Tunnel Lining Brief Design

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 1834
Tunnel Lining Design: Seven Things You Need to Know
Gary Brierley, Ph.D., P.E., Dr. Mole, Inc. E-mail: gbrierley@drmoleinc.com

Mohamed Gamal, Ph.D., P.E., Brierley Associates Corp. E-mail: mgamal@brierleyassociates.com
Russell Berends, P.E., Brierley Associates Corp. E-mail: rberends@brierleyassociates.com
Abstract
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Austin on 07/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Tunneling is an exciting combination of science, art and professional skill and is the ultimate
implementation of ground-structure interaction. The ground, be it soil or rock, is an integral part of
the tunnel structure and plays a key role in resisting the loads created by excavating the tunnel.
This paper discusses seven of the most critical design considerations for tunnel lining design and
construction; namely ground conditions, ground-liner interaction, thrust-moment interaction,
tunnel geometry, tunneling method, construction monitoring and initial versus final lining. Given
below are discussions about each of these considerations.
1.0 Ground Conditions:
1.1 Background
When a void is created in the ground there is a natural tendency for the ground to fill that void due
to gravitational force and hydrostatic pressure. During construction, this tendency must be
resisted in order to make the opening safe and stable both for the workers in the opening and to
protect any existing structures above and/or adjacent to the opening. The primary objective of
this paper therefore is to describe how to understand the ground conditions and how they impact
the way the tunnel interacts with surrounding media to achieve an optimum tunnel lining-support
design for creating a safe and stable working area.
Understanding of the site geology coupled with sound geotechnical engineering practices is vital
to the success of any civil engineering project, especially for underground structures. A good
Understanding of the geology requires identifying geological process associated with the
formation of igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks and their erosion and disintegration to
produce soils. Each rock family has its distinct rock texture, structure and strength as a result of
the mechanics involved in the geologic process at the site. The same is true for soils derived
from different parent rocks with the soil being impacted by both the processes associated of the
formation of parent rock and by transportation and deposition processes. Ultimately, geologic
processes manifests itself in the form of geologic structures. These include faults, joints,
bedding planes, folds and shear zones. Faults are fractures that had displacement along them.
Joints, on the other hand, are rock fractures with no movement along them, exist in nearly all
rocks and can occur as groups of sub parallel joints forming joint systems, the orientation and
extent of which have significant impact on the magnitude of loading around the ground opening.
Bedding planes are usually the dominant fractures within sedimentary rocks. Many bedding
planes are very thin bands or partings of shale or clay between units of stronger rocks. Folds and
shear zones are associated with significant change in both rock strength properties and stress
field from one location to the other. In soils, cementation, fissures and shear planes (slickenside)
are some of the structures which have impact on the overall strength of the soil.
With respect to the designing a tunnel lining to withstand ground pressures, there are basically
three types of ground:
1. Ground that acts like a frictional mass
2. Ground that acts like a cohesive mass, and
ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

3. Ground that is either squeezing or swelling.
It is important to realize in the next few paragraphs that the use of the words frictional and
cohesive is not intended to describe the shear strength of the medium but it is more of a
description of ground response to the loading induced by excavation.
Frictional ground varies from stratified or blocky rock masses to cohesionless soils. When a lining
support is applied to these types of ground, friction resists the loading induced by excavation to
help support the ground.
This gravity load condition is sometimes referred to as a "loosening condition," although it can
take place without cracking and separation of blocks of soil or rocks from the surrounding
medium. One advantage of a relatively stiff frictional medium is that the deformations required to
achieve the required frictional resistance are quite small, and it is possible, even when the
tunneling procedures are designed to prevent excessive ground deformations, to approach or
achieve the required frictional resistances. In frictional materials, such as sand, the minimum
ground pressures will be equivalent to the pressures applied by a height of soil extending
approximately one-half to two diameters above the tunnel. The second advantage of frictional
medium is that they are mostly free draining, thus the initial lining will not be required to resist the
hydrostatic pressures if the tunnel lining allows drainage.
Cohesive ground responds to loads induced by tunneling in a continuum manner even under
significant displacement, thus forming a plastic zone that can be significant in size as the medium
tries to resist the ground loads. With respect to the design of the liner in this type of ground, the
stiffness and strength of the ground is the critical factor. The initial tunnel lining must be
designed to supplement the inherent strength of the soil and to prevent significant deformation
and formation of large plastic zone. Unlike frictional ground, the amount of deformation required
to achieve minimum loading on a liner is larger, and in many cases the ground is less free
draining, thus loading on the liner is generally higher.
Overstressed cohesive soils are referred to as squeezing ground. A similar condition is also
possible in rock mass subjected to high in-situ stress. Certain geologic processes can subject
the rock mass to very high horizontal stress even at relatively shallow depths (100 to 300 ft)
resulting in an overstress condition. In some cases the induced stresses can overcome the rock
mass strength resulting in slabbing and/or fracturing condition that can form a serious safety
concern. Tunnel lining supplemented by strong rock bolts are required to resist this condition. A
separate section is introduced later to discuss in-situ stress.
In addition to squeezing ground some types of cohesive soils can also result in a swelling
condition that must be taken into consideration during lining design. Most swelling soils are not
aggressive, and a minimal back pressure from the liner is all that is required to control the
deformation. However, some soils, on rare occasions, can create very high swell pressures over
considerable distances creating serious design consideration. In some cases the tunnel must be
oversized in order to accommodate such deformations and/or the lining is installed in stages in
order to accommodate large flexural loads.
Tables 1 and 2 give descriptions of ground conditions typically encountered during tunnel
construction in rock and soil. All ground conditions in Table 1 fall under frictional ground
response with the exception of intact rock and moderately jointed rock which exhibit a response
closer to cohesive ground. In Table 2, raveling and running is closer to frictional response, while
firm and cohesive running is more of cohesive response.
ASCE

