Sil)~iilli M
Hw/3
lm r-1----~::-~~-~~~~------- -- -- - ------- -- - - - - ----------

tn~... t ment Sm bel ow
Fcrm atloo le'll@] (frcm
S.'POCiiillist~
M ltliii'I"'UI'I'I d l'iJ,w dOINl'l
l m 111 elow F'Qrm~ti(ln
L<VIll
Nctt~S en Assu nrptlons

1. Slope/retention analys.is b-ased on Adopb:!d Case, whetre grou nd treartment work:s are pla nne-d.
2. Grout t rea~ment specicll ist oootr(llctor i.s .c~ .s s u m ed t o achieve ~r.'Lio r k..s such t h-at (:lny grou ndwa ter
Inflow lim itation l!i3 t ut b-e"vond minimum dinanet" );, Dina rr.~ ); i~ lndicn~d i n r~tcr~ nor!d
Dr.awinp. In the c:a.5e of t h e i111clined l!!:mut tr e.artm ent t he valuE;! of x will wary with depth. R-efer to
rele\lant se<:tlons .
3. [)ewater ing specialist oon tractCJor is ass umed to achie... e- Adopte-d Case g r oundwa~er drawdo·wn or
bett e r . Deep p umpinl:'l well5 .a55umed to be- w i;thin e;.n avatioo {additional P' u mp i n~ we ll5 may be
necessary.
·~ - The ,groundwater assumption holds for all intermedlate dil!!llevels as. well as the- fi n.al ·E!Xca'JI.ation
lev.el.
• The detailed design of ground anchors, preparation of shop drawings, construction and testing of the
anchors will be carried out by a specialist sub-contractor employed by the Contractor. Anchor loads,
prestress, stiffness, free length and inclination will be specified.
• Anchor loads have been determined and specified in accordance with BS EN 1997-1 :2004 + A 1:2013.
• Anchor free lengths have been determined by extending the free length a minimum of 1.5m beyond
the potential active wedge of the wall. The active wedge has been defined by an angle of 45+<p/2 from
the toe of the wall to the ground surface. A <p value of 40° has been adopted for the purposes of this
design. Anchor free lengths have been verified by carrying out a c-phi reduction analysis as part of
the design analysis process.
• For modelling purposes , anchor fixed lengths were chosen such that the wall would not fail by anchor
pull out. This is based on the assumption that the anchors will be adequately designed for the loads
predicted by the analyses.
• The dewatering system is assumed to be active and fully working throughout the bottom up sequence
of constructing the permanent works i.e. the groundwater regime remains unchanged from the time
that the excavation reaches formation level. Recharge of the groundwater prior to final backfilling will
be possible provided that stability against buoyancy is assured and that the proposed recharge level

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
lies below the level of backfill and structural support offered to the temporary works support. Any
recharge level proposed should be agreed with the designer of the permanent and temporary works.
• The construction sequence assumes that the design will be progressed in stages down to the required
formation levels. For anchored walls it is assumed that excavation will cease once the excavation has
reached a level 0.5m below the anchor level. Excavation to the next level will only occur after the
anchor has been installed and brought to the necessary preload level. For tunnel headwall locations
where short anchored pile walls are being employed , together with rock dowels and sprayed concrete
facing over tunnel eyes the following sequence is assumed:
• Evacuate down to 0.5m above toe level of short piles installing the necessary anchors as the dig
proceeds.
• Install top row of rock dowels through toe of piles.
• Evacuate down to 0.5m below the next row of rock dowels.
• Install rock dowels, weepholes and sprayed concrete.
• Proceed incrementally repeating stages 3 and 4 down to the base of the excavation.
• Backfilling of the temporary works is also assumed to occur imminently with anchor distressing only
occurring once the permanent structure and backfill are brought up to 1m below each anchor level.
4.3.4 Volume 6 Section 5.3.1 of Employer's Requirements

The purpose of this section is to declare the way in which the requirements of Volume 6 Section 5.3.1 of the
Employer's Requirements have been satisfied .
Earth pressure:
Earth pressures are calculated and taken into account, where relevant, automatically by the software being
used based on the material parameters included in Section 3 and the construction sequence/geometry
modelled .
Water pressure:
The design groundwater level satisfies the requirements of Volume 6 Section 1.4.15.3 of the Employer's
Requirements - this is discussed in detail in Section 2.2. In all analyses presented in this report, the
groundwater level has been assumed to have been maintained at 1m below the base of the excavation, in
accordance with Volume 6 Section 5.8.6.4 of the Employer's Requirements. A value of 10.3kN/m 3 has been
assumed for the unit weight of water for all analyses in accordance with Volume 6 Section 1.4.15.1 of the
Employer's Requirements.
The risk of base instability has been assessed and is considered to be very low due to the permeable nature
of the wall and the presence of dewatering wells within the excavation. The level of safety within the design
has been verified as adequate implicitly through the ULS finite element analyses performed as part of the
design process.
Deck loads:
Foundation loads for the utility bridges are not yet available but will be taken into account in the design when
they become available .
Surcharge loads:
In all analyses presented in this report, a characteristic surcharge load of 20kPa has been included outside
the excavation , in accordance with Volume 6 Section 1.4.16.3 of the Employer's Requirements. However, the

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
localized surcharge loading of the building at the northwest corner of the site results in a surcharge load that
less 35 kPa .
Seismic loads:
Seismic loads were not considered due to the temporary nature of the walls .
Support types and arrangement:
This is discussed in Section 2.
Any other incidental load:
An overdig of allowance of 0.5m has been included in each analysis in addition to the formation levels stated.
Potential failure of ground anchors has been considered explicitly by analysis. It has been found, however, that
the resulting design actions/action effects are less onerous than those obtained from the standard ULS design
analyses, the worst case being the backfilling and de stressing process for the anchors. This is considered
further in the structural design as outlined in Section 5.8.
Construction/demolition sequence:
The full excavation and bottom up construction of the permanent structure have been considered .
From a design perspective, it has been assumed that excavation will not extend more than 1.0m below each
anchor level prior to installation , prestressing and lock off of each row of ground anchors. This allows for some
level of overdig.
Calculated ground and adjacent existing building structures settlements, movements and
distortions:
This design aspect will be addressed in a separate report.
Calculated fluctuations in groundwater levels both within and outside of the excavation and
support walls:
This design aspect will be addressed separately.
Calculated changes from existing building structures loading conditions, present and
predicted from future developments or public projects:
This is not applicable to this report.
4.4 Ground Movement and Building Damage Assessment

Please refer to Reference Document M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-0010, AI Sadd -Assessment of Construction
Impact on Existing Structures .
4.5 Groundwater Inflow Analysis

Groundwater seepage and flow analysis was undertaken to assess the potential inflow of groundwater into the
excavation and also to corroborate the groundwater profiles predicted in Plaxis. The analysis was undertaken
for a 3D simulation of the excavation using MODFLOW 3D numerical modelling software. The permeability's
and initial design groundwater profile were as identified in Section 3 of this report. Sensitivity runs using a
global permeability of 1.9x 1o-4 m/s determined from pumping tests on the site were also undertaken determine
what impact this may have upon inflow volumes. The
The following scenarios were modelled :-

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
1. Dewatering by weepholes and sump pumping without active dewatering.

2. Dewatering by internal dewatering wells to progressively draw the water down to below formation
level in advance of excavation .
At this stage it is understood that Option 2 is the preferred option because this will reduce seepage flow through
the excavation face during bulk earthworks and improve local stability. The analysis has considered a steady
state situation for the final excavation level as representative of the maximum groundwater draw down that is
required.
Further details of the groundwater flow analysis are contained in Appendix G.
4.6 Consideration Of Ground Risk In The Geotechnical Design

Typical conditions and loading have been analysed as described in the previous section, assuming all of the
designed elements function as anticipated . To account for potential accidental situations or loading conditions,
the following sensitivity studies have been carried out and, where appropriate , the results have been
incorporated into the design . In summary, the scenarios considered were :-
• ULS analyses performed using a set of material "Worst Credible" parameters derived through back
analysis of a previously constructed excavation. This tests the impact of lower c' parameters that have
been identified in the Interim GIR for the site.
• Potential variations in Ko within all stations.
• Groundwater regimes different to the chosen design groundwater profile, particularly the impact of the
relatively low permeability Midra layer with the design lithology.
• Assessments using alternative models for rock behaviour.
These are described in further detail below and relevant calculations are presented in the appendices.
4.6.1 Derivation of "Worst Credible" Ground Parameters Through

Case History Example
A number of the planned stations on the Qatar Integrated Rail Project are currently under construction , with
excavation well progressed or complete. To inform the design process for AI Sadd ELS, AI-Matar C-Ring station
(Red Line) was visited and inspected . The temporary excavation for the station comprised an open cut slope
with rock nets bolted to the face . No active dewatering was undertaken and the slope was observed to be
stable and in good condition .
These observations indicate that the overall factor of safety on the slope is considered to be at least 1.1,
otherwise, it is likely that the slope would be showing signs of instability I poor condition. As such, a Plaxis
model of the excavated slope was constructed . The parameters were incrementally reduced by a uniform factor
until the Factor of safety at the end of the analysis was 1.1 . It is considered that these parameters represent
design parameters (2.4.6.2(2) of BS EN 1997-1 :2004+A1 :2003) appropriate for use in a DA1 C2 ULS analysis.
Analyses using these "Worst Credible" (WC) parameters were also performed as part of the design process.
The most onerous results from the standard DA 1C 1, DA 1C2 and WC analyses were carried forward as the
design values of actions or action effects. A more detailed description of the site visit and derivation of WC
parameters is included within Appendix B.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
4.6.2 Potential Variation in The Ko Value

The determination of Ko values for the types of rock present at this site, is considered difficult and potentially
unreliable. There is therefore the possibility that the values stated in this GDR may be underestimates of the
true value, particularly at shallow depth where higher Ko values have been observed in some insitu testing
data. For open cut slopes, this is likely to be of negligible significance, but may be more important for anchored
walls and is very likely to be significant for propped walls. As such, a series of sensitivity studies were carried
out by varying the value of Ko assumed for a typical anchored retaining wall on the Gold Line. Ko values ranging
from 0.5 to 2.0 were tested . The actual wall configuration and design scenarios tested are slightly out of date ,
however, the actual wall configuration and the analysis is still considered relevant to show the potential impact
of Ko and is therefore presented here .
It was found that the wall forces and bending moments were not greatly sensitive to the value of Ko with an
increase in Ko from 1.0 to 2.0 causing only a 10% increase in computed wall bending moment. Similar
increases of 12% and 6% in shear force and anchor load, respectively, were also observed .
Based on the above it was considered reasonable to proceed the Ko value of 0.75, as specified in the Interim
GIR, given that the impact of other variables was found to be much greater on the determined design forces .
Please refer to Appendix C for further details of the analysis performed.
4.6.3 Groundwater
The design methods described earlier in Section 4.2 and 4.3 are based on the assumptions that:
• Although the grout treatment fills major rock jointing and karst features it does not greatly alter the
mass permeability of the rock. Drainage into the excavation can therefore be calculated assuming that
the grout zone permeability is similar to the rock.
• The drain holes provided through the wall and slope facing function adequately and allow the free flow
of water into the excavation.
• Drainage of the groundwater outside the excavation occurs such that the level of the groundwater falls
to less than Y3 the height of the original water column at the location of the grout treatment zone. This
is a critical aspect of the design and will be monitored on site, with contingencies in place to draw down
the water further if it does not occur. Contingencies will include the installation of additional weephole
drainage and/or vertical dewatering wells should they be required.
The potential impact of the lower permeability of the Midra Shale layer within the design lithology, and hence
the seepage patterns within the ground, was taken into account by sensitivity analysis. This results in a split
water table drawdown , with one phreatic surface developed within the Simsima limestone , with groundwater
sitting on top of the Midra Shale, and a second developed within the Rus Formation. This leads to a different
regime of groundwater within the ground which was tested as part of the design by a full steady state seepage
analysis within Plaxis assuming that the grout treatment was assessed to have no impact on the mass
permeability of the ground in this instance.
The results of both the Y3 height design groundwater profile and steady state seepage analysis were take
forward in the design .
Refer to Appendix A for specific details of the analysis of these additional scenarios .
4.6.4 Alternative Modelling Techniques to Cover Rock Behaviour

In order to represent the rock material at the AI Sadd site as a continuum, for use in finite element analysis and
limit equilibrium calculation in Oasys SLOPE FE, a series of simplifications have to be made in order to derive

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
a set of appropriate Mohr Coulomb parameters based on the Hoek-Brown criteria . The method of doing this is
well documented and widely accepted and used .
In order to assess the effect of making these simplifications, a number of analyses have been performed for
an open cut slope and anchored retaining wall section using the software, UDEC. UDEC is a commercially
available code used specifically for rock engineering . It models the rock mass in 2D using distinct-element
modelling of jointed and blocky material. For rock masses with higher GSI this is likely to give more
representative method of assessment than continuum methods.
The UDEC analyses are summarised in Appendix D. In general, these analyses demonstrated greater factors
of safety and lower individual element forces compared to the equivalent continuum methods. The impact of
these result on the design will be further assessed as the detailed design progresses.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
5 Structural Design Methodology
5.1 Introduction
The following section describes the methodology for the structural calculations undertaken in the temporary
works design for AI Sadd station. Initially the design codes used are listed together with the material input
parameters that were adopted. The specific methodology adopted for piled walls, wailing beams, capping
beams and structural sprayed concrete slopes is then described. The methods by which anchor failure is
considered as part of the design is then discussed. The calculations themselves are contained in Appendix E.
5.2 Design Codes

The design of the temporary works will be carried out in accordance with the following design codes, standards
and guidance notes in accordance with Cl1.4.1 .1 of the Volume 6 Design Specification:-
BS EN 1990 Eurocode 0: Basics of Structural Design ;
NAto BS EN 1990:2002+A 1:2005: UK National Annex to Eurocode - Basis of structural design;
BS EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures;
NAto BS EN 1991-1 :2002: UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures;
BS EN 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1-1 General Rules of Buildings;
NAto BS EN 1992-1-1 :2004: UK National Annex to Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures- Part
1-1: General rules and rules for buildings;
PD 6687:2010: Background paper to the UK National Annexes BS EN 1992-1;
BS EN 1993 1-1 :2005 Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures;
NAto BS EN 1993 1-1 :2005 UK National Annex to Eurocode 3. Design of Steel Structures;
BS EN 10080: 2005: Steel for the reinforcement of concrete- General;
Qatar National Construction Standards , QCS, 2010.
Where the above codes of practice do not give specific advice regarding the design of particular elements then
other codes and design guidance will also be referred to. Examples of these documents are:-
BS 4449:2005+A2:2009: Steel for the reinforcement of concrete
Manual for Design & Construction Monitoring of Soil Nail Walls, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration , Pub No FHW-A-SA-96-069R, 1998.
BS8081 :1989- British Standard Code of Practice for Ground Anchorages.
CIRIA C580- Embedded retaining walls- guidance for economic design, CIRIA 2003 .
5.3 Material Input Parameters
5.3.1 Reinforced concrete:

Vc =25kN/m 2
fck =32N/mm 2 (C32/40)

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
Ec =28GPa
5.3.2 Reinforcement Steel

fy =500N/mm 2
Es =200000N/mm 2
Minimum Cover 75mm .
5.3.3 Structural Steel

Vs =78.5kN/m 2
fy =275N/mm 2 (S275JR)
E =205000N/mm 2
5.3.4 Shotcrete Layer

Vc = 25kN/m 2
fck = 32N/mm 2 (C32/40)
Ec =20GPa
fy =500N/mm 2
Cover= Mesh placed central in sprayed concrete layer
Faceplate Grade = 8355
5.4 Design of Piled Walls

The piles have been designed using the peak coexisting shear forces and bending moments calculated in
PLAXIS. Reinforcement design was governed by the maximum shear force in the pile induced in the back filling
and anchor de-stressing stages.
The ultimate bending capacity was calculated using ADSEC in accordance with EN1992-1-1 Clause 6.1. A
separate check was carried out to establish the remaining capacity for shear after allowance for the bending
resistance utilisation in accordance with EN 1992-1-1 Clause 6.2.
It should be noted that for the piled walls it is currently proposed to core through the bored piles to allow direct
fix of the ground anchors. It is assumed that diameter of the cored hole required for the ground anchor will be
200mm and that this will cut a minimum of 2No. vertical bars and 1No. shear link within the pile cage. Design
of Wailing Beams.
No longer required .
5.5 Design of Anchor Stools

The anchor stools are designed to distribute the anchor load into the drilled shaft. There are three types of
anchor stools. Two are unreinforced and distribute load into directly into a single pile. The other is reinforced
and distributes the anchor force into two contiguous piles. The reinforced stool in the latter case acts wailing
beam between the piles.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
5.6 Design of Capping Beams

For both the west and east headwalls , the capping beams, where they span over the TBM openings, have
been designed as simply supported concrete beams with a span of 1Om, assuming that the load has to be
transferred to three number piles either side of the tunnel opening . The vertical component of the ground anchor
force was ignored because it will be carried by the ground through friction on the back of the wall.
The reinforcement in the capping beam has been sized to satisfy ULS bending and shear, with the bending
calculated based upon a sagging moment of wl 2/8 and shear calculated based upon wl/2 . The beam will be
reinforced both top and bottom to prevent cracking .
5. 7 Design of Shotcrete Face Support For Open Cut Slopes

The structural capacity of the sprayed concrete has been determined in accordance with the Manual for Design
& Construction Monitoring of Soil Nail Walls (U .S. Department of Transportation). Additional checks have been
undertaken using BS EN 1992 based upon bending moments and shear forces determined from the US design
Manual methodology.
The following checks have been carried out:-
1. Check the bending capacity of sprayed concrete layer based upon the anticipated maximum nail head
force based upon Eq 4.1 and Eq 4.1 A of the on Soil Nail Design Manual assuming a value of CF =2.0.
2. Check the punching shear capacity of the sprayed concrete layer based upon the anticipated maximum
nail head force based upon Eq 4.2 and Eq 4.3 of the Soil Nail Design Manual assuming a value of Cs
= 2.5.
3. Check the thickness of the steel base plate in bending and shear based upon the concrete bearing
behind the nail head.
The rock dowels have been checked as tension elements in accordance with BS EN 1992.
5.8 Consideration of Anchor Failure in the Design

The design of the temporary works will account for the potential of an individual anchor failure. The
geotechnical analysis has examined the potential for one of the anchors to break and allow the anchor load to
be re-distributed to the anchors above and below through the bored pile. The bending and shear reinforcement
in the bored pile wall will be checked for the additional forces associated with this breakage. Maximum anchor
forces will also be determined taking into account this accidental load case. The partial load factor for these
checks will be taken as 1.05.
For the top row of anchors this redistribution is not possible. In this instance the anchor load will be redistributed
to the anchors at either side by vertical load transfer through the bored piles and horizontal distribution through
the capping beam . The structural components will be designed for this load path . The partial load factor will
be taken as 1.05 for these calculations .
5.9 Consideration Of Anchor Head Detail

Anchors are to be installed either direct fix to the pile or between piles for contiguous pile walls. The maximum
anchor forces were taken from PLAXIS and the ultimate bearing stress of the anchor washer plate was
calculated. This was checked to be less than the ULS maximum compressive stress of reinforced concrete in
accordance with EN1992-1-1 Clause 3.1 .6 where plates are installed onto a notch in the pile or a reinforced
stool and in accordance with EN 1992-1-1 Clause 12.3.1 where the anchor is supported by a plain concrete
stool. The ultimate bending stresses were checked using a finite element analysis model of the plate in GSA.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
The notch in the pile was modelled in 3D to check 275SQ bearing plates could be accommodated within the
75mm concrete cover.
Where the anchor is direct fix to the pile, it is assumed that the core will cut through 1 No shear link in the pile
cage. The pile design was checked with shear links spaced at 400mm for the maximum shear force within zcot
theta from the support and the corresponding bending moment calculated in PLAXIS. A shear reduction was
applied in accordance with EN1992-1-1 Clause 6.2 .3.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
6 Summary of Design Results
6.1 Open Cut Slopes
6.1.1 Geotechnical Results

Detailed results for the limit equilibrium and finite element analysis are included within Appendix A. In brief, the
results indicate:
• The design has adequate margin of safety against geotechnical failure adequate in accordance with
8S EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013.
• Structural forces have been obtained from the models and are checked I design for in subsequent
sections .
• The limit equilibrium analysis indicates higher factors of safety than the finite element analysis. It is
considered that this is due to the limit equilibrium analysis only considering failure by circular slip shear
failure whereas the finite element analysis implicitly considers many more forms of failure mechanism,
including shear and combined shear I tensile and non-circular failure planes.
Key results are summarised below.
Table 6 Summary of key results from open cut slope analysis
Plaxis UDEe Oasys Slope FE Required

GW Design GW Design GW Design FOS or
Result
Sensitivity GW Sensitivity GW Sensitivity GW Overdesign
Study Analysis Study Analysis Study Analysis Factor
Factor of DA1e1 5 10 3.33 3.18 >1.3
Safety I
DA1e2 3.21 3.17 >1.0
Utilisation
factor we 1.84 1.93 >1 .0
Max DA1e1 47 33 74 88
working
DA1e2 46 42
bolt head
force (kN) we 105 90
Design DA1e1 67 33 150 150

bolt force DA1e2 75 160
(kN) we 108 90
6.1.2 Structural Summary

Structural analysis has shown that a structural sprayed concrete layer thickness of 150 mm is adequate for
support of the Rus formation. Two layers of A 142 mesh together with 2812 as wailing bars has been shown to
be adequate reinforcement. 832 bars are adequate for the rock dowels.
Document Number: M006-GD8-GEO-RPT-00103 Rev 2 Page 29 of 35 01-May-2015

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
6.2 Retaining Wall Analysis
6.2.1 Geotechnical Results

Detailed results for finite element analysis are included within Appendix A. In brief, the results indicate:
• The design has adequate margin of safety against geotechnical failure adequate in accordance with
BS EN 1997-1 :2004+A1 :2013.
• Structural wall forces have been obtained from the models and are checked I design for in subsequent
sections .
• Ground anchor loads have been obtained from the analysis and are included on the drawings along
with other requirements for the sub-contractor design ground anchors. Including, prestress values,
minimum free lengths and inclination angles.
• The free length of the anchors extends beyond the failure surface as determined by Plaxis analysis.
• The risk of base instability has been demonstrated to be very low through the successful completion
of the ULS design analyses.
Key results are summarised below.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
Table 7 Summary of key results from soldier pile wall analysis
Plaxis
Result Section I Location
GW Sensitivity Study Design GW Analysis
North Flankwall 2.3 2.4
South Flankwall 2.446 2.709
Overall factor of safety I West Headwall 2.512 2.791

utilisation factor against
global instability East Headwall 2.512 2.795
West Tunnel Eye 2.369 2.592
East Tunnel Eye 2.369 2.597
North Flankwall 325 385
South Flankwall 385 385
West Headwall 385 385

Max SLS design anchor
load (kN)
East Headwall 385 385
West Tunnel Eye 330 330
East Tunnel Eye 330 330

Max ULS design anchor
load (kN)

Max design Wall Bending
Moment (kNm/pile)

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
Max design Wall Shear South Flankwall 1225 1260

Force (kN/pile)
West Headwall 1362* 1258*
Note - Where marked * East Headwall 1362* 1258*

value discounted for shear
enhancement. West Tunnel Eye 545 570
6.2.2 Structural Results

Structural analysis of the bored piles showed for the worst case combination of bending moment and shear
force occurs in the pile above the tunnel eye and that the cage with bending steel of 14825's at the top and
14840's at the bottom are adequate allowing for 4No . bars to be cut during anchor installation . The bending
moment capacity for 14840 with 4 bars cut is 1706kNm. 816 at 150mm pitch spiral shear reinforcement with
shear capacity of 1516kN were also demonstrated to be adequate.
The capping beam for the headwalls has been sized to be 1.2m wide and 1.2m deep. 10 No. pairs of 832 are
required top and bottom of the beam for the bending steel in this member together with 6No. 812 shear legs
at 250mm centres.
The flank wall capping beams have been designed for an under anchor case and are 1.2m wide and 0.6m
deep and have 3825 side bars in each face and 4 No. 820 top and bottom bars.
For anchors directly fix to the pile a S355 anchor bearing plate 260mm SQ 40mm thick was found to be
adequate for maximum anchor load. A 260mm SQ plate can be accommodated in a recessed notch in the pile.
The first row of anchors at the eastern and western headwall are to be installed on the piles with a supporting
C32/40 formed concrete stool. Two S355 anchor bearing plates of 250mm SQ 40mm thick and 400mm SQ
30mm thick are required .
For anchors fix between two piles lateral restraint is required which is provided by 1.1 m wide and 600mm deep
C32/40 concrete stool. The concrete stool is minimum 350mm thick and reinforced with 88 bars at 125mm c/c.
with 400mm SQ 30mm thick plate.
6.3 Ground Movement and Building Damage Assessment

The results of this assessment are submitted separately in Reference Document M006-GD8-GEO-RPT-001 0,
AI Sadd- Assessment of Construction Impact on Existing Structures .
Document Number: M006-GD8-GEO-RPT-00103 Rev 2 Page 32 of 35 01-May-2015

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
6.4 Groundwater Inflow Analysis

A summary of the results from the 3D groundwater flow analysis is provided in the table below. The inflows are
based on steady state analysis, which is considered to be the worst case. A range of inflow values are given
reflecting potential variations in material permeability together with the results of pumping tests on the site. The
results are described in more detail in Appendix G.
Number of deep wells

Dewatering Scenario* Long Term Steady State inflow (m 3/day)
required
1 4494-7329 N/A
2 6460 19
*Notes:
1. Dewatering by weepholes and sump pumping without active dewatering.
2. Dewatering by internal dewatering wells to progressively draw the water down to below formation
level in advance of excavation.
3. Inflows are reflective of Arup recommended permeabilities based upon pump test data. Simulations
were also run with global permeabilities directly obtained from the pump test, however, these are
not considered to be representative models for the actual situations and the resulting inflows are
not presented in the summary above.
7 Risk Assessment, Instrumentation and Monitoring

and Construction Mitigation
7.1 Introduction
The following section sets out the assessment of residual risks in the design, and outlines the proposals for the
instrumentation and monitoring of the excavation. A series of construction mitigation measures that will be
considered in mitigation to the major residual risks are then also described.
7.2 Risk Assessment

During the design process a risk assessment has been undertaken to identify the risks that exist in the design.
Some risks such as those related to heave, swell and piping when the excavations are predominately in rock
are inherently negligible. Others are more likely to occur. The assessment also identifies whether these risks
have been taken into account as part of the design process or if they are not closed and are carried into the
construction phase. This has informed the instrumentation and monitoring strategy and the construction
mitigation measures, described in Section 7.4 .
• The risk register is contained in Appendix H. A summary of the key residual risks are as follows :-
• Natural variations in the rock mass due to the karstic nature of the materials leading to zones of weaker
materials . This could have an impact upon the proposed design. All excavations therefore need to be
monitored and visually examined in order that additional support measures can be installed if weaker
zones are encountered.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
• Jointing in the rock mass could lead to potential toppling failures if persistent vertical joints exist behind
open cut excavation faces. Excavations should therefore be monitored and visually examined, and
additional support measures installed to prevent topping if this is required.
• The design assumes the groundwater level is drawn down behind both the wall and the grout treatment
line. The design is not valid for groundwater levels higher than shown on the drawings. Groundwater
levels must therefore be carefully monitored and controlled if they do not respond as anticipated .
• Due to the nature of the rock materials the mass permeability of the ground varies from site to site. Levels
of groundwater inflow may therefore be higher than estimated and the design of the dewatering system
must allow for potential variability.
• Karstic voids may be present beneath the site. These could have a significant impact on the design and
investigations should be undertaken to investigate for such features and plans predefined for construction
mitigation should they be encountered .
• There are utilities and buildings around the excavation that could be damaged by ground settlements.
Monitoring must be undertaken to ensure that ground movements remain within prescribed limits and
action taken to rectify the situation if movements outside analytical predictions occur.
7.3 Instrumentation and Monitoring Strategy

The proposed instrumentation and monitoring strategy for the site is presented in the Reference Document:
M006-GDB-GEO-PLN-005404 AI Sadd Station- Construction Instrumentations and Monitoring Plan
7.4 Construction Mitigation

• This section has been removed from this report. Please refer to Reference Document M006-GDB-
GEO-PLN-005404, AI Sadd Construction Instrumentation and Monitoring Plan.

