R.2957bmrugnsdtun001-0 0

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED
General Consultants: RITES-OC-PBI-SYSTRA
BANGALORE METRO RAIL PROJECT

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT CONTRACT OF UNDERGROUND NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR
FOR BANGALORE METRO RAIL PROJECT – PHASE 1
Contract no-BMR/UG/NS/STN-TNL
DEFINITIVE DESIGN
BORED TUNNEL
Segmental lining – Technical Report
CLIENT CONTRACTOR DESIGN CONSULTANT APPROVAL BY BMRCL
APPROVED BY
DATE
COASTAL - TTS (JV)
File R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 APPROVAL BY RITES-OC-
Date 20/07/2011 Originator M.Bohlouli PBI-SYSTRA
Checker M.Pescara APPROVED BY
Validated G.Astore DATE
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE

0 Definitive design issue – according to GC design review comment # 005 . 20-07-2011
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT CONTRACT OF UNDERGROUND NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR – PHASE 1
BMR/UG/NS/STN-TNL CONTRACT
SEGMENTAL TECHNICAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 NORMS OF REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 4
1.2 CHARACTERISTIC OF MATERIALS .............................................................................................. 6
2. GEOLOGICAL – GEOTECHNICAL CONTEXT .................................................................................. 8
2.1 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MATERIALS ............................................................ 8
2.2 IN SITU STATE OF STRESS ........................................................................................................ 8
2.3 DEFINITION OF REPRESENTATIVE SECTIONS FOR TUNNEL ANALYSIS .......................................... 8
3. RELEVANT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE TBM AND THE SEGMENTAL LINING........................ 11
3.1 EXCAVATION METHOD ........................................................................................................... 11
3.2 MAIN FEATURES OF THE SEGMENTAL LINING .......................................................................... 11
4. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATIONS OF SEGMENTAL LINING DURING PRE-CAST
PROCESS AND TBM ADVANCEMENT ............................................................................................... 15
4.1 PRE-CAST PROCESSING ........................................................................................................ 16
4.1.1 Extraction from the mould and first handling ...................................................................... 16
4.1.2 Storage of segments .......................................................................................................... 20
4.2 ADVANCING OF THE TBM ...................................................................................................... 23
4.2.1 Handling by erection system .............................................................................................. 23
4.2.2 Contact Compressive Pressure under the Shoes Cylinder ................................................ 26
4.2.3 Structural analysis and verification ..................................................................................... 30
4.2.4 Bursting force induced by cylinders action ......................................................................... 31
4.2.5 Torsion effects of TBM on segmental lining ....................................................................... 34
5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATIONS OF SEGMENTAL LINING DURING SERVICE
STAGE OF THE TUNNEL ..................................................................................................................... 37
5.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 37
5.2 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 37
5.2.1 Geometry ............................................................................................................................ 37
5.2.2 Boundary conditions ........................................................................................................... 37
5.2.3 Initial conditions of ground.................................................................................................. 37
5.2.4 Material properties and their constitutive laws ................................................................... 37
5.2.5 Analysis stages................................................................................................................... 39
5.3 RESULT OF THE ANALYSES .................................................................................................... 40
5.4 STRUCTURAL VERIFICATIONS ................................................................................................. 40
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p. 2/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

5.4.1 Ultimate limit state (uls) for bending and axial force........................................................... 40
5.4.2 Serviceability limit state for bending and axial forces (SLS) .............................................. 41
5.4.3 Ultimate limit state (ULS) for shear..................................................................................... 42
5.5 VERIFICATION OF THE RADIAL JOINT (CONTACT SEGMENT TO SEGMENT) ................................... 42
5.5.1 Verification of contact pressure .......................................................................................... 42
5.5.2 Verification to bursting force induced by axial loads .......................................................... 44
5.6 FIRE VERIFICATION ............................................................................................................... 46
5.7 SEISMIC DESIGN LOADS EVALUATION ...................................................................................... 49
5.7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 49
5.7.2 Design Fundamentals and procedures .............................................................................. 49
5.7.3 Design criteria..................................................................................................................... 52
5.7.4 Structural calculations ........................................................................................................ 53
5.7.5 Seismic verification of segmental lining.............................................................................. 56
5.8 GASKET DESIGN (WATERPROOFING PERFORMANCE)................................................................ 59
5.8.1 Sealing groove verification ................................................................................................. 61
5.9 CONNECTORS AND BOLT VERIFICATION .................................................................................. 63
5.9.1 Pull-out force verification .................................................................................................... 63
5.9.2 Shear resistance verification .............................................................................................. 63
5.9.3 Bending resistance verification........................................................................................... 64
5.9.4 Bolt verification ................................................................................................................... 65
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p. 3/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

1. INTRODUCTION
In the following are presented the dimensioning of the segmental lining of the TBM’s
tunnel, according to the Contract BMR/UG/NS/STN-TNL regarding the underground
North-South corridor of the Bangalore Metro Rail Project.
1.1 NORMS OF REFERENCES
General design criteria

• EN 1990: 2005 Eurocode – Basis of structural design.
• Reference will be also made to GEODATA (2008), Mechanized tunnelling in
urban areas, Published by Taylor & Francis, Editors: V.Guglielmetti, P.Grasso,
A.Mahtab, S.Xu
Structural verification of concrete structures

• Indian Standard: Plain and reinforced concrete – Code of practice (Forth
revisions) – IS 456:2000
• Indian Standard: Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures – Part 1
General provisions and buildings (Fifth Revision) – IS
• EN 1992-1-1: 2005 Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1:
General Rules and rules for buildings
• EN 1992-1-2:2005 Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures - Part 1-2:
General rules – Structural fire design.
Geotechnical design
• EN 1997-1: 2005 Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules.
Ground actions and loads on segmental lining

• AFTES – Considerations on the usual methods of tunnel lining design –
Working Group n.7, 1993.
• AFTES – Recommendations relatives a la conception, le dimensionnement et
l’execution des revêtements en voussoirs préfabriques en béton armé installés
à l’arriere d’un tunnelier. Working Group n°18 (199 8).
R.2957BMRUGNSDTUN001-0_0.doc p. 4/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

• AFTES, (1993). Les Joints d’étanchéité entre voussoirs. Tunnels et Ouvrages

Souterrains, Suppl. N°.155 pp 164-166.
Seismic action on tunnel:
• Seismic design of tunnel- a simple state-of-the-art design approach, edited by
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc by Wang 1993.
• Youssef M.A. Hashash et al. Seismic design and analysis of underground
structures. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247-293.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p. 5/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

1.2 CHARACTERISTIC OF MATERIALS

1. Concrete – segmental lining
- Class: M50
2
fck, cube = 50N/mm
2
- Elastic modulus: Ec = 35000N/mm
- Poisson modulus: ν = 0.20
2. Steel for reinforcement
- Type: S 500
- Class: C
- Yield strength: fyk = 500N/mm2
- Tensile strength: ftk = 545N/mm2
- Design strength: fyd = 435N/mm2
- Elastic modulus: Ea = 210000N/mm2

3. Gasket
Type EPDM
Integral layer of gasket - HYDROPHILIC
Width L=26mm
4. Concrete design Mix
a) Type of mix : Designed mix concrete;

b) Grade designation: M50;
c) Type of cement: Portland according to IS 12269;
d) Maximum nominal size for aggregate: 20 mm;
e) Minimum cement content : 300 kg/mc;
f) Maximum w/c : 0,5;
g) Workability: High;
h) Mix proportion: refer to (a);
i) Exposure condition: class II moderate;
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p. 6/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

j) The Maximum concrete temperature at the time of placing should not exceed 32 °;
k) Method of placing : precast;
l) Degree of supervision: very high.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p. 7/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

2. GEOLOGICAL – GEOTECHNICAL CONTEXT

2.1 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MATERIALS
In all of the analyses presented in this document, the geotechnical parameters reported in
Table 2.1 are assumed.
Table 2.1: Geotechnical parameters utilized in the analyses
γn φ’ c’ E’vc
Description Unit
[kN/m3] [°] [kPa] [MPa]
Sandy-clayey sitt G6a 18 28 20 30
Clayey- silty sand G6 – G5 18 32 30 80
Highly weathered
G4 26 42 80 230
granite (undisturbed)
Moderatly weathered
to fresh granite G3 – G1 27.5 50 260 1120
(disturbed)
Moderatly weathered
to fresh granite G3 – G1 27.5 60 410 2835
(undisturbed)
where:
γn = unit volume weight;

c’ = cohesion;
φ’ = friction angle;
E’vc = young modulus in compression;
E’ur = young modulus in the unloading-reloading conditions.
2.2 IN SITU STATE OF STRESS

The value of K0 (earth pressure coefficient at rest) can be derived by the equation
proposed by Jaky (1944):
K0 = 1 – sinΦ
The values for the friction angle are defined in the Table 2.1.
2.3 DEFINITION OF REPRESENTATIVE SECTIONS FOR TUNNEL ANALYSIS
Based on the available data, the following geotechnical sections have been chosen as
representative for the structural verifications of the segmental lining analysis. The
stratigraphy was chosen in occurrence with the results of the nearest borehole.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p. 8/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

In general, the sections have been chosen in order to be representative of the three
geological conditions that shall be encountered at the face during excavation:
• excavation in soil;
• mixed excavation in soil, weathered rock and rock;
• excavation in rock.
Table 2.2: Representative Sections

