M BGZ 100SH0 CTCP Eca 100300 - 000

Riyadh Metro Project Package 1
Calculation Report
Line 1
TBM Segmental Lining Damage Assessment
Document Review Status Date: Name:
A - Reviewed; Work may proceed
B - Reviewed with comments; Revise and resubmit; Work may proceed subject to incorporation of comments
C - Objection - Revise and resubmit; Work may not proceed
D Rejected
E - Review not required; Work may proceed
Rev.: Date: Rev Status Prepared By Checked By Approved by:
00A 16 Dec.2015 100% Final Design Dr Es Kz

000 6 Sep.2016 IFC Dr Es Kz
Signatures:
Document Number REV.
M-BGZ-100SH0-CTCP-ECA-100300 000
PROJECT: Riyadh Metro Project
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
CALC NO. M-BGZ-100SH0-CTCP-ECA-100300
TBM segmental lining damage
SUBJECT: assessment SHEET NO. 2
SHEET
BY: DR CH: ES DATE: 01/03/2016 REV. 00B
Content Page
1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................3
2 ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................3
3 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................3
4 SCOPE OF REPORT ..................................................................................................................4
5 GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL SETTING ............................................................................4
5.1 Site Location .............................................................................................................................4
5.2 Strata Descriptions ...................................................................................................................8
5.3 Groundwater and Hydrology .....................................................................................................8
5.4 Inferred stratigraphy .................................................................................................................8
6 PROPOSED WORKS ................................................................................................................10
7 BASIS FOR CALCLULATIONS .................................................................................................12
7.1 Geotechnical Design Parameters ...........................................................................................12
7.2 Materials .................................................................................................................................12
7.2.1 Concrete...........................................................................................................................12
7.3 Loads ......................................................................................................................................13
7.3.1 Load Types ......................................................................................................................13
7.4 Design Checks .......................................................................................................................13
8 ANALYSIS FOR ALLOWABLE DEFORMATION OF TBM SEGMENTAL LINING ...................14
8.1 Trigger values .........................................................................................................................16
9 ANALYSIS FOR PREDICTION OF SEGMENTAL LINING DEFORMATION............................17
9.1 Segmental lining joint stiffness ...............................................................................................19
9.2 Results of numerical models ..................................................................................................20
9.2.1 Completion of TBM tunnel................................................................................................20
9.2.2 Completion of EES ...........................................................................................................21
9.2.3 Completion of the adit ......................................................................................................23
9.2.4 Sensitivity due to overbreak adjacent to TBM tunnel .......................................................24
10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................27
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
1 INTRODUCTION
The High Commission for the development of ArRiyadh represented by the ArRiyadh Development
Authority (ADA) has appointed Bechtel Almabani CCC Siemens consortium (BACS) to design and
develop Package 1 of the Riyadh Metro Project. Within BACS consortium GZ has been contracted to
provide technical guidelines and requirements for the structural analysis and design of the
emergency escape shafts and adits (EES) for Line 1 & Line 2.
2 ABBREVIATIONS
EC Eurocode
FE Finite Element
GWT Groundwater Table
GZ Gall Zeidler Consultants
mbgl Metres below ground level
SCL Sprayed Concrete Lining
SFR Steel Fibre Reinforced
SLS Serviceability Limit State
ULS Ultimate Limit State
3 REFERENCES
[1]. BS EN 1990:2002. Eurocode Basis of structural design. April 2002.

[2]. BS EN 1991:2002. Eurocode1: Actions on structures. April 2002.
[3]. EN 1992-1-1:2004.Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1-1. December 2004.
[4]. EN 1993-1-1:2005.Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-1. May 2005.
[5]. BS EN 1997-1:2004. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design Part 1: General rules. November
2004.
[6]. Midas GTS NX: finite element analysis software package for geotechnical design applications.
www.midasgtsnx.com
[7]. M-BD0-000000-CGGD-ETR-000004. Geotechnical Interpretive Report Line 1 & 2: Geotechnical
Design Parameters
[8]. Riyadh Metro Project, Project Implementation Tender Documents, Volume 2.3: Particular
Technical Specifications, WPS 2 - CIVIL WORKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WPS 2.01: Civil
and Infrastructure Design Requirements - Rev. 1
[9]. Project segmental lining drawings (by AECOM) M-BD2-100000-CTLI-EDR-000001 to 000026
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
4 SCOPE OF REPORT
This report summarises the calculations and analyses performed for determining acceptable levels of
deformation of the TBM segments during excavation of the emergency egress adits, and construction
of the opening frames.
This document summarises the fundamental analysis methods and assumptions that comprise the
input for the present analysis. All input data should be thoroughly verified on site as conclusions
might change where the basis differs significantly.
5 GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL SETTING
Geotechnical information was obtained from the nearest ground investigations. The design
parameters for each ground strata were taken from reference [7], based on the available
geotechnical description.
5.1 Site Location
In this study, a review of each of the adit geometries was undertaken in order to determine the likely
worst case for assessing deformation on the existing TBM tunnel, as summarised in Table 1. The
outcome of this review concluded that the enlarged adit excavation of EES 1-3 (see Figure 2)
represented the worst case, as this represents the largest excavation area and closest influence of
the shaft excavation on the adjacent TBM tunnel. Therefore, this section has been adopted for
analysis and reported in this study. The location of Shaft 1-3 is shown in Figure 5.
Adit Cross Adit Length

Adit Reference drawing
Section Type (m)*
M-BGZ-1A2SH0-CTCP-EDR-101191
1-1 Standard 5.000
M-BGZ-1A2SH0-CTCP-EDR-101180
M-BGZ-1B1SH0-CTCP-EDR-102180
1-2 Standard 4.427
1-3 Enlarged 4.409
M-BGZ-1C1SH0-CTCP-EDR-105180
1-5 Standard M-BGZ-100SH0-CTCP-EDR-100191
4.981
M-BGZ-100SH0-CTCP-EDR-100191
1-8 Standard M-BGZ-1C4SHA-CTCP-EDR-108180
5.031
M-BGZ-1C4SHB-CTCP-EDR-109181
1-9 Enlarged M-BGZ-1C4SHB-CTCP-EDR-109191
5.760
1-9 VA 1 Ventilation Adit M-BGZ-1C4SHB-CTCP-EDR-109193
5.760
1-9 VA 2 Ventilation Adit M-BGZ-1C4SHB-CTCP-EDR-109193 5.760
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Adit Cross Adit Length

Adit Reference drawing
Section Type (m)*
1-9 VA 3 Ventilation Adit 10.743
M-BGZ-1D2SH0-CTCP-EDR-110191
1-10 Standard M-BGZ-1D2SH0-CTCP-EDR-110180
12.283
Stretched M-BGZ-1E2SH0-CTCP-EDR-111191
1-11 M-BGZ-1E2SH0-CTCP-EDR-111180
5.147
Standard
M-BGZ-1F4SH0-CTCP-EDR-112191
1-12 Enlarged 4.782
1-13 Enlarged 24.233
Table 1: Summary of adit geometries along Line 1 EES.
Note: refers to the distance edge of excavation to external edge of running tunnel; lengths have been
measured from the latest design drawings at the time of this report and may be subject to change. The length
of Adit 1-3 has not changed since Rev 00A.