Table 1. Description of Ground Conditions in Rock as Quoted from Terzaghi (1946)
Rock Condition Descriptions

Contains neither joints nor hair cracks. Hence, if it breaks, it breaks across
sound rock. On account of the injury to the rock due to blasting, spalls may drop
off the roof several hours or days after blasting. This is known as a spalling
Intact rock
condition. Hard, intact rock may also be encountered in the popping condition
involving the spontaneous and violent detachment of rock slabs from the sides
or roof
Consists of individual strata with little or no resistance against separation along
the boundaries between the strata. The strata may or may not be weakened by
Stratified rock
transverse joints. In such rock the spalling condition is quite common
Contains joints and hair cracks, but the blocks between joints are locally grown
together or so intimately interlocked that vertical walls do not require lateral
Moderately jointed rock
support. In rocks of this type, both spalling and popping conditions may be
encountered
Consists of chemically intact or almost intact rock fragments which are entirely
Blocky and seamy rock separated from each other and imperfectly interlocked. In such rock, vertical
walls may require lateral support
Crushed but chemically Has the character of crusher run. If most or all of the fragments are as small as
intact rock fine sand grains and no recementation has taken place, crushed rock below the
water table exhibits the properties of a water-bearing sand
Squeezing rock Slowly advances into the tunnel without perceptible volume increase. A
prerequisite for squeeze is a high percentage of microscopic and sub-
microscopic particles of micaceous minerals or clay minerals with a low
swelling capacity
Swelling rock Advances into the tunnel chiefly on account of expansion. The capacity to swell
seems to be limited to those rocks that contain clay minerals such as
montmorillonite, with a high swelling capacity
ASCE

Table 2. Description of Ground Conditions in Rock, Heuer, R.E.(1974)
Classification Behavior
Heading can be advanced without initial support, and final lining can be constructed before
Firm ground starts to move.
Slow
Raveling Chunks or flakes of material begin to drop out of the arch or walls sometime after the
Raveling ground has been exposed, due to loosening or to overstress and "brittle" fracture (ground
Fast separates or breaks along distinct surfaces, opposed to squeezing ground).
Raveling
Cohesive Granular materials without cohesion are unstable at a slope greater than their angle of
Running Running repose (-30 to 35 ). When exposed at steeper slopes they run like granulated sugar or
o
dune sand until the slope flattens to the angle of repose.

Running
A mixture of soil and water flows into the tunnel like a viscous fluid. The material can enter
from the invert as well as the face, crown, and walls, and can flow for great distances,
Flowing completely filling the tunnel in some cases. Where narrow lenses occur, piping may initiate
first, followed by progressive flows.
Ground squeezes or extrudes plastically into tunnel, without visible fracturing or loss of
Squeezing continuity, and without perceptible increase in water content. Ductile, plastic yield and flow
due to overstress. Rate of squeeze depends on degree of overstress.
Swelling Ground absorbs water, increases in volume, and expands slowly into the tunnel.
1.2 Ground Conditions and Loads for Support Design
The main goal of geologic studies and site specific exploration is to determine the anticipated
tunneling ground condition and to estimate the loads on the liner if used. Terzaghi (1946)
presented a descriptive summary of tunnel ground conditions in rock and developed a correlation
between tunnel ground conditions and the rock loads used to design the required supports as
shown in Table 3. A similar system is developed for soils and is presented in Table 4. The
definitions of the variables presented in Tables 3 and 4 are given in Figure 1.
Tables 3 and 4 show that in most ground conditions, the load on the roof of tunnel supports does
not exceed a small fraction of the weight of the of the overburden above the roof, unless the
cover is very shallow. If the depth of the overburden is greater than about 1.5 to 2 times the
combined width and height of the tunnel, the load is practically independent of depth. It is
important to note that in circular tunnels the height of tunnel is taken as zero. This limited load is
caused by mobilization of shear resistance as the ground mass starts to deform as a result of
local stress relaxation brought about by mining operations. This phenomenon is known as arch
action which denotes the capacity of the ground above the roof of the tunnel to transfer the major
share of the total weight of the overburden onto the ground located on both sides of the tunnel.
It is important to realize that these ground loading conditions were developed for open face
tunneling with drill and blast or other excavation techniques that cause significant disturbance to
the rock mass in the immediate vicinity of the tunnel, thus impacting the magnitude of loads to be
supported. These loads could be very conservative considering todays excavation techniques
using a TBM and controlled blasting that cause minimal disturbance to the rock mass. Also, the
significance of some of the ground condition classifications may not be of any significance if a
tunneling technique such as TBM is used (we need to develop a special system which help
identify the risk to the machine itself of getting stuck).
ASCE