Chainage Reference
Section Other Details
Reference Bore Hole
A Section Km 9 + 580 NS-UG-133 Excavation in soil
Mixed excavation in soil, weathered

B Section Km 8 + 870 NS-UG-123
rock and rock
C Section Km 6 + 675 NS-UG-15 Excavation in rock
The mechanical properties of various layers of soil and rock used in the numerical
analyses are given from Table 2.3 to Table 2.5.
Table 2.3: Material Properties for Section A (Chainage 9+580)
Depth Thickness Soil
Unit
From [m] To [m] [m] Description
0 -40.0 40.0 Clayey sand G6 - G5
Table 2.4: Material Properties for Section B (Chainage 8+870)

Unit
0 -9.2 7.4 Sandy-silty clay G6a
Clayey sand
-9.2 -12.5 3.3 and weathered G6 – G5
rock
-12.5 -40.0 27.5 Bedrock G3 - G1
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p. 9/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Table 2.5: Material Properties for Section C (Chainage 6+675)

Unit
0 -5.5 5.5 Fill R
Clayey sand
-5.5 -12.5 7.0 and weathered G6 - G5
rock
-12.5 -40 27.5 Bedrock G3 - G1
The level of water below the ground level for each section is reported in Table 2.7
Table 2.7: Representative sections with indication of water level

Chainage Measured depth of water Design depth of water
Section
Reference below ground level [m] below ground level [m]
A Section Km 9 + 580 6 4
B Section Km 8 + 870 5.2 3.2
C Section Km 6 + 675 5.25 3.25
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
10/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

3. RELEVANT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE TBM AND THE

SEGMENTAL LINING
3.1 EXCAVATION METHOD
The UG1 metro line tunnel will be excavated using EPB TBM, assembling segmental
lining assumed for the internal diameter of 5.6m with thickness of 27.5cm.
The main characteristics of TBM, relevant for the structural design of the segmental lining
and thus to be confirmed, are outlined in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Characteristics of the TBM relevant for the segmental lining dimensioning
ITEM TBM
6.40 to 6.45m (inside diameter 5.6m and with the

TBM cutterhead
assumption of a segmental lining thickness of 27.5cm)
Annular void 12.5 ÷ 15.0cm
Full loaded torque 7000kNm
Exceptional torque 9000kNm
Operational max Thrust 42500kN
Number of Thrust shoes 16 shoes
Active articulation Yes
Max working face-support pressure 3 bars
3.2 MAIN FEATURES OF THE SEGMENTAL LINING

The universal type of segmental lining (Figure 3.1) is expected to be used with 27.5cm
thickness and 5.6m internal diameter. The universal type of ring has been chosen to meet
the design requirements: five segments with one key form each ring. Figure 3.2 presents
the geometry of the ring. Table 3.2 outlines the main characteristics of designed
segmental lining.
The universal ring could be rotated. This aim of universal ring type is to follow the track of
the TBM describing in the general case a spatial curve with plan radius. To follow the
curves with plan radius (theoretical tunnel alignment) and for changes of gradient, the
universal rings are mounted which are conically shaped on the two sides. This ring type
can be adjusted in all directions by a corresponding rotation of the ring itself around the
axis with respect to the following and previous one.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
11/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

The conicity of the ring ∆L and the theoretical tunnel alignment (plan radius) can be
related. The distance between theoretical tunnel alignment and the real one made by the
TBM must be minimum and within permissible ranges in accordance with design criteria.
The minimum plan radius of alignment is 300m. The ring, in universal configuration, is set
to follow a minimum plan radius of 185m as per design requirements and therefore the
tapered of segments, lmin and lmax are evaluated with this radius.
Re L 3.075 × 1.5
∆L = = = 0.025m
Rmin 185
Figure 3.1: Concept of Universal Ring
Table 3.2: Main Characteristics of Segmental Lining
Type of ring Universal

Minimum planimetric radius (m) 300
Thickness of segmental lining (mm) 275
Internal diameter (m) 5.6
External diameter (m) 6.15
Minimum length (mm) 1475
Average length (mm) 1500
Maximum length (mm) 1525
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
12/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Table 3.2: Main Characteristics of Segmental Lining (Cont.)

Volume of the biggest segment (m3) 1.45
Weight of the biggest segment (kN) 36.21
Volume of the ring (m3) 7.61
Weight of the ring (kN) 190.33
Number of segments per ring 5+1 (key)
Number of longitudinal connectors 16
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
13/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

FRONT VIEW A - Scale 1:50

DIRECTION OF EXCAVATION
Lmed
RA
157
D IA
.50
LJ
°
OIN
TD
22 -B1
R
1- C
°
AD .00
00
1
13
C
5.
IA °
1
5
T
L
IN
JO
JO
C1
IN
L
T
IA
P2
AD
D1 P3
2-
dc1
R
dc2
1
P1 P4
dc3
cd2 dc4 cb2
cd1 cb1
cd4 cb4
P16 cd3 cb3
P5
C2 22.50°
67.50°
B1
P15 P6
67.50°
67.50°
90° 270°
+Z
P14 67 ° P7
.5 0 .5 0
bc2
bc4 ° 67 ba4
ba2
bc3 ba3
bc1 ba1 RA
2- C2 DIA
L JO
TB INT
OIN P13
LJ P8 B1 -
DIA 29 2 A 1
RA
5 0° .50
67. °
B2 P12 ab4 ab3

P9
P11 ab2 ab1 P10 A1
Lmed
0°/360°
+X
JOINT
RADIAL
A1 - B2
360°
Longitudinal connectors
275 5600 275

6150
PLAN VIEW - Scale 1:50

DIRECTION OF SEGMENT INSERTION DIRECTION OF EXCAVATION
+Y
Lmax 1525
+X
Lmin 1475
L.med
1500
C2 D1 C1 B1
t=300m
ignemen tion=185m
Rmin al ec
m in TBM corr
R
+Y
+X
50 53
+Z
Figure 3.2: Geometry of the ring “5+1” (universal type)
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
14/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

4. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATIONS OF

SEGMENTAL LINING DURING PRE-CAST PROCESS AND TBM
ADVANCEMENT
The adequacy of prescribed segmental lining has been checked, from the structural point
of view, for three stages:
(1) Pre-Cast Processing: in this stage, the minimum strength of segment must be higher
than 15MPa for extraction from mould and 20MPa for storing time. In all proofs the
existing strength of the concrete at the particular point in time of loading must be taken
into account. Additional loads resulting from impacts must also be accounted for.
(2) Advancement of the TBM: in this phase, the operational thrusting force will transmit
directly to last installed ring below tailing shield through hydraulic jacks and its shoes and
it is expected that the ring should properly sustain that force. The maximum strength of
segments higher than 50MPa should be guaranteed during this phase.
(3) Long-term behaviour of the tunnel (service stage): in this long period, the
segmental lining should withstand all possible loads acting on tunnel during service life of
the tunnel.
Table 4.1: Summary of the Verifications for Segmental Lining
Category Source Verifications to be done
examine the segment subjected to the extraction force

Extraction from mould
Pre-cast examine the segment carrying the weight of over

Storage segments
Lifting by erector examine the segment to be moved and lifted by erector

Contact with TBM
(interaction between examine the segments in terms of contact stress results
jacks, shoes and from TBM thrusting force
TBM Segmental ring)
advancing
Induced tension from
examine the segments in terms of induced traction
shoes of jacks (due to
stresses through shoes
effect of thrusting force)
ground loads (water and examine the segmental lining being imposed on ground
lithostatic) loads (water and lithostatic)
Service life
examine the segmental lining being imposed on ground
Seismic condition
loads (water and lithostatic) and seismic
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
15/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

4.1 PRE-CAST PROCESSING

According to the procedure of extraction, first handling and storing, the following analyses
and verifications should be done.
4.1.1 Extraction from the mould and first handling

The static scheme of segment is illustrated in Figure 4.1. The important factors to be
taken into account are dead weight of segment, humidity of fresh concrete, adherence of
segment to mould, vibration effect. It should be noted that in this phase the strength of the
concrete is considered to be at least fck, cube=15MPa due to its short time for setting.
Figure 4.1 Static Sketch for demoulding and First Handling
The following analyses considering two different spans of centres for the handling were
carried out:
• Analysis SEGMENT_01A with span at 2.0m centres (Nodes 5 and 17)

• Analysis SEGMENT_01B with span at 1.0m centres (Nodes 8 and 14)
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
16/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Table 4.2: Definition of the Segment Weight during Extraction and First Handling
Value for first handling
Type of Action Value for extraction [kN]
[kN]
Average weight of the WC=VC*γc=1.43*25=35.75 WC=VC*γc=1.43*25=35.75
segment
Increase of the weight for
0.4*W C=14.30 0.6*W C=21.45
dynamic effect, vibrations
(+40% extraction - +60%
first handling))
Increase of the weight
0.5kN/m3*VC=0.73 0.5kN/m3*VC=0.73
due to humidity of the
concrete 0.5kN/m3
Increase of the weight 2kN/m2*Ad=2*5.19=10.38(*)
due to adherence
-
between segment and
mould 2kN/m2
Total weight WCTOT1= 61.16 WCTOT2=57.93
(*) Area of the external surface of segment
The input parameters for structural analysis are given in Table 4.2. The specific weight
deriving from first handling is more unfavourable, subsequently it will be used for the
verification of current stage of precast. The strength parameters for concrete in this stage
are reported in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Concrete parameters
fck, cube 15 MPa Characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete

0.67fck, cube 10.1 MPa Compressive strength of concrete
γm 1.5 - Partial factor for concrete
fd 6.7 MPa Design compressive strength of concrete
fcr 2.71 MPa Flexural tensile strength of concrete
The analysis concerning to extraction from the mould with the specific weight of γ =
WCTOT1/VC = 61.16/1.43 = 42.8kN/m3 was performed. The main results of structural
analyses are reported in Table 4.4. A complete result of the analyses SEGMENT_01A
and SEGMENT_01B carried out by STRAUS7 is given in Appendix I.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
17/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Table 4.4: Results of Structural Analysis of Segment

Mmax Nmax Vmax
Analysis (kNm/m) (kN/m) (kN/m)

Node Value Node Value Node Value
11 +3.2 11 -
SEGMENT_01A 5, 17 11.2
5, 17 -2.6 5, 17 +3.0
SEGMENT_01B 8, 14 -8.3 8, 14 +2.9 8, 14 13.9
In the following, the required verifications of segments in Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and
Serviceability Limit State (SLS) are reported.
4.1.1.1 Ultimate Limit State (ULS) for bending and axial force
All verifications are satisfied using reinforcement of 12 φ10 for each side of segment. The
verifications referred to the width of 1.5m of segment are reported in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Verifications of Bending Moment and Axial Force in Ultimate Limit State
Mk Nk Msd Nsd Mrd Nrd
Analysis
[kNm] [kN] [kNm] [kN] [kNm] [kN]
+4.8 - +7.2 - 86.3 -
SEGMENT_01A
-3.9 +4.5 -5.9 +6.8 -93.7 +84.3
SEGMENT_01B -12.5 +4.4 -18.8 +6.6 -88.4 +29.0
Where:
Msd = bending moment for design which is 1.5×Mk;

Nsd = axial force for design which is 1.5×Nk;
Mrd = ultimate bending moment;
Nrd = ultimate axial force.
4.1.1.2 Serviceability Limit state for bending and axial forces (SLS)
verifications referred to the width of 1.5m of segment and the acting loads are reported in
Table 4.6.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
18/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)


Mk Nk
Analysis
[kNm] [kN]
+4.8 0.0
SEGMENT_01A
-3.9 +4.5
SEGMENT_01B -12.5 +4.4
The verification of crack of concrete in SLS condition according to Annex F of IS 456:2000

is satisfied, being the width of calculated crack 0.0mm less than 0.2mm.
4.1.1.3 Ultimate Limit State (ULS) for shear

The shear verification referred to the width of 1.5m of segment is also satisfied without
any specific reinforcement, being in both cases τv < τc/2 as reported in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Verification of shear in Ultimate Limit State

Analysis Vk Vsd τv τc τcmax
[kN] [kN] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa]
SEGMENT_01A 16.8 25.2 0.073 0.35 2.5
SEGMENT_01B 20.9 31.4 0.091 0.35 2.5
Where:
Vsd = design value of the applied shear force is 1.5×Vk;

τv = Vsd/bd = nominal shear stress;
d = effective depth of cross section in mm = 230mm;
b = width of cross section in mm = 1500 mm;
τc = design shear strength of concrete according to Table 19 of IS 456:2000;
τcmax = maximum shear stress according to Table 20 of IS 456:2000.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
19/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

4.1.2 Storage of segments

The static scheme of segments storage is illustrated in Figure 4.2, indicating that the
weight of four segments and one key must be sustained by the lowest segment in storage
place. In this stage, the span at 2.0m centres is considered. The structural analysis was
used for determination of bending moment, axial force and shear force in the lowest
segment. The weights acting on the lowest segment are given in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Definition of the Active Weight during Storage

ACTION TYPE STORAGE
Weight of the segment WC=VC*γc=1.43*25=35.75kN
Weight of the four segments + (4×35.75+0.48×25)/2=77.5kN (for each support)

keystone
Besides the self weight of the lowest segment, a point force of 77.5/1.5 = 51.7kN/m with
eccentricity of 10cm from the support due to misaligned segments is applied. The strength
parameters for concrete in this stage are reported in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9: Concrete Parameters
fck, cube 20 MPa Characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete

0.67fck,cube 13.4 MPa Compressive strength of concrete
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
20/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure 4.2: Static Sketch for Storage
The main results of structural analysis are reported in Table 4.10. A complete result of the
analysis SEGMENT_02 carried out by STRAUS7 is given in Appendix I.

Mmax [kNm/m] Nmax [kN/m] Vmax [kN/m]
Analysis
Node Value Node Value Node Value
+3.0
SEGMENT _02 17 -6.7 17 17 52.8
-20.2
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
21/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Analysis
[kNm] [kN] [kNm] [kN] [kNm] [kN]
+4.5 +6.8 -91.5 +37.8
SEGMENT _02 -10.1 -15.2
-30.3 -45.5 -72.4 -149.2
Where:

Nsd = axial force for design which is 1.5×Nk;
Mrd = ultimate bending moment;
Nrd = ultimate axial force.
4.1.2.2 Serviceability Limit STATE FOR bending and axial forces (SLS)
Table 4.12: Verifications of Bending Moment and Axial Force in Serviceability Limit State
Mk Nk
Analysis
[kNm] [kN]
+4.5
SEGMENT _02 -10.1
-20.2


The shear verification referred to the width of 1.5m of segment is reported in Table 4.13.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
22/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)


Vk Vsd τv τc τcmax
Analysis
[kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN
SEGMENT_02 79.2 118.8 0.34 0.36 2.8
Where:

Being τv > τc/2 as reported in Table 4.13, it is clear that the inaccurate alignment of the
supports during the storage phase can damage the segments and thus the positioning of
the segments must be accurate and no misalignment should be accepted. To avoid the
placement of the shear reinforcement in this stage it is necessary to place the upper
segments without eccentricity above the support.
4.2 ADVANCING OF THE TBM

In this part the appropriateness of prescribed segmental lining are to be verified under the
pressure of the TBM thrusting force which can be analyzed through:
1. Verification of segment during lifting process by erector.

2. Under the pressure of the TBM thrusting force which can be analyzed through:
a. Contact pressure between shoes of cylindrical jacks and segments;

b. Bursting force (splitting tensile stresses) induced inside the segments.
4.2.1 Handling by erection system

Once each package of six segments arrives to the TBM, the segments are installed and
screwed under the protection of the shield by means of the erector. At the time of lifting
and movement by erector, the segment is subjected to two types of forces namely, point
load force and dynamic force. Therefore it is of great significance to carry out the
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
23/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

structural analysis. Moreover, the lifting socket which is also used for secondary injection
should be designed. In this analysis the segment is supported at its middle length. The
strength characteristics of the concrete at the time of installation by erector must reach
final design values as reported in Table 4.14.
Table 4.14: Concrete parameters
fck, cube 50 MPa Characteristic cube strength of reinforced concrete

0.67fck 33.5 MPa Compressive strength of concrete
The main results of structural analysis are reported in Table 4.15. A complete result of the
analysis SEGMENT_03 carried out by STRAUS 7 is given in Appendix I.
Analysis Node Mmax [kNm/m] Nmax [kN/m] Vmax [kN/m]
SEGMENT_03 11 -9.8 -0.3 11.7
Serviceability Limit State (SLS) are reported. In all of the following verifications an
increment of 60% due to dynamic effect shall be taking into account.
Analysis [kNm] [kN] [kNm] [kN] [kNm] [kN]
SEGMENT _03 -23.5 -0.7 -35.3 -1.1 -95.1 -2.3
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
24/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Where:
Mrd = ultimate bending moment.
4.2.1.2 Serviceability Limit STATE FOR bending and axial forces (SLS)
Table 4.17: Verifications of bending moment and axial force in Serviceability Limit State
Mk Nk
Analysis
[kNm] [kN]
SEGMENT_03 -23.5 -0.7


any specific reinforcement, being τv < τc/2 as reported in Table 4.18.