Figure 1: Standard adit cross-section (Shaft 1-3, typical)

JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Figure 2: Enlarged adit cross-section adjacent to TBM tunnel (Shaft 1-3, typical)
Figure 3: Ventilation adit cross-section adjacent to TBM tunnel

JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Figure 4: Shaft 1-11, with invert drainage, cross-section adjacent to TBM tunnel
EES Shaft 1-3
Figure 5: Geological Map of Riyadh

JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
5.2 Strata Descriptions
A brief description of the geotechnical units encountered at the EES key locations is presented in
Table 2.
Geological Unit Geotechnical Description
Unit
Non-Engineered Fill 1b Silty sand with gravel and cobbles.
Typically re-cemented.
Alluvium 2a/2b Loose to dense or firm to very stiff
alluvium. Red brown clay, silt and
sand.
Upper Breccia 4a Poorly cemented matrix dominated
limestone breccia. Soil to very weak
rock.
Upper Breccia 4d Limestone breccia. Possible cavities
frequently in-filled with loose to
medium dense alluvium.
Arab C 5 Disturbed bedded limestone. Folded
and contorted. Zones of brecciation
common.
Lower Breccia 4e Limestone breccia. Typically grades
from unit 5 with trace blocks of
bedded limestone.
Table 2: geological and geotechnical units description.
5.3 Groundwater and Hydrology
Based in the information available of the boreholes near the shaft location, the short term ground
water level is expected to be encountered at least and 23.8 mbgl (RL 605.2m). It should be noted,
however, that groundwater levels may undergo seasonal variations due to climatic changes, surface
infiltrations from sewage line, water line and irrigation water collected in rock surfaces and hence
groundwater may still be encountered at different levels during construction.
5.4 Inferred stratigraphy
Figure 6 shows the plan of the alignment of Riyadh Metro Line 1 at the location of Shaft 1-3. The
same plan shows in cyan the boreholes selected for inferring the geology at the same location.
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
200 m
BH1-100
Shaft 1-3
BH1-091 Station 1B2
BH1-088 BH1-097
BH1-104
BH1-095
Station 1B3
Figure 6: plan of geological investigation near Shaft 1-3.
The resulting geological section is shown in Figure 7 plotted against chainage. Figure 7 also shows
the termination depth of the selected boreholes, the design depth of Shaft 1-3, the level of the
corresponding Emergency Egress Adit.
Figure 7: inferred stratigraphy at shaft 1-3 worksite
The stratigraphy at the shaft 1-3 worksite was inferred from the levels plotted in Figure 7 linearly
interpolated against chainage. The resulting design levels are listed in Table 2.
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Unit Thickness Base of strata
Surface 629.00 m
1a/1b: Fill or 2a/2b: Alluvium 4.5 624.50 m
4c/4d: Upper Breccia 24.5 600.00 m
5: Arab C Limestone - -
Table 3: inferred geology at shaft 1-3
6 PROPOSED WORKS
As part of the project, the segmentally lined TBM tunnels will be bored in advance of
construction of the EES and adits. Details of the segmental lining (designed by others) are
shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Configuration of TBM segmental lining
Following this the EES shafts will be sunk to base level, with local dewatering as necessary to
maintain a dry and stable excavation.
On completion of the shafts, the adits will be driven out towards the TBM tunnels in order to
facilitate installation of the opening frame. The excavation sequence is shown in Figure 9.
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Figure 9: Excavation sequence of adits from shaft to TBM tunnel
The openings in the segmental linings are proposed as shown in Figure 10
Figure 10: Proposed openings in TBM segmental lining

JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
7 BASIS FOR CALCLULATIONS
In order to establish the allowable deformations in the segmental linings due to adjacent excavation,
closed form calculations were undertaken. These assessments are based on an elliptical distortion of
the segmental lining assuming rigid body rotation of the segments at the joints. The angular
distortions at the joints are used to assess the stresses induced in the tunnel lining due to initial
ground loading and distortion caused by angular rotation within the tunnel segment, as may be
induced due to adjacent excavation. For the initial ground loading, the elastic closed form solution of
Curtis-Muir Wood is adopted.
To assess the likely deformations of the TBM segmental lining from adjacent shaft and adit
excavation, two-dimensional, plane strain finite element models were developed. These models were
based on a relaxation approach, where the relaxation factors were calibrated from axisymmetric
models to induce equivalent ground strains. Ground elements were modelled with quadrilateral
elements combined with triangular elements and lining elements with beam elements. Elasto-plastic,
Mohr-Coulomb behaviour was assumed for the ground elements.
7.1 Geotechnical Design Parameters
Geotechnical parameters have been obtained from reference [7], based on the strata described in
section 5.2.
Ground parameters assumed for the effective stress analysis are summarised in Table 1.
Unit Youngs Poissons Friction

Cohesion,
Strata Weight, Modulus, Ratio, Angle, K0
c
E
kN/m3 MPa - degrees kPa -
Soil/Fill Layer 18 250 0.30 35 10 0.5
Upper Breccia 25 6000 0.2 46 400 0.50
Arab C Limestone 25 8000 0.20 48 600 0.50
Table 4: Ground Parameters
7.2 Materials
7.2.1 Concrete
Material properties adopted from the minimum requirements of the segmental lining as required by
the works project specification (reference [8]) and are summarised in the table below.
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Concrete Unit Youngs Poissons Compressive

Class Weight, Modulus, E Ratio, Strength, fck
kN/m3 GPa - MPa
C40/50 25 35 0.2 40
Table 5: Concrete parameters
7.3 Loads
7.3.1 Load Types
Self-Weight:
The Self weight is applied to all the elements and is calculated based on the unit weight of the
material.
Hydrostatic Pressure:
The hydrostatic pressure is internally calculated by the software based through the pore
pressures.
Operation Loads:
To account for operation loads of machinery or other similar loads, a 25 kPa surcharge will be
considered distributed around the shafts excavation, where other special loads do not apply.
7.4 Design Checks
ULS and SLS checks will be performed in accordance with References [1], [3] and [4], including the
material partial factors in the relevant UK National Annexes. The partial factor for loads, ground
parameters and materials are summarized in Table 6, and Table 7 respectively.
The soil-structure interaction analysis performed using the finite element method means that the
'actions' and 'resistances' occur from the same source within the ground. Furthermore, due to the
single source and load paths that cause 'effect of actions' calculated by the model, it is not possible to
apply different partial factors to dead and live loads. As a consequence, EC 7 allows the use of a
design approach in which a global partial factor may be applied to actions occurring from the single
source; it refers to this as the single source principle.
Consequently, for the verification of structural (STR) limit state, a global partial factor of 1.4 is applied
to the effect of actions obtained from the FE analysis.
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Load SLS ULS