Finally it is crucial to realize that the loads estimated in different ground conditions are empirical in
nature, and the excavation support design may very well change based on actual observations in
the field. This leads us to the discussion of observational approach method in design.
In the 1940s Terzaghi devised a systematic means to take into consideration the spatial variability
of the ground. The degree of variability is a function of the complexity of the geological processes
that took place at the site. The observational approach is a powerful means to reduce the level of
uncertainty of the given design in the most optimum way. The Observational Method is
paraphrased below after Terzaghi:
In geotechnical engineering a vast amount of effort goes towards securing

roughly approximate values for required parameters inputs. Many additional
variables are not considered or remain unknown. Thus, the results of
computations are no more than working hypotheses, subject to confirmation
or modification during construction.
Table 3. Load on Tunnels Roof in Different Ground Conditions in Rock

(Source: Terzaghi, 1946)
Ground Condition Load ( ft of overburden)
Hard and intact Zero

Hard stratified or Schistose 0.0 to 0.5B
Massive, moderately jointed 0.0 to 0.25B
Moderately blocky and seamy 0.25 to 0.35(B+Ht)
Very blocky and seamy 0.35 to 1.1 (B+ Ht)

Completely crushed but chemically
1.1 (B+ Ht)
intact
Squeezing rock, moderate depth 1.1 to 2.10(B+ Ht)
Squeezing rock, great depth 2.10 to 4.50 (B+ Ht)

Swelling rock Up to 250 ft
ASCE

Table 4. Load on Tunnels Roof in Different Ground Conditions in Soil.

(Source: Proctor and White, 1977)
Ground Condition Load ( ft of overburden)
Running Condition (B+H )

t
Raveling Condition (B+H )* (T-t)/T

t
Flowing Condition Smaller of H or 2(B+H )

t
Squeezing Condition H - {(H.S )/(*(B+H ))}

u t
Swelling Condition Little load initially, H or little greater later
Notes:
= 0.35, 0.45 and 0.6 for dense, medium and loose sand, respectively
= 2 for uniform, 0 for stiffer clay at tunnel wall, 6 for softer clay at wall
Su = Undrained shear strength
T = Total time elapsed between excavation and support installation
t = Unit stand-up time divided by width of tunnel
A careful reading of the Observational Method as paraphrased above reveals that it summarizes
the most optimum approach for tunnel design.
B+Ht
Arching
zone
Ht

Figure 1. Definition of Variables Presented in Tables 3 and 4 (Ht = 0 for circular tunnel)
ASCE

These uncertainties require either the adoption of an excessive factor of

safety, or else assumptions based on general experience. The first of these
is wasteful; the second is dangerous as most failures occur due to
unanticipated ground conditions.
As an alternative the observational method, provides a learn as you go

approach. The procedure for this is to base the design on whatever
information can be secured, making note of all possible differences between
reality and the assumptions (i.e. worst case scenarios) and computing for the
assumed conditions, various quantities that can be measured in the field.
Based on the results of these measurements, gradually close the gaps in
knowledge and if necessary, modify the design during construction.
1.3 In-Situ Stress
High initial in-situ stresses could exist at the site due to several reasons including the
preexistence of significant glacier overburden or due to tectonic activities. An example is the
Maquoketa Group near Batavia, IL which is located 40 miles west of Chicago and is known to
have high insitu stresses in the bedrock at depths of 300 ft or more with Ko value between 3 and
5 (Bauer et al, 1991). In most cases this high in-situ stress has well defined orientation and for
Batavia site the high major stress was oriented N60E. The worst loading condition occurs when
the tunnel alignment is perpendicular to the direction of high in-situ stress, as the ground exerts
significant loading onto the side walls of the tunnel. If the tunnel is oriented parallel to the
direction of the major in-situ stress, problems at the face may occur. It was noticed during the
construction of a deep cavern at the Fermi nuclear physics lab that a deviation of the cavern
alignment by about 33 degrees from the direction of the major in-situ stress was sufficient to
neutralize the effect of that major in-situ stress loading (Abdel-Maksoud et al 2014). This was
supported by field observations during construction of the deep cavern where no slabbing or
overbreak occurred during excavation of the cavern. This was very different from the
observations in nearby tunnel portions that wereperpendicular to the direction of the major
stress. This observation helped to use less support for the cavern walls compared the support
required if Ko value between 3 and 5 was used.
2.0 Ground-Liner Interaction:
The understanding of ground conditions alone is not sufficient for an optimum support design
without a good understanding of the ground-liner interaction. Ultimately, the nature of this
interaction determines the distribution of the load on a liner and the resulting magnitude of axial and
flexural forces. This interaction, also called ground response, is better explained by studying Figure
2. The figure has two halves; the one on the left focuses on the During Construction phase, and it
shows the change in liner load as function of ground deformation, while the one on the right focuses
on long term response.
ASCE

