Tunnel Design Basis Report PDF

KOLKATA METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD
EAST WEST METRO PROJECT

CONTRACT - UG1
TUNNEL DESIGN BASIS REPORT
REPORT NO. UG1-WSA-200-NST-REP-201 REV. BC
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERGROUND

SECTION FROM HOWRAH MAIDAN STATION TO WEST
END OF CENTRAL STATION
CONTRACT NO. UG-1
EMPLOYER : KOLKATA METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD (KMRCL)

CONSULTANT : MAUNSELL|AECOM-YEC-CES-EGISRAIL-LHPA (MYCEL)
CONTRACTOR : TRANSTONNELSTROY-AFCONS JOINT VENTURE (TTAJV)
SUBCONTRACTOR : W.S. ATKINS AND PARTNERS OVERSEAS (WSA)
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
EAST WEST METRO PROJECT:
CONTRACT - UG1
UG1 WSA 200 NST REP 201 Rev. BC 27/10/11
Sequential
Project No. Origin Area Discipline Doc Code
number Page : 2 / 23
REVISION NOTE
The following items / paragraphs are revised in this issue
Item Description in brief / Para. Item Description in brief / Para.

No. No.
Section 6.2.6 revised to include
reference to BS 8110
Section 6.2.7 revised to include
reference to BS 8110
NOTES:
Revisions are denoted as follows:
a) By a vertical line in the right-hand margin against the revised text.

b) By a triangle symbol for graphics, the revision number being denoted within the
symbol.
Revision symbols are positioned adjacent to the revision.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
CONTROL COPY DISTRIBUTION NOTE
Copy Name of Control Copy Designation/

Organization Remarks
No. Holder Disciple
1. Atkins Office Copy WSA
2. TTAJV TTAJV
NOTE:
1. CONTROLLED COPY HOLDERS WILL RECEIVE THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE DOCUMENT AND
THE SUCCESSIVE ISSUES. HE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DESTROYING THE OLD
REVISION OR OTHERWISE MARKING THE SAME AS “SUPERSEDED”.
2. THE DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENT SHALL BE CONTROLLED FOR ‘NO OBJECTION’

DOCUMENT AND IT’S SUBSEQUENT ISSUES ONLY.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Purpose of this Report........................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Related Documents ............................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Project Description ................................................................................................................................ 6
1.4 Relevant Codes & References .............................................................................................................. 7
2 TUNNEL ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Bored Tunnel Segmental Lining ............................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Cross Passages .................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Bored Tunnel to Underground Structure Interfaces .............................................................................. 9
3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES .......................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Structural Material Properties for Permanent Works .......................................................................... 10
3.1.1 Pre-cast concrete .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.1.2 Cast In-Situ Concrete ........................................................................................................................ 10
3.1.3 Bar Reinforcement ............................................................................................................................ 10
3.2 Geotechnical Parameters .................................................................................................................... 10
4 DESIGN LOADS ......................................................................................................................................... 11
4.1 General Load Cases ........................................................................................................................... 11
4.1.1 Dead Loads (G) ................................................................................................................................. 11
4.1.2 Imposed Loads (Q)............................................................................................................................ 11
4.1.3 Hydrostatic Loads (H)........................................................................................................................ 12
4.1.4 Earth Loads (E) ................................................................................................................................. 12
4.1.5 Seismic Loads (EQ) .......................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.6 Fire Loading ...................................................................................................................................... 13
4.1.7 Internal Loading................................................................................................................................. 13
4.1.8 Dispersal on Wheel Point Loads ....................................................................................................... 13
4.1.9 Accident Load from Train Derailment................................................................................................ 13
4.2 Other Loads Considered for Segment Design .................................................................................... 13
4.3 Load Factors ....................................................................................................................................... 14
5 OVERALL STABILITY OF TUNNEL .......................................................................................................... 15
5.1 Permanent Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 15
5.1.1 Flotation Uplift due to Water Pressure .............................................................................................. 15
5.2 Temporary Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 15
5.2.1 Heave of Relatively Shallow Tunnels in Clay .................................................................................... 15
5.2.2 Tunnel Face Stability ......................................................................................................................... 15
6 DESIGN APPROACH FOR SEGMENTAL LINING ................................................................................... 16
6.1 Safety Factors For Segment Design ................................................................................................... 16
6.1.1 Ultimate Limit State (ULS) ................................................................................................................. 16
6.1.2 Serviceability Limit State (SLS) ......................................................................................................... 16
6.2 Design Approach ................................................................................................................................. 16
6.2.1 Static Lining Force............................................................................................................................. 16
6.2.2 Numerical Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis ................................................................................... 17
6.2.3 Analysis of the effects of Imposed Distortion .................................................................................... 17
6.2.4 Seismic Lining Forces ....................................................................................................................... 17
6.2.5 Analysis of the Effects of Poor Ring Build ......................................................................................... 19
6.2.6 Design of Radial Joints...................................................................................................................... 19
6.2.7 Analysis of the Effects of Jacking For Propulsion at the Circumferential Joint .............................. 19
6.2.8 Effects of Uneven Shield Shoving Loads .......................................................................................... 20
6.2.9 Grouting Loads .................................................................................................................................. 20
6.2.10 Analysis of the Handling and Stacking .............................................................................................. 20
6.3 Reinforcement Design ......................................................................................................................... 21
6.3.1 Design for Moments and Axial Force ................................................................................................ 21
6.3.2 Crack Control .................................................................................................................................... 21
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
6.3.3 Minimum Concrete Cover to Steel .................................................................................................... 21