Analysis
[kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN
SEGMENT_03 28.1 42.1 0.12 0.38 4.0
Where

R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
25/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

4.2.2 Contact Compressive Pressure under the Shoes Cylinder

During heading of TBM the segments are loaded at the front faces by the jacking forces
represented in Figure 4.1. At the back sides of the segments, these forces are transferred
into the segmental rings already installed by means of load transmission pads, which in
most cases are made of hardboards. Due to the lateral extension of the loads applied by
the jacks, transverse tensile forces are induced, which must be carried by an adequate
reinforcement.
Considering that the applied pressure has the most significant effects on the result of the
structural dimensioning and the appearance of damage on the segments, its verification
should be carried out as rigorously as possible.
Figure 4.1: Example of the configuration for the transmission of the thrust forces into the
segmental lining through jack shoe
The technical characteristics of the jacking (thrusting) system are as below:

1. Number of shoes of thrusting System: 16;
2. Dimension of each shoe: 750x120mm (to be confirmed);
3. Maximum possible eccentricity: 30mm (to be confirmed);
4. Maximum applied total thrust: 35000kN (to be confirmed).
In the following the estimation of the thrust force (FA) transferred by TBM to the
segmental lining in case of advancing in soil is evaluated as in Table 4.19.
In case the TBM will advance in rock the total force FB is obtained evaluating the term F1
as follows:
F1 = n×FC
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
26/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Where:
n = number of cutter = 45;

Fc = cutter force = 267kN.
F1 = 45×267 = 12015kN
the total force is evaluated as in the following adding to this force the F2 and F3 evaluated
in Table 4.19:
FB=Ftot = 12015 + 10714 + 206 = 22935kN
The segmental lining is dimensioned to withstand to a contact pressure under the shoes
of the thrusting cylinders derived by a thrust force of 35000kN; this value is higher than
the two results obtained, i.e FA= 19385kN in case of advancing in soil and FB= 22935kN
in case of advancing in rock.
Of course, it could happen for unforeseeable reasons that the TBM could need more
thrust but in that very exceptional case it is acceptable that some cracks (even big) could
appear in the segment which can be properly repaired or substitute after.
Finally, a safety factor on concrete compressive strength, consistent with the Eurocode
2, is taken into account in the segments design.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
27/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Table 4.19: Estimation of the trust force

ESTIMATION OF THRUST FORCE OF EXCAVATION
Tunnel parameters Soli parameters
Excavation diameter D (m) 6.450 soli density (kN/m3) 18.000
Shield medium diameter Ds (m) 6.446 cohesion (kPa) 10.000
Shield lenght L(m) 8.900 Friction angle (ϕ) 28.000
Internal Lining diameter Di (m) 5.600 K0 0.531
Lining thickness s (m) 0.275
Lining lenght Lriv (m) 1.500
Excavation area Aexc (m2) 32.675
Shield area Ash (m2) 180.343
ESTIMACION EMPUJE
F1+F2+F3 F1 Hydrostatic + horizontal soil force
F2 Friction soil - shield
F3 Friction shield - lining
F1 =Aexc * σho
H (m) 15.300 Tunnel axis depth
Zw (m) 11.300 Water column height on the axis
σ'v (kPa) 275.400 Effective vertical stress
K0 0.531 At the rest coefficient
σ'h0 (kPa) 146.108 Effective horizontal stress
u (kPa) 113.000 Water pressure
σho (kPa) 259.108 Total horizontal stress
F1 8466.216 kN
σr*tan(2/3ϕ
F2 =Ashield *(0.6*c+σ ϕ))
Ka 0.361
σ'ha (kPa) 99.429
σ'r (kPa) 158.086
τ (kPa) 59.407
F2 10713.569 kN
µ*Wring
F3 =3*µ
µ 0.300
γ concrete (kN/m3) 25.000
Wring (kN) 228.404
Vol ring (m3) 9.136
F3 205.563 kN
Ftot 19385 kN
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
28/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure 4.2: Geometry of contact pressure behind jacking shoe and influential are of the
segment
Figure 4.3: Advancing of TBM – distribution of the contact pressure on the segmental
lining due to thrust shoe
The geometry of contact pressure of jacking shoe and influential area of segment is
illustrated in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3, taking into account the 30 mm eccentricity effect
for applied thrust.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
29/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

4.2.3 Structural analysis and verification

The verifications can be done according to section 6.7 of localized pressure of
EUROCODE 2 (EN 1992-1-1:2004). In the following the excerpt of EUROCODE 2
regarding the section 6.7 is reported.
According to this section, the verification is satisfactory when the following inequality is
valid:
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
30/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Fsd = 1.1*(35000/16) = 2406kN

Main parameters for calculation, according to the Figure 4.3 are reported below:
b0 = 60 mm;
l0 = 750 mm;
Ac0 = b0*l0 = 45000 mm2;
b1 = 180 mm;
l1 = 1050mm;
Ac1 = b1*l1 = 189000 mm2;
fcd = 0.83fck, cube/1.5 = 0.83×50/1.5 ≅ 26.7N/mm2 (design compressive strength of concrete
in short term);
FRdu = Ac0*fcd*(Ac1/Ac0)0.5 = 2459kN;
Fmax = 3*fcd*Ac0 = 3600kN.
Therefore, the criterion is satisfied as:

Fsd = 2406kN < FRdu = 2459kN < Fmax = 3600kN
4.2.4 Bursting force induced by cylinders action

As a result of thrusting force, acting on segments through jacking shoes, the zone of
compression and tension form. The tensile stress inside segments causes bursting or
splitting as illustrated in Figure 4.4. The theory of repartition of load on an elastic domain,
developed by Leonhardt (1977), is used to analyze the tensile stress distribution for both
radial and circumferential sections.
Hydraulic jack
Direction of advance
Figure 4.4: Distribution of the acting tensile force inside the ring (above: transversal
direction, below: circumferential direction)
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
31/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure 4.5: Nomograph for the determination of locations of the maximum and minimum
splitting tensile stress inside the segment under axial thrusting force
(Leonhardt 1977).
4.2.4.1 CIRCUMFERENTIAL SECTION

With reference to Figure 4.3 circumferential section, it is possible to find the location of
tensile stress distribution and obtain the related expression which is used in nomograph
shown in Figure 4.5.
Z = 0.25* Nsd *(1-a/d) = 0.25 * 2406 * (1-750/1050) = 172kN
Where:
a = 750 mm = length of the upper periphery of the shoe;

d = 1050 mm = length of solid subjected to this load.
Being d/a = 1.40, according to Figure 4.5, the location of tensile stresses begins from:
x1 = 0.23d = 242mm (zero stress);

and
x2 = 0.45d = 473mm (maximum stress);
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
32/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

from surface of contact pressure.

The required steel area for prevention of tensile traction is obtained:
As= (172/435)*1000=395 mm2
This value corresponds to 6Φ10 (corresponding to 471mm2) located from 255mm and
650mm of the border. The designed reinforcement must cover this zone of tensile.
4.2.4.2 TRANSVERSAL SECTION

Similarly, with reference to Figure 4.3 transversal section, it is possible to find the location
of tensile stress distribution and obtain the related expression which is used in nomograph
of Figure 4.5 as:
Z = 0.25*Nsd*(1-a/d) = 0.25 * 2406 * (1- 60/180) = 401kN
Where:
a = 60mm = length of the upper periphery of the shoe;

Being d/a = 3.0, according to Figure 4.5, the location of tensile stresses begin from:
x1 = 0.18d = 33mm (zero stresses);

and
x2 = 0.37d = 67mm (maximum stresses);

As= (401/435)*1000=922mm2
This value corresponds to 4Φ8 and 10Φ10 (corresponding to 990mm2) located from
35mm and 85mm of the border. The designed reinforcement must cover this zone of
tensile.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
33/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

4.2.5 Torsion effects of TBM on segmental lining

The TBM cutter head rotating to excavate the ground transmits by thrusts to latest
installed ring a torsion load. This torsion load may be evaluated in term of frictional
resistance between the shoes and ring and in term of shear resistance of concrete of the
segmental lining of the ring as described in the following. From Table 3.1, the data of TBM
are:
Excavation diameter = RTBM =6.4/2 = 3.2m;

Full loaded torque MTBM =7000kNm (to be confirmed);
Exceptional torque = 9000kNm (to be confirmed);
Operating thrust force = 42500kN (to be confirmed);
Maximum applied thrust force = 35000kN (to be confirmed).
a) Verification of frictional resistance

The frictional resistance force is evaluated by a friction coefficient between the shoes of
thrust and the segmental ling as in the following, assuming for this coefficient the value of
0.1:
FOperating = µFTH = 0.1×42500 =4250kN;

FMaximum = µFTH = 0.1×35000 =3500kN.
The torsion moments due to friction are calculated as:
MTF (Operating) = FOperating×RTBM = 4250×3.2 = 13600kNm;

MTF (Maximum) = FMaximum×RTBM = 3500×3.2 = 11200kNm.
The safety factors are calculated in the following:
FS (Operating) = MTF (Operating) / MTBM = 13600/9000 =1.5;

FS (Maximum) = MTF (Maximum) / MTBM = 11200/7000 =1.6.
b) Verification of shear resistance of ring

The excerpt of EUROCODE, Section 6.2.2 concerning the evaluation of shear stress of
concrete without considering reinforcement is reported in the following.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
34/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

The shear stress is evaluated using the Equation 6.3N in above.

k = 1+(200/230)1/2 = 1.93;
fck = 0.83×50 ≅ 40MPa;
τmin = vmin = 0.035×(1.93)3/2×401/2 ≅ 0.60MPa =600kPa;
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
35/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

The average diameter of the ring = Dm = (6.15+5.6)/2 = 5.875m;

Aring= π×(6.152-5.62)/4 = 5.08m2.
The torsion moments offer by shear stress of concrete are calculated as:
MTS (Operating) = τmin×Aring×Dm = 600×5.08×5.875/2 = 8954kNm;

MTS (Maximum) = 1.1×(τmin×Aring×Dm) = 1.1×600×5.08×5.875/2 = 9849kNm.
The safety factors are calculated in the following:
FS (Operating) = MTS (Operating) / MTBM = 8954/7000 =1.28;

FS (Maximum) = MTS (Maximum) / MTBM = 9849/9000 =1.1.
In the calculation of the minimum shear stress by equation 6.2.b of Eurocode 2, it is

neglected the contribution of the acting axial force; therefore the increment of 10% is
plausible in the check for exceptional torque.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
36/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATIONS OF