Ground Load 1.0 1.4*
Water Pressure 1.0 1.4*
Self-Weight of Structure 1.0 1.4*
Operation Surcharge 1.0 1.4*
* This factor shall be applied to the effect of actions
Table 6: Partial factors for loads
Material Partial Factor

Concrete, C 1.50
Reinforcement, S 1.15
Table 7: Partial factors for materials
8 ANALYSIS FOR ALLOWABLE DEFORMATION OF TBM SEGMENTAL LINING
The closed form analyses (attached in APPENDIX A) was undertaken in order to determine the
allowable deformation of the TBM segmental lining. These analyses calculate the joint compressive
and tensile stresses caused by rotation of the segments for assessment against the joint capacity.
The joint geometry was taken from the design drawings (see Figure 11). The analysis assumes an
existing ovalisation of 1% in the segments due to build tolerance and ground loading.
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Figure 11: Basis of joint capacity calculation
A two-staged approach was adopted: firstly, the joint rotations were increased until the peak
compressive stresses were induced, as shown in Figure 12. This represents a stage where the joint
stresses are predominately elastic. The resultant factor of safety for various modes of joint failure
were assessed at the ULS and deemed acceptable (see calculations).
Figure 12: Joint stress distribution at first stage

JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Next the joint rotations were further increased until the post-peak softening response at the joint was
observed (see Figure 13). This represents a stage where the joint stresses in the post-peak, plastic
stages and so softening of the segment stiffness occurs. The resultant factor of safety for various
modes of joint failure were assessed at the ULS and deemed acceptable (see calculations).
Figure 13: Joint stress distribution softening
At both stages of the calculation, the peak joint strains were checked against the allowable ULS
strains set by the Eurocodes, and deemed acceptable.
8.1 Trigger values
Based on the above calculations, a system of Amber, Red, and Black trigger levels is suggested, as
shown below. Trigger levels should be developed based on the proposed monitoring systems
together with planned inspections where appropriate. The trigger levels should be reviewed daily and
detailed actions agreed and implemented in the event that Amber, Red, or Black trigger levels
are approached or breached.
Green conditions are the range of readings below the Amber trigger level where performance is
satisfactory. The amber level marks the boundary at a percentage of the predicted behaviour where
action is required to prevent avoid reaching the next condition. If the amber trigger level value is
exceeded, the pre-approved contingency measures should be implemented, the monitoring
frequency of affected instruments should be increased to the frequency specified, and further visual
inspection of the asset may be specified.
The red trigger level marks the boundary of serviceability. The excavation should be halted, the
contingency measures should be reviewed and instruments, which exceed red trigger level limits,
should be monitored continuously until stability is achieved.
The black trigger level should be set below the ultimate capacity limit. Limit values should be avoided
to prevent damage to the TBM Segmental Lining.
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
It should be noted that the trigger levels are the ovalisations and rotations over and above the 1%
assumed from allowance of ring build and initial ground loading, i.e. the trigger levels are allowable
deformations measured only due to adjacent shaft and adit excavation.
Ovalisation Joint rotation

Lined section of Unlined section
sewer of sewer
10mm 0.075% 0.135deg

(very slight damage)
TBC with lining

contractor and 0.15%
TWUL following (slight damage)0.315deg
23mmof
confirmation
lining proposal
0.3%
(moderate damage)
Figure 14: Illustration Trigger level system and proposed trigger levels
9 ANALYSIS FOR PREDICTION OF SEGMENTAL LINING DEFORMATION
To simplify the assessment, calibrated 2D FE models were developed using the stratigraphy
described in Section 5. These pseudo-3D models utilise a relaxation approach to simulate 3D effects.
Relaxation parameters for the TBM tunnel, shaft and adit excavations were calibrated from
axisymmetric analyse using the models shown in Figure 15. Following this a pseudo-3D model was
set up to assess the deformation of the lining as shown in Figure 16.
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Figure 15: Relaxation factor calibration models set up
Figure 16: Pseudo-3D model using calibrated relaxation to assess segmental lining distortion
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
9.1 Segmental lining joint stiffness
A key parameter in predicting the deformational behaviour of the segmental lining due to adjacent
shaft and adit excavation is the assumption of lining joint stiffness. As the radial joints are formed of
bolted flat bearing surfaces (Figure 11), the ring stiffness is often empirically derived using the Muir
Wood relationship by reducing the ring stiffness based on the number of joints (Figure 17). However,
given the stiffness of the ground is much greater than the segments, an upper bound assumption that
the segments behave as pin jointed has also been checked (Figure 18).
As these figures show, the deformations of the TBM segmental lining are similar (approx. 1mm) prior
to excavation of the adjacent shaft or adit.
Figure 17: Behaviour of segmental lining using Muir Wood inertia
Figure 18: Behaviour of segmental lining using pin joints

JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
9.2 Results of numerical models
The incremental results of the pseudo-3D analysis at each stage are presented herein.
9.2.1 Completion of TBM tunnel
Figure 19 to Figure 21 show the vector of total deformation as well as predicted rotation of the
segmental lining due to ground loading, following passage of the TBM. These figures show very
small deformations (<1mm) and rotations in the order of 0.005deg due to ground loading (note, this
falls within the 1% assumed existing ovalisation due to ground loading). Following this stage the
displacements and rotations of the TBM tunnel lining was re-set in order to investigate the effects due
to adjacent excavations only.
Figure 19: Deformation vectors after completion of TBM tunnel

JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Figure 20: Deformation of TBM lining after completion of TBM tunnel
Figure 21: Rotation of segmental lining after completion of TBM tunnel
9.2.2 Completion of EES
segmental lining due to ground loading after completion of shaft excavation. These figures show
some influence of the shaft excavation on the TBM tunnel, though still remain small with
deformations <2mm and rotations <0.01deg.
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Figure 22: Deformation vectors after completion of EES
Figure 23: Deformation of TBM lining after completion of EES

JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Figure 24: Rotation of segmental lining after completion of EES
9.2.3 Completion of the adit
segmental lining due to ground loading, following excavation of the adit. These figures show an
increase in the segmental lining deformations up to 4mm and rotations approaching 0.1deg.
Figure 25: Deformation vectors after completion of adit

JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Figure 26: Deformation of TBM lining after completion of adit
Figure 27: Rotation of segmental lining after completion of adit
9.2.4 Sensitivity due to overbreak adjacent to TBM tunnel
Figure 28 and Figure 29 show the vector of total deformation as well as predicted rotation of the
segmental lining due to ground loading, following excavation of the adit with a 300mm overbreak in
the area immediately adjacent to the TBM tunnel lining. These figures show an increase in the
segmental lining deformations up to approximately 9mm and rotations of 0.1deg at the crown and
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
axis, with rotations up to 0.17deg in the knees, following excavation of the bench. The rotation is
slightly above the amber trigger level.
Figure 28: Deformation of segmental lining after completion of adit with 300mm overbreak
Figure 29: Rotation of segmental lining after completion of adit with 300mm overbreak
Figure 30 and Figure 31 show the vector of total deformation as well as predicted rotation of the
segmental lining, assuming a pin jointed response, following excavation of the adit with a 300mm
overbreak in the area immediately adjacent to the TBM tunnel lining. These figures show a further
increase in the segmental lining deformations up to approximately 13mm and rotations of 0.14deg at
the crown and axis, with rotations up to 0.24deg in the knees, following excavation of the bench.
These values are significantly in to the amber trigger level, but still below the red trigger level.
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
Figure 30: Deformation of segmental lining pin jointed after completion of adit with 300mm overbreak
Figure 31: Rotation of segmental lining pin jointed after completion of adit with 300mm overbreak
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study presents and assessment of deformation and joint rotation of the existing TBM tunnel due
to adjacent shaft and adit excavation. This study adopts shaft 1-3 to undertake the assessment as
this represents the largest excavation area and closest influence of the shaft excavation on the
adjacent TBM tunnel.
A closed form calculation has been undertaken to derive a system of Amber, Red, and Black trigger
levels of allowable TBM segmental lining deformation and joint rotation. Amber and red trigger limits
of 10mm & 23mm lining distortion, and 0.135deg & 0.315deg joint rotation have been derived,
respectively. It should be noted that the trigger levels are the ovalisations and rotations over and
above the 1% assumed from allowance of ring build and initial ground loading, i.e. the trigger levels
are allowable deformations measured only due to adjacent shaft and adit excavation.
A series of numerical models were undertaken to predict the level of lining distortion and joint
rotations likely due to adjacent shaft and adit excavation. The predictions show that under well
controlled profile excavation, deformation are approx. 5mm and rotations approx. 0.1deg, which are
approximately 75% of the amber trigger level. It should be noted that the distorted shape of the TBM
segmental lining predicted from the numerical modelling is non-elliptical, and manifests during
excavation of the bench/invert up to the back of the TBM segmental lining.
A sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the influence of overbreak (up to 300mm locally
around the TBM segmental lining). These analyses show an increase in the segmental lining
deformations up to approximately 9mm and rotations of 0.1deg at the crown and axis, with rotations
up to 0.17deg in the knees, following excavation of the bench. The rotation is slightly above the
amber trigger level.
Additional sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess potential variability in stiffness of the
segmental lining joints. The results of which show an increase in the segmental lining deformations
up to approximately 13mm and rotations up to 0.14deg at the crown and axis, with rotations up to
0.24deg in the knees, following excavation of the bench. These values are significantly in to the
amber trigger level, but still below the red trigger level.
As a finding of these analyses, it is concluded that it may be prudent to review the excavation
sequencing so that any additional measures can be implemented sequentially, if needed. This is
particularly important on completion of the top heading and commencing excavation of the bench.
Such measures may include: shortening the excavation sequence/advance length in the adit
enlargement area up to the back of the TBM segmental lining; design of temporary propping
measures that may be implemented after completion of the top heading if measured distortion and
joint rotation is outside that predicted; earlier installation of the top heading cast-in-place lining and
jamb frames prior to commencement of the bench/invert, and; dividing the invert excavation in to
smaller round lengths.
In order to facilitate an observational approach and implementation of contingency measures on
approaching trigger levels, installing convergence arrays, tilt sensors and tilt meters at the
appropriate positions and setting trigger levels commensurate with the instrumentation and
monitoring is recommended.
JOB
NUMBER: 0962
CALCULATION SHEET
SHEET
APPENDIX A CALCULATIONS FOR AMBER AND RED TRIGGER LEVELS.

COMPUTATION SHEET
Designer: DReda Project: 0962: Riyadh EES propless

Date: 06 Oct 15 connection
Title: Impact Assessment
Strcuture: TBM Tunnels
Allowable deflection check of TBM tunnel segments due to adit

construction
This assessment is based on an elliptical distortion of the segmental lining assuming rigid
body rotation of the segments at the joints.
The angular distortions at the joints are used to assess the stresses induced in the the tunnel lining due
to initial ground loading and distortion caused by angular rotation leading to eccentrcity of the line of
thrust within the tunnel segment, as may be induced due to adjacent excavation.
For the initial ground loading, the elastic closed form solution of Curtis-Muir Wood is adopted. The
analysis assumes the circular tunnel is excavated in Continuous, Homogeneous, Isotropic,
Linear-Elastc grounds with the immediate installation of the lining. Reduction in overburden due to
volume loss is not included, however this is considered conservative
Ground Parameters and assumptions:
The ground parameters are as per M-BD0-000000-CGGD-ETR-000004. Geotechnical Interpretive Report

Line 1 & 2: Geotechnical Design Parameters
Statigraphy and depth of the tunnel below ground surface has been adopted from Shaft 1-3.
Lining Properties and Geomoetry:
The segmental lining dimensions and details are determined from project drawings
M-BD2-100000-CTLI-EDR-000001 to 000026
Material properties adopted from the minimum requirements of the segmental lining
as required by the works project specification (WPS.02)
Ultimate Limit State assessment undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Eurocode 2
Ref: [1] The Circular Tunnel in Elastic Gound & Discussions

Muirwood, A.M & Discussion by Curtis, D.J (1975)
Geotechnique 25, No.1, 115-127
Denotes Input Parameters Required
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

1.0 Lining Properties and Geometry
h 360mm Segment Thickness
b 1800mm Segment width
di 9200mm Diameter of Intrados
n 7 Number of Segments, excluding key
l 0.2 Poissons ratio of lining
de di 2h Diameter of Extrados
1.1 Concrete :
Concrete Partial Factor fcu 50MPa Concrete Cube Strength
c 1.5
kN Concrete Density fck 40 MPa Concrete Cylinder Strength

c 24
3
m (See EC2 Table 3.1)
cc 0.85
El 35GPa Elastic Mod of CI
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