6.3.4 Minimum Percentage of Steel Reinforcement .................................................................................. 21
6.4 Other Segmental Lining Elements ...................................................................................................... 21
6.4.1 Grooves for Waterproofing Elements ................................................................................................ 21
6.4.2 Bolts................................................................................................................................................... 21
7 TUNNEL UNDERNEATH HOOGHLY RIVER ............................................................................................ 22
8 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 23
APPENDIX 1 – Schedule of additional design codes and references ....................................................... 24
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of this Report
This document provides the design basis for the tunnel works including:
• TBM bored tunnel segmental lining; and
• Cross passages and other features.
The design of TBM tunnel segmental lining is compatible with KMRC requirements, the
Contract Documents and Specification and conditions in the local environment.
1.2 Related Documents

This report should be read in conjunction with the following documents:
- Contract Specifications and Drawings
- Reports
Geotechnical Reports
• Geotechnical Assessment Report UG1-WSA-300-NGT-REP-003
Design Reports
• Structures Design Basis Report UG1-WSA-000-ENG-REP-001

- Drawings – Tender submission drawings and/or Preliminary Design Drawings
1.3 Project Description

The Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation (KMRC) has issued tenders for the construction of
East West Metro Project including UG1 and UG2 sections.
The Contract UG1 comprises approximately 3.7km of railway tunnels and 3 stations with
the following major elements:
• Howrah Maidan Station;
• TBM tunnel between Howrah Maidan Station and Howrah Station (east bound and
west bound);
• Howrah Station;
• TBM tunnel between Howrah Station and Mahakaran Station (east bound and west
bound) underpassing the Hooghly River;
• Vent shaft and connecting adits at midway between Howrah and Mahakaran
Station
• Mahakaran Station
• TBM tunnel between Mahakaran Station and Central Station (by others)
The TBM tunnels will be constructed between proposed cut and cover stations and no
additional temporary shafts are required.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
1.4 Relevant Codes & References

In addition to the Contract Requirements, the proposed underground structures will be
designed in accordance with IS-456:2000 and IRS-Bridge Rules for Loading (Ministry of
Railways). IRC-6:2000 will be used to obtain the highway loading above and adjacent to
the proposed underground structures. Other appropriate Indian Standard/Code (IS, IRS,
IRC, NBC) may also be referenced to, if better definition is given in that standard, or as
expressly required by the Outline Design Specification.
International standard/codes e.g. British Standard, Eurocodes, AASHTO, ASTM, CIRIA

report may be used if they provide more detailed design checking approaches.
Additional proposed structural design codes and references are detailed within this report
are summarized in Appendix 1.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
2 TUNNEL ELEMENTS
2.1 Bored Tunnel Segmental Lining
The pre-cast concrete segmental lining forms part of the permanent support of the tunnel
and is installed inside the shield of the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), as the tunnel
excavation progresses. The TBM shield will be larger than the lining outer diameter. The
void between the ground and the tunnel lining will be continuously filled with grout from the
shield tail.
The segment lining consists of five large segments plus one key segment for each ring.
The lining thickness is 275mm with internal diameter of 5.55m. The same universal
segment ring will be used for the whole contract in the following sections:
• Running tunnels between Howrah Maidan Station and Howrah Station (east bound
and west bound);
• Running tunnels between Howrah Station and Mahakaran Station (east bound and
west bound); and
• Running tunnels between Mahakaran Station and the perimeter wall of Central
Station (east bound and west bound.
The segments are bolted together during erection inside the tunnel shield, with bolts on the
circumferential joint of each ring edge and bolts on the radial joints of each ring.
The bored tunnel waterproofing is provided by a hydrophilic seal and EPDM (Ethylene
Propylene Diane Monomer) gasket on the segment circumferential joints. The hoop load
induced into the bored tunnel as a result of the ground water pressure and soil loads will be
sufficient to compress the gaskets to prevent groundwater intrusion in combination with the
hydrophilic swelling properties. Gaskets on the circumferential joints will be compressed by
the TBM jacking pressure and locked by the bolts connecting segments. No membranes
will be used due to the tunnelling construction method.
2.2 Cross Passages