Contractor:
ALYSJ
jo i nt venture
8 Conclusions and Recommendations

This report presents the design assessment and calculations undertaken to develop the general arrangement
drawings for the excavation and lateral support elements for AI Sadd Station. The support comprises open cut
slopes where available land allows and bored pile walls in locations where critical infrastructure or buildings
are to be supported. The bored pile walls are either 1.0m diameter contiguous piles at 1.1 m spacing or 1.0m
diameter solider piles at 2.2m spacing, and will be tied back with ground anchors. For both the open cut and
bored pile walls, groundwater control will be achieved with a combination of grout treatment, drainage by
weepholes and deep well dewatering.
The geotechnical design is based on existing geotechnical information available at the time and preparation of
the report. The design may need to be re-evaluated in the light of the ground conditions encountered on site
during excavation .
The following recommendations should be observed and followed during construction:
• Excavation using open cut is technically feasible and has been adopted other than in areas where
retention has been used for reasons of risk mitigation to protect critical infrastructure or where special
constraints do not allow open cut;
• The open cut excavation and material exposed in the gaps between the soldier pile walls should be
visually inspected by a suitably qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer as it proceeds in order to
identify any conditions that may require additional support measures over and above those identified
in this report and on the drawings. For open cut excavation these measures would comprise additional
bolting. For soldier pile walls this may comprise additional rows of ground anchors.
• Groundwater control is needed and is performance specified on the drawings. It will comprise grouting
and dewatering by pumping. These elements should be designed by specialist contractors. This is a
critical aspect of the design and predefined contingency measures must be in place prior to the
commencement of construction in the eventuality that groundwater levels are not drawn down to the
levels shown on the drawings. The design will not accommodate groundwater levels backing up either
in the open cut slope or in the materials behind the retaining walls.
• The groundwater control system should be designed to meet the Employers Requirements and
maintain groundwater levels at suitable depths below excavation formation levels and excavation side
slopes to ensure safe construction of the permanent works, and limit groundwater ingress risk.
• The detailed ground anchor design should be developed by a specialist contractor to achieve the
design capacity specified on the drawings.
• Information on Utilities provided by the Contractor has been reviewed, and that information indicates
that some utilities could be close to the works. The Contractor should investigate the presence and
location of utilities and determine the actual locations. This should include the use of trial pits to
locate utilities. The Contractor should also liaise with and contact Utility owners so that their
requirements and constraints shall be determined, and permissions obtained for the works where
required.

Appendix A
Detailed Geotechnical Design Analyses

Input and Results
(64 pages)
1. Plaxis analysis of flank wall section

2. Plaxis analyses of west and east headwalls
3. Plaxis analysis of west and east elevation tunnel eye sections
4. Analysis for open cut slope section
Subject Qatar Integrated Rail Project - Gold Line - Al Sadd ELS Design
Date November 6, 2014 Job No/Ref 238462
Al Sadd East Headwall Plaxis Modelling

1 Introduction
Design of the East Headwall at Al Sadd station was analyzed using the 2-Dimensional Finite Element
(FE) software Plaxis 2D AE. The primary aims of the 2D FE were to assess the:
• Ground movements likely to occur during construction
• Stability of the structure
• Bending moments, shear forces and deflections of the soldier pile wall
• Anchor forces
Plane strain analyses were performed for the headwall geometry.
F:\220000\224487\2014 ELS VE\DOCS\27- REPORTS\AL SADD REPORT\SAD REPORT REV 0.4\TEXT\APPENDIX A - DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN ANALYSES\PLAXIS 2D\EAST
HEADWALL\EAST HEADWALL.DOCX
Arup USA, Inc | F0.13 Page 1 of 10

2 Model Geometry, Stratigraphy and Modelling

Assumptions
The location considered in analyses is shown in Figure 1. The typical model geometry used in the
Plaxis analyses is shown in Figure 2.The ground level was+8.3mQNHD, final formation level was -
20.2mQNHD, plus an additional 0.5m overdig and four rows of anchors were included in the model.
The vertical boundaries of the model were fixed horizontally and the base of the model was fixed in all
directions. Refer to Section 3 of the main body of this report for details of the assumed stratigraphy.
Figure 1: Approximate location of analysis section
Figure 2: Plaxis model for analyses with vertical void filling grout treatment

The material parameters adopted for each stratum are shown below in Table 1. Structural elements
were modelled as linear elastic and rock materials were modelled with the linear elastic Mohr-Coulomb
model. For ULS analyses, the material parameters and applied actions (surcharges) were factored by
the appropriate partial factors in accordance with BS EN 1997-1:2004 + A1:2013 and the UK National
Annex.
An additional analysis was carried out for a set of worst credible parameters, for the background and
summary of the parameters adopted for this analysis refer to section 4.4.1 in the main body of the
report.
Soil Unit Poisson's Effective Effective Ko Young’s Tensile Permeabi
Stratum Weight Ratio Friction Cohesion Modulus Strength lity
Angle°
kN/m3 kPa MPa KPa m/s
QMS 18 0.30 29 3 0.52 7 0 3.20E-05
HWSL 19 0.29 19 50 0.75 170 1 6.50E-05
SL 23 0.21 48 430 0.75 5000 55 9.90E-06
MS 22 0.18 42 320 0.75 1800 70 4.00E-06
Rus 22 0.24 36 205 0.75 1500 15 7.30E-06
Table 1: Summary of Plaxis Material Properties
2.1 Wall Properties

The 1.0m diameter soldier piles at 1.1m centers were modelled as an elastic plate element with EA of
1.4x107 kN/m and EI of 874.6x103 kNm2/m. The wall toe level was assumed to be 4.5m below
formation level (inclusive of over dig). Interface elements were provided on both sides of the wall and
assigned a strength factor, Rinter, of 1.0 for concrete cast against the ground, in accordance with
guidance in BS EN 1997-1:2004 + A1:2013.
The grout treatment was modelled as a vertical 1m wide block extending from +2.3mQNHD to
approximately 5m below the base of the excavation. The material properties for each grout segment
were assigned the same properties as the parent strata in Table 1 with the permeability adjusted to
1x10-7 m/s.
Prestressed ground anchors were modelled as node to node anchors with EA of 600.7x103 kN over their
free length. The fixed length of the ground anchors were modelled as elastic isotropic geogrid elements

with EA of 389.5x103 kN/m. Anchors were spaced at 2.2m horizontally and inclined at 10° below
horizontal, besides the top anchor, which was inclined at 15o below horizontal.
2.2 Groundwater conditions

Water pressures were calculated by steady seepage calculation. The seepage boundary conditions
comprised a fixed head at the far field boundaries of the flank wall and at horizontal levels
corresponding to one third of the excavated depths for each excavation stage. No flow conditions were
applied along the base of the model and phreatic conditions (zero water pressure in the context of these
analyses) at the excavation surface.
For the groundwater sensitivity analyses, fixed head levels described above were replaced with a single
definition at the model far field boundary. The water pressure at this location remained unchanged from
the initial values. The void filling grout treatment was ignored by assigning the elements the same
permeability as the parent rock.
3 Plaxis Analysis
Two sets of analyses were undertaken for the East Headwall section:
1. Design groundwater model: with grout treatment and design groundwater conditions at 1/3
excavation depth
2. Groundwater sensitivity model: with no grout treatment and fixed water pressures defined only at
the excavation/wall surface and model fair field boundary. At this location, water pressures were
left unchanged from their initial value.
The soldier pile wall itself was assumed to be fully permeable. In the groundwater sensitivity analyses,
the grout treatment blocks were assigned the same permeability as the parent strata.
A prestress of 250 kN was applied to all anchors in the East Headwall analyses.
A summary of the analysis undertaken for the East Headwall is provided below in Table 2.
Groundwater AN1 AN2 AN3

sensitivity conditions DA1C1 DA1C2 Worst credible parameters
Design groundwater AN4 AN5 AN6

conditions DA1C1 DA1C2 Worst Credible Parameters
Table 2: Summary of Plaxis Analyses
The construction sequence adopted for the models is summarized in Table 3.

Follows
Stage Description
Stage
1 - Initialize ground stress
2 1 Apply surcharge outside the excavation
3 2 Installation of soldier pile wall (and grout treatment, if applicable)
4 3 Excavate to 1.0m below first anchor level and dewater
5 4 Install ground anchor and apply prestress (250kN)
Repeat stage 4 and 5 to base of excavation at -20.2mQNHD (plus an additional
6 5
0.5m accidental overdig)
7 6 Factor of safety calculation
8 7 Construct base slab of permanent structure
Construct of permanent structure and backfill against pile wall to 1.0m below
9 8
anchor level
10 9 De-stress ground anchor
11 10 Repeat to ground level at +8.3mQNHD
Table 3: Construction sequence
The final stage of the model showing the permanent structure can be seen below in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Final Stage of analysis

Contour plots of the pore water pressure following the final excavation stage of the analysis are shown
below. Figure 4 shows the pore pressure water distribution from groundwater sensitivity analyses.
Figure 5 shows the pore water pressure distribution when implementing the grout treatment and design
groundwater conditions.

Figure 4: Contour plot of pore water pressures calculated by steady state seepage for groundwater sensitivity
conditions
Figure 5: Contour plot of pore water pressures calculated by steady state seepage for design groundwater
conditions

4 Results
The factor of safety for each relevant analysis, calculated in Plaxis by the c-phi reduction method are
presented in Table 4. These were computed following excavation to formation level and represent the
anticipated safety margin against overall instability. Results are presented for DA1C1 analyses only. It
is considered that these analyses essentially represent a conservative SLS analysis and are most
appropriate for comparison to traditionally accepted global factors of safety.
Model Analysis Factor of Safety
Groundwater
AN1 2.512
sensitivity
Design groundwater AN4 2.795
Table 4: Summary of computed safety factors from Plaxis analyses

The maximum computed anchor forces for each analysis can be seen below in Table 5.
Anchor Force kN
Row no. Groundwater Sensitivity Design Groundwater Conditions
AN1 AN2 AN3 AN4 AN5 AN6

1 260 260 299 257 258 283
2 275 275 383 270 271 334
3 298 299 468 295 295 416
4 320 316 538 312 309 437
Table 5: Maximum computed anchor forces
Computed design bending moment and shear force envelopes for the analyses undertaken are shown in
Figure 6 and Figure 7 respectively. Development of computed wall displacement for AN1 can be seen
in Figure 8.

Figure 6: Computed design bending moment envelope

Figure 7: Computed design shear force envelope

Figure 8: Computed wall deflections

Al Sadd East Tunnel Eye Plaxis Modelling

1 Introduction
Design of the East Headwall at Al Sadd station was analyzed using the 2-Dimensional Finite Element
• Anchor forces
• Rock bolt requirements and design actions
Plane strain analyses were performed for the pile wall geometry.
\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\EUROPE\NEWCASTLE\JOBS\230000\238462\01 DOHA GOLDLINE ALYSJ\DOCS\27- REPORTS\AL SADD REPORT\SAD REPORT REV 2\APPENDICES\APPENDIX A -
DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN ANALYSES\PLAXIS 2D\EAST TUNNEL EYE\EAST TUNNEL EYE.DOCX


Assumptions
20.2mQNHD, plus an additional 0.5m overdig. Two rows of anchors and eight rows of bolts were
included. The vertical boundaries of the model were fixed horizontally and the base of the model was
fixed in all directions. Refer to Section 3 of the main body of this report for details of the assumed
stratigraphy.

Anchors
Steel Rebar
GFRP Bolts
Figure 2: Plaxis model for analyses with vertical void filling grout treatment
Annex.
report.
Angle°
QMS 18 0.30 29 3 0.52 7 0 3.20E-05
HWSL 19 0.29 19 50 0.75 170 1 6.50E-05
SL 23 0.21 48 430 0.75 5000 55 9.90E-06
MS 22 0.18 42 320 0.75 1800 70 4.00E-06

Rus 22 0.24 36 205 0.75 1500 15 7.30E-06
2.1 Wall Properties

The grout treatment was modelled as a vertical 1m wide block extending from +2.3mQNHD to
approximately 5m below the base of the excavation. The material properties for each grout segment
were assigned the same properties as the parent strata in Table 1 with the permeability adjusted to
1x10-7 m/s.
The initial steel rebar row situated below the pile wall was modelled as a 12.0m long elastic isotropic
geogrid element with an EA of 201.9x103 kN/m. GFRP bolts were modelled as 8.0m long elastic
isotropic geogrid elements with EA of 240.2x103 kN/m. The shotcrete facing to the bolted area of the
excavation was modelled as an elastic plate element with EA of 3.00x106 kN/m and EI of 5630
kNm2/m. The shotcrete was assumed to be weightless.


3 Plaxis Analysis
excavation depth


Follows
Stage Description
Stage
6 5 Repeat stage 4 and 5 to for installation of second anchor
7 6 Excavate to 0.5m below bolt level and dewater
8 7 Install steel rebar
Repeat stage 7 and 8 for GFRP bolts and shotcrete after installation to formation
9 8
level (pplus an additional 0.5m overdig)

conditions
conditions

4 Results
Groundwater
AN1 2.369
sensitivity

Anchor Force kN

1 258 259 302 258 258 286
2 274 295 372 269 269 322

in Figure 7.




Al Sadd Flank Wall Plaxis Modelling

1 Introduction
Design of the Flank Wall at Al Sadd station was analyzed using the 2-Dimensional Finite Element (FE)
software Plaxis 2D AE. The primary aims of the 2D FE were to assess the:
• Anchor forces
Plane strain analyses were performed for the flank wall geometry.
F:\220000\224487\2014 ELS VE\DOCS\27- REPORTS\AL SADD REPORT\SAD REPORT REV 0.4\TEXT\APPENDIX A - DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN ANALYSES\PLAXIS 2D\FLANK
WALL\FLANK WALL.DOCX


Assumptions
Figure 2: Plaxis model for analyses with 1 in 3 inclined void filling grout treatment

Annex.
report.
Angle°
QMS 18 0.30 29 3 0.52 7 0 3.20E-05
HWSL 19 0.29 19 50 0.75 170 1 6.50E-05
SL 23 0.21 48 430 0.75 5000 55 9.90E-06
MS 22 0.18 42 320 0.75 1800 70 4.00E-06
Rus 22 0.24 36 205 0.75 1500 15 7.30E-06
2.1 Wall Properties

The inclined grout treatment was modelled as a 1m wide block extending to pile toe level and inclined
at 1:3 (H:V). The material properties for each grout segment were assigned the same properties as the
parent strata in Table 1 with the permeability adjusted to 1x10-7 m/s.
horizontal.


3 Plaxis Analysis
Two sets of analyses were undertaken for the Flank Wall section:
excavation depth
A prestress of 250 kN was applied to all anchors in the Flank Wall analyses.
A summary of the analysis undertaken for the Flank Wall is provided below in Table 2.



Follows
Stage Description
Stage
6 5
0.5m overdig)
9 8
anchor level


conditions
conditions

4 Results
Groundwater
AN1 2.446
sensitivity

Anchor Force kN

1 261 260 291 258 258 279
2 273 274 366 270 270 340
3 296 297 473 292 292 411
4 313 311 552 307 303 436
in Figure 8.




Al Sadd West Headwall Plaxis Modelling

1 Introduction
Design of the West Headwall at Al Sadd station was analyzed using the 2-Dimensional Finite Element
• Anchor forces
Plane strain analyses were performed for the headwall geometry.
F:\220000\224487\2014 ELS VE\DOCS\27- REPORTS\AL SADD REPORT\SAD REPORT REV 0.4\TEXT\APPENDIX A - DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN ANALYSES\PLAXIS 2D\WEST
HEADWALL\WEST HEADWALL.DOCX


Assumptions

Annex.
report.
Angle°
QMS 18 0.30 29 3 0.52 7 0 3.20E-05
HWSL 19 0.29 19 50 0.75 170 1 6.50E-05
SL 23 0.21 48 430 0.75 5000 55 9.90E-06
MS 22 0.18 42 320 0.75 1800 70 4.00E-06
Rus 22 0.24 36 205 0.75 1500 15 7.30E-06
2.1 Wall Properties



3 Plaxis Analysis
Two sets of analyses were undertaken for the West Headwall section:
excavation depth
A prestress of 250 kN was applied to all anchors in the West Headwall analyses.
A summary of the analysis undertaken for the West Headwall is provided below in Table 2.



Follows
Stage Description
Stage
5 4 Install ground anchor and applyp prestress (250kN)
6 5
0.5m overdig)
9 8
anchor level


conditions
conditions

4 Results
Groundwater
AN1 2.512
sensitivity

Anchor Force kN

1 260 260 299 257 258 283
2 275 275 383 270 270 341
3 298 299 468 293 293 410
4 320 316 538 311 308 435
in Figure 8.




Al Sadd West Tunnel Eye Plaxis Modelling

1 Introduction
Design of the West Headwall at Al Sadd station was analyzed using the 2-Dimensional Finite Element
• Anchor forces
• Rock bolt requirements and design actions
Plane strain analyses were performed for the pile wall geometry.
DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN ANALYSES\PLAXIS 2D\WEST TUNNEL EYE\WEST TUNNEL EYE.DOCX


Assumptions
20.2mQNHD, plus an additional 0.5m overdig. Two rows of anchors and eight rows of bolts were
included. The vertical boundaries of the model were fixed horizontally and the base of the model was
fixed in all directions. Refer to Section 3 of the main body of this report for details of the assumed
stratigraphy.

Anchors
Steel Rebar
GFRP Bolts
Annex.
report.
Angle°
QMS 18 0.30 29 3 0.52 7 0 3.20E-05
HWSL 19 0.29 19 50 0.75 170 1 6.50E-05
SL 23 0.21 48 430 0.75 5000 55 9.90E-06
MS 22 0.18 42 320 0.75 1800 70 4.00E-06

Rus 22 0.24 36 205 0.75 1500 15 7.30E-06
2.1 Wall Properties

The initial steel rebar row situated below the pile wall was modelled as a 12.0m long elastic isotropic
geogrid element with an EA of 201.9x103 kN/m. GFRP bolts were modelled as 8.0m long elastic
isotropic geogrid elements with EA of 240.2x103 kN/m. The shotcrete facing to the bolted area of the
excavation was modelled as an elastic plate element with EA of 3.00x106 kN/m and EI of 5630
kNm2/m. The shotcrete was assumed to be weightless.

3 Plaxis Analysis

excavation depth


Follows
Stage Description
Stage
6 5 Repeat stage 4 and 5 to for installation of second anchor
7 6 Excavate to 0.5m below bolt level and dewater
8 7 Install steel rebar
Repeat stage 7 and 8 for GFRP bolts and shotcrete after installation to formation
9 8
level (plus an additional 0.5m overdig)

conditions
conditions

4 Results
Groundwater
AN1 2.369
sensitivity

Anchor Force kN

1 258 259 302 258 258 288
2 274 295 372 268 268 321

in Figure 7.




Subject Qatar Integrated Rail Project- Gold Line- Al Sadd ELS Design
Date January 22, 2015 Job No/Ref 238462/AG
Al Sadd Open Cut Slope- Oasys SlopeFE Modeling Summary

1 Introduction
This note provides a summary of the findings of the Oasys SlopeFE Analyses. Detailed input and
results are provided at the end of the note.
Software SlopeFE performs two-dimensional slope stability analysis to study circular or non-circular
slip surfaces. The program uses the method of slices and offers a variety of established methods for
calculating interslice forces. These methods include Fellenius or Swedish slip circle analysis, the
Bishop horizontal or constant inclined inter-slice forces method, and for non-circular slip surfaces the
equivalent Janbu methods are available. The program combines two types of analysis within one easy-
to-use program interface. Finite element steady state seepage analysis calculates the pore pressure
distribution, followed by analysis of slope stability by traditional limit equilibrium methods. For this
analysis SlopeFE 20.0 build 23 have been used.
Two main categories of studies have been performed: with and without assuming grout curtain.
Table 1 Summary of Oasys SlopeFE Analyses
Analysis Design Approach Groundwater assumption Utilization factor

1 DA1C1 One third of height with grout curtain 2.77
3 No Factor used One third of height with grout curtain 1.46
4 DA1C1 Initial ground level (almost at the surface) 2.82
6 No Factor used Initial ground level (almost at the surface) 1.50
Images showing the seepage level and critical failure surfaces from the SlopeFE analyses are presented
below.
J:\N-Y\230000\238462-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\1 - AL SADD\SAD_REV_0.4\APPENDIX A - DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
ANALYSES\SLOPEFE\AL_SADD_SLOPEFE_AG.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.13 Page 1 of 7

Figure 1- Contour plot of water pressure, critical slip surface and minimum utilization factor for analysis 1



Figure 7- Layout of Analysis 1



Al Sadd Open Cut Slope- Oasys SlopeFE Modeling Summary

1 Introduction
This note provides a summary of the findings of the Oasys SlopeFE Analyses. Detailed input and
results are provided at the end of the note.
Software SlopeFE performs two-dimensional slope stability analysis to study circular or non-circular
slip surfaces. The program uses the method of slices and offers a variety of established methods for
calculating interslice forces. These methods include Fellenius or Swedish slip circle analysis, the
Bishop horizontal or constant inclined inter-slice forces method, and for non-circular slip surfaces the
equivalent Janbu methods are available. The program combines two types of analysis within one easy-
to-use program interface. Finite element steady state seepage analysis calculates the pore pressure
distribution, followed by analysis of slope stability by traditional limit equilibrium methods. For this
analysis SlopeFE 20.0 build 23 have been used.
Two main categories of studies have been performed: with and without assuming grout curtain.
Table 1 Summary of Oasys SlopeFE Analyses
Analysis Design Approach Groundwater assumption Utilization factor

3 No Factor used One third of height with grout curtain 1.46
6 No Factor used Initial ground level (almost at the surface) 1.50
Images showing the seepage level and critical failure surfaces from the SlopeFE analyses are presented
below.