1.4 Concrete Stress / Strain Properties
The calculation of radial joint behaviour assumes that the contact stress at any point on the joint
surface is related to its deflection as follows:
Surface Deflection This implies an depth of stressed concrete under the joint
Strain =
Segment Thickness surface equal to segment thickness.
Stress is then related to strain using the EC2 Fig 3.2 Stress / Strain curve for non-linear analysis.
2
3
fck
fctm 0.3 MPa if fck 50MPa 3.509 MPa Concrete tensile strength
MPa
fck 8MPa
2.12 ln 1 MPa otherwise
10MPa
fctm cc fck
fctd 2.339 MPa fcd 22.667 MPa Design Strengths
c c
fcm fck 8MPa 48 MPa Mean cylinder strength
0.3
fcm
Ecm 22 GPa 35.22 GPa
10MPa
4
98MPa fcm
2.8 27
100MPa Max allowable compressive strain
cu1 if fck 50MPa 0.0035
1000
(EC2 Table 3.1)
0.0035 otherwise
EC2 Fig 3.2 Stress/Strain Curve for Concrete

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Strain
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

1.2 Reinforcement Properties:
Es 200GPa Elastic Modulus
fyk 500MPa Yield Strength:
s 1.15 Partial Factor
fyk Design Stress

fyd 434.783 MPa
s
1.3. Segment / Radial Joint Geometry:

wj 235mm Contact area width considering rounding
cg 40mm Caulking Groove width / edge distance to contact

area.
elip 5mm Radial Lipping on joint

(conservatively assumed)
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

1.4 Calulated lining properties
di
rm h 4960 mm Mean radius
2
de
re 4960 mm Radius to Extrados
2
5 2
A bh 6.48 10 mm Area per ring
2
A 5 mm
Aw 3.6 10
b m Area/unit width
h Depth to Centroid
y' 180 mm
2
3
bh 9 4 Segment Moment of
Ix 7 10 mm
12 Inertia
Ix 4
mm
Ixw 3.888E+009 Inertia/unit width
b m
2
4 4
Ir Ix 2.285E+009 mm Reduced Moment of Inertia - Joints
n
Ir 4
mm
Irw 1.27E+009 Reduced Inertia of ring/unit width
b m
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

2.0 Tunnel & Ground Paramters

S(kPa)
RLs 629m RL of Surface
RLs
RLc 608.95m RL of Tunnel Crown
dw
RLw 605.2m RL of Water Table dc RLw
kN
g 25 Bulk unit weight of ground
3
m
w 10
kN
Unit weight of water RLa
3 de
m
Eg 6000MPa Mean ground modulus Figure 2: Section Profile
g 0.2 Poissons Ratio of ground
'g g w
ko 0.5 Earth Pressure co-eff Bouyant unit weight
dc RLs RLc 20.05 m Depth from surface to crown
dw RLs RLw 23.8 m Depth from surface to Water table
hw dc re dw 1.21 m Saturated height to tunnel axis
d dc re hw 23.8 m Depth of dry overburden to tunnel axis
3.0 Pressures at Tunnel Axis

S 25kPa Surcharge
Pv g d 'g hw S 638.15 kPa Vertical Effective stress at tunnel axis
Ph ko Pv S 306.575 kPa Horiztonal Effective Stress at tunnel axis
Pw w h w 12.1 kPa Ground water pressure assumed uniform around extrados
Pv Ph
Pu 472.362 kPa Uniform Component of effective stress
2
Pv Ph
Pd 165.787 kPa Distoritional component of effective stress
2
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

4.0 Muirwood Curtis Lining Parameters and Derived Forces
0deg 1deg 360deg is measured from the tunnel crown
2
Eg 1 l rm
Q1
El 1 g Aw Lining Flexibility parameter
Pu
Pl 163.474 kPa Lining Uniform Pressure
1 Q1
Nu( ) Pl re Uniform hoop thrust in lining from ground loading
Nw( ) Pw re Uniform hoop thrust in lining from GW loading
4.1 Distortional Pressures
a1 12El Irw 1 g
3 2
b1 re Eg 1 l
b1 3 2g
c1
3 4g
a1 b1
Sn ( ) Pd cos( 2) Radial distortional pressure
a1 c1
a1 2 b1
St( ) Pd sin( 2) Tangential distortional pressure
a1 c1
4.1 Calculated Lining Forces
a1 b1
Nd( ) re Pd cos( 2 )
a1 c1 Axial force from distortional pressure
2
a1 rm
M d ( ) Pd cos( 2)
a1 c1 2 Bending moment from distortional pressure
2
2 1 g 1 l 4
u d ( ) rm Pd cos( 2)
a1 c1 Radial deformation (increase in radius)
Nt( ) Nu ( ) Nw( ) Nd ( )
Total axial thrust in lining
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

4.2 Maximum Lining Forces
kN m
Md ( 0) 1.57
m Maximum bending moment at axis & crown
kN
Nt( 0 ) 174.953
m Maximum hoop thrust at crown
3 kN
Nt( 90deg) 1.567 10 Maximum hoop thrust at axis
m
u d( 0) 0.278 mm Maximum displacement of tunnel lining
u d( 0)
O 0.003 % Percentage Ovalisation expressed as
2.rm change in mean diameter
Total Axial Force & Moment Distribution Around Liner

2 2000
1 1500
0 1000
1 500
2 0
0 100 200 300 400
Angle from Crown

Axial Force
BM
e 1.4 Global partial factor
kN kN
Nsls max Nt( 0 ) Nt( 90deg) 1567 Nuls e Nsls 2193
m m
kN m kN m
M sls Md( 0) 1.57 M uls e M sls 2.198
m m
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

5.0 Joint Rotation Check

A
D
Ml Md( 0) Moment in Lining G
5.1 Joint Rotation due to ground loading
Oe 1% de Oe d i 92 mm
Existing Ovalisation O F C B E
Oa 0.109% da Oa d i 10.028 mm
Max allowable ovalisation
Ov Oe Oa 1.109 %
Figure 4: Ovalisation
Dis Ov d i 102.028 mm diameter
360deg Angle subtended by segment

51.429 deg
n
From geometry, determine deflected profile:
di
OA 4.6 m & OB OA Internal Radii
2
180deg
64.286 deg
2 OC OA cos( ) 2.9 m & CB OB OC 1.7 m
CB Using assumption of rigid body

AB 4m & DE AB
cos( ) rotation of segment
Dis Dis
OE OB 4.7 m OG OA 4.5 m
2 2
Solving Intersection of chord and ellipse simultaneously:
Guesses FD OG & OF OC d (prior to loading)
Given
2 2
FD OF
=1 Eqn (1) - Ellipse
2 2 Cg wc
OG OE
Eqn (2) - Segment Chord

wj
2 2 2
FD ( OE OF) = DE
Figure 5: Segment rotaion

j 2( ) 1.385 deg
Rotaion between Segments
j
r 0.692 deg
2 Relative rotation of each segment
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

6.0. Radial Joint Design

6.1 Force in Section according to stress-block model:
wj elip
y tan j
Force lhs j EC2 lhs dy
2h
0
Equating to the Applied Load and solv ing Iteratively:
max 0.0023534
(Cannot exceed code strain limit) Maximum Strain:
3 kN
Ncapacity Force cu1 j 3.631 10
m Section Capacity at strain limit:
Ncapacity
FOScrush 1.655 FOS on crushing
Nuls
wj elip
y tan j
EC2 max y dy
2h
0
Cdist 25.894 mm
min Ncapacity Nuls Centroid of force from LH Edge:
kN m
Me Nuls esegment 250.284 Moment due to eccentricity:
m
6.2 Contact stress distribution at initial joint angle
Joint Contact Stress