Six cross passages are proposed to connect the running tunnels for the purpose of
emergency egress and at the Vent Shaft as ventilation adits to the running tunnels.
The cross passages will be constructed by mining (NATM) excavation and temporary
support using reinforced shotcrete linings and lattice girders. The design of the temporary
support will encompass issues such as:
• Temporary face stability and support;
• The need for ground treatment and/or pre-support measures;
• Control of groundwater; and
• Excavation and support sequencing to limit ground movements.
These issues will be developed in the relevant Design Reports. Design analysis will be
undertaken using analytical and numerical methods.
In order to facilitate the opening of the running tunnel segmental lining for cross passage
connection, a temporary support frame of steel ring beams and beams will be adopted.
This will be designed as a structural frame to accommodate tunnel lining loads that will
develop during breaking of the tunnel wall. The temporary steel members and permanent
steel jamb frame to be placed in the tunnel wall will be designed in accordance with
relevant steelwork codes compliant with the Contract specifications.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
The permanent support lining to the cross passages will comprise non-circular cast in-situ
concrete lining. The design of the lining will be undertaken using numerical modelling
methods and detailed in line with the Structures Design Basis Report.
2.3 Bored Tunnel to Underground Structure Interfaces

The bored tunnel will interface with station structures. For most cases the segmental
tunnel lining will be placed during TBM operations and the lining at the station diaphragm
wall headwall will be encapsulated into a cast in-situ reinforced concrete joint block.
Where the TBM drives terminate at the Central Station headwalls, it is proposed that the
TBM shield will be abandoned in-situ (i.e. removing all other TBM components) and the
tunnel completed between the segmental lining rings and the headwall by a cast in-situ
lining with the abandoned shield incorporated within the lining.
For both of the above cases, the joint details will be designed to provide:
• Accommodation of necessary articulation if needed;
• Waterproofing details including secondary measures; and
• Capacity to carry soil, water and other loads including seismic impacts.
These details will be developed in the relevant Design Reports and the design will be
governed by the criteria given in the Structures Design Basis Report.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
3.1 Structural Material Properties for Permanent Works
3.1.1 Pre-cast concrete
The material properties of pre-cast concrete lining are listed below:
Characteristic strength, fcu 50 N/mm2 (min)
Modulus of elasticity, Ec (short-term) 35 355 N/mm2
Modulus of elasticity, Ec (long-term) 16 836 N/mm2 (Note 1)
Poisson’s ratio, v 0.2
Moment of inertia, Ir 0.000878 m4 (Note 2)
Note 1: The long–term modulus of elasticity of concrete is calculated with the

consideration of creep effect. The calculation method and coefficients are based on
IS 456:2000 Clause 6.2.5.1.
Note 2: The lining stiffness is reduced according to the Muir Wood [Ref. 9] approach
to account for the effect of radial joints. This is based on the number of joints for each
ring and the reduction of lining thickness at joints:
Ir=Ij + (4/n)2 x I
Where, Ij is the moment of inertia at the joint;
I is the moment of inertia for the nominal lining thickness: and
n is the number of segments for each ring.
3.1.2 Cast In-Situ Concrete
For permanent cast in-situ elements, structural materials will be as those described in
the Structures Design Basis Report.
3.1.3 Bar Reinforcement
The bar reinforcement for segments are high yield steel deformed bar and the
material properties are listed below:
Characteristic strength, fy 500 N/mm2
Modulus of elasticity, Es 200 000 N/mm2
3.2 Geotechnical Parameters

The geotechnical parameters including groundwater are provided in the Tunnel
Geotechnical Assessment Report UG1-WSA-200-NGT-205.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
4 DESIGN LOADS
This section summarises general loads to be considered for the design of bored tunnels
and non-TBM tunnels. If for particular structures or conditions where loads deviate from
those specified herein, the related assumptions will be given in the respective Design
Reports.
4.1 General Load Cases

The loads specified in this Section are characteristic or nominal loads in accordance with
BS 8110, Part 1, Ref [1] and are categorised as follows:
• Dead Load (G);
• Imposed Load (Q);
• Hydrostatic Load (H); and
• Earth Load (E).
These cases are described below.
4.1.1 Dead Loads (G)
For the calculation of dead loads the following unit weights (γ) apply:
Table 3-1: Unit weight of materials
Material Unit Weight (kN/m3)
Reinforced concrete 24.0 (Refer IS 875 Part 1, average

density of RC with 2% steel)
Mass concrete 23.5
Steel 77
Water 10
4.1.2 Imposed Loads (Q)
4.1.2.1 General Surcharge Load (Q1)
A minimum surcharge of Q1 = 50 kPa acting at ground surface level as per

Section 2.7.5(e) of Volume 4 of the Contract Specifications is considered. This
shall make allowance for existing or future buildings for which detailed
information currently is not available.
The surcharge from existing buildings will be calculated and added where the
total load from the building is greater than 50kPa as per the Structures Design
Basis Report.
4.1.2.2 Live Loads from Road Traffic (Q2)
Tunnel structures under highway roads shall be designed for Q2 = 20 kPa

