Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
APPENDICES
Volume 1 of 3
Appendix A Responses to Comments
Appendix B Line 1 Tunnel Alignment
Appendix C Geological Longitudinal Section
Appendix D Geological Cross Sections
Appendix E Line 1 Tunnel Space Proofing Report & Assessment of
Segmental Lining Geometry
Appendix F Technical Data and Design of Dowel, Bolt and Gasket
Appendix G Existing Building Structures and Utilities Drawings
Appendix H Information from Herrenknecht
Appendix I Flotation Check
Volume 2 of 3
Appendix J Structural Analysis Results
Volume 3 of 3
Appendix K 3D Finite Element Analysis
Appendix L Geotechnical Analysis Results
Appendix M Segment Longitudinal Reinforcement Crack Width
Checking
Appendix N Bearing, Anti-bursting Steel Design at Radial and
Circumferential Joints
Appendix O Effect of Handling and Stacking
Appendix P Checking for Torque induced by TBM
Appendix Q Fire Resistance Design
Appendix R Design Compliance Check Summary
Appendix S Risk Register
Appendix T Interface Details between TBM Tunnel and Station / Cut
and Cover Tunnel
Electronic documents once printed, are uncontrolled and may become out-dated. Refer to Aconex for current revision.
2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh
Appendix K
Electronic documents once printed, are uncontrolled and may become out-dated. Refer to Aconex for current revision.
2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh
Investigation of Jacking Force on Segmental Lining
1. Purpose
In order to study the stress distribution between ram shoes and segment, a 3D model is set up by
using SAP 2000 (3D finite element structural software). The structural capacity of segmental lining
is assessed accordingly against this temporary loading.
2. Description of model
2.1 General
The SAP model consists of three rings and segment is modeled by shell element. According to a
submitted design report, the least favourable segment arrangement of the last ring is P1
arrangement (Please refer to Drg. No. M-BD2-100TU0-CTLI-EDR-000031) and this arrangement is
adopted in the SAP model. The distance between radial joint and edge of ram shoe has a
minimum amongst all the segment arrangement (i.e. 150mm).
According to the drawings provided by the TBM manufacturer, it is expected that the last one and
half rings are in TBM shield. For simplicity, it is conservatively assumed that the last two rings are
in TBM shield. As a result, soil/rock spring is applied to the one ring in order to simulate soil
confinement outside the TBM (Appendix A). The soil/rock spring is compression only member
and has a stiffness value of 139470 kN/m2.
At the end where ram force applied, the radial deformation of the nodes under the ram shoes is
not allowed. On the far side, only the deformation along tunnel direction is restrained.
2.3 Joint
The circumferential and radial joints are simulated by GAP elements in SAP model. The GAP link
element is a compressive only member, which means they can only transfer compressive stress,
not tensile stress. In addition, it cannot transfer shear between two segments, and also cannot
transfer moment between segments since no transverse translation stiffness or rotation stiffness
is defined. Both ring joint and segmental joint are simulated as 236mm thick considering the
effective contact area (246mm) with 10mm construction tolerance.
In order to avoid unstable case, beam constraints are added for every 2 nodes between
circumferential joint, a beam constraint causes all of its constrained nodes to move together as a
rigid beam, i.e., it is infinitely stiff in transverse shear and bending, but not constrained in axial or
torsional behavior. Since only ram force at longitudinal direction is applied to the model, beam
constraints are considered to be suitable to simulate the shear stiffness at joints.
The reinforced precast segmental lining has a concrete grade of C50. Hence, the corresponding
elastic modulus and poissons ratio are 37GPa and 0.2 respectively.
As stated in the design report, the normal operation mode is more critical and the thrust force
acting on each ram is 4310 kN. It is applied on the nodes directly.
The deformation and stress distribution can be found in Appendix C. The maximum displacement
is 1.56mm which occurs at the joint closest to the ram force. The maximum compressive stress
along longitudinal direction is 23.2MPa while maximum tensile stress along longitudinal direction
is 3.7MPa. In the hoop direction, the maximum compressive stress and tensile stress are 25.8MPa
and 6.5MPa respectively.
The structural capacity check of segmental lining can be found in Appendix D. Based on the
calculation, it can be concluded that the present segmental lining is adequate. Anti-bursting steel
is designed to prevent splitting of segment due to the jacking force. The anti-bursting steel design
is in accordance with Eurocode 2 and presented in separate Appendix (Appendix N of Detailed
Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment).
Appendix A
8/23/14 10:15:35
RAM
Thrus Beam
t Const
Force GAP raints
s Link are
(Res Elem adde
ultant ents d for
= (Com Node
4310 press s
kN / ion betw
RAM) Only) een
SAP2000 v15.1.1 - File:Ram thrust-with joints-refined_2 rings no spring - Analysis Model - Joint Loads (RamThrust) (As Defined) - KN, m, C Units
Radia
l
Joints
Appendix B
Shell
Sprin
g
Stiffn
ess =
1394
70
R kN/m
es 2
tra (Com
int pressi
s on
at Only)
Lo
ng
SAP2000
.
3 Di
D re
M cti
od on
el
Appendix B
w
e
Vi
D
3
s-
ur
to
on
C
t
en
m
ce
la
sp
Di
0.00 0.12 0.23 0.35 0.46 0.58 0.69 0.81 0.92 1.04 1.15 1.27 1.38 1.50 E-3
SAP2000 v15.1.1 - File:Ram thrust-with joints-refined_2 rings no spring - Deformed Shape (1.35RAM) - KN, m, C Units
Appendix C
SAP2000 8/23/14 10:17:49
11
S
ss
re
St
l
na
di
itu
ng
Lo
3415 kN (Intrados)
3737 kN (Extrados)
-22141 kN (Intrados)
-23202 kN (Extrados)
-23.0 -21.0 -19.0 -17.0 -15.0 -13.0 -11.0 -9.0 -7.0 -5.0 -3.0 -1.0 1.0 3.0 E+3
SAP2000 v15.1.1 - File:Ram thrust-with joints-refined_2 rings no spring - Stress S11 Diagram - Visible Face (1.35RAM) - KN, m, C Units
Appendix C
SAP2000 8/23/14 10:20:04
6541 kN (Extrados)
-20678 kN (Intrados)
5243 kN (Intrados)
-25767 kN (Extrados)
-25.0 -22.6 -20.2 -17.7 -15.3 -12.9 -10.5 -8.0 -5.6 -3.2 -0.8 1.7 4.1 6.5 E+3
SAP2000 v15.1.1 - File:Ram thrust-with joints-refined_2 rings no spring - Stress S22 Diagram - Visible Face (1.35RAM) - KN, m, C Units
Appendix D
Appendix E - Tensile Zone Distribution in Hoop Direction
Appendix D - Tensile zone distribution in hoop direction
Area AreaElem ShellType Joint OutputCase CaseType S22Top S22Bot
Text Text Text Text Text Text KN/m2 KN/m2
154 154 Shell-Thick 158 1.35RAM Combination 4798.51 6540.81
154 154 Shell-Thick 160 1.35RAM Combination 4823.77 6512.19
154 154 Shell-Thick 398 1.35RAM Combination 642.80 2160.89
154 154 Shell-Thick 396 1.35RAM Combination 618.25 2188.79
384 384 Shell-Thick 396 1.35RAM Combination 584.21 2247.38
384 384 Shell-Thick 636 1.35RAM Combination -1977.18 -386.23
384 384 Shell-Thick 398 1.35RAM Combination 641.82 2254.36
384 384 Shell-Thick 634 1.35RAM Combination -2034.31 -393.69
Within the Tension zone, 4nos T10 (sidebar) and 2nos T12 (mainbar) is sufficient to take the tension force
Strength Capacity
Dia (mm) No. (N/mm2) (kN)
12 2 434.78 98.35
10 4 434.78 136.59
Total Capacity (kN) 234.94 > 187.37
Appendix L
Electronic documents once printed, are uncontrolled and may become out-dated. Refer to Aconex for current revision.
2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh
Appendix L1
ASSESSMENT ON TUNNEL DIRECT UNDERNEATH UNDERPASS
The as-built drawings of underpasses are not available during the preparation of this
assessment. The following are the assumptions made to the underpasses:
Figures 1.1 to 1.3 are plans and general view of each underpass. The photos of underpass
in the figures were taken on 22 August 2014.
Depth of
Existing Depth of
Top of Rail Tunnel Axis Overburden
Chainage Ground Level Overburden
Level (m) Level (m) under
(m) above Crown (m)
Underpass (m)
112+640.00 626.0 593.6 596.1 25.0 15.0
120+740.00 606.0 575.2 577.7 23.4 13.4
122+040.00 604.1 577.6 580.1 19.0 7.0
Table 1.2 - Tunnel Vertical Alignment
Approx.
Geology Geology at Geology at invert of
Chainage Thickness of
above Tunnel Tunnel Horizon tunnel
Alluvium (m)
Upper Breccia
Alluvium /
Complex / Disturbed Arab C
112+640.00 Upper Breccia 1m
Disturbed Arab Limestone
Complex
C Limestone
Upper Breccia
Alluvium /
Complex / Disturbed Arab C
120+740.00 Upper Breccia 1m
Disturbed Arab Limestone
Complex
C Limestone
Upper Breccia
Alluvium /
Complex / Disturbed Arab C
122+040.00 Upper Breccia 10m
Disturbed Arab Limestone
Complex
C Limestone
Table 1.3 - Geological Condition
For simplicity, it is conservative assumed the critical section has overburden pressure of
25m and the underpass is 12m depth in the analysis. Table 2.1 shows assumptions of the
critical section and Figure 2.1 shows the model setup.
Depth of
Depth of Width of
Overburden
Ground Condition Underpass Underpass
above Crown
(m) (m)
(m)
Alluvium +
Fresh & Weathered Arab Formation 25 12 30
(Refer Figure 2.1)
Table 2.1: Critical Section
Geotechnical program PLAXIS is used to assess the effect of underpass to the tunnel.
Figure 2.1 is the Plaxis model adopted in analysis. In the model, the weight of underpass is
ignored and the underpass is modeled as a rigid structure.
The earth load obtained in PLAXIS analysis is used as the input earth load in MICROSTRAN
model. Then appropriate load factors and load combinations are adopted for structural
analysis. This approach is used in the submission of Detailed Design of TBM Segmental
Lining (Document No. M-BD2-100TU0-CTBT-RPT-000001).
The MICROSTRAN input data, results, interaction diagram and other structural calculation
are given in Attachment 2. The calculation demonstrates that the tunnel lining can cope with
the underpass.
Underpass (Weight = 0)
Alluvium (10m)
Fresh &
Weathered Arab
Formation
Tunnel
PLAXIS Report
section CH122+040
2
section CH122+040
3
section CH122+040
4
section CH122+040
5
section CH122+040
6
section CH122+040
7
section CH122+040
8
section CH122+040
9
section CH122+040
10
section CH122+040
11
section CH122+040
12
section CH122+040
13
section CH122+040
14
Attachment 2
MICROSTRAN Analysis
Riyadh Metro Line 1 Underpass
Rock: Type of Tunnel:
Rock Modulus: Circular
Erock = 10Log10Q ~ 40Log10Q (GPa) Shape of Tunnel: Circular 1 Horse-Shoe
Erock = 2 RMR - 100 For rocks with RMR>55 (GPa) Ground Condition: Mixed-Ground 3.000 Hard Rock
(RMR - 10)/40 NOT USED
Erock = 10 For rocks with 10<RMR<55 (GPa) Drainage Condition: Undrained 2.000 Soft Ground
RMR = 9 ln Q + 44 Sub-sea Tunnel? No 2 Mixed-Ground
Good Rock in non-Fault Zone: Tunnel Depth:
proof = 2 Jn1/2 Q -1/3 / [30 Jr ] (MPa) Datam Level = -30.780 mPD (at tunnel axis)
pwall = 2 Jn1/2 Q -1/3 / [30 Jr ] for Q<0.1 (MPa) y1 = 4.780 m (above tunnel crown)
NOT USED
pwall = 2 Jn1/2 (2.5Q) -1/3
/ [30 Jr ] for 0.1<Q<10 (MPa) y2 = 0.000 m (at tunnel axis)
pwall = 2 Jn1/2 (5Q) -1/3 / [30 Jr ] for Q>10 (MPa) y3 = -4.780 m (at convert)
Crushed Rock in Fault Zone (Consider Ground Arching): Groundwater:
proof = 1.1 's (2 OD) (kPa) Design Ground Water Level = -35.560 mPD Groundwater below
pwall = 0.3 's (0.5 OD + proof / 's) NOT USED (kPa) wh1 = 0.000 m Tunnel
wh2 = 0.000 m
Q-system Values: Good Rock in non-Fault Zone: wh3 = 0.000 m
proof = 61.888 kPa
Jr = 1.50 pwall = 36.192 kPa water = 10.000 kN/m3 Yes
Jn = 9.00 No
Q = NOT USED
10.000 NOT
Crushed Rock in Fault USED
Zone: wh1
y1 Use Plaxis Results
RMR = 65 proof = 547.58 kPa Hard Rock
eq
pwall = 211.89 kPa Soft Ground
Rock Loading: wh2 y2 Good Rock in non-Fault Zone
eq
proof = 0.00 kPa Nil
NOT USED wh3
pwall = 0.00 kPa Drained
y3
Undrained
Rock Wedge Pressure: Lining:
Wedge Pressure at Crown = 35.00 kPa Dimension of Tunnel (Circular):
Wedge at Crown = 150 to 210 Degree ID = 9.200 m
NOT USED
Wedge Pressure at Shoulder = 72.00 kPa OD = 9.920 m
Wedge at Shoulder = 180 to 316 Degree R= 4.780 m
Apparent support spring stiffness: t= 0.360 m
Erock = 0.00E+00 MPa = 0.00E+00 kPa b= 1.800 m
rock = 0.25 Xa = 0.000 m
3
rock = 2.60 t/m Ya = 0.000 m
NOT USED n= 360 elements
Apparent support spring stiffness: Ratio of SpringTANGENTAL / SpringRADIAL: 0.200