During construction After consstruction
Sw
welling
Sque
eezing
A I II
Non--swelling clays
B Sand
d/Gravel
C
C
a b
Displaceme
D nt T
Time
Figure 2.. Ground Liner Interac ction Concep pt:

I) Ring load an nd average radial
r displaacement Durring Construction;
II) Variation off ring load with
w Time
(Source: Peckk, 1969 with
h modificationn)
Point A represents a hypothetica al case where e the liner iss wished in pplace with no o radial deforrmation
allowed, and the load d on the line
er is the meaan of the verttical and horrizontal stresss in the gro ound at
the tunneel center beffore tunnel excavation.
e If deformatio on is allowed d to take pla
ace by reduccing the
radius off the ring by a certain ammount (),as tunnel head ding approacches the loca ation indicatted by
the vertic
cal line at Po
oint B, the lo
oad would co orresponding gly decrease e as shown b by the line A
AB. The
shape an nd position of
o the line wo ould depend on the stresss-strain-time e characterisstics of the ssoil and
on the tim
me required for support installation. If the lining was placed in contact w with the soil aat this
stage, asssuming thatt liner will noot allow additional radial displaceme ent, the avera age ring load d is the
horizontaal ordinate passing
p throuugh point B. However, iff further radial displacem ment were possible
before thhe placemen nt of the tunn
nel liner, the load will deccrease even n further to th
he horizonta al
ordinate passing thro ough point C.C Liner defo ormation can n further red
duce the load d to the poin
nt
indicatedd by C' in the
e figure. Thee overall loadd reduction d due to displaacement from m Point C to C' may
not be significant, buut it has a sig
gnificant imp
pact on the lo oad distributtion around tthe liner and d how
uniform the
t load beco omes along he circumferrence as a re esult of that movement. Load redistrribution
is also co
ontrolled by the relative stiffness of the
t liner to th he surround ding ground. This bringss the
concept of flexibility and
a compressibility into the picture w which is disccussed laterr. Brown, et al.
(1983) diiscussed diffferent ground response curves
c that hhave been d developed for various mo odels of
material behavior.
The rightt half of Figu

ure 2 illustrattes the respoonse of linerr-ground sysstem with timme. In mostt cases
the change is insignificant excep pt in clayey, swelling
s and
d squeezing grounds. In general, tthe ring
load is lik
kely to increa
ase; howeve er, this increase takes p lace under m more uniform m and favora able
conditionns with the lo
oad increase e mostly resissted by axiall forces rathe
er than flexuure. It was re
eported
that for many
m tunnelss the ring loa
ad appears to o increase p roportionallyy to the logarrithm of time
e (Peck,
1969).
ASCE

2.1 Relative Stiffness and Load Distribution on Liner

The magnitude of the thrust and moment is dependent upon the stiffness of the lining relative to the
stiffness of the ground. Flexible liners experience deformation levels in such a way that a
nearly-uniform pressure distribution ultimately acts on them with thrust and minimal moment
developing in the liner. If the lining is perfectly flexible it will experience distortion in such way that
the change in horizontal diameter equal to the change in vertical diameter but in the opposite sense.
Flexure in such a lining is equal to zero. Rigid liners, on the other hand, experience less
deformation and develop significant thrust forces and higher moments than those developed in a
flexible liner. In reality, a lining is neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly flexible but its response falls
somewhere between the two extremes.
A liner of flexibility ratio of 10 (preferably 20) or greater indicates flexible liner behavior. The
flexibility ratio is given by the following equation;
1 E D 3 (1 L2 ) Eq. 1
F =
4 E L t 3 (1 + )
Where,
F = flexibility ratio;
E = Elastic modulus of the ground (psi);
EL = Elastic modulus of the liner (psi);
D = Mid shaft diameter (in);
t = Liner Thickness (in);
= Ground poissons ratio;
L = Liner Poissons ratio
Eq. 1 is valid for prismatic liners cross section (such as concrete liner). For liners of other shape
the more general form is provided in Eq.2
1 E D 3 (1 L2 ) Eq. 2
F =
48 E L I L (1 + )
Where,
IL = Second moment of inertia per tunnel length (measured along the long axis of the tunnel)
(in4/in)
The equation below gives the maximum possible moment that can ever develop on a very rigid
liner with zero soil structure interaction (Peck et al, 1972). This can be used as a simple way to
check if the moments used in a given design are reasonable or not:
1 1
M = Z (1 K o ). D 2 = H (1 K o ). R 2 Eq. 3
16 4
Where,
M = Moment developed in the liner
= Unit weight of soil (pcf)
Z = Overburden height (ft)
ASCE