surcharge for highway loadings. This is equivalent to the vertical load produced
from Class AA loading as per Clause 2.7.5(b) of the Contract Specifications and
as defined in IRC:6-2000, assuming the pressure from the wheels are spread
over minimum 2m thick backfill.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
4.1.2.3 Wheel from train (Q3)
The railway loading applied to the structures shall be as per “Modern Rolling
Stock”. The standard gauge is 1435mm. Maximum axle load of the train, P =
160kN, see the diagram below for the details of loading configuration. The type
and position of the vehicle will be chosen to produce the most adverse effect on
the structure.
The loading from maintenance vehicles and low loaders carrying equipment
required along the route will not be of a magnitude to be critical for the design.
4.1.3 Hydrostatic Loads (H)
The upper or lower bound of the groundwater level should be taken into account in
deriving hydrostatic loads, whichever is more critical for the structure or condition
being considered.
4.1.4 Earth Loads (E)
4.1.4.1 Soil Overburden / Vertical Earth Pressure (E1)
In general, full overburden loads will be considered for the design of permanent
tunnel structures. For temporary structures the earth pressure considered may
be less than the full overburden. Situations that justify the assumption of less
than the full overburden pressure will be explained in the respective Design
Reports.
4.1.4.2 Lateral Earth Pressure (E2)
For permanent structures in general, lateral earth pressure are derived

assuming at-rest condition. Due to the nature of a structure (e.g. shafts or
temporary structures) reduced lateral pressure may be applicable. Related
assumptions will be presented in the respective Design Reports.
4.1.5 Seismic Loads (EQ)
Refer to Section 6.2.4.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
4.1.6 Fire Loading
Tunnel linings will be designed to satisfy the minimum sectional requirements to

achieve a 4 hour Fire Resistance Period (FRP), in accordance with NFPA 130-2007,
as specified in the Outline Design Specification.
For a 4 hour FRP rating, cover to steel bar reinforcement will not be less than
• 25mm as defined in IS 1642:1989 Table 8 for the tunnel lining and
• 75mm as defined in IS1642:1989 Table 13 for the lintel beam in the tunnel
lining above the entrance to the cross passage.
Additional stresses in the tunnel lining will be assessed according to BS8110, Part 2
[Ref: 1].
4.1.7 Internal Loading
The effects of internal loads, especially loads imposed by services fixed to the tunnel
walls and roof will be taken into account in the segmental lining design and/or cast in-
situ tunnel linings.
4.1.8 Dispersal on Wheel Point Loads
Dispersal on wheel point loads follows the approach as outlined in Section 14.8 and
Appendix C of the Structures Design Basis Report Ref: UG1-WSA-000-ENG-REP-
001
4.1.9 Accident Load from Train Derailment
Within the bored tunnel, the segmental ring will be designed to take the full impact
load, which will be resisted by the passive resistance of the ground behind the wall.
Derailment loading shall be applied to adjacent structural elements in accordance

with Cl 3.5.2 ACI 358.1R-92 (The American Concrete Institute technical design
standard, Analysis and Design of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Guideway
Structures).
The horizontal derailment load shall be taken as 50% of the maximum car weight: for
the most heavily loaded car which has 4 axles of 160 kN each, this amounts to a
nominal force of 320 kN applied over a 5m horizontal length for the SLS case, where
the serviceability requirement is that there should be no permanent damage and the
structure should remain within the elastic range in accordance with IRS bridge rules.
4.2 Other Loads Considered for Segment Design

Additional load cases to be considered are:
• Load due to compression of EPDM gaskets and hydrophilic seals;
• Demolding, stacking and handling;
• TBM shoving/ Ram Load (Q4) for a maximum TBM shoving force of 42,560kN.
• Tail void grouting and secondary grouting; (Q5).
Further comments on assessment of load cases Q4 and Q5 are given in the next sections.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
4.3 Load Factors

General load factors (ULS – Ultimate Limit State, SLS – Serviceability Limit State) as
outlined below will be considered for the design of bored tunnels in additional to Contract
Document Volume 4 Section 2.7.10. As per IS4651, Part 4, Table 1 Planning and Design
for Ports and Harbours a load factor of 1.0 is taken for SLS design checks.
Table 3-2: Load factors
Loading Condition Ultimate Limit State Serviceability Limit State
Dead Load 1.4 1.0
Imposed Load 1.4 1.0
Earth Load 1.4 1.0
Hydrostatic Load 1.4 1.0
Ram Load 1.4 N/A
Handling Load N/A 1.0
Grout Load 1.4 N/A
Derailment Load 1.4 1.0
Note that for the purposes of numerical soil-structure interaction analysis, partial safety
factors (ULS factor =1.4, SLS factor =1.0) will be applied to computed bending moment
and forces for use in structural design, rather than input into initial parameters and load
cases.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
5 OVERALL STABILITY OF TUNNEL