Appendix B
Determination of “Worst Credible” Parameters

Based on Case History Information
(12 Pages)
Subject Qatar Integrated Rail Project- Gold Line - Al Adhawaa ELS Design
Date 21 January 2015 Job No/Ref 224487-01
Determination of “Worst Credible” Parameters Based on

Case History Information
1 Introduction
A number of the planned stations on the Qatar Integrated Rail Project are currently under
construction, with excavation well progressed or complete. To inform the design process for Al
Adhawaa ELS, Al-Matar C-Ring station (Red Line) was visited and inspected. The temporary
excavation for the station comprised an open cut slope with rock nets bolted to the face. No active
external dewatering was undertaken and the slope was observed to be stable and in good condition.
Some localised water ingress issues were observed.
Based on observations at this site, a set of back analyses have been performed to directly derive a
set of “Worst Credible” (WC) parameters based on observations at this station.
2 Site Observations
The Al-Matar C-Ring station was visited on 18th September 2014. Notes made during the visit and
accompanying photographs are included below.
 Excavation is progressing with the Red Line Station and switchbox down to circa 21mbgl
and the Blue Line Box down to >27mbgl. Base of the excavation is into the Rus.
 Open cut slope construction with rock nets bolted to the face by nominal bolts.
 Dewatering from a sump trench in the base of the excavation. No external dewatering. As a
consequence of this, the excavation did have to pause during construction because of water
issues.
 Face of excavation has been stable. Immediately above the Midra Shale, a consistent zone
of voids is visible. The water issuing into the excavation is predominantly coming from this
zone.
 There is a large amount of water issuing into the blue line excavation.
 No grouting was employed.
 Open cut headwalls. It appears that the permanent works are being constructed to launch the
TBMs.
 Karst has been encountered and this has been grouted from inside the excavation. Sprayed
concrete was also being applied locally at a weathered face.
F:\220000\224487\2014 ELS VE\DOCS\27- REPORTS\AL ADHAWAA REPORT\ADB-REV-0.4\APPENDICES\APPENDIX B - 1 - CASE STUDY_1.DOCX
Arup | F0.13 Page 1 of 7

Figure 1 Red Line Station Box Excavation (Approx 21m)
Figure 2 Station Excavation Looking Towards The Blue Line

Figure 3 Deep Blue Line excavation. Groundwater issuing from the cut face, above the Midra Shale.
3 Back Analysis
The observations described in the previous section are considered to indicate that the overall factor
of safety on the slope is at least ~1.1, otherwise, it is likely that the slope would be showing signs of
instability / distress. As such, a Plaxis model of the Al-Matar C-Ring excavated slope was
constructed. Detailed input and details are included at the end of this note.
he initial parameters were incrementally reduced by a uniform factor until the Factor of safety at the
end of the analysis was 1.1. It is considered that these parameters represent design parameters
(2.4.6.2(2) of BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2003) appropriate for use in a DA1C2 ULS analysis.
Analyses using these “Worst Credible” (WC) parameters were also performed as part of the design
process.
The initial parameters used are referred to as the “Arup Revised” parameters which are based on a
reassessment of the rock Hoek-Brown criteria by Arup. These parameters were then used to derive
appropriate “Arup Revised” Mohr-Coulomb parameters using stress level appropriate for slopes. To
account for the variation in stress level with depth, the strata have been divided into 5m thick sub-
layers and parameters derived for each.
In order to determine the “Worst Credible” parameters, the initial Arup revised parameters were
incrementally reduced by a uniform partial factor. This was done iteratively until a factor of safety
of 1.1 was determined by c-phi reduction analysis at the end of the construction sequence.
It was found that the Arup revised parameters were required to be factored by a partial factor of
1.25 to achieve a factor of safety of 1.1 at the end of the analysis. This is demonstrated in Figure 4
below.

1.2
FoS = 1.1
1.18
c‐phi reduction (Excavation done with Arup revised parameters ‐ to find WC Parameters)
1.16
c‐phi reduction (Excavation done with WC# parameters)
1.14
1.12
FoS
1.1
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
1
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
Displacement (Units irrelevant)
Figure 4 Graph showing determination of safety factor after the Arup revised initial parameters have been
factored by 1.25
4 Worst Credible Parameters

The WC parameters derived as described above are included below in

Table 1.

Table 1 Worst Credible Parameters

SL SWSL
Depth c' phi' Sig_t Depth c' phi' Sig_t Erm
(m) (MPa) (°) (MPa) Erm (MPa) (m) (MPa) (°) (MPa) (MPa)
5 0.087 48.0 -0.032 1556 5 0.061 46.5 -0.018 951
10 0.106 43.8 -0.032 1556 10 0.080 42.0 -0.018 951
15 0.123 41.2 -0.032 1556 15 0.096 39.2 -0.018 951
20 0.139 39.3 -0.032 1556 20 0.111 37.2 -0.018 951
25 0.154 37.7 -0.032 1556 25 0.125 35.6 -0.018 951
30 0.168 36.5 -0.032 1556 30 0.138 34.4 -0.018 951
35 0.181 35.4 -0.032 1556 35 0.150 33.3 -0.018 951
MWSL + HWSL Midra Shale

Depth c' phi' Sig_t Depth c' phi' Sig_t Erm
(m) (MPa) (°) (MPa) Erm (MPa) (m) (MPa) (°) (MPa) (MPa)
5 0.030 39.1 -0.004 241 5 0.067 43.8 -0.026 430
10 0.044 34.3 -0.004 241 10 0.082 39.5 -0.026 430
15 0.055 31.5 -0.004 241 15 0.097 36.8 -0.026 430
20 0.065 29.5 -0.004 241 20 0.109 34.9 -0.026 430
25 0.075 28.0 -0.004 241 25 0.121 33.3 -0.026 430
30 0.083 26.8 -0.004 241 30 0.133 32.1 -0.026 430
35 0.091 25.8 -0.004 241 35 0.143 31.0 -0.026 430
Rus Fm
Depth c' phi' Sig_t
(m) (MPa) (°) (MPa) Erm (MPa)
5 0.031 37.5 -0.007 549 c' = effective cohesion
10 0.044 32.8 -0.007 549 Phi’ = effective friction angle
15 0.055 30.0 -0.007 549 Sig_t = tensile strength
20 0.064 28.0 -0.007 549 Erm = rock mass Young’s Modulus
25 0.073 26.6 -0.007 549
30 0.081 25.4 -0.007 549
35 0.088 24.4 -0.007 549
Where parameters are not provided above, the relevant values included within Scetion 3 of the main
body of the report should be used.

5 Conclusions
A series of worst credible parameters have been derived based on observations made during the
inspection of an excavation which forms part of the temporary works for a station similar to those
under consideration on the Gold Line.
It is recommended that, in addition to the standard ULS analyses required, an additional analysis is
carried out for each design case using the WC parameters. It is considered that the WC parameters
should be used as design values directly in analyses with all other elements being in line with a
DA1C2 analysis. The most onerous results from the standard DA1C1, DA1C2 and WC analyses
should be carried forward as the design values of actions or action effects.

Al_Matar_C_Ring_Back Analysis
PLAXIS Report
Detailed input for Back Analysis
1.1.1.1 Calculation results, Adjust Params [Phase_11] (18/112), Connectivity plot
2
1.1.2.1 Calculation results, Adjust Params [Phase_11] (18/112), Active loads plot
1.1.3.1 Calculation results, Adjust Params [Phase_11] (18/112), Materials plot
4
1.1.4.1.1.1 Materials - Soil and interfaces - Mohr-Coulomb (1/2)
Identification   SimSimaB01 SimSimaB02 SimSimaB03 SimSimaB04 SimSimaB05

Identification number   1 2 3 4 5
Drainage type   Drained Drained Drained Drained Drained
Colour  
Comments          
γ unsat kN/m³ 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00
γ sat kN/m³ 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00
Dilatancy cut-off   No No No No No
e init   0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
e min   0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
e max   999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0
Rayleigh α   0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rayleigh β   0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
E kN/m² 950.5E3 950.5E3 950.5E3 950.5E3 950.5E3
ν (nu)   0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
G kN/m² 396.0E3 396.0E3 396.0E3 396.0E3 396.0E3

E oed kN/m² 1.056E6 1.056E6 1.056E6 1.056E6 1.056E6
c ref kN/m² 77.00 100.0 121.0 139.0 156.0
φ (phi) ° 52.75 48.36 45.56 43.51 41.87
ψ (psi) ° 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
V s m/s 411.0 411.0 411.0 411.0 411.0
V p m/s 671.2 671.2 671.2 671.2 671.2
Set to default values   No No No No No
E inc kN/m²/m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
y ref m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
c inc kN/m²/m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
y ref m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Tension cut-off   Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tensile strength kN/m² 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00
Strength   Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid
R inter   1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Consider gap closure   Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
δ inter   0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
K 0 determination   Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual
K 0,x   0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000
6

Data set   Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
Type   Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse
< 2 μm % 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
2 μm - 50 μm % 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
50 μm - 2 mm % 77.00 77.00 77.00 77.00 77.00
kx m/day 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
ky m/day 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
-ψ unsat m 10.00E3 10.00E3 10.00E3 10.00E3 10.00E3
e init   0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
ck   1.000E15 1.000E15 1.000E15 1.000E15 1.000E15
Identification   SimSimaC02 MidraShale05 Rus06

Identification number   6 7 8
Drainage type   Drained Drained Drained
Colour  
Comments      
γ unsat kN/m³ 23.00 21.00 20.00
γ sat kN/m³ 23.00 21.00 20.00
Dilatancy cut-off   No No No
e init   0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
e min   0.000 0.000 0.000
e max   999.0 999.0 999.0
Rayleigh α   0.000 0.000 0.000
Rayleigh β   0.000 0.000 0.000
E kN/m² 241.0E3 430.1E3 548.9E3
ν (nu)   0.2000 0.2300 0.2300
G kN/m² 100.4E3 174.8E3 223.1E3
8

E oed kN/m² 267.8E3 498.6E3 636.3E3
c ref kN/m² 55.00 152.0 101.0
φ (phi) ° 40.44 39.44 30.66
ψ (psi) ° 0.000 0.000 0.000
V s m/s 206.9 285.8 330.8
V p m/s 337.9 482.6 558.7
Set to default values   No No No
E inc kN/m²/m 0.000 0.000 0.000
y ref m 0.000 0.000 0.000
c inc kN/m²/m 0.000 0.000 0.000
y ref m 0.000 0.000 0.000
Tension cut-off   Yes Yes Yes
Tensile strength kN/m² 4.000 26.00 7.000
Strength   Rigid Rigid Rigid
R inter   1.000 1.000 1.000
Consider gap closure   Yes Yes Yes
δ inter   0.000 0.000 0.000
K 0 determination   Manual Manual Manual
K 0,x   0.6000 0.6000 0.6000

Data set   Standard Standard Standard
Type   Coarse Coarse Coarse
< 2 μm % 10.00 10.00 10.00
2 μm - 50 μm % 13.00 13.00 13.00
50 μm - 2 mm % 77.00 77.00 77.00
Set to default values   No No No
kx m/day 10.00 0.1000 10.00
ky m/day 10.00 0.1000 10.00
-ψ unsat m 10.00E3 10.00E3 10.00E3
e init   0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
ck   1.000E15 1.000E15 1.000E15
10
Appendix C
Study on the Impact of K0

(15 Pages)
Date 14 February 2015 Job No/Ref 224487-01
Impact of K0 Value
1 Introduction
This note provides a summary of the assessment of the impact of varying the value of at rest earth
pressure coefficient (K0) on the results of a typical anchored retaining wall analysis. The analysis
performed is considered reasonably representative of temporary works proposals at a number of
stations on the Gold Line. It is based on preliminary analysis of Al-Sadd station.
All modelling assumptions and input are consistent between the analyses except the value of K0 has
been varied between 0.6 and 2.0.
2 Plaxis Analysis
Detailed input for the Plaxis analysis is included at the end of this note. The analyses performed
were as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Analyses performed
Analysis K0 of rock strata
AN25 0.6
AN26 1.0
AN27 1.5
AN28 2.0
3 Results
In the following section, results are presented in the form of graphs of displacement in the final
excavation stage, design bending moment and design shear force.
It was found that the wall forces and bending moments were not greatly sensitive to the value of K0
with an increase in K0 from 1.0 to 2.0 causing only a 10% increase in computed wall bending
moment. Similar increases of 12% and 6% in shear force and anchor load, respectively, were also
observed.
F:\220000\224487\2014 ELS VE\DOCS\27- REPORTS\AL ADHAWAA REPORT\ADB-REV-0.4\APPENDICES\APPENDIX C - 1 - K0 STUDY_1.DOCX

10
Level (mQNHD)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0
Displacement (m)
An 25, Stage 12, Final An 26, Stage 12, Final
Figure 1 Computed displacements from K0 study

10
Level (mQNHD)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-1250 -1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250
Bending Moment (kNm per Pile)
An 25, Stage 12, Final An 26, Stage 12, Final An 27, Stage 12, Final
Figure 2 Computed design bending moments from K0 study

10
Level (mQNHD)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
Shear Force (kN per Pile)
Figure 3 Computed design shear forces from K0 study

K0 Study
PLAXIS Report
Detailed input and results for AN26 (K0 =1.0)
K0 Study
1.1.1 Clusters plot
2
K0 Study
1.1.2.1 Calculation results, Exc 7 [Phase_17] (12/83), Materials plot
K0 Study
Identification   1 - Made Ground 2 - SimC1 3 - SimB1 4 - SimB2 5 - SimA2

Colour  
γ unsat kN/m³ 18.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00
γ sat kN/m³ 18.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00
e init   0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
e min   0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
e max   999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0
Rayleigh α   0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Rayleigh β   0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
E kN/m² 10.00E3 241.0E3 950.5E3 950.5E3 1.556E6
ν (nu)   0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
G kN/m² 4167 100.4E3 396.0E3 396.0E3 648.2E3
E oed kN/m² 11.11E3 267.8E3 1.056E6 1.056E6 1.729E6

c ref kN/m² 0.01000 37.00 77.00 100.0 132.0
4
K0 Study
φ (phi) ° 32.00 45.47 52.75 48.36 50.20
ψ (psi) ° 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

V s m/s 47.65 206.9 411.0 411.0 525.8
V p m/s 77.82 337.9 671.2 671.2 858.7
E inc kN/m²/m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

y ref m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
c inc kN/m²/m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
y ref m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Tension cut-off   No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Tensile strength kN/m² 10.00E6 4.000 18.00 18.00 32.00
Strength   Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual
R inter   0.6700 0.6700 0.6700 0.6700 0.6700

δ inter   0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
K 0,x   0.5000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

< 2 μm % 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
2 μm - 50 μm % 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
K0 Study
50 μm - 2 mm % 77.00 77.00 77.00 77.00 77.00

k x m/day 43.20 30.20 30.20 30.20 30.20
k y m/day 43.20 30.20 30.20 30.20 30.20
-ψ unsat m 10.00E3 10.00E3 10.00E3 10.00E3 10.00E3

e init   0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
c k   1.000E15 1.000E15 1.000E15 1.000E15 1.000E15
6
K0 Study
Identification   6 - SimA3 7 - MS3 8 - MS4 9 - RF5 10 - RF6

Colour  
γ unsat kN/m³ 23.00 21.00 21.00 20.00 20.00
γ sat kN/m³ 23.00 21.00 21.00 20.00 20.00
e init   0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
e min   0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
e max   999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0
Rayleigh α   0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Rayleigh β   0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
E kN/m² 1.556E6 430.1E3 430.1E3 548.9E3 548.9E3
ν (nu)   0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
G kN/m² 648.2E3 179.2E3 179.2E3 228.7E3 228.7E3
E oed kN/m² 1.729E6 477.8E3 477.8E3 609.9E3 609.9E3

c ref kN/m² 154.0 121.0 137.0 91.00 101.0
K0 Study
φ (phi) ° 47.60 43.10 41.10 32.00 30.70

ψ (psi) ° 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
V s m/s 525.8 289.3 289.3 334.9 334.9
V p m/s 858.7 472.5 472.5 546.9 546.9

E inc kN/m²/m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
y ref m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
c inc kN/m²/m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
y ref m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Tension cut-off   Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Tensile strength kN/m² 32.00 26.00 26.00 7.000 7.000
Strength   Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual
R inter   0.6700 0.6700 0.6700 0.6700 0.6700

δ inter   0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
K 0,x   1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

< 2 μm % 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
2 μm - 50 μm % 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
8
K0 Study
50 μm - 2 mm % 77.00 77.00 77.00 77.00 77.00

k x m/day 30.20 0.3540 0.3540 1.070 1.070
k y m/day 30.20 0.3540 0.3540 1.070 1.070
-ψ unsat m 10.00E3 10.00E3 10.00E3 10.00E3 10.00E3
e init   0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000

c k   1.000E15 1.000E15 1.000E15 1.000E15 1.000E15
K0 Study
Identification   11 - RF7
Identification number   11
Drainage type   Drained
Colour  
Comments  
γ unsat kN/m³ 20.00
γ sat kN/m³ 20.00
Dilatancy cut-off   No
e init   0.5000
e min   0.000
e max   999.0
Rayleigh α   0.000
Rayleigh β   0.000
E kN/m² 548.9E3
ν (nu)   0.2000
G kN/m² 228.7E3
10
K0 Study
E oed kN/m² 609.9E3
c ref kN/m² 110.0
φ (phi) ° 29.54
ψ (psi) ° 0.000
V s m/s 334.9
V p m/s 546.9
Set to default values   No
E inc kN/m²/m 0.000
y ref m 0.000
c inc kN/m²/m 0.000
y ref m 0.000
Tension cut-off   Yes
Tensile strength kN/m² 7.000
Strength   Manual
R inter   0.6700
Consider gap closure   Yes
δ inter   0.000
K 0 determination   Manual
K 0,x   1.000
11
K0 Study
Data set   Standard
Type   Coarse
< 2 μm % 10.00
2 μm - 50 μm % 13.00
50 μm - 2 mm % 77.00
Set to default values   No
kx m/day 1.070
ky m/day 1.070
-ψ unsat m 10.00E3
e init   0.5000
ck   1.000E15
12
K0 Study
1.1.3.2 Materials - Plates -
Identification   Wall
Comments  
Colour  
Material type   Elastic
Isotropic   Yes
End bearing   No
EA 1 kN/m 6.997E6
EA 2 kN/m 6.997E6
EI kN m²/m 437.3E3
d m 0.8660
w kN/m/m 4.000
ν (nu)   0.2000
Rayleigh α   0.000
Rayleigh β   0.000
13
K0 Study
1.1.3.3 Materials - Geogrids -
Identification   Anchor fixed length

Comments  
Colour  
Isotropic   Yes
EA 1 kN/m 363.6E3
EA 2 kN/m 363.6E3
14
K0 Study
1.1.3.4 Materials - Anchors -
Identification   Anchor Free Length

Comments  
Colour  
EA kN 569.1E3
L spacing m 2.200
15
K0 Study
1.1.4.1 Calculation results, Node-to-node anchor, Exc 7 [Phase_17] (12/83), Table of

node-to-node anchors
Structural element Node [10

3
] Local number X [m] Y [m] N [kN] N min [kN] N max [kN]
Node-to-node anchor 1-1 27830 1 0.000 4.800 301.448 0.000 302.166
(Anchor Free Length) 19512 2 16.446 1.900 301.448 0.000 302.166
Node-to-node anchor 2-2 24956 1 0.000 -0.200 448.029 0.000 448.029
(Anchor Free Length) 18784 2 14.280 -2.718 448.029 0.000 448.029
16
K0 Study
2.1.1.1.1 Calculation results, Exc 7 [Phase_17] (12/83), Total displacements ux
17
K0 Study
2.1.1.2.1 Calculation results, Exc 7 [Phase_17] (12/83), Total displacements uy
18
K0 Study
2.2.1.1.1 Calculation results, Exc 7 [Phase_17] (12/83), Active pore pressures

pactive
19
K0 Study
3.1.1.1.1.1 Calculation results, Plate, Exc 7 [Phase_17] (12/83), Total displacements

ux
20
K0 Study
3.2.1.1.1 Calculation results, Node-to-node anchor, Exc 7 [Phase_17] (12/83), Table of

node-to-node anchors
Structural element Node [10

3
] Local number X [m] Y [m] N [kN] N min [kN] N max [kN]
Node-to-node anchor 1-1 27830 1 0.000 4.800 301.448 0.000 302.166
(Anchor Free Length) 19512 2 16.446 1.900 301.448 0.000 302.166
31
Appendix D
UDEC Analyses
(60 pages)
Appendix B: UDEC Analysis
Doha Metro Gold Line
Al-Sadd station
Introduction
This presentation summarizes the main results obtain form the DEM model of the
Al-Sadd station excavation using UDEC. Two slope section models have been set
up and analyzed with and without grout curtain:
• Model Head-GC: Headwall vertical slope with vertical grout curtain at 10

m inside the excavation profile, Groundwater table was set at the one-third
height of the excavation groundwater table behind the grout curtain
• Model Head-NoGC: Headwall vertical slope without grout curtain,

Groundwater flow from Hydro-Mechanical Coupled analysis using UDEC.
• Model Open-GC: Stepped open cut slope with vertical grout curtain at 10
m inside the excavation profile, Groundwater table was set at the one-third
height of the excavation groundwater table behind the grout curtain ;
• Model Open-NoGC: Stepped open cut slope without grout curtain,

Groundwater flow from Hydro-Mechanical Coupled analysis using UDEC.
Geometry
Excavation
+8.67 W.T. +8.67

6.4 5.8
Made ground
HWSL
Simsima -5.70
28.87
--12.20
--20.20 Midra Shale
20.00
Rus Formation
-40.0
100.00
Rock Mass and Joints Properties
In the absence of the detailed condition of the rock joint sets, conservatively, the
continuum rock mass properties are used in the UDEC analysis together with the
joint properties that are calculated with the RocLab based on the continuum rock
mass properties from Atkins and the joint set information provided by Arup
London office. The cohesion and tensile strength of the rock joints are ignored to
be zero, conservatively.
Joint Pattern identified from the site
Joints Pattern modelled in the UDEC
4.0 m-spacing Non-persistent

Vertical Joints
Joints pattern in the Simima and
Midra Shale layers
2.0 m-spacing Persistent

Horizontal Joints -12.2
4.0 m-spacing Non-persistent

Vertical Joints
Construction Joints for Excavation
and Grout Curtain Boundaries Joints pattern in the Rus
2.0 m-spacing Persistent Formation
Horizontal Joints
Model Head-GC: Headwall section
model with inclined grout curtain
Low-permeable grout
curtain reduces flow
Excavation Stage #1
Excavation Stage #2
Excavation Stage #3
Excavation Stage #4
Final Excavation Stage
WT=H/3
Factor of Safety > 5.0
Soldier Pile Wall
4 rows-30mm Anchors
@ 2.2m spacing (Horiz)
14
Midra Shale
WT=H/3
15
16
17
Pile
Wall
kNm/m
Anchor
kN/m
Max. Anchor Force

= 139.6 x 2.2 (horiz. spacing)
= 307 kN (Working Load)
550 kN (Design Load)
18
Displacements vs SRF
Potentially unstable SRF = 5.0
Max displacement (highlights local mechanism)
SRFx10
2.0 Strength Reduction Factor
Model Open-NoGC: Open cut w/o
grout curtain, Groundwater flow
from Hydro-Mechanical Coupled
analysis using UDEC.
Without Grout Curtain
The permeability in vertical direction is reduced to one-

third of the permeability in the horizontal direction to
model the high permeability through bedding joints
Excavation Stage #1
Excavation Stage #2
Excavation Stage #3
Excavation Stage #4
H
Flow
Midra Shale
27
28
29
Pile
Wall
kNm/m
Anchor
kN/m
Max. Anchor Force

30
SRFx10
Strength Reduction Factor
Model Open-GC:
- Stepped open cut slope with
vertical grout curtain at 10 m
inside the excavation profile
- Groundwater table was set at the
one-third height of the excavation
groundwater table behind the
grout curtain
Low-permeable grout
curtain reduces flow
Excavation Stage #2
Excavation Stage #4
Excavation Stage #6
Excavation Stage #8
Excavation Stage #10
#8
WT=H/3
150mm Shotcrete
5 rows of 30mm-dia Rockbolts

@ 1.5 x 1.5m pattern
Impermeable with Grouted

block along Grout Curtain
40
Midra Shale
41
42
43
Shotcrete
kNm/m
Rockbolts
kN/m
Max. Rockbolt Axial Force

44
SRFx10
Model Open-NoGC: Stepped open
cut slope without grout curtain,
Groundwater flow from Hydro-
Mechanical Coupled analysis
using UDEC.
Without Grout Curtain
The permeability in vertical direction is reduced to one-

third of the permeability in the horizontal direction to
model the high permeability through bedding joints
Excavation Stage #2
Excavation Stage #4
Excavation Stage #6
Excavation Stage #8
Excavation Stage #10
H
150mm Shotcrete
5 rows of 30mm-dia Rockbolts

@ 1.5 x 1.5m pattern
Impermeable with Grouted

block along Grout Curtain
54
Midra Shale
55
56
57
Shotcrete
kNm/m
Rockbolts
kN/m
Max. Anchor Force

= 49.5 x 1.5m (horiz. spacing)
58
SRFx10
Appendix E
Structural Calculations
(57 pages)
1. Design of shear links in piles was amended to B16@150

2. Width of capping beams at head walls and flank walls are reduced from 1300mm to
1200mm
ARUP
M006 Doha Metro
Al Sadd
Flank Wall (North and South)
Structural Verification
Calculation Sheet
Job title: M006 Doha Metro Sheet number Revision