R = Mean radius measured to centerline of the liner

D = Mean diameter
The equation is presented once in terms of the tunnel diameter and is also presented as function of
the radius. Eq. 3 shows that it is the differential increment between the horizontal and vertical
pressures that causes moment and if the ratio of the vertical to horizontal pressure is one; the
resulting moment will be zero. Peck et al. did not specify if effective or total stress are to be used in
the equation above. It is more logical that the effective stress components are used in the above
expression, as ground effective stresses are responsible for inducing moments in the liner, and
water pressure on circular tunnel will only induce thrust forces and nearly zero flexural loading in the
liner (Ko=1 for water). In reality the actual moments will be less than the values calculated using Eq.
3 even for rigid liners. Figure 3 below shows the moment-flexibility relationship for different Ko
values. It shows that the maximum moment factor for rigid liner is less than 0.18 which is less than
the 0.25 factor presented in Eq. 3 using the radius form. It is important to note that Figure 2 can only
be used when the overburden is about 2 times the diameter.
The derivation of the analytical form of the moment as function of flexibility ratio can be found in
Burns and Richards (1969) and Peck et al. (1972) and is given by the following equation:
1 12 (1 )
M = Z (1 K o ). R2 Eq. 4
6 ( 2 F + 5 6 )
While flexibility controls the magnitude of the moment developed in a liner, the compressibility ratio,
and to lesser extent the flexibility ratio, controls the magnitude of thrust developed in the liner. The
compressibility ratio is given by:
E R (1 L2 )
C= Eq. 5
EL t (1 + )(1 2 )
Once again, the derivation of the analytical form of the thrust (T) as function of flexibility and
compressibility ratios can be found in Richards and Burns (1969) and Peck et al. (1972) and is
given by the following equation:
1 1 Eq. 6
T =
2 (1 + K o ).b1 3 (1 K o ) b 2 ZR

Where,
(1 2 )
b1 =
(1 2 ) C + 1
12 (1 )
b2 =
2 F + 5 6
ASCE

0.18
Ko=2
2.0
0.16 Deep Tunnel Only
Ko=0
0.5
Z = 2..5 to 3.5 D
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
20 40 60 80 100
Flexibility
Figure 3. Variation of mom

ment as a fu
unction of fle
exibility ratio.
As descrribed earlier, these elastic closed forrm solutions are only appplicable for d
deep tunnelss (Peck
et al., 1972). For sha
allow lined tunnels near the ground surface, surrface displaccements and d
changes in the state of stress with depth significantly afffect the behaavior of the ttunnel. For tthese
more com mplex condittions an alte
ernative methhod of analyysis using Finite Element Analysis ca an be
used.
A key fac ctor that is directly relate

ed to the disc
cussion abovve is the connformity of th
he contact be etween
the liner and the grou und. If perfeect contact iss establishedd between the lining and d the surrounding
ground, the
t deformattion required d to mobilize significant p
passive resisstance is small compared d to the
lining's capacity for distortions,
d and
a the good d contact enh hances the ttendency to develop mo ore
uniform loading on th he liner as it deforms.
d Fie
eld observati ons have shhown that, evven in soft orr plastic
soils, distortions of more
m than a few
f tenths of
o a percent o of the diame
eter of a flexible lining arre
effectivelly resisted by
b the strength mobilized d in the surro
ounding grou und (Peck, 11969) with th he
bending stress in suc ch a lining appproaching zero.
z The exxistence of g
gaps behind the liner can n cause
serious stress
s conce entrations, ca ausing signifficant bendin
ng loads and d liner damaage at the ga ap
location.
3.0 Thru
ust-Moment Interaction
n
The strucctural capac

city of the line
er must be id
dentified in o
order to show that the tu
unnel liner w
will
perform adequately.
a The thrust-m moment cappacity is the kkey elementt used to dettermine the liner's
structura
al adequacy. The compressive thrus st in a tunne
el liner enhan
nces the line
er performannce in a
similar way
w to prestre essting a concrete sectio on.
ASCE