Kspring_rock = Erock / (1 - rock^2) Concrete for lining: Reference Standard : Eurocode 2 2
0.00E+00 kPa fcu = 60.00 MPa = 6.00E+04 kPa
Soil / Mixed Ground: ftu = 0.00 MPa = 0.00E+00 kPa
Soil Parameter: Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Econcrete = 3.73E+04 MPa = 3.73E+07 kPa
F. & W. Arab Soil Profile Assumption concrete = 0.20
Ko = 0.500 concrete = 2.50 t/m3
Angle of internal friction, (Deg) = 35.0 180 o
Kspring_soil x R (kPa) = Dud & Erd (1982) 5 6.667E+05 0.000E+00 Contract Area at Joint = 240 mm
Consider Tengential Spring? No 2
Ratio of SpringTANGENTAL / SpringRADIAL = 0.000 0.000 Thickness at Joint = 240 mm
Soil Cover: Support Spring:
Ground Level, GL = 0.000 mPD Apparent support spring stiffness, Kspring = 6.67E+05 kPa
Soil Cover, H = 26.000 m (above crown) Radial Spring Ratio Tangential Spring Ratio Soil Type Possion Ratio
Average Unit Weight, W s = 23.00 kN/m3 (Soil above Tunnel Crown) Spring Ratio (F. & W. Arab), R1 = 0.2092 0.000 F. & W. Arab v = 0.20
Design Surcharge = 0.00 kPa From (Deg) : 0 to 360
Spring Ratio (F. & W. Arab), R2 = 0.2092 0.000 F. & W. Arab v = 0.20
Use Terzaghi's Formula ? Use Plaxis Results 3 Support Pressure from PLAXIS Model From (Deg) : 360 to 360
Effective Width, B = 8.174 m (Not Used) Spring Ratio (F. & W. Arab), R3 = 0.2092 0.000 F. & W. Arab v = 0.20
360 to 360
Effective Overburden Thickness,H eff = 9.584 m (Not Used) Spring Ratio (F. & W. Arab), R4 = 0.2092 0.000 F. & W. Arab v = 0.00
Design Soil Depth, h = 26.000 m 360 to 360
Tunnel Geometry
7
Tunnel Joint(s): Model
ID Start at (Deg) Width X Y Joint Members 6
1 47 1 -3.46715747 -3.290209586 47 0 0 0 0 0
2 101 1 -4.699779498 0.871052644 101 0 0 0 5 0 0
3 145 1 -2.775654436 3.891324002 145 0 0 0 0 0
4
4 167 1 -1.11582635 4.647751241 167 0 0 0 0 0
5 211 1 2.425940999 4.118430564 211 0 0 0 3 0 0
6 265 1 4.757812658 0.458125252 265 0 0 0 0 0
7 315 1 3.40920733 -3.350218712 315 0 0 0 2 0 0
8 357 1 0.291800908 -4.770902668 357 0 0 0 1
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 -7 -60 -5 -4 -3 -2
0 -1 0 1 02 3 4 5 06 7
-1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-7
Summary of Critical Internal Forces
Max. Bending Moment (kNm/ring) Min. Bending Moment (kNm/ring) Max. Axial Force (kN/ring)
Case ULS/SLS Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F
1 ULS 182 276.624 292.99128 8.7588 3273.457 1 230 -233.086 -253.322 -6.948 4047.352 1 -0.9324 -30.941 -1.3176 6001.717
2 ULS 182 279.9864 296.44494 8.991 3291.709 1 230 -235.733 -256.104 -7.9704 4074.133 1 -0.7938 -30.9908 -1.2798 6039.392
3 ULS 182 250.8318 267.5448 6.6726 3342.6 1 231 -215.093 -235.361 -7.4088 4053.71 1 -3.105 -33.4183 -1.2744 6062.659
4 ULS 180 263.2176 279.76093 -9.1962 3308.666 1 229 -225.178 -245.459 -8.5374 4056.255 1 -2.016 -32.1961 -0.567 6036.026
5 ULS 182 296.4078 313.86616 9.99 3491.672 1 230 -249.194 -270.738 -10.143 4308.919 1 -0.7668 -32.5516 -1.2636 6356.965
6 ULS 181 62.325 64.185822 -0.4626 372.1644 1 223 -55.4832 -57.5963 1.1358 422.6274 1 2.052 4.99851 -0.6606 589.302
7 ULS 217 52.0686 56.201382 -0.3114 826.5564 1 175 -70.56 -74.7253 4.176 833.0652 1 4.185 9.311553 0.261 1025.311
8 SLS 182 202.5162 214.6239 6.3738 2421.54 2 230 -170.854 -185.834 -3.9852 2995.913 1 -0.7182 -22.8976 -0.9612 4435.882
9 SLS 182 204.7176 216.8859 6.5142 2433.659 2 230 -172.589 -187.658 -4.6476 3013.735 1 -0.6264 -22.9306 -0.9864 4460.832
10 SLS 182 185.4972 197.83624 5.0076 2467.807 2 231 -159.028 -174.038 -5.6538 3001.948 1 -2.16 -24.5465 -0.9558 4477.309
11 SLS 181 193.7124 205.93536 5.6502 2444.593 2 229 -165.614 -180.615 -3.564 3000.166 1 -1.4382 -23.7307 -0.4194 4458.497
12 SLS 182 215.3934 228.22644 7.173 2566.607 2 230 -181.364 -197.215 -5.949 3170.021 1 -0.612 -23.9697 -0.9504 4671.535
13 SLS 181 46.107 47.485044 -0.3402 275.6088 2 223 -41.0544 -42.6194 0.8478 313.0056 1 1.5192 3.700638 -0.486 436.2876
14 SLS 217 38.4462 41.506821 -0.207 612.1242 2 175 -52.1586 -55.2435 3.0582 616.9734 1 3.096 6.888357 0.1494 758.4714
15 ULS 181 214.9668 227.59128 -5.9994 2524.896 1 230 -181.201 -196.929 -12.5262 3145.612 1 -0.522 -23.6867 1.494 4632.932
16 ULS 1 98.6958 125.98408 -2.0664 5457.656 1 306 -87.3306 -114.563 -3.7386 5446.532 331 2.142 29.44755 -62.9676 5461.11
17 ULS 181 293.3982 309.88273 -13.41 3296.905 1 230 -237.51 -257.887 -13.869 4075.452 1 -0.8244 -30.9728 -1.3158 6029.685
18 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
19 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
20 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
21 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
22 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
23 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
24 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
25 1 0 0 0 0 Case 3 1 0 0 0 0 Case 1 0 0 0 0 Case
Critical ULS 182 296.4078 313.86616 9.99 3491.672 5 230 -249.194 -270.738 -10.143 4308.919 5 1 -0.7668 -32.5516 -1.2636 6356.965 5
Critical SLS 182 215.3934 228.22644 7.173 2566.607 12 230 -181.364 -197.215 -5.949 3170.021 12 1 -0.612 -23.9697 -0.9504 4671.535 12
Summary of Critical Internal Forces
Min. Axial Force (kNm/ring) Max. Shear Force (kNm/ring) Min. Shear Force (kNm/ring)
Case ULS/SLS Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F
1 ULS 181 276.5178 292.8816 -2.1636 3272.764 209 -1.5372 -19.3313 195.2568 3558.827 155 13.9842 31.60118 -193.5774 3523.396
2 ULS 181 279.8892 296.3442 -2.0718 3291.005 209 -2.0106 -19.9131 197.7048 3580.495 155 13.9536 31.6767 -196.047 3544.619
3 ULS 181 250.659 267.369 -2.9718 3342.01 210 -9.4914 -27.5505 175.428 3611.828 155 16.5492 34.36637 -173.5056 3563.435
4 ULS 181 263.2176 279.7578 0.8982 3308.035 209 -19.0728 -37.0478 187.6104 3595.007 152 -9.2754 -27.1692 -180.1998 3578.753
5 ULS 181 296.3358 313.7905 -1.7604 3490.931 209 -3.2904 -22.262 209.3724 3794.312 155 14.6016 33.38487 -207.6678 3756.654
6 ULS 181 62.325 64.18581 0.1422 372.1626 212 -28.0188 -30.0419 64.998 404.6274 150 -28.0188 -30.0427 -65.2698 404.7876
7 ULS 199 27.612 31.69685 -33.6312 816.9696 317 5.796 10.75508 46.2996 991.8162 180 -56.8314 -60.9766 -72.0324 829.0422
8 SLS 181 202.4388 214.5439 -1.5804 2421.027 209 -0.6084 -13.7757 142.7832 2633.459 155 10.7496 23.7855 -141.5106 2607.179
9 SLS 181 204.6456 216.8113 -1.53 2433.139 209 -0.9144 -14.1537 144.3816 2647.865 155 10.7352 23.84164 -143.1234 2621.288
10 SLS 181 185.3766 197.7134 -2.124 2467.361 210 -7.029 -20.3809 129.6846 2670.388 155 12.4434 25.61338 -128.2842 2633.996
11 SLS 181 193.7124 205.9351 -0.2214 2444.549 209 -12.1032 -25.3911 137.8008 2657.572 152 -8.1144 -21.3561 -132.6492 2648.342
12 SLS 181 215.3394 228.1697 -1.3194 2566.06 209 -1.692 -15.6425 151.9344 2790.108 155 11.2122 25.02388 -150.6708 2762.336
13 SLS 181 46.107 47.48504 0.1044 275.607 212 -20.7252 -22.2236 48.105 299.6766 150 -20.7252 -22.2242 -48.3084 299.7954
14 SLS 199 20.4282 23.45336 -24.813 605.0322 317 4.2804 7.953498 34.2684 734.6196 180 -41.9886 -45.0586 -53.3232 613.9962
15 ULS 181 214.9668 227.5911 0.8064 2524.855 209 -5.6556 -19.4301 152.3484 2754.9 155 15.1704 28.76972 -149.5998 2719.865
16 ULS 181 6.417 32.79071 1.0026 5274.742 31 2.1942 29.49854 62.9478 5460.867 331 2.142 29.44755 -62.9676 5461.11
17 ULS 181 293.3982 309.8822 0.5382 3296.803 209 -7.8804 -25.8173 199.998 3587.389 155 8.6598 26.41856 -199.26 3551.753
18 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
19 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
20 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
21 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
22 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
23 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
24 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
25 1 0 0 0 0 Case 1 0 0 0 0 Case 1 0 0 0 0 Case
Critical ULS 181 62.325 64.18581 0.1422 372.1626 6 209 -3.2904 -22.262 209.3724 3794.312 5 155 14.6016 33.38487 -207.6678 3756.654 5
Critical SLS 181 46.107 47.48504 0.1044 275.607 13 209 -1.692 -15.6425 151.9344 2790.108 12 155 11.2122 25.02388 -150.6708 2762.336 12
Project: Project No.:
Riyadh Metro Line 1
Title: Page:
Structural Calculation on Segmental Lining - Underpass
AECOM Asia Company Ltd. Reference Designed Checked Date:
Drawing: By: By: 19/10/2014
Calculation Note
Bending and Axial Force to Eurocode 2 EN 1992-1 Design Chart Eurocode 2
Clause Refer
Material information
Coefficient of long term and unfacourable effects acc = 0.85 Cl. 3.1.6(1)P
fck = 50 N/mm (Cylinder strength) Material factor of steel s = 1.15 Table 2.1N
fyk = 500 N/mm Material factor of concrete c = 1.50 Table 2.1N
Longitudinal Reinforcement
Bar No. Area (mm2) Steel Percentage (%) Spacing (mm)
Top(Extrados) 12 12 1357 0.209 152
Bottom(Introdos) 12 12 1357 0.209 152
Shear Link 10 0 0 / 200
Page 1 of 2
Loading
Axial load (N) = 0 kN Moment (M) = 0 kNm
20000
15000
Axial Load (kN)
10000
5000
0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
-5000
Moment (kNm)
360mm Thick Lining (T12-152c/c -Extrados & T12-152c/c -Introados) fyk=500, fck=50
Page 2 of 2
U-1) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL
Riyadh Metro Line 1
U-2) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL + 1.5 Service
S-8) 1 DL + 1 EL
S-9) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 Service
20000
S-10) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 FDL_Left + 1 FDL_Right
S-11) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 FDL_Left
S-14) 1 DL + 1 Wedge_Shoulder
N (kN/ring)
5000
0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
-5000
M (kNm/ring)
EC2 N-M Interaction Envelope
U-1) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL
Riyadh Metro Line 1
U-2) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL + 1.5 Service
Structural Calculation on Segmental Lining - Underpass U-3) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL + 1.5 FDL_Left + 1.5 FDL_Right
Shear Capacity Check (vc' - v) for 360mm x 1800mm Section, C50/60 Concrete U-4) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL + 1.5 FDL_Left
360mm Thick Lining (T12-152c/c -Extrados & T12-152c/c -Introados) fyk=500, fck=50 U-5) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL + 1.5 Surcharge_Top + 1.5 Surcharge_Left + 1.5
Surcharge_Right
900
U-7) 1.35 DL + 1.35 Wedge_Shoulder
S-8) 1 DL + 1 EL
800
S-9) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 Service
S-13) 1 DL + 1 Wedge_Crown
vc' - v (kN)
300
200
100
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Node (Degree, Tunnel Invert = 0o / 360o)
Attachment 3
Flotation Check
Riyadh Metro Project Prepared by: Job no.
Line 1 TBM Tunnel DS 60317378
Segmental Lining Flotation Check Checked by: Date: 19 Oct 2014
(Tunnel Underneath Underpass) TM Page: 1
Flotation Check
Groundwater Level Ground Level
Assumptions:
1. Groundwater table at ground level
2. Live load or surcharge at ground level is ignored
Tunnel Axis
Rail Level
Output
U Uplift = PI()*do^2/4*gw
= PI()*9.92^2/4*9.81
= 758.2 kN/m
According to Eurocode EN 1997 - 1: 2004 cl. 2.4.7.4 (Verification procedure and partial factor for uplift)
where
Vdst,d - Destabilising permanent and variable vertical action
Gstb;d - Stabilising permanent vertical action
Rd - Additional Resistance to uplift
The earth load obtained in PLAXIS analysis is used as the input earth load in MICROSTRAN
model. Then appropriate load factors and load combinations are adopted for structural
analysis. This approach is used in the submission of Detailed Design of TBM Segmental
Lining.
The MICROSTRAN input data, results, interaction diagram and other structural calculation
are given in Attachment 3. The calculation demonstrates that the tunnel lining can cope
with the underpass. Figure 3.2 is the deformed shape of tunnel lining from MICROSTRAN
analysis.
Alluvium
Distributed /
Lower Limestone
Tunnel
~25m
~8m
Overpass Footing Allowable Load Estimate:
Width of Bridge = 8m
Dead Load:
(8m x 0.9m x 25kN/m3) x 25m + (7m x 2.7m x 0.8m x 25kN/m3) + (4m x 6.5m x 25kN/m3) x 1.5m =
5853kN
Traffic Load:
Consider 20% increase of load come from other loads such as wind load, the design load on each footing
is 11223.6 kN
Considering the size of footing is 4m width and 6.5m long, the bearing pressure is 432kPa.
Therefore, the design pressure at founding level of each footing = 435 kPa .