50 Centroid
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200
mm
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

Force vs maximum strain in joint

4000
3000
Design_Load
2000
1000
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Strain at edge of joint
wc 70.1 mm Contact Width
j 1.385 deg Joint Angle due to ovality
max 2 deg Maximum acceptable angle:
d wj tan j 5.68 mm Initial Gap
d max wj tan max 8.206 mm Maximum acceptable gap:
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

6.3 Splitting Capacity

6.3.1 Unreinforced joint:
wj u 1.6 Eccentricity Factor
u 0.44 0.4 0.18
h (Eccentricity >= 0.05t):
u kN
Nuo fctd h 7532
u m Ultimate Axial load capacity for splitting
esegment
0.317
h
rj 0.452
(By cubic spline interpolation)
kN
Nue 0.75 Nuo rj 2552 Ultimate Capacity of eccentrically loaded joint:
m
Nue
FOSsplit 1.16 FOS on splitting
Nuls
UCheck "Unreinforced Joint OK"
======================
6.3.1 Reinforced Joints:

F.st is the ultimate strength of all the anchored reinforcing bars within a distance from the joint surface
equal to 0.8 times the segment thickness.
Bars installed in end of one segment:
Number Diameter
0 0
Barssplit
0 0
2
Asplit 0 mm
Asplit 2
mm
Ast 0 Steel area per metre
b m
kN
Fst Ast fyd 0 0.8h
m
kN
Nuc 4.45 fctd h 4 Fst 3747
m Splitting As split
Nuc Failure
FOSrsplit 1.708
Nuls FOS on splitting failure
SpCheck "Splitting Check OK"

======================
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

6.4 Shear Capacity:
F.sts is characteristic strength of the anchored reinforcing bars intersected by a line drawn at
26.5 degrees to a line normal to the tunnel radius, positioned at the most eccentric point of
contact in the joint.
Bars installed in ends of BOTH segments

contribute to capacity:
Shear
Failure
Number Diameter
0 0
Barsshear
0 0
2 As shear
Asshear 0 mm
26.5 Deg.
Asshear 2
mm
Asts 0 Shear Reinforcement per metre:
b m
kN
Fsts Asts fyd 0
m
kN
Nus 6.75 fctd h 2 Fsts 5684 Ultimate Shear Capacity
m
Nus
FOSshear 2.59
Nuls FOS on shear failure
ShearCheck "Shear Check OK"

======================
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

7.0. Section Capacity Checks
7.1 Moment Capacity:
Reinforcement per face:

Number Diameter
0 0
0 0
Barsface
0 0
0 0 Cover 50mm
dedge
h As f ace As edge
As mid
bmid
2
Asface 0 mm Area of Reinforcing steel
d face 0 mm
7.1.1 Calculate segment moment capacity using EC2 Section 3:

.
Fc
x y
dface
Lever Arm
As
Fs
M ult Fs La 0 kN m
Ultimate moment capacity:
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

7.2 Section Interaction Capacity
Mu Muls
Moment due to external forces:
kN m
M build Nuls esegment 250.284
m Moment due to ring build tolerance:
kN m
Mt Mu M build 252.482 Total Moment:
m
Interaction Curve to EC2

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 100 200 300
Moment (kNm/m)
Capacity - Section partly in tension
Capacity - Full section in compression
Factored Loading
Therefore maximum allowable distortion of the segmental lining

due to adit construction is:
Distortion Oa di 10.028 mm
Additional distortion assuming pre-existing distortion
Whic equates to a total joint opening of:

Rotation j e 0.137 deg
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

Allowable deflection check of TBM tunnel segments due to adit

construction
This assessment is based on an elliptical distortion of the segmental lining assuming rigid
body rotation of the segments at the joints.
The angular distortions at the joints are used to assess the stresses induced in the the tunnel lining due
to initial ground loading and distortion caused by angular rotation leading to eccentrcity of the line of
thrust within the tunnel segment, as may be induced due to adjacent excavation.
For the initial ground loading, the elastic closed form solution of Curtis-Muir Wood is adopted. The
analysis assumes the circular tunnel is excavated in Continuous, Homogeneous, Isotropic,
Linear-Elastc grounds with the immediate installation of the lining. Reduction in overburden due to
volume loss is not included, however this is considered conservative
Ground Parameters and assumptions:
The ground parameters are as per M-BD0-000000-CGGD-ETR-000004. Geotechnical Interpretive Report

Line 1 & 2: Geotechnical Design Parameters
Statigraphy and depth of the tunnel below ground surface has been adopted from Shaft 1-3.
Lining Properties and Geomoetry:
The segmental lining dimensions and details are determined from project drawings
M-BD2-100000-CTLI-EDR-000001 to 000026
Material properties adopted from the minimum requirements of the segmental lining
as required by the works project specification (WPS.02)
Ultimate Limit State assessment undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Eurocode 2
Ref: [1] The Circular Tunnel in Elastic Gound & Discussions

Muirwood, A.M & Discussion by Curtis, D.J (1975)
Geotechnique 25, No.1, 115-127
Denotes Input Parameters Required
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

1.0 Lining Properties and Geometry
h 360mm Segment Thickness
b 1800mm Segment width
di 9200mm Diameter of Intrados
n 7 Number of Segments, excluding key
l 0.2 Poissons ratio of lining
de di 2h Diameter of Extrados
1.1 Concrete :
Concrete Partial Factor fcu 50MPa Concrete Cube Strength
c 1.5
kN Concrete Density fck 40 MPa Concrete Cylinder Strength

c 24
3
m (See EC2 Table 3.1)
cc 0.85
El 35GPa Elastic Mod of CI
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

1.4 Concrete Stress / Strain Properties
The calculation of radial joint behaviour assumes that the contact stress at any point on the joint
surface is related to its deflection as follows:
Surface Deflection This implies an depth of stressed concrete under the joint
Strain =
Segment Thickness surface equal to segment thickness.
Stress is then related to strain using the EC2 Fig 3.2 Stress / Strain curve for non-linear analysis.
2
3
fck
fctm 0.3 MPa if fck 50MPa 3.509 MPa Concrete tensile strength
MPa
fck 8MPa
2.12 ln 1 MPa otherwise
10MPa
fctm cc fck
fctd 2.339 MPa fcd 22.667 MPa Design Strengths
c c
fcm fck 8MPa 48 MPa Mean cylinder strength
0.3
fcm
Ecm 22 GPa 35.22 GPa
10MPa
4
98MPa fcm
2.8 27
100MPa Max allowable compressive strain
cu1 if fck 50MPa 0.0035
1000
(EC2 Table 3.1)
0.0035 otherwise
EC2 Fig 3.2 Stress/Strain Curve for Concrete