The flexibility ratio, which was discussed earlier, largely controls the eccentricity of the thrust acting
on the liner. The eccentricity can be determined as the ratio of the moment to thrust. Linearly
elastic analysis by either using closed form solution or using beam-spring model can be used to
estimate the thrusts and moments developed in the liner for different ground conditions. The linearly
elastic analysis has a major drawbacks when used to evaluate the required capacity of concrete
linings in conditions where the eccentricity falls outside the middle third of the section producing
significant tension in the concrete lining. The linearly elastic approach does not consider the
capability of an unreinforced cracked concrete arch to resist significant thrust without excessive
distortion with reduction in the flexure as a result of plastic hinge formation. The use of linear
analyses under such cases can lead to recommending the use of significant steel reinforcement,
very thick liners or a combination of both.
Paul (1983) did a comprehensive model study and took into consideration the nonlinear behavior of
cracked unreinforced concrete section under the action of thrust forces to devise means for
evaluating the ultimate capacity of linings behaving nonlinearly. In these analyses the soil stiffness
is assumed to be linear, but the concrete lining is treated as a nonlinear with moments that
decrease beyond certain rotations. Figure 4 shows the difference between the linear and nonlinear
analyses, as presented by Paul (1983). For the nonlinear analysis case for unreinforced concrete,
as the path of moment-thrust (M-T) deviates from the linear interaction diagram, cracking of the
section eventually occurs. When tension cracking occurs (Point 1), the path jumps back to the
cracked interaction diagram (Point 2) and follows it until failure occurs in thrust (Point 3). When
cracking occurs, the lining behaves as a series of unbolted segments with joints at the cracks, and
the failure envelope becomes the moment-thrust path. In linear analysis, failure would be classified
at Point 1 before the path jumps back to the interaction diagram; however, the nonlinear analysis
has shown that considerable additional strength is available as the M-T path follows along the M-T
envelope until a curvature is reached that actually causes the section to disintegrate
It is also important that reasonable strength reduction factors be used when developing interaction
diagrams so that the tunnel liner is not grossly overdesigned.
ASCE

Figure 4. Compariso
on between linear and nonlinear beh
havior for un
nreinforced cconcrete
3.1 Thrust-Moment Interaction for Steel Fiber

F Reinfo
orced Concrrete
Unlike plain concrete e and shotcrrete, steel fib
ber reinforce
ed concrete a and shotcrette (SFRC/SF FRS)
retains some flexural tensile stre ength after crracking even n at large strrains, which makes
SFRC/SF FRS much more m ductile than plain concrete.
c Thhis additionaal ductility is advantageo ous for
tunnel initial liners which are ofteen designed for post-insttallation defo ormations. S SFRC/SFRS S is
much mo ore homogen neous than traditionally
t reinforced cconcrete and d shotcrete, a and spalling
g is
significan
ntly reduced. The homo ogeneity of SFRC/SFRS
S S is particularly beneficia al for precastt tunnel
segmentts because steels fiber reinforcement extends to a all of the corrner of the ssegment, thuus
reducing the need fo or reinforcemment at the segment edg ges.
The flexuural behavior of SFRC is s typically ex
xamined by p performing fflexural testss on beam
specimen ns, which arre typically 6x6 and 18 to 20 long,, and the spe ecimens are e typically loa
aded at
either thrree points (E
EN 14651, RILEM
R TC 16
62-TDF, etc. ) or four poin nts (ASTM C C78, ASTM C C1609,
etc.). Thhe EN 14651 1 and RILEM M TC 162-TD DF test beam ms have a 1-deep notch h cut on one side of
the beamm, and this notch is place ed in line witth and on the e opposite sside of the ceenter loadingg point,
which ind duces concrrete cracking g at that spec cific location
n. The flexural tensile sttresses in the test
beam are e estimated assuming plane strain equations.
e S
Some flexurral test methods such ass ASTM
C78 load d the test beaam until it firs
st cracks the
e concrete, w which will pro
ovide informmation regard ding the
flexural tensile strenggth of uncracked concre ete only. Tesst methods ssuch as EN 14651, RILE EM TC
162-TDF F and ASTM C1609 load d the test beaam so that itt cracks, and d the loadingg is continueed while
measurin ng the deform mation of the e beam to obtain inform ation for botth pre- and p post-cracking
flexural behavior
b of SFRC.
S
ASCE