Attachment 2
PLAXIS Analysis
Overpass (CH124+420)
PLAXIS Report
Overpass (CH124+420)
2
Overpass (CH124+420)
3
Overpass (CH124+420)
4
Overpass (CH124+420)
5
Overpass (CH124+420)
6
Overpass (CH124+420)
7
Overpass (CH124+420)
8
Overpass (CH124+420)
9
Overpass (CH124+420)
Identification Alluvium
Identification number 2
Drainage type Drained
Colour
Comments
unsat kN/m 3
22.00
sat kN/m 3
22.00
Dilatancy cut-off No
e init 0.5000
e min 0.000
e max 999.0
Rayleigh 0.000
Rayleigh 0.000
E kN/m 2
70.00E3
(nu) 0.3000
G kN/m 2
26.92E3
E oed kN/m 2
94.23E3
10
Overpass (CH124+420)
Identification Alluvium
c ref kN/m 2
5.000
(phi) 35.00
(psi) 0.000
V s m/s 109.5
V p m/s 204.9
Set to default values Yes
E inc kN/m 2 /m 0.000
y ref m 0.000
c inc kN/m 2 /m 0.000
y ref m 0.000
Tension cut-off Yes
Tensile strength kN/m 2
0.000
Strength Manual
R inter 0.6700
inter 0.000
K 0 determination Automatic
K 0,x 0.4264
Data set Standard
Type Coarse
11
Overpass (CH124+420)
Identification Alluvium
< 2 m % 10.00
2 m - 50 m % 13.00
50 m - 2 mm % 77.00
Set to default values No
kx m/day 0.000
ky m/day 0.000
- unsat m 10.00E3
e init 0.5000
ck 1.000E15
12
Overpass (CH124+420)
13
Overpass (CH124+420)
14
Overpass (CH124+420)
15
Overpass (CH124+420)
16
Overpass (CH124+420)
17
Attachment 3
Structural Analysis
Riyadh Metro Line 1 Overpass
Rock: Type of Tunnel:
Rock Modulus: Circular
Erock = 10Log10Q ~ 40Log10Q (GPa) Shape of Tunnel: Circular 1 Horse-Shoe
Erock = 2 RMR - 100 For rocks with RMR>55 (GPa) Ground Condition: Mixed-Ground 3.000 Hard Rock
(RMR - 10)/40 NOT USED
Erock = 10 For rocks with 10<RMR<55 (GPa) Drainage Condition: Undrained 2.000 Soft Ground
RMR = 9 ln Q + 44 Sub-sea Tunnel? No 2 Mixed-Ground
Good Rock in non-Fault Zone: Tunnel Depth:
proof = 2 Jn1/2 Q -1/3 / [30 Jr ] (MPa) Datam Level = -12.487 mPD (at tunnel axis)
pwall = 2 Jn1/2 Q -1/3 / [30 Jr ] for Q<0.1 (MPa) y1 = 4.780 m (above tunnel crown)
NOT USED
pwall = 2 Jn1/2 (2.5Q) -1/3
/ [30 Jr ] for 0.1<Q<10 (MPa) y2 = 0.000 m (at tunnel axis)
pwall = 2 Jn1/2 (5Q) -1/3 / [30 Jr ] for Q>10 (MPa) y3 = -4.780 m (at convert)
Crushed Rock in Fault Zone (Consider Ground Arching): Groundwater:
proof = 1.1 's (2 OD) (kPa) Design Ground Water Level = -17.267 mPD Groundwater below
pwall = 0.3 's (0.5 OD + proof / 's) NOT USED (kPa) wh1 = 0.000 m Tunnel
wh2 = 0.000 m
Q-system Values: Good Rock in non-Fault Zone: wh3 = 0.000 m
proof = 61.888 kPa
Jr = 1.50 pwall = 36.192 kPa water = 10.000 kN/m3 Yes
Jn = 9.00 No
Q = NOT USED
10.000 NOT
Crushed Rock in Fault USED
Zone: wh1
y1 Use Plaxis Results
RMR = 65 proof = 547.58 kPa Hard Rock
eq
pwall = 211.89 kPa Soft Ground
Rock Loading: wh2 y2 Good Rock in non-Fault Zone
eq
proof = 0.00 kPa Nil
NOT USED wh3
pwall = 0.00 kPa Drained
y3
Undrained
Rock Wedge Pressure: Lining:
Wedge Pressure at Crown = 35.00 kPa Dimension of Tunnel (Circular):
Wedge at Crown = 150 to 210 Degree ID = 9.200 m
NOT USED
Wedge Pressure at Shoulder = 72.00 kPa OD = 9.920 m
Wedge at Shoulder = 180 to 316 Degree R= 4.780 m
Apparent support spring stiffness: t= 0.360 m
Erock = 0.00E+00 MPa = 0.00E+00 kPa b= 1.800 m
rock = 0.25 Xa = 0.000 m
3
rock = 2.60 t/m Ya = 0.000 m
NOT USED n= 360 elements
Apparent support spring stiffness: Ratio of SpringTANGENTAL / SpringRADIAL: 0.200
Kspring_rock = Erock / (1 - rock^2) Concrete for lining: Reference Standard : Eurocode 2 2
0.00E+00 kPa fcu = 60.00 MPa = 6.00E+04 kPa
Soil / Mixed Ground: ftu = 0.00 MPa = 0.00E+00 kPa
Soil Parameter: Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Econcrete = 3.73E+04 MPa = 3.73E+07 kPa
F. Arab Soil Profile Assumption concrete = 0.20
Ko = 0.500 concrete = 2.50 t/m3
Angle of internal friction, (Deg) = 40.0 180 o
Kspring_soil x R (kPa) = Dud & Erd (1982) 5 6.667E+06 0.000E+00 Contract Area at Joint = 240 mm
Consider Tengential Spring? No 2
Ratio of SpringTANGENTAL / SpringRADIAL = 0.000 0.000 Thickness at Joint = 240 mm
Soil Cover: Support Spring:
Ground Level, GL = 0.000 mPD Apparent support spring stiffness, Kspring = 6.67E+06 kPa
Soil Cover, H = 7.707 m (above crown) Radial Spring Ratio Tangential Spring Ratio Soil Type Possion Ratio
Average Unit Weight, W s = 23.00 kN/m3 (Soil above Tunnel Crown) Spring Ratio (F. Arab), R1 = 0.2092 0.000 F. Arab v = 0.20
Design Surcharge = 0.00 kPa From (Deg) : 0 to 360
Spring Ratio (F. Arab), R2 = 0.2092 0.000 F. Arab v = 0.20
Use Terzaghi's Formula ? Use Plaxis Results 3 Support Pressure from PLAXIS Model From (Deg) : 360 to 360
Effective Width, B = 7.786 m (Not Used) Spring Ratio (F. Arab), R3 = 0.2092 0.000 F. Arab v = 0.20
360 to 360
Effective Overburden Thickness,H eff = (6.459) m (Not Used) Spring Ratio (F. Arab), R4 = 0.2092 0.000 F. Arab v = 0.00
Design Soil Depth, h = 7.707 m 360 to 360
Tunnel Geometry
7
Tunnel Joint(s): Model
ID Start at (Deg) Width X Y Joint Members 6
1 47 1 -3.46715747 -3.290209586 47 0 0 0 0 0
2 101 1 -4.699779498 0.871052644 101 0 0 0 5 0 0
3 145 1 -2.775654436 3.891324002 145 0 0 0 0 0
4
4 167 1 -1.11582635 4.647751241 167 0 0 0 0 0
5 211 1 2.425940999 4.118430564 211 0 0 0 3 0 0
6 265 1 4.757812658 0.458125252 265 0 0 0 0 0
7 315 1 3.40920733 -3.350218712 315 0 0 0 2 0 0
8 357 1 0.291800908 -4.770902668 357 0 0 0 1
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 -7 -60 -5 -4 -3 -2
0 -1 0 1 02 3 4 5 06 7
-1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-7
Summary of Critical Internal Forces
Max. Bending Moment (kNm/ring) Min. Bending Moment (kNm/ring) Max. Axial Force (kN/ring)
Case ULS/SLS Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F
1 ULS 177 164.9862 183.29684 -5.7474 3662.129 1 135 -152.732 -174.707 17.559 4395.098 1 4.0446 37.81779 7.8498 6754.639
2 ULS 177 166.7826 185.19353 -6.273 3682.186 1 135 -154.132 -176.244 19.116 4422.44 1 4.086 38.05258 7.8516 6793.315
3 ULS 177 151.9542 170.52828 -0.945 3714.817 1 134 -143.397 -165.394 14.0022 4399.317 1 3.8574 37.87915 7.8102 6804.349
4 ULS 176 159.732 178.2031 -2.4948 3694.219 1 133 -147.235 -169.241 17.8326 4401.322 1 3.9546 37.86548 7.9974 6782.175
5 ULS 178 176.4162 195.84762 -0.2628 3886.285 1 136 -162.383 -185.549 4.3272 4633.025 1 4.3092 39.87786 7.8138 7113.731
6 ULS 181 30.7548 32.868621 0 422.7642 1 145 -32.76 -35.0353 1.0656 455.0526 1 0.6822 3.847383 -0.6894 633.0366
7 ULS 214 30.4848 34.738434 0.4662 850.7268 1 177 -45.7722 -50.0245 2.106 850.4676 1 1.134 6.36102 1.1466 1045.404
8 SLS 177 121.1724 134.72438 -4.1778 2710.395 2 135 -112.441 -128.711 11.9934 3253.997 1 2.988 27.98213 5.7708 4998.827
9 SLS 177 122.364 135.98259 -4.5306 2723.719 2 135 -113.369 -129.73 12.9978 3272.189 1 3.0168 28.13944 5.7996 5024.527
10 SLS 177 112.5432 126.27125 -1.0224 2745.61 2 134 -106.193 -122.486 10.998 3258.74 1 2.8656 28.02691 5.7978 5032.262
11 SLS 176 117.7092 131.36887 -2.6604 2731.934 2 134 -108.851 -125.075 2.7072 3244.633 1 2.9286 28.01543 5.904 5017.367
12 SLS 178 128.664 142.96076 0.0126 2859.352 2 136 -118.714 -135.766 1.8432 3410.525 1 3.1662 29.35462 5.8014 5237.683
13 SLS 181 22.7628 24.328341 0 313.1082 2 145 -24.2514 -25.9366 0.7776 337.0356 1 0.504 2.848086 -0.5094 468.8172
14 SLS 214 22.5342 25.68456 0.3474 630.072 2 177 -33.8706 -37.0201 1.5264 629.901 1 0.8388 4.709007 0.8442 774.0414
15 ULS 177 128.9898 143.13614 -2.736 2829.267 1 135 -118.96 -135.963 8.9316 3400.483 1 3.1554 29.34646 6.9012 5238.212
16 ULS 1 80.118 107.471 -1.89 5470.6 1 308 -72.3816 -99.6673 -1.1034 5457.137 335 12.8358 40.19833 -53.064 5472.506
17 ULS 179 177.1488 195.58194 -0.189 3686.629 1 136 -155.453 -177.462 7.9704 4401.792 1 4.0806 38.01149 7.8516 6786.178
18 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
19 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
20 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
21 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
22 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
23 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
24 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
25 1 0 0 0 0 Case 3 1 0 0 0 0 Case 1 0 0 0 0 Case
Critical ULS 178 176.4162 195.84762 -0.2628 3886.285 5 136 -162.383 -185.549 4.3272 4633.025 5 1 4.3092 39.87786 7.8138 7113.731 5
Critical SLS 178 128.664 142.96076 0.0126 2859.352 12 136 -118.714 -135.766 1.8432 3410.525 12 1 3.1662 29.35462 5.8014 5237.683 12
Summary of Critical Internal Forces
Min. Axial Force (kNm/ring) Max. Shear Force (kNm/ring) Min. Shear Force (kNm/ring)
Case ULS/SLS Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F
1 ULS 181 160.6734 178.9563 25.4664 3656.585 127 -94.8654 -117.786 153.0558 4584.186 153 -11.5128 -31.2079 -142.8336 3939.019
2 ULS 181 162.5508 180.9335 25.3962 3676.545 127 -94.7574 -117.822 154.44 4612.988 153 -12.375 -32.1862 -144.3816 3962.232
3 ULS 181 146.835 165.3862 26.4348 3710.241 126 -91.8576 -114.716 144.0882 4571.777 151 -23.5926 -43.5864 -131.4378 3998.763
4 ULS 181 151.8192 170.256 34.3404 3687.354 125 -92.0124 -114.875 147.132 4572.491 151 -14.8698 -34.7458 -136.5138 3975.205
5 ULS 181 172.4202 191.8351 25.1856 3882.973 127 -97.5438 -121.822 162.2646 4855.621 153 -15.381 -36.2905 -152.1324 4181.899
6 ULS 181 30.7548 32.86861 -0.2916 422.7624 212 -24.7266 -26.968 39.1014 448.2828 150 -24.6564 -26.8986 -39.3462 448.4304
7 ULS 195 10.395 14.60199 -27.4968 841.3974 171 -31.3182 -35.56 50.0994 848.3526 180 -39.5046 -43.747 -52.0326 848.4858
8 SLS 181 118.0152 131.5466 18.6462 2706.287 127 -70.4682 -87.4394 112.6782 3394.249 153 -8.1216 -22.7006 -104.8374 2915.793
9 SLS 181 119.259 132.8567 18.6012 2719.546 127 -70.4124 -87.4795 113.5998 3413.416 153 -8.6778 -23.3339 -105.8472 2931.226
10 SLS 181 108.8568 122.5675 19.26 2742.149 126 -67.5198 -84.4583 106.722 3387.701 151 -17.8506 -32.6449 -97.299 2958.863
11 SLS 181 112.23 125.8635 24.4656 2726.703 125 -66.6702 -83.6185 108.6084 3389.656 151 -12.105 -26.8199 -100.6776 2942.978
12 SLS 181 125.7246 140.0092 18.4482 2856.92 127 -72.3114 -90.1865 118.7496 3575.018 153 -10.6164 -26.0037 -110.9088 3077.462
13 SLS 181 22.7628 24.32833 -0.216 313.1064 212 -18.3006 -19.9607 28.9584 332.0208 150 -18.2484 -19.909 -29.142 332.1288
14 SLS 195 7.7022 10.81805 -20.3238 623.169 171 -23.1876 -26.3293 37.0728 628.335 180 -29.2248 -32.367 -38.5416 628.4322
15 ULS 181 125.028 139.1534 21.6306 2825.071 127 -77.121 -94.8612 119.16 3548.03 152 -15.228 -30.5329 -111.1896 3060.988
16 ULS 181 4.1652 30.5791 1.0998 5282.78 295 -31.6098 -58.7559 67.8816 5429.21 67 -31.6728 -58.8178 -67.8492 5429.009
17 ULS 181 174.5064 192.9321 22.7178 3685.138 128 -103.851 -126.812 155.6298 4592.162 153 -18.3636 -38.2219 -145.35 3971.66
18 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
19 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
20 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
21 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
22 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
23 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
24 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
25 1 0 0 0 0 Case 1 0 0 0 0 Case 1 0 0 0 0 Case
Critical ULS 181 30.7548 32.86861 -0.2916 422.7624 6 127 -97.5438 -121.822 162.2646 4855.621 5 153 -15.381 -36.2905 -152.1324 4181.899 5
Critical SLS 181 22.7628 24.32833 -0.216 313.1064 13 127 -72.3114 -90.1865 118.7496 3575.018 12 153 -10.6164 -26.0037 -110.9088 3077.462 12
Project: Project No.:
Riyadh Metro Line 1
Title: Page:
Structural Calculation on Segmental Lining - Overpass
AECOM Asia Company Ltd. Reference Designed Checked Date:
Drawing: By: By: 19/10/2014
Calculation Note
Bending and Axial Force to Eurocode 2 EN 1992-1 Design Chart Eurocode 2
Clause Refer
Material information
Coefficient of long term and unfacourable effects acc = 0.85 Cl. 3.1.6(1)P
fck = 50 N/mm (Cylinder strength) Material factor of steel s = 1.15 Table 2.1N
fyk = 500 N/mm Material factor of concrete c = 1.50 Table 2.1N
Longitudinal Reinforcement
Bar No. Area (mm2) Steel Percentage (%) Spacing (mm)
Top(Extrados) 12 12 1357 0.209 152
Bottom(Introdos) 12 12 1357 0.209 152
Shear Link 10 0 0 / 200
Page 1 of 2
Loading
Axial load (N) = 0 kN Moment (M) = 0 kNm
20000
15000
Axial Load (kN)
10000
5000
0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
-5000
Moment (kNm)
360mm Thick Lining (T12-152c/c -Extrados & T12-152c/c -Introados) fyk=500, fck=50
Page 2 of 2
U-1) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL
Riyadh Metro Line 1
U-2) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL + 1.5 Service
S-8) 1 DL + 1 EL
S-9) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 Service
20000
S-10) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 FDL_Left + 1 FDL_Right
S-11) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 FDL_Left
S-14) 1 DL + 1 Wedge_Shoulder
N (kN/ring)
5000
0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
-5000
M (kNm/ring)
EC2 N-M Interaction Envelope
U-1) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL
Riyadh Metro Line 1
U-2) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL + 1.5 Service
Structural Calculation on Segmental Lining - Overpass U-3) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL + 1.5 FDL_Left + 1.5 FDL_Right
Shear Capacity Check (vc' - v) for 360mm x 1800mm Section, C50/60 Concrete U-4) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL + 1.5 FDL_Left
360mm Thick Lining (T12-152c/c -Extrados & T12-152c/c -Introados) fyk=500, fck=50 U-5) 1.35 DL + 1.35 EL + 1.5 Surcharge_Top + 1.5 Surcharge_Left + 1.5
Surcharge_Right
900
U-7) 1.35 DL + 1.35 Wedge_Shoulder
S-8) 1 DL + 1 EL
800
S-9) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 Service
S-13) 1 DL + 1 Wedge_Crown
vc' - v (kN)
300
200
100
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Node (Degree, Tunnel Invert = 0o / 360o)
Appendix L3
Comparison Between the Full Overburden Result and the Ground Arching Effect Result
Introduction
For the tunnel lining design, a 2-dimensional bedded beam model is used to analyze the internal
forces on tunnel lining under various permanent load combinations established by structural program
MICROSTRAN. According to 3.6.4.2 of WPS 2.01, full overburden pressure has to be taken into
account in the design. At-rest earth pressure coefficient ko is calculated to apply horizontal earth
pressure on the tunnel lining.