5.1 Permanent Conditions
5.1.1 Flotation Uplift due to Water Pressure
Where tunnels are relatively shallow, they should be checked for flotation due to
differential water pressure as follows:
Overall safety factor = R / U ≥ 1.2
Where:
R …. Restraining force calculated by weight and shear resistance of soil
U …. Net uplift force considering weight of tunnel
In deriving the restraining and uplift force, the following partial safety factors need to
be considered:
Table 4-1: Partial safety factors for uplift due to water pressure
Self weight of tunnel 1.05
Self weight for shafts or other structures 1.1
Average shear resistance along planes of failure 2.0
Average weight of ground above tunnel 1.15
5.2 Temporary Conditions
5.2.1 Heave of Relatively Shallow Tunnels in Clay
Where applicable for relatively shallow tunnels in clay, checking for heave due to
shear failure of the ground at tunnel invert level (for example, for mining operations)
will be undertaken following the method derived from the base heave analysis after
Bjerrum & Eide (1956) [Ref: 5]. Where:
Overall safety factor: ≥ 1.0 when surcharge is applied
≥ 1.2 when surcharge is not considered
For partial safety factors for soil shear strength and unit weight, refer to the table
above.
5.2.2 Tunnel Face Stability
For TBM bored tunnelling works, the tunnel face stability is to be managed through
the application of appropriate face pressure. Definition of appropriate face pressure
magnitude and use will be dealt with in later design stages.
For cross passage mining works the tunnel face stability during excavation is of
particular concern. Face stability will be evaluated on the basis of ground parameters
adopted excavation and temporary support methods.
Where ground conditions are relatively poor and instability or severe ground
movement is likely then mitigation works such as ground treatment or pre-support
measures will be developed. Definition of appropriate measures will be dealt with in
later design stages.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
6 DESIGN APPROACH FOR SEGMENTAL LINING

6.1 Safety Factors For Segment Design
6.1.1 Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
Segments are designed for the ULS in accordance with IS-456:2000. Partial safety
factors for loads and materials are in accordance with the Contract documents, IS-
456:2000 or BS8110 [Ref: 1] where relevant.
Where appropriate for particular structures or conditions, different partial safety

factors may be adopted as specified in this design statement. For specific partial
safety factors for segment design refer Section 4.3.
In addition, the following partial safety factors are used for specific conditions:
Table 5-1: Load factors for Ultimate Limit State Design
Load factor on TBM shove loads for normal operations 1.4
Maximum expected TBM shove thrust on single rams 1.4
6.1.2 Serviceability Limit State (SLS)
Segments will be checked for serviceability in accordance with IS-456:2000, BS8110

and BS 8007 [Ref: 1 and 6]. In general, serviceability calculations such as for crack
control or deflections are based on service loads (i.e. load factor = 1.0)
Tensile stresses due to demoulding, stacking, rotating, transport and handling for
erection of ring are to be checked as per the load factors below.
The related safety factors are as follows:
Table 5-2: Load factors for Serviceability Limit State design
Dynamic factor for demoulding, stacking, rotating, transport, handling (as 5.0
per Contract document Volume 4 Section 2.7.10(d))
Material safety factors for concrete in tension 1.5
6.2 Design Approach

This section provides a basic summary of the approaches and assumptions and covers
various aspects of design and detailing of reinforced concrete segments.
6.2.1 Static Lining Force
The closed form analysis model after Duddeck & Erdmann [Ref: 8] or similar
internationally recognised method, such as the Curtis-Muir Wood method [Ref: 9, 10],
is used for the structural analysis of the segment lining. A full bond between the
lining and the subsoil is assumed.
Calculations will be carried out for the average effective unit weight (γ‘av) of soil,
considering the soil layers and groundwater table.
The effect of differential hydrostatic pressure along the circumference of the tunnel
will be considered in the analysis. This is based on a general plane frame analysis
that will be carried out for varying soil stiffness and differential hydrostatic load.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
6.2.2 Numerical Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis
For specific locations, it may be more appropriate to use numerical soil-structure

interaction analysis rather than analytical calculations alone. In these cases, for
example where deep foundations impart localized loading to the tunnel lining, then
numerical analysis will be used.
Numerical analysis will be undertaken using PLAXIS version 9.
A volume loss of 1.5% is assumed for the PLAXIS analysis. This is conservative
compared to typical values for earth pressure balance tunnelling with tail-skin
grouting in soft clay.
6.2.3 Analysis of the effects of Imposed Distortion
The maximum allowable deflection of the tunnel lining is 25mm on radius of the
tunnel. The induced bending moment by applying this distortion is derived by using
the method of Morgan [Ref 14] for jointed lining cases with reduction of lining moment
of inertia based on the recommendation by Muir Wood [Ref. 9]. The predicted
bending moment coupled with minimum thrust force will be input for reinforcement
calculation.
6.2.4 Seismic Lining Forces

Kolkata is considered to be in seismic Zone 3 in accordance with Annex E of IS-1893:
2002, giving a Zone Factor, Z = 0.16g, corresponding to the Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) which is the largest conceivable earthquake within the tectonic
region as defined by the code.
According to the clause 6.1.3 of IS-1893: 2002, the design methodology adopted by
that code will ensure that the structures will possess at least a minimum strength to
withstand a DBE event “without significant structural damage” and an MCE event
“without collapse”.
The design of tunnels to resist seismic loads is not explicitly covered by the Indian
Standards; hence reference is made to internationally recognised design methods
from published literature.
In accordance with IS-1893:2002, the horizontal seismic accelerations corresponding
to the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) and Design Basis Earthquake (DBE)
are 0.16g and 0.08g respectively.
The “Free-field racking deformation” method as elaborated in Hashash et al [Ref 17]
has been adopted for the design. The method assumes the structure will be racked
by the soil surrounding it during an earthquake, with the degree of racking dependant
upon the relative shear stiffness of the structure to the soil mass it replaces, and the
free-field soil deformation profile.
The procedures for design are detailed below:
1. Preliminary design and member sizing is based upon static design (G, Q, E, H).
Two numerical models shall be developed, one for the DBE and one for the MCE
seismic events, with the following section properties:
DBE (0.08G) 1 MCE (0.16G)