SEGMENTAL LINING DURING SERVICE STAGE OF THE
TUNNEL
5.1 INTRODUCTION
For the structural design of tunnels, two-dimensional, plane strain, finite element
numerical analyses have been carried out using PLAXIS 9.0 software from Plaxis B.V.
In order to define the behaviour of tunnels under mechanical and hydro-geological
conditions, the worst case represented by the ″Section A″ described in section 2.3 has
been analyzed.
5.2 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

The main characteristics of numerical model are given below.
5.2.1 Geometry
Vertical and horizontal dimensions have been chosen in order to get reliable unaffected
results from boundary conditions.
5.2.2 Boundary conditions
• Lower horizontal boundary: Fixed in X and Y directions (both horizontal and

vertical displacement fixed).
• Vertical boundaries: Fixed only in X direction (horizontal displacement fixed).
5.2.3 Initial conditions of ground

Initial stress fields have been assigned based on the stratigraphy described in Table 2.3.
The water ground level has been set to 6m below the ground level.
5.2.4 Material properties and their constitutive laws

A non-associated elasto-plastic stress-strain relation with Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
(null dilation) is used to describe the behaviour of soils. Drained resistance parameters
are used for all of the analyses.
Reinforced concrete segments are simulated through “liners structural elements” which
are connected to the soil by means of interface elements. Liners are two dimensional
elements with 3 degrees of freedom (two displacements and one rotation) at each end
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
37/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

node. The behaviour of concrete is assumed to be linearly elastic with properties for M50
concrete (E=35000MPa, υ=0.2). It is clear that a segmental lining has a flexural stiffness
which is not as the one of a monolithic tube nor like a tube with a fixed number of hinges
in specific positions. Therefore a right calibration of this fundamental parameter must be
defined.
This aspect is transferred to numerical analyses using the following steps:
1. Correction of the elastic modulus of the ring, according to a factor ζ;

2. Calculation of the acting loads on lining;
3. Modification of the value of the bending moment, increasing and decreasing the
value for the segment and joint, respectively, by the same ζ factor (the normal
force remains the same).
Figure 5.1: Bending moment allocation for segmental lining, considering a reduced
stiffness due to the presence of joints.
Ec = (1- ζ) ·Ecls
Mj = (1 - ζ) ·Mc
Ms = (1 + ζ) ·Mc
Where:
Ec = the virtual modulus of the ring;
Ecls = the concrete modulus;
Mc = the bending moment derived from the analyses;
Mj = the bending moment of the joint;
Ms = the bending moment of the segment.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
38/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

The value of the parameter ζ varies between 0.3 and 0.5 as a function of the number of
segments and the stiffness of the surrounding ground.
Taking into account the modification factor ζ for Young’s modulus of concrete, the real
modulus to be considered in structural analyses must be:
Ec =(1- ζ)*Ecls = (1- 0.3)*35000 =24500 MPa
5.2.5 Analysis stages

The excavation and construction of each of the two tunnels are simulated in the following
stages:
1. STAGE 1
Geostatic equilibrium of the elasto-plastic model. Application of the external constraint
and vertical and horizontal stresses;
2. STAGE 2
Excavation of the left side’s tunnel with relaxes of the total geostatic load applied to
the tunnel wall until to have relaxed to 38%, corresponding approximately about 0.4%
of volume loss. In fact, considering as worst case volume loss equals to 1.0%, it has
been assumed that 40% of this contraction is developed at the face and with the shield
tapering before the installation of the ring.
3. STAGE 3
Installation of the segmental lining on the left side’s tunnel, complete relaxing of the
total geostatic applied at the wall tunnel until 100%.
4. STAGE 4
Excavation of the right side’s tunnel with relaxes of the total geostatic load applied to
the tunnel wall until to have relaxed to 38%, corresponding approximately about 0.4%
of volume loss.
5. STAGE 5
Installation of segmental lining on the right side’s tunnel, complete relaxing of the total
geostatic applied at the wall tunnel until 100%.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
39/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

5.3 RESULT OF THE ANALYSES

The results are evaluated under the axial force, bending moment and shear force in the
segmental lining. The maximum acting loads on the segmental are summarized in the
Table 5.1. The complete results of the analyses are reported in Appendix II.
Table 5.1: Summary of forces acting in the segmental lining
Combination M [kN/m] N [kNm/m] V [kN/m]

Nmin 30.1 501.0 19.5
Nmax 26.0 331.2 19.5
Mmin 30.6 499.0 19.5
Mmax 28.5 395.4 19.5
5.4 STRUCTURAL VERIFICATIONS

According to the developed analyses of section 5.3, the acting loads on the segmental
lining reported in Table 5.1, are summarized in the following Table 5.2: here the acting Mj
e Ms in joint and in segment are evaluated with corrective factors as descried in section
5.2.4.
Table 5.2: Summary of the acting loads on segmental lining in service stage
M N Mj Ms
Combination
[kNm/m] [kNm/m] [kNm/m] [kNm/m]
Nmin 30.1 501.0 21.1 39.2
Nmax 26.0 331.2 18.2 33.8
Mmin 30.6 499.0 21.4 39.8
Mmax 28.5 395.4 20.0 37.1
5.4.1 Ultimate limit state (uls) for bending and axial force
Using double reinforcement with 12φ10 for side equivalent to 948mm2, we obtain the
summarized results in Table 5.3. These quantities of steel are higher than the minimum
required of Indian Standard about 587mm2 (IS 456:2000).
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
40/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Table 5.3: Verifications of bending moment and axial force in Ultimate Limit State
Mssd Nsd Msrd Nrd
Verification
Steel
section [kNm] [kN] [kNm] [kN]
Nmin 88.2 1127.0 371.0 4261.0
Nmax 76.1 745.2 356.0 3194.0

12φ10 + 12φ10
Mmin 89.6 1123.0 371.0 4261.0
Mmax 83.5 889.7 369.0 3588.0
Mssd = Bending moment for design referred to whole length of segment equal to 1.5m =
1.5×1.5×Ms;
Nsd = Axial force for design referred to whole length of segment equal to 1.5m =
1.5×1.5×N;
Msrd = Ultimate bending of section;
Nrd = Ultimate axial force of section.
According to Table 5.3, all verifications are satisfied.
5.4.2 Serviceability limit state for bending and axial forces (SLS)
Table 5.4: Verifications of Bending Moment and Axial Force in Serviceability Limit State
Mk Nk w
Combination
[kNm] [kN] [mm]
Nmin 58.8 751.5 0.0
Nmax 50.7 496.8 0.0
Mmin 59.7 748.5 0.0
Mmax 55.7 593.1 0.0

R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
41/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

5.4.3 Ultimate limit state (ULS) for shear

any specific reinforcement, being τv < τc/2 as reported in Table 5.5.

Analysis
[kN] [kN] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa]
SEGMENT_03 29.3 44.0 0.13 0.38 4.0
Where:

5.5 VERIFICATION OF THE RADIAL JOINT (CONTACT SEGMENT TO SEGMENT)

In contact zones between the two adjacent segments, the verification due to contact
pressure and bursting force induced by axial loads have been performed. In Table 5.2, the
loads acting on joints and the axial force for design of reinforcement are reported. The
geometry of contact pressure of joints and influential area of segments is illustrated in
Figure 5.2.
5.5.1 Verification of contact pressure

The verification, according to section 6.7 of Eurocode 2 (see Section 4.2.3), is satisfied
with respect of the following inequality:
Nsd ≤ Frdu ≤ Fmax
Where:
Frdu = Ac0*fcd*(Ac1/Ac0)0.5
Ac0 = b0*l0
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
42/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Ac1 = b1*l1
Fmax = 3*fcd*Ac0
fcd = 0.85×(0.83fck, cube)/1.5 = 0.85×(0.83×50)/1.5 ≅ 22.7N/mm2 (design compressive

strength of concrete in long term);
The values of the various terminus of the inequality for the analyses are summarized in
Table 5.6 and Table 5.7.
Figure 5.2: Verification of the Joint between Segment to Segment, Distributions of the
Contact Pressure on the Segmental Lining
Table 5.6: Summaries of the acting loads on joint
Msj Ns e = Msj/Ns Nsd
Combination [kNm/m] [kN/m] [m] [kN]
Nmin 21.1 501.0 4.21×10-2 1127.0
Nmax 18.2 331.2 5.50×10-2 745.2
Mmin 21.4 499.0 4.29×10-2 1123.0
Mmax 20.0 395.4 5.06×10-2 889.7
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
43/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Table 5.7: Contact pressure verification

Nsd Frdu b0 l0 b1 l1 Fmax
Combination
[kN] [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
Nmin 1127.0 3676 100 1100 160 1500 7463
Nmax 745.2 2902 74 1100 134 1500 5542
Mmin 1123.0 3630 98 1100 158 1500 7347
Mmax 889.7 3167 83 1100 143 1500 6196
5.5.2 Verification to bursting force induced by axial loads

The tensile stress inside segments causes bursting or splitting. The theory of repartition of
load on an elastic domain, developed by Leonhardt (1977), is used to analyze the tensile
stress distribution in the following sections:
• Longitudinal, that gives the value of tensile loads parallel to the direction of tunnel
axis;
• Transversal, that gives the value of tensile loads parallel to the direction of ring
circumference.
The following verifications will be conducted for the combination with emin, which is the
worst case for the reinforcement.
5.5.2.1 LONGITUDINAL SECTION