Station: Al Sadd 01
Location: Flank wall & Head wall Author CM
Element: Pile Drg. Ref.
Calculation: Loading & Reinf. Summary Made by MW Date 2/12/2015 Chd. AK
Corres-
Max Ved ponding Longi-
Wall Position Med Analysis Max Med Analysis tudinal Shear
(kN) (kNm) case (kNm) case Bars Links
Flank (Typical) Upper 685 195 An1 S5 350 An3 S7 12-B25 B16@150
Lower 1235 410 An4 S11 680 An1 S20 12-B32 B16@150
HW (E) Upper 830 290 An1 S5 560 An3 S7 14-B25 B16@150
Lower 1362* 660 An1 S10 1040 An1 S19 14-B40 B16@150
Above Tunnel Eye 610 1450 An3 S8 1600 An3 S16 14-B40 B16@150
HW (W) Upper 830 290 An1 S5 560 An3 S7 14-B25 B16@150
Lower 1362* 660 An1 S10 1040 An1 S19 14-B40 B16@150
* Shear value at -20.0mEL, which is within the effective depth from the location where the maximum shear force of
1705kN occurs. BS EN 1992, 6.2.1 (8) : For members subject to predominantly uniformly distributed loading the
design shear force need not to be checked at a distance less than d (effecitve depth) from the face of the support.
\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\238462-00\4 Internal Project Data\4-04 Calculations\4-04-08 Struct\2015-02-12 (Rev to Rev 0.4)\

2015-02-12 Appdendix E loading and reinf summary.xlsx : Loading Page 1 of 1
© Arup | F0.13 | 14 February 2011 Printed 2/12/2015 Time 4:53 PM
Arup Job No. Sheet No. Rev.
224487
M006 Doha Metro Al Sadd Drg. Ref.
TYP pit) - 2.2m Spacing Upper
Flank Wall (TBM
Made by Date Checked
Bending Check CM 25-Nov-2014 AK
Key
0.63% reinforcement
Reference Point
Neutral Axis
C Compression Side
Governing Node or Bar
1(25) 10(25) C
2(25) 9(25)
3(25) y 8(25)
4(25) 7(25)
5(25) 6(25)
1000mm
Section 1 - ULS Strength Results

Analysis Case 1
Program AdSec Version 8.3 Copyright © Oasys 2001-2014 Page 1

\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y...\Flank Wall TBM pit - Pile - Upper_Bending.ads Printed 25-Nov-2014 Time 15:28
224487
Flank Wall (TBM
M006 Doha Metro Al Sadd

Flank Wall (TBM pit) - 2.2m Spacing UpperBending Check
History
Date Time Name Note
22-Oct-2014 10:49 christopher.marton New
22-Oct-2014 10:50 christopher.marton Save as \\global\europe\newcastle\Jobs\220000\224487\2014 ELS VE\Docs\40-
Calcs\Al Sadd\Contiguous Piles\Contig Wall - Existing Design.ads
22-Oct-2014 14:03 christopher.marton
Calcs\Al Adhawaa\Piles\AA-FW-BPW2.2-UDP-BM-Case1.ads
01-Nov-2014 08:41 christopher.marton
24-Nov-2014 4:37: Yong-wook.jo
25-Nov-2014 3:18: ming-yuet.wong
Specification
General Specification
Code of Practice EN 1992-1-1:2004
Eurocode 2
Country <undefined>
Bending Axes Uniaxial
Section 1 Details
Definition
Name Section 1
Type Concrete
Material C32/40
Origin Centre
Dimensions
Diameter 1000.mm
Section Area 785400.mm2
Reinforcement Area 4909.mm2
Reinforcement 0.6250%
Section Nodes
Node Y Z
[mm] [mm]
1 0.0 501.3
2 87.04 493.7
3 171.4 471.0
4 250.6 434.1
5 322.2 384.0
6 384.0 322.2
7 434.1 250.6
8 471.0 171.4
9 493.7 87.04
10 501.3 -21.91E-6
11 493.7 -87.05
12 471.0 -171.4
13 434.1 -250.6
14 384.0 -322.2
15 322.2 -384.0
16 250.6 -434.1
17 171.4 -471.0
18 87.04 -493.7
19 -43.82E-6 -501.3
20 -87.05 -493.7
21 -171.4 -471.0
22 -250.6 -434.1
23 -322.2 -384.0
24 -384.0 -322.2
25 -434.1 -250.6
26 -471.0 -171.4
27 -493.7 -87.04
28 -501.3 245.0E-6
29 -493.7 87.05
30 -471.0 171.4
31 -434.1 250.6
32 -384.0 322.2
33 -322.2 384.0
34 -250.6 434.1
35 -171.4 471.0
36 -87.04 493.7
Bars
Bar Y Z Diameter Material Type Pre-stress Pre-stress Appl. loads
Force Strain include/exclude
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
1 -194.5 336.9 25.00 500B Steel
2 -336.9 194.5 25.00 500B Steel
3 -389.0 0.0 25.00 500B Steel
4 -336.9 -194.5 25.00 500B Steel
5 -194.5 -336.9 25.00 500B Steel
6 194.5 -336.9 25.00 500B Steel
7 336.9 -194.5 25.00 500B Steel
8 389.0 0.0 25.00 500B Steel
9 336.9 194.5 25.00 500B Steel
10 194.5 336.9 25.00 500B Steel
Elastic Properties

224487
Flank Wall (TBM
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
Effective properties of the section, ignoring reinforcement.
Geometric Centroid y 0.0mm

z 0.0mm
Area 785400.mm2
Second Moments of Area Iyy 49.09E+9mm4
Izz 49.09E+9mm4
Iyz 0.0mm4
Principal Second Moments of Area Iuu 49.09E+9mm4
Izz 49.09E+9mm4
Angle 0.0°
Shear Area Factor ky 0.8571
kz 0.8571
Torsion Constant 98.17E+9mm4
Section Modulus Zy 98.17E+6mm3
Zz 98.17E+6mm3
Plastic Modulus Zpy 166.7E+6mm3
Zpz 166.7E+6mm3
Radius of Gyration Ry 250.0mm
Rz 250.0mm
Properties of gross section, including reinforcement.
Geometric Centroid y -143.7E-9mm

z 0.0mm
EA 27.01E+6kN
EI EIyy 1.686E+6kNm2
EIzz 1.711E+6kNm2
EIyz -485.2E-6kNm2
Principal EI EIuu 1.711E+6kNm2
EIzz 1.686E+6kNm2
Angle -90.00°
Section Material Properties

Type Concrete
Name C32/40
Weight Normal Weight
Density  2.400t/m3
Cylinder Strength fck 32000.kPa
Tensile Strength fctm 3024.kPa
Elastic Modulus (short E 33.35E+6kPa
term)
Poisson's Ratio  0.2000
Coeff. Thermal Expansion  10.00E-6/°C
Partial Safety Factor mc,ULS 1.500
mc,SLS 1.000
Maximum Strain 0.003500[-]
Plateau Strain 0.002000[-]
ULS Compression Curve Parabola-rect.
ULS Tension Curve No-tension
SLS Compression Curve Fig 3.2
SLS Tension Curve Interpolated
Aggregate Size 20.00mm
Reinforcement Properties
Name 500B
fy 500000.kPa
Modulus 200.0E+6kPa
Partial Safety Factor ms,ULS 1.150
ms,SLS 1.000
Stress/Strain Curve Strain-hardening
Loading
Reference Point
All loading acts through the Reference Point.
All strain planes are defined relative to the Reference Point.
Definition Geometric
Centroid
Reference Point Coordinates y 0.0mm
z 0.0mm
Applied loads
Load N Myy Mzz
Case
[kN] [kNm] [kNm]
1 0.0 350.0 0.0
Section 1 Details
0.63% reinforcement in section 1 (Section 1). Check this against code requirements.
ULS Cases Analysed

Name Loading Pre-stress
Factor
1 L1 1.000

224487
Flank Wall (TBM
Factor
Strength Analysis - Loads

Case N Myy Mzz M 
[kN] [kNm] [kNm] [kNm] [°]
1 0.0 350.0 0.0 350.0 0.0
Strength Analysis - Summary

Governing conditions are defined as:
A - reinforcing steel tension strain limit
B - concrete compression strain limit
C - concrete pure compression strain limit
Eurocode 2 Section 6.1
Effective centroid is reported relative to the reference point.
Case Eff. Eff. N M Mu M/Mu Governing Neutral Neutral

Centroid Centroid Condition Axis Axis
(y) (z) Angle Depth
[kN] [kNm] [kNm] [°] [mm]
1 - - 0.0 350.0 838.7 0.4173 B: Node 1 0.0 190.2
Strength Analysis - Details

Case Moment Description N M Warning
Angle
[°] [kN] [kNm]
-16.61 Max. compressive strain 18110. 42.78E-6
-90.00 Max. tensile strain -2287. 0.0
1 0.0 Axial strength at M 17720. 350.0

Balanced yield 6662. 2034.
Compressive strength at M=0 18790. 0.0
Bending strength at N=0 0.0 838.7
Strain Planes at ULS Strength

Related to Reference Point
Case Strain Plane ax yy zz

[-] [/m] [/m]
1 Reinforcement -0.005723 0.01840 0.0
User Creep/Shrinkage 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total (Concrete) -0.005723 0.01840 0.0
Section Material Stresses/Strains at ULS Strength

Case Point Coordinates Notes
y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 0.0 501.3 0.003500 21330.
1 2 87.04 493.7 0.003360 21330.
1 3 171.4 471.0 0.002944 21330.
1 4 250.6 434.1 0.002264 21330.
1 5 322.2 384.0 0.001342 19030.
1 6 384.0 322.2 205.4E-6 4156.
1 7 434.1 250.6 -0.001112 0.0
1 8 471.0 171.4 -0.002569 0.0
1 9 493.7 87.04 -0.004122 0.0
1 10 501.3 -21.91E-6 -0.005723 0.0
1 11 493.7 -87.05 -0.007325 0.0
1 12 471.0 -171.4 -0.008878 0.0
1 13 434.1 -250.6 -0.01033 0.0
1 14 384.0 -322.2 -0.01165 0.0
1 15 322.2 -384.0 -0.01279 0.0
1 16 250.6 -434.1 -0.01371 0.0
1 17 171.4 -471.0 -0.01439 0.0
1 18 87.04 -493.7 -0.01481 0.0
1 19 -43.82E-6 -501.3 -0.01495 0.0
1 20 -87.05 -493.7 -0.01481 0.0
1 21 -171.4 -471.0 -0.01439 0.0
1 22 -250.6 -434.1 -0.01371 0.0
1 23 -322.2 -384.0 -0.01279 0.0
1 24 -384.0 -322.2 -0.01165 0.0
1 25 -434.1 -250.6 -0.01033 0.0
1 26 -471.0 -171.4 -0.008878 0.0
1 27 -493.7 -87.04 -0.007325 0.0
1 28 -501.3 245.0E-6 -0.005723 0.0
1 29 -493.7 87.05 -0.004122 0.0
1 30 -471.0 171.4 -0.002569 0.0
1 31 -434.1 250.6 -0.001112 0.0
1 32 -384.0 322.2 205.4E-6 4156.
1 33 -322.2 384.0 0.001342 19030.
1 34 -250.6 434.1 0.002264 21330.
1 35 -171.4 471.0 0.002944 21330.
1 36 -87.04 493.7 0.003360 21330.
Reinforcement Stresses/Strains at ULS Strength

Case Bar Coordinates Notes
y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 -194.5 336.9 475.6E-6 95130. 500B
1 2 -336.9 194.5 -0.002144 -428900. 500B
1 3 -389.0 0.0 -0.005723 -437400. 500B
1 4 -336.9 -194.5 -0.009302 -440000. 500B
1 5 -194.5 -336.9 -0.01192 -441900. 500B
1 6 194.5 -336.9 -0.01192 -441900. 500B
1 7 336.9 -194.5 -0.009302 -440000. 500B
1 8 389.0 0.0 -0.005723 -437400. 500B
1 9 336.9 194.5 -0.002144 -428900. 500B
1 10 194.5 336.9 475.6E-6 95130. 500B

Calculation Sheet
Station: Al Sadd 01
Location: Flank Wall(Typ) Upper Author CM
Element: Pile - 2.2m Spacing Drg. Ref.
Calculation: Shear Check Made by MW Date 2/12/2015 Chd. AK
Concrete details Reinforcement Details
Diameter 1000 mm Longditudinal Diameter 25
Ac 785398 mm^2 Number of bars 10
As 4908.738521
Mrd 838 Step (1)
Med 195 kNm Shear Link Diameter 16
Ved 685 kN Asw 201.0619298
Spacing 150
cMc 1 Step (2) Shape Circular
cMs,circ 1
cMs,spir 1
fck 32 Step (3)

fcd 21.3 N/mm^2
Dl 793.0 mm
circZ 542.1
bwz 510508.8 mm
fyk 500 Step (4)

fywd 434.8 N/mm^2
Cot 2.4
circ 0.72
C 75 mm
Dw 834 mm
p 300 mm
VRd,s 1516462 N
cw 1 Step (5)
10.20 deg
v 0.52
v1 0.71
tan 0.4166667
VRd,max 2748303.5 N CHECKS
Ved/Vrd 0.451709 PASS
pw 0.0028467 Step (6) Med/Mrd 0.232697 PASS
pw,min 0.0009051 pw,min/pw 0.317944 PASS
C:\Program Files\Oasys\OvaExcel\ Page 1 of 1

Flank Wall - Pile - Shear in Circular Piles.xlsx : Case 2 Printed 2/12/2015 Time 3:00 PM
224487
TYP pit) - 2.2m Spacing Lower
Flank Wall (TBM
Key
1.02% reinforcement
Reference Point
Neutral Axis
C Compression Side
1(32) 10(32)
C
2(32) 9(32)
3(32) y 8(32)
4(32) 7(32)
5(32) 6(32)
1000mm

Analysis Case 1

\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y...\Flank Wall TBM pit - Pile - Lower_Bending.ads Printed 25-Nov-2014 Time 15:48
224487
TYP pit) - 2.2m Spacing Lower
Flank Wall (TBM

Flank Wall (TBM pit) - 2.2m Spacing LowerBending Check
History
Date Time Name Note
24-Nov-2014 4:53: Yong-wook.jo Save as \\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\238462-00\4 Internal Project
Data\4-04 Calculations\4-04-08 Struct\Flank Wall - Pile\Typical\Flank Wall
Typical - Pile - Lower_Bending.ads
Specification
Eurocode 2
Country <undefined>
Section 1 Details
Definition
Name Section 1
Type Concrete
Material C32/40
Origin Centre
Dimensions
Diameter 1000.mm
Section Nodes
Node Y Z
[mm] [mm]
1 0.0 501.3
2 87.04 493.7
3 171.4 471.0
4 250.6 434.1
5 322.2 384.0
6 384.0 322.2
7 434.1 250.6
8 471.0 171.4
9 493.7 87.04
10 501.3 -21.91E-6
11 493.7 -87.05
12 471.0 -171.4
13 434.1 -250.6
14 384.0 -322.2
15 322.2 -384.0
16 250.6 -434.1
17 171.4 -471.0
18 87.04 -493.7
19 -43.82E-6 -501.3
20 -87.05 -493.7
21 -171.4 -471.0
22 -250.6 -434.1
23 -322.2 -384.0
24 -384.0 -322.2
25 -434.1 -250.6
26 -471.0 -171.4
27 -493.7 -87.04
28 -501.3 245.0E-6
29 -493.7 87.05
30 -471.0 171.4
31 -434.1 250.6
32 -384.0 322.2
33 -322.2 384.0
34 -250.6 434.1
35 -171.4 471.0
36 -87.04 493.7
Bars
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
1 -194.5 336.9 32.00 500B Steel
2 -336.9 194.5 32.00 500B Steel
3 -389.0 0.0 32.00 500B Steel
4 -336.9 -194.5 32.00 500B Steel
5 -194.5 -336.9 32.00 500B Steel
6 194.5 -336.9 32.00 500B Steel
7 336.9 -194.5 32.00 500B Steel
8 389.0 0.0 32.00 500B Steel
9 336.9 194.5 32.00 500B Steel
10 194.5 336.9 32.00 500B Steel

224487
Flank Wall (TBM pit) - 2.2m Spacing Lower
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
Elastic Properties

z 0.0mm
Area 785400.mm2
Izz 49.09E+9mm4
Iyz 0.0mm4
Izz 49.09E+9mm4
Angle 0.0°
kz 0.8571
Zz 98.17E+6mm3
Zpz 166.7E+6mm3
Rz 250.0mm
Geometric Centroid y 70.50E-9mm

z -141.0E-9mm
EA 27.53E+6kN
EIzz 1.759E+6kNm2
EIyz 0.0kNm2
EIzz 1.718E+6kNm2
Angle 90.00°

Type Concrete
Name C32/40
term)
mc,SLS 1.000
Name 500B
fy 500000.kPa
Modulus 200.0E+6kPa
ms,SLS 1.000
Loading
Reference Point
Centroid
z 0.0mm
Applied loads
Load N Myy Mzz
Case
[kN] [kNm] [kNm]
1 0.0 680.0 0.0
Section 1 Details
ULS Cases Analysed


224487
Flank Wall (TBM pit) - 2.2m Spacing Lower
Factor
1 L1 1.000

1 0.0 680.0 0.0 680.0 0.0


(y) (z) Angle Depth
1 70.50E-9 -141.0E-9 0.0 680.0 1245. 0.5463 B: Node 1 0.0 232.0

Angle
[°] [kN] [kNm]

Bending strength at N=0 0.0 1245.


[-] [/m] [/m]
1 Reinforcement -0.004064 0.01509 0.0
Total (Concrete) -0.004064 0.01509 0.0

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 0.0 501.3 0.003500 21330.
1 2 87.04 493.7 0.003385 21330.
1 3 171.4 471.0 0.003044 21330.
1 4 250.6 434.1 0.002487 21330.
1 5 322.2 384.0 0.001730 20950.
1 6 384.0 322.2 798.2E-6 13630.
1 7 434.1 250.6 -281.7E-6 0.0
1 8 471.0 171.4 -0.001477 0.0
1 9 493.7 87.04 -0.002750 0.0
1 10 501.3 -21.91E-6 -0.004064 0.0
1 11 493.7 -87.05 -0.005377 0.0
1 12 471.0 -171.4 -0.006650 0.0
1 13 434.1 -250.6 -0.007845 0.0
1 14 384.0 -322.2 -0.008925 0.0
1 15 322.2 -384.0 -0.009857 0.0
1 16 250.6 -434.1 -0.01061 0.0
1 17 171.4 -471.0 -0.01117 0.0
1 18 87.04 -493.7 -0.01151 0.0
1 19 -43.82E-6 -501.3 -0.01163 0.0
1 20 -87.05 -493.7 -0.01151 0.0
1 21 -171.4 -471.0 -0.01117 0.0
1 22 -250.6 -434.1 -0.01061 0.0
1 23 -322.2 -384.0 -0.009857 0.0
1 24 -384.0 -322.2 -0.008925 0.0
1 25 -434.1 -250.6 -0.007845 0.0
1 26 -471.0 -171.4 -0.006650 0.0
1 27 -493.7 -87.04 -0.005377 0.0
1 28 -501.3 245.0E-6 -0.004063 0.0
1 29 -493.7 87.05 -0.002750 0.0
1 30 -471.0 171.4 -0.001477 0.0
1 31 -434.1 250.6 -281.7E-6 0.0
1 32 -384.0 322.2 798.2E-6 13630.
1 33 -322.2 384.0 0.001730 20950.
1 34 -250.6 434.1 0.002487 21330.
1 35 -171.4 471.0 0.003044 21330.
1 36 -87.04 493.7 0.003385 21330.

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 -194.5 336.9 0.001020 204000. 500B
1 2 -336.9 194.5 -0.001129 -225800. 500B
1 3 -389.0 0.0 -0.004064 -436200. 500B
1 4 -336.9 -194.5 -0.006998 -438300. 500B
1 5 -194.5 -336.9 -0.009147 -439900. 500B
1 6 194.5 -336.9 -0.009147 -439900. 500B
1 7 336.9 -194.5 -0.006998 -438300. 500B
1 8 389.0 0.0 -0.004064 -436200. 500B
1 9 336.9 194.5 -0.001129 -225800. 500B
1 10 194.5 336.9 0.001020 204000. 500B

Calculation Sheet
Station: Al Sadd 01
Location: Flank Wall(Typ) Lower Author CM
Calculation: Shear Check Made by MW Date 2/12/2015 Chd. AK
As 8042.477193
Mrd 1245 Step (1)
Ved 1235 kN Asw 201.0619298
Spacing 150
cMs,circ 1
cMs,spir 1
fck 32 Step (3)

fcd 21.3 N/mm^2
Dl 786.0 mm
circZ 542.1
bwz 510508.8 mm
fyk 500 Step (4)

fywd 434.8 N/mm^2
Cot 2.4
circ 0.72
C 75 mm
Dw 834 mm
p 300 mm
VRd,s 1516462 N
cw 1 Step (5)
10.20 deg
v 0.52
v1 0.71
tan 0.4166667

Flank Wall - Pile - Shear in Circular Piles.xlsx : Case 2 (2) Printed 2/12/2015 Time 3:00 PM
ARUP
M006 Doha Metro
Al Sadd
Flank Wall (Anchor Failure)
Calculation Sheet

Station: Al Sadd 01
Location: Flank Wall Author CM
Calculation: Accidental Case Made by KMM Date 11/25/2014 Chd. AK
Additional bending moment and shear force in piles

neighbouring a failed anchor in row 1
Loading
Anchor (kN) 330
Dimensions
GL (m) 8.7
Row 1 Level (m) 4
Pile Span (m) 4.7
Load Share
Capping Beam 0.67
Pile 0.33
Loading in Pile at GL
Single Pile (kN) 110
Additional Forces at Anchor Row 1

VEd (kN) 110
MEd (kNm) 517
Partial Factors
γA 1.05
Additional Forces at Anchor Row 1 (Factored)

VEd (kN) 116
MEd (kNm) 543
Existing Forces at Anchor Row 1 (Factored)

VEd (kN) 275 An3 Stage18
MEd (kNm) 195 An1 Stage18
TOTAL Factored Forces at Anchor Row 1

VEd (kN) 391
MEd (kNm) 738
\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\238462-00\4 Internal Project Data\4-04 Calculations\4-04-08 Struct\Flank Wall - Anchor Failure\

Al Sadd - Flank Wall - Pile - Accidental Case - Loading.xlsx : Loading Page 1 of 1
224487
Flank Wall (TYP) - 2.2m Spacing Upper
Key
0.63% reinforcement
Reference Point
1(25) 10(25)
2(25) 9(25)
3(25) y 8(25)
C32/40
4(25) 7(25)
5(25) 6(25)
1000mm
Section 1 - Section 1
No Results
Program AdSec Version 8.3.0.6 Copyright ⓒ Oasys 2001-2014 Page 1

\\global.arup.com...\Al Sadd - Flank Wall Pile - Accidental Case - Upper_Bending.ads Printed 25-Nov-2014 Time 15:30
224487
Flank Wall 2.2m Spacing Upper
Bending Check - Accidental Case CM 25-Nov-2014 AK

Flank Wall 2.2m Spacing UpperBending Check - Accidental Case
History
Date Time Name Note
Specification
Eurocode 2
Country <undefined>
Section 1 Details
Definition
Name Section 1
Type Concrete
Material C32/40
Origin Centre
Dimensions
Diameter 1000.mm
Section Nodes
Node Y Z
[mm] [mm]
1 0.0 501.3
2 87.04 493.7
3 171.4 471.0
4 250.6 434.1
5 322.2 384.0
6 384.0 322.2
7 434.1 250.6
8 471.0 171.4
9 493.7 87.04
10 501.3 -21.91E-6
11 493.7 -87.05
12 471.0 -171.4
13 434.1 -250.6
14 384.0 -322.2
15 322.2 -384.0
16 250.6 -434.1
17 171.4 -471.0
18 87.04 -493.7
19 -43.82E-6 -501.3
20 -87.05 -493.7
21 -171.4 -471.0
22 -250.6 -434.1
23 -322.2 -384.0
24 -384.0 -322.2
25 -434.1 -250.6
26 -471.0 -171.4
27 -493.7 -87.04
28 -501.3 245.0E-6
29 -493.7 87.05
30 -471.0 171.4
31 -434.1 250.6
32 -384.0 322.2
33 -322.2 384.0
34 -250.6 434.1
35 -171.4 471.0
36 -87.04 493.7
Bars
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
1 -194.5 336.9 25.00 500B Steel
2 -336.9 194.5 25.00 500B Steel
3 -389.0 0.0 25.00 500B Steel
4 -336.9 -194.5 25.00 500B Steel
5 -194.5 -336.9 25.00 500B Steel
6 194.5 -336.9 25.00 500B Steel
7 336.9 -194.5 25.00 500B Steel
8 389.0 0.0 25.00 500B Steel
9 336.9 194.5 25.00 500B Steel
10 194.5 336.9 25.00 500B Steel
Elastic Properties

224487
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]

z 0.0mm
Area 785400.mm2
Izz 49.09E+9mm4
Iyz 0.0mm4
Izz 49.09E+9mm4
Angle 0.0°
kz 0.8571
Zz 98.17E+6mm3
Zpz 166.7E+6mm3
Rz 250.0mm

z 0.0mm
EA 27.01E+6kN
EIzz 1.711E+6kNm2
EIyz -485.2E-6kNm2
EIzz 1.686E+6kNm2
Angle -90.00°

Type Concrete
Name C32/40
term)
mc,SLS 1.000
Name 500B
fy 500000.kPa
Modulus 200.0E+6kPa
ms,SLS 1.000
Loading
Reference Point
Centroid
z 0.0mm
Applied loads
Load N Myy Mzz
Case
[kN] [kNm] [kNm]
1 0.0 740.0 0.0
Section 1 Details
ULS Cases Analysed

Factor
1 L1 1.000

224487
Factor

1 0.0 740.0 0.0 740.0 0.0


(y) (z) Angle Depth
1 - - 0.0 740.0 838.7 0.8823 B: Node 1 0.0 190.2

Angle
[°] [kN] [kNm]



[-] [/m] [/m]
1 Reinforcement -0.005723 0.01840 0.0
Total (Concrete) -0.005723 0.01840 0.0

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 0.0 501.3 0.003500 21330.
1 2 87.04 493.7 0.003360 21330.
1 3 171.4 471.0 0.002944 21330.
1 4 250.6 434.1 0.002264 21330.
1 5 322.2 384.0 0.001342 19030.
1 6 384.0 322.2 205.4E-6 4156.
1 7 434.1 250.6 -0.001112 0.0
1 8 471.0 171.4 -0.002569 0.0
1 9 493.7 87.04 -0.004122 0.0
1 10 501.3 -21.91E-6 -0.005723 0.0
1 11 493.7 -87.05 -0.007325 0.0
1 12 471.0 -171.4 -0.008878 0.0
1 13 434.1 -250.6 -0.01033 0.0
1 14 384.0 -322.2 -0.01165 0.0
1 15 322.2 -384.0 -0.01279 0.0
1 16 250.6 -434.1 -0.01371 0.0
1 17 171.4 -471.0 -0.01439 0.0
1 18 87.04 -493.7 -0.01481 0.0
1 19 -43.82E-6 -501.3 -0.01495 0.0
1 20 -87.05 -493.7 -0.01481 0.0
1 21 -171.4 -471.0 -0.01439 0.0
1 22 -250.6 -434.1 -0.01371 0.0
1 23 -322.2 -384.0 -0.01279 0.0
1 24 -384.0 -322.2 -0.01165 0.0
1 25 -434.1 -250.6 -0.01033 0.0
1 26 -471.0 -171.4 -0.008878 0.0
1 27 -493.7 -87.04 -0.007325 0.0
1 28 -501.3 245.0E-6 -0.005723 0.0
1 29 -493.7 87.05 -0.004122 0.0
1 30 -471.0 171.4 -0.002569 0.0
1 31 -434.1 250.6 -0.001112 0.0
1 32 -384.0 322.2 205.4E-6 4156.
1 33 -322.2 384.0 0.001342 19030.
1 34 -250.6 434.1 0.002264 21330.
1 35 -171.4 471.0 0.002944 21330.
1 36 -87.04 493.7 0.003360 21330.