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Strain
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

1.2 Reinforcement Properties:
Es 200GPa Elastic Modulus
fyk 500MPa Yield Strength:
s 1.15 Partial Factor
fyk Design Stress

fyd 434.783 MPa
s
1.3. Segment / Radial Joint Geometry:

wj 235mm Contact area width considering rounding
cg 40mm Caulking Groove width / edge distance to contact

area.
elip 5mm Radial Lipping on joint

(conservatively assumed)
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

1.4 Calulated lining properties
di
rm h 4960 mm Mean radius
2
de
re 4960 mm Radius to Extrados
2
5 2
A bh 6.48 10 mm Area per ring
2
A 5 mm
Aw 3.6 10
b m Area/unit width
h Depth to Centroid
y' 180 mm
2
3
bh 9 4 Segment Moment of
Ix 7 10 mm
12 Inertia
Ix 4
mm
Ixw 3.888E+009 Inertia/unit width
b m
2
4 4
Ir Ix 2.285E+009 mm Reduced Moment of Inertia - Joints
n
Ir 4
mm
Irw 1.27E+009 Reduced Inertia of ring/unit width
b m
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

2.0 Tunnel & Ground Paramters

S(kPa)
RLs 629m RL of Surface
RLs
RLc 608.95m RL of Tunnel Crown
dw
RLw 605.2m RL of Water Table dc RLw
kN
g 25 Bulk unit weight of ground
3
m
w 10
kN
Unit weight of water RLa
3 de
m
Eg 6000MPa Mean ground modulus Figure 2: Section Profile
g 0.2 Poissons Ratio of ground
'g g w
ko 0.5 Earth Pressure co-eff Bouyant unit weight
dc RLs RLc 20.05 m Depth from surface to crown
dw RLs RLw 23.8 m Depth from surface to Water table
hw dc re dw 1.21 m Saturated height to tunnel axis
d dc re hw 23.8 m Depth of dry overburden to tunnel axis
3.0 Pressures at Tunnel Axis

S 25kPa Surcharge
Pv g d 'g hw S 638.15 kPa Vertical Effective stress at tunnel axis
Ph ko Pv S 306.575 kPa Horiztonal Effective Stress at tunnel axis
Pw w h w 12.1 kPa Ground water pressure assumed uniform around extrados
Pv Ph
Pu 472.362 kPa Uniform Component of effective stress
2
Pv Ph
Pd 165.787 kPa Distoritional component of effective stress
2
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

4.0 Muirwood Curtis Lining Parameters and Derived Forces
0deg 1deg 360deg is measured from the tunnel crown
2
Eg 1 l rm
Q1
El 1 g Aw Lining Flexibility parameter
Pu
Pl 163.474 kPa Lining Uniform Pressure
1 Q1
Nu( ) Pl re Uniform hoop thrust in lining from ground loading
Nw( ) Pw re Uniform hoop thrust in lining from GW loading
4.1 Distortional Pressures
a1 12El Irw 1 g
3 2
b1 re Eg 1 l
b1 3 2g
c1
3 4g
a1 b1
Sn ( ) Pd cos( 2) Radial distortional pressure
a1 c1
a1 2 b1
St( ) Pd sin( 2) Tangential distortional pressure
a1 c1
4.1 Calculated Lining Forces
a1 b1
Nd( ) re Pd cos( 2 )
a1 c1 Axial force from distortional pressure
2
a1 rm
M d ( ) Pd cos( 2)
a1 c1 2 Bending moment from distortional pressure
2
2 1 g 1 l 4
u d ( ) rm Pd cos( 2)
a1 c1 Radial deformation (increase in radius)
Nt( ) Nu ( ) Nw( ) Nd ( )
Total axial thrust in lining
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

4.2 Maximum Lining Forces
kN m
Md ( 0) 1.57
m Maximum bending moment at axis & crown
kN
Nt( 0 ) 174.953
m Maximum hoop thrust at crown
3 kN
Nt( 90deg) 1.567 10 Maximum hoop thrust at axis
m
u d( 0) 0.278 mm Maximum displacement of tunnel lining
u d( 0)
O 0.003 % Percentage Ovalisation expressed as
2.rm change in mean diameter
Total Axial Force & Moment Distribution Around Liner

2 2000
1 1500
0 1000
1 500
2 0
0 100 200 300 400
Angle from Crown

Axial Force
BM
e 1.4 Global partial factor
kN kN
Nsls max Nt( 0 ) Nt( 90deg) 1567 Nuls e Nsls 2193
m m
kN m kN m
M sls Md( 0) 1.57 M uls e M sls 2.198
m m
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

5.0 Joint Rotation Check

A
D
Ml Md( 0) Moment in Lining G
5.1 Joint Rotation due to ground loading
Oe 1% de Oe d i 92 mm
Existing Ovalisation O F C B E
Oa 0.25% da Oa d i 23 mm
Max allowable ovalisation
Ov Oe Oa 1.25 %
Figure 4: Ovalisation
Dis Ov d i 115 mm diameter
360deg Angle subtended by segment

51.429 deg
n
From geometry, determine deflected profile:
di
OA 4.6 m & OB OA Internal Radii
2
180deg
64.286 deg
2 OC OA cos( ) 2.9 m & CB OB OC 1.7 m
CB Using assumption of rigid body

AB 4m & DE AB
cos( ) rotation of segment
Dis Dis
OE OB 4.7 m OG OA 4.5 m
2 2
Solving Intersection of chord and ellipse simultaneously:
Guesses FD OG & OF OC d (prior to loading)
Given
2 2
FD OF
=1 Eqn (1) - Ellipse
2 2 Cg wc
OG OE
Eqn (2) - Segment Chord

wj
2 2 2
FD ( OE OF) = DE
Figure 5: Segment rotaion

j 2( ) 1.562 deg
Rotaion between Segments
j
r 0.781 deg
2 Relative rotation of each segment
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

6.0. Radial Joint Design

6.1 Force in Section according to stress-block model:
wj elip
y tan j
Force lhs j EC2 lhs dy
2h
0
Equating to the Applied Load and solv ing Iteratively:
max 0.0025509
(Cannot exceed code strain limit) Maximum Strain:
3 kN
Ncapacity Force cu1 j 3.218 10
m Section Capacity at strain limit:
Ncapacity
FOScrush 1.467 FOS on crushing
Nuls
wj elip
y tan j
EC2 max y dy
2h
0
Cdist 25.264 mm
min Ncapacity Nuls Centroid of force from LH Edge:
kN m
Me Nuls esegment 251.667 Moment due to eccentricity:
m
6.2 Contact stress distribution at initial joint angle
Joint Contact Stress