With reference to longitudinal section, it is possible to find the location of tensile stress
distribution and obtain the related expression which is used in nomograph of Figure 4.5
as:
Z = 0.25*Nsd*(1-a/d) = 0.25 * 1127 * (1-1100/1500) = 75kN
Where:
a = 1100 mm = length of the upper periphery of the shoe;
and
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
44/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)


As= (75/435)*1000 = 172mm2
This value corresponds to 4Φ8 (corresponding to 200mm2) located from 370 mm and
5.5.2.2 TRANSVERSAL SECTION

Similarly, with reference to transversal section, it is possible to find the location of tensile
stress distribution and obtain the related expression which is used in nomograph of Figure
4.5 as:
Z = 0.25*Nsd*(1-a/d) = 0.25 * 1127 * (1- 100/160) = 106kN
Where:
a = 100mm = length of the upper periphery of the shoe;
d = 160mm =length of solid subjected to this load.
Being d/a = 1.6, according to Figure 4.5, the location of tensile stresses begin from:

and
The required steel area for prevention of tensile traction is then obtained:
As= (106/435)*1000 = 244mm2
This value corresponds to 8Φ8 (corresponding to 400mm2) located from 50 mm and

R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
45/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

5.6 FIRE VERIFICATION

According to EUROCODE 2 EN 1992-1-2-2004, Section 4, the simplified cross-section
calculation, i.e., “500°C isotherm method” is used to determine the ultimate load bearing
capacity of a heated cross section and to compare the capacity with the relevant
combination of actions. It shall be verified for the relevant duration of fire exposure t:
Ed,fi ≤ Rd,fi
Where:
Ed,fi is the design effect of actions for the fire situation;

Rd,fi is the design resistance in the fire situation.
This method is valid for a minimum width of cross-section given in Table 5.7 (from Table
B1 of EUROCODE 2 EN 1992-1-2-2004, Annex B).
Table 5.7: Minimum width of cross-section as function of fire resistance
The simplified calculation method comprises a general reduction of the cross-section size
with respect to a heat damaged zone at concrete surfaces. The thickness of the damaged
concrete is made equal to the average depth of the 500°C isotherm in the compression
zone of the cross-section.
Damaged concrete, i.e, concrete with temperatures in excess of 500°C, is assumed not to
contribute to the load bearing capacity of the member, while the residual concrete
cross-section retains its values of strength and modulus of elasticity.
Choosing the temperature distribution in segmental lining at time 120minutes (REI120),
and considering the section are exposed to fire from three sides, from Figure 5.3
(Eurocode 2, Annex A, Figure A.9(b)), the depth of the isotherm corresponding to 500°C is
obtained to cfi = 36mm; therefore, the new width bfi and a new effective height dfi of the
cross-section by excluding the concrete outside the 500°C isotherm are determined as in
the following:
bfi = b - 2cfi = 1500 -2×36 = 1428mm;

dfi = d - cfi = 230 - 36 = 194mm;
hfi = dfi + cfi = 194 + 36 = 230mm.
The dimension of segmental lining to consider in fire verification is 1428mm × 230mm.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
46/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure 5.3: Temperature profiles in °C for a beam o f dimensions 800×500 at time 120
minutes
In the following the verification of the segmental lining taking into account the reduction
factors for materials for high loaded section is reported.
The distance between the reinforcement bar axis and inner side of the segmental lining is
4.5cm, at this location the temperature in reinforcement bar is about 400°C (Figure 5.3).
From Table 5.8 (Eurocode 2, Table 3.2a), the reduction factor ks(θ) for hot rolled
reinforcement at 400 °C is:
ks(θ) = fsy,θ/fyk = 1;
fsy,θ = 1×500 = 500MPa.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
47/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Table 5.8: Values for the parameters of the stress-strain relationship of hot rolled and cold
worked reinforcing steel at elevated temperatures
Using double reinforcement with 12 bars of diameter 10mm for side equivalent to 948mm2
we obtain the summarized results in Table 5.9.
Mssd Nsd Msrd Nrd
Verification
Steel
Nmin 84.0 1073.0 277.0 3250.0
Nmax 72.4 710.0 251.0 2269.0

12φ10 + 12φ10
Mmin 85.3 1069 277.0 3250.0
Mmax 79.5 847.0 260.0 2497.0
Mssd = Bending moment for design referred to whole length of segment equal to 1.428m =
1.428×1.5×Ms;
1.428×1.5×Nmax;
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
48/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)


5.7 SEISMIC DESIGN LOADS EVALUATION

5.7.1 Introduction
The goal of earthquake-resistant design for a tunnel is to develop a facility that can
withstand a given level of seismic motion with damage not exceeding a pre-defined
acceptable level. Although static design provisions for underground structures often
provide sufficient seismic resistance under low level of ground shaking, it is necessary to
assess the probable seismic loading where likelihood of such a load is high. Therefore,
the assessment of underground structure seismic response requires an understanding of
the anticipated ground shaking as well as an evaluation of the response of the ground and
the structure to such shaking.
The analysis used in present design is based on deformation concept. Hence, the seismic
design is assumed to be characterized in terms of strains that act on the tunnel by the
surrounding ground (deformation method for underground structures). Furthermore, the
references of seismic design method is of studies published by Wang 1993 (Seismic
design of tunnel- a simple state-of-the-art design approach, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade
& Douglas, Inc ) and Hashash et al. 2001 (Seismic design and analysis of underground
structures are endorsed by ITA-AITES as the accredited material).
5.7.2 Design Fundamentals and procedures

The response of tunnels to seismic shaking motions may be demonstrated in terms of
three principal types of deformations (Owen and Scholl, 1981):
Axial compression and extension

Curvature (longitudinal bending)
Ovaling (for circular tunnels) or racking (for rectangular tunnels such as cut-and-
cover tunnels)
The methodology of the seismic loading design is in that basic design loading criteria
(static condition) has to incorporate the additional loading imposed by ground shaking and
deformation. In general seismic design loads for tunnel are characterized in terms of the
deformations and strains imposed on the structure by the surrounding ground based on
their interaction. To describe procedure used to compute deformations and force
corresponding to the three deformations modes, two design approaches have been
introduced as:
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
49/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Free-field deformation approach (Wang 1996; Power et al. 1998; Hashash et al.
2001);
Soil- structure interaction approach.
In free-field deformation approach, the ground deformation caused by seismic waves is

assumed to occur in the absence of structure or excavation. Theses deformations ignore
the interaction between the underground structure and the surrounding ground, but can
provide a first-order estimate of the anticipated deformation of the structure. The closed
form elastic solution results in combined axial and curvature deformations, assuming the
tunnel as an elastic beam and maximum strain at critical incidence angle. The advantages
and disadvantages of this method have been reported by Wang (1993).
The presence of an underground structure modifies the free-field ground deformations; so

a method based on soil-structure interaction is required. This solution uses the beam-on-
elastic foundation approach that is used to model (quasi-static) soil-structure interaction
effects. Under seismic loading, the cross-section of a tunnel experiences axial bending
and shear strains due to free-field axial, curvature, and shear deformations as illustrated
in Figure 5.4.
The closed form solutions for estimating ground-structure interaction for circular tunnels
are generally based on the assumptions that:
• The ground is an infinite, elastic, homogeneous, isotropic medium.

• The circular lining is generally an elastic, thin walled tube under plane strain
conditions.
• Full-slip or no-slip conditions exist along the interface between the ground and the
lining.
• Loading conditions are to be simulated as external loading (overpressure loading)
or excavation loading.
In order to evaluate the seismic design for the Bangalore Metro, the closed form elastic
solution, based on soil-structure interaction analysis, is used. The procedures and
formulations are described hereafter. Mainly, the analysis and verifications concern the
determination of “ovaling” deformation of tunnel, including thrust force, bending moment,
maximum stress, and diametric strain for both Full-slip and Non-slip conditions.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
50/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure 5.4: Induced forces and moments caused by seismic waves. (a) induced
forces and moments caused by waves propagating along tunnel
axis, (b) induced circumferential forces and moments caused by
waves propagating perpendicular to tunnel axis (Hashash et al.
2001)
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
51/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

5.7.3 Design criteria

The mechanical parameters of ground used in the seismic analysis are given in Table
5.10.
Table 5.10: Mechanical parameters of ground used in seismic analysis

Parameter Value
Ground unit weight γm 18 kN/m3
Poisson’s ratio υm 0.25
Soil deposit thickness over rigid bedrock 15m
The design parameters of the tunnel lining to be used in seismic analysis are outlined in
Table 5.11.
Table 5.11: Structure parameters of lining used in seismic analysis

Parameter Value
Lining thickness t 27.5cm
Centroid diameter of segmental lining d 5.875m
Concrete class M50 fck, cube = 50MPa
Poisson’s ratio υc 0.25
Elastic modulus Ec (*) 24500N/mm2
(*)Elastic modulus of concrete is reduced by as much as 30 %, due to the consideration of
the stiffness reduction in segmental ring (Section 5.2.4).
The seismic parameters of the ground are presented in the Table 5.12.
Table 5.12: Ground seismic parameters