2
1.0EI 0.70EI
Notes:
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
1) Stiffness values are the same as for the static, short-term model
2) 70% reduction of EI due to cracking of a member subject to
compression.
2. The free field deformation of the soil during a seismic event is derived using the
SHAKE2000 software. The design inputs include ground motions obtained from the
SHAKE2000 software library and from publically available ground motion libraries. The
latter include strong ground motions from the Chamoli (1999), Diphu (1988) and Burma
(1995) events. The input data includes soil profile, ground acceleration due to 0.08g
(DBE) and 0.16g (MCE) and dynamic shear modulus derived from the ground
investigation.
3. Obtain Lining-soil racking ratio (R) for the structures and the soil mass by the equation.
4(1 − υ m ) Δd lining
R=± =
(α + 1) Δd free− field
, where Δdlining = lining diametric deflection
Δdfree-field = free-field diametric deflection
νm = Poisson’s ratio of the soil medium
α = coefficient used in calculation of lining-soil racking ration of circular tunnels
dependent on whether slip is permitted between the soil medium and the tunnel lining.
R is used to derive the lining diametric deflection Δdlining for input into thrust and
bending moment expressions below.
4. The circumferential thrust and bending moment in the lining as a function of the
angular location of the tunnel lining is obtained using the expressions by Hashash et al
[Ref 17].
5. Superimpose the seismically induced thrust and bending moment distributions to the
results obtained from the numerical model.
The circular tunnel shall also be designed to resist vertical components of the seismic
motion, with the vertical component, Av, taken as 2/3 of the horizontal component, Ah.
Where two or three component motions are considered, then these shall be combined
in accordance with Section 6.3.4 of IS-1893: 2002.
Since the permanent structure is designed for the ‘at rest’ condition’, no net additional
dynamic loading need be applied to the structure either before or after the seismic
event.
6. The following design combinations shall be considered for the section design under
seismic load:
For the DBE case, the load factor of 1.4 is applied in accordance with:
1.4 x (1.0 (G + Q) + 1.0E + 1.0 H +/- 1.0 EQH +/- 1.0 EQV)
The MCE is an extreme event and is not explicitly a design requirement of the Indian
code. Hashash et al [Ref. 17] recommend that for the MCE event, the partial safety
factors for all loads should be unity.
1.0 (G + Q) + 1.0 E + 1.0 H +/- 1.0 EQH +/- 1.0 EQV
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
Note that combined DL and LL allows for the 50kPa minimum surcharge at the ground
surface for both DBE and MCE.
7. If the results from (7) show that the structure has adequate capacity then the design is
considered to be satisfactory.
6.2.5 Analysis of the Effects of Poor Ring Build
The key construction tolerances for ring build are a maximum of 25mm on radius of
ring due to ovalisation and the limitation on stepping of segments at the
circumferential and radial joints (5mm). Poor ring build can induce significant loading
and therefore, the following are checked:
• Whether the radial joints remain closed or open (birds-mouth) as a result of

the diametrical ovalisation taking into account the minimum predicted
imposed ground and groundwater loads;
• The induced bending moment as a result of thrust eccentricity across radial

joints due to the reduced bearing area due to birds-mouthing. The induced
bending moment is added to the maximum bending moment from continuum
analysis for the reinforcement design;
• The induced tensile stresses (bursting) induced as a result of thrust

eccentricity across radial joints due to the reduced bearing area due to birds-
mouthing (method as described for jacking loads); and
• The increased loading to both radial and circumferential segment surfaces

as a result of stepping.
6.2.6 Design of Radial Joints
Due to the width of the bearing faces being less than the lining section thickness,
transverse tensile stresses occur at the joints. This bearing area is further reduced
where joint rotations occur due ring deflection or ring building defects, causing
increasingly concentrated loads.
The joint design for splitting tensile effects due to concentrated loads are based on
BS 8110 [Ref 1].
Steel link bars will be placed between the main reinforcement to counter tensile
forces beyond the capacity of the concrete as required.
6.2.7 Analysis of the Effects of Jacking For Propulsion at the Circumferential