There are numerous methods for estimating the SFRC stress-strain behavior from the SFRC
flexural beam tests, and RILEM TC 162-TDF is one commonly used method. The RILEM method
provides equations to calculate three stress-strain points for its flexural tensile stress-strain model.
These stress-strain flexural model points are the cracking stress and strain, the stress and strain
just after cracking, and the stress and strain at a the maximum tension strain of 2.5%. The required
input parameters for the RILEM equations are the beam loads when the beam has deflected to
1/64 and 1/8, and the test beam cracking flexural tensile strength. The RILEM stress strain model
sets a maximum compressive strain of 0.2% when the SFRC is subjected only axial compression
loads and of 0.35% when the SFRC is not fully in compression. These parameters for the RILEM
tensile stress-strain model behavior were developed by back-calculating from tests performed on
SFRC.
Thrust-moment diagrams can be developed with the SFRC flexural stress-strain behavior model by
assuming plane strains across the thickness of the SFRC/SFSC, estimating the stresses across the
thickness of the SFRC/SFSC, and calculating the associated thrusts and moments from the
distributed stresses. The thrust-moment failure envelope incudes all the thrust-moment
combinations that the SFRC can resist. Conservative assumptions can be made to more easily
develop the thrust-moment failure envelopes. For example, the compression stresses can be
estimated as a Whitney-type rectangular stress distribution, and the tension stress can be
estimated as the minimum residual tensile stress allowed by the SFRC flexural stress-strain
behavior model. One brute-force method for developing a less conservative thrust-moment failure
envelope is to use software to assume many different linear strains across the segmental liner, use
the method of slices to divide up the thickness of the SFRC/SFSC, apply the flexural stress-strain
behavior model find the stress at each slice based on the strain at each slice, calculate the
associated thrusts and moments for each plane strain assumed, and determine the outer boundary
of the thrust-moment envelope by analyzing the resulting thrust-moment combinations.
4.0 Tunneling Method

The method of tunneling has impact on design criteria for the initial lining. For rock, the biggest
impact is whether the tunnel is excavated by drilling and blasting or by mechanical methods such as
tunnel boring machine or roadheader. In general, drilling and blasting disturbs the rock mass more
than mechanical excavation, and the ground loads developed by Terzaghi (1946) were based on
drilled and blasted tunnel case histories. Hence, those ground loadings represent conservative
loading assumptions for mechanically excavated tunnels. In addition, Terzaghis case histories all
precede the use of rock bolts which have additional beneficial effects, especially for frictional rock
masses.
For soil tunnels, the use of pressurized face tunneling equipment requires the use of a watertight
tunnel lining. In addition, the tunnel lining must be strong enough to withstand the jacking forces of
the tunneling equipment. Hence, some form of bolted and gasketed initial lining, either steel or
concrete, are required for a majority of soil tunneling. Since those linings are brought to the heading
in segments, then the lining must also be designed to withstand the handling forces associated with
lining erection. In general, any lining designed to resist the jacking and erection forces associated
with tunneling will be more than adequate to withstand ground loadings unless the ground is
susceptible to squeezing and/or swelling pressures. If the ground can be shown to be susceptible to
squeezing or swelling, then the most effective method for dealing with that problem is to use highly
compressible back packing in the overcut surrounding the lining. If that is not enough to withstand
the ground forces, then a secondary lining may need to be installed in extreme situations.
A third item involving design of the initial lining is associated with tunnels that are built sequentially;
both for rock and soil. If the tunnel is built in stages, then the initial lining must be designed to
withstand all ground forces associated with the final size and shape of the tunnel in addition to
stress distributions that may take place during construction. Examples of this problem also include
ASCE

shaft and tunnel intersections, parallel tunnels such as subways, and tunnels that are built
immediately adjacent to existing underground openings. Examples of how those types of tunnels
should be designed is beyond the scope of this paper.
5.0 Tunnel Geometry

Almost all underground openings for civil engineering projects are built with curved surfaces which
greatly facilitate and are compatible with all of the ground/lining and moment/thrust concepts
discussed above. However, many underground designers have great difficulty understanding thlat
surfaces in the underground assuming that a ground arch cannot be depended upon to help
support a flat surface. This assumption is not true. The ground arch is still valid but it will form at
some distance behind the exposed flat surface. A flat surface does require the support of additional
ground load, but this load is not great as compared to the load imposed on the lining from behind
the ground arch. In a rock mass, the best way, by far, to deal with flat surfaces is to install longer
and stronger rock bolts. With a flat surface, the rock bolts must extend through the rock arch and
provide sufficient length in order to help mobilize the rock arch. In addition, the rock bolt must be
strong enough to support the mass of rock located inside the rock arch. Additional support elements
at the flat surface such as wire mesh, straps or channels may also be necessary in order to help
stabilize the volume of rock located inside the arch.
Flat surfaces are generally not used in soil tunnels, but if they are, then the same theory of support
as discussed above applies. If soil anchors are used, then those anchors would help support the
ground loads just like in a rock mass. Without soil anchors, some form of wall needs to be installed
that can withstand the entire ground load which would also include significant hydrostatic
pressures, unless the ground is allowed to drain. In general, it is highly preferable to avoid flat
surfaces in soil for underground openings.
6.0 Construction Monitoring

One of the most important aspects of tunnel lining design and construction is to observe and
monitor how the ground is behaving during construction and how the lining is interacting with that
behavior. As the ground imposes load on the tunnel lining, then the lining will respond by incurring
deformations, thrusts, and moments that can be monitored. Not only are those observations
necessary to make certain that the proposed lining is adequate for the intended purpose, but the
monitoring results can be used to assist with the design of future projects. On occasion, ground
conditions and/or ground loads can develop that were simply not anticipated by the subsurface
investigation. When that happens, then the only activity standing between an adequate, measured
response and a potential disaster is the construction monitoring program.
7.0 Initial Versus Final Linings