50 Centroid
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200
mm
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

Force vs maximum strain in joint

4000
3000
Design_Load
2000
1000
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Strain at edge of joint
wc 67.3 mm Contact Width
j 1.562 deg Joint Angle due to ovality
max 2 deg Maximum acceptable angle:
d wj tan j 6.41 mm Initial Gap
d max wj tan max 8.206 mm Maximum acceptable gap:
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

6.3 Splitting Capacity

6.3.1 Unreinforced joint:
wj u 1.6 Eccentricity Factor
u 0.44 0.4 0.18
h (Eccentricity >= 0.05t):
u kN
Nuo fctd h 7532
u m Ultimate Axial load capacity for splitting
esegment
0.319
h
rj 0.449
(By cubic spline interpolation)
kN
Nue 0.75 Nuo rj 2535 Ultimate Capacity of eccentrically loaded joint:
m
Nue
FOSsplit 1.16 FOS on splitting
Nuls
UCheck "Unreinforced Joint OK"
======================
6.3.1 Reinforced Joints:

F.st is the ultimate strength of all the anchored reinforcing bars within a distance from the joint surface
equal to 0.8 times the segment thickness.
Bars installed in end of one segment:
Number Diameter
0 0
Barssplit
0 0
2
Asplit 0 mm
Asplit 2
mm
Ast 0 Steel area per metre
b m
kN
Fst Ast fyd 0 0.8h
m
kN
Nuc 4.45 fctd h 4 Fst 3747
m Splitting As split
Nuc Failure
FOSrsplit 1.708
Nuls FOS on splitting failure
SpCheck "Splitting Check OK"

======================
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

6.4 Shear Capacity:
F.sts is characteristic strength of the anchored reinforcing bars intersected by a line drawn at
26.5 degrees to a line normal to the tunnel radius, positioned at the most eccentric point of
contact in the joint.
Bars installed in ends of BOTH segments

contribute to capacity:
Shear
Failure
Number Diameter
0 0
Barsshear
0 0
2 As shear
Asshear 0 mm
26.5 Deg.
Asshear 2
mm
Asts 0 Shear Reinforcement per metre:
b m
kN
Fsts Asts fyd 0
m
kN
Nus 6.75 fctd h 2 Fsts 5684 Ultimate Shear Capacity
m
Nus
FOSshear 2.59
Nuls FOS on shear failure
ShearCheck "Shear Check OK"

======================
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

7.0. Section Capacity Checks
7.1 Moment Capacity:
Reinforcement per face:

Number Diameter
0 0
0 0
Barsface
0 0
0 0 Cover 50mm
dedge
h As f ace As edge
As mid
bmid
2
Asface 0 mm Area of Reinforcing steel
d face 0 mm
7.1.1 Calculate segment moment capacity using EC2 Section 3:

.
Fc
x y
dface
Lever Arm
As
Fs
M ult Fs La 0 kN m
Ultimate moment capacity:
E:\Riyadh\Propless\
COMPUTATION SHEET

7.2 Section Interaction Capacity
Mu Muls
Moment due to external forces:
kN m
M build Nuls esegment 251.667
m Moment due to ring build tolerance:
kN m
Mt Mu M build 253.864 Total Moment:
m
Interaction Curve to EC2

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 100 200 300
Moment (kNm/m)
Capacity - Section partly in tension
Capacity - Full section in compression
Factored Loading
Therefore maximum allowable distortion of the segmental lining

due to adit construction is:
Distortion Oa di 23 mm
Additional distortion assuming pre-existing distortion
Whic equates to a total joint opening of:

Rotation j e 0.314 deg
E:\Riyadh\Propless\

M BGZ 100SH0 CTCP Eca 100300 - 000

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

M BGZ 100SH0 CTCP Eca 100300 - 000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Riyadh Metro Project Package 1

Document Review Status Date: Name:

A - Reviewed; Work may proceed

C - Objection - Revise and resubmit; Work may not proceed

E - Review not required; Work may proceed

Rev.: Date: Rev Status Prepared By Checked By Approved by:

00A 16 Dec.2015 100% Final Design Dr Es Kz

Document Number REV.

[1]. BS EN 1990:2002. Eurocode Basis of structural design. April 2002.

5 GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL SETTING

5.1 Site Location

Adit Cross Adit Length

Adit Cross Adit Length

Figure 1: Standard adit cross-section (Shaft 1-3, typical)

Figure 3: Ventilation adit cross-section adjacent to TBM tunnel

EES Shaft 1-3

Figure 5: Geological Map of Riyadh

5.2 Strata Descriptions

5.3 Groundwater and Hydrology

5.4 Inferred stratigraphy

Figure 6: plan of geological investigation near Shaft 1-3.

Figure 7: inferred stratigraphy at shaft 1-3 worksite

Unit Thickness Base of strata

1a/1b: Fill or 2a/2b: Alluvium 4.5 624.50 m

4c/4d: Upper Breccia 24.5 600.00 m

Figure 8: Configuration of TBM segmental lining

Figure 9: Excavation sequence of adits from shaft to TBM tunnel

The openings in the segmental linings are proposed as shown in Figure 10

Figure 10: Proposed openings in TBM segmental lining

7 BASIS FOR CALCLULATIONS

7.1 Geotechnical Design Parameters

Unit Youngs Poissons Friction

Concrete Unit Youngs Poissons Compressive

7.3.1 Load Types

7.4 Design Checks

Load SLS ULS

Material Partial Factor

8 ANALYSIS FOR ALLOWABLE DEFORMATION OF TBM SEGMENTAL LINING

Figure 11: Basis of joint capacity calculation

Figure 12: Joint stress distribution at first stage

Figure 13: Joint stress distribution softening

8.1 Trigger values

Ovalisation Joint rotation

10mm 0.075% 0.135deg

TBC with lining

9 ANALYSIS FOR PREDICTION OF SEGMENTAL LINING DEFORMATION

Figure 15: Relaxation factor calibration models set up

9.1 Segmental lining joint stiffness

Figure 17: Behaviour of segmental lining using Muir Wood inertia

Figure 18: Behaviour of segmental lining using pin joints

9.2 Results of numerical models

9.2.1 Completion of TBM tunnel

Figure 19: Deformation vectors after completion of TBM tunnel

Figure 20: Deformation of TBM lining after completion of TBM tunnel

Figure 21: Rotation of segmental lining after completion of TBM tunnel

9.2.2 Completion of EES

Figure 22: Deformation vectors after completion of EES

Figure 23: Deformation of TBM lining after completion of EES

Figure 24: Rotation of segmental lining after completion of EES

9.2.3 Completion of the adit

Figure 25: Deformation vectors after completion of adit

Figure 26: Deformation of TBM lining after completion of adit

Figure 27: Rotation of segmental lining after completion of adit