Parameter ODE Condition MDE Condition
Analysis of ″Section A″″
Shear wave velocity Cs(a) 360m/s 360m/s
(b)
Peak Ground Acceleration amax 0.08g 0.16g
Ground Acceleration at tunnel depth as (c) 0.072g 0.144g
Peak Ground Velocity Vs (d) 0.091 m/s 0.183 m/s
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
52/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Note to Table 5.12:
(a) The shear wave velocity ranges between 200-750m/s for stiff soil, greater than
750m/s for rock and less than 200m/s soft soil [Ref. Hashash et al. 2001.Seismic
design and analysis of underground structures, Table 2 page 258]. With reference to
type of soil properties of Bangalore, the value of Cs = 360 m/s was assumed.
(b) The peak ground acceleration in accordance with IS 1893 (2000) and considering
Zone III according to Tender documentation, package 2, Volume 4, Section 1.5.7 in
Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE) was assumed to 0.16. In Operating Design
Earthquake (ODE), according to IS 1893 (2000), this value is reduced to factor 2, i.e.,
0.08.
(c) With reference to Table 4 of Hashash et al. (2001), considering the tunnel depth
between 6-15m, a reduction coefficient of 0.9 should be multiplied to peak ground
acceleration.
(d) according to Table 2 of Hashash et al. (2001), the ratio of peak ground velocity Vs
(cm/s/g) to ground acceleration at depth of tunnel as (g) was assumed to 127 (Vs/as
=127). (Magnitude Mw =127 for stiff soil at Source –to-site distance (km) 20-50).
5.7.4 Structural calculations

The maximum free-field shear strain, defined in Figure 5.5, can be obtained as:
γmax = Vs/Cs
To adopt seismic loading (caused by shear waves) to classical closed form solution, the
free-field shear stress replaces the in-situ overburden pressure and the at-rest coefficient
of earth pressure is assigned a value of (-1) to simulate the field simple shear condition.
The results of closed-form solution are in terms of axial forces, bending moment, and
shear forces.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
53/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure 5.5: Free-field shear distortion of perforated and non-perforated ground,

circular shape (Wang, 1993)
The stiffness of a tunnel relative to the surrounding ground is quantified by the

compressibility and flexibility ratios (C & F), which are measures of the extensional
stiffness and the flexural stiffness (resistance to ovaling), respectively, of the medium
relative to the lining:
- Ratio of compressibility C
C = (Em*(1-υc2)*R)/(Ec*s*(1+υm)*(1-2υm))
- Ratio of flexibility F
F = (Em*(1-υc2)*R3)/(6*Ec*I*(1+υm))
Where:
I = moment of inertia of the tunnel lining (per unit width) for circular lining;
R = radius of the tunnel lining;
t = thickness of the tunnel lining.
Assuming Full-slip condition at interface, the maximum normal force and bending
moment, and the diametric strain, can be expressed as:
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
54/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

- Nmax = 1/6*K1*Em*R*γmax/(1+υm)
- Mmax = 1/6*K1*Em*R2*γmax/(1+υm)
- ∆D/D = 1/3*K1*F*γmax
Where:
K1 is defined herein as lining response coefficient. The earthquake loading parameter is

represented by the maximum shear strain, γmax, which can readily be obtained.
Assuming NO-slip condition at the interface, the maximum normal force and bending
moment, and the diametric strain, can be expressed as:
- Nmax = 1/2*K2*Em*R*γmax/(1+υm)
- Mmax = 1/6*K1*Em*R2*γmax/(1+υm)
Where:
Table 5.13 summarizes the results of the ovaling deformation analysis in reference to an
inclination of ±45˚ (with respect to the horizontal axis of the tunnel lining), because the
effect of the seismic waves is more critical in that inclination.
Table 5.13: Summary of the ovaling deformation analysis
M N V M N V
Verification
Analysis [kNm/m] [kN/m] [kN/m] [kNm/m] [kN/m] [kN/m]
section
ODE Conditions MDE Conditions
Full slip conditions
Seismic_I θ = ± 45° 15.9 5.4 - 31.8 10.8 -

No slip conditions
Seismic_II θ = ± 45° 15.9 195.2 - 31.8 390.4 -
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
55/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

5.7.5 Seismic verification of segmental lining

Since the effect of the seismic waves is more critical at the inclination of the ±45° with
respect to the horizontal line of the lining, so the bending moment, axial forces and shear
force should also be determined for this point. Based on the structural analysis results, the
summary of the results correspond to θ = ±45° is represented in Table 5.14.
Table 5.14: Summary of acting loads on the lining in static conditions at location θ = ±45
Analysis M [kN/m] N [kNm/m] V [kN/m]
Sytatic at θ = ±45 5.8 415 18
In the end, the bending moment and axial forces of seismic analysis should be added to
corresponding bending moment and axial forces of structural analysis at θ = ±45°, taking
into account the correction factor ζ =0.3 of Section 5.2.4. The summary of total acting
loads is presented in Table 5.15 and Table 5.16. The total acting loads in ODE and MDE
conditions are combined according to the following expressions, [Hashash et al. (2001].
U = D + EX + H + EQ Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE)

U = 1.05×D + 1.05×( EX + H) + 1.3×EQ Operating Design Earthquake (ODE)
Where:
U = Required structural strength capacity;

D = effects due to dead loads of structural components;
EX= effects of static loads due to excavation;
H = effects due to hydrostatic water pressure;
EQ = effects due to design earthquake.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
56/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Table 5.15: Summaries of total acting loads on lining in ODE conditions

Mt Nt Vt Mtj Mts
Verification
Combination
section [kNm/m] [kNm/m] [kNm/m] [kNm/m] [kNm/m]
Static+Seismic θ = ±45 26.8 442.8 18.9 18.8 34.8

No slip conditions
Static+Seismic θ = ±45 26.8 689.5 18.9 18.8 34.8
Table 5.16: Summaries of total acting loads on lining in MDE conditions

Mt Nt Vt Mtj Mts
Verification
Analysis
section [kNm/m] [kNm/m] [kNm/m] [kNm/m] [kNm/m]
Static+Seismic θ = ±45 47.7 523 18.0 33.4 62.0

No slip conditions
Static+Seismic θ = ±45 47.7 805.4 18.0 33.4 62.0
Serviceability Limit State (SLS) are reported
Using double reinforcement with 12 bars of diameter 10mm for side equivalent to
948mm2, we obtain the summarized results in Table 5.17.
Mtsd = Bending moment for design referred to whole length of segment equal to 1.5m =
1.5×Mts;
1.5×Nt;

R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
57/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

(MDE Conditions)
Mtsd Ntsd Msrd Nrd
Verification
Analysis Steel
Static+Seismic θ = ±45 φ10+12φ

12φ φ10 139.5 1176.8 340 2827
No slip conditions

12φ φ10 139.5 1812.2 364 4720
5.7.5.2 Serviceability Limit State for bending and axial forces (SLS)
Table 5.18: Verifications of bending moment and axial force in Serviceability Limit State
(ODE Conditions)
Mk Nk w
Verification
Analysis Steel
section [kNm] [kN] [kNm]

12φ φ10 93.0 784.5 0.02
No slip conditions

12φ φ10 93.0 1208.1 0.0

All verifications of Table 5.18 according to allowable value are satisfied.
Mk = Bending moment referred to whole length of segment equal to 1.5m = 1.5×Mts;
Nk = Axial force referred to whole length of segment equal to 1.5m = 1.5×Nt;

w = value of opening cracks.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
58/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

5.8 GASKET DESIGN (WATERPROOFING PERFORMANCE)
One of the most important elements of waterproofing for a ring is assured by choosing a
proper type of gasket. The waterproofing system of the joints through the use of gasket is
examined in this section. The choice should be made on the basis that the examined
gaskets will guarantee the design pressure seal, in the presence of the maximum gap and
off-set values, and with adequate safety margins.
The type of gasket used in the following verification is the model P 1003311 produced by
Datwyler; equivalent gaskets may be used, defined by similar property of stiffness and
waterproofing ability.
Two proofs should be done for the appropriateness of the suggested gasket and the
mechanical interaction between gasket and connections system.
Considering a residual thickness of the pad equal to 1mm, the max allowable deformation
of gasket coupling is 12mm, which mean a reaction force of F=21kN/m and F=16kN/m
respectively considering an offset 0 and 10mm (Figure 5.7).
The compressive stress in the gaskets due to relaxation at room temperature, decreases
within 100 years to approximately 50% of its initial value. In order to assure the tightness
for the service life of a tunnel, therefore, relaxation has to be taken into account for the
design of the gasket. In this way if a reversible, elastic stress-strain behaviour and a
relaxation of 50% are assumed, a “virtual” opening of the joint gap of δrelaxation = 4.5mm
and δrelaxation = 5.5mm respectively considering an offset 0 and 10mm. From Figure 5.6,
considering the maximum gap of 5.0mm a water pressure of about 8bar can be
maintained; this value is higher than of about 1.5bar of water pressure acting on tunnel.
The designed gasket is elastomeric type and according to tender documentation
(Package 2, Volume 4 and Section 2.7.18) it must be completed with integral hydrophilic
layer.
The pull-out force acting in each connector is calculated as:
Fmax= L*F/n=24.2kN
L = longitudinal length of segments= 3.46m;
F = reaction of gaskets (during the compressive action of TBM cylinders just after the
installation) = 21kN/m;
n =number of longitudinal connector per segment= 3.
This value is the maximum tensile force that can act on the connector.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
59/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure 5.6: Watertightness of profile P 1003311 (Datwyler Type)
Figure 5.7: Load deflection of profile P 1003311 (Datwyler Type)
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
60/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