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 -194.5 336.9 475.6E-6 95130. 500B
1 2 -336.9 194.5 -0.002144 -428900. 500B
1 3 -389.0 0.0 -0.005723 -437400. 500B
1 4 -336.9 -194.5 -0.009302 -440000. 500B
1 5 -194.5 -336.9 -0.01192 -441900. 500B
1 6 194.5 -336.9 -0.01192 -441900. 500B
1 7 336.9 -194.5 -0.009302 -440000. 500B
1 8 389.0 0.0 -0.005723 -437400. 500B
1 9 336.9 194.5 -0.002144 -428900. 500B
1 10 194.5 336.9 475.6E-6 95130. 500B

Calculation Sheet
Station: Al Sadd 01
Location: Flank Wall Accidental CaseAuthor CM
Calculation: Shear Check - Upper Made by KMM Date 2/12/2015 Chd. AK
As 4908.738521
Mrd 839 Step (1)
Ved 391 kN Asw 201.0619298
Spacing 150
cMc 0.3324106 Step (2) Shape Circular
cMs,circ 0.785917
cMs,spir 0.5788245
fck 32 Step (3)

fcd 21.3 N/mm^2
Dl 793.0 mm
circZ 542.1
bwz 510508.8 mm
fyk 500 Step (4)

fywd 434.8 N/mm^2
Cot 2.4
circ 0.72
C 75 mm
Dw 834 mm
p 300 mm
VRd,s 1191813 N
cw 1 Step (5)
10.20 deg
v 0.52
v1 0.71
tan 0.4166667

Flank Wall Pile - Upper - Accidental Case _Shear in Circular Piles.xlsx : Case 2 Printed 2/12/2015 Time 3:04 PM
ARUP
M006 Doha Metro
Al Sadd
Flank Wall Capping Beam
Calculation Sheet

Station: Al Sadd 01
Element: Capping Beam Drg. Ref.
Calculation: Loading Made by CM Date 2/9/2015 Chd. AK
Calculate BM and SF due to Anchor Failure

Span (m) 4.4
Anchor Force
P (kN) 220
Partial Factor
G 1.05
Design Loading (assuming simply supported span)

VEd (kN) 116
MEd (kNm) 254
\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\238462-00\4 Internal Project Data\4-04 Calculations\4-04-08 Struct\2015-02-11 (Rev 0.4)\Flank wall - Capping beam\
Al Sadd - Flank Wall Capping Beam - Loading and Shear.xlsx : Loading
© Arup | F0.13 | 14 February
224487
M006 Doha Metro Drg. Ref.
Al Sadd
Flank Wall - Capping Beam CM 25-Nov-2014 AK
Key
0.76% reinforcement
Reference Point
Neutral Axis
C Compression Side
1(25) 2(25) 3(25)

C
7(20) 11(20)
8(20) z 12(20)
1200mm
y
C32/40
9(20) 13(20)
10(20) 14(20)
4(25) 5(25) 6(25)
600mm

Analysis Case 1
Program AdSec Version 8.3.0.6 Copyright Oasys 2001-2014 Page 1

\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N...\Al Sadd - Flank Wall Capping Beam - Bending.ads Printed 09-Feb-2015 Time 17:54
224487
Al Sadd
M006 Doha Metro

Al SaddFlank Wall - Capping Beam
History
Date Time Name Note
Calcs\Al Adhawaa\Capping Beam\AA-HWW-CB.ads
09-Feb-2015 5:51: Yong-wook.jo
Specification
Code of Practice BS EN 1992-1-1:2004
Eurocode 2 / PD6687:2006
Country United Kingdom
Bending Axes Biaxial
Section 1 Details
Definition
Name Section 1
Type Concrete
Material C32/40
Origin Centre
Dimensions
Depth 1200.mm
Width 600.0mm
Section Nodes
Node Y Z
[mm] [mm]
1 300.0 600.0
2 300.0 -600.0
3 -300.0 -600.0
4 -300.0 600.0
Cover and Links

Cover: top 75.00mm
Cover: bottom 75.00mm
Cover: left 75.00mm
Cover: right 75.00mm
Link Size 12.00mm
Link Material 500B
Bars
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
1 -189.0 500.5 25.00 500B Steel
2 0.0 500.5 25.00 500B Steel
3 189.0 500.5 25.00 500B Steel
4 -189.0 -500.5 25.00 500B Steel
5 0.0 -500.5 25.00 500B Steel
6 189.0 -500.5 25.00 500B Steel
7 -203.0 300.3 20.00 500B Steel
8 -203.0 100.1 20.00 500B Steel
9 -203.0 -100.1 20.00 500B Steel
10 -203.0 -300.3 20.00 500B Steel
11 203.0 300.3 20.00 500B Steel
12 203.0 100.1 20.00 500B Steel
13 203.0 -100.1 20.00 500B Steel
14 203.0 -300.3 20.00 500B Steel
Elastic Properties

z 0.0mm
Area 720000.mm2
Izz 21.60E+9mm4
Iyz 0.0mm4
Izz 21.60E+9mm4
Angle 0.0°

224487
Al Sadd
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
kz 0.8333

Zz 72.00E+6mm3
Zpz 108.0E+6mm3
Rz 173.2mm

z -38.95E-9mm
EA 24.92E+6kN
EIzz 749200.kNm2
EIyz -242.6E-6kNm2
EIzz 749200.kNm2
Angle -6.108E-9°

Type Concrete
Name C32/40
Density 2.400t/m3
term)
Poisson's Ratio 0.2000
Coeff. Thermal Expansion 10.00E-6/°C
Partial Safety Factor mc,ULS 1.500
mc,SLS 1.000
SLS Tension Curve Interpolated/PD6687
Name 500B
fy 500000.kPa
Modulus 200.0E+6kPa
Partial Safety Factor ms,ULS 1.150
ms,SLS 1.000
Stress/Strain Curve Elastic-plastic
Loading
Reference Point
Centroid
z 0.0mm
Applied loads
Load N Myy Mzz
Case
[kN] [kNm] [kNm]
1 0.0 440.0 0.0
Section 1 Details
ULS Cases Analysed

Factor
ULS Case 1 L1 1.000

Case N Myy Mzz M
1 0.0 440.0 0.0 440.0 0.0

224487
Al Sadd
Case N Myy Mzz M


(y) (z) Angle Depth
1 0.0 -38.95E-9 0.0 440.0 1235. 0.3562 B: Node 1 0.0 156.7

Angle
[°] [kN] [kNm]
-102.4E-9 Max. tensile strain -2373. 4.071E-6


Case Strain Plane ax yy zz

[-] [/m] [/m]
1 Reinforcement -0.009904 0.02234 0.0
Total (Concrete) -0.009904 0.02234 0.0

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 300.0 600.0 0.003500 18130.
1 2 300.0 -600.0 -0.02331 0.0
1 3 -300.0 -600.0 -0.02331 0.0
1 4 -300.0 600.0 0.003500 18130.

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 -189.0 500.5 0.001277 255400. 500B
1 2 0.0 500.5 0.001277 255400. 500B
1 3 189.0 500.5 0.001277 255400. 500B
1 4 -189.0 -500.5 -0.02108 -434800. 500B
1 5 0.0 -500.5 -0.02108 -434800. 500B
1 6 189.0 -500.5 -0.02108 -434800. 500B
1 7 -203.0 300.3 -0.003195 -434800. 500B
1 8 -203.0 100.1 -0.007668 -434800. 500B
1 9 -203.0 -100.1 -0.01214 -434800. 500B
1 10 -203.0 -300.3 -0.01661 -434800. 500B
1 11 203.0 300.3 -0.003195 -434800. 500B
1 12 203.0 100.1 -0.007668 -434800. 500B
1 13 203.0 -100.1 -0.01214 -434800. 500B
1 14 203.0 -300.3 -0.01661 -434800. 500B

Calculation Sheet

Station: Al Sadd 01
Calculation: Shear Check Made by CM Date 2/9/2015 Chd. AK
Verification of Shear to EN1992-1-1 6.2.3
Loading
VEd (kN) 116
Dimensions
bw (mm) 600
D (mm) 1200
Cover (mm) 75
Materials
fyk 500
s 1.15 Table 2.1N
fywd 435
fck 32
c 1.5
fcd 21.3
Reinforcement
Longitudinal Dia. 25
No. Rows 1 (in tension side only)
Bars/ Row 3
Link Dia. 12
Legs 2
Spacing, s 250
cot 2.5 1.75<cot <2.5
Shear Resistance (yielding of the shear reinforcement)

d 1100.5
z 990
Asw / s 0.9
VRd,s (kN) 974
Shear Resistance (crushing of the compression struts)

sw 1 Non- NA value
1 0.6 Non- NA value
VRd,max (kN) 2623
VRd (kN) 974

Shear Utilisation 0.12
\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\238462-00\4 Internal Project Data\4-04 Calculations\4-04-08 Struct\2015-02-11 (Rev 0.4)\Flank wall - Capping beam\
Al Sadd - Flank Wall Capping Beam - Loading and Shear.xlsx : Shear
© Arup | F0.13 | 14 February 2
ARUP
M006 Doha Metro
Al Sadd
Head Wall (East & West)
Calculation Sheet

Station: Al Sadd 01
Location: Flank wall & Head wall Author CM
Calculation: Loading & Reinf. Summary Made by MW Date 2/12/2015 Chd. AK
Corres-
Max Ved ponding Longi-
Wall Position Med Analysis Max Med Analysis tudinal Shear
(kN) (kNm) case (kNm) case Bars Links
Flank (Typical) Upper 685 195 An1 S5 350 An3 S7 12-B25 B16@150
Lower 1235 410 An4 S11 680 An1 S20 12-B32 B16@150
HW (E) Upper 830 290 An1 S5 560 An3 S7 14-B25 B16@150
Lower 1362* 660 An1 S10 1040 An1 S19 14-B40 B16@150
HW (W) Upper 830 290 An1 S5 560 An3 S7 14-B25 B16@150
Lower 1362* 660 An1 S10 1040 An1 S19 14-B40 B16@150
* Shear value at -20.0mEL, which is within the effective depth from the location where the maximum shear force of
1705kN occurs. BS EN 1992, 6.2.1 (8) : For members subject to predominantly uniformly distributed loading the
design shear force need not to be checked at a distance less than d (effecitve depth) from the face of the support.
\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\238462-00\4 Internal Project Data\4-04 Calculations\4-04-08 Struct\2015-02-12 (Rev to Rev 0.4)\

2015-02-12 Appdendix E loading and reinf summary.xlsx : Loading Page 1 of 1
224487
Headwall - 2.2m Spacing
Bending Check - Upper CM 26-Nov-2014 AK
Key
0.63% reinforcement
Reference Point
Neutral Axis
C Compression Side
C
6(25) 5(25)
7(25) 4(25)
8(25) y 3(25)
9(25) 2(25)
10(25) 1(25)
1000mm

Analysis Case 1

\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\238462-00\4 Interna...\AA-HW-BPW-High.ads Printed 26-Nov-2014 Time 09:49
224487

Headwall - 2.2m SpacingBending Check - Upper
History
Date Time Name Note
04-Nov-2014 16:40 christopher.marton Save as \\global\europe\newcastle\Jobs\220000\224487\2014 ELS VE\Docs\40-
Calcs\Al Adhawaa\Headwall West\Piles\AA-HWW-BPW-LOW.ads
Specification
Eurocode 2
Country <undefined>
Section 1 Details
Definition
Name Section 1
Type Concrete
Material C32/40
Origin Centre
Dimensions
Diameter 1000.mm
Section Nodes
Node Y Z
[mm] [mm]
1 0.0 501.3
2 87.04 493.7
3 171.4 471.0
4 250.6 434.1
5 322.2 384.0
6 384.0 322.2
7 434.1 250.6
8 471.0 171.4
9 493.7 87.04
10 501.3 -21.91E-6
11 493.7 -87.05
12 471.0 -171.4
13 434.1 -250.6
14 384.0 -322.2
15 322.2 -384.0
16 250.6 -434.1
17 171.4 -471.0
18 87.04 -493.7
19 -43.82E-6 -501.3
20 -87.05 -493.7
21 -171.4 -471.0
22 -250.6 -434.1
23 -322.2 -384.0
24 -384.0 -322.2
25 -434.1 -250.6
26 -471.0 -171.4
27 -493.7 -87.04
28 -501.3 245.0E-6
29 -493.7 87.05
30 -471.0 171.4
31 -434.1 250.6
32 -384.0 322.2
33 -322.2 384.0
34 -250.6 434.1
35 -171.4 471.0
36 -87.04 493.7
Bars
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
1 240.1 -301.0 25.00 500A Steel
2 346.9 -167.0 25.00 500A Steel
3 385.0 0.01192 25.00 500A Steel
4 346.9 167.1 25.00 500A Steel
5 240.0 301.0 25.00 500A Steel
6 -240.1 301.0 25.00 500A Steel
7 -346.9 167.0 25.00 500A Steel
8 -385.0 -0.01192 25.00 500A Steel
9 -346.9 -167.1 25.00 500A Steel
10 -240.0 -301.0 25.00 500A Steel

224487
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
Elastic Properties

z 0.0mm
Area 785400.mm2
Izz 49.09E+9mm4
Iyz 0.0mm4
Izz 49.09E+9mm4
Angle 0.0°
kz 0.8571
Zz 98.17E+6mm3
Zpz 166.7E+6mm3
Rz 250.0mm

z 71.87E-9mm
EA 27.01E+6kN
EIzz 1.719E+6kNm2
EIyz 1.352kNm2
EIzz 1.676E+6kNm2
Angle 90.00°

Type Concrete
Name C32/40
term)
mc,SLS 1.000
Name 500A
fy 500000.kPa
Modulus 200.0E+6kPa
ms,SLS 1.000
Loading
Reference Point
Centroid
z 0.0mm
Applied loads
Load N Myy Mzz
Case
[kN] [kNm] [kNm]
1 0.0 560.0 0.0
Section 1 Details
ULS Cases Analysed


224487
Factor
1 L1 1.000

1 0.0 560.0 0.0 560.0 0.0


(y) (z) Angle Depth
1 - - 0.0 560.0 825.4 0.6784 B: Node 1 0.0 198.2

Angle
[°] [kN] [kNm]



[-] [/m] [/m]
1 Reinforcement -0.005354 0.01766 0.0
Total (Concrete) -0.005354 0.01766 0.0

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 0.0 501.3 0.003500 21330.
1 2 87.04 493.7 0.003366 21330.
1 3 171.4 471.0 0.002966 21330.
1 4 250.6 434.1 0.002314 21330.
1 5 322.2 384.0 0.001429 19590.
1 6 384.0 322.2 337.4E-6 6591.
1 7 434.1 250.6 -926.8E-6 0.0
1 8 471.0 171.4 -0.002325 0.0
1 9 493.7 87.04 -0.003816 0.0
1 10 501.3 -21.91E-6 -0.005354 0.0
1 11 493.7 -87.05 -0.006891 0.0
1 12 471.0 -171.4 -0.008382 0.0
1 13 434.1 -250.6 -0.009780 0.0
1 14 384.0 -322.2 -0.01104 0.0
1 15 322.2 -384.0 -0.01214 0.0
1 16 250.6 -434.1 -0.01302 0.0
1 17 171.4 -471.0 -0.01367 0.0
1 18 87.04 -493.7 -0.01407 0.0
1 19 -43.82E-6 -501.3 -0.01421 0.0
1 20 -87.05 -493.7 -0.01407 0.0
1 21 -171.4 -471.0 -0.01367 0.0
1 22 -250.6 -434.1 -0.01302 0.0
1 23 -322.2 -384.0 -0.01214 0.0
1 24 -384.0 -322.2 -0.01104 0.0
1 25 -434.1 -250.6 -0.009780 0.0
1 26 -471.0 -171.4 -0.008382 0.0
1 27 -493.7 -87.04 -0.006891 0.0
1 28 -501.3 245.0E-6 -0.005354 0.0
1 29 -493.7 87.05 -0.003816 0.0
1 30 -471.0 171.4 -0.002325 0.0
1 31 -434.1 250.6 -926.8E-6 0.0
1 32 -384.0 322.2 337.4E-6 6591.
1 33 -322.2 384.0 0.001429 19590.
1 34 -250.6 434.1 0.002314 21330.
1 35 -171.4 471.0 0.002966 21330.
1 36 -87.04 493.7 0.003366 21330.

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 240.1 -301.0 -0.01067 -442900. 500A
1 2 346.9 -167.0 -0.008304 -440600. 500A
1 3 385.0 0.01192 -0.005353 -437800. 500A
1 4 346.9 167.1 -0.002403 -435000. 500A
1 5 240.0 301.0 -37.00E-6 -7399. 500A
1 6 -240.1 301.0 -37.26E-6 -7452. 500A
1 7 -346.9 167.0 -0.002403 -435000. 500A
1 8 -385.0 -0.01192 -0.005354 -437800. 500A
1 9 -346.9 -167.1 -0.008304 -440600. 500A
1 10 -240.0 -301.0 -0.01067 -442900. 500A

Calculation Sheet
Station: Al Sadd 01
Location: Head Wall (E & W) Author CM
Calculation: Shear Check - Upper Made by KMM Date 2/12/2015 Chd. AK
As 4908.738521
Mrd 825 Step (1)
Ved 830 kN Asw 201.0619298
Spacing 150
cMs,circ 1
cMs,spir 1
fck 32 Step (3)

fcd 21.3 N/mm^2
Dl 793.0 mm
circZ 542.1
bwz 510508.8 mm
fyk 500 Step (4)

fywd 434.8 N/mm^2
Cot 2.4
circ 0.72
C 75 mm
Dw 834 mm
p 300 mm
VRd,s 1516462 N
cw 1 Step (5)
10.20 deg
v 0.52
v1 0.71
tan 0.4166667

Head Wall - Pile - Upper_Shear in Circular Piles.xlsx : Case 2 Printed 2/12/2015 Time 3:24 PM
224487
Bending Check - Lower CM 26-Nov-2014 AK
Key
1.60% reinforcement
Reference Point
Neutral Axis
C Compression Side
6(40) 5(40)
C
7(40) 4(40)
8(40) y 3(40)
9(40) 2(40)
10(40) 1(40)
1000mm

Analysis Case 1

\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\238462-00\4 Internal...\AA-HW-BPW-LOW.ads Printed 26-Nov-2014 Time 09:35
224487

Headwall - 2.2m SpacingBending Check - Lower
History
Date Time Name Note
Specification
Eurocode 2
Country <undefined>
Section 1 Details
Definition
Name Section 1
Type Concrete
Material C32/40
Origin Centre
Dimensions
Diameter 1000.mm
Section Nodes
Node Y Z
[mm] [mm]
1 0.0 501.3
2 87.04 493.7
3 171.4 471.0
4 250.6 434.1
5 322.2 384.0
6 384.0 322.2
7 434.1 250.6
8 471.0 171.4
9 493.7 87.04
10 501.3 -21.91E-6
11 493.7 -87.05
12 471.0 -171.4
13 434.1 -250.6
14 384.0 -322.2
15 322.2 -384.0
16 250.6 -434.1
17 171.4 -471.0
18 87.04 -493.7
19 -43.82E-6 -501.3
20 -87.05 -493.7
21 -171.4 -471.0
22 -250.6 -434.1
23 -322.2 -384.0
24 -384.0 -322.2
25 -434.1 -250.6
26 -471.0 -171.4
27 -493.7 -87.04
28 -501.3 245.0E-6
29 -493.7 87.05
30 -471.0 171.4
31 -434.1 250.6
32 -384.0 322.2
33 -322.2 384.0
34 -250.6 434.1
35 -171.4 471.0
36 -87.04 493.7
Bars
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
1 240.1 -301.0 40.00 500A Steel
2 346.9 -167.0 40.00 500A Steel
3 385.0 0.01192 40.00 500A Steel
4 346.9 167.1 40.00 500A Steel
5 240.0 301.0 40.00 500A Steel
6 -240.1 301.0 40.00 500A Steel
7 -346.9 167.0 40.00 500A Steel
8 -385.0 -0.01192 40.00 500A Steel
9 -346.9 -167.1 40.00 500A Steel
10 -240.0 -301.0 40.00 500A Steel

224487
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
Elastic Properties

z 0.0mm
Area 785400.mm2
Izz 49.09E+9mm4
Iyz 0.0mm4
Izz 49.09E+9mm4
Angle 0.0°
kz 0.8571
Zz 98.17E+6mm3
Zpz 166.7E+6mm3
Rz 250.0mm

z 274.5E-9mm
EA 28.28E+6kN
EIzz 1.848E+6kNm2
EIyz 3.462kNm2
EIzz 1.736E+6kNm2
Angle 90.00°

Type Concrete
Name C32/40
term)
mc,SLS 1.000
Name 500A
fy 500000.kPa
Modulus 200.0E+6kPa
ms,SLS 1.000
Loading
Reference Point
Centroid
z 0.0mm
Applied loads
Load N Myy Mzz
Case
[kN] [kNm] [kNm]
1 0.0 1020. 0.0
Section 1 Details
ULS Cases Analysed


224487
Factor
1 L1 1.000

1 0.0 1020. 0.0 1020. 0.0


(y) (z) Angle Depth
1 -549.0E-9 274.5E-9 0.0 1020. 1706. 0.5978 B: Node 1 0.0 292.5

Angle
[°] [kN] [kNm]
90.00 Max. tensile strain -5707. 0.0
1 0.0 Axial strength at M 18310. 1020.



[-] [/m] [/m]
1 Reinforcement -0.002498 0.01196 0.0
Total (Concrete) -0.002498 0.01196 0.0

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 0.0 501.3 0.003500 21330.
1 2 87.04 493.7 0.003409 21330.
1 3 171.4 471.0 0.003138 21330.
1 4 250.6 434.1 0.002696 21330.
1 5 322.2 384.0 0.002097 21330.
1 6 384.0 322.2 0.001358 19130.
1 7 434.1 250.6 501.2E-6 9352.
1 8 471.0 171.4 -446.3E-6 0.0
1 9 493.7 87.04 -0.001456 0.0
1 10 501.3 -21.91E-6 -0.002498 0.0
1 11 493.7 -87.05 -0.003539 0.0
1 12 471.0 -171.4 -0.004549 0.0
1 13 434.1 -250.6 -0.005496 0.0
1 14 384.0 -322.2 -0.006353 0.0
1 15 322.2 -384.0 -0.007092 0.0
1 16 250.6 -434.1 -0.007692 0.0
1 17 171.4 -471.0 -0.008134 0.0
1 18 87.04 -493.7 -0.008404 0.0
1 19 -43.82E-6 -501.3 -0.008495 0.0
1 20 -87.05 -493.7 -0.008404 0.0
1 21 -171.4 -471.0 -0.008134 0.0
1 22 -250.6 -434.1 -0.007692 0.0
1 23 -322.2 -384.0 -0.007092 0.0
1 24 -384.0 -322.2 -0.006353 0.0
1 25 -434.1 -250.6 -0.005496 0.0
1 26 -471.0 -171.4 -0.004549 0.0
1 27 -493.7 -87.04 -0.003539 0.0
1 28 -501.3 245.0E-6 -0.002498 0.0
1 29 -493.7 87.05 -0.001456 0.0
1 30 -471.0 171.4 -446.3E-6 0.0
1 31 -434.1 250.6 501.2E-6 9352.
1 32 -384.0 322.2 0.001358 19130.
1 33 -322.2 384.0 0.002097 21330.
1 34 -250.6 434.1 0.002696 21330.
1 35 -171.4 471.0 0.003138 21330.
1 36 -87.04 493.7 0.003409 21330.