As discussed above, all of the discussion provided herein relates to the initial lining which must be
designed to support all ground loads until the final lining is installed. Most often, lining designers
assume that the initial tunnel lining provides no long-term support for the ground, and, as a result,
both linings in combination have a very large factor of safety. In general, however, the final lining
must be designed to accomplish many additional objectives as compared to the initial lining such as
water tightness and long term durability, and this overlapping of support capabilities is a small price
to pay for the long term investment presented by an adequately designed and constructed tunnel
lining. Many tunnels around the world have demonstrated service lives of 100 years or more, which
means that the initial cost of construction is minor as compared to the long term investment
potential of a tunnel. However, by utilizing the lining design concepts as described herein it is
possible to design the final lining in a manner that is cost effective for the given ground conditions.
ASCE

REFERENCES LIST
Abdel-Maksoud, M. G., Wiedmann J.,McGinn, A., and Beljan P. (2014). Design and Construction
Observations of the Neutrino Detection Chamber at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. North
America Tunneling Conference NAT, Los Angeles, CA, 355-364
Bauer, R.A., Curry, B.B., Graese, A.M., Vaiden, R.C., Su, W.J., & Hasek, M.J. (1991).
Geotechnical Properties of Selected Pleistocene, Silurian, and Ordovician Deposits of
Northeastern Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey, (139), 1-64.
Burns, J. Q., and Richard, R. M. (1969). Attenuation of Stresses for Buried Cylinders.
Proceedings, Symposium on Soil-Structure Interaction, Tucson, AZ, 378-392.
Hashash, Y.M.A., Cording, E.J. & Oh, J. M. (2002). Analysis of major shearing of a rock ridge.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, (39), 945-957.
Heuer, R.E., (1974). Important Ground Parameters in Soft Ground Tunneling. Proceedings of
Specialty Conference on Subsurface Exploration for Underground Excavation and Heavy
Construction, ASCE, New York, NY, 41-55.
Peck, R. B., Hendron, A. J. & Mohraz, B. (1972). State of the Art of Soft Ground Tunneling.
Proceedings of the Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, Chicago, IL, (1), 259-286.
Terzaghi, K., (1946). Rock defects and loads in tunnel supports. Rock tunneling with steel
supports. R.V. Proctor and T.L. White, eds., The Commercial Shearing and Stamping Co.,
Youngstown, Ohio, 17-99.
ASCE

Tunnel Lining Brief Design

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tunnel Lining Brief Design

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 1834

Tunnel Lining Design: Seven Things You Need to Know

Gary Brierley, Ph.D., P.E., Dr. Mole, Inc. E-mail: gbrierley@drmoleinc.com

1.0 Ground Conditions:

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

3. Ground that is either squeezing or swelling.

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

Table 1. Description of Ground Conditions in Rock as Quoted from Terzaghi (1946)

Rock Condition Descriptions

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

Table 2. Description of Ground Conditions in Rock, Heuer, R.E.(1974)

dune sand until the slope flattens to the angle of repose.

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

paraphrased below after Terzaghi:

In geotechnical engineering a vast amount of effort goes towards securing

Table 3. Load on Tunnels Roof in Different Ground Conditions in Rock

Ground Condition Load ( ft of overburden)

Hard and intact Zero

Massive, moderately jointed 0.0 to 0.25B

Moderately blocky and seamy 0.25 to 0.35(B+Ht)

Very blocky and seamy 0.35 to 1.1 (B+ Ht)

Squeezing rock, great depth 2.10 to 4.50 (B+ Ht)

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

Table 4. Load on Tunnels Roof in Different Ground Conditions in Soil.

Ground Condition Load ( ft of overburden)

Running Condition (B+H )

Raveling Condition (B+H )* (T-t)/T

Flowing Condition Smaller of H or 2(B+H )

Squeezing Condition H - {(H.S )/(*(B+H ))}

Swelling Condition Little load initially, H or little greater later

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

These uncertainties require either the adoption of an excessive factor of

As an alternative the observational method, provides a learn as you go

1.3 In-Situ Stress

2.0 Ground-Liner Interaction:

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

During construction After consstruction

Figure 2.. Ground Liner Interac ction Concep pt:

The rightt half of Figu

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

2.1 Relative Stiffness and Load Distribution on Liner

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

R = Mean radius measured to centerline of the liner

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

Figure 3. Variation of mom

A key fac ctor that is directly relate

The strucctural capac

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

3.1 Thrust-Moment Interaction for Steel Fiber

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

4.0 Tunneling Method

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

5.0 Tunnel Geometry

6.0 Construction Monitoring

7.0 Initial Versus Final Linings

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen