Design of Lining of Tunnels Excavated in Soil and Soft Rock

Massoud Palassi
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran

mpalas@ut.ac.ir

Mohammad M. Mohebbi
Lar Consulting Engineers, Tehran, Iran

mohebbino@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
Most of the tunnels constructed in urban areas include excavation in soil or soft rock. In this paper, a comparison is made between a numerical method based on the finite element method (FEM) and two analytical methods in estimating the bending moment and axial forces developed in the lining of these tunnels. The analytical methods employed in this article include Curtiss and Muir-Woods methods. It is shown that there is a good compatibility between the numerical modelling and these analytical methods. The effects of various parameters on the results are also evaluated.

KEYWORDS: tunnel; lining; analytical method; numerical method

INTRODUCTION
Construction of tunnels in urban areas, for various purposes such as underground transportation and sewage disposal, usually includes excavation in soil or semi-rigid media. Unlike hard and massive rocks, these types of ground normally need to be supported immediately after excavation in order to avoid collapse and to constrain the surface settlements which can be critical in the urban areas. New methods of tunneling such as pipe jacking and mechanized tunneling by tunnel boring machines (TBMs) have made it possible to excavate tunnels in soft ground and install the support system simultaneously. Use of these methods combined with proper lining design results in better rates of advance, higher stability and lower surface settlements.

Vol. 13, Bund. E

Rapid progresses in the development of user friendly computer codes and limitations of the analytical methods have increased the tendency of designers to use numerical methods for the design of tunnel linings. On the other hand, the analytical and analytical-empirical methods are based on valuable experience and have been successfully used for the design of tunnels in the past. In this paper, a comparison is made between a finite element based numerical method using a commercially available program and two analytical methods for estimating the bending moments and axial forces developed in the lining of tunnels. The effects of different parameters on the results are also evaluated.

ANALYTICAL METHODS
Muir-Woods Method
Muir-Wood (1975) presented a simple approach to the problem of proportioning the tunnel linings which can be useful in many situations. He assumes that a circular lining deforms into an elliptical shape in an elastic ground. It is also assumed that a full interaction between lining and the surrounding ground exists. The Airy stress function is used in the polar coordinates (according to the stress function proposed by Morgan):
= ( ar 2 + br 4 + cr 2 + d ) cos 2

(1)

which allows the differential equations of equilibrium to take the form

1 1 2 = + r r r r 2 2 =
=

(2)

2 r 2

(3)

1 r r

(4)

in which r : radial stress in the ground, : tangential stress in the ground, and
r

: shear stress in the ground.

Using the plane strain condition and assuming that no shear stress exists between the lining and the surrounding soil, the maximum bending moment and axial force developed in the lining can be obtained from:

Vol. 13, Bund. E

Mmax = 1 3 2 p dR e Rs 1 + Rs

3 (5)

Nmax = R e p u

1 1 + Rc

(6)

in which
pd = p v ph 2

(7)

R Re
9E lIl 3 4 R e

(8)

Rs =

(9)

pu =

p v + ph 2

(10)

Rc =

2 R e E g (1 l ) E l t(1 + g )

(11)

p h = kp v
3E g (1 + g )(5 6 g )R c

(12)

(13)

pv :

vertical pressure of the ground horizontal pressure of the ground

ph :

R e : external radius of

the lining R : middle radius of the lining k : coefficient of lateral earth pressure : elastic modulus of the lining

El Il

: moment of inertia of the lining A l : cross sectional area of the lining : Poissons ratio of the lining elastic modulus of the ground

Eg :

Vol. 13, Bund. E

g : Poissons ratio of the ground

t: lining thickness

Curtiss Method
In the method proposed by Curtis (1976) the bending moments and axial forces developed in the lining of the tunnel are estimated similar to the Muir-Woods method except that the shear stress between the lining and the ground is taken into the account. The maximum bending moment and the maximum axial force developed in the lining is calculated as:
Mmax = RR e 6 (2S nl + S tl )

(14)
(S nl + S tl )

Nmax = p u R e

1 1 + Q1

Re 3

(15)

in which
S nl = p d 1 Q2 1 + Q2 3 2 g 3 4 g

(16)

S tl =

1 + 2Q 2 1 Q2

S nl

(17)

Q1 =

E g (1 + l )R(1 l ) E l (1 + g )A l
2 3 R (1 l )E g 12E lIl (1 + g )

(18)

Q2 =

(19)

R, R e , p u , p d , g , E g , l , E l , Il , A l

are defined the same as in Muir-Woods method.