To compare the Full Overburden and the Ground Arching effects to the lining design, a geotechnical
finite element analysis is carried out at Green Field by using software PLAXIS 2D (Figure 1). The
effective stresses around the tunnel are extracted and put into the MICROSTRAN model (Figure 2)
and only considering Dead Load and Earth Pressure. The methodology of structural modeling method
is described in the report.
Page 1 of 4
Assumptions
1. Assuming there are no other additional loading from the existing structures acting on tunnel
(i.e.Green field only).
Data input
Lining Properties:
Thickness (m)
25
Concrete Properties:
Soil Properties:
Rock Mass
Deformation
Lithological Unit c [kPa] [] Ko
[kN/m3] Modulus, E
[MN/m2]
Weathered Arab
23 600 15 35 0.5 0.3
Formation A and B
Page 2 of 4
PLAXIS Model Set Up
Stage 3: The effective stresses (Figure 3 and Figure 4) around the tunnel are extracted and put into the
MICROSTRAN model for further analysis.
Page 3 of 4
Conclusion
The results (Axial Load and Bending Moment) (Figure 5) from the PLAXIS stresses are smaller than
that calculated from Full Overburden. It is because there is a natural ground arching effect around the
tunnel in the PLAXIS model, Full Overburden pressure used in the tunnel lining design is
conservative than using the PLAXIS stresses.
Figure 5: Axial Load Bending Moment Diagram (Full Overburden v.s. Ground Arching)
Page 4 of 4
Project: Project No.:
Riyadh Metro Project Package 1
Title: Page:
Summary of Calculated Maximum Crack Width
Material Information
fck = 50 N/mm (Cylinder strength) Material factor of steel gs = 1.15
fyk = 400 N/mm Material factor of concrete gc = 1.50
fctm = 4.10 N/mm Creep coefficient j = 1.40
Ecm = 37000 N/mm
Ec = 1.05 Ecm = 38850 N/mm
Ec,eff = Ec / j = 27750 N/mm
Section Information
h = 360 mm spacing = 1 m
b = 1800 mm
Reinforcement
st
= 12 mm Spacing = 149 mm No. of Rebar = 12 nos fyk = 400 N/mm (1 Layer Rebar)
nd
= 0 mm Spacing = 234 mm No. of Rebar = 8 nos fyk = 400 N/mm (2 Layer Rebar)
As = 1357 mm2
st
= 12 mm Spacing = 149 mm No. of Rebar = 12 nos fyk = 400 N/mm (1 Layer Rebar)
nd
= 0 mm Spacing = 234 mm No. of Rebar = 8 nos fyk = 400 N/mm (2 Layer Rebar)
2
As' = 1357 mm Shear Link Diameter = 10 mm
Es = 200000 N/mm
Depth to Tensile Reinforcement, ds = 66 mm
Cover for Crack Width Design Checking, cmin = 50 mm
Equivalent Rebar diameter, eqv = 12 mm
Depth to Compression Reinforcement (Nominal Cover), ds' = 66 mm
Loading
Md,ser = 351.63392 kNm Md,ser = 351.63392 kNm
Nd,ser = 2457.065 kN (+ve for compression) Nd,ser = 2457.065 kN
Md,ser / Nd,ser = 143.1 mm h/6 = 60.0 mm
Calculation
k1 = 0.8
k2 = 0.5
k3 = 3.4
k4 = 0.425
kt = 0.4
e = 5.41
Es / Ec,eff = 7.21
d = 294 mm
ed = 143.111 mm
fct,eff = 4.10 N/mm
Project: Project No.:
Riyadh Metro Project Package 1
Material Information
fck = 50 N/mm (Cylinder strength) Material factor of steel gs = 1.15
fyk = 400 N/mm Material factor of concrete gc = 1.50
fctm = 4.10 N/mm Creep coefficient j = 1.40
Ecm = 37000 N/mm
Ec = 1.05 Ecm = 38850 N/mm
Ec,eff = Ec / j = 27750 N/mm
Section Information
h = 360 mm spacing = 1 m
b = 1800 mm
Reinforcement
st
= 12 mm Spacing = 149 mm No. of Rebar = 12 nos fyk = 400 N/mm (1 Layer Rebar)
nd
= 0 mm Spacing = 234 mm No. of Rebar = 8 nos fyk = 400 N/mm (2 Layer Rebar)
As = 1357 mm2
st
= 12 mm Spacing = 149 mm No. of Rebar = 12 nos fyk = 400 N/mm (1 Layer Rebar)
nd
= 0 mm Spacing = 234 mm No. of Rebar = 8 nos fyk = 400 N/mm (2 Layer Rebar)
2
As' = 1357 mm Shear Link Diameter = 10 mm
Es = 200000 N/mm
Depth to Tensile Reinforcement, ds = 66 mm
Cover for Crack Width Design Checking, cmin = 50 mm
Equivalent Rebar diameter, eqv = 12 mm
Depth to Compression Reinforcement (Nominal Cover), ds' = 66 mm
Loading
Md,ser = -290.265 kNm Md,ser = 290.265 kNm
Nd,ser = 3279.087 kN (+ve for compression) Nd,ser = 3279.087 kN
Md,ser / Nd,ser = 88.5 mm h/6 = 60.0 mm
Calculation
k1 = 0.8
k2 = 0.5
k3 = 3.4
k4 = 0.425
kt = 0.4
e = 5.41
Es / Ec,eff = 7.21
d = 294 mm
ed = 88.520 mm
fct,eff = 4.10 N/mm
Project: Project No.:
Riyadh Metro Project Package 1
Electronic documents once printed, are uncontrolled and may become out-dated. Refer to Aconex for current revision.
2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh
Project : Riyadh Metro - Line 1
Subject: Calculation for Bearing Capacity of Concrete Pad
Project No : Prepared by : JMHC
Chainage : Checked by : TCWM
Analysis Section Chainage : Date : 09/04/2014
ft = 5.42 N/mm2
m = 1.5
Segment thickness: h= 360 mm
L= 4505 mm
CL of ram shoe
NOTE: pinned connection of ram
Eccentricity is obtained from e
shoe to cylinders removes any
centreline of ram shoe and centreline
CL of bearing area eccentricity induced by
of bearing area. Ram to segment
circumferential joint packers.
eccentricity is 10 mm and from
segment to bearing area is 6 mm.
Thus total is 16 mm. But to be on
conservative side total eccentricity is
taken as 20mm
84 mm
180 mm 238 mm
e= 20 mm 0.05h = 18 mm
ft = 5.42 N/mm2
m = 1.2
Segment thickness: h= 360 mm
L= 4505 mm
CL of ram shoe
NOTE: pinned connection of ram
Eccentricity is obtained from e
shoe to cylinders removes any
centreline of ram shoe and centreline
CL of bearing area eccentricity induced by
of bearing area. Ram to segment
circumferential joint packers.
eccentricity is 10 mm and from
segment to bearing area is 6 mm.
Thus total is 16 mm. But to be on
conservative side total eccentricity is
taken as 20mm
84 mm
180 mm 238 mm
e= 20 mm 0.05h = 18 mm
= 41.38 N/mm2
Tbst / F = 0.080
Bursting tensile force over the bearing width,
Tbst = 499.91 kN/m
Project Job Ref
Riyadh Metro_Line 1_Lining RC Design
0.6 0.1 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.7 0.075 a/b
Tbst / F = 0.098
Bursting tensile force over the bearing width,
Tbst = 617.78 kN/m
Required area of busrting reinforcement, Abst = (Tbst x gs) / fy (Max. Tbst = 617.78 )
= 617.78 x 1000 x 1.15 / 500
= 1420.89 mm2/m
= 2557.61 mm2/per ring
= 41.38 N/mm2
0.6 0.1 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.7 0.075 a /b
Tbst / F = 0.080
Bursting tensile force over the bearing width,
Tbst = 655.42 kN/m
Project Job Ref
Riyadh Metro_Line 1_Lining RC Design
0.6 0.1 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.7 0.075 a/b
Tbst / F = 0.098
Bursting tensile force over the bearing width,
Tbst = 809.96 kN/m
Required area of busrting reinforcement, Abst = (Tbst x gs) / fy (Max. Tbst = 809.96 )
= 809.957 x 1000 x 1.15 / 500
= 1862.90 mm2/m
= 3353.22 mm2/per ring
Part of Page
Check on Bursting Stresses due to TBM Thrust Load
Structure
Drawings Ref. Calculation by Checked by Date
19/10/2014
CALCULATIONS Remarks
= 62.78 N/mm2
Part of Page
Check on Bursting Stresses due to TBM Thrust Load
Structure
Drawings Ref. Calculation by Checked by Date
19/10/2014
CALCULATIONS Remarks
1.2. Anti-bursting steel at joints
Design bearing stress s = 35.80 N/mm
2
0.6 0.1 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.7 0.08 a/ b
Tbst / F = 0.080
Bursting tensile force over the bearing width,
Tbst = 579.28 kN/m
Project Job Ref
Riyadh Metro_Line 1_Lining RC Design
Part of Page
Check on Bursting Stresses due to TBM Thrust Load
Structure
Drawings Ref. Calculation by Checked by Date
19/10/2014
CALCULATIONS Remarks
Tensile stresses at extrados
Half the side of loaded area, a = 115.50 mm
Half the side of end block, b = 190.50 mm
Ratio between bearing area and supporting area,
a/b = 0.61
Tbst / F = 0.098
Bursting tensile force over the bearing width,
Tbst = 715.86 kN/m
Electronic documents once printed, are uncontrolled and may become out-dated. Refer to Aconex for current revision.
2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh
Project: Riyadh Metro Project Project No.:
Package 1
Title: TBM Tunnel Segmental Lining Page:
Handling, Demoulding and Stacking Structural Checking
AECOM Asia Company Ltd. Reference Designed Checked Date:
Drawing: By: By: 20/10/2014
Calculation Note
Material Properites
Reinforcement
Yield strength fy = 500 N/mm2
Material factor m = 1.15
Design value of yield strength fyd = 434.8 N/mm2
Cover = 50 mm
Hoop Rebar = 12 mm
Longitudinal Rebar = 10 mm
d' = 66 mm
D-d' = 294 mm
Vacuum Lifter
Assume edges of segment projecting beyond the vacuum lifter act as a cantilever.
V8
V1
V7
NOTE: The value of 2542 mm has been selected to satisfy the condition that
the hogging and sagging moments are equal and opposite for the
bottom segment).
Project: Riyadh Metro Project Project No.:
Package 1
Title: TBM Tunnel Segmental Lining Page:
Handling, Demoulding and Stacking Structural Checking
AECOM Asia Company Ltd. Reference Designed Checked Date:
Drawing: By: By: 20/10/2014
Calculation Note
Looking at the loading on the top segment from the key:
378 1068 378
V8
V1
V8
V1
V7
V6
V3
100
V2 100 mm tolerance lines
mm
toleranc on batten
V5
V4
With the full stack of 8 segments in place, investigate the moments induced due to
batten misalignment with 100 mm tolerance.
As the top 6 segments are stacked onto the bottom 2, a load factor of 1
is used for the load of the top 6 segments whilst 1 is applied to the self weight
of the lower 2 segments.
Weight of top 6 segments = 459.8 kN
Weight of V4 or V5 segment = 98.5 kN
Project: Riyadh Metro Project Project No.:
Package 1
Title: TBM Tunnel Segmental Lining Page:
Handling, Demoulding and Stacking Structural Checking
AECOM Asia Company Ltd. Reference Designed Checked Date:
Drawing: By: By: 20/10/2014
Calculation Note
Bottom Segment
a) Upper batten +100 mm out of position:
100 F = (459.8 1 + 1 x 98.5 x1) / 2
F= 279.2 kN
F
UDL = 22.7 1
UDL = 22.7 kN/m
G
899 2542 899
Maximum shear force (under point load), V = R = V=
R = {F x (2.542 + 0.1) + x [(2.542 + 0.899)/2 - 899/2]} / 2.542 339.4 kN
R= 339.4 kN
Calculate moment at G:
BMG = (F0.1) + ( 0.899 / 2) BMG =
BMG = 37.1 kNm 37.1 kNm
F
UDL = 22.7 kN/m
H
899 2542 899
H = {F x (2.542 - 0.1) + x [(2.542 + 0.899)/2 - 899/2]} / 2.542
H= 317.4 kN
UDL = 22.7 1
UDL = 22.7 kN/m
899 2542 J 899
Calculate moment at J:
BMJ = (F (0.1 + 0.1)) + ( (0.1 + 0.899) / 2)
BMJ = 57.3 kNm BMJ =
57.3 kNm
b) Upper batten 100 mm out of position, lower batten +100 mm out of position:
100
F= 229.9 kN
F
K
899 2542 100 899
4340
L= 4.34 m
= 22.70 kN/m
Moment at segment centre, BML = L2/8 = 53.45 kNm
Shear force at distance d from segment centre, V = 42.59 kN BML =
Shear force at distance 2d from segment centre, V = 35.91 kN 53.5 kNm
(where d is the effective depth of the segment)
Project: Riyadh Metro Project Project No.:
Package 1
Title: TBM Tunnel Segmental Lining Page:
Handling, Demoulding and Stacking Structural Checking
AECOM Asia Company Ltd. Reference Designed Checked Date:
Drawing: By: By: 20/10/2014
Calculation Note
Summary of Internal Forces on Segments :
Load Factored Factored
Moment (kNm) Shear (kN) Case
Factor Moment (kNm) Shear (kNm)
1 Vacuum Lifter BMA 31.7 37.9 3.0 95.0 113.7 Case 1
5 2 seg'ts & key BME 30.7 58.4 1.5 46.0 87.6 Case 2
6 Full Stack BMG 37.1 339.4 1.5 37.1 509.1 Case 3
7 Full Stack BMH 20.4 339.4 1.5 20.4 509.1 Case 4
8 Full Stack BMJ 57.3 300.0 1.5 57.3 450.0 Case 5
9 Full Stack BMK 40.6 300.0 1.5 40.6 450.0 Case 6
10 Centre Socket BML 53.5 42.6 1.5 80.2 63.9 Case 7
Demoulding BMA 31.7 37.9 1.5 47.5 56.9 Case 8
Max. for Demoulding (concrete age > 1 days) = 47.5 56.9
Max. for Handling & Stacking (concrete age > 7 days) = 80.2 509.1
Max. for all cases (concrete age > 28 days) = 95.0 509.1
NOTE: All bending moments from the stack of 6 segments have been factored
= 1.0
= 0.8
2/3
min=0.078fck /fyk= 0.00212
max=0.45 fcd/fyd= 0.02346
=As/bd= 0.00256 OK
As,req = Mu / 0.87fykz
= 95 x 1000000 / 500 / 1800 / 294^2
= 781.73 mm2 < Asl OK
Max As = 4%bh
= 25920 mm2 > Asl OK
Project: Riyadh Metro Project Project No.:
Package 1
Title: TBM Tunnel Segmental Lining Page:
Handling, Demoulding and Stacking Structural Checking
AECOM Asia Company Ltd. Reference Designed Checked Date:
Drawing: By: By: 20/10/2014
Calculation Note
As,req = Mu / 0.87fykz
= 80 x 1000000 / 500 / 1800 / 294^2
= 659.92 mm2 < Asl OK
Max As = 4%bh
= 25920 mm2 > Asl OK
As,req = Mu / 0.87fykz
= 47 x 1000000 / 500 / 1800 / 294^2
= 659.92 mm2 < Asl OK
Max As = 4%bh
= 25920 mm2 > Asl OK
VRd,c=Max(VRd,c1,VRd,c2)= 278.4 kN
As the assumed max. distance between mis-aliged support (av) is 100mm at the bottom
segment, the maximum shear force can be reducted by multiplied = av/2d = 0.17
VRd,c=Max(VRd,c1,VRd,c2)= 158.6 kN
Electronic documents once printed, are uncontrolled and may become out-dated. Refer to Aconex for current revision.
