The future of TBMs and the

tunnel linings they leave behind

Anthony Harding
Global Tunnel Technology Lead, CH2M

Introduction
Evolution of TBM tunnelling over the last 20 years:
Bigger
Better

Faster
More

Innovations in linings
Innovations in geotechnical analysis

Evolution over the last 20 years

Bigger, better, faster, more

Diameter of tunnel boring machine

15m

16m

1995

17m

2000
2005

Alaskan Way Replacement Tunnel

Madrid M30
Shanghai Yangtze
River

Groenehart rail tunnel

Hamburg 4th Elbe Crossing

14m
1990

Trans Tokyo Bay

How has the technology evolved?

Bigger
18m

2010
2015

Why so much bigger?

Functional requirements
Space
Because we can!

How has the technology evolved?

Better
More ground types:
Earth pressure balance TBMs venturing
into sands and gravels
Slurry TBMs coping with finer material

Multi-mode TBMs for maximum flexibility

Less settlement
Better mechanical systems and spoil
conditioners
Better monitoring systems
Better annulus grouting

Maintaining
face pressure

Annulus

How has the technology evolved?

Faster
TBM UTILISATION
Lining erection

Boring

Shift change
Breakdown/
repair
8

Logistics

Cutterhead
tool change
Scheduled
Track/utility
maintenance
installation

How has the technology evolved?

More
Worldwide over 5000km of tunnels are
dug every year
New metros in many developing countries and
cities
New lines for cities with established metros
New road tunnels for constrained capacity in
urban areas
New tunnels for wastewater

Trends and technologies: Linings

10

Geometry
Rectangular Trapezoid parallelogram:
Always building with the grain

Build very round

11

Other geometries
Hexagonal linings for soft ground
Already established in rock tunnels
Allows excavation and ring build to
occur at the same time
Gaps on joints are a problem
Has been used in soft ground in Japan

12

Concrete: Geopolymer concrete

Concrete is the single most widely used
construction material

2% 4%

> 5% of the worlds CO2

Portland
cement

6%

Majority from Portland cement

(1t of PC generates ~ 1t CO2)

Concrete
production

88%

Aggregate
production

Transport

13

Remove the OPC

Use geopolymer concrete instead!

kg of CO2 per m3 of concrete

Geopolymer concrete
Replaces Portland Cement with
industrial waste products like PFA and
GGBS

800
700
600
500
400

70% reduction
in CO2
emissions

300
200
100
0
Conventional reinforced concrete
Geopolymer concrete with synthetic
fibres

14

Performs as well as OPC

Can be cheaper than OPC!

C02 savings are staggering!

Macro-synthetic fibres
Made from high strength
plastics

Can provide comparable

results to steel fibres in
flexural tests
Not subject to corrosion
Non-ferrous

15

Connecting
Steel bolts need operatives in the build
area
Dowels for longitudinal joints
Guide rods only for longitudinal, under
certain circumstances
Non-ferrous push-fit connectors for
longitudinal joints

No operatives in the build

area

16

Special features
Post-tensioned linings
Integral internal protection (combisegments)
Ferrules

17

Trends and technologies: Geotechnical

18

Soil-structure interaction modelling for design

Its a circle!
Closed form solutions are often adequate
Forces on the lining:
Dominated by axial forces
What is the maximum load?

Settlement assessments
Looking to assign a damage category
Closed form solutions typically provide these

Soil-structure interaction widely used but not always beneficial

19

Soil-structure interaction modelling:

Assess risks
Where the assumptions of closed form solutions dont hold
Mixed face conditions:
Ground stiffness not uniform

Settlement:
Soil-structure interaction for high risk/high value assets
Complex geologies

Dynamic analysis (seismic)

20

How can modelling save you money?

Where a simple analysis ignores beneficial effects
Two criteria:
There are effects that cannot be quantified by traditional means
Quantification of these effects allows us to improve the design

Recent developments that enable this:

Increased ease of model creation
Increased speed of execution

Easier to capture 3D effects

Easier to do sensitivity analyses

21

Saving time and money - 1

A tunnel subject to internal pressures
Blue Plains tunnel: Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) in Washington DC, USA
Surge pressures were more than the
external water pressure

Effective pressures on the lining could be

low
The lining could go into tension
Designing for large tensions will be:
More expensive
Potentially impact built times

22

Saving time and money

A tunnel subject to internal pressures
Soil loads are very difficult to
predict accurately

Factored
load

Ground loads

Normal design procedures

yield upperbound values

Design
value

Net water
pressure

Maximum tension occurs with

minimum ground load

Net pressure

Simple analysis
23

Refined analysis

Axisymmetrical modelling
TBM operation effects the relaxation that occurs
The influence of the operational factors was required
An axisymmetrical model was used to evaluate the relative
influence of the different factors
Grout pressure
Annulus
pressure
Annulus
pressure Grout pressure
moved by length L
moved by length L
Area of grout pressure from
Face pressure
Fixed radially
previous step fixed radially

24

Face excavated
by length L

Axis of Symmetry:
Tunnel Centre Line

Step
Stepn+1
n

25

Horizontal insitu
stress

Soil strength
parameters

Soil stiffness
parameters

Excavated length

Grout pressure

Annulus pressure

Face pressure

How sensitive is the analysis to changing

parameters?
600

500

400

300

200

100

Design pressures
In cohesive materials:
Annulus pressures low
Model consolidation effects
No net outward pressure

In drained materials
Annulus pressures higher
Long term changes not expected
Maximum net outward pressure 25kPa

Placed lower limit on grout pressure (1 bar

above prevailing hydrostatic)

26

Outcome
One pass lining:
Saved time and money on secondary lining
Saved additional excavation and TBM size

Reduced load
Required no additional mitigations

27

Saving time and money - 2

Opening pressures
Opening in
segmental lining

Shotcrete shell

2 rings
10 ft

Thickened section (jamb and lintels)

to distribute load around opening
28

So whats the problem?

Flexible systems: design for limit state loads
Stiff systems: design for initial lining pressure
Very expensive when you are 100m down!

What if were between the two?

Loads on lining reduce
due to inward
Rings broken out displace
displacement
inwards

Axis of Symmetry:
Tunnel Centre Line

29

Modelling the internal pressures

Ground reaction curve
2500
Pressure (kPa)

2000
1500
1000
500

0
0

30

50
100
150
Displacement (mm)

Axisymmetrical modelling of the ground reaction

curve
Gradually reducing
lining pressure over 2
Fixed radially
rings length

Axis of Symmetry:
Tunnel Centre Line

31

Modelling the internal pressures

Ground reaction curve

700

Pressure (kPa)

600
500
400

Ground reaction curve

300

Axisymmetrical model

200
100
0
0

32

8
10
12
Displacement (mm)

14

16

18

20

The savings
Almost 50% reduction in design load
125mm shotcrete ring 1 application
Steel savings at the opening

33

Conclusions

34

The world is changing fast

More tunnels are being built bigger and faster than ever before
Many innovations in TBMs support this
Many developments in segmental linings
Some with universal benefit
Some for specific circumstances

Soil structure interaction modelling is not always required

It can help reduce risk
It can quantify effects that you cant otherwise

Innovation keeps us ahead in a commoditised industry

35

Thank You
And get innovating!