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 240.1 -301.0 -0.006099 -438500. 500A
1 2 346.9 -167.0 -0.004496 -437000. 500A
1 3 385.0 0.01192 -0.002497 -435100. 500A
1 4 346.9 167.1 -498.8E-6 -99770. 500A
1 5 240.0 301.0 0.001104 220800. 500A
1 6 -240.1 301.0 0.001104 220800. 500A
1 7 -346.9 167.0 -499.1E-6 -99820. 500A
1 8 -385.0 -0.01192 -0.002498 -435100. 500A
1 9 -346.9 -167.1 -0.004496 -437000. 500A
1 10 -240.0 -301.0 -0.006099 -438500. 500A

Calculation Sheet
Station: Al Sadd 01
Location: Head Wall Author CM
Element: Pile - 2.2m spacing Drg. Ref.
Calculation: Shear check Made by MW Date 2/9/2015 Chd. AK
As 12566.37061
Mrd 1706 Step (1)
Ved 1362 kN Asw 201.0619298
Spacing 150
cMs,circ 1
cMs,spir 1
fck 32 Step (3)

fcd 21.3 N/mm^2
Dl 778.0 mm
circZ 542.1
bwz 510508.8 mm
fyk 500 Step (4)

fywd 434.8 N/mm^2
Cot 2.4
circ 0.72
C 75 mm
Dw 834 mm
p 300 mm
VRd,s 1516462 N
cw 1 Step (5)
10.20 deg
v 0.52
v1 0.71
tan 0.4166667

Head Wall - Pile - Shear in Circular Piles.xlsx : Case 2 Printed 2/9/2015 Time 5:41 PM
224487
Headwall
Bending Check - above the tunnel eye CM 16-Dec-2014 AK
Key
1.60% reinforcement
Reference Point
6(40) 5(40)
7(40) 4(40)
8(40) y 3(40)
C32/40
9(40) 2(40)
10(40) 1(40)
1000mm
No Results

\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\238462-...\AA-HW-BPW-Above Tunnel Eye.ads Printed 19-Dec-2014 Time 15:07
224487
Headwall

HeadwallBending Check - above the tunnel eye
History
Date Time Name Note
16-Dec-2014 5:19: ming-yuet.wong
19-Dec-2014 3:06: Yong-wook.jo
19-Dec-2014 3:25: Yong-wook.jo
Section 1 Details
Definition
Name Section 1
Type Concrete
Material C32/40
Origin Centre
Dimensions
Diameter 1000.mm
Section Nodes
Node Y Z
[mm] [mm]
1 0.0 501.3
2 87.04 493.7
3 171.4 471.0
4 250.6 434.1
5 322.2 384.0
6 384.0 322.2
7 434.1 250.6
8 471.0 171.4
9 493.7 87.04
10 501.3 -21.91E-6
11 493.7 -87.05
12 471.0 -171.4
13 434.1 -250.6
14 384.0 -322.2
15 322.2 -384.0
16 250.6 -434.1
17 171.4 -471.0
18 87.04 -493.7
19 -43.82E-6 -501.3
20 -87.05 -493.7
21 -171.4 -471.0
22 -250.6 -434.1
23 -322.2 -384.0
24 -384.0 -322.2
25 -434.1 -250.6
26 -471.0 -171.4
27 -493.7 -87.04
28 -501.3 245.0E-6
29 -493.7 87.05
30 -471.0 171.4
31 -434.1 250.6
32 -384.0 322.2
33 -322.2 384.0
34 -250.6 434.1
35 -171.4 471.0
36 -87.04 493.7
Bars
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
1 240.1 -301.0 40.00 500A Steel
2 346.9 -167.0 40.00 500A Steel
3 385.0 0.01192 40.00 500A Steel
4 346.9 167.1 40.00 500A Steel
5 240.0 301.0 40.00 500A Steel
6 -240.1 301.0 40.00 500A Steel
7 -346.9 167.0 40.00 500A Steel
8 -385.0 -0.01192 40.00 500A Steel
9 -346.9 -167.1 40.00 500A Steel
10 -240.0 -301.0 40.00 500A Steel
Elastic Properties

\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\238462-00\4 Internal Project Data\4-...\. Printed 19-Dec-2014 Time 15:26
224487
Headwall
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]

z 0.0mm
Area 785400.mm2
Izz 49.09E+9mm4
Iyz 0.0mm4
Izz 49.09E+9mm4
Angle 0.0°
kz 0.8571

Zz 98.17E+6mm3
Zpz 166.7E+6mm3
Rz 250.0mm

z 274.5E-9mm
EA 28.28E+6kN
EIzz 1.848E+6kNm2
EIyz 3.462kNm2
EIzz 1.736E+6kNm2
Angle 90.00°

Type Concrete
Name C32/40
Density 2.400t/m3
term)
mc,SLS 1.000
Name 500A
fy 500000.kPa
Modulus 200.0E+6kPa
ms,SLS 1.000
Loading
Reference Point
Centroid
z 0.0mm
Applied loads
Load N Myy Mzz
Case
[kN] [kNm] [kNm]
1 0.0 1600. 0.0
Section 1 Details

224487
Headwall
Load N Myy Mzz
Case
[kN] [kNm] [kNm]
ULS Cases Analysed

Factor
1 L1 1.000

Case N Myy Mzz M
1 0.0 1600. 0.0 1600. 0.0


(y) (z) Angle Depth
1 -549.0E-9 274.5E-9 0.0 1600. 1706. 0.9378 B: Node 1 0.0 292.5

Angle
[°] [kN] [kNm]
90.00 Max. tensile strain -5707. 0.0



[-] [/m] [/m]
1 Reinforcement -0.002498 0.01196 0.0
Total (Concrete) -0.002498 0.01196 0.0

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 0.0 501.3 0.003500 21330.
1 2 87.04 493.7 0.003409 21330.
1 3 171.4 471.0 0.003138 21330.
1 4 250.6 434.1 0.002696 21330.
1 5 322.2 384.0 0.002097 21330.
1 6 384.0 322.2 0.001358 19130.
1 7 434.1 250.6 501.2E-6 9352.
1 8 471.0 171.4 -446.3E-6 0.0
1 9 493.7 87.04 -0.001456 0.0
1 10 501.3 -21.91E-6 -0.002498 0.0
1 11 493.7 -87.05 -0.003539 0.0
1 12 471.0 -171.4 -0.004549 0.0
1 13 434.1 -250.6 -0.005496 0.0
1 14 384.0 -322.2 -0.006353 0.0
1 15 322.2 -384.0 -0.007092 0.0
1 16 250.6 -434.1 -0.007692 0.0
1 17 171.4 -471.0 -0.008134 0.0
1 18 87.04 -493.7 -0.008404 0.0
1 19 -43.82E-6 -501.3 -0.008495 0.0
1 20 -87.05 -493.7 -0.008404 0.0
1 21 -171.4 -471.0 -0.008134 0.0
1 22 -250.6 -434.1 -0.007692 0.0
1 23 -322.2 -384.0 -0.007092 0.0
1 24 -384.0 -322.2 -0.006353 0.0
1 25 -434.1 -250.6 -0.005496 0.0
1 26 -471.0 -171.4 -0.004549 0.0
1 27 -493.7 -87.04 -0.003539 0.0
1 28 -501.3 245.0E-6 -0.002498 0.0
1 29 -493.7 87.05 -0.001456 0.0
1 30 -471.0 171.4 -446.3E-6 0.0
1 31 -434.1 250.6 501.2E-6 9352.
1 32 -384.0 322.2 0.001358 19130.
1 33 -322.2 384.0 0.002097 21330.
1 34 -250.6 434.1 0.002696 21330.
1 35 -171.4 471.0 0.003138 21330.
1 36 -87.04 493.7 0.003409 21330.

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 240.1 -301.0 -0.006099 -438500. 500A
1 2 346.9 -167.0 -0.004496 -437000. 500A
1 3 385.0 0.01192 -0.002497 -435100. 500A
1 4 346.9 167.1 -498.8E-6 -99770. 500A
1 5 240.0 301.0 0.001104 220800. 500A
1 6 -240.1 301.0 0.001104 220800. 500A
1 7 -346.9 167.0 -499.1E-6 -99820. 500A

224487
Headwall
y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 8 -385.0 -0.01192 -0.002498 -435100. 500A

1 9 -346.9 -167.1 -0.004496 -437000. 500A
1 10 -240.0 -301.0 -0.006099 -438500. 500A

Calculation Sheet
Station: Al Sadd 01
Location: Head Wall Author CM
Calculation: Shear-Above tunnel eye Made by MW Date 2/9/2015 Chd. AK
As 12566.37061
Mrd 1706 Step (1)
Ved 610 kN Asw 201.0619298
Spacing 150
cMc 0.4471297 Step (2) Shape Circular
cMs,circ 0.9000234
cMs,spir 0.6210889
fck 32 Step (3)

fcd 21.3 N/mm^2
Dl 778.0 mm
circZ 542.1
bwz 510508.8 mm
fyk 500 Step (4)

fywd 434.8 N/mm^2
Cot 2.4
circ 0.72
C 75 mm
Dw 834 mm
p 300 mm
VRd,s 1364851 N
cw 1 Step (5)
10.20 deg
v 0.52
v1 0.71
tan 0.4166667
VRd,max 1228848 N CHECKS
Ved/Vrd 0.4964 PASS

Head Wall - Pile - Above Tunnel Eye_Shear in Circular Piles.xlsx : Case 2 Printed 2/9/2015 Time 5:49 PM
ARUP
M006 Doha Metro
Al Sadd
Head Wall (East & West) Capping Beam
Calculation Sheet

Station: Al Sadd 01
Location: Headwall Author CM
Calculation: Loading Made by KMM Date 2/9/2015 Chd. AK
Calculate Average Length of Piles Supported (after TBM)

Span (m) 10
Supported piles 9 <------------ Note - This calculation includes allowance
Pile Dia. (m) 1 for the rock between piles to be partially supported
GL (m) 8.7 by the capping beam
TBM CL (m) -13.375
Depth to CL (m) 22.075
TBM Dia. (m) 7.2
Avg. Length (m) 20.0
Material
Density (kN/m3) 25
UDL
Beam (kN/m) 36
Piles (kN/m) 354
Partial Factor
G 1.35 EN1990 Table A1.2(A)
Design Loading (assuming simply supported span)

VEd (kN) 2633
MEd (kNm) 6583
\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\238462-00\4 Internal Project Data\4-04 Calculations\4-04-08 Struct\2015-02-11 (Rev 0.4)\head wall - capping beam\
Al Sadd - Headwall - Capping Beam - Loading and Shear.xlsx : Loading
© Arup | F0.13 | 14 February
224487
Al Sadd
Headwall - Capping Beam CM 25-Nov-2014 AK
Key
2.36% reinforcement
Reference Point
1(32) 2(32) 3(32) 4(32) 5(32) 6(32) 7(32) 8(32) 9(32) 10(32)
11(32) 12(32) 13(32) 14(32) 15(32) 16(32) 17(32) 18(32) 19(32) 20(32)
41(20) 44(20)
z
1200mm
42(20) y 45(20)
C32/40
43(20) 46(20)
31(32) 32(32) 33(32) 34(32) 35(32) 36(32) 37(32) 38(32) 39(32) 40(32)
21(32) 22(32) 23(32) 24(32) 25(32) 26(32) 27(32) 28(32) 29(32) 30(32)
1200mm
No Results

\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\...\Al Sadd - Headwall - Capping beam.ads Printed 09-Feb-2015 Time 18:00
224487
Al Sadd
M006 Doha Metro

Al SaddHeadwall - Capping Beam
History
Date Time Name Note
09-Feb-2015 5:59: Yong-wook.jo
Specification
Code of Practice BS EN 1992-1-1:2004
Eurocode 2 / PD6687:2006
Country United Kingdom
Bending Axes Biaxial
Section 1 Details
Definition
Name Section 1
Type Concrete
Material C32/40
Origin Centre
Dimensions
Depth 1200.mm
Width 1200.mm
Section Area 1.440E+6mm2
Section Nodes
Node Y Z
[mm] [mm]
1 600.0 600.0
2 600.0 -600.0
3 -600.0 -600.0
4 -600.0 600.0
Cover and Links

Cover: top 75.00mm
Cover: bottom 75.00mm
Cover: left 75.00mm
Cover: right 75.00mm
Link Size 12.00mm
Link Material 500B
Bars
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
1 -489.0 497.0 32.00 500B Steel
2 -380.3 497.0 32.00 500B Steel
3 -271.7 497.0 32.00 500B Steel
4 -163.0 497.0 32.00 500B Steel
5 -54.33 497.0 32.00 500B Steel
6 54.33 497.0 32.00 500B Steel
7 163.0 497.0 32.00 500B Steel
8 271.7 497.0 32.00 500B Steel
9 380.3 497.0 32.00 500B Steel
10 489.0 497.0 32.00 500B Steel
11 -497.0 464.0 32.00 500B Steel
12 -380.3 464.0 32.00 500B Steel
13 -271.7 464.0 32.00 500B Steel
14 -163.0 464.0 32.00 500B Steel
15 -54.33 464.0 32.00 500B Steel
16 54.33 464.0 32.00 500B Steel
17 163.0 464.0 32.00 500B Steel
18 271.7 464.0 32.00 500B Steel
19 380.3 464.0 32.00 500B Steel
20 497.0 464.0 32.00 500B Steel
21 -489.0 -497.0 32.00 500B Steel
22 -380.3 -497.0 32.00 500B Steel
23 -271.7 -497.0 32.00 500B Steel
24 -163.0 -497.0 32.00 500B Steel
25 -54.33 -497.0 32.00 500B Steel
26 54.33 -497.0 32.00 500B Steel
27 163.0 -497.0 32.00 500B Steel
28 271.7 -497.0 32.00 500B Steel
29 380.3 -497.0 32.00 500B Steel
30 489.0 -497.0 32.00 500B Steel
31 -497.0 -464.0 32.00 500B Steel
32 -380.3 -464.0 32.00 500B Steel
33 -271.7 -464.0 32.00 500B Steel
34 -163.0 -464.0 32.00 500B Steel
35 -54.33 -464.0 32.00 500B Steel
36 54.33 -464.0 32.00 500B Steel
37 163.0 -464.0 32.00 500B Steel
38 271.7 -464.0 32.00 500B Steel
39 380.3 -464.0 32.00 500B Steel

224487
Al Sadd
pre-stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
40 497.0 -464.0 32.00 500B Steel
41 -503.0 232.0 20.00 500B Steel
42 -503.0 0.0 20.00 500B Steel
43 -503.0 -232.0 20.00 500B Steel
44 503.0 232.0 20.00 500B Steel
45 503.0 0.0 20.00 500B Steel
46 503.0 -232.0 20.00 500B Steel
Elastic Properties

z 0.0mm
Area 1.440E+6mm2
Izz 172.8E+9mm4
Iyz 0.0mm4
Izz 172.8E+9mm4
Angle 0.0°
kz 0.8333

Zz 288.0E+6mm3
Zpz 432.0E+6mm3
Rz 346.4mm

z 7.953E-6mm
EA 53.69E+6kN
EIzz 6.368E+6kNm2
EIyz 0.003882kNm2
EIzz 6.368E+6kNm2
Angle 345.1E-9°

Type Concrete
Name C32/40
Density 2.400t/m3
term)
mc,SLS 1.000
SLS Tension Curve Interpolated/PD6687
Name 500B
fy 500000.kPa
Modulus 200.0E+6kPa
ms,SLS 1.000
Stress/Strain Curve Elastic-plastic
Loading
Reference Point
Centroid
z 0.0mm
Applied loads

224487
Al Sadd
Load N Myy Mzz

Case
[kN] [kNm] [kNm]
1 0.0 6634. 0.0
Section 1 Details
ULS Cases Analysed

Factor
ULS Case 1 L1 1.000

Case N Myy Mzz M
1 0.0 6634. 0.0 6634. 0.0


(y) (z) Angle Depth
1 2.314E-6 7.953E-6 0.0 6634. 7257. 0.9141 B: Node 1 0.0 200.4

Angle
[°] [kN] [kNm]
90.00 Max. tensile strain -14810. 177.2E-6



[-] [/m] [/m]
1 Reinforcement -0.006981 0.01747 76.07E-12
Total (Concrete) -0.006981 0.01747 76.07E-12

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 600.0 600.0 0.003500 18130.
1 2 600.0 -600.0 -0.01746 0.0
1 3 -600.0 -600.0 -0.01746 0.0
1 4 -600.0 600.0 0.003500 18130.

y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 1 -489.0 497.0 0.001701 340200. 500B
1 2 -380.3 497.0 0.001701 340200. 500B
1 3 -271.7 497.0 0.001701 340200. 500B
1 4 -163.0 497.0 0.001701 340200. 500B
1 5 -54.33 497.0 0.001701 340200. 500B
1 6 54.33 497.0 0.001701 340200. 500B
1 7 163.0 497.0 0.001701 340200. 500B
1 8 271.7 497.0 0.001701 340200. 500B
1 9 380.3 497.0 0.001701 340200. 500B
1 10 489.0 497.0 0.001701 340200. 500B
1 11 -497.0 464.0 0.001124 224900. 500B
1 12 -380.3 464.0 0.001124 224900. 500B
1 13 -271.7 464.0 0.001124 224900. 500B
1 14 -163.0 464.0 0.001124 224900. 500B
1 15 -54.33 464.0 0.001124 224900. 500B
1 16 54.33 464.0 0.001124 224900. 500B
1 17 163.0 464.0 0.001124 224900. 500B
1 18 271.7 464.0 0.001124 224900. 500B
1 19 380.3 464.0 0.001124 224900. 500B
1 20 497.0 464.0 0.001124 224900. 500B
1 21 -489.0 -497.0 -0.01566 -434800. 500B
1 22 -380.3 -497.0 -0.01566 -434800. 500B
1 23 -271.7 -497.0 -0.01566 -434800. 500B
1 24 -163.0 -497.0 -0.01566 -434800. 500B
1 25 -54.33 -497.0 -0.01566 -434800. 500B
1 26 54.33 -497.0 -0.01566 -434800. 500B
1 27 163.0 -497.0 -0.01566 -434800. 500B
1 28 271.7 -497.0 -0.01566 -434800. 500B
1 29 380.3 -497.0 -0.01566 -434800. 500B

224487
Al Sadd
y z Strain Stress
[mm] [mm] [-] [kPa]
1 30 489.0 -497.0 -0.01566 -434800. 500B

1 31 -497.0 -464.0 -0.01509 -434800. 500B
1 32 -380.3 -464.0 -0.01509 -434800. 500B
1 33 -271.7 -464.0 -0.01509 -434800. 500B
1 34 -163.0 -464.0 -0.01509 -434800. 500B
1 35 -54.33 -464.0 -0.01509 -434800. 500B
1 36 54.33 -464.0 -0.01509 -434800. 500B
1 37 163.0 -464.0 -0.01509 -434800. 500B
1 38 271.7 -464.0 -0.01509 -434800. 500B
1 39 380.3 -464.0 -0.01509 -434800. 500B
1 40 497.0 -464.0 -0.01509 -434800. 500B
1 41 -503.0 232.0 -0.002928 -434800. 500B
1 42 -503.0 0.0 -0.006981 -434800. 500B
1 43 -503.0 -232.0 -0.01103 -434800. 500B
1 44 503.0 232.0 -0.002928 -434800. 500B
1 45 503.0 0.0 -0.006981 -434800. 500B
1 46 503.0 -232.0 -0.01103 -434800. 500B

Calculation Sheet

Station: Al Sadd 01
Location: Headwall Author CM
Calculation: Shear Check Made by KMM Date 2/9/2015 Chd. AK
Verification of Shear to EN1992-1-1 6.2.3
Loading
VEd (kN) 2633
Dimensions
bw (mm) 1200
D (mm) 1200
Cover (mm) 75
Materials
fyk 500
s 1.15 Table 2.1N
fywd 435
fck 32
c 1.5
fcd 21.3
Reinforcement
Longitudinal Dia. 32
No. Rows 2 (in tension side only)
Bars/ Row 10
Link Dia. 12
Legs 6
Spacing, s 250
cot 2.5 1.75<cot <2.5
Shear Resistance (yielding of the shear reinforcement)
d 1081
z 973
Asw / s 2.7
VRd,s (kN) 2870
Shear Resistance (crushing of the compression struts)

sw 1 Non- NA value
1 0.6 Non- NA value
VRd,max (kN) 5153
VRd (kN) 2870

Shear Utilisation 0.92
\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\238462-00\4 Internal Project Data\4-04 Calculations\4-04-08 Struct\2015-02-11 (Rev 0.4)\head wall - capping beam\
Al Sadd - Headwall - Capping Beam - Loading and Shear.xlsx : Shear
© Arup | F0.13 | 14 February 20
ARUP
M006 Doha Metro
Al Sadd
Open Cut Slope
Calculation Sheet
Station: Al Sadd 01
Location: Open cut wall Author CM
Element: Shotcrete Drg. Ref.
Calculation: Structural Check Made by KMM Date 2/11/2015 Chd. AK
ROCK ANCHOR & SHOTCRETE DESIGN

"Manual for Design & Construction Monitoring of Soil Nail Walls"
Horizontal Spacing, SH 1500 mm Fy 500 Mpa

Vertical Spacing, SV 1500 mm f'C 25 Mpa
s 1.15
Rock Anchor:
Head Force, F 120 kN (ULT)
Anchor B32
Outer Diameter 32 mm
Yield load 350 kN
Anchor Plate: 250 x 250 x 20
2
Bearing Area 62500 mm
Bearing Pressure 1.92 N/mm2 < 5.0 OK
MPLATE 3.8 kNm cantilever over half of plate width
ZPLATE 12500 mm3
MALLOWABLE 4.3 kNm OK
\\global.arup.com\americas\Jobs\N-Y\230000\238462-00\4 Internal Project Data\4-04 Calculations\4-04-08 Struct\2015-02-11 (Rev 0.4)\open cut slope - wire
mesh\Al Sadd - Open Cut Slope_rev 2015-02-11.xlsx
Temporary Facing Shotcrete
Flexure Check:
Facing thickness 150 mm
hC 150 mm
(4.1) TFN CF (mv,neg + mv,pos) * (8SH / SV)
CF 1.5
(4.1A) mv (As Fy / b) * (d - As Fy / 1.7 f'C b)
panel width, b 1500 mm

d 75 mm
Reinforcement: A142 Mesh 142 mm2 / m longitudinal

2 Layers 142 mm2 / m cross
Horizontal Walers: 2B12 Bars 226 mm2
Vertical Bearing: NONE Bars 0 mm2
As,neg 426 mm2 at supports

mv,neg 10.18 kNm / m
As,pos 426 mm2 at mid-span

mv,pos 10.18 kNm / m
TFN 244 kN OK
Punching Shear Check:
(4.2) VN 0.33 f'C 4 D'C hC
bPLATE 250 mm
D'C 250 mm
DC 550 mm Plate sits in the middle of facing
DGC 100 mm
AC 302500 mm2
AGC 7854 mm2
VN 248 kN
(4.3) TFN VN [ 1 / (1 - CS (AC - AGC) / (SV SH - AGC) ) ]
CS 2.0
TFN 336 kN OK
Punching Shear Check to EC2:

deff 155 mm
u1 plate perimeter + 4 deff
2948 mm
(6.38) VRd,c Rd,c u1 deff
456940 * Rd,c
Average steel ratio's:

y 0.0018
z 0.0038 Hence, 1 0.0026 0.02
k 2.0
CRd,c 0.12
min 0.49 N/mm2
(6.47) Rd,c CRd,c k (100 1 f'c)1/3 vmin

2
0.45 N/mm 0.0494975
Modification Factor 1
VRd,max 2056 kN
VRd,c 206 kN OK
Results
Plate Utilisation 0.88
BM Utilisation 0.49
SF Utilisation 0.58
Appendix F
Assessment of Construction Impact on