Joint
The jacking loads imposed by the hydraulic propulsion jacks onto the leading edge
circumferential joint of the segmental lining ring are a significant load case. These
loads are in the longitudinal direction.
Due to their localisation and jack eccentricity to the lining (possibly exacerbated by
ring build defects), significant additional stresses may be induced in the lining.
Particular attention is given to the induced tensile stresses that may cause cracking
and spalling. Reinforcement of the segment to accommodate these stresses will be
included as required.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
The effect of these forces will be assessed using BS 8110 [Ref 1]. The required
reinforcement to accommodate tension under compressive loads and bending
moment will be determined.
TBM shoving loads acting at circumferential joints cause bursting stresses, as the
bearing width of the rams and joint packing are less than the segment thickness.
6.2.8 Effects of Uneven Shield Shoving Loads
Additional flexure and torsion may generally be induced on segments, when shoving
loads are not equally distributed, due to steps along the circumferential joints. In
order to minimise damage during shoving, accurate ring build is crucial. The use of
joint packing will further help to mitigate such effects by reducing load concentration.
6.2.9 Grouting Loads
6.2.9.1 Tail Void Grouting

An ultimate grouting pressure of 1.0 bar (Pmax) above hydrostatic pressure
acting radially on the segment will be applied considering a load factor of 1.4.
The load is considered to be applied fully around the tunnel.
6.2.9.2 Secondary Grouting

The lining shall generally be designed to resist a maximum grout pressure
equivalent to the maximum water pressure plus 1.0 bar (100kPa) considering a
load factor of 1.4.
6.2.10 Analysis of the Handling and Stacking

The segment is checked for the effects of handling using a dynamic factor (Df = 5) to
account for lifting operation.
Stacking loads are assessed based on the following assumptions:
• The segments are stacked in a convex curve-down arrangement or reversed

curve-up arrangement with soft wood packing blocks at the quarter points;
• The concrete has achieved the minimum strength of 10MPa when stacked;
• The maximum number of segment for each stack is 6, which is for one ring;
and
• The maximum offset for the packing blocks is 100mm.
Segments will be designed for stresses during demoulding, stacking and erection of
the segments.
Stresses are generally calculated by elastic methods to ensure that the modulus of
rupture of the unreinforced concrete is not exceeded and thus the segments remain
uncracked.
Calculation of the allowable flexural strength of concrete fcr, shall be obtained from the
compressive strength using the following expression from IS456:2000.
f cr = 0.7 f ck (MPa)
where fck = characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete (MPa)
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
6.3 Reinforcement Design
6.3.1 Design for Moments and Axial Force

Main reinforcement will be designed for load cases and combinations as defined in
Section 4. The required reinforcement is derived for the Ultimate Limit State in
accordance with IS-456:2000.
6.3.2 Crack Control

The calculated maximum crack width should not exceed 0.20mm for permanent
loading condition.
Crack widths are calculated in accordance with IS-456:2000.
6.3.3 Minimum Concrete Cover to Steel

Given the anticipated exposure conditions, the minimum concrete cover to steel
reinforcement shall be 40mm on the extrados and 40mm on the intrados.. For the
section of tunnel beneath the river, the minimum cover to steel reinforcement shall be
50mm on the extrados.
Concrete mix design will consider and address the aggressiveness of the ground
conditions the segmental lining and other structural concrete will be exposed to.
6.3.4 Minimum Percentage of Steel Reinforcement

Wherever reinforcement is structurally required, minimum percentages of
reinforcement according to IS-456:2000 shall apply.
6.4 Other Segmental Lining Elements
6.4.1 Grooves for Waterproofing Elements

Grooves for gaskets and seals are designed to seal under the worst case conditions,
making allowance for the casting inaccuracies and building errors.
6.4.2 Bolts
Bolts are used to tie adjacent segments and rings together. The bolts are designed to
keep the sealing gaskets compressed, when part of the shield thrust is relieved during
erection of the rings.
Further behind the shield, the friction between lining and ground is sufficient to keep
the gaskets compressed.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
7 TUNNEL UNDERNEATH HOOGHLY RIVER

Bored tunnelling using the EPB TBM method below the Hooghly River presents some
particular issues that will be addressed in detailed design and construction:
• Design checking to anticipate any risk of flotation of the tunnels – this has been
checked and it is considered that this is not a significant risk;
• Design of TBM face pressures to be applied – it is particularly important to

recognise the required pressure changes when passing beneath the river banks so
as to ensure stability but to avoid overpressure;
• Construction planning should accommodate the risk of encountering buried

obstacles (although this appears unlikely); and
• Contingency measures should be planned in the event of having to undertake

repair works (i.e. obstacle removal, repair to cutterhead damage, repair to major
TBM components, etc) from within the cutterhead using relatively high compressed
air pressures.
These issues will be developed through the relevant Design Reports.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
8 REFERENCES
[1] BS8110 (1997): “Structural use of concrete. Code of practice for design and
construction”. British Standard Institution
[2] BS4449 (1997): “Specification for carbon steel bars for the reinforcement of
concrete”. British Standard Institution
[3] EN10025-1 (2004): “Hot rolled products of structural steels – Part 1: General
technical delivery conditions”. British Standard Institution
[4] GAR (Geotechnical Assessment Report) – Underground Section.
[5] Bjerrum L. and Eide O. (1956): “Stability of strutted excavations in clay”.