2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh
Checking for Torque induced by TBM
Torque checking
Resistance of dowels at the first ring joint behind thrusting ram shoes is checked based on the torque
under various situations below as advised by the TBM supplier.
Nominal Torque 13325 kNm
Overload Torque 19988 kNm
Breakaway Torque 23242 kNm
Both normal and accidental conditions are assumed for checking the resistance of dowels. For each
condition considered, 50% of the thrust forces and full torque from TBM are assumed transmitted to
the ring joint. It is verified that torque of TBM will not damage the dowels during TBM operation.
Detailed design calculation is provided in (Appendix P.1).
Appendix P1
Concrete-concrete friction
Concrete-concrete
Assumed friction factor, 0.3 (Failure of packing/shear of packing, equivalent friction angle = 16.7 Deg)
Friction angle 0.291457 radians
Friction angle 16.69924 degrees
Cutterhead torque
Nominal torque. Tn 13325 kNm
Overload torque, To 19988 kNm
Breakaway torque, Tbr 23242 kNm
Radius of drive 4.78 m (= Rm)
Shear at lining - Nominal 2787.657 kN (= Tn / Rm)
Shear at lining - Overload 4181.59 kN (=To / Rm)
Shear at lining - Breakaway 4862.343 kN (=Tbr / Rm)
Concrete-concrete friction
Concrete-concrete
Assumed friction factor 0.3 (Failure of packing/shear of packing, equivalent friction angle = 16.7 Deg)
Friction angle 0.291457 radians
Friction angle 16.69924 degrees
Cutterhead torque
Nominal torque 13325 kNm
Overload torque 19988 kNm
Breakaway torque 23242 kNm
Radius of drive 4.78 m (= Rm)
Shear at lining - Nominal 2787.657 kN (= Tn / Rm)
Shear at lining - Overload 4181.59 kN (=To / Rm)
Shear at lining - Breakaway 4862.343 kN (=Tbr / Rm)
Electronic documents once printed, are uncontrolled and may become out-dated. Refer to Aconex for current revision.
2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh
APPENDIX Q FIRE RESISTANCE DESIGN
1200
1000
Temperature (c)
800
600
400
200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Fire Duration (Min)
A 360mm concrete tunnel lining with divided into 18 zones (0.02m each) is modelled and
directly contacted with Weathered Arab A & B, Fresh Arab A & B and Alluvium. The
impermeable boundaries are defined at both top and bottom to restrict the heat can only flow
from lining intrados to ground. The adopted fire curve boundary is set up at the intrados of
lining (Left boundary) and right boundary is assumed a constant normal temperature of
ground (23C).
Temperature profile through Cross Section - 360mm after 3hr is drawn out from the model.
1.4
1.2
Vertical Distance (m)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1.4
1.2
Vertical Distance (m)
1.0
Ground Boundary=23C
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1000
Temperature (C)
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Distance (m)
ei = Ti x a
The strength and strain of concrete is obtained in the Tables 3.1 in Eurocode 2 (1992-1-2).
The reduced Youngs Modulus (E) of the individual zones can be obtained according to the
Table 2 and Figure 5 and it is varied according to the temperature experienced in that zone.
Table 2: Values for the main parameters of the stress-strain relationships of normal weight
concrete with siliceous or calcareous aggregates concrete at elevated temperatures (EN
1992-1-2:2004, Table 3.1)
Figure 5: Stress-strain relationships of concrete under compression at elevated
temperatures (EN 1992-1-2:2004, Figure 3.1)
The stress (s) of that zone is calculated by multiplying the strain (e) by the corresponding
Youngs Modulus based on Hookes Law.
si = ei x Ei
The total axial force in each zone is calculated by the sum of multiplying the stress of each
zone and the zone thickness (t).
The eccentricity of the total axial force is calculated by multiplying the axial force of each
zone (Ni) by the distance of the zone from the lining centerline (centroid) (yi) of the concrete
lining and dividing by the total axial force (N).
The bending moment (M) of the concrete lining is the product of the eccentricity and total
axial force.
M=Nxe
Stress profile through Cross Section - 360mm
25.0
20.0
15.0
Resultant Stress (MPa)
10.0
5.0
0.0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Depth from Intrados (m)
Figure 6: Stress profile can be found along the cross section (Weathered Arab A & B)
Results
Design action
Weathered Arab A & B Fresh Arab A & B Alluvium
The axial force is modelled by applying a uniform thermal strain to the beam and the bending
moment generated by applying a thermal gradient across the depth of the concrete section.
s = N/A M/Z
e = s /E
Therefore, two different temperature values at the extreme fibers of the section thickness
can be calculated.
where Tt and Tb are the extreme maximum and minimum fiber temperature
Results
Design action
Weathered Arab A & B Fresh Arab A & B Alluvium
Average Temperature 33 C 33 C 33 C
Table 4: Results of average temperature and gradient
The assessments of the average temperature, gradient and other actions required for
carrying out the later structural analysis of the segmental lining are provided in Annex B.
The general structural capacity of tunnel segments is determined by using the Axial-Moment
Curve (N-M). The partial factor of concrete is 1.2; the partial factor of reinforcement bar is
1.0 according to the Table2.1N in Eurocode.
Table 6: Partial factors for materials for ultimate limit states (EN 1992-1-2:2004, Table 2.1N)
In the design, the reduced load factors of 1.0 are used in the load combination and also the
reduced partial factors for concrete and reinforcement which are 1.2 and 1.0 respectively in
compliance with EN 1992-1-2:2004. This is because the loading in fire case is in extreme
loading condition and also it is a temporary loading case until the fire is extinguished or
burned out when repairs can commence.
According to the assessment of design actions above, the concrete strength in the first
30mm from intrados of lining zone is less than 10MPa, it is assumed that no contribution of
concrete in that zone, so the lining thickness is reduced from 360mm to 330mm and the
30mm is as the spalled depth of concrete under fire case.
The strength of concrete and reinforcement is reduced to consider the effect of fire (Table
3.1 and Table 3.2a in EN 1992-1-2:2004). The N-M curve is divided into sagging moment
and hogging moment parts for different specific cases. For sagging moment, the strength of
reinforcement is reduced due to the high temperature without any reduction concrete
strength, because the compression of concrete is located at the extrados where the effect of
temperature is the minimum; on the other hand, the concrete strength is reduced in hogging
moment due to the fire load without any reduction of reinforcement strength, because the
concrete is compressed at the intrados where the effect of temperature is the maximum.
Table 7: Class N values for the parameters of the stress-strain relationship of hot rolled and
cold worked reinforcing steel at elevated temperatures (EN 1992-1-2:2004, Table 3.2a)
The structural analysis of tunnel lining with consideration of fire loads is provided in Annex C.
6. CONCLUSION
Based on the design assumptions and design fire curve, the N-M interaction chart
demonstrated that the segmental lining will be maintained structurally adequate during fire.
Annex A
TEMP/W Model
Riyadh Metro Line
Fire loads analysis of tunnel lining
300mm
360mm thick lining - Alluvium
Material Thermal Conductivity Volumetric Heat Capacity
kJ/sec/m/C kJ/m/C
Lining (Concrete) 0.00104 2010
Alluvium 0.001 2150
ry
da
un
bo
e
bl
ea
rm
pe
Im
Concrete Alluvium
1.6
1.4
1.2
Vertical Distance (m)
1.0
C
3
=2
ry
da
un
bo
nd
ou
Gr
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
e
rv
cu
e
Fir
m
m
60
300mm thick lining - Alluvium
3
Material Thermal Conductivity Volumetric Heat Capacity
kJ/sec/m/C kJ/m/C
Lining (Concrete) 0.00104 2010
Alluvium 0.001 2150
Concrete Alluvium
1.6
1.4
1.2
Vertical Distance (m)
1.0
0.8
C
3
=2
on
iti
nd
co
l
tia
Ini
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
m
m
60
300mm thick lining - Alluvium
3
Material Thermal Conductivity Volumetric Heat Capacity
kJ/sec/m/C kJ/m/C
Lining (Concrete) 0.00104 2010
Alluvium 0.001 2150
ry
da
un
bo
e
bl
ea
rm
pe
Im
Concrete Alluvium
1.6
1.4
1000
1.2
Vertical Distance (m)
800
1.0
C
3
=2
ry
da
un
bo
nd
ou
Gr
600
0.8
400
0.6
200
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
e
rv
cu
e
Fir
m
m
60
300mm thick lining - Weathered Arab A & B
3
Material Thermal Conductivity Volumetric Heat Capacity
kJ/sec/m/C kJ/m/C
Lining (Concrete) 0.00104 2010
Weathered Arab A & B 0.00315 3285
Impermeable boundary
Concrete Weathered Arab A & B
1.6
1.4
1.2
Vertical Distance (m)
1.0
Ground Boundary=23C
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
m
m
60
300mm thick lining - Weathered Arab A & B
3
Material Thermal Conductivity Volumetric Heat Capacity
kJ/sec/m/C kJ/m/C
Lining (Concrete) 0.00104 2010
Weathered Arab A & B 0.00315 3285
1.4
1.2
Vertical Distance (m)
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
m
m
60
300mm thick lining - Weathered Arab A & B
3
Material Thermal Conductivity Volumetric Heat Capacity
kJ/sec/m/C kJ/m/C
Lining (Concrete) 0.00104 2010
Weathered Arab A & B 0.00315 3285
Impermeable boundary
Concrete Weathered Arab A & B
1.6
1.4
1000
1.2
Vertical Distance (m)
800
1.0
Ground Boundary=23C
600
0.8
400
0.6
200
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
m
m
60
300mm thick lining - Fresh Arab A & B
3
Material Thermal Conductivity Volumetric Heat Capacity
kJ/sec/m/C kJ/m/C
Lining (Concrete) 0.00104 2010
Fresh Arab A & B 0.005 3285
ry
da
un
bo
e
bl
ea
rm
pe
Im
Concrete Fresh Arab A & B
1.6
1.4
1.2
Vertical Distance (m)
1.0
C
3
=2
ry
da
un
bo
nd
ou
Gr
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
e
rv
cu
e
Fir
m
m
60
300mm thick lining - Fresh Arab A & B
3
Material Thermal Conductivity Volumetric Heat Capacity
kJ/sec/m/C kJ/m/C
Lining (Concrete) 0.00104 2010
Fresh Arab A & B 0.005 3285
1.4
1.2
Vertical Distance (m)
1.0
0.8
C
3
=2
on
iti
nd
co
l
tia
Ini
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
m
m
60
300mm thick lining - Fresh Arab A & B
3
Material Thermal Conductivity Volumetric Heat Capacity
kJ/sec/m/C kJ/m/C
Lining (Concrete) 0.00104 2010
Fresh Arab A & B 0.005 3285
ry
da
un
bo
e
bl
ea
rm
pe
Im
Concrete Fresh Arab A & B
1.6
1.4
1000
1.2
Vertical Distance (m)
800
1.0
C
3
=2
ry
da
un
bo
nd
ou
Gr
600
0.8
400
0.6
0.4
200
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Concrete properties
fck, cube = 60 MPa (Concrete strength)
a= 1.00E-05 (Coefficient of Thermal Expansion)
d= 0.36 m (Lining Thickness)
d/2 = 0.18 m
fy = 500 MPa (Reinforcement strength)
Temperature profile through Cross Section - 360mm Stress profile through Cross Section - 360mm
1200 25.0
1000
20.0
800
15.0
Temperature (c)
600
10.0
400
200 5.0
0 0.0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Depth from Intrados (m) Depth from Intrados (m)
Concrete properties
fck, cube = 60 MPa (Concrete strength)
a= 1.00E-05 (Coefficient of Thermal Expansion)
d= 0.36 m (Lining Thickness)
d/2 = 0.18 m
fy = 500 MPa (Reinforcement strength)
Temperature profile through Cross Section - 360mm Stress profile through Cross Section - 360mm
1200 25.0
1000
20.0
800
15.0
Temperature (c)
600
10.0
400
200 5.0
0 0.0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Depth from Intrados (m) Depth from Intrados (m)
Concrete properties
fck, cube = 60 MPa (Concrete strength)
a= 1.00E-05 (Coefficient of Thermal Expansion)
d= 0.36 m (Lining Thickness)
d/2 = 0.18 m
fy = 500 MPa (Reinforcement strength)
Temperature profile through Cross Section - 360mm Stress profile through Cross Section - 360mm
1200 25.0
1000
20.0
800
15.0
Temperature (c)
600
10.0
400
200 5.0
0 0.0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Depth from Intrados (m) Depth from Intrados (m)
eq
pwall = 3098.53 kPa Soft Ground
Rock Loading: wh2 y2 Good Rock in non-Fault Zone
eq
proof = 0.00 kPa Nil
NOT USED wh3
pwall = 0.00 kPa Drained
y3
Undrained
Rock Wedge Pressure: Lining:
Wedge Pressure at Crown = 35.00 kPa Dimension of Tunnel (Circular):
Wedge at Crown = 150 to 210 Degree ID = 9.200 m
NOT USED
Wedge Pressure at Shoulder = 72.00 kPa OD = 9.860 m
Wedge at Shoulder = 180 to 316 Degree R= 4.765 m
t= 0.330 m
Tempature Load: b= 1.800 m
Gradient -156.06 C/m Xa = 0.000 m
Uniform expansion 33.11 C Ya = 0.000 m
From (Deg) : 52 To (Deg) : 308 n= 360 elements
Kspring_soil x R (kPa) = Dud & Erd (1982)5 6.667E+05 6.731E+04 0.000E+00 Contract Area at Joint = 240 mm
Consider Tengential Spring? No 2
Ratio of SpringTANGENTAL / SpringRADIAL = 0.000 0.000 Thickness at Joint = 240 mm
Soil Cover: Support Spring:
Ground Level, GL = 0.000 mPD Apparent support spring stiffness, Kspring = 6.67E+05 kPa
Soil Cover, H = 13.015 m (above crown) Radial Spring Ratio Tangential Spring Ratio Soil Type Possion Ratio
Average Unit Weight, W s = 3 v = 0.20
19.00 kN/m (Soil above Tunnel Crown) Spring Ratio (W.Arab_A&B), R1 = 0.2099 0.000 W.Arab_A&B