Existing Structures
(1 page)
Appendix no longer required.
Appendix G
Dewatering
Assessment (18 pages)
Appendix G ‐ Groundwater
Inflow Analysis
Al Sadd Station
Dewatering Proposals (1)
• Hybrid sump pump and deep well
arrangement proposed.
• Internal Dewatering Wells installed from Geotextile
surface. Positioned at toe of batter or drainage behind
sprayed
next to wall, outside structural concrete.
footprint.
• Sump trenches in the base of
excavation. 1.5m below formation.
• Cross trenches installed if conditions
required. Cross Section
Showing Proposal
For Open Cut
2
Dewatering Proposals (2)
• Draw down of water before excavation
begins.
• Proves dewatering equipment has capacity
to achieve required draw down.
• Avoids large water quantity flows through
excavation face.
• Install weepholes in the excavation face as
secondary measure.
• Monitor draw down through a series of
wells and piezometers both next to
excavation and behind the line of grout
treatment.
• If groundwater levels rise in instruments
install additional weepholes immediately
and then follow up with local external Photograph Of Hybrid System
to be Employed
dewatering wells if required.
3
Pre Dewatering Testing and Interpretation
• No data pumping test data available.
• Analysis will have to be revised once data becomes available.
4
Al Sadd MODFLOW
Groundwater model
Purpose: A simple model, with horizontal geological layers, fixed boundaries and
conservative permeabilities, to give “worst‐case” estimates of likely inflow rates and
dewatering design options into the station box excavation
Model setup:
• Domain 1500x1500m
• Al Sadd station excavation is set at near the centre of the model
• Only steady state conditions have been reviewed so far ( believed to represent “worst‐case”
conditions)
Al Sadd MODFLOW
Groundwater model
• Variably spaced rows
and columns ranging
approximately
between 3m and 15m
wide
• Grid refined and
focused on the E‐W
open cut excavation in
the centre of the
model area.
Al Sadd MODFLOW Model
definition
Model setup:
• 5 lithologies: divided into 6
horizontal layers:
*Note that Zone 1 above is inactive in the model
• Dark Blue – Made Ground
• Green – Highly weathered
Simsima Limestone These permeabilities must be reviewed
• Teal – Moderately weathered once the pump test data becomes
Simsima Limestone available.
• Red ‐ Midra Shale
• Purple ‐ Rus Formation
Simsima Limestone
Midra Shale
Rus Formation
Al Sadd MODFLOW GW
model
Boundaries
• Constant head (brown) set
along each side of domain
•LHS CH = 2m below ground
surface
•RHS CH = 3m below ground
surface
• GW level in centre of model in
vicinity of excavation is
+5.70mQNHD
Al Sadd MODFLOW
Groundwater model:
Summary of model runs
• Initial (Pre‐construction) baseline model to
represent current conditions, however, necessarily
simplistic given lack of background monitoring
data for calibration
• Scenario 1: Open excavation – passive dewatering
(eg by weepholes and sump pumping without
active dewatering.
• Scenario 2: Open excavation – active de‐watering
(eg by deep wells) to progressively draw the water
down to below formation level in advance of
excavation.
Al Sadd
Baseline model
Baseline results:
• No excavation at this stage
• Uniform gradient from LHS to RHS to
represent shallow gradient towards the sea
• Gradient = 1:1500 to east
• GW levels vary between +3.25 & +2.25m
• Layer 1 (Made Ground) is dry
Al Sadd Scenario 1:
Passive drains
An open cut approximately
200m long x 40m wide)
inserted into the middle of
the model to represent a
freely drained excavation. The
depth of the excavation
varies, with depth of ‐
5mQNHD, ‐18.2mQNHD and a
maximum depth of ‐
20.2mQNHD.
Purpose – to provide an
approximate estimate of
inflow volumes and area of
influence
• Plan showing elevation of
water table after the open cut
has been inserted
•Cone of depression develops
around the excavation in
response to drainage
Al Sadd MODFLOW
Scenario 1: Passive drains
• Plan shows drawdown and extent
of cone of depression
• Section shows head equipotential
after the open cut has been
inserted as a series of drains
• Cone of depression develops
around the cut in response to
drainage
• Lowest drawdown is 25m
• Water table elevation is shown by
thick navy blue line
• Dry cells highlighted in khaki
• Partially dry cells highlighted in
teal
W E
Al Sadd Scenario 1:
S N
Passive drains
• Drains set at 0.75m below
deepest floor level.
• Seepage face develops
between ‐8.5 and ‐13.0m
depending upon excavation
sidewall configuration
• Long term steady state inflow
rates average 4500m3/day
(approximately 52l/s)
Al Sadd Scenario 2: Active
dewatering
• Series of 19 “deep” dewatering wells
• Spaced approximately 20m apart and
screened from top of weathered
Simsima Lms at 6.8mQNHD to base of
hole at –30.0mQNHD in the Rus
Formation
• A variety of well configurations &
pumping rates have been assessed
•Note flows have been induced from
both up and down gradient
boundaries
•Impact of grout & pile walls has not
been examined yet. They will certainly
reduce inflows, so this simulation can
be considered a “worst” possible case
in terms of dewatering volumes
dewatering
• Aim ‐ To draw groundwater
down to minus 5.7m (i.e. the
base of Simsima Limestone)
before excavation starts
• This requires a pumping
array of 19 wells with
combined pumping rate
6460m3/day each was
observed to de‐water the
working area
Groundwater contours Dewatering
well field
dewatering
3D representation of groundwater
table showing effect of dewatering
well field
Base of
Water levels drawn‐down to base of limestone model
Base of Simsima Limestone
Al Sadd Conclusions
• This model can be refined further as required. This should be tuned
to the global permeabilities from the interpretation of the pump
test once this becomes available.
• Currently only steady state has been examined. Transient situations
should be examined to get inflow volume generations with time.
• Range of groundwater quantities are within the limits adopted by
the designer of the dewatering system to develop the pump layout.
Extra capacity provided as risk mitigation.
• Currently is a “worst” case scenario in terms of pumping rates
because:
– Cut off and grout walls have not been inserted
– Kvertical set to be equal to Khorizontal – unlikely to be the case and
will be defined by pumping tests.
Appendix H
Risk Register
(4 pages)
DOC No: Appendix H To M006-GOB-GEO-RPT.00103
Doha Metro: Gold Line ELS Risk
S/1/ZOlS
-
Originator VT
Che.:ked: JPS
Approved
5 80-100
RISK IDENTIFICATION EVALUATION TREATMENT
Cause Risk Description Consequence
8 A iokA.IIoc.tH>n
'As a result of ... ' Thereisarisklhal. .. . ' "Would lead to ... ·
GROUND CONDITIONS
Temporary Works Oeslgnsectionassumes ELSOesign
Greaterloadsloadsonground
contiguous rock blocks. Per1orm analysis using a
Higher loads on support elements support system. Longer anchor Through
However, the amount of number of numerical models
andlncreasedcostandtlme bondlengthsandlargeramounts Sensitivity
Class4rock withKarslic andper1ormparameter
ne<:essarytolnstallanchors. ofgroutrequlredlnfreeandbond Analysis
featuresl s greaterthan sensitivity analyses.
antlclated.
A1001 AtSaddELS Temporary Works Live Morequicklyravelingrockanda ELSDeslgn Medium
Modlflcatlonofthedeslgnwlll Have anadequate supplyof
The amount of Class3 potentlalforfallout. Therefore
be<:omene<:essary. This could monitoring rockbolts,meshandshotcrete
(051<35) rock is larger opencutslopedoweland
comprise the installation of plus onsitetousewhenpoorrock
thanassumedlndeslgn. shotcreteprogrammaynotbe
additional longer rock dowels. mitigation conditions are encountered ..
adequate.
Al002 AISaddELS TemporaryWorks Closed ELSDeslgn Per1orm sensitivity analyses to
identify critical design
Modificatlonofthedeslgnwill
Through varlablesandthelmpactof
becomenecessarywhichmay
Sensitivity smallchangesinthese
includetheadditionofmore
Analysis varlablesolgroundstabllity.
anchorsinsoldierpilewall.
Use backanatyslsasbasislor
sellin sensitivityparameters.
A1003 AI Sadd ELS Temporary Works Strlkeanddlpofgeologlc ELSDeslgn
strataPiaxisorUDEC
analysesareeither
Modlficatlonofthedeslgnwill Site Per1ormparameterstudiesand
horizontalordiptoward Higherloadsonsupport
becomenecessarywhlchmay monitoring sltemonltorlngtomap
excavationlessthanS elements. Greater than
lncludetheaddltlonofmore plus excavation faces. Additional
degrees. Actual strike and anticipated wall movement.
anchorslnsoldlerpllewall. mitigation supportlnstalledifrequlred.
dip of strata are is steeper
(less favorable) than
assumed in analyses.
AI004 AISaddELS TemporaryWorks Live Modification of the design will ELS Design Medium
becomenecessarywhlchmay Per1ormparameterstudiesand
Therearemorejolntsets Hlgherloadsonsupport
includetheadditionofmore monitoring sitemonitoringtomap
than assumed UDEC elements. Greater than
anchorsinsoldierpilewallor plus excavation faces. Additional
analysis. antlclpatedwallmovement.
longer rock bolls in open cuts to mitigation supportinstalledifrequired.
reventtopplin!l.
Temporary Works Higher loads on support Modlflcatlonofthedeslgnwi11 ELSOesign
elements. Greater than becomenecessarywhlchmay Site Per1ormparameterstudiesand
Vertical joint In rock mass anticipated wall movement. includethe addlllonofmore monitoring site monitoring to map
are perslstenl. Hlgherpotenllalforstormrunoff anchors lnsoldlerpllewallor plus excavation faces. Additional
recharginggroundwaterlevelsat tongerrockbollsinopencutsto mitigation supportinstalledifrequired.
prevent toppling.
A1006 AISaddELS Temporary Works Modlflcatlonofthedeslgnwlll ELSDeslgn
Manyjolntsinrockare
be<:omene<:essarywhichmay Per1ormparameterstudiesand
slickensided and the Higher loads on support
includetheadditionofmore monitoring site monitoring to map
friction between rock elements. Greater than
anchorslnsoldierpilewallor plus excavation faces. Additional
blockslslessthan antlclpatedwallmovement.
longer rock bolls in open cuts to mitigation supportinstalledifrequired.
assumedinUSECanalysls.
reventtoppling.
At007 AISaddELS Temporary Works Closed ELSOesign Medium Per1ormsensitlvltyanalyses to
ldentlfycrltlcaldeslgn
variablesandtheimpactof
Through
smallchangesinthese
Sensitivity
variablesofSOEioadingwall
Analysis
movement. Usebackanalysia
asabasisforsetting
sensitivity parameters.
A1008 AISaddELS Temporary Works Ko pressure coefficients ELS Design
Carry out sensitivity studies
for each stratum have been Modification to the design may be
withinthedesigntodetermine
based upon GIR Actual Ko coefficient may be necessary because forces on wall Through
theimpactofvariousvaluesof
parametersandactual hlgherbasedonlaboraroryandlorandopencutrockdowelswlflbe Sensitivity
Koontheloadsanddesignof
pressuresonwalf elementsin·sltutestlngdata. hlgherthanorlglnallydetermlned Analysis
various structural
maybehlgherthan inanafysls.
components.
calculated.
A1009 AI Sadd ELS Temporary Works Opeo ELSDeslgn High
Modlflcatlontothedeslgnmaybe
Falledsloperequlres necessarybecauseforcesonwall Through Design to be modified to take
AIBiddaBackAnalysis
downgradlngoftheArup andopencutrockdowelswlflbe sensitivity intoaccounttheAIBidda
Case.
parameters for design hlgherthanorlglnallydetermlned Analysis
in analysis.
A tOtO AI Sadd ELS Temporary Works ELSDeslgn High
Use of personnel inexperienced

Plaxis, OasysSLOPE U Onlyuseindividuals
with the use and limitations of the Modification to the design will be 01
UDECanalyzesdone
aoftware. lncorrectdatalnput.
se ff.~~echnically
trained to use
Incorrectly
Inadequate checking procedures. '''"""' .I""""'·
GROUNDWATER AND DEWATERING CONDITIONS
AtOll AISaddELS Temporary Works ELSDeslgn :rawdownwaterinadvanceof 2
lexcavation. Observe seepage

ntotheexcavation.Monitor
Groundwater levels both next
monitoring
towallandoutsiegrout
plus
treatment. Checkagainst
mitigation
deslgnlevelandtakeactlve
dewaterlngmeasurestodraw
water down.
Al012 AISaddELS Temporary Works Closed Proposedgroundwater Thlsmaychangewaterpressure ELSDeslgn
proliteat1 13htbehindthe dlstribullononthebackofthe
groutcurtainisunrealistic wallandloaddlslrlbutiononthe Modificationtothedesignwillbe
Undertakesensltlvityanatysls
giventheobserved anchors.Foropencutslopes necessary.Thismayincludethe Through
to cover this eventuality.
behavlourofthegrouting mayimpactuponoveraiiFOS addllionofmoreanchorsln sensitivity
lncorporatetheresultsintothe
andalsotherelative againststabilityorforcesinrock soldlerpllesandmorerock Analysis
design.
permeabllltyoftheRus, dowels. dowelslnopencutslopes.
MldraandSimslma
Limestone.
At013 AISaddELS Temporary Works Live Thlsmayincreasetherateof Alignmentofgroutcurtainmay ELS Medium Additional
Utilitiesorother waterlnflowbymaklngthe
obstructlonslnter1erewith dlsruptlngthecontlnultyofthe
need lobe adjusted and
alternative systems, such as
Construction Investigation 0~;::tv;:~ aa::,O~~ct~=~~~:.:~t
ofgroutcurtaintoverify
drillingofgroutcurtain. groutcurtaln. localized dewatering, maybe
alignmentisclearofutilities.
IreQuired.
Al014 AISaddELS Temporary Works Live ELSDeslgn Medium Preformsensitivityanalysesto
verifystabilityofslopesatwith
The hydraulic conductivity B a variety of rock permeabilities.
Additional grouting and
of geologic strata are
higherthanassumedin
tncreasedllkellhoodofhlgher
groundwater flows .
alternatlvewatercontrotsystems,
suchaslocallzeddewatering , may
lnvesti~atlon :~7p::~~~evnatil~~:~;~andle
eitherPiaxisorUDEC
models .
be required . miti~:tion. :~:~:d::~e;~~~~~t~dertake
pumptestsinadvanceofthe
main works.
At015 AISaddELS Temporary Works Live ELSOesign Medium By Havesufflclentpumplng
Additional grouting maybe
investigation equlpmentavallabletohandle
continuousbutlarge required at toe. Additional deeper
and higherthanantlelpated
volumesofwaterenterthe Baselnstability horizontalrakingdrainsabove
mitigation. groundwater flows . Undertake
cutaroundthetoeofthe toemayalsoasslstlnreduclng
pumptestsinadvanceofmain
grout curtain. hydraulic gradient.
worils.
A1016 AISaddELS Temporary Works Live ELSDeslgn Medium By lnstallgeotextlleswlthln
observation shotcrete. Placeweephotes
Modlllcatlontothedeslgnwi11be and strateglcallylnwaterbearlng
necessary. mitigation. stratum. lnstallraklngdralns
atsteeperanglesifconditions
dictate.
Temporary Works Modlllcatlontothedeslgnwillbe ELSOesign By Have sufficlentpumplng
Heavy rainfall increases Increased likelihood of higher
ne<:essarytoprovidemore observation equipmentavailabletohandte
groundwaterlevelsonjob groundwater flows and face
drainage opportunities for and higherthananticipated
site. pressuresonSOE.
roundwater. miti ation. roundwaterllows.
A1018 AISaddELS Temporary Works
obse~atlon the~pen_cutslopes
ELSDeslgn
and
Heavystormwaterrunoff Increased likelihood of higher Modificationtoth~designwillbe sotd1erp11eareasto
saturates soils and
overtops cut slope.
~ro~n:u~~~~ f!:~s and raveling of ~:i~:~:~~~~:v~~t~e~~~; mitigation.
accommodate large flows.
Havesufflclentpumplng
pe p groundwater.
equlpmentavallabletohandle
At019 AISaddELS Temporary Works Live Varlouspermltsare Delay to commencement of ELS Medium Through Recogniseneedindesignto
requiredfromAshghal l dewateringactivitleswhichwlll Construction Planning. allowpermitapplication l
MoE to allow the teadtoadetaytothe process to commence.
commencement of the implementatlonofelementsofthe Schedule slip.
dewatering discharges to ELSworks
thestormwatersystem,
sea or deep recharging
Temporary Works NOC's I SO NO's will be Oelayinobtainingrelevant ELS Medium Through Ensureneedforpermits
requiredfromPMC / Qrail permits for construction of ELS Construction Planning. recognisedandtimeallowed
andother3rdparties to worksresultslndelayln Scheduleslip. for3rdpartyapproval.
allowtheELSworksto beglnnlngofworkandschedule
slip.
S/1/201S
-
Originator VT
Che.:ked: JPS
Approved
5 80-100
RISK IDENTIFICATI ON EVALUATION TREATMENT
Cause Risk Description Consequence Tru tment
'As a result of ... ' Thereisarisklhal. .. . ' "Would lead to ... · Str ~e gy
AI Sadd ELS Temporary Works Live Volume of water pumped l ncreaed flows Into excavation are ELS Medium Bydesign Beloretherequiredanatysisto
exceeds amount in permit. mangaeable but rate and volume Construction and obtainmaximumllow
:~~:!~e;~~re:e~S:,!:~~=s~:~~s. ~:~::.: d:~:;!~ction cost and

sensitivity quantltles.Useconservatlve
studies. l actorsol safetyestlmatlng
Mitigation l lowquantltleslorpermlt
application. Undertake pump
tests toincreasecerta inty.
A1022 AISaddE LS Temporary Works Closed Cone of depression causes Increased settlements and lnvolvementofaffit lonalthlrd ELS Medium
byexcavation dewatering potenllaldamagetostructures parties inconstructionprocess. Construction
extendswellbeyondt he andutilillesoveralargerarea Increased construct ion cost and
limitsof ro"ect. thanestlmated. scheduledelas.
Temporary Works Increased settlements and Through Pumping shou ld be limited by
potential damagetostructures Construct io uslnglnternaldewaterlng
Ground loss during Increased construction cost and
and utilities. wells.Pumpsshouldbe
dewatering. schedule delays.
properly sc reened and
monitored lor lines.
Tempo rary Works Contaminates and/or Alternat ive locations maybe Add itiona l design of water Through Perform rand om chemical
groundwater chemistry requiredtoremovegroundwater treatment facilit ies maybe lnvestigat ionanalysesongroundwater
prohib its disposal of and/or on-site groundwater necesssary. lncreased samples from observation
groundwater in city sewer treatmentvprlor todisposalmay construct ion cost and schedu le wellso n sitetocontirm
l svstem. be necessary. dela s. whetherthis isanissue.
SU PP ORT OF EXCAVATI ON SYSTEMS

AI Sadd ELS Temporary Works Live Soldier Pile Wall Design Is The prosposed anchor Modifications to the design may ELS Design By Soldlerpllewa ll excavatlonsto 2
Based Upon An Assumed arrangement may not be adequate become necesssary which would monitoring be loggedastheyprogress.
Geology. If more for the higher loads from poor result In Increased construction and Prep lannedarrangementswit h
weathered rock with quality rock . cost and sch edule slip. Additional mitigation. SNorowsol anchorsca n be
GSI<35% Is encountered anchors may be neccessary. employedltcrltlcal%of
modification of the design GSI<35%material is
maybe necessary. (4mof encou ntered in l ace of
Highly weat her Slmsima excavationasitisadvanced.
andMGdeposits Prep lannedalternative
assumed). arrangementa ndcri tica l %ol
poormateria l tobe lixed
before t heexcavationstarts.
Al026 AISadd EL S Temporary Works Live Deformation and/or ground Greater wall movement and ModltlcatlonstothePiaxlsdeslgn ELSOeslgn Medium By Monltorexcavatlonuslng
subsldence behlndof subsldence canresultin modelmaybecomenecesssary monitoring settlementpolntsand
soldlerpile wail exceeds increasedpotenllal forbuildlng basedon actual ground and incllnometerstoverlfy
vatuespredictedinPiaxis andutilitysetttements. monitoringdata.Thisprocess mitigation. parametersusedinPiaxisand
analyses. cou ld result in increased similar analyses. Modify
construction cost and schedu le analysesbasedonactuallield
slip. Addit ionatrowsotanchors data. Modify excavat ion
required . sequence if necessary to
reduce damaging ground
deformations.
A1027 AISaddE LS Temporary Works Deformation of soldier pile Greater wall movement often Modifications to the Plaxis and ELS Design Medium By Monltorexcavatlonusing
wa ll exceeds values resultsinincreasedsubsidence UOEC design models may become monitoring settlementpointsand
predictedinP iaxisand that canresultinincreased necesssarybasedonactuat and lncllnometerstoverlfy
UOECanalyses. potentlal torbui ld ingandutllity groundmonltorlngdata.Thls mitigation. parametersusedinPiaxisand
settlements. processcouldresulti n increased similar ana lyses. Modify
construct ion cost and schedu le analysesbasedonactualtield
slip. data. Modify excavation
sequence o r design if
necessary toreducedamag ing
round deformations.
Tempo rary Works center to center spacing of Shotcrete ground support Modifications to the design may ELS Through
andsoldierpilesshould
soldier is wider than what between soldier piles may crack. be nessary based on as-bu ilt Construction Design .
containa factorolsafetyto
is shown on working Theremaya lsobegreater soldier soldier pile locations.
account lor field installation
drawin s. llewallmovements.
A1029 Temporary Works Soldlerpllesencroach Thesoldlerplleswouldneedto Prelongedconstructlonnprocess ELS Through Design permanent structure to 1
wi thinConstr.envelopof beredrilled. resu ltinginincreasedcostsand Construction Design. havesufficienttoleranceto
the rmanentstructure. schelule sli . accommodate out of tolerance.
Temporary Works Misalignment of soldier Time wil l be wasted during Increased construction cost and Through Construction preference to
Pi lesinterfereswithwale anc hortesting. scheduledelays. Design . elim in ate wale and drill
and tieback installation. anchorst hroughsold ierp iles.
Anchorlailurecaseswillbe
consideredinotherwaysas
partofthedesign.
Temporary Works Unconfined Compression Oualitycontrol managerrejecting lncreasedconstructioncostand ByOC.