Estimation of the Ground Pressure

One approach to estimate the ground pressure acting on the lining is to apply the full overburden. Another approach based on I.T.A (2000) recommendation is to reduce the overburden according to the Terzaghis formula:
+ 2 tan 8 (R.cot( ) C) K tan H 8 R 1 e Pv = 2K.tan
+ 2

(20)

in which

Vol. 13, Bund. E vertical pressure of the ground R : radius of the lining : internal friction angle of the soil C : cohesion of the soil K : coefficient of lateral earth pressure H : depth of tunnel
pv :

In this paper to evaluate the ground pressure in Curtiss method both of the above mentioned approaches have been used.

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
For the numerical analysis the Finite Element Method (FEM) is used involving 2D plane strain conditions and a suitable modeling of soil nonlinearity by step-by-step construction simulation. In this study, a commercially available finite element software, PLAXIS, has been employed. The first step of modeling is the creation of the geometry which includes layers of the soil and the tunnel cross section. To avoid the boundary interference on the results, boundaries have been taken at least 3 times the tunnel diameter from the external surface of the lining. Then, boundary conditions have been applied. Finally, properties of the soil and its constitutive law and the lining properties have been included. The mesh is automatically generated based on the triangulation procedure. Once the 2D Finite Element mesh has been generated, calculations can be performed. It is also necessary to define the construction stages. In this paper, it is assumed that the tunnel excavation and lining installation take place simultaneously.

COMPARISON BETWEEN NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS

According to Muir-Woods and Curtis' formulae, the parameters affecting the bending moments and the axial forces developed in the lining are tunnel depth, tunnel radius, coefficient of lateral earth pressure, elastic modulus and Poissons ratio of the ground and elastic modulus and thickness of the lining. Depending on the approach used for the evaluation of the ground pressure, the internal friction angle and the cohesion of soil can also influence the bending moment and the axial force. Soil and lining properties used for the numerical and analytical solutions are presented in Table 1. In the following, the effects of the above-mentioned parameters are evaluated. It should be noted that Curtis (FL) means Curtiss method using the approach of applying full load of the overburden and Curtis (PL) means Curtiss method involving the approach of applying partial load of the overburden according to the Terzaghis relationship.

Vol. 13, Bund. E

Tunnel Depth
Figures 1 and 2 show the effect of the tunnel depth. As shown in Figure 1, the results obtained from Curtis (FL) method are close to the results obtained from FEM. Figure 2 shows that in the analytical methods, the maximum axial forces are overestimated in comparison with FEM results except in Curtis (PL) method in high depths. Table 1: Ground and lining properties
Parameter Tunnel depth Tunnel radius Coefficient of lateral earth pressure Elastic modulus of soil Soil Poissons ratio Soil cohesion Soil internal friction angle Soil unit weight Lining elastic modulus Lining thickness Lining unit weight Lining Poissons ratio Unit m m MPa kPa kN/m3 GPa m kN/m3 Value 30 5 0.5 100 0.3 30 30 18 30 0.25 24 0.15

Figure 1: Maximum bending moment vs. the depth of tunnel

Vol. 13, Bund. E

Figure 2: Maximum axial force vs. the depth of tunnel

Tunnel Radius
The effects of the tunnel radius are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows that the maximum bending moments decrease with the increase of the tunnel radius. This can be explained by noting the fact that an increase in the tunnel radius leads to a decrease in the bending stiffness of the lining. Therefore, the lining acts as a membrane in which significant bending moments cannot develop. In the same manner, the increase of the axial forces can be explained by membrane behaviour of the lining. As shown in Figures 3 and 4, the results obtained from the numerical method for the maximum bending moment and the axial force are more close to the results given by Curtis (FL) method and Curtis (PL) method, respectively. According to Figure 4, the relation between the maximum bending moments the radius of tunnel is linear.

Figure 3: Maximum bending moment vs. the radius of tunnel

Vol. 13, Bund. E

Figure 4: Maximum axial force vs. the radius of tunnel

Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure

Figures 5 and 6 show the effect of the lateral earth pressure. In all of the solutions, the maximum bending moment developed in the lining decreases rapidly with the increase in the coefficient of the lateral earth pressure because a relatively uniform compressive stress develops in the lining. Figure 5 shows that the results obtained for the maximum bending moment from Curtis (FL) method is closer to the results of FEM. According to Figure 6, the results obtained for the maximum axial force from Curtis (PL) are almost the same as the results obtained from FEM.

Figure 5: Maximum bending moment vs. the lateral earth pressure coefficient

Vol. 13, Bund. E

Figure 6: Maximum axial force vs. the lateral earth pressure coefficient

Elastic Modulus of the Soil

Figures 7 and 8 show effect of the elastic modulus of soil. It can be seen that the maximum bending moments calculated from both FEM and analytical methods decrease with the increase of the elastic modulus of the soil. This is reasonable because if the elastic modulus of the soil approaches to the elastic modulus of the lining, no bending moment develops in the lining. Also Figures 7 and 8 show the compatibility of Curtis (FL) and Curtis (PL) methods with FEM solution for estimation of the maximum bending moment and the maximum axial force, respectively.

