Assessment on

Thickness Variation
of Tunnel Lining to
Ensure Stability in
Soft Ground
NAME: Noor Iman Safiya Bt Mohd Muhtar
SUPERVISOR: Dr Siti Norafida Bt Jusoh
 Introduction

Contents Aim and Objective

Literature Review

Methodology

Results and
Discussion

Conclusion
 ⊙ Tunnel
Necessity that can improves the life above the
Introduction ground
⊙ Tunnel Lining
Structure that maintains the tunnel shape
⊙ Tunnel Lining Thickness
Designed to withstand the load around the
tunnel
Aim
To assess the reduced thickness of the tunnel lining to ensure
the stability of the soft ground
Objectives
To determine the deformation of the tunnel after the
reduction of tunnel lining thickness
To determine the soil-tunnel reaction based on the reduced
tunnel lining thickness
 ⊙ Tunnel is dug through the
surrounding underneath the ground
Introduction enclosed except for the entrance at
each end
⊙ Failure can be disastrous, stability
analysis is important
 ⊙ Soil that can be dug out but not self-
supporting for more than a brief of
Soft time
Ground ⊙ Main problem:
Tunnelling 1. Soft ground settlement
2. Deformation and stability of the
ground tunnelling
3. How it impacts to the load and
stress of the lining
Tunnel ⊙ Structural component to
Lining support the exposed ground
⊙ installed to provide an
internal surface
 ⊙ Short term settlement
Deformation
of Tunnel ⊙ Long term settlement
⊙ Settlement due to tunnelling
⊙ Tunnel Jack Forces
 Case
Study ⊙ Singapore CCL Stage 3,
Serangoon Interchange Station
⊙ Wangsimni
 Start

Phase 1

Literature Review

Phase 2 Modelling

3D

Phase 3
Parallel/Full ring Variation of Lining
lining Thickness

Results

Phase 4
Data Analysis
and Discussions
Scope of Type of Structure Loading
Settlement
Study modelling Parameter and Force
 Young Bulk Angle of
Soil Poisson’s Cohesion,
Soil Type Modulus Es Density, Friction, Ø
Layer Ratio, vs c (kPa)
(˚)
Soil L1 Fill
(kPa)
7000
(kN/m3)
19 0.333 30 0.3

Parameter L2
L3
Estuarine
Fluvial Clay
3000
3000
15
19
0.35
0.35
20
22
0.3
0.3
L4 Fluvial Sand 7000 20 0.32 32 0.3
L5 Bukit Timah 59200 20 0.333 30 2
Granite
Formation, G4
(vi)
L6 Bukit Timah 86400 20 0.3 35 2
Granite Formation
, G4 (v)

L7 Bukit Timah 3500000 23 0.32 35 400

Granite Formation
(v)
Soil-Tunnel
46m
Model

50m
 Tunnel Young Modulus EL 33 GPa

Lining Bulk Density 24 kN/m3

Parameter Poisson’s Ratio, vL 0.2

Diameter of the Lining 0.5m

Width of the Lining 1.4m

Jack Forces 10MPa – 30 MPa

Lining
Model
Boundary
Condition
 Jack
Forces
Results and
Conclusion
 Ground Settlement of Different Tunnel Lining Thickness Vs No Lining
0
Ground -0.002
Surface -0.004

Settlement

Settlement, S
-0.006

-0.008

-0.01

-0.012

-0.014
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance along the tunnelling, m

no lining 0.275m 0.25m 0.225m

0.2m 0.175m 0.15m 0.1375m
 Crown Tunnel Reaction Due to Tunnelling
0.02

Crown 0.015
0.01
Tunnel 0.275m

Movement at crown
0.005
0.25m
Reaction 0
0.225m
-0.005
Due To -0.01
0.2m
0.175m
Tunnelling -0.015 0.15m
-0.02 0.1375m

-0.025
-0.03
Y Distance along the tunnel path, m
 Crown
tunnel
reaction
 Ring 1
0
Tunnel 9.990688324
9.436029434
0.018
0.016
0.526880264
0.999994278
8.881210327 1.395847321
Lining 8.354000092
0.014
0.012 1.694381714
0.01
Reaction 7.880672455 0.008
0.006
1.880167007 0.275m
0.25m
7.484924316 1.943281174
Due to 7.186807632
0.004
0.002
2.006399155
0.225m
0 0.2m
Thickness 7.001516342 2.192186356 0.175m

Reduction 6.938625336 2.490716934

0.15m
0.1375m
6.875736237 2.886568069
6.690446854 3.359680176
6.392326355 3.886558533
5.996576309 4.441217422
5.523248672 4.996038437
 Ring 2

0
10.0123558
9.455968857 0.01 0.528644562
1.003194809
8.899536133 0.008 1.399843216 0.275m
8.370788574 0.006 1.698530197
7.896184921 1.884038925 0.25m
0.004
7.499641418 1.946937561 0.225m
0.002
Ring 2, 3 7.201185226
7.015916824
0 2.009836197
2.195344925
0.2m
0.175m
6.953115463 2.494029999
6.890312195 2.890678406 0.15m
6.705043793 3.365228653
6.406587601 3.893873215 0.1375m
6.010042191
5.535440445 4.450260162
5.006692886

Ring 3

0
9.991851807
9.43561554 0.02 0.528236389
1.00195694
8.879369736 0.015 1.39743042 0.275m
8.351135254 1.694906235
0.25m
7.877487183 0.01 1.879535675
7.482189178 0.005 1.942117691 0.225m
7.184957504 0 2.004699707 0.2m
7.00053978 2.189329147
0.175m
6.938043594 2.486804962
6.875547409 2.882278442 0.15m
6.691129684 3.355998993
6.39389801 3.884233475 0.1375m
5.998598099
5.524951935 4.440471649
4.996717453
 Ring 4 Ring 5 Ring 6
0.0200000 0.0200 0.02
0.0150000 0.0150 0.015
0.0100000 0.0100 0.01
0.0050000 0.0050 0.005
0.0000000 0.0000 0

Ring 7 Ring 8
0.02 0.02
0.015 0.015
0.01 0.01
0.005 0.005
0 0

Ring 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8
 Ring 9
0.000000
Ring 9 10.002365
9.446125
0.014000
0.012000
0.528486
1.002550
8.889931 1.398418
8.361540 0.010000 1.696133
0.008000
7.887426 1.880953 0.275m
0.006000
7.491234 0.004000 1.943575 0.25m
0.002000 0.225m
7.192959 2.006197
0.000000 0.2m
7.007601 2.191017 0.175m
0.15m
6.944757 2.488731
0.1375m
6.881914 2.884600
6.696556 3.358664
6.398281 3.887150
6.002089 4.443390
5.527975 4.999584
 To determine the deformation of tunnel
Objective 1 after reduction of tunnel lining
thickness
⊙ Tunnel lining reacting quite similar to the
original lining, thus achieving the objective
of the research.
 To determine the soil-tunnel reaction
based on the reduced tunnel lining
Objective 2
thickness
⊙ the settlement of the tunnel after the changes of
the tunnel lining is quite similar, as the
difference of the settlement is only around 6 –
20%
⊙ Although the ground settlement of the tunnel is
quite similar to one another, the crown of the
tunnel reacted different after the settlement
happens
 As a conclusion, the tunnel lining thickness can
Conclusion be changed sufficiently in the range of 0.275 m
to around 0.2m, as a safe design size for the
lining, as it can handle the pressure acted upon
it, and the design can also handle the jack
forces applied to it.
Thanks!
Q&A