Batchingplansshouldworkin
Testslorsoldlerplle soldierpi les.Pi leswith scheduledelays.
accordance with requiredQC
concrete is less than unstrengthconcretewouldneed
desi n re uirements. tobere-drilled.
A1032 AISaddELS Temporary Works Reinforcing cage not Ouatltycontrolmanagerrejectlng lncreasedconstructloncostand ELS Through Oversizeholeslorsoldier pi les 1
centeredlnho leand soldlerpll es. PIIeswlth scheduled elays. Design. toaccountfordrilledshall
reinforcing steel exposed unstrengthconcretewouldneed installation tolerances. Design
during excavation. tobere-drilled. cagestoconsetvativelyandof
suchadiameterthanthe
install edcagewillprovidethe
mlnlmumrebarconcretecover
conslderln d rillinatolerances.
A1033 AISadd EL S Tempo rary Works Greaterwall movementoften Increased construct ion cost and By Providepropersupetvision
During downstage
resultsini ncreasedsubsidence schedu le delays. monitoring during constructio n. Wall
excavation, the depth of
thatcanresultinincreased and movementmonitoredduring
excavation below anew
potentlallorbulld ingandutillty mitigation. excavationtoidentifyissues.
anchor levelexceeds1m.
settlements.
A1034 AISaddELS Temporary Works Potentiallocalfailuresofwall lncreasedconstructioncostand ELS Medium By Wheneverpossible,minimize
Soldier Piles structurally
withpotentialforlncresaed scheduledelays. Construction construction theuseoflargebucketJripper
damaged duri ng
subsldenceandbuildingand control. heavyexcavationequipment
excavation.
ultlt settlements. wilhin1motsoldier ilewall.
A1035 AISaddELS Temporary Works Increased construction cost and By Whenverpossible,minimize
Therels excesstve andi n possiblealtemativevoid schedule delays. construction theuseoflarge bucketl ripper
overbreak of rock between infilling work will be required. control. heavyexcavationequipment
soldierpiles. Muckhandlinganddisposal within1mofsoldier pilewal l.
vol umes will increase.
A1036 AISaddELS Temporary Works Anchor bondlengthls Tlebacksfailsloadtest. Redesignwillbenecessary. ELSOesign By Undertake investigat iontestto
inadequate. Addi tionallowercapacityanchors investigat ion
providedatafor design. All
mayberequired. Thiswillresulti n and anchorstobesubjectto
add itionalcostandthepotential monitoring. performancetestsand15%to
forschedulesli be monitored in construction.
A1037 AISaddE LS Tempo rary Works Therequired lengthof Redesignanchorsystemwillbe Redesig n will be necessary. ELS Desig n By Plan ning Earlydialoguewith necessary
anchor free and bond required. Add itionallowercapacityanchors partiestoobtaineasemen t.
lengthexceedslimitsol mayberequlred. Thlswillresultl s
temporary easement. add llionalcostandthepotential
forschedulesll
A1038 AISaddELS Temporary Works Anchors creep during There will be increased wall Redesign will be necessary. ELS Design Medium By Undertake investigationtestto
construction. movements and ground Add itiona l lower capacity anchors investigation providedatalordesign. All
subsldence.llcreeprateincrease maybe requlred. Thlswillresultls and anchorstobesubjectto
localizedwallfailurelspossible. addltlonalcostandthepotential monitoring. performancetestsand1S%to
lor schedule slip. bemonltoredlnconstructlon.
A1039 AISaddE LS Temporary Works Live Anchor testing performed There will be increased wall Additional anchors will need to be ELS Medium Bycorrect Trainallpersonnelinvo lvedin
Incorrectly. movementsandground installedandtestedbyqualilied Construction anchor loadtesting.AII Ioad
subsldence.Locallzedwallfallure personnel. testsshallbeobservedby
is possible. Chartered Engineer whowlll
certllyalltestswerepertormed
asrequl redlnspecificatlons.
A1040 Temporary Works Anchor lock-off performed There witt be increased wall Add itiona l anchors will need to Bycorrect Trainallpersonnelinvo lvedin
incorrectly. Prestressload movementsandground bere-testedandlockedoffby staff. anchorl ockoffactivities.
not retained in anchors. subsidence. ualifiedpersonnel..
Temporary Works Anchors damaged during There will be major local ized Constructioni n theareaofthe By TrainCJVemployees
construction . Catastrophic increaseswall movementsand anchor failurewillbesuspended Construction construction perform ingtheworkonthe
Case. ground subsidence. Localized until repairsarecompleted. control and imporatnceofprotectingthe
wallfailurelsposslble. design. anchors. Provldeaminimum
heavy equipment oil-set
dlstanceolatleast 1mfrom
the anchor head. Design lor
accldentalloadingsituatlonln
accrodancewlth EC7.
A1042 AISaddELS TemporaryWorks Vertical component of There will be major local ized Construction In the area of the ELS Design Sens itivity Performanalys isusinga
anchors causes SOE increases wall movements and anchor failure wi ll be suspended analysis and numberolnumerical models
failurea t avugorother ground subs idence. Localized until repairsa recompleted. monitoring/ and perform parameter
karslicteature. walllailureispossible. mitigation. sensit ivitya nalyses toidentify
Catastrophic Case. whatisnecessaryfo r karstic
voidmitigation.Monitorboth
groutingtakesandoversupply
to so ldier pi les. Operatives
and suitably qualified
geologlststoremalnvldulant
onslteforkarst.
A1043 AISaddELS Temporary Works Mass movements of Soldier pile wall movements and Construction In the global ELS Design By Perform global stability
ground occur beyond possibly failure . tnstabllltywlll be suspendedunut sensitivityantayslsuslngtools suchas
anchors. Global stability the area is stabi l ized. ana lysis.Plaxis 20, UOEC and Oasys
Slope.
A1044 AISaddE LS TemporaryWorks Live Construction layout Access limitations prevents Redrilling of soldier piles may be ELS Medium By lnstall soldierpilewallwith
miscalculat ion of installing anchorsfrombelngdetensloned. requlreresulllnglnaddltlonal Construction constructionsufficientollsetforanchorde-
~ ~~na~:~~~~:;~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~l.ed
soldierpilewalltocloseto constructloncostandschedule
ermanentstructure. slip. control.
S/1/2015
-
Originator VT
Che.:ked: JPS
Approved
5 80-100
RISK IDENTIFICATION EVALUATION TREATMENT
Ca use Risk Description Consequence Tru tment
AI Sadd ELS Temporary Works Closed Corrosive groundwater Structural elements will lose Lossofmaterlalsandresulting ELSDesign Medium By Deisgn. Anchors to be specified with a
deterioratesrelnforclng materialthickness. overstresses in loaded wall designlileoltOyears.
barslnsoldlerbeamsand elements such as the
tieback bars. relnlocementlnsoldlerpilesand
anchorswouldresultinlncreased
Al046 AISaddELS Temporary Works Deep made Ground arching between soldier localized redsign may be ELS Design By Design. To be considered during the
ground/superficial pilesmaynotdevetopandlocal required.Theremadebeschedule designprocess.Lagging
depositsneJrttosoldier structuresmaysettfe.Ravelingof stipindealingwiththeselssues. supportintheformof
piled walls. materialsintoexcavationpriorto reinforced concrete or
shotcreteispossible. shotcretetobeconsideredor
theu seofshortanchoredpiles
through the superficial
deposits also to be
A1047 AISaddELS Temporary Works Closed Wall be be overloaded and deform Increased construction cost and ELS Medium By loadstatedondrawing.
Construction surcharge
morethananticipatedindeslgn. scheduleslip. Construction sensitivity Sensitivityolwalltohigh
adjacent to wail exceeds
analysis. surachrgesetthroughutility
maxtmumdeslgnvalue.
bride. No chan etodesi n.
A1048 AISaddELS TemporaryWorks Poorworkmanshipduring Potentialforexcessive lncreasedconstructioncostand By corr·ed Wo rk wilt be performed under
weldingstructural deformatlonorevenstructural scheduleslip. staff. experiencedsupervisionby
elements, applying failure. welding crews.
shotcreteetc.
OPEN CUT
A1049 AISaddELS TemporaryWorks Open Cut Slope Is Based For open cut slope proposed rock Re-design by either increasing ELS Design By Actual conditions on site to be
Upon An Assumed Geology. dowel and s hotcrete arrangement reinforcement, improving dralnge monitoring monitoredbyenggeoand
H<YM!ver more weathered may not be adequate for the loads or flatten slope may be required and additionalsupportmeasures
rock with GSk35% is proposed. based on monitoring of wall mitigation. adopted.
4 01
::a~:::~:imAs~~amaen~ m ~~;:a::t~~~:tt~nct;~~~0:osts and
Madeground. schedulesllp.
A1050 AISaddELS Temporary Works Standuptimelessthan Constructionstagingand Potentialfor increased ELSDesign By Havematerialson-siteand in
assumedindesignand sequencingneedstobemodified. construction costs and schedule monitoring sufficientquantitiestosupport
slopelocallyravelspriorto slip. and localravelingifitoccurs.
installation of face
AIOSI AISaddELS Temporary Works Live 1H:7.5Vslopelsnotstable Potentlalslopelailure Re-designbyeltherincreaslng ELSOeslgn Medium By Slopeperformancetobe
lnoneoralltherockstrata relnforcement,improvlngdralnge monitoring monltoredbyexperlencedeng
orflattenstopemaybereq ulred and geoandaddltionalsupport
basedonmonitoringofwall mitigation. measures in stalled ifreqd.
movements. Potential for
increasedconstructioncostsand
schedule slip.
Al052 AISaddELS Temporary Works Live Upperlevelslopein Potentlalslopelailure Re-designbyeltherincreaslng ELSOeslgn Medium By Re-excavatingto3H:1Vil
superficial deposits cannot relnforcement,improvlngdralnge monitoring requlredonceslteworl<s
beexcavatedatasteeper orflattenstopemayberequlred and begin.
anglethan2H: 1V. basedonmonitortngofwall mitigation.
movements. Potential for
increasedconstructioncostsand
schedule slip.
AI053 AISaddELS TemporaryWorks Live Construction surcharge Slope be be overloaded and may Increased construction cost and ELS Medium By Reduceslzeofequlpment
adjacenttoslopeexceeds notbestable. schedulesllp. Construction constructionadjacenttoslopesorprovider
maxtmumdeslgnvalue. control. additionalsloperelnlorcement.
Tobemonltoredonsite.
A1054 AISaddELS Temporary Works Heavystormwaterrunoff lncreasedconstructioncostand ELSOesign Medium By Re-excavateslopesataflaller
degrades slope. Slope raveling and possible schedule slip. monitoring angleandimprovedrainage.
failure and Schedule slip. Protect with
miti ation. spra edconcrete.
A1055 AISaddELS Temporary Works Seepage of groundwater lncreasedconstructioncostand ELSDesign By Re-excavateslopesata flatter
through di scontinuities in Sloperavellngandposslble scheduleslip. monitoring angleandimprovedrainage.
rock degrades slope. failure and Scheduleslip.
TUNNEL HEADWALLS
AI056 AISaddELS Temporary Works Live Bot1omoiSoldlerPiles Therewltlbeadelaylntauching lncreasedconstructloncostand ELS Medium By Provldeanadequateoll-setto
encroachlntotunneleyes. theEPBTBM. schedulesllp. Construction construction tunneleye.Phyiscallyllmitdrill
Control string to the maximum depth
olau erbetow round
AISaddELS Temporary Works Utilitiesinterferewith Anchorscannotbeinstalled . lncreasedconstructioncostand ELSOesign Medium By Testpitinareaofheadwalls
upper level anchors. schedule slip. investigationpriortodrillingandrelocate
utilities as required.
A1058 AISaddELS Temporary Works Live Therelslnsulliclent Anchorslailloadtest. Redesign ol anchor system. ELS Design Medium By Re-designolanchorlevels.
overburden above upper lncreasedconstrudloncostand Investigation Possible schedu le slip.
teveltiebackstodevelop schedule slip.
theredeslneaaclt.
Temporary Works Anchors lose capacity Potential excessive movements of Redesign of anchor system. ELS Design By Design Support tunnel headwall with
whentunnellsmined headwall. lncreasedconstructloncostand permanent structure before
beneaththem. schedu le sli breakthrough.
AI Sadd ELS Temporary Works Live Contiguous wails encroach There will be a delay In tauching Increased construction cost and ELS Design Medium By Provideanadequateoll-setto
ontunneteyes. theEPBTBM. schedulesllp. construction tunneteye.Accuratetysurvey
Control locatlonsolcloseset
Temporary Works Deflection of cap beam Polenta! interference with tunnel Tunneling halted with capping ELSDesign By Design Reinforce cap beams lor
exceedsdesignandsoldie eye.Possiblede-tensioningof beam reinforced or reconstructed. required loads.
pilessag. anchorsandheadwaltfaiture. Increased construction cost and
schedule sit
A1062 Temporary Works Spilingandfaceboltingto Potentialexcessivegroundloss Redesignofeyestabiization ELSDesign By design Support tunnel headwall with
notstabilizegroundat andsubsidenceatheadwall. measures. Increased construction permanent structure before
tunnelees. costandschedulesli breakthrouh.
Temporary Works Groundwater flow into Potential excessive ground loss Redesign of eye stabiization ELS Design By '~~nsta ll vertical dewatering
tunneleyesisexcessive. andsubsidenceatheadwall. measures.lncreasedconstruction monitoring wellsilnecessary.
A1064
costandschedulesllp.
""'
miti ation.
Temporary Works Break through TBM forces Damaging or failure of the Redesign of eye stabiization ELS Design By design. Determine through loads and
arehigherthanexpected. head wa llsystem. Lossofground measures.tncreasedconstruction permanentstructurebyframe
andsubsidence. costandschedulesti. ifr uired.
mon~~ring 1:~::tt:' ~~= t~r:~e~~:::e:!e,~~

Temporary Works Thereisinellectivegrout Potentislexcessivegroundloss ELSDesign
trestmentandsealing andsubsidenceatheadwall.
around tunnel eye. and headwallisbeingconstructed.
mitigation.l;nstallspecificvertical
dewateringwellsasrequiredil
groundwater level s are higher
than Is required.
ADJACENT BUILDINGS AND UTILITIES

Temporary Works Surcharge from existing Design assumptions stated in the Redesign of SOE is required . May ELS Design Bydesign. Buildingsurveystobecarried
bulldingsnotspecified. reportforboredpilewallsare includeadditlonatanchorlevelsto out together with load take
exceeded. Design of soldier pile minimimize meovements. downforbuildingstocheck
wall isinsdequateand lncreasedconstructioncostand design surcharge.
deformations exceed acceptable schedule slip.
limits.
A1067 AI Sadd ELS Temporary Works Live Ground stiffness could be Design ol soldier pile wallis Redesign ol SOE Is required. May ELS Design Medium Bydeslgn. Undertakesensltlvltyanalysls
lessthanhasbeen inadequateanddeformatlons includeadditlonalanchorlevelsto toassesspotentlatvarlatlonln
assumed in the design exceed acceptable limits. minlmlmize meovements. movement and possible
behlndthe wall . tncreasedconstructloncostand damage categorisation .
schedule slip. Groundmovementswlflbe
monitored during construction
to check design predictions.
Temporary Works locationofutilitiesis ln stallationofsoldierpilesand Some redesign msy be required. By

differentthanshownon
reference drawings.
cut-slopesaredelayed. Possiblescheduleslip. Construction
inve~~~~ation u:~~~:~~:~::~~~ :~~s~:~~~::~a
miti ation. costltemandschedutesllp.
A1069 AISaddELS Temporary Works Unanticipatedutilitiesare ln sta ltationofsoldierpilesand Some redesign may be required. By lnstalltestplts andverllyall
encounteredwithinzoneofcut-slopesaredelayed. Additionutilityrelocationcosts. investigation utilltylocatlons.Posslble
influence of excavation. Schedule slip. and changed condition extra work
miti ation. ltemandschedutesll .
AI070 AISaddELS Temporary Works Live Ground Is lost during Potentlallorbulldlngandultlty Useofacasingthroughdrilling ELS Medium Bycorrect Anchorswillbeinstalledby
lnstallationolanchors. settlementaboveanchor processmayberequired. Construction personnel. experienced personnel. Hole s
installattoln. Elimlnationotselfdrillinganchor wiflbecasedwhererequired.
otlons. Grouttakewillbemonitored.
Temporary Works Subsidence and settlement Utility setttlement and damage. ELSOesign Medium By Utilities will be monitored
Redesign ol SOE system may be
greaterthanpredictedln construction during excavation. Utilities
necesssaryresultlng l nextra
SOEdesign. control. will be supported and
costs and schedule slip.
maintained as necessary.
A1072 AISaddELS Temporary Works The design of shallow SOE may need to be modified to lncreaseddesigncostsand By design At all times coordinate SOE
stationstructuresis accommodatetheshallow schedule slip. andJV withlatestconformed
incomplete. engineering structural drawings.
AI073 AISaddELS TemporaryWorks Foundatlonsolexlsttng Bulfdlngsmayrequtre tncreaseddeslgncostsand ELSDeslgn By lnstalltestpltsandverilyall

structures encroach to the underpinning or relocatlon.SOE schedule slip. Investigationfoundations location s.
SOE and/or station may need to be modified to and Maintain, underpin or relocate
accommodate the shallow mitigation. foundationsofbuildingas
foundations. required.
A1074 AI Sadd ELS Temporary Works Condltlonatsurveysof Thlrdpartylawsuitmorellkel y to tncreasedde slgncostsand By Performconditlonsurveysas
adjacentstructuresarenotoccur. scheduteslip. investigationquicklyaspossible.Photoand
completedpriortostartof and surveybuildingifaccess
constructionorexcsvation. miti ation. denied by owner.
S/1/201S
-
Originator VT
Che.:ked: JPS
Approved
5 80-100
RISK IDENTIFICATI ON EVALUATION TREATMENT
Cause Risk Description Consequence Tru tment
AI Sadd ELS Temporary Works Live Accesscannotbeprovided Utilitycompanlesandthird tncreaseddeslgncostsand ELS Medium By Modilyconstructionstagingto
toadjacentbuildlngs partiesdetayconstructlon. schedule slip. Construction investigation allow access.
and/or utility manholes
durin SOE instatlatlon. "'
mltl ation.
SITE SPECIFIC RISKS
Qatar Rail
PROJECT: Gold Line Metro PROJECT NO.: M006

DRS NUMBER: M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00103 -DRS REV.: 1 DATE: 31-Mar-15
ORIGINATOR: ALYSJ TRANSMITTAL NO. / DATE: M006-GDB-WTRAN-039090/12-Mar 2015
M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00103 Rev 1 &
DOCUMENT NO.: M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04501 to 504, 506 REV.: 1 DISCIPLINE: Engineering
to 512, 520 to 528.
DOCUMENT TITLE: Al Sadd Station Interim Geotechnical Design Report and drawings. DOCUMENT TYPE: Design calculations and drawings
Comment Code Legend (for individual comments): Reply Code Legend
1 = Action required for this issue 3 = to be addressed at DD2
i=incorporated, ii= evaluated and not incorporated for reason stated Open/Closed
2 = advisory comment
Comment Reply Reply Status by
No. Initial Page/Section Reviewers Comments (PMC/CPO, CTO) D&B Contractor/Other Party Reply
Code Code Reviewer
This submission is for the excavation lateral support for the Al Sadd
Station . See No. 8 below for further submiisions required to complete
temporary works design.The following documents have been reviewed:
• M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00103 Rev1
• M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04501 Rev 1
1 SPA General 2 Noted
Design and check certificate not issued in the format required in Volume Noted. The relative certificate will be issued as soon as the anchor
2 SPA General 1
4 Appendix 12-1 of the Employer’s Requirements. design, dewatering, etc design are certified by the DVE.
The following documents which are referred to in document
M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00103 have not reviewed:
• M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00003
• M006-GDB-GEO-PLN-00006
3 SPA Page 6 to 8 / Section 1.3 2 Noted
• M006-GDB-GEO-ENN-00004
• M006-GDB-ARC-RPT-00009
4 SPA General 1 Please ensure all assumption have been closed out in Comply pro. Confirmed.
The contiguous piles are not designed for water pressure. A method
statement will be required detailing how ground water levels will be
5 SPA Page 19/Clause 4.3.2 2 monitored during the construction process, what trigger levels will be Please refer to the I&M Plan for Al Sadd station.
implemented and what measures will be taken if these levels area
reached.
TM-203-F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 Page 1 of 4

Qatar Rail

to 512, 520 to 528.
Code Code Reviewer
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-
The
Stationsize. See
of excavation,
No. 8 belowlocation & co-ordinates
for further submiisionsare based to
required oncomplete
an
6 SPA YWSTSAD-AA-04506 2 Noted
temporary works
unapproved design.The
architectural following
footprint all atdocuments have
Contractor’s ownbeen
risk.reviewed:
Rev 1
• M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00103 Rev1
•a)M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04502
BS EN 1020-1 for hot finished structural hollow sections
Rev 1 is incorrect.
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG- This should be BS EN 10210.
7 SPA YESTSAD-AA-04501 2 b) BS EN 571-1 & BS EN 1290 are superseded by
• M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04504 RevBS1 EN 3452-1 & BS References on the drawings have been amended.
Rev 1 EN 17638 respectively. Please follow latest code.
• M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04509
The following further design submissions are requiredRev 1 to complete the
General Noted
excavations:
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04511
• Dewatering design and drawings. Rev 1
8 SPA General 1 M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04512 Rev 1 All design are under DVE review.
• Ground anchor design.
• Soft eye design. Rev 1
I&M Building impact assessment. Rev 1
It is noted that the proposed design report has been Revsubmitted
1 as DD-1
Stage submission. Please note that the NOWC status Rev is
1 subject to the
9 PKU Gen. 1 approval of all the relevant submissions for this report i.e. GIR, Noted. DD1 stage is interim and DD2 based on the GIR.
Dewatering Design, ground anchors design, I&M Rev
• M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04527 Plans1and Construction
Impact Assessment Reports.
TM-203-F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 Page 2 of 4

Qatar Rail

to 512, 520 to 528.
Code Code Reviewer
The following documents have been referred in this section;
Station . See No. 8 below for further submiisions required to complete
a) M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00005
temporary Geotechnical
works design.The following Designhave
documents Basisbeen
Report
reviewed:
(Formally not submitted for Qatar
• M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00103 Rev1 Rail for approval)
b) Rev 1
M006-GDB-GEO-PLN-00006 Pre Construction Instrumentation and A) Noted. Will be removed.
•Monitoring
Plan – (The Document No. pertains toRev 1
Excavation Face
•mapping
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04503 Rev 1 B) Reference to M006-GDB-GEO-PLN-00006 Pre Construction I&M
10 PKU Pg.9/Sec. 2.5 1 Record and not the I&M Plan, please amend).
• M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04504 Rev 1 Plan has been deleted as there is now a station specific I&M Plan.
c) M006-GDB-GEO-ENN-00004- The Document status on Aconex is
“Failed” by QR.
• M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04507 Rev 1 C) Noted. Will be removed.
Please indicate the Rev. No. and approval status of Rev all1the referred
General Noted
documents.
Please refer to the Document from which the proposedRev 1 characteristic
•values
have been referred. Also, please confirm thatRevthe 1 proposed Site specific GIR characteristic values have been checked as part of
11 PKU Pg.13/Table-03 1 •characteristic
M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04522 RevGIR 1 at DD-2 Stage
values shall be verified by site specific the next revision of the report.
submission of present design report.
• M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04527 Rev 1 We confirm that global and local failure cases have been analysed
Please confirm that both Global as well as local stability
• M006-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04528 Rev 1 failure cases has
12 PKU Gen. 1 and assessed as part of the risk assessment proceedure including
been analyzed, incorporating the findings of Geophysical Survey. consideration of the geophysical survey results.
The following further design submissions are required to complete the

ELS Submission:
a) GIR DD2
b) Geophysical Survey Report
All reports have been developed and will be submitted in
13 PKU General 3 c) Dewatering design.
conjunction with the GDR.
d) Ground anchor design.
e) Predicted Displacements.
f) Construction Impact Assessment Studies.
g) Instrumentation and Monitoring Plan to verify Design Assumptions.
Drg. No. M006-GDB-GEO- Please include General Notes regarding Dewatering Works (Groundwater
14 PKU DWG-YESTSAD-AA- 1 Level and Soft Ground Formations), as per employer's requirements Dewatering notes were included on the major revision drawing.
04501 Rev.01 (Vol.07, Sec. 3.1.6 and Sec. 3.1.8).
TM-203-F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 Page 3 of 4

Qatar Rail
~ Document Review Sheet (Engineer)
Section C...C; Considering the robustness of the ELS System and TBM Notes have been added to this section to identif y that headwall is to
15 thrust at the head walls, provision of Waler Beams across the short piles supported by pennanent structure before TBM break out/break
04507 Rev.Ol must be considered. operations.
Anchor t hrough the Pile Section have been provided, Drilling for Anchors
Drg. No. M006-GDB-GEOj a fter Pile Installation may cause structural damage t o t he Piles. Please Design allows for reba r to be cut as part of coring process. Note
added to general notes to identify that structu ral damage should be
16 PKU I DWG·YESTSAD·AA· odd • note in the Gener.~l Notes Dr.~wing (Drg. No. M006-GDB-GEO·DWG·I
minimised by coring problems and any overbreaking made good
04512 Rev.01 YEST5AD·AA-04501 Rev.01) thot any structur.~l damage t o p iles must be with grout with C32/40 strength.
avoided during anchor insta llat ion.
C. SONO E. FaiVNot approved

Document Review Status Code:
_,...,
TIIA "'f"'') Cf"'') D .,.,, ') n "'"' ltw:;I1A

Doha Metro Joanna Station Shoring

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Doha Metro Joanna Station Shoring

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qatar Rail

Document Review Sheet (Engineer)

Company Management System

submrssion Is for the excavatron lateral support for the AI Sedd

required in Volume 4 as soon es the 1nchor design,

TM·20H03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 Page 1 of 10

Company Management System

DOCUMENTTI1\.E: Design calculations 1111d drawings

followmg doc:uments wh ich ere referred to In document

contiguous piles are not designed fa- water pressure. A method

a ) BS EN 1020-1 for hot finished structural hollow sections is incorrect.

TM-203-F03 Rev , 3.0, 22/06/14 Pag e 2 of 10

Company Management System

I~ Dewateri ng design end drawings.

Soft eye design.

The following documents have been referred in this section;

subm1ssion of present design report.

TM-203-F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/ 14 Pagel of 10

Company Management System

following further design submissions are required to complete the

Geophysical Survey Report

rev iew status of present submission is subject to submission and

TM·203-F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 Page4 of 10

Company Management System

DOCUMENT NO.: Engineering

DOCUMENT T11LE: Design calculations and drawings

The DVE observation sheet has an caveat that "Review excludes

TM-203-FOl Rev. 3.0, 22/ 06/14 PageS ollO

Company Management System

Design for considered station (Doc . No. MOOS-GDB-GEO-RPT-0001

Design for considered station (Doc. No. MOOS-GDB-GEO-RPT-00013

design report has been submitted as DD2 Stage

TM-203-F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 Page6 of 10

Company Management System

measures are proposed for the case the displacements

thicknesses of lhe ground layers considered in the GOR are those of

the geotechnical parameters' values in the GOR ore stgnificontly

TM·203·F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 Page 7 of 10

Company Management System

Design CIIICUIIItlons lllld drawings

It is written "Groundwater /eve/was conservatively assu,.,.d to be at the

It is written "... closest building to the excav•tion •t the northwest comer of

TM·203-F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 PageS of 10

Company Management System

"Structural analysis has shown that • structural sprayed

Drawing The MOOS-GDB-GEO-DWG-YWSTSAD-AA-04501 drawing should be

TM-203-F03 Rev. 3 0, 22 /06/ 14 Page9 of 10

Company Management System

clearly showing the MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM

that a number of Qatar Ra il comments in relation to

c. SONO E. FaiVNot approved

TM-203 ·F03 Rev. 3.0, 22/06/14 Page 10 ollO

QATAR INTEGRATED RAIL PROJECT

Originator D.Niarchos Discipline Engineer Arup 01-May-2015

Approval Andreas Tauschinger ~ c .s..kr7 Project Director ALYSJ 1~·c:J5 . "lS""

Document Number: M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00103 Rev 2 Page 1 of 35 01-May-2015

Uncontrolled if printed, refer to EDMS for current version

Rev. Date Description Originator Checked Reviewed Approved

Issued for AEM

Copy Company Name Representative

Document Number: M006-GDB-GEO-RPT-00103 Rev 2 Page 2 of 35 01-May-2015

Uncontrolled if printed, refer to EDMS for current version

CONTENTS PAGE ........................................................................................................................................3

3 Existing Ground Conditions .............................................................................................................11