Figure 7: Maximum bending moment vs. the elastic modulus of soil.

Vol. 13, Bund. E

10

Figure 8: Maximum axial force vs. the elastic modulus of soil

Poissons Ratio of the Soil

Effects of the Poissons ratio of the soil are given in Figures 9 and 10. Figure 9 shows that with the increase of Poissons ratio of the soil there are small amounts of decrease in the maximum bending moment. This Figure also shows a rather good compatibility between FEM solution and Curtis (FL) method. According to Figure 10, the maximum axial force is not sensitive to the Poissons ratio of the soil. Also in this Figure, a very good compatibility can be seen between FEM solution and Curtis (PL) method.

Figure 9: Maximum bending moment vs. the Poissons ratio of soil

Vol. 13, Bund. E

11

Figure 10: Maximum axial force vs. the Poissons ratio of soil

Cohesion of the Soil

Muir-Woods and Curtiss formulae show that the cohesion of the soil has not any effect on the maximum bending moment and the maximum axial force except for the case of decreasing the overburden by Terzaghis formula. Figure 11 shows that the cohesion of the soil does not affect the maximum bending moment calculated by FEM. This Figure also shows a relatively good compatibility between FEM solution and Curtis (FL) method. A good compatibility can be noted between FEM solution and Curtis (PL) method for estimating the maximum axial force in Figure 12.

Figure 11: Maximum bending moment vs. the cohesion of soil

Vol. 13, Bund. E

12

Figure 12: Maximum axial force vs. the cohesion of soil

Internal Friction Angle of the Soil

The internal friction angle of the soil does not affect the maximum bending moment and the maximum axial force calculated by Curtiss and Muir-Woods methods except for the case of decreasing the overburden by Terzaghis formula. But the internal friction angle affects both the bending moment and the axial force calculated by FEM (Figures 13 and 14). Figures 13 and 14 also show that Curtis (FL) and Curtis (PL) methods estimate the maximum bending moment and the maximum axial force more closely to the FEM solution, respectively.

Figure 13: Maximum bending moment vs. the internal friction angle of soil

Vol. 13, Bund. E

13

Figure 14: Maximum axial force vs. the internal friction angle of soil

Elastic Modulus of the Lining

The effects of the elastic modulus of the lining are illustrated in Figures 15 and 16. In all solutions, an increase in the elastic modulus of the lining leads to an increase in the lining stiffness and so an increase in the lining forces. Figures 15 shows a rather good compatibility between Curtis (FL) with FEM for maximum bending moment and Figure 16 shows a good compatibility between Curtis (PL) method with FEM solution for the maximum axial force.

Figure 15: Maximum bending moment vs. the elastic modulus of the lining

Vol. 13, Bund. E

14

Figure 16: Maximum axial force vs. the elastic modulus of lining

Thickness of the Lining

The effects of the lining thickness are shown in Figures 17 and 18. The lining thickness has a significant effect on the maximum bending moment. It can be explained by noting the fact that an increase in the thickness results in an increase in the bending stiffness of the lining. A good compatibility exists between Curtis (FL) method and FEM solution for the estimation of the maximum bending moment. Curtis (PL) method and FEM solution give the same results for the maximum axial force.

Figure 17: Maximum bending moment vs. the lining thickness

Vol. 13, Bund. E

15

Figure 18: Maximum axial force vs. the lining thickness

CONCLUSIONS
A comparison was made between a numerical analysis using a geotechnical finite element method (FEM) program and two analytical methods, namely Curtiss and Muir-Woods methods, for the estimation of the maximum bending moment and maximum axial force developed in the lining of tunnels. It was shown that there is a rather good compatibility between the results of the FEM and Curtis (FL) method for the estimation of the maximum bending moment developed in the lining except that Curtis (FL) results are often less than FEM results. There is good compatibility between FEM results and Curtis (PL) method for the estimation of the maximum axial force. The maximum bending moment developed in the lining is almost insensitive to the Poissons ratio and the cohesion of the soil, but it is very sensitive to the lining thickness. The maximum axial force is rather insensitive to the Poissons ratio of the soil and the elastic modulus of the lining.

REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. 4. Brinkgreve, R.B.J. and P.A. Vermeer (1998) PLAXIS Manual, BALKEMA. Curtis, D.J. (1976) Discussion on the Circular Tunnel in Elastic Ground, Geotechnique, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 231-237. International Tunneling Association (ITA), Working Group No.2 (2000) Guidelines for the Design of Shield Tunnel Lining, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 15, pp. 303-331. Muir-Wood, A.M. (1975) The Circular Tunnel in Elastic Ground, Geotechniqe, Vol. 25, N0.1, pp. 115-127.

2008 ejge