Design Surcharge = 0.00 kPa From (Deg) : 0 to 81
Spring Ratio (ALL), R2 = 0.0212 0.000 ALL v = 0.30
Use Terzaghi's Formula ? No 2 From (Deg) : 81 to 281
Effective Width, B = 8.894 m (Not Used) Spring Ratio (W.Arab_A&B), R3 = 0.2099 0.000 W.Arab_A&B v = 0.20
281 to 360
Effective Overburden Thickness,Heff = 6.551 m (Not Used) Spring Ratio (W.Arab_A&B), R4 = 0.2099 0.000 W.Arab_A&B v = 0.30
Design Soil Depth, h = 13.015 m 360 to 360
Tunnel Geometry
7
Tunnel Joint(s): Model
ID Start at (Deg) Width X Y Joint Members 6
1 47 1 -3.456277268 -3.27988466 47 0 0 0 0 0
2 101 1 -4.685031236 0.868319215 101 0 0 0 5 0 0
3 145 1 -2.766944223 3.879112735 145 0 0 0 0 0
4
4 167 1 -1.112324803 4.633166247 167 0 0 0 0 0
5 211 1 2.418328213 4.105506618 211 0 0 0 3 0 0
6 265 1 4.742882284 0.456687621 265 0 0 0 0 0
7 315 1 3.39850898 -3.339705474 315 0 0 0 2 0 0
8 357 1 0.290885214 -4.755931216 357 0 0 0 1
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 -7 -60 -5 -4 -3 -2
0 -1 0 1 02 3 4 5 06 7
-1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-7
Riyadh Metro Line 1
Case 3a_Fire
Summary of Node Coordiates, Element Length and Element Connectivity
Load Combinations :
100 110 120 131 132 171 172 173 181 182 183 520 720 730 311 312 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 999
3 4 5 6 7 16 17 18 19 20 21 30 42 43 52 53 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 #N/A
Wedge_Shoulder
Surcharge_Right
Surcharge_Top
Surcharge_Left
Wedge_Crown
FDL_Right
FDL_Top
FDL_Left
Sec_GP
ID ULS / SLS
Service
EQ_Sh
Pri_GP
EQ_Sv
Fire
WL
DL
EL
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
1 U 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
2 U 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
3 U 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
4 U 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
5 U 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Riyadh Metro Line 1
Case 3a_Fire
Earth Load
Designation : EL Load ID : 120
Z X
theta: 270 phi: 0 Axial Force, Fx
Z X
theta: 270 phi: 0 Shear Force, Fy
Z X
theta: 270 phi: 0 Bending Moment, Mz
Max. Bending Moment (kNm/ring) Min. Bending Moment (kNm/ring) Max. Axial Force (kN/ring)
Case ULS/SLS Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F
1 ULS 181 207.018 216.1774 -3.402 1831.878 1 127 -141.264 -153.037 2.178 2354.652 1 -0.666 -18.5579 0.36 3578.382
2 ULS 181 210.096 219.3144 -3.456 1843.686 1 127 -143.226 -155.091 2.25 2373.012 1 -0.612 -18.6278 0.36 3603.168
3 ULS 181 180.018 189.4363 -2.826 1883.664 1 127 -125.262 -136.97 1.908 2341.62 1 -1.404 -19.5183 0.36 3622.86
4 ULS 180 193.266 202.5621 -3.294 1859.22 1 126 -136.296 -147.957 2.016 2332.206 1 -1.026 -19.0453 -0.126 3603.852
5 ULS 181 225.972 235.8352 -3.78 1972.638 1 127 -153.738 -166.402 2.772 2532.888 1 -0.504 -19.5878 0.342 3816.756
6 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 Case 3 0 0 0 0 0 Case 0 0 0 0 0 Case
Critical ULS 181 225.972 235.8352 -3.78 1972.638 5 127 -153.738 -166.402 2.772 2532.888 5 1 -0.504 -19.5878 0.342 3816.756 5
Summary of Critical Internal Forces
Min. Axial Force (kNm/ring) Max. Shear Force (kNm/ring) Min. Shear Force (kNm/ring)
Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F Node Moment M + Ne Shear F Axial F
181 207.018 216.1774 -3.402 1831.878 82 94.05 107.2148 234.252 2632.968 283 100.278 113.5256 -227.556 2649.51
181 210.096 219.3144 -3.456 1843.686 82 95.454 108.7237 237.708 2653.938 283 101.736 115.0894 -230.958 2670.678
181 180.018 189.4363 -2.826 1883.664 82 81.54 94.52475 200.952 2596.95 283 87.318 100.3923 -194.85 2614.86
180 193.266 202.5605 2.268 1858.896 82 80.748 93.61656 200.322 2573.712 283 100.962 114.3372 -229.356 2675.034
181 225.972 235.8352 -3.78 1972.638 82 102.366 116.496 254.376 2826 283 109.008 123.2251 -247.212 2843.424
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 Case 0 0 0 0 0 Case 0 0 0 0 0 Case
181 207.018 216.1774 -3.402 1831.878 1 82 102.366 116.496 254.376 2826 5 283 109.008 123.2251 -247.212 2843.424 5
Project: Project No.:
Riyadh Metro Line 1
Title: Page:
Structural Calculation on Segmental Lining - Case 3a_Fire
AECOM Asia Company Ltd. Reference Designed Checked Date:
Drawing: By: By: 3/7/2014
Calculation Note
Bending and Axial Force to Eurocode 2 EN 1992-1 Design Chart Eurocode 2
Clause Refer
Material information
Coefficient of long term and unfacourable effects acc = 0.85 Cl. 3.1.6(1)P
fck = 50 N/mm (Cylinder strength) Material factor of steel s = 1 Table 2.1N
fyk = 195 N/mm Material factor of concrete c = 1.20 Table 2.1N
Longitudinal Reinforcement
Bar No. Area (mm2) Steel Percentage (%) Spacing (mm)
Top(Extrados) 12 12 1357 0.228 152
Bottom(Introdos) 12 12 1357 0.228 152
Shear Link 10 0 0 / 200
Page 1 of 3
Loading
Axial load (N) = 0 kN Moment (M) = 0 kNm
20000
15000
Axial Load (kN)
10000
5000
0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
-5000
Moment (kNm)
330mm Thick Lining (T12-152c/c -Extrados & T12-152c/c -Introados) fyk=195, fck=50
Page 2 of 3
U-1) 1 DL + 1 EL
Riyadh Metro Line 1
U-2) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 Service
Structural Calculation on Segmental Lining - Case 3a_Fire Tensile Rebar at Intrados U-3) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 FDL_Left + 1 FDL_Right
U-4) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 FDL_Left
N:M Interaction Chart for 330mm x 1800mm Section, C50/60 Concrete
U-5) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 Surcharge_Top + 1 Surcharge_Left + 1
330mm Thick Lining (T12-152c/c -Extrados & T12-152c/c -Introados) fyk=195, fck=50 Surcharge_Right
12000
10000
8000
6000
N (kN/ring)
4000
2000
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
-2000
M (kNm/ring)
EC2 N-M Interaction Envelope
Project: Project No.:
Riyadh Metro Line 1
Title: Page:
Structural Calculation on Segmental Lining - Case 3a_Fire
AECOM Asia Company Ltd. Reference Designed Checked Date:
Drawing: By: By: 3/7/2014
Calculation Note
Bending and Axial Force to Eurocode 2 EN 1992-1 Design Chart Eurocode 2
Clause Refer
Material information
Coefficient of long term and unfacourable effects acc = 0.85 Cl. 3.1.6(1)P
fck = 24.05 N/mm (Cylinder strength) Material factor of steel s = 1 Table 2.1N
fyk = 500 N/mm Material factor of concrete c = 1.20 Table 2.1N
Longitudinal Reinforcement
Bar No. Area (mm2) Steel Percentage (%) Spacing (mm)
Top(Extrados) 12 12 1357 0.228 152
Bottom(Introdos) 12 12 1357 0.228 152
Shear Link 10 0 0 / 200
Page 1 of 3
Loading
Axial load (N) = 0 kN Moment (M) = 0 kNm
10000
8000
6000
Axial Load (kN)
4000
2000
0
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600
-2000
Moment (kNm)
330mm Thick Lining (T12-152c/c -Extrados & T12-152c/c -Introados) fyk=500, fck=24
Page 2 of 3
U-1) 1 DL + 1 EL
Riyadh Metro Line 1
U-2) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 Service
Structural Calculation on Segmental Lining - Case 3a_Fire Tensile Rebar at Extrados U-3) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 FDL_Left + 1 FDL_Right
U-4) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 FDL_Left
N:M Interaction Chart for 330mm x 1800mm Section, C24/60 Concrete
U-5) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 Surcharge_Top + 1 Surcharge_Left + 1
330mm Thick Lining (T12-152c/c -Extrados & T12-152c/c -Introados) fyk=500, fck=24 Surcharge_Right
12000
10000
8000
6000
N (kN/ring)
4000
2000
0
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0
-2000
M (kNm/ring)
EC2 N-M Interaction Envelope
Riyadh Metro Line 1 U-1) 1 DL + 1 EL
U-2) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 Service
Shear Capacity Check (vc' - v) for 330mm x 1800mm Section, C50/60 Concrete U-4) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 FDL_Left
330mm Thick Lining (T12-152c/c -Extrados & T12-152c/c -Introados) fyk=195, fck=50
U-5) 1 DL + 1 EL + 1 Surcharge_Top + 1 Surcharge_Left + 1 Surcharge_Right
600
500
400
vc' - v (kN)
300
200
100
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Node (Degree, Tunnel Invert = 0o / 360o)
1 45 -1732.41 -2.72 0 0 0 0.39
Load
Combination Summary of Member Forces 1
1
45 45
46
-1723.7
-1723.23
-3.23
-3.71
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.39
0.68
1 Member Node Axial Shear-y Shear-z Torque Moment-y Moment-z 1 46 46 -1714.52 -4.07 0 0 0 0.68
kN kN kN kNm kNm kNm 1 47 -1714.04 -4.54 0 0 0 1.04
1 1 1 -1987.99 0.2 0 0 0 -0.37 1 47 47 -1705.36 -5.36 0 0 0 1.04
1 2 -1987.99 -0.47 0 0 0 -0.36 1 48 -1704.87 -5.83 0 0 0 1.5
1 2 2 -1987.66 0.41 0 0 0 -0.36 1 48 48 -1696.2 -6.55 0 0 0 1.5
1 3 -1987.64 -0.26 0 0 0 -0.37 1 49 -1695.71 -7 0 0 0 2.07
1 3 3 -1986.99 0.1 0 0 0 -0.37 1 49 49 -1687.07 -8.35 0 0 0 2.07
1 4 -1986.96 -0.58 0 0 0 -0.35 1 50 -1686.57 -8.8 0 0 0 2.78
1 4 4 -1985.98 0.02 0 0 0 -0.35 1 50 50 -1677.97 -9.93 0 0 0 2.78
1 5 -1985.94 -0.65 0 0 0 -0.32 1 51 -1677.46 -10.37 0 0 0 3.62
1 5 5 -1984.64 0.15 0 0 0 -0.32 1 51 51 -1668.91 -11.73 0 0 0 3.62
1 6 -1984.59 -0.52 0 0 0 -0.31 1 52 -1668.39 -12.16 0 0 0 4.62
1 6 6 -1982.97 -0.02 0 0 0 -0.31 1 52 52 -1659.89 -13.76 0 0 0 4.62
1 7 -1982.9 -0.69 0 0 0 -0.28 1 53 -1659.37 -14.18 0 0 0 5.78
1 7 7 -1980.96 -0.24 0 0 0 -0.28 1 53 53 -1650.93 -16 0 0 0 5.78
1 8 -1980.89 -0.91 0 0 0 -0.23 1 54 -1650.4 -16.41 0 0 0 7.12
1 8 8 -1978.63 -0.04 0 0 0 -0.23 1 54 54 -1642.03 -18.36 0 0 0 7.12
1 9 -1978.54 -0.71 0 0 0 -0.2 1 55 -1641.49 -18.76 0 0 0 8.67
1 9 9 -1975.97 -0.39 0 0 0 -0.2 1 55 55 -1633.19 -21.07 0 0 0 8.67
1 10 -1975.87 -1.05 0 0 0 -0.14 1 56 -1632.64 -21.46 0 0 0 10.44
1 10 10 -1972.99 -0.13 0 0 0 -0.14 1 56 56 -1624.42 -23.74 0 0 0 10.44
1 11 -1972.88 -0.79 0 0 0 -0.1 1 57 -1623.87 -24.12 0 0 0 12.43
1 11 11 -1969.7 -0.4 0 0 0 -0.1 1 57 57 -1615.74 -26.2 0 0 0 12.43
1 12 -1969.57 -1.06 0 0 0 -0.04 1 58 -1615.18 -26.57 0 0 0 14.62
1 12 12 -1966.09 -0.29 0 0 0 -0.04 1 58 58 -1607.14 -29.4 0 0 0 14.62
1 13 -1965.96 -0.95 0 0 0 0.01 1 59 -1606.57 -29.76 0 0 0 17.08
1 13 13 -1962.18 -0.36 0 0 0 0.01 1 59 59 -1598.63 -32.32 0 0 0 17.08
1 14 -1962.03 -1.02 0 0 0 0.07 1 60 -1598.06 -32.67 0 0 0 19.78
1 14 14 -1957.96 -0.24 0 0 0 0.07 1 60 60 -1590.23 -35.23 0 0 0 19.78
1 15 -1957.8 -0.9 0 0 0 0.12 1 61 -1589.65 -35.58 0 0 0 22.72
1 15 15 -1953.45 -0.32 0 0 0 0.12 1 61 61 -1581.94 -38.11 0 0 0 22.72
1 16 -1953.28 -0.97 0 0 0 0.17 1 62 -1581.35 -38.44 0 0 0 25.91
1 16 16 -1948.65 -0.47 0 0 0 0.17 1 62 62 -1573.77 -40.8 0 0 0 25.91
1 17 -1948.47 -1.12 0 0 0 0.24 1 63 -1573.17 -41.12 0 0 0 29.31
1 17 17 -1943.57 -0.33 0 0 0 0.24 1 63 63 -1565.72 -43.53 0 0 0 29.31
1 18 -1943.38 -0.98 0 0 0 0.29 1 64 -1565.12 -43.84 0 0 0 32.95
1 18 18 -1938.22 -0.31 0 0 0 0.29 1 64 64 -1557.81 -45.87 0 0 0 32.95
1 19 -1938.02 -0.96 0 0 0 0.35 1 65 -1557.21 -46.17 0 0 0 36.77
1 19 19 -1932.6 -0.12 0 0 0 0.35 1 65 65 -1550.06 -47.6 0 0 0 36.77
1 20 -1932.38 -0.75 0 0 0 0.38 1 66 -1549.45 -47.89 0 0 0 40.74
1 20 20 -1926.72 -0.14 0 0 0 0.38 1 66 66 -1542.45 -49.35 0 0 0 40.74
1 21 -1926.49 -0.78 0 0 0 0.42 1 67 -1541.84 -49.63 0 0 0 44.86
1 21 21 -1920.59 -0.32 0 0 0 0.42 1 67 67 -1535.05 -49.92 0 0 0 44.86
1 22 -1920.41 -0.78 0 0 0 0.46 1 68 -1534.43 -50.19 0 0 0 49.02
1 22 22 -1914.28 0.11 0 0 0 0.46 1 68 68 -1527.82 -50.19 0 0 0 49.02
1 23 -1914.03 -0.51 0 0 0 0.48 1 69 -1527.2 -50.45 0 0 0 53.2
1 23 23 -1907.68 0.27 0 0 0 0.48 1 69 69 -1520.82 -49.3 0 0 0 53.2
1 24 -1907.42 -0.35 0 0 0 0.48 1 70 -1520.19 -49.55 0 0 0 57.31
1 24 24 -1900.85 0.14 0 0 0 0.48 1 70 70 -1514.05 -47.27 0 0 0 57.31
1 25 -1900.58 -0.48 0 0 0 0.5 1 71 -1513.42 -47.5 0 0 0 61.25
1 25 25 -1893.81 0.56 0 0 0 0.5 1 71 71 -1507.52 -44.31 0 0 0 61.25
1 26 -1893.53 -0.05 0 0 0 0.48 1 72 -1507.06 -44.47 0 0 0 64.94
1 26 26 -1886.56 0.3 0 0 0 0.48 1 72 72 -1501.46 -39.72 0 0 0 64.94
1 27 -1886.27 -0.31 0 0 0 0.48 1 73 -1500.82 -39.94 0 0 0 68.25
1 27 27 -1879.12 0.65 0 0 0 0.48 1 73 73 -1495.53 -33.37 0 0 0 68.25
1 28 -1878.82 0.05 0 0 0 0.45 1 74 -1494.89 -33.57 0 0 0 71.04
1 28 28 -1871.49 0.72 0 0 0 0.45 1 74 74 -1489.95 -25.28 0 0 0 71.04
1 29 -1871.18 0.13 0 0 0 0.41 1 75 -1489.3 -25.48 0 0 0 73.15
1 29 29 -1863.69 0.67 0 0 0 0.41 1 75 75 -1484.74 -15.02 0 0 0 73.15
1 30 -1863.37 0.07 0 0 0 0.38 1 76 -1484.09 -15.2 0 0 0 74.4
1 30 30 -1855.72 0.87 0 0 0 0.38 1 76 76 -1479.93 -2.65 0 0 0 74.4
1 31 -1855.39 0.28 0 0 0 0.33 1 77 -1479.28 -2.82 0 0 0 74.63
1 31 31 -1847.6 0.97 0 0 0 0.33 1 77 77 -1475.58 12.31 0 0 0 74.63
1 32 -1847.26 0.39 0 0 0 0.28 1 78 -1474.93 12.15 0 0 0 73.61
1 32 32 -1839.34 1.06 0 0 0 0.28 1 78 78 -1471.73 30.2 0 0 0 73.61
1 33 -1838.99 0.49 0 0 0 0.21 1 79 -1471.07 30.05 0 0 0 71.11
1 33 33 -1830.95 1.12 0 0 0 0.21 1 79 79 -1468.42 50.94 0 0 0 71.11
1 34 -1830.58 0.55 0 0 0 0.14 1 80 -1467.76 50.8 0 0 0 66.88
1 34 34 -1822.43 0.78 0 0 0 0.14 1 80 80 -1465.7 75 0 0 0 66.88
1 35 -1822.06 0.22 0 0 0 0.1 1 81 -1465.03 74.87 0 0 0 60.65
1 35 35 -1813.8 1.14 0 0 0 0.1 1 81 81 -1463.82 101.13 0 0 0 60.65
1 36 -1813.42 0.58 0 0 0 0.03 1 82 -1463.16 101.01 0 0 0 52.25
1 36 36 -1805.07 1.09 0 0 0 0.03 1 82 82 -1462.76 130.14 0 0 0 52.25
1 37 -1804.68 0.54 0 0 0 -0.04 1 83 -1462.09 130.04 0 0 0 41.43
1 37 37 -1796.25 0.78 0 0 0 -0.04 1 83 83 -1462.47 121.31 0 0 0 41.43