5.8.1 Sealing groove verification

The groove zone of gasket is shown in Figure 5.8. With reference to this figure it is
possible to find the location of tensile stress distribution and obtain the related expression
which is used in nomograph shown in Figure 4.5.
Z = 0.25* F *(1-a/d) = 0.25 * 21* (1-26/90.2) = 3.7kN/m

Zd = 1.5×Z = 5.55kN/m
Where:
a = 26 mm = width of the gasket groove;

d = 90.2 mm = length of solid subjected to this load;
F= reaction of gaskets (during the compressive action of TBM cylinders just after the
x1 = 0.17d = 15.3mm (zero stress);
and
x2 = 0.35d = 31.6mm (maximum stress);
The distribution of tensile stresses due to tensile force Zd is assumed as in Figure 5.8; the
maximum tensile stress is evaluated as in the following:
2 Z d 2 × 5.55
σ ct ,d = = = 340kPa = 0.34 MPa
h 0.0326
This value is less than the allowable stresses of concrete as in the following:
f ctk ,0.05 2 .5
f ctd = = = 1.7 MPa
γc 1 .5
Where fctk,0.05, is the characteristic axial tensile strength of concrete and γc is partial
factor of concrete.
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
61/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Vk
30
33.2
8.3
2,1
B
p
26
d
Zd F
2,7
32,6
16,3 16,3 15,3
ct,d
Figure 5.8: Groove of gasket with tensile splitting and shear forces
The pressure due to reaction force of gasket on the groove is calculated as:
P ≅ 21/(0.026+2×0.0083) = 493kPa
The shear load acting along the line “AB” of the edge of groove due to this
pressure is:
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
62/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Vk= 493×0.0083 = 4.1kN/m

Vsd 1.5 × 4.1
τc = = = 185kPa ≅ 0.19 MPa
h 0.0332
This value is less than allowable shear stress of concrete calculated in the following
(Section 4.2.5):
τRd,c = vmin = 0.035×(1.93)3/2×401/2 ≅ 0.60MPa =600kPa.
5.9 CONNECTORS AND BOLT VERIFICATION

For connector design, three verifications should be carried out as listed below:
1. Pull-out force (direct tensile force from the gaskets).

2. Shear resistance in static (due to weight of segment) condition.
3. Bending resistance (due to weight of last mounted segment on roof in tail skin
acting like a cantilever).
5.9.1 Pull-out force verification
In previous section the maximum tensile force induced in connector by gasket action was
found 24.2kN. Taking into account a safety factor of 1.5 to ensure the long term stability of
the tunnel, the suggested connector type (Capacity, diameter Φ) must sustain the
following amount of tensile force (connector capacity):
C tensile ≥ 1.5 × 24.2 = 36.3kN

5.9.2 Shear resistance verification
Suppose that the last segment in tail skin is to be installed at the top of the tunnel. The
upper segment, which sustains its weight, links to subsequent segment by 3 connectors.
Provided that the capacity of the connector is not enough, it is likely that weight of
segment would exceed the shear capacity of the connector and slip along the connector
surface area due to exceeded shear stress. The scheme of this phenomenon is illustrated
in Figure 5.9. Therefore, it is important to design and confirm the shear capacity of
connectors against shear failure.
Considering:
Weight of single segment= 36kN
Number of connectors/segment (longitudinal direction) = 3
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
63/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Safety factor (permanent) = 1.5
Shield tail skin

F
W
A
Segmental lining
Figure 5.9: Single segment sketch for bolt connector verification
Therefore, the bolts must satisfy in static condition:
(36 / 3) × 1.5 = 18kN

C shear ≥ 20kN
5.9.3 Bending resistance verification
As previously shown in Figure 5.9, the single segment (positioned in the crown) is
subjected to probable shear failure and bending moment due to its weight. The connector
has to have an appropriate capacity against the bending moment. Analogous to a simple
beam, the force equilibrium condition can be written as:
Figure 5.10: Geometry of segment for calculating bending moment due to its
weight
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
64/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Wseg*0.75 = F×(2×0.398 + 0.632)
The induced force of connector because of bending of segment (due to its weight) is
calculated as:
F= 36×0.75/(2×0.398+0.632))= 18.9kN
Hence, the connector capacity against the pull-out due to bending must satisfy the
previous criterion with a safety factor higher than 1.5.
C bending ≥ 30kN
In brief, the suggested type of connectors to be chosen for the segments must satisfy the
following strength criteria:
Ctensile > 37kN

Cshear > 20KN
5.9.4 Bolt verification

The axial force acting in each bolt is calculated as:
Nb= γQ1*W*F/n*cosα = 26.1kN;
L = width of segment= 1.5m;
F = reaction of gaskets (during the compressive action of TBM cylinders just after the
n = number of radial bolt per segment = 2;
α = angle between segment axis and bolt ≅ 25°.
γQ1 = partial safety factor on reaction of gasket = 1.5.
Using the bolt M20 grade 6.8 with the following characteristics:
fyb = yield strength of bolt =400MPa;

γM2 = partial safety factor on bolt strength =1.25;
Ares = resistance area of bolt = 245mm2.
The design value of bolt strength is:
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
65/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Nrd = (400×245/1.25)/1000 = 78.4 kN
Therefore the following expression is satisfied.
Nrd /Nb= 78.4/26.1 = 3 > 1
R.2957/BMR/UG/NS/D/TUN/001-0-0 p.
66/66
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

SEGMENTAL LINING TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX I
R.2957BMRUGNSCTUN001_0_0 p. 1/13
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Output of SEGMENT_01A Analysis
Figure AI_1: Finite element model
Figure AI_2: Axial force
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AI_3: Bending Moment
Figure AI_4: Shear force
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AI_5: Fibre stress.
Figure AI_6: Displacements.
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Output of SEGMENT_01B Analysis
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AI_9: Bending moment
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AI_11: Fibre stress.
Figure AI_12: Displacements
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Output of SEGMENT_02 Analysis

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AI_17: Fibre stress
R.2957BMRUGNSCTUN001_0_0 p.
10/13
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Output of SEGMENT_03 Analysis
11/13
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

12/13
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AI_23: Fibre stress
13/13
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

APPENDIX II
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AII_1: Finite element model
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AII_2: Effective horizontal sxx stresses
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AII_3: Effective vertical syy stresses
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AII_4: Vertical displacement
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AII_5: Horizontal displacement
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AII_6: Axial force on segmental lining
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AII_7: Bending moment on segmental lining
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure AII_8: Shear force on segmental lining
COASTAL - TTS (JV)

R.2957bmrugnsdtun001-0 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R.2957bmrugnsdtun001-0 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

R.2957bmrugnsdtun001-0 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED

General Consultants: RITES-OC-PBI-SYSTRA

BANGALORE METRO RAIL PROJECT

REV. DESCRIPTION DATE

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

1.1 NORMS OF REFERENCES

General design criteria

Structural verification of concrete structures

Ground actions and loads on segmental lining

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

• AFTES, (1993). Les Joints d’étanchéité entre voussoirs. Tunnels et Ouvrages

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

1.2 CHARACTERISTIC OF MATERIALS

- Tensile strength: ftk = 545N/mm2

- Design strength: fyd = 435N/mm2

- Elastic modulus: Ea = 210000N/mm2

4. Concrete design Mix

a) Type of mix : Designed mix concrete;

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

2. GEOLOGICAL – GEOTECHNICAL CONTEXT

γn = unit volume weight;

2.2 IN SITU STATE OF STRESS

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Table 2.2: Representative Sections

A Section Km 9 + 580 NS-UG-133 Excavation in soil

Mixed excavation in soil, weathered

C Section Km 6 + 675 NS-UG-15 Excavation in rock

Table 2.4: Material Properties for Section B (Chainage 8+870)

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Table 2.5: Material Properties for Section C (Chainage 6+675)

Table 2.7: Representative sections with indication of water level

B Section Km 8 + 870 5.2 3.2

C Section Km 6 + 675 5.25 3.25

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

3. RELEVANT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE TBM AND THE

6.40 to 6.45m (inside diameter 5.6m and with the

3.2 MAIN FEATURES OF THE SEGMENTAL LINING

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Figure 3.1: Concept of Universal Ring

Table 3.2: Main Characteristics of Segmental Lining

Type of ring Universal

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

Table 3.2: Main Characteristics of Segmental Lining (Cont.)

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

FRONT VIEW A - Scale 1:50

B2 P12 ab4 ab3

275 5600 275

PLAN VIEW - Scale 1:50

Figure 3.2: Geometry of the ring “5+1” (universal type)

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

4. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATIONS OF

Category Source Verifications to be done

examine the segment subjected to the extraction force

Pre-cast examine the segment carrying the weight of over

Lifting by erector examine the segment to be moved and lifted by erector

COASTAL - TTS (JV)

4.1 PRE-CAST PROCESSING

Z = 0.25* Nsd (1-a/d) = 0.25 2406 * (1-750/1050) = 172kN