Geotechnique 6.
[6] BS8007 (1987): “Code of practice for design of concrete structures for retaining
aqueous liquids”. British Standard Institution
[7] Meyerhoff G. (1951): “The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations”. Geotechnique

6 vol.2 No. 41.
[8] Duddeck H. and Erdmann J. (1982): “Structural design models for tunnels”.
Proceedings of Conference Tunnelling ’82, pp 83-91, UK
[9] Muir Wood, A.M. (1975). “The circular tunnel in elastic ground”. Geotechnique 25,
No. 1, 115 – 127.
[10] Curtis, D.J. (1976) “Discussion”. Geotechnique 26, 231 - 237.
[11] Wang, J.N., (1983): “Seismic design of tunnels: A simple state-of-the-art design
approach” Monograph 7, William Barclay Parsons Fellowship, USA.
[12] Monsees J.E. and Richard D.P. (1994): “Seismic Design of Underground
Structures”. 1st Conference Egyptian Society for Earthquake Engineering, Cairo
[13] Eurocode 2 (1992): “European Pre-Standard pr ENV 1992-1-12, Eurocode 2,

Design of Concrete Structures – Part 2, Plain or Lightly Reinforced Concrete Structures”.
[14] Morgan H. D. 1961. “A contribution to the analysis of stress in a circular tunnel”.

Geotechnique, Vol. 11, p37.
[16] Janβen P. (1983): “Tragverhalten von Tunnelausbauten mit Gelenktubbings

(Structural Behaviour of Segmental Tunnel Linings with Flexible Joints)”.
[17] Hashash, M.A., Hook, J.J., Schmidt, B. and Yao, J.I. (2001): “Seismic design and
analysis of underground structures”. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology Vol.
16 p 247-293.
5094704/D7003 Rev. BC
CONTRACT - UG1
Sequential
number APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 1 – Schedule of additional design codes and references
BS8328-1 Part 1: Guide to specifying concrete

BS 8110 Structural use of Concrete Code of Practice for Design and
Construction
BS 5950 Structural Use of Steelwork in Building:
BS 8007 Design of Concrete Structures for Retaining Aqueous Liquids
BS EN 1993-1-1:2005 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures — Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings
CIRIA C660 Early-age Thermal Crack Control in Concrete
BRE SD1 2005 Concrete in Aggressive Ground
Number
Item Document Ref. Title Revision Added by
of Pages

Tunnel Design Basis Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tunnel Design Basis Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tunnel Design Basis Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KOLKATA METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

EAST WEST METRO PROJECT

TUNNEL DESIGN BASIS REPORT

REPORT NO. UG1-WSA-200-NST-REP-201 REV. BC

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERGROUND

CONTRACT NO. UG-1

EMPLOYER : KOLKATA METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD (KMRCL)

The following items / paragraphs are revised in this issue

Item Description in brief / Para. Item Description in brief / Para.

Revisions are denoted as follows:

a) By a vertical line in the right-hand margin against the revised text.

CONTROL COPY DISTRIBUTION NOTE

Copy Name of Control Copy Designation/

1. Atkins Office Copy WSA

2. THE DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENT SHALL BE CONTROLLED FOR ‘NO OBJECTION’

6.3.3 Minimum Concrete Cover to Steel .................................................................................................... 21

• TBM bored tunnel segmental lining; and

• Cross passages and other features.

1.2 Related Documents

- Contract Specifications and Drawings

• Geotechnical Assessment Report UG1-WSA-300-NGT-REP-003

• Structures Design Basis Report UG1-WSA-000-ENG-REP-001

1.3 Project Description

• Howrah Maidan Station;

1.4 Relevant Codes & References

International standard/codes e.g. British Standard, Eurocodes, AASHTO, ASTM, CIRIA

2.2 Cross Passages

• Temporary face stability and support;

• The need for ground treatment and/or pre-support measures;

• Control of groundwater; and

• Excavation and support sequencing to limit ground movements.

2.3 Bored Tunnel to Underground Structure Interfaces

• Accommodation of necessary articulation if needed;

• Waterproofing details including secondary measures; and

3.1.1 Pre-cast concrete

The material properties of pre-cast concrete lining are listed below:

Characteristic strength, fcu 50 N/mm2 (min)

Modulus of elasticity, Ec (short-term) 35 355 N/mm2

Modulus of elasticity, Ec (long-term) 16 836 N/mm2 (Note 1)

Poisson’s ratio, v 0.2

Moment of inertia, Ir 0.000878 m4 (Note 2)

Note 1: The long–term modulus of elasticity of concrete is calculated with the

Where, Ij is the moment of inertia at the joint;

I is the moment of inertia for the nominal lining thickness: and

n is the number of segments for each ring.

3.1.2 Cast In-Situ Concrete

3.1.3 Bar Reinforcement

Characteristic strength, fy 500 N/mm2

Modulus of elasticity, Es 200 000 N/mm2

3.2 Geotechnical Parameters

4.1 General Load Cases

• Dead Load (G);

• Imposed Load (Q);

• Hydrostatic Load (H); and

• Earth Load (E).

These cases are described below.

4.1.1 Dead Loads (G)

Table 3-1: Unit weight of materials

Material Unit Weight (kN/m3)