1 38 -1795.85 0.24 0 0 0 -0.08 1 84 -1461.8 121.22 0 0 0 31.35
1 38 38 -1787.36 0.63 0 0 0 -0.08 1 84 84 -1462.21 113.24 0 0 0 31.35
1 39 -1786.95 0.09 0 0 0 -0.11 1 85 -1461.54 113.16 0 0 0 21.93
1 39 39 -1778.39 0.36 0 0 0 -0.11 1 85 85 -1462.05 105.22 0 0 0 21.93
1 40 -1777.97 -0.17 0 0 0 -0.12 1 86 -1461.38 105.15 0 0 0 13.19
1 40 40 -1769.36 0.04 0 0 0 -0.12 1 86 86 -1461.97 97.6 0 0 0 13.19
1 41 -1768.94 -0.48 0 0 0 -0.1 1 87 -1461.3 97.54 0 0 0 5.07
1 41 41 -1760.29 -0.3 0 0 0 -0.1 1 87 87 -1461.95 90.55 0 0 0 5.07
1 42 -1759.85 -0.82 0 0 0 -0.05 1 88 -1461.28 90.51 0 0 0 -2.45
1 42 42 -1751.18 -0.71 0 0 0 -0.05 1 88 88 -1462.03 83.7 0 0 0 -2.45
1 43 -1750.73 -1.21 0 0 0 0.03 1 89 -1461.36 83.67 0 0 0 -9.41
1 43 43 -1742.03 -1.64 0 0 0 0.03 1 89 89 -1462.22 77.01 0 0 0 -9.41
1 44 -1741.58 -2.14 0 0 0 0.19 1 90 -1461.54 76.99 0 0 0 -15.81
1 44 44 -1732.87 -2.23 0 0 0 0.19 1 90 90 -1462.48 71.03 0 0 0 -15.81
Electronic documents once printed, are uncontrolled and may become out-dated. Refer to Aconex for current revision.
2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 1 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 2 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 3 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 4 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 5 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 6 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
3.6.4.5 The tunnels uplift safety factor shall be determined on the basis of The checking of uplift is presented in Appendix I of the design
paragraph 2.4.7.4 and 10.2 of EN1997-1 report.
3.6.4.6 The design report, shall include at least the following items:
Table with the basic design assumptions; Tables of material properties, geotechnical parameters and
critical sections for design are provided in the report. Please
refer to Section 4.3 of the Design Report.
Table with the geotechnical and geometrical characteristics of the The geotechnical design parameters are given in Section 4.3.1 of
soil stratigraphy, as well as sketches of the geotechnical cross- the Design Report and the geotechnical cross sections are given
sections; in Appendix D of the Design Report.
A separate chapter in which the structural analysis models shall be See Section 4.6 of Lining Design Report.
clearly described and fully substantiated. This chapter shall contain
a detailed description of the individual components of the various
models, such as their geometry, their supporting and coupling
conditions, the moment of inertia and elastoplastic properties of all
members, as well as the properties of any springs or elements used
for the simulation of the ground - tunnel interaction;
A separate chapter presenting and justifying in detail all loads See Section 4.4 of Lining Design Report
exerted onto the model and all loading combinations used in the
Design, in accordance to the provisions of Design Specification,
Page 7 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 8 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
C3.12 The bolts material shall be resistant to humidity in tunnels arising from Complied. Bolts are only required for temporary case, not for
Erection of the influences of chilled systems in the stations. The bolts shall be permanent case.
Bolted permanent and remain in place for the whole tunnel stretch between the
Lining G stations.
C2.12 Packings, other than 1.5 mm bituminous felt, shall not be used in radial Complied
Packing joints, unless shown on the Drawings.
Segment Specification
2.2 Precast Concrete Linings
Page 9 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 10 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 11 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
B The base ring shall be retained as a master ring. Checks shall be made Complied
against the master rings at intervals not exceeding 0.5% of segment
production
Marking Segments
A All segments except solid key shall have marked with indented or Complied
embossed upper case lettering
Joint Packing
A Where shown on the drawings a minimum 2 mm thick strip of stress Complied
distribution packing is to be incorporated in each longitudinal joint. The
packing shall cover at least 80% of the joint.
Gasket Grooves
A Gasket grooves shall be provided around all joint faces of each segment Complied
and key in accordance with the dimensions recommended by the gasket
manufacturer.
Concrete Cover
A Where reinforcement is incorporated into the segments the minimum Complied. 50mm cover is provided for both intrados and
cover shown in the table in the Specification Section 02410 page 6 of 53 extrados.
to all reinforcement, including link steel, shall be provided as a minimum
B Precast segmental lining systems shall be designed in accordance with BS The exposed condition classification is followed Eurocode 2,
8110 (or similar codes in ASTM or DIN), Table 3.4 and associated clauses. which is considered a betterment.
The exposure condition shall generally be moderate (Table 3.2).
Grout holes
A Grout holes shall be provided in every segment excluding the key, and Complied. Shear cones are used as grout holes. If grouting is
shall be a nominal 50 mm diameter or greater. They shall be either plain required, the shear zone will be drilled through and used as
Page 12 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 13 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 14 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 15 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 16 of 17
Detailed Design of TBM Segmental Lining Standard Segment
DD100 Compliance Table
Page 17 of 17
Appendix S
Risk Register
Electronic documents once printed, are uncontrolled and may become out-dated. Refer to Aconex for current revision.
2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh
RMP - Design Package 5 & 9
Line 1 & 2 Tunnel Spaceproofing, TBM Tunnel Linings, Egress Shafts and Adits, Tunnel MEP & FLS Summary of Risk Workshops Summary of Safety in Design Workshop
Tunnel and Egress Shafts Structural Risk Register
27/08/2014 Update: Rev 0
Changes (1)
Cjhanges (2)
Changes (3)
Outstanding item / query
Risk Status Source Unplanned / Risk Type Risk Category 1 Risk Description Risk owner Potential Consequence - for Designer Mitigation Strategy Consequence Likelihood Rating Risk Assessment -
Planned PM = Project Manager Rating - for before Mitigation
Risk No.
DM = Design Manager Designer, before
EM = Engineering Manager Mitigation
CM = Construction Manager
Design
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 1 Unplanned Design - Site Risk This is the risk that changes to the alignment PM Inability to acquire land (volumetric) Delays to the project Ensure changes to alignment do not impinge on recent and planned Major Unlikely Medium Risk
General along Olaya St and near station 1F8 require a Uncertainty developments near but not above the alignment. BAU for project
volumetric envelope that constrains significant property team to ensure that this risk is mitigated
future developments resulting in major
difficulties in acquiring the required volumetric
title.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 2 Unplanned Design - Inputs Site Risk This is the risk that geotechnical information is DM Changes to design (including changes to TBM, lowering the Continue to finalise geo tech interprative report to validate Major Likely High Risk
insufficient (including inadequate borehole alignment), additional cost, delays. Potential for report project assumptions. Build conservative tolerances in design for rock
program), incorrect, inadequate or ambiguous - change report process. levels. If risk still considered high, consider commissioning peer
inability to transfer risk or artificial constraint on reviews of geo work at high risk locations
design optimisation
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 3 Unplanned Design - Inputs Site Risk Unidentified and incorrectly located Services DM Delays to the project to fix, changes to alignment to avoid Estimate will include costs for known utilities work. Allowance Moderate Likely Medium Risk
(including power, water, sewer, conflict, additional costs, health and safety. required for unknown. Engage with owners of utilities continuously
telecommunications)
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 4 Unplanned Design - Inputs Design Risk Insufficient or incomplete survey DM Additional costs. Continued site investigation and survey. Minor Possible Low Risk
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 5 Unplanned Design - Design Risk This is the risk of major upgrades required to DM Increased costs. This is an unplanned risk. Specifications should clearly specify the Moderate Unlikely Low Risk
General stations being necessary including due to required level of safety.
increased safety requirements.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 6 Unplanned Design - Site Risk This is the risk that the condition of existing DM Delays and additional costs. Continued corridor/site investigation and surveys. Moderate Likely Medium Risk
General infrastructure on, under or adjacent to the site
differs to that specified in the contract and/or is
inadequate to support new improvements.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 7 Unplanned Design - Inputs Design Risk This is the risk of flood immunity measures not DM Additional costs to redesign. DD60 design decisions were taken allowing for an agreed target Moderate Unlikely Low Risk
being adequately designed at stations and flood likelihood (Q100, but based on minimal existing data).
portals.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 8 Unplanned Design - Design Risk This is the risk that the requirements to give DM Changes to the design and increased cost Consultation with emergency services (through RMTC) to Major Possible Medium Risk
General Emergency Services access to the stations and understand requirements and build those into the design. (Two way
tunnels will change the design requirements process)
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 9 Unplanned Design - Design Risk This is the risk that the output specification DM The desired services may not be delivered in full, the objectives Extra focus on specification and accreditation to mitigate this risk. Major Possible Medium Risk
General cannot be articulated well enough to deliver the of the project may not be met. Additional cost to rectify Working closely with embedded Siemens team.
required design standards and services. This
risk includes:- that the Output Specification is
inadequate and does not fulfil the requirements
of the Client;- that there are errors, omissions
or discrepancies in the Output Specification.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 10 Unplanned Design - Construction Risk This is the risk that there is a lack of integration DM Delays to the project and increased costs to manage process or Packaging and project management Moderate Possible Medium Risk
General between the major contracts. This includes rectify errors or rework.
integration between design, construction, civils,
M&E, electrical, signalling etc It also includes
the integration of sub-contractors (site
handovers etc).
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 11 Unplanned Design - Site Risk Required approvals are not secured, are CM Project delays, abandonment, or additional costs of compliance Continued engagement with key project stakeholders Major Possible Medium Risk
General delayed, or contain unacceptable conditions
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 11 Unplanned Design - Design Risk This is the risk that project components will not DM Additional operational costs Delays to commissioning 1. The design is being developed with reference to rolling stock Moderate Possible Medium Risk
General be able to be interfaced efficiently. Includes requirements.
compatibility between rolling stock and 2. Engagement management of rolling stock stakeholders.
infrastructure. Includes station design being
undertaken to match rollingstock parameters
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 12 Unplanned Design - Design Risk This is the risk that there is a change in design DM Delays and additional costs. 1. Robust change management process Moderate Possible Medium Risk
General codes and relevant standards or the 2. Robust approval process
interpretation of the standards.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 13 Unplanned Construction Site Risk Unanticipated constraints discovered on site DM Additional costs, Delays to the project Continued site, technical, PUP & environmental investigations. Moderate Possible Medium Risk
Risk Status Source Unplanned / Risk Type Risk Category 1 Risk Description Risk owner Potential Consequence - for Designer Mitigation Strategy Consequence Likelihood Rating Risk Assessment -
Planned PM = Project Manager Rating - for before Mitigation
Risk No.
DM = Design Manager Designer, before
EM = Engineering Manager Mitigation
CM = Construction Manager
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 14 Unplanned Safety in Design Risk This is the risk that safety in design issues such DM Increased Cost Design follows consultation with specialists and with Muncipal Fire Moderate Possible Medium Risk
Design as fire and life safety hazards and operational Authorities
issues have the potential to change aspects of
the specification of permanent infrastructure
(including tunnel and stations). Key issues
include:-disabled compliance- access
requirements- egress requirements- air quality-
lighting- communications- de-energisation of
traction power- platform screen doors- design
fire parameters
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 15 Unplanned Design - Site Risk The risk that there is a change to the approvals DM Delays to the project Continued engagement with key project stakeholders Major Possible Medium Risk
General required during design, construction and
operating phases
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 16 Unplanned Design - Construction Risk This is the risk of discretionary change in DM Additional costs and delay. Reference design and change management process in place to Major Possible Medium Risk
General requirements. Includes scope changes due to address this. Still a risk that something is added to the project.
community opposition and expectations not met
and scope creep.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 17 Unplanned Design - Operating Risk This is the risk that during operations, the DM Disruption to services and increased cost Ensure compliant at time of commissioning then monitor as for Moderate Unlikely Low Risk
General permanent infrastructure(including tunnel and remainder of estate.
stations) does not comply with rail safety Fire and life safety assessment and reference design consultation
regulations. Issues such as fire and life safety with Muncipal Fire and Police Authorities.
hazards in the confined space would need
detailed EERA (Escape, Evacuation and
Rescue) assessment. Further, Rail safety
regulator would require detailed Emergency
management procedures from the accredited
operator, specifically for the tunnel
environment.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 18 Planned Design - Design Risk This is the risk that the design for the signalling DM Changes to the design, increased design costs, increased Join #18 and #19 as being examined together. This is a planned Moderate Possible Medium Risk
General system requires civil /structural changes if it construction costs, potential delays to the project. risk. Siemens to mitigate by clearly speficying the requirement, and
does not not operate as intended compromising by testing the signalling system requirements.
safe operations.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 19 Planned Design - Design Risk This is the risk that the design for the train DM Changes to the design, increased design costs, increased BAU issue for designer (Siemens). Moderate Possible Medium Risk
General protection system requires civil /structural construction costs, potential delays to the project.
changes if it does not operate as intended
compromising safe operations.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 20 Unplanned Design - Operating Risk This is the risk that during operations, issues DM Redesign to allow for varied operating conditions and personnel BAU issue for designer (Siemens). Moderate Possible Medium Risk
General such as fire and life safety hazards and ability
operational issues are not complied with in
relation to the infrastructure (including tunnel
and stations). Key issues include:- Disabled
compliance- maintaining access requirements-
maintaining egress requirements- maintaining
communications provisions- maintaining de-
GB 26-8-2014 21 Unplanned Design - Design Risk Collar design connecting the adit with the shaft DM Changes to the design, increased design costs, increased Robust design with emphasis is constructability Minor Possible Low Risk
General and the tunnel (challenging waterproofing, construction costs. May impact spaceproofing requirements
structural analysis and construction)
GB 26-8-2014 22 Unplanned Design - Design Risk Approval of shaft designs (architectural, DM Changes to the design, increased design costs, increased Robust design with emphasis is constructability Moderate Possible Medium Risk
General geotechnical structural reasons, etc). Getting construction costs
approval from ADA, conforming to RMTC / ADA
and other third party requirements
GB 26-8-2014 23 Unplanned Design - Site Risk Shaft outside the project boundaries. Risk of DM Redesign inside the project boundary. Increased design costs. Get consensus for the location Moderate Possible Medium Risk
General getting permits, land availability, buried utilities, May need alternative location
compromising access to parking spaces
GB 26-8-2014 24 Unplanned Design - Design Risk Civil defense. May need special protection DM Redesign, increased design costs, increased construction Seek early design approvals Moderate Possible Medium Risk
General measures of the above ground structure costs, project delays
against terrorist attack
CONSTRUCTION RISKS
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 101 Unplanned Construction Site Risk This is the risk of delays in land acquisition by CM Redesign Program is being prepared that details property acquisition and likely Moderate Possible Low Risk
ADA causing a delay to the Contractor construction program. This will inform contract docs and access
(includes Community action and challenges dates. Still a risk with these in place
due to compulsory acquisitions). This risk
includes the failure to acquire all properties in
time for construction program and delays in
time taken to relocate businesses and
landowners. Including lay-down areas and
temporary construction sites and holding
'sheds' for equipment
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 102 Planned Construction Site Risk This is the risk of extra land being required for CM Minor redesign Estimate is being prepared with allowance for rental of additional Minor Likely Medium Risk
construction (temporarily) purposes than property if required for construction purposes - this is a planned risk.
originally proposed. For example, additional
resumptions required in the CBD for
construction purposes.
Risk Status Source Unplanned / Risk Type Risk Category 1 Risk Description Risk owner Potential Consequence - for Designer Mitigation Strategy Consequence Likelihood Rating Risk Assessment -
Planned PM = Project Manager Rating - for before Mitigation
Risk No.
DM = Design Manager Designer, before
EM = Engineering Manager Mitigation
CM = Construction Manager
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 103 Planned Construction Site Risk This is the risk that the contractors (during D&C CM Delays to project, additional costs to reschedule, additional Estimate being prepared along with construction methodology that Moderate Unlikely Low Risk
phase) cannot obtain reasonable access to the resources required. should address this - this is a planned risk
site including roads to undertake works in the
most efficient manner
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 104 Planned Construction Site Risk This is the risk of acquiring a site that is already CM Increased cost. Treatment of contaminant land is included in the estimate - this is a Minor Unlikely Low Risk
contaminated and requires unexpected planned risk
treatment
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 106 Planned Construction Site Risk There is a risk that there are delays associated CM Delay costs This is BAU issue for the construction contractor - this is a planned Moderate Possible Medium Risk
with utility works to be carried out directly by risk
Statutory utility companies.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 107 Unplanned Construction Site Risk This is the risk of third parties (utilities CM Delays to project, claims by contractor . Program is being prepared that details site access and likely Insignificant Unlikely Negligible Risk
providers) accessing the site during construction program. This will inform contract docs and access
construction and interrupting planned dates. Still a risk with these in place
contractors access. Third parties may have
statutory powers to access site
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 108 Unplanned Construction Site Risk This is the risk that the proposed delivery CM Delays to the project Program is being prepared that details approval process and likely Moderate Possible Medium Risk
timetable is not achieved due to delays in construction program. This will inform contract docs and access
obtaining approvals. This includes all approvals dates. Still a risk with these in place
during the D&C phase
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 109 Unplanned Construction Site Risk There is a risk that there is delay in connection CM Delays and additional costs. Program is being prepared that details utility connection process for Moderate Likely Medium Risk
of and/or unavailability of utilities necessary power in particular. This will inform contract docs and overall project
during construction (including power and timing. Still a risk with these in place
water).
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 110 Unplanned Construction Design Risk This is the risk that as a result of detailed CM Delays and additional costs Mitigated by the extent of geo etc work done. Considering peer Moderate Possible Medium Risk
design and investigations(including review if after further geo results high risk areas remain.
geotechnical, contamination etc), cost and Independent peer reviews of design and costs
timetable vary. This includes variation in cross
sectional area, length of tanking, interchange
work, more rock support, increased operational
costs, increased maintenance requirements,
etc. This includes discovery of errors and
miscalculations from previous works.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 111 Unplanned Construction Site Risk This is the risk of clashes with significant CM Changes to design, additional cost, delays Continued PUP provider consultation and continued corridor/site Major Possible Medium Risk
unforeseen structures and objects. investigations and surveys. Allowance required for unknown?
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 112 Unplanned Construction Construction Risk This is the risk that there is significant flooding CM Additional costs and delay. Insurance Moderate Unlikely Low Risk
during construction. Key issues include:-
Culvert around Stn 1F8
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 113 Unplanned Construction Construction Risk This is the risk of ground failure due to CM Increase cost Construction delays Serious injury / fatality Estimate being prepared along with construction methodology that Severe Possible High Risk
karst/cavities. Higher likelihood in South end of Reputation damaged Design change should address this however if this occurs it is a significant effect.
Line 1. Risk of damage to buildings in this area
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 115 Unplanned Design - Legislative & Risk associated with KSA and Municipal PM Delays and additional costs. 1.KSA may mitigate its liability for such changes by monitoring and Minor Possible Low Risk
General Government Policy government changing policy or regulation in a limiting (where appropriate) changes which may have these effects
manner that impacts on the project (but is not or consequence on the project and via mechanisms in the contract
specifically directed at the project). This change allowing compensation only above a pre-agreed "Significant
in law/policy could not be anticipated at contract Amount".
signing. 2. KSA may also require the private party to effect the change in
such a manner that the financial effect on the KSA is minimised and,
if payment is required, that payment is made in a way and a time
best suited to KSA (e.g. pay on a progressive scale).
3. State may put in place a regulatory regime that allows pass
through to end-users.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 116 Planned Construction Site Risk This is the risk that provision of temporary CM Additional costs, Delays to the project Estimate is being prepared with allowance for providing access to Moderate Likely Medium Risk
access to adjacent property owners and neighbours if required - this is a planned risk
businesses during construction costs more than
anticipated, or that the requirements for access
change
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 117 Planned Construction Construction Risk This is the risk that there are changes to the CM delays to the project, increased cost Estimate being prepared along with construction methodology that Moderate Possible Medium Risk
project sequencing due to should address this - this is a planned risk
unforeseen/unexpected events (including site,
traffic, 3rd party and environmental)
Risk Status Source Unplanned / Risk Type Risk Category 1 Risk Description Risk owner Potential Consequence - for Designer Mitigation Strategy Consequence Likelihood Rating Risk Assessment -
Planned PM = Project Manager Rating - for before Mitigation
Risk No.
DM = Design Manager Designer, before
EM = Engineering Manager Mitigation
CM = Construction Manager
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 118 Planned Construction Construction Risk This is the risk that the requirement for traffic CM Additional cost of traffic management, changes to construction Estimate being prepared along with construction methodology that Moderate Likely Medium Risk
management is greater than anticipated methodology, delay to project should address this - this is a planned risk. Engaging with Muncipal
particularly considering the following:- major and Main Road Authorities to mitigage and address concerns.
interfaces with pedestrians- emergency service
vehicle access to community- Olaya St station
construction- approvals from ADA-Note: covers
major changes to scope and construction
methodology to accommodate traffic
management plans.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 119 Planned Construction Construction Risk This is the risk of unanticipated constructability CM This results in design rework, delays and additional costs. Estimate being prepared along with construction methodology that Moderate Possible Medium Risk
issues resulting in major changes to should address this - this is a planned risk. Engineering delivery
construction methodology and/or redesign. challenge group, design peer review
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 120 Planned Construction Construction Risk Rock very hard and/or highly abrasive CM Construction delays Increased cost Estimate being prepared along with construction methodology that Moderate Possible Medium Risk
should address this - this is a planned risk
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 121 Planned Construction Construction Risk This is the risk of major subsidence / ground CM Increased cost Construction delays Reputation damaged Third This is BAU issue for design and for the construction contractor - Major Possible Medium Risk
settlement / construction drawdown. Particular part claims Damage to PUP etc this is a planned risk
issues around settlement of roads and buildings
at south end of Line 1
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 122 Planned Construction Construction Risk This is the risk that NAPL contamination at 1F8 CM Additional costs and delay. Rapid assessment of NAPL at 1F8, design waterproofing for Moderate Almost certain High Risk
is thick and extensive and causes additional presence of NAPL
capital costs and and constrcution daily costs
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 123 Planned Construction Construction Risk This is the risk that Petrol or diesel NAPL CM Additional costs and delay. Rapid site wide assessment of NAPL Moderate Possible Medium Risk
groundwater contamination is widespread
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 124 Unplanned Construction Construction Risk This is the risk that third party works damage CM rectification of damage and delays. This should be covered by the third party's insurance Insignificant Unlikely Negligible Risk
completed project works
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 125 Planned Construction Construction Risk This is the risk that hydrocarbon NAPL CM Delays, repair and Third Party damage costs. Rapid site wide assessment of NAPL Moderate Possible Medium Risk
contamination is encountered at shaft
construction.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 126 Planned Construction Construction Risk This is the risk that dissolved hydrocarbons are CM Additional costs and delay. Landuse assessment and targeted, shaft focussed, additional Moderate Almost certain High Risk
encountered in collected groundwater and groundwater wells and chemical anlysis. Plan and design for
water needs treatment prior to disposal treatment of groundwater. Exclude groundwater inflow to the extent
practicable.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 127 Planned Construction Construction Risk This is the risk that the assumed design CM Additional costs and delay. Undertake owner required groundwater study to support Moderate Almost certain High Risk
groundwater elvels are not accepted by RMTC assumptions other than groundwater at the surface.
and redesign is required with gorundwater
assumed at the surface, casuing approvbal
delays and redesign.
Draft AAP/IAH 03/08/2014 128 Planned Construction Construction Risk This is the risk of striking an unknown CM Delays and additional costs. This is BAU issue for the construction contractor, but could still Moderate Possible Medium Risk
manmade feature while tunnelling such as an casue delays. Undertake prior surveys and targetted assesment to
old well or deep disposal pit. This likelihood is provide advanced warning. - this is a planned risk
greater in the old part of the city to the souht..
May result in damage to machinery, slower
production rates and/or additional cost and
delay. Other key issues include:- old steel well
linings (particularly Al Bartha area)- unmapped
building piles
Appendix T
Interface Details between TBM Tunnel and Station / Cut and Cover Tunnel
Electronic documents once printed, are uncontrolled and may become out-dated. Refer to Aconex for current revision.
2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A A
NOTES:
1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.
STATION HEADWALL
RING BEAM
9200
9920
E TBM TUNNEL E
MIN. 50
C
L COVER
RING BEAM
360
2500
H H
TYPICAL INTERFACE BETWEEN STATION AND TBM TUNNEL 1 DETAIL
SCALE 1:50 SCALE 1:10
J J
K K
0 250 500
mm FOR INFORMATION ONLY
1:10
0 1250 2500
1:50
mm NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENT REVIEW STATUS REVISIONS PROJECT BACS CONSORTIUM SCALE DRAWING TITLE
No Date Description Drawn Checked Approved
A REVIEWED
Work may proceed
00A 10/10/14 FIRST ISSUE
C.D.Z. K.F.W. G.C. AS SHOWN LINE 1 - TBM TUNNEL
L L
REVIEWED WITH COMMENTS
DRAWING STATUS PRECAST SEGMENTAL LINING
B Revise and re-submit. Work may proceed subject to
incorporation of comments INTERFACE DETAILS BETWEEN
OBJECTION
C Revise and re-submit. Work may not proceed CONSULTANT / SUB-CONTRACTOR TBM TUNNEL AND STATION
D REJECTED www.bacsrmp.com
LEAD DESIGN ENTITY (LDE) APPROVED BY LDE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED BY DRAWING NUMBER
REVIEW NOT REQUIRED
E Work may proceed NAME M. MIRZAKASHANI NAME C.D. ZHONG NAME K.F.WONG NAME G. CHARLESWORTH
M M-BD2-100TU0-CTLI-EDR-000006 00A M
DATE 10/10/14 DATE 08/10/14 DATE 09/10/14 DATE 10/10/14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 00Av02
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A A
NOTES:
1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.
D D
CUT AND COVER
TUNNEL TOP SLAB RING BEAM
9200
9920
COMPRESSIBLE MATERIALS (NOTE 6)
E TBM TUNNEL E
C
L
WATERPROOF MEMBRANE
MIN. 300 CLAMPED TO THE EXPOSED SEGMENT
(NOTE 4)
GROUTING
2500
F RAIL LEVEL F
360
TUNNEL LINING
REPLACE ELASTOMETRIC GASKET WITH
G HYDROPHILIC HYDROPHILIC WATERSTOP SEAL CUT ENDS G
WATERSTOP OF GASKETS AT RADIAL JOINTS OF TUNNEL
LINING WITH HYDROPHILIC MASTIC.
RE-INJECTABLE TUBE
H H
K K
0 250 500
mm FOR INFORMATION ONLY
1:10
0 1250 2500
1:50
mm NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENT REVIEW STATUS REVISIONS PROJECT BACS CONSORTIUM SCALE DRAWING TITLE
No Date Description Drawn Checked Approved
A REVIEWED
Work may proceed
00A 10/10/14 FIRST ISSUE
C.D.Z. K.F.W. G.C. AS SHOWN LINE 1 - TBM TUNNEL
L L
REVIEWED WITH COMMENTS
DRAWING STATUS PRECAST SEGMENTAL LINING
B Revise and re-submit. Work may proceed subject to
incorporation of comments INTERFACE DETAILS BETWEEN
OBJECTION
C Revise and re-submit. Work may not proceed CONSULTANT / SUB-CONTRACTOR TBM TUNNEL AND CUT
D REJECTED www.bacsrmp.com AND COVER TUNNELS
LEAD DESIGN ENTITY (LDE) APPROVED BY LDE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED BY DRAWING NUMBER
REVIEW NOT REQUIRED
E Work may proceed NAME M. MIRZAKASHANI NAME C.D. ZHONG NAME K.F.WONG NAME G. CHARLESWORTH
M M-BD2-100TU0-CTLI-EDR-000007 00A M
DATE 10/10/14 DATE 08/10/14 DATE 09/10/14 DATE 10/10/14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 00Av02